| GOP Debate 9/7/2011 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 7 2011, 08:58 PM (755 Views) | |
| kbp | Sep 7 2011, 08:58 PM Post #1 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Sep 7 2011, 09:06 PM Post #2 |
|
Uncle Ben was told in no uncertain terms. If a Republican is elected his days at the Fed are over! For commentary go to Dick Morris Tweets, they are interesting http://twitter.com/#!/dickmorristweet |
![]() |
|
| Concerned | Sep 7 2011, 09:14 PM Post #3 |
|
The MSNBC spin: MSNBC is bashing Perry for the SS as a ponzi scheme stance. O'Donnell said Romney won the debate. Matthews sooo concerned that a presidential candidate's not believing in climate change will put us as "yahoo status" in the world. Ed Shultz is saying that Perry didn't back down and that saying that SS is a ponzi scheme is what Wall Street and corporations want to hear. Schultz seems to think that Perry knocked it out of the park with his base, but O'Donnell says Perry doesn't have a chance on SS. |
![]() |
|
| Kerri P. | Sep 7 2011, 09:31 PM Post #4 |
|
http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/10100560/ Romney, Perry spar over jobs, Social Security Posted: 3:09 a.m. today Updated: 13 minutes ago SIMI VALLEY, Calif. — Quick to tangle, Republican presidential rivals Rick Perry and Mitt Romney sparred vigorously over job creation and Social Security Wednesday night in a feisty campaign debate that marked a contentious new turn in the race to pick a 2012 challenger to President Barack Obama. Far more than in earlier GOP debates this summer, the candidates mixed it up in their first faceoff since Perry entered the race and almost instantly overtook Romney as front-runner in opinion polls. Those two — as well as other contenders on stage — sniped at one another, contradicted allegations and interrupted media questioners to demand opportunities to take each other on. "Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt," Perry jabbed in the debate's opening moments, referring to one of Romney's Democratic predecessors as governor of Massachusetts. "As a matter of fact, George Bush and his predecessors created jobs at a faster rate than you did," Romney shot back at Perry, the 10-year incumbent Texas governor. The debate was the first of three in as many weeks, at a time when the economy is struggling, unemployment is seemingly stuck at 9.1 percent and Obama's popularity is sinking in the polls — all events that could make the GOP nomination worth more than it appeared only a few months ago. Perry and Romney stood next to each other on the debate stage at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, a setting that invoked the memory of the conservative Republican who swept to two terms as president. And for much of the evening, the two men were at the center of the action, largely reducing their rivals to the roles of spectators looking for a way into the action. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman sided with Perry when he turned to Romney and said, "47th just isn't going to cut it, my friend," a reference to the rank Massachusetts had among the 50 states in creating jobs during Romney's term. snip..... |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 7 2011, 09:42 PM Post #5 |
|
I did not watch it. Reading the text is easier for me to set my own pace, though how the words are delivered can say much. That SS matter is touchy, even here at LS! The scheme as we are led to believe it is a Ponzi scam. The real scam is it was taxes wasted from the get-go, it will be taxes that must pay for it tomorrow. It's like the elderly welfare we all get a piece of to keep all of us happy. Perry probably has good ideas on changing it, but the system will not work unless ALL keep paying and some sort of reduction is made in what goes out. The transition to some other plan would be very difficult. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 7 2011, 10:31 PM Post #6 |
|
Went out before debate... Ron Paul Campaign Presses Perry on Big Government Record and Fake Rhetoric Sept. 7, 2011, 12:32 p.m. EDT LAKE JACKSON, Texas, Sep 07, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul's campaign continues to challenge Rick Perry in the lead up to tonight's Republican presidential debate. Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton released an open letter to Gov. Perry focusing on his record as Texas head of state, pointing out inconsistencies with his new Tea Party rhetoric. See text of letter below. Subject: Rick Perry Can't Handle the Truth An open letter from Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton Dear Governor Perry, After our campaign's first ad highlighting your Big Government record and support for liberal Al Gore, your campaign is attacking Dr. Paul - missing the point of why your past is important. We don't think the fact that you used to be a Democrat is the big problem here. The real problem is that, too often, you still act like one. Even you yourself, Governor Perry, said of your party switch, "I will still vote the same principles, only with an R after my name." That's the kind of thinking that has our country teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. We cannot afford to nominate someone who thinks the letter next to their name is more important than what they believe. Governor Perry, let me be clear: It is not that you supported Al Gore that worries us. It is that you supported Hillary Clinton's health care plan. You pushed for federal bailout and stimulus funds. You support welfare for illegal immigrants. You tried to forcibly vaccinate 12-year-old girls against sexually transmitted diseases by executive order. You raised taxes twice. And, state debt has more than doubled in your tenure as governor, pushing Texas to the brink of our constitutional debt limit. It's that you supported ALL of these bad ideas that are inconsistent with how most Republicans understand conservatism, yet you now try to swagger your way into the Tea Party. Governor Perry, with all due respect, you have used great rhetoric. But you will have to answer to the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and across the country as to why that rhetoric does not match your record. For Liberty, Jesse Benton Campaign Chairman Ron Paul 2012 Authorized and paid for by Ron Paul 2012 PCC. www.RonPaul2012.com SOURCE: Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Sep 7 2011, 11:42 PM Post #7 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/09/08/why-the-reagan-library-gop-debate-sucked/ http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/09/debate-recap.php |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Sep 7 2011, 11:47 PM Post #8 |
|
IMHO calling SS a Ponzi scheme is a mistake for Perry. 1) It is not one. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going. The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors. Usually, the scheme is interrupted by legal authorities before it collapses because a Ponzi scheme is suspected or because the promoter is selling unregistered securities. As more investors become involved, the likelihood of the scheme coming to the attention of authorities increases...snipped http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme 2) The revenues raise by SS taxes were more than enough to pay benefits following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan. Social Security was placed on sound footing well into this century 3) However the major problem is how those taxes were used. The Federal Govt took those revenues & spent it and replaced it with IOUs called Treasury Bonds. They used it to finance their spending ways. 4) If the Fed Govt had balanced the budget and managed that money correctly we wouldn't be having a problem. Their betrayed their fiduciary duty. 5) So it was a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Finally what good does it do to call it a Ponzi scheme? Tens of millions of Americans depend on SS. They & their employer have paid taxes into for decades not in the promise of getting rich, but in having a safety net in their senior years. Politically it is dumb as a doorknob & gives me great pause about Perry's wisdom. Edited by Baldo, Sep 7 2011, 11:51 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Sep 8 2011, 12:23 AM Post #9 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
It's a sort of Ponzi scheme now in the sense that your money may not actually be there when you need it. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 8 2011, 12:42 AM Post #10 |
|
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going. The return on investment was based upon a growing population contributing funds in which the manager of those funds would add/pay interest for notes that manager issued itself ...the manager being the federal government. Over time it "pays returns to separate investors from their own money [general taxes] or money paid by subsequent investors". The devaluation of your dollar is a big source of that interest earnings. Replace the words "fraudulent" and "entices" with mandated [about the same], "short-term" with long-term, and you've just described what the government WANTS you to think SS is [they give you annual reports on those "short-term" gains]. The problem of it needing "an ever-increasing flow of money" is the problem we face. It has been better than a Ponzi scheme, they just make everybody pay more when they run short ...payroll taxes. If it was based on paying you back what you had paid in and earned interest on, in which an upside down pyramid from the age variaances wouldn't matter, there would not be an end in sight for it. Perry must not have been thinking of running for this office when he wrote that.
|
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Sep 8 2011, 01:10 AM Post #11 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
At least a Ponzi scheme doesn't forcibly take your money before you even get it...
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 8 2011, 01:24 AM Post #12 |
|
Well, it's not a Ponzi scheme, that's just the excuse used to say why it will not last forever as it is set up. Perry should have pointed out the similar details and added remarks about how it never was a savings account for retirement ...it was a brilliant tax scam that worked great so long as we were popping 2+ children per household before either parent was 21 YO. |
![]() |
|
| foxglove | Sep 8 2011, 06:53 AM Post #13 |
|
I agreed that the debate was below par. I turned it off after the segment about immigration. The lighting could not have been more terrible for Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum and it made Santorum look like he was squinting and Bachmann, a very attractive woman to look older, but she answered her questions well. I wouldn't be surprised if the poor lighting was planned that way given NBC's biases. I liked Bachmann's answer about immigration saying immigration was done right in the 1950s because any immigrant needed to have funds to live on, etc. Of course, the 50s was before the Great Society which was a social disaster. Newt Gingrich is good at pointing out the game plan of MSM such as NBC and Politico questioners. From what I saw it was generally lackluster and the questions reflected a presumption of need for big government. My favorite part was when Ron Paul said one could get a gallon of gasoline for a dime-- if it was a silver dime as the value of a silver dime is $3.50. And then it was quickly, very quickly off to the next question...... Edited by foxglove, Sep 8 2011, 07:14 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| foxglove | Sep 8 2011, 06:58 AM Post #14 |
|
Perry did mention how Social Security money have been used for other things besides what it was intended for. SS is only part of governmental overspending and it would have been helpful to not just center on SS but other government programs which needs to be looked at for reform. |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Sep 8 2011, 07:11 AM Post #15 |
|
Yes, if he had emphasized the mismanagement of the fund by the Presidents & Congress from a fiduciary standpoint people would understand. Millions of Americans have paid into this fund as a tax with no opting out. They expect it to be there. Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) program are financed primarily by employment taxes. Currently since 1990 the average employee pays 6.2 % for OSADI & 1.45 % for HI = 7.65% of his paycheck which is matched by his employer for a total of 14.3% towards his account. That's a lot of money. Few people can save that percentage on a weekly basis. The problem is how our Azzhats have misused those revenues. It is "criminal" in my mind that those funds are not safe and haven't been earning a good ROI(Return of Investment). Instead "Our" govt used the funds to finance our govt and replaced the with an IOU. That would be OK, if they took that money, invested it, and had the ability to deliver that money back to the "investors." But what happens if the USA cannot pay it fully back? What happens if they devalued our currency? Right about now many Americans don't feel safe about a system where the Fed can create money out of thin air to buy those Treasuries. What! I had to earned my money and couldn't go to the magic pencil to increase my fund. Perry missed the real opportunity that would have resonated with both sides of the Political spectrum, instead he went off in a direction that leads nowhere Politically and I mean nowhere! For 50% of Americans their SS tax is their biggest contribution and he calls it a Ponzi scheme? It is how they used those taxes where the issue is and frankly both parties have stunk. Edited by Baldo, Sep 8 2011, 07:29 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |







1:59 PM Jul 11