Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Two things Gov. Perry said jumped out to me last night though. He actually gave President Obama props for keeping the country safe and crediting him (along with the Navy Seals) for killing Bin Laden. That's one little compliment the White House will stick in it's back pocket until the appropriate time. His rhetoric on Social Security continues to be baffling. He doubled down on referring to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. To look at this practically for a moment: Do I really want the Chief Executive referring to one of the nation's most sacrosanct programs in modern American history, one that he will presumably oversee, as a Ponzi scheme? I don't care how brilliant Perry thinks he is, that just isn't a winning issue.

First my Disclaimer: Didn't watch the debate. Don't know much about the candidates yet except what I have gleaned here. From what I know, I would like to take bits and pieces from each candidate but don't fully endorse any of their complete agendas.

With that said, if Perry insinuated that SS reform needs to be done - good for him. SS functions on the same structures that drive ponzi schemes and, if such an investment structure was attempted by a private party, it would be an illegal. The difference, of course, is that a true ponzi scheme is created with the intent to defraud which most certainly is not the intent of SS. At the same time, while not created to defraud, it will, in the not-to-distant future, be unable to provide the benefits it currently guarrantees. While not fraud in the strictest sense, it is certainly not beyond the pale to point out the inherent untruthfulness of the current system.

To argue that pointing out inherent flaws of "one of the nation's most sacrosanct programs" should be verbotten smacks of 1984's Newspeak and discourages accurate discussion about the problems created and faced by the Social Security system. In its current, the SS fund will be exhaused in 2036 and, after that on a pay as you go basis, it will only be able to pay 75% of the benefits it is currently promising to its "investors".

People entering the workforce should be made aware that, because of its basic Ponzi structure, SS cannot continue indefinitely without a drastic reduction in services or a hugely increasing the burden on current and future workers. Regardless, it is unlikely that current and future employees will get any where near the ROI they have been promised or expect from SS in its current form.

You're right, demagogues will undoubtedly use scare tactics to make it seem that any reform of SS is tantamount to an attack on the most vulnerable of society that will leave our elderly to die in destitution.

Do I worry that Perry sees "one of the nation's most sacrosanct programs in modern American history" for what it is - a legalized ponzi scheme? No.
I would rather my President have an accurate and honest understanding of the nature of our system for caring for the elderly rather than be afraid to advocate for its reform because it is "sacrosanct". The Social Security system fulfills to an important and necessary role in our society and to discuss it in anything but the most brutally honest measures does everyone - young and old - a disservice.

Okay, rant over.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

First my Disclaimer: Didn't watch the debate. Don't know much about the candidates yet except what I have gleaned here. From what I know, I would like to take bits and pieces from each candidate but don't fully endorse any of their complete agendas.

With that said, if Perry insinuated that SS reform needs to be done - good for him. SS functions on the same structures that drive ponzi schemes and, if such an investment structure was attempted by a private party, it would be an illegal. The difference, of course, is that a true ponzi scheme is created with the intent to defraud which most certainly is not the intent of SS. At the same time, while not created to defraud, it will, in the not-to-distant future, be unable to provide the benefits it currently guarrantees. While not fraud in the strictest sense, it is certainly not beyond the pale to point out the inherent untruthfulness of the current system.

To argue that pointing out inherent flaws of "one of the nation's most sacrosanct programs" should be verbotten smacks of 1984's Newspeak and discourages accurate discussion about the problems created and faced by the Social Security system. In its current, the SS fund will be exhaused in 2036 and, after that on a pay as you go basis, it will only be able to pay 75% of the benefits it is currently promising to its "investors".

People entering the workforce should be made aware that, because of its basic Ponzi structure, SS cannot continue indefinitely without a drastic reduction in services or a hugely increasing the burden on current and future workers. Regardless, it is unlikely that current and future employees will get any where near the ROI they have been promised or expect from SS in its current form.

You're right, demagogues will undoubtedly use scare tactics to make it seem that any reform of SS is tantamount to an attack on the most vulnerable of society that will leave our elderly to die in destitution.

Do I worry that Perry sees "one of the nation's most sacrosanct programs in modern American history" for what it is - a legalized ponzi scheme? No.
I would rather my President have an accurate and honest understanding of the nature of our system for caring for the elderly rather than be afraid to advocate for its reform because it is "sacrosanct". The Social Security system fulfills to an important and necessary role in our society and to discuss it in anything but the most brutally honest measures does everyone - young and old - a disservice.

Okay, rant over.

For the part I made bold; see Greece….

I too dont get why its taboo for a politic to call social security is a Ponzi scheme, when it is. All Perry is doing is being honest with the American people. SS is a sophisticated ponzi scheme although probably less so then Madoff’s or Allen Stanford’s. The only potential disqualifiers are like you said the intent of ss is not to defraud and ill add that with ss participation is mandatory if you work. Any attempt ive heard or read that trys to explain why its not a ponzi scheme uses completely flawed arguments.

I do disagree with Perry and agree with you in that I think also SS is a good/necessary thing. However like GW tried accomplish and what Romney referenced as the Chilean model, I would like the option to control some my contributions.