As If One Needed Another Reason For Uncertainty About Romney

Posted on | September 12, 2011 | 25 Comments

by Smitty

American Exceptionalism is founded in liberty. Progressive anti-Exceptionalism is about making people clients of the State and then using appeals to fear to keep those clients parked on the plantation. Via Hot Air, Fresh Squeezed Politics produces the Romney flyer for Florida, which I will cleave in twain for posting here legibly.

I support Rick Perry all the way on the Ponzi Scheme issue, as far as correctly identifying it as a Ponzi scheme. We won’t get out of the 70-year pit in the snap of a finger, but correctly identifying the Ponzi scheme is the first step to stopping the digging.

If you haven’t described the exit strategy for the economically un-supportable, un-Constitutional federal over-reach embodied in the entitlement programs, you haven’t told be why I should vote for you.

Romney self-identifies as a RINO waffle-chef on the point of Social Security. If I lived in Florida, I’d ba saying, “Thanks, Mitt, but we’ve had enough of people pissing down our back and calling it a hurricane.”

Commenter Matt Lewisover on the Lakoffpost is timely:

The big problem with progressivism is that their policies aren’t all obviously failures from the get go.

Witness Romney v Perry, with respect to Social Security. It’s true that many people have benefited from receiving checks from the government. By the time it’s obvious that it’s going to crash and burn, the populace is already addicted, and it’s like a huge display of courage and controversy just to admit we have a problem.

Progressives: crack dealers of politics.

Category: Mitt Romney

Comments

25 Responses to “As If One Needed Another Reason For Uncertainty About Romney”

Joe
September 12th, 2011 @ 4:41 pm

Social security is a ponzi scheme that could be fixed. I would not oppose scrapping it myself, but I doubt we are going to do that. So let’s fix what is fixable.

Medicare however cannot be fixed (without massive cuts or massive new taxes). So we need to get real on that entitlement program. And I want prescription drug entitlements and Obamacare ended now.
Joe
September 12th, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

That said, I appreciate Perry’s candor to Romney’s politicking.
Paul Zummo
September 12th, 2011 @ 6:01 pm

Romney is quickly moving into “I will not vote for him under any circumstance” territory here.
Anonymous
September 12th, 2011 @ 6:07 pm

Yes he is.
Adjoran
September 12th, 2011 @ 6:17 pm

It’s not a Ponzi scheme, not even close. Only those who haven’t a clue what a Ponzi scheme is believe this.

Ponzi was a con artist who promised high returns. To demonstrate such returns, he simply gave early investors some of the newer investors’ capital and claimed it was a dividend, which satisfied and excited them and attracted more new investors, so the scheme was able to continue for a while. Eventually, though, he could not keep it up because the pace of new entries slowed, and the scam collapsed.

But all of Ponzi’s investors were voluntary, and all were out to get something for nothing. This is clearly not the case with Social Security, which is not voluntary, and in fact goes to some lengths to let payers know what benefit they can expect under current law.

SS isn’t collapsing of its own weight, either – it is the massive infusion of retiring Baby Boomers combined with lengthening lifespans that threaten the system’s ability to continue. It was never designed as a fully funded retirement plan, although people were certainly allowed to make that assumption.

The fact is that once SS gets past the Baby Boomers, it will return to being a viable pay-as-you-go plan for some time, unlike Medicare and Medicaid, which are completely doomed almost immediately. Common sense fixes like raising retirement age, expanding the tax base, and means testing of benefits can salvage SS; there is no hope at all for Medicare and Medicaid in their current forms.

Is the Chilean or other private/public model a better deal? Sure, but that doesn’t justify lying about Social Security, does it?

Calling SS “unconstitutional” is a typical Libertarian slur. The Constitution gives SCOTUS the authority to decide, and not Ron Paul or even Rick Perry. If they don’t support the Constitution’s own mechanisms, they should STFU about what is “constitutional” or not because they clearly do not care about that, only about imposing their own view arbitrarily. That’s dictatorship, not liberty.
Anonymous
September 12th, 2011 @ 6:27 pm

Gov Palin’s idea of SS modification is the best one so far. But I’d add “W”s option to go private investment too.
SOYLENT GREEN
September 12th, 2011 @ 6:39 pm

Ponzi Scheme…?

http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/social-security-isnt-a-ponzi-scheme-its-worse/
Anonymous
September 12th, 2011 @ 6:40 pm

Romney has now firmly allied himself with the liberal slimeballs. Social Security scare tactics have been their stock in trade for generations now, and if Romney wants to peddle their excrement, he should be treated like them.
Anonymous
September 12th, 2011 @ 6:44 pm

.. once SS gets past the Baby Boomers, it will return to being a viable pay-as-you-go plan for some time ..

Yeah, except with a couple dozen trillion dollars worth of unfunded liabilities. How can that be considered ‘viable’ by anyone except liberal economists?
Nomination Excitations: Bachmann, Romney, Perry, And Ponzi « The Camp Of The Saints
September 12th, 2011 @ 2:48 pm

[…] agree with Smitty on Mr. Perry’s position: I support Rick Perry all the way on the Ponzi Scheme issue, as far […]
Anonymous
September 12th, 2011 @ 6:58 pm

Not only is it “close”, it’s close enough to call it a Ponzi scheme. Demanding exactness in the comparison is silly.

SS will never be solvent. It never was. As long as they rob the funds to spend in other ways, it never can be.
Anonymous
September 12th, 2011 @ 7:02 pm

In related news, Mitt has T-Paw’s endorsement! So Perry and maybe Palin and the rest of the Conservatives have lost the mushy middle.

Oh Noes!

By the way: will the mushy middle be voting?
Anonymous
September 12th, 2011 @ 7:08 pm

Will he kill Obamacare? He says “yes” but he keeps adding “replace” in there. My guess is he’ll opt to “fix” it instead, since that’s how things get done in DC, where a scrap of bread is equal to the whole loaf, baby!

That way, we get to see the end of the American Moment without having Obama at the helm to take the blame.

I will not vote for anyone who won’t kill (and not “replace”) Obamacare.
Anonymous
September 12th, 2011 @ 7:10 pm

“SS isn’t collapsing of its own weight, either – it is the massive infusion of retiring Baby Boomers combined with lengthening lifespans that threaten the system’s ability to continue. ”

If that’s not collapsing of it’s own weight – the weight of demand – then I don’t know what is.

Jumping up and pointing to the minor differences betwen SS and a Ponzi scheme doesn’t change the way they both work – by taking the money of current payees to cover the promises made to earlier ones.
Anonymous
September 12th, 2011 @ 7:43 pm

So a Ponzi scheme isn’t a Ponzi scheme if the crooks point guns at you and force you to invest.

Sir, you are ridiculous.
Anonymous
September 12th, 2011 @ 7:44 pm

Oh, and you might try reading the 10th Amendment. SS and dozens of other programs are specifically unconstitutional unless established by amendment.
Anonymous
September 12th, 2011 @ 8:00 pm

Social Security can ONLY work with a steadily increasing base of payers-in over payees. That worked when a married couple would produced three, four, five, six kids.

My parents’ was the last generation that did that or is likely to do it.

Anything else will not keep up with the rising costs of living or the tendency of government, any government, to spread the sugar around.
Endorsements and Social Security Scaremongering « The Cranky Conservative
September 12th, 2011 @ 4:50 pm

[…] also looks like Romney is doubling down on his social security scare mongering. At this point Romney’s getting closer to Ron Paul […]
Roxeanne de Luca
September 12th, 2011 @ 8:56 pm

SS isn’t collapsing of its own weight, either – it is the massive
infusion of retiring Baby Boomers combined with lengthening lifespans
that threaten the system’s ability to continue.

How is that not “collapsing under its own weight”? The Baby Boomers paid into SS for years; if the system is not a pyramid scheme, then it wouldn’t matter if a huge demographic retired.
McGehee
September 12th, 2011 @ 9:47 pm

“Moving into”…?
Shawn Gillogly
September 12th, 2011 @ 10:22 pm

Agreed, Romney has been in the “Will never vote for him” category for a LONG time to me. The man has no principles, and will say anything to get elected. He’s everything that’s wrong with the political class.
Smitty doesn’t like Romney’s Anti-Perry flyer, « The Rhetorican
September 12th, 2011 @ 6:33 pm

[…] doesn’t like Romney’s Anti-Perry flyer,Smitty doesn’t like Romney’s Anti-Perry flyer, which attacks the former’s ‘Ponzi Scheme’ perspective on Social […]
Proof
September 13th, 2011 @ 12:58 am

The flier seems to be very dishonest. His smarmy smile kinda seals the deal, doesn’t it?
Charles
September 13th, 2011 @ 2:50 am

Exactly, Rick Perry has indicated his desire to exit, but he hasn’t described his exit strategy.

Voting the Paul Ryan plan on Medicare through the House without first letting the public get to know how that would work is not the way to get it fixed. Geoge W. Bush tried the same thing to no avail on Social Security individual accounts.

It’s great to rouse the conservative base who trust you, but you set yourself up to fail by not taking the time to explain your plan to the independents who don’t trust you any more than the other guy.
Smitty doesn’t like Romney’s Anti Perry flyer which… | Yes, But, However!
September 13th, 2011 @ 2:59 am

[…] doesn’t like Romney’s Anti Perry flyer which… Smitty doesn’t like Romney’s Anti-Perry flyer, which attacks the Texas governor’s ‘Ponzi Scheme’ perspective on Social Security.Strangely […]