Which Republican do you presently prefer for 2012?

Post Reply New Topic

Romney and Perry have called Social Security a ponzi scheme and have vowed to destroy it. I hope they lose by a landslide at the election because it is a known fact that tampering with Social Security is political suicide.

Back in 2007 when the primaries were still in swing I was at a local bowling alley with some friends and grabbing a pitcher of beer at ther bar. I was talking to the bartender a little about politics and mentioned to her that I was hoping Romeny got it, at which point some guy who had to be no more than 23 piped up "Ah won't vote fer any man who won't put his hand on the bobble!". I think that's when I realized that, all this time, I really needed a shirt with a republican stamp that says "I'm with stupid". I'm quite horrified that the only opposition to the party of economic suicide is the party of incoherent bigotry who'd rather vote for the other side by staying home than voting for a guy who isn't full WASP or even BP (I'm thinking color has even less to do with bible-belt approval than protestant standing). If 'god' means that much to them then I guess they have nothing to fear, our economy is firmly in his hands at this point.

Who knows, if something really assinine happens at the Republican primary hopefully - HOPEFULLY - someone in an independent slot will step up and save the day. Its never happened before in the history of the US but there's a first for everything.

Nothing at all that I can see. It is very important to some people that the canidates they elect share their religious views. The Morman religion has distinct differences that some people in other religions strongly disagree with. The evangelical christian element of the Republican party is suggested to number around 30%. Unless some of the rumors about Perry are proven true, he fits that demographic well.

I would agree though with the last comment, if Perry, is elected along with control back to the house and Republicans, we might meet the characteristics of a third world country sooner than later.

With the elimination of programs for those less advantaged in a country, a country becomes a developing one rather than a developed one. This type of platform suggests that it will make the country a stronger one, but the country did become stronger after the programs were put in place.

People have forgotton that these programs have allowed people a sense of security that has allowed many people the freedom to pursue areas in life, they would have never been able to pursue in making the country a more productive one, if the programs were not in place.

If there were not programs put into place to take care of elderly parents, disabled children, and the other multitude of assistance programs that are there when life throws curve balls regardless of how diligently one works, the same way of life would not be possible. People no longer have the extended family structure that took care of loved ones as these needs became apparent in life.

We can't suddenly go back to the old way of life, without things falling apart. If the problem can't be solved and programs for those less advantaged can't continue to be funded, a third world country may be the destiny of the United States.

Eliminating these programs as a solution to our problems, will potentially meet that destiny sooner. Perry would likely enhance that agenda, more than any other nominee that I can see. We might as well have a popular right wing radio talk show host for president.

He entertained the idea that Texas could separate itself from the rest of the Country. Not likely he was serious, but if he becomes president, the wild, wild, west may be the future of the country, sooner than later.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

So the Mormans think that Social Security is just a bunch of evil Socialism ?

Yea, it's only the crusty-old conservative "base" (who will get their share no matter what) that will put up with that kind of talk in the general election. The younger post-boomers who are paying more than their fair share into the program right now aren't going to put up with getting shafted in the near future if there is anything that can be done to stop it. That includes raising the payroll tax ceiling on people with the means to pay more.

Conservatives don't like Social Security because it forces employers to make a contribution on the employees behalf

I'm not sure about that. Mormons are taught to pay their taxes, and to pay their tithe to the Temple, all without complaining.

Sorry, I may have not been clear in my comment. I can see now that my definition of Rome falling may likely not be the same as the other individual that made the comment. I apologize for my misunderstanding of the original comment.

None of the polticians are publically suggesting that Social Security is a bunch of evil socialism, and there is no relationship there to the morman religion, only that it is a program that will not likely continue to work as is. Some have different ideas of fixing the problem.

Before Social Security people didn't live nearly long enough to become as dependent on society as they do now. People were able to meet the needs of older individuals through family and community support rather than government. But the life span was the upper 50's not the upper 70's.

There is the suggestion by some, including Perry that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, like a pyramid endeavor, because it was doomed to failure from the start and created for political purpose rather than a system that would work well into the future.

In Galveston Texas they opted out in the beginning started their own program and have had much higher returns on investments than Social Security contributions have had over a similiar span of time.

There are those that believe that the public would have been better off investing their own money, and even though the health of the economy is on a perilous tilt, people still suggest, private investment opportunities are the best direction to go in and will change for the better because they always have in the past.

This would work if people had the disclipine, the knowledge, and the funds to save for their future, but the reality, as studied by the government, is the overwhelming majority won't or can't do it unless it is a mandatory requirement.

We can easily state it is the fault of those individuals that don't save, but as far as society goes, if a great deal of people are not able to survive, because they can no longer work, or have not saved any money to survive on, and no longer have extended families or community support among the common citizenry, to take care of those indivduals into old age or succumb to disability, we end up like third world countries with potential suffering of millions of people.

Some people say it's their fault, let them starve. The reality is much more harsh than those words. Most elderly people could not live without social security and medicare/medicaid. If this were the reality today, many would be in shelters or left homeless, in the streets.

Maybe other countries will air lift rations and parachute them down to the hungry masses, as we have done in the past for those that starve in developing countries Hopefully they will set up tents for medical care as well, like we have done for those that starve in other countries. I'm not seeing that part to likely happen, those countries, may be in the same boat as us.

Considering everything I personally understand about the situation, it seems this may be the inevitable fate of many developed countries. The good life for some that has been afforded may only be a blip in human history.

Social Security was not designed as a Ponzi scheme it was carefully designed as an insurance program, with the understanding that most people would not end up needing the insurance, they would pass away first, and it would be well funded for those that did need it.

Modern medicine is responsible for our 77 year old lives. We live on much longer than our working lives because of it.

Without enhancements in modern medicine this would not be nearly the issue it is now, but it is easier to blame the government "who takes our money at gunpoint to support the social security program", than blame reality.

The answer would have been to increase support for the program as longevity went up, but many do not see the need to pay the way as one goes. Instead we stick our heads in the sand and wait until the crisis hits. We can blame the polticians and the voters since the program started out, but not the ones that created it as a successfull endeavor. More evidence that many people couldn't fund their own retirement if they were required to do it.

At this point not enough people in politics support the effort to continue it as long as possible for future generations, and not enough people exist to kill the program for future generations. Perry could be the deciding factor to kill it sooner than later.

We might as well enjoy the historical blip of security as long as we can, it doesn't appear like it is going to be available for the children or grandchildren of the future.

The only social security program of the future may to be to have as many children as possible, to provide care into old age if one's health does not cooperate with them to continue working. That's the way of the past though, it's not even possible on a large scale basis anymore, it costs too much for some to raise any children at all.

Actually Romney defended the Social Security program. Both he and Bachman criticized Perry of suggesting it was a Ponzi Scheme. Social Security Ponzi Scheme talk, is the work of right wing media talk show hosts. Most people are happy to have their social security benefits and medicare benefits, into old age, it is the difference for life and death for many of them.

No one is going to touch those benefits for those 50 or older. That will become completely clear before any action is ever taken to kill the program for younger individuals. Good luck in the stock market, for privately supported plans, if that happens.

Sarah Palin.

Far religious right politicians like Rick Perry do in fact think that Social Security is evil socialism and could care less if elderly people become destitute and homeless because they think it is their fault if they have not saved up for their retirement.
However religious right politicians cannot attack social security directly and win elections because too many people are dependent on entitlements. Religious Right politicians therefore try to caste doubt into the system by declaring it a ponzi scheme. Once enough voters are convinced that they will not receive one dime in benefits when they retire the religious right will then move to dismantle social security and replace it by encouraging workers to voluntarily invest in the stock market.

Just out of curiosity I did a quick search on Allen West to see what makes him a psychopath but didn’t find anything. Only a quick search because surely if we had a congressman suffering from psychopathy it woundn't take long to unveil with a quick Google.
About all I found are these few items:
1. A nasty but not vulgar e-mail to another member of congress (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D) Florida) for indirectly attacking him on the house floor (like he’s the first to do send a nastygram to another representative).
2. Odds and ends about spending cuts (something we need for a change).
3. He’s no friend of Islam (some reason he should be?).
By the definition of psychopathy I didn’t detect it just in what I found but then again I’m not a psychiatrist.
Anyone have t anything that indicates otherwise before we close our argument?

Even if he were a psychopath it would be saddening to think that Marshall would attack a man that is in need of professional psychiatric help.

It is because of the "interrogation" that led to his "retirement" he assaulted a man in his custody.
I see it as pare for the course (as I am sure you do) but some people have hold "service" men to higher standards.

And then they walk around three times and cause the universe to explode because the left didn't need to add any spin.

The clueless jackass is gonna win. And he or she will be running against the ineffective jackass.



bonus: I did a google image search looking for a picture like this to post ironically, and chose the tackiest one... and clicked on it, and it was from a Sarah Palin supporter site.

Ron Paul beats everyone out in the poll. Just like many of the straw polls. But the Republican party doesn't want him, and the mainstream media shuns him. It will be interesting to see what happens with him.

I voted for Paul, but I prefer Gary Johnson, who is like a less radical version-- he shares the same libertarian principles. Unfortunately he has long been thrown to the dogs by the media and the mainstream Rs (seems like the OP has never even heard of him).

It's pretty certain that either Rick Perry or Mitt Romney will get the nomination. If the economy continues to lag, and fuel prices remain high, Obama will lose. That's really all it comes down to.

*******************************************************************************************************************

Check out"Problem Child," my memoir of life with autism!