"Confusion" -- Teabagger Erick Erickson is all wigged out over Perry's social security kerfuffle.

[jefferson_dem]

Hahaha... :popcorn:

Confusion
Posted by Erick Erickson

Thursday, September 8th at 5:00AM EDT

I realize we’re all supposed to be in the tank for Mitt Romney, but when the heck did we suddenly love social security? It’s nuts.

We’ve got Karl Rove out denying it is a ponzi scheme solely because he hates Rick Perry. It’s all politics, not principle.

Mitt Romney says that millions of Americans being dependent on government for their retirement is the definition of a successful program.

And we’ve got a solid segment of the conservative movement falling in line behind them. It’s all so confusing.

Are we all so damn scared of Rick Perry that suddenly we’re going to abandon the fight for real reform of social security and try to make Perry look like a fringe candidate when, in fact, his position has been the mainstream of the GOP for decades?

<SNIP>

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/09/08/confusion/

[trumad]

1. Love it

[liberal N proud]

2. LOL

[NewJeffCT]

3. mainstream GOP position - "social security is an unconstitutional ponzi scheme"

according to Erick Erickson.

That sounds like a good TV ad, no?

[jefferson_dem]

4. Best case scenario...

Mittens, only partly insane Republicans, and the media continue to hammer Perry on his "social security is an unconstitutional ponzi scheme" position...

Perry and the teabagger wing of the GOP (which is just about the entire party) get defensive and keep digging...

Perry limps to the general election with this massive albatross around his wrinkly neck.

Please let it happen!

[karynnj]

6. Additionally, I don't know how big the gap between Romney and Perry is on this

Romney's own position is as clear as mud. I have read his comment here very SLOWLY and I absolutely cannot parse what he actually means.

At a recent town hall event captured by CNN, a woman stood up to ask about Romney’s views on private social security accounts like the ones proposed by former President George W. Bush. Romney said he has described the options for Social Security but that he opposed privatization in Social Security and said that he’s instead in favor of letting some people save a portion of their income tax-free:

WOMAN: If I understand it correctly, that you say part of Social Security, one way of doing it is privatizing, that people can invest their money, is that correct?
ROMNEY: I didn’t mention that. There are ideas, I didn’t mention that. I just described the three major ones. There have been other ideas about people investing. You know, the disadvantage, privatization of Social Security, that doesn’t make sense. I mean, privatizing Social Security. There have been some that have said let people save some of their money and let them invest it. The market goes up and down. I kind of like the system the way that we have in that regard. It would be nice if people could take a portion of their income and save it tax-free.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/26/305277/romney-private-social-security/

Think Progress seems to have the same difficulty.

Here is his answer in pro privatization answer in 2008:
Q: Will you do for Social Security what Reagan did in 1983?

A: I’m not going to raise taxes. Not only are you taking money away from their pocketbooks, you’re also slowing down the economy. You slow down the economy, more people lose work. More people lose work, of course, you’re having a lot of folks that really have their lives turned upside down. So, raising taxes is just something you don’t want to do. We’re going to have to sit down with the Democrats and say, let’s have a compromise on these three elements that could get us to bring Social Security into economic balance. You can have personal accounts where people can invest in something that does better than government bonds--with some portion of their Social Security. We’re going to have the initial benefit calculations for wealthier Americans calculated based on the Consumer Price Index rather than the wage index. That saves almost two-thirds of the shortfall. You can change the retirement age. You can push it out a little bit.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mitt_Romney_Social_Security.htm

Here he is in an August 2011 article - now saying "no" to social security, but for letting people earning under $250,000 save tax free - as TP pointed out that is what a 401K already does - so he is likely thinking of the higher income people in that group who might want to save more than the 401K limit.

Note that he prefers lower benefits or a higher age to raising the income cap.
http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/08/romney-greeted-protestors/f6mMTOy14WQVj5b871PWXO/index.html

[Cosmocat]

7. Yeah ...

I would say though ...

Once he is the candidate, the party will get behind him.

And, the hatred of BO is the motivator for them to get out and vote.

The mushy middle will not break as hard to BO as it did the last time. Whatever dust up over SS NOW in the primary WILL be reframed to mitigate the weakness for Perry on it, and probably spin it toward the need to have it redone and at least he has the guts to take it on, or some BS like that ...

The final battle only goes our way if OUR TEAM gets its head out of its arse, digs in and battles for a GOOD, and sorry for some, he IS a GOOD, democratic president.

[Bake]

10. A good ad for US, yes!

God, I hope Perry gets the nom!

Of course, Obama won't have the cojones to run the ad ...

Bake

[NewJeffCT]

12. MoveOn might do it, or another similar organization

of course, Perry will get the GOP base riled up and they'll turn out for their new messiah... hopefully enough moderates, Democrats & liberals will turn out to win.

[lumpy]

15. Who says Obama won't have the cajones?

Negativity never wins.

[safeinOhio]

5. Hey Ricky

Keep governments hand off of my Social Security.


WE seniors VOTE.

[flpoljunkie]

8. 'Enact Entitlement Reform' from Mitt Romney's 'Believe in America' Manifesto

Enact Entitlement Reform

Any serious attempt to rein in spending will have to include entitlement reform. This issue is among the most complex facing policymakers, but some basic principles guide Mitt Romney’s position. First, we must keep the promises made to our current retirees: their Social Security and Medicare benefits should not be affected. But second, we should ensure that the promises that we make to younger generations are promises we can keep.

With respect to Social Security, there are a number of options that can be pursued to keep the system solvent—from raising the eligibility age to changing the way benefits are indexed to inflation for high-income retirees. One option that should not be on the table is raising the payroll tax or expanding the base of income to which the tax is applied. Similarly, with respect to Medicare, the plan put forward by Congressman Paul Ryan makes important strides in the right direction by keeping the system solvent and introducing market-based dynamics. As president, Romney’s own plan will differ, but it will share those objectives.

Romney will also work to reform and restructure Medicaid. Currently, the federal government writes the states a blank check for the program. Each state decides how much to spend on Medicaid, and Washington reimburses them as much as 80 percent of the cost. It does not take an economist to recognize the problems with having one level of government make the spending decision while another pays the bill. States have every incentive to expand Medicaid spending— at the expense of other state priorities such as education, and with little regard for efficiency—in order to maximize their federal subsidy. And with federal money comes federal strings attached. Washington micromanages decisions as to who and what the states must cover, and forbids states from experimenting with new approaches that might improve care and reduce cost. The result is a Medicaid system that generates poor health outcomes at enormous expense. As president, Romney will push for the conversion of Medicaid to a block grant administered by the states. This approach could save the federal government over $200 billion each year by the end of the decade, while also providing states with the flexibility to develop innovative and effective approaches best suited to their needs.

http://mittromney.com/sites/default/files/BelieveInAmerica–MittRomney–PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth.pdf

[Warren Stupidity]

9. If our president does not make Social Security the number one campaign issue,

flooding the airwaves with these nuts vowing to kill it dead, he is a complete fool.

[workinclasszero]

16. Bingo! nt

[LiberalFighter]

11. This being dependent on the government for their retirement

needs to be hit.

Being dependent on someone requires that the someone is providing the support. That is not the case with Social Security. We are dependent on the government only to the point that they hold onto our money until it is time to be disperse back to us. In addition, the Social Security program is an insurance program that we paid into and just expect regular income.

[OwnedByFerrets]

13. ALL you "mainstream" repugs have NO problem

accepting SS payments when they are delivered to your door. GO FUCK YOURSELF ASSHOLE.

I've never personally met a repug that wouldn't line up for govment handouts anytime they were offered. Most of them I know will even lie or cheat to receive them. Living in an area that gets hit by hurricanes on a regular basis, I see it all the time. They are ALL hypocrites.

[lumpy]

14. Why does Soc.Sec. needs 'reforming'? Or is that just a buzz word

the GOPers have come up with to tinker with or eliminate SS. If employment were at the full time high, Soc.Sec. would continue on as always.