That was my reaction to Luntz's conservative focus groups reaction to Rick Perry and Romey during the debate. The group felt Perry was being truthful.
Social Security a Ponzy scheme? Of course not. Social Security is saved and invested in Treasury Bonds. In a Ponzi scheme, however, there is no investment. So Perry is wrong right out of the gate.
The Luntz audience believes the BS that our safety nets won't be there. The truth is, conservatives would break the social promise, where Democrats would find a revenue stream to keep them healthy. That's why they feel Perry is just telling the truth. People need to hear their truth, the one where they would default on Social Security. I guarantee you'll be screaming at the monitor if you watch and listen to the audience comments.
I like the woman's comment, "He's telling us the truth about everything he says." WOW! This is the mind set of Republican voters. Wouldn't you love to pull their Social Security right now.
Saying Social Security won’t be there in the future is a demagogic scare tactic the conservative mind has bought into hook, line and sinker. But it's much easier to believe that, then understand it.
According to Life Inc., “Social Security is much like many other public and private pension systems that operate throughout the country, and the world. Critics of the Social Security system also argue that the government is “borrowing” money from the trust because it holds a large surplus of Treasury bonds. But any pension fund, insurance company or other financial entity with future obligations has to set aside money for future claims. U.S. Treasuries are one of the safest places to put that surplus.”
But only the government’s financial entity is bad...because? According to the ultra conservative Washington Examiner: “Only three workers pay in to Social Security now for every one beneficiary.” Only? Sounds like it's doing well. The Daily Koz wrote:
When Peter Coy, the Bloomberg Businessweek Economics Editor, appeared on "Washington Journal," (he) concluded that cuts would be needed to Social Security … C-SPAN moderator Susan Swain pointed out that Coy's chart showed a long-term surplus for Social Security of $22 trillion. Coy confirmed as accurate her interpretation of the chart and, after some stumbling, admitted that, "The trust fund is not the crucial issue.”
Susan Swain: “illustration you have here...social security...taxes..is, uh...let's see...one side is revenue and one side is debt. It shows social security in a surplus. Right? In what it receives....132 in versus 110 trillion? Am I reading that correctly? [Coy responds, "Yeah."] So, people might...who argue social security should be set aside...we've paid into, it it's really solvent for right now. Why should that be part of the discussion?
COY: That's a...That's a good point. The social security numbers are...the trust fund for Social Security is not the crucial issue. That's why people say that Medicare is where the bigger problem...but, Social Security...um...[is] probably going to have to have a higher...um...retirement age..but, you know...funny thing...I think...I think that's a good point you're making there, and I'm going to go back and look at that more closely for next week's story.
I loved that answer. Can we finally get the word out about this:
Perry said, “And people who are on Social Security today … they don't need to worry about anything.”
Its stunning Republicans continue to say that, because they are saying a revamped stripped down version of Social Security WILL BE SOMETHING RETIREES WILL HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IN THE FUTURE. Am I the only one hearing it this way?
No comments:
Post a Comment