YIKES! (GOP Debate)

[elysiantraveller]

1/2 the people up there couldn't drop out soon enough...

[ArlJim78]

you mean people with no shot like Huntsman I assume.

[bigmack]

In comparison with these dolts, I found them Einstein-like.

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/imager/the-democratic-candidates-for-president-at-the-cnnyoutube-debate-includin/b/original/1128753/c7ee/Candidates-corrected.jpg

[elysiantraveller]

Take your pick...

It should be at most Perry, Romney, and 1 or 2 others.

I personally like Huntsman because he is our best chance to beat Obama... Then Romney... then.... goodluck.... :faint:

Too many people trying to differentiate between eachother leads to arguing over who will repeal Obamacare better...

[ArlJim78]

Huntsman did get off a great line, talking about the problem we have in America is that we need more workers.

wow, I think that line alone will send his poll numbers rocketing skyward, perhaps all the way to 1.5%.

ET please explain how Hunstman and his microscopic poll numbers represent our best chance to beat Obama?

Seriously, it is so far off base that I cannot even comprehend the logic you are using. please elaborate. where is all this support going to come from for Huntsman enough to win?

[elysiantraveller]

Huntsman did get off a great line, talking about the problem we have in America is that we need more workers.

wow, I think that line alone will send his poll numbers rocketing skyward, perhaps all the way to 1.5%.

ET please explain how Hunstman and his microscopic poll numbers represent our best chance to beat Obama?

Seriously, it is so far off base that I cannot even comprehend the logic you are using. please elaborate. where is all this support going to come from for Huntsman enough to win?

Because America isn't nearly as far right as you think it is and the Republican party is much further to the right than its ever been.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Big Takeaway: Perry Loses. During the first half of the debate, Rick Perry put in a much better performance than his first effort. But it all went down hill in hour two, much to my delight! There were no clear winners, but Romney once again performed well.

Rick Perry. A number of issues are emerging as real problems for the allegedly conservative gov from Texas. First, did you know he signed into law in-state tuition for illegal immigrants? He did and he doesn't regret it. THIS ISSUE IS HUGE and will cost him votes! And he said such tuition is "provided regardless of last name." Ahh, so if I oppose this law, I'm anti-Hispanic? Bachman and Santorum also took him apart on the cervical cancer vaccine issue---again. Please realize Gov. Perry doesn't regret putting in place the mandatory program (with an opt-out provision). Instead, he regrets the process used (executive order). Finally Perry backpedaled (somewhat) on the Social Security issue, obviously wishing he - I mean his ghostwriter - had never used the term Ponzi scheme in his book.

Romney. He wasn't quite as relaxed as in the last debate, but he performed well. He didn't stand out like last time, but that's ok. Perry dug his own grave tonight (Bachman provided the shovel).

Huntsman. In the second hour, he came out swinging, calling Perry's claim about not being able to secure the Mexican border "treasonous" and mocking Romney for taking multiple positions on the same issue. It was all contrived and he just doesn't do sarcasm well. He accomplished next to nothing tonight except potentially costing himself a cabinet seat in the next admin.

Cain. Man I like this guy, but he isn't going to be president. Maybe he'll get Huntsman's cabinet seat!

Bachman. It was do or die time for Michelle. She came out punching, mainly attacking Gov. Perry, an easy target! She got in some good blows, but they will not advance her cause. She will not be the nominee.

Ron Paul. Once again, he took some shots against Perry. But he did not further his cause, and his thoughts surrounding 9/11 were damaging, albeit not new.

Newt. Arrogant, but a decent performance. I think he's bucking for a cabinet position or a veep slot. He will not get the latter and he will not be the nominee.

Santorum. He was dazed and confused in the last debate. Tonight he was sharp and engaged. Good effort, but I'd be surprised if his campaign goes anywhere.

So overall, Perry was the BIG loser---sounding like a left-wing San Fran liberal on the tuition issue.

[elysiantraveller]

Huntsman did get off a great line, talking about the problem we have in America is that we need more workers.

wow, I think that line alone will send his poll numbers rocketing skyward, perhaps all the way to 1.5%.

ET please explain how Hunstman and his microscopic poll numbers represent our best chance to beat Obama?

Seriously, it is so far off base that I cannot even comprehend the logic you are using. please elaborate. where is all this support going to come from for Huntsman enough to win?

Also why come right out swinging at me on Huntsman? The point I was trying to make is there are too many candidates right now for anyone to do any decent posturing. Typically at this point a few drop out so we can get better focus. Huntsman in that scenario still fits because he is the most centrist then you have Romney, then Perry... but really who gives a damn this debate turned into nothing but attempting to knock down other candidates in a who can out republican who contest.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Also why come right out swinging at me on Huntsman? The point I was trying to make is there are too many candidates right now for anyone to do any decent posturing. Typically at this point a few drop out so we can get better focus. Huntsman in that scenario still fits because he is the most centrist then you have Romney, then Perry... but really who gives a damn this debate turned into nothing but attempting to knock down other candidates in a who can out republican who contest.

I believe I see signs of trouble ahead for Perry. I'm loving it. This debate will damage Perry with the Tea Party and mainstream Americans (tuition issue).

Glad you like Huntsman. He has ZERO chance.

[ArlJim78]

its all over, Perry would have to have a massive fumble or scandal in order to not get the nomination. he was the clear winner tonight.

[elysiantraveller]

Santorum. He was dazed and confused in the last debate. Tonight he was sharp and engaged. Good effort, but I'd be surprised if his campaign goes anywhere.

I would say he was the winner. He was decisive and on the attack. I took exception to a couple of things he said but I think his performance (when allowed to talk) was the most memorable.

[Saratoga_Mike]

its all over, Perry would have to have a massive fumble or scandal in order to not get the nomination. he was the clear winner tonight.

Insanity. Did you watch the debate? In-state tuition for illegals--didn't back away from it one bit. The commericals are being made now. If Obama had said that in a debate, you'd be calling for his impeachment.

[elysiantraveller]

Glad you like Huntsman. He has ZERO chance.

Not sure what that means but ok....

[Saratoga_Mike]

I would say he was the winner. He was decisive and on the attack. I took exception to a couple of things he said but I think his performance (when allowed to talk) was the most memorable.

He was desperate and contrived. Did you watch the last debate? Tonight's performance was a 180-degree turn - that was his handlers saying you either attack (something he isn't comfortable doing) or you're done. He's done anyway. Done. Easy call. He has no natural base, something arljim and I agree on. Anyone interested in Huntsman will go with a winner--namely Romney. This isn't rocket science.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Not sure what that means but ok....

He will not be the Rep nominee. Hey I like Chuck Hagel, but he won't be the nominee either.

[elysiantraveller]

He was desperate and contrived. Did you watch the last debate? Tonight's performance was a 180-degree turn - that was his handlers saying you either attack (something he isn't comfortable doing) or you're done. He's done anyway. Done. Easy call. He has no natural base, something arljim and I agree on. Anyone interested in Huntsman will go with a winner--namely Romney. This isn't rocket science.

I've seen both debates and like I said before I would give Santorum the win. It doesn't mean I like him or that he has any real chance, just that he did the best job tonight.

I "will go with" whoever the GOP puts out America, however, will not. The point I am consistently trying to make is that Huntsman and Romney are the ONLY TWO that have a realistic shot at beating Obama from a platform standpoint. (Newt kinda too I guess but he reminds me of a angry leprechaun)

[Greyfox]

its all over, Perry would have to have a massive fumble or scandal in order to not get the nomination. he was the clear winner tonight.

I thought Perry was the clear loser in tonight's debate.
He sure blinks a lot when he's under heat. Millions of parents will be totally turned off by his compulsary vaccination plan that he put in by an executive order in Texas....millions. Also, his consistent focus on Texas was also a turnoff.

Cain was the strongest performer there. But who's listening. :sleeping:
Newt performed well, but he, like Paul, are considered old statesmen and won't appeal to a younger crowd.

Romney did well but his Mass. Medicare stuff is heavy baggage.
Bachman did very well but many don't see her as having the "right stuff."
Huntsman and Santorum were effectively muted by Wolf Blitzer who spent as much time as possible giving the spotlight to Perry and a lesser extent Romney.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I've seen both debates and like I said before I would give Santorum the win. It doesn't mean I like him or that he has any real chance, just that he did the best job tonight.

I "will go with" whoever the GOP puts out America, however, will not. The point I am consistently trying to make is that Huntsman and Romney are the ONLY TWO that have a realistic shot at beating Obama from a platform standpoint. (Newt kinda too I guess but he reminds me of a angry leprechaun)

You know in this debate, I could see you declaring Santorum the victor. I didn't see a clear winner, but I understand your sentiment. In the last debate, I thought he was horrible (completely out of it).

I don't agree with you on Huntsman, but we'll move on. I think Romney is the man to beat Obama. If there's no improvement in the economy, Perry will be a formidable candidate too (I personally can't stand him). I love this in-state tuition issue. It's a HUGE negative for him (that I guess his supporters, like arlJim want to ignore, or Jim didn't see the debate), and he didn't walk one iota away from it.

[Tom]

In comparison with these dolts, I found them Einstein-like.

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/imager/the-democratic-candidates-for-president-at-the-cnnyoutube-debate-includin/b/original/1128753/c7ee/Candidates-corrected.jpg


And dumbest one by far won!

[Saratoga_Mike]

I thought Perry was the clear loser in tonight's debate.
He sure blinks a lot when he's under heat. Millions of parents will be totally turned off by his compulsary vaccination plan that he put in by an executive order in Texas....millions. Also, his consistent focus on Texas was also a turnoff.

Cain was the strongest performer there. But who's listening. :sleeping:
Newt performed well, but he, like Paul, are considered old statesmen and won't appeal to a younger crowd.

Romney did well but his Mass. Medicare stuff is heavy baggage.
Bachman did very well but many don't see her as having the "right stuff."
Huntsman and Santorum were effectively muted by Wolf Blitzer who spent as much time as possible giving the spotlight to Perry and a lesser extent Romney.

Especially conservative parents! Is there anyway to put the vaccine and tuition for illegals into one commerical? I sure hope so.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The dumbest one was selected for VP.

[newtothegame]

You know in this debate, I could see you declaring Santorum the victor. I didn't see a clear winner, but I understand your sentiment. In the last debate, I thought he was horrible (completely out of it).

I don't agree with you on Huntsman, but we'll move on. I think Romney is the man to beat Obama. If there's no improvement in the economy, Perry will be a formidable candidate too (I personally can't stand him). I love this in-state tuition issue. It's a HUGE negative for him (that I guess his supporters, like arlJim want to ignore, or Jim didn't see the debate), and he didn't walk one iota away from it.
Mike, thanks for the report as I wasnt able to see it.
As to Perry, I dont think Jim is ignoring it. It may come down to Perry and Romney (most likely scenario). In which case, EITHER one will get my vote over NOT voting and in essence giving Obama a vote.
I have said before, I dont think there will be any candidate that everyone loves. But either for us on the right would be better then another four with Obama.
Again, thanks for your reporting.....interesting reads!

[Saratoga_Mike]

Mike, thanks for the report as I wasnt able to see it.
As to Perry, I dont think Jim is ignoring it. It may come down to Perry and Romney (most likely scenario). In which case, EITHER one will get my vote over NOT voting and in essence giving Obama a vote.
I have said before, I dont think there will be any candidate that everyone loves. But either for us on the right would be better then another four with Obama.
Again, thanks for your reporting.....interesting reads!

I hear you. Up until the last debate, I had a tough time supporting Romney. But he's my candidate. I think he can beat Obama. I'm glad Perry entered this race; he will toughen Romney up for the general (or vice-versa--hope not).

[ElKabong]

didn't see the debate but i'm not surprised Perry didn't fare well. He never has been a good debater, never had to be.

If Perry wins the nom, he ought to skip debating from Sept 2012, on. Just hammer Barry's ass on his shitty record as preznit.....Romney otoh should press for many debates. Obama never came across as a good debator imo. Romney would end Obama's hopes for reelection in debates

Hopefully Romney gained on Rick, but I'll vote for Rick long before I would Obama.

[Saratoga_Mike]

didn't see the debate but i'm not surprised Perry didn't fare well. He never has been a good debater, never had to be.

If Perry wins the nom, he ought to skip debating from Sept 2012, on. Just hammer Barry's ass on his shitty record as preznit.....Romney otoh should press for many debates. Obama never came across as a good debator imo. Romney would end Obama's hopes for reelection in debates

Hopefully Romney gained on Rick, but I'll vote for Rick long before I would Obama.

Totally agree. Hillary otoh (good shorthand on your part) is/was a great debater.

[Tom]

The dumbest one was selected for VP.

I stand corrected! :lol:

[Saratoga_Mike]

I stand corrected! :lol:

yeah, but then I looked at the picture again...John Edwards...Kucinich...I can't call it...I take my comment back.

[boxcar]

Because America isn't nearly as far right as you think it is and the Republican party is much further to the right than its ever been.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You're funny. Not one moderate establishment type up there tonight, right? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

I hear you. Up until the last debate, I had a tough time supporting Romney. But he's my candidate. I think he can beat Obama. I'm glad Perry entered this race; he will toughen Romney up for the general (or vice-versa--hope not).

I'm leaning that way, too. I just hope Ron Paul gets enough coverage to force Mitt on some very real issues.

Had Mitt punched Blitzer in the mouth he would have picked up a few points! :D

[PaceAdvantage]

Because America isn't nearly as far right as you think it is and the Republican party is much further to the right than its ever been.I totally disagree. I think you'd be surprised how more to the right America is in reality than what you believe...

The Republican party isn't even quite "right" enough in my opinion.

As much as America "moved left" after Bush, they are "moving right" as the days plow onward in this wreck of a "do nothing" administration.

[PaceAdvantage]

Cain was the strongest performer there. But who's listening. :sleeping: I haven't seen one debate yet...but I must ask...why do people keep saying how well Cain does but he has no shot.

Why doesn't he have a shot? Fundraising?

[ArlJim78]

Insanity. Did you watch the debate? In-state tuition for illegals--didn't back away from it one bit. The commericals are being made now. If Obama had said that in a debate, you'd be calling for his impeachment.
Personally I'm not sure that I agree with the policy, but he gave a very rational answer. This issue is easy to demagogue especially for those who aren't governor of the state with the largest border. Do you think Santorum or Bachmann would be rounding up and deporting families if they were the Texas gov.?

I think it cuts both ways and is a distraction. My big issue is that the border is not secure, and Perry wants first and foremost for the feds to secure the border. thats good enough for me and a far cry from what we have now.

that he doesn't back away is not a bad quality.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Greyfox
I thought Perry was the clear loser in tonight's debate.
He sure blinks a lot when he's under heat. Millions of parents will be totally turned off by his compulsary vaccination plan that he put in by an executive order in Texas....millions.

I don't watch debates this early, so I am in the dark here......he actually is in favor of mandatory vaccinations? that is 100% a deal breaker - no respect for this Big Brother nonsense, it speaks poorly for his character - or lack of it. :ThmbDown::ThmbDown: Add to this tuition for illegals - he is worthless - as a candidate and a man. I cannot support a Nazi who rewards those who break our laws. We better take this guy out quickly!:rolleyes:

FURP

[elysiantraveller]

I don't watch debates this early, so I am in the dark here......he actually is in favor of mandatory vaccinations? that is 100% a deal breaker - no respect for this Big Brother nonsense, it speaks poorly for his character - or lack of it. :ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

In fairness to him there are opt-out clauses for parents and he did regret the way the legislation was set-up. I don't like the guy but he was VILIFIED for this in the debate even though he came right out and said he regrets the way he did it.

[mostpost]

In the spirit of conciliation, I would like to agree.
I agree with ArlJIm78 that Rick Perry is very likely the Republican nominee. The party has been taken over by the Wackoes.
I agree with Elysiantraveler that Perry has no chance to beat Obama, and that Huntsman and Romney have the best chance.
I agree with Tom that we don't watch debates this early.

[Tom]

Is he taking action to reverse it?

[newtothegame]

In the spirit of conciliation, I would like to agree.
I agree with ArlJIm78 that Rick Perry is very likely the Republican nominee. The party has been taken over by the Wackoes.
I agree with Elysiantraveler that Perry has no chance to beat Obama, and that Huntsman and Romney have the best chance.
I agree with Tom that we don't watch debates this early.

Ok what gives??? :lol: I know the rug is fixing to get yanked here shortly lol

[elysiantraveller]

Don't know...

[PaceAdvantage]

The party has been taken over by the Wackoes.How much do you get paid to say this? Serious question...

[lsbets]

ArlJim - I know you really like Perry, but keep in mind - I have never voted for him. He is a politician through and through. He has no core values. Would I vote for him over Obama? Yes. Do I want him to get the nomination? No.

[ArlJim78]

ArlJim - I know you really like Perry, but keep in mind - I have never voted for him. He is a politician through and through. He has no core values. Would I vote for him over Obama? Yes. Do I want him to get the nomination? No.
Perry is only my favorite politician amongst the three that I feel have any shot at becoming president. Perry, Romney or Obama. My ideal candidate is not on that list.

For me its about being a realist and not about who I want to get the nomination. No I won't vote for Perry in the primary. For president I will vote for anyone not named Obama.

[ArlJim78]

Is he taking action to reverse it?
it never went into effect, the executive order was overturned by the legislature in 2007. Perry now admits that he didn't handle it well, that it was a mistake and should have worked with the legislature and not used an executive order.

[ElKabong]

. He is a politician through and through. He has no core values. Would I vote for him over Obama? Yes. Do I want him to get the nomination? No.

Same here.

[ElKabong]

Perry is only my favorite politician amongst the three that I feel have any shot at becoming president. Perry, Romney or Obama. My ideal candidate is not on that list.

For me its about being a realist and not about who I want to get the nomination. No I won't vote for Perry in the primary. For president I will vote for anyone not named Obama.

This below would be a "lip chopping, anxiously awaiting, can't wait to vote" version of me, on the first Tues of Nov 2012 in anticipation of voting for whoever is running against Obama....(substitute the car, for a ballot)

[bigmack]

In terms of vetting he is an open book.

He has a 'Presidential look' straight out of central casting.

He ain't everything I'd like in a nom but I can't remember one that is and I don't put that much stock in my wants.

Willard "Mitt" gets the nom without question. Perry is running for a cabinet position and will get it.

[ElKabong]

[QUOTE=bigmack]In terms of vetting he is an open book.

He has a 'Presidential look' straight out of central casting.

He ain't everything I'd like in a nom but I can't remember one that is and I don't put that much stock in my wants.

Willard "Mitt" gets the nom without question. Perry is running for a cabinet position and will get it.[/QUOTE

Interesting. I remember the dems and the msm ragging on Reagan in 1980 for being "trigger happy" and a madman at the batphone. They basically drew him up as a the villian running vs the sitting pres. Much like modern day Perry being portrayed as a "cowboy". Scare the masses.

Stupid twits, all they had to do was wait for the debates.....Now watch... "Kill Romney" part 2 is soon to come. He'll be the threat by the end of 2011

[Greyfox]

I haven't seen one debate yet...but I must ask...why do people keep saying how well Cain does but he has no shot.

Why doesn't he have a shot? Fundraising?

America proved that it was open minded enough to give a black man the Presidency. That was huge and certainly a giant step forward from pre 1960's thinking. Unfortunately, Obama dropped the ball. In doing so, it reduces the chances of a second black man being electable at this time.

Cain is a very bright man and I really like his ideas.
Given the chance, he'd probably show that his business sense could go a long ways in turning the economy around. He should be given serious consideration for a position in Government in some capacity, possibly even Vice President.
But people in general go the opposite direction from what they are fed up with.
At this time his color is a factor, unfortunately for Cain as he has so many positive qualities.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...At this time his color is a factor, unfortunately for Cain as he has so many positive qualities.

Huh. What is it about Obama's "blackness" that would turn people off to another black candidate, particulary a Republican? Maybe you nailed it, but I'm just not gettin' this as the answer to the question posed.

Surely the back door reparations theory hasn't caught this much steam. Not to mention Cain seems to be running on the wrong platforms if he's to redistribute to his brothermen.

Sounds like Bachman should be a cinch what with all the awful presidents that have had penises recently.

[newtothegame]

America proved that it was open minded enough to give a black man the Presidency. That was huge and certainly a giant step forward from pre 1960's thinking. Unfortunately, Obama dropped the ball. In doing so, it reduces the chances of a second black man being electable at this time.

Cain is a very bright man and I really like his ideas.
Given the chance, he'd probably show that his business sense could go a long ways in turning the economy around. He should be given serious consideration for a position in Government in some capacity, possibly even Vice President.
But people in general go the opposite direction from what they are fed up with.
At this time his color is a factor, unfortunately for Cain as he has so many positive qualities.

I agree with almost everthing you said. I dont think Obama's color is a factor.
his policies (or lack of), his bungling of almost everything he touches, his handling of Israel, his Obamacare, his consistent lies and unfulfilled promises, his handling of the middle east, etc etc...but NOT his color.
His color has done none of the negative things mentioned.

As to Cain, I don't think people even remotely equate them as being similiar. I could be wrong but, I just don't see it. They are more opposite then two people of opposite color.

Cain's problems in my opinion would be his "unknown". Prior to this year, not many , if any, people even knew who herman cain was. The "unknown" factor may hurt him more then color as you suggested.
Perry...BIG STATE GOV
Romney...well known politician...
Cain...Pizza Business man???
That's how I see them as being seen as of now.
Although, if he is persistent, he still has over a year to become more and more known. Will take deep pockets. I, myself, hope he hangs in there!

[bigmack]

Holy Cupcake, they're now replaying it on CVN or CNN, whatever.

Who was the seemingly angry woman singin' the NatAnth?

Did ya note the hand over the heart by all? Willard sang. Not another.

Put that down. Singer/music lovah.

Bing.

[hcap]

PepQF7G-It0

[Tom]

it never went into effect, the executive order was overturned by the legislature in 2007. Perry now admits that he didn't handle it well, that it was a mistake and should have worked with the legislature and not used an executive order.

Not the point at all. It was not the action, but the philosophy behind it. This one issue exposes Perry for what he is - a sleeper democrat. He doesn't get it - it is NOT government's business, no matter what. He is sticking his nose where it does not belong.

Ron Paul gets it. His hypothetical from Wolfie about the 22 year old who opts out of buying insurance, then needs it was spot on. Bad for the kid, but it was his choice - his problem. You have to be held accountable for your actions.

I watched a little of it later on the replay,and I though Perry looked terrible - not to bright, and a typical BS politico. I see him as the same coin as Obama, just the other side. No respect for him at all.

Michelle came across good from what I saw - I think she made Perry look foolish. Santorem as well.

But, Ron Paul stands head and shoulders above them all as far as understanding what the role of government is.

And who was the bimbo fro the audience asking what we will do for the women and children of Afghanistan??? Should have thrown her out the door an her arse. What haven't we done for them? After 10 years, they still cannot take care of themselves, they are our problem. It is obvious to me that the Afghanis will never have the backbone or the desire to be free or do for themselves. It is time to get out now - every damn troop - screw the Afghanis - they had their chance. No mas.

[ArlJim78]

Not the point at all. It was not the action, but the philosophy behind it. This one issue exposes Perry for what he is - a sleeper democrat. He doesn't get it - it is NOT government's business, no matter what. He is sticking his nose where it does not belong.

Ron Paul gets it. His hypothetical from Wolfie about the 22 year old who opts out of buying insurance, then needs it was spot on. Bad for the kid, but it was his choice - his problem. You have to be held accountable for your actions.

I watched a little of it later on the replay,and I though Perry looked terrible - not to bright, and a typical BS politico. I see him as the same coin as Obama, just the other side. No respect for him at all.

Michelle came across good from what I saw - I think she made Perry look foolish. Santorem as well.

But, Ron Paul stands head and shoulders above them all as far as understanding what the role of government is.

And who was the bimbo fro the audience asking what we will do for the women and children of Afghanistan??? Should have thrown her out the door an her arse. What haven't we done for them? After 10 years, they still cannot take care of themselves, they are our problem. It is obvious to me that the Afghanis will never have the backbone or the desire to be free or do for themselves. It is time to get out now - every damn troop - screw the Afghanis - they had their chance. No mas.
I agree with you that the vaccination issue was wrong, and Perry has to account for it.
I disagree that its a big issue for him and that he's just like Obama.
I also disagree on Ron Paul, he belongs in a straight-jacket.

[Tom]

Maybe, but a straight jacket in the Oval Office! :D

[rastajenk]

I was in the group of Tea Partiers that watched the debate from a bar in Cincinnati. The strength of the organization in these parts was the reason it was selected to be a part of the debate, with Portsmouth and Phoenix, I think.. It was my first up-close-and-personal experience with them; if those people are racists terrorists, they sure do keep it under wraps well.

Some observations:

We took a "straw poll" before the debate. The RonPaulians were ahead in numbers and passion. Lots of Paul signs and t-shirts around the place. His 51 votes won, Perry was second with 41. But some of the Paulians wore hats that said "9/11 - An Inside Job." That ain't gonna fly. I told some of them that while I respect his principled stand on a lot of Constitutional issues, we just can't have that other wacky stuff in our party.

The RonPaulians gave their man healthy huzzahs when he said something pithy and pointed, but the crowd in general didn't care for his insistence on foreign policy isolationism.

When Romney and Huntsman were introduced, they weren't booed by the locals, but there was a kind of low grumbling sound that struck me as funny.I thought there would be more enthusiasm for Bachmann in our crowd, but her introduction got just a tepid cheer. Cain seemed to match her for support, both in the responses during the debate and in the straw poll, where they were third and fourth among the eight, I believe.

Santorum was practically a nowhere man. I think the folks still like Newt's ability to shoot straight and get to the point, they just can't get see him as a viable candidate.

I also think Perry did well for his chances. He is not a stupid D student, he seems to be an enthusiastic campaigner, and he has a record of success in spite of attempts to discredit it. We had a post-debate vote to see who "won," but I left before the votes were counted. The Paulians are loyal if nothing else, so he probably won that poll, too, but I get the feeling Perry did well with folks who aren't yet committed but like his overall presentation. But in the spirit of contrariness, I wrote in "Palin" as the winner of the Tampa debate. :D

In fact, before the debate I made a sign that said "Palin/Bush Gets the Pace Advantage!" and sat close to the stage where some locals made some remarks before the show. It was kind of a test to see if youse guys were paying attention. Alas, the CNN camera was on the other side of the room, so, not unlike my experience as a paid extra in Seabiscuit, there was no visible evidence that I was actually there.

Overall, it was worthwhile. I just answered an e-mailed invitation, it wasn't like I sought out this event to attend, and nearly decided to take a pass yesterday afternoon, but I'm glad I went. Back in the spring we heard a lot about "This is what democracy looks like!" when the "I got mine screw the rest of you" unionists bussed agitators into Wisconsin to punch up the volume. But I much prefer the democracy I saw last night. I didn't see people who deserved to "go to hell" or get "taken out," as some DemLib spokespersons would put it. I merely witnessed decent people behaving decently, and was happy to be a part of it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

ArlJim - I know you really like Perry, but keep in mind - I have never voted for him. He is a politician through and through. He has no core values. Would I vote for him over Obama? Yes. Do I want him to get the nomination? No.

You speak the truth.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Not the point at all. It was not the action, but the philosophy behind it. This one issue exposes Perry for what he is - a sleeper democrat. He doesn't get it - it is NOT government's business, no matter what. He is sticking his nose where it does not belong.

.

Exactly right - Perry doesn't regret implementing the policy. He regrets the process. But he doesn't regret anything about in-state tuition for illegals!

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=bigmack]In terms of vetting he is an open book.

He has a 'Presidential look' straight out of central casting.

He ain't everything I'd like in a nom but I can't remember one that is and I don't put that much stock in my wants.

Willard "Mitt" gets the nom without question. Perry is running for a cabinet position and will get it.[/QUOTE

Interesting. I remember the dems and the msm ragging on Reagan in 1980 for being "trigger happy" and a madman at the batphone. They basically drew him up as a the villian running vs the sitting pres. Much like modern day Perry being portrayed as a "cowboy". Scare the masses.



Stupid twits, all they had to do was wait for the debates.....Now watch... "Kill Romney" part 2 is soon to come. He'll be the threat by the end of 2011

This type of thinking always bothers me. The logic goes like this: The media and left-wing portrayed Reagan as a dolt. Therefore, if the media portrays a Rep candidate as a dolt, he must be the second coming of Reagan. The argument was made with GWB and now it's being made about Perry. HUGE difference--read Reagan's private writings from the 60s/70s. He was a man who had given a great deal of thought to issues, from economics to foreign policy. I don't think we can say that about Rick Perry.

[Robert Goren]

.

Ron Paul gets it. His hypothetical from Wolfie about the 22 year old who opts out of buying insurance, then needs it was spot on. Bad for the kid, but it was his choice - his problem. You have to be held accountable for your actions.
I don't this country will ever say no to a citizen in need of health care even if he did make a dumb choice. A while back there was a thread on a fire department who let a man's house burn because he didn't pay fee to local fire department. Very few people sided with fire department even here. And that was only property. If a man's health was in danger there is not one person in a hundred who say that he should not get medical attention. In the real world he is going to get it every time. It boils down to who going to pay for it, the taxpayers or him. The 22 year old knows that when he refuses pay for insurance. He is gaming the system. Ron Paul doesn't get that.

[Greyfox]

The 22 year old knows that when he refuses pay for insurance. He is gaming the system. Ron Paul doesn't get that.

Ron Paul gets it. He more or less said that he wouldn't let the young man die.
After all he is a Physician.
However, Paul did imply that the young man would have financial consequences to look at down the road as a result of his attempt to "game" the system.
Whether all of the monies would be collected or not would be another story.
But the young man would probably have to declare personal bankruptcy and all of the consequences that go with that. Others would learn "not to game" the system as the price of doing so wouldn't be worth it.

[Robert Goren]

These comparisions of Perry to Reagan are an insult to Reagan. I am not as big a fan of Reagan as some here, but even I can see Reagan was a great President and Perry is slightly above average career politician who has done nothing to deserve being mentioned the same breath as Reagan.

[Saratoga_Mike]

These comparisions of Perry to Reagan are an insult to Reagan. I am not as big a fan of Reagan as some here, but even I can see Reagan was a great President and Perry is slightly above average career politician who has done nothing to deserve being mentioned the same breath as Reagan.

Well said (although I am a Reagan fan).

[ceejay]

I didn't see the debate. I only heard the "low-lights." My question is if Perry cannot be brought for $5000, how much would it take to buy him?

[hcap]

After watching Pauls answer to the question about the uninsured man who goes into a coma, it looks like the TPer audience reaction is a big YIKES! moment.

Last debate the TPers in the crowd gave Ponzi a big YIKES! moment for all them Texan executions.

YIKES! The audience is worse than the candidates if that is possible.

[Tom]

Yes, he gets the treatment but also a bill, and maybe loses his house, or future wages. After all, he is only 30, and is not right that all pay their fair share, as we hear so often from the Moron N Chief?

And hcap, no one was cheering the heckler - they were cheering the idea - foreign to libs - of person accountability.

Here's another thought - free tuition for illegals, so popular with the libs. Why not force the Ivory Tower crowd to give them an education free of charge? After all, it is their fair share. Why should they profit in this?

[Tom]

I didn't see the debate. I only heard the "low-lights." My question is if Perry cannot be brought for $5000, how much would it take to buy him?

At least we know the minimum bid now! :D

[ceejay]

At least we know the minimum bid now! :D
EBay? :D

[Saratoga_Mike]

Romney now leads Perry on the intrade betting markets by a margin of 40 to 35! I love the Perry chart--it's rolled over nicely since his first debate. That decline will continue as people see more of him. I wonder how those in-state tuition for illegals commericals will play? How about mandating STD-related shots for 11-yr-old girls? Social security as a Ponzi scheme? With all his flaws and there are many, Romney is a much better candidate than Perry.

By the way, how do you carry a loaded gun when you're jogging? Do you use a holster or just carry it in your hand? Not that he'd make up a story or anything...

[hcap]

hcap, no one was cheering the heckler - they were cheering the idea - foreign to libs - of person accountability.

The crowd (mob?) broke into cheers when Blitzer asked Paul " But congressman are you saying society should let the man die?" That's the YIKES moment. Just like in the last debate cheering for Ponzi's Texan executions.

[PaceAdvantage]

These comparisions of Perry to Reagan are an insult to Reagan. I am not as big a fan of Reagan as some here, but even I can see Reagan was a great President and Perry is slightly above average career politician who has done nothing to deserve being mentioned the same breath as Reagan.Well, to be fair, Reagan earned that reputation AFTER he was elected. He wasn't thought as highly of by many BEFORE he became president (and some still don't think much of him, but they're just stubborn hippies)

[hcap]

The rethug-TPer studio audience.....

"Taken together, over the last five days, we’ve learned that the way to impress Republican voters, at least the ones who show up for events like these, is to support letting the uninsured die, accusing the Fed of treason for trying to improve the economy, and executing lots of people.

There’s a deep strain of madness running through Republican politics in 2011, and it appears to be getting worse. Those wondering why the GOP presidential field appears weak, insipid, and shallow need look no further than the voters they choose to pander to."

[Saratoga_Mike]

The rethug-TPer studio audience.....

"Taken together, over the last five days, we’ve learned that the way to impress Republican voters, at least the ones who show up for events like these, is to support letting the uninsured die, accusing the Fed of treason for trying to improve the economy, and executing lots of people.

There’s a deep strain of madness running through Republican politics in 2011, and it appears to be getting worse. Those wondering why the GOP presidential field appears weak, insipid, and shallow need look no further than the voters they choose to pander to."

You make me laugh. Perry, the Tea Party darling (one of), is on the decline, and that radical right-winger Romney is on the rise. Romney will trounce Obama.

[PaceAdvantage]

You make me laugh. Perry, the Tea Party darling (one of), is on the decline, and that radical right-winger Romney is on the rise. Romney will trounce Obama.May I just say, it seems as though someone lit a serious fire under your ass lately...have never seen you this active in a political discussion, or this "passionate."

If I didn't know better, I'd surmise this kind of behavior is bordering on disingenuous to someone like me who has watched you operate in a much more reserved manner for quite some time here...

If I may ask, why the about face lately?

[hcap]

You make me laugh. Perry, the Tea Party darling (one of), is on the decline, and that radical right-winger Romney is on the rise. Romney will trounce Obama.

I could live with Romney as President. Or Huntsman for that matter. But right now the crowd on display at these debates is a problem. I suspect the 10 or 20% of voters who are independents don't like the show so far. The rethugs have to pivot to the center to pick up those voters. The party knows this and will curtail the TPers. If they can.

Yep I think Romney will get the nod, and nope Obama gets the job again

[Tom]

Reagan is the one who finally turned me. I did not like him the first part of his term, but eventually, he won me over. It is really hard to be logical and a lib at the same time. I tried hard to keep my liberal beliefs, but it just got too hard to deny reality everyday.

Thanks, Ron, for freeing me.
He must have known that someday there would be an hcap and a mostie and needed me there for him. :lol:

[BlueShoe]

Because America isn't nearly as far right as you think it is and the Republican party is much further to the right than its ever been.
America is a center right nation, believe it or like it or not. The GOP is not more conservative than it was during the Goldwater or Reagan eras; it fact, it has done the opposite and shifted to the center, something that does not set well among those of us that are paleoconservatives. It is the Democrats that have made the greatest ideological move; hard left. Because of this shift, it is only an illusion that the Republicans have become more conservative, since the difference between the two partys has become magnified. To the Marxists in the so called progressive wing of the Democratic Party the center right Republicans may seem to be far right, but they are not.

[elysiantraveller]

America is a center right nation, believe it or like it or not. The GOP is not more conservative than it was during the Goldwater or Reagan eras; it fact, it has done the opposite and shifted to the center, something that does not set well among those of us that are paleoconservatives. It is the Democrats that have made the greatest ideological move; hard left. Because of this shift, it is only an illusion that the Republicans have become more conservative, since the difference between the two partys has become magnified. To the Marxists in the so called progressive wing of the Democratic Party the center right Republicans may seem to be far right, but they are not.

The leading GOP candidate right now is declaring our largest entitlement program is a ponzi scheme.

That language alone shows the right has moved pretty far.

Another example: Marxism is dead yet you call progressive socialists Marxists.

Our politics have degraded to name-calling ideologues.

Both sides are guilty and the end result is hyper-polarization.

[Saratoga_Mike]

May I just say, it seems as though someone lit a serious fire under your ass lately...have never seen you this active in a political discussion, or this "passionate."

If I didn't know better, I'd surmise this kind of behavior is bordering on disingenuous to someone like me who has watched you operate in a much more reserved manner for quite some time here...

If I may ask, why the about face lately?

This is a fair question/point. I've been critical of Romney until the debate from a week or so ago. For the first time, he was human (not an automaton), passionate about the issues and looked presidential. Still, you might ask, does that really explain your vigor for Romney? No, it's Rick Perry. I don't like Rick Perry. I can't stress that enough. I've said that consistently. I HATE the Dumbing Down of the Rep Party movement (I've said this before). Rick Perry leads that movement, with help from a large supporting cast. I will oppose that movement with my every last breath (okay now I'm being dramatic).

As for being disingenuous, I've sent out three emails thus far today encouraging well-off friends to donate money to Romney. I can't prove that, but I don't have any reason to make something like that up. If you've seen me defend Obama on this board in the past, it has almost always (if not always) been on a personal level, not his policies. I wrote-in Chuck Hagel in 2008 (Palin's presence on the McCain ticket made it impossible for me to vote for him). I will continue to oppose Perry on this board, as long as you permit my presence.

[hcap]

Reagan is the one who finally turned me. I did not like him the first part of his term, but eventually, he won me over. It is really hard to be logical and a lib at the same time. I tried hard to keep my liberal beliefs, but it just got too hard to deny reality everyday.

Thanks, Ron, for freeing me.
He must have known that someday there would be an hcap and a mostie and needed me there for him. :lol:I guess Saint Ronald looking down from Heaven (let's hope) is counting your good deeds in "freeing" us poor misguided souls from the chains of liberalism and scoring you a minus 10. Then again if he also tuned in on his heavenly big screen, to the last 2 debates, wishing like hell he would have stayed a Democrat.

[Tom]

Zh2DeQtVyJM

[BlueShoe]

Marxism is dead yet you call progressive socialists Marxists.
This has to be a jest, right? Marxism is alive and well and has an ever increasing influence in the Democratic Party. "Progressive" is simply a cover word for Marxist. The Progressive wing of the Democratic Party is, for all practical purposes, the de facto New Communist Party, the NeoComs. Most progressives have never heard the term, let alone understand its meaning, but their core belief is the concept of Dialectical Materialism, the very foundation ideology of the Communist movement.

[Tom]

It's alive.....!

[elysiantraveller]

This has to be a jest, right? Marxism is alive and well and has an ever increasing influence in the Democratic Party. "Progressive" is simply a cover word for Marxist. The Progressive wing of the Democratic Party is, for all practical purposes, the de facto New Communist Party, the NeoComs. Most progressives have never heard the term, let alone understand its meaning, but their core belief is the concept of Dialectical Materialism, the very foundation ideology of the Communist movement.

No.

Marxism by definition is a social not a political movement. Its simple base/superstructure stuff. Marxism must originate from the base or forces of production not the means/superstructure (state).

"If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist!"

- Karl Marx

Call it whatever you want, advanced/progressive socialism, but to call it Marxist is wrong.

You also ignored my statement that we are in a era of hyper-polarity.

[boxcar]

The leading GOP candidate right now is declaring our largest entitlement program is a ponzi scheme.

That language alone shows the right has moved pretty far.

Another example: Marxism is dead yet you call progressive socialists Marxists.

Our politics have degraded to name-calling ideologues.

Both sides are guilty and the end result is hyper-polarization.

Marxism is not dead! Not hardly. It simply has evolved into different forms and now wears the pretty, sexy dress of "socialist democracies" in numerous countries.

And you should get yourself up to speed on what defines a Ponzi Scheme. This has been bandied around quite a bit in the past on this forum. SS possess all the fundamental characteristics to qualify it for what would be a prosecutable crime in the real world (private sector).

For your info, there have even been left-wingers who had honest moments and have conceded as much. Even Chris Matthews recently admitted it.

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

you have to expect hyper polarity when the left is trying to transform our ecomony to a command and control, with a statist central planning system.

the left are pulling this country into new territory and trying to turn it into something that it has never been before.
many of us are holding our ground, hence there is an ever widening gulf. you can't meet people halfway, or compromise on the basic ideals of this country. we must simply say no, enough is enough, and no amount of screaming or complaining about compromise or gridlock or hyper polarity will change our minds.

[elysiantraveller]

you have to expect hyper polarity when the left is trying to transform our ecomony to a command and control, with a statist central planning system.

the left are pulling this country into new territory and trying to turn it into something that it has never been before.
many of us are holding our ground, hence there is an ever widening gulf. you can't meet people halfway, or compromise on the basic ideals of this country. we must simply say no, enough is enough, and no amount of screaming or complaining about compromise or gridlock or hyper polarity will change our minds.

Fair enough.

If a guy like Rick Perry loses to Obama next year we can re-hash how well that strategy worked.

[ceejay]

It simply has evolved
I didn't think that you believed in evolution! :D

[ArlJim78]

This is a fair question/point. I've been critical of Romney until the debate from a week or so ago. For the first time, he was human (not an automaton), passionate about the issues and looked presidential. Still, you might ask, does that really explain your vigor for Romney? No, it's Rick Perry. I don't like Rick Perry. I can't stress that enough. I've said that consistently. I HATE the Dumbing Down of the Rep Party movement (I've said this before). Rick Perry leads that movement, with help from a large supporting cast. I will oppose that movement with my every last breath (okay now I'm being dramatic).
So if Obama ultimately releases his college transcripts and they show that he was a straight A student all through college, do you then change your support from Romney to Obama? If not why not, I mean if the only real important way to measure a candidate is by his grades I guess you would have to.

second hypothetical, I have no idea what kind of student Romney was, but if it comes out that he had some C's or D's on some of his classes somewhere along the way, do you withdraw your support for him?

your citing of Perry's grades reminds me of some of the people at the track who will spend time considering the breeding of a horse when handicapping a race for older horses who have all had raced more than 40 times.

to me its the man, his core beliefs, and his record as an executive that matter. Perry is fair game for criticism on many things, but this constant harping on his grades seems ridiculous to me. one thing I have learned in my professional career, is that grades mean almost nothing when I evaluate a potential hire. I've seen allstars with no degrees and people with masters degrees who had zero commonsense and no work ethic and not worth a dime.

[Sugar Ron]

The rethug-TPer studio audience.....

"Taken together, over the last five days, we’ve learned that the way to impress Republican voters, at least the ones who show up for events like these, is to support letting the uninsured die, accusing the Fed of treason for trying to improve the economy, and executing lots of people.

There’s a deep strain of madness running through Republican politics in 2011, and it appears to be getting worse. Those wondering why the GOP presidential field appears weak, insipid, and shallow need look no further than the voters they choose to pander to."

Quite disturbing to say the least

But you really couldn't expect anything better from a bunch of ignorant 'baggers.

[riskman]

Even if the Republicans are less evil than the Democrats (a very dubious proposition), the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Listening to the debates and the media who moderates them provides plenty of evidence of just how badly the US educational system has failed its pupils. What folly these pols could be capable of is positively laughable, but only if you like laughing because one is in dismay and fed up with all the spoon fed pablum that we get from these characters. The government has got to acknowledge the simple reality that it cannot meet its obligations and begin, in earnest, the restructuring of those obligations.With the exception of Ron Paul who is branded as a kook, can any of these pols offer a plan that will work in the real world.
Why is it that half of the people that pay no taxes are complaining about the half who do – and believe that the government will willingly make any significant reforms, versus just handing out more moolah.

[boxcar]

I didn't think that you believed in evolution! :D

Wrong! I'm a big believer in certain types. And since I've met 'cap on this forum, I've become a grade A believer in devolution. :D

Boxcar

[hcap]

Marxism is not dead! Not hardly. It simply has evolved into different forms and now wears the pretty, sexy dress of "socialist democracies" in numerous countries.

And you should get yourself up to speed on what defines a Ponzi Scheme. This has been bandied around quite a bit in the past on this forum. SS possess all the fundamental characteristics to qualify it for what would be a prosecutable crime in the real world (private sector).
You know when you are right, you are by far the rightist. Here is proof before our very eyes that MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, a dyed in the wool big time Commie is in cahoots with those Ponzi organinizing leftist Italians. We all know Ponzi was I- tal- ian. Look carefully and tell me that Gorby is not a splitting image of Charles Ponzi
http://thebestthingieverdid.com/wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/ponzi_frame.jpg

Charles Ponzi

http://www.infoplease.com/images/gorbachev.gif

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV

Still not convinced, well get a load of this. Just remember Italian, Commie, Italian, Commie, and you will see the eerie connection.

C9lvzzH0STw

[hcap]

Further proof.

"Mr. Gorbachev explained his purpose for appearing in the commercials, "I've decided to do it for two major reasons. Pizza is for everyone, it's a place where people go, it's a part of life. A place to socialise and talk to each other, which is important. To have a place, where people go to be together in a good setting."

Man, talk about community organizing!
It is well known that Mr Ponzi did quite a bit of that!

[Tom]

IF SS is a sound program, why is it always in danger of going broke?

[elysiantraveller]

Marxism is not dead! Not hardly. It simply has evolved into different forms and now wears the pretty, sexy dress of "socialist democracies" in numerous countries.

No, it can't evolve. If it changes it isn't Marxism. We have had this discussion before; Metaphysical things don't just "change."

See post 83.

[BenDiesel26]

Further proof.

"Mr. Gorbachev explained his purpose for appearing in the commercials, "I've decided to do it for two major reasons. Pizza is for everyone, it's a place where people go, it's a part of life. A place to socialise and talk to each other, which is important. To have a place, where people go to be together in a good setting."

Man, talk about community organizing!
It is well known that Mr Ponzi did quite a bit of that!

Chris Matthews: Social security is a bad ponzi scheme.

Do you not agree with your boy?

[boxcar]

Further proof.

"Mr. Gorbachev explained his purpose for appearing in the commercials, "I've decided to do it for two major reasons. Pizza is for everyone, it's a place where people go, it's a part of life. A place to socialise and talk to each other, which is important. To have a place, where people go to be together in a good setting."

Man, talk about community organizing!
It is well known that Mr Ponzi did quite a bit of that!

Has federal funding run out for you for your coherency drugs? For the last few days, each succeeding post of yours has become less comprehensible. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

Chris Matthews: Social security is a bad ponzi scheme.

Do you not agree with your boy?He is not my boy but I doubt he said that.

Link?

[Saratoga_Mike]

IF SS is a sound program, why is it always in danger of going broke?

I agree with you, but politically it was very unwise to couch it in the
"Ponzi" terms. I guess you or others could say who cares or I like straight talk, but I think it hurts Perry with older voters. Or at least that's my hope (in the primaries)!!!

[hcap]

Has federal funding run out for you for your coherency drugs? For the last few days, each succeeding post of yours has become less comprehensible. :rolleyes: You said Ponzi schemes like SS is a commie plot. Just giving you the rope to either tie together the loose ends, or hang yourself.

[Saratoga_Mike]

He is not my boy but I doubt he said that.

Link?

“Today, lots of people fortunately make it past 65,” he said. “They live into their 80s and 90s. They’re still getting checks. The system doesn’t work that way anymore. It’s not as healthy as it once was. So, how does a Republican deal with the fact it is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that the money that’s paid out every day is coming from people who have paid in that day. It’s not being made somewhere.” --Chris Matthews

As for a link, please do a google search for "Chris Matthews and Social Security and Ponzi" and you'll find a million links.

[boxcar]

No, it can't evolve. If it changes it isn't Marxism. We have had this discussion before; Metaphysical things don't just "change."

See post 83.

Everything evolves (for better or for worse). Marxism simply has taken on new forms. And, yes, even philosophies evolve. Man is an eminently mutable creature.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

You said Ponzi schemes like SS is a commie plot. Just giving you the rope to either tie together the loose ends, or hang yourself.

You are off your meds. I never said that.

Boxcar

[BenDiesel26]

He is not my boy but I doubt he said that.

Link?

From the transcript to Chris Matthews show on November 5, 2007:
Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19460016/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-june/)

RUSSERT: Well, Senator Obama had said that he had—would have everything on the table for Social Security, and now he‘s limited that, as well. So all of them can be scrutinized. But I think, Chris, the important thing for voters who are watching this, it‘s more than just a game of primary versus the general election. They‘re waiting for leadership.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RUSSERT: And if you‘re going to make tough decisions as a president, you have to answer tough questions. What are you going to do? Show us how you‘re going the lead us. Everyone knows Social Security, as it‘s constructed, is not going to be in the same place it‘s going to be for the next generation, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives.

MATTHEWS: It‘s a bad Ponzi scheme, at this point.

RUSSERT: Yes.

[boxcar]

“Today, lots of people fortunately make it past 65,” he said. “They live into their 80s and 90s. They’re still getting checks. The system doesn’t work that way anymore. It’s not as healthy as it once was. So, how does a Republican deal with the fact it is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that the money that’s paid out every day is coming from people who have paid in that day. It’s not being made somewhere.” --Chris Matthews

As for a link, please do a google search for "Chris Matthews and Social Security and Ponzi" and you'll find a million links.

It's interesting that Matthews lays all the burden, for righting this terrible wrong perpetrated upon the American people, upon the shoulders of Republicans when it was a Democrat president who spearheaded this through. He overlooks the fact that the Dems were the bad guys for passing this garbage legislation in the first place, but now wants to make the Republicans the bad hombres if they make any effort to fix it. Can you tell that bipartisanship is the farthest thing from Chris' mind? :D

Boxcar

[hcap]

As for a link, please do a google search for "Chris Matthews and Social Security and Ponzi" and you'll find a million links.

He is not my boy,I rarely watch. I prefer Maddow. Taken in context the transcript a bit different than just a flat out it's a Ponzi scheme



Social Security had to be for everybody. No means test. You paid for it while you worked. When you retired and had not other form of income, this would help you out. In fact a lot of people in the old days were impoverished without Social Security. It’s a great anti-poverty program.

But then people started to live past 65. Even the great Franklin Roosevelt didn’t make it to 65. In those days, if you made it to 65, you were lucky, you got a few bucks out of Social Security. Today, lots of people fortunately make it past 65. They live into their 80s and 90s. They’re still getting checks. The system doesn’t work that way anymore. It’s not as healthy as it once was. So, how does a Republican deal with the fact it is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that the money that’s paid out every day is coming from people who paid in that day? It’s not being made somewhere.


And I said this about SS.

Ponzi schemes are fraud. Plain and simple. Those who get suckered, get ZERO return . There is never the intention of Ponzi operators to pay off. It is designed to steal.

SS has paid seniors, presently pays and although the changing demographics will mean some belt tightening will be required, will continue to pay.

See

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1158765#post1158765

Posts 492, 494, 495

[BenDiesel26]

Taken in context the transcript a bit different than just a flat out it's a Ponzi scheme


Actually hcap, that's exactly what he said on November 5, 2007, and Tim Russert agreed. Please see my previous post.

[hcap]

[QUOTE=hcap]Taken in context the transcript a bit different than just a flat out it's a Ponzi scheme


Actually hcap, that's exactly what he said on November 5, 2007, and Tim Russert agreed. Please see my previous post.

I can not defend everything Mathews has ever said on the subject. Can you defend Ann Coulter Rush Limpbag, or Glen Beck on their idiocies? I don't rely on Mathews to make up my mind on SS

By all means post the 2007 link.


BTW,
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/limbaugh-says-kennedy-had-negroes-serve-him-booze/

[BenDiesel26]

[QUOTE=BenDiesel26]

I can not defend everything Mathews has ever said on the subject. Can you defend Ann Coulter Rush Limpbag, or Glen Beck on their idiocies? I don't rely on Mathews to make up my mind on SS

By all means post the 2007 link.


BTW,
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/limbaugh-says-kennedy-had-negroes-serve-him-booze/

I don't read, watch, or listen to them. Matthews is right. And apparently, you have not refuted it. Saying that it needs to be changed is one thing. But the problem is, in its current state, the money won't be there for me or anybody else younger than me by the time that comes. Being able to borrow and print money we don't have to pay it doesn't change the fact that its a fraud if it remains in its current form, and anybody who says otherwise is a liar. I already posted the link a few posts back.

[Tom]

I miss Pat Paulsen.

[hcap]

I don't read, watch, or listen to them. Matthews is right. And apparently, you have not refuted it. Saying that it needs to be changed is one thing. But the problem is, in its current state, the money won't be there for me or anybody else younger than me by the time that comes. Being able to borrow and print money we don't have to pay it doesn't change the fact that its a fraud if it remains in its current form, and anybody who says otherwise is a liar. I already posted the link a few posts back.Huh? I am not arguing he did not say Ponzi, I was looking for the transcript to see in what context it was said. Your link is incorrect. It was not the Chris Mathews Show. It was MEET THE PRESS

I have refuted That Social Security is a Ponzi scheme I also refuted that it will not payout full benefits to the next generation. I have posted my views, you obviously didn't bother looking at the the thread

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1158765#post1158765

Posts 492, 494, 495

Russert and Mathews are wrong....
Everyone knows Social Security, as it‘s constructed, is not going to be in the same place it‘s going to be for the next generation

Read my posts on the other thread. The CBO and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities say what Greenspan said. In September of 2007, Alan Greenspan, told Russert on Meet the Press, that Social Security’s modest (projected) shortfalls just aren’t that big a deal.

[railbird]

Saratoga mike you nailed it , My thoughts exactly ,that is when Perry lost my vote...

[boxcar]

Huh? I am not arguing he did not say Ponzi, I was looking for the transcript to see in what context it was said. Your link is incorrect. It was not the Chris Mathews Show. It was MEET THE PRESS

You're getting helpless!

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/09/13/liberals-also-believe-social-security-is-a-ponzi-scheme/

And,

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2011/09/09/shocker-chris-matthews-admits-social-security-ponzi-scheme

I have refuted That Social Security is a Ponzi scheme I also refuted that it will not payout full benefits to the next generation. I have posted my views, you obviously didn't bother looking at the the tread

Yeah, your refutation was about as lame as this guy's justification for the scam:

While it is true the term Ponzi conjures up the image of an illegal plot–which Social Security is not–there is no denying it is a pyramid scheme and would be considered a scam if any entity other than the government operated it. The main difference is unlike Ponzis operated by criminals, Social Security can never really fail, because it is backed up by the power of the government to confiscate as much of the taxpayer’s money as needed.

Yup, there's the answer. Just confiscate (as in steal) the money to fund the shortfalls. This is what muggers do on the streets, isn't it, 'cap: Confiscate property from others? :rolleyes:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/12/social-security-ponzi-perry/

Boxcar

[hcap]

boxcar You're getting helpless!
The first time Mathews said it, was supposed to be from the transcript to the Chris Matthews show on November 5, 2007 BenDiesel26 provided this link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19460016/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-june/

That is not it. Where in the links you provided oh Mr Perfect, is the transcript. I did track it down to Meet the Press. But no transcript.

Ok, Mr Perfect?

BTW, read the 3 posts I mentioned for the technical numbers on why SS is not in deep trouble but fixable easily. Warning it quotes the CBO, another commie organization in on the Al Gore international Illuminati Conspiracy.

[bigmack]

He is not my boy,I rarely watch. I prefer Maddow.
Do you refer to BO as "boy king" :confused: as she did last night?

ogg97u65fes

You use "boy" don't you, hcap?

[boxcar]

The first time Mathews said it, was supposed to be from the transcript to the Chris Matthews show on November 5, 2007 BenDiesel26 provided this link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19460016/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-june/

That is not it. Where in the links you provided oh Mr Perfect, is the transcript. I did track it down to Meet the Press. But no transcript.

Ok, Mr Perfect?


Geesh, you need to get back on your meds. :rolleyes:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/09/social-security-is-a-ponzi-scheme-says-chris-matthews/

Don't forget to turn the volume up, so that you can hear his words. :rolleyes:

BTW, read the 3 posts I mentioned for the technical numbers on why SS is not in deep trouble but fixable easily. Warning it quotes the CBO, another commie organization in on the Al Gore international Illuminati Conspiracy.

Yeah, define "fixable easily". I'm sure you mean, screwing retirees even more by getting people to pay more in and get even less out when they retire. After all, it's very easy for the the state to confiscate our money, isn't it? :rolleyes: Some fix!

And this from a Chicago rag:

Social Security's in trouble

Everybody knew it was coming, but it arrived faster than almost anyone expected.

As of this year, Social Security will be running in the red for the first time in a quarter-century.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/burns-on-business/2010/02/social-securitys-in-trouble.html

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

But it is a ponzi scheme...why deny the truth? Just because you're able to keep the scheme going doesn't make it any less of a scheme...how long did Madoff keep it going before his finally broke down?

And hcap, you simply look silly trying to spin Matthews' comment...

Keep pounding Perry on the Ponzi thing though...I'm sure that will work out for you in the end....just like SS.... :lol:

[mostpost]

But it is a ponzi scheme...why deny the truth? Just because you're able to keep the scheme going doesn't make it any less of a scheme...how long did Madoff keep it going before his finally broke down?

And hcap, you simply look silly trying to spin Matthews' comment...

Keep pounding Perry on the Ponzi thing though...I'm sure that will work out for you in the end....just like SS.... :lol:
Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. Anyone who thinks it is does not know what a Ponzi scheme is, and does not know what Social Security is. A Ponzi scheme is not just using money from later investors to pay off earlier investors.
A Ponzi scheme involves large payoffs to early investors in order to attract later investors. A Ponzi scheme requires paying those early investors solely from later investors, because the money the early investors contribute is taken by the scheme operator. In a Ponzi scheme the required number of investors increases rapidly because the entire investment is lost at each level.

In other words; I start a Ponzi scheme. I contact ten people and they each give me one hundred dollars. Instead of investing it, I put it in my wallet. But I want those ten people to give me more money. So I find twenty people. They each give me one hundred dollars. From that $2000 I take $1800 and give my original ten $20 each as a dividend. Now I have no money left. I have made no ivestments and I have 30 clients waiting for news of their investments and for their dividend checks. I won't go any further into this, but you can see where this is going to be a problem.

So how is Social Security different. First, all of the money I put into Social Security stayed in Social Security. Yes, some of it has been borrowed, but none of it has been stolen. Second, Social Security does not require an ever expanding group of payers. All that is required is that the number of people paying in is in rough balance with the number of people paying out.

Where we have run into difficulties now is that the Baby Boomers have upset this balance. There is a bubble which must be dealt with. One thing about a bubble is that after the bubble, things return to normal.

There is also the matter of people living longer than previously. And there is the fact that wages have not risen very much in recent years. Therefor contributions are relatively lower.

But none of these things has anything to do with whether Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It is not. It is a pay as you go plan. Money comes in one end of the pipeline from workers and goes out the other to retirees. Money that goes in is not siphoned off to enrich a con man. All the money goes to sustain the system. Furthermore the money is invested legitimately and the dividends go into the fund.

I hope this explanation helps you to see that Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. .......Oh, who am I kidding. :bang: :bang: It is only a question of time before someone else chimes in with "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

[ElKabong]

This type of thinking always bothers me. The logic goes like this: The media and left-wing portrayed Reagan as a dolt. Therefore, if the media portrays a Rep candidate as a dolt, he must be the second coming of Reagan. The argument was made with GWB and now it's being made about Perry. HUGE difference--read Reagan's private writings from the 60s/70s. He was a man who had given a great deal of thought to issues, from economics to foreign policy. I don't think we can say that about Rick Perry.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I am suggesting Perry is "the 2nd coming of Reagan". Either you(a) didn't read my post all the way thru, or (b) wanted to make a small statement of sorts, in an inaccurate manner.

Read my post again. I stated the msm takes a new frontrunner from the right & tries to portray them in a negative light. In Perry and Reagan's case it's b/c they tried to paint them as some sort of trigger happy types. After W was elected, the msm did the same to him.

W took the low road during the campaign, didn't give them much of a target. Only during the Chad-gate did they start to turn the heat on W & never let up thereafter

[lsbets]

This is great. Too funny. Here's a guy back in 1997 calling SS a ponzi scheme. The guys name is Paul Krugman:

Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR21.6/krugmann.html

Krugman. The loon you guys idolize. Former Enron advisor. The man who said we needed a housing bubble in 2002 so the economy could grow and then later said he never said that. Krugman. Ponzi scheme. :lol:

[hcap]

This is great. Too funny. Here's a guy back in 1997 calling SS a ponzi scheme. The guys name is Paul Krugman:

Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR21.6/krugmann.html

Krugman. The loon you guys idolize. Former Enron advisor. The man who said we needed a housing bubble in 2002 so the economy could grow and then later said he never said that. Krugman. Ponzi scheme. :lol:Reread it.

He is saying at one point, the pay outs were more than what was paid in per recipient.

because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. .Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in)


Krugman is saying there is an aspect of Social Security that, at one point in time, had a Ponzi game aspect. He then says: “Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in.”

Further, it is a federal program and like other programs, supported by the tax base, shortfalls that will occur..."(and today's young may well get less than they put in)"are not a fatal flaw and will not occur until 2036. Here is Krugman as of August 15, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16krugman.html

..But neither of these potential problems is a clear and present danger. Social Security has been running surpluses for the last quarter-century, banking those surpluses in a special account, the so-called trust fund. The program won’t have to turn to Congress for help or cut benefits until or unless the trust fund is exhausted, which the program’s actuaries don’t expect to happen until 2037 — and there’s a significant chance, according to their estimates, that that day will never come.

Read it, and the most recent report by the social security trustees and the CBO back up that statement. . The thread where I cover ALL of this is.....
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1158765#post1158765

Posts 492, 494, 495

[PaceAdvantage]

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. Anyone who thinks it is does not know what a Ponzi scheme is, and does not know what Social Security is. A Ponzi scheme is not just using money from later investors to pay off earlier investors.
A Ponzi scheme involves large payoffs to early investors in order to attract later investors. A Ponzi scheme requires paying those early investors solely from later investors, because the money the early investors contribute is taken by the scheme operator. In a Ponzi scheme the required number of investors increases rapidly because the entire investment is lost at each level.

In other words; I start a Ponzi scheme. I contact ten people and they each give me one hundred dollars. Instead of investing it, I put it in my wallet. But I want those ten people to give me more money. So I find twenty people. They each give me one hundred dollars. From that $2000 I take $1800 and give my original ten $20 each as a dividend. Now I have no money left. I have made no ivestments and I have 30 clients waiting for news of their investments and for their dividend checks. I won't go any further into this, but you can see where this is going to be a problem.

So how is Social Security different. First, all of the money I put into Social Security stayed in Social Security. Yes, some of it has been borrowed, but none of it has been stolen. Second, Social Security does not require an ever expanding group of payers. All that is required is that the number of people paying in is in rough balance with the number of people paying out.

Where we have run into difficulties now is that the Baby Boomers have upset this balance. There is a bubble which must be dealt with. One thing about a bubble is that after the bubble, things return to normal.

There is also the matter of people living longer than previously. And there is the fact that wages have not risen very much in recent years. Therefor contributions are relatively lower.

But none of these things has anything to do with whether Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It is not. It is a pay as you go plan. Money comes in one end of the pipeline from workers and goes out the other to retirees. Money that goes in is not siphoned off to enrich a con man. All the money goes to sustain the system. Furthermore the money is invested legitimately and the dividends go into the fund.

I hope this explanation helps you to see that Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. .......Oh, who am I kidding. :bang: :bang: It is only a question of time before someone else chimes in with "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.Dude, you're not even funny...give it up...I know what Social Security is, and I know what a Ponzi scheme is. If you can't see the similarities, I'm sorry for you.

So, here we have evidence of Chris Matthews, hero newsman of the left, and Paul Krugman, hero economist of the left, both using the phrase PONZI SCHEME to describe SOCIAL SECURITY, but I'm the jackass. Me and Perry. We're the ones who are wrong when we use that description, but Matthews and Krugman will continue to be GENIUSES in your eyes.

You know what? Go tell someone who gives a rats ass about what you're spinning today. Do you realize your stubbornness and total 100% devotion to your left-leaning ways is so much more extreme than any right-leaner here is to theirs? You argue every single damn point that is brought up here, even when you know it might be DEAD WRONG. And even THEN, it's a 50/50 proposition on whether or not you'll admit to your error (as was the case with the "Lincoln being the founder of the Republican Party" fiasco).

You seriously need new material man...because this is getting old, tired and sad.

[PaceAdvantage]

Reread it.

He is saying at one point, the pay outs were more than what was paid in per recipient.



Krugman is saying there is an aspect of Social Security that, at one point in time, had a Ponzi game aspect. He then says: “Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in.”

Further, it is a federal program and like other programs, supported by the tax base, shortfalls that will occur..."(and today's young may well get less than they put in)"are not a fatal flaw and will not occur until 2036. Here is Krugman as of August 15, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16krugman.html

..But neither of these potential problems is a clear and present danger. Social Security has been running surpluses for the last quarter-century, banking those surpluses in a special account, the so-called trust fund. The program won’t have to turn to Congress for help or cut benefits until or unless the trust fund is exhausted, which the program’s actuaries don’t expect to happen until 2037 — and there’s a significant chance, according to their estimates, that that day will never come.

Read it, and the most recent report by the social security trustees and the CBO back up that statement. . The thread where I cover ALL of this is.....
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1158765#post1158765

Posts 492, 494, 495And here's the tag...out goes mosty, in comes hcap, sounding every bit as much the fool.

Spin away boys...what's the matter? Afraid you won't be able to use the ol' PONZI club on Perry much longer? What a bunch of buffoons.

I hope you guys lose every single important election from now until November 2012. Let's start with Weiner's special replacement election...ooops...that already happened...get used to this feeling:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-special-elections-20110914,0,3812643.story

[hcap]

The first time Mathews said it, was supposed to be from the transcript to the Chris Matthews show on November 5, 2007 BenDiesel26 provided this link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1946001...-matthews-june/

That is not it. Where in the links you provided oh Mr Perfect, is the transcript. I did track it down to Meet the Press. But no transcript.

Ok, Mr Perfect?



Geesh, you need to get back on your meds.
You are totally oblivious as to what is going on, on this thread. The transcript I am looking for IS NOT of the recent remarks by Mathews, rather the 2007 Matthews remarks on November 5, 2007 BenDiesel26 provided this link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1946001...-matthews-june/

It is incorrect. I said I traced it down to a Meet thw Press show, but in order ti to get a fair representation of what was said, I would like the transcript. You keep babling about the recent show. THAT WE GOT. What about the the 2007 Meet the Press transcript?

[bigmack]

Krugman is saying there is an aspect of Social Security that, at one point in time, had a Ponzi game aspect. He then says: “Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in.”
lsbets, talk to me. Dig this little twist & turn, hair splitting, cha cha he be dancin'.

I'm tellin' ya, criticizing KrugMan to hcap is almost akin to criticizing Sun Myung Moon to a Moonie.

[hcap]

And here's the tag...out goes mosty, in comes hcap, sounding every bit as much the fool.

Spin away boys...what's the matter? Afraid you won't be able to use the ol' PONZI club on Perry much longer? What a bunch of buffoons.

I hope you guys lose every single important election from now until November 2012. Let's start with Weiner's special replacement election...ooops...that already happened...get used to this feeling:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-special-elections-20110914,0,3812643.story

The Krubman quote from Ls. was in response to another paper, and Krugman clearly states that the Ponzi aspect was when recipients took out more than what they paid in. Read the recent Krugman article and the posts I referenced to see that the SS trustees and the CBO dispute that SS is in trouble.

[bigmack]

The utter hilarity as hcap & mostpost wiggle to keep anyone else out of the "Ponzi scheme" loop in hopes of it sticking heavily on their pin-up boy.

Come on fellas, you're mad about him. :kiss:

[hcap]

The utter hilarity as hcap & mostpost wiggle to keep anyone else out of the "Ponzi scheme" loop in hopes of it sticking heavily on their pin-up boy.

Come on fellas, you're mad about him. :kiss:I know you think the CBO is an Al Gore International Illuminati Conspiracy©, however both the CBO, and the Social Security Board of Trustees, had this to say. Since you gentlemen refuse to read my original post, I will repeat it

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3104

The Longer-Term Outlook

The Social Security Board of Trustees released its annual report on August 5.[5] The Social Security actuaries and CBO do their projections independently; they often differ in detail but generally tell a similar story. The trustees’ projections extend for 75 years to help put short-term fluctuations (like the current recession) into perspective.

Three key dates often receive attention. In this year’s report, those are:

* The date when annual Social Security costs begin to exceed the program’s tax income, not counting its interest income. Like CBO, the trustees expect a few years of so-called negative cash flow — in the trustees’ case, in 2010 and 2011— followed by several positive years as economic recovery takes hold. Like CBO, the trustees forecast that this cash-flow measure will turn negative permanently later in the decade as the retirement of the baby boom generation accelerates.
* The date when Social Security’s annual costs begin to exceed its total income, including interest. When that happens, Social Security will continue to pay full benefits, but will do so by drawing on trust fund assets (that is, by redeeming the Treasury bonds that the trust funds hold). The trustees expect that to happen in 2025.
* The date when the trust funds will be depleted and the program thus can no longer pay full benefits. The trustees expect that to occur in 2037, as does CBO.[6] After that date, if policymakers took no other action to shore up the program, benefits would have to be trimmed by about one-fourth.[7]

[bigmack]

The date when the trust funds will be depleted and the program thus can no longer pay full benefits. The trustees expect that to occur in 2037, as does CBO.[6] After that date, if policymakers took no other action to shore up the program, benefits would have to be trimmed by about one-fourth
Stay true to form. For the next 10 posts tell people they're ignorant because they don't believe your linkipoo's.

Breath easy folks. hcap has done his homework. SS is super duper OK! Expect that green check for...Well heck.... ForEver & Ever!

Yee Haw.

[hcap]

You are certainly true to form.

All Hat, No Cattle,
No cash, all flash.
No substance all bupkis

Mr Glibberish, howsabout you coming up with a source as neutral as the The Social Security Board of Trustees? Oh wait, they lie, the CBO lies and so does everyone else other than WorldNutDaily.

Ok post what ElGasbag or Faux says.
But please No gibberish, Mr Glibberish.

[hcap]

And the Trustees. On Al Gore's payroll?
Or just snorting too much CO2?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Quite disturbing to say the least

But you really couldn't expect anything better from a bunch of ignorant 'baggers.

I just realized you get all your material from "The Ed Show." He's the source of all your little nicknames and everything else. How pitiful. I'd say the same if you continually quoted Hannity or Rush. Next time you post something please give Ed proper credit.

[Tom]

Maybe it is really Sugar Ed?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Entirely possible. Now watch Sugar Ed dispute it.

[BenDiesel26]

Paul Krugman, Boston Review, December 1996-January 1997:

Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).

[Valuist]

The rethug-TPer studio audience.....

"Taken together, over the last five days, we’ve learned that the way to impress Republican voters, at least the ones who show up for events like these, is to support letting the uninsured die, accusing the Fed of treason for trying to improve the economy, and executing lots of people.

There’s a deep strain of madness running through Republican politics in 2011, and it appears to be getting worse. Those wondering why the GOP presidential field appears weak, insipid, and shallow need look no further than the voters they choose to pander to."

The Fed is trying to improve the economy? Are you on crack? There is a reason gold has risen steadily to over $1800/ounce. Nobody has any faith in our Federal Reserve......except apparently, you.

[hcap]

Paul Krugman, Boston Review, December 1996-January 1997:Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan:

I have already put this one to rest. Lsbets posted it yesterday.

Now where is the correct link to the 2007 Meet The Press where Mathews and Russert discuss SS. The one you posted is incorrect, (The Chris Mathews Show is wrong) and boxcar still dies not understand that. Maybe you don't either or you don't have it?

[lsbets]

Put it to rest? You are insane. Seriously. It seems you have no grasp of reality.

[hcap]

The Fed is trying to improve the economy? Are you on crack?

Accusing the Fed of treason is the problem. Reductio ad Hitlerum used all the time by reopublicans. Red meat at the debate. I was expecting the crowd(mob) to start with thumbs up and thumbs down then the release of the lions.

[boxcar]

You are totally oblivious as to what is going on, on this thread. The transcript I am looking for IS NOT of the recent remarks by Mathews, rather the 2007 Matthews remarks on November 5, 2007 BenDiesel26 provided this link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1946001...-matthews-june/

It is incorrect. I said I traced it down to a Meet thw Press show, but in order ti to get a fair representation of what was said, I would like the transcript. You keep babling about the recent show. THAT WE GOT. What about the the 2007 Meet the Press transcript?

What about it? Why are you so obsessed with that? Because you don't like his 2011 comments? :rolleyes: You're hopeless.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I know you think the CBO is an Al Gore International Illuminati Conspiracy©, however both the CBO, and the Social Security Board of Trustees, had this to say. Since you gentlemen refuse to read my original post, I will repeat it

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3104

The Longer-Term Outlook

The Social Security Board of Trustees released its annual report on August 5.[5] The Social Security actuaries and CBO do their projections independently; they often differ in detail but generally tell a similar story. The trustees’ projections extend for 75 years to help put short-term fluctuations (like the current recession) into perspective.

Three key dates often receive attention. In this year’s report, those are:

* The date when annual Social Security costs begin to exceed the program’s tax income, not counting its interest income. Like CBO, the trustees expect a few years of so-called negative cash flow — in the trustees’ case, in 2010 and 2011— followed by several positive years as economic recovery takes hold. Like CBO, the trustees forecast that this cash-flow measure will turn negative permanently later in the decade as the retirement of the baby boom generation accelerates.
* The date when Social Security’s annual costs begin to exceed its total income, including interest. When that happens, Social Security will continue to pay full benefits, but will do so by drawing on trust fund assets (that is, by redeeming the Treasury bonds that the trust funds hold). The trustees expect that to happen in 2025.
* The date when the trust funds will be depleted and the program thus can no longer pay full benefits. The trustees expect that to occur in 2037, as does CBO.[6] After that date, if policymakers took no other action to shore up the program, benefits would have to be trimmed by about one-fourth.[7]

So, the nation should wait until the 11th hour of 2037 to put in the fix? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[riskman]

So, what is the fix?

[Sugar Ron]

I just realized you get all your material from "The Ed Show." He's the source of all your little nicknames and everything else. How pitiful. I'd say the same if you continually quoted Hannity or Rush. Next time you post something please give Ed proper credit.

OMG ... that's hilarious too.

PLEASE tell me you don't work for our CIA, Mike... lol

[boxcar]

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.

The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors. Usually, the scheme is interrupted by legal authorities before it collapses because a Ponzi scheme is suspected or because the promoter is selling unregistered securities. As more investors become involved, the likelihood of the scheme coming to the attention of authorities increases.

The scheme is named after Charles Ponzi[1] who became notorious for using the technique in early 1920.[2] Ponzi did not invent the scheme (for example Charles Dickens's 1844 novel The Life and Adventures of Martin Chuzzlewit described such a scheme decades before Ponzi was born),[3] but his operation took in so much money that it was the first to become known throughout the United States. Ponzi's original scheme was based on the arbitrage of international reply coupons for postage stamps; however, he soon diverted investors' money to support payments to earlier investors and himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Just substitute "investors" for taxpayers. And as far as perpetuating the payouts, an increase in taxes is not the only "fix" when it comes to the government. Other solutions for keeping the scheme afloat is to drastically reduce the rate of return (i.e. profits or monthly payouts) or alter the minimum age for collecting benefits. In any of these scenarios, the taxpayer suffers serious loss of value for their "investment".

As stated previously, SS possesses all the fundamental characteristics that constitute a Ponzi Scheme. The only difference between a private sector version and this government version is that the government has the power of taxation and/or the power to radically alter the terms of the "insurance contract".

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is just plain wrong! And it always will be.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

OMG ... that's hilarious too.

PLEASE tell me you don't work for our CIA, Mike... lol

What's so funny? That all your material comes from The Ed Show? It wasn't meant to be funny anyway. I was merely making an observation. Try having an original thought - you're the Rick Perry of the left.

[Sugar Ron]

What's so funny? That all your material comes from The Ed Show? It wasn't meant to be funny anyway. I was merely making an observation. Try having an original thought - you're the Rick Perry of the left.

Dude, you obviously won't believe this, but I'll say it anyway.

The only time I've EVER paid any attention to "The Ed Show" was when I played a clip that was linked on the HuffPo site the other week that showed Ed going off on the schoolboy senator from FL.

[BenDiesel26]

My fault hcap. Here's the correct one. Just do a control-f for ponzi. Matthews, Russert, and Krugman all agree. How do you put to rest that Krugman refers to the "ponzi" aspect of social security? It happened.

Chris Matthews on Social Security in 2007: It's a bad ponzi scheme, at this point.

Russert's reply: Yes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21653849/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-nov/

[Saratoga_Mike]

Dude, you obviously won't believe this, but I'll say it anyway.

The only time I've EVER paid any attention to "The Ed Show" was when I played a clip that was linked on the HuffPo site the other week that showed Ed going off on the schoolboy senator from FL.

So it's pure coincidence that you use all the same nicknames for the Rep candidates as Ed? Yes, and George Allen just came up with the term "macaca" out of the blue. Both claims are tough to believe, but since I like you, I'll let it pass. And please keep your composure in the future. The "dude...blah blah" side is very unbecoming of you.

[hcap]

1hd1UbSPx-E&



" The incident highlighted something that I don’t think most political commentators have fully absorbed: at this point, American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.

Now, there are two things you should know about the Blitzer-Paul exchange. The first is that after the crowd weighed in, Mr. Paul basically tried to evade the question, asserting that warm-hearted doctors and charitable individuals would always make sure that people received the care they needed — or at least they would if they hadn’t been corrupted by the welfare state. Sorry, but that’s a fantasy. People who can’t afford essential medical care often fail to get it, and always have — and sometimes they die as a result.

The second is that very few of those who die from lack of medical care look like Mr. Blitzer’s hypothetical individual who could and should have bought insurance. In reality, most uninsured Americans either have low incomes and cannot afford insurance, or are rejected by insurers because they have chronic conditions."

....Every ones favorite commentator Paul Krugman

[JustRalph]

" The incident highlighted something that I don’t think most political commentators have fully absorbed: at this point, American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.
[/B]

Many of us have seen it that way for the last 20 years. Get with it........