Seems like some folks are upset about Rick Perry’s assertion that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.
Now, I don’t know if I’m for Perry or not. I don’t trust him. He possesses many of the attributes of the consummate politician, both good or bad. That means nothing.
There are only a few politicians I trust, and most of them are local folks. Even among the locals, there are those who put their own agendas above those of the public.
So, when I say, let’s talk about his remarks, I’m not supporting him, although I believe if you look at his assertion with an open mind, you’ll be able to see his point.
I’m not trying to change your mind. Most of you are too wise for that, but I just want to explain his point-of-view.
First, just what is a Ponzi Scheme?
It is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors, not from actual profits earned, but from money paid by subsequent investors.
The scheme draws new investors by offering returns other companies can’t guarantee. These returns are short term and offer abnormal and consistent returns. When other investors see that old Joe Moneybags’ investment with ‘Pie in the Sky Mutuals’ is drawing twenty percent, they fall all over their own greed to get in on the action.
The only way for the scheme to continue is to entice new investors--continually--as in day after day—to feed on itself.
Most of you have heard of Bernie Madoff who scored billions off a long running Ponzi Scheme.
A la Perry, let’s compare his plan to our Social Security system, shall we?
Bernie: took money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later.
Social Security: Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a ‘Trust Fund’ and made available later.
Bernie: Instead of investing the money, old Bernie spent it on nice homes and yachts.
Social Security: After depositing money in a ‘Trust Fund’, politicians borrowed from it to supplant monies for the General Revenue Fund, using it for general spending and vote buying.
Bernie: When the time came to pay the investors back, Bernie simply used funds from new investors to pay the older investors.
Social Security: When benefits for the older investors became due, politicians paid the old codgers with money taken from younger and newer wage earners.
Bernie: When Bernie’s scheme was discovered, you-know-what hit the fan. New investors scattered like quail. Money dried up.
Social Security: When Social Security runs out of money, politicians try to force taxpayers to send them more or they cancel or pare down benefits to all those who paid into it.
Now, there you have it. That’s the point Perry is trying to make.
If you can see a difference in a Ponzi Scheme and Social Security, I’d appreciate you let me know. I’ll even print your response (as long as it is printable).
Now the old boy in my high school chat group who put me on to this comparison added one more comparison.
I think it is interesting enough to repeat here.
Today, Bernie Madoff is in jail.
Today, politicians remain in Washington with fat medical and retirement benefits or have retired to bask in the fact they are rich as Croesus and have federal buildings and libraries named after them.
Does Madoff deserve prison?
Definitely! His actions were deliberate, bringing about devastating ruin to hundreds of lives.
What about the politicians who’ve taken from Social Security?
I don’t know about you, but I see a double standard here that has no place in our country.
What to do about it?
Term limits.
House members-three terms; Senate-two terms.
A keenly perceptive activist in the intellectual life of our country, Milton Friedman, once remarked. “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years, there would be a shortage of sand.
Ain’t it the truth.
rconwell@gt.rr.com
http://www.kentconwell.blogspot.com/
www.goodreads.com/author/show/13557.Kent_Conwell
www.amazon.com/-/e/B001JPCK26
Showing posts with label rick perry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rick perry. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Rick Perry Revisited
A couple weeks back, a gentleman stopped me in front of the post office and questioned me about an article I’d written about Rick Perry. He had considered voting for Perry until he read the article. Now, he had questions.
Well, we all do, and I hastened to explain that while I had strong reservations about our governor, what I considered his negative aspects no way precluded my voting either for or against him.
I was just stating facts. And I could name more issues such as the birther stuff, seceding from the U.S., and his penchant to be a bedfellows with Cintra, a Spanish-based toll-road developer/operator and Texas-based Zachry Construction
But then, you and I could take each candidate and find a list of negatives as long as your arm.
Perry’s a farm boy. He was an Eagle scout, A&M graduate, and an Air Force pilot.
He started out in politics as a democrat, but along the way switched sides. Much is made of the fact he has never lost an election, although in 2006 he won only by a plurality over Chris Bell, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Kinky Friedman, a Libertarian candidate, and a write-in independent.
Perry polled 39 percent; Bell 29.8 percent; Strayhorn 18 percent, and Friedman 12.6 percent. The Libertarian and the write-in polled 0.6 percent.
It is interesting to note that less than 40 percent of registered voters participated in the election. So, out of approximately 10.5 million registered voters, he receive 1.7 million votes.
Put another way, he was elected by 17-18% of Texas citizens. Certainly not a majority choice. Perhaps just the lesser of six evils, huh?
He became only the third governor in state history elected by a plurality of less than 40 percent of votes cast.
Other elections, he solidly defeated his opponent.
It is true during his tenure, almost half of the new jobs in the country have been created here in our state. How much credit he should get, I don’t know. I do know he used taxpayer money to entice companies to create jobs in the state, but then, isn’t a governor supposed to take steps to help his state prosper?
Texas is a right-to-work state, meaning we’re not at the mercy of unions (although in their way, they do good). We have no state income tax nor state tax on capital gains, all choice plums for businesses looking to relocate or start up. You can’t give him credit for that. We had that before him.
This last legislative session, he tried, but failed to ban sanctuary cities-those that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by now allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status. I applaud him for the effort.
Austin, Baytown, Brownsville, Channelview, Denton, Dallas, El Cenizo, Fort Worth, Houston, Katy, Laredo, League City, McAllen, Port Arthur, and San Antonio are all considered sanctuary cities. That means illegals can live there without fear of arrest and deportation while at the same time milking cities of funds designed to support legal citizens of need. Those city officials should be real proud of themselves.
In 2003, Perry managed to get tort reform, which means he put caps on non-monetary medical malpractice damages. Such legislation was instrumental in bringing more doctors into the state.
Texas has always been a litigious state, with Jefferson County having one of the most favorable environments for trial attorneys. This last session, Perry signed a ‘loser pays’ bill, which, depending on the situation, makes a losing plaintiff liable for the other party’s attorney fees.
On the flip side of this legislation is the concern that the poor will not pursue legitimate claims out of fear of losing.
He signed the voter I.D. bill, which is designed to prevent fraud at the ballot box.
Would I vote for him?
To the gentleman in front of the post office, I’ll admit I’m not sure. Besides, we’ve a long way to go. I can’t help thinking that someone who packs a .380 magnum while jogging could very well shoot himself in the foot.
The gentleman with whom I spoke is like most us, desperate to get the country going again. Many probably share his feeling when he said, ‘if the election was between Mortimer Snerd and Obama, I’d vote for Mortimer.’
What if it were between Perry and Mortimer?
You call it.
rconwell@gt.rr.com
http://www.kentconwell.blogspot.com/
www.goodreads.com/author/show/13557.Kent_Conwell
www.amazon.com/-/e/B001JPCK26
Well, we all do, and I hastened to explain that while I had strong reservations about our governor, what I considered his negative aspects no way precluded my voting either for or against him.
I was just stating facts. And I could name more issues such as the birther stuff, seceding from the U.S., and his penchant to be a bedfellows with Cintra, a Spanish-based toll-road developer/operator and Texas-based Zachry Construction
But then, you and I could take each candidate and find a list of negatives as long as your arm.
Perry’s a farm boy. He was an Eagle scout, A&M graduate, and an Air Force pilot.
He started out in politics as a democrat, but along the way switched sides. Much is made of the fact he has never lost an election, although in 2006 he won only by a plurality over Chris Bell, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Kinky Friedman, a Libertarian candidate, and a write-in independent.
Perry polled 39 percent; Bell 29.8 percent; Strayhorn 18 percent, and Friedman 12.6 percent. The Libertarian and the write-in polled 0.6 percent.
It is interesting to note that less than 40 percent of registered voters participated in the election. So, out of approximately 10.5 million registered voters, he receive 1.7 million votes.
Put another way, he was elected by 17-18% of Texas citizens. Certainly not a majority choice. Perhaps just the lesser of six evils, huh?
He became only the third governor in state history elected by a plurality of less than 40 percent of votes cast.
Other elections, he solidly defeated his opponent.
It is true during his tenure, almost half of the new jobs in the country have been created here in our state. How much credit he should get, I don’t know. I do know he used taxpayer money to entice companies to create jobs in the state, but then, isn’t a governor supposed to take steps to help his state prosper?
Texas is a right-to-work state, meaning we’re not at the mercy of unions (although in their way, they do good). We have no state income tax nor state tax on capital gains, all choice plums for businesses looking to relocate or start up. You can’t give him credit for that. We had that before him.
This last legislative session, he tried, but failed to ban sanctuary cities-those that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by now allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status. I applaud him for the effort.
Austin, Baytown, Brownsville, Channelview, Denton, Dallas, El Cenizo, Fort Worth, Houston, Katy, Laredo, League City, McAllen, Port Arthur, and San Antonio are all considered sanctuary cities. That means illegals can live there without fear of arrest and deportation while at the same time milking cities of funds designed to support legal citizens of need. Those city officials should be real proud of themselves.
In 2003, Perry managed to get tort reform, which means he put caps on non-monetary medical malpractice damages. Such legislation was instrumental in bringing more doctors into the state.
Texas has always been a litigious state, with Jefferson County having one of the most favorable environments for trial attorneys. This last session, Perry signed a ‘loser pays’ bill, which, depending on the situation, makes a losing plaintiff liable for the other party’s attorney fees.
On the flip side of this legislation is the concern that the poor will not pursue legitimate claims out of fear of losing.
He signed the voter I.D. bill, which is designed to prevent fraud at the ballot box.
Would I vote for him?
To the gentleman in front of the post office, I’ll admit I’m not sure. Besides, we’ve a long way to go. I can’t help thinking that someone who packs a .380 magnum while jogging could very well shoot himself in the foot.
The gentleman with whom I spoke is like most us, desperate to get the country going again. Many probably share his feeling when he said, ‘if the election was between Mortimer Snerd and Obama, I’d vote for Mortimer.’
What if it were between Perry and Mortimer?
You call it.
rconwell@gt.rr.com
http://www.kentconwell.blogspot.com/
www.goodreads.com/author/show/13557.Kent_Conwell
www.amazon.com/-/e/B001JPCK26
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)