If you watch the 1992 debates again. Perot is just laying waste to Bush the whole time. He barely acknowledges Clinton half the time which is understandable since he's just focusing on government debt the whole time and how Bush failed at managing it. Meanwhile Clinton can chime in every now and then and say he managed the budget in Arkansas.
BJ is correct though and the exit polls showed that even if he wasn't in the race Clinton would've run. While Perot focused more of his ire on Bush that was understandable since Bush was the incumbent but given that he ran again the following election I don't think he was in any way deliberately helping Clinton.
the Kinkster has been about selling books, making money for quite a few years. He is one of my favorite right wing comedians, though. I couldn't believe it when relatively informed folks thought he was really interrested in politics in a serious way. Are you sure this is for real? Kinky is sort of like Sarah Palin in that he likes the publicity and money poltical celebrity brings himm. On the otherhand maybe this is why the Kinkster siphoned off the vote to help Perry a couple of elections ago?
What's funny is that when you read the article again Kinky is basically admitting that he's just as dumb and apathetic as your average Texan. "Well I ran against him because of his blatant lies, but then he called me, and I became all sentimental about how nice his hair is, and then suddenly I believed his blatant lies - enough to write this lousy editorial!"
We've been here before in 2008... http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=3679305&postcount=34 and again in 2008... http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=3415795&postcount=33 and in 2002... http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=674204&postcount=9 The last one is probably the most definitive.
Now this was said in jest but even so a pretty dumb thing to say when people have died and millions are going to be dealing with the aftermath. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44313712/ns/politics/#.TlvArF3SzHo Bachmann: Irene is God's message for Washington The Tea Party favorite says earthquake, hurricane sent because people are not heard MIAMI — For Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, Hurricane Irene and last week's earthquake in the eastern United States were a message from God that Washington needs to change its policies. Even as Irene was beginning its raking course up the East Coast over the weekend, which killed 21 people and caused widespread flooding and power outages, Bachmann told senior citizens in Poinciana, Florida, on Saturday that the hurricane was an "act of God" that Washington should heed. First Read: The Katrina effect The Minnesota congresswoman, who has gained media prominence for her fiery attacks on Democratic President Barack Obama and against big government, recalled Washington and the east had already felt a 5.8 magnitude earthquake on Tuesday. "Washington, D.C., you'd think by now they'd get the message. An earthquake, a hurricane. Are you listening? The American people have done everything they can, and now it's time for an act of God and we're getting it," she said, drawing some laughs from her audience. "Of course she was saying it in jest," Alice Stewart, spokesperson for Bachmann's campaign, said. Bachmann is a favorite of the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement and of religious social conservatives, but recent Republican presidential contender polls have shown her lagging behind Texas Governor Rick Perry and moderate Mitt Romney, who appeals to the party's business wing.
Rick Perry: Social Security Is, In Fact, A Ponzi Scheme http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ecurity-is-in-fact-a-ponzi-scheme.php?ref=fpb
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, in the most general sense. Investors are paid not with returns from their own investments, but with the payments made into the scheme by new investors. This is classic Ponzi scheme stuff. There is the benefit to the current beneficiaries that the American people are forced to participate, but absent that government compulsion SS would have collapsed long ago, like any other Ponzi scheme. If a private investment firm was taking in payments from new investors under the guise of a social insurance or retirement program and using those funds to pay benefits to previous investors, they would get shut down.
You can argue the case that any thing you pay into for the future is a ponzi scheme. If it benefits you in the future, and YOU DO get your money or entitlements. It is not a ponzi scheme. Ponzi Schemes steal every thing. SS isn't suppose to be for that.
It's a Ponzi scheme because you have to find new people to pay in for those already in it, that's the only way it can sustain itself.
No. You invest in stocks, buy treasury notes, or even buy gold for the future. The difference between these things and a Ponzi scheme are that you own these investments. They are not dependent on future investors to pay you back. Even if no one buys gold ever again, you still own the gold. If new investors don't come into a Ponzi scheme, then you wont be receiving any payments. Social Security pays your taxes to current retirees and requires future workers to pay for you when you retire. That money is not invested for you, set aside and then paid back later, it is out the door as soon as it comes in. The only reason it works at all is because the government forces everyone to participate (well, almost everyone). This is not even remotely correct. Mostly because Ponzi schemes would never work if that was the case. Only the last generation in gets screwed in a Ponzi scheme that is allowed to run its course (often they will get shut down earlier and God knows who recovers), everyone else is seeing returns paid off by new investors. About half of Madoff's investors were net winners, for example.
SS is a ponzi scheme, in the sense that eventually it will be too cumbersome and collapse, which means the young people that paid in won't receive their money back. How did anyone think this would work long term when we had a whole generation receive full benefits without paying into it? Isn't the whole idea that you receive what you put in?
It may have been sold as that, but it's just welfare for old people (the wealthiest age bracket in the country fwiw).
When SS was founded, 50% of the elderly were below the poverty line. And how is it welfare when those same people who are getting Social Security, paid into it over their lifetime?
Just "welfare for old people?" How inconvenient those old people are for you. "(the wealthiest age bracket in the country fwiw)" The comment is worth nothing. It implies that the vast majority of "old people" are wealthy, which is absurd. Really, is this the best you can come up with?
Wealth is relative, but old people are wealthier. http://www.fabulouslybroke.com/2011/03/what-should-your-net-worth-be-net-worth-by-age-and-by-income/ Spoiler It's a function of your lifetime earnings, I'll grant you that. But it's not your wealth being given back to you as if you had deposited it into an account. It's dependent on wealth generation of younger workers, as future wealth generation of the unborn in the form of borrowing.
I agree that in essence Social Security is a Ponzi scheme but in that sense so is life insurance as the payouts are funded by new living people still signing up. Anyway if Perry is going to use rhetoric like that he might as well kiss the general election goodbye.
