News Politics The Economy Health Education The
Monday, October 08, 2012
Published September 24, 2011-Updated October
“Social Security (SS) has the Republican
Presidential Candidates SOS”
The social security (ss) debate has the Republican
presidential candidates stranded over seas (sos).
After Rick Perry said that social security is a “Ponzi Scheme” and
should be absolved, he skyrocketed the social security debate and placed it at
the forefront of the conversation. This
statement from Perry sent up several red flags within the most reliable voting
bloc, the 50 and up, community the Republican and Democratic Parties depend
upon. Questions began mounting
about if Perry was expressing the consensus within the Republican Party?
And if this is so, what will happen to the social security benefits for
those who are receiving payments? Perry
failed to realize that the argument he put forth is counterproductive and keen
to a “Ponzi” scheme because absolving social security, if he becomes
president, will definitely result in individuals who’ve paid into the system
not receiving the benefits. And
this is just what Perry explained about the “Ponzi” scheme, an individual
pays into something and doesn’t receive anything in return.
After hearing this, it is only natural that people do a “What a
minute?,” and question Perry and the Republican Party’s agenda.
politics, many know that seniors are the most reliable voting bloc and social
security is among their top concern. The
other Republican presidential candidates know that by aligning themselves with
Perry’s social security is a “Ponzi” scheme statement they will alienate
the most trusted and dependable voters, the seniors, both political parties
The Republicans also know that social security is a key part of the
economy because it focuses on the distribution of earnings resulting from labor.
Basically, the size of a person’s social security check will depend
upon the type of work a person has performed over a duration of time.
Social Security is affected by the state a person lives in, the amount of
taxes he pays, and the job he has. So
the social security debate takes into account all of the economic issues like
taxes, type of job, and federal vs. state rights when governing the individual.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, Perry has placed an albatross noose
around their necks by stating that social security is a “Ponzi” scheme and
he would abolish it if he became president.
Perry is a big supporter of states' rights over the federal government's
rights. He believes social security
amounts to government welfare and a suppression of the states' rights.
However, Perry fails to realize that social security transcends the class
divide because it embodies a basic American principle, hard work leads to good
Security is a federally funded program individuals pay into and are eligible for
benefits once they reach the age of 62. This
means that individuals who worked at factories or mines and managed to work hard
enough in order to form a successful business are eligible for social security
once they reach the age of 62. Hence,
a person could have worked hard during his younger years and became a wealthy
man and still receive his social security once he becomes 62 years old.
An example of this is the Warren Buffet’s caliber.
Buffet is well beyond retirement age, but it doesn’t mean he cannot
collect his social security. So the
image of social security going to the blue collar worker who has slaved at a
auto factory is one that is not consistent with reality because social security
is something that impacts individuals in the blue and white collar groups.
Romney, for instance, distanced himself from the comment by stating that the
Republican presidential nominee must be an individual who is not for abolishing
social security, and the Republican presidential nominee must have the presence
of mind to understand that abolishing social security will not be for the
benefit of anyone. Rick Perry tried
to explain away his statement with the old “For the kids” statement, but
that didn’t curtail the criticism that followed.
The other candidates noted that social security should remain, but it
just needs some changes in order to work properly. Specifically, Herman Cain favors the Chilean model allowing
citizens control over their finances, which many see as privatization.
Herman Cain offered a solution by stating that he would use the Chilean
model and place the money directly into the individual’s account.
However, the idea of privatizing social security is something one
Republican president, George W. Bush, considered but ultimately decided against. Former President George W. Bush stated that one of the things
he’s happy he didn’t do was to privatize social security.
This is understandable especially after the mortgage businesses sent big
banks and investment firms like Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, and Lehman Brothers
crashing. Basically, if social
security was privatized, it could’ve easily been wiped out.
Therefore, wiping out American workers hard earned earnings they made
over the years.
Security is a federally funded program that transcends class. It is something that embodies a basic American principle,
hard work leads to good returns, and any efforts to abolish it can easily be
viewed as un-American. Many within
the SS age, 62 and up, depend upon those funds.
And it is not just the GMC assemblyman depending upon his SS, but former
GMC executives, university presidents, professors, doctors, and lawyers who’ve
all reached the retirement age and are depending upon those returns.
In fact, a common joke about the University of Miami in Florida is that
many of the older professors are retired and collecting two checks, a social
security check and a paycheck from the university.
Something Perry doesn’t recognize is that if he became president and
was able to abolish social security, then he would be stopping payments for
those individuals who are receiving payments.
Therefore, he would be reducing social security to the very thing, a
“Ponzi scheme,” he says it is now.