Rick Perry: I am going to be honest with the American people

Rick Perry: I am going to be honest with the American people

Rick Perry
USA Today
Sept. 11, 2011

The first step to fixing a problem is honestly admitting there is a problem. America's goal must be to fix Social Security by making it more financially sound and sustainable for the long term. But Americans deserve a frank and honest discussion of the dire financial challenges facing the nearly 80-year-old program.

As I said at the Reagan Library recently, Social Security benefits for current recipients and those nearing retirement must be protected. For younger workers, we must consider reforms to make Social Security financially viable.

These are the hard facts: Social Security's unfunded liability is calculated in the trillions of dollars. Last year, annual Social Security outlays exceeded annual revenues for the first time since 1983. The Congressional Budget Office projects that outlays will be roughly 5% greater than revenues over the next five years, worsening as more and more Baby Boomers retire.

By 2037, retirees will only get roughly 76 cents back for every dollar that is put into Social Security unless reforms are implemented. Imagine how long a traditional retirement or investment plan could survive if it projected investors would lose 24% of their money?

I am going to be honest with the American people. Our elected leaders must have the strength to speak frankly about entitlement reform if we are to right our nation's financial course and get the USA working again.

For too long, politicians have been afraid to speak honestly about Social Security. We must have the guts to talk about its financial condition if we are to fix Social Security and make it financially viable for generations to come.

Americans must come together and agree to address the problems so today's beneficiaries and tomorrow's retirees really can count on Social Security for the long haul.

We must have a frank, honest national conversation about fixing Social Security to protect benefits for those at or near retirement while keeping faith with younger generations, who are being asked to pay.

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

The Democrats are not interested in telling the truth about Social Security (or anything else for that matter), they'd much rather demogogue Republicans for telling the truth about this broken program.

Shocker, no

So, what's your opinion on Perry in the last two debates?

My opinion is that he's stumbled a bit, especially in the first one. Campaigning in Texas isn't the same as campaigning nationally. Also, he's getting hammered on the inoculation thing he did in Texas (which he has rebuked).

I think the others are being hard on him because they know he's going to wipe their asses by primary season next spring.

TexasBlue wrote:So, what's your opinion on Perry in the last two debates

My opinion is that he's stumbled a bit, especially in the first one. Campaigning in Texas isn't the same as campaigning nationally. Also, he's getting hammered on the inoculation thing he did in Texas (which he has rebuked).

I think the others are being hard on him because they know he's going to wipe their asses by primary season next spring.

I think the in-state tuition for illegals is going to hurt him more because that is a position he has not really backed down and it makes him look a little too much like Bush.

But it's still very, very early; and truth be told, just about any of the candidates would be MILES better than Obama.

dblboggie wrote:I think the in-state tuition for illegals is going to hurt him more because that is a position he has not really backed down and it makes him look a little too much like Bush.

But it's still very, very early; and truth be told, just about any of the candidates would be MILES better than Obama.

Yeah, I forgot about that. Old age, ya know. But that issue hurt him in Texas, too. He's realigned his position on illegals. What I find hilarious is that he's saying we don't need a fence on the border and many right wingers are screeching about that. Well, I happen to agree with him and never have advocated a fence. I advocate many other things. But the illegal issue will work in his favor in due time because of Obama and his recent executive "order" on ICE dealing with them. Btw, the fence would be a logistical and financial nightmare.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I think the in-state tuition for illegals is going to hurt him more because that is a position he has not really backed down and it makes him look a little too much like Bush.

But it's still very, very early; and truth be told, just about any of the candidates would be MILES better than Obama.

Yeah, I forgot about that. Old age, ya know. But that issue hurt him in Texas, too. He's realigned his position on illegals. What I find hilarious is that he's saying we don't need a fence on the border and many right wingers are screeching about that. Well, I happen to agree with him and never have advocated a fence. I advocate many other things. But the illegal issue will work in his favor in due time because of Obama and his recent executive "order" on ICE dealing with them. Btw, the fence would be a logistical and financial nightmare.

I'm on the fence about the fence. I need to do more in-depth research on the issue before I go one way or the other on it.

dblboggie wrote:I'm on the fence about the fence. I need to do more in-depth research on the issue before I go one way or the other on it.

I think it would be a nightmare. Not to mention, costly. That's because shyster organizations like the ACLU would step in. There's hundreds of laws already on the books and nary enforced in the manner they should be.

On a side note; how is it that the ACLU steps in to protect non-American invaders? American Civil Liberties Union?

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I'm on the fence about the fence. I need to do more in-depth research on the issue before I go one way or the other on it.

I think it would be a nightmare. Not to mention, costly. That's because shyster organizations like the ACLU would step in. There's hundreds of laws already on the books and nary enforced in the manner they should be.

On a side note; how is it that the ACLU steps in to protect non-American invaders American Civil Liberties Union

Yeah, it would be a logistical nightmare, not to mention an unmitigated eyesore. It might well be that if extant laws were competently and strictly enforced we see a steady drop-off of immigrants chancing an illegal border crossing with no fence needed at all.

As for the ACLU, you need only remember that it was founded by a card-carrying Communist. It has nothing to do with American civil liberties and everything to do with forwarding a liberal agenda. might well be that if extant laws were competently and strictly enforced we see a steady drop-off of immigrants chancing an illegal border crossing with no fence needed at all.

As for the ACLU, you need only remember that it was founded by a card-carrying Communist. It has nothing to do with American civil liberties and everything to do with forwarding a liberal agenda.