Rick Perry Over Obama 44% to 41%

[Guest]

Perry, the longest-serving governor in the history of the Lone Star State, edged Obama, 44% to 41%, in a national Rasmussen poll - a sign voters dig his pro-jobs message, McClatchy Newspapers reported Friday.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/09/03/2011-09-03_rick_perry_strides_past_prez_in_new_poll_voters _prefer_texas_gov_to_obama_44_to_.html#ixzz1X2prmB fE


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/09/03/2011-09-03_rick_perry_strides_past_prez_in_new_poll_voters _prefer_texas_gov_to_obama_44_to_.html

[Guest]

You know I'm not surprised. I knew once people started to listen to Gov. Perry they would come away very impressed by this man. He has all the goods. He speaks to the people with sincerity and not down to them. His message is the one they long to hear and he speaks as only a true American can.

The scrutiny and leftists attacks will begin in full scale assault mode now. All leftist operatives will be pulled back from their jobs of going through Sarah Palin's trash bags and rerouted to Texas post haste.

Some people on this forum are scratching their heads about now.

[Guest]

Stop listening to Perry's mouth. Perry is Pro-Open Borders and Pro-Amnesty for Illegals. Do some independent checking on his values and you will find that Perry is not the person his mouth says he is. This country can do much better than a "career politican" again. We had had enough of them.

[Guest]

Stop listening to Perry's mouth. Perry is Pro-Open Borders and Pro-Amnesty for Illegals. Do some independent checking on his values and you will find that Perry is not the person his mouth says he is. This country can do much better than a "career politican" again. We had had enough of them.

If he becomes the GOP final nominee, all his skeletons will be brought out. This reminds me of a line from a vacation movie. " if you think you hate it now, wait till ya drive it". In Perry's case, the line would be "if you think you hate him now, wait till ya find out what he stands for."

[Guest]

In my opinion, it is much, much, much too early to be using polls to predict or entertain results of the 2012 election. They are mostly for use by political campaigns and do not represent how the election might go in reality.

There is so much more water to pass under the bridge. Polls using Obama versus anyone, at this point, will reflect the country's dissatisfaction with the economy or their personal situation at the time of the poll. Again, MUCH too early for taking these seriously unless you are in the BUSINESS of poliltics. There will be missteps, and mis quotes and in todays internet world much "flaming", etc to come.

As to the nomination, again my favorite continiues to be Romney. He will for sure have an uphill battle, but for me at this point (well in front of any debates or discussions) he would be a man I would trust in the oval office.

If you look back at any election cycle, at this point...so far in front of the election day....you will find lots of names of folks who "looked good" but were not even in the running when "push came to shove". That is not a knock on Perry by any stretch...as I said, lots of time and for me, I am more familiar with Romney at this point.

[Guest]

I'm not real familiar with Perry either. Could we see some links to his voting record and other hard facts concerning what he does vs what he says? My sister who lives in Plano, TX cannot stand him, and that is enough for me to think that I might like him alot...:laugh:

[Guest]

Perry, the longest-serving governor in the history of the Lone Star State, edged Obama, 44% to 41%, in a national Rasmussen poll - a sign voters dig his pro-jobs message, McClatchy Newspapers reported Friday.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/09/03/2011-09-03_rick_perry_strides_past_prez_in_new_poll_voters _prefer_texas_gov_to_obama_44_to_.html#ixzz1X2prmB fE


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/09/03/2011-09-03_rick_perry_strides_past_prez_in_new_poll_voters _prefer_texas_gov_to_obama_44_to_.html

Florida like Ohio is an important swing state. Once the word gets out there that Perry regards Social Security as a ponzi scheme he will lose Florida and other retiree states also.

You gentlemen at the villages are a small minority. Older Americans vote in much larger percentages than the rest of the population. With Perry Social Security will be a factor.

[Guest]

You know I'm not surprised. I knew once people started to listen to Gov. Perry they would come away very impressed by this man. He has all the goods. He speaks to the people with sincerity and not down to them. His message is the one they long to hear and he speaks as only a true American can.

The scrutiny and leftists attacks will begin in full scale assault mode now. All leftist operatives will be pulled back from their jobs of going through Sarah Palin's trash bags and rerouted to Texas post haste.

Some people on this forum are scratching their heads about now.

Yeah, we Commies are a real danger.

[Guest]

Yeah, we Commies are a real danger.

??????????

[Guest]

And does that imply FL will go with Obama....again? I certainly hope not. The only reason he carried FL in 2008 was the bone headed voters who decided they were doing their country a favor by not voting for McCain.

I would have felt a little better (not much) knowing the voters got out and did their best to defeat Obama....they did not!!!

Hopefully they have learned a lesson and will get out and vote in 2012.

btk

[Guest]

Florida like Ohio is an important swing state. Once the word gets out there that Perry regards Social Security as a ponzi scheme he will lose Florida and other retiree states also.

You gentlemen at the villages are a small minority. Older Americans vote in much larger percentages than the rest of the population. With Perry Social Security will be a factor.

Best definition of this unfunded entitlement plan I ever heard. How is he wrong?

[Guest]

Stop listening to Perry's mouth. Perry is Pro-Open Borders and Pro-Amnesty for Illegals. Do some independent checking on his values and you will find that Perry is not the person his mouth says he is. This country can do much better than a "career politican" again. We had had enough of them.

I'll have to check on what you're saying, but the main thing people are peeved about when it comes to Perry and immigration is his opposition to the continuous fence. He believes it's not worth the time and money.

Rick Perry says the building of the proposed 1,200 mile long fence through Texas is not a good idea, and says dedicated checkpoint fence sections through some areas, supplemented by National Guard presence in the more inaccessible areas of crossing is a better option. Gov. Perry said that if we build a 1,200 mile long "30 ft fence", the very next day there will be a market rush for 35 ft. ladders.

I don't see anybody running for President who is not a "career politician".

[Guest]

Rick Perry says the building of the proposed 1,200 mile long fence through Texas is not a good idea, and says dedicated checkpoint fence sections through some areas, supplemented by National Guard presence in the more inaccessible areas of crossing is a better option. Gov. Perry said that if we build a 1,200 mile long "30 ft fence", the very next day there will be a market rush for 35 ft. ladders.


Is this what you are referring to, Figmo?

[Guest]

Perry, the longest-serving governor in the history of the Lone Star State, edged Obama, 44% to 41%, in a national Rasmussen poll - a sign voters dig his pro-jobs message, McClatchy Newspapers reported

I believe this poll was based on 1,000 potential voters, not sure of the racial breakdown but that could be significant. As Bucco said, many contenders who look good at this early stage, won't be around for the long haul.

[Guest]

I'm not real familiar with Perry either. Could we see some links to his voting record and other hard facts concerning what he does vs what he says? My sister who lives in Plano, TX cannot stand him, and that is enough for me to think that I might like him alot...:laugh:

I'm sure Gov. Perry has made some decisions that has annoyed your sister. What governor of any state hasn't disappointed some people in his state. You can't be all things to all people, as they say. The much lauded Gov. Christie of NJ saw his approval ratings drop when he started slaughtering some "sacred cows" of some of his constituents for budget reasons.

If you have time, watch and listen to Gov. Perry in his own words in a couple of clips below. You will be hearing more and more in the near future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbrptI2x5GA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK6XSIY8zoA&feature=related

[Guest]

If you want to know about border security here is a site that will keep you informed http://www.americanpatrol.com/

Having lived for many years next to the border this individual is right on. Most of what takes place on the border never makes the major media outlets.

The Border Wars did not start until the US started building fenses. The US closed off the major drug/human smuggling routes and now the cartels are fighting over those that are left. IF, the US secured the border and cut off all drug/human smuggling how long do you think the Border Wars would last? Good fenses in some cases makes for good neighbors.

[Guest]

I'm sure Gov. Perry has made some decisions that has annoyed your sister.

Annoyed my sister? Who hasn't?... She is as far left as they come. Even sent big bucks in support of Obama for President! There is not discussing any of this with her anyway.
But thank you very much for the videos!

[Guest]

Florida like Ohio is an important swing state. Once the word gets out there that Perry regards Social Security as a ponzi scheme he will lose Florida and other retiree states also.

You gentlemen at the villages are a small minority. Older Americans vote in much larger percentages than the rest of the population. With Perry Social Security will be a factor.

I don't think you give us geezers enough credit. Most people are aware that it is a Ponzi scheme. Most people are aware that the numbers will not add up. Most people are aware that it is a pay as we go system and that in the near future there will be like 3 people trying to support 1 person who is on SS.
Geezers do not automatically turn stupid as they age.

[Guest]

I have not seen any of you "Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme" believers rush to give your Social Security checks back to the government.

Oh yeah, "we put our money in it every payday". You will have taken far more out in monthly benefits than you ever put in it.

Chances are if you would have been allowed to take whatever FICA deduction every pay day and invest it for yourself with no other retirement provided at all, you would not be able to live in such a nice place as The Villages.

[Guest]

I figured it out one day that the money deducted from my pay check for the last 50 years compounded would let me live very comfortably in the Villages, thank-you.

[Guest]

I have not seen any of you "Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme" believers rush to give your Social Security checks back to the government.

Oh yeah, "we put our money in it every payday". You will have taken far more out in monthly benefits than you ever put in it.

Chances are if you would have been allowed to take whatever FICA deduction every pay day and invest it for yourself with no other retirement provided at all, you would not be able to live in such a nice place as The Villages.

How about explaining how it's not like a Ponzi scheme. I would like to see you wiggle around that topic.

I am not yet old enough to collect on my Social Security, as you know (coming soon though). I was not consulted; I was not given a choice; and I then had my pocket picked and the money taken put into the Federal Governments's General Fund and told they'll set up a security net for me I never asked for.

Now because I criticize how the government handled this crazy underfunded scheme you think that I should not even collect money that was forcibly extricated from my pocket for the last 50 years?

[Guest]

I have not seen any of you "Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme" believers rush to give your Social Security checks back to the government.
Since I don't receive a Social Security check to give back, could you provide me with the line that I get into to have the hand of the government out of my current paycheck? Mr. Katz has been doing extremely well in the stock market lately and I'd like to let him have some fun with my money too...It's only fair, since Uncle Sam has had his turn with it and failed miserably!

[Guest]

I figured it out one day that the money deducted from my pay check for the last 50 years compounded would let me live very comfortably in the Villages, thank-you.

And double that, as your employer had to match your "contribution". I am still waiting to hear how this is not a Ponzi scheme. Ask yourself, if workers would stop paying into it today, how long would the plan assets last? Yeah, that is what I thought.

[Guest]

And double that, as your employer had to match your "contribution". I am still waiting to hear how this is not a Ponzi scheme. Ask yourself, if workers would stop paying into it today, how long would the plan assets last? Yeah, that is what I thought.

You are right. I could have purchased one of those million dollar houses on Lake Miona.

[Guest]

Forget polls they are all self serving. The presidential race all comes down to the Electoral College. If the past is prologue then approx 85 votes are undecided and fall on 7 super swing states, florida with 29 votes being one.

The immigration debate is a mess because the government failed to act owing to the politics of it all. Supply will follow demand and so if the US is serious they will bear down on employers who take advantage of this situation...but they won't. The war on drugs has similar problems and consequences. So the border protection is a convient distraction for politicians

Those of us who have been paying into social security over these many years take umbrage at politicians who refer to it as an "entitlement". Had Congress properly secured the contributions made into social security wherein payment would have been only for social security receipients these many years there would not be this debate as social security would be well financed.

My view is that its never too late. Congress can right its wrong with various adjustments. Why do I favor a social security plan. Because as an ex-Human Resource guy I can't tell you the number of workers, for any given reason, could not or would not voluntarily enter a savings plan, will do it in a hodge podge manner or periodically withdraw all the have saved. At least with social security they will be forced to defer some of their pay. Why do I care? Because without social security these folks would look to the government for a hand out. At least I am satisified that a they have contributed a portion of their pay to their support thus reducing taxpayer contribution for any aditional welfare. For those who invest in investments savings then social security will act as an additional layer of protection.

I do acknowledge the chances of Congress acting intelligently concerning this issue is negible

[Guest]

Rubicon's statement of: : Because as an ex-Human Resource guy I can't tell you the number of workers, for any given reason, could not or would not voluntarily enter a savings plan, will do it in a hodge podge manner or periodically withdraw all the have saved. At least with social security they will be forced to defer some of their pay. Why do I care? Because without social security these folks would look to the government for a hand out. At least I am satisified that a they have contributed a portion of their pay to their support thus reducing taxpayer contribution for any aditional welfare. For those who invest in investments savings then social security will act as an additional layer of protection." is 100% correct.

Just how many employees would actually put money aside every payday and keep it in a savings plan if not "forced". Hardly any, ist the answer.

[Guest]

How about explaining how it's not like a Ponzi scheme. I would like to see you wiggle around that topic.

I am not yet old enough to collect on my Social Security, as you know (coming soon though). I was not consulted; I was not given a choice; and I then had my pocket picked and the money taken put into the Federal Governments's General Fund and told they'll set up a security net for me I never asked for.

Now because I criticize how the government handled this crazy underfunded scheme you think that I should not even collect money that was forcibly extricated from my pocket for the last 50 years?

Ya shoulda bought your own island. :cus:

[Guest]

Ya shoulda bought your own island. :cus:

Isn't it nice that LBJ raided the social security funds for the War on Poverty and Vietnam? How did they turn out? Great investments, huh?

[Guest]

Rubicon's statement of: : Because as an ex-Human Resource guy I can't tell you the number of workers, for any given reason, could not or would not voluntarily enter a savings plan, will do it in a hodge podge manner or periodically withdraw all the have saved. At least with social security they will be forced to defer some of their pay. Why do I care? Because without social security these folks would look to the government for a hand out. At least I am satisified that a they have contributed a portion of their pay to their support thus reducing taxpayer contribution for any aditional welfare. For those who invest in investments savings then social security will act as an additional layer of protection." is 100% correct.

Just how many employees would actually put money aside every payday and keep it in a savings plan if not "forced". Hardly any, ist the answer.

Whether people will save for their future is a straw argument now, in a sense. The Social Security took mine and everyone else's money and didn't save it either. They spent it and put an IOU in our future. NOW, they don't know how they're going to make good on all those IOU's, and won't discuss it.

I can mismanage my own money. I didn't need the government to do it.

[Guest]

At least give us a choice. Either sign up for Uncle Sam to handle your money or go it alone with no option to come back for help after retirement...This is downright theft! Take our money under false pretense that you will get it back?

[Guest]

Richie: If you had bought T-Bills with your Social Security money, would you say that you didn't save it? That's what the SSA did with their excess funds. Accounting tricks made the US Gov't deficits LOOK smaller than they actually were but the SSA surpluses still went into T-Bills - the same ones that investors from all over the world are still clamoring for despite the S&P downgrade.

The government borrowed money from the SSA (and everyone else who bought TBills) to spend more than they took in and the bills from the SSA are coming due.

True, there was no "lock box" for Social Security, to use a phrase that was popular some time ago. Perhaps it was the using of that phrase that finally got people to understand what Social Security's finances were in the first place.

[Guest]

Richie: If you had bought T-Bills with your Social Security money, would you say that you didn't save it? That's what the SSA did with their excess funds. Accounting tricks made the US Gov't deficits LOOK smaller than they actually were but the SSA surpluses still went into T-Bills - the same ones that investors from all over the world are still clamoring for despite the S&P downgrade.

The government borrowed money from the SSA (and everyone else who bought TBills) to spend more than they took in and the bills from the SSA are coming due.

True, there was no "lock box" for Social Security, to use a phrase that was popular some time ago. Perhaps it was the using of that phrase that finally got people to understand what Social Security's finances were in the first place.

If what you're telling me is correct, then what was the b.s. about not being able to cut Social Security checks if the Debt Ceiling wasn't raised? They still squandered MY MONEY for their own purposes, when they were supposed to be "saving it and investing it for me". How am I fundamentally wrong here?

[Guest]

Because, once again, people were quoted out of context.

I listened very carefully to what Obama said - he said he could not guarantee that *ALL* checks would go out. It would be similar to having $100 in bills to pay but only $80 in your wallet to pay them. Sure, you can pay MOST of what you owe but not all.

The SSA refused to say what they would do if the default happened. In addition, nobody in the government said what they would do and the Treasury didn't say who's bonds (when redeemed) and coupons (interest payments) would be paid and who's wouldn't.

The thing is, it all depends on your point of view. Either TBills are the safest investment in the world (their track record *is* still unblemished, despite the threat) or "squandered" money with "nothing but a pile of IOUs". But, *by law*, the Social Security Administration *must* invest surpluses in T-Bills.

[Guest]

djplong,

Again you try to cover for Obama:


Obama was asked about this in a July 12, 2011, interview with CBS News anchor Scott Pelley. Here's their exchange:

Pelley: "Can you tell the folks at home that, no matter what happens, the Social Security checks are going to go out on August the 3rd? There are about $20 billion worth of Social Security checks that have to go out the day after the government is supposedly going to go into default."

Obama: "Well, this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans' checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out each month."

Pelley: "Can you guarantee, as president, that those checks will go out on August the 3rd?"

Obama: "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue, because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
He did not say that he said "he could not guarantee that *ALL* checks would go out"

[Guest]

djplong,

Again you try to cover for Obama:


Obama was asked about this in a July 12, 2011, interview with CBS News anchor Scott Pelley. Here's their exchange:

Pelley: "Can you tell the folks at home that, no matter what happens, the Social Security checks are going to go out on August the 3rd? There are about $20 billion worth of Social Security checks that have to go out the day after the government is supposedly going to go into default."

Obama: "Well, this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans' checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out each month."

Pelley: "Can you guarantee, as president, that those checks will go out on August the 3rd?"

Obama: "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue, because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
He did not say that he said "he could not guarantee that *ALL* checks would go out"

Thank you. But again, what I'm saying budget or no budget; debt or not debt, The government has been saving and investing my money for me without consulting me for 50 years.

The government did this because it did not expect me to provide for my future judiciously. Well, did the federal government? I'd have to say no, if they're scurrying to figure out how to send the dividends of all the money taken from me, for my benefit, back to me. Again, how am I fundamentally wrong?

[Guest]

" A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."