I am firmly in the Gingrich camp now.

[makattak]

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/11/21/gingrich-advocates-social-security-overhaul

It's not perfect. But it's a beginning. (I'd like a plan to eventually phase out ALL Social Security taxes to the Government.)

I know I won't have SS when I'm old and I don't want my children paying for it when it won't even be there when they're 30.

Newt has a plan. It's not a perfect plan, but I think it's good enough. The optional buy-in is perfect. Once people see their neighbors getting a FAR better deal from investing the money, SS will finally die, as it should.

OOOOO!!! What's that great line from the nineties? "Wither on the vine". That's exactly what I want.

[AJ Dual]

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/11/21/gingrich-advocates-social-security-overhaul

It's not perfect. But it's a beginning. (I'd like a plan to eventually phase out ALL Social Security taxes to the Government.)

I know I won't have SS when I'm old and I don't want my children paying for it when it won't even be there when they're 30.

Newt has a plan. It's not a perfect plan, but I think it's good enough. The optional buy-in is perfect. Once people see their neighbors getting a FAR better deal from investing the money, SS will finally die, as it should.

OOOOO!!! What's that great line from the nineties? "Wither on the vine". That's exactly what I want.

That's great.

If he'd just publicly and LOUDLY apologize and take back his comments about Rep. Ryan's plans to overhaul our various entitlements, comments he made not too long ago, I might agree that Gingrich is not as big a hypocrite as Obama/Pelosi/Reid are...

Gingrich is a finger-in-the-wind opportunist who stands for nothing. His stances on cap-n-tax, ethanol, and that commercial with Pelosi he did tell me all I need to know about Gingrich. His successes in '94 and the "Contract with America" sadly just turned out to be the proverbial blind squirrel finding a nut now and then.

Hell, I'd rather take my chances with Romney, and just join in the mad scramble to see if there isn't some way the Tea Party and hard right of the GOP faithful can apply enough pressure/leverage to make him into a more conservative POTUS than he was planning on being.

Excitement over Gingrich is just a symptom of what a piss-poor GOP field we have. 

[makattak]

That's great.

If he'd just publicly and LOUDLY apologize and take back his comments about Rep. Ryan's plans to overhaul our various entitlements, comments he made not too long ago, I might agree that Gingrich is not as big a hypocrite as Obama/Pelosi/Reid are...

At the time he made the statements, I winced because he phrased it poorly, but agreed with his point that any solutions for privatizing and fixing medicare and social security should not be made mandatory, forcing people into them, but should allow people to choose the seperate system.

Unfortunately, he made it sound like he was opposed to the plan, when all he had was a critique and a suggestion to make it better. (And, at the time he was not even close to being my preference for a presidential candidate.)

I disagree that he is a finger-in-the-wind opportunist like Romney. Gingrich may have gone off the reservation a few times, but his record it pretty clear. I'll trust a record over words anyday.

(Oh, and I'm not "excited" about Gingrich. But I'm no longer disappointed in the field. Should he make privatizing Social Security a large part of his campaign, I may actually get excited, though.)

[AJ Dual]

Calling Ryan's plans "Right-wing social engineering" seems a bit stronger than just someone "misspeaking" who is supposed to be someone who agrees with most all of the plan, except for the mandatory part of it. 

Although, like anyone in the GOP field, I'll pull the lever for whoever actually gets the nod in the end, including Newt. 

Save maybe Romney, if/when it's him, and he takes the nomination as his cue as carte-blance to start making truly awful RINO/Obama-lite noises, and I guess I'll then join in the Ron Paul write-in protest vote movement.

[Fitz]

I will either be voting paul, or abstaining. I can't stomach the "lesser of two evils" mentality.

If the country wants to elect a socialist *expletive deleted*bag, then the country deserves the consequences. I can find a place to hide and live off the land when it all comes crashing down.

[Jamisjockey]

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/11/21/gingrich-advocates-social-security-overhaul

It's not perfect. But it's a beginning. (I'd like a plan to eventually phase out ALL Social Security taxes to the Government.)

I know I won't have SS when I'm old and I don't want my children paying for it when it won't even be there when they're 30.

Newt has a plan. It's not a perfect plan, but I think it's good enough. The optional buy-in is perfect. Once people see their neighbors getting a FAR better deal from investing the money, SS will finally die, as it should.

OOOOO!!! What's that great line from the nineties? "Wither on the vine". That's exactly what I want.

Newt is a hypocrite.  Between his attacks on Paul Ryan who proposed cuts to SS, his couch sitting with Pelosi, and many other acts on his part, personally I find him a worse choice than Romney.  

Oh, and Newt considers him a constituional expert.  Social Security is unconstitutional.  Along with several items on the original Contract With America he rammed through. 
No Newt for me, thank you very much.

[Jamisjockey]

Calling Ryan's plans "Right-wing social engineering" seems a bit stronger than just someone "misspeaking" who is supposed to be someone who agrees with most all of the plan, except for the mandatory part of it. 
Although, like anyone in the GOP field, I'll pull the lever for whoever actually gets the nod in the end, including Newt. 

Save maybe Romney, if/when it's him, and he takes the nomination as his cue as carte-blance to start making truly awful RINO/Obama-lite noises, and I guess I'll then join in the Ron Paul write-in protest vote movement.

Even worse, Newt's "overhaul" of Social Security proposed in the link is nothing more than pandering and moar social engineering.  Hypocrisy to the nnth degree.

[makattak]

Oh, and Newt considers him a constituional expert.  Social Security is unconstitutional.  

Yes it is. Are you suggesting we just cut it off? I'm sure you'll garner almost as many votes as Ralph Nader with that position.

We have to work with the reality that it exists and has existed for 70+ years.

Why do Libertarians assume that we can act like we are creating a society from scratch?

[makattak]

Even worse, Newt's "overhaul" of Social Security proposed in the link is nothing more than pandering and moar social engineering.  Hypocrisy to the nnth degree.

Can you explain that? I see no pandering or social engineering.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes it is. Are you suggesting we just cut it off? I'm sure you'll garner almost as many votes as Ralph Nader with that position.

And yet he attacked a plan that was politically viable because he felt it was too radical.

No government cut that is politically viable is too radical, by definition.

[Perd Hapley]

I will either be voting paul, or abstaining. I can't stomach the "lesser of two evils" mentality.

If the country wants to elect a socialist *expletive deleted*bag, then the country deserves the consequences. I can find a place to hide and live off the land when it all comes crashing down.

It's not a mentality; it's politics.

[Jamisjockey]

Yes it is. Are you suggesting we just cut it off? I'm sure you'll garner almost as many votes as Ralph Nader with that position.

We have to work with the reality that it exists and has existed for 70+ years.

Why do Libertarians assume that we can act like we are creating a society from scratch?

Its a matter of dialing it back.  "Optional" buy outs and things like that don't dial it back.  Finding a stopping point to quit making people put money into a failing system and start fending for themselves is not creating a society from scratch.

Can you explain that? I see no pandering or social engineering.

"You can put them in very conservative bonds only, you can put them in much more aggressive and have stock only, some mix of stocks and bonds, it will be your choice."

Forces people into the stock market.  But hey, gamble all you want.

To avoid a disastrous fluctuation in the market wiping out accounts, under the plan those who opt into the system would be guaranteed the minimum Social Security payment

[dogmush]

It's not a mentality; it's politics.

Yes and no.

"Compromise with the other members of my party so that we get a candidate that is mostly in line with my views and can beat the other guys." is politics.

"Vote for whoever has the correct letter next to their name regardless of their history and policies" is a mentality.

People of both groups often say they're voting for the "lesser of two evils."  It's important to distinguish between the two. From what I've seen anyone that would hold Romney much above Obama (or vice versa) is in the second group, because in terms of policy those two are near enough to each other as to make no practical difference.

[seeker_two]

I don't see Gingrich as POTUS....but I'd be all for him taking a Cabinet position...either Sec. of State or Sec. of Treasury.....

[AJ Dual]

I don't see Gingrich as POTUS....but I'd be all for him taking a Cabinet position...either Sec. of State or Sec. of Treasury.....

Pfft. Secretary of State? Not as long as John Bolton has a pulse...

As long as we're designing a dream Cabinet... put Paul in charge of the Treasury.

[Fitz]

It's not a mentality; it's politics.

Doesn't matter what you call it. America deserves the results

[Perd Hapley]

Doesn't matter what you call it. America deserves the results

No doy.

[Fitz]

No doy.

AND FISTFUL COMES IN WITH THE SNAPPY COMEBACK!!!! ALL THE WAY FROM 1ST GRADE!!!!!


Well played, fistful. Well played, indeed. You just brought back memories.

[Perd Hapley]

Objective: Accomplished.

[slingshot]

I am not convinced that social security should be privatized.  I am open to a partial privatization option.  What happens when your stock (and net worth) drops like a rock during this particularly unstable market period.  It's great when the market is up, but what happens if you loose 50% of everything you thought you had accured over a lifetime via a private social security program?  To say, let them starve is not practical.  So the Government still essentially has to guarantee the whole deal anyway. So, I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think a 100% privatized social security or pension plan is the complete answer whether you are 21 or 61.

One thing for sure... you won't live forever regardless of how you feel when you are in your 20's.

[TommyGunn]

No doy.

OK, I missed it.  "No doy?"

[Fitz]

YOU DONT REMEMBER "NO DOY?"

[MillCreek]

Objective: Accomplished.

Shouldn't that be Mission Accomplished? Preferably as you stride the deck of a Nimitz-class carrier?

[MicroBalrog]

One thing for sure... you won't live forever regardless of how you feel when you are in your 20's.

There are reasons I am a SENS donor.

[makattak]

I am not convinced that social security should be privatized.  I am open to a partial privatization option.  What happens when your stock (and net worth) drops like a rock during this particularly unstable market period.  It's great when the market is up, but what happens if you loose 50% of everything you thought you had accured over a lifetime via a private social security program?  To say, let them starve is not practical.  So the Government still essentially has to guarantee the whole deal anyway. So, I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think a 100% privatized social security or pension plan is the complete answer whether you are 21 or 61.

One thing for sure... you won't live forever regardless of how you feel when you are in your 20's.

If you'll note, the Gingrich plan includes a fallback option for people who feel like you do.

Also, one things most people don't know is if Social Security had been "privatized" like Bush had proposed we would be FAR better off than we are today.

And I don't mean people who aren't on Social Security. The bonds that his plan called for investing in continued to grow in value during the recession. Yeah, dangerous thing, privatizing Social Security.