Tag Archives: Rick Perry

Gingrich And Perry Fail To Appear On Virginia Primary Ballot

It’s beginning to look like the GOP wants Barack Obama to win the next election:

Newt Gingrich will not appear on the Virginia presidential primary ballot, state Republican Party officials announced Saturday, after he failed to submit the required number of valid signatures to qualify.

The announcement was made on the Virginia Republican Party’s Twitter account. On Friday evening, the Republican Party of Virginia made a similar announcement for Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.

Ten thousand signatures are needed to get on the ballot for the Virginia primary, which is March 6, known as Super Tuesday. The Perry campaign says it submitted 11,911 signatures, according to The Washington Post. But at 6:30 p.m. the Virginia Republican Party posted on its Twitter account that after verification, it was determined that Mr. Perry did not submit the requisite amount.

Mr. Gingrich submitted 11,050 signatures, but after verification, the state party said it determined that he had not submitted enough signatures.

The deadline for signatures was 5 p.m. Thursday. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul obtained the needed signatures to qualify.

Jon M. Huntsman Jr., Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, the other Republican candidates, did not submit signatures in Virginia and therefore did not qualify.

If they can’t manage a signature campaign, how on earth are they gonna run a Presidential campaign?

2012 Election: Republican Primary November 11, 2011

Right now, the race is for 2nd place.  Until we’re down to two, I don’t think that we’ll have a clear idea of who’s gonna win this thing.  Some time ago, I predicted that Perry would fade as well as Cain.  While I think that I’ve been proven right, Cain has continued to surprise me.  Except for this most recent scandal, he’s been rising in the polls and rising pretty quick.  However, the scandal did hit and he’s suffered.

My biggest prediction was that Gingrich would be the contender to take on Romney.  I think Gingrich is the smartest guy on the stage, has a history of getting things done and just speaks with a confidence that will set people at ease.  He’s clear, he’s concise and he just talks common sense.

I think that my prediction is playing out:

Newt Gingrich has jumped to second place and Herman Cain has dropped to third among Republican voters’ preferences for which candidate should win the GOP presidential nomination, according to a new poll.

According to the McClatchy-Marist Poll, Mitt Romney leads the Republican pack with 23 percent. Gingrich is next with 19 percent, followed by Cain with 17 percent.

It’s time for the pretenders to bow out.  I suppose they’ll work towards the first round of primaries, and that might be fair, but the sooner we can weed out the lower tier candidates, the better off we’ll be.

By the way, for fun, check this out:


You Can’t Wash Democrat Off

I’m not sure how many people know that Rick Perry used to be a Democrat.  While other politicians have certainly made up for this deficit, I’m not sure Perry will:

Whether or not the good Govna’ from Texas can make up for his past sins isn’t important right now.  What IS important is how I can tell he used to be a Democrat:

“If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for on other reason that they have been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,” Perry said.

Did’ja see that?  Governor Perry wants us to govern based on “heart”.  As in, if you don’t love puppies, you don’t have a heart.  As in, if you don’t think that the government is entitled to steal your property because poor people don’t have health insurance, you don’t have a heart.  As in, if you don’t think that the rich need to pay more in taxes while some people do without food iPhones, you don’t have a heart.

The capital “O” Oughts of government have nothing to do with “heart”.  They have to do with a concept called Liberty.

The sooner we bring this lesson home the sooner our country gets back on the right track.

What Is Social Security

It’s ‘prolly not fair, but after just one debate I don’t think I’m a Perry fan.  I don’t think that he necessarily believes what he’s sayin’ and, in order to SHOW that he does, he defends it so vehemently that I don’t see an ability to … “flex”.  Be that as it may, he made a comment, or rather a collection of statements, that seems to have the interlinks a’buzz.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

Interesting.  Never thought of it that way, bt now that ya mention it; sure.

Let’s check the tape:

  • A swindle in which a quick return, made up of money from new investors, on an initial investment lures the victim into much bigger risks.
  • A fraudulent investment operation that pays quick returns to initial contributors using money from subsequent contributors rather than profit.
  • Investment scam by which early investors are paid off from the contributions of later ones, 1957, in ref. to Charles Ponzi, who perpetrated such a scam in U.S., 1919-20.
  • An investment swindle in which early investors are paid with sums obtained from later ones in order to create the illusion of profitability.

A general characterization of the Ponzi scheme seems to be the fact that there is an illusion or an act deception.  If you take away the deception that Social Security is solvent, which we can do for this argument, then the comparison doesn’t hold water.  Social Security is up front about the fact that we are contributing today in order to care for the retirement of others.  And later, when we need that same care, the workers of tomorrow will be there for us.

However, the later definitions rely less on the illusion and more on the method of paying out.  And in this regard, Social Security is EXACTLY the definition of a Ponzi scheme.  Investors are paid out with money obtained by later ones.

This later point is taken up by Shika Dalmia over at Reason.com:

A Ponzi scheme collects money from new investors and uses it to pay  previous investors—minus a fee. But Social Security collects money from new investors, uses some of it to pay previous investors, and spends the surplus on programs for politically favored groups—minus the cost of supporting a massive bureaucracy. Over the years, trillions of dollars have been spent on these groups and bureaucrats.

Shika goes on to make a second point that I think is much weaker:

Two, participation in Ponzi schemes is voluntary. Not so with Social Security. The government automatically withholds payroll taxes and “invests” them for you.

It would be hard to say that participation in a Ponzi scheme is strictly voluntary.  The “fund” is founded on fraud.  Few would invest if they knew the truth.

And finally, his third point is close, he doesn’t go far enough:

When a Ponzi scheme can’t con new investors in sufficient numbers to pay the previous investors, it collapses. But when Social Security runs low on investors—also called poor working stiffs—it raises taxes.

What this means, of course, is that when a Ponzi scheme runs out of clients, it’s sunk.  But when Social Security runs out of clients, it just walks over to their house, draws their gun and forces EXISTING clients to up their investment.

Now, to be sure, there are those who wouldn’t agree with said characterization.  Kevin Drum offers his over at Mother Jones:

Here’s how Social Security works: every month we take in taxes from working people and every month we turn around and distribute those taxes to retirees. That’s it. That’s how it works, and everyone who actually knows anything about the program knows that’s how it works. Taxes come in, benefits go out. And the key to solvency is simple: making sure that those taxes and benefits are in balance.

Emphasis Kevin’s.

So his defense that Social Security isn’t a scheme is to demonstrate that it works JUST like a scheme.  Except that because it’s done in the light of day, it’s apparently okay.  After all, when you tax people for an Army man, you pay the Army man.  So, see?  No scheme here.

He continues this like of thinking:

For example: we have an obligation to today’s seniors to fund the Pentagon and keep them safe from al-Qaeda. After all, they did their bit and funded the Pentagon back when we needed to kick Hitler’s butt and stop the commies from taking over the world.

But this isn’t an equivalent.  He’s trying to connect the fact that I am paying into a system that doesn’t benefit me now in the hopes that it’ll benefit me later to a program that I pay into now for a definite benefit now.  After all, when the seniors funded the Pentagon way back then, they received the benefit of a Pentagon.  They continue to pay today and, as it so happens, continue to realize the same benefit.

I’m not saying that in this case that Social Security being a Ponzi scheme is bad; it may very well not be.  Personally, I’d like to see some more privacy associated with the money so that we can’t just spend it out from our investors, but whatever.  The point isn’t the worthiness of the scheme, only if it IS one.

And it is.

Thoughts on the Debate

The Republicans are still going at it as I type.  However, I think that tonight marks the beginning of the end for Santorum and Bachmann.  I further think that Gingrich will begin to rise and Romney and Perry even out.

Bow Your Heads

It seems that there is much kerfluffle on the intertubes about a certain governor from a certain state saying some certain words.

The last word, which begins with “a” and ends with “men” seems to be the biggie.

Lemme remind you:

…it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

America is a club of people who formed a society.  And those people who made up this club said, “We believe in a God”.  More than that, these people who formed this club said that you don’t have to believe in the same God as we do.  Heck, you don’t even have to believe in a God if ya don’t wanna.

But we do.

And when we gather to do business, we pray to her.

You don’t have to pray; though I hope you do.  But’cha kinda have’ta let me.