Advertisement
Advertisement

Matt Bors for September 12, 2011

  1. Missing large
    hotdogger  about 10 years ago

    Ignorance is no excuse, even on the part of cartoonists. Perry never advocated destroying SS, only that it be addressed honestly and fixed. Read his current editorial on USAToday.http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2011-09-11/Rick-Perry-Social-Security/50362610/1

     •  Reply
  2. Missing large
    Tue Elung-Jensen  about 10 years ago

    The skull is a bit stretched.

     •  Reply
  3. Ishikawa  gun
    AdmNaismith  about 10 years ago

    Perry said SS is a ‘Ponzi Scheme’. It is not ,and Perry is a liar.

     •  Reply
  4. Lum happy
    yohannbiimu  about 10 years ago

    Obama’s way is where he creates one job for every ten million dollars he spends to “stimulate” things.

     •  Reply
  5. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  about 10 years ago

    Perry has become a cartoon character. What disturbs me is the weak position in the state constitution of Texas that makes governors rather “weak”, so “certain ones” seem to relish the use of the death penalty- “vindictive” and “courageous” are NOT equivalent personality traits.

     •  Reply
  6. Lum happy
    yohannbiimu  about 10 years ago

    Oh, but I DO. A Ponzi Scheme is something that occurs when you build income and revenue only when you have a number of people beneath you putting money or their effort into it Social Security is NOT money that YOU have put into it, that builds interest over the years until you have money to sustain yourself when you retire. Social Security is a system where those who work pay for those who have retired or are deemed eligible for it. It is set up that any number of people who do work are required to handle the number of people who don’t, and that of workers MUST far-exceed the number of those who are not working. In essence, that is a Ponzi Scheme, and in the end it was a scheme that is doomed to fail, simply because the number of workers are shrinking (for a number of factors), and the number of non-working benefit eligible people is growing.

     •  Reply
  7. Calvin hobbes
    Noveltman  about 10 years ago

    The upper right corner forgot to mention “innocent people”.

     •  Reply
  8. Jollyroger
    pirate227  about 10 years ago

    Aw, the cons have their panties in a bunch again.Please don’t lampoon the cartoon character that is leading in their polls, it will hurt their little feelings.

     •  Reply
  9. Exploding human fat bombs hedge 060110
    Charles Brobst Premium Member about 10 years ago

    Rick Parry want to kill your mother!

     •  Reply
  10. Reagan ears
    d_legendary1  about 10 years ago

    This guy is more of a Ruffian than a Punisher. At least the Punisher helped people.

     •  Reply
  11. Lum happy
    yohannbiimu  about 10 years ago

    Silly Kimmy! It is NOT “a savings account.” Where do you get THAT idea? Look it up on wikipedia and educate yourself. It clearly says that it is only sustained by the number of people who pay into it, and that it becomes unsustainable when that number falls. My LORD, where do you get the nonsense that you spout?

     •  Reply
  12. Lum happy
    yohannbiimu  about 10 years ago

    The problem is that this “insurance” is something that EVERYONE will inevitably have to be paid by the Insurer. And that number is growing faster than the number who are paying into it. It is failing, and only an idiot would say otherwise.

     •  Reply
  13. Lum happy
    yohannbiimu  about 10 years ago

    Say Kim, if what you say is true, then explain this to me:“The first monthly (SS benefits) payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92."

     •  Reply
  14. Bobby hill pros and cons of cannabis
    comicsquo  about 10 years ago

    I’m hoping what Perry actually means (for his own sake…) is this:SS is/was touted as a great program because, even though you pay into it all your life, you will see an awesome return once you retire (i.e., that money you get when you retire).The “Ponzi part” is the fact that young people who are currently paying into it may never see that money when they retire due to corrupt and bankrupt government, and also because the money that was paid into it in previous years has been essentially stolen from the “investors” to pay for other things.

    That is a Ponzi scheme in general, as I understand it. This means that SS needs MAJOR reform, unless you’re just going to institute some other program for retirees.

    I mean, we don’t have a choice. We’re living longer. We have a political, fiscal, and moral responsibility to care for those who aren’t working anymore.

     •  Reply
  15. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  about 10 years ago

    One last time: “Ponzi”= take money from Jack. Take MORE money from Jill and give it to Jack. Take MORE money from Fred, Ted, Allan, and George- give THAT money to Jack and Jill- then keep brining in more to pay SHORT TERM, with no investments or interest income, and claim EVERYONE gets rich IN A FEW DAYS OR MONTHS.

    SS- people pay into insurance, small amounts, for YEARS, with a return after retirement of a SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME, NOT A PENSION TO LIVE OFF OF! SS is NOT a “pension” but a survival plan- which- actuarial tables say that NOT EVERYONE WILL EVEN GET THOSE PAYMENTS, because they are DEAD! Same for Medicare. Of course with Medicare Republicans wrote in the “Ponzi” for pharmaceutical companies by PROHIBITING Medicare from negotiating drug prices, forcing “the government” to pay WHATEVER THE COMPANIES WANT TO CHARGE! Even the VA is smarter than Republican sharecroppers working the “fields of gold” for the pharmaceutical companies.

    So, investing in insurance you may not live long enough to collect all “investment” on, IS just like the insurance those wealthy insurance companies, which are INVESTMENT COMPANIES, sell you, “insurance”, not a pension.

    Now, adjusting those payments (taxes) and actuarial tables to match life expectancy, income, and out-pay may be necessary. But scrapping the system because the trust fund has been raided far in excess of the interest payments coming in (gee, bonds, just like savings bonds) is a fools dream, well, a Wall Street/K-street TEA drinkers dream, but they drink from gold cups.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment
Advertisement

More From Matt Bors

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement