Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- about a month since He entered the presidential race and Texas governor Rick Perry as quickly shaken things up in the GOP -- 2012 field.
He took to the podium for some straight talk on Social Security.
Rattling establishment candidate Mitt Romney take a listen.
It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or thirty.
-- old -- -- you -- -- into a program is going to be there anybody that's for the status quo.
With Social Security today it is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids that's not right.
The issue is it in the book -- -- governors do is you say that by any measure Social Security is a failure.
You can't say that the tens of millions Americans who live on Social Security in those who have lived out.
Got it right here now to discuss our my freedom fighters Fox Business stocks editor and my colleague Elizabeth MacDonald.
Carl -- democratic analyst.
And -- Foster America's Future Foundation chair.
In that to you first.
It's Aponte scale or whether you like it or not know what that I -- -- for official -- that it pays more than it takes in and of resumes a bigger base than those it's going to.
It's not a fraud yet like a Bernie Madoff thing at that there's a -- to saying that this is superficial similarities -- but I think Mitt Romney does have a right it does -- keep lot of senior citizens out of poverty the problem is it's missing and that those kinds of characterizations -- a bigger point.
That congress -- raided Social Security since the sixties under LBJ when they did you -- -- -- box well yes we'll just talk about right which sits right next to the pork barrel right so it's a security is filled a lot of land use and that's basically it I.
Didn't hear governor Perry -- -- say that people wore on -- what have to get off it and I didn't hear him say that people who paid money into it couldn't get their money back there I heard him say.
The constitution doesn't authorize it and it's financially unsound.
What's wrong with those two arguments and those are both great arguments and I would I would disagree with -- on this I think it is a Ponzi scheme and I'm not I'm not the only one that says so Paul Krugman.
Has said that it -- Ponzi game aspects to it.
That the bottom line is that the program does not have any private accounts there are no investments happening at this point it's simply that it -- to have enough people paying into the systems that can actually pay out benefits the recipient.
Carl -- can anybody win the presidency of the United States of America by saying that -- -- change Social Security.
While I was just sitting here and I I wish you had ten more Republican conservative analysts -- go back to you talk about all of my these days because -- -- -- but all the way to the bank.
Because Democrats have -- on Social Security in the past.
Without the kind of aggressive I've got tax that we're getting now -- -- these aggressive attacks the the president may not even have to the -- And more about it -- -- -- -- leadership they're all there is no bank for you to go to with your land there.
Because there is no Social Security trust fund Republicans and Democrats presidents and members of congress have rated it and if there isn't enough money coming in.
And they pay more going out -- comes in.
That is a Ponzi scheme right.
Well they -- -- but you know what and I understand why why people want to use that sort of superficial.
Comparison because I will concede that's.
A Ponzi scheme but based -- Bringing people and today and then using what they -- end up paying the people who came in yesterday and add to that degree.
There is a similarity is that people who contribute.
Now -- Social Security.
But they have bonds are used to support dollars and contributed ten years ago and twenty -- -- -- -- -- -- differences one is that there won't always made.
-- pool of workers continuously how many.
So when I'm -- which is attenuated live yeah just yeah.
-- have very easily and whatnot.
I think I don't I'm not known as you know.
-- -- exact point that this is this I know I haven't mentioned you have an army did it my second point is is that the intent.
Was never there -- isn't Ponzi scheme understood the -- -- And He ever does that aren't they -- -- group -- -- what's the next aren't.
No a little quickly you're obligated to pesos us Austria's obligated to pay benefits Ponzi schemes are not their -- of course -- I understand the argument.
Another esteem with big government involvement mr.
-- the National Labor Relations Board -- find itself -- hot water yet again.
The National Association of Manufacturers filed a lawsuit again UK OK and federal rule that requires companies to post notices that tell employees they have a right to join a union.
The National Association of Manufacturers says the government as overreaching.
But -- company to promote unionization.
So whose side is everybody is of the it's a form of forced.
Where the government says to management.
You must inform everybody that works for you that if they want to join a union.
Here's what they have to do I'd say that's accurate -- and that's that's probably an aspect I really hadn't thought about before.
What I what I think is most interesting here is that we keep seeing the National Labor Relations Board in these weird -- I mean we've got this incident in the Boeing incident prior to that -- what.
We don't live and actually assisted by the way if they're forced to propose that union notice right and they had been they should.
It's a fact of have to post the ten commandments that that's a joke I don't wanna make the middle liberals would have had -- close but -- NL RBI is not -- chart right I can't.
The NLRB is not a nonpartisan board the president appoints the members -- points in the -- of it.
And they are union cronies so it is not a nonpartisan.
Outfit that is being run their that's why they're beating up on companies like bowling wrongfully later she says that have three -- Ahead yeah.
Well I think they're two separate issues the unaudited what I question.
Has had some some difficulties and -- not in support of everything they do including by the way the -- issue but the issue you're raising today.
Is one way or in fact it is not coercion to post in fact a statement advising wire because of what -- right.
-- happy -- out here at the same debt First Amendment.
That protects your right to speak also protects your right not to speak so when the government forces speech.
By telling corporations you have to post this on your wall to tell your workers how to organize what labour unions.
That violates the First Amendment -- to see that Carl Jeffers.
Now what 'cause the same sort of laws require you to post workers' compensation workers disability smoking bans all kinds of -- requirements are required to be posted what would be coercion is if they in fact required are posting that told workers that they could lose their jobs have been subject to penalties if they join a union and contrary only -- like copper.
And He said you need to join a union that would be gorgeous parents letting them know that -- -- yeah it is an idea what it is.
The last word I've got about thirty seconds no I -- Judge obviously car just doesn't know what works -- means it needs to tell someone that they must do something otherwise there will be consequences.
But they're not taking this action that is coercion by definition and Pacific is certainly the code I don't usually -- -- -- -- -- -- -- How I think you make the best point and that is this is not not a neutral body -- that's not there is a lot of at all they body bent on helping labor unions at their crafting the law that's right losing their power in the government to help the unit that's right -- started by -- yeah.
At a daily got to go Karl -- struck OPEC cartel bragging about it and you know why sir thank you for joining us and that's what the American jobs that.
Filter by section