Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on September 08, 2011, 09:29:15 AM
-
Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry (It's Worse)
Reason ^ | 09/08/2011 | Sikha Dalmia
Rachel Maddow and her MSNBC guests are scandalized that Rick Perry stuck to his guns that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme during the presidential debate tonight. “This kind of rhetoric will hurt him in the general elections,” they reassured each other. They didn’t flat out say that Perry was wrong, but actually he is. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. It is much worse.
Here are three reasons why:
One, 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.
Two, participation in Ponzi schemes is voluntary. Not so with Social Security. The government automatically withholds payroll taxes and “invests” them for you.
Three: 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. Indeed, Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner points out,
Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase.
And given that the worker-to-retiree ratio is expected to fall from 3-1 today to 2-1 in 2030 (down from 16-1 in 1950) these taxes will only go up unless the government decides to kick retirees in their dentures and slash benefits.
Rick Perry should stop soft-peddling the issue and tell it like it is.
-
It's going to be fun watching him defend that statement
-
If Ponzi was alive today, which party would be belong to?
-
It's going to be fun watching him defend that statement
Peter Schiff got the Trustee of SS to admit its a ponzi scheme too. Perry should justpost that interview and you liberal ostriches can choke on it.
-
If Ponzi was alive today, which party would be belong to?
Considering Madoff was a big Democrat donor, he probably would be a dem.
-
Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry (It's Worse)
Reason ^ | 09/08/2011 | Sikha Dalmia
Rachel Maddow and her MSNBC guests are scandalized that Rick Perry stuck to his guns that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme during the presidential debate tonight. “This kind of rhetoric will hurt him in the general elections,” they reassured each other. They didn’t flat out say that Perry was wrong, but actually he is. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. It is much worse.
Here are three reasons why:
One, 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.
Two, participation in Ponzi schemes is voluntary. Not so with Social Security. The government automatically withholds payroll taxes and “invests” them for you.
Three: 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. Indeed, Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner points out,
Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase.
And given that the worker-to-retiree ratio is expected to fall from 3-1 today to 2-1 in 2030 (down from 16-1 in 1950) these taxes will only go up unless the government decides to kick retirees in their dentures and slash benefits.
Rick Perry should stop soft-peddling the issue and tell it like it is.
Social security needs to be voluntary. It always should have been.
-
Peter Schiff got the Trustee of SS to admit its a ponzi scheme too. Perry should justpost that interview and you liberal ostriches can choke on it.
link?
wtf do you always have to be asked to provde a link
-
link?
wtf do you always have to be asked to provde a link
-
Social security needs to be voluntary. It always should have been.
eh, you can't trust ppl in their 20s and 30s to plan for retirement. it's why we needed it in the first place. ppl don't plan ahead. you have to make them.
same way a 5 year old kid might not WANT to go to kindergarten. You make them -because otherwise you'll be taking care of them for the next 60 years. it's just like that here. Govt has to FORCE people to save, as they'll be coming to the govt for food and shelter and medicine at age 65 no matter what.
-
And you support ron paul why?
-
Schiff doesn't even spell this guys name correctly
what part of the 19 minute clip are you referring to so I can fast forward to that part
-
Lmao. Listen the whole thing.
-
And you support ron paul why?
i dont like bullies.
-
Lmao. Listen the whole thing.
no time
if you've actually listened to the clip then you know exactly where to go
tell me where it is or I'll assume it's false
-
On my phone now.
-
i dont like bullies.
I can't believe Perry did that. He clearly has no class.
-
Schiff doesn't even spell this guys name correctly
what part of the 19 minute clip are you referring to so I can fast forward to that part
Go to 10:00 on "there are many similarities to how SS is financed to a ponzi scheme" - quote
-
Go to 10:00 on "there are many similarities to how SS is financed to a ponzi scheme" - quote
Similarities does not mean the same as.
-
Similarities does not mean the same as.
YEAH - BECAUSE WE ARE FORCED TO BUY INTO THIS MESS!
The trustee also admits the so called trust fund is a fiction at the end.
-
YEAH - BECAUSE WE ARE FORCED TO BUY INTO THIS MESS!
The trustee also admits the so called trust fund is a fiction at the end.
Still does not mean the same as. Sorry 333 the burden of proof has not been met. Similarities are not the same as. A white male may have similarities to a black male, does not make him the same as.
-
Still does not mean the same as. Sorry 333 the burden of proof has not been met. Similarities are not the same as. A white male may have similarities to a black male, does not make him the same as.
Yawn - listen to the clip - he says the only difference between a ponzi scheme is intent.
SS is the worst pyramid scam in the history of this country.
-
Rick perry is a ponzi scheme
-
Rick perry is a ponzi scheme
That may be true - but what he said is 100% accurate and the Trustee of SS confirms EVERYTHING I have ever claimed about SS.
-
Yawn - listen to the clip - he says the only difference between a ponzi scheme is intent.
SS is the worst pyramid scam in the history of this country.
No he doesn't. He says there are "strong similarities" and intent is one of the differences. Schiff then jumps in and starts talking and trying corner him. This approach does not work, and the conversation moves on.
Perhaps if you listened instead of only heard what you wanted you could come up with a balanced, reasoned thought of your own.
Is that too much to ask?
Yes that is rhetorical because for you, it is too much to ask.
-
No he doesn't. He says there are "strong similarities" and intent is one of the differences. Schiff then jumps in and starts talking and trying corner him. This approach does not work, and the conversation moves on.
Perhaps if you listened instead of only heard what you wanted you could come up with a balanced, reasoned thought of your own.
Is that too much to ask?
Yes that is rhetorical because for you, it is too much to ask.
LMFAO!
This is the trustee of the fucking program itself! What do you think he is going to say! Admit its a ponzi scam, which he basically did. He also admitted the trust fund is a complete fiction.
-
Still does not mean the same as. Sorry 333 the burden of proof has not been met. Similarities are not the same as. A white male may have similarities to a black male, does not make him the same as.
Bullshit. He couldn't name one difference aside from intent. You're splitting hairs.
We all know the saying:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
-
I haven't heard the clip but if the comment is that there are similarities in the way it is financed then that would be the same as any other insurance program (which is what SS is) as well as almost all pensions. With al of these programs the $'s paid out to you are not the same $'s you put in.
This is the only similarity to a Ponzi scheme but that doesn't make it the equivalent of a Ponzi scheme
-
I haven't heard the clip but if the comment is that there are similarities in the way it is financed then that would be the same as any other insurance program (which is what SS is) as well as almost all pensions. With al of these programs the $'s paid out to you are not the same $'s you put in.
This is the only similarity to a Ponzi scheme but that doesn't make it the equivalent of a Ponzi scheme
Listen to the clip he says:
1. There are STRONG similarities to a ponzi scam the main one being intent;
2. SS trust fund is a fiction and bankrupt now;
3. Takes will have to double, triple, or even more to even remotely keep current promises and young people are going to get fucked royally.
That is a scam no matter how you put it.
-
-
-
Listen to the clip he says:
1. There are STRONG similarities to a ponzi scam the main one being intent;
2. SS trust fund is a fiction and bankrupt now;
3. Takes will have to double, triple, or even more to even remotely keep current promises and young people are going to get fucked royally.
That is a scam no matter how you put it.
Ill listen later but if I listen and find out (yet again) that you've selectively chosen what to hear while ignoring statements rhat don't support your preconceived belief it will be the last clip of your I waste my time on
-
Ill listen later but if I listen and find out (yet again) that you've selectively chosen what to hear while ignoring statements rhat don't support your preconceived belief it will be the last clip of your I waste my time on
Skip listened to it and reported what he said above.
-
Go to 10:00 on "there are many similarities to how SS is financed to a ponzi scheme" - quote
If this is the only quote you've get then my statement regarding how insurance and pensions are financed is perfectly apt.
You fail again
-
If this is the only quote you've get then my statement regarding how insurance and pensions are financed is perfectly apt.
You fail again
Wrong moron - insurance is voluntary, can be passed on your heirs, is segregated for your own account, and required to be actuarily sound.
-
Wrong moron - insurance is voluntary, can be passed on your heirs, is segregated for your own account, and required to be actuarily sound.
and the fact that SS is not voluntary doesn't change one thing I said about the mechanism of financing and does not make sS a Ponzi scheme
if the only thing you have to support your belief that SS is a ponzi scheme is the way in which it is financing then you've got nothing to support your belief
now, having nothing to support your belief has never stopped you before and I doubt it will make any difference this time either
-
and the fact that SS is not voluntary doesn't change one thing I said about the mechanism of financing and does not make sS a Ponzi scheme
if the only thing you have to support your belief that SS is a ponzi scheme is the way in which it is financing then you've got nothing to support your belief
now, having nothing to support your belief has never stopped you before and I doubt it will make any difference this time either
LMFAO! That means SS is even worse since its mandatory!
-
LMFAO! That means SS is even worse since its mandatory!
nope
it means the requirement that is mandatory is IRRELEVENT to your argument (which has been proven to be groundless)
-
nope
it means the requirement that is mandatory is IRRELEVENT to your argument (which has been proven to be groundless)
Yeah ok Straw - you are right and the Trustee is wrong, got it.
-
Yeah ok Straw - you are right and the Trustee is wrong, got it.
from the quote you posted he didn't get it wrong because he never said SS was a ponzi scheme in the first place
I doubt you'll be able to comprehend that
-
from the quote you posted he didn't get it wrong because he never said SS was a ponzi scheme in the first place
I doubt you'll be able to comprehend that
He said the only difference is that it was not intended to actually defraud people, but by all other measures its the same thing.
But, SS does actually defraud people so he is wrong.
-
nope
it means the requirement that is mandatory is IRRELEVENT to your argument (which has been proven to be groundless)
Do you think SS should be voluntary?
-
Go to 10:00 on "there are many similarities to how SS is financed to a ponzi scheme" - quote
haven't listed to the clip yet
just going by what you said was the quote
refer to my earlier posts if you don't understand the similarities to how all insurance and most pensions are financed
-
haven't listed to the clip yet
just going by what you said was the quote
refer to my earlier posts if you don't understand the similarities to how all insurance and most pensions are financed
Do you think SS should be voluntary?
-
Do you think SS should be voluntary?
I'd be glad to make that and the insurance legislation voluntary provided but if you opt out then you never get any govt assistance later when you change your mind and wish you had made a different decision
if you opt out of insurance and then get a very curable ailment but have no insurance and no money to pay for it we have to, as a country, say TOUGH SHIT. You made your choice and now live (or die) with it
do you think that's possible
-
I'd be glad to make that and the insurance legislation voluntary provided but if you opt out then you never get any govt assistance later when you change your mind and wish you had made a different decision
if you opt out of insurance and then get a very curable ailment but have no insurance and no money to pay for it we have to, as a country, say TOUGH SHIT. You made your choice and now live (or die) with it
do you think that's possible
SS, like all ponzi scams, falls apart unless you have constant new suckers added in to it.
-
I'd be glad to make that and the insurance legislation voluntary provided but if you opt out then you never get any govt assistance later when you change your mind and wish you had made a different decision
if you opt out of insurance and then get a very curable ailment but have no insurance and no money to pay for it we have to, as a country, say TOUGH SHIT. You made your choice and now live (or die) with it
do you think that's possible
Interesting how you want to cast to the trash bin those who don't fall in line lock-step with your agenda. Liberals, always looking out for their fellow citizens. ::)
We should go all the way and apply stuff like this to welfare. If you use up something like four-years of welfare then you're off forever.
-
SS, like all ponzi scams, falls apart unless you have constant new suckers added in to it.
or just like any insurance fund some people pay in more than they get out
that the way insurance works and SS is insurance
-
Would have been great if the interviewer wouldnt have 1. answered the questions for the guest and 2. let the guest finish his sentences.
-
Interesting how you want to cast to the trash bin those who don't fall in line lock-step with your agenda. Liberals, always looking out for their fellow citizens. ::)
We should go all the way and apply stuff like this to welfare. If you use up something like four-years of welfare then you're off forever.
my agenda ?
333 - posts a clip and then a quote and I responded and refuted it
-
my agenda ?
333 - posts a clip and then a quote and I responded and refuted it
you didnt refute anything.
-
I'd be glad to make that and the insurance legislation voluntary provided but if you opt out then you never get any govt assistance later when you change your mind and wish you had made a different decision
if you opt out of insurance and then get a very curable ailment but have no insurance and no money to pay for it we have to, as a country, say TOUGH SHIT. You made your choice and now live (or die) with it
do you think that's possible
Sure, the idea behind opting out is to take care of yourself, of course with extremely low taxes (or none, even better) this becomes a lot more plausible and with the right investments you can provide for the future. Beyond that there is the argument against government force; the government should not force people to pay into something that they do not want to or even worse, is not solvent.
-
I haven't heard the clip but if the comment is that there are similarities in the way it is financed then that would be the same as any other insurance program (which is what SS is) as well as almost all pensions. With al of these programs the $'s paid out to you are not the same $'s you put in.
This is the only similarity to a Ponzi scheme but that doesn't make it the equivalent of a Ponzi scheme
It's just splitting hairs. At one time, I think your analogy would be apt - back when SS had a surplus which would essentially be an equivalent to insurance or pension reserves. Now that every Tom, Dick, and Harry is dipping their hands into SS combined with the fact that it's paying out more than it's taking in makes it essentially a Ponzi scheme.
If they don't change course, I don't see how any money will possibly be there for our age group (guessing your with us 25-40 or so).
-
It is. It's a Pyramid scheme at this point and has been since LBJ made the SS trust a general fund. There isn't a SS Trust Fund anymore, the money isn't locked away to be used for SS payouts only. It's been borrowed from for 50 years and now, as lunatic Tom Friedman even admitted on CNBC, it is a "pay as you go". Not good.
A large segment of the population is now paying into it to support a smaller segment of the population, with demographics leveled out eventually (by 202X AD) it will go cash negative and the people receiving benefits will far outnumber those paying in and at that point the base collapses and the pyramid is done.
The collapse is being hastened by high U.E., low GDP and silly payroll tax cuts. So it will fall apart faster than the CBO predicts.
Serious SS reform starts with making it a trust fund again. Period.
-
It is. It's a Pyramid scheme at this point and has been since LBJ made the SS trust a general fund. There isn't a SS Trust Fund anymore, the money isn't locked away to be used for SS payouts only. It's been borrowed from for 50 years and now, as lunatic Tom Friedman even admitted on CNBC, it is a "pay as you go". Not good.
A large segment of the population is now paying into it to support a smaller segment of the population, with demographics leveled out eventually (by 202X AD) it will go cash negative and the people receiving benefits will far outnumber those paying in and at that point the base collapses and the pyramid is done.
Serious SS reform starts with making it a trust fund again. Period.
The Trustee admits the trust fund is a fiction. Say what you want, but Schiff got a lot out of these two guests.
-
Sure, the idea behind opting out is to take care of yourself, of course with extremely low taxes (or none, even better) this becomes a lot more plausible and with the right investments you can provide for the future. Beyond that there is the argument against government force; the government should not force people to pay into something that they do not want to or even worse, is not solvent.
It's never going to realistically happen. Endless news stories depicting people living on the street, eating shit from a trashcan, people with children, etc.
The moment it happens, both sides will saying they'll pass a new fund to cover these people.
-
SS fails because of the billions it pays out to illegals, nothing more than that. Alot have 3-4 ss numbers that they collect benefits on monthly.
-
SS fails because of the billions it pays out to illegals, nothing more than that. Alot have 3-4 ss numbers that they collect benefits on monthly.
I read that illegals who have fake SSN's are paying IN to SS that they will never see..
-
I read that illegals who have fake SSN's are paying IN to SS that they will never see..
wonder about Uncle Omar!
-
I read that illegals who have fake SSN's are paying IN to SS that they will never see..
Huh? ???
They see the checks each month they are collecting NOW. How do you pay in when you work for cash?
-
Huh? ???
They see the checks each month they are collecting NOW. How do you pay in when you work for cash?
Many illegals get fake or "borrowed" SSN to meet the employers criteria. Not all illegals get paid in cash. So they pay money in, never expecting to get any out..
I doubt very much it off sets the drain, but it does happen
-
It's never going to realistically happen. Endless news stories depicting people living on the street, eating shit from a trashcan, people with children, etc.
The moment it happens, both sides will saying they'll pass a new fund to cover these people.
I don't think so; it will be possible but a lot change is requried.
-
The other thing collapsing the scam is SSDI.
Turned in to another welfare scam for the bums.
-
LMFAO!
This is the trustee of the fucking program itself! What do you think he is going to say! Admit its a ponzi scam, which he basically did. He also admitted the trust fund is a complete fiction.
bascially did or outright did?
Once again the proof you provide is not sufficient for the claim you make.
-
bascially did or outright did?
Once again the proof you provide is not sufficient for the claim you make.
He agreed with everything Peter said other than the original intent.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Krugman 1997: Social Security "A PONZI game"
ZeroHedge ^ | Sept. 13, 2011 | Tyler Durden
Posted on September 14, 2011 12:11:10 AM EDT by Squeeky
It is one thing (what thing that is we are not sure, but we have heard others say it, so like all good lemmings we will say it too) for Rick Perry to call Social Security a ponzi scheme. After all he is some crazy, foaming in the mouth conservative, as uber-Keynesian liberal Paul Krugman may call him. And that's fine. What confuses us, however, is why Social Security would be called a ponzi by the same liberal noted previously: none other than Paul Krugman himself.
Exhibit A, from a distant 1997, which perhaps one would have expected to remain buried (source):
Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
Come on straw - defend this.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Krugman 1997: Social Security "A PONZI game"
ZeroHedge ^ | Sept. 13, 2011 | Tyler Durden
Posted on September 14, 2011 12:11:10 AM EDT by Squeeky
It is one thing (what thing that is we are not sure, but we have heard others say it, so like all good lemmings we will say it too) for Rick Perry to call Social Security a ponzi scheme. After all he is some crazy, foaming in the mouth conservative, as uber-Keynesian liberal Paul Krugman may call him. And that's fine. What confuses us, however, is why Social Security would be called a ponzi by the same liberal noted previously: none other than Paul Krugman himself.
Exhibit A, from a distant 1997, which perhaps one would have expected to remain buried (source):
Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
Come on straw - defend this.
Ponzi game aspect
-
::) ::)
Yeah - because a real ponzi scheme is voluntary - this is mandatory - which is worse!
-
Funny how in Florida, with a large blue hair population, Perry and Romney were arguing over who LIKES SSN more..... Would respect Perry more if he stuck to his guns...
-
Funny how in Florida, with a large blue hair population, Perry and Romney were arguing over who LIKES SSN more..... Would respect Perry more if he stuck to his guns...
Exactly... Everyone hates all social programs until they realize that social programs are putting votes into their pockets.
All full of shit.
-
Funny how in Florida, with a large blue hair population, Perry and Romney were arguing over who LIKES SSN more..... Would respect Perry more if he stuck to his guns...
perry was a dem when it was politically useful for him to make a name with Gore and get his foothold in TX legislature.
When TX went repub with Dubya, so did Perry. Semed like the thing to do!
Now that the party is flavored tea party - suddenly mr. spendhappy, forced vaccinations, and pro-amnesty is 100% TEA PARTy, baby!
Smart people see thru it. It's really only the most ignorant morons out there saying "ya know, Perry has always really represented the tea party ideals of freedom and low spending". Facts are facts - perry has 20+ year of liberal policies.