Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry

[MikeK]

When Perry was asked about why Texas was last in health care, he said if Obamacare didn't force people to have health care, everyone in Texas would. So, less is "more"?

Of course, everyone is forced to have car insurance. Oops.

Actually the truth is you have to buy car insurance only IF you "choose" to buy a car. Can you show me a case where an individual, who chooses mass transit as their only means of transportation (therby never owning a car) is still forced to have car insurance? Oops.Now you can't make that claim about Obamacare: the government FORCES you to buy it or you have to pay a fine - there isn't a choice (which is why it has been ruled as being unconstitutional and is currently on appeal by the Obama Administration). Nice effort though.

Is that your idea of a clever comparison?

Can you show me a case where an individual who chooses to never work is still forced to pay into Social Security, or Medicare, or any other government contributory benefit?

 

[Lakhota]

I'll ask SS to throw a little extra in my monthly paycheck, since you righties don't want any of that dirty old government-run Ponzi scheme money. Thank you...

 

[Lakhota]

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,



1. If you hook your wagon to SS and so it happens you do make it to *old age*, you will be glad to receive back the money you put into it.
2. But if you paid into it for thirty years, from age 18-58, then die suddenly, without an heir, then your money you paid into it, goes *poof*.
3. So if anything SS is a selective *ponzi scheme*.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Liability]

When Perry was asked about why Texas was last in health care, he said if Obamacare didn't force people to have health care, everyone in Texas would. So, less is "more"?

Of course, everyone is forced to have car insurance. Oops.

Nobody is forced to have car insurance.

Mike

Actually, of course, LOTS of people ARE forced to have car insurance if they have a license AND wish to own a car.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No more STIMULUS. That word is officially banned.

By the right. The right wing is the unofficial word police.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Are you one of the idiots who actually BELIEVES that in your retirement years the Social Security "system" will still be around to provide you with those old promised benefits?

Sparky, I am retired... and my Social Security and Medicare are doing just fine...

Lakota - haven't you heard?

SOCIAL SECURITY IS BANKRUPT! Don't expect your check next month! Its NOT THERE!!!!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

When Perry was asked about why Texas was last in health care, he said if Obamacare didn't force people to have health care, everyone in Texas would. So, less is "more"?

Of course, everyone is forced to have car insurance. Oops.

Nobody is forced to have car insurance.

Mike

Actually, of course, LOTS of people ARE forced to have car insurance if they have a license AND wish to own a car.

No one is forced to pay SS insurance. Just choose to not have earned income subject to FICA taxation.

 

[clevergirl]

When Perry was asked about why Texas was last in health care, he said if Obamacare didn't force people to have health care, everyone in Texas would. So, less is "more"?

Of course, everyone is forced to have car insurance. Oops.

Nobody is forced to have car insurance.

Mike

Actually, of course, LOTS of people ARE forced to have car insurance if they have a license AND wish to own a car.

No one is forced to buy car insurance. Yes, they can get cited if they get caught driving without it-but many people choose to not drive. Obamacare says if you are alive and breathing you have to have health insurance-that is unconstitutional.

Still if someone chooses to have auto insurance, they can shop competitively across state lines; have access to cafeteria menus for coverage (a man has no need for an OBGYN) and change policies if they find a better deal. If these same kind of freedoms were implemented in the free market for health care we would realize outstanding savings,

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No one is forced to buy car insurance. Yes, they can get cited if they get caught driving without it-but many people choose to not drive. Obamacare says if you are alive and breathing you have to have health insurance-that is unconstitutional.

Obamacare was never passed and it doesn't say that. The law you are referring to imposes an income tax penalty on those w/o insurance. Income taxes can only be assessed on those with income, and you can certainly choose to not have income.

Still if someone chooses to have auto insurance, they can shop competitively across state lines; have access to cafeteria menus for coverage (a man has no need for an OBGYN) and change policies if they find a better deal. If these same kind of freedoms were implemented in the free market for health care we would realize outstanding savings,

So what you're saying is, you're opposed to states' rights to regulate industry within their borders?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I would hardly call a trillion plus dollar surplus "broke". Can it(SS) meet i's obligations after 2037? That depends.

When the only entity on the planet that can redeem the assets is the US $1T annual deficit government, it's not a "Surplus", it's a Ponzi scheme

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it" Barack "Social Security Really is Bankrupt" Obama, the Downgraded President

The Secretary of Treasury decides what bills are paid but the Republicans trying to make the government default makes my point in the previous post that with Republicans in control it(SS) might be a scheme but not with Democrats.

You are a moron.

That's not the issue. The "Fund" supposedly has "assets" except there's only one entity that can "Buy" the "assets" so that makes them suspect.

 

[saveliberty]

You are clueless Poo. Your suggestion that people forego income in order to avoid a health care penalty is stupid beyond belief. Do you actually think before you post or is this all just free flow?

Clever was just mentioning EXISTING differences between healthcare and auto insurance access. A state can still regulate within their borders, yet allow consumers to purchase out of state.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The government calls the newest attempt to reform patents the Patent Reform Act, even though it doesn't reform patents. Why should a law that called SS insurance when it passed decades ago be any more accurate?

I suppose we could base our decision on the accuracy of calling old age and survivors insurance insurance on some other unrelated government law the government passed - or we could look at its actual attributes. Like the fact it pays X amount of dollars should Y condition occur, in exchange for Z cashflows in from the payee - which makes it - INSURANCE.

FYI, insurance is the transfer of risk from one party to anther in exchange for payment. The government assumes no risk in Social Security, and I transfer no risk to it when I pay my taxes. That means SS is not insurance, no matter what the government, or the politicians that decide what to call things, says.

Social Security assumes part of the risk that you will be old or that you will become disabled. When you pay, you have partially covered your risk of disability or your risk of being too old to work.

Its really not that hard to understand.

Social Security does not assume any risk.

It assume the risk of old age and disability.

You can't tell me you've never heard of disability insurance?

Everyone gets old

Not everyone gets old. Many people die before retirement age. Come on, you know that, please stop being stupid.

, and SSI (the disability you mentioned) is not part of the SS trust fund, even though it is paid out of it.

Want to try again?

You are referring to Supplementary Security Income. It is paid for out of the general budget, but administered by the Social Security Administration.

SSDI is the disability insurance it is funded by social security taxes. You are only eligible for it if you paid FICA taxes for the required number of years - at least 5 out of the last 10 - and 1 year for every 4 years your age exceeds 42 on top of that.

Credits required for disability eligibility


SSI is for people who aren't eligible for SSDI or OASI. It is charity paid for out of the general budget - not out of social security funds.

 

[clevergirl]

No one is forced to buy car insurance. Yes, they can get cited if they get caught driving without it-but many people choose to not drive. Obamacare says if you are alive and breathing you have to have health insurance-that is unconstitutional.

Obamacare was never passed and it doesn't say that. The law you are referring to imposes an income tax penalty on those w/o insurance. Income taxes can only be assessed on those with income, and you can certainly choose to not have income.

Still if someone chooses to have auto insurance, they can shop competitively across state lines; have access to cafeteria menus for coverage (a man has no need for an OBGYN) and change policies if they find a better deal. If these same kind of freedoms were implemented in the free market for health care we would realize outstanding savings,

So what you're saying is, you're opposed to states' rights to regulate industry within their borders?

LOL OK so you know what I was referring to by calling it "Obamacare" <eye-roll>

The mandate to obtain health insurance is built into the bill- it forces the individual to be covered, employed or not. If you cannot afford it, it will be appointed to you.

Do you have a problem with your ability to purchase auto insurance competitively? Creating, under the commerce clause, regulations that address individual state mandates preventing interstate shopping, is Constitutional.

analysis

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

When the only entity on the planet that can redeem the assets is the US $1T annual deficit government, it's not a "Surplus", it's a Ponzi scheme

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it" Barack "Social Security Really is Bankrupt" Obama, the Downgraded President

The Secretary of Treasury decides what bills are paid but the Republicans trying to make the government default makes my point in the previous post that with Republicans in control it(SS) might be a scheme but not with Democrats.

You are a moron.

That's not the issue. The "Fund" supposedly has "assets" except there's only one entity that can "Buy" the "assets" so that makes them suspect.

There's only one entity that can redeem coupons on Treasuries - and only one that can redeem the note after its expired - the issuing authority.

I fail to see how that's surprising.

Are you making the case that the fund should go back to buying marketable securities? Would it make that much of a difference? You know a U.S. Savings Bond isn't a marketable asset, either, but folks buy those all the time.

 

[saveliberty]

You are referring to Supplementary Security Income. It is paid for out of the general budget, but administered by the Social Security Administration.

SSDI is the disability insurance it is funded by social security taxes. You are only eligible for it if you paid FICA taxes for the required number of years - at least 5 out of the last 10 - and 1 year for every 4 years your age exceeds 42 on top of that.

Credits required for disability eligibility


SSI is for people who aren't eligible for SSDI or OASI. It is charity paid for out of the general budget - not out of social security funds.

Highlighted portions contradict each other dimwit.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You are clueless Poo. Your suggestion that people forego income in order to avoid a health care penalty is stupid beyond belief.

I made no such suggestion. Would you suggest people forego the privilege of driving simply to avoid insurance? Course not. But people aren't FORCED to drive anymore than they are FORCED to earn income.

Clever was just mentioning EXISTING differences between healthcare and auto insurance access. A state can still regulate within their borders, yet allow consumers to purchase out of state.

They could. Or they couldn't. They can do what they want, they're a state, right? States rights!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You are referring to Supplementary Security Income. It is paid for out of the general budget, but administered by the Social Security Administration.

SSDI is the disability insurance it is funded by social security taxes. You are only eligible for it if you paid FICA taxes for the required number of years - at least 5 out of the last 10 - and 1 year for every 4 years your age exceeds 42 on top of that.

Credits required for disability eligibility


SSI is for people who aren't eligible for SSDI or OASI. It is charity paid for out of the general budget - not out of social security funds.

Highlighted portions contradict each other dimwit.

SSI and SSDI are not the same program moron

Can you read - at all? I've highlighted the differences for you as plain as day.

Social Security Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI - which includes OASI and SSDI) - is PAID FOR WITH FICA TAXES AND ONLY AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO HAVE PAID IN.

Social Security Supplemental Security Income (SSI) - is paid for out of the general budget and available to those not eligible for OASDI. And it pays a LOT less. This is why you want to be eligible for the paid in programs.

 

[clevergirl]

The Secretary of Treasury decides what bills are paid but the Republicans trying to make the government default makes my point in the previous post that with Republicans in control it(SS) might be a scheme but not with Democrats.

You are a moron.

That's not the issue. The "Fund" supposedly has "assets" except there's only one entity that can "Buy" the "assets" so that makes them suspect.

There's only one entity that can redeem coupons on Treasuries - and only one that can redeem the note after its expired - the issuing authority.

I fail to see how that's surprising.

Are you making the case that the fund should go back to buying marketable securities? Would it make that much of a difference? You know a U.S. Savings Bond isn't a marketable asset, either, but folks buy those all the time.

Yes, and f I buy bonds with my money, instead of being forced to let the government do it, I can leave them to someone in my will. Perhaps a SS reform would have us purchasing our own bonds with time locks of say 20 years before they can be cashed out- but we own them out right. Of course the feds would cease to have access to all that cash that belongs to us...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes, and f I buy bonds with my money, instead of being forced to let the government do it, I can leave them to someone in my will.

You are confusing the purpose of social security insurance. It is not supposed to be an individual retirement fund - it is an insurance contract between the government and you. It is similar to a life annuity coupled to a disability policy - in fact, its pretty much the same thing.

Perhaps a SS reform would have us purchasing our own bonds with time locks of say 20 years before they can be cashed out- but we own them out right. Of course the feds would cease to have access to all that cash that belongs to us...

Social Security beneficiaries are paid out of the stream of FICA tax revenues. If you diverted those FICA taxes to individual accounts, you would have to raise money for the Social Security beneficiaries through the general fund. Those first asked to pay into such a system would have to fund TWO retirements - one for current beneficiaries through the general fund and one for themselves by FICA taxes into their individualized accounts.

Not to mention that under your idea, we'd all just be purchasing treasury debt anyway and what would the difference be there?