Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry

[Quantum Windbag]

Obamacare was never passed and it doesn't say that.

If it wasn't passed how do you know what it says?

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.

I thought you said what he was referring to never passed. If it never passed how did it become a law?

FYI, the Obamacare/PPACA penalty is not a tax.

Another point, it applies to people who do not have insurance, even if they do not have an income. The subsidy that helps people purchase that insurance is based on income.

Thanks for playing though, I enjoy poking idiots. I think that is a sign of being a sociopath.

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

FYI, a state making it illegal for someone to buy a product from another state would be unconstitutional. Any state that tried to pass a law like that would find itself in court before the ink dried on the law.

That tells me that the provision barring interstate commerce in health care is a federal one.

I really enjoyed that.

 

[saveliberty]

Old people selling pencils and apples on the street, eating tuna canned for cats; workers injured on the job competing with old people for the best corners.

There is and remains a good reason for Social Security and Medicare/Medicade; not everything should be for profit IMO.

I would appreciate some violin music, cheese and lite domestic beer with that please.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It assume the risk of old age and disability.

How does SS assume the risk of old age?

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

Are you aware that SSI pays out to anyone who is disabled, even if they never pay into the SS trust fund? Does that really sound like insirance to you?

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

Me being stupid? Aren't you the one that is trying to tell me that SS is insurance for getting old?

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

You are the one that referred to it, not me, I was just explaining it to you.

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.

SSDI, like SSI, pays out even if you did not pay into it. Neither is paid for out of SS taxes, which means that SS assumes no risk for disability, which is my point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

After paying their FICA, what % can afford a secondary source?

Anyone who can afford a home. If you buy a house, and pay off the note before you retire, then you've reduced the income you'll need in retirement by the amount of your note.

After that - employee 401(k)'s are great, and if you can't do that, a Roth IRA or Traditional IRA would be a good choice.

You could also purchase an supplementary annuity from an insurance company.

Perhaps more important that 401(k)'s though are real assets (that are insured!) - rental property, tree farms, whatever. My grandpa's retirement is funded by his government pension and by income from his tree farm and rental properties.

In other words anyone who doesn't need to rely on SS when they retire? Meaning of course that those same folks are having a portion of their wealth redistributed to those poor suckers, who, never earned enough to be invested in real capital, because their FICA was taken and used in the piss poor accounting instrument otherwise known as SS.

How is it you despise the have-nots so much you wish to condemn them to such a dismal end game?

Because the have-nots would have almost nothing if the government did it your way.

The people are not here to enrich businesses.

Businesses are here to serve customers as well as make a profit, the problem is they often forget the due diligence of the first obligation.

Do it your way, and we will have the worst welfare state you have ever seen, unless you are planning on letting folks starve or freeze or whatever to death.

 

[clevergirl]

Anyone who can afford a home. If you buy a house, and pay off the note before you retire, then you've reduced the income you'll need in retirement by the amount of your note.

After that - employee 401(k)'s are great, and if you can't do that, a Roth IRA or Traditional IRA would be a good choice.

You could also purchase an supplementary annuity from an insurance company.

Perhaps more important that 401(k)'s though are real assets (that are insured!) - rental property, tree farms, whatever. My grandpa's retirement is funded by his government pension and by income from his tree farm and rental properties.

In other words anyone who doesn't need to rely on SS when they retire? Meaning of course that those same folks are having a portion of their wealth redistributed to those poor suckers, who, never earned enough to be invested in real capital, because their FICA was taken and used in the piss poor accounting instrument otherwise known as SS.

How is it you despise the have-nots so much you wish to condemn them to such a dismal end game?

Because the have-nots would have almost nothing if the government did it your way.

The people are not here to enrich businesses.

Businesses are here to serve customers as well as make a profit, the problem is they often forget the due diligence of the first obligation.

Do it your way, and we will have the worst welfare state you have ever seen, unless you are planning on letting folks starve or freeze or whatever to death.

The have-nots have less then what they could have because the government, supported by idiot thinkers like you, are in charge of our money for an accounting instrument, that grants the government use of our money (for a pittance of return mind you)...until we are almost dead.

Thanks to libs we already have a horrible welfare system. Conservatives want to free people from the welfare state...libs want to keep them dependent.

 

[saveliberty]

Anyone who can afford a home. If you buy a house, and pay off the note before you retire, then you've reduced the income you'll need in retirement by the amount of your note.

After that - employee 401(k)'s are great, and if you can't do that, a Roth IRA or Traditional IRA would be a good choice.

You could also purchase an supplementary annuity from an insurance company.

Perhaps more important that 401(k)'s though are real assets (that are insured!) - rental property, tree farms, whatever. My grandpa's retirement is funded by his government pension and by income from his tree farm and rental properties.

In other words anyone who doesn't need to rely on SS when they retire? Meaning of course that those same folks are having a portion of their wealth redistributed to those poor suckers, who, never earned enough to be invested in real capital, because their FICA was taken and used in the piss poor accounting instrument otherwise known as SS.

How is it you despise the have-nots so much you wish to condemn them to such a dismal end game?

Because the have-nots would have almost nothing if the government did it your way.

The people are not here to enrich businesses.

Businesses are here to serve customers as well as make a profit, the problem is they often forget the due diligence of the first obligation.

Do it your way, and we will have the worst welfare state you have ever seen, unless you are planning on letting folks starve or freeze or whatever to death.

You base this on the assumption people are too stupid to invest? That they need the government for this function? That everyone must participate in the system regardless of ability or means? Can we just call it the No Retiree Left Behind Program?

 

[The T]

Anyone who can afford a home. If you buy a house, and pay off the note before you retire, then you've reduced the income you'll need in retirement by the amount of your note.

After that - employee 401(k)'s are great, and if you can't do that, a Roth IRA or Traditional IRA would be a good choice.

You could also purchase an supplementary annuity from an insurance company.

Perhaps more important that 401(k)'s though are real assets (that are insured!) - rental property, tree farms, whatever. My grandpa's retirement is funded by his government pension and by income from his tree farm and rental properties.

In other words anyone who doesn't need to rely on SS when they retire? Meaning of course that those same folks are having a portion of their wealth redistributed to those poor suckers, who, never earned enough to be invested in real capital, because their FICA was taken and used in the piss poor accounting instrument otherwise known as SS.

How is it you despise the have-nots so much you wish to condemn them to such a dismal end game?

Because the have-nots would have almost nothing if the government did it your way.

The people are not here to enrich businesses.

Businesses are here to serve customers as well as make a profit, the problem is they often forget the due diligence of the first obligation.

Do it your way, and we will have the worst welfare state you have ever seen, unless you are planning on letting folks starve or freeze or whatever to death.

And why do they have not? Could it be they have made some stupid mistakes in life...?

Personal resposibility is everything. Mooching is not.

 

[Trajan]

Question: What is a Ponzi Scheme? How Do Ponzi Schemes Work? ***

Answer: A Ponzi scheme is a scam investment designed to separate investors from their money. It is named after Charles Ponzi, who constructed one such scheme at the beginning of the 20th century, though the concept was well known prior to Ponzi.

The scheme is designed to convince the public to place their money into a fradulent investment. Once the scam artist feels that enough money has been collected, he disappears - taking all the money with him.

Five Key Elements of a Ponzi Scheme

The Benefit: A promise that the investment will achieve an above normal rate of return. The rate of return is often specified. The promised rate of return has to be high enough to be worthwhile to the investor but not so high as to be unbelievable.


The Setup: A relatively plausible explanation of how the investment can achieve these above normal rates of return. One often-used explanation is that the investor is skilled and/or has some inside information. Another possible explanation is that the investor has access to an investment opportunity not otherwise available to the general public.

Initial Credibility: The person running the scheme needs to be believable enough to convince the initial investors to leave their money with him.


Initial Investors Paid Off: For at least a few periods the investors need to make at least the promised rate of return - if not better.

Communicated Successes: Other investors need to hear about the payoffs, such that their numbers grow exponentially. At the very least more money needs to be coming in than is being paid back to investors.

Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme. Calling it so is one more example of the right wings mendacity.


** Link: What is a Ponzi Scheme - How Do Ponzi Schemes Work

maybe you are right. so, whats one step lower on the scale of awfulness below Ponzi scheme? that fits.

Old people selling pencils and apples on the street, eating tuna canned for cats; workers injured on the job competing with old people for the best corners.

There is and remains a good reason for Social Security and Medicare/Medicade; not everything should be for profit IMO.

you are a strawman king.


so its SSI or the highway. got it. thx for nothing.

 

[Texanmike]

Anyone who can afford a home. If you buy a house, and pay off the note before you retire, then you've reduced the income you'll need in retirement by the amount of your note.

After that - employee 401(k)'s are great, and if you can't do that, a Roth IRA or Traditional IRA would be a good choice.

You could also purchase an supplementary annuity from an insurance company.

Perhaps more important that 401(k)'s though are real assets (that are insured!) - rental property, tree farms, whatever. My grandpa's retirement is funded by his government pension and by income from his tree farm and rental properties.

In other words anyone who doesn't need to rely on SS when they retire? Meaning of course that those same folks are having a portion of their wealth redistributed to those poor suckers, who, never earned enough to be invested in real capital, because their FICA was taken and used in the piss poor accounting instrument otherwise known as SS.

How is it you despise the have-nots so much you wish to condemn them to such a dismal end game?

Because the have-nots would have almost nothing if the government did it your way.

The people are not here to enrich businesses.

Businesses are here to serve customers as well as make a profit, the problem is they often forget the due diligence of the first obligation.

Do it your way, and we will have the worst welfare state you have ever seen, unless you are planning on letting folks starve or freeze or whatever to death.

Nobody is condemning anyone to anything. People are choosing to buy things with their money now and forgoing their retirement. Why is it you have such a "hatred" for someone who earns their money, invests their money and doesn't want the government taking what they have earned and reassigning the labor that they put into earning it to someone who "needs" it.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

Question: What is a Ponzi Scheme? How Do Ponzi Schemes Work? ***

Answer: A Ponzi scheme is a scam investment designed to separate investors from their money. It is named after Charles Ponzi, who constructed one such scheme at the beginning of the 20th century, though the concept was well known prior to Ponzi.

The scheme is designed to convince the public to place their money into a fradulent investment. Once the scam artist feels that enough money has been collected, he disappears - taking all the money with him.

Five Key Elements of a Ponzi Scheme

The Benefit: A promise that the investment will achieve an above normal rate of return. The rate of return is often specified. The promised rate of return has to be high enough to be worthwhile to the investor but not so high as to be unbelievable.


The Setup: A relatively plausible explanation of how the investment can achieve these above normal rates of return. One often-used explanation is that the investor is skilled and/or has some inside information. Another possible explanation is that the investor has access to an investment opportunity not otherwise available to the general public.

Initial Credibility: The person running the scheme needs to be believable enough to convince the initial investors to leave their money with him.


Initial Investors Paid Off: For at least a few periods the investors need to make at least the promised rate of return - if not better.

Communicated Successes: Other investors need to hear about the payoffs, such that their numbers grow exponentially. At the very least more money needs to be coming in than is being paid back to investors.

Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme. Calling it so is one more example of the right wings mendacity.


** Link: What is a Ponzi Scheme - How Do Ponzi Schemes Work

maybe you are right. so, whats one step lower on the scale of awfulness below Ponzi scheme? that fits.

Old people selling pencils and apples on the street, eating tuna canned for cats; workers injured on the job competing with old people for the best corners.

There is and remains a good reason for Social Security and Medicare/Medicade; not everything should be for profit IMO.

Would you invest in SSI if it were optional?

Mike

 

[The T]

For the SS is not a Ponzi scheme crowd.

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.

Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVyW2c2NzyE]Rick Perry And Mitt Romney Debate Social Security - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Google]

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.

He also brought up the undeniable fact that Texas is a state in a unique situation. Texas shares the largest portion of our southern boarder. The unregulated flow of illegal immigrants into Texas, the one thing this administration refuses to regulate, does play a major factor into the graduation rates and health care rates.

I'm sure you actually watched the debate though, right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N-kIJVFcO4]Matthews: Perry's Right About Social Security "Ponzi Scheme"--He "Sounds Like The Raw Ronald Reagan" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Disenchanted61]

SS is an investment, a bank account if you will. Wall Street would love to own the allocation
of our personal investment intended for (our) future, not Wall Street's future.

" Ponsi sceme," I think not. Give it to Wall Street and it becomes that...........guaranteed!!

 

[Google]

Matthews: Perry's Right About Social Security "Ponzi Scheme"--He "Sounds Like The Raw Ronald Reagan" - YouTube

1:35
“In those days if you made it to 65 you’re luck…today lots of people unfortunately make it past 65”
It’s unfortunate people are so lively today, glimpse into liberal mentality.

 

[The T]

SS is an investment, a bank account if you will. Wall Street would love to own the allocation
of our personal investment intended for (our) future, not Wall Street's future.

" Ponsi sceme," I think not. Give it to Wall Street and it becomes that...........guaranteed!!

Try Forced investment meaning a TAX taken at the point of a gun. It's a form of tyranny.

 

[Google]

SS is an investment, a bank account if you will. Wall Street would love to own the allocation
of our personal investment intended for (our) future, not Wall Street's future.

" Ponsi sceme," I think not. Give it to Wall Street and it becomes that...........guaranteed!!

Yes, and giving it over to the federal government is so much better.

Listen, circumstances of Social Security are undeniable(http://news.yahoo.com/social-security-disability-verge-insolvency-090119318.html)(http://www.businessweek.com/news/2...security-funds-expiring-sooner-u-s-says.html)(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/13/social-security-deficits-now-permanent-feature/). It is factual to say that people in their 20's are not going to ever see that money that is being forcefully taken from them. Forget about the semantics about Ponzi Scheme, focus on the substance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

SS is an investment, a bank account if you will. Wall Street would love to own the allocation
of our personal investment intended for (our) future, not Wall Street's future.

" Ponsi sceme," I think not. Give it to Wall Street and it becomes that...........guaranteed!!

Try Forced investment meaning a TAX taken at the point of a gun. It's a form of tyranny.

You want a government where all taxation is voluntary? How would that work, exactly?

 

[uscitizen]

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.

He also brought up the undeniable fact that Texas is a state in a unique situation. Texas shares the largest portion of our southern boarder. The unregulated flow of illegal immigrants into Texas, the one thing this administration refuses to regulate, does play a major factor into the graduation rates and health care rates.

I'm sure you actually watched the debate though, right.

The Meixcan "boarder" should have to pay rent!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ponzi schemes don't hold and invest trillions of dollars for the sake of the participants.

'Ponzi scheme' is the 'Death panels' of social security.