Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry

[kaz]

The more we're talking about SS being a Ponzi Scheme, the more the Republicans are losing.

You're obviously looking at different polls then everyone else is...

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has any trouble about dealing with SS. Very simple. Everyone in Congress can keep their mitts of the $$$ except that they are dedicated to SS. Reform of means testing is discussable. Reform of age requirement is discussable.

Privatization is off the table.

Talk to the trunk if the crazees start talking about ponzi schemese.

Those will be the ground rules in this primary season. Watch.

 

[saveliberty]

No one has any trouble about dealing with SS. Very simple. Everyone in Congress can keep their mitts of the $$$ except that they are dedicated to SS. Reform of means testing is discussable. Reform of age requirement is discussable.

Privatization is off the table.

Talk to the trunk if the crazees start talking about ponzi schemese.

Those will be the ground rules in this primary season. Watch.

One of the things this election season might be able to do, is lay out the issues and solutions. I think privatization can be on the table along with the lock box, but both will probably not be in the final reform. They have to have something to yell about, so it seems like they were working.

 

[Toro]

The more we're talking about SS being a Ponzi Scheme, the more the Republicans are losing.

You're obviously looking at different polls then everyone else is...

Show us.

I'll post polls later showing Americans don't want their SS cut, let alone think its a Ponzi Scheme.

But if you think it's a good idea, run with it. Call up your local candidates and tell them to keep calling SS a Ponzi Scheme.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has any trouble about dealing with SS. Very simple. Everyone in Congress can keep their mitts of the $$$ except that they are dedicated to SS. Reform of means testing is discussable. Reform of age requirement is discussable.

Privatization is off the table.

Talk to the trunk if the crazees start talking about ponzi schemese.

Those will be the ground rules in this primary season. Watch.

One of the things this election season might be able to do, is lay out the issues and solutions. I think privatization can be on the table along with the lock box, but both will probably not be in the final reform. They have to have something to yell about, so it seems like they were working.

mebbe so. What irks me is that I believe if a privatization plan was instituted with solid regulation in place, I think it work. Until the pro-business administrations took office and proceded to dismantle the regs in the name of greed for everybody but the citizen.

 

[Toro]

No one has any trouble about dealing with SS. Very simple. Everyone in Congress can keep their mitts of the $$$ except that they are dedicated to SS. Reform of means testing is discussable. Reform of age requirement is discussable.

Privatization is off the table.

Talk to the trunk if the crazees start talking about ponzi schemese.

Those will be the ground rules in this primary season. Watch.

Taking privatization off the table is a mistake. If people want to tin their own SS, they should be allowed to. As long as the government's liability is taken off the table.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has any trouble about dealing with SS. Very simple. Everyone in Congress can keep their mitts of the $$$ except that they are dedicated to SS. Reform of means testing is discussable. Reform of age requirement is discussable.

Privatization is off the table.

Talk to the trunk if the crazees start talking about ponzi schemese.

Those will be the ground rules in this primary season. Watch.

Taking privatization off the table is a mistake. If people want to tin their own SS, they should be allowed to. As long as the government's liability is taken off the table.

OK, but if government, which collects the citizens' money, wants to set up a privatization plan, then the government has liability as do the investment instruments.

 

[kaz]

The more we're talking about SS being a Ponzi Scheme, the more the Republicans are losing.

You're obviously looking at different polls then everyone else is...

Show us.

I'll post polls later showing Americans don't want their SS cut, let alone think its a Ponzi Scheme.

But if you think it's a good idea, run with it. Call up your local candidates and tell them to keep calling SS a Ponzi Scheme.

I call SS a Ponzi scheme because I care about truth, not how it polls. But that isn't what I challenged. Liberals take to logic like a fish takes to spaghetti sauce. I challenged your bolded statement, your reply was in left field.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SS is not a ponzi scheme. Politicos like Rove and Cheney, who both really detest Perry, are trying to prevent him from driving the bus off the cliff with such irresponsible and absolutely untrue rhetoric.

 

[saveliberty]

I would be willing to compromise. Might even be best for me anyways. What if, I could direct my half of social security into a government approved retirement fund? My employers portion would go to SS just like normal and I would get half a benefit at retirement.

 

[Toro]

You're obviously looking at different polls then everyone else is...

Show us.

I'll post polls later showing Americans don't want their SS cut, let alone think its a Ponzi Scheme.

But if you think it's a good idea, run with it. Call up your local candidates and tell them to keep calling SS a Ponzi Scheme.

I call SS a Ponzi scheme because I care about truth, not how it polls. But that isn't what I challenged. Liberals take to logic like a fish takes to spaghetti sauce. I challenged your bolded statement, your reply was in left field.

I can't see anything bolded.

As Lee Atwater said, if you're explaining, you're losing. I'm sure we are going to hear a whole lot of explaining from Perry on what he means.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I posted this elsewhere but I'm going to post it here.

Of course, it's a Ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme works until you run out of new investors, and that's pretty much what's happening now. There are less new contributors than there are recipients. They are going to have to cut back benefits. Obama, Romney and Perry have all admitted that we have to cut SSI benefits, because the current system isn't sustainable.

I agree that we have to reform SS but you are misinformed on a few fronts, as are most people using this rhetoric, including Rick Perry. (Didn't he get a C in his Econ101 class?)

First, a Ponzi Scheme by definition means there is no economic basis for the returns promised, and usually the returns promised are extraordinarily high. A Ponzi Scheme promises a (usually high) rate of return that is paid entirely out of those who are giving their money to participate. That does not apply to SS because SS is funded out of taxes derived from the economy. When the economy grows, so do the contributions into the fund. Unlike a Ponzi Scheme, which has no fundamental economic basis to promise the returns, the US government has the power to tax economic activity. Thus the power to fund SS is derived from the growth in the economy. You can - like Reagan - reform SS by taxing people more if that's what we so choose. You cannot fund a Ponzi Scheme in any other way than sucking people into the Scheme.

Also, unlike a Ponzi Scheme which promises people returns of 50% or 100% returns, or even higher - that's how they get people to participate in the scheme - SS is crediting people's accounts at a mix of US government bond interest rates, or about 4% today. You aren't going to get anyone into a Ponzi Scheme by promising them returns of 3.75%.

Also, you are incorrect to characterize that we are "running out of new investors." The population continues to grow. The economy continues to grow. That there are fewer new contributors to total recipients is irrelevant because there are always fewer new contributors to recipients. The ratio of total contributors to recipients is still 3:1-4:1. The reason why we have had a dip in the surplus is not because "its bankrupt" but because of the recession. Unless you think the US is growing to grow at 1% a year for the next 3 decades - which it won't - then we will revert back to trend when the economy resumes its long-term trajectory. SS is funded out the growth in the general economy. As long as the economy is growing, there is no problem funding SS. You may have to reform it - which we do - but it is not in structural decline.

The reason why we have to cut back benefits is not because its a "Ponzi Scheme." It's because we are living longer than we currently thought when we created and reformed the system. This is a graph of population projections at various points in time in the UK, but it is similar to what happened in the US.

Are you telling me that, if I set up an investment portfolio where I deposited participants money into my savings account, it would be legal as long as I told them about it and did not promise excessive returns? Would it also be legal if I then took new investors deposits and used them to pay higher than normal returns to older investors, as long as I continued to be open about what I was doing? Would that be a Ponzi scheme, or would it be something else?

Everyone that is trying to argue that SS is not a Ponzi scheme is focusing on it being fraudulent in some way. My guess is that if any private individual actually set up something like SS, even if they were completely honest about what they were doing, the government would have a serious problem with it. Do you agree with me, or disagree?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK, back to square one.

No reasonable argument has been made that SS is a ponzi scheme.

Let's start again.

Wait a minute, I am still waiting for a reasonable argument that it is not one. Did I miss that somewhere? Everyone that is attempting to defend SS ends up sputtering and calling people names.

 

[The T]

OK, back to square one.

No reasonable argument has been made that SS is a ponzi scheme.

Let's start again.

Wait a minute, I am still waiting for a reasonable argument that it is not one. Did I miss that somewhere? Everyone that is attempting to defend SS ends up sputtering and calling people names.

Leave it to Jokey to ask for a Re-do like Obama is with the economy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Toro:

You were doing fine refuting the Ponzi scheme label that the OP never actually claimed. Except that when "the economy recovers" you ARE sucking more people into it.. Anyways..

My only beef with your thesis is:::

The reason why we have to cut back benefits is not because its a "Ponzi Scheme." It's because we are living longer than we currently thought when we created and reformed the system. This is a graph of population projections at various points in time in the UK, but it is similar to what happened in the US.

That's only ONE of the pressures on the fund. That one only matters if the RATE of people entering the fund is actually increasing -- which it is drastically.. But your ignoring the elephant. And that is the fact that up until last year -- the balance sheet was in surplus. A surplus that the govt relied on to balance it's books. And now (and perhaps even if the economy recovers since Obama is dramatically stealing from the premiums and sapping the future solvency) the balance sheet requires transfers in that the govt can only fund thru debt instruments. The SWING in revenue (from ss Surplus to Deficit) as seen from the UNIFIED budget is close to $200B PER YEAR now and we know it will grow higher!! Even more if you count the phoney OVERTRANSFER of "trust fund interest" that they are using as a gimmick to hide debt.

All of this happened this way because because Congress NEVER APPLIED scientific actuarial tables, or fiduciary planning to this "insurance" program. That and the lack of cash or anything of value to show for all the FICA overpayments. In short, it's WORSE than a Ponzi scheme becaue the Ponzi operator paid MORE attention to his scheme than Congress has in the past 20 years..

Can't claim SURPRISE at this Blowout. There was ample warning. All we got were a dozen "commissions" whose reports went right into the crapper. We cannot trust Congress to manage programs such as these in any responsible manner.

 

[candycorn]

I posted this elsewhere but I'm going to post it here.

Of course, it's a Ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme works until you run out of new investors, and that's pretty much what's happening now. There are less new contributors than there are recipients. They are going to have to cut back benefits. Obama, Romney and Perry have all admitted that we have to cut SSI benefits, because the current system isn't sustainable.

I agree that we have to reform SS but you are misinformed on a few fronts, as are most people using this rhetoric, including Rick Perry. (Didn't he get a C in his Econ101 class?)

First, a Ponzi Scheme by definition means there is no economic basis for the returns promised, and usually the returns promised are extraordinarily high. A Ponzi Scheme promises a (usually high) rate of return that is paid entirely out of those who are giving their money to participate. That does not apply to SS because SS is funded out of taxes derived from the economy. When the economy grows, so do the contributions into the fund. Unlike a Ponzi Scheme, which has no fundamental economic basis to promise the returns, the US government has the power to tax economic activity. Thus the power to fund SS is derived from the growth in the economy. You can - like Reagan - reform SS by taxing people more if that's what we so choose. You cannot fund a Ponzi Scheme in any other way than sucking people into the Scheme.

Also, unlike a Ponzi Scheme which promises people returns of 50% or 100% returns, or even higher - that's how they get people to participate in the scheme - SS is crediting people's accounts at a mix of US government bond interest rates, or about 4% today. You aren't going to get anyone into a Ponzi Scheme by promising them returns of 3.75%.

Also, you are incorrect to characterize that we are "running out of new investors." The population continues to grow. The economy continues to grow. That there are fewer new contributors to total recipients is irrelevant because there are always fewer new contributors to recipients. The ratio of total contributors to recipients is still 3:1-4:1. The reason why we have had a dip in the surplus is not because "its bankrupt" but because of the recession. Unless you think the US is growing to grow at 1% a year for the next 3 decades - which it won't - then we will revert back to trend when the economy resumes its long-term trajectory. SS is funded out the growth in the general economy. As long as the economy is growing, there is no problem funding SS. You may have to reform it - which we do - but it is not in structural decline.

The reason why we have to cut back benefits is not because its a "Ponzi Scheme." It's because we are living longer than we currently thought when we created and reformed the system. This is a graph of population projections at various points in time in the UK, but it is similar to what happened in the US.

Are you telling me that, if I set up an investment portfolio where I deposited participants money into my savings account, it would be legal as long as I told them about it and did not promise excessive returns? Would it also be legal if I then took new investors deposits and used them to pay higher than normal returns to older investors, as long as I continued to be open about what I was doing? Would that be a Ponzi scheme, or would it be something else?

Everyone that is trying to argue that SS is not a Ponzi scheme is focusing on it being fraudulent in some way. My guess is that if any private individual actually set up something like SS, even if they were completely honest about what they were doing, the government would have a serious problem with it. Do you agree with me, or disagree?

And if any private individual pulled you over for speeding, wrote you a citation for violating a burn ban, tried to sentence you to jail, charged you for inspecting your vehicle when they have no such certification to do so, the government would have a serious problem with it. You're right. The government is a special case. I think it would also have a problem if you and your buddies wanted to invade Mexico and take over Nogales or Juarez. Do you think a citizen or group of citizens should be able to do that? Yes or no?

Are you really saying that there should be no social contract? That if the Jones family decided they can't provide health care for one of their family members who is disabled, there should be nothing socially provided to that disabled party that they can depend on...that we all can depend on if it were to happen to us?

 

[candycorn]

Show us.

I'll post polls later showing Americans don't want their SS cut, let alone think its a Ponzi Scheme.

But if you think it's a good idea, run with it. Call up your local candidates and tell them to keep calling SS a Ponzi Scheme.

I call SS a Ponzi scheme because I care about truth, not how it polls. But that isn't what I challenged. Liberals take to logic like a fish takes to spaghetti sauce. I challenged your bolded statement, your reply was in left field.

I can't see anything bolded.

As Lee Atwater said, if you're explaining, you're losing. I'm sure we are going to hear a whole lot of explaining from Perry on what he means.

And in the next week or less, we'll hear him pivot back to the "blood and guts" that his base likes so much. Love how these people think he's something different.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because I listened to his campaign dildohead. The healthcare plan he laid out in his campaign is clearly very different from the one Congress let him pass.

He who?

Just in case you are thinking that Obama actually had something to do with Obamacare/PPACA, all he did was beg people to pass something to help make him look good.

It is. Its part of the IRS code.

You obviously think that you know what you are talking about.

FYI, there is one thing that every single judge that has ruled on has agreed upon, the penalty is not a tax. That means that I have to choose between your opinion, and the unanimous legal opinion of multiple federal and appellate judges.

Guess which one I choose.

You'll choose the judges when they agree with you and cry "judicial activism" when they don't. Not that hard to figure out!

FYI, judicial activism is not disagreeing with me, judicial activism is a judge using the bench to ignore precedents and law to make policy decision and law.

As I pointed out, even judges that fully support the mandate reject the argument that it is a tax. That means that even judges I diasgree with agree about this one issues. Which makes you wrong about the mandate being a tax. You should try admitting it instead of resorting to ad hominems.

 

[flacaltenn]

If the government defaults most any investment you made will fail.

Not to mention you're making assumptions about future returns. which is stupid.

You want to balance that nit-pickin' against the SPECIFIC BENEFIT a 40 yr. old will get at retirement? He's got to survive another 28 yrs of Congresses before that becomes clear.

The specific benefit you will get from any investment can't be predicted for more than 30 years in advance.

The actual RISKS involved in projecting whether you'll be eligible, when you'll be eligible, what you're eligible for and what you will have to PAY INTO IT for the next 28 yrs. You got THOSE figures for me???

Now THAT'S stupid..

All I can tell you is that producers in the economy will always have to produce the goods and services those too old to produce need. Can you come up with a system that avoids that?

Nobody expects that a single investment can be predicted 30 years out. That's why you should constantly review your investments and make STABLE, WISE adjustments in WHAT you're invested in. Except with Soc Sec -- you're locked in with the largest collection of the least trusted mental midgets in the country running your portfolio and no way to bail....

That wasn't EVEN a start at an answer to my questions. For one who's gonna do a Custer's Last Stand on this valuable program that's been exquisitively managed by the Feds -- all you got is a big fat CLOUD of MONSTROUS uncertainty about the terms of the SS deal.. So don't ding my analysis of how a modest income worker COULD securely do the same deal BETTER for themselves.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I posted this elsewhere but I'm going to post it here.



I agree that we have to reform SS but you are misinformed on a few fronts, as are most people using this rhetoric, including Rick Perry. (Didn't he get a C in his Econ101 class?)

First, a Ponzi Scheme by definition means there is no economic basis for the returns promised, and usually the returns promised are extraordinarily high. A Ponzi Scheme promises a (usually high) rate of return that is paid entirely out of those who are giving their money to participate. That does not apply to SS because SS is funded out of taxes derived from the economy. When the economy grows, so do the contributions into the fund. Unlike a Ponzi Scheme, which has no fundamental economic basis to promise the returns, the US government has the power to tax economic activity. Thus the power to fund SS is derived from the growth in the economy. You can - like Reagan - reform SS by taxing people more if that's what we so choose. You cannot fund a Ponzi Scheme in any other way than sucking people into the Scheme.

Also, unlike a Ponzi Scheme which promises people returns of 50% or 100% returns, or even higher - that's how they get people to participate in the scheme - SS is crediting people's accounts at a mix of US government bond interest rates, or about 4% today. You aren't going to get anyone into a Ponzi Scheme by promising them returns of 3.75%.

Also, you are incorrect to characterize that we are "running out of new investors." The population continues to grow. The economy continues to grow. That there are fewer new contributors to total recipients is irrelevant because there are always fewer new contributors to recipients. The ratio of total contributors to recipients is still 3:1-4:1. The reason why we have had a dip in the surplus is not because "its bankrupt" but because of the recession. Unless you think the US is growing to grow at 1% a year for the next 3 decades - which it won't - then we will revert back to trend when the economy resumes its long-term trajectory. SS is funded out the growth in the general economy. As long as the economy is growing, there is no problem funding SS. You may have to reform it - which we do - but it is not in structural decline.

The reason why we have to cut back benefits is not because its a "Ponzi Scheme." It's because we are living longer than we currently thought when we created and reformed the system. This is a graph of population projections at various points in time in the UK, but it is similar to what happened in the US.

Are you telling me that, if I set up an investment portfolio where I deposited participants money into my savings account, it would be legal as long as I told them about it and did not promise excessive returns? Would it also be legal if I then took new investors deposits and used them to pay higher than normal returns to older investors, as long as I continued to be open about what I was doing? Would that be a Ponzi scheme, or would it be something else?

Everyone that is trying to argue that SS is not a Ponzi scheme is focusing on it being fraudulent in some way. My guess is that if any private individual actually set up something like SS, even if they were completely honest about what they were doing, the government would have a serious problem with it. Do you agree with me, or disagree?

And if any private individual pulled you over for speeding, wrote you a citation for violating a burn ban, tried to sentence you to jail, charged you for inspecting your vehicle when they have no such certification to do so, the government would have a serious problem with it. You're right. The government is a special case. I think it would also have a problem if you and your buddies wanted to invade Mexico and take over Nogales or Juarez. Do you think a citizen or group of citizens should be able to do that? Yes or no?

Are you really saying that there should be no social contract? That if the Jones family decided they can't provide health care for one of their family members who is disabled, there should be nothing socially provided to that disabled party that they can depend on...that we all can depend on if it were to happen to us?

Where did I say there should not be a government?

What I am challenging is the assertion that, because the private sector is not doing it, that proves they cannot. The government makes most things that compete with it illegal, as it should, but that does not prove that the private sector cannot do it.

As for the social contract, that is a fiction of government to justify their existence. The only country I know of that has any legitimate claim to having a social contract is Iceland, and that is only because they rewrite their Constitution every ten years, and actually open the process so that anyone can participate. The rest of us get saddled with something we did not agree to, or have any say in.