Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry

[saveliberty]

I am still waiting for you to prove that SS is not a ponzi scheme.

That no one can prove it is is all the proof of a negative one needs.

Really?

I bet you right now that I can conclusively prove that Bank of America checking accounts are not a Ponzi scheme.

Probably, but finding a branch is going to be harder.

 

[bripat9643]

The government lies.

Perry is exaggerating, in a sense, but he is right that SS is "Like a Ponzi scheme."

No. It is not like a Ponzi Scheme. It's not even remotely close.

"Denial" is not a river in Egypt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am still waiting for you to prove that SS is not a ponzi scheme.

That no one can prove it is is all the proof of a negative one needs.

Really?

I bet you right now that I can conclusively prove that Bank of America checking accounts are not a Ponzi scheme.

The subject here is to prove that Social Security is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am still waiting for you to prove that SS is not a ponzi scheme.

That no one can prove it is is all the proof of a negative one needs.

Really?

I bet you right now that I can conclusively prove that Bank of America checking accounts are not a Ponzi scheme.

Are you married? Can you prove you don't cheat on your wife? Can we assume you do if you can't prove you don't?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That no one can prove it is is all the proof of a negative one needs.

Really?

I bet you right now that I can conclusively prove that Bank of America checking accounts are not a Ponzi scheme.

The subject here is to prove that Social Security is.

I did, in the OP. You have been arguing with me since then, so feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[saveliberty]

I've slept around with other banks...

Think my bank even knows.

 

[kaz]

No. It is not like a Ponzi Scheme. It's not even remotely close.

Well, sure, social security operates exactly like a ponzi scheme, but you like social security and you don't like ponzi schemes so they are completely different...

No. I have repeatedly said that SS is a bad system.

You look at the world through an ideological prism, and you are subject to massive confirmation biases. Because of your strong biases, you are unable to discern between a Ponzi Scheme and SS.

I'm biased towards facts, you're biased towards a political party. Yep, skew is my problem here.

A ponzi scheme is a system where current "investors" get unrealistic returns from funds paid by new investors and not from their actual investment. A ponzi scheme will collapse when there aren't enough new investors to continue to pay out current investors.

Social Security is a system where current "investors" get unrealistic returns from funds paid by new investors and not from their actual investment. The social security scheme will collapse when there aren't enough new investors to continue to pay out current investors.

Yep, I'm biased to think those are the same...

 

[kaz]

QPW is shifting wind, which is OK, because he has moved from absolute to similie. He will get to the right semantics and diction, eventually.

I am still waiting for you to prove that SS is not a ponzi scheme.

That no one can prove it is is all the proof of a negative one needs.

It's been proven over and over to a critical mind. Social security is just a clear Ponzi scheme. The problem is you're waiting for someone to prove it without violating liberal rule #1, liberalism is inherently true. Some people agree with that rule, liberals, and blindly accept social security is not a Ponzi scheme. For anyone else it just so obviously is, we don't care to prove it without violating the inherent truth of your liberal religion. That's why you're not getting anywhere.

 

[Contumacious]

The Social Security Swindle: How Anyone Can Drop Out

This is an excellent book and is a great followup to Schiff's book "The Biggest Con, How The Government is Fleecing You." Once again Schiff exposes Government fraud and deceit by showing, with Supreme Court decision, that the Social Security Tax is just another Income Tax and is not earmarked for any special purpose, but goes into the general fund to be spent as Congress wishes.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Social-Security-Swindle-Anyone-Drop/dp/0930374045]Amazon.com: The Social Security Swindle: How Anyone Can Drop Out (9780930374044): Irwin Schiff: Books[/ame]

.

 

[bripat9643]

It's been proven over and over to a critical mind. Social security is just a clear Ponzi scheme. The problem is you're waiting for someone to prove it without violating liberal rule #1, liberalism is inherently true. Some people agree with that rule, liberals, and blindly accept social security is not a Ponzi scheme. For anyone else it just so obviously is, we don't care to prove it without violating the inherent truth of your liberal religion. That's why you're not getting anywhere.

Liberals wish it was not a Ponzi scheme. Ergo, it's not a Ponzi scheme. That's how the liberal mind works. It's primary characteristic is credulity

 

[kaz]

It's been proven over and over to a critical mind. Social security is just a clear Ponzi scheme. The problem is you're waiting for someone to prove it without violating liberal rule #1, liberalism is inherently true. Some people agree with that rule, liberals, and blindly accept social security is not a Ponzi scheme. For anyone else it just so obviously is, we don't care to prove it without violating the inherent truth of your liberal religion. That's why you're not getting anywhere.

Liberals wish it was not a Ponzi scheme. Ergo, it's not a Ponzi scheme. That's how the liberal mind works. It's primary characteristic is credulity

Agreed. The reason you can't argue with liberals is their process goes like this:

1) Determine a position
2) Decide how to support it

Since the view was chosen before the justification, you can never change their mind with arguments or empirical observations. You can only change their mind by convincing the collective, which is of course impossible.

That the collective believes it means that if they are losing the argument, it is only because they don't know why the collective believes it yet. They need to go back and listen to more collective talking points so they can argue the position better in the future.

That is exactly why it's a religion. Right Wing Nut = God knows all, Left Wing Nut = the collective knows all. In either case, there is no CPU assigned to the problem and therefore it won't be solved. It already was.

 

[Listening]

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.

Only if they CHOOSE to own a car.

I guess that differenced is lost on some people.

Don't own a car, the government won't make you buy insurance.

 

[Toro]

I'm biased towards facts, you're biased towards a political party. Yep, skew is my problem here.

I, like you, was once a stridently ideological libertarian. I am no longer. I don't have a political party. I've supported Republicans and Democrats. I supported Republicans in 2010 and will probably do so in 2012. Pointing out that SS isn't a Ponzi Scheme doesn't make anyone a liberal.

A ponzi scheme is a system where current "investors" get unrealistic returns from funds paid by new investors and not from their actual investment.

An unrealistic return is 40% or 400%, not 4% as being compounded in trusts. Can you give us one example of a Ponzi Scheme promising low single digit returns? One?

A ponzi scheme will collapse when there aren't enough new investors to continue to pay out current investors.

That's true of any non-collateralized debt. If you can't roll your debt, is that a Ponzi Scheme? Of course not. Was Lehman a Ponzi Scheme? Was Bear Stearns? The fact that you can't get new investors to pay off the old does not mean its a Ponzi Scheme.

Social Security is a system where current "investors" get unrealistic returns from funds paid by new investors and not from their actual investment. The social security scheme will collapse when there aren't enough new investors to continue to pay out current investors.

Yep, I'm biased to think those are the same...

A government bond rate is not an unrealistic return assumption.

A Ponzi Scheme has no economic basis under which the promised outsized returns. That is not the case with government debt. The government has the power to tax all economic activity. That's a far cry from the investment methodology given to justify high returns in Ponzi Schemes, which are always "It is very complicated" or "It's a secret." Ponzi Schemes are frauds. The power to tax is not.

SS is underfunded. It is a bad system because it is entirely invested in government liabilities. But most pension funds, public and private, are underfunded. However, nobody sane is going to argue that underfunded pension plans are Ponzi Schemes.

 

[Listening]

This discussion is very interesting.

Here is my take on Social Security (of which I am not a big fan).

My liberal friends keep telling me it is insulated and on a stand alone basis. It won't have problems for many years because it is kept in a separate fund that is going to be solvent for many years to come.

Then the debt crisis hits and President Obama says he CAN'T guarantee that Social Security checks will go out on time because there won't be ENOUGH money that month. Sounded like hand to mouth to me.

But I thought, it had it's own money and was insulated for several decades.

When I pin this one on my liberal friends, they just mumble something like "This is George Bush's fault".

This is simply unbelievable.

 

[Contumacious]

I'm biased towards facts, you're biased towards a political party. Yep, skew is my problem here.

I, like you, was once a stridently ideological libertarian. I am no longer. I don't have a political party. I've supported Republicans and Democrats. I supported Republicans in 2010 and will probably do so in 2012. Pointing out that SS isn't a Ponzi Scheme doesn't make anyone a liberal.

That is correct.

Pointing out that SS isn't a Ponzi Scheme doesn't make anyone a liberal . It makes them an ignorant fool.

.

 

[Toro]

It's been proven over and over to a critical mind. Social security is just a clear Ponzi scheme. The problem is you're waiting for someone to prove it without violating liberal rule #1, liberalism is inherently true. Some people agree with that rule, liberals, and blindly accept social security is not a Ponzi scheme. For anyone else it just so obviously is, we don't care to prove it without violating the inherent truth of your liberal religion. That's why you're not getting anywhere.

Liberals wish it was not a Ponzi scheme. Ergo, it's not a Ponzi scheme. That's how the liberal mind works. It's primary characteristic is credulity

Yeah, that's right. It's just "liberals."

"Income tax cuts pay for themselves."

Outstanding.

 

[Listening]

SS is underfunded. It is a bad system because it is entirely invested in government liabilities. But most pension funds, public and private, are underfunded. However, nobody sane is going to argue that underfunded pension plans are Ponzi Schemes.

You have started to state what Social Security is.

I don't call it a Ponzi Scheme for several reasons.

However, it is a system that depends on current revenues to fund obligations that accumulated over decades.

I am not sure if is underfunded or overpromised.

 

[Toro]

SS is underfunded. It is a bad system because it is entirely invested in government liabilities. But most pension funds, public and private, are underfunded. However, nobody sane is going to argue that underfunded pension plans are Ponzi Schemes.

You have started to state what Social Security is.

I don't call it a Ponzi Scheme for several reasons.

However, it is a system that depends on current revenues to fund obligations that accumulated over decades.

I am not sure if is underfunded or overpromised.

That's true of all government debt. All government debt relies on revenues to fund obligations that have accumulated over time. Taxes are used to pay interest and retire government debt. Taxes are also used to pay off obligations in SS. SS is another form of government debt.

If one argues that SS is a Ponzi Scheme, one also has to argue that all government debt is a Ponzi Scheme. That's nonsensical. That doesn't mean the government will never default but there's a difference between solvency and a Ponzi Scheme.

 

[editec]

Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry

Correct.

UNLESS, of course, ALL T-BILLS are a PONZI scheme.

In which case, Social Security is the least of our problems.

 

[Listening]

That's true of all government debt. All government debt relies on revenues to fund obligations that have accumulated over time. Taxes are used to pay interest and retire government debt. Taxes are also used to pay off obligations in SS. SS is another form of government debt.

If one argues that SS is a Ponzi Scheme, one also has to argue that all government debt is a Ponzi Scheme. That's nonsensical. That doesn't mean the government will never default but there's a difference between solvency and a Ponzi Scheme.

Technically, I would agree with you.

But I am not sure that a technical definition is the issue here.

What seems to be the common theme is that SS will continue to demand more and more of those who are not collecting from the system to satisfy those who expect to gain from the system. That is about as close as it gets.

What I keep reading is that it is bad practice to push the burden of these obligations onto those who will enter the game later.

It should be noted that SS did pay out money to people who never paid into it. In that sense it did give unrealistic returns....not calling it a Ponzi Scheme....just saying.