bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,323
- 2,180
No one from the pretend-GOP Hard Right libertrians have offered anything of worth so far.
According to to whom, you?
Please, don't make us laugh.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No one from the pretend-GOP Hard Right libertrians have offered anything of worth so far.
A Ponzi scheme is fraud. There is no fraud in Social Security. Social Security operates openly and in full compliance with the law.
In a Ponzi scheme, someone is stealing money for their own personal use. No one is stealing money from Social Security. All the money is accounted for.
A Ponzi scheme eventually falls apart because money was stolen and the new money runs out. Social Security can only 'fall apart' if either the US treasury defaults on its obligations or if the Congress and the president fail to make the easily made adjustments to income and outgo that are needed to rationalize SS's future finances.
But, hey, 'Ponzi scheme', like 'death panels', is the kind of 2 word simplistic talking point that the Right loves,
mostly because it doesn't put a lot of pressure on their brains to actually function.
You say he's right and you also say government loaning money to itself is an asset.
That you claim to not be a liberal Democrat is funny, but that you claim to have been an ideological libertarian and went to an unaffiliated socialist is even more ridiculous. As critical minds grow they start to realize government is not an effective solution to more and more of our problems and in fact the "solutions" actually make things worse then they were. Nobody who knows government is stupid and screws up everything one day wakes up and discovers it actually is the solution to all our problems as you claim to have done.
NYCarbineer:
A Ponzi scheme is fraud. There is no fraud in Social Security. Social Security operates openly and in full compliance with the law.
In a Ponzi scheme, someone is stealing money for their own personal use. No one is stealing money from Social Security. All the money is accounted for.
Forget the Ponzi scheme thing.. There is NO THEFT or FRAUD IN SOC SEC? Then how come you skipped every one of my recent posts outlining all the ways BOTH theft and fraud are part of the program?
Of course diverting Payroll tax "premiums" into any dam thing Congress pleases isn't theft. Especially when some of the same people who paid those premiums the 1st time are now obligated to REPAY those premiums WITH INTEREST and FINANCING charges..
It's indefensible by any means. But go ahead and try...
I guess the problem here comes down to how we define unrealistic.
Since SS is not actually an investment, expecting anything out of it at all is unrealistic, in my opinion. You keep talking like the money in the SS fund is invested in something, which even you have admitted is not true. What people are currently paying into the system is being used to pay current retirees, who are living longer every year. Couple that with the fact that the pool of retirees is expected to grow faster than the pool of workers over the next two decades, and you end up with even more burdens on current workers.
I guess that makes you wrong about in your whole defense of SS not being a Ponzi scheme. That is a shame, I was hoping to be right in my in my OP, but no one has actually mounted a cogent defense of SS based on reality.
Correct.Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry
UNLESS, of course, ALL T-BILLS are a PONZI scheme.
In which case, Social Security is the least of our problems.
T-bills are debt obligations. SS is a transfer from current workers to current retirees. Equating them is equivalent to saying that a horse is the same as a car because they both move.
Your use of the term "extremists" when describing those who do not agree with your position, causes you lose all credibility.
Correct.
UNLESS, of course, ALL T-BILLS are a PONZI scheme.
In which case, Social Security is the least of our problems.
That argument is stupid...even for you...
No he's right.
All government debt is "Ponzi Scheme" according to you extremists. All government debt requires taxpayers to pay it off. It's all taxpayers paying others.
There is no SS Trust Fund. Oh at one time SS tax money was sequestered. Until the federal government started taking it for other uses.Correct.
UNLESS, of course, ALL T-BILLS are a PONZI scheme.
In which case, Social Security is the least of our problems.
T-bills are debt obligations. SS is a transfer from current workers to current retirees. Equating them is equivalent to saying that a horse is the same as a car because they both move.
Technically, unless you are depleting the Trust Fund, you are not using current workers funds to pay retirees.
I guess the problem here comes down to how we define unrealistic.
Since SS is not actually an investment, expecting anything out of it at all is unrealistic, in my opinion. You keep talking like the money in the SS fund is invested in something, which even you have admitted is not true. What people are currently paying into the system is being used to pay current retirees, who are living longer every year. Couple that with the fact that the pool of retirees is expected to grow faster than the pool of workers over the next two decades, and you end up with even more burdens on current workers.
I guess that makes you wrong about in your whole defense of SS not being a Ponzi scheme. That is a shame, I was hoping to be right in my in my OP, but no one has actually mounted a cogent defense of SS based on reality.
I read the OP. That OP, and no one whom I have read thus far, has been able to explain the differences between the cash flows through SS system and the cash flows through a pension fund invested entirely in government bonds. Or how SS is a Ponzi Scheme and how other debt issued by the government is not. Feel free if you wish to do so.
Correct.
UNLESS, of course, ALL T-BILLS are a PONZI scheme.
In which case, Social Security is the least of our problems.
T-bills are debt obligations. SS is a transfer from current workers to current retirees. Equating them is equivalent to saying that a horse is the same as a car because they both move.
Technically, unless you are depleting the Trust Fund, you are not using current workers funds to pay retirees.
A Ponzi scheme is fraud. There is no fraud in Social Security.
Q26: Has Social Security always taken in more money each year than it needed to pay benefits?
A: No. So far there have been 11 years in which the Social Security program did not take enough in FICA taxes to pay the current year's benefits. During these years, Trust Fund bonds in the amount of about $24 billion made up the difference. (See detailed Table.)
Q27: Do the Social Security Trust Funds earn interest?
A: Yes they do. By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be invested in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government bonds. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and "special obligation" securities issued only to federal trust funds. In practice, most of the securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are of the "special obligation" type. (See additional explanation from SSA's Office of the Actuary.)
The Trust Funds earn interest which is set at the average market yield on long-term Treasury securities. Interest earnings on the invested assets of the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds were $55.5 billion in calendar year 1999. This represented an effective annual interest rate of 6.9 percent.
The Trust Funds have earned interest in every year since the program began. More detailed information on the Trust Fund investments can be found in the Annual Report of the Social Security Trustees and on the Actuary's webpages concerning the Investment Transactions and Investment Holdings of the Trust Funds.
I guess the problem here comes down to how we define unrealistic.
Since SS is not actually an investment, expecting anything out of it at all is unrealistic, in my opinion. You keep talking like the money in the SS fund is invested in something, which even you have admitted is not true. What people are currently paying into the system is being used to pay current retirees, who are living longer every year. Couple that with the fact that the pool of retirees is expected to grow faster than the pool of workers over the next two decades, and you end up with even more burdens on current workers.
I guess that makes you wrong about in your whole defense of SS not being a Ponzi scheme. That is a shame, I was hoping to be right in my in my OP, but no one has actually mounted a cogent defense of SS based on reality.
I read the OP. That OP, and no one whom I have read thus far, has been able to explain the differences between the cash flows through SS system and the cash flows through a pension fund invested entirely in government bonds. Or how SS is a Ponzi Scheme and how other debt issued by the government is not. Feel free if you wish to do so.
Pension funds are not transfer payments, SS is.
I guess that means I actually explained the difference.
Your use of the term "extremists" when describing those who do not agree with your position, causes you lose all credibility.That argument is stupid...even for you...
No he's right.
All government debt is "Ponzi Scheme" according to you extremists. All government debt requires taxpayers to pay it off. It's all taxpayers paying others.
Name calling and labeling implies you believe there is no other allowable point of view. That it is YOU who have all the facts and it is YOU who desires to eliminate all possibility of debate.
I read the OP. That OP, and no one whom I have read thus far, has been able to explain the differences between the cash flows through SS system and the cash flows through a pension fund invested entirely in government bonds. Or how SS is a Ponzi Scheme and how other debt issued by the government is not. Feel free if you wish to do so.
Pension funds are not transfer payments, SS is.
I guess that means I actually explained the difference.
You have not explained the differences in cash flows. You've just called cash flows different things.
Explain how cash flows are different in a government bond pension fund compared to the SS trusts. Walk us through the differences between the two. None of you guys who call SS a Ponzi Scheme have explained how cash flows from a government bond fund differ from the cash flows in the SS trusts.
To sum it up, pension funds actually invest the principle, SS only invest whatever is left after it pays current retires. Since SS are currently paying out more than it takes in it is not investing anything.
More: Social Security history Frequently Asked QuestionsQ26: Has Social Security always taken in more money each year than it needed to pay benefits?
A: No. So far there have been 11 years in which the Social Security program did not take enough in FICA taxes to pay the current year's benefits. During these years, Trust Fund bonds in the amount of about $24 billion made up the difference. (See detailed Table.)
Q27: Do the Social Security Trust Funds earn interest?
A: Yes they do. By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be invested in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government bonds. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and "special obligation" securities issued only to federal trust funds. In practice, most of the securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are of the "special obligation" type. (See additional explanation from SSA's Office of the Actuary.)
The Trust Funds earn interest which is set at the average market yield on long-term Treasury securities. Interest earnings on the invested assets of the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds were $55.5 billion in calendar year 1999. This represented an effective annual interest rate of 6.9 percent.
The Trust Funds have earned interest in every year since the program began. More detailed information on the Trust Fund investments can be found in the Annual Report of the Social Security Trustees and on the Actuary's webpages concerning the Investment Transactions and Investment Holdings of the Trust Funds.
Social Security expenditures exceeded the programs non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.
The only money that SS is costing the government right now is some repayment of the surplus that the congress spent all the rest is paid by current contributions and technically the govt is only repaying debt owed to the SS administration aka the people of the USA.
But with a national debt of more than $14 trillion and unfunded, future off the books debt of Social Security and Medicare combined at $104 trillion in present value, according to the Dallas Federal Reserve, Uncle Sam aint the man he used to be. This in turn makes American businesses that are sitting on a pile of cash focus on deleveraging. The American consumer is doing the same. In fact, from where I sit, it appears as though everyone except Uncle Sam is working like mad to strengthen his balance sheets. The legitimate fear across the country is that Washingtons refusal to join our common-sense parade will result in higher taxes, more regulations, more inflation and Japanese-style stagflation. In other words, Washingtons attempts at stimulus through spending are having the opposite effect. Businesses and consumers stay hunkered down.
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.