Social Security, Rick Perry and his nut house neo-con princi

Where CNN gets their information
-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA
I hate social security. I believe it's a noble idea. I think it COULD work. Unfortunately, politicians are all crooked and can't be counted on to do manage the fund as they should. You get out only what you put in. Instead our government treats SS tax just like any other tax and just lumps it into the total revenue coming to the treasury and does not SAVE it like they are supposed to for when those contributing retire. This by definition is a Ponzi scheme, the same kind of scheme that Americans were up in arms about a couple years ago with Bernie Madoff. The government takes money invested by today's workers and gives it to today's social security recipients...and we still run at a deficit for our spending. This begs the question: Where did the money that today's retirees paid in go? Well the government spent it. This is the equivalent of Bernie Madoff cashing in and buying New York penthouses with his investors money. The only difference, in a Ponzi scheme investors willingly choose to invest with the originator (ie Bernie Madoff) with Social Security, you are FORCED to pay a portion of your earnings. You have no choice. If liberals were so confident that Social Security can stand on its own, why not allow an opt out program for SS. I sure as hell would opt out...how about you?

I'll leave you with the following. Rick Perry is drawing harsh criticism for calling SS a Ponzi scheme. As it turns out he is not alone. Take this quote for example:
Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in)


A Nobel Prize winning economist said this. So perhaps Perry shouldn't be as maligned as he is.

HangOver
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Delray Beach
no "plan" or "system" will ever "work" as long as their is human involvement.

-wicked-toon-X
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8201
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Miami, FL
obviously this is one of those huge ones.

it just seems with people living longer and longer there is no real way for it to really work.

at the same time there should be something done for people to "force" them to save something for later
so that they don't end up just being a burden on everyone else.

it's a difficult topic to say the least.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA
That was originally the premise of SS toon. You would put into it, and when you retired, you would get it back. The government would invest it and everyone benefited. Now the government isn't 'investing' it, it's spending it on medicare, medicaid, war, welfare, politicians, etc. Then it's not there when you retire.

zel
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Naples, FL
Ya, its like a 401k that you decided to spend on a new car and promised to pay it back into your 401k but got lazy and never did, then you go to retire and you realize oh crap! wheres all my moneh!

If i could, i would opt out and just put it into a CD or something, 401ks suck too when the market crashes.

HangOver
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Delray Beach
zel wrote:401ks suck too when the market crashes.


ugh. tell me about it (not really, i don't want to talk about it)

heh.

glitch
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Miami, FL.
correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't SS solvent for at least the next 75 years? It's Medicare and Medicaide that are the real problems right now.

buzz
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6307
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Omicron Percei 8 .gif
Are there ANY aspects of the gov't you guys are happy with?

glitch
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Miami, FL.
I'm happy the trash gets picked up twice a week... ( though I suppose that could be privatized quite easily ) other than that gov is pretty useless most of the time.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA
Glitch, I expect your trash IS privatized. In CA WM (Waste Management) covers it.

Buzz, I am happy with intrastate transportation management. Basically I think the DoT's are good, the police force, the firemen, emergency services. Apart from that, no. The government is not very efficient at running anything. The problem is they don't EARN the money and hence do not spend it wisely. It's like winning the lottery. If you won the lottery a very small percentage of what you did with it would be considered efficient. The government is like that, but they are guaranteed to win the lottery by taxing us.

[Creep]-Tyrant
 
Posts: 1833
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 2:47 am
Location: The Armpit of North Carolina
buzz wrote:Are there ANY aspects of the gov't you guys are happy with?


Yes, the people running are mostly old will die within my lifetime.

This makes me happy.

glitch
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Miami, FL.
-PC-Taishar wrote:Glitch, I expect your trash IS privatized. In CA WM (Waste Management) covers it.


You are correct sir, I do believe it is privatized. Though I'm sure they get subsidies.

DOT has been effectively privatized in Florida with MDX and all the damn tolls they're putting up everywhere. And they're unmanned and use Sun-Pass so they're entirely pocketing that and not even helping out by providing jobs. As for firefighters EMS, and police, they provide a good service, and I generally like the individuals. But the bureaucracy and inefficiency that runs then undoes a lot of the good they do.

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD
"Social Security is a 'Ponzi scheme.'"--Politifact: False

Aspects of a ponzi scheme and SS are similar, except for the parts that makes a ponzi scheme immoral and illegal. But that's also why Conservatives make this comparison because they want to give SS a bad connotation.

Main points:
1. SS isn't designed to mislead people.
2. A ponzi scheme is unsustainable, SS can be solvent.
3. SS is morally polar opposite of a ponzi scheme. It is a safety net made to help everyone, not just one person or a few.

Mitchell Zuckoff, a Boston University journalism professor who has written a book on Ponzi, noted three critical dissimilarities between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme, which by definition is both fraudulent and unsustainable.

"First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled," Zuckoff wrote in a January 2009 article in Fortune. "...Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns."

Second, he wrote, "A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted. That's when the last people to participate are out of luck; the music stops and there's nowhere to sit. It's true that Social Security faces a huge burden — and a significant, long-term financing problem — in light of retiring Baby Boomers. … But Social Security can be, and has been, tweaked and modified to reflect changes in the size of the taxpaying workforce and the number of beneficiaries. It would take great political will, but the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing."

Third, Zuckoff wrote, "Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme... At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see "Social") resolved to create a safety net (see "Security") in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones.That might rankle, but it's not fraud... None of this is to suggest that Social Security is a perfect system or that there aren't sizeable problems facing the incoming administration and Congress. But it's not a Ponzi scheme. And Ponzi himself, who died in a hospital charity ward with only enough money for his burial, would never have recognized it as his own."

We agree with Zuckoff’s interpretation. We rated Perry's November 2010 comparison of Social Security and Ponzi schemes False, and we stand by that ruling. The comparison still deserves a rating of False.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA
It's Ponzi'esque. Nobody said it is a straight up Ponzi scheme. But even the Nobel winner said it has many similarities. And your link said IT CAN be solvent. Unfortunately it ISN'T as of right now and nobody is showing the political will your author stated was necessary.

zel
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Naples, FL
SS shouldn't be used for charity is all i'm saying, it's supposed to be gov't run retirement money but once you poke holes in that bag to do other things suddenly it can't do its job. By the time i'm ready to retire i'll be amazed if i can pay the eletric bill with what i end up getting out of it.


Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron