Is Social Security A Ponzi Scheme?

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316290110' post='2305927']
Typical theist.
[/quote]

off topic, Mr. C, please don't post like that. This is one of those things that make it easy to dismiss atheists as emo and childish. No offense, I'm sure that's NOT what you mean to do. You know the type of atheist whose argument boils down to "theists hurt my feelings! meanies! I'm gonna be an atheist, waaah." They're everywhere. Don't be like them.

End off topic.

On topic, I actually believe it IS wrong to have you pay into a retirement system you will never benefit from. This is why SS needs fixed right away, because it's not right to collect taxes from people and then not deliver on the promise of SS. Just because (mostly rich) people are unwilling to be taxed at a higher rate to make it right. And (mostly old) people are unwilling to have benefits scaled to their life spans.

With regard to your pension system, what they ought to do is exempt the rising generation (yourself) from paying into the system, or at least make it voluntary. They do need to fulfill the pension for people who paid into the system, but they can do this in other ways than collecting from workers who won't benefit. They need to fund it and then end it.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1316294384' post='2305948']off topic, Mr. C, please don't post like that. This is one of those things that make it easy to dismiss atheists as emo and childish. No offense, I'm sure that's NOT what you mean to do. You know the type of atheist whose argument boils down to "theists hurt my feelings! meanies! I'm gonna be an atheist, waaah." They're everywhere. Don't be like them.

End off topic.[/quote]Eh? Theists train themselves to suspend skepticism, critical thinking, and tolerance for differing perspectives. So yeah... that is an accurate observation. Which you're whole rant after that gives credence to just that. But if you want to dismiss atheists or free thinkers, go for it.

But in an effort to coddle religiosity, how about I say "[i]typical ideologue[/i]"? Better?[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1316294384' post='2305948']On topic, I actually believe it IS wrong to have you pay into a retirement system you will never benefit from. This is why SS needs fixed right away, because it's not right to collect taxes from people and then not deliver on the promise of SS. Just because (mostly rich) people are unwilling to be taxed at a higher rate to make it right. And (mostly old) people are unwilling to have benefits scaled to their life spans.

With regard to your pension system, what they ought to do is exempt the rising generation (yourself) from paying into the system, or at least make it voluntary. They do need to fulfill the pension for people who paid into the system, but they can do this in other ways than collecting from workers who won't benefit. They need to fund it and then end it.[/quote]My job is to the public library system, it is unlikely that I will work for the city long enough to be eligible for that retirement. But I am paid quite handsomely for my work, so it honestly doesn't bother me, and it benefits loyal civil servants and bureaucrats who have worked tirelessly for the state or municipal governments in Texas for decades. I approve.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1316252584' post='2305786']
Theft does not cease to become theft because elected representatives continue a popularly supported program[s] people with power over you authorize the behavior for themselves.[/s]
[/quote]


Fixed.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316290110' post='2305927']
Typical theist. No, you are not being logical because in your mind it makes sense. The United States Supreme Court has ruled social security constitutional, Governor Rick Perry is on the record for saying it is not, and you objected to my examples because my examples were "constitutional". But if you think calling social security a "ponzi scheme" is neither absurd or illogical... well there are a lot of more reasonable, educated, and conservative people that disagree with you than just little me.[/quote]
Politicians have repeatedly told us social security monies are in a fund, a "lock box." That is deception. That is a lie. Social security is a ponzi scheme.

The Supreme Court has made many very poor judgments. Is it possible SS is another one?

[quote]No, I'm not putting words into Governor Rick Perry's mouth unless you are totally unaware of what he wrote in his book or you didn't pay attention to the video... or you are an ideologue tea party member...0:22-0:25 the moderator sourcing his book asks him to explain his position that social security was wrong from the beginning. He repeatedly in the answer said social security is wrong.1:22-1:28 He says anyone involved in social security is involved in a monstrous lie. He did say status quo, which means the existing state of affairs... So that covers the normal expectations of social security all around. And his ONLY proposal for amendment is to allow states to opt out of social security.[/quote]
I have tried to find quotes where he says it's unconstitutional. The closest I can get is his book, and even then, he does not outright say it's unconstitutional.

[i]Social Security was created “at the expense of respect for the constitution and limited government.” (Fed Up!, Rick Perry, November 2010)[/i]

"at the expense of respect for the constitution" can mean many things, and not all mean unconstitutional. But, I wouldn't object to him calling a mandated retirement program unconstitutional.

"Wrong from the beginning" are the moderator's words. I admit I don't own the book, but I did do an Amazon search inside the book and cannot find "wrong from the beginning." Please cite page number.

Back to the video... at 1:22-1:28, he is talking about people who are for the status quo, who say young people paying into the program today and expect their funds to be there in when they retire, are wrong and participating in a monstrous lie.

[quote]But social security does work, despite being mismanaged for decades, and admittedly there is always room for improvement. But Governor Rick Perry doesn't address the mismanagement or what should be improve, the only highlight is abandoning social security through states opting out of it.So if I choose to say the Republican party has lost almost all legitimacy and needs the tea party to maintain creditability to the few fringe people out there... that's not a criticism... that's exciting and stimulating conversation. Really?

Are you going to play this game and not admit that calling it a "ponzi scheme" is offensive and provocative?[/quote]
Social security accounting works as well as Lehman Brothers and the U.S. Post Office.

Perry has just entered the race. Give him some time to break his shoes in. He has begun to tackle the issue appropriately, by getting Americans talking and admitting there is a serious problem with social security. It's not working. The first step to recovery is admitting you're an addict. Solutions will come. I like the opt out option.

[quote]Flabbergasting.Let me explain something to you. As a civil servant I pay into a state retirement fund that I will unlikely see any benefit from. So you are telling me that is wrong?

It is wrong to have a social safety net for those we recognize to be in need? It is okay for states to opt out of federally mandated programs that serve the general welfare of its people? And you truly think "red" states can manage their money better? Do you realize the massive deficit states like Texas are in? Do you realize during the last congressional elections the republican party had a massive deficit? Do you realize that the republican members of the house fanatically pushed so the bush tax cuts would remain in place, something that even President Bush when proposing it said it was temporary and should be retracted if the need arises?[/quote]
If you are a civil [i]servant[/i], you are an employee. The government is your employer. Citizens of the U.S. are not employees of the state. Apples and oranges. State retirement != social security.

Texas' economy does not live in a bubble. If you haven't noticed, the nation and world are having some economic slow down. Obviously, the Texas budget had to make some adjustments to balance the budget according to the law, and they did! Can the overseers of social security say the same?

Bush believed the tax cuts should remain in place as long as they are needed. Is now the right time to raise taxes? Quite frankly, you could double the tax rates right now, and it would barely put a scratch on the deficit, not even a dent.

Here's a video explaining how futile it is.
[media='']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ[/media]

[quote]You flabbergast me...I'm not sure. I don't think so. My widowed mother of 65 might be, but she is still hard at work for the state.It seems only a small minority of people are actually agreeing with Governor Rick Perry. Even Rick Perry's own staff disagree with him. Even Rick Perry's own staff admit its offensive, they called it toxic.

Again you flabbergast me.[/quote]
You do realize that something can be provocative without being offensive?

Karl Rove is not on Rick Perry's staff.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']Politicians have repeatedly told us social security monies are in a fund, a "lock box." That is deception. That is a lie. Social security is a ponzi scheme.[/quote]Admitting social security has been mismanaged and could possibly be improved upon, is a far cry from calling it a ponzi scheme. [quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']The Supreme Court has made many very poor judgments. Is it possible SS is another one?[/quote][quote][url="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html"][b]United States Constitution - Preamble[/b][/url]
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [u][b]promote the general Welfare[/b][/u], and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."[/quote]Unless compelling reason can be given otherwise, I will stand by the constitution and the judgment of the supreme court regarding the constitutional nature of social security.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']I have tried to find quotes where he says it's unconstitutional. The closest I can get is his book, and even then, he does not outright say it's unconstitutional.

Social Security was created “at the expense of respect for the constitution and limited government.” (Fed Up!, Rick Perry, November 2010)


"at the expense of respect for the constitution" can mean many things, and not all mean unconstitutional. But, I wouldn't object to him calling a mandated retirement program unconstitutional.[/quote][quote][url="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2088599,00.html"]Rick Perry and the New Challenge to Social Security's Constitutionally[/url]

"... He said he doubted that when the founders gave Congress this power they were "thinking about a federally operated program of pensions..."[/quote]There seems to be more than sufficient evidence to suggest Rick Perry questions the constitutionality of social security...[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']"Wrong from the beginning" are the moderator's words. I admit I don't own the book, but I did do an Amazon search inside the book and cannot find "wrong from the beginning." Please cite page number.[/quote]If you really want I can try to dig up an exact quote, but Governor Rick Perry neither corrected or contradicted the moderator's question. Also the moderator is sourcing his book. It is safe to assume unless it can be shown to the contrary, that this is his position.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']Back to the video... at 1:22-1:28, he is talking about people who are for the status quo, who say young people paying into the program today and expect their funds to be there in when they retire, are wrong and participating in a monstrous lie.[/quote]Is there a way to be involved with social security before or presently outside of the status quo? No?[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']Social security accounting works as well as Lehman Brothers and the U.S. Post Office.[/quote]Despite the postal service from being poorly managed and under funded, because it effectively funds itself from what I understand... it works well. Is the post office known for its bureaucratic insanity and slowness, definitely. Can it be improved upon, hopefully... even the post master general for the United States thinks so.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']Perry has just entered the race. Give him some time to break his shoes in. He has begun to tackle the issue appropriately, by getting Americans talking and admitting there is a serious problem with social security. It's not working. The first step to recovery is admitting you're an addict. Solutions will come. I like the opt out option.[/quote]He wrote an entire book, with entire sections devoted to social security, where he described it like a disease. So within all of that it seems his only solutions are to abolish and abandon... his position is to oppose it. Can you give me anything that suggests otherwise?[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']If you are a civil servant, you are an employee. The government is your employer. Citizens of the U.S. are not employees of the state. Apples and oranges. State retirement != social security.[/quote]Wow... you really don't get it. If you work for a major corporation or are a member of a union they may take part of your pay to fund a pension program. Because there is more unions in the public sector there tends to be better pay and benefits.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']Texas' economy does not live in a bubble. If you haven't noticed, the nation and world are having some economic slow down. Obviously, the Texas budget had to make some adjustments to balance the budget according to the law, and they did! Can the overseers of social security say the same?[/quote]That is a good question... Our elected officials are effectively public negotiators, that is the job of an elected politician. But the last time this came to the attention of our congress, we had a sizable majority who were unwilling to compromise or negotiate a solution to our nation's deficit issues.

But did Texas solve our deficit issues, not exactly. Our politicians are claiming to work on it the best they can... fortunately this will be resolved one way or the other. Our constitution mandates a balanced budget and empowers an independent agency to enforce it, and if necessary we can sue the state for readdress, which the courts will then handle it. But it hasn't happened yet.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']Bush believed the tax cuts should remain in place as long as they are needed. Is now the right time to raise taxes? Quite frankly, you could double the tax rates right now, and it would barely put a scratch on the deficit, not even a dent.[/quote]The bush tax cuts were a bi-partisan project done in a time of relative economic prosperity (even the cuts after 9/11 were still in relative economic prosperity), the voice of government was that it wasn't necessarily needed at that time. But between the wars and economic recession, uncle sam's pocketbook is thinning out. Advocates of retracting the bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans could potentially balance the budget by itself. Handling the deficit will have to involve cutting from our budget.

If our politicians, public negotiators, could do the whole the left washes the right hand routine the problem would be solved. It's very pragmatic and potentially consensus based... even cooperative. But we can't have that can we? I wonder why...[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']You do realize that something can be provocative without being offensive?[/quote]I'm not sure how you don't get calling something criminal is offensive, even if by inference. Which I would be more forgiving if Governor Rick Perry said it was [i]LIKE[/i] a ponzi scheme, but he said it [u][b]IS[/b][/u] a ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are illegal and criminal by nature and definition. It was named after a man who was convicted of mail fraud and larceny. Who is considered a notorious criminal. But you have no idea how that is offending in any way? None?[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']Karl Rove is not on Rick Perry's staff.[/quote]He was...

But here is an article for you, if you will take the time to read it:

[url="http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm"]http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm[/url]

Ponzi schemes are intentionally unsustainable, social security is sustainable... other nations who have social security programs like Germany have maintained it seamlessly for more than a hundred years. Ponzi schemes last for short periods (less than a few months) of time and social security has lasted for almost a century in the United States. In a ponzi scheme the attempt is to get more and more money and investors while paying out less and less, social security does not operate in this fashion. Social security operates about the same as any other pension program, public or private, even internationally... I invite anyone to read the article for a more detailed and in depth comparison.

Admits the many differences between a ponzi scheme and social security... there are some superficial similarities... but superficial similarities [b]do not[/b] make it the same... and [b]do not[/b] change the negative, criminal, and offending connotation of the accusation of it being a ponzi scheme.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Maggyie]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']
Politicians have repeatedly told us social security monies are in a fund, a "lock box." That is deception. That is a lie. Social security is a ponzi scheme.
[/quote]

See it's not a ponzi scheme just because some conservative guy running for President decided to describe it that way. A Ponzi scheme has a very specific definition. It is a fraudulent investment system. Social Security is not only NOT an investment system, it is not funded on a fraudulent basis. Politicians lie all the time, but that doesn't have anything to do with SS itself.

Again think of SS like a giant mutual insurance company designed to indemnify Americans against the ravages of old age or untimely disability. As claims rise, insurance companies need to raise premiums, increase deductibles, cancel some coverage or a combination of these. But sometimes the insurance company doesn't react fast enough to mounting claims losses and they get into a pickle where they are paying more in claims than they are taking in. A good insurance company will have money set aside so that in such a dire situation, they can still honor their policies until they get their risk management policy up to date.

To stay solvent SS needs to both increase premiums (taxes) and change coverages. The political will does not exist to make these changes on either side and that's why we're headed for a solvency crisis.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1316325386' post='2306159']

See it's not a ponzi scheme just because some conservative guy running for President decided to describe it that way. A Ponzi scheme has a very specific definition. It is a fraudulent investment system. Social Security is not only NOT an investment system, it is not funded on a fraudulent basis. Politicians lie all the time, but that doesn't have anything to do with SS itself.

Again think of SS like a giant mutual insurance company designed to indemnify Americans against the ravages of old age or untimely disability. As claims rise, insurance companies need to raise premiums, increase deductibles, cancel some coverage or a combination of these. But sometimes the insurance company doesn't react fast enough to mounting claims losses and they get into a pickle where they are paying more in claims than they are taking in. A good insurance company will have money set aside so that in such a dire situation, they can still honor their policies until they get their risk management policy up to date.

To stay solvent SS needs to both increase premiums (taxes) and change coverages. The political will does not exist to make these changes on either side and that's why we're headed for a solvency crisis.
[/quote]


But for such policies, the insurance company factors in a "reserve" as part of the premium in order to invest it. I have to question whether the federal government does so with the Social Security trust fund, or whether they factor in enough of a reserve. As I said before, the reason I believe this is because of the fact that the FICA tax rate has risen so much since 1935. What has changed? The main thing that has changed is that people are living longer and the ratio of the number of working people paying FICA taxes to the number of people collecting benefits has dropped substantially (the problem exists in other countries as well, and also in local government pension system funding). So, either the people who made the decisions did not account for the possibility of retirees living longer, or it was funded only as a "pay-as-you-go" system.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Norseman82

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316324040' post='2306155']
Admitting social security has been mismanaged and could possibly be improved upon, is a far cry from calling it a ponzi scheme.[/quote]
It was stated a ponzi scheme required an element of deception. The politicians, the ones overseeing and robbing social security, lied, i.e. deceived. That's exhibit A.

[quote]Unless compelling reason can be given otherwise, I will stand by the constitution and the judgment of the supreme court regarding the constitutional nature of social security.[/quote]
That's a rather subjective phrase. Isn't it? You could justify cradle to grave government care with such a phrase. And how does robbing citizens to fund SS, lying about its funding, and diminishing the role of self responsibility "promote the general Welfare?" That's "Welfare" with a capital W, not welfare as in welfare programs.

[quote]There seems to be more than sufficient evidence to suggest Rick Perry questions the constitutionality of social security...If you really want I can try to dig up an exact quote, but Governor Rick Perry neither corrected or contradicted the moderator's question. Also the moderator is sourcing his book. It is safe to assume unless it can be shown to the contrary, that this is his position.[/quote]
Yes, please provide the exact quote and cite it.

The moderator didn't source Perry's book. He interpreted it.

[quote]Is there a way to be involved with social security before or presently outside of the status quo? No?[/quote]
The status quo is participating in the charade that SS is secure and sustainable.

[quote]Despite the postal service from being poorly managed and under funded, because it effectively funds itself from what I understand... it works well. Is the post office known for its bureaucratic insanity and slowness, definitely. Can it be improved upon, hopefully... even the post master general for the United States thinks so.[/quote]
The post office has been bailed out numerous times for several years to the tunes of billions and billions. The USPS is supposed to fund itself. And when it doesn't, it goes to sugar daddy congress to cover their shortfall. They have been doing this several years. They're not alone. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Amtrak are three more in the same boat.

[quote]He wrote an entire book, with entire sections devoted to social security, where he described it like a disease. So within all of that it seems his only solutions are to abolish and abandon... his position is to oppose it. Can you give me anything that suggests otherwise?[/quote]
To stay with the medical references, his book was more triage than prescription. The doctor will be with us shortly.

[quote]Wow... you really don't get it. If you work for a major corporation or are a member of a union they may take part of your pay to fund a pension program. Because there is more unions in the public sector there tends to be better pay and benefits.[/quote]
Unions cost Americans jobs. Public sector unions cost American tax payers money. I highly advise read [url="http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/unions-lenin-and-the-american-way-t4214.html"]an entertaining article on unions and the damage they cause[/url]. It's written by an ex-Soviet propagandist who moved to NYC, so he's seen both sides, communism and a city run by unions. This article is an account of experiences and observations and an excerpt from his excellent book Shackdown Socialism.

None of this matters because U.S. citizens are not members of a labor union. The federal government is not our employer. Social security is not our pension program.

[quote]I'm not sure how you don't get calling something criminal is offensive, even if by inference. Which I would be more forgiving if Governor Rick Perry said it was [i]LIKE[/i] a ponzi scheme, but he said it [u][b]IS[/b][/u] a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are illegal and criminal by nature and definition. It was named after a man who was convicted of mail fraud and larceny. Who is considered a notorious criminal. But you have no idea how that is offending in any way? None?[/quote]
If something is criminal, calling it criminal is not offensive; it's being honest.

Is SS a Ponzi scheme? Yes, and I am not alone. There are plenty of liberals and democrats who have said the same. THIS IS FOR DAIRYGIRL, MAGGIE, etc. who does not believe it is and believe Perry has some how crossed a boundary.

Perry is not the first to call social security a Ponzi scheme. I call on dairygirl's Nobel winner and raise her one Pulitzer prize winner and numerous writers and politicians from the left and right. The idea of social security being a ponzi scheme was mentioned in a 1967 Newsweek article by a Nobel winner of the leftist persuasion trying to justify social security as a sustainable Ponzi scheme. [url="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276859/perry-and-ponzis-stanley-kurtz"]Stanley Kurtz at National Review has done all the leg work in finding all the past references to social security as a Ponzi scheme, a very worthy read[/url]. Part of his closing is this...

[font=courier new,courier,monospace]Yet Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented. On the contrary, the Ponzi comparison has been a staple of conservative warnings about Social Security’s financial soundness for decades. More intriguing, the Ponzi scheme analogy was popularized by a liberal Nobel Laureate economist, who initially offered it as a defense of the system, acknowledging only later that his defense was at least partially flawed. In the decades that followed, many honest liberals have made the Ponzi scheme comparison in the course of calling for systemic reform. Those liberals have bemoaned bipartisan deception and timidity on the Social Security issue, and praised those rare and courageous political souls, such as Alan Simpson, who were willing and able to call a Ponzi scheme by its real name.[/font]

Edited September 18, 2011 by kamiller42

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']It was stated a ponzi scheme required an element of deception. The politicians, the ones overseeing and robbing social security, lied, i.e. deceived. That's exhibit A.[/quote]Even though the social security checks still go out and social security has always been a "pay as you go" system? No, your argument is not reasonable.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']That's a rather subjective phrase. Isn't it? You could justify cradle to grave government care with such a phrase. And how does robbing citizens to fund SS, lying about its funding, and diminishing the role of self responsibility "promote the general Welfare?" That's "Welfare" with a capital W, not welfare as in welfare programs.[/quote]The preamble, which explains in a nutshell why the constitution was written, that explicitly states promote the general welfare... Even in the 1700's welfare had relatively the same connotations and meanings as it does today. This is what was presented to the supreme court and the supreme court agreed, that there was nothing in the constitution that prevented social security from being consitutional, but in fact provisions such as in the preamble that almost explicitly and directly enable it. [quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']Yes, please provide the exact quote and cite it.

The moderator didn't source Perry's book. He interpreted it.[/quote]It is unnecessary. This would be considered a secondary source. Even Governor Romney jumped on this one... No one is challenging the validity of the moderators question, not even Rick Perry... There is simply no evidence to support your accusation that it is somehow out of context, and this is in fact your accusation, so the burden of proof is upon you.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']The status quo is participating in the charade that SS is secure and sustainable.[/quote]Since the social security administration is still functional and recipients are still receiving their pensions, it appears it is secure, and despite for some lingering questions about its future it is sustainable.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']The post office has been bailed out numerous times for several years to the tunes of billions and billions. The USPS is supposed to fund itself. And when it doesn't, it goes to sugar daddy congress to cover their shortfall. They have been doing this several years. They're not alone. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Amtrak are three more in the same boat.[/quote]The Constitution directly mandates a federal postal service. You seem to be more and more opposed to the Constitution of the United States as this discussion continues.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']To stay with the medical references, his book was more triage than prescription. The doctor will be with us shortly. [/quote]So no, you really can't give anything to suggest even remotely otherwise. Thank you.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']Unions cost Americans jobs. Public sector unions cost American tax payers money. I highly advise read [url="http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/unions-lenin-and-the-american-way-t4214.html"]an entertaining article on unions and the damage they cause[/url]. It's written by an ex-Soviet propagandist who moved to NYC, so he's seen both sides, communism and a city run by unions. This article is an account of experiences and observations and an excerpt from his excellent book Shackdown Socialism.[/quote]Name one union job that has been outsourced? To my understanding, not a single one.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']None of this matters because U.S. citizens are not members of a labor union. The federal government is not our employer. Social security is not our pension program.[/quote]The United States [b]IS[/b] a union and social security [b]IS[/b] our public pension program.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']If something is criminal, calling it criminal is not offensive; it's being honest.[/quote]There is insufficient evidence at this time to claim that it is. But you finally admit it... He was calling it criminal.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']Is SS a Ponzi scheme? Yes, and I am not alone. There are plenty of liberals and democrats who have said the same. THIS IS FOR DAIRYGIRL, MAGGIE, etc. who does not believe it is and believe Perry has some how crossed a boundary.

Perry is not the first to call social security a Ponzi scheme. I call on dairygirl's Nobel winner and raise her one Pulitzer prize winner and numerous writers and politicians from the left and right. The idea of social security being a ponzi scheme was mentioned in a 1967 Newsweek article by a Nobel winner of the leftist persuasion trying to justify social security as a sustainable Ponzi scheme. [url="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276859/perry-and-ponzis-stanley-kurtz"]Stanley Kurtz at National Review has done all the leg work in finding all the past references to social security as a Ponzi scheme, a very worthy read[/url]. Part of his closing is this...

[font=courier new,courier,monospace]Yet Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented. On the contrary, the Ponzi comparison has been a staple of conservative warnings about Social Security’s financial soundness for decades. More intriguing, the Ponzi scheme analogy was popularized by a liberal Nobel Laureate economist, who initially offered it as a defense of the system, acknowledging only later that his defense was at least partially flawed. In the decades that followed, many honest liberals have made the Ponzi scheme comparison in the course of calling for systemic reform. Those liberals have bemoaned bipartisan deception and timidity on the Social Security issue, and praised those rare and courageous political souls, such as Alan Simpson, who were willing and able to call a Ponzi scheme by its real name.[/font][/quote]If you ever take the time to read the article I posted, from the social security administration, that in detail rebuttals your position... Please get back to us.

Also if you ever get to the point that you can actually reply to everything I write... Unless these are concessions... which I promptly apologize. I hate to rub salt in the wound.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Amppax]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316295370' post='2305958']
Eh? Theists train themselves to suspend skepticism, critical thinking, and tolerance for differing perspectives. So yeah... that is an accurate observation. Which you're whole rant after that gives credence to just that. But if you want to dismiss atheists or free thinkers, go for it.

But in an effort to coddle religiosity, how about I say "[i]typical ideologue[/i]"? Better?My job is to the public library system, it is unlikely that I will work for the city long enough to be eligible for that retirement. But I am paid quite handsomely for my work, so it honestly doesn't bother me, and it benefits loyal civil servants and bureaucrats who have worked tirelessly for the state or municipal governments in Texas for decades. I approve.
[/quote]

you're funny.

[Jesus_lol]

Kamiller, list out in exact words how exactly Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The mere coincidence that SS and ponzi scheme's are both things which you dislike is not enough to make one equal to the other.

this is not arguing how SS is either: ineffective, pointless, criminal, or anything else. this is arguing whether or not it is a "Ponzi Scheme".
SS completely does not fit the definition of a Ponzi Scheme.



Once you have failed to do this, how about we all agree that Rick Perry spoke out of turn(or lied, whatever), and then this discussion can carry on to discuss the merits and failings of the social security system and possible fixes.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1316383174' post='2306446']you're funny.[/quote]Glad you agree![quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1316383953' post='2306451']Kamiller, list out in exact words how exactly Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The mere coincidence that SS and ponzi scheme's are both things which you dislike is not enough to make one equal to the other.

this is not arguing how SS is either: ineffective, pointless, criminal, or anything else. this is arguing whether or not it is a" ponzi scheme". SS completely does not fit the definition of a ponzi scheme.

once you have failed to do this, how about we all agree that Rick Perry spoke out of turn(or lied, whatever), and then this discussion can carry on to discuss the merits and failings of the social security system and possible fixes.[/quote]
J_LOL is spot on this round.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316378269' post='2306401']
The preamble, which explains in a nutshell why the constitution was written, that explicitly states promote the general welfare... Even in the 1700's welfare had relatively the same connotations and meanings as it does today. This is what was presented to the supreme court and the supreme court agreed, that there was nothing in the constitution that prevented social security from being consitutional, but in fact provisions such as in the preamble that almost explicitly and directly enable it. [/quote]
A preamble is a preamble and not an enumerated power. If the preamble had such authority, the welfare of the unborn would be respected.

[quote]It is unnecessary. This would be considered a secondary source. Even Governor Romney jumped on this one... No one is challenging the validity of the moderators question, not even Rick Perry... There is simply no evidence to support your accusation that it is somehow out of context, and this is in fact your accusation, so the burden of proof is upon you.[/quote]
It is impossible because such a quote does not exist. You inserted words into Perry's mouth. You took the moderator's interpretation as a Perry quote. You should revisit your position.

[quote]Since the social security administration is still functional and recipients are still receiving their pensions, it appears it is secure, and despite for some lingering questions about its future it is sustainable.[/quote]
Can you explain why it's still functional... how it's being funded?

Do you believe social security is sustainable in the future? If not, why not?

[quote]The Constitution directly mandates a federal postal service. You seem to be more and more opposed to the Constitution of the United States as this discussion continues.[/quote]
And they can't even get that right? Imagine how they would do for duties they believe the Constitution gives them authority to do.

Yes, I am strongly against the way the post office is being run. Status quo is not acceptable for USPS or social security.

[quote]Name one union job that has been outsourced? To my understanding, not a single one.[/quote]
Is outsourcing the only way a job can be lost?

[quote]The United States [b]IS[/b] a union and social security [b]IS[/b] our public pension program.[/quote]
A union of states is not the same form of organization as a labor union. One is a nation. The other is a collective of workers.

[quote]There is insufficient evidence at this time to claim that it is. But you finally admit it... He was calling it criminal.[/quote]
Please do not insert my words into Perry's mouth. I was speaking for myself.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1316383953' post='2306451']
Kamiller, list out in exact words how exactly Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The mere coincidence that SS and ponzi scheme's are both things which you dislike is not enough to make one equal to the other.

this is not arguing how SS is either: ineffective, pointless, criminal, or anything else. this is arguing whether or not it is a "Ponzi Scheme".
SS completely does not fit the definition of a Ponzi Scheme.

Once you have failed to do this, how about we all agree that Rick Perry spoke out of turn(or lied, whatever), and then this discussion can carry on to discuss the merits and failings of the social security system and possible fixes.
[/quote]
Let me know when you're ready for a serious conversation.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316407040' post='2306675']
Let me know when you're ready for a serious conversation.
[/quote]


That woulda been about 10 hours ago? when i posted that.

Let me know when you can formulate a response, if you need another 10 hours thats ok.



i guess asking someone to clearly state their position isnt being serious.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']A preamble is a preamble and not an enumerated power. If the preamble had such authority, the welfare of the unborn would be respected.[/quote]In every case before the supreme court, since its establishment, the supreme court has upheld social security as constitutional. You can hold a contrary opinion, but it is ultimately a moot opinion.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']It is impossible because such a quote does not exist. You inserted words into Perry's mouth. You took the moderator's interpretation as a Perry quote. You should revisit your position.[/quote]You are apparently alone in this unjustified accusation. If you refuse to reasonably discuss the matter or take on your burden of proof, that is not my problem.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']Can you explain why it's still functional... how it's being funded?[/quote]If the aims of social security are being met, which it is, as other Republican candidates have said and even Rick Perry ([i]even though he said in every measurable way social security has been a failure[/i]) admits that people are still receiving their benefits and implies that they have no reason to be concerned... Then yes it is functional.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']Do you believe social security is sustainable in the future? If not, why not?[/quote]Yes, a public pension program is sustainable... the question is [b]IF[/b] we will sustain it. Will we sustain it, I suspect so, social security is a very popular program that reaches across party lines. [quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']And they can't even get that right? Imagine how they would do for duties they believe the Constitution gives them authority to do.[/quote]So you support Rick Perry in wanting to abandon or abolish social security and the postal system... Your opinion is moot as is this issue to this topic. The postal system will survive just fine.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']Yes, I am strongly against the way the post office is being run. Status quo is not acceptable for USPS or social security.[/quote]I think you are confused. President Obama was for change... not Governor Rick Perry.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']Is outsourcing the only way a job can be lost?[/quote]Is outsourcing not a problem in the United States?

See I can answer questions with questions too... that does nothing to further the discussion.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']A union of states is not the same form of organization as a labor union. One is a nation. The other is a collective of workers.[/quote]I think you are missing the point somewhere... but I am glad you dropped the silly "it's not our public pension system" bit... That was really silly.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']Please do not insert my words into Perry's mouth. I was speaking for myself.[/quote]Retracting your admission already... gar...



I'm not too particularly fond of J_lol, but I give credit where credit is due, and he [b]is[/b] spot on in this discussion... The majority of our argument is moot to the topic. So hes right... You don't seem serious... I will only shoot the breeze with you for so long... and if you are going to dismiss J_lol when hes asking completely valid, relevant, and serious questions to benefit discussion... Then our non-discussion may be over sooner rather than later.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[dairygirl4u2c]

if one looks up the technical definition of ponzi scheme, one can see all kinds of technical ways SS is not a ponzi scheme.
but more imporant than technical ways... the meat and bones are not there to call it a ponzi.

'A form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors'

it's not technically fraud, though i wouldnt squibble if one said it was, given we call it a lockbox when it's kinda not. at the end of the day though, we make promises which so far awe are keeping, and even if we cut benefits, it's still more than a ponzi scheme would do.
nonexistant enterprise. one could in pessimism say SS is nonexistent given we spend its mnoey then take tax money to fund it. but that's stretching the definition. SS in fact exists and is an enterprise if i ever saw one. it funds seniors retirement and many a people's disablity. even if we cut benefit some, it's still an existant enterprise at its core. a core component of a ponzi scheme isthis this, so this is very importan tpoint... SS exists and is ebing used.
it's also technically not an investment ooperation, it's suppose to be gettin what you paid into it, maybe a littlem ore, maybe less. but even if its is investment who cares, the idea that later people pay for current is as common as can be, that's nearly all investments. ie, in stocks you get money from selling the stock, later investers. or in this case, sure it is technically later people putting money in without a cen\tral investment going on like selling cars. but still, it's
i think one thing that is left out but that is included in many definitions is that the scheme eventually ends. what's ironic is that if it ends, it's only because republicans primarily want to end it, or cut the benefits etc. not that im not against some cutting etc.[b] it'd only be closer to a ponzi sheme if the people accusing of being one get their hands on it. [/b]the essenese is being missed, of a ponzi sheme... later investers will get their money too. if i give five dollars for my retirement, and in fifty years the government gives me my five dollars back... that is a sustainable operation, and is nto at all like a ponzi scheme where eventually the later people who put five in get nothing back, as it awas all a fraud to give money to the first ones. we decide if it's a ponzi sheme essentially by whether we continue to fund it... [b]and if we do, even if we cut soem benefits, it's a sustainable operation, that actually exists, and is being functional and accomplishing something with all 'investers' getting money back. very far from an actual ponzi scheme.[/b]
there are simlarities sure, and as an analogy could work sometimes, as even that nobel prize winner said. but that's as far as all that goes.

Edited September 19, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

In the end the problem with Social Security is that America has not been open to life. SS would still be okay if we were still havin' kids in this country. But this is the unrealized punishment of contraception and aarrr abortion. I grew up in a family of 17 kids. me dad be in the VA a few years back with heart problems. While he be in thar I be struck by the fact that when I went to visit him thar were all these old men throughout the VA who had almost no visitors while me dad had someone with him most of the time. The point of this anecdote is that thar are many consequences for not bein' open to life and aarrr many of them will occur in old age, includin' lack of care for the elderly, even at euthenasia.

[dairygirl4u2c]

on the issue of social security, the main issue, at least at the time per fundin' (might not solve all the problems) is that we've borrowed against it for so long. take the money from thar and aarrr spend it elsewhere, that be.
look up the budget, [url="http://www.federalbudget.com"]www.federalbudget.com[/url]
and aarrr we see that the core of gov spendin' like all the agencies etc is like 20 percent of teh spendin', while twenty is for health care, twenty for social security, twenty for defense, twenety for interest no debt and aarrr stuff like that. a fifth represets like 700 billion
our deficit is like one and aarrr a half trillion.
point bein', we could cut all that government as if often cited but it'd not fix our deficit. we could cut it by like ten percent to stay operational, but that's only seventy billion. maybe even half, which is unrealistic and aarrr it'd only be a fourth of our deficit.
we have to cut into 'entitlements' significantly, or raise taxes. in the short run, it might be possible to just cut entitlements, and aarrr perhaps now is the best time, strategically, to do it, since it's a major issue. but in the long run, and aarrr right now for most purposes... we are goin' to have to raise taxes to keep our promises.
ive always said we should raise taxes, but keep the moeny for SS and aarrror our debt... nothin' else, constitutonally amend that, if ithas to be done tha way. prefereably, though, first we cut spendin'. so im not totally against how republicans are doin this... it's just not long term realistic, and aarrr short term is sketchy, dependiong on many thin's. they can't always be against raisin' taxes. the big from their borrowin' against it has come due. it's simple math, and aarrr simple fairness.