Ponzi Scheme

[Pandora]

You are dreaming and you know it. You know they can't give back your money with interest. There is NO money to give back.

Secondly, if you think you can "retire" and do something on SS benefits, think again. The benefit is not enough to enjoy a nice retirement.

Most Americans have a life span approaching 85 years of age. Retiring at 62 or 65 makes no sense. I have no intention of NOT working at that age. How boring would that be???

I know its just a dream, I wasn't saying what will happen but what should happen though its not even possible

 

[Openmind]

No they cant give all the money back. But if enough people demand everything then they just might have to give something.

I would be happy if they just had stopped forcing me and others to pay in. And just to shake things up I should mention that when I stopped earning a paycheck a few years back but my wife kept working as a public school teacher we did stop paying in. Apparently union members are not required to pay into SS.

Exactly! The same people who are trying so hard to destroy the unions don't even understand that the unions are running their own form of "social security," (called "pensions," obviously)!

So. . .they don't want the government to take care of social security, and they don't want "private" enterprises or investments made for pensions (Does AIG sound familiar?)

Now, can you imagine what would have happened if Bush had privatized social security a few years ago. . .a few years before the 2008 crash?

Do you REALLY trust Wall Street more than the government or the unions?

 

[Gipper]

Do you REALLY trust Wall Street more than the government or the unions?

Boy...that is a toughie...

I do not trust the unions at all. For you to grant ANY trust to them, is most absurd considering their long history of fraud and deceit...and this continues unabated today.

So, logically I trust gov and wall street more than unions.

Now, between those two I will take wall street. With proper oversight and regulations, they will do a MUCH better job than government which has no oversight, since most of the media has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the D party. But, please recognize I consider both below that of a used car salesman.

I am certain you being a lib that you trust gov and unions FAR more than wall street. Right?

 

[Dr.Who]

Exactly! The same people who are trying so hard to destroy the unions don't even understand that the unions are running their own form of "social security," (called "pensions," obviously)!

So. . .they don't want the government to take care of social security, and they don't want "private" enterprises or investments made for pensions (Does AIG sound familiar?)

Now, can you imagine what would have happened if Bush had privatized social security a few years ago. . .a few years before the 2008 crash?

Do you REALLY trust Wall Street more than the government or the unions?

I not only trust wall street more than the gov but despite its flaws I trust my wifes union to manage our benefits better than the government. (I bet teachers on average actually receive better retirement packages than poeople on SS) (notice that I said I trust them to deliver my wifes benefits more than gov. I did not say I trust them in a whole lot of other areas)

Why do I trust wall street and unions more? With wall street the answer is clear, I can diversify my portfolio and avoid any company I do not trust conversely choosing only companies I do trust. Unions are problematic in that I have less choice of the union to which we belong. Sure we could change states but that is pretty harsh. We could change jobs but that too is harsh. But it would be pretty simple to make participation in unions voluntary and then I would far far less problems with unions.

 

[Gipper]

Perry writes in USA Today...today....in part:

These are the hard facts: Social Security's unfunded liability is calculated in the trillions of dollars. Last year, annual Social Security outlays exceeded annual revenues for the first time since 1983. The Congressional Budget Office projects that outlays will be roughly 5% greater than revenues over the next five years, worsening as more and more Baby Boomers retire.
By 2037, retirees will only get roughly 76 cents back for every dollar that is put into Social Security unless reforms are implemented. Imagine how long a traditional retirement or investment plan could survive if it projected investors would lose 24% of their money?
I am going to be honest with the American people. Our elected leaders must have the strength to speak frankly about entitlement reform if we are to right our nation's financial course and get the USA working again.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2011-09-11/Rick-Perry-Social-Security/50362610/1

It is refreshing to hear a politician speak the truth...but not to the left...at least not when it criticizes one of their scared cows...plus they can get in a cheap shot...

And part of the USA Today lefty editorial board response...

Perry is playing to fears among younger voters that Social Security won't be around for them; polls have shown that more than 60% over those under 30 don't expect to collect. But even if nothing is done, the program could still pay about three-quarters of promised benefits at mid-century.

Perry has not made clear what he'd do with Social Security if elected president. Perhaps we'll hear more at tonight's Republican debate in Florida, a hotbed of support for the program. In the past, Perry has pointed to some kind of state or local opt-out, at least for government workers. But, like the other major contenders, he has not fleshed out a comprehensive plan.

Whatever changes he does propose, be they modest or dramatic, overheated rhetoric only cast Perry as one more loud, stubborn voice — obviously not the cure for what ails Washington. By contrast, former president George W. Bush put forth solidly Republican ideas on Social Security overhaul while showing a healthy respect for the program and the problems that it solved.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2011-09-11/Social-Security-no-Ponzi-scheme/50362684/1

 

[Dr.Who]

And part of the USA Today lefty editorial board response...

"Perry is playing to fears among younger voters that Social Security won't be around for them; polls have shown that more than 60% over those under 30 don't expect to collect. But even if nothing is done, the program could still pay about three-quarters of promised benefits at mid-century."

(Thank you for posting that)

So this is the editorial response?

In other words USA Today admits he is right and then for proclaiming what they agree to be true they claim he is playing to fears.

Can any realistic definition of "playing to fears" include fears that are real? Shouldn't the phrase "playing to fears" be reserved for when those fears are exaggerated or misrepresented?

 

[Gipper]

"Perry is playing to fears among younger voters that Social Security won't be around for them; polls have shown that more than 60% over those under 30 don't expect to collect. But even if nothing is done, the program could still pay about three-quarters of promised benefits at mid-century."

(Thank you for posting that)

So this is the editorial response?

In other words USA Today admits he is right and then for proclaiming what they agree to be true they claim he is playing to fears.

Can any realistic definition of "playing to fears" include fears that are real? Shouldn't the phrase "playing to fears" be reserved for when those fears are exaggerated or misrepresented?

Yes, their response is laughable and nonsensical. Typical of leftist thinking.

 

[Gipper]

The great Walter Williams chimes in on the SS/Ponzi scheme debate and of course he and I agree.

During the recent GOP presidential debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said that Social Security is a "monstrous lie" and a "Ponzi scheme." More and more people are coming to see that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, but is it a lie, as well? Let's look at it.

Here's what the 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said: "After the first 3 years -- that is to say, beginning in 1940 -- you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. ... Beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. ... And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year." Here's Congress' lying promise: "That is the most you will ever pay."

Another lie in the Social Security pamphlet is: "Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right." Therefore, Americans were sold on the belief that Social Security is like a retirement account and money placed in it is our property. The fact of the matter is you have no property right whatsoever to your Social Security "contributions."

Aside from these lies, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The major difference between Social Security and Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme is his was illegal. Three Nobel laureate economists have testified that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Dr. Paul Samuelson called it "the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived." Dr. Milton Friedman said it was "the biggest Ponzi scheme on earth." Dr. Paul Krugman predicted that "the Ponzi game will soon be over."

Three cheers to Gov. Rick Perry for having the guts to tell us that Social Security is a monstrous lie and a Ponzi scheme.
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/09/21/gov_perrys_right_about_social_security

 

[Gipper]

And now the Great Thomas Sowell...just another example of liberal media bias, but when will liberals learn??? The lib media dumbs down many...

"Not only conservatives, but even some liberals, have been calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme for decades. Moreover, neither the media nor the politicians who are carrying on over the use of the words 'Ponzi scheme' show the slightest interest in any hard facts that would tell us whether Social Security is or is not a Ponzi scheme. It is a 'gotcha' moment, and that is apparently what some people live for. ... Social Security worked fine when the small generation from the 1930s received pensions from the money being paid in by the larger and more prosperous 'baby boom' generation that followed. It worked fine when the average life expectancy of the first generation was not long enough for most of them to collect Social Security checks for more than a few years -- if at all. Declining birth rates and greatly increasing lifespans have created havoc with Social Security's finances, which are based on having the first generation's pensions paid with money collected from the second generation -- and the second generation's pensions paid by the next generation, etc. Any private financial scheme set up in a similar way would be illegal. That is why Charles Ponzi went to prison." --economist Thomas Sowell