Bay News 9 Fibs, Says Social Security Is Not A Ponzi Scheme

[bripat9643]

SS isn't mandatory either.

Paying into it is, dipshit.

 

[bripat9643]

Not a Ponzi scheme. No, you can't get your mits on it.

You don't have to get your mits on it. They send it to you every month.

No, you can't privatize it.

Sure we can.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Americans are JUST stupid enough to believe it too!

I take it you are not an American, nor think I'm an American?
JWK

What does Nationality have to do with it?

Americans are none too bright.

Hey....just because 65 million voted for the commun....

....never mind.

 

[Toro]

It's not a Ponzi Scheme. The OP misunderstands the nature of a Ponzi Scheme.

You are entitled to your opinion however wrongheaded it may be.


JWK

SS is not a Ponzi Scheme. The economics of SS mimics that of a 100% government bond fund. A government bond fund is not a Ponzi Scheme either.

A Ponzi Scheme has three characteristics

1. It promises an unrealistic rate of return
2. There is no discernible economic activity which underlies the returns.
3. It relies upon the the transference of funds from one group of people to another based on a fraudulent nature.

Only #3 has a semblance of a Ponzi Scheme, though even that is not really true because SS is not a fraud.

1. SS promises the weighted-average returns of Treasury securities, the lowest expected return of all securities in the United States. So that's hardly an unreasonable rate of return.

2. SS are liabilities of the US government, like Treasury securities. Given that the power of taxation backstops government liabilities, Treasury securities and SS liabilities are backed by the economic activity of the United States.

3. Given that SS is a pay-as-you-go system, it appears that SS meets this one criteria of a Ponzi Scheme. However, all general obligation securities, regardless if they are issued by governments, corporations or whomever, are a transference of funds from one group of people to another. Simply because one group of people pays off another group of people does not inherently make it a Ponzi Scheme. What matters is the economic nature of the promise. If there is a reasonable economic basis for the liabilities, it's not a Ponzi Scheme. If the returns are not fraudulently promised, then it's not a Ponzi Scheme. SS can be made whole forever simply by raising taxes. People may not want to pay more taxes, but that's a political question, not a fraudulent one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's not a Ponzi Scheme. The OP misunderstands the nature of a Ponzi Scheme.

You are entitled to your opinion however wrongheaded it may be.


JWK

SS is not a Ponzi Scheme. The economics of SS mimics that of a 100% government bond fund. A government bond fund is not a Ponzi Scheme either.

A Ponzi Scheme has three characteristics

1. It promises an unrealistic rate of return
2. There is no discernible economic activity which underlies the returns.
3. It relies upon the the transference of funds from one group of people to another based on a fraudulent nature.

Only #3 has a semblance of a Ponzi Scheme, though even that is not really true because SS is not a fraud.

1. SS promises the weighted-average returns of Treasury securities, the lowest expected return of all securities in the United States. So that's hardly an unreasonable rate of return.

2. SS are liabilities of the US government, like Treasury securities. Given that the power of taxation backstops government liabilities, Treasury securities and SS liabilities are backed by the economic activity of the United States.

3. Given that SS is a pay-as-you-go system, it appears that SS meets this one criteria of a Ponzi Scheme. However, all general obligation securities, regardless if they are issued by governments, corporations or whomever, are a transference of funds from one group of people to another. Simply because one group of people pays off another group of people does not inherently make it a Ponzi Scheme. What matters is the economic nature of the promise. If there is a reasonable economic basis for the liabilities, it's not a Ponzi Scheme. If the returns are not fraudulently promised, then it's not a Ponzi Scheme. SS can be made whole forever simply by raising taxes. People may not want to pay more taxes, but that's a political question, not a fraudulent one.

I have no doubt that even the most religious of us are envious of your depth of faith.

 

[Steven_R]

Perhaps the most poignant criticism of FDR is that he changed the relationship between the government and the people of the nation.

Which should support which.....

I detest FDR as much as the next guy, but he didn't act unilaterally. The American people sent their representatives to Congress and allowed TR, WW, FDR, and LBJ to set up all those programs. For good or ill, We The People decide what the relationship between the government and the governed will be. We did it to ourselves.

 

[Toro]

Dp

 

[Toro]

It's not a Ponzi Scheme. The OP misunderstands the nature of a Ponzi Scheme.

You are entitled to your opinion however wrongheaded it may be.


JWK

SS is not a Ponzi Scheme. The economics of SS mimics that of a 100% government bond fund. A government bond fund is not a Ponzi Scheme either.

A Ponzi Scheme has three characteristics

1. It promises an unrealistic rate of return
2. There is no discernible economic activity which underlies the returns.
3. It relies upon the the transference of funds from one group of people to another based on a fraudulent nature.

Only #3 has a semblance of a Ponzi Scheme, though even that is not really true because SS is not a fraud.

1. SS promises the weighted-average returns of Treasury securities, the lowest expected return of all securities in the United States. So that's hardly an unreasonable rate of return.

2. SS are liabilities of the US government, like Treasury securities. Given that the power of taxation backstops government liabilities, Treasury securities and SS liabilities are backed by the economic activity of the United States.

3. Given that SS is a pay-as-you-go system, it appears that SS meets this one criteria of a Ponzi Scheme. However, all general obligation securities, regardless if they are issued by governments, corporations or whomever, are a transference of funds from one group of people to another. Simply because one group of people pays off another group of people does not inherently make it a Ponzi Scheme. What matters is the economic nature of the promise. If there is a reasonable economic basis for the liabilities, it's not a Ponzi Scheme. If the returns are not fraudulently promised, then it's not a Ponzi Scheme. SS can be made whole forever simply by raising taxes. People may not want to pay more taxes, but that's a political question, not a fraudulent one.

I have no doubt that even the most religious of us are envious of your depth of faith.

Or an understanding of basic finance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's not a Ponzi Scheme. The OP misunderstands the nature of a Ponzi Scheme.

You are entitled to your opinion however wrongheaded it may be.


JWK

SS is not a Ponzi Scheme. The economics of SS mimics that of a 100% government bond fund. A government bond fund is not a Ponzi Scheme either.

A Ponzi Scheme has three characteristics

1. It promises an unrealistic rate of return
2. There is no discernible economic activity which underlies the returns.
3. It relies upon the the transference of funds from one group of people to another based on a fraudulent nature.

Only #3 has a semblance of a Ponzi Scheme, though even that is not really true because SS is not a fraud.

1. SS promises the weighted-average returns of Treasury securities, the lowest expected return of all securities in the United States. So that's hardly an unreasonable rate of return.

2. SS are liabilities of the US government, like Treasury securities. Given that the power of taxation backstops government liabilities, Treasury securities and SS liabilities are backed by the economic activity of the United States.

3. Given that SS is a pay-as-you-go system, it appears that SS meets this one criteria of a Ponzi Scheme. However, all general obligation securities, regardless if they are issued by governments, corporations or whomever, are a transference of funds from one group of people to another. Simply because one group of people pays off another group of people does not inherently make it a Ponzi Scheme. What matters is the economic nature of the promise. If there is a reasonable economic basis for the liabilities, it's not a Ponzi Scheme. If the returns are not fraudulently promised, then it's not a Ponzi Scheme. SS can be made whole forever simply by raising taxes. People may not want to pay more taxes, but that's a political question, not a fraudulent one.

I have no doubt that even the most religious of us are envious of your depth of faith.

Or an understanding of basic finance.

The Economist had the following,which takes some of the wind out of the sails of your claim....


When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity". The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace". The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" —The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's not a ponzi scheme.

Of course it is. It fits the very definition.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps the most poignant criticism of FDR is that he changed the relationship between the government and the people of the nation.

Which should support which.....

I detest FDR as much as the next guy, but he didn't act unilaterally. The American people sent their representatives to Congress and allowed TR, WW, FDR, and LBJ to set up all those programs. For good or ill, We The People decide what the relationship between the government and the governed will be. We did it to ourselves.

If only.


You might benefit from a reading of J.L.Talmon's "Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,."

1. The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

2. . “Totalitarian democracy” preaches absolute truth and a messianic vision of a “pre-ordained, harmonious and perfect scheme of things, to which men are irresistibly driven, and at which they are bound to arrive”; its politics is but one aspect of an all-embracing philosophy. Both “liberal” and “totalitarian” democracy affirm the value of liberty; but for the first, liberty means individual spontaneity, for the second, reconciliation to an absolute, collective purpose—a kind of self-willed slavery, in fact.


To see the self-willed slavery in action, note the posts of those still supporting the Obama administration.

 

[Toro]

It's not a Ponzi Scheme. The OP misunderstands the nature of a Ponzi Scheme.

You are entitled to your opinion however wrongheaded it may be.


JWK

SS is not a Ponzi Scheme. The economics of SS mimics that of a 100% government bond fund. A government bond fund is not a Ponzi Scheme either.

A Ponzi Scheme has three characteristics

1. It promises an unrealistic rate of return
2. There is no discernible economic activity which underlies the returns.
3. It relies upon the the transference of funds from one group of people to another based on a fraudulent nature.

Only #3 has a semblance of a Ponzi Scheme, though even that is not really true because SS is not a fraud.

1. SS promises the weighted-average returns of Treasury securities, the lowest expected return of all securities in the United States. So that's hardly an unreasonable rate of return.

2. SS are liabilities of the US government, like Treasury securities. Given that the power of taxation backstops government liabilities, Treasury securities and SS liabilities are backed by the economic activity of the United States.

3. Given that SS is a pay-as-you-go system, it appears that SS meets this one criteria of a Ponzi Scheme. However, all general obligation securities, regardless if they are issued by governments, corporations or whomever, are a transference of funds from one group of people to another. Simply because one group of people pays off another group of people does not inherently make it a Ponzi Scheme. What matters is the economic nature of the promise. If there is a reasonable economic basis for the liabilities, it's not a Ponzi Scheme. If the returns are not fraudulently promised, then it's not a Ponzi Scheme. SS can be made whole forever simply by raising taxes. People may not want to pay more taxes, but that's a political question, not a fraudulent one.

I have no doubt that even the most religious of us are envious of your depth of faith.

Or an understanding of basic finance.

The Economist had the following,which takes some of the wind out of the sails of your claim....


When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity". The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace". The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" —The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

That the liability may or may not be paid is not the definition of a Ponzi Scheme.

Again, basic finance.

 

[bendog]

PC, I realize you are delightfully crazy, but I have to point out that for "totalitarian democracy" to work in the US, the GOP HAS TO BE PART OF IT TOO. Personally, I believe both parties are bought by international corporations, but at present the dems offer a bit more in supporting things like women deciding their own reproduction and nominally more progressive taxes.

 

[Toro]

It's not a ponzi scheme.

Of course it is. It fits the very definition.

It does not.

 

[bendog]

Soc sec doesn't meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme, which by definition takes investments and then offers a rate of return that typical investments cannot match. That actually is one criticism, i.e. "oh I could make so much more if my taxes went into the stock market."

More appropriately, one might criticize soc sec as a "pyramid scheme," which promises returns that can only be achieved if an ever expanding number of investors put money into it to pay off previous investors.

However, once the millenials are working and boomers dead, soc sec will again be running a surplus. That isn't a defense of not making it into a pay as you go system, but if critics would actually stick to facts rather than hyperbole, their arguments would be less irrational

Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, I realize you are delightfully crazy, but I have to point out that for "totalitarian democracy" to work in the US, the GOP HAS TO BE PART OF IT TOO. Personally, I believe both parties are bought by international corporations, but at present the dems offer a bit more in supporting things like women deciding their own reproduction and nominally more progressive taxes.

1. "The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
   Coulter, 11-27-03

Sad but true.

 

[BluesLegend]

Question, how is the Federal government going to pay us back the $2 trillion dollars they borrowed from our SS contributions?

1. Increase taxes? Loan me a dollar, now give me another dollar...say here's that dollar I owed you.
2. Increase the age limit and hope people die before they collect a cent of the benefits they paid for?
3. Means testing to cheat people who were forced to pay in out of any benefits?
4. All of the above?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Soc sec doesn't meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme, which by definition takes investments and then offers a rate of return that typical investments cannot match. That actually is one criticism, i.e. "oh I could make so much more if my taxes went into the stock market."

More appropriately, one might criticize soc sec as a "pyramid scheme," which promises returns that can only be achieved if an ever expanding number of investors put money into it to pay off previous investors.

However, once the millenials are working and boomers dead, soc sec will again be running a surplus. That isn't a defense of not making it into a pay as you go system, but if critics would actually stick to facts rather than hyperbole, their arguments would be less irrational

Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There aren't enough Millenials to sustain the system. The Baby Boomers will dry it up and there will be nothing left for the rest of us who have had to pay for their retirement our whole lives.

 

[Siete]

if you're too stupid to understand finance then SS is a Ponzi scheme

if you're too stupid to set RW talking points aside then SS is a Ponzi scheme.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What do you call a program that lets folks take out more than they put in??

A program where your taking money from the folks coming behind you?

I doubt either SS or Medicaid would be very popular if you could only take out EXACTLY what you have invested in either program.

Ponzi? Could be.

There are also people who take out none.

The Trust Fund increases in value every year.