Proof SS is Ponzi Scheme from the USA balance sheet!

[Wacky Quacky]

Yeah, one that most of this country relies on to get through life(retirement years). Most people work there ass off paying into such for 20, 30, 40 years...You think the vast majority of this country is going to do that than vote to take it apart? You must be from another planet. Who cares if it is a ponzi sheme--- It's the kind that most people want and strongly support in this country. Only the far right supports people saving up their own money as that would take to much brain power for most of the idiot to understand. You have to understand the majority.

All I want is the option to opt out of SS and take care of my own retirement. The rest of the country can continue to believe in a failing system if they want to, but leave me out of it.

I want an option to opt out of my share of 50% of the defense budget I pay for that I don't believe we need.

First, they're apples and oranges. You're comparing the defense of our nation to a forced hand out.

However, and second, you're right that the defense budget does need to be reduced. But not by 50%, and the cuts need to be specifically targeted so they don't just kick out a bunch of servicemen to achieve it. We can start by ending all of our foreign entanglements, shutting down all foreign military bases (except Landstuhl Medical Center in germany), and bringing every single troop home.

 

[Listening]

Here we see Healthmyths' MO once again: an inflammatory assertion followed by a blizzard of data that, even if true, DO NOT LOGICALLY PROVE THE ASSERTION.

The data are the bait. To refute the data themselves is to fall into the trap. The reality is that the data are irrelevant to the assertion. To invalidate the argument, all that is necessary is to point this out, as I did in post no. 12.

None of the numbers presented in the OP contribute IN ANY WAY to demonstrating that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme." Therefore, there is no need to argue against those numbers. All that is necessary is to show that SS is neither fraudulent nor an investment operation nor something that offers unrealistically high returns, all of which are NECESSARY parts of a Ponzi scheme.

As Social Security has NONE of these attributes, it is NOT a Ponzi scheme. Q.E.D.

For all you whining, at least he presents some data that can be discussed. All we hear from you is about what you think.

It may not be a Ponzi scheme, but it was (by the admission of some who pushed it on us) a scheme of some kind. When it was pointed out that it would have problems down the road under certain scenarios such as the ones we've seen....the response was "We'll be dead by then."

Social security was needed on the short term. Once again we see the failure of people to understand that once you let the government in, they are never ever ever ever leaving.

 

[Listening]

Yeah, one that most of this country relies on to get through life(retirement years). Most people work there ass off paying into such for 20, 30, 40 years...You think the vast majority of this country is going to do that than vote to take it apart? You must be from another planet. Who cares if it is a ponzi sheme--- It's the kind that most people want and strongly support in this country. Only the far right supports people saving up their own money as that would take to much brain power for most of the idiot to understand. You have to understand the majority.

All I want is the option to opt out of SS and take care of my own retirement. The rest of the country can continue to believe in a failing system if they want to, but leave me out of it.

I want an option to opt out of my share of 50% of the defense budget I pay for that I don't believe we need.

What say we allow everyone to op out of anything.

Of course, in this case it has to do with defense. In another case it has to do with retirement....essentially defered consumption.

Big difference.

 

[healthmyths]

All I want is the option to opt out of SS and take care of my own retirement. The rest of the country can continue to believe in a failing system if they want to, but leave me out of it.

I want an option to opt out of my share of 50% of the defense budget I pay for that I don't believe we need.

What say we allow everyone to op out of anything.

Of course, in this case it has to do with defense. In another case it has to do with retirement....essentially defered consumption.

Big difference.

Why the one of few functions the Federal Govt. is ONLY capable of doing and for 200+ years mostly well do,i.e. defense of the nation?

What part of the defense budget specifically do you think should be done away with?
NOW I can point out WASTE.. i.e. the DoD..
--spending $998,798 shipping 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas

That's wasteful!
BUT you're telling me that planting a democracy in the Middle East wasn't worth it ..especially when the likes of AL Gore said the USA didn't do enough?

``He,'' meaning Saddam Hussein, ``had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush[George H..] looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Bush knew it, but he looked the other way.
Congressional Chronicle - C-SPAN Video Library
September 23, 2002
"I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."

Tell me what of the national defense budget would you cut?
The missile command? The Navy? The Marines?
Tell me what would you do away with?

 

[JakeStarkey]

What 'savings' account pays 3% interest currently
1987 6%
1989 9%
1990 5%
1993 3%
1996 2%
1999 5%
2002 1%
2005 4%
average for the above 8 year snapshot: 4.3%

And for the last eight years less than 1.2% annually?

OP is fail.

PROOF???

Here is the actual savings account interest rates for last 8 years!
$1,000 starting in 2003 left for 8 years to 2010 would yield 2.3%
Measuring Worth - Historical US Savings Calculator

Your data does not prove your OP. Fail.

 

[Dragon]

at least he presents some data that can be discussed.

'Course he does. It's easy if you grab it at random, which is very close to what he's doing. The thing is, having "data that can be discussed" is pointless when the data don't support his assertion. They're not even RELATED to his assertion.

All we hear from you is about what you think.

I think you know by now that that's not true. I post links and supporting evidence all the time. But to post data in response to the OP's data is to punch the tar baby. All of the OP data could be true and it wouldn't mean doodly-squat, and that's the proper response to it.

It may not be a Ponzi scheme, but it was (by the admission of some who pushed it on us) a scheme of some kind.

"Scheme" is just a synonym for "plan" with a nastier connotation but essentially meaning the same. As Social Security was a "plan," that makes it a "scheme," but using that word instead of "plan" means nothing except that you, personally, don't like it.

Social security was needed on the short term. Once again we see the failure of people to understand that once you let the government in, they are never ever ever ever leaving.

The idea that Social Security was envisioned as a temporary measure is dead wrong. It was always intended, and always understood, to be a permanent arrangement.

There are no problems with Social Security that cannot be solved with very simple, easy fixes -- except the problem that those of us who are really good at investment and have the time to do it could get a bigger return from our SS money than we get from the program. In other words, it benefits the needy at the expense of the greedy. I make no apologies for that: that's what it's supposed to do.

We are, it's true, running into demographic difficulties as the population ages and the number of workers per retired person drops. But that's not a problem with Social Security, it's a problem with the entire economy affecting every way that old people are supported, public or private. Abolishing Social Security is no solution to it. Actually, the only solution to it is to euthanize our elders rather than supporting them (and I'm including the ones who have money -- it's still consumption without production which means it's part of the problem).

So unless you're willing to kill everyone over 70 or something equivalent, the only thing you can do is buck up and accept it.

 

[Listening]

at least he presents some data that can be discussed.

'Course he does. It's easy if you grab it at random, which is very close to what he's doing. The thing is, having "data that can be discussed" is pointless when the data don't support his assertion. They're not even RELATED to his assertion.

All we hear from you is about what you think.

I think you know by now that that's not true. I post links and supporting evidence all the time. But to post data in response to the OP's data is to punch the tar baby. All of the OP data could be true and it wouldn't mean doodly-squat, and that's the proper response to it.

It may not be a Ponzi scheme, but it was (by the admission of some who pushed it on us) a scheme of some kind.

"Scheme" is just a synonym for "plan" with a nastier connotation but essentially meaning the same. As Social Security was a "plan," that makes it a "scheme," but using that word instead of "plan" means nothing except that you, personally, don't like it.

Social security was needed on the short term. Once again we see the failure of people to understand that once you let the government in, they are never ever ever ever leaving.

The idea that Social Security was envisioned as a temporary measure is dead wrong. It was always intended, and always understood, to be a permanent arrangement.

And this is where I get tired of your stupidity wrapped in this air of superior mental capability.

I never said it was envsionsed as a temporary measure. I said a temporary measure was needed.

You constantly respond to things that were never said (reframing them to suit your purposes) and then you bitch about the way others conduct their arguments.

Besides being an arrogant asshole, you are a fraud.

 

[jillian]

cute...another troll thread from the paid shill.

 

[Listening]

There are no problems with Social Security that cannot be solved with very simple, easy fixes -- except the problem that those of us who are really good at investment and have the time to do it could get a bigger return from our SS money than we get from the program. In other words, it benefits the needy at the expense of the greedy. I make no apologies for that: that's what it's supposed to do.

There are plenty of problems with social security that we now accept as common life.

First, it is not consistent with the constitution. I don't give a flying fig about what the corrupt FDR SCOTUS says.

Second, it removes from me (not someone who is in the top 1%) the opportunity to improve my life by taking away resources that I could otherwise utilize for my benefit.

Third, it encourages people to be needy. Look at the statement the federal govenment sends you. If it does not still say it, it used to say what has been said for decaded...that SS should not be your only means of retirement. But if you look at statistics....many people are looking at it as just that.

I make no apologies for not wanting to be connected to the government tit. And when I am collecting SS, I will be giving it to my grandkids to cover for the robbery the federal government is committing against them.

 

[Dragon]

I never said it was envsionsed as a temporary measure. I said a temporary measure was needed.

Really? So old people were going to need support only for a short time and then everything would go back to the way it was before we became a more urban nation than rural? Do tell.

By the way, don't waste your time insulting me. I only respond to statements like the above that actually have cognitive content.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, SS is constitutional.

Yes, it protects you from yourself and from life taking a bad turn for you.

Yes, it encourages people to be thrifty.

Yes, your failing is to to look at reality.

 

[Dragon]

There are plenty of problems with social security that we now accept as common life.

First, it is not consistent with the constitution. I don't give a flying fig about what the corrupt FDR SCOTUS says.

Well, you're entitled I suppose to your opinions, including interpreting the first clause of Article I, Section 8 in a manner that goes against its plain, straightforward, obvious language. But that doesn't make what you say here anything but your own unsupported and idiosyncratic opinion.

It's clear enough, though, that Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, and by implication to spend the revenues so collected, and that's all Social Security involves the government doing.

Second, it removes from me (not someone who is in the top 1%) the opportunity to improve my life by taking away resources that I could otherwise utilize for my benefit.

Me, too. I'm one of those who would have the ability to invest well and make a larger income from what now goes as self-employment tax, than I will eventually receive from Social Security. But most people don't have my intelligence and would be more likely to lose their investments and less likely to gain from them. I'm fine with lowering my own retirement income slightly so that I don't have to have old people croaking in the streets on my conscience.

Third, it encourages people to be needy. Look at the statement the federal govenment sends you. If it does not still say it, it used to say what has been said for decaded...that SS should not be your only means of retirement. But if you look at statistics....many people are looking at it as just that.

That's because they have no choice, which comes from the fact that income disparity has increased so badly and few people are able to make enough money to plan for retirement. If we still had a healthy economy, it wouldn't be a problem.

I make no apologies for not wanting to be connected to the government tit. And when I am collecting SS, I will be giving it to my grandkids to cover for the robbery the federal government is committing against them.

Your choice, of course. But unless your grandkids are among the minority (like me) who have the head for investment, the government isn't "robbing" them, it's doing what it claims to do: providing for their security.

 

[Listening]

We are, it's true, running into demographic difficulties as the population ages and the number of workers per retired person drops. But that's not a problem with Social Security, it's a problem with the entire economy affecting every way that old people are supported, public or private. Abolishing Social Security is no solution to it. Actually, the only solution to it is to euthanize our elders rather than supporting them (and I'm including the ones who have money -- it's still consumption without production which means it's part of the problem).

So unless you're willing to kill everyone over 70 or something equivalent, the only thing you can do is buck up and accept it.

It is a problem with the way Social Security is structured. When Carter supposedly fixed things in 1977, they quicly found that the assumptions they made about the economy were wrong. And Reagan was forced to fix it again.

Why we put the elderly at the mercy of the economy is stupid. And the Claude Pepper types who constantly cry out how the GOP is going to destroy SS are the folks that have the elderly staying awake at night worrying about dragons that don't exist.

To the rest of your post about killing off those over 70, I can't recall seeing a more retarded argument in a long time. But it only speaks to the fact that you make stuff up all the time. There are plenty of solutions to the "issue" that don't effect the current set of folks on SS or those who will soon be on it.

But, just like Claude Pepper, you find it necessary to run the fearmongering game with inane arguments that have no place in reality.

And you are critical of others for doing the same (when, in fact, your statements are much more ludicrous).

You really are a hypocrite.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Putting the elderly at the mercy of the Ryanistas would be absolutely cruel.

 

[Listening]

There are plenty of problems with social security that we now accept as common life.

First, it is not consistent with the constitution. I don't give a flying fig about what the corrupt FDR SCOTUS says.

Well, you're entitled I suppose to your opinions, including interpreting the first clause of Article I, Section 8 in a manner that goes against its plain, straightforward, obvious language. But that doesn't make what you say here anything but your own unsupported and idiosyncratic opinion.

It's clear enough, though, that Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, and by implication to spend the revenues so collected, and that's all Social Security involves the government doing.

It is nowhere near clear except to those who need it to be clear to suppor their own fantasies. SS didn't always exist and the arguments against the "General Welfare" clause have been repeated ad nauseum.

What does matter is that the GOP let this go on for to long and it is going to take an effort to change it around.

Your claim of straightforward language is bunk.

 

[Listening]

Putting the elderly at the mercy of the Ryanistas would be absolutely cruel.

Why don't you let the elderly decide for themselves.

That is what this country was founded upon.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That SS did not always exist is not an argument that it should not exist now.

The constiutionality of the program was decided a long time ago.

Let's move on.

 

[Listening]

That's because they have no choice, which comes from the fact that income disparity has increased so badly and few people are able to make enough money to plan for retirement. If we still had a healthy economy, it wouldn't be a problem.

Please refrain from commenting on others unsupportable opinions if you plan to do the very same thing yourself (as you have done here). The whole notion of income disparity resulting in no savings is simply a myth that the left can't let go of.

If we had a health economy, people on SS would still be collecting an average of 1000 per month. That is nothing. It is a sham.

This kind of claim is beyond comprehension.

 

[Listening]

That SS did not always exist is not an argument that it should not exist now.

The constiutionality of the program was decided a long time ago.

Let's move on.

The corruption of the SCOTUS was shown a long time ago.

I happen to be somewhat versed in the history of how SS came to be and am quite in agreement that something needed to be done. However, the promises of the program and it's abuse by politicians is a clear example of why things like health care should not be in their hands.

We already moved on.

Try to stay up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's because they have no choice, which comes from the fact that income disparity has increased so badly and few people are able to make enough money to plan for retirement. If we still had a healthy economy, it wouldn't be a problem.

Please refrain from commenting on others unsupportable opinions if you plan to do the very same thing yourself (as you have done here). The whole notion of income disparity resulting in no savings is simply a myth that the left can't let go of.

If we had a health economy, people on SS would still be collecting an average of 1000 per month. That is nothing. It is a sham.

This kind of claim is beyond comprehension.

Listening, stay in reality, please. Your conclusions are unsupportable.