Rick Perry heckled in NH

[Conservative]

What you are describing is a pyramid scheme...not a ponzi scheme.

It's the same thing, and I described it perfectly.

Here's the minute differences:
A pyramid scheme is a form of fraud similar in some ways to a Ponzi scheme, relying as it does on a mistaken belief in a nonexistent financial reality, including the hope of an extremely high rate of return. However, several characteristics distinguish these schemes from Ponzi schemes:
In a Ponzi scheme, the schemer acts as a "hub" for the victims, interacting with all of them directly. In a pyramid scheme, those who recruit additional participants benefit directly. (In fact, failure to recruit typically means no investment return.)
A Ponzi scheme claims to rely on some esoteric investment approach (insider connections, etc.) and often attracts well-to-do investors; whereas pyramid schemes explicitly claim that new money will be the source of payout for the initial investments.
A pyramid scheme is bound to collapse much faster because it requires exponential increases in participants to sustain it. By contrast, Ponzi schemes can survive simply by persuading most existing participants to "reinvest" their money, with a relatively small number of new participants.

I'm going to attempt to explain a ponzi scheme...no guarantee this will make sense.


I am the schemer.

I promise a guaranteed 15% return on investments.

You give me your money.

So does Elvis, Full-Auto, and DBS.

I invest most of the money, of course, I take some for myself (as does the government when they "borrow" from the S.S. "lockbox")

I am not getting a 15% return.

Elvis wants his money.

I pay Elvis his money plus the 15% I promised.

I do this by taking it from Full-Auto and DBS's investment.

Elvis, who got his money back plus 15% tells California Girl, Del, Conservative, Dabs, Newby and Annie about this great investment, guaranteed 15%..."no, not second hand, I got the return myself".

All of them invest with me.

Full Auto and DBS now want their money.

I pay them their initial investment plus 15% from the money CG, Del, Conservative, Dabs, Newby and Annie just gave me.

Full Auto and DBS tell all their friends...I get 25 more investors...


...whose money I use to pay my previous investors....

It is a scam that is dependent on growth of the base of investors.

Without growth, I don't have the money to pay the earlier investors.

That is the problem with Social Security...a baby boom in conjunction with a later reduced birth rate.

Dam*...I hope that makes sense.

 

[Missourian]

THIS thread is about what Perry said about Social Security.

Fair enough. Then lets see what your Texan Messiah said:

“I can promise you, my 27-year-old son, Social Security, under the program that we have today, will not be there.”

“I’m not afraid of having that conversation,” the governor said. “Do I have a plan yet to lay out and say here it is in black and white? I don’t. But I can promise you … these challenges are not overcomable, at all. We are Americans and we will find the way to do it.”

So, he has no plan, but thinks the challenge is overcomable, but apparently not to the point where SS will be around for his kids. Wow. Can anyone explain that to me? Does that mean he's going to pray and ask God to fix it?

All this, about a program that has a $9T gap over 75 years, and that counts inflation. That's maybe $40B or $50B in the early years. Easily fixed with means testing and/or raising the cap on taxable income.

This is not rocket science.

You aren't even trying.

You agreed that the Social Security program is broken and is in need of repair.

I posted the article that indicated in no uncertain terms that Social Security would be insolvent by 2025...2040 at the latest...under the program that we have today.

The challenges can be overcome...but not under the program we have today...which you agreed to when you said "We have time to fix this" and that this is "easily fixed".


Congratulation, you have successfully proved Perry's point.

Way to go.





​

 

[DontBeStupid]

You agreed that the Social Security program is broken and is in need of repair.

I posted the article that indicated in no uncertain terms that Social Security would be insolvent by 2025...2040 at the latest...under the program that we have today.

The challenges can be overcome...but not under the program we have today...which you agreed to when you said "We have time to fix this" and that this is "easily fixed".


Congratulation, you have successfully proved Perry's point.

Way to go.​

heh heh nice try. Cute even. I like how you make assumptions about what you think I am thinking, and then attack those ideas. There's a phrase for that. Hmm.

Anyway, the Social Security system is fine. There is nothing wrong with the system. The only challenge is if all those people draw money, with the current level paying in, that we can only cover 75% of benefits. But, since there is no legal contract with anyone, paying 75% of benefits is an option. It would solidify SS and there would be no problems, except a lot of pissed off voters.

So, to keep those voters from being pissed, we need to alter the pay outs or pay ins, but that doesn't mean the system itself is broken or insolvent or any of the other scary words you like to use. Raising the cap to about $150K fixes everything! Oh my god! The horror! I can see why Perry hasn't thought of that yet! It's unthinkable!

You guys like to scream and cry and whine and point fingers, but never present plans or ideas. Perry has exactly ZERO ideas for SS, yet I fixed it in a matter of minutes.​

 

[Missourian]

You agreed that the Social Security program is broken and is in need of repair.

I posted the article that indicated in no uncertain terms that Social Security would be insolvent by 2025...2040 at the latest...under the program that we have today.

The challenges can be overcome...but not under the program we have today...which you agreed to when you said "We have time to fix this" and that this is "easily fixed".


Congratulation, you have successfully proved Perry's point.

Way to go.​

heh heh nice try. Cute even. I like how you make assumptions about what you think I am thinking, and then attack those ideas. There's a phrase for that. Hmm.

Anyway, the Social Security system is fine. There is nothing wrong with the system. The only challenge is if all those people draw money, with the current level paying in, that we can only cover 75% of benefits. But, since there is no legal contract with anyone, paying 75% of benefits is an option. It would solidify SS and there would be no problems, except a lot of pissed off voters.

So, to keep those voters from being pissed, we need to alter the pay outs or pay ins, but that doesn't mean the system itself is broken or insolvent or any of the other scary words you like to use. Raising the cap to about $150K fixes everything! Oh my god! The horror! I can see why Perry hasn't thought of that yet! It's unthinkable!

You guys like to scream and cry and whine and point fingers, but never present plans or ideas. Perry has exactly ZERO ideas for SS, yet I fixed it in a matter of minutes.​

Paraphrased...the current social security system is fine...except for the fact if it continues unchanged, it won't work.

Thanks for your insightful analysis.



You and Perry agree. Just admit it.

You have said the same thing Perry said.


You: There is nothing wrong with the system. The only challenge is if all those people draw money, with the current level paying in, that we can only cover 75% of benefits.

Perry: Social Security is a ponzi scheme.


Deal with the reality.​

 

[Conservative]

Anyway, the Social Security system is fine. There is nothing wrong with the system. .

Social Security is Still Broken

Social Security: Broken trust

Social Security: A Broken Promise for Younger Workers

The Truth about Social Security…Is it Broke or Just Broken?

Many Seeking Disability From Social Security Face Big Delays

Social Security Going Broke Faster than Expected

Broken promises in Social Security

In 1958, it was voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it in the General Fund, by a Democratic Congress. Under Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969), and a Democrat controlled House and Senate, was voted to spend it for other programs. The party that voted to tax Social Security was the Democratic Party with Clinton and Gore, with Gore casting the "tie breaking" vote.

A Democrat, James Carter (1977-1981), decided to give payments to immigrants who never paid into it.

Social Security Doesn't Work Any More

Report Warns of Insolvency for Social Security, Medicare

Not In 25 Years, Social Security Is Bankrupt Now

CBO Says Social Security Disability Insurance Insolvent in Eight Years

It seems people smarter than you disagree with your assessment.

 

[Jarhead]

How is it a Ponzi scheme?

money person B puts in is used to pay person A money back that person A put in.

Theoretically, for it not to be a ponzi scheme, every penny put into it shopuld be available to be paid back.

As we know, if all demanded their money at once, many would not get it.

The whole economy is a ponzi scheme by that definition. Just check the trading price vs book value for any given stock, but particularly hot stocks.

Yes, I realized trhat was way to general and abbreviated...so I gave a much clearer description of it later in the thread.