Rick Perry Backs Off Social Security 'Ponzi Scheme' Comments

[candycorn]

Yeah like how you said Texas has a budget surplus yet you uncorked the whopper below in the sig line...actually the "surplus" was the whopper as we all know.

9,000 wildfires in Texas this year....is he a pyromaniac?

Just quoting Missouri there.

Perry doubled the state's deficit. Are you calling her a liar?

You said Missourian said there was a budget surplus in Texas and then recanted and said the budget deficit doubled. Missourian provided the source of your stupid sig line, why don't you provide the source for the first part of your accusation?

When did I say that?

Are you calling her a liar or not. Are you too much of a ***** to answer the question. Did he double the debt. Man up; if you can.

 

[candycorn]

Start a thread...I'll be happy to post in it.

Still have no idea what you're talking about.

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

Well, you are really hard to follow.

 

[McDowell's]

Yeah like how you said Texas has a budget surplus yet you uncorked the whopper below in the sig line...actually the "surplus" was the whopper as we all know.

9,000 wildfires in Texas this year....is he a pyromaniac?

Just quoting Missouri there.

Perry doubled the state's deficit. Are you calling her a liar?

You said Missourian said there was a budget surplus in Texas and then recanted and said the budget deficit doubled. Missourian provided the source of your stupid sig line, why don't you provide the source for the first part of your accusation?

When did I say that?
Are you calling her a liar or not. Are you too much of a ***** to answer the question. Did he double the debt. Man up; if you can.

You really are the worst liar on this message board.

 

[candycorn]

You said Missourian said there was a budget surplus in Texas and then recanted and said the budget deficit doubled. Missourian provided the source of your stupid sig line, why don't you provide the source for the first part of your accusation?

When did I say that?
Are you calling her a liar or not. Are you too much of a ***** to answer the question. Did he double the debt. Man up; if you can.

You really are the worst liar on this message board.

So, what you're saying is you have no proof.

 

[Missourian]

Yeah like how you said Texas has a budget surplus yet you uncorked the whopper below in the sig line...actually the "surplus" was the whopper as we all know.

9,000 wildfires in Texas this year....is he a pyromaniac?

Just quoting Missouri there.

Perry doubled the state's deficit. Are you calling her a liar?

You said Missourian said there was a budget surplus in Texas and then recanted and said the budget deficit doubled. Missourian provided the source of your stupid sig line, why don't you provide the source for the first part of your accusation?

She can't...because Texas does have a budget surplus of I believe $6 billion dollars to this day.

It was $9 billion before the Texas legislature passed the budget this year.

I'll find a link and post it here.

The problem is either CandyAss doesn't understand the difference between state debt and budget deficit...or in this case, surplus, or she's just flinging poo against the wall hoping no one will check.

Just like the sig ... After you see what was actually posted, that out of context sig line is totally misleading.

Liberals depend on that...which brings us full circle to Political Junk posting a month old article and trying to mislead people.

 

[Missourian]

When did I say that?
Are you calling her a liar or not. Are you too much of a ***** to answer the question. Did he double the debt. Man up; if you can.

You really are the worst liar on this message board.

So, what you're saying is you have no proof.

Here it is AGAIN for those with problems reading for comprehension.

"What I asked Governor Perry was “Considering state debt has nearly tripled and spending has increased by two thirds since you were governor, and also that ACORN considered your help their ‘proudest moment,’ what were the differences between him and the current liberal president?” As you can see, he immediately tried to excuse away the numbers."

That would be because it's not true...imagine that.


The Texas debt has doubled since 2001, not tripled.

And the reason is, according to Politifact, that infrastructure borrowing was allowed for the first time by voter referendum:

It turns out that transportation is responsible for most of the added debt load under Perry, increasing from basically nothing in 2000 to $11.8 billion outstanding as of Aug. 31 2009.

That's because before 2001, the Texas Department of Transportation lacked the authority to borrow money to pay for road projects.

Voters gave it that power in 2001 when they approved a constitutional amendment that Perry supported.

PolitiFact Texas | White says Texas debt has doubled under Perry​

So the kid was wrong, and when Perry tried to explain the truth, the kid cut him off.

He had an agenda based on false information.

 

[candycorn]

You really are the worst liar on this message board.

So, what you're saying is you have no proof.

Here it is AGAIN for those with problems reading for comprehension.

"What I asked Governor Perry was “Considering state debt has nearly tripled and spending has increased by two thirds since you were governor, and also that ACORN considered your help their ‘proudest moment,’ what were the differences between him and the current liberal president?” As you can see, he immediately tried to excuse away the numbers."

That would be because it's not true...imagine that.


The Texas debt has doubled since 2001, not tripled.

And the reason is, according to Politifact, that infrastructure borrowing was allowed for the first time by voter referendum:

It turns out that transportation is responsible for most of the added debt load under Perry, increasing from basically nothing in 2000 to $11.8 billion outstanding as of Aug. 31 2009.

That's because before 2001, the Texas Department of Transportation lacked the authority to borrow money to pay for road projects.

Voters gave it that power in 2001 when they approved a constitutional amendment that Perry supported.

PolitiFact Texas | White says Texas debt has doubled under Perry​

So the kid was wrong, and when Perry tried to explain the truth, the kid cut him off.

He had an agenda based on false information.

I must commend you on standing behind your statement that he did, in fact, double the state debt.

Rabbi and several others here would have said that he didn't do that.

 

[JoeB131]

Then if its the truth, why is he backing off saying it? Serious question.

See above.

Frankly, the thing is, Obama has admitted reform is needed. Romney has admitted that reform is needed after his Programmers from Kolob got to him.

So what are we really upset with Perry about? That he used a blunt term to describe how we got here? Oh, gosh, you said "Ponzi Scheme"! How dare you articulate the problem in way people can undestand.

Why are we here?

Because when Social Security was enacted, the average life span was 62, and you had 159 contributors to 1 recipiant. Today, the average life span is 78 and there are only 3 contributors to one recipiant. To top it all off, the money that should have been set aside when the fund was posting surpluses was used to buy government bonds, which now have to be paid back.

Here is the thing...saying "ponzi scheme" and social security in the same sentance guaranteed him to lose the elder vote. That small demographic is not that important is it? He is so done.

EEEEEEEEK! HE SAID PONZI SCHEME!!!!!

It is a ponzi scheme.

If You work on the assumption that old people are just sitting their waiting for the checks and that's all they care about, then, yeah, maybe. I think the decent ones, the ones who care about their country, realize that we have problems and this needs fixing as well.

Look, maybe I'm getting old, but I remember this same kind alarmist shit being said by Jimmy Carter about Ronald Reagan in 1980, and Reagan blew Carter's doors off. And then he preceeded to do what Democrats didn't have the guts to do, fix the system and buy it another three decades of life.

 

[JoeB131]

Interesting, isn't it, that Perry is backing off the comment?

Since he really didn't, no.

I think that one can believe that Social Security is a horrible mistake that never should have been enacted yet still realize that you can't get rid of it at this point. It is, after all, a sizeable part of the economy.

I go back to the Great One, Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan spoke out against Social Security, and Jimmy Carter attempted to stir up fear amongst old people. Didn't work then, won't work now.

And eventually, he was kind of proven right by the fact that Social Security was nearly broke by about 1983. He had to impose a lot of changes. But he preserved it at the end of the day, bought it another 30 years of life.

Perry will have a hard time winning Florida saying SS is a Ponzi Scheme.

And FTR Reagan raised taxes to help preserve SS.

Yes, and he also raised the retirement age and threw a lot of people off of it who shouldn't have been on it, like college students with dead parents.


EEEEEEEK, he said PONZI SCHEME!!!!!

Come on. If you honestly think voters are that stupid, why do you even believe in Democracy.

 

[JoeB131]

Then if its the truth, why is he backing off saying it? Serious question.

See above.

Frankly, the thing is, Obama has admitted reform is needed. Romney has admitted that reform is needed after his Programmers from Kolob got to him.

So what are we really upset with Perry about? That he used a blunt term to describe how we got here? Oh, gosh, you said "Ponzi Scheme"! How dare you articulate the problem in way people can undestand.

Why are we here?

Because when Social Security was enacted, the average life span was 62, and you had 159 contributors to 1 recipiant. Today, the average life span is 78 and there are only 3 contributors to one recipiant. To top it all off, the money that should have been set aside when the fund was posting surpluses was used to buy government bonds, which now have to be paid back.

That's pretty much it. He has to live with the reality he finds himself in and that is one in which the vast majority of people would rather bury their head in the sand than address the problems with social security. He really isn't helping his case (and ours by extension) by using incendiary rhetoric like ponzi scheme. He would have been much better served to just say social security faces serious structural issues and needs to be modified.

again, it's just a word.

Well, two words.

Two words that are a damned accurate description of the problem, and everyone knows it.

Sometimes you have to admit the Emperor has no clothes. I think that is too much for some people.

 

[JoeB131]

Texas is an oil and gas state--and much of the growth in that state was due to G.W. Bush issuing permits to drill. Plus--Texas has never had a split house--it's always a republican majority.

Romney was right--and he has a lot more experience in creating private sector jobs--as he has worked in the private sector--where Perry has been in government for a very long time.

Yeah, the Android from Kolob has a lot of experience creating private sector jobs...

...In China.

 

[JoeB131]

A final point...

I am amazed that the very same people who use all sorts of alarmist language about global warming. ("The Polar Bears are going to drown! The cities are going to flood! We are all going to DIE!") are horrifically upset because Perry called Social Security a "Ponzi Scheme".

Okay for me but not for thee?

 

[Toro]

Since he really didn't, no.

I think that one can believe that Social Security is a horrible mistake that never should have been enacted yet still realize that you can't get rid of it at this point. It is, after all, a sizeable part of the economy.

I go back to the Great One, Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan spoke out against Social Security, and Jimmy Carter attempted to stir up fear amongst old people. Didn't work then, won't work now.

And eventually, he was kind of proven right by the fact that Social Security was nearly broke by about 1983. He had to impose a lot of changes. But he preserved it at the end of the day, bought it another 30 years of life.

Perry will have a hard time winning Florida saying SS is a Ponzi Scheme.

And FTR Reagan raised taxes to help preserve SS.

Yes, and he also raised the retirement age and threw a lot of people off of it who shouldn't have been on it, like college students with dead parents.


EEEEEEEK, he said PONZI SCHEME!!!!!

Come on. If you honestly think voters are that stupid, why do you even believe in Democracy.

Because SS is not a Ponzi Scheme. Going around saying it is frightens old people and gives the Democrats ammunition to say "Do you really trust that man to protect your meager monthly income?" It's a stupid thing to say. Florida is a swing state. If Perry is the candidate, the Democrats are going to make it front and center down here. That tactic helped Chiles beat Bush in 1994 when the Democrats accused Bush of wanting to gut Medicare. In the last week of the election, Democrats bombarded old folks homes and told seniors that Bush was going to deny them medical care, and Chiles wound up winning even though he was trailing in the last week. It's why most of the Republican leadership in Washington think Perry is not the most electable candidate.

 

[JoeB131]

Because SS is not a Ponzi Scheme. Going around saying it is frightens old people and gives the Democrats ammunition to say "Do you really trust that man to protect your meager monthly income?" It's a stupid thing to say. Florida is a swing state. If Perry is the candidate, the Democrats are going to make it front and center down here. That tactic helped Chiles beat Bush in 1994 when the Democrats accused Bush of wanting to gut Medicare. In the last week of the election, Democrats bombarded old folks homes and told seniors that Bush was going to deny them medical care, and Chiles wound up winning even though he was trailing in the last week. It's why most of the Republican leadership in Washington think Perry is not the most electable candidate.

The same Washington leadership that got the GOP into this mess to start with.

Left up to those idiots, the GOP would go the way of the Whigs.

Of course, it's a Ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme works until you run out of new investors, and that's pretty much what's happening now. There are less new contributors than there are recipients. They are going to have to cut back benefits. Obama, Romney and Perry have all admitted that we have to cut SSI benefits, because the current system isn't sustainable.

Actually, what killed Bush in 1994 is everyone remembered what a disaster his father was. But I guess by 1998, they forgot.

 

[Toro]

Of course, it's a Ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme works until you run out of new investors, and that's pretty much what's happening now. There are less new contributors than there are recipients. They are going to have to cut back benefits. Obama, Romney and Perry have all admitted that we have to cut SSI benefits, because the current system isn't sustainable.

I agree that we have to reform SS but you are misinformed on a few fronts, as are most people using this rhetoric, including Rick Perry. (Didn't he get a C in his Econ101 class?)

First, a Ponzi Scheme by definition means there is no economic basis for the returns promised, and usually the returns promised are extraordinarily high. A Ponzi Scheme promises a (usually high) rate of return that is paid entirely out of those who are giving their money to participate. That does not apply to SS because SS is funded out of taxes derived from the economy. When the economy grows, so do the contributions into the fund. Unlike a Ponzi Scheme, which has no fundamental economic basis to promise the returns, the US government has the power to tax economic activity. Thus the power to fund SS is derived from the growth in the economy. You can - like Reagan - reform SS by taxing people more if that's what we so choose. You cannot fund a Ponzi Scheme in any other way than sucking people into the Scheme.

Also, unlike a Ponzi Scheme which promises people returns of 50% or 100% returns, or even higher - that's how they get people to participate in the scheme - SS is crediting people's accounts at a mix of US government bond interest rates, or about 4% today. You aren't going to get anyone into a Ponzi Scheme by promising them returns of 3.75%.

Also, you are incorrect to characterize that we are "running out of new investors." The population continues to grow. The economy continues to grow. That there are fewer new contributors to total recipients is irrelevant because there are always fewer new contributors to recipients. The ratio of total contributors to recipients is still 3:1-4:1. The reason why we have had a dip in the surplus is not because "its bankrupt" but because of the recession. Unless you think the US is growing to grow at 1% a year for the next 3 decades - which it won't - then we will revert back to trend when the economy resumes its long-term trajectory. SS is funded out the growth in the general economy. As long as the economy is growing, there is no problem funding SS. You may have to reform it - which we do - but it is not in structural decline.

The reason why we have to cut back benefits is not because its a "Ponzi Scheme." It's because we are living longer than we currently thought when we created and reformed the system. This is a graph of population projections at various points in time in the UK, but it is similar to what happened in the US.

 

[saveliberty]

I'd never accuse the government of being over achievers Toro. For them, its a ponzi scheme.

 

[Toro]

I'd never accuse the government of being over achievers Toro. For them, its a ponzi scheme.

Then all government bonds are Ponzi Schemes, every non-collateralized government bond issued, ever.

Because the economics of government debt issuance is the same as the economics of SS.

 

[saveliberty]

I'd never accuse the government of being over achievers Toro. For them, its a ponzi scheme.

Then all government bonds are a Ponzi Scheme.

Because the economics of government debt issuance is the same as the economics of SS.

Yep, because they are backed by US dollars which are printed on demand, not according to value.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course, it's a Ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme works until you run out of new investors, and that's pretty much what's happening now. There are less new contributors than there are recipients. They are going to have to cut back benefits. Obama, Romney and Perry have all admitted that we have to cut SSI benefits, because the current system isn't sustainable.

I agree that we have to reform SS but you are misinformed on a few fronts, as are most people using this rhetoric, including Rick Perry. (Didn't he get a C in his Econ101 class?)

First, a Ponzi Scheme by definition means there is no economic basis for the returns promised, and usually the returns promised are extraordinarily high. A Ponzi Scheme promises a (usually high) rate of return that is paid entirely out of those who are giving their money to participate. That does not apply to SS because SS is funded out of taxes derived from the economy. When the economy grows, so do the contributions into the fund. Unlike a Ponzi Scheme, which has no fundamental economic basis to promise the returns, the US government has the power to tax economic activity. Thus the power to fund SS is derived from the growth in the economy. You can - like Reagan - reform SS by taxing people more if that's what we so choose. You cannot fund a Ponzi Scheme in any other way than sucking people into the Scheme.

Also, unlike a Ponzi Scheme which promises people returns of 50% or 100% returns, or even higher - that's how they get people to participate in the scheme - SS is crediting people's accounts at a mix of US government bond interest rates, or about 4% today. You aren't going to get anyone into a Ponzi Scheme by promising them returns of 3.75%.

Also, you are incorrect to characterize that we are "running out of new investors." The population continues to grow. The economy continues to grow. That there are fewer new contributors to total recipients is irrelevant because there are always fewer new contributors to recipients. The ratio of total contributors to recipients is still 3:1-4:1. The reason why we have had a dip in the surplus is not because "its bankrupt" but because of the recession. Unless you think the US is growing to grow at 1% a year for the next 3 decades - which it won't - then we will revert back to trend when the economy resumes its long-term trajectory. SS is funded out the growth in the general economy. As long as the economy is growing, there is no problem funding SS. You may have to reform it - which we do - but it is not in structural decline.

The reason why we have to cut back benefits is not because its a "Ponzi Scheme." It's because we are living longer than we currently thought when we created and reformed the system. This is a graph of population projections at various points in time in the UK, but it is similar to what happened in the US.

My point on running out of new investors is not that we will run out of taxpayers, but there will be less of them and they won't make as much. We have a population of 310 million, but only about 153.6 million of them are in the "labor force". Now, yeah, those not in include the retired, children, the disabled, etc, but the fact is, there are more people in the wagon than pulling it right now.

There are several other problems. You rightly point out that people are living longer on average, and that's the problem. WHich means if you retire at 65, you are going to get back everything you paid in by 72. If the average lifespan is 78, you are drawing purely from investors for six years.

The other half of the problem is the shrinking base. My generation was part of the baby boom. My parents had five kids. My siblings all have two kids each and I don't have any. So essentially, counting spouses, we have 8 people that will be supporting 9 in the previous generation. (Results not typical, but it illustrates the problem.) People are putting off having kids, and having less of them. And when they do get jobs, they won't be the nice union jobs our parents enjoyed, but low paying "McJobs".

(This is where I get a little off the reservation from other republicans, so bear with me.)

So I might be able to enjoy an okay retirement in 20 years. I doubt my neices will. This is what Perry is trying to point out. By the time these kids get ready to retire there won't be enough money coming in to cover it.

Then you have the other part of the problem. The Lock Box that was pretty much left on the counter wide open with a "Steal Me" sign on it. Up until recently, SSI took in more than it paid out. The rest it converted into bonds that are now going to have to be paid back. This will mean more borrowing or more taxes. So in part, it's worse than a Ponzi Scheme.

 

[Seawytch]

Romney was right--and he has a lot more experience in creating private sector jobs--as he has worked in the private sector--where Perry has been in government for a very long time.

Yeah? How many private sector jobs did Romney create...and where?