Rick Perry Backs Off Social Security 'Ponzi Scheme' Comments

[Mustang]

Rick Perry Backs Off Social Security 'Ponzi Scheme' Comments

WASHINGTON -- Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry recently walked back his claims that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme," but other Republicans have made similar statements in recent months, saying the entitlement program is a "scheme" to take money from the American people.

Perry has previously taken a hard-line stance against Social Security. In his 2010 book, "Fed Up!" he suggested the program was unconstitutional, put in place "at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government." He also wrote that Social Security is "set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme."

Perry has since backed off. His spokesman, Ray Sullivan, told the Wall Street Journal Thursday that the book was not meant to reflect the governor's current views on Social Security.
<more>

Let's see. He writes (supposedly, he wrote it) a book saying that SS was an unconstitutional ponzi scheme. Then he doubles down at the debate and unapologetically reiterates his view that SS is a ponzi scheme, and now he's backing off those comments.

I have news for Perry. It's TOO FRIGGIN' LATE, DUDE!

If Perry is the Republican nominee, I look forward to ALL the ads that will show him saying just that. Then America's senior citizens can turn out in droves (assuming they're not turned away at polling places), and pull the lever against Perry, if not for Obama.

 

[Missourian]

He has it in his book, says it last week and now he changes his mind? He's a conservative, they only misspeak Just like Bachmann said that "subservient" means "respect"

The article is dated 8-19-2011...it's bullshit...get a clue.

 

[Missourian]

Rick Perry Backs Off Social Security 'Ponzi Scheme' Comments

WASHINGTON -- Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry recently walked back his claims that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme," but other Republicans have made similar statements in recent months, saying the entitlement program is a "scheme" to take money from the American people.

Perry has previously taken a hard-line stance against Social Security. In his 2010 book, "Fed Up!" he suggested the program was unconstitutional, put in place "at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government." He also wrote that Social Security is "set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme."

Perry has since backed off. His spokesman, Ray Sullivan, told the Wall Street Journal Thursday that the book was not meant to reflect the governor's current views on Social Security.
<more>

Let's see. He writes (supposedly, he wrote it) a book saying that SS was an unconstitutional ponzi scheme. Then he doubles down at the debate and unapologetically reiterates his view that SS is a ponzi scheme, and now he's backing off those comments.

I have news for Perry. It's TOO FRIGGIN' LATE, DUDE!

If Perry is the Republican nominee, I look forward to ALL the ads that will show him saying just that. Then America's senior citizens can turn out in droves (assuming they're not turned away at polling places), and pull the lever against Perry, if not for Obama.

The article is dated 8-19-2011...it's bullshit...get a clue.

 

[Missourian]

I concede your superior expertise on all things economic...but I remember my old man cautioning me repeatedly in high school..."save for your retirement son...Social Security won't be around for you to count on."

That was twenty years ago, during thend late 80's...pretty good times economically.

From Star Parker:

SNIP:

"So what about Texas Governor Rick Perry’s claim that Social Security is a “lie” and a “Ponzi scheme”?

He’s right on both counts. Americans should be singing hallelujah that we have at least one politician not afraid to tell the truth.

This isn’t about ideology. It’s about arithmetic."

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/09/...utm_campaign=Feed:+DakotaVoice+(Dakota+Voice)

Oh Perry is telling the TRUTH alright-and he has also given the BEST CAMPAIGN ad that will be used against him--with an incoming missle that will DEFEAT him against Barack Obama in the general election.

You see there are MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS in this country that receive Social Security checks each and every single month. And if they fear that Rick Perry is a threat to that monthly check--they will be crawling to the voting booth to vote for BARACK OBAMA.


Therefore, be very careful for what you wish for--it just may come true. In my opinion--Rick Perry is a walking--talking--self imploding candidate--who would defeat himself against a very sauvy--professional campaigner in Barack Obama.

Yes, yes we know...you want the Romney, who will tell you anything you want to hear, as long as it will get him elected.

A can guarantee, Romney will not say anything controversial that could hurt his chances of getting elected...and by extension, he won't do anything controversial AFTER he gets elected, so he can get reelected.

I'll vote for Romney, if he gets the nomination, because he is a hell of a lot better choice that Barack Obama...but I'd rather elect a guy who isn't afraid to tell the truth for fear he won't get elected...or reelected.

 

[Toro]

If we pay in on the promise that we will get a return when we retire, and it's not there...that is a fraud.

No it is not. What you are describing is a default. A default and a fraud are two very different things. A default is when obligations and promises cannot be met because liabilities exceed cash flow. Defaults happen all the time, and are perfectly legal. A fraud is a willful intent to deceive. The reason why SS may not be fully funded is because people are living longer than originally thought. That is not fraudulent. We can easily fund up SS by raising taxes, just like Reagan did. If we chose not to, that's a political decision. We will default. To me, that is certain. But it is not a fraud.

Everything else you wrote in that post is the same.

 

[Missourian]

If we pay in on the promise that we will get a return when we retire, and it's not there...that is a fraud.

No it is not. What you are describing is a default. A default and a fraud are two very different things. A default is when obligations and promises cannot be met because liabilities exceed cash flow. Defaults happen all the time, and are perfectly legal. A fraud is a willful intent to deceive. The reason why SS may not be fully funded is because people are living longer than originally thought. That is not fraudulent. We can easily fund up SS by raising taxes, just like Reagan did. If we chose not to, that's a political decision. We will default. To me, that is certain. But it is not a fraud.

Everything else you wrote in that post is the same.

Sounds exactly the same to me.

If the Ponzi Schemer could force his investors to cough up enough to cover his outlays...at a zero rate of return no less, he wouldn't "default" either.

 

[Toro]

So if I'm getting the gist of your argument, you admit that there is serious problems with SSI, although not as serious as I seem to think they are, but you think it's horrible that Perry is using blunt language to frame the problem.

Kind of like everyone admits that Bernanke has been ineffective, and printing more money would cause problems, but you don't like the fact the word "Treasonous" showed up in the sentence, or that they'd treat him roughly in Texas.

I guess yeah, we could have nice civil conversations, with less heated rhetoric, but no one pays attention to that. I can do a thought out analysis of something, and it gets ignored, but I say a few inflammetory things, and it triggers a 20 page thread. So I guess I have to wonder if we are in a "civil" time.

Maybe it's time we got someone who is blunt, isn't afraid to call a spade a spade, and who doesn't muck around in bullshit.

I've said this, Perry is a LOT more right wing than I am. Especially on social and religious issues. But he strikes me as the only guy in this lot who will get anything done. Obama has already proven he can't, and Romney's record in MA is "Well, I'll just sign off on whatever you send up here."

I think Perry's language decreases the chances of the Republicans being elected, especially if he gets the nomination. I don't think Obama and the Democrats have a serious plan to deal with the fiscal problems, which is why I probably will be supporting the Republicans this time around, and I think Perry's language increases Obama's chance of being re-elected. It plays well with the red meat of the base but it turns off moderates and seniors. Because of this, I think such incendiary language moves us further away from a long-term solution since the opponents of SS reform are better able to paint reformers as dangerous extremists.

 

[Toro]

If we pay in on the promise that we will get a return when we retire, and it's not there...that is a fraud.

No it is not. What you are describing is a default. A default and a fraud are two very different things. A default is when obligations and promises cannot be met because liabilities exceed cash flow. Defaults happen all the time, and are perfectly legal. A fraud is a willful intent to deceive. The reason why SS may not be fully funded is because people are living longer than originally thought. That is not fraudulent. We can easily fund up SS by raising taxes, just like Reagan did. If we chose not to, that's a political decision. We will default. To me, that is certain. But it is not a fraud.

Everything else you wrote in that post is the same.

Sounds exactly the same to me.

If the Ponzi Schemer could force his investors to cough up enough to cover his outlays...at a lower rate of return no less, he wouldn't "default" either.

A default and a Ponzi Scheme are not the same thing.

If what you are saying is true, all defaults are Ponzi Schemes, which simply isn't the case.

 

[Missourian]

No it is not. What you are describing is a default. A default and a fraud are two very different things. A default is when obligations and promises cannot be met because liabilities exceed cash flow. Defaults happen all the time, and are perfectly legal. A fraud is a willful intent to deceive. The reason why SS may not be fully funded is because people are living longer than originally thought. That is not fraudulent. We can easily fund up SS by raising taxes, just like Reagan did. If we chose not to, that's a political decision. We will default. To me, that is certain. But it is not a fraud.

Everything else you wrote in that post is the same.

Sounds exactly the same to me.

If the Ponzi Schemer could force his investors to cough up enough to cover his outlays...at a lower rate of return no less, he wouldn't "default" either.

A default and a Ponzi Scheme are not the same thing.

If what you are saying is true, all defaults are Ponzi Schemes, which simply isn't the case.

Not at all.

In a Ponzi scheme, the schemer takes in money, and uses that money to pay off old legitimate investors whose money did not gain the rate of return that was promised.

That's exactly what happened to Madolf...he had investor that expected to earn (blank) amount, Madolf guaranteed it.

Well, turns out, he ran short, so he used the money from new investors to pay what he owed old investors...sound familiar?

And Madolf raided the investors money to pay his own lavish expenses.

Eventually, the money raised from new investors wasn't enough to cover the payments due to the old investors...eerie isn't it.

If Bernie could have forced new investors to pay more for the same rate of return...he could have continued in perpetuity, right?

...........................................................................


The government forces everyone to pay into Social Security.

Everyone who paid in is expecting (blank) amount in payments every month...the government guaranteed it.

But the government raided that money to pay for other lavish government spending programs they wanted to fund.

And the return on what was left wasn't as much as expected.

So now, to pay off the people who have paid in, when a dollar is paid in by a working citizen, that dollar is immediately paid out to a retiree who is now expecting the Social Security check they were promised.

Well, the money is running short, the money coming in will be 75% of what is needed to pay what is owed in a few short years...

The gig would be up, and the government would go to jail for fraud, except the government can force the investors to pony up more money for the same end return...

------------------------------------------------------------------------



Don't get me wrong...I see what you are saying...but do you see what I'm saying?

If it wasn't the government running the show, it would be illegal.

 

[Toro]

Sounds exactly the same to me.

If the Ponzi Schemer could force his investors to cough up enough to cover his outlays...at a lower rate of return no less, he wouldn't "default" either.

A default and a Ponzi Scheme are not the same thing.

If what you are saying is true, all defaults are Ponzi Schemes, which simply isn't the case.

Not at all.

In a Ponzi scheme, the schemer takes in money, and uses that money to pay off old legitimate investors whose money did not gain the rate of return that was promised.

That's exactly what happened to Madolf...he had investor that expected to earn (blank) amount, Madolf guaranteed it.

Well, turns out, he ran short, so he used the money from new investors to pay what he owed old investors...sound familiar?

Eventually, the money raised from new investors wasn't enough to cover the payments due to the old investors...eerie isn't it.

If Bernie could have forced new investors to pay more for the same rate of return...he could have continued in perpetuity, right?

...........................................................................


The government forces everyone to pay into Social Security.

They raid that money to pay for other government spending.

Now, when a dollar is paid in by a working citizen, that dollar is immediately paid out to someone who paid in before and now wants their return.

Well, the money is running short, the money coming in will be 75% of what is needed to pay what is owed in a few short years...

The gig would be up, and the government would go to jail for fraud, except the government can force the investors to pony up more money for the same end return...

------------------------------------------------------------------------



Don't get me wrong...I see what you are saying...but do you see what I'm saying?

If it wasn't the government running the show, it would be illegal.

It is not the same as a Ponzi Scheme.

This is how the government bond market works:
You buy a Treasury bond ---> The government spends the money ---> The government now owes you your principal plus interest for the Treasury bond.

This is how SS works:
Your taxes go to the SS trust ---> The government spends the money ---> The government now owes you your principal plus interest for your SS account.

The economics are the same. The government bond market is not a Ponzi Scheme and neither is SS.

 

[boedicca]

If we pay in on the promise that we will get a return when we retire, and it's not there...that is a fraud.

No it is not. What you are describing is a default. A default and a fraud are two very different things. A default is when obligations and promises cannot be met because liabilities exceed cash flow. Defaults happen all the time, and are perfectly legal. A fraud is a willful intent to deceive. The reason why SS may not be fully funded is because people are living longer than originally thought. That is not fraudulent. We can easily fund up SS by raising taxes, just like Reagan did. If we chose not to, that's a political decision. We will default. To me, that is certain. But it is not a fraud.

Everything else you wrote in that post is the same.

Except for the fact that the politicians making the promises know that they can't be met.

That Is Fraud, or would be in an ethical system.

 

[JoeB131]

So if I'm getting the gist of your argument, you admit that there is serious problems with SSI, although not as serious as I seem to think they are, but you think it's horrible that Perry is using blunt language to frame the problem.

Kind of like everyone admits that Bernanke has been ineffective, and printing more money would cause problems, but you don't like the fact the word "Treasonous" showed up in the sentence, or that they'd treat him roughly in Texas.

I guess yeah, we could have nice civil conversations, with less heated rhetoric, but no one pays attention to that. I can do a thought out analysis of something, and it gets ignored, but I say a few inflammetory things, and it triggers a 20 page thread. So I guess I have to wonder if we are in a "civil" time.

Maybe it's time we got someone who is blunt, isn't afraid to call a spade a spade, and who doesn't muck around in bullshit.

I've said this, Perry is a LOT more right wing than I am. Especially on social and religious issues. But he strikes me as the only guy in this lot who will get anything done. Obama has already proven he can't, and Romney's record in MA is "Well, I'll just sign off on whatever you send up here."

I think Perry's language decreases the chances of the Republicans being elected, especially if he gets the nomination. I don't think Obama and the Democrats have a serious plan to deal with the fiscal problems, which is why I probably will be supporting the Republicans this time around, and I think Perry's language increases Obama's chance of being re-elected. It plays well with the red meat of the base but it turns off moderates and seniors. Because of this, I think such incendiary language moves us further away from a long-term solution since the opponents of SS reform are better able to paint reformers as dangerous extremists.

again, Deja Vu. I heard the same things being said in 1980 by Jimmy Carter, but no scare tactic in the world could erase that level of fail.

Heck, Carter just didn't have Reagan starving old people, he had him blowing up the world.

But people weren't buying it.

 

[Missourian]

A default and a Ponzi Scheme are not the same thing.

If what you are saying is true, all defaults are Ponzi Schemes, which simply isn't the case.

Not at all.

In a Ponzi scheme, the schemer takes in money, and uses that money to pay off old legitimate investors whose money did not gain the rate of return that was promised.

That's exactly what happened to Madolf...he had investor that expected to earn (blank) amount, Madolf guaranteed it.

Well, turns out, he ran short, so he used the money from new investors to pay what he owed old investors...sound familiar?

Eventually, the money raised from new investors wasn't enough to cover the payments due to the old investors...eerie isn't it.

If Bernie could have forced new investors to pay more for the same rate of return...he could have continued in perpetuity, right?

...........................................................................


The government forces everyone to pay into Social Security.

They raid that money to pay for other government spending.

Now, when a dollar is paid in by a working citizen, that dollar is immediately paid out to someone who paid in before and now wants their return.

Well, the money is running short, the money coming in will be 75% of what is needed to pay what is owed in a few short years...

The gig would be up, and the government would go to jail for fraud, except the government can force the investors to pony up more money for the same end return...

------------------------------------------------------------------------



Don't get me wrong...I see what you are saying...but do you see what I'm saying?

If it wasn't the government running the show, it would be illegal.

It is not the same as a Ponzi Scheme.

This is how the government bond market works:
You buy a Treasury bond ---> The government spends the money ---> The government now owes you your principal plus interest for the Treasury bond.

This is how SS works:
Your taxes go to the SS trust ---> The government spends the money ---> The government now owes you your principal plus interest for your SS account.

The economics are the same. The government bond market is not a Ponzi Scheme and neither is SS.

The difference you aren't taking into account is, when I buy a bond, I assume the risk, however small, that the government will default on that bond.

I have no choice when it comes to Social Security.

If the government removes my choice, then the government also subsumes the risk.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rick Perry Backs Off Social Security 'Ponzi Scheme' Comments

WASHINGTON -- Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry recently walked back his claims that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme," but other Republicans have made similar statements in recent months, saying the entitlement program is a "scheme" to take money from the American people.

Perry has previously taken a hard-line stance against Social Security. In his 2010 book, "Fed Up!" he suggested the program was unconstitutional, put in place "at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government." He also wrote that Social Security is "set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme."

Perry has since backed off. His spokesman, Ray Sullivan, told the Wall Street Journal Thursday that the book was not meant to reflect the governor's current views on Social Security.
<more>

From your link: Posted: 8/19/11 01:52 PM ET

That means, in case you have a problem with calendars, that his aid mad this statement before he was a candidate, and that Perry actually stands behind what he said in the book.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If destroying SS is such a brilliant idea, why is Perry now backing away from it?

 

[Zona]

If we pay in on the promise that we will get a return when we retire, and it's not there...that is a fraud.

No it is not. What you are describing is a default. A default and a fraud are two very different things. A default is when obligations and promises cannot be met because liabilities exceed cash flow. Defaults happen all the time, and are perfectly legal. A fraud is a willful intent to deceive. The reason why SS may not be fully funded is because people are living longer than originally thought. That is not fraudulent. We can easily fund up SS by raising taxes, just like Reagan did. If we chose not to, that's a political decision. We will default. To me, that is certain. But it is not a fraud.

Everything else you wrote in that post is the same.

Sounds exactly the same to me.

If the Ponzi Schemer could force his investors to cough up enough to cover his outlays...at a zero rate of return no less, he wouldn't "default" either.

Is rick Perry allergic to the elder vote? He seems to be trying to run away from it. No worries though, its not like that is a strong electing group or anything.

Him as a republican can count on:
The black vote...nope
the hispanic vote...nope
Women...nope
asian...nope
gays...nope
Jewish vote...nope
and now the elderly....nope

Oh yeah...president Perry....nope

 

[Intense]

If destroying SS is such a brilliant idea, why is Perry now backing away from it?

No it is not a brilliant idea.

 

[saveliberty]

It seems NY wants to be obstructionist on the topic of SS. If he wanted to help fix it, more helpful replies would be forthcoming.

 

[Toro]

The difference you aren't taking into account is, when I buy a bond, I assume the risk, however small, that the government will default on that bond.

I have no choice when it comes to Social Security.

If the government removes my choice, then the government also subsumes the risk.

Yes, the difference is that your choice is removed. I think that's bad. You should have a choice to invest your SS. However, the economics are the same. If you buy a government bond voluntarily, your account is debited with a government Treasury bond and your cash is routed through the Treasury and spent by the government. Your risk is that the government will default on the Treasury bond. In SS, your account is debited with an amount equivalent to your purchasing a bond and your cash is routed through the SS trusts and spent by the government. The risk is that the government will default on your SS obligations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It seems NY wants to be obstructionist on the topic of SS. If he wanted to help fix it, more helpful replies would be forthcoming.

That you need to be told how to fix SS is just one more indicator of your idiocy.