Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry

[Quantum Windbag]

QPW always accuses those he disagrees with of judicial activism, while accepting his own brand of it very happily.

Can you cite examples, or do I get to call you a bald faced liar?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you get old - it pays.


SSI isn't funded from FICA revenues, and it pays a lot less than the OASDI that people pay for with FICA.



Yeah. I am. That I in OASI stands for INSURANCE.


Uhh. NO. I already posted the ******* link, I have to do it again? DO YOU ******* READ ANYTHING I POST?
IS IT BIG ENOUGH FOR YOU TO READ NOW YOU RETARD?

SSDI ONLY PAYS TO THOSE WHO PAY INTO IT

Really?

I checked the website, and it is theoretically possible for a person to get injured the very first day he is ever employed and still be covered under SSDI. type as large as you want, it will not change the facts.

Only for those under age 22 - and then their parents must have paid enough credits.

What if the parent never worked?

No benefits would be payable on the record of a parent who never worked.

Benefits For Adults Disabled Before Age 22: Disability Planner

BTW - did you know its possible to get injured your very first day of work and collect workman's comp? I know the concept of insurance escapes you - but many forms of insurance begin as soon you start paying in. That's the whole idea - you're paying for risk coverage, not for a rainy day account.

Thanks for proving it is actually possible to get SSDI without actually paying into it. Not sure why you think it proves me wrong, but I never thought you were particularly intelligent anyway, so I am not surprised.

As for workman's comp being insurance and a worker not paying into it and still being eligible, that is not how it works. The employer pays workman's comp insurance, not the worker. They are the ones that are insured because they are legally responsible for any injuries that are sustained by their employees. Want to try again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If Perry uses this langauge in the Florida debate, the polling will knock him on his ass, and it will be the last time he uses it.

Why? It's not a ponzi scheme, and the elderly in America know that very well.

Funny thing, the polls show people actually like Perry's blunt language.

 

[flacaltenn]

Jake:

Most political choices for Soc Sec are all gonna be different forms of dismantling the UNIVERSAL nature of the program and turning it into welfare. That would be a monumental mistake for Leftist agenda. Because the American people would never again trust you guys with UNIVERSAL anything. Not UNIVERSAL healthcare or UNIVERSAL education or UNIVERSAL free lunches.

I guess I'm the only one on this board who cares about WHY FDR wanted Soc Sec to be for ALL workers.

It's way too late to talk about privatization now. You Dems are too economically challenged to realize that would ONLY work while SS was running surpluses. So instead of funding Bush's wars for 8 years about $1TRILL worth of surplus plus interest could have been used to secure benefits for folks who DIDN'T opt to take a private account. I don't expect that average Americans can understand the math and econ behind that but it's true. And the fact that so many of you apparently DON'T understand that makes me think that PERHAPS many of you lefties actually NEED the govt to tell you when and how high to jump.

 

[candycorn]

Are you telling me that, if I set up an investment portfolio where I deposited participants money into my savings account, it would be legal as long as I told them about it and did not promise excessive returns? Would it also be legal if I then took new investors deposits and used them to pay higher than normal returns to older investors, as long as I continued to be open about what I was doing? Would that be a Ponzi scheme, or would it be something else?

Everyone that is trying to argue that SS is not a Ponzi scheme is focusing on it being fraudulent in some way. My guess is that if any private individual actually set up something like SS, even if they were completely honest about what they were doing, the government would have a serious problem with it. Do you agree with me, or disagree?

And if any private individual pulled you over for speeding, wrote you a citation for violating a burn ban, tried to sentence you to jail, charged you for inspecting your vehicle when they have no such certification to do so, the government would have a serious problem with it. You're right. The government is a special case. I think it would also have a problem if you and your buddies wanted to invade Mexico and take over Nogales or Juarez. Do you think a citizen or group of citizens should be able to do that? Yes or no?

Are you really saying that there should be no social contract? That if the Jones family decided they can't provide health care for one of their family members who is disabled, there should be nothing socially provided to that disabled party that they can depend on...that we all can depend on if it were to happen to us?

Where did I say there should not be a government?

I didn't say that you did....

What I am challenging is the assertion that, because the private sector is not doing it, that proves they cannot. The government makes most things that compete with it illegal, as it should, but that does not prove that the private sector cannot do it.

I have much more confidence in Federal Express than the USPS. Fed Ex is much easier to use. However, Fed Ex starts at $5.00 or so for a ground shipment of 1 ounce. The Postal Service starts at $0.44. I can see why. The private sector can do much of what the government does; the problem is that if you're relying on company X and company X goes away from providing retirement accounts...what then? If you mean an FDIC type of guarantee, thats great; contributors get all of the upside and none of the downside in such a case. I get the feeling that isn't what you're sponsoring.

As for the social contract, that is a fiction of government to justify their existence. The only country I know of that has any legitimate claim to having a social contract is Iceland, and that is only because they rewrite their Constitution every ten years, and actually open the process so that anyone can participate. The rest of us get saddled with something we did not agree to, or have any say in.

he he he...

If you were to read my past writings, I'm all in favor or perfecting the Constitution. I think I said every 50 years or so but I see no downside to updating what is, in essence, a business plan. Some of what Romney has in his plan are things I like to see in the Constitution; limiting the budgets to a percentage of GDP for example.

However, I like that we're "saddled with" freedom of the press, free speech, etc...

 

[saveliberty]

If Perry uses this langauge in the Florida debate, the polling will knock him on his ass, and it will be the last time he uses it.

Why? It's not a ponzi scheme, and the elderly in America know that very well.

Funny thing, the polls show people actually like Perry's blunt language.

You mean honest transparency about the problem? In simple terms people hear SS funding is in trouble and the government sort of stole from it. We can call it a ponzi scheme for short. Not completely accurate as Toro in particular, has demonstrated.

 

[Toro]

Are you telling me that, if I set up an investment portfolio where I deposited participants money into my savings account, it would be legal as long as I told them about it and did not promise excessive returns? Would it also be legal if I then took new investors deposits and used them to pay higher than normal returns to older investors, as long as I continued to be open about what I was doing? Would that be a Ponzi scheme, or would it be something else?

Everyone that is trying to argue that SS is not a Ponzi scheme is focusing on it being fraudulent in some way. My guess is that if any private individual actually set up something like SS, even if they were completely honest about what they were doing, the government would have a serious problem with it. Do you agree with me, or disagree?

A Ponzi Scheme has to be fraudulent by definition. If there is no fraud, there is no Ponzi Scheme.

You as a private citizen cannot take other people's money and deposit that money into your account. But the government doesn't do that with SS either. You have a SS account, and your account is credited and debited based on your contributions, interest earned and redemptions. A mutual fund does the same thing. SS is like a giant government bond mutual fund, where participants are making deposits, earning interest and redeeming funds. As a participant in a mutual fund, you have an account, and your account is debited and credited base on your contributions, interest earned and redemptions. The economics, if not the operations, of SS works in the same manner as you owning units of a government bond mutual fund.

Bad system? Yes.
Ponzi Scheme? No.

 

[Political Junky]

Rick Perry Social Security | Lawrence O'Donnell Rick Perry | Video | Mediaite

On his “Rewrite” segment, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell took on presidential candidate Rick Perry‘s delicate balance between his past controversial statements on Social Security and his need to appear mainstream within the Republican party during the 2012 race.

Perry was, at first glance, more moderate in his approach at this week’s Republican debate in explaining his position on the government program than in his book End the Fed!. But “the rookie debater,” as O’Donnell called him, continued his answer, and ended up once again calling Social Security “a Ponzi scheme” and a “monstrous lie.” The comment was so politically volatile, everyone from Karl Rove to former McCain campaign adviser Steve Schmidt weighed in to advise the Texas governor to relax the rhetoric.
<more>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you telling me that, if I set up an investment portfolio where I deposited participants money into my savings account, it would be legal as long as I told them about it and did not promise excessive returns? Would it also be legal if I then took new investors deposits and used them to pay higher than normal returns to older investors, as long as I continued to be open about what I was doing? Would that be a Ponzi scheme, or would it be something else?

Everyone that is trying to argue that SS is not a Ponzi scheme is focusing on it being fraudulent in some way. My guess is that if any private individual actually set up something like SS, even if they were completely honest about what they were doing, the government would have a serious problem with it. Do you agree with me, or disagree?

A Ponzi Scheme has to be fraudulent by definition. If there is no fraud, there is no Ponzi Scheme.

You as a private citizen cannot take other people's money and deposit that money into your account. But the government doesn't do that with SS either. You have a SS account, and your account is credited and debited based on your contributions, interest earned and redemptions. A mutual fund does the same thing. SS is like a giant government bond mutual fund, where participants are making deposits, earning interest and redeeming funds. As a participant in a mutual fund, you have an account, and your account is debited and credited base on your contributions, interest earned and redemptions. The economics, if not the operations, of SS works in the same manner as you owning units of a government bond mutual fund.

Bad system? Yes.
Ponzi Scheme? No.

What you described is not Social Security, it is what they tell us SS is, what it actually is is a transfer payment from current workers to retired workers. If you go back and look, you will see that I actually started this thread by arguing that SS is not a Ponzi scheme. You actually made the best argument in support of my OP, but you still missed what SS actually does, It is not a bond market, it is a transfer payment

In this context, it would be most accurate to describe Social Security as a transfer payment--transferring income from the generation of workers to the generation of retirees--with the promise that when current workers retiree, there will be another generation of workers behind them who will be the source of their Social Security retirement payments. So you could say that Social Security is a transfer payment, but it is not a pyramid scheme. There is a huge difference between the two, and only a superficial similarity.

Economist's View: SSA Historical Research Note #25: Ponzi Schemes vs. Social Security
.
I will point out that, just like Rick Perry actually said, Social Security is like a Ponzi scheme for the younger workers. It is like a Ponzi scheme. It is the differences that make it worse than a Ponzi scheme, just like I said in the OP.

 

[Toro]

What you described is not Social Security, it is what they tell us SS is, what it actually is is a transfer payment from current workers to retired workers. If you go back and look, you will see that I actually started this thread by arguing that SS is not a Ponzi scheme. You actually made the best argument in support of my OP, but you still missed what SS actually does, It is not a bond market, it is a transfer payment

In this context, it would be most accurate to describe Social Security as a transfer payment--transferring income from the generation of workers to the generation of retirees--with the promise that when current workers retiree, there will be another generation of workers behind them who will be the source of their Social Security retirement payments. So you could say that Social Security is a transfer payment, but it is not a pyramid scheme. There is a huge difference between the two, and only a superficial similarity.

Economist's View: SSA Historical Research Note #25: Ponzi Schemes vs. Social Security
.
I will point out that, just like Rick Perry actually said, Social Security is like a Ponzi scheme for the younger workers. It is like a Ponzi scheme. It is the differences that make it worse than a Ponzi scheme, just like I said in the OP.

I'm glad we agree.

Is it a transfer payment? I suppose it is in the sense that income is transferred between generations. However, SS is designed to mimic a government bond fund. The trusts used to be a real fund investing in Treasury bonds. If it were still today, I doubt a serious Presidential candidate would be on stage calling SS a Ponzi Scheme. But a tangible fund investing in Treasury bonds would look similar to how SS looks today. We would, however, probably have much less confusion. And it is confusing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What you described is not Social Security, it is what they tell us SS is, what it actually is is a transfer payment from current workers to retired workers. If you go back and look, you will see that I actually started this thread by arguing that SS is not a Ponzi scheme. You actually made the best argument in support of my OP, but you still missed what SS actually does, It is not a bond market, it is a transfer payment

In this context, it would be most accurate to describe Social Security as a transfer payment--transferring income from the generation of workers to the generation of retirees--with the promise that when current workers retiree, there will be another generation of workers behind them who will be the source of their Social Security retirement payments. So you could say that Social Security is a transfer payment, but it is not a pyramid scheme. There is a huge difference between the two, and only a superficial similarity.

Economist's View: SSA Historical Research Note #25: Ponzi Schemes vs. Social Security
.
I will point out that, just like Rick Perry actually said, Social Security is like a Ponzi scheme for the younger workers. It is like a Ponzi scheme. It is the differences that make it worse than a Ponzi scheme, just like I said in the OP.

I'm glad we agree.

Is it a transfer payment? I suppose it is in the sense that income is transferred between generations. However, SS is designed to mimic a government bond fund. The trusts used to be a real fund investing in Treasury bonds. If it were still today, I doubt a serious Presidential candidate would be on stage calling SS a Ponzi Scheme. But a tangible fund investing in Treasury bonds would look similar to how SS looks today. We would, however, probably have much less confusion. And it is confusing.

The government lies.

Perry is exaggerating, in a sense, but he is right that SS is "Like a Ponzi scheme."

 

[JakeStarkey]

QPW is shifting wind, which is OK, because he has moved from absolute to similie. He will get to the right semantics and diction, eventually.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QPW is shifting wind, which is OK, because he has moved from absolute to similie. He will get to the right semantics and diction, eventually.

I am still waiting for you to prove that SS is not a ponzi scheme.

 

[manfu]

Perry is approaching the age for Social Security... Will he turn it down? I wonder if greed will overrde his cockamammie conviction about SS.

He certainly has ruined any chance he might have had to even be nominated for president.

 

[flacaltenn]

Designed like a bond fund? Mmmmm sorta. Except in a bond fund it's not the enrollees that are ultimately responsible for the interest, a bond fund can't generate debt instruments to make payments and there is a LOT better mgt..

 

[Toro]

The government lies.

Perry is exaggerating, in a sense, but he is right that SS is "Like a Ponzi scheme."

No. It is not like a Ponzi Scheme. It's not even remotely close.

 

[kaz]

The government lies.

Perry is exaggerating, in a sense, but he is right that SS is "Like a Ponzi scheme."

No. It is not like a Ponzi Scheme. It's not even remotely close.

Well, sure, social security operates exactly like a ponzi scheme, but you like social security and you don't like ponzi schemes so they are completely different...

 

[NYcarbineer]

QPW is shifting wind, which is OK, because he has moved from absolute to similie. He will get to the right semantics and diction, eventually.

I am still waiting for you to prove that SS is not a ponzi scheme.

That no one can prove it is is all the proof of a negative one needs.

 

[Toro]

The government lies.

Perry is exaggerating, in a sense, but he is right that SS is "Like a Ponzi scheme."

No. It is not like a Ponzi Scheme. It's not even remotely close.

Well, sure, social security operates exactly like a ponzi scheme, but you like social security and you don't like ponzi schemes so they are completely different...

No. I have repeatedly said that SS is a bad system.

You look at the world through an ideological prism, and you are subject to massive confirmation biases. Because of your strong biases, you are unable to discern between a Ponzi Scheme and SS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QPW is shifting wind, which is OK, because he has moved from absolute to similie. He will get to the right semantics and diction, eventually.

I am still waiting for you to prove that SS is not a ponzi scheme.

That no one can prove it is is all the proof of a negative one needs.

Really?

I bet you right now that I can conclusively prove that Bank of America checking accounts are not a Ponzi scheme.