Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry

[bripat9643]

No one from the pretend-GOP Hard Right libertrians have offered anything of worth so far.

According to to whom, you?


Please, don't make us laugh.

 

[bripat9643]

A Ponzi scheme is fraud. There is no fraud in Social Security. Social Security operates openly and in full compliance with the law.

BWAHAHAHA!!!!

Man, that is funny!

The fact that nitwits like you are swallowing the con doesn't mean it isn't a con. All you've said is that it's legalized fraud.

In a Ponzi scheme, someone is stealing money for their own personal use. No one is stealing money from Social Security. All the money is accounted for.

It's all stolen swag, nitwit. I sure didn't donate it voluntarily. Yeah, all the money is accounted for. They kept track of every dime they pissed down the sewer. If I steal $10,000 from you and then hand you a slip of paper saying "I owe you $10,000," does that mean you aren't a thief?

A Ponzi scheme eventually falls apart because money was stolen and the new money runs out. Social Security can only 'fall apart' if either the US treasury defaults on its obligations or if the Congress and the president fail to make the easily made adjustments to income and outgo that are needed to rationalize SS's future finances.

"Making adjustments" means failing to pay its obligations as promised or stealing more money. All you've said is that Congress has the power to expand the scope of the scam.

But, hey, 'Ponzi scheme', like 'death panels', is the kind of 2 word simplistic talking point that the Right loves,

Yep, because that succinctly alerts the public to exactly what nature of the beast is.

mostly because it doesn't put a lot of pressure on their brains to actually function.

True, if they had brains, they wouldn't have fallen for this scam in the first place.

 

[Toro]

You say he's right and you also say government loaning money to itself is an asset.

That you claim to not be a liberal Democrat is funny, but that you claim to have been an ideological libertarian and went to an unaffiliated socialist is even more ridiculous. As critical minds grow they start to realize government is not an effective solution to more and more of our problems and in fact the "solutions" actually make things worse then they were. Nobody who knows government is stupid and screws up everything one day wakes up and discovers it actually is the solution to all our problems as you claim to have done.

I'm not a socialist. You're just so far on the extreme edge of the political spectrum, it all looks like socialism to you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

NYCarbineer:

A Ponzi scheme is fraud. There is no fraud in Social Security. Social Security operates openly and in full compliance with the law.

In a Ponzi scheme, someone is stealing money for their own personal use. No one is stealing money from Social Security. All the money is accounted for.

Forget the Ponzi scheme thing.. There is NO THEFT or FRAUD IN SOC SEC? Then how come you skipped every one of my recent posts outlining all the ways BOTH theft and fraud are part of the program?

Of course diverting Payroll tax "premiums" into any dam thing Congress pleases isn't theft. Especially when some of the same people who paid those premiums the 1st time are now obligated to REPAY those premiums WITH INTEREST and FINANCING charges..

It's indefensible by any means. But go ahead and try...

It's not Social Security's fault that the government is 14 trillion in debt. Social Security is a LENDER, not a borrower.

 

[Toro]

I guess the problem here comes down to how we define unrealistic.

Since SS is not actually an investment, expecting anything out of it at all is unrealistic, in my opinion. You keep talking like the money in the SS fund is invested in something, which even you have admitted is not true. What people are currently paying into the system is being used to pay current retirees, who are living longer every year. Couple that with the fact that the pool of retirees is expected to grow faster than the pool of workers over the next two decades, and you end up with even more burdens on current workers.

I guess that makes you wrong about in your whole defense of SS not being a Ponzi scheme. That is a shame, I was hoping to be right in my in my OP, but no one has actually mounted a cogent defense of SS based on reality.

I read the OP. That OP, and no one whom I have read thus far, has been able to explain the differences between the cash flows through SS system and the cash flows through a pension fund invested entirely in government bonds. Or how SS is a Ponzi Scheme and how other debt issued by the government is not. Feel free if you wish to do so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry

Correct.

UNLESS, of course, ALL T-BILLS are a PONZI scheme.

In which case, Social Security is the least of our problems.

T-bills are debt obligations. SS is a transfer from current workers to current retirees. Equating them is equivalent to saying that a horse is the same as a car because they both move.

Technically, unless you are depleting the Trust Fund, you are not using current workers funds to pay retirees.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Correct.

UNLESS, of course, ALL T-BILLS are a PONZI scheme.

In which case, Social Security is the least of our problems.

That argument is stupid...even for you...

No he's right.

All government debt is "Ponzi Scheme" according to you extremists. All government debt requires taxpayers to pay it off. It's all taxpayers paying others.

Your use of the term "extremists" when describing those who do not agree with your position, causes you lose all credibility.
Name calling and labeling implies you believe there is no other allowable point of view. That it is YOU who have all the facts and it is YOU who desires to eliminate all possibility of debate.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Correct.

UNLESS, of course, ALL T-BILLS are a PONZI scheme.

In which case, Social Security is the least of our problems.

T-bills are debt obligations. SS is a transfer from current workers to current retirees. Equating them is equivalent to saying that a horse is the same as a car because they both move.

Technically, unless you are depleting the Trust Fund, you are not using current workers funds to pay retirees.

There is no SS Trust Fund. Oh at one time SS tax money was sequestered. Until the federal government started taking it for other uses.
Fact.. The SS System was never intended as a retirement fund. It is a supplement. Nor was it ever intended for each worker paying into the system to get their money back.
Not even close. Fact.....Far too many people receive SS benefits, without paying a dime into the system. That does NOT include beneficiaries of deceased workers or those one LEGITIMATE SS Disability.
SS has too many people riding in the boat and too few rowing the boat.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess the problem here comes down to how we define unrealistic.

Since SS is not actually an investment, expecting anything out of it at all is unrealistic, in my opinion. You keep talking like the money in the SS fund is invested in something, which even you have admitted is not true. What people are currently paying into the system is being used to pay current retirees, who are living longer every year. Couple that with the fact that the pool of retirees is expected to grow faster than the pool of workers over the next two decades, and you end up with even more burdens on current workers.

I guess that makes you wrong about in your whole defense of SS not being a Ponzi scheme. That is a shame, I was hoping to be right in my in my OP, but no one has actually mounted a cogent defense of SS based on reality.

I read the OP. That OP, and no one whom I have read thus far, has been able to explain the differences between the cash flows through SS system and the cash flows through a pension fund invested entirely in government bonds. Or how SS is a Ponzi Scheme and how other debt issued by the government is not. Feel free if you wish to do so.

Pension funds are not transfer payments, SS is.

I guess that means I actually explained the difference.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Correct.

UNLESS, of course, ALL T-BILLS are a PONZI scheme.

In which case, Social Security is the least of our problems.

T-bills are debt obligations. SS is a transfer from current workers to current retirees. Equating them is equivalent to saying that a horse is the same as a car because they both move.

Technically, unless you are depleting the Trust Fund, you are not using current workers funds to pay retirees.

Technically, you loose.

FYI, SS is actually paying out more money than it takes in as of this year.

 

[Contumacious]

A Ponzi scheme is fraud. There is no fraud in Social Security.

Excuse me ding dong. But the SCOTUS ruled that the social security tax is merely ANOTHER INCOME TAX.

.

 

[Lakhota]

Q26: Has Social Security always taken in more money each year than it needed to pay benefits?

A: No. So far there have been 11 years in which the Social Security program did not take enough in FICA taxes to pay the current year's benefits. During these years, Trust Fund bonds in the amount of about $24 billion made up the difference. (See detailed Table.)

Q27: Do the Social Security Trust Funds earn interest?

A: Yes they do. By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be invested in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government bonds. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and "special obligation" securities issued only to federal trust funds. In practice, most of the securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are of the "special obligation" type. (See additional explanation from SSA's Office of the Actuary.)

The Trust Funds earn interest which is set at the average market yield on long-term Treasury securities. Interest earnings on the invested assets of the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds were $55.5 billion in calendar year 1999. This represented an effective annual interest rate of 6.9 percent.

The Trust Funds have earned interest in every year since the program began. More detailed information on the Trust Fund investments can be found in the Annual Report of the Social Security Trustees and on the Actuary's webpages concerning the Investment Transactions and Investment Holdings of the Trust Funds.

More: Social Security history Frequently Asked Questions

 

[Toro]

I guess the problem here comes down to how we define unrealistic.

Since SS is not actually an investment, expecting anything out of it at all is unrealistic, in my opinion. You keep talking like the money in the SS fund is invested in something, which even you have admitted is not true. What people are currently paying into the system is being used to pay current retirees, who are living longer every year. Couple that with the fact that the pool of retirees is expected to grow faster than the pool of workers over the next two decades, and you end up with even more burdens on current workers.

I guess that makes you wrong about in your whole defense of SS not being a Ponzi scheme. That is a shame, I was hoping to be right in my in my OP, but no one has actually mounted a cogent defense of SS based on reality.

I read the OP. That OP, and no one whom I have read thus far, has been able to explain the differences between the cash flows through SS system and the cash flows through a pension fund invested entirely in government bonds. Or how SS is a Ponzi Scheme and how other debt issued by the government is not. Feel free if you wish to do so.

Pension funds are not transfer payments, SS is.

I guess that means I actually explained the difference.

You have not explained the differences in cash flows. You've just called cash flows different things.

Explain how cash flows are different in a government bond pension fund compared to the SS trusts. Walk us through the differences between the two. None of you guys who call SS a Ponzi Scheme have explained how cash flows from a government bond fund differ from the cash flows in the SS trusts. You just say "It's a transfer." Explain the differences between that and a pension fund that has nothing but government bonds invested.

 

[Toro]

That argument is stupid...even for you...

No he's right.

All government debt is "Ponzi Scheme" according to you extremists. All government debt requires taxpayers to pay it off. It's all taxpayers paying others.

Your use of the term "extremists" when describing those who do not agree with your position, causes you lose all credibility.
Name calling and labeling implies you believe there is no other allowable point of view. That it is YOU who have all the facts and it is YOU who desires to eliminate all possibility of debate.

lol

yeah...

Get back to me when you hold people who agree with you to the same standard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I read the OP. That OP, and no one whom I have read thus far, has been able to explain the differences between the cash flows through SS system and the cash flows through a pension fund invested entirely in government bonds. Or how SS is a Ponzi Scheme and how other debt issued by the government is not. Feel free if you wish to do so.

Pension funds are not transfer payments, SS is.

I guess that means I actually explained the difference.

You have not explained the differences in cash flows. You've just called cash flows different things.

Explain how cash flows are different in a government bond pension fund compared to the SS trusts. Walk us through the differences between the two. None of you guys who call SS a Ponzi Scheme have explained how cash flows from a government bond fund differ from the cash flows in the SS trusts.

To sum it up, pension funds actually invest the principle, SS only invest whatever is left after it pays current retires. Since SS are currently paying out more than it takes in it is not investing anything.

 

[Lakhota]

To sum it up, pension funds actually invest the principle, SS only invest whatever is left after it pays current retires. Since SS are currently paying out more than it takes in it is not investing anything.

What about the $2.5 trillion surplus?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Q26: Has Social Security always taken in more money each year than it needed to pay benefits?

A: No. So far there have been 11 years in which the Social Security program did not take enough in FICA taxes to pay the current year's benefits. During these years, Trust Fund bonds in the amount of about $24 billion made up the difference. (See detailed Table.)

Q27: Do the Social Security Trust Funds earn interest?

A: Yes they do. By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be invested in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government bonds. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and "special obligation" securities issued only to federal trust funds. In practice, most of the securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are of the "special obligation" type. (See additional explanation from SSA's Office of the Actuary.)

The Trust Funds earn interest which is set at the average market yield on long-term Treasury securities. Interest earnings on the invested assets of the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds were $55.5 billion in calendar year 1999. This represented an effective annual interest rate of 6.9 percent.

The Trust Funds have earned interest in every year since the program began. More detailed information on the Trust Fund investments can be found in the Annual Report of the Social Security Trustees and on the Actuary's webpages concerning the Investment Transactions and Investment Holdings of the Trust Funds.

More: Social Security history Frequently Asked Questions

Is that supposed to prove something?

Currently SS is paying out more than it takes in.

Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.

Trustees Report Summary

 

[uscitizen]

The only money that SS is costing the government right now is some repayment of the surplus that the congress spent all the rest is paid by current contributions and technically the govt is only repaying debt owed to the SS administration aka the people of the USA.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The only money that SS is costing the government right now is some repayment of the surplus that the congress spent all the rest is paid by current contributions and technically the govt is only repaying debt owed to the SS administration aka the people of the USA.

That debt is actually a lot bigger than they want to admit.

The Dallas Federal Reserve says that the total debt we owe ourselves is $104 million.

But with a national debt of more than $14 trillion and unfunded, future “off the books” debt of Social Security and Medicare combined at $104 trillion in present value, according to the Dallas Federal Reserve, Uncle Sam ain’t the man he used to be. This in turn makes American businesses that are sitting on a pile of cash focus on deleveraging. The American consumer is doing the same. In fact, from where I sit, it appears as though everyone except Uncle Sam is working like mad to strengthen his balance sheets. The legitimate fear across the country is that Washington’s refusal to join our common-sense parade will result in higher taxes, more regulations, more inflation and Japanese-style stagflation. In other words, Washington’s attempts at stimulus through spending are having the opposite effect. Businesses and consumers stay hunkered down.

WHALEN: And now a word from a job creator

 

[logical4u]

When Perry was asked about why Texas was last in health care, he said if Obamacare didn't force people to have health care, everyone in Texas would. So, less is "more"?

Of course, everyone is forced to have car insurance. Oops.

People that don't own cars are forced to have car insurance?
You can't opt out of auto insurance with a massive deposit, and money to cover costs?