Is Social Security A Ponzi Scheme?

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1316252584' post='2305786']
Theft does not cease to become theft because people with power over you authorize the behavior for themselves.
[/quote]

See above post: in the USA, taxes including SS taxes are authorized by the people through their representatives.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316222128' post='2305657']
The United States Supreme Court ruled that Social Security is constitutional. But you entirely missed the point. Merely because something is similar to another practice, does not make it that practice.[/quote]
I figured you were making absurd connections, whereas Perry is making a logical deduction.

[quote]Dude... I am Texan... And no he is not hard to understand.So you are saying calling it a "ponzi scheme" is not at least an illusion to criminal activity? Even though it is named after "Charles Ponzi" who was convicted of mail fraud and larceny? Even though by definition a "ponzi scheme" is criminal?[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI-1PQUuC2c[/media]

In this video, where Governor Rick Perry can, be clearly heard, is asked about his opinions about social security... namely that social security was [b]WRONG[/b] from the beginning and that [u]anyone involved in social security[/u] is involved in a [b]MONSTROUS LIE[/b]. Even in face of his own political advisers and fellow republican former Vice President Cheney disagreeing he responds again that it is a lie... possibly implicating his opponents as liars. It is pointed out that Rick Perry wrote that in [u]any measure[/u] social security has been a [b]failure[/b]. Governor Mitt Romney argues that social security does work but needs to be fixed, Governor Rick Perry admits that calling it a "ponzi scheme" [b]is[/b] [b]provocative language[/b] but [u]does not retract what he said before[/u], like that states should be able to opt out of social security. Which is a plan for abandonment not of amendment.[/quote]
You are Texan, but I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt because you are inserting words into Perry's mouth.

He did not say it [u]was[/u] wrong. He said discussing its origin is a nice intellectual conversation, but we need to discuss how we are going to change this program [u]today[/u].

He also did not say anyone involved in social security is involved in a monstrous lie. He said anyone selling the idea that social security is fine and will be solvent in the future is involved in a monstrous lie. Do you really think the program has no problems?

What he said is provocative. It stimulates or excites conversation about social security. Something wrong with that?

What's wrong with states opting out of participating in a mandatory retirement program? Red states would manage the money more responsibly. I could manage my own money more responsibly!

[quote]You are going to get the status quo regardless who you vote for. But Governor Rick Perry wrote that states should be able to opt out of social security, meaning that his solution is to abandon social security. Until he clearly in no uncertain terms explains that his aims are not to abolish or abandon social security in any way, his position seems relativity clear to both liberals and conservatives.This is not a "conservative" or a "republican" position to call social security a "ponzi scheme". It is not fair or honest to give the illusion that it is. There are more than a few conservatives or republicans who disagree with this statement... and there are more than some who see exactly what Governor Rick Perry is proposing.
[/quote]
We will more than likely continue to get status quo because we are a nation of dependents. "Cut government spending! ... But, keep my program." Are you or someone close to you a SS recipient?

SS is a ponzi scheme no matter how many Bushies disagree. Plenty of outside the beltway conservatives know it's a ponzi scheme.


Maggie, the funding is not transparent. Many people have no clue how the cash flow works. All they want to know is the U.S. government is funding it. Therefore, the money is guaranteed to come in, and the program's future insolvency is someone else's problem.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316273967' post='2305836']

Maggie, the funding is not transparent. Many people have no clue how the cash flow works. All they want to know is the U.S. government is funding it. Therefore, the money is guaranteed to come in, and the program's future insolvency is someone else's problem.
[/quote]

The funding system is indeed very complex, however it is about 1/10th as complex as the instruments Wall Street deals with. It is also public knowledge and I would say any citizen with an average IQ and enough time to spare could figure out how it works in a week or two. The reason most people don't know is that they can't be bothered.

It's not a scam, though, it's just not. If it is, then mutual insurance companies like State Farm are also Ponzi schemes - they also rely on everybody putting their money into one big pile and doling it out according to need. All members insure each other. The key to success is to make sure premiums charged equal or exceed liabilities. If costs go up, premiums go up for all the members.

Perhaps that's where the problem lies. People think Social Security is an investment program. It is not an investment program, it is insurance.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316273967' post='2305836']I figured you were making absurd connections, whereas Perry is making a logical deduction[/quote]Typical theist. No, you are not being logical because in your mind it makes sense. The United States Supreme Court has ruled social security constitutional, Governor Rick Perry is on the record for saying it is not, and you objected to my examples because my examples were "constitutional". But if you think calling social security a "ponzi scheme" is neither absurd or illogical... well there are a lot of more reasonable, educated, and conservative people that disagree with you than just little me.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316273967' post='2305836']You are Texan, but I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt because you are inserting words into Perry's mouth.[/quote]No, I'm not putting words into Governor Rick Perry's mouth unless you are totally unaware of what he wrote in his book or you didn't pay attention to the video... or you are an ideologue tea party member...[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316273967' post='2305836']He did not say it [u]was[/u] wrong. He said discussing its origin is a nice intellectual conversation, but we need to discuss how we are going to change this program [u]today[/u].[/quote]0:22-0:25 the moderator sourcing his book asks him to explain his position that social security was wrong from the beginning. He repeatedly in the answer said social security is wrong.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316273967' post='2305836']He also did not say anyone involved in social security is involved in a monstrous lie. He said anyone selling the idea that social security is fine and will be solvent in the future is involved in a monstrous lie. Do you really think the program has no problems?[/quote]1:22-1:28 He says anyone involved in social security is involved in a monstrous lie. He did say status quo, which means the existing state of affairs... So that covers the normal expectations of social security all around. And his ONLY proposal for amendment is to allow states to opt out of social security.

But social security does work, despite being mismanaged for decades, and admittedly there is always room for improvement. But Governor Rick Perry doesn't address the mismanagement or what should be improve, the only highlight is abandoning social security through states opting out of it.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316273967' post='2305836']What he said is provocative. It stimulates or excites conversation about social security. Something wrong with that?[/quote]So if I choose to say the Republican party has lost almost all legitimacy and needs the tea party to maintain creditability to the few fringe people out there... that's not a criticism... that's exciting and stimulating conversation. Really?

Are you going to play this game and not admit that calling it a "ponzi scheme" is offensive and provocative?

Flabbergasting.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316273967' post='2305836']What's wrong with states opting out of participating in a mandatory retirement program? Red states would manage the money more responsibly. I could manage my own money more responsibly![/quote]Let me explain something to you. As a civil servant I pay into a state retirement fund that I will unlikely see any benefit from. So you are telling me that is wrong?

It is wrong to have a social safety net for those we recognize to be in need? It is okay for states to opt out of federally mandated programs that serve the general welfare of its people? And you truly think "red" states can manage their money better? Do you realize the massive deficit states like Texas are in? Do you realize during the last congressional elections the republican party had a massive deficit? Do you realize that the republican members of the house fanatically pushed so the bush tax cuts would remain in place, something that even President Bush when proposing it said it was temporary and should be retracted if the need arises?

You flabbergast me...[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316273967' post='2305836']We will more than likely continue to get status quo because we are a nation of dependents. "Cut government spending! ... But, keep my program." Are you or someone close to you a SS recipient?[/quote]I'm not sure. I don't think so. My widowed mother of 65 might be, but she is still hard at work for the state.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316273967' post='2305836']SS is a ponzi scheme no matter how many Bushies disagree. Plenty of outside the beltway conservatives know it's a ponzi scheme.[/quote]It seems only a small minority of people are actually agreeing with Governor Rick Perry. Even Rick Perry's own staff disagree with him. Even Rick Perry's own staff admit its offensive, they called it toxic.

Again you flabbergast me.

But I divide up my posts in replying to people so I can show how I am specifically addressing each part of their post. It's a courtesy and more efficient. Now... you keep leaving out portions of my replies in the last two responses you have made. Or at the least you are not responding to it. I do take objection to this... Unless you are going to actually respond in a discussion, I may choose to not respond, because there is no need to reply to non-responses.

However... aside from states opting out of social security, what did Rick Perry propose to amend social security? Which I would argue that is a plan of abandonment or abolition. But what did he say that was laying down plans for changing social security to fix the problems that we all admit are there? Please cite your answers.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Clare~Therese]

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1316195894' post='2305505']
The entire government definitely resembles a Ponzi scheme.
[/quote]

^ This.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316290110' post='2305927']
Typical theist.
[/quote]

off topic, Mr. C, please don't post like that. This is one of those things that make it easy to dismiss atheists as emo and childish. No offense, I'm sure that's NOT what you mean to do. You know the type of atheist whose argument boils down to "theists hurt my feelings! meanies! I'm gonna be an atheist, waaah." They're everywhere. Don't be like them.

End off topic.

On topic, I actually believe it IS wrong to have you pay into a retirement system you will never benefit from. This is why SS needs fixed right away, because it's not right to collect taxes from people and then not deliver on the promise of SS. Just because (mostly rich) people are unwilling to be taxed at a higher rate to make it right. And (mostly old) people are unwilling to have benefits scaled to their life spans.

With regard to your pension system, what they ought to do is exempt the rising generation (yourself) from paying into the system, or at least make it voluntary. They do need to fulfill the pension for people who paid into the system, but they can do this in other ways than collecting from workers who won't benefit. They need to fund it and then end it.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1316294384' post='2305948']off topic, Mr. C, please don't post like that. This is one of those things that make it easy to dismiss atheists as emo and childish. No offense, I'm sure that's NOT what you mean to do. You know the type of atheist whose argument boils down to "theists hurt my feelings! meanies! I'm gonna be an atheist, waaah." They're everywhere. Don't be like them.

End off topic.[/quote]Eh? Theists train themselves to suspend skepticism, critical thinking, and tolerance for differing perspectives. So yeah... that is an accurate observation. Which you're whole rant after that gives credence to just that. But if you want to dismiss atheists or free thinkers, go for it.

But in an effort to coddle religiosity, how about I say "[i]typical ideologue[/i]"? Better?[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1316294384' post='2305948']On topic, I actually believe it IS wrong to have you pay into a retirement system you will never benefit from. This is why SS needs fixed right away, because it's not right to collect taxes from people and then not deliver on the promise of SS. Just because (mostly rich) people are unwilling to be taxed at a higher rate to make it right. And (mostly old) people are unwilling to have benefits scaled to their life spans.

With regard to your pension system, what they ought to do is exempt the rising generation (yourself) from paying into the system, or at least make it voluntary. They do need to fulfill the pension for people who paid into the system, but they can do this in other ways than collecting from workers who won't benefit. They need to fund it and then end it.[/quote]My job is to the public library system, it is unlikely that I will work for the city long enough to be eligible for that retirement. But I am paid quite handsomely for my work, so it honestly doesn't bother me, and it benefits loyal civil servants and bureaucrats who have worked tirelessly for the state or municipal governments in Texas for decades. I approve.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1316252584' post='2305786']
Theft does not cease to become theft because elected representatives continue a popularly supported program[s] people with power over you authorize the behavior for themselves.[/s]
[/quote]


Fixed.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316290110' post='2305927']
Typical theist. No, you are not being logical because in your mind it makes sense. The United States Supreme Court has ruled social security constitutional, Governor Rick Perry is on the record for saying it is not, and you objected to my examples because my examples were "constitutional". But if you think calling social security a "ponzi scheme" is neither absurd or illogical... well there are a lot of more reasonable, educated, and conservative people that disagree with you than just little me.[/quote]
Politicians have repeatedly told us social security monies are in a fund, a "lock box." That is deception. That is a lie. Social security is a ponzi scheme.

The Supreme Court has made many very poor judgments. Is it possible SS is another one?

[quote]No, I'm not putting words into Governor Rick Perry's mouth unless you are totally unaware of what he wrote in his book or you didn't pay attention to the video... or you are an ideologue tea party member...0:22-0:25 the moderator sourcing his book asks him to explain his position that social security was wrong from the beginning. He repeatedly in the answer said social security is wrong.1:22-1:28 He says anyone involved in social security is involved in a monstrous lie. He did say status quo, which means the existing state of affairs... So that covers the normal expectations of social security all around. And his ONLY proposal for amendment is to allow states to opt out of social security.[/quote]
I have tried to find quotes where he says it's unconstitutional. The closest I can get is his book, and even then, he does not outright say it's unconstitutional.

[i]Social Security was created “at the expense of respect for the constitution and limited government.” (Fed Up!, Rick Perry, November 2010)[/i]

"at the expense of respect for the constitution" can mean many things, and not all mean unconstitutional. But, I wouldn't object to him calling a mandated retirement program unconstitutional.

"Wrong from the beginning" are the moderator's words. I admit I don't own the book, but I did do an Amazon search inside the book and cannot find "wrong from the beginning." Please cite page number.

Back to the video... at 1:22-1:28, he is talking about people who are for the status quo, who say young people paying into the program today and expect their funds to be there in when they retire, are wrong and participating in a monstrous lie.

[quote]But social security does work, despite being mismanaged for decades, and admittedly there is always room for improvement. But Governor Rick Perry doesn't address the mismanagement or what should be improve, the only highlight is abandoning social security through states opting out of it.So if I choose to say the Republican party has lost almost all legitimacy and needs the tea party to maintain creditability to the few fringe people out there... that's not a criticism... that's exciting and stimulating conversation. Really?

Are you going to play this game and not admit that calling it a "ponzi scheme" is offensive and provocative?[/quote]
Social security accounting works as well as Lehman Brothers and the U.S. Post Office.

Perry has just entered the race. Give him some time to break his shoes in. He has begun to tackle the issue appropriately, by getting Americans talking and admitting there is a serious problem with social security. It's not working. The first step to recovery is admitting you're an addict. Solutions will come. I like the opt out option.

[quote]Flabbergasting.Let me explain something to you. As a civil servant I pay into a state retirement fund that I will unlikely see any benefit from. So you are telling me that is wrong?

It is wrong to have a social safety net for those we recognize to be in need? It is okay for states to opt out of federally mandated programs that serve the general welfare of its people? And you truly think "red" states can manage their money better? Do you realize the massive deficit states like Texas are in? Do you realize during the last congressional elections the republican party had a massive deficit? Do you realize that the republican members of the house fanatically pushed so the bush tax cuts would remain in place, something that even President Bush when proposing it said it was temporary and should be retracted if the need arises?[/quote]
If you are a civil [i]servant[/i], you are an employee. The government is your employer. Citizens of the U.S. are not employees of the state. Apples and oranges. State retirement != social security.

Texas' economy does not live in a bubble. If you haven't noticed, the nation and world are having some economic slow down. Obviously, the Texas budget had to make some adjustments to balance the budget according to the law, and they did! Can the overseers of social security say the same?

Bush believed the tax cuts should remain in place as long as they are needed. Is now the right time to raise taxes? Quite frankly, you could double the tax rates right now, and it would barely put a scratch on the deficit, not even a dent.

Here's a video explaining how futile it is.
[media='']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ[/media]

[quote]You flabbergast me...I'm not sure. I don't think so. My widowed mother of 65 might be, but she is still hard at work for the state.It seems only a small minority of people are actually agreeing with Governor Rick Perry. Even Rick Perry's own staff disagree with him. Even Rick Perry's own staff admit its offensive, they called it toxic.

Again you flabbergast me.[/quote]
You do realize that something can be provocative without being offensive?

Karl Rove is not on Rick Perry's staff.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']Politicians have repeatedly told us social security monies are in a fund, a "lock box." That is deception. That is a lie. Social security is a ponzi scheme.[/quote]Admitting social security has been mismanaged and could possibly be improved upon, is a far cry from calling it a ponzi scheme. [quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']The Supreme Court has made many very poor judgments. Is it possible SS is another one?[/quote][quote][url="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html"][b]United States Constitution - Preamble[/b][/url]
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [u][b]promote the general Welfare[/b][/u], and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."[/quote]Unless compelling reason can be given otherwise, I will stand by the constitution and the judgment of the supreme court regarding the constitutional nature of social security.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']I have tried to find quotes where he says it's unconstitutional. The closest I can get is his book, and even then, he does not outright say it's unconstitutional.

Social Security was created “at the expense of respect for the constitution and limited government.” (Fed Up!, Rick Perry, November 2010)


"at the expense of respect for the constitution" can mean many things, and not all mean unconstitutional. But, I wouldn't object to him calling a mandated retirement program unconstitutional.[/quote][quote][url="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2088599,00.html"]Rick Perry and the New Challenge to Social Security's Constitutionally[/url]

"... He said he doubted that when the founders gave Congress this power they were "thinking about a federally operated program of pensions..."[/quote]There seems to be more than sufficient evidence to suggest Rick Perry questions the constitutionality of social security...[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']"Wrong from the beginning" are the moderator's words. I admit I don't own the book, but I did do an Amazon search inside the book and cannot find "wrong from the beginning." Please cite page number.[/quote]If you really want I can try to dig up an exact quote, but Governor Rick Perry neither corrected or contradicted the moderator's question. Also the moderator is sourcing his book. It is safe to assume unless it can be shown to the contrary, that this is his position.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']Back to the video... at 1:22-1:28, he is talking about people who are for the status quo, who say young people paying into the program today and expect their funds to be there in when they retire, are wrong and participating in a monstrous lie.[/quote]Is there a way to be involved with social security before or presently outside of the status quo? No?[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']Social security accounting works as well as Lehman Brothers and the U.S. Post Office.[/quote]Despite the postal service from being poorly managed and under funded, because it effectively funds itself from what I understand... it works well. Is the post office known for its bureaucratic insanity and slowness, definitely. Can it be improved upon, hopefully... even the post master general for the United States thinks so.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']Perry has just entered the race. Give him some time to break his shoes in. He has begun to tackle the issue appropriately, by getting Americans talking and admitting there is a serious problem with social security. It's not working. The first step to recovery is admitting you're an addict. Solutions will come. I like the opt out option.[/quote]He wrote an entire book, with entire sections devoted to social security, where he described it like a disease. So within all of that it seems his only solutions are to abolish and abandon... his position is to oppose it. Can you give me anything that suggests otherwise?[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']If you are a civil servant, you are an employee. The government is your employer. Citizens of the U.S. are not employees of the state. Apples and oranges. State retirement != social security.[/quote]Wow... you really don't get it. If you work for a major corporation or are a member of a union they may take part of your pay to fund a pension program. Because there is more unions in the public sector there tends to be better pay and benefits.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']Texas' economy does not live in a bubble. If you haven't noticed, the nation and world are having some economic slow down. Obviously, the Texas budget had to make some adjustments to balance the budget according to the law, and they did! Can the overseers of social security say the same?[/quote]That is a good question... Our elected officials are effectively public negotiators, that is the job of an elected politician. But the last time this came to the attention of our congress, we had a sizable majority who were unwilling to compromise or negotiate a solution to our nation's deficit issues.

But did Texas solve our deficit issues, not exactly. Our politicians are claiming to work on it the best they can... fortunately this will be resolved one way or the other. Our constitution mandates a balanced budget and empowers an independent agency to enforce it, and if necessary we can sue the state for readdress, which the courts will then handle it. But it hasn't happened yet.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']Bush believed the tax cuts should remain in place as long as they are needed. Is now the right time to raise taxes? Quite frankly, you could double the tax rates right now, and it would barely put a scratch on the deficit, not even a dent.[/quote]The bush tax cuts were a bi-partisan project done in a time of relative economic prosperity (even the cuts after 9/11 were still in relative economic prosperity), the voice of government was that it wasn't necessarily needed at that time. But between the wars and economic recession, uncle sam's pocketbook is thinning out. Advocates of retracting the bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans could potentially balance the budget by itself. Handling the deficit will have to involve cutting from our budget.

If our politicians, public negotiators, could do the whole the left washes the right hand routine the problem would be solved. It's very pragmatic and potentially consensus based... even cooperative. But we can't have that can we? I wonder why...[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']You do realize that something can be provocative without being offensive?[/quote]I'm not sure how you don't get calling something criminal is offensive, even if by inference. Which I would be more forgiving if Governor Rick Perry said it was [i]LIKE[/i] a ponzi scheme, but he said it [u][b]IS[/b][/u] a ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are illegal and criminal by nature and definition. It was named after a man who was convicted of mail fraud and larceny. Who is considered a notorious criminal. But you have no idea how that is offending in any way? None?[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']Karl Rove is not on Rick Perry's staff.[/quote]He was...

But here is an article for you, if you will take the time to read it:

[url="http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm"]http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm[/url]

Ponzi schemes are intentionally unsustainable, social security is sustainable... other nations who have social security programs like Germany have maintained it seamlessly for more than a hundred years. Ponzi schemes last for short periods (less than a few months) of time and social security has lasted for almost a century in the United States. In a ponzi scheme the attempt is to get more and more money and investors while paying out less and less, social security does not operate in this fashion. Social security operates about the same as any other pension program, public or private, even internationally... I invite anyone to read the article for a more detailed and in depth comparison.

Admits the many differences between a ponzi scheme and social security... there are some superficial similarities... but superficial similarities [b]do not[/b] make it the same... and [b]do not[/b] change the negative, criminal, and offending connotation of the accusation of it being a ponzi scheme.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Maggyie]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316317683' post='2306122']
Politicians have repeatedly told us social security monies are in a fund, a "lock box." That is deception. That is a lie. Social security is a ponzi scheme.
[/quote]

See it's not a ponzi scheme just because some conservative guy running for President decided to describe it that way. A Ponzi scheme has a very specific definition. It is a fraudulent investment system. Social Security is not only NOT an investment system, it is not funded on a fraudulent basis. Politicians lie all the time, but that doesn't have anything to do with SS itself.

Again think of SS like a giant mutual insurance company designed to indemnify Americans against the ravages of old age or untimely disability. As claims rise, insurance companies need to raise premiums, increase deductibles, cancel some coverage or a combination of these. But sometimes the insurance company doesn't react fast enough to mounting claims losses and they get into a pickle where they are paying more in claims than they are taking in. A good insurance company will have money set aside so that in such a dire situation, they can still honor their policies until they get their risk management policy up to date.

To stay solvent SS needs to both increase premiums (taxes) and change coverages. The political will does not exist to make these changes on either side and that's why we're headed for a solvency crisis.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1316325386' post='2306159']

See it's not a ponzi scheme just because some conservative guy running for President decided to describe it that way. A Ponzi scheme has a very specific definition. It is a fraudulent investment system. Social Security is not only NOT an investment system, it is not funded on a fraudulent basis. Politicians lie all the time, but that doesn't have anything to do with SS itself.

Again think of SS like a giant mutual insurance company designed to indemnify Americans against the ravages of old age or untimely disability. As claims rise, insurance companies need to raise premiums, increase deductibles, cancel some coverage or a combination of these. But sometimes the insurance company doesn't react fast enough to mounting claims losses and they get into a pickle where they are paying more in claims than they are taking in. A good insurance company will have money set aside so that in such a dire situation, they can still honor their policies until they get their risk management policy up to date.

To stay solvent SS needs to both increase premiums (taxes) and change coverages. The political will does not exist to make these changes on either side and that's why we're headed for a solvency crisis.
[/quote]


But for such policies, the insurance company factors in a "reserve" as part of the premium in order to invest it. I have to question whether the federal government does so with the Social Security trust fund, or whether they factor in enough of a reserve. As I said before, the reason I believe this is because of the fact that the FICA tax rate has risen so much since 1935. What has changed? The main thing that has changed is that people are living longer and the ratio of the number of working people paying FICA taxes to the number of people collecting benefits has dropped substantially (the problem exists in other countries as well, and also in local government pension system funding). So, either the people who made the decisions did not account for the possibility of retirees living longer, or it was funded only as a "pay-as-you-go" system.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Norseman82

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316324040' post='2306155']
Admitting social security has been mismanaged and could possibly be improved upon, is a far cry from calling it a ponzi scheme.[/quote]
It was stated a ponzi scheme required an element of deception. The politicians, the ones overseeing and robbing social security, lied, i.e. deceived. That's exhibit A.

[quote]Unless compelling reason can be given otherwise, I will stand by the constitution and the judgment of the supreme court regarding the constitutional nature of social security.[/quote]
That's a rather subjective phrase. Isn't it? You could justify cradle to grave government care with such a phrase. And how does robbing citizens to fund SS, lying about its funding, and diminishing the role of self responsibility "promote the general Welfare?" That's "Welfare" with a capital W, not welfare as in welfare programs.

[quote]There seems to be more than sufficient evidence to suggest Rick Perry questions the constitutionality of social security...If you really want I can try to dig up an exact quote, but Governor Rick Perry neither corrected or contradicted the moderator's question. Also the moderator is sourcing his book. It is safe to assume unless it can be shown to the contrary, that this is his position.[/quote]
Yes, please provide the exact quote and cite it.

The moderator didn't source Perry's book. He interpreted it.

[quote]Is there a way to be involved with social security before or presently outside of the status quo? No?[/quote]
The status quo is participating in the charade that SS is secure and sustainable.

[quote]Despite the postal service from being poorly managed and under funded, because it effectively funds itself from what I understand... it works well. Is the post office known for its bureaucratic insanity and slowness, definitely. Can it be improved upon, hopefully... even the post master general for the United States thinks so.[/quote]
The post office has been bailed out numerous times for several years to the tunes of billions and billions. The USPS is supposed to fund itself. And when it doesn't, it goes to sugar daddy congress to cover their shortfall. They have been doing this several years. They're not alone. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Amtrak are three more in the same boat.

[quote]He wrote an entire book, with entire sections devoted to social security, where he described it like a disease. So within all of that it seems his only solutions are to abolish and abandon... his position is to oppose it. Can you give me anything that suggests otherwise?[/quote]
To stay with the medical references, his book was more triage than prescription. The doctor will be with us shortly.

[quote]Wow... you really don't get it. If you work for a major corporation or are a member of a union they may take part of your pay to fund a pension program. Because there is more unions in the public sector there tends to be better pay and benefits.[/quote]
Unions cost Americans jobs. Public sector unions cost American tax payers money. I highly advise read [url="http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/unions-lenin-and-the-american-way-t4214.html"]an entertaining article on unions and the damage they cause[/url]. It's written by an ex-Soviet propagandist who moved to NYC, so he's seen both sides, communism and a city run by unions. This article is an account of experiences and observations and an excerpt from his excellent book Shackdown Socialism.

None of this matters because U.S. citizens are not members of a labor union. The federal government is not our employer. Social security is not our pension program.

[quote]I'm not sure how you don't get calling something criminal is offensive, even if by inference. Which I would be more forgiving if Governor Rick Perry said it was [i]LIKE[/i] a ponzi scheme, but he said it [u][b]IS[/b][/u] a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are illegal and criminal by nature and definition. It was named after a man who was convicted of mail fraud and larceny. Who is considered a notorious criminal. But you have no idea how that is offending in any way? None?[/quote]
If something is criminal, calling it criminal is not offensive; it's being honest.

Is SS a Ponzi scheme? Yes, and I am not alone. There are plenty of liberals and democrats who have said the same. THIS IS FOR DAIRYGIRL, MAGGIE, etc. who does not believe it is and believe Perry has some how crossed a boundary.

Perry is not the first to call social security a Ponzi scheme. I call on dairygirl's Nobel winner and raise her one Pulitzer prize winner and numerous writers and politicians from the left and right. The idea of social security being a ponzi scheme was mentioned in a 1967 Newsweek article by a Nobel winner of the leftist persuasion trying to justify social security as a sustainable Ponzi scheme. [url="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276859/perry-and-ponzis-stanley-kurtz"]Stanley Kurtz at National Review has done all the leg work in finding all the past references to social security as a Ponzi scheme, a very worthy read[/url]. Part of his closing is this...

[font=courier new,courier,monospace]Yet Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented. On the contrary, the Ponzi comparison has been a staple of conservative warnings about Social Security’s financial soundness for decades. More intriguing, the Ponzi scheme analogy was popularized by a liberal Nobel Laureate economist, who initially offered it as a defense of the system, acknowledging only later that his defense was at least partially flawed. In the decades that followed, many honest liberals have made the Ponzi scheme comparison in the course of calling for systemic reform. Those liberals have bemoaned bipartisan deception and timidity on the Social Security issue, and praised those rare and courageous political souls, such as Alan Simpson, who were willing and able to call a Ponzi scheme by its real name.[/font]

Edited September 18, 2011 by kamiller42

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']It was stated a ponzi scheme required an element of deception. The politicians, the ones overseeing and robbing social security, lied, i.e. deceived. That's exhibit A.[/quote]Even though the social security checks still go out and social security has always been a "pay as you go" system? No, your argument is not reasonable.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']That's a rather subjective phrase. Isn't it? You could justify cradle to grave government care with such a phrase. And how does robbing citizens to fund SS, lying about its funding, and diminishing the role of self responsibility "promote the general Welfare?" That's "Welfare" with a capital W, not welfare as in welfare programs.[/quote]The preamble, which explains in a nutshell why the constitution was written, that explicitly states promote the general welfare... Even in the 1700's welfare had relatively the same connotations and meanings as it does today. This is what was presented to the supreme court and the supreme court agreed, that there was nothing in the constitution that prevented social security from being consitutional, but in fact provisions such as in the preamble that almost explicitly and directly enable it. [quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']Yes, please provide the exact quote and cite it.

The moderator didn't source Perry's book. He interpreted it.[/quote]It is unnecessary. This would be considered a secondary source. Even Governor Romney jumped on this one... No one is challenging the validity of the moderators question, not even Rick Perry... There is simply no evidence to support your accusation that it is somehow out of context, and this is in fact your accusation, so the burden of proof is upon you.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']The status quo is participating in the charade that SS is secure and sustainable.[/quote]Since the social security administration is still functional and recipients are still receiving their pensions, it appears it is secure, and despite for some lingering questions about its future it is sustainable.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']The post office has been bailed out numerous times for several years to the tunes of billions and billions. The USPS is supposed to fund itself. And when it doesn't, it goes to sugar daddy congress to cover their shortfall. They have been doing this several years. They're not alone. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Amtrak are three more in the same boat.[/quote]The Constitution directly mandates a federal postal service. You seem to be more and more opposed to the Constitution of the United States as this discussion continues.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']To stay with the medical references, his book was more triage than prescription. The doctor will be with us shortly. [/quote]So no, you really can't give anything to suggest even remotely otherwise. Thank you.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']Unions cost Americans jobs. Public sector unions cost American tax payers money. I highly advise read [url="http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/unions-lenin-and-the-american-way-t4214.html"]an entertaining article on unions and the damage they cause[/url]. It's written by an ex-Soviet propagandist who moved to NYC, so he's seen both sides, communism and a city run by unions. This article is an account of experiences and observations and an excerpt from his excellent book Shackdown Socialism.[/quote]Name one union job that has been outsourced? To my understanding, not a single one.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']None of this matters because U.S. citizens are not members of a labor union. The federal government is not our employer. Social security is not our pension program.[/quote]The United States [b]IS[/b] a union and social security [b]IS[/b] our public pension program.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']If something is criminal, calling it criminal is not offensive; it's being honest.[/quote]There is insufficient evidence at this time to claim that it is. But you finally admit it... He was calling it criminal.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316362275' post='2306251']Is SS a Ponzi scheme? Yes, and I am not alone. There are plenty of liberals and democrats who have said the same. THIS IS FOR DAIRYGIRL, MAGGIE, etc. who does not believe it is and believe Perry has some how crossed a boundary.

Perry is not the first to call social security a Ponzi scheme. I call on dairygirl's Nobel winner and raise her one Pulitzer prize winner and numerous writers and politicians from the left and right. The idea of social security being a ponzi scheme was mentioned in a 1967 Newsweek article by a Nobel winner of the leftist persuasion trying to justify social security as a sustainable Ponzi scheme. [url="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276859/perry-and-ponzis-stanley-kurtz"]Stanley Kurtz at National Review has done all the leg work in finding all the past references to social security as a Ponzi scheme, a very worthy read[/url]. Part of his closing is this...

[font=courier new,courier,monospace]Yet Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented. On the contrary, the Ponzi comparison has been a staple of conservative warnings about Social Security’s financial soundness for decades. More intriguing, the Ponzi scheme analogy was popularized by a liberal Nobel Laureate economist, who initially offered it as a defense of the system, acknowledging only later that his defense was at least partially flawed. In the decades that followed, many honest liberals have made the Ponzi scheme comparison in the course of calling for systemic reform. Those liberals have bemoaned bipartisan deception and timidity on the Social Security issue, and praised those rare and courageous political souls, such as Alan Simpson, who were willing and able to call a Ponzi scheme by its real name.[/font][/quote]If you ever take the time to read the article I posted, from the social security administration, that in detail rebuttals your position... Please get back to us.

Also if you ever get to the point that you can actually reply to everything I write... Unless these are concessions... which I promptly apologize. I hate to rub salt in the wound.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Mr.Cat