Is Social Security A Ponzi Scheme?

[Amppax]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316295370' post='2305958']
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?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.
[/quote]

you're funny.

[Jesus_lol]

Kamiller, list out in exact words how exactly Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The mere coincidence that SS and ponzi scheme's are both things which you dislike is not enough to make one equal to the other.

this is not arguing how SS is either: ineffective, pointless, criminal, or anything else. this is arguing whether or not it is a "Ponzi Scheme".
SS completely does not fit the definition of a Ponzi Scheme.



Once you have failed to do this, how about we all agree that Rick Perry spoke out of turn(or lied, whatever), and then this discussion can carry on to discuss the merits and failings of the social security system and possible fixes.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1316383174' post='2306446']you're funny.[/quote]Glad you agree![quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1316383953' post='2306451']Kamiller, list out in exact words how exactly Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The mere coincidence that SS and ponzi scheme's are both things which you dislike is not enough to make one equal to the other.

this is not arguing how SS is either: ineffective, pointless, criminal, or anything else. this is arguing whether or not it is a" ponzi scheme". SS completely does not fit the definition of a ponzi scheme.

once you have failed to do this, how about we all agree that Rick Perry spoke out of turn(or lied, whatever), and then this discussion can carry on to discuss the merits and failings of the social security system and possible fixes.[/quote]
J_LOL is spot on this round.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316378269' post='2306401']
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]
A preamble is a preamble and not an enumerated power. If the preamble had such authority, the welfare of the unborn would be respected.

[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]
It is impossible because such a quote does not exist. You inserted words into Perry's mouth. You took the moderator's interpretation as a Perry quote. You should revisit your position.

[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]
Can you explain why it's still functional... how it's being funded?

Do you believe social security is sustainable in the future? If not, why not?

[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]
And they can't even get that right? Imagine how they would do for duties they believe the Constitution gives them authority to do.

Yes, I am strongly against the way the post office is being run. Status quo is not acceptable for USPS or social security.

[quote]Name one union job that has been outsourced? To my understanding, not a single one.[/quote]
Is outsourcing the only way a job can be lost?

[quote]The United States [b]IS[/b] a union and social security [b]IS[/b] our public pension program.[/quote]
A union of states is not the same form of organization as a labor union. One is a nation. The other is a collective of workers.

[quote]There is insufficient evidence at this time to claim that it is. But you finally admit it... He was calling it criminal.[/quote]
Please do not insert my words into Perry's mouth. I was speaking for myself.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1316383953' post='2306451']
Kamiller, list out in exact words how exactly Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The mere coincidence that SS and ponzi scheme's are both things which you dislike is not enough to make one equal to the other.

this is not arguing how SS is either: ineffective, pointless, criminal, or anything else. this is arguing whether or not it is a "Ponzi Scheme".
SS completely does not fit the definition of a Ponzi Scheme.

Once you have failed to do this, how about we all agree that Rick Perry spoke out of turn(or lied, whatever), and then this discussion can carry on to discuss the merits and failings of the social security system and possible fixes.
[/quote]
Let me know when you're ready for a serious conversation.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316407040' post='2306675']
Let me know when you're ready for a serious conversation.
[/quote]


That woulda been about 10 hours ago? when i posted that.

Let me know when you can formulate a response, if you need another 10 hours thats ok.



i guess asking someone to clearly state their position isnt being serious.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']A preamble is a preamble and not an enumerated power. If the preamble had such authority, the welfare of the unborn would be respected.[/quote]In every case before the supreme court, since its establishment, the supreme court has upheld social security as constitutional. You can hold a contrary opinion, but it is ultimately a moot opinion.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']It is impossible because such a quote does not exist. You inserted words into Perry's mouth. You took the moderator's interpretation as a Perry quote. You should revisit your position.[/quote]You are apparently alone in this unjustified accusation. If you refuse to reasonably discuss the matter or take on your burden of proof, that is not my problem.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']Can you explain why it's still functional... how it's being funded?[/quote]If the aims of social security are being met, which it is, as other Republican candidates have said and even Rick Perry ([i]even though he said in every measurable way social security has been a failure[/i]) admits that people are still receiving their benefits and implies that they have no reason to be concerned... Then yes it is functional.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']Do you believe social security is sustainable in the future? If not, why not?[/quote]Yes, a public pension program is sustainable... the question is [b]IF[/b] we will sustain it. Will we sustain it, I suspect so, social security is a very popular program that reaches across party lines. [quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']And they can't even get that right? Imagine how they would do for duties they believe the Constitution gives them authority to do.[/quote]So you support Rick Perry in wanting to abandon or abolish social security and the postal system... Your opinion is moot as is this issue to this topic. The postal system will survive just fine.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']Yes, I am strongly against the way the post office is being run. Status quo is not acceptable for USPS or social security.[/quote]I think you are confused. President Obama was for change... not Governor Rick Perry.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']Is outsourcing the only way a job can be lost?[/quote]Is outsourcing not a problem in the United States?

See I can answer questions with questions too... that does nothing to further the discussion.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']A union of states is not the same form of organization as a labor union. One is a nation. The other is a collective of workers.[/quote]I think you are missing the point somewhere... but I am glad you dropped the silly "it's not our public pension system" bit... That was really silly.[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1316406584' post='2306665']Please do not insert my words into Perry's mouth. I was speaking for myself.[/quote]Retracting your admission already... gar...



I'm not too particularly fond of J_lol, but I give credit where credit is due, and he [b]is[/b] spot on in this discussion... The majority of our argument is moot to the topic. So hes right... You don't seem serious... I will only shoot the breeze with you for so long... and if you are going to dismiss J_lol when hes asking completely valid, relevant, and serious questions to benefit discussion... Then our non-discussion may be over sooner rather than later.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[dairygirl4u2c]

if one looks up the technical definition of ponzi scheme, one can see all kinds of technical ways SS is not a ponzi scheme.
but more imporant than technical ways... the meat and bones are not there to call it a ponzi.

'A form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors'

it's not technically fraud, though i wouldnt squibble if one said it was, given we call it a lockbox when it's kinda not. at the end of the day though, we make promises which so far awe are keeping, and even if we cut benefits, it's still more than a ponzi scheme would do.
nonexistant enterprise. one could in pessimism say SS is nonexistent given we spend its mnoey then take tax money to fund it. but that's stretching the definition. SS in fact exists and is an enterprise if i ever saw one. it funds seniors retirement and many a people's disablity. even if we cut benefit some, it's still an existant enterprise at its core. a core component of a ponzi scheme isthis this, so this is very importan tpoint... SS exists and is ebing used.
it's also technically not an investment ooperation, it's suppose to be gettin what you paid into it, maybe a littlem ore, maybe less. but even if its is investment who cares, the idea that later people pay for current is as common as can be, that's nearly all investments. ie, in stocks you get money from selling the stock, later investers. or in this case, sure it is technically later people putting money in without a cen\tral investment going on like selling cars. but still, it's
i think one thing that is left out but that is included in many definitions is that the scheme eventually ends. what's ironic is that if it ends, it's only because republicans primarily want to end it, or cut the benefits etc. not that im not against some cutting etc.[b] it'd only be closer to a ponzi sheme if the people accusing of being one get their hands on it. [/b]the essenese is being missed, of a ponzi sheme... later investers will get their money too. if i give five dollars for my retirement, and in fifty years the government gives me my five dollars back... that is a sustainable operation, and is nto at all like a ponzi scheme where eventually the later people who put five in get nothing back, as it awas all a fraud to give money to the first ones. we decide if it's a ponzi sheme essentially by whether we continue to fund it... [b]and if we do, even if we cut soem benefits, it's a sustainable operation, that actually exists, and is being functional and accomplishing something with all 'investers' getting money back. very far from an actual ponzi scheme.[/b]
there are simlarities sure, and as an analogy could work sometimes, as even that nobel prize winner said. but that's as far as all that goes.

Edited September 19, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

In the end the problem with Social Security is that America has not been open to life. SS would still be okay if we were still havin' kids in this country. But this is the unrealized punishment of contraception and aarrr abortion. I grew up in a family of 17 kids. me dad be in the VA a few years back with heart problems. While he be in thar I be struck by the fact that when I went to visit him thar were all these old men throughout the VA who had almost no visitors while me dad had someone with him most of the time. The point of this anecdote is that thar are many consequences for not bein' open to life and aarrr many of them will occur in old age, includin' lack of care for the elderly, even at euthenasia.

[dairygirl4u2c]

on the issue of social security, the main issue, at least at the time per fundin' (might not solve all the problems) is that we've borrowed against it for so long. take the money from thar and aarrr spend it elsewhere, that be.
look up the budget, [url="http://www.federalbudget.com"]www.federalbudget.com[/url]
and aarrr we see that the core of gov spendin' like all the agencies etc is like 20 percent of teh spendin', while twenty is for health care, twenty for social security, twenty for defense, twenety for interest no debt and aarrr stuff like that. a fifth represets like 700 billion
our deficit is like one and aarrr a half trillion.
point bein', we could cut all that government as if often cited but it'd not fix our deficit. we could cut it by like ten percent to stay operational, but that's only seventy billion. maybe even half, which is unrealistic and aarrr it'd only be a fourth of our deficit.
we have to cut into 'entitlements' significantly, or raise taxes. in the short run, it might be possible to just cut entitlements, and aarrr perhaps now is the best time, strategically, to do it, since it's a major issue. but in the long run, and aarrr right now for most purposes... we are goin' to have to raise taxes to keep our promises.
ive always said we should raise taxes, but keep the moeny for SS and aarrror our debt... nothin' else, constitutonally amend that, if ithas to be done tha way. prefereably, though, first we cut spendin'. so im not totally against how republicans are doin this... it's just not long term realistic, and aarrr short term is sketchy, dependiong on many thin's. they can't always be against raisin' taxes. the big from their borrowin' against it has come due. it's simple math, and aarrr simple fairness.

[dairygirl4u2c]

'goin' on like sellin' cars. but still, it's'

the jist of what i be gettin' at with that, is that sure we aren't sellin' cars or somethin', but thar's a basic operation behind social security, fundin' retirement and aarrr disability somewhat. it's not just a system of purely pencil pushin' financial stuff and aarrr without core substance, as ponzi shemes. are

[dairygirl4u2c]

actually, on closer inspection, i dont think it's possible to fix our deficit without increasin' taxes, even now, with only spendin' cuts, unless the cuts too significantly eat into entitlements.

look at that website [url="http://www.federalbudget.com"]www.federalbudget.com[/url]
a fifth which is about 600 to 800 bilion goes to each major area, a fifth to military, a fifth to social security, a fifth to health related, a fifthy to interest etc, and a fifth to everythin else in government spendin'. (and people like to jump over earmarks, which are less than one percent of spendin', or welfare, which is also marginal in spendin', or even just general gov waste in its operations of various departments... it's not, it's all entitlements an nesaary an such,. thar's a reason they say discretionary spendin' is only twelve percent of the budget)
our federal deficit is about 1.5 trillion. that means we'd have to cut forty percent of spendin' across the board, to pay for it.
if it were ten percent, definitely. twenty five, probably. forty,.,, too unrealistic.
almost everyone recognizes we need to keep our promises to those retirin' now, etc. even if we later get rid of entitlements. or, at hte very least, respect those and not cut too much.
we cant not not pay interest on our debt.. and we can't be cuttin' grandma's social security from 600 to 350 or somethin. it's unfair.
the only option we have then, is to raise taxes. given we've been borrowin' against social security for so long, i dont see why it's such a big deal. sure, we should cut, as much as we can. but we have to raise taxes.
espeically considerin' most baby boomkers are only just startin' to retire.
we could spread out payments so it's mroe of what they put in, and less of us subsidizin' them. we could give incentives to retire early (iunstead of pushign back retirement age) to help the unemployment problem.
but anyways at the end of the day, we have to raise taxes.
i be curious if it be required, and ilke i said, if it be only twenty five percent, oprobably. but we're at leike forty percent... just not possible.

Edited September 19, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

yet, do you matey matey matey think republicans, who are lamost notorious against any increases, will admit the last post? no.
theyr'e takin' us into debt in a awy that be dangerous and goin' to lead us off a cliff.
do you matey matey matey think any hard cores here will admit this stuff? no, they'll ignore it, cognitive dissonance etc.
more people should be like me, willin' to admit we dont need to raise taxes if the numbers look right, not willin', when they dont. unfortuatnley, that's askin' too much of phatmass republicans, or people in genral.
someone sayin' 'we need to increase taxes' shouldnt be a democrat by default position.
bush sr increases taxes, even reagan did. many of bush jrs advisors believed that.. until they were fired (most more accurately were jsut against hte tax cuts that he did). it didnt always used to be the position that we have to cut cut cut only. fiscal responsiblity can include tax increases, too.
if we've borrowed against it all, and made those promises.... we have no choice. it shouldnt be a democrat only position.

Edited September 19, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[MIKolbe]

believe it or not, the pirate talk makes your posts more coherent.

[rachael]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1316465919' post='2307174']
believe it or not, the pirate talk makes your posts more coherent.
[/quote]
i wonder if it makes socrates' posts seem less...angry