Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Ayn Rand Fanboy Paul Ryan Used Social Security “Hammock” to Put Himself Through College

Peach Extraordinaire





Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 07:49 AM
Ayn Rand Fanboy Paul Ryan Used Social Security “Hammock” to Put Himself Through College
By: Blue Texan Friday January 28, 2011 10:30 am

John Galt would be outraged at his complacency and dependence.

Here’s what fiscal fraud Paul Ryan (R-WI) said about Social Security in his State of the Union rebuttal.

This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.

Turns out, when Ryan was an able-bodied young lad, he used that hammock to pay for his college education. (h/t Gottalaff)

On the day Paul Davis Ryan was born in 1970, President Richard Nixon unveiled his record-setting $200.8 billion federal budget proposal for the upcoming year – a budget that included a large increase in Social Security payments. [...]

One day as a 16 year old, Ryan came upon the lifeless body of his father. Paul Ryan, Sr. had died of a heart attack at age 55, leaving the Janesville Craig High School 10th grader, his three older brothers and sisters and his mother alone. It was Paul who told the family of his father’s death. [...]

With his father’s passing, young Paul collected Social Security benefits until age 18, which he put away for college.

College costs have skyrocketed since Ryan entered Miami University in 1988, yet Ryan wants to slash the very system that he benefited from because it produces “dependency.”

Figures. This is a guy who requires his staffers to read Atlas Shrugged, and we now know that Ayn Rand was a big welfare queen herself.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 
Replies:

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 07:55 AM
Can't wait to see the look on Eddie Munster's face when Biden brings this up in the debates. And by the way this jerk off is my congressman and even half my conservative neighbors around here can't stand him.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 12:43 PM
Just when you think things couldn't get any worse for the GOP along comes Ryan. I hope the Romney/Ryan ticked has the same success as the McCain/Palin ticket in the last election.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 02:42 PM
Who knows if Ryan would be where he is today without those SS benefits???

 

____________________
Pete

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 02:57 PM
quote:
Ryan wants to slash the very system that he benefited from because it produces “dependency.”



Where did he say Social Security produces dependency. Do you have a link?

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9673
(9698 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 03:21 PM
Well here is the thing about social security benefits, people who paid into it, or their beneficiaries, are entitled to that money...it is THEIR money. At the very least people should be able to get out of it what they put into it, or in the case of what Ryan benefited from, survivor's benefits. If your spouse or parent is unable to collect THEIR money, then it is logical that a member of their family should.

As I've stated before I don't believe in the social security concept. I think that people should be entitled to 12.4% of their pay that the government currently takes. But at the same time that does not mean that I am willing to forfeit the portion of my earnings that have been taken from me. I want that money and if I am not alive to collect, then I want my spouse or children to collect it. It is after all MINE.

The truth is at some point, the rights and benefits that people like myself are going to be sacrificed. Not that I want to be stepped on, but for the health and survivability of our nation, I expect our leadership to take the necessary steps to fiscal responsibility. I do not think it is the role of our elected representatives to make me "whole", they have a bigger picture to consider. If our nation's finances are in the sh:tter and we are spiraling towards a horrific crash, it doesn't matter much if I or anybody is getting their social security money back.


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3070
(3075 all sites)
Registered: 5/30/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 03:44 PM
First off, his father was compelled to pay Social Security taxes by law. Money that was taken away from the needs of his family, and his own personal budgetary discretion, and placed into a Ponzi scheme in which he would never see the returns that he put into it.

Second, it's not like he stashed his father in the bleeding fruit cellar and kept those returns coming illegally.

Finally, perhaps if the Federal Government would not have dipped into S.S. and placed monies from there into the general fund it would be a viable program, but as usual it is another government intrusion into our personal lives.

 

____________________
"What we do in life echoes in eternity."




 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3070
(3075 all sites)
Registered: 5/30/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 03:46 PM
For, and, nor, but, or, yet. F-A-N-B-O-Y

 

____________________
"What we do in life echoes in eternity."




 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8395
(8396 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 04:11 PM
quote:
Well here is the thing about social security benefits, people who paid into it, or their beneficiaries, are entitled to that money...it is THEIR money.

I know my comment doesn't follow the thrust of this thread, but this statement is not true. It fits conventional wisdom, and what the govt would like you to believe, but it is both technically and legally not true.

SS is and always has been a pay-as-you-go system. Current collections pay for current outlays. SS payroll tax collections go right into the general fund. Excess collections went to pay for whatever other govt expenses needed to be covered that year. But no longer. The system pays out more than it collects now. The "SS Trust Fund" is a fraud and a govt accounting gimmick.

Money is not put aside for the individual, nor does any individual have legal rights to expect or demand any payment from the system, should Congress find the need arise to modify it in the future. The legal obligation of the govt to pay anyone SS benefits was settled in 1960 when SCOTUS ruled in Flemming v Nestor that no future obligation of payment should be assumed, and the citizens had no right to payment based on past contributions or promises of future benefits.

While the expectation of future payments might be ethically and morally reasonably, our govt has long ago made sure that it is not required in any legal sense. Given our current economic trajectory, there is little doubt that we will see vast numbers of citizens be rudely woken up to this fact at some point in coming years.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 04:30 PM
That being the case, and I'm not disputing your information, why would anyone continue to pay into a system that they would have no expections of being able to use in the future? I think the SCOTUS was really out to lunch on that one.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8395
(8396 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 05:17 PM
quote:
That being the case, and I'm not disputing your information, why would anyone continue to pay into a system that they would have no expections of being able to use in the future? I think the SCOTUS was really out to lunch on that one.
Like so many things, the tax is not challenged because: a) up to now, the system has paid out as promised, and b) most folks have not examined the facts and do not understand how the program really works. Govt has those factors going for it currently.

How long it will last is the question. Any 'normal' Ponzi scheme would have crashed by now. But owning the money press gives govt certain advantages that guys like Madoff only wished he had. However, those advantages are not infinite.

Barring a full-on economic calamity and/or a complete currency crash of the US dollar, I expect that SS will continue to pay out. But we'll reach a point (we may be there already) where inflation adjustments will no longer be made, at least not to a satisfactory level. The average beneficery might still get a check, but it will buy only a diminishing fraction of what it used to.

As to SCOTUS' ruling; they had no choice. They had to deal with the way the law was written and rule accordingly. If the citizens had been told honestly how SS was to be administered when it was first pitched by the politicians of the day, it's doubtful it would have ever found support. That said; millions have been able to retire using it's benefits as a dependable source of income. How long that can last given demographics and economics is the question. All Ponzi schemes eventually implode.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4163
(4169 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 05:34 PM
quote:
quote:
That being the case, and I'm not disputing your information, why would anyone continue to pay into a system that they would have no expections of being able to use in the future? I think the SCOTUS was really out to lunch on that one.
Like so many things, the tax is not challenged because: a) up to now, the system has paid out as promised, and b) most folks have not examined the facts and do not understand how the program really works. Govt has those factors going for it currently.

How long it will last is the question. Any 'normal' Ponzi scheme would have crashed by now. But owning the money press gives govt certain advantages that guys like Madoff only wished he had. However, those advantages are not infinite.

Barring a full-on economic calamity and/or a complete currency crash of the US dollar, I expect that SS will continue to pay out. But we'll reach a point (we may be there already) where inflation adjustments will no longer be made, at least not to a satisfactory level. The average beneficery might still get a check, but it will buy only a diminishing fraction of what it used to.

As to SCOTUS' ruling; they had no choice. They had to deal with the way the law was written and rule accordingly. If the citizens had been told honestly how SS was to be administered when it was first pitched by the politicians of the day, it's doubtful it would have ever found support. That said; millions have been able to retire using it's benefits as a dependable source of income. How long that can last given demographics and economics is the question. All Ponzi schemes eventually implode.


Just curious - Doesn't the definition of Ponzi scheme indicate fraud? If so, who in the government has been convicted for fraud for administering SS program? If it is not fraudulent but rather a generational transfer of funds or some other terminology, then should it be labeled as such?

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8395
(8396 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 08:04 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
That being the case, and I'm not disputing your information, why would anyone continue to pay into a system that they would have no expections of being able to use in the future? I think the SCOTUS was really out to lunch on that one.
Like so many things, the tax is not challenged because: a) up to now, the system has paid out as promised, and b) most folks have not examined the facts and do not understand how the program really works. Govt has those factors going for it currently.

How long it will last is the question. Any 'normal' Ponzi scheme would have crashed by now. But owning the money press gives govt certain advantages that guys like Madoff only wished he had. However, those advantages are not infinite.

Barring a full-on economic calamity and/or a complete currency crash of the US dollar, I expect that SS will continue to pay out. But we'll reach a point (we may be there already) where inflation adjustments will no longer be made, at least not to a satisfactory level. The average beneficery might still get a check, but it will buy only a diminishing fraction of what it used to.

As to SCOTUS' ruling; they had no choice. They had to deal with the way the law was written and rule accordingly. If the citizens had been told honestly how SS was to be administered when it was first pitched by the politicians of the day, it's doubtful it would have ever found support. That said; millions have been able to retire using it's benefits as a dependable source of income. How long that can last given demographics and economics is the question. All Ponzi schemes eventually implode.

Just curious - Doesn't the definition of Ponzi scheme indicate fraud? If so, who in the government has been convicted for fraud for administering SS program? If it is not fraudulent but rather a generational transfer of funds or some other terminology, then should it be labeled as such?

The simple answer is that it's not fraud becasue the govt says it isn't when they do it. They base that assertion in the fact that they have taxing and money printing authority. Of course, they would prosecute any other individual or company for trying to run a program in a similar manner, so decide for yourself.

My comments aren't intended to accuse govt of unethical, illegal, or fraudulent behavior. They're directed at towards citizens who think SS is something it is not.

It is not a retirement savings program. It has no guarantees of payment beyond the moral obligation of govt to the people. It transfers money from the incomes of current workers to current retirees, plain and simple. And while the SS Trust Fund holds some Treasury bonds, if the economic conditions reach a point where SS can't pay (at whatever level), it's pretty certain that those Treasury bonds won't be redeemable either.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4163
(4169 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 08:38 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
That being the case, and I'm not disputing your information, why would anyone continue to pay into a system that they would have no expections of being able to use in the future? I think the SCOTUS was really out to lunch on that one.
Like so many things, the tax is not challenged because: a) up to now, the system has paid out as promised, and b) most folks have not examined the facts and do not understand how the program really works. Govt has those factors going for it currently.

How long it will last is the question. Any 'normal' Ponzi scheme would have crashed by now. But owning the money press gives govt certain advantages that guys like Madoff only wished he had. However, those advantages are not infinite.

Barring a full-on economic calamity and/or a complete currency crash of the US dollar, I expect that SS will continue to pay out. But we'll reach a point (we may be there already) where inflation adjustments will no longer be made, at least not to a satisfactory level. The average beneficery might still get a check, but it will buy only a diminishing fraction of what it used to.

As to SCOTUS' ruling; they had no choice. They had to deal with the way the law was written and rule accordingly. If the citizens had been told honestly how SS was to be administered when it was first pitched by the politicians of the day, it's doubtful it would have ever found support. That said; millions have been able to retire using it's benefits as a dependable source of income. How long that can last given demographics and economics is the question. All Ponzi schemes eventually implode.

Just curious - Doesn't the definition of Ponzi scheme indicate fraud? If so, who in the government has been convicted for fraud for administering SS program? If it is not fraudulent but rather a generational transfer of funds or some other terminology, then should it be labeled as such?

The simple answer is that it's not fraud becasue the govt says it isn't when they do it. They base that assertion in the fact that they have taxing and money printing authority. Of course, they would prosecute any other individual or company for trying to run a program in a similar manner, so decide for yourself.

My comments aren't intended to accuse govt of unethical, illegal, or fraudulent behavior. They're directed at towards citizens who think SS is something it is not.

It is not a retirement savings program. It has no guarantees of payment beyond the moral obligation of govt to the people. It transfers money from the incomes of current workers to current retirees, plain and simple. And while the SS Trust Fund holds some Treasury bonds, if the economic conditions reach a point where SS can't pay (at whatever level), it's pretty certain that those Treasury bonds won't be redeemable either.



Your posts reflect intelligent ideas & knowledge of subject, but I come from a slightly different perspective on some of the ideas. That is not to say I'm right & you are wrong or vice versa, but I'd like to clarify my perspective on these points.

If SS is not a Ponzi scheme, then it shouldn't be referred to as that. That's just basic fact.

Retirement savings program - This is a choice of wording, & we could split hairs all day over wording. However, for some SS most definitely is their retirement plan and for others, it is supplemental retirement income.

Even though there may be no guarantee of payment beyond moral obligation as you state, unless I'm wrong, I don't think there has been any interruption of payments over the years since inception. If I am wrong, I am more than happy to be corrected on the facts.




 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 09:47 PM
Social Security may not qualify as a Ponzi Scheme in a technical sense, but shares some of the same characteristics. Is that fair?
 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8395
(8396 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2012 at 10:17 PM
quote:
If SS is not a Ponzi scheme, then it shouldn't be referred to as that. That's just basic fact.

Everything about it's structure mirrors what has classically been known as a Ponzi scheme, except for the fact that it's govt run. That may make it a legal Ponzi scheme, but unless far higer taxes are leived, or our economy starts growing at an enormous pace, it's future will mirror other privately run Ponzi schemes as well. Call it what you choose. I'm sticking with Ponzi.

quote:
Retirement savings program - This is a choice of wording, & we could split hairs all day over wording. However, for some SS most definitely is their retirement plan and for others, it is supplemental retirement income.
A savings program denotes money to which you have legal ownership. In the event of your death, your heirs have rights to the full amount, minus any taxes then applicable. As your contributions continue and the value mounts, it can form the basis of generational wealth for your family. None of these things are true of SS. It is a govt entitlement, nothing more. While it has served many well for decades because of demographics and the growing wealth of the nation, those same factors now point negatively and spell grave difficulity ahead.

This is not spoken of in honest terms by most politicians because to do so is almost certain political death. That doesn't change what's happening.

quote:
Even though there may be no guarantee of payment beyond moral obligation as you state, unless I'm wrong, I don't think there has been any interruption of payments over the years since inception. If I am wrong, I am more than happy to be corrected on the facts.
Outside of limited, individual cases, you are correct. So far. But then again, we've never faced a budget calamity such as the one we're heading towards.

The math clearly points to SS' inevitable decline or crash unless some dramatic changes are made. We only collect enough in taxes to cover entitlments and interest on the debt. Everything else - the military, the CIA, the FBI, wages for every govt employee, and funding for every other department and program - is currently on the national credit card. Since that can't last forever, neither can the stability of entitlements like SS.

To raise the approximate $1.5 trillion needed every year to cover the gap would mean a tax hike unbearable to everyone. Look at the current Presidental campaign. Vast expense and effort is being expended by the President's team to pitch the idea of raising taxes on the rich. If done, what new income is projected? Maybe $60-80 billion a year (a big maybe). At best that covers 5% of the problem, and the problem keeps growing as 10,000 Baby Boomers a day retire.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 23381
(23380 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2012 at 06:00 AM
Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" doesn't address SS, correct?

I have no problem with the general idea of Ryan's plans except for its lack of specifics. He keeps saying we need to address these items. he proposes tax breaks and closing loopholes with no detail. Privatizing any of the present programs is just a disaster waiting to happen. The government may not be the best at managing this, but if this is handed of to an entity trying to make a profit on it, I predict major prosecutions. Also, no cuts in Defense. Sorry, if you are going only propose reductions on entitlements you aren't meeting what needs to be done. If Mitt is elected and these changes are are enacted, the election repercussions that were seen with Obamacare in 2010 will be a nit compared to what will happen in 2014.

 

____________________
Quit!

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4163
(4169 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2012 at 08:16 AM
quote:
quote:
If SS is not a Ponzi scheme, then it shouldn't be referred to as that. That's just basic fact.

Everything about it's structure mirrors what has classically been known as a Ponzi scheme, except for the fact that it's govt run. That may make it a legal Ponzi scheme, but unless far higer taxes are leived, or our economy starts growing at an enormous pace, it's future will mirror other privately run Ponzi schemes as well.

quote:
Retirement savings program - This is a choice of wording, & we could split hairs all day over wording. However, for some SS most definitely is their retirement plan and for others, it is supplemental retirement income.
A savings program denotes money to which you have legal ownership. In the event of your death, your heirs have rights to the full amount, minus any taxes then applicable. As your contributions continue and the value mounts, it can form the basis of generational wealth for your family. None of these things are true of SS. It is a govt entitlement, nothing more. While it has served many well for decades because of demographics and the growing wealth of the nation, those same factors now point negatively and spell grave difficulity ahead.

This is not spoken of in honest terms by most politicians because to do so is almost certain political death. That doesn't change what's happening.

quote:
Even though there may be no guarantee of payment beyond moral obligation as you state, unless I'm wrong, I don't think there has been any interruption of payments over the years since inception. If I am wrong, I am more than happy to be corrected on the facts.
Outside of limited, individual cases, you are correct. So far. But then again, we've never faced a budget calamity such as the one we're heading towards.

The math clearly points to SS' inevitable decline or crash unless some dramatic changes are made. We only collect enough in taxes to cover entitlments and interest on the debt. Everything else - the military, the CIA, the FBI, wages for every govt employee, and funding for every other department and program - is currently on the national credit card. Since that can't last forever, neither can the stability of entitlements like SS.

To raise the approximate $1.5 trillion needed every year to cover the gap would mean a tax hike unbearable to everyone. Look at the current Presidental campaign. Vast expense and effort is being expended by the President's team to pitch the idea of raising taxes on the rich. If done, what new income is projected? Maybe $60-80 billion a year (a big maybe). At best that covers 5% of the problem, and the problem keeps growing as 10,000 Baby Boomers a day retire.


I'm just not going to debate you any further on "what is" and "definitions". We just see things through different eyes.

I will address one point. If a Ponzi scheme is fraud then it is fraudulent & illegal. SS is not fraud and not illegal. I didn't realize that a Ponzi scheme is illegal unless the government operates this way as you state. Black & white - either Ponzi is legal or illegal. This is your statement from previous post, and I quote "My comments aren't intended to accuse govt of unethical, illegal, or fraudulent behavior."

However in this most recent post you state "Call it what you choose. I'm sticking with Ponzi."

To me, that's walking back your original post and contradictory. I just don't think you can have both ways.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17361
(17416 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2012 at 08:58 AM
quote:
I will address one point. If a Ponzi scheme is fraud then it is fraudulent & illegal. SS is not fraud and not illegal. I didn't realize that a Ponzi scheme is illegal unless the government operates this way as you state. Black & white - either Ponzi is legal or illegal. This is your statement from previous post, and I quote "My comments aren't intended to accuse govt of unethical, illegal, or fraudulent behavior."

However in this most recent post you state "Call it what you choose. I'm sticking with Ponzi."

To me, that's walking back your original post and contradictory. I just don't think you can have both ways.


What do you think people will call it who have paid into it their whole lives, expecting it to be there for them when they retire, and then find they get nothing in return? That their money was used to pay workers who retired before them. SS has remained solvent because of the huge nuimbers of workers put into the sytem via the "baby boom" generation after WWII. That large boom in workers being born ended @ 1960. Those people are now retiring at the rate of 10,000 a day! There are not near as many workers in the system paying into SS (and the number will continue to decrease over the years) as those that are retiring and taking money out. There is no way the system can remain solvent as structured. This not a philosophical issue; its math. Politicians have known this for 50 years, but no one has taken the issue on in any meaningful way.

 

____________________
Ask not for whom the bell tolls

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 69197
(69558 all sites)
Registered: 11/28/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2012 at 09:03 AM
uh, I was told there would be no math.................

 

____________________

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8395
(8396 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2012 at 09:23 AM
quote:
I will address one point. If a Ponzi scheme is fraud then it is fraudulent & illegal. SS is not fraud and not illegal. I didn't realize that a Ponzi scheme is illegal unless the government operates this way as you state. Black & white - either Ponzi is legal or illegal. This is your statement from previous post, and I quote "My comments aren't intended to accuse govt of unethical, illegal, or fraudulent behavior."

However in this most recent post you state "Call it what you choose. I'm sticking with Ponzi."

To me, that's walking back your original post and contradictory. I just don't think you can have both ways.

I doubt that the semantics will matter much once we reach the point when beneficiaries are told that their payouts will not materialize as expected. Will this huge portion of the population be successful in taking far more from current workers? In 1940 there were 159 workers contributing for every retiree collecting benefits. It's now less than 3 to 1, and declining (sorry for the math Sang). That is simply not sustainable.

In truth, SS was conceived as a means whereby the politicians of the time could get their hands on more of the income of the American worker so that they could fund their schemes. They looked at the overwhelmingly positive math of the day, and because of an over-abundence of funds, constructed a program with no thought of fiscal security based on demographic changes. It is fradulent by every standard applied to any similar private investment or savings program. But govt gets to write their own rules, so it is legal. That doesn't mean it's fiscally sound.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46807
(46808 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2012 at 09:39 AM
Actually, Ryan renounced, debunked his influence, whatever, from Ayn Rand a couple of years ago.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 23381
(23380 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2012 at 09:42 AM
quote:
Actually, Ryan renounced, debunked his influence, whatever, from Ayn Rand a couple of years ago.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa


Why did you have to take all the fun out of it?

 

____________________
Quit!

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4163
(4169 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2012 at 09:45 AM
quote:
quote:
I will address one point. If a Ponzi scheme is fraud then it is fraudulent & illegal. SS is not fraud and not illegal. I didn't realize that a Ponzi scheme is illegal unless the government operates this way as you state. Black & white - either Ponzi is legal or illegal. This is your statement from previous post, and I quote "My comments aren't intended to accuse govt of unethical, illegal, or fraudulent behavior."

However in this most recent post you state "Call it what you choose. I'm sticking with Ponzi."

To me, that's walking back your original post and contradictory. I just don't think you can have both ways.


What do you think people will call it who have paid into it their whole lives, expecting it to be there for them when they retire, and then find they get nothing in return? That their money was used to pay workers who retired before them. SS has remained solvent because of the huge nuimbers of workers put into the sytem via the "baby boom" generation after WWII. That large boom in workers being born ended @ 1960. Those people are now retiring at the rate of 10,000 a day! There are not near as many workers in the system paying into SS (and the number will continue to decrease over the years) as those that are retiring and taking money out. There is no way the system can remain solvent as structured. This not a philosophical issue; its math. Politicians have known this for 50 years, but no one has taken the issue on in any meaningful way.


I agree with most of what you say. It is a numbers problem & future needs have to be addressed. I'll leave the solutions to those far more skilled than me.

The point I have been driving home is the legality issue, and that is a purist argument. For that reason alone, it doesn't matter what people label SS, but it doesn't make it fraudulent under the law.

The government over time has come up with many laws, policies, & programs that people agree with or don't. Some have been successful & others not. In the end, SS will survive. The specifics will be addressed & evolve.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17361
(17416 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2012 at 09:51 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
I will address one point. If a Ponzi scheme is fraud then it is fraudulent & illegal. SS is not fraud and not illegal. I didn't realize that a Ponzi scheme is illegal unless the government operates this way as you state. Black & white - either Ponzi is legal or illegal. This is your statement from previous post, and I quote "My comments aren't intended to accuse govt of unethical, illegal, or fraudulent behavior."

However in this most recent post you state "Call it what you choose. I'm sticking with Ponzi."

To me, that's walking back your original post and contradictory. I just don't think you can have both ways.


What do you think people will call it who have paid into it their whole lives, expecting it to be there for them when they retire, and then find they get nothing in return? That their money was used to pay workers who retired before them. SS has remained solvent because of the huge nuimbers of workers put into the sytem via the "baby boom" generation after WWII. That large boom in workers being born ended @ 1960. Those people are now retiring at the rate of 10,000 a day! There are not near as many workers in the system paying into SS (and the number will continue to decrease over the years) as those that are retiring and taking money out. There is no way the system can remain solvent as structured. This not a philosophical issue; its math. Politicians have known this for 50 years, but no one has taken the issue on in any meaningful way.


I agree with most of what you say. It is a numbers problem & future needs have to be addressed. I'll leave the solutions to those far more skilled than me.

The point I have been driving home is the legality issue, and that is a purist argument. For that reason alone, it doesn't matter what people label SS, but it doesn't make it fraudulent under the law.

The government over time has come up with many laws, policies, & programs that people agree with or don't. Some have been successful & others not. In the end, SS will survive. The specifics will be addressed & evolve.

How? Where is the money going to come from? Your response is the same response our politicians have been taking for a couple of generations, and here we are. When I pay into something with the expectation of getting it back later, and then you tell me there is nothing left for me when my time comes, what do you call that? In this case the government says I have to pay into by law so that current retirees can use it, but I can have no expectation of getting it back later when I retire.

 

____________________
Ask not for whom the bell tolls

 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com