Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Sep 13, 2011, 04:49 AM

People who got suckered into a Ponzi scheme had a choice about their investments . We don't have a choice . We are forced into the system.

Social Security is worse than a Ponzi Scheme. From the very beginning the American people were lied to about the plan. Roosevelt sold it on a lie and had to revise the lie to get it through SCOTUS challenges .

Now Mitt says he wants to save the ‘criminal enterprise"... in his own words in his book :

“Let’s look at what would happen if someone in the private sector did a similar thing. Suppose two grandparents created a trust fund, appointed a bank as trustee, and instructed the bank to invest the proceeds of the trust fund so as to provide for their grandchildren’s education. Suppose further that the bank used the proceeds for its own purposes, so that when the grandchildren turned eighteen, there was no money for them to go to college. What would happen to the bankers responsible for misusing the money? They would go to jail. But what has happened to the people responsible for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security? They keep returning to Congress every two years.”

So what's the difference between Romney and Perry's position ?

NeedKarma · Sep 13, 2011, 05:24 AM

So what is his plan to fix it?

paraclete · Sep 13, 2011, 05:27 AM

Social Security isn't a ponzi scheme or a rip off, it is just the benefits have been allowed to expand beyond the ability of the fund to keep up. That is what inflation will do to you, no one should be able to take out more than they put in plus interest. This is what happens when you have unfunded benefits schemes which of course politicians love because the costs are all in the future

TUT317 · Sep 13, 2011, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

People who got suckered into a Ponzi scheme had a choice about their investments . We don't have a choice . We are forced into the system.

Social Security is worse than a Ponzi Scheme. From the very beginning the American people were lied to about the plan. Roosevelt sold it on a lie and had to revise the lie to get it through SCOTUS challenges .

Now Mitt says he wants to save the ‘criminal enterprise".....in his own words in his book :

So what's the difference between Romney and Perry's position ?

Hi Tom,

I don't know. What is the difference between Romney and Perry?

I would have thought there are important differences between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme.

Those who enter into a Ponzi scheme did have a choice. No doubt most people would be attracted to the idea of being guaranteed a certain return at designated times.

On the other hand the insurance industry does not work this way. It is based on rise, risk assessment and timing. You don't buy insurance in the belief that you are going to collect it. Don't you buy it for protection?

If social security is a social insurance (which I think it is) then it can't be a Ponzi scheme.

Tut

Dr1757 · Sep 13, 2011, 05:42 AM

If LBJ hadn't moved SS funds into the general fund where it could be used elsewhere it wouldn't be in the sad shape it's in today. And then Clinton/Gore mandated that it could be taxed so they could get more money to throw around. I don't look at SS as a Ponzi scheme like Perry believes it is because you do not have a choice unless your in Congress, work for the railroad or become a teacher.

tomder55 · Sep 13, 2011, 06:15 AM

So what is his plan to fix it?

What is the difference between Romney and Perry?

Got me. I think it needs fundamental changes including letting younger workers the option to control their own investment .
Best guess is that Romney is looking at life expectency charts and is thinking that if the avg life expectency is 78 ;then benefits would kick in at 79.

excon · Sep 13, 2011, 06:20 AM

Suppose further that the bank used the proceeds for its own purposes, so that when the grandchildren turned eighteen, there was no money for them to go to college. What would happen to the bankers responsible for misusing the money?

Originally Posted by tomder55

So what's the difference between Romney and Perry's position ?

Hello tom:

I don't know. I think they're BOTH full of it.. Let's take Mitt's example... If the bankers he mentioned used the money for their own purposes, (which is what bankers DO), and left an IOU, when the kids reached 18, the bankers would have to PAY THE MONEY BACK... Ain't no big deal. That's all.

What's an insurance company other than a Ponzi scheme?

Excon

tomder55 · Sep 13, 2011, 06:38 AM

If the bankers he mentioned used the money for their own purposes, (which is what bankers DO), and left an IOU, when the kids reached 18, the bankers would have to PAY THE MONEY BACK... Ain't no big deal. That's all.

Or you get a call from your bank that they have run out of money so in order to save your CD they have to cut the interest rate on it in half; Or that you can’t cash in your one year CD for another two years.

When Roosevelt sold the scheme he claimed it was an insurance because he knew the people would never approve another tax on their income. . But he knew it was unconstitutional the way he sold it. So when Social Security came before SCOTUS he argued that in fact Social Security was a TAX . The court he appointed and intimidated went along with the lie.

Of course it was very popular to the early beneficiaries because they didn't pay anywheres near the amt they took out of the system. That cemented this '3rd rail' notion that the system was sacrosanct .
But it had to be clear from the beginning that the system was unsustainable.
Perry has the courage to call it like it is. Mitt is in full "better manager of the nanny state " mode .
That is what I see is the big difference between them.

excon · Sep 13, 2011, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

But it had to be clear from the beginning that the system was unsustainable.

Hello again, tom:

One can argue the sustainability. For example, it's entirely possible that the next generation will be full of LARGE family's resulting in MORE than enough people to sustain SS into the next century and beyond...

But, beyond that - it would seem that you guys would FINALLY realize that, as much as you hate it, it's here to stay, and that bad mouthing it WON'T get anybody elected. You DO remember GW Bush spending his hard earned political capital and FAILED to change a thing, don't you? No. Bummer for you guys.

excon

tomder55 · Sep 13, 2011, 07:14 AM

He did the right thing even if it cost him popularity . As you say... that's leadership.

excon · Sep 13, 2011, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

He did the right thing even if it cost him popularity . As you say...that's leadership.

Hello again, tom:

Nahhh, that's flapping your gums.. Leadership is when people follow you.

I DO the right thing on this board every day. Do you follow me? Or, do you accuse me of flapping my gums?? You don't have to answer.

excon

tomder55 · Sep 13, 2011, 07:23 AM

If social security is a social insurance (which I think it is) then it can't be a Ponzi scheme.

Perhaps ;but like any other pool of money sitting around unused for social experimentation.. the American nanny state can't help themselves .They find ways to dip into the funds and add them to the general revenue .
The difference between Romney and Perry is that Romney is still seduced by big government . He is a proponent of big government solutions.

Edit... Perry isn't perfect as far as that goes either... but he is dead on about Social Security .

excon · Sep 13, 2011, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

The difference between Romney and Perry is that Romney is still seduced by big government . He is a proponent of big government solutions.

Hello again, tom:

You're not still slathering on about being AGAINST big government, are you?? I'm not going to hijack your thread, but let's be clear - when it comes the COP side of government, BIG government solutions are just hunky dory with you. I suspect they are as well with EVERY one of the Republicans on the stage last night, except Ron Paul.

excon

talaniman · Sep 13, 2011, 02:17 PM

So what's the difference between Romney and Perry's position ?

They are both misleading about the facts. The system is solvent until 2039 at full benefit, if nothing is done. Then its solvent until 2079 at 80% benefit.

Another pandering to the right when you say the system is broke, when in facts they have MANY options to adjust the system when needed. They have been tweaking the system for decades at great success.

I wouldn't let either of them near it to be perfectly honest. Plus I would love to see a waitress or McDonald's worker with his own private retirement account. And while you are looking for them, ask the Chilean Government how well there retirement accounts are working for them.

Just saying.

tomder55 · Sep 13, 2011, 04:05 PM

The system is solvent until 2039 at full benefit, if nothing is done. Then its solvent until 2079 at 80% benefit.

With what is it "solvent " ? Government IOUs ? The Social Security and Medicare Trustees project a deficit this year of $46 billion and continuing annual shortfalls until the $2.5 trillion fund is exhausted in 2036. I guess that's solvent in your book ;but not mine. The truth is that any surplus was transferred to the Treasury, which promptly exchange the surplus for federal bonds,which Congress spent . If someone in the private sector tried a scheme like that it would be fraud .
The so called fixes are just more kick the can down the road solutions ;very predictable... raise taxes, raise the retirement age, cut benefits, or some combination of the above. Oooooh did I forget tax the rich ?

talaniman · Sep 13, 2011, 04:41 PM

Yeah I heard Perry use all those excuses, but Government IOUs are the safest place in the world for your money. Just ask any body who has a lot of loot.

They wanted to pay to get a treasury bond, and that's after it was downgraded. Who should we listen too Perry, or the people who run to buy treasury bonds??

tomder55 · Sep 13, 2011, 05:57 PM

Maybe if I was holding them I'd agree ;and maybe if the retiree had something tanglible to cash in then I'd agree. But last month I heard the President tell seniors he could not guarantee their payment.

talaniman · Sep 13, 2011, 06:31 PM

So you blame the president for telling seniors that there checks were being held up by Republicans?

That's the truth! It was the republican house refusing to pay the bills. You know, a hostage situation.

tomder55 · Sep 13, 2011, 06:34 PM

And here I thought the SS "Trust Fund " was in a "lock box" and the general revenue doesn't have an impact on disbursements. See what I mean ? It's a ponzi scheme.

By the way ;those Mickey D workers ? They'd have a better and safer return on their investments in secured money markets.

talaniman · Sep 13, 2011, 06:48 PM

Oh come on, everybody had fair warning in April, and May, June, and July, what would happen in August. Because there was no guarantee is not saying it won't happen. Don't you think this should have been done before all the shuffling started, before the markets went into free fall, before the downgrade?

If Repubs can make threats, so can Dem's. You guys don't have the market cornered for rhetoric, and tough talk you know. Or hostages!!

Me and you Sunday, good luck!!