13 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by badmoonSocial Security is "technically" not a pnozi scheme? Is that like Tim Giethner technically did not break the law by not paying his taxes, or Nixon did not technically belong in jail because he did not really break the law or Charley Rangel deserves to remain in office because his 20 some ethical violations did not technically break the law either?
Ltes knock off the ponzi scheme rhetoric Because its not technically true. Wher is SSI called an investment? There are no profitable promises.
Come on, whodey, lay off the coined phrase of the day.
Hmm? Technically your right.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199764
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by whodeyIt might help if you actually know what a Ponzi scheme is. Perry clearly doesn't.
Social Security is "technically" not a pnozi scheme? Is that like Tim Giethner technically did not break the law by not paying his taxes, or Nixon did not technically belong in jail because he did not really break the law or Charley Rangel deserves to remain in office because his 20 some ethical violations did not technically break the law either?
Hmm? Technically your right.
13 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KunsooYou're missing the point. While it's true that Social Security is not illegal, nor is it outright fraud, Social Security's similarities to a Ponzi scheme make for an apt comparison. The slightly inflammatory rhetoric has the whole country focused on the issue, making it harder for politicians to keep kicking that can down the road. It's a good thing.
It might help if you actually know what a Ponzi scheme is. Perry clearly doesn't.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199764
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyIt is no more a Ponzi scheme than basic insurance. Pooling resources so that some pay while others benefit is not a Ponzi scheme. That a Ponzi scheme has some semblance of a pooling structure does not make the comparison warranted, and a Ponzi scheme would have collapsed a long time ago. Contrary to all of the hysteria, Social Security is, by itself, solvent to this date. The problem is that we have borrowed from it.
You're missing the point. While it's true that Social Security is not illegal, nor is it outright fraud, Social Security's similarities to a Ponzi scheme make for an apt comparison. The slightly inflammatory rhetoric has the whole country focused on the issue, making it harder for politicians to keep kicking that can down the road. It's a good thing.
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by Kunsoo
It is no more a Ponzi scheme than basic insurance. Pooling resources so that some pay while others benefit is not a Ponzi scheme. That a Ponzi scheme has some semblance of a pooling structure does not make the comparison warranted, and a Ponzi scheme would have collapsed a long time ago.
Hm, you don't buy insurance planning to get your money back. You're just paying for the "in case" you need it scenario. So basic insurance is different from both SS and a Ponzi scheme there. Add SS may have collapsed a long time ago if the "customers" weren't mandated to pay.
Contrary to all of the hysteria, Social Security is, by itself, solvent to this date.
Oh please. A stack of IOU's from another branch of the same govt that has no way to cover that debt except to raise taxes or borrow more money. In other words, no way to cover that debt except the same methods it has to cover all its other debts. That "solvency" is a bookkeeping fig leaf.
The problem is that we have borrowed from it.
LOL, yeah. That was Ponzi's problem too.
13 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe previous spending bill took us from losing several hundred thousand jobs per month to gaining a small amount of jobs every month.
Here is your chance to help sell the Presidents newly proposed Job Act. Tell us how the proposed $447 billion in spending will do anything differently than the previous $787 billion in the last stimulus that did not produce one job.
Why would I want it to do something different?
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyNone of that remotely shows that SS is a "Ponzi scheme". It just shows that, like Perry, you have no idea what a Ponzi scheme is.
Originally posted by Kunsoo
[b]It is no more a Ponzi scheme than basic insurance. Pooling resources so that some pay while others benefit is not a Ponzi scheme. That a Ponzi scheme has some semblance of a pooling structure does not make the comparison warranted, and a Ponzi scheme would have collapsed a long time ago.
Hm, you don't buy ins ...[text shortened]... lem is that we have borrowed from it.[/b]
LOL, yeah. That was Ponzi's problem too.[/b]
13 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm
None of that remotely shows that SS is a "Ponzi scheme". It just shows that, like Perry, you have no idea what a Ponzi scheme is.
What is a Ponzi scheme?
A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity.
Why do Ponzi schemes collapse?
With little or no legitimate earnings, the schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue. Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out.
Meh, substitute "taxpayers" for "investors" and you're pretty close. It's not a perfect fit, and it's inflammatory language to be sure, but there's enough similarity there to make it an apt comparison.
13 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyNo, you are not "close". Ponzi schemes require an intent to defraud which is absolutely lacking in SS and other social insurance. SS is not an "investment fraud", does not claim to generate "returns", has no "investors" or "fraudsters". It is widely popular program which needs some tweaking in order to pay at presently legislated levels in the somewhat distant future. This has been done before notably by Ronald Reagan and Congress in the mid 1980s.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm
[quote][b]What is a Ponzi scheme?
A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high y language to be sure, but there's enough similarity there to make it an apt comparison.[/b]
I think it's great that Perry is pledging to abolish Social Security and hope all Republicans everywhere use this as a central campaign theme.
EDIT: This article is worth reading for those who continue to parrot the false "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" tag line: http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/social.security.fortune/index.htm
Excerpts:
Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns ..............................
Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme and fundamentally different from what Madoff allegedly did. At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see "Social"😉 resolved to create a safety net (see "Security"😉 in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones. That might rankle, but it's not fraud.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by KunsooBull. Insurance is carefully and thoroughly regulated with specific underwriting guidlines, reserve requirements and policy provisions.
It is no more a Ponzi scheme than basic insurance. Pooling resources so that some pay while others benefit is not a Ponzi scheme. That a Ponzi scheme has some semblance of a pooling structure does not make the comparison warranted, and a Ponzi scheme would have collapsed a long time ago. Contrary to all of the hysteria, Social Security is, by itself, solvent to this date. The problem is that we have borrowed from it.
Social Security has never had any of those.
A Ponzi scheme promises benefits without calculating or letting anyone else calculate the likelihood of those benefits being paid. It relies on new recruits to pay the long termers, but the way that Social Security differs is that it is worse than most ponzi schemes, in that it can force new members to join, something Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff would have liked to have done.
Even so, the number are dwindling, even with forced membership.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by normbenignHundreds of millions of people have received Social Security benefits over the course of 70 years. Zero who qualify have been denied benefits.
Bull. Insurance is carefully and thoroughly regulated with specific underwriting guidlines, reserve requirements and policy provisions.
Social Security has never had any of those.
A Ponzi scheme promises benefits without calculating or letting anyone else calculate the likelihood of those benefits being paid. It relies on new recruits to pay the ...[text shortened]... ould have liked to have done.
Even so, the number are dwindling, even with forced membership.
Yes, that is worse than a Ponzy scheme. Wow. Do tell, what color is the sky in wingnut land?
15 Sep 11
Originally posted by whodeyWell, for one thing, we could bail out Solyndra!
Here is your chance to help sell the Presidents newly proposed Job Act. Tell us how the proposed $447 billion in spending will do anything differently than the previous $787 billion in the last stimulus that did not produce one job.