Perry no longer thinks SS is a Ponzi scheme.

[JoeTheJuggler]

No. Not a dime. It was a Ponzi scheme. Remember?

Yeah, I remember. You agree with Perry that it's a Ponzi Scheme even though the only characteristics it has in common with a Ponzi Scheme are those shared by unemployment benefits and most other other public spending projects.

Yep--you and Perry use the same irrational thinking on this. I remember.

 

[mhaze]

So Perry proposes a plan in which younger people can opt out of Social Security, but in doing so they would lose any money already put it into, thus proving Social Security is a Ponzi scheme?

Wonderful logic.

Well, i think you have it backwards. Perry starts out and says (re younger people) "We need to be honest....they are never going to get their money back..."

That is a factually true statement. Has nothing to do with Perry proposing a opt-out plan. Has nothing to do with whoever wins the POTUS.

But yeah, the younger people would seem to have to be forced to continue paying since there is no "lockbox", current receipts fund current recipients.

Weird.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So Perry proposes a plan in which younger people can opt out of Social Security, but in doing so they would lose any money already put it into, thus proving Social Security is a Ponzi scheme?

Wonderful logic.

Yep. On the other thread on this topic, someone was arguing that Social Security is a scam because it's irresponsible even though since 1935 it has been solvent, and in most years more money went into the trust fund than went out in Social Security benefits. And that it's now insolvent because it is a creditor to the U.S. Treasury. (I guess banks should count any bonds or t-bills as debits rather than credits on their balance sheets following that logic.)

 

[RandFan]

Well, i think you have it backwards. Perry starts out and says (re younger people) "We need to be honest....they are never going to get their money back..."

Stating that it is true doesn't make it true.

 

[bikerdruid]

if the u.s. used a fraction of the money that they use tom kill people, to helping them, there would be lots of money for healthcare and social programs.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Perry starts out and says (re younger people) "We need to be honest....they are never going to get their money back..."

That is a factually true statement.

No it's not.

Again, Social Security has been solvent since 1935, and most years more money went into the trust fund than went out as SS benefits.

The future "problem" is merely a shift in the demographics of the country, and that problem can be solved simply enough.* There is no evidence whatsoever to support Perry's conjecture about the future of Social Security, and it is most certainly not a factually true statement.

*I think the general idea that would lead to the "fix" is to remember that it is not a forced retirement account, but rather a taxpayer funded safety net. So, means testing for receiving benefits is one way to fix it. The other is to tax all earnings rather than only the first ~$100K (as Medicare does) which would result in a significantly lower Social Security tax rate for everyone shifting the burden off of the lowest incomes (even if we leave it at a flat rate because the current system is regressive).

ETA: And if somehow you want to say that what Perry means is that people should get back the same amount of money they paid in, no matter what, I'm curious as to when he will call for disbanding the military. None of us get back any of the money we pay into that!

 

[RandFan]

ETA: And if somehow you want to say that what Perry means is that people should get back the same amount of money they paid in, no matter what, I'm curious as to when he will call for disbanding the military. None of us get back any of the money we pay into that!

FTW.

 

[johnny karate]

Well, i think you have it backwards...

The only thing backwards is your logic:

Perry said that younger people, who were not going to benefit from SS in their future, should be allowed to "opt out of the government scheme" and get some private insurance type plan.

Do I get back all the money I've paid for SS so far?

No. Not a dime. It was a Ponzi scheme. Remember?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Thanks for laying it out like that JK. I think I know how to make it actually logical:

The only thing backwards is your logic:

Perry said that younger people, who were not going to benefit from SS in their future, should be allowed to "opt out of the government scheme" and get some private insurance type plan.

Do I get back all the money I've paid for SS so far?

No. Not a dime. It wasPerry wants it to be a Ponzi scheme. Remember?

 

[Tricky]

Perry said that younger people, who were not going to benefit from SS in their future, should be allowed to "opt out of the government scheme" and get some private insurance type plan.

Well that's just farkin' brilliant, Perry.

Situation: Social Security system survives by taking in money from active workers so that it can pay out to needy retired people.

Problem: System is paying out more than it is paying in, but we need to have some way to protect needy people who have already paid in.

Solution (Perry's): Reduce amount being paid in by active workers.

That is a "solution" that would guarantee a collapse of Social Security and add no protection for young people, since there is no government backing to assure that insurance companies would be solvent when young workers retire. Oh sure, you could add a provision that provides government backing for the savings. Then it would be much like Social Security.

 

[Magyar]

A choice to opt out is not the same thing as what you allege.

Well I suppose that if you're being pedantic then no it's not the same, but in the real world it IS for all intensive purposes.

Remember 25 odd years ago when the republicans were selling us the bill of goods about
how company pensions we're bad for us and how "you should be in charge of your own investments ala 401K"

Yea, the wall street vultures made a killing, but go ask all those folks who put their money in AAA default swaps how well that worked out for them.


It's the same damned thing here. All those morons buying into the "Oh I'll be in charge of my investment will make another generation of wall streeters barrels full of many but will get them nothing should some other group of slime balls play the same rip off scheme on wall street we just went through.

 

[mhaze]

Well that's just farkin' brilliant, Perry.

Situation: Social Security system survives by taking in money from active workers so that it can pay out to needy retired people.

Problem: System is paying out more than it is paying in, but we need to have some way to protect needy people who have already paid in.

Solution (Perry's): Reduce amount being paid in by active workers.

That is a "solution" that would guarantee a collapse of Social Security and add no protection for young people, since there is no government backing to assure that insurance companies would be solvent when young workers retire. Oh sure, you could add a provision that provides government backing for the savings. Then it would be much like Social Security.

You think most people would opt out?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You think most people would opt out?

Yes. Supporting government programs by voluntary taxation is essentially canceling the program.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well that's just farkin' brilliant, Perry.

Situation: Social Security system survives by taking in money from active workers so that it can pay out to needy retired people.

Problem: System is paying out more than it is paying in, but we need to have some way to protect needy people who have already paid in.

Solution (Perry's): Reduce amount being paid in by active workers.

That is a "solution" that would guarantee a collapse of Social Security and add no protection for young people, since there is no government backing to assure that insurance companies would be solvent when young workers retire. Oh sure, you could add a provision that provides government backing for the savings. Then it would be much like Social Security.

Just to clarify: the "Problem" hasn't occurred yet. It is projected to occur due to changing demographics, and will only occur if we don't change anything before that happens.

But your assessment of Perry's proposed "solution" is accurate. It is tantamount to canceling the program by guaranteeing that it will fail.

If my car is traveling at some rate of speed and I see an obstacle in my path far enough ahead for me to avoid a collision, it is not a certain fact that I will collide with that obstacle. In fact, if I'm a prudent driver, it will be a simple matter to avoid collision. Perry's "solution" would be to close your eyes and hit the accelerator.

ETA: And again, Social Security is meant to be a safety net. There are plenty of workers--even young ones--who can't afford to buy private retirement insurance. Some portion of them might face poverty when they reach retirement age. There are also disabled people who rely on taking out from Social Security more than they will contribute. The idea that if you don't get back out the money you put in means this is a Ponzi Scheme is simply wrong. It is a tax levied to fund a program that helps provide for the general welfare of the people. It is not insurance, and it is not a forced IRA.

 

[Skeptic]

Social security isn't a Ponzi scheme since it doesn't have the all-important pyramid structure. This still doesn't mean it's sustainable, of course. But a financial program can fail for many reasons except for being a pyramid.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Social security isn't a Ponzi scheme since it doesn't have the all-important pyramid structure. This still doesn't mean it's sustainable, of course. But a financial program can fail for many reasons except for being a pyramid.

No. A Ponzi Scheme is not a pyramid scheme. About the only thing the two have in common is misleading investors into thinking their investment is more valuable than it is by paying them bits of money that didn't come from the investment.

At any rate, Social Security is neither. It is a program to provide a safety net for retirees that is funded by a payroll tax and an employer tax (or the SE tax). These are taxes, not investments. There is no scam and no fraud involved.

And again, from 1935 until the present day, the Social Security program has delivered on its promises and remains solvent. The "problem" is one projected based on current tax and benefit policies and projected changes in demographics.

 

[lomiller]

So Perry proposes a plan in which younger people can opt out of Social Security, but in doing so they would lose any money already put it into, thus proving Social Security is a Ponzi scheme?

Wonderful logic.

Worse than that. Even if you were to opt out, he would still have to collect money from you to keep paying the benefits he says he’s going to maintain, in addition to not getting your money back you would actually have to keep paying in.

 

[mhaze]

.... the wall street vultures made a killing, but go ask all those folks who put their money in AAA default swaps how well that worked out for them.


It's the same damned thing here. All those morons buying into the "Oh I'll be in charge of my investment will make another generation of wall streeters barrels full of many but will get them nothing should some other group of slime balls play the same rip off scheme on wall street we just went through.

Actually, no. You seem to be claiming that 401k, SEP, IRA investments are to some sizable degree insolvent. They are not and were not as a result of the 2008 crash.

What's insolvent is a majority of the pension funds.

So you need to address that group of morons, then the group of morons relying on SS.

And correct your statement about the people that had 401ks, IRAs and SEP to "those smart people".

 

[mhaze]

Yes. Supporting government programs by voluntary taxation is essentially canceling the program.

As the US government will be reducing spending by about 40% in the next decade to match revenues, no doubt quite a bit will be, one way or another, "essentially cancelled".

Here's the full text of yesterday's debate and two of many comments by Perry about Social Security.

http://historymusings.wordpress.com...y-target-social-security-complete-transcript/



PERRY: Well, first off, the people who are on Social Security today need to understand something. Slam-dunk guaranteed, that program is going to be there in place for those. Those individuals that are moving towards being on Social Security, that program’s going to be there for them when they arrive there.

But the idea that we have not had the courage to stand up and look Americans in the face, young mid-career professionals or kids that are my children’s age and look them in the eye and said, listen, this is a broken system. It has been called a ponzi scheme by many people long before me. But no one’s had the courage to stand up and say, here is how we’re going to reform it.

We’re going to transform it for those in those mid-career ages, but we’re going to fix it so that our young Americans that are going out into the workforce today will know without a doubt that there were some people who came along that didn’t lie to them, that didn’t try to go around the edges and told them the truth.

PERRY: And I’ll finish this conversation. But the issue is, are there ways to move the states into Social Security for state employees or for retirees? We did in the state of Texas back in the 1980s. I think those types of thoughtful conversations with America, rather than trying to scare seniors like you’re doing and other people, it’s time to have a legitimate conversation in this country about how to fix that program where it’s not bankrupt and our children actually know that there’s going to be a retirement program there for them.

 

[johnny karate]

Perry must be on roller skates to be able to backpedal so quickly.