Perry no longer thinks SS is a Ponzi scheme.

[mhaze]

I suppose that depends on whether we're talking last year, last week, or tomorrow. His views on the subject seem to be in constant flux.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/08/18/perry-is-less-fed-up-over-social-security/

No, they are not "in flux". He may not be as glib at explaining them perfectly the first time, but he's just starting on the campaign too.

I've finished his book "Fed Up", and the subject of SS is pretty well covered. Nothing he's said recently is any different. Maybe bits and pieces of it are coming out, not all at once.

I would say this, the book has a very comprehensive concept of federalism and states rights, which impressed me, because I hadn't seen it developed in quite that way. For Perry to get the whole set of ideas out in the public conversation will take the better part of the campaign.

That will be quite interesting.

 

[Random]

(Sigh)

Ok, let's try this again.

Imagine a very simple Social Security program. Each week, the government takes 5% of the paychecks of all US workers and puts this money in a pool. This pool of money is then evenly distributed to every US citizen over the age of 65. Fairness issues aside, when would this system run out of money? Is this a Ponzi Scheme?

 

[johnny karate]

No, they are not "in flux". He may not be as glib at explaining them perfectly the first time, but he's just starting on the campaign too.

He said in his book he'd like to see a new system put in place. Now he says he'd like to reform the existing one. Those are two separate - and arguably contradictory - ideas.

 

[mhaze]

He said in his book he'd like to see a new system put in place. Now he says he'd like to reform the existing one. Those are two separate - and arguably contradictory - ideas.

No, that is not what the book says. I don't see that what it says is at all contradictory or that anything is "in flux". Anything at all.

On page 6 he says:

"We are fed up that Social Security and Medicare teeter on the verge of bankruptcy, amassing unfathomable liablities for future generations, that the federal government refuses to admit it, and that there is no leadership in Washinton to do anything about it -- unless you count yet another committee chaired by a retired senator that will no doubt be appointed to fix them..."​

I think this is the key section p. 62:

"Now if you say Social Security is a failure, as I have just done, you will inherit the wind of political scorn. Seniors might think you want to cut the benefits they have paid for. Politicians will want to take advantage, stirring up fear about benefits that will be lost if you elect another "heartless Republican." I get it. That's why only retired senators chair entitlement commissions.

We are told that no politicians has the courage to raise these issues, even if avoiding them puts us on the fast track to financial ruin. But by remaining quiet, politicians are really saying they think the American people won't understand it if we share the grim details of our financial future, and that voters will simply kill--or vote against--the messenger in order to continue to recieve an underfunded benefit that robbed them of the tens of thousands of dollars they should have made.

Is that how we should respect our fellow citizens? By underestimating their intelligence, their desire to retire with greater stability, or their commitment to the next generation? Programs and attitudes like this show just how much the New Deal tossed away. A new culture of do-something-itis now trumps any constitutional restraint and feeds the political best in Washington...."​

 

[Neally]

(Sigh)

Ok, let's try this again.

No need to try again. You yourself drew the comparison between a Ponzi scheme and SS. They work the same. SS can be legitimately described as a Ponzi scheme.

 

[johnny karate]

No, that is not what the book says.

These quotes say otherwise:

Instead of “a retirement system that is no longer set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme,” he wrote, he would prefer a system that “will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement.”

Can you either deny or provide context for these quotes that demonstrate Perry didn't indicate he wanted to dismantle Social Security?

 

[johnny karate]

No need to try again. You yourself drew the comparison between a Ponzi scheme and SS. They work the same. SS can be legitimately described as a Ponzi scheme.

He also drew a comparison between cats and dogs. So I guess cats can be legitimately described as dogs.

*dusts hands*

Congratulations, you just won a gold medal in the Disingenuous Olympics.

 

[Neally]

He also drew a comparison between cats and dogs. So I guess cats can be legitimately described as dogs.

*dusts hands*

Congratulations, you just won a gold medal in the Disingenuous Olympics.

Congratulations, you just won a gold medal in the Childish and Irrational Argument Olympics.

In the comparison he made, they both function the same way.

 

[mhaze]

These quotes say otherwise:

Can you either deny or provide context for these quotes that demonstrate Perry didn't indicate he wanted to dismantle Social Security?

I'm not seeing those quotes in this book, period.

Are you asking whether the book contains substantially similar concepts? I'm not seeing anything like a discussion about dismantling social security. It seems to me that a discussion should proceed from what someone actually said...

"Ponzi schemes -- like the one that sent Bernard Madoff to prison -- are illegal in this country for a reason. They are fraudulent systems designed to take in a lot of money at the front and pay out non in the end. This unsustainable fiscal insanity is the true legacy of Social Security and the New Deal. Deceptive accounting has hoodwinked the american public into thinking that Social Security is a retirement system and financially sound, when clearly it is not.

If only the New Dealers had been kind enough to allow works to make their own choice about whether to participate. As we know from experience individuals would have done better on their own. Indeed, many private pension plans return 8 percent per year, compared to Social Security's paltry 2 percent or less.

Also, before the government padlocked the door in 1983, municipal governments were allowed to opt out of the system. Fittingly, three Texas counties -- Galveston, Matagorda, and Brazoria -- did so. In 1981, Galveston county employees, for example, voted 78 percent to 22 percent to leave Social Security for a private option. Employees in those private plans, having exercised their liberty at Washington's sufferance, are reaping the benefits (p. 61).​

 

[johnny karate]

Congratulations, you just won a gold medal in the Childish and Irrational Argument Olympics.

In the comparison he made, they both function the same way.

I understand the nature of your confusion. Unfortunately, the argument being made - like many things in life - is a but more nuanced than you're making it out to be.

Random made a superficial comparison between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme - among other things - as a demonstration of how pointlessly simplistic such comparisons are because they ignore important differences.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm not seeing those quotes in this book, period.

Are you asking whether the book contains substantially similar concepts? I'm not seeing anything like a discussion about dismantling social security. It seems to me that a discussion should proceed from what someone actually said...

I sourced my claim*. Those quotes come from the Wall Street Journal. I find your counterargument of "Nuh-uh!" less than compelling.

* I realize now my original link isn't working properly. Here it is again:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/08/18/perry-is-less-fed-up-over-social-security/

Edit: And for an added bonus, here are other news sources that attribute that same quote to Perry.

 

[mhaze]

I sourced my claim*. Those quotes come from the Wall Street Journal. I find your counterargument of "Nuh-uh!" less than compelling.

* I realize now my original link isn't working properly. Here it is again:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/08/18/perry-is-less-fed-up-over-social-security/

I've read that article and stand by my comments.

If you've got a claim, please provide some page numbers. Perhaps it's conceivable that this statement:

Instead of “a retirement system that is no longer set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme,” he wrote, he would prefer a system that “will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement.”

...represents a paraphrasing of the two paragraphs which I quoted in 89. If so, it's a rather poor paraphrasing and is not stated as being such. It's presented as quotes.

 

[RandFan]

I've read that article and stand by my comments.

Translation "nuh-uh."

 

[johnny karate]

I've read that article and stand by my comments.

If you've got a claim, please provide some page numbers.

See my edit. Plenty of other people attribute the same quote to the Perry. Your inability to properly operate a book is no justification for me to provide further documentation than I already have.

 

[Neally]

Unfortunately, the argument being made - like many things in life - is a but more nuanced than you're making it out to be.
Random made a superficial comparison between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme - among other things - as a demonstration of how pointlessly simplistic such comparisons are because they ignore important differences.

You may be wishful thinking that they are more nuanced, but the fact is that similarities are what's important and again the basic structure of both are the same. Both pay older participants with new participants money. Both are paying out faster than the money coming in. Both are unsustainable with this scenario, leading SS to be correctly characterized as a Ponzi scheme.

 

[johnny karate]

You may be wishful thinking that they are more nuanced, but the fact is that similarities are what's important and again the basic structure of both are the same. Both pay older participants with new participants money. Both are paying out faster than the money coming in. Both are unsustainable with this scenario, leading SS to be correctly characterized as a Ponzi scheme.

Do you also think dogs and cats are the same?

 

[Neally]

Do you also think dogs and cats are the same?

Sorry, you've already won the gold medal in the Childish and Irrational Argument Olympics--you're not eligible for another medal.

Beagles and poodles are very different, so they both can't be dogs.

 

[johnny karate]

Beagles and poodles are very different, so they both can't be dogs.

The antithesis of the argument that two superficially similar things can actually be quite different isn't that two of the same thing can't be different at all. So your rebuttal is silly and nonsensical.

I understand that some people need to portray things in the simplest terms possible to better grasp complex ideas, but sometimes a lot can be lost in the translation. To call Social Security a Ponzi scheme while ignoring the significant differences that differentiate the two is facile and simpleminded.

 

[mhaze]

See my edit. Plenty of other people attribute the same quote to the Perry. Your inability to properly operate a book is no justification for me to provide further documentation than I already have.

BWHAHAHAHA!!

HAHAHA


heheheh

hHAHAHAHAHH!

chucklechucklechuckle

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

It AIN'T tHERE, DUDE!

Wait...I like your logic....it's like "Prove there isn't a Creator"....

There's a term for that in logic.

 

[johnny karate]

It AIN'T tHERE, DUDE!

Quite a few journalists seem to disagree with you.

So either it's a massive media-wide conspiracy, or you're mistaken.

I wonder which it could be?