Perry no longer thinks SS is a Ponzi scheme.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think that upping the age of starting to receive benefits is any big deal, though.

Ah--so you're finally giving up on the whole "Ponzi Scheme" claim, I guess. Well done!

After all, it would be silly to guarantee the long term solvency of Social Security by tweaking the eligibility requirements if the system is inherently flawed and inherently fraudulent.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why OF COURSE NOT!!! They phrase their destruction of SS in warm and fuzzy phraseology, while suggested changes by their ideological enemy are called "destruction of SS".

This is utter, rubbish, haze, and you know it. You're the one defending the false claim that Social Security is an illegal Ponzi Scheme. The only logical policy, if you indeed believe Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, is to do away with Social Security as soon as possible. This is actually what Perry wants.

I am opposed to Perry's characterization of Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme and I have consistently opposed the logical extension of that charge (ending Social Security) because I don't believe it's even inherently flawed. I've given ample evidence and argumentation to support my position on these points.

You have not. Much or your argumentation has--strangely--been pointing out how Social Security is not like a contract or investment even though your position depends on the premise that it is somehow an contract or an investment rather than a tax-financed government social program to benefit retirees and the disabled.

 

[Lurker]

What it means is that the general population, or at least that in the class, has already rejected SS as a future income stream for them. What's left is a confiscatory tax for the benefits of others. Traditionally, one expected about 40% of retirement income to be SS, and those in the class, expect it to be way lower, maybe zero.

The people who don't think they will get SS will still get SS. Zero? Where does the payroll tax go then?

Progressive liberals do not want an honest discussion.

An honest discussion uses people's opinions as facts? Really?

 

[mhaze]

The people who don't think they will get SS will still get SS. Zero? Where does the payroll tax go then?....

Well, since the payroll tax that you and I paid is already spent, I assume the question is, where do they think the future payroll taxes will go? "They" is a general term since we refer to those in that classroom.

My guess would be some of them are doubtful because of the general spending patterns of the government, some of them think SS is something like a Ponzi scheme, some of them think it will be restricted to the truly poor, and so forth. Some of them may be very familiar with the forecast problems with the SS budget and the US budget, others not hardly at all.

The issue was and is, what is their consensus?

And it was that they didn't think they'd get a payout.

 

[Bri]

Well, since the payroll tax that you and I paid is already spent, I assume the question is, where do they think the future payroll taxes will go? "They" is a general term since we refer to those in that classroom.

You're assuming that the government will default on Social Security's Treasury bonds, which is highly unlikely. But even if it did, payroll taxes would ensure that SS could pay approximately 75% of its scheduled benefits. This graphic is from the CBO:

If you haven't read it already, this article from The Fact Checker at The Washington Post will dispel some of the myths about Social Security that you seem to be assuming as fact.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

You're assuming that the government will default on Social Security's Treasury bonds, which is highly unlikely. But even if it did,....

I'm making no assumptions whatsoever. Just speculating as to why the class raised their hands as they did.

And it's reasonable to presume they've already heard your style of propaganda and spin, and rejected it.

 

[mhaze]

....Much or your argumentation has--strangely--been pointing out how Social Security is not like a contract or investment even though your position depends on the premise that it is somehow an contract or an investment rather than a tax-financed government social program to benefit retirees and the disabled.

Actually it is certainly a contract from the viewpoint of common law, but is not explicitly laid out this way in the enabling legislation. There is murkiness, and your repetition of fuzzy warm phrases is part of the problem, not the solution.

The solution is black letter law clarifications.

 

[Bri]

And it's reasonable to presume they've already heard your style of propaganda and spin, and rejected it.

Please provide some evidence that it's "propaganda and spin." As far as I can tell, either the government will make good on its debt to Social Security or it won't. Can you think of some third possibility that would result in Social Security paying zero benefits as you claim?

-Bri

 

[Lurker]

I'm making no assumptions whatsoever. Just speculating as to why the class raised their hands as they did.

And it's reasonable to presume they've already heard your style of propaganda and spin, and rejected it.

Ok, no problem speculating. I speculate that you are incorrect in presuming that the class is familiar with the CBO report at all. Very few people hear about actual data.

 

[mhaze]

Please provide some evidence that it's "propaganda and spin." As far as I can tell, either the government will make good on its debt to Social Security or it won't. Can you think of some third possibility that would result in Social Security paying zero benefits as you claim?

-Bri

I don't see that that has any relevance to the fact that if you had been in that class, you would have been about the only one who blissfully raised his hand expecting a payout.

None of them is going to care why you thought whatever you thought.

 

[mhaze]

Ok, no problem speculating. I speculate that you are incorrect in presuming that the class is familiar with the CBO report at all. Very few people hear about actual data.

Then again, it could be that the average guy's disillusionment with the ability of government to reasonably follow through on promises was a better predictor of the government's ability to reasonably follow through on promises than the CBO report.

Wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Bri]

I don't see that that has any relevance to the fact that if you had been in that class, you would have been about the only one who blissfully raised his hand expecting a payout.

None of them is going to care why you thought whatever you thought.

Now you seem to be arguing with yourself.

You said that it's "propaganda and spin" that the SS benefits will continue.

Now you seem to be arguing the opposite, that despite the fact that SS benefits will be about 75% of their scheduled amount even if Congress does nothing, propaganda and spin from those who oppose SS have convinced people that they won't receive any benefits.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

Not my problem if you don't understand the issue, sorry.

The issue isn't the mindless prattling on about the latest talking points on SS from TM or KOS. It's why nobody in that class raised their hand when asked if they expected to get SS benefits.

That implies they've already rejected your and Joe's point of view. Doesn't do any good to argue your point of view with me. I'm not THEM.

The point I made earlier is that if it is alleged that SS is supported by public faith in the SS system, then that faith is already lost if this class's voting is representative of the greater society. That already being lost is something of a big deal. It means that your prattling - and that of Joe - over these matters is really quite irrelevant.

Or do you think you are somehow going to change their point of view back?

 

[Lurker]

I don't see that that has any relevance to the fact that if you had been in that class, you would have been about the only one who blissfully raised his hand expecting a payout.

None of them is going to care why you thought whatever you thought....

...as they receive their social security checks years later and wonder how you knew so much more than they did.

 

[Lurker]

Not my problem if you don't understand the issue, sorry.

The issue isn't the mindless prattling on about the latest talking points on SS from TM or KOS. It's why nobody in that class raised their hand when asked if they expected to get SS benefits.

That implies they've already rejected your and Joe's point of view. Doesn't do any good to argue your point of view with me. I'm not THEM.

I think we are arguing whether they have all the facts and are making their opinion based on the facts or whether they are basing their opinion on hearsay. SS has been a conservative talking point for quite some time but they seldom mention important facts such as what happens in 2036 when the trust runs out. They would prefer you and your ilk to believe that SS will be bankrupt and it won't be there for you allowing you to think you will get nothing after years of giving the SS money. Of course you and I know that is not true but the truth does not suit the conservative fearmongering narrative.

The point I made earlier is that if it is alleged that SS is supported by public faith in the SS system, then that faith is already lost if this class's voting is representative of the greater society. That already being lost is something of a big deal. It means that your prattling - and that of Joe - over these matters is really quite irrelevant.

Or do you think you are somehow going to change their point of view back?

hmm, I would imagine as people get older they might start to feel differently about the solvency of SSI, especially as they approach the age where they would receive it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The point I made earlier is that if it is alleged that SS is supported by public faith in the SS system, then that faith is already lost if this class's voting is representative of the greater society. That already being lost is something of a big deal. It means that your prattling - and that of Joe - over these matters is really quite irrelevant.

Or do you think you are somehow going to change their point of view back?

Hey, haze--please don't refer to my posts as "prattling". That is certainly not "friendly and lively" discussion.

So again, have you abandoned your defense of Perry's claim that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. The main thrust of my argument in this thread has been to soundly refute that claim.

Picking up on differences of opinion as to what the ideal way of tweaking Social Security's revenues and benefits paid out to guarantee its long term solvency does nothing to support your defense of Perry's claim.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The point I made earlier is that if it is alleged that SS is supported by public faith in the SS system,

Who alleged any such thing? I have repeatedly informed you that Social Security is supported by a tax.

The fact that public faith doesn't change the solvency of Social Security is yet another indication that it can't possibly be a Ponzi Scheme.

 

[Bri]

Not my problem if you don't understand the issue, sorry.

The issue isn't the mindless prattling on about the latest talking points on SS from TM or KOS. It's why nobody in that class raised their hand when asked if they expected to get SS benefits.

That implies they've already rejected your and Joe's point of view. Doesn't do any good to argue your point of view with me. I'm not THEM.

The point I made earlier is that if it is alleged that SS is supported by public faith in the SS system, then that faith is already lost if this class's voting is representative of the greater society. That already being lost is something of a big deal. It means that your prattling - and that of Joe - over these matters is really quite irrelevant.

Or do you think you are somehow going to change their point of view back?

Oh, here I thought we were discussing the solvency of Social Security and all along you were just discussing what some class of teenagers thinks about the solvency of Social Security. If that's what we've been discussing all this time, then I have no argument -- I completely concede with your point that teenagers don't know much about the solvency of Social Security.

Of course, using words like "mindless prattling" to describe the facts contrary to what the teenagers believe made me think that you actually have an opinion contrary to those facts. Please forgive me for thinking so!

If you want to actually discuss whether or not the teenagers are correct in their assumptions, let me know.

-Bri

 

[IchabodPlain]

Oh, here I thought we were discussing the solvency of Social Security and all along you were just discussing what some class of teenagers thinks about the solvency of Social Security. If that's what we've been discussing all this time, then I have no argument -- I completely concede with your point that teenagers don't know much about the solvency of Social Security.

Of course, using words like "mindless prattling" to describe the facts contrary to what the teenagers believe made me think that you actually have an opinion contrary to those facts. Please forgive me for thinking so!

If you want to actually discuss whether or not the teenagers are correct in their assumptions, let me know.

-Bri

Firstly, the median age of the class was older than teenagers, and given that you don't know their ages, it's probably best not to speculate on something which you have no idea. Secondly, referring to them as teenagers only really serves to discount their opinions, for which you also have no idea how they were reached. It rather makes you look foolish, IMO.

The issue isn't the mindless prattling on about the latest talking points on SS from TM or KOS. It's why nobody in that class raised their hand when asked if they expected to get SS benefits.

Well, no. The issue of the thread was whether or not SS was/is a Ponzi scheme. You've since backed away from this point, so I take it you concede. Twisting it to make it about the opinions of a class you've never been to and people who never provided reasoning is pure projection.

That implies they've already rejected your and Joe's point of view.

Again, no. They may not be aware of Joe's point(s) - you (and I, for that matter) don't know either way.

The point I made earlier is that if it is alleged that SS is supported by public faith in the SS system, then that faith is already lost if this class's voting is representative of the greater society.

It's not, and you have no idea if it's representative of the general public's point of view.

Or do you think you are somehow going to change their point of view back?

Unless they are ideologues, I would imagine facts could sway them. You know, like any other normal person not basing their position on faith. Being that they are in business, I imagine facts hold more sway.

 

[Bri]

Firstly, the median age of the class was older than teenagers, and given that you don't know their ages, it's probably best not to speculate on something which you have no idea.

Fair enough. I have no idea exactly how old they were other than they were a class and therefore probably relatively young. Does it matter how old they were?

Secondly, referring to them as teenagers only really serves to discount their opinions, for which you also have no idea how they were reached.

I discounted their opinions because they are wrong, not because of their age. I should say, if mhaze's characterization of their opinions is accurate, their opinions are wrong.

It rather makes you look foolish, IMO.

A little ironic that you think my discounting their opinion based on an (incorrect) assumption of their age makes me look foolish, and yet your opinion was based on an (incorrect) assumption that I had discounted their opinions because of their age. Does that make you look foolish, in your opinion?

-Bri