Perry no longer thinks SS is a Ponzi scheme.

[mhaze]

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

I will only when you repeat mantra style gooey fuzzy phrases with no meaning over and over like your use of the phrase "tax funded safety net".

....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.....

Doesn't matter with your attempt to prove one thing or another.

What I've said is that I'm okay with it being described that way. I'm also okay with it being described other ways.

"Ponzi scheme" is fine if we are discussing the nature of the scam.

Other terms are appropriate if we are discussing the nature of the contract, implied or explicit, and so forth.

 

[IchabodPlain]

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?

It sure doesn't - which is why I found it odd you were the only one who found it necessary to speculate on their ages.

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?

you were just discussing what some class of teenagers thinks about the solvency of Social Security

contrary to what the teenagers believe

If you want to actually discuss whether or not the teenagers are correct in their assumptions

It's quite obvious that you were using the term pejoratively, given the context of the remarks. Are you going to admit that, or would you prefer the old "I know you are, but what am I?" routine?

 

[Bri]

It sure doesn't - which is why I found it odd you were the only one who found it necessary to speculate on their ages.

...

It's quite obvious that you were using the term pejoratively, given the context of the remarks. Are you going to admit that, or would you prefer the old "I know you are, but what am I?" routine?

I incorrectly assumed they were teenagers. If you substitute "the class of college students" for "the class of teenagers" what I said would still make sense, so no my use of the term "teenagers" wasn't meant to be pejorative.

I admitted that I was wrong in assuming they were teenagers. Are you going to admit you were wrong in assuming that I referred to them as teenagers only to discount their opinions?

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I will only when you repeat mantra style gooey fuzzy phrases with no meaning over and over like your use of the phrase "tax funded safety net".

And I've already explained how that is an accurate description of Social Security--and how your treatment of Social Security as an IRA is inaccurate. There's nothing "gooey fuzzy" about these phrases. Social Security is in fact a tax funded government social program.

Doesn't matter with your attempt to prove one thing or another.

What? You either have or have not abandoned your defense of Perry's claim that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.

What I've said is that I'm okay with it being described that way.

Does that mean you agree with it?

"Ponzi scheme" is fine if we are discussing the nature of the scam.

But Social Security is not a scam. It's a government program that was established the normal way: by acts of Congress signed into law by various presidents.

Other terms are appropriate if we are discussing the nature of the contract, implied or explicit, and so forth.

But we're not discussing any contract. Social Security is not a contract--implied or explicit. Those words have specific meaning in contract law, and they do not apply to Social Security.
ETA: For example, a couple of key elements of a contract are offer and acceptance. These are not involved in Social Security. Just as with your attempts to portray "participation" in Social Security as similar to an investment, it fails. The tax is not voluntary. There is no offer and acceptance involved.

 

[IchabodPlain]

I incorrectly assumed they were teenagers. If you substitute "the class of college students" for "the class of teenagers" what I said would still make sense

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

no my use of the term "teenagers" wasn't meant to be pejorative.

Your post speaks for itself.

 

[Bri]

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

Sure it does. You said that I chose "teenagers" instead of "college students" specifically in order to discount their opinions. If that were the case, correcting the phrase should make it more difficult to discount their opinions. Yet I clearly discounted their opinions in a prior post not on their age, but on the facts.

The fact is that I incorrectly thought the class in question was a high school level class rather than a college level class. Please substitute "college students" for "teenagers" if you like -- the point of my post remains the same.

I admitted my mistake, now you should admit yours.

-Bri

 

[Drachasor]

"Ponzi scheme" is fine if we are discussing the nature of the scam.

It's fine for same scams. Since SS is not a scam nor the above particular scam, using it is intellectually dishonest.

If you don't like social security and think it should be done away with, that's your right to think. Backing spurious charges is not necessary.

 

[mhaze]

It's fine for same scams. Since SS is not a scam nor the above particular scam, using it is intellectually dishonest.

If you don't like social security and think it should be done away with, that's your right to think. Backing spurious charges is not necessary.

Your OPINIONS noted.

I'm sure the good people in Russia were told many similar things before they lost their pensions in 1992. As were the people in Argentina who had their private pensions seized. Or those in Venezuela. Or those in the Weimer Republic who found that although they got their dole, it was worth nothing. Same for all the people who suffered through the hyperinflation in Brazil two decades ago.

You of course could claim these people were not scammed. That is a valid point of view. My point of view is that they were, you see.

 

[Lurker]

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.

I would imagine there are people approaching retirement right now that predicted 30 years ago that SS would not be there for them.

Seems they were wrong back then just as the ones predicting SS's demise will most likely be wrong as well.

 

[Lurker]

Your OPINIONS noted.

I'm sure the good people in Russia were told many similar things before they lost their pensions in 1992.

I am not familiar with the specifics of the other data you brought up but this one I found rather interesting to cite.

May I ask what was going on in Russia late 1991 and early 1992 that may have had an impact on pensions?

So on a lark, I decided to actually investigate this claim of lost pensions in 1992. I found this resource: http://countrystudies.us/russia/54.htm

Funny, I did not see anything in their discussion on pensions that mentioned wholesale losses of pensions as you clearly state (bolded above). I find where Russia had trouble with inflation between 1991 and 1993 as their buying power was cut in half (this is more of an inflation problem than a pension problem). Note, nothing was said about pensions being lost.

Russia worked to correct the problem with pensions and indexing them to inflation over the next few years. Success is of course debateable.

Anyway, it is plain that pensions were not "lost" as you say.

I wonder what I might find if I investigate some of the other "facts" you cite about Social Security failures?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your OPINIONS noted.

I'm sure the good people in Russia were told many similar things before they lost their pensions in 1992. As were the people in Argentina who had their private pensions seized. Or those in Venezuela. Or those in the Weimer Republic who found that although they got their dole, it was worth nothing. Same for all the people who suffered through the hyperinflation in Brazil two decades ago.

You of course could claim these people were not scammed. That is a valid point of view. My point of view is that they were, you see.

We're talking about Social Security here in the U.S., not anything about Venezuela or Russia or Brazil.

Nothing about those countries supports the false statement that Social Security is a scam or a Ponzi Scheme.

Again, Social Security is the result of legislation passed in the usual way. You're certainly entitled to go around claiming it's a scam, but you're not entitled to have anyone treat that claim as valid since you've failed utterly to substantiate it at all.

 

[Bri]

You of course could claim these people were not scammed. That is a valid point of view. My point of view is that they were, you see.

A scam usually implies someone intentionally keeping someone else's money without any intention of paying them what they are owed.

By your definition, every company in the world is a "scam" because it could potentially go bankrupt without paying its debtors, no matter how unlikely that event might be.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

And I've already explained how that is an accurate description of Social Security--and how your treatment of Social Security as an IRA is inaccurate. There's nothing "gooey fuzzy" about these phrases. Social Security is in fact a tax funded government social program. .....

Numerous of the articles in 1934 describing the Social Security proposals use the phrase "insurance" in reference to the program. None of them refer to it with your gooey and fuzzy phrases.