Perry no longer thinks SS is a Ponzi scheme.

[mhaze]

Or it might be because it's a glib and inaccurate description of Social Security that a certain Republican candidate used as a scare tactic, but is now running away from as fast as he can.

It's hilarious you keep using the Rick Perry "honest discussion" quote, considering that he can't seem to remain consistent on any issue for longer than it takes to read the most recent poll numbers.

Tell your hero he needs to first figure out what discussion he wants to have before we can determine how "honest" it is. Does he want to dismantle Social Security or does he want to reform it? I guess it depends on what day of the week you ask him.

For you, an honest discussion would be to start with what the guy actually said, then figure if you agree, disagree or are indifferent to that. On that subject, I've posted pretty much all about it that was in the book, which wasn't a lot.

 

[johnny karate]

For you, an honest discussion would be to start with what the guy actually said, then figure if you agree, disagree or are indifferent to that. On that subject, I've posted pretty much all about it that was in the book, which wasn't a lot.

He did say it. I've provided evidence that he said it. All you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and pretend there's some bizarre media-wide conspiracy to attribute false quotes to Rick Perry.

 

[corbin]

Social Security is only to protect the stupid people from themselves, correct?

My thinking is that because myself and other smart people could surely provide for themselves better retirement income than that provided by social security if we were allowed to keep the money that we now pay into social security and invest it as we saw fit, then social security is meant to protect those who were negligent in their finances. Social security is not protecting people who don't have the ability to create a retirement account, as the money used to create their retirement account is taken right out of their paycheck, i.e. what they already earn. Social security is protecting those who don't save not for a lack of ability, but for lack of financial prudence.

My question, then, is why do we punish the many with the imposition of mandatory, necessarily inferior retirement accounts to compensate for the negligent financial practices of the few? Besides this being bad as a matter of overall utility and as an undesirable centralization of economic power, doesn't this also encourage poor personal financial practices and discourage saving?

Also, what is done with the money taken out of the paychecks? Is it immediately given to the recipients, or is it invested? I suspect it is not invested, when the saving made by a person voluntarily saving for a personal retirement account IS, on the other hand, invested, and thus contributory to the nation's overall loanable funds, thereby leading to capital growth, and thus higher standards of living for all. What if the money is indeed invested by government bureaucrats? I dare say this is even worse than not investing the money at all, as the actions of bureaucracy has shown itself to be beholden to elite interests and invariably leads to the centralization of economic power through favoritism.

The idea of being swaddled in a cocoon of a [perceived] government safety net is, to some, preferable over individual responsibility and sovereign citizenship. There is a bit of psychology behind this idea, I think, as in most political issues. People, myself included, almost never develop their world view based on a sober and unbiased look at the facts. People believe many actions of government are good simply because of the fact that these actions exist on such a large scale and they can't believe, through the magic of trust in smart people and the eternal benevolence of representative government, that any such prolific thing could be so, so wrong.

 

[mhaze]

He did say it. I've provided evidence that he said it. All you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and pretend there's some bizarre media-wide conspiracy to attribute false quotes to Rick Perry.

BS. Start using critical thinking skills. The problem is inside your head.

For example.

• Another person might look at this and say "Well, I wonder if there might be different EDITIONS of the book".
  
• Yes another would say "Well, I'll just ask him to post the index entry for SS, and all the referenced pages".
  
• And someone might think, "well, some reporter paraphrased, and it got repeated, although erroneous"

It's your problem, not mine, to think of these things, or to not think, critically or otherwise.

I'm just some guy that said (earlier in the thread) that I'd report on what the book said when my copy came in.

 

[RandFan]

Social Security is only to protect the stupid people from themselves, correct?

Myself and other smart people could surely provide for themselves better retirement income than that provided by social security if we were allowed to keep the money that we now pay into social security and invest it as we saw fit.

And screw the stupid people... or people who are laid off then become disabled.

Oh, and about the stock market melt down? My mother sold her home for what she paid for it after 30 years and lost much of the value of her retirement when the market crashed and it's basically the same as it was 10 years ago. End story though my father saved and invested wisely she was forced to move in with my sister. Riiiiiight.

Just claim things and they are true.

 

[RandFan]

I'm just some guy that said (earlier in the thread) that I'd report on what the book said when my copy came in.

And Perry is running away from the book.

 

[sarge]

Social Security is only to protect the stupid people from themselves, correct?

No.

Myself and other smart people could surely provide for themselves better retirement income than that provided by social security if we were allowed to keep the money that we now pay into social security and invest it as we saw fit.

I am intelligent, in the top 5% of American wage earners, and enjoy as secure a pension future as anyone possibly can. Not paying SS taxes on the portion of my income that is subject to SS taxes would not significantly impact my future retirement. Not that it matters, of course, as SS is not intended to be an individual retirement account. You might as well argue that paying income taxes reduces your funds available for investing. True, but irrelevant.

 

[mhaze]

Social Security is only to protect the stupid people from themselves, correct?

Myself and other smart people could surely provide for themselves better retirement income than that provided by social security if we were allowed to keep the money that we now pay into social security and invest it as we saw fit.

One of Perry's suggestions is to allow states to opt out, and form a plan of their own as they see fit. This has some advantages, but I doubt you'd see all the smart people go to that state.

They are already in Texas, and I don't think they are leaving.

 

[mhaze]

....SS is not intended to be an individual retirement account. ....

Really? I think you could walk down the street and find a majority of people who thought that they were going to retire strictly on SS.

 

[corbin]

How is it not a retirement account? You pay in with the expectation of future pay out.

It is not a redistribution program whereby the payers are different people from the recipients.

The payers and the recipients are the exact same group of people. This is patently obvious from the fact that nearly everybody pays in, and nearly everybody receives the payout, or at least the promise of a payout.

Just because the money is shuffled around a bit doesn't mean that the two groups aren't the same. It is a retirement account provided by the public sector... pretty soon you will be saying ridiculous things like its not a Ponzi scheme.

 

[johnny karate]

BS. Start using critical thinking skills. The problem is inside your head.

For example.

• Another person might look at this and say "Well, I wonder if there might be different EDITIONS of the book".
• Yes another would say "Well, I'll just ask him to post the index entry for SS, and all the referenced pages".
• And someone might think, "well, some reporter paraphrased, and it got repeated, although erroneous"

It's your problem, not mine, to think of these things, or to not think, critically or otherwise.

I'm just some guy that said (earlier in the thread) that I'd report on what the book said when my copy came in.

I'm tired of going round and round with you on this, so let's make it interesting. I propose a wager.

It is my contention that in "Fed Up!", Rick Perry advocates for a replacement of the current Social Security system that "will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement", with the portion in quotation marks being an exact quote from the book.

If I can verify that quote is in the book within 24 hours, I win. If I fail, you win. The winner gets to pick any avatar of their choosing (within the guidelines of forum rules) that the loser must keep for 30 days. Furthermore, the loser can put nothing in their profile to disavow or contradict what appears in the avatar.

Do we have a bet?

 

[mhaze]

I'm tired of going round and round with you on this, so let's make it interesting. I propose a wager.

It is my contention that in "Fed Up!", Rick Perry advocates for a replacement of the current Social Security system that "will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement", with the portion in quotation marks being an exact quote from the book.

If I can verify that quote is in the book within 24 hours, I win. If I fail, you win. The winner gets to pick any avatar of their choosing (within the guidelines of forum rules) that the loser must keep for 30 days. Furthermore, the loser can put nothing in their profile to disavow or contradict what appears in the avatar.

Do we have a bet?

No, I've already SUGGESTED that you go out yourself and get the book, or otherwise reference source material, and substantiate your claim. And yeah, you may be going around and around, but I'm not moving. Because I can't. I looked through the book, and simply didn't find that stuff.

Which was....

Originally Posted by The Washington Journal
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.”

Two quotes linked together as a coherent statement. For reasons unknown, you've now reduced that to one of the two?

Just curious,

why?

<<I suspect, but really am not sure, that this will lead into how exactly, the media sources are lying and misrepresenting what Perry said. Actually I really don't care, but that's another matter. The guy said what he said. The book's IN PRINT>>

 

[RandFan]

I'm tired of going round and round with you on this, so let's make it interesting. I propose a wager.

It is my contention that in "Fed Up!", Rick Perry advocates for a replacement of the current Social Security system that "will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement", with the portion in quotation marks being an exact quote from the book.

If I can verify that quote is in the book within 24 hours, I win. If I fail, you win. The winner gets to pick any avatar of their choosing (within the guidelines of forum rules) that the loser must keep for 30 days. Furthermore, the loser can put nothing in their profile to disavow or contradict what appears in the avatar.

Do we have a bet?

No,

Can you smell the lack of confidence?

 

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by The Washington Journal
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.”

Two quotes linked together as a coherent statement. For reasons unknown, you've now reduced that to one of the two?

Just curious,

why?

Because the point of contention is whether or not Perry advocates dismantling the current Social Security system (as clearly and fairly outlined in my previous post). That he describes it as a Ponzi scheme is accepted, and irrelevant to the issue.

No, I've already SUGGESTED that you go out yourself and get the book, or otherwise reference source material, and substantiate your claim. And yeah, you may be going around and around, but I'm not moving. Because I can't. I looked through the book, and simply didn't find that stuff.

This measured response is quite a walk-back from your previous mocking bravado:

BWHAHAHAHA!!

HAHAHA


heheheh

hHAHAHAHAHH!

chucklechucklechuckle

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

It AIN'T tHERE, DUDE!

Such backpedaling reminds me of the way Rick Perry handles himself when confronted with statements he's made that he no longer finds politically expedient.

I guess that's just how they do things down in Texas.

 

[mhaze]

Frankly I don't know why you keep chattering about it. Wrong approach. Here's the way. Go to the bookstore, grab the book, head over to the side and order a grande latte. Check out the chicks (or guys). Have fun. Out of 2 hours lounging, take about 10 minutes to look for the quotes.

 

[RandFan]

Frankly I don't know why you keep chattering about it. Wrong approach. Here's the way. Go to the bookstore, grab the book, head over to the side and order a grande latte. Check out the chicks (or guys). Have fun. Out of 2 hours lounging, take about 10 minutes to look for the quotes.

Confidence?

 

[sarge]

Really? I think you could walk down the street and find a majority of people who thought that they were going to retire strictly on SS.

No, I would find that the majority of people actually believe that SS will cease to exist before they get to take advantage of it, and that every single person I talked to has a defined benefits plan AND an actual individual retirement vehicle (TSP or 401k). That some people choose to use Social Security as their only retirement vehicle does not mean that is how Solcial Secuirty was intended to be used.

For the rest of America, Social Security exists because they have neither a defined benefits plan nor a defined contributions plan.

Really, you are making this up as you go, aren't you?

 

[sarge]

How is it not a retirement account? You pay in with the expectation of future pay out.

It is not a retirement account because you do not pay in with an expectation that your contributions will grow, you do not make voluntary contributions, you can not influence how the contributions are invested, and you have no reasonable expectation that you will receive any defined benefit from the contributions. The only similarity between an individual retirement account and SS is that you may benefit from both when you actually retire. By your logic, Medicare is also a "retirement" account.

It is not a redistribution program whereby the payers are different people from the recipients.

Okay - now I get it. Things are what you say they are because you get to re-define the words. Cool superpower you have there.

SS is clearly a redistribution program. Relatively well off persons contribute more than they receive and poor people get more than they pay. Really wealthy persons get less than they pay, but pay too little to start with.

pretty soon you will be saying ridiculous things like its not a Ponzi scheme.

Do you consider everything you fail to understand to be ridiculous?

 

[mhaze]

....SS is clearly a redistribution program. Relatively well off persons contribute more than they receive and poor people get more than they pay. Really wealthy persons get less than they pay, but pay too little to start with......

I crossed out the part that represented YOUR OPINION.

It's more a redistribution plan because it rewards equally people who work for 10 years or 40 years, than by looking at "rich vs poor".

And the capping of the income at which SS is taxed is done because of a corresponding cap on maximum benefits. Those are near 50,000 per year incidentally.

There also is "means testing" in the current law. For example, wages received after SS starts result in a 50% reduction in SS benefits.

 

[Lurker]

And there is the expectation of returns in certain amounts, but there is no obligation of the government to provide them in any amount whatsoever.

Your argument might have more validity if we did not have 80 years of data showing the government living up to its obligation in SS.