Perry no longer thinks SS is a Ponzi scheme.

[sarge]

Well, given that you are now comparing social security to private investment as though they are competing services, er, no.

I did no such thing. You are making crap up again.

Let's not get confused about who pays the social security tax, now. The entirety of the tax is borne by the employee:

The employer pays half the tax. Do you honestly believe that if Social Security were to simply disapear tonight that the employers would all increase the income of the employees by 7%?

Of course not - and that means that while paying the cost of the employers portion of social security is a cost of labor, it is not part of an employees salary.

What do you mean its unlikely that the wage would increase 7%? The wage doesn't have to increase at all, it just has to not be automatically reduced by taking from it. And the number is 14%.

No, the number is 7% - the employers would not increase the employees salary by the employers portion of Social Security taxes.

So that's her own negligence. It is not the result of an inability to pay, it is merely the result of not wanting to pay. The many shouldn't be punished to rectify and enforce the mistakes of the few. That makes no sense whatsoever.

It is some part poor choice and some part inability - but you are confused about where the majority of Americans rest. The majority of Americans would not contribute 15% more of their wages to their retirement accounts if Social Security were to disappear - especially as their take home pay would only be about 5% greater than it is now.

And, of course, as you have already learned, the amount freed up to be invested privately would indeed be 14% through higher wages.

No, it would not. It would be about 5% - as the money not paid to Social Security taxes would itself be subject to taxes. An employee not paying his share of Social Security taxes would take home about 5% more than he does now, and would forfeit 9% of "his" salary that is currently going to Social Security. His employer would keep almost 7%, and his income tax would take the rest.

It is merely a trick of accounting to think that the employer bears the cost of the additional tax - one side is taken transparently and is written on the employees paycheck, and the employers side is in his books in the form of lower wages for the employee.

Nope. It is smoke and mirrors on the part of social security opponents to claim that an employer, suddenly free of the burden of shipping 6.2% of his labor expenses off to the goverment, would simply give it to his employees.

This point boils down to why we believe that people's investments were made insolvent. You think its because of animal spirits,

I have expressed no opinion on the source of losses individual investors suffered in their retirement accounts. You could not possibly know my opinion on the subject. You are making crap up again.

I think its because of government policy that creates malinvestment and moral hazards. As such, I believe the solution is to remove the policy that creates this drama and allow investments to be sound, rather than supplement the problem with the inefficient band-aid of social security.

Do you often divert discussions in this way?

 

[johnny karate]

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.

The quote appears on page 171, under "Chapter 10: Retaking the Reins of Government: Freedom and Federalism for the Future".

I assume your apology and concession are forthcoming.

 

[lomiller]

Again, Social Security has always paid out benefits from taxes collected. The very first month Social Security taxes were collected in 1937, benefit checks went out in the same month. If it weren't "redistributionist", then it would mean they just sent checks back to the taxpayers in the exact same amount as the taxes they paid in, but of course, that's not how it happened.

It has never been a forced IRA. It has always been a tax-payer financed safety net for retirees (and later, for the disabled too).

That’s an important point because it means SS can’t “go bankrupt” The worst that could ever happen is SS payouts would have to decrease to match what’s being paid in. Mhaze himself has been the one banging the drum that SS doesn’t actually have an absolute commitment to payout levels so we already know this isn’t impossible for them to do.

The real threat to SS are the people promising you will no longer have to pay into it, because in this case it really could collapse and not be able to provide SS payouts.

 

[mhaze]

The quote appears on page 171, under "Chapter 10: Retaking the Reins of Government: Freedom and Federalism for the Future".

I assume your apology and concession are forthcoming.

In reference to WHAT?

Not what he "prefers".

But simply in reference to what he "sees as characteristic" of America in the year 2026.

 

[mhaze]

That’s an important point because it means SS can’t “go bankrupt” The worst that could ever happen is SS payouts would have to decrease to match what’s being paid in. Mhaze himself has been the one banging the drum that SS doesn’t actually have an absolute commitment to payout levels so we already know this isn’t impossible for them to do.

The real threat to SS are the people promising you will no longer have to pay into it, because in this case it really could collapse and not be able to provide SS payouts.

No, that's completely wrong. SS is already equal to about 3/4 of total government receipts from 1040 revenue.

If someone opted out, the government still got all of their SS payments, and the employers, up until the point where they opted out. Without having to pay them a dime back. Pretty good deal for the government.

IF a state opted out, the SSA would simply recompute the amounts needed and inform Congress of that. Just like what the Post Office is doing. If as you say, it "would collapse", that only indicates what a weak system it is, not what a strong system it is.

 

[johnny karate]

In reference to WHAT?

Not what he "prefers".

But simply in reference to what he "sees as characteristic" of America in the year 2026.

Rick Perry makes it quite clear he'd like to see a retirement system that "will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement", thus effectively dismantling the current system.

You claimed he didn't say that, and you further claimed that quote wasn't even in his book. You were proven wrong on both points.

It would be nice to see you at least admit your errors before falling back into your routine of knee-jerk partisan sophistry.

 

[RandFan]

Rick Perry makes it quite clear he'd like to see a retirement system that "will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement", thus effectively dismantling the current system.

You claimed he didn't say that, and you further claimed that quote wasn't even in his book. You were proven wrong on both points.

It would be nice to see you at least admit your errors before falling back into your routine of knee-jerk partisan sophistry.

Won't happen.

• Rick Perry did make that claim.
• It was denied.
• Proof was provided by you.

That's the best you can expect. We know the truth. But by all means make the facts known as much as possible. The best disinfectant for mendacity is the light of day.

 

[mhaze]

First, you argued that Perry's views were changing.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7575078&postcount=80

Rick Perry makes it quite clear he'd like to see a retirement system that "will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement", thus effectively dismantling the current system.

You claimed he didn't say that, and you further claimed that quote wasn't even in his book. You were proven wrong on both points.

It would be nice to see you at least admit your errors before falling back into your routine of knee-jerk partisan sophistry.

Then you argued (in bold), focusing on the second part of an assertion spread through the media. Previously you'd argued the entirety of that assertion was "in the book".

But that's really just plain stupid. Let's go back and look at your claim in #80. It was that "this statement was true because a reporter said it and lots of other reporters repeated what he said".

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.”​

I gave you a hint of the problem:

...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.​

But you didn't get it. So here we go:

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.”

Your reporter starts by asserting that Perry would like something OTHER THAN A RETIREMENT SYSTEM NOT LIKE A PONZI SCHEME.

You stood on the shoulders of a claim by gibbering idiots, and proudly defended it.

Which is why it was so easy to say "It's not in the book, dude".



So looks like you've made up a conclusion, attributed it to Perry, mis stated his opinions, then mis stated them a second time, threw a bunch of mud around, insulted people, and yet got nowhere.

And so castles made of sand slips into the sea...

 

[johnny karate]

More sophistry and word salad from a Perry apologist.

There was no paraphrasing. Those quotes are in his book. You were wrong when you said they weren't. The way you so quickly backed down from my wager is proof enough that not even you are buying your nonsense.

Rick Perry quite clearly and demonstrably has changed his position on Social Security.

In his book, he stated he wanted to see it replaced with a new type of retirement system. Now he says he wants to reform the current system.

I have provided Perry's own words as evidence of this claim.

You have rebutted with nothing more than denials and rationalizations born of partisan zealotry.

 

[mhaze]

More sophistry and word salad from a Perry apologist.

There was no paraphrasing. Those quotes are in his book. .....

Really? Where?

Instead of “a retirement system that is no longer set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme,”...

 

[johnny karate]

Page 171. Same as the other quote.

 

[mhaze]

Page 171. Same as the other quote.

So are you claiming now that the guy who jumbled two things together making a nonsensical 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.”

...was the reporter, and not Perry? Because we agree that Perry is very clear about what he thinks about SS. I've posted three long quotes on his ideas on that.

The discussion between me and you is on your claim that the reporter's take on Perry is authentic. I guess and secondly, whether you can somehow trump actual paragraphs from Perry's book with the assertion from the reporter above ... and your interpretation of it ...

 

[RandFan]

So are you claiming now that the guy who jumbled two things together making a nonsensical 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.”

...was the reporter, and not Perry? Because we agree that Perry is very clear about what he thinks about SS. I've posted three long quotes on his ideas on that.

The discussion between me and you is on your claim that the reporter's take on Perry is authentic. I guess and secondly, whether you can somehow trump actual paragraphs from Perry's book with the assertion from the reporter above ... and your interpretation of it ...

Slippery. You would think it wouldn't be this hard.

 

[johnny karate]

So are you claiming now that the guy who jumbled two things together making a nonsensical 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.”

...was the reporter, and not Perry? Because we agree that Perry is very clear about what he thinks about SS. I've posted three long quotes on his ideas on that.

The discussion between me and you is on your claim that the reporter's take on Perry is authentic. I guess and secondly, whether you can somehow trump actual paragraphs from Perry's book with the assertion from the reporter above ... and your interpretation of it ...

As my weasel-word to English translator isn't working, I honestly haven't any idea what you're trying to argue anymore.

You claimed the quotes weren't in the book. You were proven wrong. (An error, by the way, that you haven't quite mustered the integrity to admit).

Now you want to... what? Argue that the quotes don't mean what they clearly mean?

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

 

[RandFan]

As my weasel-word to English translator isn't working, I honestly haven't any idea what you're trying to argue anymore.

You claimed the quotes weren't in the book. You were proven wrong. (An error, by the way, that you haven't quite mustered the integrity to admit).

Now you want to... what? Argue that the quotes don't mean what they clearly mean?

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

mhaze, ego, ain't it a bitch?

 

[mhaze]

As my weasel-word to English translator isn't working, I honestly haven't any idea what you're trying to argue anymore.

You claimed the quotes weren't in the book. You were proven wrong. (An error, by the way, that you haven't quite mustered the integrity to admit).

Now you want to... what? Argue that the quotes don't mean what they clearly mean?

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

Ah, we're down to adhoms now. Splendid.

The following statement reads that Perry DOES want a retirement system like a Ponzi scheme.

Instead of “a retirement system that is no longer set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme,” he wrote

The following read sthat Perry does not want a retirement system like a Ponzi scheme.

, he would prefer a system that “will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement.”


You are arguing for nonsense.

No adhominem needed....

 

[johnny karate]

Ah, we're down to adhoms now. Splendid.

You clearly have no idea what an ad hominem argument actually is. Hint: It's not just when someone says something you don't like.

And unfortunately for you, sometimes you're going to hear things you don't like when you engage in demonstrably dishonest behavior.

The following statement reads that Perry DOES want a retirement system like a Ponzi scheme.

Instead of “a retirement system that is no longer set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme,” he wrote

No, that statement reads like what it's actually saying: That Perry thinks the current retirement system - which he repeatedly describes as a "Ponzi scheme"- should be abolished.

The following read sthat Perry does not want a retirement system like a Ponzi scheme.

, he would prefer a system that “will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement.”

Exactly. Perry said he wants to replace the old system with a new one.

Now he's saying we should reform the old one. Thus my claim that Perry has changed his position on the issue is proven correct.

You are arguing for nonsense.

Actually, I'm arguing against it.

 

[Puppycow]

Perry says the 'P' word again.

Also, is Coca-Cola endorsing Perry, or is it just a coincidence that he's standing in front of a Coca-Cola logo as he says this?

 

[mhaze]

The following statement reads that Perry DOES want a retirement system like a Ponzi scheme.

Instead of “a retirement system that is no longer set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme,” he wrote

....No, that statement reads like what it's actually saying: That Perry thinks the current retirement system - which he repeatedly describes as a "Ponzi scheme"- should be abolished.....

No, actually it does not say that. I'll help you out one more time. I'll write the sentence that you THINK is above.

Instead of "a retirement system that is set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme" he wrote

.......

 

[thaiboxerken]

COrrect. He wants to change SS to something totally different.... in other words, abolish it.