Perry no longer thinks SS is a Ponzi scheme.

[JoeTheJuggler]

At the moment it is most unlikely. In nearly 11 years the DJI hasn't moved up much. I gave you the example of my mother. The banking scandal and meltdown of the stock market forced her from her home and into my sister's. If it weren't for SS she'd have little of anything. It amazes me that after the events of the past 10 years people can even ask such a question. Let me say it again.

No.

And the question assumes incorrectly that Social Security is a forced IRA or retirement investment of some kind. It's not.

As I've mentioned at least a couple of times, back in 1937, the first month Social Security taxes were collected, Social Security benefit checks were sent out. If the money collected were invested into the stock market to be reserved exclusively for the benefit of the people who paid in those taxes, the system would have failed to do what it was legally required to do.

 

[Robrob]

In 2000, after eight years of record breaking stock gains during the Clinton administration, Republicans all wanted to put SS into the stock market.

Strangely enough, there hasn't been much mention of this plan in the ten years since.

Now Perry wants to "reinvent" SS?

Why do I not trust him?

 

[mhaze]

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

Abolish WHAT? The receipt of retirement income with a certain level of assurance?
The level of uncertainty somewhat might have regarding retirement income?

 

[johnny karate]

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, 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

.......

What you're arguing against is the way The Wall Street Journal framed the quotes (which I'll admit was grammatically clumsy) not with the quotes themselves.

The full quote from the book is as follows:

There will be a retirement system that is no longer set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme, but rather will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement.

Pretty clear cut. Rick Perry advocated for the replacement of Social Security with a new system. Now he's walked that position back to merely calling for Social Security to be reformed. I can hardly what to see what his position will be next week.

 

[Puppycow]

[Perry] would prefer a system that “will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement.”

Sounds like he wants to get rid of SS to me.

Here's my question for people who agree with this view:

What happens to the people who "own and control their own retirement" but make bad (or unlucky) investment decisions, or who have their savings wiped out by some unforeseen disaster? Do they have to go live under a bridge somewhere, in their 70s or 80s?

 

[mhaze]

What you're arguing against is the way The Wall Street Journal framed the quotes (which I'll admit was grammatically clumsy) not with the quotes themselves......

Grammatically clumsy does not cut it, it is simply WRONG. It's not what Perry said. Two quotes are stuck together into a sentence and then mean something different (or mean nothing). Now you see why we've been arguing for what, 5 pages?



Also you see that an anonymous Internet poster has debunked a claim that was spread widely through the media regarding Perry's stand on an issue. Always go for the original source and fact check.

 

[johnny karate]

Now you see why we've been arguing for what, 5 pages?

No... that's not what we've been arguing. At all.

This is:

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.

And to make it a little clearer for you:

He said in his book he'd like to see a new system put in place.

No, that is not what the book says.

He said in his book he'd like to see a new system put in place.

No, that is not what the book says.

He said in his book he'd like to see a new system put in place.

No, that is not what the book says.

It might be fun to make up crap on the fly to pretend you won an imaginary argument that no one was having. But here in reality - the place where people can scroll back and look at your previous posts - you lost the actual argument in quite spectacular fashion.

 

[lomiller]

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.

Can you try re-writing that in English please?

You are supposed to be addressing the point that SS payments are made from SS deductions applied to peoples pay checks and therefore SS payments can never drop below this level and it can never “go bankrupt” short of no longer collecting SS deductions from peoples checks.

 

[mhaze]

No... that's not what we've been arguing. At all.

This is:

And to make it a little clearer for you:
......

What I understand is that I quoted in this thread, the entire content of sections where Perry talked about his ideas concerning SS, you ignored them, and kept insisting a quote from some reporter was "right". You really never "got it" until I rubbed your nose it the idiocy that reporter wrong, word by word.

If you want to take the actual paragraphs from the book about SS and discuss them, feel free to. I'm sure you can work on your "anti-Perry narrative" just fine with his actual words. Think about it a bit.

Are YOU going to make a total dumbass mistake like that reporter did?

I think NOT. So you can take his actual ideas, argue against them, no problem. No need to repeat others or make things up.

 

[johnny karate]

What I understand is that I quoted in this thread, the entire content of sections where Perry talked about his ideas concerning SS, you ignored them, and kept insisting a quote from some reporter was "right". You really never "got it" until I rubbed your nose it the idiocy that reporter wrong, word by word.

The quotes are right. They're in the book.

Once more from the top:

He said in his book he'd like to see a new system put in place.

No, that is not what the book says.

Is there any part of this - the actual argument we were having - you'd like to deny or defend?

 

[mhaze]

The quotes are right. They're in the book.

Once more from the top:


Is there any part of this - the actual argument we were having - you'd like to deny or defend?

You mean your "summary" of the gist of the WSJ article, which I responded to not with my opinion, but with Perry's words?

Tell ya what, dude. You post the entirety of Perry's "vision statement" concerning SS from pp. 171. That'd be lines 17-26.

Let's see what he envisions it being like in 2026.

 

[johnny karate]

You mean your "summary" of the gist of the WSJ article, which I responded to not with my opinion, but with Perry's words?

No, this one:

He said in his book he'd like to see a new system put in place.

No, that is not what the book says.

Tell ya what, dude. You post the entirety of Perry's "vision statement" concerning SS from pp. 171. That'd be lines 17-26.

Or here's another idea: If you have a point to make, do your own legwork to make it.

I've already provided the entirety of the relevant quote upthread. It's meaning is clear.

You claimed Perry didn't say what he said, and you further claimed the quotes I provided of him saying it did not appear in his book.

You were proven wrong on both counts.

 

[mhaze]

....It's meaning is clear. .....

Oh yeah? That's the item to which I noted:

Grammatically clumsy does not cut it, it is simply WRONG. It's not what Perry said. Two quotes are stuck together into a sentence and then mean something different (or mean nothing). Now you see why we've been arguing for what, 5 pages?

Don't you have something better to do than this drivel?

 

[johnny karate]

Oh yeah? That's the item to which I noted:

Grammatically clumsy does not cut it, it is simply WRONG. It's not what Perry said. Two quotes are stuck together into a sentence and then mean something different (or mean nothing). Now you see why we've been arguing for what, 5 pages?

Which is why I derive the meaning of Perry's words from his actual quote, and not The Wall Street Journal.

Don't you have something better to do than this drivel?

Says the guy actively participating in this same "drivel".

 

[mhaze]

But you don't want to actually discuss what Perry says on page 171 or anywhere else, you just want to spout over and over the latest rambling version of your preconceived opinion.

No facts needed!

 

[johnny karate]

But you don't want to actually discuss what Perry says on page 171 or anywhere else, you just want to spout over and over the latest rambling version of your preconceived opinion.

No facts needed!

You mean other than the direct and full quote I provided from Perry's book upon which I've based my entire argument?

Yeah, right. No facts at all.

 

[mhaze]

Sounds like he wants to get rid of SS to me.

Here's my question for people who agree with this view:

What happens to the people who "own and control their own retirement" but make bad (or unlucky) investment decisions, or who have their savings wiped out by some unforeseen disaster? Do they have to go live under a bridge somewhere, in their 70s or 80s?

Perry said repeatedly that it's about time we have "an honest discussion" about SS and retirement. Wouldn't your question, as well as others, be part of such a thing?

I can't think of anyone who would think that risk with the private options should not be discussed. But I also think a part of the discussion would be risks with the public scheme. We know that the public schemes essentially cheated the populations of Russia, Argentina, Venezuela, and numerous other countries mentioned earlier in this thread.

And the possibility of that happening in the US is quite real, and can't be shouted down or misdirected into nuances of words (eg Ponzi).

Another issue (note JoetheJuggler's 241) is that SS is not a "forced IRA". No, it isn't, and there's not contractual obligation of the government to pay. But that means that people really don't know what they will get. To a lot of people, that's unsatisfactory. Some of those have the ability to set aside separate IRAs or 401ks, some don't. But what's the payout? One of the easier ways to save a buck with SS is just to not pay it out to people with a certain amount of savings or IRAs.

But those are the people who planned for their retirement, and who planned for a certain part of it from the IRA, plus a certain part from SS. Other people are going to rely strictly on SS, and still others do not meet the 40 quarters of work requirement for SS, and thus do not qualify.

There are many, many variations, but you get the idea.

It's just hard to see anything wrong with that "honest discussion". Note the word "honest". Perry thinks, and I agree (if it isn't transparently obvious) that much of the discussion has not been honest, because of the way the politicians cater to voters.

 

[Oliver]

I don't think anyone here is claiming this is a ground-swell for Cain, I know I'm not and I'm the OP writer. It's a serious embarassment for Perry. He just before the poll made a statement that those who pulled out before the vote (Bachmann and Santorum, I believe), that leaving Florida was a mistake and that the straw poll was important. It'll be interesting to see his people spinning this as insignificant after his comments on Saturday. (Just as much fun as watching him squirm on SS=Ponzi Scheme.)

I still don't see why Perry would matter at all. I never heard his name before he announced his candidacy. Who the heck is that guy and why does he matter to any non-Texans all of a sudden?

Social Security isn't a Ponzi-Scheme if it's set up correctly. But if it turns out that much more money is being spend than being collected, it pretty much resembles a Ponzi-Scheme to those that get away empty-handed. Is that Perry's arguing point?

 

[Drachasor]

Social Security isn't a Ponzi-Scheme if it's set up correctly. But if it turns out that much more money is being spend than being collected, it pretty much resembles a Ponzi-Scheme to those that get away empty-handed. Is that Perry's arguing point?

Social Security is fine until something like 2038 after which it can still continue on indefinitely delivering 80% payments. That's plenty of time to figure something out.

The overall health care system is a much, much, much larger mess and more immediate.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

We've gone through all this on the threads devoted to this topic, but:

But if it turns out that much more money is being spend than being collected, it pretty much resembles a Ponzi-Scheme to those that get away empty-handed.

This isn't true at all. The only thing Social Security has in common with a Ponzi Scheme (that some people don't get back the money they paid in) is true of all taxpayer financed programs. A Ponzi Scheme is a an illegal fraud whereby investors are misled about the value of the investment by being given payments that didn't come from the investment. Since Social Security is and always has been a taxpayer financed safety net (the first month Social Security taxes were collected back in 1937, benefit checks were also sent out) and not an investment of any kind, it lacks the principle characteristics of a Ponzi Scheme. It's not an investment; no fraud is involved; beneficiaries aren't receiving money from a source other than Social Security, etc.

Social Security is not insolvent. In most months of its 80-some year history, more money was taken in by taxes than paid out in benefits, so the Trust Fund had a surplus which was invested in government securities. The long term problem it faces is a change in demographics. Beginning in 2010, more money was paid out than taken in, so they had to begin cashing in some of the securities. Even so, if no changes are made, the Trust Fund will continue to grow for about another decade before it will begin shrinking, and it will take roughly another 15 years to deplete it. (Those are worst-case scenarios. Best case puts that date about another 50 years into the future.) Long before then we can make simple changes to account for the changing demographics and avoid depleting the Trust Fund. If that's what Perry meant, using the term "Ponzi Scheme" was an abuse of language.