Republican party dividing on Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme"

[RandFan]

There is no money, except money which is printed or borrowed, to fund SS.

A hyper-inflationary model. Next?

I'm sorry mhaze, there simply is no where for you to go on this one. I stand firmly behind all of my statements. I posted premises with supporting data and sources. You won't rebut them or argue against them. Instead you fall back to rhetoric, spin, narrative.

Where are your premises to rebut mine?

 

[mhaze]

So you acknowledge the two lies as stated in #80?

 

[RandFan]

So you acknowledge the two lies as stated in #80?

I stand by each and every premise. More importantly I note your inability to mount anything more than trite rhetoric and gainsaying.

 

[mhaze]

Dodging noted on my question of material misrepresentation of my statements.

 

[RandFan]

Dodging noted on my question of material misrepresentation of my statements.

Oh get out of here. You made a claim that requires a hyper-inflationary model. You originally said "printed" money but it doesn't matter. A nation can print or borrow so long as there is goods and services to back it up which I stated from the very beginning. If you didn't mean to imply a hyper-inflationary model then your claim of just "printing" money is silly and pointless.

If there are no goods and services to back the printing of money or borrowing then that it is irrelevant if the purpose of the money is for SS as money is fungible.

You simply cannot justify your original claim as it is easily falsified for the reasons I have stated.

 

[mhaze]

Oh get out of here. You made a claim that requires a hyper-inflationary model. You originally said "printed" money but it doesn't matter. A nation can print or borrow so long as there is goods and services to back it up which I stated from the very beginning. If you didn't mean to imply a hyper-inflationary model then your claim of just "printing" money is silly and pointless.

If there are no goods and services to back the printing of money or borrowing then that it is irrelevant if the purpose of the money is for SS as money is fungible.

You simply cannot justify your original claim as it is easily falsified for the reasons I have stated.

Once more lying. Please stop.

Misrepresenting other peoples' statements is, if I recall correctly against the rules.

 

[RandFan]

Once more lying. Please stop.

Misrepresenting other peoples' statements is, if I recall correctly against the rules.

If you didn't mean to imply that money was being printed WITHOUT goods and services to back it up then your statement was the equivalent of "water is wet". Of COURSE they are printing money. That's what the treasury does. Your statement could only have meaning if the "printing" was without backing. Now, you might have meant that we are going further in debt. I don't know, you didn't say we are going in debt you said we are printing money.

Look, if you want to be pointless then next time say something like, "this has no bearing on anything but the federal govt prints money." If you mean that to keep SS viable we are increasing the debt then say that. Your inability to communi9cate isn't my problem.

Clear?

 

[mhaze]

I don't have any interest in your justification for misrepresentations and mis characterizations, only in their existence or lack of, and what that implies about your honesty, or lack of.

So save me and us the rationals.

Re framing the argument is within the rules. Misrepresenting another persons argument is not.

 

[RandFan]

I don't have any interest in your justification for misrepresentations and mis characterizations, only in their existence or lack of, and what that implies about your honesty, or lack of.

So save me and us the rationals.

Re framing the argument is within the rules. Misrepresenting another persons argument is not.

Sorry, that won't fly either. You made a claim about "printing money". If you didn't mean "printing money" then you shouldn't have said "printing money".

Got it? Communication of your ideas are your responsibility. Refusing to accept responsibility and falsely accusing others is only digging yourself a deeper hole.

 

[mhaze]

Sorry, that won't fly either. You made a claim about "printing money". If you didn't mean "printing money" then you shouldn't have said "printing money"....

Liar. You just can't quit, can you. You go on permanent ignore.

There is no money, except money which is printed or borrowed, to fund SS.

 

[RandFan]

There is no money, except money...

What does that even mean?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The money has already been spent.

On Social Security benefits? I think not!

The trust fund is full of IOU's that has to be redeemed by the taxes of a future generation. That's irresponsible.

So the scam is raiding the Social Security trust fund to borrow for the general revenue (to pay for elective wars and income tax cuts)?

[ETA: And by law, those "IOUs" are valid. For your claim that the money is gone--or that Social Security is currently insolvent, you would have to consider those debts-- to be invalid. The SS trust fund is the creditor here, correct?]

That doesn't line up at all with the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.

 

[Newtons Bit]

On Social Security benefits? I think not!

It's already been spent through deficit spending.

So the scam is raiding the Social Security trust fund to borrow for the general revenue (to pay for elective wars and income tax cuts)?

I wouldn't put it only those two items, but yes. In essence, we're using Social Security money to avoid raising taxes now (and historically) so we can pay for things now that we might not otherwise be able to afford.

[ETA: And by law, those "IOUs" are valid. For your claim that the money is gone--or that Social Security is currently insolvent, you would have to consider those debts-- to be invalid. The SS trust fund is the creditor here, correct?]

Right. I'm not arguing it's insolvent. It is, however, holding IOU's that have to be redeemed by later generations. It's like taking out a loan from your 401k then asking your kids to pay it back. Then they expect to do the same with their kids. The money is there so long as we trust future generations to honor our debt.

That doesn't line up at all with the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.

It bears hallmarks off it, most notably by requiring people down the pyramid to pay for the benefits (not necessarily social security payments) that you're getting today.

 

[Trakar]

I think the former. I have been a substitute teacher and did some highschool economics classes. Since I didn't have a lesson plan, we discussed what they had learned and we discussed how pensions and social security work and how actuarial tables and etc factor in to it. And these kids didn't have a clue about how this works. And they were near the end of their high school economics education.

Now, I never had the chance to compare them with my classmates because I tested out of high school economics, but I don't imagine the situation was much better in the early 1970s.

At least not during the late seventies,...hopefully a significant portion of these students went on to misunderstand college economics.

 

[RandFan]

I wouldn't put it only those two items, but yes. In essence, we're using Social Security money to avoid raising taxes now (and historically) so we can pay for things now that we might not otherwise be able to afford.

So raise the taxes already, sheesh. How hard is this stuff for you guys?

 

[mhaze]

Back to the OP:

Older voters, rather than being turned off by Perry's "Ponzi scheme" message, would vote for him in higher numbers than the average population.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...al/despite-social-security-older-voters-perry

 

[Alferd_Packer]

It's not the over 65 crowd that will be directly affected by any changes to SS, it's the under 50 group. a significant voting block.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's already been spent through deficit spending.

No. The claim I was addressing is that Social Security is a scam because it was a case of Congress making promises it couldn't keep. The fact that elective wars and tax cuts and other non-Social Security spending caused the treasury to borrow from Social Security is in fact an argument that Social Security is less irresponsible than the rest of the federal government.

I wouldn't put it only those two items, but yes. In essence, we're using Social Security money to avoid raising taxes now (and historically) so we can pay for things now that we might not otherwise be able to afford.

So the problem is NOT Social Security, right? Remember, I'm addressing the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme or a scam.

Right. I'm not arguing it's insolvent.

Really? You said:

I don't think that the recipients are scamming the country. But I do believe that the people who changed the system did. They got to promise all sorts of cool toys without having to pay for them in a responsible manner.

So, if Social Security is solvent, and has been solvent since 1935, then it is certainly not an example of anyone making promises without having to pay for them. (And this again is ignoring the fact that "irresponsible" is not a synonym for "scam".)

It is, however, holding IOU's that have to be redeemed by later generations. It's like taking out a loan from your 401k then asking your kids to pay it back. Then they expect to do the same with their kids. The money is there so long as we trust future generations to honor our debt.

Which of course is codified into law in our system of government.

At any rate, you're still talking about a flaw in Federal government other than Social Security. The Social Security system isn't a scam or irresponsible. You can make the argument that borrowing against Social Security in order to finance tax cuts is irresponsible, but that's really not the topic of this thread.

It bears hallmarks off it, most notably by requiring people down the pyramid to pay for the benefits (not necessarily social security payments) that you're getting today.

First, it doesn't have all the hallmarks of a Ponzi Scheme. As I have been saying a Ponzi Scheme is an illegal fraud. You're drastically redefining it.

Using your redefinition of "Ponzi Scheme", the same can be said of all federal spending that is paid for with debt. The same can be said of unemployment benefits (which are never paid by the same people who benefit from them at the same time). So what is unique about Social Security? If your extremely broad and unconventional definition of Ponzi Scheme applies to Social Security, doesn't it apply to a helluva lot more than that? In fact, doesn't it apply to so much of what government does as to be a meaningless criticism disguised as an outrage?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Back to the OP:

Older voters, rather than being turned off by Perry's "Ponzi scheme" message, would vote for him in higher numbers than the average population.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...al/despite-social-security-older-voters-perry

Does that make it OK to refer to Social Security as a "Ponzi Scheme"?

But just addressing the political ramifications. . .

I would be willing to bet that if the poll question mentioned that Perry considers Social Security to be a Ponzi Scheme, you'd get different results. And do you suppose Obama's nearly $1 billion war chest won't be spent making sure every voter is aware that Perry thinks Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme and wants to do away with it rather than fix it, if Perry gets the nomination?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It bears hallmarks off it, most notably by requiring people down the pyramid to pay for the benefits (not necessarily social security payments) that you're getting today.

Aside from the fact that Social Security does not have all the hallmarks of the illegal fraud known as a Ponzi Scheme, you're also abusing the language in attempting to conflate other government spending (even covering the costs to the federal budget of tax cuts) as "the benefits".

Linguistically speaking, "the" is a definite article and you're pretending it's indefinite. When you say "the benefits" in a discussion of the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme it can only logically refer to Social Security benefits.

ETA: Also, of little importance to the conversation so far, you are confusing Ponzi Schemes with pyramid schemes. In Ponzi Schemes, you simply pay off some investors with money you get from other investors (or your own money) rather than by returns on the investment. There is no pyramid or downstream or upstream. Pyramid scams are similar in that you're misrepresenting the value of the investment especially to new investors, but they are different.