Rick Perry On Social Security

Forums: Politics, Social Security, Us Politics, American Politics, U S Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Perry and the people he's sucking up to state that SS is a Ponzi scheme and a fraud.

No it is not.

Social Security is this...everyone puts money away out of their pay and it is placed in an UNTOUCHABLE savings account to help take care of people in their old age. That's it, period.

Here's the problem. No son of a bitch, democrat or republican has kept an eye on the money and allowed it to be saved for and used as it should be.

Got a problem that the government takes the money whether you like it or not? That's fair enough. Here's the rub. If we eliminate SS and do nothing to REQUIRE people to save for their old age, then the majority of people, like it or not, WILL NOT DO IT!!!! They'll piss their money away and then when they become disabled, too old to work, have children or family members that can't fend for themselves, all their money for that will be in the pockets of sharper image, designer shoe manufacturers, etc etc. . Then people will be screaming for the government to save them, dem, repub or tea party and instead of having not enough money to help take care of them we'll have NO MONEY to help take care of them, and there will be a great weeping and gnashing of teeth.

There's nothing wrong with Social Security, it's people that are fucked up.

Let's say you're one of those responsible "real Americans". You save money in a retirement fund, you have a 30% savings for emergencies on top of that and you're wise with your money. T
hen a child is born with an horrific, high maintenance disability, or an idiot hits you with their car and you're a paraplegic now. These things, because you aren't wealthy, are WAY beyond your ability to pay for but there's NO government safety net. Congratulations, you just became lumped in with the **** out of luck crowd, no different from the crackhead or system gamer because the bottom line is you or one of your loved ones will suffer and probably die because you can't afford their care.

Perhaps the church will take care of them. Don't hold your breath. Perhaps seeing the huge need made greater by the fact that there's is now no government money available, Healthcare and Agra businesses will chip in and cut their bottom lines by making these staples affordable. Perhaps the government will at the very least regulate these businesses so they can't just charge whatever they want, eschewing the benefits and perks allowed them by these businesses through their intermediaries the lobbyists.

Perhaps Halle Berry and the first lady will fellate me on the White House lawn too.

It ain't Social Security that's wrong here.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 9 • Views: 2,395 • Replies: 25

@blueveinedthrobber,

I think you may be correct is much of what you think and say..

0 Replies

Below viewing threshold (view)

@blueveinedthrobber,

SS is a Ponzi scheme, it's the model for all Ponzi schemes.

Bernard Madoff went to jail for running a Ponzi scheme that
was structured just like SS... we elect and pay people to run SS.

4 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Please be more specific on how SS was intended from day one to be a Ponzi scheme.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Bernard Madoff went to jail for running a Ponzi scheme that
was structured just like SS

Even when you know that you are lying your ass off, you still lack the brains necessary to stop yourself. Someone of your tiny intellect, and I use the word word 'intellect' reservedly and 'tiny generously, ought not to have the opportunity to elect anyone higher than the office of dog catcher.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

SS is a Ponzi scheme, it's the model for all Ponzi schemes.

Bernard Madoff went to jail for running a Ponzi scheme that
was structured just like SS... we elect and pay people to run SS.

True; but only in the sense that the whole government was a scheme... It offered democracy it has consistently denied... It offered a commonwealth and it has driven all common wealth into private hands where it has defended it while using its own power of taxation to plunder the poor and middle classes... It has shared the wealth of the poor with those poorer still... It has shared the rights of those in need of right with those without rights while leaving the wealth of the wealthy, and the rights of those rich in rights untouched... Yes; it was bound to run out of growth and be shown for what it was: A gddamned crooked scheme, and social security as a promise made, and never funded was all a part of the scheme... It helped to keep america as a firm base while communism and the threat of communism was destroyed... Now that the threat of communism is gone, Labor Unions, and even the Democratic party are painted as a nest of communist.... It is all part of the scheme... Make friends when you need them, and lose them when you don't... Make promises when you need them, and forget them when you don't... Worse than a ponzi scheme, really... When it is all said and done, the rich will be lucky and count themselves lucky to have their lives -and to have bought them so cheaply with all their stolen loot....

0 Replies

@JTT,

HAHAHA That was great!

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Does your mother tie your shoes in the morning?

Rap

0 Replies

@blueveinedthrobber,

I think you put that quite well.

0 Replies

JTT, you certainly are a sensitive little cuss.
I hope your mommy protects you from all the scary things out there.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Like your mother ties your shoes.

Rap

0 Replies

@blueveinedthrobber,

Even Perry isn't suggesting that SS was intended as a Ponzi Scheme.

However, if you consider what the elements of a Ponzi Scheme are and where SS now stands, it's hard to make an argument that SS, today, doesn't look a whole lot like a Ponzi Scheme.

No matter what, you and I are going to be able to realize the promise of SS (no matter how meager it may be) because absolutely no one (including Perry) is advocating reforms that don't grandfather in folks who are now 50 or older.

Consider a 25 year old.

He is paying FICA to pay for the retirement of old farts like you and me.

Is there any reason for him to believe that there will be funds available to fund his retirement?

Nope.

This is the definition of a Ponzi Scheme. The crook pays off original investors not with the return on their investment, but with the investments of new suckers. Eventually the money runs out and the last to the party gets f*cked.

This is Social Security.

Your kids and mine have absolutely no reason to believe that they will ever see any portion of the money they are paying into SS.

If you contend otherwise, please explain the math.

Getting all indignant about what Perry may or may not have claimed about the origins of SS is ineffectual at best.

If he is wrong about the original intent of SS does that mean he is perforce wrong about the current state of SS?

Misdirection is an effective but ignoble tactic.

2 Replies

but he did not say it was currently a ponzi scheme . he said it was the model for ponzi schemes. red meat, that's all.

0 Replies

So are y0u then saying Finn that THIS

The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.

was dreamed up and enacted as a for profit hustle by FDR and his people? A hustle to enrich themselves while fooling people and eventually ******* over millions of others to make a big profit? Because THAT'S what a Ponzi scheme is, and if that was their intention I don't think any of them personally made a ton of illicit and ill gotten money over the years, nor their heirs, so it was a lousy Ponzi scheme.

I would also bet my children's inheritance that you are too smart to think that either. Just don't tell my kids I'm wagering with their inheritance. They were planning to go out for pizza.

1 Reply

@blueveinedthrobber,

I guess you missed this comment

Finn wrote:

Even Perry isn't suggesting that SS was intended as a Ponzi Scheme.

Or maybe it wasn't clear.

I don't believe, for a second, that the original intent of Social Security was to fleece future young Americans.

Somewhere along the line it has taken on the attributes of a Ponzi Scheme.

This has happened because legislators, Repub and Dem alike, have raided the SS trust fund to pay for programs intended to get them re-elected, and because as a nation we have spent ourselves into a huge hole, that even now we may not be able to climb out of.

Even if all discretionary government spending was eliminated, it wouldn't be enough to get us out of this mess.

SS (along with Medicare) has to be reformed.

Actually the reforms should begin with current recipients and those of us who will soon be entitled to benefits, but that isn't going to happen. Paul Ryan stepped around that political mine field and so will all of the current Republican candidates...including Rick Perry. In fact Perry said as much during the debate.

So who are left with bearing the impact of reforms?

If I were in my mid 40's I would kicking the dog over the fact that despite the many years of paying FICA it is very likely that I will be the first age group that can expect diminished benefits.

Foks in there early 40's and younger probably don't think about SS enough, or don't expect it to be around for them, to have it be a main driver of their votes.

I'm 57 and so I have 8 years before I qualify for benefits. The system won't completely tank before then, unless other economic forces of disaster are at play, and so I'm reasonably sure I will be entitled to the same benefits my father was entitled to. There is no way in Hell, though that my kids are going to be entitled to the same benefits.

The first no-brainer that I don't think even liberals will fight for long is raising the retirement age, and I don't expect them to mount any sort of opposition to means testing as the only people this will piss off are the affluent.

Part of the difficulty with reform is that the Democrats are so heavily counting on it as a political weapon to be used against Republicans, that they are going to have a very hard time getting pass their "No Changes" stance. There will be no reform until after the 2012 elections, and too many people will be grandfathered in in order to make it possible even then.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn he stated so outright. what the hell are you saying ?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

However, if you consider what the elements of a Ponzi Scheme are and where SS now stands, it's hard to make an argument that SS, today, doesn't look a whole lot like a Ponzi Scheme.

Actually, it's hard to argue that it is a Ponzi scheme since it has none of the elements of a ponzi scheme.

A ponzi scheme would promise to pay investors a return greater than other investments.
A ponzi scheme promotes itself as an investment strategy that generates that high return but refuses to reveal the actual elements of the strategy.
A ponzi scheme requires secrecy as to actual the number of investors. If people knew how many investors there actually were it would reveal the scheme since it would show the investment strategy can't work that that size.
(Ponzi was promising returns greater than what he was invested in. Madoff was claiming investments that exceeded the size of the market he claimed to be investing in. Without the secrecy of who was invested they would have collapsed quickly.)

1 Reply

@blueveinedthrobber,

I watched the debate and I didn't hear him say that. One of us is wrong. It could be me.

The point is that despite what rhetoric Perry may have used he will never seek to abolish SS, nor will he allow reforms to affect the benefits expected by people of our age.

1 Reply

@parados,

These are secondary elements.

The essence of a Ponzi Scheme is using the money of later investors to pay off the original investors with every expectation that there will never be any money for the final rounds of investors.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I watched the debate and I didn't hear him say that. One of us is wrong. It could be me.

The point is that despite what rhetoric Perry may have used he will never seek to abolish SS, nor will he allow reforms to affect the benefits expected by people of our age.

I have to agree with this part of Finn's post, except in one regard. Every politician that has ever passed bills to "fix" Social Security Democrat or Republican has reduced the benefits in some way. I expect Perry would be no different.

1 Reply

Rick Perry On Social Security

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know