Patterico's Pontifications

9/8/2011

Perry’s Big “Gaffe” . . .

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:17 am



. . . according to every pundit out there, was telling the truth.

He dared to label the Ponzi scheme of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme.” He dared to stand by a true statement that he had made in the past.

I’m not much of a political analyst. Here’s what seems important to me: it was the truth. If we want truthful politicians, we should stand with a candidate who speaks the truth.

On this one, I’m standing with Rick Perry.

UPDATE: Keep in mind the definition of a “Ponzi scheme”:

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. . . .

The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors.

Nail, head, hit.

371 Responses to “Perry’s Big “Gaffe” . . .”

  1. The fact that there is no opt out provision in Social Security is proof that it is a Ponzi scheme.

    Ponzi schemes need a steady stream of new “investors” to remain solvent. Mandating that everyone opt in to Social Security guarantees this — except when the birthrate begins to decline.

    Those that would disagree with Perry can prove it by proposing that people be allowed to opt out and get refunded what they’ve paid in.

    beer 'n pretzels (2f4b27)

  2. Any investment advisor who told clients to put money into social security voluntarily would likely be sued and Finra would take away his license.

    BarSinister (5a3146)

  3. Of course, now we can see why so many candidates want to “legalize” illegal immigrants: more suckers for the Ponzi scheme.

    So long as more new people enter the pyramid…

    Simon Jester (9797e2)

  4. SS is not a ponzi scheme, a pyramid scheme perhaps, but not a ponzi scheme. SS is explicitly a social insurance scheme that pays out old age pensions from the contributions of all payers. It’s not a ponzi scheme unless there is a fraudulent notion that the returns are coming from something else.

    Sam (7fcc7e)

  5. I lovemhow the trolls get all hyper-literal about these things.

    JD (318f81)

  6. Yes, JD, I noticed that too.

    It’s an incredibly helpful comparison. It’s not like Perry is the originator, but he is the candidate man enough to stand on the third rail of telling us the truth about social security.

    Other candidates promise to save the ponzi scheme. They cannot do so if they refuse to be honest.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  7. Sum: It’s not a ponzi scheme unless there is a fraudulent notion that the returns are coming from something else.

    Poll the average citizen and I would guarantee that a majority assume their contributions go into some kind of personal account, sits there and earns interest, and then gets paid out to them when they reach 65. The government does nothing to dissuade this delusion.

    I would classify this a fraud. A private company doing the same would likely be charged with such.

    beer 'n pretzels (2f4b27)

  8. Reynolds links to Shikla Dahmia(totally wrong but resembling it) saying SS is worse–Ponzi schemes collapse when income from new rubes fails to keep up, with SS government just raises the tax.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  9. SS is explicitly a social insurance scheme

    It’s a ponzi scheme.

    Your money is going to the last generation. You expect to be paid by future folks. It keeps going forever.

    The ponzi criticism illustrates the central nature of the entitlement, and why we’re in trouble with it. It is actually scary once you understand it, and that makes those who aren’t upfront about the problem seem like… politicians.

    I’m sure there are 5000 more precise ways of describing it. But it’s still a ponzi scheme generally, and that’s what actually matters.

    I shouldn’t get so ticked off about the GOP candidates I don’t agree with, because I might have to support one of them. But indeed I am very ticked off at any republican standing in the way of true entitlement reform. The sick thing is, they sell snake oil reforms that probably are the most difficult political aspect to overcome.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  10. Sam – What is the difference between a pyramid scheme and a ponzi scheme. Please explain.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  11. “It’s not a ponzi scheme unless there is a fraudulent notion that the returns are coming from something else.”

    Beautiful. It’s a “notion”, not the actual mechanics that make something a ponzi scheme.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  12. In the Carter Stagflation years, Pyramid Parties were all the rage, especially if you could get in on the ground floor, or at least before it reached the tipping point.
    Some (a few) went to jail, most people just lost a lot of money on a fantasy.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  13. People who participate in Ponzi schemes, like Social Security, have a rendezvous with destiny in their future.

    ropelight (30c312)

  14. Technically, you could say that SocSec is neither a Ponzi Scheme, or a pyramid, since the Congress has the ability to up – or change – the ante at any time by altering the participation rate (tax) and the reward (benefit).
    Since, historically, they have always broadened the benefit, they are always needing to up the tax-rate and the taxable-ceiling to keep up with the increased numbers drawing benefits, and the (currently) decreased numbers of workers paying into the system.
    If this system had been put in place by a corporate board of directors, they would all be in Club-Fed….which might not be a bad idea for Congress, come to think of it.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  15. I’m fine with the ‘ponzi scheme’ labal; I’ve used it myself. On the other hand, the claim that it’s failed by every metric is an exaggeration at best.

    aphrael (d97b3e)

  16. On the other hand, the claim that it’s failed by every metric is an exaggeration at best.

    I’m sure you’re right. In fact, it’s a brilliant success for getting a lot of people dependent on the government, with all the attendant benefits to the ruling class.

    Anyway, the bottom line is that reforming social security is an incredibly difficult task. Some politicians are paying lip service to the issue, and will flip flop on it when it’s politically advantageous. Some politicians really mean to reform it.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  17. It’s also been a brilliant success at decreasing the number of elderly people living below the poverty line.

    I have a problem with obviously false rhetoric; I’d prefer it if things like ‘every’ were abolished from the rhetorical vocabulary. But, I have an engineer’s preference for precision in speaking about technical problems, and I think economic/fiscal/bureaucratic problems have a technical aspect which we ignore at our peril.

    aphrael (d97b3e)

  18. Since it is now upside-down on benefits paid v. revenues received, and the liklihood of the Federal Government to be able to convert those promissary notes into cash is looking highly problematic (to do so they would have to go to the World Bond Market to sell Public Debt to replace Intragovernmental Debt) seeing as how we seem to be highly overextended as it is. The bright side, is that such an exchange would not increase the National Debt (just moving numbers from one column on the ledger to another), but would most likely affect the service costs on the Debt as the interest charged would likely be higher.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  19. “On the other hand, the claim that it’s failed by every metric is an exaggeration at best.”

    aphrael – I don’t know the claims to which you are referring. There is no doubt that retirees could have received a better crediting rate on their contributions than that generated by the SS Administration in most private pension or annuity arrangements. SS actuaries also predict the plan to cease being self-funding, e.g. requiring the mythical lockbox to be opened, in the near future. It is the same with Medicare (I believe), whose actuaries told Congress would be bankrupt within the next ten years earlier this year, triggering a requirement for a presidential response, which we have yet to see.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  20. the claim that it’s failed by every metric is an exaggeration at best

    The claim I’m aware of is that the current system is unsustainable and younger workers will almost certainly lose money. The “failed by every metric” is a strawman and an irrelevant question. If the metric is paid lots more to the WWII generation than their contributions plus interest, it succeeded.

    Gerald A (7d960d)

  21. To ensure that it is able to continue helping those it was intended to, it must be means-tested.
    It makes no sense that Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates Sr., receives a SocSec check if continuation of the current system guarantees its collapse in the future depriving all of that support.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  22. It’s also been a brilliant success at decreasing the number of elderly people living below the poverty line.

    Totally fair point, and I think Perry’s initial comment shows he agrees with you. He noted he would not want to rip benefits away from those who are currently getting them, for one.

    Obviously there’s a point to having social security. Mitt’s long winded comment about how Republicans do want there to be some kind of safety net (not sure what language he used) is banal and correct for almost all of us.

    I’d prefer it if things like ‘every’ were abolished from the rhetorical vocabulary.

    Fair enough. Debate formats like this leave candidates forced to be very simplistic. They either memorize some carefully crafted talking point about 500 issues, or they think fast and come up with something approximating their views.

    Social security is an enormous mess. Even though it’s doing some good. I’m pretty sure most of the candidates believe that.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  23. If the metric is paid lots more to the WWII generation than their contributions plus interest, it succeeded.

    Comment by Gerald A — 9/8/2011 @ 9:01 am

    Yeah. It’s like each generation wants to rob the next one. And this was able to persist for 3-4 generations.

    Frankly, people who don’t earn a lot of money will be poor. Ways to avoid this reality don’t work.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  24. Daleyrocks: I haven’t read Perry’s book, but Mitt Romney said, during the debate last night:

    “The issue in the book “Fed Up,” Governor, is you say that by any measure, Social Security is a failure.”

    (From the debate transcript at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us/politics/08republican-debate-text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)

    If he did say in his book that social security is a failure by any measure, then (a) Dustin’s point about debates being a tough forum for precision is true but irrelevant, and (b) he should answer for it in a fashion which directly addresses the point. Social Security hasn’t been a failure by *every* metric, and if he thinks it has been, he should explain the belief – because that rhetoric goes much deeper than just saying, hey, there’s a financing problem that we need to resolve because it’s currently unsustainable.

    That is to say: if you believe it needs fixing, do you hire someone who thinks it should be abolished instead of fixed?

    aphrael (d97b3e)

  25. That is to say: if you believe it needs fixing, do you hire someone who thinks it should be abolished instead of fixed?

    Comment by aphrael

    But the fact is that Perry didn’t say he wanted it abolished.

    I don’t really think your point is fair, anyway.

    Obviously someone got money from social security. That’s so obvious that it clearly isn’t what Perry would have been talking about when saying it failed by every measure (I have no idea if he said it, and I don’t take Romney’s word for it).

    What Perry’s talking about are the promises that social security is a solvent and viable system. By every measurement or calculation that is honest, it simply isn’t working.

    That’s all.

    If you’re looking at it like a machine, it’s simply not going to work, no matter what you attempt to do with it.

    Anyway, Perry did not say he wanted to abolish social security. He wants to fix it. Other politicians say they want to fix it, while shying away from admitting how serious a problem it is. So your final question seems unfair.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  26. Dustin,

    Perry wants it abolished and replaced with a privatized system that taxes less and actually provides more benefits and survivorship rights that is investment based

    Go figure – less taxes, more money, property rights

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  27. Right now all reagan did when he signed the 85 and 86 landmark social security reform acts were to actually turn it into a flat tax that went into the general treasury

    So when people say lets have a fair tax – unfortunately – we all ready have one, and an income tax

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  28. Full disclosure:

    I think social security actually should be abolished. Perry contradicted that idea. All politicians will, and the vast majority of folks out there would agree with them.

    Those getting benefits today did not pay for them. Not a single one of them did.

    Their representatives kept spending more and more money on government, using social security funds in lieu of taxation. It was a lie, and we knew it at the time. In reality, they were giving American a huge government, while promising to steal from the future generation, via debt and tax, to pay for social security that the past few generations never paid for themselves.

    The only argument against abolishing it is to weep for the poor people who need charity. Fine. Set up a charity system of some kind. Even call it social security if you like.

    But social security is an injustice.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  29. So your final question seems unfair.

    No his final question is BS.

    Gerald A (7d960d)

  30. Dustin: if – and note that I keep using the hypothetical because I agree that there’s no reason to assume Romney is an accurate reporter – if Perry said it’s failed by every metric, why would he not want to abolish it? Something which has failed by *every* metric is, generally, not fixable. If you handed me a piece of code and claimed it had failed by every metric, after I rechecked the claim, I wouldn’t want to fix the code; I’d want to gut it and replace it with something else.

    aphrael (d97b3e)

  31. Perry wants it abolished and replaced with a privatized system that taxes less and actually provides more benefits and survivorship rights that is investment based

    Not exactly. Perhaps that’s one way to look at it, but his first comment was that he wouldn’t affect those taking benefits now. Should his reforms come into place, the system is simply overhauled into one that is no longer a ponzi scheme.

    It still exists in this new form. The only thing being abolished is the unsustainable ponzi scheme nature.

    Personally, I think the best thing to do is to cut off all social security for everyone, and then provide welfare for old people who are very poor. Call it ‘Shame on you! Security’.

    No, I do not anticipate many people would vote for me.

    Those drawing benefits today largely got a huge and unfair tax break over the past several decades. They left debt to their kids, and then want to tax their kids for goodies. It’s ridiculous.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  32. if you believe it needs fixing, do you hire someone who thinks it should be abolished instead of fixed

    1) He hasn’t said abolish it as Dustin mentioned.
    2) You don’t fix it by hiring someone who says there’s nothing wrong with it or says there’s a problem but has no concrete proposals.

    No. 2 describes Obama, your choice to (not) fix it.

    Gerald A (7d960d)

  33. if Perry said it’s failed by every metric, why would he not want to abolish it?

    I guess he’s stubborn.

    But anyway, he does want there to be a social security. He wants it to be of a different nature, so that it is not a ponzi scheme. This is bad for those currently hoping to get more than they paid it. It’s good for those (you and me) currently paying those crooks (baby boomers), because we actually get a social security.

    Which leads us to the real point:

    Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, and the rest of these louts are the ones who will abolish social security. It’s unsustainable. That’s another word for self-abolishing.

    Do nothing, and it will not be there tomorrow. If you truly feel it’s important to have social security, you should support those who notice it’s failing so badly, and want to change it fundamentally so that it is sustainable. So that you and the hubby will one day retire and get your benefits.

    I hope I’m being clear. I know I ramble a bit.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  34. I agree with aphrael in a way that most of us do, I think: we expect words to mean something, that ideas are communicated with adequate precision so that one obtains a working knowledge and understanding of a topic.*

    I think people will believe the lies until they understand the truth. The lie is that SS is an expectable right and anybody who wants to touch it is a big meanie who hates old people. The truth is SS was designed in a totally different socio-economic-demographic time and maintaining it as it has been will at some point become impossible, so rather than believing the lies and one day waking up to find it gone,the public should understand the issues and be in on the discussion on how it can/should be changed. The challenge is to get a majority of people to understand and who want to participate in the discussion, rather than pretend all is well and hope “it” doesn’t “hit the fan” while they are still around.

    The alternatives are to 1) go back in time and outlaw abortion, so that there are millions more wage-earners to support those reaching retirement age, or 2) experience an epidemic that “takes out” a significant number of people over 65, so that the ratio of (people needing support)/(people providing support) can be reduced to a reasonable number. Each of those ideas are either impossible or undesirable.

    *(I know that’s verbose and it can be said better; I’m looking for a dictation program that not only records what you say, but takes into account what you meant to say, and gives an output that is edited. Ideally one can choose the editorial style, such as a technical journal, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, Mad Magazine, Minnesotan Norwegian-English, New York Times, Rolling Stone, Southern Drawl, etc.)

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  35. SocSec in Chile under the Marxist Allende imploded just as it is predicted to do here.
    Pinochet brought in the thoughts of the brilliant economist Milton Friedman and, essentially, privatized the system, saving it, and saving the retirements of the Chilean Peoples.
    Friedman’s words are out there, and I’m sure some of his students and contemporaries could do the same with our system too. Much of what was proposed by GWB in the ’04 election and aftermath, that was prompty shot-down by the usual suspects on Capitol Hill, mirrored what Friedman suggested for Chile.
    It can be done, and it works, we have a working model in place to look at.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  36. Comment by MD in Philly — 9/8/2011 @ 9:27 am

    Doc, call the NYT; I’m sure that program exists there as that seems to explain the writings of Walter Duranty.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  37. In addition to means testing and privatization, an excellent reform for Social Security and Medicare would be to increase the age for eligibility phased in on the basis of a 10 year lag.

    As average annual life expectancy increases (or declines) eligibility would adjust and be blended accordingly and be applicable to individuals entering the system 10 years later.

    That, plus kicking the bums, drunks, dope addicts, and free loaders out would pretty much preserve the system for another 50 years.

    (Rush Limbaugh says Social Security is worse than a Ponzi scheme because a Ponzi scheme is voluntary while SS is compulsory.)

    ropelight (30c312)

  38. When they set the retirement age for SocSec at 65-yrs, wasn’t that two years past the Life Expectancy of a man in the 1930’s?
    Perhaps we need to adjust it to keep the same ratio between LE and Retirement as existed at the programs’ initiation?

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  39. “Right now all reagan did when he signed the 85 and 86 landmark social security reform acts were to actually turn it into a flat tax”

    EPWJ – It was already a flat tax before Reagan. Check your facts.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  40. Yes, MD, I think Aphrael isn’t asking for much when he asks for politicians to be precise.

    Though Perry didn’t bring that description into the debate. Romney cherry picked it out of a book (if it’s accurate). My guess is that the book (I’ve never read it) gives a more thorough discussion, and the ‘failed by every metric’ is qualified. Perhaps it’s something like ‘for sustainability, it’s failed by every metric’.

    I don’t know. There’s a reason Perry didn’t use that language in the soundbite arena of MSNBC’s ‘Why are you awful?‘ gameshow last night.

    I’m not sure why Romney brought it up like that. But I don’t care. He doesn’t get to define his competitor.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  41. Facts have no place in the epwj-world.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  42. social security is the same as stealing

    happynanke (a55ba0)

  43. oops

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  44. How about free nursing homes with food and medical care for truly poor old people. In exchange, the state gets all their assets and can use these people as test subjects.

    Then we abolish social security entirely. No more in, no more out. Sure, you may have paid in, but that was really income tax in disguise.

    Who do these people think they are to demand the nation go even a penny further into debt? They have left America broke, burdening their children, and barely qualify as human beings if they are OK with that.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  45. “Daleyrocks: I haven’t read Perry’s book, but Mitt Romney said, during the debate last night:”

    aphrael – Thanks for the context. I guess I have no problem agreeing with Perry. So far the system has paid out benefits to people in excess of what they paid in on the backs of people who will not receive back the contributions they have to the system as it is currently configured. I have no problem calling that a failure nor would I think most people.

    I think most Americans feel the country should have in place some form of social safety net for retirement. Right now that is social security.

    The choice of words to use in reforming or fixing a safety net system so it is sustainable over the long-term is just political football. Democrats love to claim Republicans want to abolish things and produce advertisements showing them pushing grandma over the cliff or claim they want the elderly eating dog food. Pure BS to rile up the base and I’m surprised you fall for it.

    Call it whatever you want, who cares, Social Security V2.0 or Medicare V2.0, the goal is to create sustainable programs. In my view, the Democrats have not even been willing to come to the table to discuss options and instead rely on fearmongering to score political points while avoiding very tough issues they know we have to address.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  46. Did he read the actual quote, or the Daily Beast/Think Process take on it, btw, the 6th Circuit chose to deny sanity, and refused the challenge to Obamacare,

    ian cormac (d69b60)

  47. It was the 4th Circuit btw,

    ian cormac (d69b60)

  48. Beautiful. It’s a “notion”, not the actual mechanics that make something a ponzi scheme.

    Um, yes, that’s exactly right. How is this news to you? The essence of any fraud is the suckers’ false notion about how the scheme works; if they are told the truth up front then by definition there is no fraud and no “scheme”. Social Security resembles a Ponzi scheme, and it’s legitimate to call it one as a rhetorical flourish, but it lacks the essential elements to actually be one.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  49. Social Security resembles a Ponzi scheme, and it’s legitimate to call it one as a rhetorical flourish, but it lacks the essential elements to actually be one.

    In other words, it’s a legalized ponzi scheme.

    That’s how language works.

    A pie chart is not actually a pie.

    A axis of evil is not actually a physical axis.

    You know, the human mind is great in how it allows for some basic analogies.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  50. It’s not like Perry’s defenders are unaware that Social Security is legally distinguishable from a criminal Ponzi scheme in a several ways. It’s not like Perry is calling for racketeering prosecutions.

    It’s not like those correcting him are actually shedding light on a damn thing. They are noting the already well known fact this is a metaphor. The metaphor is 100% accurate about the essential nature of Social Security and its core problem.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  51. Keep in mind the definition of a “Ponzi scheme”:

    A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation

    And there you have it. The most important element of a Ponzi scheme is its fraudulence, and that is an element SocSec lacks. No lies are being told, and nobody is relying on lies. People participate in SocSec because they have no choice, not because the government lied to them. And if they imagine there’s some sort of investment income coming in to the system then they’re fools, because nobody has told them any such thing.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  52. Which is what SS in its current form is.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  53. Comment by Dustin — 9/8/2011 @ 10:57 am

    “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  54. In other words, it’s a legalized ponzi scheme.

    No. What makes a Ponzi scheme a Ponzi scheme is the notion that there’s legitimate investment income being made. No reasonable person believes that about SocSec. Bernie Madoff used to send people monthly statements tracking their non-existent investments, and reporting on trades that never happened; SocSec doesn’t do that. One investment adviser got wise to Madoff early on, because she couldn’t find a single stock broker who’d ever sold him any stock, or bought any stock from him; everyone knows that SocSec never buys or sells anything but those fake “T-bills” which are not negotiable on the open market.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  55. No lies?
    Wait untill Congress reduces benefits to match the revenue stream, the wailing will overpower anything associated with the howling of Hades!
    Even now, the lack of a COLA the last two years has created a groundswell of heartburn from those who see inflation every time they buy gas for their car,
    and eggs and bacon for the breakfast table.
    People throughout the country know that when it comes to economic numbers, they (we) are being lied to every day by The Ruling Class in DC.
    Just more justification for the TEA Party folks.
    Going to make a lot of money selling pitchforks and torches (with six you get tar & feathers).

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  56. None of which is to say that Perry was wrong to call it a Ponzi scheme. He was exactly right to do so, in a context where rhetorical flourishes are expected. It resembles one enough that for the purposes of political debate that’s a useful way to think about it. And those who insist on hiding their eyes from the reality that SocSec can’t go on the way it has been are unfit for office.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  57. Milhouse, we know what you mean, but you’re being too literal.
    Calling SocSec a Ponzi Scheme is a metaphor which may not be legally defensible, but is highly accurate to the folks on Main Street.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  58. Yes, no lies.

    Wait untill Congress reduces benefits to match the revenue stream, the wailing will overpower anything associated with the howling of Hades!

    So what? How will that wailing prove that anyone has been lied to? If you claim lies are being told, then please identify them. Who exactly, in the last 50 years, has lied about how SocSec works? When did they tell this lie, to whom, and what exactly did they say? I know the government lied about it back in the 1930s, but not since at least 1960.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  59. Yep, Drew. It’s communicating something people need to understand.

    The ‘corrections’ are just nonsense, really. Who cares?

    Had Perry said ‘The debt is taking us to a crisis at warp speed’ I’m sure some would be explaining how in warp speed you aren’t technically moving, or how it’s physically impossible, or whatever. Who cares? This is annoying and childish, and frankly totally ignorant of how language works.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  60. Yes, AD, I said from my first comment on this thread that “Social Security resembles a Ponzi scheme, and it’s legitimate to call it one as a rhetorical flourish”. Did you miss that? Perry was right to call it one, and those challenging him for doing so are wrong.

    But daleyrocks is 100% wrong in challenging Sam’s statement that what makes a Ponzi scheme a Ponzi scheme is the notion that it’s something other than what it is. Sam was 100% right to point that out. When we use metaphors and rhetorical flourishes we should be aware that we’re doing so, and not get carried away.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  61. Can you imagine the politician who tries to precisely lay out his metaphors in a way that satisfies the biters of ankles?

    He might as well not bother at all with metaphors. Just dryly and slowly say in monotone that social security is insolvent.

    Meanwhile, the slick fancy politician can use fear to beat the truth to death.

    I’d rather see someone willing to tell the truth in a way that gets the damn point across. Such as by calling out Social Security for being a ponzi scheme, which is 100% honest and accurate.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  62. Did you miss that?

    Yes! Sorry.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  63. If in the course of a debate I refer to “the elephant in the room”, that’s a legitimate figure of speech in the context; but if someone starts taking it literally then it’s time to point out that there isn’t an actual elephant in the room, and one should not expect a fragrant pile of processed celulose to appear.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  64. Where-ever there are politicians, there will be fragrant piles of processed celulose.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  65. I’d rather see someone willing to tell the truth in a way that gets the damn point across. Such as by calling out Social Security for being a ponzi scheme, which is 100% honest and accurate.

    Honest, yes. Accurate, no. Perry was right to call it one. Sam was right to point out that that’s only a metaphor. And daleyrocks is an idiot for challenging Sam’s very obvious statement; in fact daleyrocks’s challenge proves just how necessary Sam’s statement was. Daleyrocks obviously did not understand that it’s a metaphor.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  66. To the old saying that there are three kinds of lies, I will add a fourth:
    1) Lies
    2) Damned Lies (really bad and evil ones)
    3) Statistics
    and
    4) Implied and Uncorrected

    Yes, it is true that the information that explains how SS works is available. However, the way it has been handled in public debate by politicians (chiefly of the Dem persuasion) has made it appear to be a guaranteed fund, guaranteed because the money has been put in it and has not been used for anything else. Now, while this has not been explicitly said, I think it is the understanding of the majority of the population that this is true.

    Someone has written in a column (sorry, can’t source it for you, but heard the ref. on Rush) that actually SS is worse than a Ponzi scheme; at least in a Ponzi scheme most of the new investment money goes to paying returns to investors, in SS most of the incoming funds have been used for other things and all there is left to show for it are some near-meaningless IOU’s. For decades Dems and Repubs have been happy to add “to the tab” and let someone else pay the piper years later. Profiles in courage-Not!

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  67. Where-ever there are politicians, there will be fragrant piles of processed celulose.

    But only metaphorical ones. Unless they’re at a county fair, of course.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  68. SS is worse than a Ponzi scheme; at least in a Ponzi scheme most of the new investment money goes to paying returns to investors, in SS most of the incoming funds have been used for other things

    I don’t think this can possibly be true, except perhaps for the very first years of the system. From quite early on, and certainly by the 1940s, the majority of receipts must surely have been used to make payments. And it’s not as if the operators of Ponzi schemes don’t take some of the receipts for themselves; after all, that’s the whole point! It would be a poor sort of con man who forgot to take his own cut of the proceeds!

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  69. “Um, yes, that’s exactly right.”

    “Social Security resembles a Ponzi scheme”

    “What makes a Ponzi scheme a Ponzi scheme is the notion that there’s legitimate investment income being made.” – Or that investor will get back what they invested, in this case, their contributions to social security, which they will not, if the scheme collapses.

    “But daleyrocks is 100% wrong in challenging Sam’s statement that what makes a Ponzi scheme a Ponzi scheme is the notion that it’s something other than what it is. Sam was 100% right to point that out.”

    Milhouse – By your logic, if it looks like a Ponzi scheme, acts like a Ponzi scheme, smells like Ponzi scheme, and will collapse like a Ponzi scheme, but is authorized by government action, one may not call it what it really is, but invent some other name for it.

    Does incessant mental masturbation win you a lot of friends?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  70. I can’t believe that even this damn obvious issue causes so much pettiness and debate.

    If the GOP cannot even agree on the essential problem with entitlements, do we have any hope of getting a damn thing done?

    We’ve got 100 other issues like this. There will be a billion more ‘oh, but this would be a little more precise’ nit picks, too, I guess.

    Ugh. All of this undermines communication and understanding. It is the enemy of truth.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  71. “It would be a poor sort of con man who forgot to take his own cut of the proceeds!”

    Milhouse – Geez, please explain where the cash contributions made by participants currently reside.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  72. “We should stand with a candidate who speaks the truth,” says the Prosecuting Attorney.

    “You can’t handle the truth!”

    Jack Nocholson in A Few Good Men (3e4784)

  73. Of course LGFS Resident Peronista is accusing Rick Perry of hating the poor and executing people.

    That’s rich coming from you Gus the most annoying windbag.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  74. In one way I think this issue can make or break Perry’s campaign. If he can communicate what he means so that the typical person can understand, he will win the nomination and the presidency easily. But, this will mean he will need to educate (and convince) many people about SS and what the future holds, and how many, many politicians, Repubs included, have not been honest previously.

    Perhaps he can even reach some Dems by harkening back to Gore’s “Lock-Box”. At the time it became a bit of a joke, in large part because of the repetition of the phrase without associated content. Go back to it and explain what Gore meant, which is what many people thought it has been all along. Explain the reality instead.

    Yes, Perry will have to find a way to explain this in a way that the MSM can’t make his words the issue more than the issue.

    For good or ill, right or wrong, while I think Gingrich is very smart, I am not a fan of his. But, I loved his statement last night about not participating in being baited to attack other Repubs. If my primary vote is important by the time they get to PA, it is almost certain my vote will not go for a candidate that has been attacking the others. United front against Obama, then point out one’s own positive distinctives- anyone who doesn’t do that is more interested in their own power than the good of the nation. One has to be interested and convinced of one’s own abilities to run for president, but one does not have to do so to the extent of helping Obama by trashing primary opponents.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  75. Yes, Perry will have to find a way to explain this in a way that the MSM can’t make his words the issue more than the issue.

    This entire thread just got distilled perfectly.

    This is the central issue.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  76. if Perry said it’s failed by every metric, why would he not want to abolish it?

    Because it’s too difficult. I’m sure he’d like to abolish it if that were doable, but it isn’t, so we need to look for other solutions. And any solution that we come up with has to leave current beneficiaries and people about to become beneficiaries alone, or almost alone, or it won’t get off the ground. Unfortunately that’s the reality; too many people are being paid off, and they all vote.

    Personally, I think the best thing to do is to cut off all social security for everyone, and then provide welfare for old people who are very poor. Call it ‘Shame on you! Security’.

    Me too, but since this is not feasible, what I’d like to do is raise the eligibility age by 3 months per year, every year, forever. Just announce that as of 1-Jan-2012 the retirement age is 65 years and 3 months, on 1-Jan-2013 it will go to 65 and 6 months, etc., and it will keep going up without limit, until eventually it goes so high that nobody lives long enough to get in.

    This gives everybody enough time to adjust to the change. If you were planning to retire next year, waiting 3 months longer is not much of a hardship, but a longer delay would be. If your plans are two years away, then you have time to adjust things so you can wait another six months. And if you’re twenty years from retirement then a 5-year extension should be no hardship at all.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  77. Milhouse – Even Ron Paul admits Social Security has all the elements required of a Ponzi scheme:

    “Courage begins with a commitment to see things as they are, rather than how we wish they were. When it comes to Social Security we must understand that the system does not represent an old age pension, an insurance program or even a forced savings program. It simply represents an enormous transfer of payment with younger workers paying taxes to benefit the other beneficiaries. There is no Social Security trust fund and you don’t have an account. Whether you win or lose the Social Security lottery is a function of when you happen to be born and how long you live to collect benefits. Of course young people today have every reason to believe they will never collect those benefits.

    Notice that neither political party proposes letting people opt out of Social Security, which exposes the lie that your contributions are set aside and saved. After all, if your contributions are really set aside for your retirement, the money is there earning interest, right? If your money is in your account, what difference would it make if your neighbor chooses not to participate in the program?

    The truth of course is that your contributions are not put aside. Social Security is a simple tax. Like all taxes, the money collected is spent immediately as general revenue to fund the federal government. But no administration will admit that Social Security is nothing more than an accounting ledger with no money. You will collect benefits only if future tax revenues remain high. The money you paid into the system is long gone.”

    http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-12-26/ron-paul-why-the-government-lies-about-social-security/

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  78. Unless your primary opponent deserves to be trashed it would be dumb to do so.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  79. Milhouse – By your logic, if it looks like a Ponzi scheme, acts like a Ponzi scheme, smells like Ponzi scheme, and will collapse like a Ponzi scheme, but is authorized by government action, one may not call it what it really is, but invent some other name for it.

    No, daleyrocks, you idiot. SocSec does not look, act, or smell like a Ponzi scheme, in that it is not fraudulent. “Notions” are the very essence of fraud, and that is the very obvious truth that you foolishly challenged. Without lies there is no fraud, and nobody has lied about SocSec for over 50 years. Thus it is not a Ponzi scheme, any more than an obvious and important matter that nobody wants to talk about is an elephant.

    Milhouse (9a4c23)

  80. Milhouse – Geez, please explain where the cash contributions made by participants currently reside.

    They’ve been spent.

    Milhouse (9a4c23)

  81. Milhouse, maybe I’m wrong, but I think that actually much of the money “paid into SS” over the years has been used to fund all kind of other things by the fed government, that’s why there are IOU’s to the SS fund from the general fund. The crisis comes not just when the SS income is less than the outgo, but at that time the general bdget will no longer be able to use up the “excess” in the day to day SS fund.

    I may be wrong, and I expect others to correct me or confirm.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  82. Even Ron Paul admits Social Security has all the elements required of a Ponzi scheme:

    And he’s your standard of proof?! Ron Paul is a wonderful man, and I wish I could support his presidential bid, but rhetorical flourishes `R’ him. You cannot take anything the man says at face value. The plain fact is that SocSec does not have the most essential defining element of a Ponzi scheme, and anyone who claims it does is a fool or a liar.

    Milhouse (9a4c23)

  83. MD is correct. All those Murtha Post Offices and such were paid for partly with social security withholdings.

    In my view, that means there were no such withholdings. They were simply income tax. And even then, these boomers left my generation shouldered with a ridiculous level of debt. We have to pay both that debt AND pay for their entitlements? I know democrats say it’s an entitlement because the boomers paid in all their lives and it’s their money, but that’s a lie. They were paying for a huge, huge, huge government. Some good, some not so good, but their democracy.

    What a shame it’s politically impossible to see justice, which would be a huge bill to pay off the debt, and a termination of all entitlements.

    Amusingly, my generation is largely on Romney and Obama’s side of this issue. They want to support the democrat plan to pass the buck on a failed system, even though they are the ones most screwed by policies like Romneycare and Social Security. Idiots.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  84. Milhouse, maybe I’m wrong, but I think that actually much of the money “paid into SS” over the years has been used to fund all kind of other things by the fed government, that’s why there are IOU’s to the SS fund from the general fund.

    Yes, that’s correct. I’m puzzled why you think I said anything else.

    Milhouse (9a4c23)

  85. Comment by Milhouse — 9/8/2011 @ 11:29 am

    When Congress expanded the coverage of SocSec in the 50’s, and again in the 60’s (in the early 60’s when I was in the USAF, we had no FICA deduction. That came later, and then they scrapped the old Mil-ID # system for incoming personnel, and just used their SocSec #), that is when they started to have cash-flow problems.
    I remember that while in college, and running a “nabe” movie house, the only employee who made more than the cap was the projectionist. He was always very happy come October when his FICA deductions would stop.
    As Congress bought (and remember, from 1954-1994, the House was solidly in the Dem column, and any changes to SocSec must initiate in the Cmte on Ways and Means) more and more votes by expanding the coverage and benefits of SocSec, it bacame a more problematic scheme resulting in the “save” during Reagan, and continueing controversy over whether/when it will become insolvent.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  86. > Did he read the actual quote, or the Daily Beast/Think Process take on it?

    It’s not clear who the ‘he’ is in the context of this question. 🙂

    aphrael (d97b3e)

  87. In my view, that means there were no such withholdings. They were simply income tax.

    That’s exactly right. I remember Milton Friedman making this point in the ’70s. He wanted to fold the “social security” tax into the main income tax, acknowledging the reality that that’s all it ever was, and pay SS benefits out of the general fund. That wouldn’t fix anything, but it would stop obfuscating the reality.

    And even then, these boomers left my generation shouldered with a ridiculous level of debt. We have to pay both that debt AND pay for their entitlements?

    Unfortunately, yes, at least until their numbers drop low enough that we can outvote them. But by then so many others will have joined their ranks, and having “paid in” will expect to be supported for the rest of their lives. I don’t see this ever changing, unless we restrict the franchise to those who are net contributors to the public fisc.

    Milhouse (9a4c23)

  88. It’s not clear who the ‘he’ is in the context of this question. 🙂

    Comment by aphrael — 9/8/2011 @ 12:01 pm

    I think Mitt. Anyway, I think the point is that taking a sentence from a book, when that sentence obviously needs some kind of qualification and discussion, is pretty unfair. When Perry’s chief rival does it, isn’t it pretty silly to let that define Perry’s POV, without the context?

    Perry was right there, after all. He explained his view for us, after all. He doesn’t want to abolish social security, and explained his view in a simplified manner according to the stupid game show format he frankly shouldn’t have even bothered to attend.

    Imagine if Perry had defined Romney that way. It would be damn, damn easy to do.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  89. When LBJ moved SocSec into the Budget in the early years of The Great Society, it was to enable him to paper over his deficit spending with the surplus in the SocSec ledger.
    AlGore’s lockbox contains nothing but Intragovernmental Debt notes.
    If they had taken those funds and just put them into a S&P500 index fund, there would be money there, and the economy would be booming.
    But, they didn’t, and it isn’t.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  90. I don’t see this ever changing, unless we restrict the franchise to those who are net contributors to the public fisc.

    Comment by Milhouse — 9/8/2011 @ 12:04 pm

    You’re right. It’s a problem that will not be truly repaired. They have gotten away with selfishness, and it’s as clear a sign as any that something fundamental is screwed up with our culture.

    But alas, we’re wealthy enough a nation to shoulder this theft, if and only if someone does their best to get this crap under control pretty soon.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  91. I said this :
    SS is worse than a Ponzi scheme; at least in a Ponzi scheme most of the new investment money goes to paying returns to investors, in SS most of the incoming funds have been used for other things
    You quoted me then said this:
    I don’t think this can possibly be true, except perhaps for the very first years of the system. From quite early on, and certainly by the 1940s, the majority of receipts must surely have been used to make payments. …
    Comment by Milhouse

    But the point I made , then Dustin confirmed, and then you agreed with, is opposite what you said here. Whether “The majority” has one into payments or the gen fed budget, the point is a ton of money has been going elsewhere-
    Are you trying to deny the point by saying the percentage taken by the Ponzi schemer for himself is a bigger percentage than the fed gov. has used elsewhere?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  92. Daley

    Yes it was but it was a small flat tax went to a large flat tax the largest in the world

    The problem is even the worlds largest flat tax

    isnt working

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  93. Why not this?

    Remember when the younger President Bush suggested a partial privatization of Social Security as a way to avert the eventual meltdown of the program? His commission came up with three possible plans:

    Plan I: Up to two percent of taxable wages could be diverted from FICA and voluntarily placed by workers into private accounts for investment in stocks, bonds, and/or mutual funds.
    Plan II: Up to four percent of taxable wages, up to a maximum of $1000, could be diverted from FICA and voluntarily placed by workers into private accounts for investment.
    Plan III: One percent of wages on top of FICA, and 2.5% diverted from FICA up to a maximum of $1000, could be voluntarily placed by workers into private accounts for investment.

    For this year, as part of the compromise tax cut legislation enacted by the lame duck session of the eleventy-first Congress, Social Security taxes on individuals, which had been 6.2% of gross earnings, was reduced to 4.2%, a two percentage point cut. If the reports are correct, President Obama will propose extending that beyond 2011 in his presentation this evening.

    President Bush’s “Plan 2” would have allowed the deferral of 4% of individual Social Security taxes to be diverted into private accounts, to a maximum of $1,000. A worker would hit that at just $25,000 of income. Well, with the current 2% tax reduction, a worker hits that $1,000 threshold after earning $50,000. Since Social Security is already no longer receiving that money — something we were told was absolutely horrible, and a way to make the elderly eat cat food — why not allow taxpayers the option of paying that 2%, and putting it into individual accounts?

    After all, we’ve already taken away the money from Social Security, something our friends on the left said we could never, ever do, so this wouldn’t cost anything we aren’t already doing. We could ignore the Bush proposed $1,000 cap, since it wouldn’t be taking away revenues from Social Security; someone earning the maximum Social Security wage of $106,800 could put in $2,136. Heck, I’d allow people to volunteer to put more than the two percent in; why not? They’d still be paying the 4.2%, so it’s no loss to the Social Security plan.

    The Dana with big ideas (3e4784)

  94. “No, daleyrocks, you idiot. SocSec does not look, act, or smell like a Ponzi scheme, in that it is not fraudulent.”

    Milhouse – An illegal Ponzi scheme does not look fraudulent to those who get their money plus a return back, you git. Wake up.

    Is an illegal Ponzi scheme fraudulent as long as it keeps going?

    Would you have been happier if Perry had said Social Security is a “legal” Ponzi scheme?

    You mad, bro?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  95. Daleyrocks – Reagan implemented a $14,000,000,000,000+ flat tax, the largest flat tax in the history of the universe.

    JD (318f81)

  96. Dana:

    I think the reality was Bush’s plan was so demonized by the left that not the first word of what he wanted to do was ever read. “They want to steal your Social Security”!! was all that was heard.

    Perhaps Perry nees to say, “Guess what, they’ve already been stealing your social security!! to get attention and traction.

    If you claim lies are being told, then please identify them. Who exactly, in the last 50 years, has lied about how SocSec works? When did they tell this lie, to whom, and what exactly did they say? I know the government lied about it back in the 1930s, but not since at least 1960.
    Comment by Milhouse

    As I discussed above, the perception of much of the public, enouraged by what politicians say, has been something that is not true, and politicians have been generally happy to reinforce the “untruth”. People naively think they should be able to believe what they are told, instead of researching primary documents from the government.

    I need to do other things now.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  97. JD, that was until Palin imposed a tax of 100% on the sale of her books for the price of the book, which was not really a tax I guess, but the sale price. But it raised $99X99E^99 according to a radio station.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  98. JD – So far that is information only known to EPWJ, the $300-$500 billion annual cost of Reagan’s SS reform legislation.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  99. MD, you said this:

    I said this :
    SS is worse than a Ponzi scheme; at least in a Ponzi scheme most of the new investment money goes to paying returns to investors, in SS most of the incoming funds have been used for other things

    That isn’t and can’t be true. Just as in a Ponzi scheme, most of the money taken in by SocSec (except perhaps in the very early years) has gone towards payments. And, just as in a Ponzi scheme, some of the money has gone into the operator’s pockets. Well, not literally into their pockets, but into the federal budget, to be spent on things that buy votes. In American, and especially at the federal level, politicians tend to line their pockets indirectly, rather than blatantly putting their fingers in the till. (Yes, there are some exceptions—Maxine Waters comes to mind, if the allegations against her are true—which is why I said “tend”.) Thus SocSec is not “worse” than a Ponzi scheme in this way. It is worse than a Ponzi scheme in that nobody had to invest with Mr Ponzi, or with Mr Madoff; they didn’t come after you with guns if you just said “no”.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  100. Milhouse has problems dealing with non absolutes.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  101. Where’s Ian with his argument clinic link?

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  102. Daley

    You need to go over to Hotair and look at the Debate between Thomas Freidman and Rick Santelli

    Reagans role is heavily discussed – social security is considered his tax – his every lasting gift

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  103. sorry ever lasting gift

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  104. 70.I can’t believe that even this damn obvious issue causes so much pettiness and debate.
    If the GOP cannot even agree on the essential problem with entitlements, do we have any hope of getting a damn thing done?
    We’ve got 100 other issues like this. There will be a billion more ‘oh, but this would be a little more precise’ nit picks, too, I guess.
    Ugh. All of this undermines communication and understanding. It is the enemy of truth.

    Comment by Dustin —

    I agree. The candidates should help each other explain their points about the problem with Obama as first second, and third priotity, then discuss their own distinctives and strenghts, but not at each other’s expense, if they love their country and truth.

    I don’t care to fuss over if Perry said it was a Ponzi scheme or like a Ponzi scheme or would go good with Ponzied cream, or if he said it was a failure, a complete failure, or was going to be a failure- the point is he is willing to say it is a big problem and something MUST be done about it, not mumble aside something about fixing ss but not really meaning it because to raise it invites Dem Demagogery.

    The answer is to overcome the demgogery- and if I knew how I would either be running myself (not likely) or getting paid telling someone else how to (mush preferable).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  105. Ronald Reagan did not “fix” Social Security. If it was “fixed,” we wouldn’t be subjecting younger generations to an unsustainable economic model now, as Friedman himself conceded. The reforms enacted during his administration — which were bitterly opposed at the time and necessarily politically limited — put off the eventual day of fiscal reckoning by a few decades but did nothing to address the internal flaws of a system that was designed for a 16:1 worker-to-retiree ratio in a 3:1 or 2:1 reality

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  106. Milhouse – An illegal Ponzi scheme does not look fraudulent to those who get their money plus a return back, you git. Wake up.

    It may not look fraudulent, because the fraud hasn’t been exposed; but that’s the very thing that makes it fraudulent in the first place! Are you really so dense that you do not understand that?

    Is an illegal Ponzi scheme fraudulent as long as it keeps going?

    Of course it is. Its very essence is the fraud, and the longer it keeps going the more people are defrauded. SocSec is not fraudulent, and therefore is not a Ponzi scheme.

    Would you have been happier if Perry had said Social Security is a “legal” Ponzi scheme?

    No, I’m quite happy with the way Perry put it. SocSec is like a Ponzi scheme in some very important ways, and it’s important for a presidential candidate to say so. For the purpose of public policy and the debt crisis, the similarities are more important than the differences.

    BTW, the fact that SocSec is legal isn’t an important distinction; Congress could make actual Ponzi schemes legal if it wanted to, and that wouldn’t change their nature. The fact that SocSec is not fraudulent is a very important distinction, because fraud is the chief element in the definition of a Ponzi scheme. Fraud is what makes a Ponzi scheme a Ponzi scheme. Without the fraud, and without the guns that support SocSec, few people would be stupid enough to “invest” in such a scheme, and it would collapse before it had the chance to do any serious harm.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  107. Daleyrocks has problems dealing with logic, or truth, or decency.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  108. Rolls eyes

    And, just as in a Ponzi scheme, some of the money has gone into the operator’s pockets. Well, not literally into their pockets, but into the federal budget, to be spent on things that buy votes.

    I’m having a hard time why you persist in missing the forest to opine on the shades of bark of the trees. Yes, I see you are taking with the issue of the percentage take of a Madoff or other Ponzi schemer and the percentage take of the feds.

    Meanwhile, Rome burns because money that was designated for a red tanker truck for the fire department went to buying a yellow tanker truck and the firemen are too busy bickering with each other over it to use whatever tanker truck may be there.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  109. Friedman was thoroughly schooled by Santelli, however as the upper class twit that he is, he may not be aware of it. In the end, it doesn’t really matter what you say, Ryan, explicitly left
    current recipients out of his new changes to entitlements, but they lied anyways

    ian cormac (d69b60)

  110. I certainly have no problem with non-absolutes. On the contrary, nearly everything I write here is hedged with acknowledgment of exceptions and nuances and other non-absolutes. Remember, I’m the one who from my first comment on this thread has insisted that Perry did the right thing in calling SocSec a Ponzi scheme, even though it isn’t really one. How does that show a difficulty with non-absolutes? It seems to me that it’s daleyrocks who has the very problem he sees in me. That’s because he’s either dishonest or just very bad at logic.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  111. Friedman was thoroughly schooled by Santelli, however as the upper class twit that he is, he may not be aware of it.

    Huh?! WTF is this about?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  112. B-but Reagan and the contras.

    /Lefty Israel haters

    DohBiden (d54602)

  113. Milhouse, Ian is explaining that one economist who opined on this subject was defeated with the rhetoric of another economist (or pundit… not sure exactly about Santelli).

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  114. the CNBC clip referred in the Hot Air segment, and Business Insider

    ian cormac (d69b60)

  115. Rome burns because money that was designated for a red tanker truck for the fire department went to buying a yellow tanker truck

    No, the money went to throw a carnival for the neighbours so they’d like the firemen, and therefore vote to keep the fire house there, hire more firemen to work at it, and increase their wages. Meanwhile the old tanker truck wore out on schedule, and doesn’t work any more, and there isn’t a new one.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  116. Voting Americans need to understand how much both the mission and assumptions of SS have changed since its inception, and that is why changes to the system are needed now. If they read good history books or contemporaneous newspaper articles they could see it themselves. But since most won’t do that, then a gifted politician is going to have to find the simple words do it for them.

    In the 30’s if you were 65 that was truly old and at the high end of the longevity scale. Among most of the citizenry then the idea of taking charity, or being on welfare was not acceptable. So, SS was sold that: everybody pays in– every body gets something out–it’s old age insurance for all Americans for your very final years–not welfare. SSI was not part of the mix.

    elissa (93c1a6)

  117. That’s because he’s either dishonest or just very bad at logic.

    Comment by Milhouse — 9/8/2011 @ 12:54 pm

    Well…..

    He’s an ideologue, he feels that the means justifies the – for the lack of a better word – deliberate misinformational nuance

    Or both what you said – he tries to pretend to be an expert who has some questionable comments concerning straight forward accounting, audit and the role of state government – that undermines the good he is trying to do

    He means well,

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  118. the CNBC clip referred in the Hot Air segment, and Business Insider

    Again, WTF are you on about? What Hot Air segment, or Business Insider piece?

    Milhouse, Ian is explaining that one economist who opined on this subject was defeated with the rhetoric of another economist (or pundit… not sure exactly about Santelli).

    No, Ian wrote that Friedman was “schooled” and is an “upper-class twit”. I’d like to know WTF he means by that. Friedman was 100% right, and wasn’t “schooled” by anybody. Nor was he particularly “upper-class” by any reasonable measure.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  119. So, SS was sold that: everybody pays in– every body gets something out–it’s old age insurance for all Americans for your very final years–not welfare.

    It was sold that way in the 1930s. By the ’50s the lie had worn thin, and they stopped telling it.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  120. In 2007, the cumulative excess of Social Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2 trillion.[85] The Trust Fund is regarded by some as an accounting trick which holds no economic significance. Others argue that it has specific legal significance because the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government, which has an obligation to repay its debt.

    From Wikipedia on Social Security, where they also list the payouts by year. I suppose one could add up the payouts and figure what percent the feds used for other things, and the try to find how much Madoff and others took, and find out if the feds took more or less than others

    But I think instead I’ll not bother having discussions like this again. I don’t recall ever having this much quibbling with Milhouse before.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  121. Well here’s the transcript from Zerohedge, not Business Insider:

    SANTELLI: I’d just like to know – you know, I was watching that debate last night, although it really wasn’t a debate,” Santelli said. “It was like a weird press conference. But I would like to know – does Mr. Friedman think Social Security is a Ponzi scheme?
    FRIEDMAN: No, I don’t think it’s a Ponzi scheme.
    SANTELLI: Earlier in the show you said that we’re putting the burden on our kids that’s unsustainable. What’s the definition of a Ponzi scheme?
    FRIEDMAN: It’s a program that made promises that it cannot keep in full and it needs to be fixed and reformed.
    SANTELLI: Isn’t that exactly what a Ponzi pyramid is?
    FRIEDMAN: I don’t think it is a Ponzi scheme as a criminal endeavor.
    SANTELLI: No, no – forget the criminal side. You need more people to perpetuate a myth because if the people stop the myth is known to all. That’s my definition of a Ponzi scheme. Let’s call at it chain letter, a pyramid scheme. Isn’t that by definition what Social Security is? Take the legalities and fraud out.
    STEVE LIESMAN: Why is it a Ponzi scheme, Rick?
    FRIEDMAN: It is pay as we go. Ronald Reagan fixed it. Why can’t we fix it?
    SANTELLI: What does Ronald Reagan have to do with my question?
    FRIEDMAN: What does your question have to do with reality?
    MICHELLE CARUSO CABRERA: We brought it up.
    SANTELLI: You can’t decide that more people is the only thing made Social Security work. We have a real issue because many people in government seem to like to read your work.
    FRIEDMAN: What makes Social Security work is fixing Social Security in terms of the population demands.
    SANTELLI: I didn’t ask if we should fix it or not. I asked if it’s a pyramid scheme.

    ian cormac (d69b60)

  122. No, Ian wrote that Friedman was “schooled” and is an “upper-class twit”. I’d like to know WTF he means by that. Friedman was 100% right, and wasn’t “schooled” by anybody. Nor was he particularly “upper-class” by any reasonable measure.

    Comment by Milhouse

    Well, I think ‘reasonable measure’ might be weasel words. Clearly Ian’s measure is not yours, and you just disagree. Converting that to ‘he standards must not be reasonable’ seems excessively hostile.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  123. The semi, or full, privitization of SocSec scares the $hit out of the Progressives (and others) because it reduce the dependency of the people upon the government, thusly devalueing the importance of the pols to that people.
    Also, privitization would allow vesting, where your account can go to your estate and heirs, something that is impossible with the current system, further chaining the lower income classes to the govt by hindering individual wealth creation.
    It is ironic that Blacks are the largest single supporter of Progressive politics of any ethnic group, and they get screwed the worst by the SocSec system due to their demographics – their men tend to die at a much earlier age than other racial/ethnic groups (thank you sickel-cell anemia, and destructive life-styles) and most of all of what they contribute through their lifetimes to SocSec dies with them, as far as their families are concerned.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  124. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, although maybe it might resemble it to a limited degree, but if it a Ponzi scheme it is a Ponzi scheme that works.

    It is NOT like a Ponzi scheme because:

    1)Nobody can ask to pull out his money.

    2)People cannot stop investing.

    3)It has strong elements of insurance.

    It could be like a Ponzi scheme, because, to make the payments promised, it depends on a continually growing U.S. economy and probably also population covered.

    At some point, maybe in the year 2265, the population of the United States might stop growing and/or in the year 2015 the average real per capita income, might permanently stop growing.

    However people would still get 75% of what was promised and promises to future enrollees could be reduced. If that doesn’t happen people will get less tahn 100% of amounts currently expected. But hardly anybody knows what to expect.

    By the way, I see anotehr possible problem:

    What if there’s a devastating nuclear attack on the United States? What would that do to Social Security? I guess there would be more important things to worry about.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  125. It strikes me that Friedman is pathetically evasive. He’s the nit picker, and the enemy of the truth, and Santelli is pointing to the real problem.

    Indeed, it really seems that Santelli schooled Freidman. Freidman looks aloof and dumb.

    This isn’t a complex matter. Of course social security can be described as a ponzi scheme very easily.

    It’s easy to simply avoid the merit of that argument with nit picks. That doesn’t make Freidman right. It makes him an enemy of the truth.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  126. So, it’s not a Ponzi scheme because at least in a Ponzi scheme, you can ask to get your “share” back, and with SocSec you can’t.
    I guess that makes it a forced-extortion scheme then.
    And, since the govt is doing it, it’s all OK!

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  127. From Wikipedia on Social Security, where they also list the payouts by year. I suppose one could add up the payouts and figure what percent the feds used for other things, and the try to find how much Madoff and others took, and find out if the feds took more or less than others

    It’s not a matter of whether Ponzi’s or Madoff’s take from their schemes was higher or lower than the FedGov’s from SocSec, but whether most of SocSec’s receipts went to the federal budget. Remember, that was your claim, and it was such an extraordinary one that I immediately challenged it. And you cannot pretend now that it was only an incidental part of your claim; on the contrary, it was supposedly the factor that made SocSec worse than Ponzi, rather than merely just as bad. If you didn’t mean “most”, then what exactly was the point of your entire comment on the subject? So you can’t back away from it now and call it “quibbling”.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  128. WTF?!

    JD (318f81)

  129. A person who “invests” money today will get money back only as long as more money can be obtained from others. The money that was taken in has been given to other people already, and any excess taken in was already spent on other things. There is no there there, except as in IOU’s.

    Call it whatever you want, Ray,…

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  130. WTF are all you people going on about? Have you all gone insane? Which Friedman are you talking about? Which Friedman have we been talking about here? And Dustin, by what measure could Milton Friedman possibly be called “upper-class”? If you think a reasonable measure exists by which such a statement could be made, please explain. I’m sure his son David would be amused.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  131. Tom ‘the World is Flat’ Friedman, idiot savant of the Times, well one of them. And Santelli rather strongly upbraided him.

    ian cormac (d69b60)

  132. Well, I think ‘reasonable measure’ might be weasel words.

    No, they’re not weasel words. One can conceive of a measure by which every one of us here is “upper-class” merely because we have computers, internet access, and the time to use them. But surely you will agree that that would not be a reasonable measure.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  133. Tom Friedman? Why on earth are you talking about him? And how could you introduce him without identifying him in any way into a discussion where we were already discussing another Friedman?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  134. ==It was sold that way in the 1930s. By the ’50s the lie had worn thin, and they stopped telling it==@120 apparently in response to my #117

    Milhouse, I have no idea how to connect the dots with that cryptic pronouncement. Are you saying that the electorate does, or does not, understand that this philosophical change as well as demographic changes from the plan’s original mission and structure affect its viability now?

    elissa (93c1a6)

  135. I guess that makes it a forced-extortion scheme then.

    Yes, you got it in one.

    And, since the govt is doing it, it’s all OK!

    No, it’s not OK, except perhaps according to NOYK, daleyrocks, and yourself, who believe that the law determines what is right and wrong.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  136. A person who “invests” money today will get money back only as long as more money can be obtained from others.

    But the government can always obtain more money from others, so long as there are any others, and they have anything that can be obtained. The scheme only collapses when that ceases to be true, or when the burden becomes so high that people rise up and take up arms against the government.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  137. Are you saying that the electorate does, or does not, understand that this philosophical change as well as demographic changes from the plan’s original mission and structure affect its viability now?

    I’m saying that if they don’t then it’s their own damn fault, because the government stopped lying about this before most of them were born.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  138. == daley you need to go over to Hot air and look at the Debate between Thomas Friedman and Rick Santelli== Comment by EricPWJohnson — 9/8/2011 @ 12:41 pm

    Good God, Milhouse. Every other person reading this thread knew exactly what “hot air” and what “Business Insider” and which “Friedman” was being discussed. Emily Litella knew what to say in these situations. Do you?

    elissa (93c1a6)

  139. Milhouse-

    Please, please, please, pardon me for such a profound error that totally negated the general point that was trying to be made, which was meant to be tongue in cheek rather than factually detailed.
    No- Actually, I am not asking your pardon, I think this has been a poor use of time all around.

    If you had initially replied, “MD, you’re exagerrating, most of the payments didn’t go to other things, just a lot of it…” I would have quickly understood your point, and I would have ackowledged it.
    Then we could have ignored the intent of it being a jest, and got on with the calculation to see if the feds took a bigger chunk for themselves than Madoff or others, and decide who was more selfish at being like a ponzi schemer.

    Let’s just say that 2.2 trillion that could have gone into a trust fund and generated income over the years never did because it was spent elsewhwere, even though many Americans, though never lied to, mistakenly thought it was put somewhere so they were guaranteed a return in later years. Now, whether that 2.2 trillion has been adjusted for inflation in 2011 dollars, or is the actual total of excess year by year, I don’t know.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  140. No!, they didn’t.
    They still lie about it every time they assure anyone that SocSec is protected, and solvent, and will be there for them when they need it
    (because no one, with a certainty, can say that truthfully – and they know it).

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  141. I know I shorthand a fair bit, but the odds of Santelli being against Milton Friedman, are rather
    astronomical.

    ian cormac (d69b60)

  142. “The fact that SocSec is not fraudulent is a very important distinction, because fraud is the chief element in the definition of a Ponzi scheme. Fraud is what makes a Ponzi scheme a Ponzi scheme.”

    Milhouse – I’m glad most commenters here do not share your penchant for hyperliteralist thinking.

    Current beneficiaries of social security are receiving more in benefits than they paid in to the system in the form of contributions. The mechanism which enables that is the contributions of the current workforce.

    Charles Ponzi paid off early investors with their own money and the investment of later investors.

    It is the same mechanism. Fraud is irrelevant. As currently structured, Social Security will run out of money to continue operating within a few decades.

    What are the current unfunded liabilities of Social Security? How many trillions of dollars? A private entity would have to recognize those liabilities on its books. The government does not. Does the American public understand the enormity of those unfunded liabilities? I don’t think so?

    I fail to understand how you have the limited mental capacity say Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme when it operates the same way as Charles Ponzi’s original scheme and hides the massive amount of its ultimate liabilities to the American public by hanging your hat on a definition.

    You are just not right in the head.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  143. I can’t keep up.

    We need to get our crap together. We need to reserve our attention to what really matters, instead of petty crap and, frankly, rudeness to people who didn’t deserve it, such as Ian.

    Things are bad, and we’re all passionate and smart folks who want to talk about it. This thread had better not resemble the GOP generally, or we are going to be steamrolled by the Obama campaign. We’re picking eachother apart for nothing.

    Small issues, big egos.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  144. But the government can always obtain more money from others, so long as there are any others, and they have anything that can be obtained. The scheme only collapses when that ceases to be true,…
    Comment by Milhouse

    If the government is dependent on borrowing from others to pay obligations, like now, then it will need to leave unpaid some obligations if no one will lend to it anymore- is this not the point of much recent discussion? Of course, the government can always print more, but printing money worth nothing isn’t really paying back is it? At some point raising income (or other) taxes no longer brings in more revenue.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  145. “No, it’s not OK, except perhaps according to NOYK, daleyrocks, and yourself, who believe that the law determines what is right and wrong.”

    Milhouse – I can’t help it if you’re butt hurt about getting bitch slapped on another thread, but you’re wrong here as well.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  146. Milhouse – BTW, I love it when you go “full retard” over inane points.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  147. The one serious question for those being serious, is if the feds had invested that 2.2 trillion over the years would SS still be going into trouble? Had SS worked as other insurance and invested funds to help defray future costs could it have remained solvent?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  148. == daley you need to go over to Hot air and look at the Debate between Thomas Friedman and Rick Santelli== Comment by EricPWJohnson — 9/8/2011 @ 12:41 pm

    Oh, EPWJ. That explains it. His comments don’t show up in my browser. I scanned the page for the word “Friedman”, and the only one that appeared was Milton, who came up independently twice. I had no reason to suspect that Ian was talking about a different Friedman.

    Milhouse (9a4c23)

  149. If you had initially replied, “MD, you’re exagerrating, most of the payments didn’t go to other things, just a lot of it…” I would have quickly understood your point, and I would have ackowledged it.

    How is that different from what I did reply, which was

    From quite early on, and certainly by the 1940s, the majority of receipts must surely have been used to make payments.

    What exactly was unclear about that? How could that possibly have been phrased more clearly?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  150. Well, I can’t fault you for that, Milhouse.

    Still, rather off putting to say ‘WTF’ to someone who is not being a dick to anybody. Just my view of things.

    Might be cultural. I get the impression Ian is probably Texan or close to it, and that you’re a yankee (no offense).

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  151. my 151 relates to the filter explanation

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  152. I know I shorthand a fair bit, but the odds of Santelli being against Milton Friedman, are rather astronomical.

    Which is precisely why I asked WTF you were talking about, since the only Friedman we’d been discussing on this thread, twice, was Milton. In truth at first I wondered whether you were perhaps responding to something in a different thread, about some other Friedman, and had accidentally clicked on the wrong link.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  153. 143 Comment by daleyrocks — 9/8/2011 @ 1:38 pm

    Current beneficiaries of social security are receiving more in benefits than they paid in to the system in the form of contributions.

    That’s true of AT&T. Was Ma Bell a Ponzi scheme?

    The mechanism which enables that is the contributions of the current workforce. Charles Ponzi paid off early investors with their own money and the investment of later investors.

    He promised and paid off much greater returns than Social Security does. The very earliest people who enrolled if they enrolled at the right age really made a lot.

    It is the same mechanism.

    Because there’s no profit making business involved, just new enrollees?

    What about insurance? Well you say some people lose. Well, some people paying into Social Security never collect benefits. Not that many But in some respects around half, as in the case of a married couple, benefits for the lower qualifying spouse can be either his or her own benefit or half of the other spouse’s benefit.

    Social Security can be said to be actuarially unsound, but it is not a Ponzi scheme. Two key differences between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme are that:

    A) Nobody can cash out.

    B) Nobody can decline to enroll.

    If Bernard Madoff had had those kind of rules working for him, he’d still be going strong, and as it is, he went on for more than 20 years, because he limited himself to returns of 10% a year, unlike Charles Ponzi..

    And if instead of offering 10% or so a year, but offered 3% instead, and it was also compulsory and the investment unrefundable the scheme could go on for a very very long time.

    If you must call Social Security a Ponzi scheme, then it is a Ponzi scheme that is sustainable.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  154. Lefty Obots-Death Penalty is bad except for those who spy for Israel.

    Godless Lefturd-Religion is bad except for Islam.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  155. Um no leftard it is not sustainable.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  156. But the government can always obtain more money from others, so long as there are any others, and they have anything that can be obtained. The scheme only collapses when that ceases to be true,…
    Comment by Milhouse

    If the government is dependent on borrowing from others to pay obligations,

    Who said anything about borrowing? What makes government different when it comes to debt is precisely the fact that it can obtain as much money as it likes, so long as there remains anybody under its jurisdiction with something which it can obtain.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  157. if the feds had invested that 2.2 trillion over the years would SS still be going into trouble?

    Probably. Look at the big government pension funds, like CALPers. Governments manage to lose money at things that you wouldn’t think anyone could fail to make a profit at, such as a monopoly on the sale of alcohol. So I wouldn’t bet that they couldn’t make a loss on picking investments. On the other hand, your second question:

    Had SS worked as other insurance and invested funds to help defray future costs could it have remained solvent?

    Had it run like private funds do, then it could and would have remained solvent. I just don’t think the government is capable of running funds the way that private funds are run. There’s always political interference that negatively affects returns.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  158. “That’s true of AT&T. Was Ma Bell a Ponzi scheme?”

    Sammy – What are you talking about?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  159. “If you must call Social Security a Ponzi scheme, then it is a Ponzi scheme that is sustainable.”

    Sammy – It is unsustainable under it’s current structure. It needs to be reformed. Do you seriously not understand those facts?

    The two differences you cite, inability to withdraw cash and mandatory participation make no difference to me. They are government imposed requirements. A private individual running a Ponzi scheme would love to be able to impose similar requirements on investors. They typically can’t, although they do often put restrictions on withdrawals.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  160. So if someone had a ponzi scheme, and forced people in via extortion, and threatened the members not to cash out, magically it’s no longer a ponzi scheme?

    Irrelevant nit pick.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  161. O/T- There is a huge power outage affecting San Diego County, from the city proper out to the outlying areas such as Rancho Santa Fe, El Cajon, and TJ.
    SDGE says they are investigating the extent and cause.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  162. …and the good news:
    No one can watch the President’s speech.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  163. At this time, SocSec payouts exceed inflow.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  164. “So if someone had a ponzi scheme, and forced people in via extortion, and threatened the members not to cash out, magically it’s no longer a ponzi scheme?”

    Dustin – I believe that is the logic Sammy is using. Again, ignoring substance for form.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  165. Exactly SS needs to be reformed.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  166. “Bernie Madoff used to send people monthly statements tracking their non-existent investments, and reporting on trades that never happened; SocSec doesn’t do that.”

    Social Security does the same thing, every three months I receive a statement telling me what I have paid in, and what I can expect to receive when I retire, and what I would receive now if disabled.

    “Just announce that as of 1-Jan-2012 the retirement age is 65 years and 3 months, on 1-Jan-2013 it will go to 65 and 6 months, etc.,”

    My retirement age has already been increased to 67 by the govt.

    “in that it is not fraudulent. “

    Yes it is fraudulent. It was fraudulent from it’s very beginning. When FDR established Social Security, he pawned it off as being an old age pension, BUT it never was. He knew that the American people would never stand for increasing the Income Tax during the Depression, so he came up with Social Security as a new form of taxation to increase money flow into the Treasury.

    The estimated lifespan of retirees was only 6-24 months greater than the retirement age of 65. Therefore, a person would pay into Social Security for all of their working life, and were only expected to receive a portion of that back.

    “Social Security can be said to be actuarially unsound, but it is not a Ponzi scheme. Two key differences between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme are that:
    A) Nobody can cash out.
    B) Nobody can decline to enroll.”

    Sammy Finklestupid is really stupid. A and B not only make it a smart Ponzi scheme, they make it a SUPER Ponzi Scheme. If everyone is required by law to enroll and no one can cash out, that means it will go on forever. Especially as when it was established, the retirees were never expected to live long enough to collect but a portion of their money back.

    The increase of quality of health care in this country has increased the average lifespan of its citizens, and has doomed the Social Security Siper Ponzi Scheme.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  167. Siper = Super

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  168. “If everyone is required by law to enroll and no one can cash out, that means it will go on forever.”

    POA – Or until the cash runs out, as it is now projected to do unless the system is reformed.

    This is not that difficult to understand.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  169. And the funny thing about the statement that I receive from the SSA is that if I were to retire now on disability (I could because of my health problems but can’t take the paycut) I would draw over 200 dollars a month more than what is projected when I reach 67 yoa.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  170. Exactly daley, the money is running out because of 50 million aborted taxpayers and the increased life expectancy, and the fact that the Federal Govt. never placed the money in an investment program as simple as an interest bearing savings account. No they spent it each and every year.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  171. Actually I don’t think I would call Social Security a Ponzi scheme, because a Ponzi scheme can not be reformed..and social security can. The problems with the program have to do with actuaries and demographics. But calling it a criminal enterprise is a tad ridiculous I think. Of course the Democrats are having a bad year and they can use all the help they can get. And it seems that Governor Perry might be giving them a fine issue to demagogue.

    Today Perry was backing off some of his comments..he apparently has decided that perhaps we should save this unconstitutional fraud, or whatever else he called it.

    I am not a young woman. I have been watching these debates for years and it is news to me that serious contenders for the Republican nomination are expected to take a stand that not even the majority of their own rank and file support.

    Perry is liberal on immigration. He has a habit of attaching himself to people and then dumping them when they serve their purpose and right now he is the man of the hour because he is willing to scare a bunch of old people talking tough on social security without ever coming up with a credible alternative. I think every one of those people on that stage know we need to make changes in entitlements, but just trashing the whole damn program solves nothing.

    The next thing of course will be to yell at Romney for being mean to Perry and going after him on this issue.

    Terrye (eec529)

  172. Terrye, what a fine example of concern trolling.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  173. Actually I don’t think I would call Social Security a Ponzi scheme, because a Ponzi scheme can not be reformed..and social security can.

    ?

    But it’s a ponzi scheme in its present form.

    Today Perry was backing off some of his comments..he apparently has decided that perhaps we should save this unconstitutional fraud, or whatever else he called it.

    How is he doing that? If you let Romney define his opponent’s position, and Petty corrects the record, that is not a back track at all.

    Perry wants to change Social Security to something sustainable. Romney cherry picked and fabricated a position Perry didn’t have.

    But calling it a criminal enterprise is a tad ridiculous I think

    You sound extremely confused.

    It’s Romney who called Social Security a criminal enterprise. Seriously. Then he flip flopped to saying it’s totally horrible if anyone says stuff like that, and how he wants to save it.

    The next thing of course will be to yell at Romney for being mean to Perry and going after him on this issue.

    Actually, it’s a little annoying that Romney wasn’t more direct in his confrontation. but I don’t think Romney is a fighter. He’ll do it through proxies and sly misquotes, but I don’t even know what Romney’s position really is.

    What’s the problem with Romney. He is all over the map, depending on who he’s talking to. He is condemning Perry for a position very similar to a position Romney recently held himself, but abandoned when honing in on his present position.

    This is a serious problem. Nit picking Perry because you can come up with some way social security is different from a traditional ponzi scheme is petty and stupid. The comparison got to the core truth of the matter. Why interfere with that? Why not compare solutions?

    Romney’s approach reminds me of Romneycare, where Romney whined that it was “too hard” to overcome democrats on the issue. Perry would have just vetoed it.

    Romney just doesn’t have what it takes to repeal Obamacare, let alone reform social security. Can you imagine how difficult a battle that will be? Flip floppers who follow polls and repeat democrat fear tactics are not up to the task of being the president.

    I have been watching these debates for years and it is news to me that serious contenders for the Republican nomination are expected to take a stand that not even the majority of their own rank and file support.

    What exactly are you saying? Remember, Perry’s position is not to abolish social security, and those who say it is are lying. Plain and simple. Are you then arguing against reforming entitlements? If so, just be clear about it.

    And if so, you are a democrat. Vote for Obama. Let the Republicans solve these problems.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  174. SPR – an epidemic.

    JD (318f81)

  175. I could reform a ponzi scheme, anyway. Give me a ponzi scheme, and I could turn it into something that isn’t. Obviously. It’s just another version of Sammy’s complaint. It makes absolutely no sense, and is really kinda childish anyway.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  176. I felt like I was coming down way too hard on Romney last night, because frankly Perry’s performance made me defensive and worried our nominee would be Romney.

    Romney’s subsequent behavior, combined with Perry’s rapid response showing Romney actually was not arguing in good faith, has really helped clear my view of that candidate.

    Romney is not a stupid man. He is not an empty suit (I used to call him one). But this issue is one of several where he has contradicted himself. So there’s no reason to expect Romney will govern any particular way. Obviously that’s better than Obama. But I would prefer a leader.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  177. Terrye, what a fine example of concern trolling.

    Comment by SPQR — 9/8/2011 @ 7:02 pm

    Bull.

    I am not concerned, I am disgusted.

    So, Perry calls social security a bunch of names..and then promises not to cut anybody off of it unless of course he feels the need to turn it over to the states or something.

    It is all rhetoric, talk…nothing more.

    Perry could have come up with an articulate plan and he did not. He just makes these snappy little one liners and then gets offended when someone suggests that he might just do away with the program.

    He is all over the place on this. That is the problem. He has time to come up with a more concise plan for the future, my guess is he will have to do that.

    But I am not concern trolling just because I point out the obvious fact that Democrats love to demagogue this stuff and there is no point in making it easy for them.

    Terrye (eec529)

  178. Dustin, my point is that a ponzi scheme is not intended to be anything else, but social security has not always been like it is today and it can be reformed so that it survives into the future.

    Terrye (eec529)

  179. I saw somewhere that Perry made an appearance in San Diego after the debate in Simi Valley?
    Will they blame him for today’s power outage that has darkened San Diego/Imperial Co’s and Northern Baja?
    Why does Perry hate Mexicans?

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  180. So, Perry calls social security a bunch of names..and then promises not to cut anybody off of it unless of course he feels the need to turn it over to the states or something.

    Provide a direct quote from the debate that says this, and didn’t come out of Romney’s mouth.

    Why are you repeatedly mistaken about Perry’s views?

    Perry could have come up with an articulate plan and he did not. He just makes these snappy little one liners and then gets offended when someone suggests that he might just do away with the program.

    Not accurate at all. Perry explicitly says what he’s talking about. Changing Social Security to be sustainable. And Romney describes this incorrectly. You are interpreting this without referring to reality.

    Democrats love to demagogue this stuff and there is no point in making it easy for them.

    Not just democrats, sadly. Some Republicans. And we can’t hope to fix this by following those who do, can we? As my link showed, Romney has compared Social Security to criminal enterprise himself, and then completely changed tune in order to act as though those doing this are way out of line.

    How many times does Perry and his campaign have to note they are not going to abolish Social Security before you stop pretending they said they were? Not ‘oh, maybe they might just do away with it’. You know that’s not true, so why did you say that?

    It’s just not reasonable.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  181. Terry – tell us what would have been acceptable to both yourself, and th e Dems, and would have avoided being demagogued by the Dems, and you.

    JD (318f81)

  182. Dustin, my point is that a ponzi scheme is not intended to be anything else, but social security has not always been like it is today and it can be reformed so that it survives into the future.

    Comment by Terrye — 9/8/2011 @ 7:17 pm

    What kind of point is that?

    It means nothing. You have erred (I’m trying to be nice) about the definition of a Ponzi Scheme.

    A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. . . .

    The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors.

    I see nothing here that says it has to be set up specifically intending to be a Ponzi Scheme. That’s like saying a dog has to intend to be a dog. It doesn’t.

    And read that definition. That’s Social Security in a nutshell. That’s the point of why our nation is in deep trouble right now.

    Nit picking or even inventing reasons to talk about this metaphor is really annoying to me, because we should be focused on how Perry told the TRUTH, and how he refused to back off the TRUTH. Apparently many of our presidential candidates have feathers where their spine should be, and were not so able.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  183. Not accurate at all. Perry explicitly says what he’s talking about. Changing Social Security to be sustainable.

    How Dustin? How is he going to do that?That is vague to the point of useless. Bush tried to reform social security in a concise way that people understood. They might not have liked the plan very much, but at least he had one.

    o, Perry calls social security a bunch of names..and then promises not to cut anybody off of it unless of course he feels the need to turn it over to the states or something.

    Provide a direct quote from the debate that says this, and didn’t come out of Romney’s mouth.

    What are you talking about? Perry has called social security a ponzi scheme, a lie, a fraud, unconstitutional…and on and on. I am not just talking about the debate.

    And today there was this:

    He suggested the program’s creation violated the Constitution. The program was put in place, “at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government,” he wrote, comparing the program to a “bad disease” that has continued to spread. 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.”

    But since jumping into the 2012 GOP nomination race on Saturday, Mr. Perry has tempered his Social Security views. His communications director, Ray Sullivan, said Thursday that he had “never heard” the governor suggest the program was unconstitutional. Not only that, Mr. Sullivan said, but “Fed Up!” is not meant to reflect the governor’s current views on how to fix the program.

    The issue bubbled up Thursday, when a gaggle of protestors confronted Mr. Perry outside a café in Portsmouth, N.H., accusing him of trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Perry didn’t respond when one of the protesters inside the café accused him of believing the Social Security system was unconstitutional.

    In an interview, Mr. Sullivan acknowledged that many passages in Mr. Perry’s “Fed Up!” could dog his presidential campaign. The book, Mr. Sullivan said, “is a look back, not a path forward.” It was written “as a review and critique of 50 years of federal excesses, not in any way as a 2012 campaign blueprint or manifesto,” Mr. Sullivan said.

    The campaign’s disavowal of “Fed Up!” is itself very new. On Sunday evening, at Mr. Perry’s first campaign stop in Iowa, a questioner asked the governor to talk about how he would fix the country’s rickety entitlement programs. Mr. Perry shot back: “Have you read my book, ‘Fed Up!’ Get a copy and read it.”

    In the book, Mr. Perry dings politicians who don’t have the courage to take on Social Security. So what is his position now? “The governor wants to see the benefits for existing retirees and those close to Social Security be strongly protected,” Mr. Sullivan said. Beyond that, “he believes a full review and discussion of entitlement reforms need to be had, aimed at seeing that programs like Social Security and Medicare are fiscally responsible and actuarially sound.”

    I am not saying entitlements don’t need reform, they do..but just throwing around a lot of rhetoric won’t get that done.

    Terrye (eec529)

  184. Terry – tell us what would have been acceptable to both yourself, and th e Dems, and would have avoided being demagogued by the Dems, and you.

    Comment by JD — 9/8/2011 @ 7:22 pm

    You know what? Perry is a liberal on immigration and yet people are willing to overlook it because the rightie blogs are in the bag for him. If Romney has said some of the stuff on immigration that Perry has, people would be all over him.

    But Perry, well he is special and if so anyone who does not slobber all over the guy is with the Democrats or something.

    What could he do? Spend less time talking about what a piece of crap the social security system is and more time coming up with concrete initiatives. Something like what Paul Ryan did with Medicare. Ryan did not just say medicare was a crime, he laid out a way to fix it. Something constructive.

    Terrye (eec529)

  185. A candidate’s first debate over 14 months prior to the election is the perfct time to demand a concrete plan to stabilize social security.

    JD (318f81)

  186. Frankly, I shouldn’t get so damn animated.

    Romney had to walk a tightrope to win the nomination. Perry did not perform up to my expectations (probably because he didn’t have much time to prepare, and I can accept that to a point). But Romney badly miscalculated how this would play out. His one hope is to make Perry look unelectable. That’s why he hopes to make Perry repeat the conservative POV on issues Romney thinks the right loses on. Romney takes the moderate view, criticizes Perry so that he’s associated with the conservative view, and this Perry becomes unelectable, scaring pragmatics away.

    This firstly is sad because it shows Romney lacks faith in the conservative point of view, at least on this issue. He thinks it’s a loser with the middle. That kinda hints at what kind of priority Romney will place on this issue. He’s going to kick the can down the road (like most Republicans, to be fair).

    But it also seems very foolish in today’s media world. Romney is going to be hammered for this. The Tea Party absolutely dominates the primaries. Look at how Christine O’Donnell won in Delaware. The 2012 primaries will not be what Romney’s expecting. People do not want milquetoast and electable Republicans. They want principles.

    In Romney’s defense, I don’t think he had a choice. Where does he have to go, politically? He sees the world that way. Pick a political view like a tactic in a game. This was his position to broaden support. I get it.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  187. So any criticism from Perry would have drawn your ire, absent a full proposal to overhaul the system?

    JD (318f81)

  188. Romney is technocratic and weird

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  189. How Dustin? How is he going to do that?That is vague to the point of useless.

    Great question. Thank you for admitting you do not know what his plans are.

    And he’s told you he doesn’t intend to do X, yet you said he might do X. That’s odd to me.

    Why does someone who admits they do not know someone’s position, then contradict what that person said their position is?

    You know what? Perry is a liberal on immigration and yet people are willing to overlook it because the rightie blogs are in the bag for him.

    This is why people call you a concern troll. It’s like you have an agenda and just run down a list of talking points.

    Perry favors border enforcement. A massive increase. If he was demanding a 50 ft concrete wall, you would absolutely condemn him on it. We both know that.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  190. Gov Perry might have a point on Constitutionality.
    Just where in the Constitution is an enumerated power, or even a penumbra with enhanced emanations, that authorizes a nation-wide payroll tax?
    It certainly isn’t in the 16th Amendment.
    I fail to find such authority in Art-I, Sec-8.
    Is a payroll tax an Excise?
    Now, the SCOTUS of 1938 had been emasculated, and would have certified the constitutionality of a ham-sandwich, but I think a case can be made.
    Thoughts?

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  191. Dustin, the point is he has said a lot of things, he has contradicted himself and he has not given me the impression that he was ready to take this to a national audience.

    It is one thing to just complain about something and find fault…we all know that, it is something else to come up with a plan.

    And Perry has not been on top of this. He allowed other people to frame the issue for him.

    So he has used his book and stood by his book and then distanced himself from his book.

    This is early. There is still all sorts of time left in the campaign.

    Terrye (eec529)

  192. I do think Perry needs to flesh out his position. His website is stunningly short on details.

    JD’s quite right that it’s very early in the game. Perry only recently announced he’s running at all. We have over a year to hear his plans. He’s dealing with more important issues in his job.

    But at any rate, I have a basic understand of Perry’s views. And frankly, we all know the reform process will not follow anyone’s neat checklist anyway. It’ll be a mess.

    We at least need to make sure our side of the reform is represented by someone willing to admit it’s a ponzi scheme by nature, and that aspect must be fixed.

    That’s basic. So Perry only gets so much credit for that. But some don’t even get that far.

    I’m not a hack for Perry. I’ve criticized him in the past. But he’s definitely looking like the best choice if you want to fix some of these problems.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  193. Perry is staunch staunch staunch on immigration he’s not proposing anything for America that presents any kind of problem with immigration that he himself hasn’t calmly and ably and unhistrionically dealt with in Texas on a much larger scale than almost all of the rest of the country has ever contemplated.

    Perry envisages an America where we don’t pee our panties like Tom Tancredo when it comes time to think about how we’re going to strengthen our borders.

    I share Mr. Governor Perry’s vision, and that’s why tonight I am endorsing him for the office of the presidency of the United States.

    Thank you for listening and God Bless America.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  194. Drew, you’re damn right about that.

    It’s annoying that if someone has the spine to point out some of these excesses, sacred cows to the beltway, that they open themselves up to so much lying.

    But I’m sure Perry knew that was going to happen if he dared step on this third rail.

    I just resent that a GOP frontrunner is actually making it harder, not easier, to criticize the fundamental problems of social security. I don’t want to hate Mitt Romney. there’s a fair chance I’ll have to vote for him in the general, after all. I think he needs to find a different way to distinguish himself from conservatives.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  195. So any criticism from Perry would have drawn your ire, absent a full proposal to overhaul the system?

    Comment by JD — 9/8/2011 @ 7:35 pm

    I did not say that. You said that.

    He wrote book and he knew what was in it. The idea that somehow or other people are being unfair to him because they are reacting to things he wrote in his book or things he said is absurd. It is his job to make his case.

    Terrye (eec529)

  196. Perry has not been on top of this?!?! Give me a f@cking break. How long has it been since he announced his candidacy? Is introducing a fully fleshed out plan your metric, and if so, when should we expect to see you applying that metric to everyone else?

    JD (318f81)

  197. LOL @ Happyfeet.

    But I agree. Perry’s approach to immigration may not be pure, but it’s realistic and it’s certainly not ‘liberal’. I have no idea where Terrye gets off claiming it’s ‘liberal’.

    We definitely do need to strengthen our borders. But in reality. Not in fantasy.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  198. As Governor of Texas, he should have overhauled SS.

    JD (318f81)

  199. Naw, the Rangers would never let him organize an SS.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  200. But I’m sure Perry knew that was going to happen if he dared step on this third rail.

    I just resent that a GOP frontrunner is actually making it harder, not easier, to criticize the fundamental problems of social security. I don’t want to hate Mitt Romney. there’s a fair chance I’ll have to vote for him in the general, after all. I think he needs to find a different way to distinguish himself from conservatives.

    Comment by Dustin — 9/8/2011 @ 7:43 pm

    Oh please, the man is already back tracking.

    The thing is that there are serious people who have tried to reform these systems. And I think they need to be reformed…but when people hear social security called a ponzi scheme, they don’t think you want to reform it..why reform a criminal enterprise?

    Terrye (eec529)

  201. Spend less time talking about what a piece of crap the social security system is and more time coming up with concrete initiatives.

    Terrye, someone sockpuppeted you!

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  202. Terrye – it was ROMNEY that called it a criminal enterprise, not Perry. Don’t let the facts get in the way of Teh Narrative.

    JD (318f81)

  203. As Governor of Texas, he should have overhauled SS.

    Comment by JD — 9/8/2011 @ 7:44 pm

    Actually he suggested that social security be turned over to the states.

    I am no suggesting that Perry could overhaul anything, but if he is going to run for President and if he is going to make going after social security a priority then it is not too much to expect him to have an alternative plan. It really isn;t.

    Terrye (eec529)

  204. Spend less time talking about what a piece of crap the social security system is and more time coming up with concrete initiatives.

    Terrye, someone sockpuppeted you!

    Comment by Dustin — 9/8/2011 @ 7:46 pm

    Funny little man.

    Terrye (eec529)

  205. It really is, less than 2 weeks into his candidacy. And it is a BS standard that o created for him, not one yo are applying to any other candidates, or even sitting politicians.

    JD (318f81)

  206. I agree that the nit-picking is annoying or worse, and I’m sorry for my role in it, and I’m not going to reply to the last round of back-and-forth comments related to me.

    This thread almost seems to be a very bad joke, wittingly or unwittingly describing how Obama will win reelection. Perhaps someone should update Kafka with a story valled, “The Blog”, or “The Thread”, about someone trapped in an on-line discussion with no idea what it’s about, but whatever they say is pointed out to be wrong in some obtuse and obfuriating regard.

    Is SS a stable and sound system? (No)
    Has it been well understood by the population? (No)
    Has it been clearly spoken of in truthful terms when brought up by politicians, especially during campaigns? (No)
    Does it have characteristics that resemble a Ponzi scheme more than a retirement account held in trust? (Yes)

    The candidate, if there is one, that can make those answers clear to the public over all of the background noise, obfuscation, demagogery, and outright lieing and communicate the need for planned action now rather than forced action later will win the nomination and election easily. If Perry can go forward and clarify the issue and determine the grounds of the debate he will be the person. Woe to the Repubs if he is brought down by the hen-pecking of other Repub candidates and/or their agents.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  207. Oh please, the man is already back tracking.

    You’re tiresome. Your first comment whines about the response you are trying to get.

    You instead get a serious discussion, and just ignore any points contrary to yours. You resort to a bunch of insults and hysteria.

    when people hear social security called a ponzi scheme, they don’t think you want to reform it..why reform a criminal enterprise?

    A) You ignored my link showing that Romney compared it to a criminal enterprise as well. Then he flip flopped. Yet you’re whining about Perry backtracking when all you’re really doing is comparing Perry’s position to Romney’s description of it.

    Perry’s point was not that social security is unsustainable in the same way a ponzi scheme is. Your reaction is that he must not aim to reform it?

    That’s childish and stupid, or you are dishonest.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  208. Terrye – What is Obama’s plan for reforming Social Security? What is Obama’s plan for reforming Medicare? Don’t we need something specific out of the president or are you really just concern trolling?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  209. You are being unhelpful, and unserious, MD 😉

    JD (318f81)

  210. Terrye – it was ROMNEY that called it a criminal enterprise, not Perry. Don’t let the facts get in the way of Teh Narrative.

    Comment by JD — 9/8/2011 @ 7:48 pm

    Oh yes, it was Perry that called it a fraud and a monstrous lie etc.

    You are missing my point. You can not on one hand say that Perry is big and bad for going after the third rail because he called it some names and then say Romney is not that courageous because he did not call it names..but then say he did.

    The point is that both of them have criticized the system but then said they would not abolish it. Both of them. But somehow or other Perry is the brave one.

    Terrye (eec529)

  211. How much do those goalposts weigh?

    JD (318f81)

  212. Terrye, a lot of people call Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme”. Your attempt to act like this is something only Perry has done is what confirms to me that you are concern trolling.

    And I’m not amused.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  213. Funny little man.

    Comment by Terrye — 9/8/2011 @ 7:50 pm

    No, I corrected you.

    You are indeed demanding a concrete and fully fleshed out proposal about social security. I am not really sure that’s necessary at all, let alone this early.

    It’s also bad faith. We all heard Romney’s mumbling about social security. We all know his criticism of Perry’s rhetoric applies equally to Romney’s earlier position.

    You are holding Perry up to a standard you aren’t holding anyone else up to. All to insist Perry isn’t ‘serious’. He’s been governor of a huge state for eleven years, with great success there. He’s a serious candidate whether you like conservatism or not.

    if he is going to run for President and if he is going to make going after social security a priority then it is not too much to expect him to have an alternative plan. It really isn;t.

    Comment by Terrye — 9/8/2011 @ 7:49 pm

    Sure. He should have some kind of general plan here. But you won’t accept it. No matter what he says, he can’t possibly win you over. I’m not sure what your deal is, but for some reason, you won’t give the guy a fair shake.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  214. It takes 16 current workers to fund 1 recipient, and we are supposed to think it is sustainable, and not a Ponzi scheme?

    JD (318f81)

  215. Problem is that he might actually be conservative, Dustin, and he is not a moderate that makes people feel good.

    JD (318f81)

  216. You are missing my point. You can not on one hand say that Perry is big and bad for going after the third rail because he called it some names and then say Romney is not that courageous because he did not call it names..but then say he did.

    What in the world?

    You’re spinning like a top.

    Romney harshly criticized this kind of rhetoric, at least to MSNBC’s audience. Yes, he also has used that rhetoric to a more conservative audience. That doesn’t help him. That doesn’t change that he did express a problem with sober honesty about how bad the social security issue is.

    It just undermines his credibility further that he is contradicting himself.

    You don’t have a coherent point, Terrye. You just seem to take any set of facts and conclude Perry sucks. Even if those facts can be applied much more effectively to Romney, you ignore that and conclude Perry sucks.

    I have no idea what your deal is.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  217. Perry’s point was not that social security is unsustainable in the same way a ponzi scheme is. Your reaction is that he must not aim to reform it?

    That’s childish and stupid, or you are dishonest.

    Comment by Dustin — 9/8/2011 @ 7:52 pm

    That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that none of these people have been honest about what they intend to do, if anything.

    Yes, you are right, it was Romney who called social security a criminal enterprise, in his book I think…and it was Perry who called it a ponzi scheme..what exactly is a ponzi scheme? It is a criminal enterprise is it not?

    The point is they need to get past the name calling and come up with a plan.

    Terrye (eec529)

  218. Problem is that he might actually be conservative, Dustin, and he is not a moderate that makes people feel good.

    Comment by JD — 9/8/2011 @ 7:58 pm

    It is something very fresh to see. I was amazed when he actually stood his ground on social security, even calling people liars.

    It’s not something we see from GOP front runners. That’s the kind of honesty we see from the second tier candidates, cheer, and then sigh that they just aren’t electable.

    Perry is not perfect. But I think you’re hitting on what I like about him. He is not bothering to try to make us feel good about these issues. He’s not waving his hand and promising an easy way out. Some minor fixes mumbled quickly, and then general optimism.

    He actually aims to fix this stuff. At least that’s my impression. If he’s faking it, he’s doing a damn good job faking it, because I’m pretty well convinced he means it.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  219. GD it, Dustin! Who is dissin’ yer guy now!?!?

    May be old, but so good I had to share:

    “Even after the Super Bowl victory of the New Orleans Saints, I have noticed a large number of people implying with bad jokes that Cajuns aren’t smart. I would like to state for the record that I disagree with that assessment.

    Anybody that would build a city 5 feet below sea level in a hurricane zone and fill it with Democrats that can’t swim is a damn genius.”

    – Larry the Cable Guy

    ColonelHaiku (c7aeaa)

  220. Tell us what aspects of a plan you, and the Dems, would not demagogue.

    JD (318f81)

  221. You don’t have a coherent point, Terrye. You just seem to take any set of facts and conclude Perry sucks. Even if those facts can be applied much more effectively to Romney, you ignore that and conclude Perry sucks.

    I have no idea what your deal is.

    Comment by Dustin — 9/8/2011 @ 7:59 pm

    And what is your point? You do not even know what Perry’s plan is and yet we are all assuming that it will be the right plan because he is the true conservative and Romney is the insider.

    But no one has any idea. Not really.

    Terrye (eec529)

  222. “That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that none of these people have been honest about what they intend to do, if anything.”

    Terrye – That includes Obama and the Democrats, right? Paul Ryan at least advanced a plan for Medicare.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  223. Anyway, I know I’m easily the worst offender, but it’s not doing us much good to bash Romney. He might very well be the nominee, after all.

    I, at the very least, disagree with his approach to this issue. I like Perry’s more. Both are great improvements over Obama.

    It’s just hard for folks like me to stay positive in these discussions.

    Just look at how many … untruths Terrye packed into a few minutes. It’s frustrating, and I’m sure that’s the point.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  224. I’ve had enough of
    the cannibalization
    save it for The Left

    ColonelHaiku (c7aeaa)

  225. Tell us what aspects of a plan you, and the Dems, would not demagogue.

    Comment by JD — 9/8/2011 @ 8:03 pm

    I would not demagogue any plan that I thought was a serious effort to deal with the problems. The Democrats would certainly demagogue virtually any plan..but why make it easier for them?

    Terrye (eec529)

  226. I share Mr. Governor Perry’s vision, and that’s why tonight I am endorsing him for the office of the presidency of the United States.
    Thank you for listening and God Bless America.

    Comment by happyfeet

    All opposed say, “Nay!”
    (Crickets and Katydids..)
    No “Nay’s” recorded, motion carried, end of discussion.
    Further bickering will be left to the insects:
    (“Katy did! Katy didn’t! Katy did!! Katy didn’t!!! KATY DID!!! KATY DIDN’T!!!!! Katy Did!! Katy Didn’t!!!! Katy did-too!!!…)

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  227. And you would define serious effort to reform as … ? Forgive me for not letting you have all this wiggle room. Why make it easier for them is a BS argument.

    JD (318f81)

  228. yet we are all assuming that it will be the right plan because he is the true conservative

    You assume that?

    Cool. That’s very generous of you.

    I do have a basic understanding of what Perry’s saying, because I listened to him. Obviously it is not possible to flesh this out in the debate format, and it’s moreover not going to mean much when it’s time to actually reform this. The negotiations will mash it all up.

    I do want some more information. But at least I know one candidate is principled on this issue. That’s not a huge accomplishment, but it’s a good place to start.

    How many straw mans is this, now? I mean, is it even a straw man if you can’t burn it? I think you thought you could, so it’s at least an attempted straw man in the second degree.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  229. “That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that none of these people have been honest about what they intend to do, if anything.”

    Terrye – That includes Obama and the Democrats, right? Paul Ryan at least advanced a plan for Medicare.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 9/8/2011 @ 8:04 pm

    Yes, and it took a lot of courage for Ryan to come up with that plan. He took heat for it.

    But it was thoughtful and it would work.

    Some people say that when the baby boomers are gone by the wayside some of the problems will take care of themselves because the demographics will change.

    I kind of wonder about that.

    Terrye (eec529)

  230. Anyone that does not have fully fleshed out plans less than 2 weeks into a campaign, over 14 months prior to the election, is unserious, and deserves to be demagogued.

    JD (318f81)

  231. Goodnight, all. Who needs tifosa and spurty when we have putative conservatives that will attack candidates for telling the truth?

    JD (318f81)

  232. How many straw mans is this, now? I mean, is it even a straw man if you can’t burn it? I think you thought you could, so it’s at least an attempted straw man in the second degree.

    Comment by Dustin — 9/8/2011 @ 8:07 pm

    Why be such a prick? Just because I don’t agree with you does not mean you have to such an ass.

    Fine, Perry rocks, Romney sucks…can I join the club now?

    You know what? I did not come up with a straw man. Perry can not have it both ways. He can not get credit for taking on the third rail and yet be immune to what that entails.

    Terrye (eec529)

  233. Terrye,

    Whats YOUR plan? How do you propose to fix social security?

    Be specific and complete. Don’t just point to someone and say ‘his plan’. Lay it out. Maybe we have common ground. Maybe you’ll be forced to concede Perry is largely on the same page, some time in the future.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  234. Why be such a prick? Just because I don’t agree with you does not mean you have to such an ass.

    I’m not. You came here, from the first comment, itching to have a fight with crazy Perry fans. I simply noted where you were mistaken, and you assume I’m a prick for some reason.

    I actually went out of my way to be cool about your… errors.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  235. Anyone that does not have fully fleshed out plans less than 2 weeks into a campaign, over 14 months prior to the election, is unserious, and deserves to be demagogued.

    Comment by JD — 9/8/2011 @ 8:09 pm

    Maybe when he wrote his book and criticized the plan he should have started to think of alternatives. And once he decided to run for President he should have been prepared for the reaction to his book. And he should have had a plan.

    Terrye (eec529)

  236. You know what? I did not come up with a straw man.

    Yeah, you totally did.

    Perry can not have it both ways. He can not get credit for taking on the third rail and yet be immune to what that entails.

    This is a typical argument style from you. It isn’t clever. It’s meaningless.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  237. I’m not. You came here, from the first comment, itching to have a fight with crazy Perry fans. I simply noted where you were mistaken, and you assume I’m a prick for some reason.

    I actually went out of my way to be cool about your… errors.

    Comment by Dustin — 9/8/2011 @ 8:14 pm

    Dustin, everyone makes mistakes even you..even Perry. But I did not make a mistake about Perry calling social security a monstrous lie or a calling it a fraud. Romney has probably said other things as well, especially in private, but he never called for the abolition of the program. I am not saying Perry did, I am saying that a lot of the things Perry has said, have lead people to believe that is what he wants to do..and so it would be a good idea if he came up with a plan. It would help him deal with the issue.

    BTW, if Rick Perry gets the nomination I am going to vote for him. No question.

    Terrye (eec529)

  238. BTW, if Rick Perry gets the nomination I am going to vote for him. No question.

    The classic closing of a concern troll. Classic

    SPQR (26be8b)

  239. Terrye, why are you ignoring my simple question?

    What’s your plan for social security? What do you think should be done about it?

    Take it from the top. Let’s hear your plan.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  240. Yeah, you totally did.

    Perry can not have it both ways. He can not get credit for taking on the third rail and yet be immune to what that entails.

    This is a typical argument style from you. It isn’t clever. It’s meaningless.

    Comment by Dustin — 9/8/2011 @ 8:15 pm

    Sure. It is not half as meaningless as calling a program like social security a monstrous lie and then telling people they won;t lose their benefits.

    The truth is people do not really know where Perry stands on this. That is his fault, not mine.

    Terrye (eec529)

  241. Are you accusing Tom Tancredo of lacking a spine when it comes to sealing our borders?

    Perry opposes SB1070.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  242. Actually, it appears Terry did not notice 90% of my points. Which is fine. I don’t really care. She admits near total ignorance of Perry’s views, so that’s enough to satisfy me that her criticisms are not intended to be persuasive.

    But maybe it would be helpful to hear Terry’s plan for social security. That way, when Perry does explain his views on the matter, we can compare the two. Maybe Terry will be forced to concede Perry is a damn fine candidate?

    At the very least, let’s be appreciative that at least one candidate has the spine to admit social security is a ponzi scheme. At least one seems to realize this is an urgent and terrible problem, worthy of talking to Americans like adults about.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  243. Terrye not young woman but acting like child.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  244. Terrye, why are you ignoring my simple question?

    What’s your plan for social security? What do you think should be done about it?

    Take it from the top. Let’s hear your plan.

    Comment by Dustin — 9/8/2011 @ 8:21 pm

    Well you know what? I am not running for President of the United States.

    But I would call for raising the retirement age, cutting back on cost of living increases and allowing younger people to put a part of their money into a retirement account that could be passed on to their families at the time of their death.

    But since Perry has a staff and a lot more experience in government than I do I would think that he could come up with something more sophisticated than that.

    Terrye (eec529)

  245. The truth is people do not really know where Perry stands on this. That is his fault, not mine.

    Comment by Terrye — 9/8/2011 @ 8:22 pm

    I know where Perry stands on it. If you don’t, I think that’s pretty amazing. He thinks Social Security is a ponzi scheme. He wishes to fix it, but doesn’t want to pull the rug out from those currently getting benefits.

    The specifics of how to fix it were not fleshed out in that 30 seconds MSNBC gave him. Oh heavens. But the man spoke plainly. He intends to reform social security. That’s a clear stand.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  246. Terrye not young woman but acting like child.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 9/8/2011 @ 8:26 pm

    You might be right about that.

    Terrye (eec529)

  247. Well you know what?

    You say that a lot.

    You can’t come up with some kind of reform, Terry? You demanded others do something you yourself refuse to do?

    It sounds to me like you only are here to attack people. I seem to recall almost everything you have ever said has been negative about a conservative.

    Bicker bicker bicker.

    That’s fine. You’re entitled to be negative.

    But it’s a shame you are unable to be anything but negative. You can’t come up with a good idea for reforming social security? You can’t take a position of your own?

    Of course, if you did take a position, it would be a lot harder to later claim Perry is totally wrong if he largely agrees with you. And I imagine any sane reform plan will not be too far from what Perry plans.

    You and I both know it.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  248. I know where Perry stands on it. If you don’t, I think that’s pretty amazing. He thinks Social Security is a ponzi scheme. He wishes to fix it, but doesn’t want to pull the rug out from those currently getting benefits.

    The specifics of how to fix it were not fleshed out in that 30 seconds MSNBC gave him. Oh heavens. But the man spoke plainly. He intends to reform social security. That’s a clear stand.

    Comment by Dustin — 9/8/2011 @ 8:27 pm

    Dustin, Perry’s problem is partly his book. And while he certainly did not have time in 30 seconds to flesh out much of anything, he has had more than enough time to deal with this in a way that even people who are not all that familiar with him could understand. Instead they hear snippets from his book and little else and it is confusing.

    There is a lot of time in the next few months for him to come up with a plan that people will understand.

    Terrye (eec529)

  249. I guess I’m a ‘prick’ and an ‘ass’ for giving Terry the chance to present her views. I just wanted to know where the hell she’s coming from to be so angry with Perry for simply saying the truth.

    Hey, if you’re a Romney fan I’m sure I’m pissing you off. I’m being very hard on the guy. Just spit it out and own up to it. I respect people’s right to disagree, and frankly and fascinated to learn more about the Romney fan point of view. No sarcasm intended.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  250. Of course, if you did take a position, it would be a lot harder to later claim Perry is totally wrong if he largely agrees with you. And I imagine any sane reform plan will not be too far from what Perry plans.

    You and I both know it.

    Comment by Dustin — 9/8/2011 @ 8:32 pm

    I don’t even know what the hell you are talking about.

    I did not come here just to attack people or to be negative. I honestly think that Perry should have been better prepared for this. He wrote a book with a lot of provocative statements in it..nothing wrong with that, but once you get to the national stage it is a good idea to be prepared. He was not.

    In the end, I very well might agree with whatever he comes up..but thus far I am not that impressed.

    Terrye (eec529)

  251. I guess I’m a ‘prick’ and an ‘ass’ for giving Terry the chance to present her views. I just wanted to know where the hell she’s coming from to be so angry with Perry for simply saying the truth.

    Hey, if you’re a Romney fan I’m sure I’m pissing you off. I’m being very hard on the guy. Just spit it out and own up to it. I respect people’s right to disagree, and frankly and fascinated to learn more about the Romney fan point of view. No sarcasm intended.

    Comment by Dustin — 9/8/2011 @ 8:34 pm

    No, you are being a prick for being condescending. I am not going to pretend that I am always right. I am not.

    So I said that Perry said social security was a criminal enterprise when in fact Romney said that and Perry said it was a ponzi scheme and fraud and monstrous lie and unconstitutional. Do you not see the silliness of that? I mean really…

    Am I a Romney fan? I can honestly say I have not made up my mind.

    Terrye (eec529)

  252. What’s really annoying here is that Perry is actually standing by his remarks.

    That’s the one thing his detractors most badly want to take away from him. But when the going got tough, Perry stood his ground.

    That’s refreshing. If you don’t agree with him, it’s still probably refreshing.

    But Terry’s got to act like Perry is back tracking. When I asked her for quotes, she ignored me. One of many things she ignored.

    Terry is furious, and all I did was point out where she is mistaken about something she admits being totally ignorant of, and asking her what her point of view is.

    Why would a good faith conservative refuse to give their point of view on social security reform? What’s so hard about that? I gave my views on it a couple times in this thread alone, unprompted. A lot of people did.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  253. Comment by DohBiden — 9/8/2011 @ 8:22 pm

    I think if you look at the record, Perry did not oppose SB1070 so much as that he didn’t think it was something that TX wanted to try.
    Perhaps he actually believes in that Federalism thingie?

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eb769c)

  254. This ‘oh gee, stupid constituents like me aren’t running for president… why would we have any idea what to do about social security?’ just doesn’t have the ring of truth.

    Who really thinks these politicians are smarter than we are? Who really treats political opinions as a superpower?

    No, we all know what we want to do. Terrye actually does have a position on social security reform, or could work something up in five minutes. If it’s at all reasonable and effective, it will sound a lot like what Perry will say.

    She knows it.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  255. Maybe.

    Comment by DohBiden — 9/8/2011 @ 8:58 pm

    He actually said he supports Arizona’s right to do what it needs to do to protect its citizens, and explained a few practical reasons he didn’t think that approach would work in Texas. He didn’t say Arizona was wrong to take its approach.

    Though I think immigration is an issue Perry has some vulnerability on, he’s not ‘liberal’. He wants to control and secure the border as much as is possible, and has been requesting a large increase in border patrol and other tools for years.

    I think Perry’s main goof on this issue is that he doesn’t support e-verify. He needs to come around on that issue, IMO.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  256. But Terry’s got to act like Perry is back tracking. When I asked her for quotes, she ignored me. One of many things she ignored.

    Terry is furious, and all I did was point out where she is mistaken about something she admits being totally ignorant of, and asking her what her point of view is.

    Why would a good faith conservative refuse to give their point of view on social security reform? What’s so hard about that? I gave my views on it a couple times in this thread alone, unprompted. A lot of people did.

    Comment by Dustin — 9/8/2011 @ 8:54 pm

    Perry is back tracking from his book…in fact did you read the remarks his campaign made on that issue? The book is about the past they said, not the future..and what is more he has made remarks in the past about turning social security over to the states and yet I don’t hear that now.

    I saw this earlier:

    Last night, Romney said, “Under no circumstances would I ever say, by any measure, it’s a failure. It is working for millions of Americans.”

    However, in his book “No Apology: The Case For American Greatness”, which was published just last year, Romney compared those managing Social Security to criminals, saying:

    “Let’s look at what would happen if someone in the private sector did a similar thing. Suppose two grandparents created a trust fund, appointed a bank as trustee, and instructed the bank to invest the proceeds of the trust fund so as to provide for their grandchildren’s education. Suppose further that the bank used the proceeds for its own purposes, so that when the grandchildren turned eighteen, there was no money for them to go to college. What would happen to the bankers responsible for misusing the money? They would go to jail. But what has happened to the people responsible for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security? They keep returning to Congress every two years.”

    It is very plain here that Romney is talking about Congress here. That is the context of his statement..now we can play tit for tat, but that does not change the fact that there is a difference between what Romney said and comments Perry has made about the very existence of social security going back 70 years.

    In the end however, we have two men talking tough, neither of whom have really told us what they intend to do about the problem. In the end their solutions might not be that far apart. But rhetoric can make a difference in how the public perceives these people even if they are not all that far apart on the issue.

    Terrye (eec529)

  257. Mccainbots are like that.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  258. This ‘oh gee, stupid constituents like me aren’t running for president… why would we have any idea what to do about social security?’ just doesn’t have the ring of truth.

    Who really thinks these politicians are smarter than we are? Who really treats political opinions as a superpower?

    No, we all know what we want to do. Terrye actually does have a position on social security reform, or could work something up in five minutes. If it’s at all reasonable and effective, it will sound a lot like what Perry will say.

    She knows it.

    Comment by Dustin — 9/8/2011 @ 8:58 pm

    Did you miss what I said? I said later retirement..private accounts..in fact I thought Bush had a pretty good plan. But like I said, I am not on the debate stage running for president. I have been briefed by handlers, I don’t have a staff and I am not egotistical enough to think I could be president or should be…but when someone tells me that he is good enough to be president..I expect him to be articulate and prepared.

    Terrye (eec529)

  259. Time for bed..I have not been briefed by handlers..obviously. I should do preview, but at this hour only insomniacs would care. Good night.

    Terrye (eec529)

  260. ______________________________________________

    He dared to label the Ponzi scheme of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme.”

    If SS can’t be characterized as a Ponzi scheme, then it sure as hell can be described as a game of musical chairs that’s now moving at an increasingly faster pace, or as similar to a row of dominoes in which the first one starting tumbling quite some time ago. IOW, if one wants to glom onto the benefits of Social Security before the well dries up, he or she better not be younger than, say, 30 or 40 years old.

    Why any youth of today — or anyone who won’t be gray and wizened until decades into the future — falls for the used-car salesmen BS of the left, in which the notion is promoted that Social Security must be treated like a religion and sacred entity, is beyond me.

    I recall reading that in the last presidential election in France, in 2007, it was a large percentage of older voters who favored the leftist/Socialist, while a younger crowd went with France’s current president, the generally right-leaning Nicholas Sarkozy. I’m sure a lot of that was due to post-middle-aged folks wanting to board the proverbial gravy train before it left the station. Or a variation of what happened in that traditionally Republican district in New York State earlier this year, when liberals spooked enough voters to fall for the easy way out and made them kiss the butt of the Democrat candidate.

    Mark (411533)

  261. ==Some people say that when the baby boomers are gone by the wayside some of the problems will take care of themselves….I kind of wonder==

    Heh. I don’t wonder about that at all. The boomers I know ain’t planning to go by the wayside any time soon. (And definitely not soon enough so that the looming SS problems will magically take care of themselves).

    elissa (93c1a6)

  262. The can has been kicked down the road by lazy asses many times. I agree with Elissa that waiting for the boomers to die before reforming the system is insane.

    Sure, I bet a lot of them would like that. Which is sickening. Why leave that kind of legacy? Huge debts for their kids to pay?

    Let’s just fix it ASAP. It will be politically very difficult, and I’m sure a lot of people will do all they can to call serious reform insane politics, even though it’s obviously the right thing to do.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  263. I apologize for not reading the 266 previous comments, especially if my points have been addressed already.

    A Ponzi scheme relies upon high returns paid to early investors to attract new investors. Of course, these cannot be sustained, so capital from new investors is used to pay phony dividends to earlier investors, in turn attracting more willing investors by word of mouth. But eventually it runs out of potential marks and cannot meet the generous payouts.

    On the contrary, SS never returned much more than 2%, although the values later added for dependents and widows increased the effective return somewhat. It was forced, both in participation and in funding by tax collection, while Ponzi schemes depend upon voluntary contributions.

    Finally, common sense reforms like gradually increasing retirement age to reflect increased mortality can get the retirement fund through the population crunch. Once the Baby Boomers begin to die off, the pay-as-you-go plan becomes solvent again. It’s not a good deal, and would be subject to future population trends, but it won’t be bankrupt, either.

    Estragon (ec6a4b)

  264. SS never returned much more than 2%

    Not so. It yielded tons of money. Just not to the suckers. To those who spent enormous sums on larger government (and took a slice in various ways), it paid off big.

    At any rate, there’s nothing in the definition that says a ponzi scheme has to yield X percent. Obviously this one is bad due to the huge volume, anyway.

    Yet another failed attempt to add mandatory requirements into the definition of a ponzi scheme, while refusing to see the forest for the forest.

    A Ponzi scheme relies upon high returns paid to early investors to attract new investors.

    Also, come on. you don’t see how that relates to social security? Folks under 30 today are not getting the same deal the original beneficiaries were getting.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  265. 265) What do you think the ‘death panels’ are for,
    yes, the Congress is partially at fault, but the administrators are as well.

    ian cormac (d69b60)

  266. Didn’t SS pay off huge for some of the earliest recipients?

    JD (318f81)

  267. FDR set the age at 65, when the median age for lifespan, was 62, consider that detail.

    ian cormac (d69b60)

  268. From today’s Washington Examiner….

    “They’ve called it ‘insurance’ to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term ‘insurance’ to sell it to the people,” Ronald Reagan said about Social Security in his landmark 1964 speech, A Time for Choosing. “There is no fund,” Reagan continued, “because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security is as of this moment $298 billion in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that…”
    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/09/two-cheers-perry-provocateur#ixzz1XT9b9QXP

    But, what did RR know, he was just another Stupid, White, European-descendent, Male.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (7d0394)

  269. Chris Matthews another right wing racist………….oh wait what he is a lefty?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  270. “there is a difference between what Romney said and comments Perry has made”

    Indeed, and with Rush and bloggers like Allah on his case, a Rove endorsement in his pocket, Mitty is as good as boxed in his native soil with a stake thru the heart.

    Government isn’t as trustworthy as the corner Pawnbroker.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  271. ==”There is no fund,” Reagan continued, “because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security is as of this moment $298 billion in the hole.==

    AD– thanks for that solid and important reminder from Reagan’s 1964 brilliant A Time For Choosing Speech of how long the scam has been known. Here’s another reminder: In 1964 the last of the baby boomers were just being born and the oldest boomer was only about 18. People who love to rant about this all being the boomers’ fault and implying the now middle aged and retiring boomers are being “selfish need to cut it out. We do not need intergenerational warfare in addition to the other made-up psychological “wars”–class and race–that are currently being pushed onto a disfunctional America.

    elissa (cfc61e)

  272. Gov Perry might have a point on Constitutionality.
    Just where in the Constitution is an enumerated power, or even a penumbra with enhanced emanations, that authorizes a nation-wide payroll tax?

    Why would it be different from any other tax?

    It certainly isn’t in the 16th Amendment.
    I fail to find such authority in Art-I, Sec-8.
    Is a payroll tax an Excise?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  273. Gov Perry might have a point on Constitutionality.
    Just where in the Constitution is an enumerated power, or even a penumbra with enhanced emanations, that authorizes a nation-wide payroll tax?

    Why would it be different from any other tax on wage income, such as the income tax? All this is is a second income tax; if Congress can impose one tax on income then it can impose two, or twenty.

    It certainly isn’t in the 16th Amendment.

    What do you mean, it’s not there? But more to the point, why would it need to be? Congress’s power to tax wages has never been questioned.

    I fail to find such authority in Art-I, Sec-8.
    Is a payroll tax an Excise?

    How about the very first line? “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,”

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  274. The substance of Perry’s comment, can’t be denied,
    stylistically he needed some assistance:

    http://gop12.thehill.com/2011/09/palin-clarifies-perrys-social-security.html

    david weprin (d69b60)

  275. B-but Meggie Obesity endorsed Flip Flopney………….you guys are so mean.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  276. Honestly like you guys ar eoh so rude to Meggy Obesity.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  277. Milhouse, in fact the Congress’ ability to tax wages was challenged. Successfully.

    That’s why there is a constitutional amendment allowing it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  278. Weprin endorses Civil Rights?

    Obots are getting brazen.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  279. Charlene Johnson finds creationism to be a problem.

    Meanwhile back in reality Perrys creationism is not a problem.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  280. DohBiden, I don’t know if Perry is a Creationist or not. However, I’ve actively debated Creationists for decades. And I don’t care for Creationism being taught in schools, as its a fraud.

    But I’ll happily put a Creationist in the White House if he/she has rational conservative economics principles and endorses small government conservatism. A President can do nothing to advance Creationist dogma and nothing harmful to the nation’s economy results from a Creationist point of view.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  281. The 16th-A does not mention wages, or payrolls, but allows the Congress to tax “incomes”.
    Please show me where a “Payroll” is taxable-income to anyone.

    A-XVI:
    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (7d0394)

  282. In fact, a “payroll” is a legitimately deductible expense to a business; so we have the Federal Gov’t taxing a legitimate business expense.
    Right?

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (7d0394)

  283. Creationism should be taught in opinion classes.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  284. AD, ok, I’ll highlight it for you:
    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived …

    The payroll tax is a tax on the employee’s income. It is illegitimate that the Government forbids the employer from noting on the pay advice half of it, but there it is.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  285. I interpret Perry’s creationism/evolution comment as an attempt to not really say anything. Pure politician BS. For that kind of issue, I think that’s fine. He should be brave and stalwart on stuff that matters. Issues like evolution are only meant to be wedge issues.

    Do Texan students know what evolution is? Yes. So what’s the problem? That they also know what creationism is? I don’t think that’s so bad.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  286. No, that is a tax on gross-income, which is not how the 16th Amendment is enforced.
    And, of course, it is not described as a “tax”, but as a “contribution” under FICA, one-half paid by the employer, the other half paid by the employee.
    Once again, I claim that an emasculated SCOTUS allowed this to go into effect because they had lost the will to fight the New Deal; but that under any fair reading of the Constitution, Congress just did not have this authority to impose a mandatory retirement fund upon the American People, particularly as it exempted ALL governmental employees.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (7d0394)

  287. Dustin, I’m still waiting for the “Darwinists” to find the missing, transitional, fossil records that “prove” their theory.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (7d0394)

  288. A Ponzi scheme relies upon high returns paid to early investors to attract new investors. […] On the contrary, SS never returned much more than 2%,

    Not true. The first “investors” received a huge payout, and this was loudly trumpeted by the FDR administration and its lackeys in the MSM. The first person to get SocSec payments was in all the papers, and they all highlighted what a great return she was getting for the little she had “invested”.

    Of course this high return very quickly dropped, as people were in the system longer. And by the ’50s or ’60s they stopped lying about the money being invested.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  289. Milhouse, in fact the Congress’ ability to tax wages was challenged. Successfully.

    That’s why there is a constitutional amendment allowing it.

    No, it wasn’t. This is not a matter of opinion, but of cold hard fact.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  290. The 16th-A does not mention wages, or payrolls, but allows the Congress to tax “incomes”.
    Please show me where a “Payroll” is taxable-income to anyone.

    Huh? Are you dense? Your wages are your income. What else are they? And the 16th amendment is irrelevant, because Congress’s power to tax wages doesn’t rest on it, and never did.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  291. No, that is a tax on gross-income, which is not how the 16th Amendment is enforced.

    What does that sentence even mean? How is the 16th amendment “enforced”? By whom? And what has it got to do with taxes on wages anyway?

    And, of course, it is not described as a “tax”, but as a “contribution” under FICA, one-half paid by the employer, the other half paid by the employee.

    Who cares how it’s “described”? What it is is an income tax, which (at least as it applies to income derived from personal labor, i.e. wages) is perfectly within Congress’s right to tax, and always has been.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  292. Milhouse, you might find this informative…

    “…In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation’s first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation’s 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

    The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.

    In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year (1895), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution...”

    Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz1XUqzs7Xj

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (7d0394)

  293. In the latter year (1895), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution…”

    That is a short and very inaccurate description of what happened.

    I repeat: Congress’s power to tax wages has never been called into question, and indeed there are no grounds on which to question it. If you think otherwise, please explain exactly by what twist of logic a tax on wages can be called a direct tax. Do you even know what a direct tax is?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  294. Bonus question: if the argument the Supreme Court endorsed in 1895 were to come before today’s Supreme Court, what do you think its reception would be? I think it would be dismissed 9-0. But whether I’m right or wrong about that, it’s irrelevant to the current topic. Earning or paying wages is an activity, and therefore there cannot possibly be any question of it being a direct tax.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  295. …the wages of free people, I mean. Presumably the 1895 Court would have disqualified a tax on the wages earned by slaves’ labor, had there been any slaves at that time.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  296. (And yes, slaves could and did earn wages. It was common to send a slave to the city to take a job and earn wages, which he would send back home to his master.)

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  297. Congress’s power to tax incomes is derived from the 16th Amendment, since earlier efforts were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1895; and,
    Enforced by regulation written by the House Ways and Means Committee, and the Internal Revenue Service.

    The Congress has never declared a tax on gross income, but has written legislation to tax “taxable income”, for both persons and companies, under the 16th Amendment.
    ………………………….

    Again, Social Security (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program) is financed by contributions…mandated by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA).
    -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

    We are at a tipping point here. We have the Administration saying that the individual mandate for ObamaCare requires your participation in a private insurance program, or imposes a tax penalty for non-compliance. What happens if you don’t pay the tax penalty?
    Has any individual been prosecuted for non-payment of FICA?
    If the Gov’t loses at the Supreme Court level on the individual mandate for ObamaCare, that could seriously be a precedent for challenging the mandate for participation in SocSec. For one, it just may be a justifiable defense to not pay SocSec if you have a private retirement system.
    How would the Govt condemn the alternative to SocSec when that is the scheme that they are advancing for Health Care Insurance?
    After all, by their own words, Social Security is an Insurance Program.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (7d0394)

  298. Comment by Milhouse — 9/9/2011 @ 3:29 pm

    Well then, this is a fundamental question over governmental power that you and I disagree on, and we will have to await any further decision by SCOTUS, or another Revolution, for resolution.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (7d0394)

  299. Milhouse, you seem to either not understand the terms at issue or you are playing a stupid game of semantics that is unamusing.

    SPQR (6f09b7)

  300. Congress’s power to tax incomes is derived from the 16th Amendment, since earlier efforts were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1895;

    That is utter bullshit. Congress’s power to tax income derived from the labour of free people comes from Article 1, and has never ever been called into question, let alone declared unconstitutional.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  301. SPQR, could he be suffering some form of infection from proximity to the NYT?

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (7d0394)

  302. Well then, this is a fundamental question over governmental power that you and I disagree on, and we will have to await any further decision by SCOTUS, or another Revolution, for resolution.

    No, there is nothing to disagree about. You are simply wrong. If you think you are right, please explain by what argument you could class a tax on the wages of free people as a direct tax. For that matter, please explain how you would class a tax on rents, interest, dividends, or the wages of slaves as a direct tax (in other words, don’t repeat the argument accepted by the 1895 court unless you actually agree with it).

    Start with a simpler question: do you know what a direct tax is?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  303. Out!

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (7d0394)

  304. Milhouse, you seem to either not understand the terms at issue or you are playing a stupid game of semantics that is unamusing.

    No, SPQR, it is you and AD who clearly do not understand the terms at issue. I understand the issue very well, and it is clear that you do not.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  305. Ah, so “both” is the answer.

    SPQR (6f09b7)

  306. And Milhouse, I once spent a long class period explainly this line of SCt doctrine to a class of community college students, so your antics are not humorous.

    SPQR (6f09b7)

  307. Ah, screw the Socratic method. I’m about to go offline for about 26 hours, so I have no time for it. Let me proceed directly to the lesson:

    A direct tax means a tax on something or someone merely for existing. A tax on building houses, or on demolishing them, or on buying them, selling them, occupying them, or dancing on their roofs, is an indirect tax; but a tax on merely possessing them is a direct tax. Similarly, a tax on anything a person might do is an indirect tax, but a poll tax, i.e. a tax on him merely for existing, is a direct tax.

    Congress can impose both direct and indirect taxes, but if it imposes an indirect tax it must apportion the burden among the states according to their population. (Before the 14th amendment this apportionment would include only 60% of a state’s slave population.) This is a very burdensome procedure, and indeed I have trouble picturing how it could possibly be made to work for anything more complicated than a poll tax; it’s difficult enough that this restriction serves as a practical barrier against Congress imposing any direct tax.

    In 1895, the Supreme Court bought the following argument: the value of any asset depends on the income to be made from it. Anything that lowers that income automatically lowers its value. Thus a tax on rent depresses the value of land; a tax on dividends depresses the value of shares; a tax on interest depresses the value of bonds. Therefore such taxes, while in form affecting only what the assets do, are in effect taxes on the assets themselves. The moment Congress taxes rent, all real estate is worth less than it was before, etc. Thus they are direct taxes, and must be apportioned. Presumably the same argument would apply to a tax on the wages earned by slaves, which would depress their market value; but of course by 1895 there were no slaves, so that didn’t come up.

    I think this is an untenable argument, and today’s court would reject it 9-0. But be that as it may, there is no conceivable way that it could apply to a tax on the income earned by free labor. Working is undoubtedly an activity, and people have no market value that can be depressed by taxing their earnings. Thus wage income can be taxed however Congress likes, whether they call it an “income tax” or a “FICA contribution” or a “working impost” or “President Obama’s Birthday Present”.

    So in my opinion the 16th amendment is unnecessary, but whether I’m right or wrong about that, it’s irrelevant to the vast majority of people, who earn most of their income from their own labor. Repealing it would not affect their taxes.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  308. Perrys gaffe is being correct.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  309. A “gaffe” is when a politician, usualy inadvertantly, tells the truth about something.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (7d0394)

  310. Isn’t there an old saw about how a tax on something discourages that activity?
    Why would not a tax on the earnings of labor not discourage the act of labor itself?
    In fact, that is the basis of the Laffer Curve!
    Oops, petard hoisting time.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (7d0394)

  311. Already-trying-to-walk-it-back-Rick. Sweet!

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  312. I bet if you asked Rick Perry if Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme today, he would still say yes.

    But the left needs to lie that he’s ‘walking it back’. I guess that’s their way of covering their prior lie that he is going to abolish social security while wheeling grandma off the nearest cliff. When it’s clear that isn’t his plan, they call that a ‘walk back’ instead of ‘correction’ or ‘the truth’.

    Anyway, they sure can’t stand Perry, can they?

    Mel Gibson (b2fb78)

  313. He was asked today.

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  314. btw you were AWESOME in Braveheart 😛

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  315. Mel – tifosa wants to give you a Lewinsky!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  316. aaaahhh, the Christian conservatives….

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  317. aaaaaahh………….The ultra-left ahteists.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  318. Live and let live. Freedom.

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  319. Live and let live from a nanny-stater?

    JD (318f81)

  320. All that for that Milhouse? Meh.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  321. Dude tifosa why don’t you go pleasure Soros.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  322. Dude, know how to carry on clean discourse? Seems several of you have something in common…

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  323. Dude,know how to stop shrieking about freedom when your a nanny-stater and since when did you become the mod on this blog?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  324. tiffy thinks it’s in charge ’cause it knows stuff.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (7d0394)

  325. AD – it likes to play the martyr. Everyone else is a meanie-pants while it is the pillar of virtue who would never dream of calling someone a crazy triangle-head, or some version of teaple, etc….

    JD (318f81)

  326. “Dude, know how to carry on clean discourse?”

    tifosa – What exactly do you mean by that?

    You were the person praising Mel Gibson’s role in the movie Braveheart, which was not exactly “G” rated.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  327. That’s our tifosa! No substance, all of the time.

    Icy Texan (0ebe78)

  328. Let me guess, the clown, the perpetual victim, is linking to a pic of some evil teatard, and some peaceful loving gathering of leftists.

    Learn how to link properly, so you don’t screw up the formatting for everyone.

    JD (318f81)

  329. aww JD, you looked, thanx :^)

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  330. Bush screwed us over with his save the free market by abandoning it bull.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  331. hhhmmm, “evil teatard?” Pretty incendiary, no?

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  332. Awww tiffy, you are a predictable clown. Kthxby

    JD (318f81)

  333. Tif has never posted a single thoughtful argument. Nothing.

    I guess Tifosa knows its place. Court jester.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  334. To prevent jobs from going overseas into china you need to create a job friendly aura lets hope whoever the GOP nominates can do that.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  335. yeh. We’ll see what the fabric of America thinks about creating “a friendly aura.”

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  336. Yeah because jobs are bad………..thanks tifosa for exposing yourself.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  337. Let me guess: corporate tax cuts..waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  338. This is the mendoucheous tiffy we have grown to expect.

    JD (318f81)

  339. Even crissy tingle thinks tiffy is a joke.

    JD (318f81)

  340. Crissy Tingle who called SS a pnzi scheme in its current form?

    They need to reform it.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  341. Make it so those over 55 or those disabled can get it.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  342. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTZrMNPhQAc&feature=share hahahahaha! 45 seconds of the R’s

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  343. Ouch, the comments on there are FUNNY! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTZrMNPhQAc&feature=share no?

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  344. Please go be an ignorant troll somewhere else.

    Btw Weprin lie dabout his opponent Bob Turner eants to protect SS and medicare.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  345. Just a troll, JD. Sure this isn’t an old friend?

    Simon Jester (41b3fa)

  346. sssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I told JD I wouldn’t tell.. 😉

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  347. Turner looks like he’s toast.

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  348. Supporters: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator Joe Lieberman, NYS AG Eric Schneiderman, NYS Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, Congressman Joe Crowley, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Congressman Gary Ackerman, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, Congressman Jerrold
    Nadler, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn,
    the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, Uniformed Firefighters Association, the
    New York City Patrolmen Benevolent Association, the United Federation of
    Teachers, and a host of other elected officials and organizations.
    The New York Times also endorsed David Weprin for Congress, recognizing that
    he will “push for higher taxes for the wealthy rather than cut programs that serve
    the working and middle classes” and will “work to protect Social Security and
    Medicare.” Added the Times: “The choice is clear: Mr. Weprin would represent
    the district with far more expertise, sensitivity and fiscal rationality.”

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  349. Sorry if you’re in NY9… 😉

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  350. Why is this troll spamming.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  351. Tifosa is sure getting a hardon.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  352. LOL! Maybe cold shower? or cut your Cialis?

    tifosa (28d1b5)

  353. Why don’t you cut your cialis you idiot.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  354. Ah yes gotta love the fact my conservatism is being questioned by EPWJ on a daily basis.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  355. AD:

    Isn’t there an old saw about how a tax on something discourages that activity?
    Why would not a tax on the earnings of labor not discourage the act of labor itself?

    Was that a response to me, or to something else? Yes, of course a tax on wages discourages working. What is your point?

    SPQR:

    All that for that Milhouse? Meh.

    Huh? What on earth do you mean? I just thoroughly disproved your claims, and proved mine, and all you can say is “Meh”?! And considering that just claimed to have taught a class on this subject, and on the basis of that supposed expertise you insulted me, I’m expecting either a serious rebuttal, or an apology.

    The same goes for you, AD, only more so. You were wrong, I was right, therefore your insults to me were completely uncalled for. I’m serious about this. I’m no delicate flower, and can give and take in the heat of debate with the best of them, but on this subject you have crossed the line. You had no basis for your contentions, and yet you roundly insulted not just my statements but me personally. You owe me an apology and I’m waiting for it.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2231 secs.