Wash. Post's Bacon falsely suggested private accounts would address Social Security's projected long-term revenue shortfall
SUMMARY: In a Washington Post article, Perry Bacon Jr. listed "allowing younger workers to put money they currently pay for Social Security taxes into personal savings accounts" as one of "an array of ideas" that aides to Sen. John McCain "indicated" he "could support" in "finding a solution to the long-term solvency of" Social Security. But Bacon did not note that the Bush administration has admitted that private accounts themselves would do nothing to address Social Security's projected long-term revenue shortfall.
In a July 8 Washington Post article, staff writer Perry Bacon Jr. falsely suggested that a proposal to let younger workers divert a portion of their payroll taxes into private investment accounts would address "the long-term solvency" of Social Security. Bacon wrote: "McCain's aides said he favors a bipartisan approach and is open to working with Congress on finding a solution to the long-term solvency of the New Deal-era program, indicating he could support an array of ideas such as raising the retirement age, reducing scheduled increases in benefits and allowing younger workers to put money they currently pay for Social Security taxes into personal savings accounts." Bacon added that "President Bush floated a similar idea for private accounts in 2005, but polls found it had little public support." But contrary to Bacon's suggestion, private investment accounts would not address the long-term solvency of Social Security. Indeed, while Bacon referred to Bush's "similar idea for private accounts," he did not mention that the Bush administration admitted that private accounts themselves would do nothing to address Social Security's projected long-term revenue shortfall.
During a February 2, 2005, White House background news briefing on Social Security, in answering a reporter's question "whether it would be fair to describe ... the personal accounts by themselves as having no effect whatsoever on the solvency issue," an unnamed "senior administration official" concurred, responding: "that's a fair inference." From the White House background briefing:
QUESTION: Can you give us a second ten-year estimate on the revenue effect? Can you tell us how you would pay for that, in the first ten years' revenue loss? And am I right in assuming that in the way you describe this, because it's a wash in terms of the net effect on Social Security from the accounts by themselves, that it would be fair to describe this as having -- the personal accounts by themselves as having no effect whatsoever on the solvency issue?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: On the second point, that's a fair inference. On the first point, the long-term picture, of course, as you know, is very -- it's a very comprehensive picture. You're looking forward 75 years over all time, depending on how you gauge things. And that can only be done accurately in the context of a comprehensive plan to fix the system. For example, if we were to do projections out beyond 2015, we would have to model what were the hypothetical changes made to fix the system's finances, which are at this time yet undetermined.
As Media Matters for America has documented, Bush proposed allowing workers to divert up to 4 percent of wages subject to the payroll tax (about one-third of their payroll taxes) into a private account, removing it from the money available to pay Social Security benefits for current retirees. Far from addressing a projected shortfall, the diversion would create a large gap between revenue and the funds necessary to cover the government's obligation to current Social Security recipients. This gap would continue until the death of all recipients born before 1950, who, the administration said, would see no change and "receive their full benefits." Vice President Dick Cheney has acknowledged that the cost of covering this shortfall would be in the trillions of dollars.
From Bacon's July 8 Washington Post article:
Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain are both proposing dramatic changes to Social Security, taking on the financially fragile "third rail of American politics" that Congress and recent presidents have been unable to repair.
McCain's aides said he favors a bipartisan approach and is open to working with Congress on finding a solution to the long-term solvency of the New Deal-era program, indicating he could support an array of ideas such as raising the retirement age, reducing scheduled increases in benefits and allowing younger workers to put money they currently pay for Social Security taxes into personal savings accounts. President Bush floated a similar idea for private accounts in 2005, but polls found it had little public support.
Obama has been even more specific. The Democrat from Illinois has proposed raising taxes on upper-income Americans to address projected shortfalls in Social Security, but his plan has been greeted with skepticism, even from some in his own party.
I don't think the right is really intertested in saving social security.
Social Security has become nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. It is a testament to the failure of liberalism in how it creates dependance and shifts personal responsibility to a government.
I agree that the government is now responsible to make good on it's promise allowing individuals to opt out (like congress does) will slowly but surely get the government out of the retirement business. It is going to take a very painful solution to fix this mess, and sooner it is addressed the easier it will be.
Social Security has become nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.
You posted that nonsense and you're accusing Nerzog of beginning with a false premise?
Wingnut, heal thyself.
I just couldn't resist this one! "When one puts all their "butter" in one churn, they are apt to lose the churn."
Sounds like something O'Reilly said.
You don't put butter IN a churn, you put CREAM in and take OUT butter.
If I got their pension, you can bet I'd opt out too!
Unfortunately Eddie no matter how big you pension you don't have the option to "Opt out" too. With Social security you're not investing in your own retirement - you are paying for someone els'.
The original concept for Social Security was great - I like Ike's comments as well. Unfortunately Congress started raiding the trust fund and now there is nothing left but a bunch of IOU's with dwindling income to pay them off.
Pure resentment politics my friend. Someone else has paid for much of what you enjoy as an American citizen.
It's the main plank in the GOP platform:
"I've got mine, screw you."
SS is fixable but the conservative would rather privatize. I don't know about you, but given the financial nightmare on Wall St., I sure as hell don't want my future entrusted to those thieving ghouls. They have proven they can't be trusted to behave honorably. I want the open accountability that my vote leverages with those acting as stewards of my SS account.
Sorry.
No need to obfuscate, your paying for someone else line speaks clearly of your resentment.
No - it speakes for my understanding of a Ponzi scheme and it's impending failure. Look it up for yourself.
When Gore proposed a lockbox to put an end to that "ponzi" scheme you recite, it was all those lovely republicans who poo pood the plan. Why? Because they don't want to fix it, they want to break it. Privitization doesn't solve anything. 401K's have been stagnant for the last 8 years, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if Bush got his way 8 years ago the average american wouldn't have gained a thing while the $1.5 trillion conversion cost would have made Bush's wall street buddies rich beyond their wildest dreams.
the $1.5 trillion conversion cost would have made Bush's wall street buddies rich beyond their wildest dreams.
Remember, that's his constituency - the haves and the have-mores.
Privitization doesn't solve anything. 401K's have been stagnant for the last 8 years, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if Bush got his way 8 years ago the average american wouldn't have gained a thing while the $1.5 trillion conversion cost would have made Bush's wall street buddies rich beyond their wildest dreams.
That, of course, is the whole idea.
There. Ponzi has been repeated the requisite amount for you. Now, will you please make an effort to stop repeating bullcrap conservative framing and make an honest man of yourself?
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke called Tuesday for legislation to provide "more robust" supervision of Wall Street investment firms to help avert crises like the one that felled Bear Stearns.
Yeah, that sure makes me think my money will do better under a republican led plan!
So what do you propose we do with all of our current retirees and future retirees caught in the middle? No time to save for retirement, cannot depend on social security...maybe we should just put them out on the streets to fend for themselves?
"OK Gramps, you're 65. Time to banish you to the wilderness, as we sure as sh!t aren't going to help you out, even after you've worked hard for 45 years."
Even if you phase out social security in favor of privatization, there will be millions of people lost in the middle. And to further what a fellow poster mentioned, I sure as hell cannot trust Wall Street with my entire retirement portfolio. Social Security is a net to help everyone. Everyone pays into it (save Congress, I think) and everyone benefits from it. It's based on how much you've put into it, so I don't get how you've turned such a great (but currently flawed) program into some sort of "ponzi" scheme. You pay in, you get a check later on. Simple as that - unless, of course, you want to privatize it. You can do so just in time for your retirement - and have NOTHING to live on.
I think that if you had any clue as to how hard it is for millions of retirees, you would change your tune. I also think that if you were one of the millions of people out there, barely scraping by on your social security check each month, you wouldn't have the "I've got mine, screw you" attitude that you conservatives cherish.
Surely you're not that callous.
But then again, you're a conservative, so I wouldn't put it past you.
Thanks, Roundhouse, but I didn't expect an intelligent, reasoned response from Dems_Sol.
I learned early on not to get my hopes up.
I have already answered the questions you posed - no evasions. Stop being so lazy and read.
(1) I never accused you of evading any questions. I really didn't pose any questions, but a reasoned, intelligent response would have been nice. I did, however, say that I wasn't really expecting to get a response from you.
(2) I have been reading your posts - and the response you did give is evidence that you really cannot come up with a rebuttal. You're the lazy one, especially with regards to physically typing a response, but more to the point, you're intellectually lazy.
Tommy = Dems_Sol?
Had you actually read my other posts you would know my thoughts on those caught in the middle and the privatization and that my attitude towards those less fortunate is not "screw you"
Congress are not the only ones who don't pay into social security - several unions (teachers) don;t either. Back in the 90' when Clinton whanted to force them into SS they revolted - wanted no part of it. Why? because fixed income securities (not Wall St) are significantly better investments. I have posted a link on what a Ponzi Scheme is - look it over and read through.
IOU's = Government Bonds. Don't worry about those. Thy'll be paidoff just fine.
I totally agree - however paying them off will be a very painful process for many.
I think your priorities are misplaced there. We'll keep on paying our taxes, and they'll keep on paying off the debt. The Iraq War hurts us in that department (and will continue to for generations to come) far more that SS does, or ever could. And SS payouts actually BENEFIT us - where the Iraq war does not. So debt that get paid in order to benefit Americans, vs. debt that gets paid to beneift Iraquis. The Republicans of 2000-2006 have forfeited all credibility on fiscal responsability.
We'll keep on paying our taxes, and they'll keep on paying off the debt. The Iraq War hurts us in that department (and will continue to for generations to come) far more that SS does, or ever could. And SS payouts actually BENEFIT us - where the Iraq war does not.
Congress is not paying off the SS debt - that's the problem. The IOU's never get repaid. You are also intermixing the SS funds with general government expenses. That's wht caused the mess in the first place. The way to fix SS is to pay off all the IOU's and put all new contributions into a lock box that can not be distributed for any other purpose except SS payments. Paying off those IOU's will take many years and high taxes.
The way to fix SS is to pay off all the IOU's and put all new contributions into a lock box
Is that you, Mr. Gore? See Snoopy's post above.
OK... now you're nitpicking. That the IOU's (US Bonds) are paid by the treausry and not the congress is irrelevant, since the treasury is funded by the actions and policies of the congress. But you're right - taxes WILL NEED to go up, REGARDLESS of what's done with spending. McCain is oblivious to this fact that you nd I (apparently) agree on. Obama proposes to do this in a way which doesn't punnish the 98% of America who actually WORK for a living, and rolls back W's gift to the top 2% that never should have been given in the first place. (And was the first step in getting into the current mess we're in!) Now, neither plan may be entirely effective - but I like our chances better with Obama's.
Hopefully mostly painful for the richest 1% of the population, who have done nothing but sit on their a$$es, making money, hand over fist, off the backs of the hard-working class folks, folks who struggle to put a roof over their heads, put food on their table and maybe, just maybe, after almost two decades of scrimping and saving, be able to send their kid(s) to college.
"Unfortunately Congress started raiding the trust fund and now there is nothing left but a bunch of IOU's with dwindling income to pay them off."
Man, those T-bills sure are worthless, huh? George Bush thought so too...but guess what, denouncing the full faith and credit of the United States is tantamount to treason...so, good job traitor. ;)
It is a testament to the failure of liberalism in how it creates dependance and shifts personal responsibility to a government.
You're more than welcome to donate your Social Security check to your favorite charity when you get old and gray. I'm not holding my breath on that.
Not sure what your point is there Fog? My issues with SS is how it has been poorly managed - I do not have the option to opt out. It has become part of my retirement portfolio that, like everyone else, I expect to be there. If any of my other investments were as poorly managed as SS is I would have been out of them long ago.
My issues with SS is how it has been poorly managed
How has it been poorly managed? Underfunded maybe, but doesn't everyone still gets their checks on the first of the month?
Sheesh!
Here's a hint, stop voting Republican and become a responsible citizen.
I didn't realize that Dems controlled the Congress all those years. But just for shits and giggles, what would the SS trust fund contain today if it had never been raided by D's or R's? What say you?
No, the fund wouldn't hold any more than it 'holds' currently.
My bank doesn't 'hold' my savings account. They loan it out to others, and all I have is an IOU.
The above two posts explain why you can't follow along. Banks invest your dollars for positive returns. They may not always succeed but it is successful much more than it is not. If your bank sees it will not be able to pay out on your Annuity how would you react to them taking more of your earnings for no increased benefit?
Pretty please, I am BEGGING you to show me how SS has been poorly managed, especially compared to private accounts. SS has an overhead that is lower than any private account by orders of magnitude (just like medicare vs. private health insurance). It is also one of the safest and most reliable investments available (gov't bonds).
Also, SS was never intended to be a retirement account, nor should it be. It is a safety net for our whole society. Without it, we would be paying exponentially more money in the long run for the consequences of people not having that safety net (again, much like medicare). It is not just an ethical issue, it makes economic sense to have these programs.
The trust fund has been raided and the money used for general expenses of the government. Instead of distributiing money from the "trust fund", social security now relies on new contributions to pay those due their payment. When an investment requires new contributors to pay out former investors that is known as a Ponzi scheme.
I never claimed SS it was the end all of retirement plans so I'm not sure where your other comments are directed.
First off, we all know about the "ponzi scheme". It was a brilliant point, and solidifies your superior intellect and debating skills to all of us. Now please stop saying it.
Second, I was not claiming that you said SS should be the ultimate retirement program. My point was that it was never intended, nor should it be, as a retirement plan at all. A retirement plan is one in which you contribute and you get your money back. That was not how SS was set up. We started getting those misleading updates from SS because of a Republican scheme to make people think that and come to the conclusion that you have, that SS is a bad retirement plan. The program is supposed to be a safety net and supplement program. That said, I think we need to look at other aspects of our society and come up with possible solutions for why so many Americans are not saving more and are increasingly relying on SS as their sole source of retirement. Our current Republican system of sqeezing the middle class into oblivion and destroying the economy for the vast majority of us is partly to blame.
Third, who was it that came up with the idea of a SS "lockbox" again? It was a good idea and one that was lambasted by the Republicans because they wanted to raid SS like they did all through Bush's term.
Third, who was it that came up with the idea of a SS "lockbox" again?
That was Newt Gingrich and the congress of 1994 who tried, but failed to get that done.
I stand corrected - it wasn't until '98 that Gingrich and Clinton discussed the SS lockbox. It actually started to work it's way through congress in 1999.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/14/taxes/
The best way to fix social security is to re-enact the tax breaks that Bush has given to the corporations and put that money back into social security. I'm pi$$ed off enough that my tax money went to corporate welfare. My anger could be allayed if my tax money at least went to help the least among us.
Sorry dude, but to me, the least fortunate are more important than the most fortunate. How's that for Christian values?
The trust fund has been raided and the money used for general expenses of the government. Instead of distributiing money from the "trust fund", social security now relies on new contributions to pay those due their payment. When an investment requires new contributors to pay out former investors that is known as a Ponzi scheme.
I never claimed SS it was the end all of retirement plans so I'm not sure where your other comments are directed.
More nonsense. It's always been a "pay-as-you-go" program. It's always been that. During the 1980's, in an very good but not quite good enough attempt to keep it solvent forever, they required that there be some cushion built up, and so that cushion has been growing for the past few decades. It doesn't matter if that cushion is loaned out to pay for daily expenses of the US Govt or given out via T-bills and loans to foreign governments. The IOU's will get paid off.
A Ponzi scheme is much more than a pay-go method of redistribution of funds. The fact that you think that's the only thing that makes SS a Ponzi scheme, along with your nonsense above, shows that your only point is on the top of your head.
It is a testament to the failure of liberalism in how it creates dependance and shifts personal responsibility to a government.
It's called PROMOTING THE GENERAL WELFARE. Millions of people who have sacrificed for this nation deserved to grow old with dignity and not die a pauper. Why is it that during this nations darkest hours of need the ones who "rely on the government" are the ones who carry the rifles into battle?
PROMOTING THE GENERAL WELFARE....
is significantly different than PROVIDING - the general welfare.
Really? Could you show me?
ecouraging - promoting - providing.
Tell me where you draw the lines. It would probably also be helpful to have your definition of "general welfare".
Thanks.
Theres and old saying that clearly defines the difference between promote and provide. "If you give (provide) a man a fidh you feed him for a day. If you teach (promote) a man to fish you feed him for life."
To promote is to make available the opportunity. If I promote a broadway show you have the opportunity to buy a ticket. If a government promotes a free market economy it provides citizens the opportunity to participate in a way that best appeals to them.
Well, that was disappointing. I think in your fishy metaphor, education would be more synonymous with investment than promotion.
You can give it another try if you want, but I tend to think that you can't provide that definitive line I was looking for.
Claiming republicans have no interest in the general welfare of the country is as dishonest as claiming the democrats have no interest in national security. There is an ongoing debate between liberals and conservatives on what the meaning of "promote" the general welfare is - I was expanding on those words which Achris highlighted in his/her post.
As I mentioned in several other posts I believe in the intent of SS however we while we have been contributing, politicans have been embezzeling the funds for general use. Now that there is not enough income to cover the distributions they find themselves scrambling to fix the problem they, not us, created
Claiming republicans have no interest in the general welfare of the country is as dishonest as claiming the democrats have no interest in national security
Republicans define "general welfare" as anything that benefits the rich or the politically connected (contributors).
Yes - and Democrats define national security as every homeless person having a shopping cart to store their posessions. (sarcasim)
Please Fog - move on from the foolishness.
Dems:
How do you feel about corporate welfare? Like Bush and his tax cuts for oil companies that are now making more money than small countries? How about welfare for the rich in the form of tax cuts on the wealthiest 1% of the population? You realize, of course, that the Republicans define "Welfare" as any government handout to those who are not wealthy, while excluding government programs that provide handouts or special privileges for corporations.
As this is totally out of the context of this thread I'll be brief. Corporate tax breaks work when they encourage reinvestment and job creation. Locally our city offers corporate tax breaks that bring many jobs to our area, therby increasing the tax base and stimulation our economy.
Welfare for the rich by allowing them to keep more of the money they earn is a concept based on the notion that all money is governments first. I do not identify with that mode of thinking. I believe all citizens should be taxed uniformly. When trying to flatten out a progressive income taxe the result is going to be that those paying the most taxes will get the biggest breaks - however those same people are still paying significantly more than those who received less of a break.
Your comment regarding republicans and welfare is either disingenuinous or just plain idiotic.
His comment was neither disingenuous or idiotic. The fact of the matter is, Republicans have been whining about welfare for decades - unless, of course, that welfare helps Republicans.
You're missing one very important step with your "trickle down" theory with regards to corporate welfare and tax cuts for the rich. IF (notice my big 'if' there) corporations and the rich were to actually reinvest that money into their companies, or into the economy, your theory could work. However, since they only line their pockets with the corporate welfare and tax breaks, the whole "trickle down" theory ends up being an insulting stream of pi$$ running down the worker's back.
Solution: Corporate welfare and tax breaks for the rich must be, by law, reinvested into the corporation or economy ('cuz that's the point, right? If it's not, why be so disingenuous as to say that's what it does?). I don't see your Republican friends pushing for laws like that. Reason being - 'trickle down' is a facade - just a cover to make the rich richer at the expense of those of us who bust our a$$es to feed our families. It's a fleecing of the people who make this country work - and it's wrong.
It's a fleecing of the people who make this country work - and it's wrong.
We have been a witness of the largest shift of wealth from the masses to the ultra-rich since the robber barons era.
Do you really believe the things you post, or are you just trying to be entertaining?
Social Security has become nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. It is a testament to the failure of liberalism in how it creates dependance and shifts personal responsibility to a government.
This is so demonstrably untrue that it's sad. Do we want to go back to the days before we had SS? Do wingnuts realize that it was created for a reason?
Unfortunately, this country is going to have to learn all over again how bad things can be. It will, and soon.....
The spending of the trust fund to pay for daily expenses versus putting that money into investments has nothing to do with Social Security though. It has to do with deficit spending and choices that Bush has made that were worse than the choices Clinton made.
But it's not Social Security, or the trust fund, that's a problem. There are IOU's, and they'll be paid.
I don't doubt that they will be paid - however it is where they will get the money to pay them that becomes the issue. Because of politicians mismanagement of government spending we as workers will most likely bear the burden via increased FICA taxes but no increased benefit. Interesting thing is though that the same congress persons who mismanage the spending, and will increase our FICA taxes, are themselves exempt from the tax.
At their core, they are Social Darwinist Elitists.
And yet, the Republican base will rally to defend that 1% elite from any and all taxes like a she-bear defending her cubs.
How on earth some people can be convinced that the conservative CEO culture icon somehow shares common interest with middle America is beyond repulsive.
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I like Ike!
Nope. They've got better ideas.
First, eliminate Social Security, then recook and repackage that money and give it to the corporately wealthy in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, etc.
Next, enact free-wheeling trade policies so that those corporately wealthy people can easily invest their newly-acquired windfall in off-shore manufacturing, taking the middle-class jobs and tax revenues with them.
Finally, the corporately wealthy can move their headquarters to Dubai or elsewhere to avoid paying U.S. taxes.
Then, somehow, magically, wealth will trickle down to the American people, and good times will be had by all.
No to placing any part of the Social Security Trust Fund into private hands: if, in the future, we should actually realize these "projected shortfalls in Social Security" (that's a big "projected if"), then hell no to raising taxes... and if we should actually come to that insolvent bridge, then we cross it by reducing benefits, by reductions based on income (that's always the emergency response to insolvency: reduce expenditures based upon priority).
There. Every National Policy issue should be so simple as to require only the sound principles of Accounting.
and if we should actually come to that insolvent bridge, then we cross it by reducing benefits, by reductions based on income
That may very well be a sound accounting principle but what do you tell the millions who have been promised a fixed income based on wht they've already "invested" in the program that their benefits have gone bye-bye. The "trust fund" exists in principle only - payouts are funded by new contributions. As I noted above it has become nothing more than a legalized Ponzi scheme.
The funds used in Iraq would probably have made Social Security solvent for decades to come. But the righties are so scared of the Arabs that they had to flush billions down the crapper with nothing to show for it. Happy now?
If we should actually come to that insolvent bridge, and we cross it by reducing benefits, by reductions based on income, then what do you tell those people who've paid Social Security taxes, but are now not receiving benefits?
You tell them that they are the highest income Social Security recipients, and that if in the projected (imagined) instance that the Trust Fund is insolvent, then they are the ones who are reduced or denied benefits first, based upon that fact, that they are the highest income Social Security recipients.
And if they act stupid about it, like they don't get such a simple concept, then you hold both hands out in front of you (them), wiith the palms out and the fingers splayed wide, to show that there's nothing in your hands, no money at all: Insolvent (in that imagined and projected instance)...
You hold both palms out in front of you (them), with the fingers splayed wide, to show them there's nothing in them: like you do to a dog, so that he'll get the fact that you have no treats left in your hand (Insolvent).
As I noted above it has become nothing more than a legalized Ponzi scheme.
Lying twice doesn't magically make the lie into the truth.
Learn what a Ponzi scheme is and learn how social security is distributed. Educate yourself and maybe you can learn to contribute more to a discussion than your clueless banter.
Why don't you just speak clearly and plainly?
That's what people do when they pretend to know what they're talking about: they use vague strange obscure language. It's also what people do to hide the fact that they argue wrong, or that they have lost the argument: they start prattling on in retreat, using strange made-up terms like "Ponzi scheme", to hide their ignorance, and to hide their losing argument, and to cover their retreat.
using strange made-up terms like "Ponzi scheme",
Here - learn something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
This is how social security now works. FICA taxes collected from employees and employers today are used to pay out those who contributed years ago!
Next time try to resign your argument with dignity and you may be able to maintain some credibility.
Where's the credibility with my assertion that should we ever actually see these "projected (imagined) shorfalls in Social Security", that we address them as you would any situation of insolvency (even this imagined one): you'd reduce expenditures based upon priority... specifically in this imagined case, you'd reduce or delay benefits to the highest income recipients, for as much and as long as the (imagined) insolvent condition exists.
No credibility problem with that.
What, no website link to post, in place of an argument?
He's an even dopier dope in that he provides the link that shows the difference between a Ponzi scheme and SS.
They're kind of funny when they're against the wall with their cliche talking points.
Nevertheless, retirement programs run by national governments are significantly different from a typical Ponzi scheme in a number of ways:
Read carefully - that doesn't say it's not a Ponzi scheme, does it?
"Nevertheless, conservatives are considerably different than typical fascists" means "Conservatives are fascists"?
Yeah, I see what you mean.
Your use of the words 'Ponzi Scheme' in reference to Social Security doesn't fit - and not even close.
According to your link, a 'Ponzi Scheme' is an scheme in which investors are duped to invest money in the hopes of a short-term, high-gain return. Social Security is nothing of the sort. You're either being purposefully disingenuous or you're an idiot. Not even a good try.
A life insurance annuity isn't a ponzi scheme, but it's built like one: you buy an annuity. That annuity is paid for by the general revenue from the company: it's not an investment thatmay pay of or may not: there's a guaranteed rate of return. It's paid for by others. Do you call annuities Ponzi schemes? If so, then so is nearly all commercial paper. But a corporate bond, the company is going to pay you with money they get from others! So bonds are ponzi schemes too!
The government has the ability to take money from people and corporations to meet these obligations. They evn have the power to print money. The government can bsck its bonds, meet its payrolls, and pay out its annuities.
And if you're oh-so-worried about not enough young workers paying for retirees, I've got a simple easy solution. There are millions of eager workers chomping at the bit on our southern border who would be eager to go on payrolls and make up the deficit in Social Security!
See? Simple! Eaasy!
The government has the ability to take money from people and corporations to meet these obligations. They evn have the power to print money. The government can bsck its bonds, meet its payrolls, and pay out its annuities.
I assume you know that as government continues to print money without any world standard the dollar is continually devalued to the point it becomes worthless on an international scale. A vary bad economic plan. Also you can only raise taxes to a point before you stifle an economy.
All good points, PBG. Additionally, SS doesn't depend on the reinvestment of money paid out, nor does it promise any short term windfall to those who pay in.
"Ponzi scheme" was adopted by the right to tack onto SS a while ago, probably when they realized that most of the Republican base didn't understand a real explanation of Social Security.As with most issues, if you can tack on a "shorthand" smear, no matter how inaccurate, the average voter will thank you for saving them from some thinking, and go along with it.
Social Security, in reality, doesn't even remotely resemble a Ponzi scheme.
Social Security, in reality, doesn't even remotely resemble a Ponzi scheme.
Col - social security requires the funds collected from todays workers and employers to pay it's current recipients. That is the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
If you have the attention span of a lima bean, it is.
Did you not read the link you provided above?
A ponzi scheme requires at least two things: investors who are looking for (1) huge returns (Social Security does not provide a huge return - unless you consider $300/month a huge return. Try living on that in CA.), and (2) short-term gain (Social Security is not short-term gain). It's a tax. You pay in, you get a supplement when you're old or disabled. It's simple. Just because it's not being controlled the way YOU would control it, doesn't make it some sort of scheme.
All I know is that according to my last portfolio statement, Bear Stearns is going to have me retired, sitting on a beach sipping pina coladas in a couple years...
Can social security promise me that?
No one ever said that you could retire on a beach sipping pina coladas on your social security. As another poster above correctly pointed out, social security is meant to be a supplement to your retirement savings, not your sole income as a retiree.
That being said, many millions of seniors have had rough lives in which they weren't able to save money for retirement. They've endured financial hardship after financial hardship, from not having insurance to help pay for medical emergencies, to robbery (see: Enron, et al.) Many have to decide whether to eat dog food or pay their electric and other bills. It's sad that this happens - and to me, America is greater than that.
You can tell the greatness of a society based on the way society treats the young, the elderly and those who cannot help themselves. Ours, as of late, doesn't seem to be so great - thanks to Republicans.
Clearly it's you who doesn't understand a Ponzi scheme.
There's no reason to have money locked away. When I put money into a savings account to earn interest, it's not locked away. If it were locked away, it wouldn't earn any interest. It's only in the use of that money by others that it earns interest for me and profits for the lending institution that 'holds' my savings account.
I have an IOU from that lending institution. I also have an IOU from the Federal Govt and the Social Security Trust Fund. They aren't holding my money in a vault, but they will cover their debts. The US Govt can't afford to not cover their debts.
It doesn't matter if the Social Security Trust Fund goes to pay current bills or if it's loaned to other countries. It'll still be there. If we use it to pay current bills, then taxes will be raised a little higher down the road since we won't have been earning interest on those funds, but that's a problem of deficit spending, not the Social Security Trust Fund.
Thanks for demonstrating that you have no worthwhile knowledge about how Social Security and a Ponzi scheme are diametrically opposed in some ways.
Social security in trouble now? That's a pretty bold statement. I believe its possible trouble down the road with no few ifs thrown in. Your fear is selective, and enabled by your ideology.
Put up, describe how your word of the day is a proper template to put on SS.
You voted for Bush's second term, correct? Don't bother us with your concern for future generations, not when the bill for Bush's Iraqi debacle and deregulated housing market follies will be strapping our economy for multiple decades.
Be consistent. Just like Ewestone suggests.
What's all this about a Fonzi scheme?
I don't see how the Fonz dressing up like a young woman and going on a panty raid with Richie, Ralph Malph and Potsie is gonna help people in their retirement.
That's to distract the pour people while outsourced pachinko machines are used to infiltrate our home grown gambling industries.
It was all covered in a late friday night signing statement party at the WH. The church bingo faction was bought off neatly. All retracted later by the light of the new gasoline powered lamps.
Even polite cons like you are full of crapola. Not a damn person here has suggested that SS ought to be a primary source for one's retirement.
And for cryin' out loud, dude. Had GM been future ready, not made fuel guzzling behemoths and reigned in extravagant executive salaries, they wouldn't be in such tough times.
But go ahead, keep backhandedly blaming the American laborer for the intellectual and strategic shortcomings of the board of directors. It just accentuates your chumphood.
Comparing Social Security to an annuity is hogwash.
It's retirement and disability insurance, pure and simple. As such, there's a great return on the investment for those who live a long time after retirement or who become disabled or for those who are dependent on wage-earners. For people who die shortly after retirement, it's not a good deal. Those are the breaks.
It's not an annuity, and only someone not interested in having a reasonable argument would bring up an annuity in this discussion.
But your vote had no impact? You voted Gore? You voted Kerry? If no, your vote had an impact. You had the choice to make a difference and you blew it.
Did you vote for Nader, or some ultra-right tool? I'm guessing some ultra-right tool?
Speaking of ultra-right tools, vote Paul in November (yeah, I love his stance on Iraq, but nine out of ten klansmen endorse him for his nativist bs. Paul/Dobbs '08)