Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 07-14-2011, 12:16 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Scare Tactics or Transparency?

The president says he cannot guarantee that social security checks will go out to seniors if the debt ceiling is not raised by the August deadline. Now let's evaluate his statement for truth. If social security is solvent in 2011 that means the Ponzi Scheme is still working, that is the income exceeds payments. So is the president insinuating something deeper than what he is saying or is he merely trying to scare seniors into support of raising the debt limit?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 09:00 AM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
The president says he cannot guarantee that social security checks will go out to seniors if the debt ceiling is not raised by the August deadline. Now let's evaluate his statement for truth. If social security is solvent in 2011 that means the Ponzi Scheme is still working, that is the income exceeds payments. So is the president insinuating something deeper than what he is saying or is he merely trying to scare seniors into support of raising the debt limit?
This is quite simple, and I am pretty sure I explained it to you before

social security as far as it's balance sheet will likely have a surplus till 2037, however government money as a total has been raided for wars and medicare (especially the bush expansion) and so we overall have more money going out.

so while on the books we have plenty of reserves for social security our politicians have used that money for wars/etc.. either way if the government can't pay out money... it can't pay out money, simple as that, we have just spent too much being the world's police force. Yes we are still bringing in more then we spend, but without a budget it can not be said for sure whether they will go out, and it depends on how the accounting is done and when the money coming in is deposited but I would fully expect they will pay it.

and the trick goes both ways remember the republicans telling people that obamacare would destroy healthcare as health insurance exchanges were pure vile evil.... but then along comes paul ryan's plan for medicare to downgrade it to a health insurance exchange with a voucher system and suddenly the exchange is the best idea ever!!! (but not obama's because it is obama's but the republican exchange system is fine because it was their idea)

basically if we really kept the money pulled in from social security taxes seperate from everything else then social security would look very good but the the country's budget would be massively deeper in the red since the money could not have been borrowed from social security for war
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 09:09 AM  
MRB
Senior Member
 
MRB's Avatar

Sacramento, California
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 389 | Kudos: +56
Scare Tactic.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 09:14 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ View Post
This is quite simple, and I am pretty sure I explained it to you before

social security as far as it's balance sheet will likely have a surplus till 2037, however government money as a total has been raided for wars and medicare (especially the bush expansion) and so we overall have more money going out.

so while on the books we have plenty of reserves for social security our politicians have used that money for wars/etc.. either way if the government can't pay out money... it can't pay out money, simple as that, we have just spent too much being the world's police force. Yes we are still bringing in more then we spend, but without a budget it can not be said for sure whether they will go out, and it depends on how the accounting is done and when the money coming in is deposited but I would fully expect they will pay it.

and the trick goes both ways remember the republicans telling people that obamacare would destroy healthcare as health insurance exchanges were pure vile evil.... but then along comes paul ryan's plan for medicare to downgrade it to a health insurance exchange with a voucher system and suddenly the exchange is the best idea ever!!! (but not obama's because it is obama's but the republican exchange system is fine because it was their idea)
Thanks, your response is but a wordy admission that it is a scare tactic by Obama. And that maybe the Ponzi Scheme has bottomed and general funds (if there were any) must be used to prop up current payments. Of course if the SS funds had been kept intact we would still have a problem as inflation and the lack of earned interest would have whittled them down significantly.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 09:28 AM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
Thanks, your response is but a wordy admission that it is a scare tactic by Obama. And that maybe the Ponzi Scheme has bottomed and general funds (if there were any) must be used to prop up current payments. Of course if the SS funds had been kept intact we would still have a problem as inflation and the lack of earned interest would have whittled them down significantly.
The effective interest rate has been over 4% for the last 20 years, the average rate of inflation has been around 3%, so any other misconceptions
also by your logic everything the government does is a ponzi scheme, every item paid for by taxes is a ponzi scheme, our roads are a ponzi scheme since they depend on future people to pay taxes to main tain them, it's an absurd comment that doesn't fit the definition of a ponzi scheme

nothing is "propping up" current social security payments, social security is propping up everything else, DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT A SURPLUS IS?
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 01:41 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Here's a take on it from The New American
Quote:
Is Social Security a Government-run Ponzi Scheme?
Written by Sam Blumenfeld
Thursday, 14 July 2011 00:00


With President Obama claiming that if our debt limit is not increased by Congress, it may force the government to stop payment of Social Security checks, the public, and in particular those dependent on these monthly checks, are a bit confused about how the Social Security System is financed. The truth is that the government does not have to go out and borrow money in order to pay Social Security recipients. Those payments are covered by present receipts of FICA taxes. So the idea that Social Security payments are dependent on borrowed money is false.

Indeed, over the years these taxes have brought in more revenue than is actually needed to cover present payments of the Social Security System. The federal government spends that surplus and places in the Social Security Trust Fund government bonds at 5.50 percent interest, redeemable when the FICA taxes do not bring in enough money to cover Social Security payments.

Back in 2005, President Bush made Social Security an important issue in his State of the Union Message. This created interest in the Social Security Trust Fund and how it operates. Unlike a typical private pension plan, the Trust Fund does not hold any marketable assets to secure workers? paid-in contributions. Instead, it holds non-negotiable U.S. Treasury bonds and U.S. Securities backed ?by the full faith and credit of the government.? The Office of Management and Budget has described the distinction as follows:

?These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures ? but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government?s ability to pay benefits.? (Our emphasis.) (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)

In other words. The government IOUs are intrinsically worthless. ?The full faith and credit of the government? is based on its ability to tax the American people to pay this government-created debt. As of the end of calendar year 2010, the accumulated surplus stood at just over $2.6 trillion. Projections are that current receipts will continue to exceed expenditures until 2017. Thereafter, there will be a shortfall that will be made up by withdrawals from the Trust Fund, although the Trust Fund will continue to show net growth until 2025 because of the interest generated by its bonds.

Is this some sort of government Ponzi scheme? The federal government takes in more than it needs through FICA taxes to pay current Social Security recipients, spends the surplus on anything it wants, and has put into the Trust Fund $2.6 trillions of Treasury paper of no intrinsic value, a debt imposed on future American taxpayers. Had that $2.6 trillion been invested in American industry, in assets of real value, future taxpayers would not be obliged to pay off another one of Uncle Sam?s huge debts. That investment would have created jobs and more wealth. But such simple economic sense is beyond the capability of our socialist bureaucrats and politicians in Washington.

So why is FICA collecting more money than it needs to cover Social Security?s current obligations? Why not lower the tax and let American workers keep more of their own money? The politicians? reasoning is simple: the more money we have the more we can spend it in any way we want. Since eventually Americans will be taxed to pay for Social Security benefits not covered by current FICA taxes, why fool the public with this sham of a Trust Fund with $2.6 trillion of worthless paper?

By the way, when government increases its debt limit, it simply takes on more debt. It owes more money which the American people will be obliged to pay interest on. Why give this profligate government more money to spend when it ought to be cutting its expenditures?

When are we going to get rid of the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, HUD, OSHA, and other alphabetic soup bureaucracies that are driving thousands of small businesses into bankruptcy because of strangling regulations. One of the reasons why jobs are not being created is that so many small businesses are folding because of onerous government regulations. Starting a small business these days is like going through an obstacle course. But a man like Obama has no idea what goes into creating a new private business. He never met a payroll, and he prefers government enterprise over private free enterprise.

By increasing the debt limit, future Americans will simply be saddled with more debt. It?s as simple as that. Obama wants us to take on more debt. Why? Because it?s the easiest way to bring America to its financial knees. And so you can be sure that he will continue to cause fear among the elderly that unless we borrow more money, they will lose their benefits. What a despicable lie.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 01:51 PM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
Here's a take on it from The New American
And an unbiased source..........

come on can't you see any bias in that? seriously? come on you can do better then that

I WILL ASK AGAIN (and I am sure you will ignore again) what makes social security so critically different then all other future expenditures the government makes? by the evidence (or the closest thing you presented) then one could argue just about everything is a ponzi scheme especially government itself as it depends on people to pay in this year for what was spent last year, how is that different then social security.

also social security has been adjusted before and will be adjusted again, we had this discussion in the 80's, social security was coming to an end, the money well was dry.....

this republican agenda of destroying society and especially the middle class is getting old, the class wars need to stop, the rich already have about the lowest personal and corporate tax rates of any developed country.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 02:14 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ View Post
The effective interest rate has been over 4% for the last 20 years, the average rate of inflation has been around 3%, so any other misconceptions
Not a misconception, interest not earned is as good as a loss and 3% per year inflation is a definite loss of 60% (uncompounded) of spending power over 20 years.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 02:17 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ View Post
I WILL ASK AGAIN (and I am sure you will ignore again) what makes social security so critically different then all other future expenditures the government makes? by the evidence (or the closest thing you presented) then one could argue just about everything is a ponzi scheme especially government itself as it depends on people to pay in this year for what was spent last year, how is that different then social security.
From Wiki:
Quote:
A Ponzi scheme is a kind of fraud. It is a kind of investment operation. Normally, if investments make a profit, this profit is shared, and distributed among those people investing money. A Ponzi scheme is different. It offers returns that are paid by the people investing themselves, or by other people investing, and not from the profits made.

Ponzi schemes offer returns that are much better than those offered by other forms of investment. Returns offered are either very high, or very consistent. They have to do this, because they need to find new people who invest. Keeping the returns going that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an increasing flow of money from investors.

Many times, the system will collapse because people have to pay more than they earn, if they earn anything at all. Most of the time, the system itself does not collapse, but the authorities find it. In that case, they will stop the system, and start charging people, because running such systems is illegal in many countries. As more investors become involved, the likelihood of the scheme coming to the attention of authorities increases.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 02:47 PM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
Not a misconception, interest not earned is as good as a loss and 3% per year inflation is a definite loss of 60% (uncompounded) of spending power over 20 years.
you can't double count it, you are just being absurd it's either a loss overall, or for one or the other but not both. again social security is NOT the issue as you said, it's that we let the congress raid it for wars in the first place
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
From Wiki:
oh wow you can use wiki.... but did you read it? you certainly didn't even try to say how it relates or to even attempt to create counter points to anything I wrote at all, you can't just put up a link and act like it explains all when it fails to explain a thing.

your argument skill is lacking, and according to what little argument you seem to be presenting you are stating all taxes are a ponzi scheme, correct, since they all expect the next generation of tax payers will pay since they pend first and obtain money later and usually project for an amount of growth?

social security is just the same, it's a tax and can be adjusted as needed which means it is not a ponzi scheme any more then any other part of our federal budget that projects spending in advance
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.