Quote :

"1.Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else. Baloney. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both sliced taxes on the rich and what happened? Most Americans’ wages (measured by the real median wage) began flattening under Reagan and have dropped since George W. Bush. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke. 2.Higher taxes on the rich would hurt the economy and slow job growth. False. From the end of World War II until 1981, the richest Americans faced a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent or above. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even after all deductions and credits, the top taxes on the very rich were far higher than they’ve been since. Yet the economy grew faster during those years than it has since. (Don’t believe small businesses would be hurt by a higher marginal tax; fewer than 2 percent of small business owners are in the highest tax bracket.) 3.Shrinking government generates more jobs. Wrong again. It means fewer government workers – everyone from teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and social workers at the state and local levels to safety inspectors and military personnel at the federal. And fewer government contractors, who would employ fewer private-sector workers. According to Moody’s economist Mark Zandi (a campaign advisor to John McCain), the $61 billion in spending cuts proposed by the House GOP will cost the economy 700,000 jobs this year and next. 4.Cutting the budget deficit now is more important than boosting the economy. Untrue. With so many Americans out of work, budget cuts now will shrink the economy. They’ll increase unemployment and reduce tax revenues. That will worsen the ratio of the debt to the total economy. The first priority must be getting jobs and growth back by boosting the economy. Only then, when jobs and growth are returning vigorously, should we turn to cutting the deficit. 5.Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits. Wrong. Medicare and Medicaid spending is rising quickly, to be sure. But that’s because the nation’s health-care costs are rising so fast. One of the best ways of slowing these costs is to use Medicare and Medicaid’s bargaining power over drug companies and hospitals to reduce costs, and to move from a fee-for-service system to a fee-for-healthy outcomes system. And since Medicare has far lower administrative costs than private health insurers, we should make Medicare available to everyone. 6.Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Don’t believe it. Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years. It could be solvent for the next century if we raised the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That ceiling is now $106,800. 7.It’s unfair that lower-income Americans don’t pay income tax. Wrong. There’s nothing unfair about it. Lower-income Americans pay out a larger share of their paychecks in payroll taxes, sales taxes, user fees, and tolls than everyone else. "

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/12-2

10/12/2011 7:03:25 PM

SHUTUP COMMIE!

10/12/2011 7:05:35 PM

Quote :

"Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Don’t believe it. Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years. It could be solvent for the next century if we raised the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That ceiling is now $106,800."

spoken like a true promulgator of a ponzi scheme. these people don't know what a Ponzi Scheme is, otherwise they'd shut their fat mouths.

10/12/2011 7:07:30 PM

The only reason it has some attributes of a ponzi scheme right now is because the disproportional amount of the population made up of by the baby boomers. Right now they are mostly payers and it will "fail" when they all start drawing.

Once they die, it will be back to normal.

10/12/2011 7:12:21 PM

no. it will ALWAYS be a Ponzi Scheme. You know why? Because the "returns" are ALWAYS paid from the pool of investments. Definition of a god damned Ponzi Scheme. You fucktards need to read a dictionary

10/12/2011 7:17:11 PM

This entire article isolates single figures (median incomes, tax rates) and makes some definitive statement like THIS ONE THING DECREASED, BUT GDP INCREASED SO IT MUST BE BS...if this thread was intended to troll, congrats. If not, that's absurdly dumb.

10/12/2011 7:26:12 PM

In order to be a Ponzi Scheme the perpetrators have to be lying about the source of the payouts. That's what makes it a scheme. There's not a person over the age of 18 who has any excuse for not knowin where Social Security payouts come from.

Additionally, if it could be considered a Ponzi Scheme it's easily the most successful since the creation of the term. It works. It works well. And despite the fear mongering isn't in true danger of collapse unless they keep screwing with the money.

10/12/2011 7:59:38 PM

You forgot the biggest one of them all: You can borrow to consume for thirty years, intervene with your currency and everything will be fine.

10/12/2011 8:25:45 PM

Quote :

"Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years."

so basically it is solvent so that I can pay into it right up until I retire, and then I won't reap any benefit afterward.

10/12/2011 8:32:49 PM

lol, it's positive news that social security is solvent for the next 26 years?

[Edited on October 12, 2011 at 8:50 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2011 8:49:48 PM

Quote :

"You forgot the biggest one of them all: You can borrow to consume for thirty years, intervene with your currency and everything will be fine."

This better work or we're fucked. The biggest gamble in human history.

10/12/2011 9:20:26 PM

Quote :

"The only reason it has some attributes of a ponzi scheme right now is because the disproportional amount of the population made up of by the baby boomers. "

That is exactly the mechanism by which Ponzi schemes fail.

Do you not understand what a Ponzi scheme is? Social Security is pretty clearly exactly that. As long as the pyramid continues to expand, Ponzi schemes work. The reason that they're a problem is that usually something eventually fucks up the rotation. In the case of Social Security, the assumption was that American population would continually grow. Between the post-WWII baby boom and Roe v. Wade, that's not the case, and now we're in a mess, because it is a fucking Ponzi scheme.

10/12/2011 9:33:50 PM

There're more reasons Ponzi schemes fail. One is that it gets found out by the SEC and shut down, and the other is that the payouts gettoo big. Since neither of those are likely to happen I wouldn't worry about it tO much.

Also, that 26 year solvency is a conservative estimate by the CBO for the point at which the current payout becomes impossible. The program would continue on after that with a 20% reduction in benefits and still work. There are actually plenty of ways to bolster Social Security that would easily work. The simplest and probably the best is to raise the 108k cap. Deduct up to 250k or 500k or even do away with the cap entirely and Social Security's coffers would be fine.

Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen. They'll talk about raising the retirement age which is pointless and just lowers the number of jobs available for the youth in the country. Or they'll talk about cutting benefits until retorted aget less from social security than they would begging on the street. But the idea of increasing revenue won't be treated as a "serious" proposal.

10/12/2011 9:50:54 PM

God the OP is an idiot and timswar seriously man I always thought you were a logical person.

It's a global economy now you fucking retards so comparing the tax rates of the 1970s and 1980s to today is like comparing the tax rates of the Dark Ages to the Industrial Revolution.

Social Security was supposed to take in more than it paid out until 2017. Yeah, that broke in 2009. 26 years are you fucking kidding? It would be broke in less than half of that time for sure as currently structured.

Do you realize our banking system is collapsing as we speak? Do you realize how big the fucking derivatives market is? Any clue how much off balance sheet debt we are hiding like Italy? Any clue how much money we are printing? Any idea how insolvent China's banking system is? Any idea how close we are to peak resources? How about that currency war we're thinking about entering?

The entire global system is ready to hit the reset button. There's going to be war, hunger, protests, corruption, wealth to be stolen, wealth to be squandered.

We are entering what could be the most volatile time in modern history because of the interconnectedness of every country and industry. The talking points of this thread just show how uninformed the OP is. Keep drinking the brainwash, it seems to be working wonders since you're able to tune out the reality of the world.

10/12/2011 10:05:35 PM

Quote :

"In order to be a Ponzi Scheme the perpetrators have to be lying about the source of the payouts."

no, not really. and, even if it were, what does it say about SS that it operates in exactly the same manner as a Ponzi Scheme, except for the fact that the gov't is "up front" about the whole thing? eeeeeeeexxxxxactly.

Quote :

"Additionally, if it could be considered a Ponzi Scheme it's easily the most successful since the creation of the term. It works. It works well."

And if you'll buy that, then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. It only "works" because of the delay between "investment" and "returns". This would be akin to saying that long-lived radioisotopes were stable because they don't decay as fast as tritium.

Quote :

"There're more reasons Ponzi schemes fail."

no, there aren't. Ponzi Schemes fail specifically because of how the system operates. Other actors may come in and hasten the demise, but, left to its own devices, ALL Ponzi schemes fail.

Quote :

"and the other is that the payouts gettoo big."

So, having to frequently change the SS tax rate and adjust benefit rates or "change the retirement age" (which is Ponzi speak for "delay benefits longer, thus decreasing payouts) doesn't sound like "payments getting too big"? What would you call that?

Quote :

"The program would continue on after that with a 20% reduction in benefits and still work. "

And this isn't "payments getting too big"? So, basically, as long as we keep changing out how much gets paid, it's not a Ponzi Scheme. As long as we keep dicking with it, it's self-sustaining and doesn't need to be changed to make it solvent. that's really what you are saying, dude.

Quote :

"The simplest and probably the best is to raise the 108k cap."

Which kicks the can down the road, because when you raise the amount paid in, you raise the amount paid out later. DOH!!!

Quote :

"Deduct up to 250k or 500k or even do away with the cap entirely and Social Security's coffers would be fine. "

And then you have Bill Gates getting a million dollar SS check every month. Again, keep dicking with it, and it'll be self-sustaining without any dicking with it.

10/12/2011 10:23:24 PM

Quote :

"One is that it gets found out by the SEC and shut down"

That's like saying that it's a crime because the government says it's a crime. I mean, you aren't technically wrong, but you're kinda stating the obvious.

The SEC shuts them down because they don't want them to grow bigger and bigger and become even more catastrophic whenever a bump in the road ultimately comes along send the house of cards toppling.

Quote :

""In order to be a Ponzi Scheme the perpetrators have to be lying about the source of the payouts.""

No they don't. It just usually works that way because normally, people wouldn't be fucking stupid enough to go for it. The government has no reason to lie about it, because enough people are OK with it (or remain sufficiently ignorant of it) DESPITE them being upfront about the mechanism.

Quote :

"There are actually plenty of ways to bolster Social Security that would easily work. "

True, but none of them are especially attractive, and they're all politically pretty close to untouchable.

Also, why would we want to raise the contribution limit and "increase revenues"? Seriously? Social Security is a disaster, and your solution is to grow it bigger? What we need to do with it is gradually phase it out.

That, and if we're going to keep it, we should alter the Constitution to make it legally permissible. Better late than never.

[Edited on October 12, 2011 at 10:29 PM. Reason : ]

10/12/2011 10:25:27 PM

Quote :

"Additionally, if it could be considered a Ponzi Scheme it's easily the most successful since the creation of the term. It works. It works well. And despite the fear mongering isn't in true danger of collapse unless they keep screwing with the money."

Timswar you are an idiot.

It's only "successful" because the taxpayers cannot opt out. Their input into the system is forced by the government, so of course it will continue. Also, it works so well that I've been paying into it for 8 years now, and will continue to for the next 40, yet I won't see any benefits from it since it will be insolvent in 26 years!

10/12/2011 10:25:44 PM

Ah, another reason why it doesn't count as a ponzi scheme, there's no way to pull out.

And again, I really think you all need to go look up what a ponzi scheme is. When I say that it requires lying I'm not just talking out of my ass, the entire idea of the scheme is that people cannot know what is actually going on. Outside knowledge of a ponzi scheme causes it to collapse as people try to pull out before the money runs out. Since that cannot happen with Social Security then it isn't a factor at all.

10/12/2011 10:45:43 PM

Quote :

"Shrinking government generates more jobs. Wrong again. It means fewer government workers – everyone from teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and social workers at the state and local levels to safety inspectors and military personnel at the federal. And fewer government contractors, who would employ fewer private-sector workers. According to Moody’s economist Mark Zandi (a campaign advisor to John McCain), the $61 billion in spending cuts proposed by the House GOP will cost the economy 700,000 jobs this year and next. "

I'm going to call out this particular section for being horseshit. Having the government employ people shouldn't enter into the equation. The government could pay half of us to dig a hole and the other half to fill that hole in. We'd have 100% employment as we starved to death.

10/12/2011 11:02:44 PM

what if they paid half of us to grow food, and the other half to harvest the crops?

10/12/2011 11:15:09 PM

^^ people would only starve to death if the government was paying crap wages. If the wages aren't competitive with the private sector then as many people as are able will go off and work for corporate hole digging instead of government hole digging.

Since, in the real world, government jobs pay lower than market wages with decent benefits that doesn't really apply. People make a living wage working for the government, but once that job is gone so to has the wage.

Unless you're talking about conscripting people to dig holes against their will, which is a different sort of mess.

10/12/2011 11:39:31 PM

Dude, when did you go full retard?

10/12/2011 11:48:21 PM

Well, am I wrong? Find me a Ponzi Scheme not predicated on a lie about its existence. Find me a lost government job that increased overall employment.

[Edited on October 13, 2011 at 12:00 AM. Reason : Insults? Really? Instead of listening you just lash out?]

10/12/2011 11:58:24 PM

pryderi is right.

we just need to raise taxes like 30% or something, and create a bunch of useless bullshit govt jerbs and we will be fine again

where do i sign up

10/13/2011 12:09:38 AM

Dude. If everyone is digging and filling ditches, no one is doing any productive work. Someone has to make food. Someone has to build houses. Someone has to make goods and provide services. Labor is distributed based on what needs to get done, or what people want to get done. That's why central planning doesn't work - it tries to "optimize growth," but no person or group of people knows how to do that, because to know that, you would need to know the collective will of the entire population.

In the case of government workers, a lot of those people are just shuffling papers around. It's unnecessary, bloated bureaucracy. Those workers are not only being diverted from genuinely productive tasks, but they have to paid for with the wages of those that actually are productive. So, no, private and government jobs are not on equal footing when it comes to overall value to society.

10/13/2011 12:14:10 AM

when all is said and done, all you need to do is print money and increase wages for everybody. then we can all afford anything.

just mail the checks. no need for wasteful jobs. just send them the money and then they can go buy whatever they want.

why haven't people already thought of this? then we can ALL be rich finally.

10/13/2011 12:24:39 AM

Quote :

"Find me a Ponzi Scheme not predicated on a lie about its existence."

There probably aren't any, besides Social Security. Bernie Madoff (a) couldn't appeal to inherent credibility and stability in the way that the U.S. government can, and (b) didn't have the benefit of holding his "investors" hostage.

I mean, you said yourself that "A Ponzi scheme requires deceit, because any idiot would pull out if he knew he was getting fucked. You aren't allowed to pull out of Social Security while they're fucking you. Therefore, it isn't a Ponzi scheme."

That's like saying that forcible rape is consensual because the poor girl can't stop her assailant.

Quote :

"Find me a lost government job that increased overall employment."

Again, there aren't any, but that's meaningless. Government jobs don't produce anything. I say this as a government employee. Hell, government jobs cost money, so even if we hired people, we'd end up borrowing money to do it, further increasing our fiscal problems and devaluing the dollar even more. Obviously, some of it is necessary--we need a military, and we need...umm, someone to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and to declare war, and to establish a uniform rules of naturalization and bankruptcies.

I mean, I feel like if I really have to explain why creating and paying for jobs that don't create any value just for the sake of making the unemployment #s better is a bad idea, then I'm pretty much wasting my time explaining it, anyway.

10/13/2011 12:35:58 AM

Quote :

"Since, in the real world, government jobs pay lower than market wages with decent benefits that doesn't really apply."

Were you on pcp laced weed when you wrote this?

10/13/2011 6:46:21 AM

Government jobs don't produce a product that you can hold, that's true. What they do produce is a society that you can live in. I'd think that as a military man you'd understand that.

10/13/2011 6:47:30 AM

^^ its a well known fact that fed govt jobs pay about 30% higher than private sector jobs.

Not to mention they have no accountability and high job security. So I'd say his point is slightly diminished

10/13/2011 7:38:33 AM

....

Quote :

" its a well known fact"

[citation needed]

[Edited on October 13, 2011 at 8:20 AM. Reason : .]

10/13/2011 8:19:37 AM

Looks like people agree with 5 out of the 7. Only 3 and 6 are the controversial items.

10/13/2011 8:55:16 AM

Looks like your deductive reasoning capabilities are nonexistent.

10/13/2011 9:21:54 AM

Have you always gone straight to insults or is this a new thing? I seem to remember you being a lot more even handed than this?

Is it's the current level of rhetoric? I know conservative pundits have adopted an attitude that if you disagree with them you must be insane, but I didn't know that had trickled down to the layman.

Shame, that.

10/13/2011 9:37:19 AM

Quote :

"Find me a Ponzi Scheme not predicated on a lie about its existence."

I can't, they all went bust. However, they did exist. After the downfall of communism several open ponzi schemes opened up in Albania (lie based Ponzi Schemes were illegal, but open Ponzi Schemes were not) and lots of people invested, until they went bust and the country descended into chaos.

Quote :

"Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke."

It is. Wealth trickles up, not down. An investor invests rights now, producing jobs and services for those less wealthy than them right now, but must wait years to recoup their investments and hopefully make a profit.

[Edited on October 13, 2011 at 10:12 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/13/2011 10:11:37 AM

SS shares the same mechanics as a Ponzi scheme. Sure, some of the irrelevant details are different, but the mechanics are the same.

10/13/2011 12:28:43 PM

^Then every insurance policy share the same mechanics of a ponzi scheme...as do stocks and bonds.

10/13/2011 1:03:57 PM

Stocks and bonds, including insurance companies, get third party non-investors to pay back investors. For stocks and bonds the money comes from the company's customers, which can be sustainable forever. There are some corporations in Japan and the Netherlands that have operated for nearly a thousand years.

10/13/2011 1:49:38 PM

^^^, ^^, and ^

yes, yes, and yes.

as long as the world doesn't end/states do not become insolvent, these "Ponzi Schemes" are sustainable

10/13/2011 2:47:27 PM

Quote :

"Have you always gone straight to insults or is this a new thing? I seem to remember you being a lot more even handed than this?"

You were being what any reasonable person can only interpret as deliberately disingenuous or just flat-out dumb. That's different from a philosophical difference, and I don't feel compelled to treat it with any particular measure of respect.

10/13/2011 5:04:09 PM

Quote :

"as long as the world doesn't end/states do not become insolvent, these "Ponzi Schemes" are sustainable"

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Any program can stay "solvent" when you have a government/banking complex willing to print any amount of money and a population that is too ignorant/lazy to do anything about it. That says nothing about long-term sustainability or whether this practice is actually beneficial to the population at large.

The argument that "Social Security is solvent" isn't an effective or useful one. It's not a ponzi scheme, it's a wealth extraction scheme. Old people promised themselves our money. When are we going to get pissed off about it?

10/13/2011 5:10:31 PM

^^ and yet,you didn't offer anything to enlighten me, or to prove me wrong or really anything of substance other than insults.

Sorry, I expected more from the person in charge around here. I should have known better.

Definitions and details matter whether or not you want to find out what they actually are, it's a shame that only one person in here actually had the wherewithal to suggest something to correct me instead of immediately resorting to insults.

Still haven't looked up the Albanians yet, but I intend to.

[Edited on October 13, 2011 at 5:19 PM. Reason : But hey,why don't you go ask the people who run the program? http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm]

10/13/2011 5:14:48 PM

My personal belief is that our generation needs to be the ones to bite the bullet on SS. There should be a cutoff age (say 30 by 1-1-2012 or whatever is necessary to pay out to all remaining folksdue to collect) at which you continue to pay in but do not collect. Everyone below that age never pays another dime in SS nor do they collect. There should then be a sliding scale by age for receiving benefits, i.e. anyone 55 or older receives 100% of expected benefit on down to 0% for those at your cutoff date, in this example 30. 35+ years should be more than enough warning for people to adequately save and plan for their own retirement.

10/13/2011 5:34:01 PM

Yeah, let's just scapegoat the most successful social program in our government's history, a program that actually helps millions of people, and ignore everything else. Newsflash: killing social security won't create jobs, won't fix our debt problem, won't fix our education system, won't fix our health care system, wont fix our roads and bridges, won't fix our banking system, won't fix Washington DC, won't fix our standing in the world, won't fix the environment, won't fix our energy problem, won't do a goddamn thing except fuck over millions of people and give aaronburro, d357r0y3r, and theDuke866 a boner. But yeah, let's do it because it's socialism (!!!!!!!1111) and sort of like but not really at all a Ponzi scheme, and those things are baaaaaaaaad. While we're at let's kill Medicare, Medicaid, disability insurance, unemployment benefits, and welfare and give all that extra money to Wall Street so they can turn into more money, because that worked so well in the past. Then the USA will really be #1!!!!!!!!!!!1111

[Edited on October 13, 2011 at 6:04 PM. Reason : v awwww is someone butt hurt?]

10/13/2011 5:55:34 PM

You're such a fucking tool.

10/13/2011 5:59:22 PM

Quote :

"My personal belief is that our generation needs to be the ones to bite the bullet on SS."

Why? Their generation has been at the helm for longer than ours making all the political decisions (both good and bad) so why can't they begin laying in the bed they made right now by raising retirement ages and means testing. I like your cutoff line and if the plan is solvent for another 26 years as of today then that is the starting point.

Quote :

" won't do a goddamn thing except fuck over millions of people"

This is without a doubt the dumbest most brain dead thing that has ever been posted on the internet about Social Security. Of course it will have some effect on the economy, are you really that fucking retarded to think otherwise? If you have to stop paying into SS right fucking now, you and EVERYONE ELSE IN THE UNITED STATES that is currently paying that "tax" instantly has more money available to spend. It's a fucking tax cut, and you don't think this has an effect? Were you trolling when you wrote that, because a statement that bankrupt of thought could be nothing but trolling.

Quote :

"While we're at let's kill Medicare, Medicaid, disability insurance, unemployment benefits, and welfare and give all that extra money to Wall Street so they can turn into more money"

The fuck? The politicians that you suck off in these threads voted to give those same wall street institutions that you vilify a free pass after they fucked us over. YOUR PARTY, the party of the fucking people, the little man, the guy that gets squashed by big business, was silent as fuck when they had the chance to vote no to bailouts. The guy that ran a campaign of reigning in wall street hasn't done a god damn fucking thing in those regards. Dodd-Frank? My neutered mutt has more sack than this legislation.

10/13/2011 7:03:04 PM

Quote :

" 1. The Recession has ended. 2. It's all Bush's fault. 3. The "economic headwinds" are to blame. 4. The economy is doing awesome. 5. Passing the Jobs Bill will help. 6. Passing the Stimulus helped. 7. It's all the Tea Party's fault."

I'll give you extra credit if you can name the person who claimed these things.

10/13/2011 7:50:46 PM

Go away you shithead. No one wants to answer your off topic oh-someone-please-pay-attention-to-me tripe.

[Edited on October 13, 2011 at 8:01 PM. Reason : .]

10/13/2011 8:00:39 PM

Quote :

"I really think you all need to go look up what a ponzi scheme is."

aaronburro and I had this discussion here:
/message_topic.aspx?topic=617888&page=2

I found the argument somewhat counter-productive to my attempt to withdraw from nicotine, so I haven't ventured back into that foray.

However, I recall the argument settling on Social Security meeting some qualifications for a Ponzi scheme, but lacking in other qualifications.

I still argue that the program is one of the most successful and solvent that we've had and that we're only going to lose it if we let Wall Street take it away from us.

[Edited on October 13, 2011 at 8:50 PM. Reason : ]

10/13/2011 8:48:23 PM

Quote :

"An investor invests rights now, producing jobs and services for those less wealthy than them right now, but must wait years to recoup their investments and hopefully make a profit. "

Yeah, uh, no. Bubbles are created when investors see a chance to make a quick buck. Remember when there were 800 tv shows about flipping houses and making thousands of dollars just for cleaning a house and giving it a new paint-job?

I mean, isn't Goldman Sachs pretty much in the business of creating bubbles, selling it for a quick profit and artificially inflating the value of markets, only to skate off into the sunset when the market values come crashing back down?

10/13/2011 9:56:00 PM