Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Isn’t This a Relevant Connection?
Red State ^ | 9/21/2011 | Erick Erickson

Posted on 09/21/2011 12:26:03 PM PDT by toma29

Nicole Gelinas is over at National Review joining in questioning Rick Perry about his "ponzi" rhetoric on social security. I’ve read that post twice and really don’t see the point of it, even with the previous points.

But what is relevant to me is that Ms. Gelinas is a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.

The Chairman of the Manhattan Institute is Paul E. Singer.

What else does Paul Singer do? Why he manages Mitt Romney's fortune.

Sure Ms. Gelinas is a couple degrees separated, but in my mind it’s like the National Journal survey that found GOP insiders prefer Mitt Romney and National Journal failed to disclose that 25% of its insiders work or formerly worked for Mitt Romney.

And this is indicative of the hill Rick Perry has to climb — most everyone of note is in some way tied to Mitt Romney or his money. A bit of disclosure might put a better perspective on these things.


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: obama; perry; romney; socialsecurity
Romney attacked Perry's ad about "President Zero" this morning calling him "Governor Sub-Zero". In effect, Romney is campaigning for Obama.
1 posted on 09/21/2011 12:26:07 PM PDT by toma29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: toma29

The more they attack Rick Perry on his “Ponzi scheme” comment, the more light is shed on that unsustainable scheme.
So, bring it on Mitt Romney..


2 posted on 09/21/2011 12:33:00 PM PDT by federal__reserve (Peace through strength has worked better than peace via appeasement in history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toma29

I hate to see conservatives defining conservatism as too narrow a focus on limited litmus tests. One can support SS without being a liberal. Heck, I’ll bet (although they may not admit it), a good 30 to 40% of freepers collect SS checks.

I am a conservative. I like SS. SS is not a ponzi scheme. Being conservative does not mean having to adopt positions that are wrong just because we are told to adopt these positions.

Look - even if there are only 2 workers to every retiree, what does that mean? Say those workers earn $4030/month. Those 2 workers contribute 6.2% or $250 per month each, and their employer contributes $250 per month each. That’s $1000 from those two workers. Take out the 1% overhead for SSA costs, and you can still write a check to the retiree for $990/month. And you can do that forever and never go broke.

And when those workers retire, their kids will do the same for them.

The workers barely notice the loss since they still get 93.2% of their pay. But they will sure appreciate the gain when they retire!!


3 posted on 09/21/2011 12:38:44 PM PDT by TruConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toma29
Rick Perry Ad - Proven Leadership [subtitle: President Zero]

Mitt attacks Gov. Perry not Pres. Zero. Nuff said.

4 posted on 09/21/2011 12:41:43 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruConservative
SS is not a ponzi scheme

You may be a conservative but you just told one complete bald faced lie right now.

Here I'll even help you.

Ponzi scheme: A fraudulent scheme. It is a specific form of pyramiding in which money paid by later investors or contributors is used to pay inflated returns to earlier investors-until the funds dry up because no more contributors can be found.

5 posted on 09/21/2011 12:58:39 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (Watch what people DO, not what they say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: toma29

NRO (especially its editor) was so in the tank for Myth Romney last election that I stopped reading the site and canceled my subscription to NRODT.


6 posted on 09/21/2011 1:00:53 PM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruConservative
And when those workers retire, their kids will do the same for them.

So then explain why the government has to get in the middle of that family matter in any way, shape or form and justify that with being a conservative

7 posted on 09/21/2011 1:02:06 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (Watch what people DO, not what they say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000

“So then explain why the government has to get in the middle of that family matter in any way, shape or form and justify that with being a conservative”

So there are two things here - is SS workable and a good plan; and should the government attempt to address old age poverty.

The first point is the one that I think is provable beyond any argument. SS has a 75 year history of working. Even under the most dire prediction, it slips to just 75% of promised benefit (hence the idea that it is a ponzi scheme is false, since it is not fraudulent, does not strand anyone with zero return, does not involve corruption, does not give anyone excessive profits, cannot go bankrupt, and so on). For all the hoopla, the fact is that everyone of us who reaches age 65 will collect SS checks, even the young ones. But please note - SS is a supplement. It costs a small part of our pay check, and it returns a small part of our retirement (if we are smart enough to use the other 93.8% wisely and get a lot of that into savings).

The second point is at the heart of the definition of conservative. You have the implied definition that a conservative is entirely self-reliant and that collective action using the government as tool is non-conservative. I think this image is exaggerated. To make a nation strong requires using the government for collective action. I know that statement will raise the ire of a Ron Paul supporter, but it is realistic and extremely important to acknowledge for the good of American strength. America will become weaker and less prosperous if we ignore this reality. And it is entirely unAmerican to insist on total self-reliance. We didn’t do that at any time in our history: in the settlement of the West, for example, the government gathered and distributed land with stipulations (you had to plant so many acres and build a suitable house within a year). The government heavily subsidized the transcontinental railroad, and paid for law enforcement, and subsidized the postal service. The government dug the Panama canal. The government later built our highway systems, which it still maintains. The govenment set industry standards for food and maufacturing and radio frequencies and electric power frequencies and a host of other things that make our nation prosperous.

When the founding fathers made our constitution, yes, they said things like the government that governs less, governs best. I like that. But less is not zero. At times and in addressing specific problems, the government is a tool of the people, by the people, working for the people.

The big need for SS is just this - we only afford our life style by having people who earn very low wages (like $8/hr at Walmart, etc.). It is a necessity. But those people cannot save money easily. In the past, this led to old age poverty that sapped our resources, and weakened us. In 1935, we figured out a way to end old age destitution. While you may not know many older poor people, the remarkable fact is that of the poorest quartile of seniors, SS payment makes up 83% of all income. For millions, it is 100% of income. That income allows those millions to buy food, pay rent, and contribute to the consumer economy. It helps us all.

I know it is purist to say “Government is bad,” but when it comes to a host of matters (roads, industry standards, airwave regulation, food inspection, disaster relief, and the end of old-age destitution), government can work. And it is not a bad thing to end poverty in this basically painless way.

(Aside: what is socialist and does offend me, is the idea of a government-sponsored “personal savings account.” SS is a simple uncorruptable system; when the government starts controlling our savings, that opens a host of corruption possibilities.)


8 posted on 09/22/2011 8:21:48 AM PDT by TruConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TruConservative
The first point is the one that I think is provable beyond any argument. SS has a 75 year history of working

And it's about to collapse which you dont seem to have any comprehension of. SS and Medicaid are 18.7 TRILLION dollars of completely unfunded liabilities. There is no dedicated pool of $$ already set aside for SS only non-negotiable special treasury bonds. Ponzi schemes by their very nature are illegal as hell and immoral. Yet you want to advocate the government to be in charge of the biggest one.

You keep alleging that SS is not a ponzi scheme. You seem to have a complete lack of comprehension on reading. Or you refuse to face math and logic. Conservatism does focus on self reliance (if you want children to care for you in old age, HAVE THEM). Government charity is only extracted at the point of a gun.

To make a nation strong requires using the government for collective action.

Total collectivism BS.

9 posted on 09/22/2011 8:38:09 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (Watch what people DO, not what they say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000

“And it’s about to collapse which you dont seem to have any comprehension of...You keep alleging that SS is not a ponzi scheme.”

SS is not about to collapse, and can never collapse entirely. It’s not like a business or an investment. It has no credit accounts, etc. It is a pooling of funds, and a distribution of funds. If the pooling is inadequate for the expected distribution, then the distribution is fractionally reduced. That may happen, but that’s hardly a collapse.

Even if we get to a ratio of 2 workers to 1 retiree, the numbers still work out. On average, workers earn $50k per year. They give 6.2% or $3100 per year and their employers match, for a total contribution of $12,400. You take out 1 % for overhead, that leaves $12,280 for the retiree. That can go on forever; it will never, ever collapse or go bankrupt or look like a ponzi scheme.

(And if inflation kicks in, and everything doubles, then the pooling of money is automatically doubled, and the SS check is doubled. It’s a brilliant solution to inflation.)

Hey, the stock market tanked 6% the last two days. Scary, huh? SS will never scare you like that. SS is as solid as the United States of America. It is not a Ponzi scheme. I’ve proved that. If you want to insist that SS is a ponzi scheme, explain to me (a) who is the corrupt benefactor? (b) how can SS will run out of money? Remember - the issue with SS is that around mid-century, the promised benefits will only be funded up to 75%. That is not total collapse. That is a SS check that is only $1200 per month instead of an expected $1600. But if you are a good saver, that is a small thing. If you are a very bad saver, at least you have $1200.

“Conservatism does focus on self reliance”
Of course! But that doesn’t mean you have to dig your own well, or pave your own roadway, or have five radio stations on every channel colliding with each other, or a host of other things.

Look - in any team competition, teams have to work together. You’d lose in football, or in a war, or in business, if all your players were self-reliant and refused to work together. America will lose in the global competitive market place if we refuse to do the smart things together when they constitute a smart thing.

For the good of America, we use government as a tool to do the smart thing on all sorts of matters. SS is one of the smartest things we do.


10 posted on 09/22/2011 4:26:22 PM PDT by TruConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TruConservative
SS is as solid as the United States of America.

What makes you think the USA is solid at this point?

It is not a Ponzi scheme. I’ve proved that. If you want to insist that SS is a ponzi scheme, explain to me (a) who is the corrupt benefactor? (b) how can SS will run out of money?

Once again: TOTAL LIE
Benefactor: Congress (trillions of dollars in general funding that have been spent and replaced with paper)
How can SS run out of $$? Obviously you are not studying demographics AT ALL.

You talk as if inflation is a good thing: It's not it's an intentional devaluation of everyone's currency in the USA.

You expect 99% efficiency in a government program? Are you on drugs??

It is a pooling of funds, and a distribution of funds.

Which is the VERY DEFINITION of a PONZI scheme. The $$ taken out is NOT the $$ you put in.

11 posted on 09/23/2011 10:13:23 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (Watch what people DO, not what they say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson