Posted on 08/28/2011 3:46:33 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Nope.
SS has been "means tested" for many decades! Simply go to the SSA website and see how the formula for benefits is computed. The lower one's average earnings, the higher the percentage of those earnings is replaced by benefits...
The formula has been adjusted a number of times over the years and will continue to shift toward favoring those most in need...
No I didn't. But better luck next time.
This logic does not compute.
So the truth is that tha conservative fix for Social Securityis to turn it into even more of a socialist giveaway?
Don't worry, us old people will soon be dead and off your hands.
“Please demonstrate the inconsistency between the view that social security is a ponzi scheme that should be wound down but not so abruptly that it leaves 80 year old widows in the gutter?”
Please demonstrate that a ponzi scheme can be “wound down” in a way that is not abrupt. You must have some examples if you are being consistent.
If you can’t then you are for throwing 80 year old widows in the gutter, and I condemn you for that.
(See how your style of debate can turn against you?)
It is abjectly dishonest for Perry to say nobody has to pay in, and everybody can get paid. It is the same lie that every politician enthusiastically uses, with very little variation.
Send me a link to this very muddled statement you attribute to Rick Perry.
Fair enough. We've got a $1.2 trillion deficit. Balance it through spending cuts.
...cut regulation on business and drilling and exploration of oil and gas...
For example?
...kill Obamacare...
With any luck the courts will do that a lot faster than Congress will.
...overhaul the tax code.
You a flat tax or sales tax guy?
“This logic does not compute.”
A Ponzi scheme works on the principle that early investors get their money from a growing pool of new investors. Everything appears fine - people are happy and they get their money.....until there is not a sufficient number of new investors to pay the pool of existing investors.
Then it breaks....and it stops immediately.
This is the very definition of a Ponzi - there is no productive investment of the principal - only the immediate transfer of money from new investors to old investors until the thing stops abruptly.
So I agree with Perry, SS is a Ponzi. Therefore I agree that it will suffer the same demise as every other ponzi, and will stop abruptly.
We must deal with this certainty as families and local communities if we have compassion and we care about old people - just saying “let them continue to collect SS checks” dooms them, because we know the checks will stop because they always stop in a Ponzi.
I am discussing the topic, an out-of-context statement about SS that fails to mention government programs that are an even greater future financial burden on the US.
And why do you think you are entitled to post thread after thread after thread that you want to be little more than pep rallies for Rick Perry - allowing no disagreement? Amazingly presumptuous. And what I have posted here is factual. But you aren't interested in facts, but only non-stop cheerleading and pom pom shaking for Perry.
And I'm not entirely opposed to Perry. But I also don't care for half-truths and misrepresentations about important issues that come from Perry and all too many other politicians.
Have you been given some special dispensation that no disagreement or criticism is allowed on the Perry pep rallies you try to initiate many times per day?
The Governor calls Social Security a “mess,” “a Ponzi scheme,” and alot of other things, and points out that it obviously was not a response to an emergency (it didn’t start paying until 1942) as well as the fact that the money has all been spent every year,but he never wrote in “Fed Up!” that it was unConstitutional.”
Congress will just poor more borrowed $$$ into it. The Democrats NEED SS to lie to and control people.
Liking him more every day...
From the article you posted:
“”It is a Ponzi scheme for these young people. The idea that they’re working and paying into Social Security today, that the current program is going to be there for them, is a lie,” Perry said”
“He told the Ottumwa crowd that for people who are drawing Social Security or near eligibility “like me,” he wasn’t proposing a change in the program.”
“Congress will just poor more borrowed $$$ into it. The Democrats NEED SS to lie to and control people.”
You are right....This works as long as we can borrow enough money to pour into it. When we can’t borrow any more money to pour into it, expected payments are no longer received.
Perry has suggested getting this moving in that direction -- you don't (you couldn't) abruptly stop this -- it should be phased in and it will become local-private centered. The idea being one size does not fit all and the Fed does not dictate it.
Thanks for the ponzi scheme definition. Is there anyone alive who doesn't know what it is?
And you took that and condensed it into a different statement.
I don't know your posting history, but responded to your #54 which mentioned nothing but SS in statements that affect all future government spending.
But if you are spreading that word elsewhere that SS is not our only serious future financial burden, then that is good. I wonder how many realize that the annual payouts for Medicaid and SS are about equal: around $700 billion. And the military's annual cost is in that range. And the total for Medicaid and other support programs is now almost $1 trillion annually.
It's fairly amazing - and even irresponsible - that a program many have made specific contributions to all during their work lives is the only government program that receives this constant negative attention as if it's our biggest financial program. It isn't.
A few upticks in interest rates and interest on the debt will exceed $500 billion annually.
“Thanks for the ponzi scheme definition. Is there anyone alive who doesn’t know what it is?”
You might be the only one.
You don’t think Perry would lie about it being a Ponzi scheme do you?
“Perry has suggested getting this moving in that direction — you don’t (you couldn’t) abruptly stop this...”
Yet that is what happens in every Ponzi. It stops abruptly.
“... — it should be phased in and it will become local-private centered. The idea being one size does not fit all and the Fed does not dictate it. “
This is all poppycock. Who pays? How much do they pay? Who gets paid? How much do they get paid? Can someone not pay in and not collect anything?
Your statement is nonsense.
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.