In response to:

More Evidence the Government is Running a Giant Ponzi Scheme

curmudgeon10 Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 1:45 PM
flamingfool, almost every loud obnoxious ignoramus has a valid point somewhere. you are no exception. you claim ss is not a ponzi scheme. technically, you are right. a ponzi scheme must deceive its victims, play on their greed and stupidity, and get them to VOLUNTARILY submit their assets to larceny. that is not so of ss. ss is not voluntary, but is demanded by the bully with the armed thugs, handcuffs, prisons, courts, etc. ss is much, much more than a ponzi scheme. it is armed robbery.
wtmoore1 Wrote: Dec 01, 2012 10:57 AM

The main problem that I have with the above claim, is that Soc Sec, while it might not be the most efficient program or the best way to provide for the elderly, has NEVER defrauded someone out of their payment when they came due. The fact that "new investors" are essentially paid with the money from "old investors" is irrelevant until such time as someone doesn't receive payments to which they are entitled.

In short, it doesn't exactly become a scheme to defraud until you ACTUALLY DEFRAUD someone.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 2:07 PM
I am a Liberal, I believe that the Government IS the best solution to many more problems than you would have them solve, but reading/posting here has made me realize that Government (like any large Corporation or other Beaurocracy) wastes money.

We would be in much better shape now if we had never allowed the Federal Government to take the Social Security Surplus (upwards of 100 Billion some years) and spend it. And I don't believe the 'lock box' is a workable idea, either.

Each year, we should've simply rebated the previous year's surplus back to the people.

There. You'll almost never see a Liberal write something like that.
Rich D. Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 2:11 PM
But we would have been in even better shape to let us invest our own money - at least it could be left to our children.

Now other than national defense and a system of courts to adjudicate disputes among the states and insure free trade among them, what is the Constitutional role of the federal government?
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 2:19 PM
"But we would have been in even better shape to let us invest our own money.."

I don't see how you can look at the last few years and still make that claim with a straight face. Can you *imagine* what it would be like now if all the people currently collecting SS/Medicare had their witholdings in the market instead?

Nonetheless, as part of a comprehensive solution involving a rise in the retirement age, an increase in withholding just to close the deficit, and other innovations such as the incentive scheme i suggest below, I'd be willing to let people divert some portion of their SS withholdings (say 25%) into their 401K or IRA or some such thing.
Rich D. Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 3:11 PM
Easy - I have studied economics and the market. There is a down period roughly every decade. I have over 50 years of contributions and would have had a larger annuity if I invested in the S&P index.

What the h3ll business is it of yours to "let" me take care of myself? Look at Chile, for example, and try this:

You nanny state liberals are evil fascist thieves. Really. I don't apologize.
upwithRomney Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 6:55 PM
I agree. The one thing that concerns me is the analysis that the single biggest reason for the decline in elderly impoverishment is social security. I work as a volunteer and consultant in the area of aging and the States would be overwhelmed with welfare type payments were it not for social security which at least if paid for by taxing everyone who ends up collecting.
upwithRomney Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 6:57 PM
You're right. Go your own way. Find a better system. I dont apolotize either.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Dec 01, 2012 9:38 AM
No one is asking for your apology. But now there are two of you, there must be millions more like you, and if you all had had your way a goodly chunk of you, also numbering in the millions, would now be abject paupers thanks to the latesl cycle of wild speculation / flameout.

The fact is that people like me would not let people like you and your innocent dependents starve. We'd come up with money from someplace, and it'd be a bigger acute drain on the country than if you'd payed in to SSMedicare in the firstplace.

We move forward in politics & Governance via compromise (remember compromise, Mr/Ms TeaParty?). So go invest your 25%. Good luck.
Chester1776 Wrote: Dec 03, 2012 12:17 AM
Better to be a pauper than a pauper who has been mugged.
Chester1776 Wrote: Dec 03, 2012 12:17 AM
Better to be a pauper than a pauper who has been mugged.
Rich D. Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 2:07 PM
Yeah - our "voluntary" compliance system, don't you know.
upwithRomney Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 6:52 PM
My my, there are a lot of anarchists on this site.

The U.S. birth rate just hit a new low which has liberal media outlets like NPR pointing out that Medicare and Social Security are in trouble as a result. Why? Because the program isn't being paid for with money former workers put into the system, that's already been spent by the government, but by young people currently working.

The U.S. birth rate hit an all-time low last year, according to a report from the Pew Research Center — just 63 births per 1000 women of childbearing age.

This is a problem. Not just because...