Little-Acorn
09-12-2011, 01:29 PM
I was surprised by a headline this morning, saying "[Texas governor Rick] Perry Doubles Down on SS". He's apparently not turning and running away from his statement that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.
Why does this merit a headline?
If Perry had announced the sky was blue, would there be anybody nutty enough to tell him he had to change his tune?
And now that he's announced that SS is a Ponzi scheme, is there anybody nutty enough (aside from the usual liberal fanatics) to believe that isn't true either?
A Ponzi scheme is one where somebody announces he will put clients' money into some investment plan, or will invest it in some moneymaking venture... but then merely begins to pay past investors with money sent in by newer investors. The original Charles Ponzi did this in 1920, promising investors that he would buy foreign postal coupons at a discount and re-sell them for face value (something almost impossible to do, due to extensive regulation and paperwork). He merely paid older investors with the millions sent in by newer ones, until he started running out of newer ones.
Social Security does exactly the same thing - the only example of such a scheme that is not considered illegal in this country (all other such "pyramids" are against the law in the U.S.).
One of the funnier parts of the "argument" today, is where the leftists insist that the reason SS is not a Ponzi scheme, is that Ponzi schemes are voluntary, while SS is required for people to "invest" in, by law. In other words, the leftists are saying that the only difference between this and an original Ponzi scheme, is that SS is WORSE than an original Ponzi scheme!
Though the U.S. government told people in the early years, that the money they put into SS would be kept in an account in their names, and would be available (with interest) for them when they retired, most people have come to realize that the money has long been spent on other things, and is gone. Even the Government has backed off on their description in recent years, even claiming at time that they had never made such a promise. Only new taxes, or borrowing, or transfers from other programs... as well as the money from newer "contributors"... will provide the money required to keep the promises Social Security has made to older investors.
A bright and unwelcome light was inadvertently shone onto Social Security during the 2011 Debt-Ceiling-Limit battle, when the President of the United States announced that, if the U.S. were unable to borrow enough (new) money right away, then Social Security payments might not be made to recipients. If there was anyone left who still believed the old claims about their money being safe in a government account somewhere, this announcement presented the unpleasant truth to them... at last.
So, why is a big deal being made about Rick Perry pointing out what everybody knows by now.... again?
------------------------------------------
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/perry-sticking-to-his-guns-on-social-security-20110912
Perry Sticking to His Guns on Social Security
By Olga Belogolova
Updated: September 12, 2011 | 1:26 p.m.
September 12, 2011 | 8:53 a.m.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry isn’t shying away from the Social Security fight. In fact, he’s facing it head on.
Though his comments calling the popular program a “Ponzi scheme” have unleashed a slew of criticism from all sides, Perry has continued to defend his comments, even penning an op-ed in USA Today on Monday explaining his line of thinking.
“Americans deserve a frank and honest discussion of the dire financial challenges facing the nearly 80-year-old program,” he wrote, saying that the program needs to be reformed to make it “financially viable” for younger workers.
Just ahead of the next GOP presidential debate, co-hosted by CNN and the Tea Party Express in Florida on Monday night, Perry used his op-ed to expand on the explosive exchange he shared with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at the Reagan Library last week.
“By 2037, retirees will only get roughly 76 cents back for every dollar that is put into Social Security unless reforms are implemented,” he wrote.
“Imagine how long a traditional retirement or investment plan could survive if it projected investors would lose 24% of their money?”
Despite his controversial rhetoric on the popular government program, the Texas Republican continues to lead among his fellow Republicans.
According to a CNN/ORC International Poll released on Monday morning, 30 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents support Perry. Romney, who on Monday received the backing of former candidate Tim Pawlenty, comes in at 18 percent.
Why does this merit a headline?
If Perry had announced the sky was blue, would there be anybody nutty enough to tell him he had to change his tune?
And now that he's announced that SS is a Ponzi scheme, is there anybody nutty enough (aside from the usual liberal fanatics) to believe that isn't true either?
A Ponzi scheme is one where somebody announces he will put clients' money into some investment plan, or will invest it in some moneymaking venture... but then merely begins to pay past investors with money sent in by newer investors. The original Charles Ponzi did this in 1920, promising investors that he would buy foreign postal coupons at a discount and re-sell them for face value (something almost impossible to do, due to extensive regulation and paperwork). He merely paid older investors with the millions sent in by newer ones, until he started running out of newer ones.
Social Security does exactly the same thing - the only example of such a scheme that is not considered illegal in this country (all other such "pyramids" are against the law in the U.S.).
One of the funnier parts of the "argument" today, is where the leftists insist that the reason SS is not a Ponzi scheme, is that Ponzi schemes are voluntary, while SS is required for people to "invest" in, by law. In other words, the leftists are saying that the only difference between this and an original Ponzi scheme, is that SS is WORSE than an original Ponzi scheme!
Though the U.S. government told people in the early years, that the money they put into SS would be kept in an account in their names, and would be available (with interest) for them when they retired, most people have come to realize that the money has long been spent on other things, and is gone. Even the Government has backed off on their description in recent years, even claiming at time that they had never made such a promise. Only new taxes, or borrowing, or transfers from other programs... as well as the money from newer "contributors"... will provide the money required to keep the promises Social Security has made to older investors.
A bright and unwelcome light was inadvertently shone onto Social Security during the 2011 Debt-Ceiling-Limit battle, when the President of the United States announced that, if the U.S. were unable to borrow enough (new) money right away, then Social Security payments might not be made to recipients. If there was anyone left who still believed the old claims about their money being safe in a government account somewhere, this announcement presented the unpleasant truth to them... at last.
So, why is a big deal being made about Rick Perry pointing out what everybody knows by now.... again?
------------------------------------------
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/perry-sticking-to-his-guns-on-social-security-20110912
Perry Sticking to His Guns on Social Security
By Olga Belogolova
Updated: September 12, 2011 | 1:26 p.m.
September 12, 2011 | 8:53 a.m.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry isn’t shying away from the Social Security fight. In fact, he’s facing it head on.
Though his comments calling the popular program a “Ponzi scheme” have unleashed a slew of criticism from all sides, Perry has continued to defend his comments, even penning an op-ed in USA Today on Monday explaining his line of thinking.
“Americans deserve a frank and honest discussion of the dire financial challenges facing the nearly 80-year-old program,” he wrote, saying that the program needs to be reformed to make it “financially viable” for younger workers.
Just ahead of the next GOP presidential debate, co-hosted by CNN and the Tea Party Express in Florida on Monday night, Perry used his op-ed to expand on the explosive exchange he shared with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at the Reagan Library last week.
“By 2037, retirees will only get roughly 76 cents back for every dollar that is put into Social Security unless reforms are implemented,” he wrote.
“Imagine how long a traditional retirement or investment plan could survive if it projected investors would lose 24% of their money?”
Despite his controversial rhetoric on the popular government program, the Texas Republican continues to lead among his fellow Republicans.
According to a CNN/ORC International Poll released on Monday morning, 30 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents support Perry. Romney, who on Monday received the backing of former candidate Tim Pawlenty, comes in at 18 percent.