Hypocrisy Alert! Obama's Econ Guru Paul Krugman: Social Security Ponzi Scheme Will Soon Be Over, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

reply posted on 15-9-2011 @ 03:47 PM by jdub297

Originally posted by filosophia

In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).

Trying to dicipher the econo speak on this one. So it has "ponzi game aspects" but not enough of a ponzi scheme for it to be illegal? Or, is this just a way to make people think it's not a scam? Each generation takes more out than it put in, well what about the new generation which may not even get it? Plus this is an outright lie because with inflation NO ONE takes more out than they put in. They might take quantitatively more out but not qualitatively. These "economists" like Krugman know what this means, and it's just a sophisticated lie they tell the public. Then they end it with saying no one will take out more than they put in, also impossible with inflation, that just guarantees people will get ripped off. Then they end it (not sure if this was the article or Krugman) saying "today's young may well get less than they put in." So, how is that not a ponzi scheme again? They start with the premise that old people take more out than they put in, not true, and then end it with saying the young won't get as much as they put in, a truth we already knew, but they say it like "ha ha we'll teach those young."

Morons, complete and total morons.

the first monthly recipient contributed $44.00 and received $22,000.
Annual contributions are capped as a % of the first $107k of income.
Benefits are calculated on your 35 highest contribution periods.

At present rates, the primary account and Trust Fund will be depleted by 2037.

reply posted on 15-9-2011 @ 04:16 PM by dawnstar

reply to post by jdub297

if they had saved that money that they were collecting in the 50's and onward, instead of using it to support a bunch of oh I don't want to works, an oh, I don't believe I should have to pay for the kid I helped to create,.....
or for all the corporate welfare that has, and is going on...
or for a bunch of useless wars to lose!!!
well.....the money would be there for the hard times....
my dad put in way more than he took out, I am sure, since he passed away in his 50's, and my mom didn't take much out either.....
so, where did their money go to???

all in all, it really doesn't matter since well, it's the oh....I shouldn't have to works who are making out better than the seniors even....
seniors at least have to pitch a little in for their healthcare, their benefits don't cover their living expenses in many cases....
many of in the same place as many of the workers in this country...
too rich to get any type of assistance, too poor to actually be able to live!!
take the benefit away, and hey, you'll just be paying more out in the form of food stamps, hud, medicaid, ect...
unless to take away the welfare also, well, it's just gonna be another agency doling out the cash!!!

reply posted on 15-9-2011 @ 09:45 PM by jdub297

reply to post by dawnstar

The depletion of the Trust Fund cash was primarily to pay for discretionary, non-defense spending programs that bought dependent constituencies for future elections. Viet Nam was over, there were no Iraq or Afghanistan wars. We had the war on poverty, war on drugs, urban renewal and subsidized home-ownership to pay for, with a big pile of cash sitting over in the Trust Fund.

Politicos figured no one would notice, or care, if they took some of the cash out, and replaced it with IOUs. Once they got their hands into the cookie jar, they couldn't stop and everybody's pet project got funded. By the time StarWars came along, there was nothing left but crumbs.

Incoming funds have been less than outlays for some time now. We are now having to sell the IOUs to turn them into cash to pay the difference. Sometimes, we don't get as much for ythe IOUs as we thought we would. Which means we have to sell more.

THAT is how we got to where we are now.

reply posted on 15-9-2011 @ 10:43 PM by simone50m

I believe there is a glimmer of hope from all this scary oppression. I keep seeing mentions around the internet, of a new earth, a "super sized" (super size me!) --earth-- recently (?) discovered. I can even feel the momentum in the Force, of all the super Egos here on earth, the Criminal Elites, scrambling over each other, to get themselves and their super need to hoard from the several-billion rest-of-us, firmly ensconsed in that more suitable real estate.
Then we wont have to worry about these corrupt stealers raiding from programs to help the infirm, orphans and widows.
They'l all be raiding each other in UberMench Paradise...

reply posted on 15-9-2011 @ 10:53 PM by Grumble

All of this talk is worthless because no one seems to grasp what money really is. The government could not save the dollars paid into the system for future recipients because on the scale of social security, where virtually everyone in the country participates, the dollars are only worth the underlying productive capacity of the U.S. So saving the dollars means nothing if the future generations are not generating enough wealth in the society overall. In other words the only "security" in the system is a mistaken notion that the economy will continue to grow forever.

In the end, devaluation will be how they solve the problem. Just stop or lower the cost of living adjustments until the value of the benefits are so small that they become insignificant. Plus the money supply will continue to be expanded, because that is how we are paying our debts.

reply posted on 16-9-2011 @ 12:47 AM by ChungTsuU

reply to post by jdub297

I do understand it, I see the larger system!

Pardon the comparison. I feel that you are focused on "plankton" and saying, look at these little creatures, they are small shrimp like animals.

I am saying, OK... go bigger, find the "system" that plankton is such a dependent element of to be so important?

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

reply posted on 16-9-2011 @ 04:38 AM by dawnstar

reply to post by Grumble

it's also how we are saving all those "too big to fails"!!

www.guardian.co.uk...

which, well, seems to be what cause the most recent surge in stock values....
ya, taxpayers pitch in more, and the too big to fails step into position to reap the windfall!!! and then, well, everything is right with the economy, see, the markets are doing great!! main street is the pits, but the markets, well, it's healthy and thriving...so all is just grand!!!
but then it's oh, no, we can't tax the profits the too big to fails are reaping from the boom in the markets, oh, no!!
only, it wouldn't have boomed is the fed didn't just turn up the speed of the printing presses to mach 5000!!!

heck, they will pull imaginary money our their arses by the tons to save a banking industry that is so embedded in fraud that if it were any of us, we'd be sitting in jail for the rest of our lives!! we can start wars while saying that we might not be able to pay the troops....
but then, it's oh, we can't afford to send a little bit to help out main street, to help the seniors, oh no, there's no money in the fund....and no, no, no!! we can't tax the ones that are reaping the taxpayer money at the end of the giant funnel, oh no......
the system, as well as the people running it are twisted and corrupt!!!

don't worry, you won't have to pitch in for my social security people, but well, I wouldn't count on me pitching into that tax base much longer either....

unlimited money to save wall street, the euro, big banks.....big corporate business....and of course....wars!!!
nada, zilch, nothing for the people footing the tab....

but all is fine with the world....
money.cnn.com...
see, the banks and markets are doing just grand!!!

reply posted on 16-9-2011 @ 08:39 AM by simone50m

reply to post by dawnstar

I like your post alot, these things need repeating. (And repeating and repeating....)

heck, they will pull imaginary money our their arses by the tons to save a banking industry that is so embedded in fraud that if it were any of us, we'd be sitting in jail for the rest of our lives!! we can start wars while saying that we might not be able to pay the troops....
but then, it's oh, we can't afford to send a little bit to help out main street, to help the seniors, oh no, there's no money in the fund....and no, no, no!! we can't tax the ones that are reaping the taxpayer money at the end of the giant funnel, oh no......
the system, as well as the people running it are twisted and corrupt!!!

don't worry, you won't have to pitch in for my social security people, but well, I wouldn't count on me pitching into that tax base much longer either....

unlimited money to save wall street, the euro, big banks.....big corporate business....and of course....wars!!!

don't worry, you won't have to pitch in for my social security people, but well, I wouldn't count on me pitching into that tax base much longer either....

Bbbbbbut NATO needs more (and more and more and more) of our help to attack Turkey next, lay it to waste, kill children, rape women, torture men, and and and then attack Iran next, lay it to waste, kill children, rape women, torture the men, and and and (Hmmm ho's next) (Never mind, when someone like senator Santorum becomes President, he will know.........)

reply posted on 16-9-2011 @ 11:42 PM by jdub297

reply to post by Grumble

In the end, devaluation will be how they solve the problem. Just stop or lower the cost of living adjustments until the value of the benefits are so small that they become insignificant. Plus the money supply will continue to be expanded, because that is how we are paying our debts.

Is that an endorsement or an indictment?

Uncontrolled devaluation can be disastrous, as in the Weimar Republic where the currency was so worthless they used it to paper bathrooms, it rook barrows of cash to buy food and a stamp cost 1 million marks.

On the other hand, steady "growth" is largely dependent upon inflation of up to 5% annually to maintain the "future value" of money, whether denominated in a currency or a relative to a commodity such as gold or silver.

without resort to a 100% barter system, commerce requires a proxy, and money is the historically agreed-upon alternative to carrying sacks of diamonds around with you.

Your point being ... ....?

jw

edit on 16-9-2011 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 17-9-2011 @ 10:00 AM by jdub297

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by jdub297

if they had saved that money that they were collecting in the 50's and onward, instead of using it to support a bunch of oh I don't want to works, an oh, I don't believe I should have to pay for the kid I helped to create,.....
or for all the corporate welfare that has, and is going on...
or for a bunch of useless wars to lose!!!
well.....the money would be there for the hard times....

Didn't anyone notice that even Obama's staunchest MSM advocate, Chris Matthews, is on the record that SS is, in fact, a Ponzi scheme?

The system doesn’t work that way anymore. It’s not as healthy as it once was. So, how does a Republican deal with the fact it is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that the money that’s paid out every day is coming from people who have paid in that day. It’s not being made somewhere.”

Chris Matthews’ Social Security admission: ‘It is a Ponzi scheme’

Does that make it a little hypocritical for progressives and the liberal left to be jumping all over Rick Perry for daring to say what everyone knows is the truth?

jw

reply posted on 17-9-2011 @ 10:08 AM by dawnstar

reply to post by jdub297

"it is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that the money that’s paid out every day is coming from people who have paid in that day"......

only because yesterday's surplus was traded for "special issue treasury bonds"....don't know what to call them, but well, according to what I read, it seems that they have a few perks in them that your usually treasury bonds don't have....and the surplus loaned to our gov't....

edit on 17-9-2011 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 17-9-2011 @ 10:28 AM by inforeal

reply to post by jdub297

The answer to your question is easy. If you weren’t drooling at the mouth over your ill-perceived gotcha moment then you would have seen the truth.

Krugman however critical of Social Security doesn’t in your quote advocate its destruction or elimination slowly. He may in-fact like many on the LEFT ACTUALLY WANT TO MAKE IT BETTER BY RAISING ITS CONTRIBUTIONS.
And rather than raising the retirement age many advocate we should lower it, and not listen to the lying dogma of the right-wing lovers and lackeys of the rich, who want to give SS to the Wall Street buzzards to destroy.

reply posted on 17-9-2011 @ 04:27 PM by jdub297

reply to post by inforeal

advocate its destruction or elimination

Typical progressive hysterical hogwash.

People who recognize the system for what it is, know it needs reform.

People who see it as an avenue to further dependence upon the gov't or solidify bought-in constituencies shriek about "destruction" and "elimination."

The only things a frank assessment will destroy or eliminate are the illusion of "security," and the hold progs/libs have on the gullible and dependent.

jw

reply posted on 17-9-2011 @ 04:36 PM by jdub297

reply to post by inforeal

He may in-fact like many on the LEFT ACTUALLY WANT TO MAKE IT BETTER BY RAISING ITS CONTRIBUTIONS.

You mean by reducing the employee's contribution to ZERO? Or reducing the employer's contribution, as well?

Sorry, the leader of the Democratic party does not agree with you; and he want "it" done NOW! So do his staffers and sycophants.

What garbage can you feed to the gullible and still try to keep a straight face?
Say one thing to play to this constituency over here, do the opposite to further the "transformation" agenda.
The "left" have nothing left but ouyright obfuscation and vituperation.

Try to come up with an agenda that restores capitalist America, instead of the Marxist and fascist tactics that are now par for the course in this administration.

jw

"

reply posted on 17-9-2011 @ 04:42 PM by jdub297

reply to post by inforeal

And rather than raising the retirement age many advocate we should lower it

You mean like Obama and his "commission" who have all advocated RAISING the eligibilty age?

The bankrupt tactic of the left's "straw men" quit working a long time ago.

Many? So what? The "One" says (privately) that the age needs to go UP. His hand-picked "economy-saviors" say it needs to go UP. Who cares if "many" idiots say "we should lower it," when their appointed gods say otherwise?

What a waste of space.

jw

reply posted on 17-9-2011 @ 05:38 PM by James1982

I wonder if some people understand a simple FACT.

Social Security is not broken. The SS program TAKES IN MORE than it pays out. I'll say that again, Social Security TAKES IN MORE MONEY than it pays out.

Then what's the problem? The problem is that the government keeps STEALING money from the SS program to pay for other things. If they would just leave SS alone, stop stealing money from it, than the program would be just fine.

The fact of the matter is people pay THEIR money into SS. If you add up all the money a person of retirement age put into SS, then added in compound interest for a standard high-interest savings account, I'd be willing to bet most people don't get all of their money back, let alone take out more than they put in. You people that say people on SS are leeches forget about the very simple concept of compound interest. Yeah, maybe you only paid in $100,000, but over 40 years that amount is MUCH larger when you factor in compound interest.

Yes, there are people out there that do take advantage of the system. People that have managed to avoid work for most their lives and end up taking more money from SS than they paid in, but they are the minority.

I think SS is a good idea. It's NOT redistribution of wealth, it's NOT a welfare or free money program. I only have two problems with SS, one I mentioned already (government stealing money from SS) and the other is the fact that it's mandatory. You should be able to decide whether or not you want to pay into SS, either go with the government's retirement plan, or don't pay in and put the money towards your own retirement plan.

I just absolutely hate it when I see these conservative republican morons act like SS is a free check. It's not. It's your money. The problem is the government stealing money from the program.

reply posted on 18-9-2011 @ 03:13 PM by jdub297

Originally posted by James1982
I wonder if some people understand a simple FACT.
Social Security is not broken. The SS program TAKES IN MORE than it pays out. I'll say that again, Social Security TAKES IN MORE MONEY than it pays out.

Quick! Tell the Social Security Trustee about his deluded beliefs:

Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.

After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year.

www.ssa.gov...

How can you expect to be taken seriously about the rest of the trash in your post, if you lie right from the start?

deny ignorance.

jw

edit on 18-9-2011 by jdub297 because: sp

reply posted on 18-9-2011 @ 05:12 PM by autowrench

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by ChungTsuU

Thanks for the link, but you should've elaborated a bit:

Madoff: 'Whole government is a Ponzi scheme' jw

Madoff did an earlier New York Times interview in which he accused banks and hedge funds of being "complicit" in his Ponzi scheme to fleece people out of billions of dollars. He said they failed to scrutinize the discrepancies between his regulatory filings and other information.

A Ponzi, or pyramid, scheme is a scam in which people are persuaded to invest through promises of unusually high returns, with early investors paid their returns out of money put in by later investors.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

It's true, actually, if you think about it, all of us, especially ion my own Generation, were Promised that if we worked hard, paid out taxes, obeyed the laws, we could realize the American Dream. We were taught that if we paid into the Social Security Trust Fund we could draw a decent payout to meet our needs when we got old, or got hurt on the job.
Trust Fund FAQs

Social Security Trust Fund Data
(Bold Text Mine)

Trust Fund Law & Legal Definition
A trust is a separate legal entity that holds property or assets of some kind for the benefit of a specific person, group of people or organization known as the beneficiary/beneficiaries. The person who creates a trust is called the grantor, donor or settlor. When a trust is established, an individual or corporate entity is named to oversee or manage the assets in the trust. This individual or entity is called a trustee. A trustee can be a professional with financial knowledge, a relative or loyal friend or a corporation. More than one trustee can be named by the grantor. There are two basic forms of trusts: after-death (or testamentary) and living (or inter vivos). Living trusts can be revocable or irrevocable. The most popular type of trust is the revocable living trust, which allows the individual to make changes to the trust during his or her life. Revocable living trusts avoid the often lengthy probate process but, by themselves, don't provide shelter for assets from federal or state estate taxes.

definitions.uslegal.com...

YOU, the American citizen, are the beneficiary of the Trust that YOU paid into, it was automatically taken out of your weekly, or monthly pay. You can also name anyone you wish as your trustee Did YOU name anyone, any member of Congress, or Senate, or any President, to take charge of, discharge from, or take ways from YOUR Trust Fund? I know I didn't give away that power, and remember, the Powers given to the Congress are limited, and the real power is retained by the People.

We have ALL been swindled.

reply posted on 20-9-2011 @ 12:57 PM by jdub297

reply to post by autowrench

It's true, actually, if you think about it, all of us, especially ion my own Generation, were Promised that if we worked hard, paid out taxes, obeyed the laws, we could realize the American Dream. We were taught that if we paid into the Social Security Trust Fund we could draw a decent payout to meet our needs when we got old, or got hurt on the job.

It was supposed to be a temporary trade-off: pay a little now and you can collect a bit in the future.

Once the pot of gold got large enough, and Congress needed to increase their own security by creating more programs of dependence, they dipped into the pot until it was empty.

Look at all of the Amendments to the Act they have enacted to permit this theft.

jw

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^