It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FallenWun
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
Sheep rely heavily on talking points which are often easily identified by the sudden popular use of words just recently relegated to the if needed pile.
Pon·zi /ˈpɒnzi/ Show Spelled[pon-zee] Show IPA
noun
a swindle in which a quick return, made up of money from new investors, on an initial investment lures the victim into much bigger risks.
It is bad enough to hear Rush and his ilk start calling it that but to then see a forum full of "individual free thinkers" repeat it ad-nauseum with little thought to why it is incorrect to call it that is really bad. It is not a "swindle." No one is lured into bigger risks - kind of the crux of the scheme. In a Ponzi scheme, the one running the scheme makes a fortune. Who runs SS?
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Southern Guardian
Social security was a solution to a symptom, not a solution to a problem. The problem being, that people were not saving for retirement. This was due to low wages, high cost of living, lack of forethought.
Recreating social security in a private medium would again, only address the symptom, not the problem.
To truely "privatize" social security, you'd have to simply not take it (FICA) in the first place. Go back to a time where people kept their own money, made their own destinies.
Now, creating a company that holds the funds might be a viable option, but we have them now. They are called brokerage firms.
Originally posted by The Old American
Yeah, calling it a Ponzi scheme is really reaching. We should just call it a pyramid scheme, because it is set up and run exactly, precisely like one. A Ponzi scheme was just...oh wait...it was a pyramid scheme, too.
/TOA
Originally posted by macman
The Fed Govt runs and profits from it.
Originally posted by FallenWun
Originally posted by The Old American
Yeah, calling it a Ponzi scheme is really reaching. We should just call it a pyramid scheme, because it is set up and run exactly, precisely like one. A Ponzi scheme was just...oh wait...it was a pyramid scheme, too.
/TOA
Normally you seem much smarter than this. How has this talking point taken such hold? Why are there so many sheep here? Suddenly the GOP starts calling it that and amazingly all you individuals on ATS start calling it that.
What do you not understand? Pyramid schemes or Ponzi schemes? The definition for one was just supplied for you. Need the other one?
I am not trying to be mean here but saying this only displays ignorance of what those schemes actually do and how they work and from you it surprises me. Can you perhaps explain how it is either without making up your own new definitions?
Originally posted by FallenWun
Originally posted by macman
The Fed Govt runs and profits from it.
And how big is that profit? I thought the other talking point was that it is doomed to go broke. Where is the profit?
As usual I demand PROOF and as usual I will expect none from you.
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by ldyserenity
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by ldyserenity
exactly the point i was making you have access to your money at any given time
lose a job about to lose your home.
your money is your money so why do we have to go beg someone else for the right to get it.edit on 24-9-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)
As long as theres an opt out, I am all for that whatever, as long as they don't FORCE me to do it privatize it and give the option of backing out, I'd much rather save for my kid's education at a credit union.
So yeah I agree if there's an option to say "NO" I don't want your stinking Social Security.
That would up end the entire plot to bilk people out of money with a false sense of retirement security.
But, if given the chance, I would as well.
Even if told if I opted out I would not get the money out from what I paid in (Like that will happen anyways), I would opt out.
are unable to concieve the art of the triple cross. A double cross with one more added.
Talk radio junkies are bombarded with;Government bad,programs only help minorities or illegal aliens etc. Yet when researched with nonpartisan GAO, we find solvent programs that are beneficial to many white natural born Americans .
Among the CIS findings:
•In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
•Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
Originally posted by marg6043
If the SS wasn't touched like is supposed to happen under any Administration since Reagan it could have enough surplus to pay for those that pay into the fund and those than not.
But when the thieves in our government started to loot the fund that is when the problems happened.
They want the people to turn into each other for the blame while keeping themselves out of the bickering.
It is our own government the one that has depleted our SS surplus they are the ones that stole the money, no the illegals or those so call "leaching the system" is our own government, people.
edit on 25-9-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by The Old American
A pyramid scheme works this way:
Originally posted by macman
Really?
Why should I bother.
You are presented proof in other posts, and then you either attack the person on grammar or just attack the source reported.
Back to the bridge you came from.