RE: O/T: GOP Eyes Changes to Food-Stamp Program

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:15:01 -0500, [email protected] wrote:



>>>
>>
>>Still working at 69, I agree with you. I also know at least 6
>>twenty-somethings sucking up my tax dollars in the form of an EBT card
>
>Ditto (62). I plan on working for at least another four, if not eight
>years (I'll decide when the bridge crosses).
>
>Just be glad those six aren't living in your basement, and off your
>medical insurance.

One of them was for about three months. She is a relative with few
marketable skills. Fortunately, gone now and I think still getting
government freebies like free healthcare.

On 02/15/2015 12:06 AM, Baxter wrote:
> [email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Social Security Insurance program in my
>>>>> opinion was a very poor investment.
>>>>
>>>> A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.
>>>>
>>> By your definition, ALL insurance is a "Ponzi scheme".
>>
>> Of course not. That's a wicked case of moral equivalence, you have
>> there.
>>
> SS is set up and works exactly the same as private insurance. Charges of
> "ponzi scheme" have been around almost since it's inception and are not nor
> have they ever been true. "Ponzi scheme" is propaganda put out by the
> enemies of SS - mostly people that want to get their hands on that pool of
> money.
>

Here's a couple of articles from that ultra right wing, greedy
organization, PBS.

<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/americas-ponzi-scheme-why-social-security-needs-to-retire/>

<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/obama-trying-cut-social-security/>

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 02/15/2015 12:46 PM, Baxter wrote:

> Or, of course, stick your fingers in your ears, sing "la la la" at the
> top of your voice, and ignore the actual facts.
>
>

OK, Bax.

Since you are up on all things SS, let's take one thing at a time.

Tell us what you know about the SS "trust" fund (and for that matter
about the 150+ federal trust funds).

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 02/15/2015 10:33 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:54e13d70$0$46839
> [email protected]:
>
>> On 02/15/2015 12:46 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>
>>> Or, of course, stick your fingers in your ears, sing "la la la" at the
>>> top of your voice, and ignore the actual facts.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> OK, Bax.
>>
>> Since you are up on all things SS, let's take one thing at a time.
>>
>> Tell us what you know about the SS "trust" fund (and for that matter
>> about the 150+ federal trust funds).
>>
> All you have to do is google - and stop getting your information from FAUX
> NUZ and other right-wing sites that aim to kill SS.
>
>
> http://www.socialsecurity.gov/news/press/factsheets/WhatAreTheTrust.htm
>

OK, you are aware that these SS "special Treasury bonds" account for
$2.7 trillion of the national debt and that the bonds in all the "trust
funds add up to around $5 trillion of the debt.

So, a couple of questions:

1. What happened to the actual tax money that these bonds were traded for?

2. When the "trust" funds need to redeem these bonds for cash to pay
benefits, where will the federal government get that cash?

3. Is this $2.7 trillion enough to cover future SS liabilities and if
not, how much more will be needed?

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 02/16/2015 08:46 AM, Baxter wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 02/15/2015 10:33 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:54e13d70$0$46839 [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 02/15/2015 12:46 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Or, of course, stick your fingers in your ears, sing "la la la" at
>>>>> the top of your voice, and ignore the actual facts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, Bax.
>>>>
>>>> Since you are up on all things SS, let's take one thing at a time.
>>>>
>>>> Tell us what you know about the SS "trust" fund (and for that matter
>>>> about the 150+ federal trust funds).
>>>>
>>> All you have to do is google - and stop getting your information from
>>> FAUX NUZ and other right-wing sites that aim to kill SS.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.socialsecurity.gov/news/press/factsheets/WhatAreTheTrust.ht
>>> m
>>>
>>
>> OK, you are aware that these SS "special Treasury bonds" account for
>> $2.7 trillion of the national debt and that the bonds in all the
>> "trust funds add up to around $5 trillion of the debt.
>
> I'm absolutely aware of this.
>>
>> So, a couple of questions:
>>
>> 1. What happened to the actual tax money that these bonds were traded
>> for?
>
> Your question makes no sense. The SS tax money was invested in the most
> secure bonds on the face of the planet.

You're avoiding the question: What did the federal government do with
the money they received from the SS trust fund in exchange for the bonds?
>
>>
>> 2. When the "trust" funds need to redeem these bonds for cash to pay
>> benefits, where will the federal government get that cash?
>
> "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
> including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for
> services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
> questioned."

Sigh, once again avoiding the question.
>
>
>> 3. Is this $2.7 trillion enough to cover future SS liabilities and if
>> not, how much more will be needed?
>>
> Future liabilites of SS are not fixed. SS is prohibited by law from
> borrowing. There are 5 remedies for the current forcasted shortfall:
> http://tinyurl.com/mca4xcq
>
> ----------
> Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Tuesday proposed raising Social Security
> taxes to extend the life of the entitlement program and increase
> benefits.
>
> In a 12-page report, Sanders, the ranking member on the Senate Budget
> Committee and possible presidential candidate in 2016, argued Social
> Security's solvency problems could be solved if lawmakers simply lifted
> the cap on the tax that funds the program.
>
> “If Republicans are serious about extending the solvency of Social
> Security beyond 2033, I hope they will join me in scrapping the cap that
> allows multi-millionaires to pay a much smaller percentage of their
> income into Social Security than the middle class,” Sanders said.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qyx2qn8
>
>
>

You can lead a horse to water, but if he only drinks cool-aid...



--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 02/16/2015 11:08 AM, Baxter wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 02/16/2015 08:46 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>> Your question makes no sense. The SS tax money was invested in the
>>> most secure bonds on the face of the planet.
>>
>> You're avoiding the question: What did the federal government do with
>> the money they received from the SS trust fund in exchange for the
>> bonds?
>
> It doesn't matter what they did with those dollars any more than it matters
> what the bank does with the dollars you deposit from your paycheck.

The point is that either the feds will need to borrow more to pay the SS
adminstration, thereby converting the intra-governmental debt to real
debt or they will have to tax US taxpayers a second time for the same
purpose to get the money or a combination of both.
>
> Yes, we know, you're trying to claim those dollars are spent - and that you
> don't want to pay them back, you want to reneg on legitimate debt.

Who's this "We" Kemo Sabe? The part about those dollars being spent is
very true, but your mind reading abilities are sadly lacking.





--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

"Baxter" wrote:

> It's not a retirement savings program; it's an insurance plan
> designed
> to help the elderly, the disabled and their families stay out of
> poverty.
>
> As with many insurance plans, Social Security is set up primarily as
> a
> pay-as-you-go system.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/pxbyct8

> So when someone describes Social Security as a Ponzi scheme please
> take
> just a moment to consider this person's understanding of economics
> or
> better yet, his agenda.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mk4smyl
>
> If SS is a Ponzi scheme, then every insurance company in the world
> is a
> Ponzi scheme. If using one person's premiums to pay another person's
> claims freaks you out, you should keep your distance from Berkshire
> Hathaway, too.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8zf2n9a
------------------------------------------------
Biggest impact on the SS program is tobacco IMHO.

How many hundreds of thousands of people who paid into SS all their
working
lives only to die from tobacco related diseases just a couple of years
before
they could start collecting benefits?

All those funds just stay in the pot.

Pretty standard actuarial table calculations in the insurance
business.

Lew

On 02/16/2015 03:29 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 02/16/2015 11:08 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 02/16/2015 08:46 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Your question makes no sense. The SS tax money was invested in the
>>>>> most secure bonds on the face of the planet.
>>>>
>>>> You're avoiding the question: What did the federal government do
>>>> with the money they received from the SS trust fund in exchange for
>>>> the bonds?
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter what they did with those dollars any more than it
>>> matters what the bank does with the dollars you deposit from your
>>> paycheck.
>>
>> The point is that either the feds will need to borrow more to pay the
>> SS adminstration, thereby converting the intra-governmental debt to
>> real debt
>
> Debt is debt whether you owe to a family member or to a third party.

So far, the only sensible thing you have said.

>
>> or they will have to tax US taxpayers a second time for the
>> same purpose to get the money or a combination of both.
>
> No, it is not "second time". They should have levied a tax for whatever
> it was they spent those borrowed dollars on. OR they could have borrowed
> that money from a third party to begin with.

We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what should
have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to a
contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he comes
back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian vacation, but all
you have to do is give him some more cash and he'll get right with it.
I'm sure you'd have no objections.
>
>>> Yes, we know, you're trying to claim those dollars are spent - and
>>> that you don't want to pay them back, you want to reneg on legitimate
>>> debt.
>>
>> Who's this "We" Kemo Sabe? The part about those dollars being spent
>> is very true, but your mind reading abilities are sadly lacking.
>>
> And you're the one who is objecting to paying back those dollars borrowed
> from the SS Trust Fund. You're the one trying to portray those SS Trust
> Fund dollars as being spent and not recoverable.
>

Horse Shit! Go back through any of my responses in this thread and
quote what you just said.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 02/16/2015 11:35 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 02/16/2015 03:29 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>>> or they will have to tax US taxpayers a second time for the
>>>> same purpose to get the money or a combination of both.
>>>
>>> No, it is not "second time". They should have levied a tax for
>>> whatever it was they spent those borrowed dollars on. OR they could
>>> have borrowed that money from a third party to begin with.
>>
>> We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what should
>> have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to a
>> contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he comes
>> back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian vacation, but
>> all you have to do is give him some more cash and he'll get right with
>> it. I'm sure you'd have no objections.
>
> Nope. You have a contract. The contractor has to borrow the money from
> somewhere else to finish your job - you do NOT have to give him more cash,
> and he DOES have to finish the work. Perhaps you're some sort of sucker
> who would give the contractor more money, but in the Real World, real
> people call their lawyers.
>
A more apt analogy would be the contractor going to my kids and
demanding they replace the money he had already spent.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

>> How many hundreds of thousands of people who paid into SS all their
>> working
>> lives only to die from tobacco related diseases just a couple of
>> years
>> before
>> they could start collecting benefits?
>>
>> All those funds just stay in the pot.
---------------------------------------------------
"Baxter" wrote:

> Nope. Whatever is in that pot gets paid out - just like a poker pot
> gets
> paid out to the winner (survivors), even though some players fold
> (die).
> There is no account for individuals.
-----------------------------------------------------
Agreed there is no account for individuals per se.

Think you misunderstood the intent of my comment.

Lew

On 2/15/2015 1:51 PM, Baxter wrote:

> It's not a retirement savings program; it's an insurance plan designed
> to help the elderly, the disabled and their families stay out of poverty.
>
> As with many insurance plans, Social Security is set up primarily as a
> pay-as-you-go system.

That SCOTUS disagrees with your above _opinion_ is an unarguable fact.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>
>>> The Social Security Insurance program in my
>>> opinion was a very poor investment.
>>
>> A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.
>>
>By your definition, ALL insurance is a "Ponzi scheme".

Of course not. That's a wicked case of moral equivalence, you have
there.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 09:07:15 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2/14/2015 8:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>
>>> The Social Security Insurance program in my
>>> opinion was a very poor investment.
>>
>> A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.
>>
>
>Very true, but. . .
>SS does guarantee some income for the masses. Without it, we'd have a
>lot of poor older people too old to work with NO savings or investment
>at all. Our politicians have bastardized it over the years making it a
>give-away program for a lot of people, not just the retired.

Then, there is Chile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_in_Chile

The problem with the above is that the fed would just use it as
another slush fund and political tool.

On 2/15/2015 11:29 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in

>> That SCOTUS disagrees with your above _opinion_ is an unarguable fact.
>>
> Ths SCOTUS never said any such thing.

LOL

Your pubic display of ignorance of the issues is telling on your
misguided arguments.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 2/16/2015 9:36 AM, Baxter wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:CbKdnaCJMf-
> [email protected]:
>
>> On 2/15/2015 11:29 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>
>>>> That SCOTUS disagrees with your above _opinion_ is an unarguable fact.
>>>>
>>> Ths SCOTUS never said any such thing.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Your pubic display of ignorance of the issues is telling on your
>> misguided arguments.
>>
> IOW, we can ignore you - because if you had actual facts or references you
> would have posted them by now. instead, all you got is some cryptic (and
> unsupported) assertion.

Bax, you have no one to blame for your ignorance but yourself.

The cite for the SCOTUS decision was in my reply correcting your
misguided SS=insurance ramblings.

You're doing very well in this thread ... might want to check the
closest mirror for the problem.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 2/16/2015 6:03 AM, dadiOH wrote:

>
> The point is that people could do better for themselves than social
> security does. I certainly hope everyone reading this has a Roth
> IRA...it is the only gift the feds have ever given us.
>

Yes, people could have done better IF they saved that 6%. How many
would? Look at the big picture. Even with IRA, 401k,one third of the
eligible people are not saving anything at all. 14% of those at
retirement age have nothing saved.

They have nothing saved, but they do have SS. If they did not have at
least that much, we'd be supporting them in some form of welfare even
more than we do now. Look around. How many steady working people do
you see that have no savings account, no checking account and less than
20 bucks in their pocket. There will be many of them. (they will have
a cell phone though)

On 2/15/2015 1:06 AM, Baxter wrote:

> SS is set up and works exactly the same as private insurance.


For your personal benefit, here's how the cow ate the cabbage as to why
SS is demonstrably NOT insurance.

Social Security is, by law and a SCOTUS ruling, a TAX, not an insurance
program.

The Supreme Court decision in 'Flemming v. Nestor' clearly states that
Social Security is NOT insurance, _as there is no contractual agreement
between taxpayer and government_ .

Insurance companies use premiums, a premium is not a tax and the
premium, and any deductible, is subject to a contractual agreement, not
so with Social Security.

Insurance companies invest premiums, and use the premiums to make a
profit by applying the 'law of large numbers', which states that "for a
series of independent and identically distributed random variables, the
variance of the average amount of a claim payment decreases as the
number of claims increases", and by using deductibles to offset
catastrophic loss.

Social Security does none of the above.

Liberals love, either through ignorance or malice, to call the SS system
"insurance", which is nothing more than sleight of hand a subterfuge to
mask the fact that it is a TAX.

However, to be charitable, the old saying particularly applies to this
issue: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by
stupidity"

If you want further argument, take it up with SCOTUS.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 2/15/2015 1:06 AM, Baxter wrote:

> SS is set up and works exactly the same as private insurance.

I'm getting charitable in my old age, but that is one of the most
ignorant, dumbest fucking statements I've heard in over 15 years on the
wRec.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Social Security Insurance program in my
>>>> opinion was a very poor investment.
>>>
>>> A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.
>>>
>>By your definition, ALL insurance is a "Ponzi scheme".
>
> Of course not. That's a wicked case of moral equivalence, you have
> there.
>
SS is set up and works exactly the same as private insurance. Charges of
"ponzi scheme" have been around almost since it's inception and are not nor
have they ever been true. "Ponzi scheme" is propaganda put out by the
enemies of SS - mostly people that want to get their hands on that pool of
money.

"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> [email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > news:[email protected]:
> > >
> > > > On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The Social Security Insurance program in my
> > > > > opinion was a very poor investment.
> > > >
> > > > A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.
> > > >
> > > By your definition, ALL insurance is a "Ponzi scheme".
> >
> > Of course not. That's a wicked case of moral equivalence, you have
> > there.
> >
> SS is set up and works exactly the same as private insurance. Charges
> of
> "ponzi scheme" have been around almost since it's inception and are not
> nor have they ever been true. "Ponzi scheme" is propaganda put out by
> the
> enemies of SS - mostly people that want to get their hands on that pool
> of
> money.

A Ponzi scheme is maintained - at least for a while - because the operator
pays out to those first in by using what is paid in by those who come
later. Exactly how does social security differ from that? The only
difference I can see is that if the feds don't take in enough money to
meet their committments they can just print more.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 02/15/2015 12:06 AM, Baxter wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Social Security Insurance program in my
>>>>>> opinion was a very poor investment.
>>>>>
>>>>> A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.
>>>>>
>>>> By your definition, ALL insurance is a "Ponzi scheme".
>>>
>>> Of course not. That's a wicked case of moral equivalence, you have
>>> there.
>>>
>> SS is set up and works exactly the same as private insurance.
>> Charges of "ponzi scheme" have been around almost since it's
>> inception and are not nor have they ever been true. "Ponzi scheme" is
>> propaganda put out by the enemies of SS - mostly people that want to
>> get their hands on that pool of money.
>>
>
> Here's a couple of articles from that ultra right wing, greedy
> organization, PBS.
>
> <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/americas-ponzi-scheme-why-soc
> ial-security-needs-to-retire/>

Yes, PBS *does* give voice to right-wing and nutcases.
>
> <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/obama-trying-cut-social-secur
> ity/>
>
-----------
PolitiFact has rated several claims about whether Social Security is a
Ponzi scheme including two we rated False by Perry leading up to the 2012
presidential election.

We asked Curbelo’s campaign spokesman for evidence showing the programs
are Ponzi schemes.

Wadi Gaitan emailed us a statement that Curbelo was using "a figure of
speech" and wants to preserve the programs for current and future
generations. He provided no evidence that the programs are Ponzi schemes.

But first, what is a Ponzi scheme?

The term originates with Charles Ponzi, a Boston swindler who conned
investors out of millions in 1920 by promising returns of up to 100
percent in 90 days on investments in foreign postal coupons. After first-
round investors harvested those profits, others flocked to Ponzi, unaware
his "profits" consisted of money paid in by other investors.

That strategy is unsustainable.

In contrast, Social Security is more like a "pay-as-you-go" system
transferring payroll tax payments by workers to retirees. A 2009 Social
Security Administration online post stated: "The American Social Security
system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles
Ponzi's scheme lasted barely 200 days."

Mitchell Zuckoff, a Boston University journalism professor who has
written a book on Ponzi, noted three critical dissimilarities between
Social Security and a Ponzi scheme. We will summarize Zuckoff’s comments
from an earlier fact-check:

* "First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled,"
Zuckoff wrote in a January 2009 article in Fortune. "Social Security is
exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under
which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no
promises of huge returns."

* Second, he wrote, "A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number
of potential investors is eventually exhausted." While Social Security
faces a huge burden due to retiring Baby Boomers, it can be and has been
tweaked, and "the government could change benefit formulas or take other
steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing."

* Third, Zuckoff wrote, "Social Security is morally the polar opposite of
a Ponzi scheme. ... At the height of the Great Depression, our society
(see 'Social') resolved to create a safety net (see 'Security') in the
form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to
retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. By design,
that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers
subsidizing poorer ones. That might rankle, but it's not fraud."

http://tinyurl.com/m76aljy

See also:
http://tinyurl.com/l25lr9y
http://tinyurl.com/pxbyct8
-------------

Or, of course, stick your fingers in your ears, sing "la la la" at the
top of your voice, and ignore the actual facts.


--
-----------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:lZadnRv2x-
[email protected]:

> On 2/15/2015 1:06 AM, Baxter wrote:
>
>> SS is set up and works exactly the same as private insurance.
>
> I'm getting charitable in my old age, but that is one of the most
> ignorant, dumbest fucking statements I've heard in over 15 years on the
> wRec.
>
-----------
It's not a retirement savings program; it's an insurance plan designed
to help the elderly, the disabled and their families stay out of poverty.

As with many insurance plans, Social Security is set up primarily as a
pay-as-you-go system.

http://tinyurl.com/pxbyct8

"Anyone who tells you Social Security is a Ponzi scheme either doesn't
understand what a Ponzi scheme is or their mother's didn't teach them not
to fib. This myth is a favorite of conservatives who just hate the idea
of social insurance in general. The Social Security Administration has a
good history describing why this is nonsense. Social Security is not a
Ponzi scheme. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system with the
contributions of today's workers going to today's retirees or into the
reserve to pay benefits to future retirees. The ratio of workers to
retirees has changed over time, but unless this nation allows the system
to be abolished, there will never be a time of no workers paying into the
system.

So when someone describes Social Security as a Ponzi scheme please take
just a moment to consider this person's understanding of economics or
better yet, his agenda.

http://tinyurl.com/mk4smyl

If SS is a Ponzi scheme, then every insurance company in the world is a
Ponzi scheme. If using one person's premiums to pay another person's
claims freaks you out, you should keep your distance from Berkshire
Hathaway, too.

http://tinyurl.com/8zf2n9a

"dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> [email protected] wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>> > > news:[email protected]:
>> > >
>> > > > On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > The Social Security Insurance program in my
>> > > > > opinion was a very poor investment.
>> > > >
>> > > > A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.
>> > > >
>> > > By your definition, ALL insurance is a "Ponzi scheme".
>> >
>> > Of course not. That's a wicked case of moral equivalence, you have
>> > there.
>> >
>> SS is set up and works exactly the same as private insurance.
>> Charges of
>> "ponzi scheme" have been around almost since it's inception and are
>> not nor have they ever been true. "Ponzi scheme" is propaganda put
>> out by the
>> enemies of SS - mostly people that want to get their hands on that
>> pool of
>> money.
>
> A Ponzi scheme is maintained - at least for a while - because the
> operator pays out to those first in by using what is paid in by those
> who come later. Exactly how does social security differ from that?
> The only difference I can see is that if the feds don't take in enough
> money to meet their committments they can just print more.
>
Read some of the links I just posted.

But to address your specific point: A Ponzi scheme fails because it runs
out of new "investors" - SS will never run out of "new investors".
---------
In other words: A Ponzi scheme is generally a system in which investors
think they’re investing in something real but are instead being used to
pay one another back. Eventually, the scheme runs out of new investors
and collapses.

Here’s how the Social Security Administration -- which, somewhat
touchingly, has a whole web page explaining why its not a Ponzi scheme --
describes Social Security: “It would be most accurate to describe Social
Security as a transfer payment--transferring income from the generation
of workers to the generation of retirees--with the promise that when
current workers retire, there will be another generation of workers
behind them who will be the source of their Social Security retirement
payments.”

The superficial similarity to a Ponzi scheme is that different sets of
investors are relying on future investors, or at least future growth, to
get paid back. But that defines a Ponzi scheme so broadly as to make the
term meaningless. In that definition, any intergenerational transfer
system is a Ponzi scheme.

http://tinyurl.com/kpsobeu

"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > > [email protected] wrote in
> > > news:[email protected]:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > > > news:[email protected]:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Social Security Insurance program in my
> > > > > > > opinion was a very poor investment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.
> > > > > >
> > > > > By your definition, ALL insurance is a "Ponzi scheme".
> > > >
> > > > Of course not. That's a wicked case of moral equivalence, you have
> > > > there.
> > > >
> > > SS is set up and works exactly the same as private insurance.
> > > Charges of
> > > "ponzi scheme" have been around almost since it's inception and are
> > > not nor have they ever been true. "Ponzi scheme" is propaganda put
> > > out by the
> > > enemies of SS - mostly people that want to get their hands on that
> > > pool of
> > > money.
> >
> > A Ponzi scheme is maintained - at least for a while - because the
> > operator pays out to those first in by using what is paid in by those
> > who come later. Exactly how does social security differ from that?
> > The only difference I can see is that if the feds don't take in enough
> > money to meet their committments they can just print more.
> >
> Read some of the links I just posted.
>
> But to address your specific point: A Ponzi scheme fails because it runs
> out of new "investors" - SS will never run out of "new investors".
> ---------

Not as long as it is mandatory and not as long as the feds can keep taxing
future workers at higher and higher rates.

When I was 50 - I'll be 82 next summer - I figured that if I could dump
social security, letting them keep everything I'd paid in thus far, I
could save enough in the next 15 years to pay myself what the SS would be
but WITHOUT touching the principal.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

"dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> When I was 50 - I'll be 82 next summer - I figured that if I could
> dump social security, letting them keep everything I'd paid in thus
> far, I could save enough in the next 15 years to pay myself what the
> SS would be but WITHOUT touching the principal.
>
And you'd have been wrong because those numbers simply don't work out - not
even 15 years at maximum contribution.

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 2/15/2015 1:51 PM, Baxter wrote:
>
>> It's not a retirement savings program; it's an insurance plan
>> designed
>> to help the elderly, the disabled and their families stay out of
>> poverty.
>>
>> As with many insurance plans, Social Security is set up primarily as
>> a pay-as-you-go system.
>
> That SCOTUS disagrees with your above _opinion_ is an unarguable fact.
>
Ths SCOTUS never said any such thing.


--
-----------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:54e13d70$0$46839
[email protected]:

> On 02/15/2015 12:46 PM, Baxter wrote:
>
>> Or, of course, stick your fingers in your ears, sing "la la la" at the
>> top of your voice, and ignore the actual facts.
>>
>>
>
> OK, Bax.
>
> Since you are up on all things SS, let's take one thing at a time.
>
> Tell us what you know about the SS "trust" fund (and for that matter
> about the 150+ federal trust funds).
>
All you have to do is google - and stop getting your information from FAUX
NUZ and other right-wing sites that aim to kill SS.


http://www.socialsecurity.gov/news/press/factsheets/WhatAreTheTrust.htm

"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> >
> > When I was 50 - I'll be 82 next summer - I figured that if I could
> > dump social security, letting them keep everything I'd paid in thus
> > far, I could save enough in the next 15 years to pay myself what the
> > SS would be but WITHOUT touching the principal.
> >
> And you'd have been wrong because those numbers simply don't work out -
> not even 15 years at maximum contribution.

Who said anything about maximum contribution which - IIRC - was about 15%
(self employed, corp.)? I said SAVE. And let us not forget that at a
very realistic 6%, the principal doubles every 12 years.

The point is that people could do better for themselves than social
security does. I certainly hope everyone reading this has a Roth IRA...it
is the only gift the feds have ever given us.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

"dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>> >
>> > When I was 50 - I'll be 82 next summer - I figured that if I could
>> > dump social security, letting them keep everything I'd paid in thus
>> > far, I could save enough in the next 15 years to pay myself what
>> > the SS would be but WITHOUT touching the principal.
>> >
>> And you'd have been wrong because those numbers simply don't work out
>> - not even 15 years at maximum contribution.
>
> Who said anything about maximum contribution

Then you're not talking about SS.

>which - IIRC - was about
> 15% (self employed, corp.)?

Combined = 12.4% -- but there's no guarantee that your employer would
give you his half.

>I said SAVE. And let us not forget that
> at a very realistic 6%, the principal doubles every 12 years.

No, 6% is not realistic.

And here's a compound interst calculator:
http://tinyurl.com/46syn

>
> The point is that people could do better for themselves than social
> security does. I certainly hope everyone reading this has a Roth
> IRA...it is the only gift the feds have ever given us.
>
SS was never meant to be your sole retirement policy. You were always
expected to do more on your own.


--
-----------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:CbKdnaCJMf-
[email protected]:

> On 2/15/2015 11:29 PM, Baxter wrote:
>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>
>>> That SCOTUS disagrees with your above _opinion_ is an unarguable fact.
>>>
>> Ths SCOTUS never said any such thing.
>
> LOL
>
> Your pubic display of ignorance of the issues is telling on your
> misguided arguments.
>
IOW, we can ignore you - because if you had actual facts or references you
would have posted them by now. instead, all you got is some cryptic (and
unsupported) assertion.

--
-----------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 02/15/2015 10:33 PM, Baxter wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:54e13d70$0$46839 [email protected]:
>>
>>> On 02/15/2015 12:46 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or, of course, stick your fingers in your ears, sing "la la la" at
>>>> the top of your voice, and ignore the actual facts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, Bax.
>>>
>>> Since you are up on all things SS, let's take one thing at a time.
>>>
>>> Tell us what you know about the SS "trust" fund (and for that matter
>>> about the 150+ federal trust funds).
>>>
>> All you have to do is google - and stop getting your information from
>> FAUX NUZ and other right-wing sites that aim to kill SS.
>>
>>
>> http://www.socialsecurity.gov/news/press/factsheets/WhatAreTheTrust.ht
>> m
>>
>
> OK, you are aware that these SS "special Treasury bonds" account for
> $2.7 trillion of the national debt and that the bonds in all the
> "trust funds add up to around $5 trillion of the debt.

I'm absolutely aware of this.
>
> So, a couple of questions:
>
> 1. What happened to the actual tax money that these bonds were traded
> for?

Your question makes no sense. The SS tax money was invested in the most
secure bonds on the face of the planet.

>
> 2. When the "trust" funds need to redeem these bonds for cash to pay
> benefits, where will the federal government get that cash?

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for
services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
questioned."


> 3. Is this $2.7 trillion enough to cover future SS liabilities and if
> not, how much more will be needed?
>
Future liabilites of SS are not fixed. SS is prohibited by law from
borrowing. There are 5 remedies for the current forcasted shortfall:
http://tinyurl.com/mca4xcq

----------
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Tuesday proposed raising Social Security
taxes to extend the life of the entitlement program and increase
benefits.

In a 12-page report, Sanders, the ranking member on the Senate Budget
Committee and possible presidential candidate in 2016, argued Social
Security's solvency problems could be solved if lawmakers simply lifted
the cap on the tax that funds the program.

“If Republicans are serious about extending the solvency of Social
Security beyond 2033, I hope they will join me in scrapping the cap that
allows multi-millionaires to pay a much smaller percentage of their
income into Social Security than the middle class,” Sanders said.

http://tinyurl.com/qyx2qn8



--
-----------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------

Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in news:cJKdnY7EC49dmn_JnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]:

> (they will have
> a cell phone though)
>
'Course, there's virtually no public/pay phones anymore.

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 02/16/2015 08:46 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>
>> Your question makes no sense. The SS tax money was invested in the
>> most secure bonds on the face of the planet.
>
> You're avoiding the question: What did the federal government do with
> the money they received from the SS trust fund in exchange for the
> bonds?

It doesn't matter what they did with those dollars any more than it matters
what the bank does with the dollars you deposit from your paycheck.

Yes, we know, you're trying to claim those dollars are spent - and that you
don't want to pay them back, you want to reneg on legitimate debt.

--
-----------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------

"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > > "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > news:[email protected]:
> > > >
> > > > When I was 50 - I'll be 82 next summer - I figured that if I could
> > > > dump social security, letting them keep everything I'd paid in
> > > > thus
> > > > far, I could save enough in the next 15 years to pay myself what
> > > > the SS would be but WITHOUT touching the principal.
> > > >
> > > And you'd have been wrong because those numbers simply don't work
> > > out
> > > - not even 15 years at maximum contribution.
> >
> > Who said anything about maximum contribution
>
> Then you're not talking about SS.
>
> > which - IIRC - was about
> > 15% (self employed, corp.)?
>
> Combined = 12.4% -- but there's no guarantee that your employer would
> give you his half.

I was my employer. I am generous to me :)

> > I said SAVE. And let us not forget that
> > at a very realistic 6%, the principal doubles every 12 years.
>
> No, 6% is not realistic.

It is in my world. And has been - and still is - for as long as I can
remember. In reality, it is on the low side.


> And here's a compound interst calculator:
> http://tinyurl.com/46syn
>
> >
> > The point is that people could do better for themselves than social
> > security does. I certainly hope everyone reading this has a Roth
> > IRA...it is the only gift the feds have ever given us.
> >
> SS was never meant to be your sole retirement policy. You were always
> expected to do more on your own.

Yeah but as Ed pointed out, a whole bunch don't.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On 2/16/2015 6:03 AM, dadiOH wrote:
>
> >
> > The point is that people could do better for themselves than social
> > security does. I certainly hope everyone reading this has a Roth
> > IRA...it is the only gift the feds have ever given us.
> >
>
> Yes, people could have done better IF they saved that 6%. How many
> would? Look at the big picture. Even with IRA, 401k,one third of the
> eligible people are not saving anything at all. 14% of those at
> retirement age have nothing saved.
>
> They have nothing saved, but they do have SS. If they did not have at
> least that much, we'd be supporting them in some form of welfare even
> more than we do now. Look around. How many steady working people do
> you see that have no savings account, no checking account and less than
> 20 bucks in their pocket. There will be many of them. (they will have
> a cell phone though)

And a big screen TV.

I would have been amenable to a compromise.

Social security
- OR -
Stick at least the same amount into an inviolate account.

One of the things I think schools should be teaching is how to manage
money. If they had done so, pawnshops would have gotten less of my money
when I was 8 - 21 during my Navy years :)

I also think they - and their parents - should be teaching how to delay
gratification. So much of the stuff people dribble their money away on
are things they won't be using in a rather short time...if they would just
delay purchases for 30 days, the desire would often fade; if they still
wanted it, OK, buy it. BUT FOR CASH.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 02/16/2015 11:08 AM, Baxter wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 02/16/2015 08:46 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Your question makes no sense. The SS tax money was invested in the
>>>> most secure bonds on the face of the planet.
>>>
>>> You're avoiding the question: What did the federal government do
>>> with the money they received from the SS trust fund in exchange for
>>> the bonds?
>>
>> It doesn't matter what they did with those dollars any more than it
>> matters what the bank does with the dollars you deposit from your
>> paycheck.
>
> The point is that either the feds will need to borrow more to pay the
> SS adminstration, thereby converting the intra-governmental debt to
> real debt

Debt is debt whether you owe to a family member or to a third party.

>or they will have to tax US taxpayers a second time for the
> same purpose to get the money or a combination of both.

No, it is not "second time". They should have levied a tax for whatever
it was they spent those borrowed dollars on. OR they could have borrowed
that money from a third party to begin with.

>> Yes, we know, you're trying to claim those dollars are spent - and
>> that you don't want to pay them back, you want to reneg on legitimate
>> debt.
>
> Who's this "We" Kemo Sabe? The part about those dollars being spent
> is very true, but your mind reading abilities are sadly lacking.
>
And you're the one who is objecting to paying back those dollars borrowed
from the SS Trust Fund. You're the one trying to portray those SS Trust
Fund dollars as being spent and not recoverable.

--
-----------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 2/16/2015 9:36 AM, Baxter wrote:
>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:CbKdnaCJMf-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> On 2/15/2015 11:29 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>
>>>>> That SCOTUS disagrees with your above _opinion_ is an unarguable
>>>>> fact.
>>>>>
>>>> Ths SCOTUS never said any such thing.
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> Your pubic display of ignorance of the issues is telling on your
>>> misguided arguments.
>>>
>> IOW, we can ignore you - because if you had actual facts or
>> references you would have posted them by now. instead, all you got
>> is some cryptic (and unsupported) assertion.
>
> Bax, you have no one to blame for your ignorance but yourself.
>
> The cite for the SCOTUS decision was in my reply correcting your
> misguided SS=insurance ramblings.
>
> You're doing very well in this thread ... might want to check the
> closest mirror for the problem.
>
We've seen your type of dishonesty before. Nope. If you had actual facts
on your side you would have posted them again.

--
-----------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:54e2698d$0$6721
[email protected]:

> How many hundreds of thousands of people who paid into SS all their
> working
> lives only to die from tobacco related diseases just a couple of years
> before
> they could start collecting benefits?
>
> All those funds just stay in the pot.
>
Nope. Whatever is in that pot gets paid out - just like a poker pot gets
paid out to the winner (survivors), even though some players fold (die).
There is no account for individuals.

--
-----------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 02/16/2015 03:29 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>
>>> or they will have to tax US taxpayers a second time for the
>>> same purpose to get the money or a combination of both.
>>
>> No, it is not "second time". They should have levied a tax for
>> whatever it was they spent those borrowed dollars on. OR they could
>> have borrowed that money from a third party to begin with.
>
> We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what should
> have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to a
> contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he comes
> back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian vacation, but
> all you have to do is give him some more cash and he'll get right with
> it. I'm sure you'd have no objections.

Nope. You have a contract. The contractor has to borrow the money from
somewhere else to finish your job - you do NOT have to give him more cash,
and he DOES have to finish the work. Perhaps you're some sort of sucker
who would give the contractor more money, but in the Real World, real
people call their lawyers.

--
-----------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 02/16/2015 11:35 PM, Baxter wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 02/16/2015 03:29 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> or they will have to tax US taxpayers a second time for the
>>>>> same purpose to get the money or a combination of both.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not "second time". They should have levied a tax for
>>>> whatever it was they spent those borrowed dollars on. OR they
>>>> could have borrowed that money from a third party to begin with.
>>>
>>> We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what
>>> should have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to
>>> a contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he
>>> comes back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian
>>> vacation, but all you have to do is give him some more cash and
>>> he'll get right with it. I'm sure you'd have no objections.
>>
>> Nope. You have a contract. The contractor has to borrow the money
>> from somewhere else to finish your job - you do NOT have to give him
>> more cash, and he DOES have to finish the work. Perhaps you're some
>> sort of sucker who would give the contractor more money, but in the
>> Real World, real people call their lawyers.
>>
> A more apt analogy would be the contractor going to my kids and
> demanding they replace the money he had already spent.
>
>
And the same legal situation holds - the contractor is still responsible.
You can use a bank anology too - SS puts surplus funds into the bank, the
bank MUST allow SS to withdraw those funds when it needs/wants to.

We've heard this claim for decades, and it is nothing but a con. That
you fall for it does not speak well of you - you should never hire a
contractor.


--
-----------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 2/17/2015 12:35 AM, Baxter wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>
>
>>> We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what
>>> should have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to
>>> a contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he
>>> comes back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian
>>> vacation, but all you have to do is give him some more cash and
>>> he'll get right with it. I'm sure you'd have no objections.
>>
>> Nope. You have a contract. The contractor has to borrow the money
>> from somewhere else to finish your job - you do NOT have to give him
>> more cash, and he DOES have to finish the work. Perhaps you're some
>> sort of sucker who would give the contractor more money, but in the
>> Real World, real people call their lawyers.
>
> Again your ignorance of the facts, and the actual law, is showing.
>
> As I clearly stated earlier: by virtue of the Supreme Court decision
> in 'Flemming v. Nestor', SCOTUS clearly states, among other things
> with regard to SS, that ***there is no contractual agreement between
> taxpayer and government***.

Which refers to _individual_ rights - not Trust Fund rights

See:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor

Individuals do not have a *contractual* right to SS payments. The bonds
purchased by the Trust Fund, however, ARE binding contracts. Just as
*you* would have a binding contract for any Treasury Bills that you
purchased.

>
> You're wrong ... keep digging your hole.
>
You're missinterpreting - why?



--
-----------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 2/17/2015 8:46 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>>
>> And the same legal situation holds - the contractor is still
>> responsible. You can use a bank anology too - SS puts surplus funds
>> into the bank, the bank MUST allow SS to withdraw those funds when it
>> needs/wants to.
>
> Do you really believe that the government has surplus funds to put
> into
> SS? Federal taxes and SS taxes are paid to the government with one
> check. The money actually goes to where ever it is needed the most but
> owes countless debtors including the SS division. There is no surplus
> when your owe more than your income.
>
-----------
For the Last Time, the Social Security Trust Fund Is Real

Now, suppose this surplus had been invested in corporate bonds. What
exactly would that mean? It means that workers would be giving money to
corporations, who would turn around and spend it. In return, the Social
Security trust fund would receive bonds that represent promises to repay
the money later out of the company's cash flow. In effect, it gives
workers a claim on the cash flows of the company at a later date in time.
When that time comes, the company would have to pay up, which would make
it less profitable. If the company was already unprofitable, it would
make their deficit even worse.

If that's what had happened, there would be no confusion about the trust
fund. Everyone agrees that corporate bonds are real things, and that the
corporations who sell them have an obligation to pay them back, even
though it means less money for shareholder dividends.

Now let's change a few words in this story. What actually happened is
that the Social Security surplus was invested in treasury bonds. What
does that mean? It means that workers gave money to the federal
government, which turned around and spent it. In return, the Social
Security trust fund received bonds that represented promises to repay the
money later out of the federal government's income tax receipts. In
effect, it gave workers a claim on the income tax receipts of the
government at a later date in time. When that time came, the federal
government would have to pay up, which would make it less profitable. If
the government was already running a deficit, it would make the deficit
even worse.

These two stories are identical. Treasury bonds are real things: They are
promises to repay money at a later date out of the government's cash
flow. The federal government has an obligation to pay them back even if
it has to raise income taxes to do it.

http://tinyurl.com/bvbealr

--
-----------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------

On 2/17/2015 8:46 AM, Baxter wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 02/16/2015 11:35 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 02/16/2015 03:29 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> or they will have to tax US taxpayers a second time for the
>>>>>> same purpose to get the money or a combination of both.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is not "second time". They should have levied a tax for
>>>>> whatever it was they spent those borrowed dollars on. OR they
>>>>> could have borrowed that money from a third party to begin with.
>>>>
>>>> We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what
>>>> should have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to
>>>> a contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he
>>>> comes back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian
>>>> vacation, but all you have to do is give him some more cash and
>>>> he'll get right with it. I'm sure you'd have no objections.
>>>
>>> Nope. You have a contract. The contractor has to borrow the money
>>> from somewhere else to finish your job - you do NOT have to give him
>>> more cash, and he DOES have to finish the work. Perhaps you're some
>>> sort of sucker who would give the contractor more money, but in the
>>> Real World, real people call their lawyers.
>>>
>> A more apt analogy would be the contractor going to my kids and
>> demanding they replace the money he had already spent.
>>
>>
> And the same legal situation holds - the contractor is still responsible.
> You can use a bank anology too - SS puts surplus funds into the bank, the
> bank MUST allow SS to withdraw those funds when it needs/wants to.

Do you really believe that the government has surplus funds to put into
SS? Federal taxes and SS taxes are paid to the government with one
check. The money actually goes to where ever it is needed the most but
owes countless debtors including the SS division. There is no surplus
when your owe more than your income.


I think it is pretty common knowledge that the government prints extra
money to pay its debts, umteen trillion now, and as a result we see the
dollar buy less and less.

On 2/17/2015 7:21 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 2/17/2015 12:35 AM, Baxter wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>
>
>>> We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what should
>>> have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to a
>>> contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he comes
>>> back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian vacation, but
>>> all you have to do is give him some more cash and he'll get right with
>>> it. I'm sure you'd have no objections.
>>
>> Nope. You have a contract. The contractor has to borrow the money from
>> somewhere else to finish your job - you do NOT have to give him more
>> cash,
>> and he DOES have to finish the work. Perhaps you're some sort of sucker
>> who would give the contractor more money, but in the Real World, real
>> people call their lawyers.
>
> Again your ignorance of the facts, and the actual law, is showing.
>
> As I clearly stated earlier: by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in
> 'Flemming v. Nestor', SCOTUS clearly states, among other things with
> regard to SS, that ***there is no contractual agreement between taxpayer
> and government***.


Because the government operates "above the law" it does not need no
stink'n contract.

On 2/17/2015 12:35 AM, Baxter wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in


>> We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what should
>> have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to a
>> contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he comes
>> back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian vacation, but
>> all you have to do is give him some more cash and he'll get right with
>> it. I'm sure you'd have no objections.
>
> Nope. You have a contract. The contractor has to borrow the money from
> somewhere else to finish your job - you do NOT have to give him more cash,
> and he DOES have to finish the work. Perhaps you're some sort of sucker
> who would give the contractor more money, but in the Real World, real
> people call their lawyers.

Again your ignorance of the facts, and the actual law, is showing.

As I clearly stated earlier: by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in
'Flemming v. Nestor', SCOTUS clearly states, among other things with
regard to SS, that ***there is no contractual agreement between taxpayer
and government***.

You're wrong ... keep digging your hole.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 02/14/2015 08:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:17:28 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left behind
>>> a 4 years old son.
>>> Suddenly, he can't provide for his child what he normally would've for
>>> the next 14 years until that child is old enough to provide for
>>> himself. My brother paid into Social Security his entire working
>>> life. Why shouldn't it go to his family, his son, until he's old
>>> enough to provide for himself?
>>
>> That is a different scenario, but at the risk of sounding harsh - that's
>> what life insurance is for.
>
> The same can be said about saving for retirement but we're forced into
> the government's ponzi scheme anyway.
>
Even though I was forced into the Ponzi scheme, I also saved 10% of
gross my entire working life, which is less than the 12.4% extracted for
the Ponzi scheme. I am able to take twice the monthly amount I receive
from SS and still watch the amount I put away grow. Anyone who thinks
they will be able to live on SS alone is in real trouble - in more ways
than one.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 19:46:25 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 02/15/2015 12:06 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Social Security Insurance program in my
>>>>>>> opinion was a very poor investment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.
>>>>>>
>>>>> By your definition, ALL insurance is a "Ponzi scheme".
>>>>
>>>> Of course not. That's a wicked case of moral equivalence, you have
>>>> there.
>>>>
>>> SS is set up and works exactly the same as private insurance.
>>> Charges of "ponzi scheme" have been around almost since it's
>>> inception and are not nor have they ever been true. "Ponzi scheme" is
>>> propaganda put out by the enemies of SS - mostly people that want to
>>> get their hands on that pool of money.
>>>
>>
>> Here's a couple of articles from that ultra right wing, greedy
>> organization, PBS.
>>
>> <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/americas-ponzi-scheme-why-soc
>> ial-security-needs-to-retire/>
>
>Yes, PBS *does* give voice to right-wing and nutcases.

If not smart, at least you're funny!
>>
>> <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/obama-trying-cut-social-secur
>> ity/>
>>
>-----------
>PolitiFact has rated several claims about whether Social Security is a
>Ponzi scheme including two we rated False by Perry leading up to the 2012
>presidential election.

Clueless.

>We asked Curbelo’s campaign spokesman for evidence showing the programs
>are Ponzi schemes.
>
>Wadi Gaitan emailed us a statement that Curbelo was using "a figure of
>speech" and wants to preserve the programs for current and future
>generations. He provided no evidence that the programs are Ponzi schemes.
>
>But first, what is a Ponzi scheme?
>
>The term originates with Charles Ponzi, a Boston swindler who conned
>investors out of millions in 1920 by promising returns of up to 100
>percent in 90 days on investments in foreign postal coupons. After first-
>round investors harvested those profits, others flocked to Ponzi, unaware
>his "profits" consisted of money paid in by other investors.
>
>That strategy is unsustainable.
>
>In contrast, Social Security is more like a "pay-as-you-go" system
>transferring payroll tax payments by workers to retirees. A 2009 Social
>Security Administration online post stated: "The American Social Security
>system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles
>Ponzi's scheme lasted barely 200 days."
>
>Mitchell Zuckoff, a Boston University journalism professor who has
>written a book on Ponzi, noted three critical dissimilarities between
>Social Security and a Ponzi scheme. We will summarize Zuckoff’s comments
>from an earlier fact-check:
>
>* "First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled,"
>Zuckoff wrote in a January 2009 article in Fortune. "Social Security is
>exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under
>which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no
>promises of huge returns."
>
>* Second, he wrote, "A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number
>of potential investors is eventually exhausted." While Social Security
>faces a huge burden due to retiring Baby Boomers, it can be and has been
>tweaked, and "the government could change benefit formulas or take other
>steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing."
>
>* Third, Zuckoff wrote, "Social Security is morally the polar opposite of
>a Ponzi scheme. ... At the height of the Great Depression, our society
>(see 'Social') resolved to create a safety net (see 'Security') in the
>form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to
>retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. By design,
>that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers
>subsidizing poorer ones. That might rankle, but it's not fraud."
>
>http://tinyurl.com/m76aljy
>
>See also:
>http://tinyurl.com/l25lr9y
>http://tinyurl.com/pxbyct8
>-------------
>
>Or, of course, stick your fingers in your ears, sing "la la la" at the
>top of your voice, and ignore the actual facts.

You really are clueless.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:17:28 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>-MIKE- wrote:
>
>>
>> In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left behind
>> a 4 years old son.
>> Suddenly, he can't provide for his child what he normally would've for
>> the next 14 years until that child is old enough to provide for
>> himself. My brother paid into Social Security his entire working
>> life. Why shouldn't it go to his family, his son, until he's old
>> enough to provide for himself?
>
>That is a different scenario, but at the risk of sounding harsh - that's
>what life insurance is for.

The same can be said about saving for retirement but we're forced into
the government's ponzi scheme anyway.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:05:05 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Baxter" wrote:
>
>> It's not a retirement savings program; it's an insurance plan
>> designed
>> to help the elderly, the disabled and their families stay out of
>> poverty.
>>
>> As with many insurance plans, Social Security is set up primarily as
>> a
>> pay-as-you-go system.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/pxbyct8
>
>> So when someone describes Social Security as a Ponzi scheme please
>> take
>> just a moment to consider this person's understanding of economics
>> or
>> better yet, his agenda.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/mk4smyl
>>
>> If SS is a Ponzi scheme, then every insurance company in the world
>> is a
>> Ponzi scheme. If using one person's premiums to pay another person's
>> claims freaks you out, you should keep your distance from Berkshire
>> Hathaway, too.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/8zf2n9a
>------------------------------------------------
>Biggest impact on the SS program is tobacco IMHO.
>
>How many hundreds of thousands of people who paid into SS all their
>working
>lives only to die from tobacco related diseases just a couple of years
>before
>they could start collecting benefits?

Another reason SS should never have existed. If I save that money, my
children, or whomever I choose, gets that money (more, actually).

>All those funds just stay in the pot.

No, there _IS_NO_POT_.

>Pretty standard actuarial table calculations in the insurance
>business.

Sure, but SS is *NOT* insurance.
>
>
>

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:54:35 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 2/14/15 3:13 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/14/2015 4:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left
>>> behind a 4 years old son. Suddenly, he can't provide for his child
>>> what he normally would've for the next 14 years until that child is
>>> old enough to provide for himself. My brother paid into Social
>>> Security his entire working life. Why shouldn't it go to his
>>> family, his son, until he's old enough to provide for himself?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That was not the intention of SS. They sell insurance that will
>> provide for the family. Younger people can get term insurance cheap
>> if they are concerned about the family.
>>
>> Like any program, the more you want to provide, the more we have to
>> pay in. Chances are, his family collected more than he put into the
>> system

For the record, my father died when I was 12, so I (my mother,
actually) collected SSI until I got married (at 18).

>We can debate that all you want and we'd probably agree more than we'd
>disagree.
>However, my brother played the game by the rules of the game at the
>time, so his son is indeed entitled (in the truest sense of the word) to
>those benefits. By law.

Exactly. The ball is in play, don't change the rules now. Doing so
means bankruptcy. Everyone loses (except the unions, of course).

>If the law were to change, that's another story for those who come along
>later.

Agreed.