PDA

View Full Version : Fixing a 'Ponzi scheme'



Soflasnapper
09-09-2011, 09:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Steve Benen, Political Animal
Blog

September 08, 2011 4:45 PM It’s not a Ponzi scheme

In last night’s debate, Republican presidential frontrunner Rick Perry called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” Fox News’ Brit Hume says Social Security can “in many ways,” be “likened to a Ponzi scheme.” CNN’s Erick Erickson believes Social Security “is, for all intents and purposes, a Ponzi scheme.” Fox News’ Eric Bolling agrees with Perry that Social Security “is a Ponzi scheme.” Rush Limbaugh told listeners, “I want to applaud” Perry’s claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

I hate to spoil the Republicans’ fun here, but Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme.

Over the next 75 years, Social Security’s shortfall is equal to about 0.7 percent of GDP (pdf). If we increase its revenues by that amount — which could be accomplished by lifting the cap on payroll taxes — or reduce its benefits by that amount or do some combination of the two, Social Security is back in the black. Here are 30 policy tweaks that could get us there.

Why does Social Security show a shortfall? As Stephen C. Goss, the system’s chief actuary, has written, Social Security projects an imbalance “because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman.” That means there are relatively fewer young people paying for the old people. “Importantly,” Goss continues, “this shortfall is basically stable after 2035.” In other words, we only have to fix Social Security once. After we reform it to take account of modern demographics, the system is set for the foreseeable future.

And that’s…it. That’s what’s needed to fix Social Security. All this talk about it being a “monstrous lie” or “a Ponzi scheme” or “broken” is meant to create a crisis to clear the way for radical changes in Social Security. But if folks want to make radical changes to Social Security, they should just make the argument for their proposed fixes. And good luck to them.</div></div>

Link to 30 tweaks available to fix SS (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/30_options_for_reforming_socia.html)

If the fix is this easy, it is not a Ponzi scheme after all. There is no tweak or slight correction that makes a Ponzi scheme work.

Gayle in MD
09-09-2011, 09:56 AM
Tap Tap Tap!

Perry is just another lie spewing RW Radical, who proves his ignorance and deceit, every time he opens his mouth.

That book of his will hang him, along with his well documented corruption and collusion with the polluters, resulting in his filthy state....


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perry Donor Enabled to Leach Radioactive Waste Into 1.9 Million People's Water
Wednesday 31 August 2011
by: Joe Conason, Truthout | Op-Ed
Like so many Republican officials of the tea party persuasion, Rick Perry despises the Environmental Protection Agency -- a feeling he has expressed repeatedly in speeches, lawsuits, legislation and even a book titled "Fed Up!" Perhaps that is only natural for the governor of Texas, a "dirty energy" state where the protection of air, water and human health rank well below the defense of oil company profits for most politicians.

But Perry has at least one other reason for smacking down those bureaucrats so eagerly. When environmental regulators do their job properly, that can mean serious trouble for Perry's largest political donors.

The outstanding example is Harold Simmons, a Dallas mega-billionaire industrialist who has donated well over a million dollars to Perry's campaign committees recently. With Perry's eager assistance -- and despite warnings from Texas environmental officials -- Simmons has gotten approval to build an enormous radioactive waste dump over a crucial underground water supply.

"We first had to change the law to where a private company can own a license, and we did that," Simmons boasted in 2006, after the Texas legislature and the governor rubber-stamped initial legislation and approvals for the project. "Then we got another law passed that said (the state) can only issue one license. Of course, we were the only ones that applied."

Most Americans have never heard of Simmons, despite his fantastic wealth, because he wisely keeps his head low, generally refusing press interviews and avoiding media coverage. Last year, a local monthly in his hometown published the headline "Dallas' Evil Genius" over a scathing and fascinating investigative profile that examined not only the peculiar history of litigation between Simmons and his children (who no longer speak to him), but his political machinations, corporate raiding and continuing corporate penchant for pollution.

</div></div>

http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=365135#Post365135

There is so much filth yet to be exposed on Perry, AND Romney, I couldn't be happier to see both of them running neck to neck.
G.

LWW
09-09-2011, 12:25 PM
Reading that list is like listening to Ponzi explain why he scheme isn't a scheme after all.

The list of 30 things included 9 ways to raise taxes and 18 ways to reduce benefits.

Yet, when much subtler fixes have been mentioned ... the dembots and Obamatrons become flocks of poo flinging simians.

eg8r
09-09-2011, 01:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why does Social Security show a shortfall? As Stephen C. Goss, the system’s chief actuary, has written, Social Security projects an imbalance “because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman.” That means there are relatively fewer young people paying for the old people. “Importantly,” Goss continues, “this shortfall is basically stable after 2035.” </div></div>Just wondering, what studies have been done that include the addition of gay marriage and number of children produced in said marriage? Sure some gay couples adopt but no one is going to believe they have children at the same rate as a hetero couple. If we have more and more gay couples marrying will it have an impact on the number of children down the road?

eg8r

LWW
09-09-2011, 01:29 PM
Good point ... and don't forget that many of the new workers that the actuaries had initially counted on were aborted.

eg8r
09-09-2011, 01:34 PM
Oh yes. These lefties have this weird way of eliminating themselves from the equation. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-09-2011, 06:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good point ... and don't forget that many of the new workers that the actuaries had initially counted on were aborted. </div></div>

The SS has CURRENT ACTUARIES also, btw, who are well able to look and interpret current population trends. What do they NOW say?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“Importantly,” Goss continues, “this [demographics caused] shortfall is basically stable after 2035.” In other words, we only have to fix Social Security once. After we reform it to take account of modern demographics, the system is set for the foreseeable future. </div></div>

Qtec
09-09-2011, 06:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why does Social Security show a shortfall? As Stephen C. Goss, the system’s chief actuary, has written, Social Security projects an imbalance “because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman.” That means there are relatively fewer young people paying for the old people. “Importantly,” Goss continues, “this shortfall is basically stable after 2035.” </div></div>

Just wondering, what studies have been done that include <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the addition of gay marriage and number of children produced in said marriage? <span style="color: #3333FF">LMFAO</span> Sure some gay couples adopt but <u>no one is going to believe they have children at the same rate as a hetero couple.</u> If we have more and more gay couples marrying will it have an impact on the number of children down the road?</span>

eg8r </div></div>

LMAO

That's the stupidest thing I've heard for a while and I read a lot of your posts.

News for you. Gay men, <u>single or married</u> , produce NO children!

Q

eg8r
09-09-2011, 07:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">News for you. Gay men, single or married , produce NO children!
</div></div>Hey, lookie there qtip the schmuck is reminding us why he is the village idiot. Now, since you ran your ignorant mouth can you please point out where I referred to Men only in the post you quoted? Why would you not include lesbians when referring to "gay marriage". Come on, I know you are this stupid but do you have to open your mouth and prove to everyone else on the board? I mentioned a "hetero couple", do you not think they produce children?

It is high time you take a look at the stupidity in your posts before responding to me. I don't mind pointing it out but I understand it is probably quite embarrasing for you.

eg8r &lt;~~~bolded the most important part of the post for qtip as a takeaway for him to ponder the next time he opens the hole in his face and "speaks"

eg8r
09-09-2011, 07:56 PM
Sorry but that tells us nothing. Are you naive enough to believe this Government (Dem or Rep) can accurately forcast the population 25 years into the future? The article you quote only refers to average number of children in hetero couples but it does not mention the fact that they have a certain number of hetero couples factored in while ignoring the fact that the number they have chosen will go down some percentage should this country allow gay marriage. They don't tell us how they have factored in the rate of abortions (possibly they have added that into their equation of 2.5 kids) but those numbers will be going up as soon as the government starts paying for all of them.

eg8r

Qtec
09-09-2011, 08:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure some gay couples adopt but no one is going to believe they have children at the same rate as a hetero couple. If we have more and more gay couples marrying <span style='font-size: 14pt'>will it have an impact on the number of children down the road?</span>

eg8r </div></div>

Yes. You will have more children and more adoptions.

Q

eg8r
09-09-2011, 08:16 PM
Yes, you are stupid. There will be less children because gay couples do not average 2.5 children. Good try schmuck.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-14-2011, 09:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good point ... and don't forget that many of the new workers that the actuaries had initially counted on were aborted. </div></div>

The SS has CURRENT ACTUARIES also, btw, who are well able to look and interpret current population trends. What do they NOW say?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“Importantly,” Goss continues, “this [demographics caused] shortfall is basically stable after 2035.” In other words, we only have to fix Social Security once. After we reform it to take account of modern demographics, the system is set for the foreseeable future. </div></div> </div></div>

We must destroy Repiglican Fascism before it's too late!