ross perot explains why we're screwed

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
all the SS suprluses from 1983 till now should have been untouchable. but like the corporations who have raided and pilfered their pension plans, the government spent the surpluses of SS.

two peas in a pod.

You mean, the SS surplus taxes should have been places in a sort of 'lockbox'?

Too bad the voters didn't have a candidate, say in 2000, who had the same position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-153k5Zt7BY

According to the guy who introduced Obama here, you were supporting a candidate who wouldn't have either. Or is he wrong?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It's a pity the mothers of you worthless shit hadn't spent their lives making money and getting ahead in some career to provide for their old age instead of wasting their lives on raising garbage.

It's a pity they didn't read and respect the US Constitution, which says the Federal Government doesn't have the authority over retirement plans. It's a pity they elected a bunch of thieves to rule over their lives.

It's a shame it is the right of the people to institute government, laying it's foundations on such principles and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall most likely effect their safety and happiness.

The US Constitution only forbid the federal government from enacting programs like SS and Medicare. It does NOT forbid the states from enacting programs like SS and Medicare.

It is not the US Constitution that let the people down. It was their own doing.

When people vote for tyranny, they aught not complain when they get it.

Before social securty, with the states 'having the right' to have a SS program, 90% of American elders were in poverty, horrible conditions.

After SS, that number decreased over time to 10%.

That's tyranny? We need more tyranny if it is.

It's not that we can't pay for SS. We easily can. There are other problems needing fixing.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BansheeX
SS is a ponzi scheme and as such was doomed to ultimate failure from the very beginning, despite the appearance of working for the earliest recipients.

http://www.letxa.com/articles/15

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs

Course, it doesn't even take an intellectual understanding of its complexities to understand how stupid it is in concept. Here we have a system of retirement wherein the government is saying "instead of investing your own money which would provide you far greater returns, we're going to impose a redistribution tax (currently 12%) on all wage earners and give it to old folks, and then when they get old their children will be taxed even higher because of inflation to provide for them, and so on and so forth. In the meantime, the middle man will take cuts of that since we need to pay all the people working at the SS distribution and fraud centers. As it becomes more and more insolvent, we'll try all kinds of "reform" tricks like raising the retirement age so more people die before getting any payouts, change the CPI inflation calculations as we go to understate real inflation so we can legally under-deliver."

I mean, hello? Bueller?

You either don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, or you're not being honest. Either way, SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It'll have higher challenges with baby boomers, but still.

Clearly, you're the ignorant one here.

Ponzi scheme - An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones.

If that isn't the definition of SS then I don't know what is. From the first SS check cut, each person's SS has only been paid by the current funds into the system from new earners.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
all the SS suprluses from 1983 till now should have been untouchable. but like the corporations who have raided and pilfered their pension plans, the government spent the surpluses of SS.

two peas in a pod.

what did you want the gov't to do instead? can't just stuff the money in a mattress somewhere.

so that is what you can do with extra money besides spend it, stuff it in a mattress?

i was asking you what you would have done. i already know what i would have done.



edit: and if perot's assumptions are right, SS isn't nearly the problem medicare/aid will be. all this arguing over SS when it isn't even the larger issue.

 

[Cold Steel]

SS was not a ponzi scheme. It was a tax increase, pure and simple. When it was enacted, it was set to pay off starting at 65 years old. The life expectancy at the time was 65 years. The feds never thought that people would start living well beyond that, they never thought they'd actually have to pay very much at all because all the recipients would be already dead. It was nothing more than a tax increase that back fired. Law of unintended consequences. Ha.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sure, buy it on credit like everything else the boomers have.

:laugh:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
all the SS suprluses from 1983 till now should have been untouchable. but like the corporations who have raided and pilfered their pension plans, the government spent the surpluses of SS.

two peas in a pod.

You mean, the SS surplus taxes should have been places in a sort of 'lockbox'?

Too bad the voters didn't have a candidate, say in 2000, who had the same position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-153k5Zt7BY

According to the guy who introduced Obama here, you were supporting a candidate who wouldn't have either. Or is he wrong?

1. The lesson I got from that video is that Iowa gets way too much attention from the presidential candidates by being the first primary.

Why is that one almost literate guy at the beginning getting to ask one question directly of Clinton, and then having her come up to him after the speech to talk further, and then getting to ask Obama a question and getting a ten-minute answer at another event? There are over three hundred million Americans. Sheesh. Did they babysit his kids, too?

2. You asked for and got 11:11 of my time to see some video showing that Al Gore did not support protecting the SS surplus. Did I miss it?

3. How did you run across such an obscure video, and why did you post it?