Perry is STILL right: Social Security is a loser

[joeydb]

He's sticking to his guns - probably means he won't be the nominee.

But, if his math is correct, it needs to be repeated that "Social Security is a loser" as an "investment".

http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...urity-20110912

Funny how the article says SS is "popular." When something is mandatory, how can you tell if it's popular or not?

Excerpt: “By 2037, retirees will only get roughly 76 cents back for every dollar that is put into Social Security unless reforms are implemented,” he wrote.

“Imagine how long a traditional retirement or investment plan could survive if it projected investors would lose 24% of their money?”

[bigrun]

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Tomato ... To mah to ... means the same thing.

[bigrun]

"This is the first debate Rick Perry has participated in since he announced his candidacy. Perry is a mix between George W. Bush and Yosemite W. Sam." –Jimmy Kimmel

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

But, if his math is correct, it needs to be repeated that "Social Security is a loser" as an "investment".

Then it's a good thing Social Security isn't an "investment". Duh.

“Imagine how long a traditional retirement or investment plan could survive if it projected investors would lose 24% of their money?”

LOL - is this crazy loser for real? That's a totally false nonsensical statement, pretending there is supposed to be some return on the entire ongoing payings into SS in a lump sum. That's simply stupid. No, his math isn't remotely real or correct. The idiot doesn't even know how the program works. He just wants to get rid of it.

Is this subject really too hard for the average math-incapable American brain to comprehend? The very same thing has happened with Social Security over 40 times previously, it's something expected due to population variations in growth, etc., we look at short and long term welfare of the program regularly, and we will do what we have always done in the past to fix it and continue to make it the most reliable social program in the world (100% reliable) - give it a minor tweek.

The above is something expected post baby-boomers, and we'll adjust the program, as we always have previously when "the sky is falling!" was screamed by Republicans wanting to end this program. Geesh, is history being completely ignored?

Face it, Joey - Rick Perry is the candidate for those that though George Bush II was too intellectual.

[Riot]

"Social Security is indeed a Ponzi scheme." - Rick Perry



http://www.politifact.com/texas/arti...-ponzi-scheme/

Memo To Rick Perry: Social Security Is Not Facing ‘Dire Financial Challenges’
By Pat Garofalo on Sep 12, 2011 at 10:50 am

2012 GOP hopeful Texas Gov. Rick Perry today penned a USA Today op-ed on Social Security, clearly trying to lay to rest some of the controversy surrounding his deriding the program as a “monstrous lie” and a “Ponzi scheme” ahead of tonight’s Republican primary debate.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...ire-financial/

Perry is simply incorrect to say that Social Security’s financial situation is “dire.” After all, if nothing is done to Social Security, it will still pay full benefits until the year 2037. After that, the program is projected to pay out 75 percent of benefits until 2084, which is close to full benefits once inflation is accounted for. As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said, “Social Security has not added a single penny, not a dime, a nickel, a dollar to the budget problems we have. Never has. And for the next 30 years, it won’t do that.”

One simple step — lifting the payroll tax cap so that more wages for the wealthy are subject to the payroll tax — guarantees Social Security’s solvency for 75 years. As Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum put it, “this is really the only thing you need to know about Social Security — the program costs about 4.5% of GDP today and will eventually top out at about 6% of GDP in 2030 and beyond. You can bring that into balance forever with tiny tweaks phased in over the next two decades. Not only is it not a Ponzi scheme, it’s not even a major problem.”

Though Perry lays out literally no solutions in his op-ed, he has previously proposed an economically impossible state takeover of Social Security, that, if implemented, would simply cause the program to collapse. Read the Center for American Progress’ plan for Social Security here.

[dellinger63]

In a Ponzi scheme one still is afforded the choice of investing more money and in what amount. SS doesn't allow that

He's a democrat. Stop falling for the same libpublican over and over. You are destroying this country with your ignorance.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Then it's a good thing Social Security isn't an "investment". Duh.



LOL - is this crazy loser for real? That's a totally false nonsensical statement, pretending there is supposed to be some return on the entire ongoing payings into SS in a lump sum. That's simply stupid. No, his math isn't remotely real or correct. The idiot doesn't even know how the program works. He just wants to get rid of it.

Is this subject really too hard for the average math-incapable American brain to comprehend? The very same thing has happened with Social Security over 40 times previously, it's something expected due to population variations in growth, etc., we look at short and long term welfare of the program regularly, and we will do what we have always done in the past to fix it and continue to make it the most reliable social program in the world (100% reliable) - give it a minor tweek.

The above is something expected post baby-boomers, and we'll adjust the program, as we always have previously when "the sky is falling!" was screamed by Republicans wanting to end this program. Geesh, is history being completely ignored?

Face it, Joey - Rick Perry is the candidate for those that though George Bush II was too intellectual.

It's either a retirement program (which always returns less than the principal invested) , or it's nothing but another tax.

And don't I have the right to expect something for my money? Do you realize how much more money any one of us can make by NOT having 16% forcibly ripped from our hands every pay period? With compounded interest? Hell, put it in the bank or gold or a utility stock if you're worried about risk. Diversify.

Senior citizens today, not in the 1930's, are in a predicament precisely because money was stolen from them all through their working years. If they did not have to pay into this fraud of a program, most would have money to burn, as they should have.

I have to point out: None of us have a "right" to retire. The decision to retire arises out of the math where you estimate how long, best case, you think you'll live, and determine given how much you've SAVED, if the money will last. If the numbers are in the right balance, congrats - enjoy the golden years.

Otherwise, you need to work. You do not have the right to someone else's money, or to be subsidized by the youth.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It's either a retirement program (which always returns less than the principal invested) , or it's nothing but another tax.

And don't I have the right to expect something for my money? Do you realize how much more money any one of us can make by NOT having 16% forcibly ripped from our hands every pay period? With compounded interest? Hell, put it in the bank or gold or a utility stock if you're worried about risk. Diversify.

Senior citizens today, not in the 1930's, are in a predicament precisely because money was stolen from them all through their working years. If they did not have to pay into this fraud of a program, most would have money to burn, as they should have.

I have to point out: None of us have a "right" to retire. The decision to retire arises out of the math where you estimate how long, best case, you think you'll live, and determine given how much you've SAVED, if the money will last. If the numbers are in the right balance, congrats - enjoy the golden years.

Otherwise, you need to work. You do not have the right to someone else's money, or to be subsidized by the youth.

Wow, it's pretty cut and dried in young pretend idealistic libertarian-land, isn't it?

Nice to know you're on that bandwagon of selfishness that would allow the 30-year-old uninsured in a coma to die

"And don't I have the right to expect something for my money?"

- my, you sure sound like a complaining entitlement seeker!

Oh, it's hard to live the purity of "Atlas Shrugged" in real life.

I'm so sorry you had the unfortunate accident of birth, to be born in the United States of America. A place where we decided, years ago as a society, to stop widows and orphans from dying in poverty with Social Security, and where our founding fathers determined that, in order to create a union that had a basis to hold together, we would create the income tax.

Poor, poor, libertarians. Terrible enough life in the United States to bitch about this country, not terrible enough to leave and lose the benefits of living here.

You think you don't "get something" for your tax monies? You ungrateful, unpatriotic user. I suggest you move elsewhere and see what you get when you pay no taxes at all. Try a third world country. Nobody is holding you here to suffer under our oppressive moral and ethical system of social responsibility. You stay voluntarily. Oh, and we are one of the few countries where you can, indeed, come and go at will. Not to mention publicly rail with impunity against your government.

You want to blame someone regarding Social Security, blame St. Reagan, who screamed about the imminent demise of Social Security back in the 1980's, causing Congress to raise your payroll contribution from 3.1 % to 6.2%, while at the same time, declaring any income over $103,000 didn't have to pay any tax.

Yes St. Ronnie Reagan, the original "tax the poor, gift the rich" with the publics money.

Much more worthy to scream about, don't you think? The unfairness of that?

You might be interested in the Democratic party, who want to cut the payroll tax back to 3.1% for everyone, and take the cap off allowing the wealthy to not pay on monies over a certain amount. That would, you know, make Social Security solvent for ... forever ... and allow benefits to be raised for everyone, like other first world countries that care about their own.

It's strange that you have come on here repeatedly supporting your oppressors, like Rick Perry, not the people more in line with your stated political philosophies. I think you'd support a party that wanted to halve your payroll taxes. Over the people that want to take all your money, and give it to their Wall Street buddies to steal from you.

There is a similarity between "liberal" and "libertarian" that has obviously bypassed your ken.

And if you think people would have "money to burn" if they had been able to put their money into private investments, rather than have paid into social security - I will point out the obvious absurdity and proven falsehood of that statement, considering the market turns of the past 10 years, and how it took over 1/3 from many retirees and near-retirees investment accounts.

[Riot]

I just called Senator Rand Paul's office in Louisville. As some of you may know, the 50-year-old double-decker bridge carrying Interstate 64 over the Ohio River from Louisville to Indiana was suddenly closed last Friday due to cracks in the support beams. Bridge is unsafe. Yikes. But at least they found it and closed it immediately before someone got killed a 'la Minnesota.

Happening just after Obama's speech on our desperate need for infrastructure - specificly bridge- repair, in McConnell & Rand Paul's home state, after McConnell dissed the President's plan, is just delicious irony.

Anyway, the good Dr. Paul is a libertarian (although not as good a libertarian as his daddy) and is against federal funds being spent. Heck, he's against the federal government doing pretty much anything but defense.

So this is a good thing to see where Dr. Paul, as our Senator, stands on getting this bridge fixed. We need that bridge. The federal highway system needs that bridge. The commercial transport system needs that bridge.

But Dr. Paul was elected on not spending federal money, not having federal involvement, and states being self-sufficient, etc.

Per the girl on the phone - seems he's "going to meetings daily with DOT and Indiana bigwigs" and "doesn't want wasteful spending". I asked, "is he fighting for federal funds to help us get this bridge fixed asap?" Um ... "he doesn't want wasteful spending". Will he ask for federal funds to help us pay for it as our state is broke? "he doesn't want wasteful spending". Will he work with the feds to get the bridge fixed asap? "He'll be sure there is no waste - no long coffee breaks on the bridge project!".

Sometimes it's hard to be a pure libertarian in real life But yes, I'd rather have him get the damn unsafe bridge fixed asap.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Riot

I just called Senator Rand Paul's office in Louisville. As some of you may know, the 50-year-old double-decker bridge carrying Interstate 64 over the Ohio River from Louisville to Indiana was suddenly closed last Friday due to cracks in the support beams. Bridge is unsafe. Yikes. But at least they found it and closed it immediately before someone got killed a 'la Minnesota.

Happening just after Obama's speech on our desperate need for infrastructure - specificly bridge- repair, in McConnell & Rand Paul's home state, after McConnell dissed the President's plan, is just delicious irony.

Anyway, the good Dr. Paul is a libertarian (although not as good a libertarian as his daddy) and is against federal funds being spent. Heck, he's against the federal government doing pretty much anything but defense.

So this is a good thing to see where Dr. Paul, as our Senator, stands on getting this bridge fixed. We need that bridge. The federal highway system needs that bridge. The commercial transport system needs that bridge.

But Dr. Paul was elected on not spending federal money, not having federal involvement, and states being self-sufficient, etc.

Per the girl on the phone - seems he's "going to meetings daily with DOT and Indiana bigwigs" and "doesn't want wasteful spending". I asked, "is he fighting for federal funds to help us get this bridge fixed asap?" Um ... "he doesn't want wasteful spending". Will he ask for federal funds to help us pay for it as our state is broke? "he doesn't want wasteful spending". Will he work with the feds to get the bridge fixed asap? "He'll be sure there is no waste - no long coffee breaks on the bridge project!".

Sometimes it's hard to be a pure libertarian in real life But yes, I'd rather have him get the damn unsafe bridge fixed asap.

Riot, is that the bridge that leads to NEW ALBANY, Ind. and on to the Caesars casino boat?....How are people in Ky getting to the casino?...Must be foaming at the mouth....Visited that boat many times in years past....been about 5-6 years the last time....guess it is still there...

Indiana is responsible for that bridge.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Indiana is responsible for that bridge.

exactly. have the state fix it. How is this the Feds responsibility?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Riot, is that the bridge that leads to NEW ALBANY, Ind. and on to the Caesars casino boat?....How are people in Ky getting to the casino?...Must be foaming at the mouth....Visited that boat many times in years past....been about 5-6 years the last time....guess it is still there...

Yes. The Sherman-Minton bridge. I-64 out of Louisville is closed both ways across the river. To get to the Casino, you have to go I-65 north, then west and down. Bigger problem daily commuters back and forth, hospital access. It will be closed for at least six months, they are saying. And it's not like the other old bridges can handle an additional 80,000 vehicles a day.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

exactly. have the state fix it. How is this the Feds responsibility?

Who said it was the Feds responsibility? I didn't.

Yes, it is Indiana's responsibility to fix. However, if Indiana decides, "oh, well, we're broke, so we will do without" and decides not to fix it, Kentucky can, or the Feds can certainly come in (because it carries a federal highway, and is a major national transportation route) and fix it.

Indiana doesn't have any money saved to fix the bridge, btw. They are broke.

So would you like these bond issues (increased taxes) spread over just Indiana's citizens? If they say no, they don't want to pay more taxes, then I guess the entire country loses that major transport route over the Ohio carrying a federal interstate highway?

Or is the financing partly Kentucky's, as Louisville and KY benefits greatly? So should KY have some increased taxes to help pay for it?

Or maybe some federal funding would help? Because the nation and commercial transport uses that bridge daily?'

It's hard to be libertarian and "states' rights' when we live in an interdependent nation of united states.

[Antitrust32]

its because you are a socialist that you dont see that there are such things as state rights.

The founding fathers were hoping there wouldnt be people like you in America.

[Antitrust32]

better yet, I bet Indiana can cut something less important from their budget to fix something important like this.

[Antitrust32]

that is what is called budgeting. Something our politicians, and apparently you, know nothing about.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

its because you are a socialist that you dont see that there are such things as state rights.

The founding fathers were hoping there wouldnt be people like you in America.

Completely unable to discuss state vs federal responsibility, huh?