published Monday, January 28th, 2013

Smith: Once upon a time

By Robin Smith
  • photo
    Robin Smith, former Chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party and congressional candidate.
    File Photo/Chattanooga Times Free Press

Growing up in the era of Mother Goose, Little Red Riding Hood and other fairy tales, the phrase, "once upon a time" was an often-heard part of bedtime reading. Sadly, such a make-believe, contrived culture is alive and well today and driving our public policy.

The absolute absurdity of an adult having a "girlfriend" whom he actually never met, but supposedly began "dating" in November of 2009 through an online relationship is a pathetic snapshot of our superficial world. Notre Dame University football star Manti Te'o made an exasperated attempt in a television interview with Katie Couric to justify his lying even after learning of the hoax: "... my whole world told me that she died on Sept. 12. Everybody knew that. This girl, who I committed myself to, died on Sept. 12."

Only in 2013 could we see someone "committed" to phone conversations and social media.

Just prior to the unraveling of the fake-girlfriend-hoax was the Lance Armstrong "admission" that he had blood doped and was the superstar bully of cycling after years spent denying such charges. Winning and personal notoriety being the apparent obsession of Armstrong, extravagant blood transfusions and use of performance-enhancing substances was embraced as part of his routine. This ruse of "Livestrong" elevated a narcissist who was only superior in performance because of cheating and lying.

Moving into the realm of public policy, we watch with disgust, adults claiming to be leaders of our nation ignore the dangers of a government that has promised too much, spent too much and now, plans to "increase revenues" by taxing the shrinking productive population too much.

The hoax perpetuated in Washington, D.C., includes countless examples, but let's look at just at one.

Social Security does not need reform.

According to the Heritage Foundation, among others, "Social Security paid out $48.9 billion more in benefits than it received in payroll taxes" in 2010 with no reversal in this trend seen without addressing the reality: there are not enough workers paying into the system to fund all the benefits being paid.

This debunks the Social Security Trust Fund. The fantasy of an account that exists that has been holding in "trust" one's contributions and matching funds by the government has been dissolved by facts.

In 2000, there were 45 million citizens receiving Social Security benefits. The Social Security Administration estimates that 79 million citizens will be on the rolls of the program in just 12 years, in 2025. To save Social Security, there have to be reforms and aggressive spending cuts in programs that have been living off the "IOUs" issued by the U.S. Treasury.

The 2012 Social Security Trustees report includes this admonition, "Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. If they take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare."

Are they kidding? Address challenges? Sooner rather than later? Remember, this is a group of folks who work on two-year cycles called elections.

So, while we shake our heads in embarrassment at the Manti Te'o and Lance Armstrong charades and lies, exactly how is it different to accept the inaccuracies coming out of our nation's capital about the authentic crisis of spending that exists?

Unlike the stories of our childhoods, I'm not sure we will "live happily ever after."

Robin Smith is a wife and mother living in Hixson. She served as chairwoman of the Tennessee Republican Party from 2007 to 2009.

72
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

Ms Smith fails to mention that the SS trust Fund money was spent because we were not taxed at a high enough rate to avoid raiding the SS account. We spent the money on wars and welfare, but we don't want to pay our bills. To replace the SS Trust Fund would require at least a temporary general tax increase to pay back what has been borrowed from those who contributed.

January 28, 2013 at 1:12 a.m.
conservative said...

Ms Smith is correct about Socialism Security but it much worse than she states ( I know that her space is limited).

Socialism Security has always been a form of a Ponzi scheme wherein the first recipients receive much more than they pay in. The very first recipient Ida Mae Fuller paid in a total of $24.75 in the late thirties. She lived to be a hundred and collected $22,888.92 in benefits. That is a phenomenal return and although most retirees did/do no not receive percentage wise those returns most did/do receive many times over what they paid in. This how a Ponzi scheme works.

Only in the last few years has it been determined that those paying Socialism Security taxes today will probably not get back what they paid in because we are on the back or down side of the government run Ponzi scheme.

I recall reading in the very Liberal New York Times several years ago where they admitted that Socialism Security has always been a pay as you go system with no true trust fund.

January 28, 2013 at 8:55 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Although I agree on several points, I don't agree that it was a Ponzi scheme, which presumes to profit at others expense. Calling it a Ponzi scheme implies that the original intentions were dishonest, which they were not. When SS was set up, it was meant as a safety net, not a retirement plan, but many people use it as their only retirement plan. People live a lot longer now, so they collect for many more years than the original idea intended. Finally, people who are disabled collect before they have a chance to pay into the system long enough, and more disabilities, including mental illness, qualify now than before.

January 28, 2013 at 9:54 a.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck:

You need to seriously consider some math instead of your Socialist ideology.

Math is a science that can not be refuted by Liberal rhetoric.

The least ratio I have read is 14 to 1 of people paying into Socialism Security in it's beginning to the one receiving a check. Today it is widely reported that the ratio is 2-3, a much greater burden. Now if a recipient receives a $1,200 check that means $400-600 is taken from present day workers.

Now, note the lie of a trust fund. You see, ALL of the present day worker's Socialism Security taxes go to a present day recipient and not into a trust fund for himself. Roosevelt's actuaries new this from day one. They knew the day would come when the government run Ponzi scheme would run it's course.

The young and dumb of today will never get back, unlike their predecessors, what they have or will have paid into the Socialism Security government run Ponzi scheme.

January 28, 2013 at 10:47 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

You nitwits who keep calling SS a Ponzi scheme are, well, just that - nitwits. A Ponzi scheme is one in which deceit is its very purpose. A money-making plan is put into place by one or a small number of originators who are intent on bilking their signers-on/dupes out of their money, thus making a huge haul themselves. A Ponzi scheme never lasts long because its very make-up is so flimsy and unsubstantial that it tends to fall in on itself. When the investors do not see the returns on their money, or at least some sign that their investment is growing, then they get very upset and start putting the originators' (scammers') backs to the wall. At that point it all comes crumbling down.

Ever since its inception, Social Security has been completely transparent about its nature and its function. Everyone goes into it with a clear understanding of what is going to take place with their earnings that contribute to it. Furthermore, there is no one at the top who is looking to make off with a "haul." SS has worked flawlessly for over 70 years and it is still doing everything that was intended of it. Yes, the system needs some adjusting but there is nothing wrong with it that a little tweaking won't fix.

But I'm sure that you tea-baggers will go on lying about it and calling it a Ponzi scheme and doing what you can to bring about its demise, because it kills you to see a liberal concept that actually works. If you want to see some real, honest-to-god Ponzi schemes arise, then go ahead and do away with it entirely and turn it all over to Wall St., which is what you really want to do. I'm sure there are plenty of private investment firms and get-rich-quick scammers who are already licking their chops just thinking about how easy it would be to dupe a naïve public that knows little to nothing about investing.

January 28, 2013 at 12:20 p.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck:

"To replace the SS Trust Fund would require at least a temporary general tax increase to pay back what has been borrowed from those who contributed."

That is mind boggling nonsense and selfishness!

You don't pay federal income taxes so you could care less what the other guy pays. This is always the case with you Socialists. You Socialists always want to live at another's expense.

The vast majority of those who "contributed" have long been dead and got back many times over what they paid in or if they are now living have gotten back all they have paid in with even greater returns coming, as long as they keep living. This is why there is such a problem with the government run Socialism Security Ponzi scheme. Those who invented and mostly benefited from the government run Ponzi scheme are dead!

This is why you selfish Socialists (redundant) keep lying about Socialism Security. You want and are now getting other people's money and you will exploit the ignorant, stupid and young in any way possible in order to continue receiving your taxpaying neighbor's money.

January 28, 2013 at 12:34 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Robin Smith, how's that trickle-down fairy tale working out for ya? Trickle-down has never worked. We have given it ample opportunity (ever since the Reagan years) to work but it never has. Yes, there have been some signs of growth from time to time but that growth has never been solid, across-the-board growth. Rather it has primarily served only those at the top of the ladder.

Ever since Reagan came along and implanted the seeds of hatred for the government in his worshipful followers and instituted Friedman's supply-side economics sham our income disparity has increased so much that today it is insanely, obscenely disproportionate. Middle class and average working person's wages have remained stagnant, even declining, for years and years...all the way up to the present.

Nothing ever trickles downward. Instead the money gushes upward - because supply-side economics is a system that is rigged in favor of the rich, period. It is redistribution of the money UPWARD. So call socialism a redistribution of the wealth if you wish, but you wing-nuts are no more opposed to redistributing the wealth than we liberals are. It's just a matter of how you want it distributed.

January 28, 2013 at 12:45 p.m.
conservative said...

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

         by Frederic Bastiat, 1848

Better:

Government/ Socialism/ Liberalism is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

                   by Conservative, 2013
January 28, 2013 at 12:51 p.m.
Easy123 said...

And people that quote themselves are deluded.

January 28, 2013 at 12:53 p.m.
conservative said...

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Winston Churchill

January 28, 2013 at 1:17 p.m.
conservative said...

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”

Alexis de Tocqueville

January 28, 2013 at 1:27 p.m.
Stewwie said...

Maybe it would be nicer to the libs if we referred to SS as a pyramid scheme instead of Ponzi scheme? The main issue is that it clearly needs reform now and this president has done little to nothing to get serious about it.

The main problem with SS is that the full benefits age has not changed much since the beginning of SS even though the life expectancy age has gone way up. The SS full benefits age should have been tied to the changing life expectancy age from the very beginning to help prevent us from being in the problem we are in now. Maybe with an added rule that once you reach age 55, your full benefits age is locked and won't change.

January 28, 2013 at 2:04 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Stewwie, your point is valid, but your accusation against Obama is not. No president has done anything about it, and this has been a problem WAY before 2008.

January 28, 2013 at 2:24 p.m.
Stewwie said...

Ike, true, but only Obama still has a chance to do something about it as the current president. Talking about cutting benefits isn't going to be fun for anybody, but someone needs to step up to the plate. So why not the president now? Besides, he has nothing to lose at this point since he can't run for another re-election.

January 28, 2013 at 3:22 p.m.
conservative said...

"Social Security; Ponzi Scheme or Potential for Greater Living?"

"As stated above in the headline, it was, in effect, a Ponzi scheme the likes of which recently got a man named Bernie Madoff sentenced to a long jail term"

"A Ponzi scheme promises to pay very high returns much like the old pyramid game where the payoffs to the early players are made from money by later players. But succeeding players have to keep putting in bigger sums of money and eventually the money dries up and the whole system shuts down.'

"It is also why in these days of the 21st millennium the funds are running out as more and more workers retire and begin to draw from the fund than there are younger workers paying into it."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37893

January 28, 2013 at 3:23 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You Have yet to provide ANY evidence to justify calling it a ponzi scheme, conservative.

Though, providing evidence is not really your thing.

Of course, on principle, you will not collect more than you've paid in.

January 28, 2013 at 3:26 p.m.
conservative said...

"Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme"

by Michael D. Tanner

"The original Ponzi scheme was the brainchild of Charles Ponzi. Starting in 1916, the poor but enterprising Italian immigrant convinced people to allow him to invest their money. However, Ponzi never actually made any investments. He simply took the money he was given by later investors and gave it to his early investors, providing those early investors with a handsome profit. He then used these satisfied early investors as advertisements to get more investors. Unfortunately, in order to keep paying previous investors, Ponzi had to continue finding more and more new investors. Eventually, he couldn’t expand the number of new investors fast enough, and the scheme collapsed. Ponzi was convicted of fraud and sent to prison."

"Social Security, on the other hand, forces people to invest in it through a mandatory payroll tax. A small portion of that money is used to buy special-issue Treasury bonds that the government will eventually have to repay, but the vast majority of the money you pay in Social Security taxes is not invested in anything. Instead, the money you pay into the system is used to pay benefits to those “early investors” who are retired today. When you retire, you will have to rely on the next generation of workers behind you to pay the taxes that will finance your benefits."

"As with Ponzi’s scheme, this turns out to be a very good deal for those who got in early. The very first Social Security recipient, Ida Mae Fuller of Vermont, paid just $44 in Social Security taxes, but the long-lived Mrs. Fuller collected $20,993 in benefits. Such high returns were possible because there were many workers paying into the system and only a few retirees taking benefits out of it. In 1950, for instance, there were 16 workers supporting every retiree. Today, there are just over three. By around 2030, we will be down to just two."

"As with Ponzi’s scheme, when the number of new contributors dries up, it will become impossible to continue to pay the promised benefits. Those early windfall returns are long gone. When today’s young workers retire, they will receive returns far below what private investments could provide. Many will be lucky to break even."

http://thedailyhatch.org/2011/09/01/social-security-a-ponzi-scheme/

January 28, 2013 at 3:38 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I cannot believe anyone is still thinking that giving the feds control of any more money than the bear minimum for defence is a good idea. The clowns in Washington cannot even manage to put together a budget but some of the sheep on this forum are willing to trust them with their retirement.

Barack Obama is a in unique situation as a black Democrat to actually be able to do something to fix all of the entitlement programs, but NO! He is going to ignore these problems and spend his next two years trying to take the house away from the Republicans.

Our government is critically broken. We need to either decide we are going to have a social democracy or head back to a Constitutional Republic. In either case we probably need a Constitutional convention to get things on the right track.

If we are going to be a social democracy the federal government needs to be restructured to allow it to manage every aspect of our lives. The original intent was to make the federal government such that it could not affectively get involved so deeply in our lives.

If we are going to go back to our origins we need a Constitutional convention even more than with the previous. The reversing of federalism, abuse of the commerce clause, income tax would all have to be erased through a refreshing of the law with all of the amendments eliminated that were crammed through in a state of crisis by Statists.

January 28, 2013 at 3:55 p.m.
Lr103 said...

Has Robin Smith ever worked outside the home? I notice at the end of the article it states she's a wife and mother living in Hixson. If she's ever worked outside the home she'd know that even in the private sector an employee is fully vested and eligible for retirement after working for most companies for as little as 7 years. It doesn't matter how long they live afterwards. They're entitled to that retirement for life. Of course! Some will live longer than others. Is she hoping everyone will die a year or two after retirement? Social Security operates pretty much on the same premise as the private workforce. There's no distinction between how much one employee earned over another. They're all vested for life or as long as they live once they meet that threshold of 7 in most private companies. The only difference is what they're paid out in retirement may vary based on how much one earned over the other, and how long they worked. Same as SS. SS sort of balances out what private company retirements lack. If you think you can live off five-hundred bucks a month from your 401K, you'd best think again. And if there's another retirement package from the company, it can be a little as less than a hundred bucks a month. SS often makes up the difference. People who become disabled, through illness or injury, have paid both into a retirement fund in their company plus SS. Neither are based on how much you've earned as much as it's based on the number of years you've worked and, as in the case of SS, if you paid into all of your quarters. It's not the fault of the worker that America's workforce created an unqual system. Where there's a long history of discrimination and unqual pay in the worplace for many. Where for decades, people worked side by side, performing equal tasks, but one may hae been Someone who's maybe had the privilege of not having to work outside the home or the choice of whether they want to work outside the home or not, should have no say in the matter.

January 28, 2013 at 6:22 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

conservative, that isn't evidence the the intention of SS was for it to be a Ponzi scheme. Nice try, though. Someone else's words instead of your own as well.

January 28, 2013 at 6:44 p.m.
Lr103 said...

Sorry! I got distracted.

correction:

Where for decades, people worked side by side, performing equal tasks, but one may have earn less, gotten promoted less, but was required to work just as hard or harder as the individual next to them who earned more, and was promoted more often. Someone who's maybe had the privilege of not having to work outside the home or the choice of whether to work outside the home or not, should have no say in the matter.

It might feel nice to be able to sit back, be judgmental and do a lot of Monday night quarterbacking, but for many who worked hard, but earned less, it doesn't make them any lesser deserving.

January 28, 2013 at 6:52 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike,

Nice try yourself, I never said that they intended Socialism Security to be a literal Ponzi scheme. It just has so much in common with it that many have noted that, even Nobel prize winners.

However, you can argue with this hero of you leftists/Liberals/Socialists.

What does Paul Krugman, super Liberal say? Does Krugman, a super far left Liberal/Socialist call Socialism Security a Ponzi scheme?

Paul Krugram (writing in 1996):

"Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today’s young may well get less than they put in)."

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/09/is-social-security-a-ponzi-scheme.html

January 28, 2013 at 7:23 p.m.
Lr103 said...

Krugman was speaking to policymakers on the dangers of cutting taxes.

From Paul Krugman, The Conscious Of A Liberal :

" I and many other economists urged policymakers to think about the future cost of Social Security benefits, not because we thought there was anything wrong with Social Security itself, but because we regarded the future costs as a compelling reason not to cut taxes even if the overall budget was in surplus."

It is not the fault of the hard worker who worked for decades, but made far less than the co-worker alongside him who earned more, and didn't work as hard, that he should now be denied benefits, or have his benefits shorten. It is not his fault that America started out on an unequal, discriminating system, where some would always be trailing behind. You can't claim that history and legacy never existed and doesn't have a present and future impact.

January 28, 2013 at 8:21 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

My point, conservative, is that your posts implied that it was meant to be a scam from the start. It was not. That it has become a problem is not because it was a bad or dishonest idea, it is because it did not change with the demographics. But of course, you want to blame liberals for all societies ills. There were real problems that SS was designed to solve and it did this this very well. You would NEVER acknowledge this because you could NEVER allow any liberal idea to have merit. You've made that crystal clear in your history here.

Again, I say you should not collect a penny more than you put in, since that is how you feel. It would be the only HONEST thing to do, so I am sure that's exactly what you will do. Principles matter, you know.

January 28, 2013 at 8:30 p.m.
conservative said...

You don't have a clue do You?

Yikes ! The Puffington Post running stories referring to Socialism Security as a Ponzi scheme.

"Social Security Ponzi Scheme? Perhaps, but That's Not the Problem" Jagadeesh Gokhale

"Many economists, including some Nobel laureates, have alluded to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme -- one that takes money from new investors to directly pay to older investors as a return. As long as the population of investors keeps growing, the money coming in is sufficient to provide a positive rate of return to earlier investors. Eventually, however, the population of new investors must stop growing-at which point, investors cannot be repaid and the entire scheme collapses."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jagadeesh-gokhale/social-security-ponzi-scheme_b_972261.html

January 28, 2013 at 8:38 p.m.
Lr103 said...

*""Many economists, including some Nobel laureates, have alluded to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme -- one that takes money from new investors to directly pay to older investors as a return. As long as the population of investors keeps growing,"

The the entire American workforce system, private and government, is one gigantic ponzi scheme. Since retirement is based only on past profits, investments and employee/employer contributings, but also on present and projected future profits, investments and employee/employer contributions.

January 28, 2013 at 8:51 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"You don't have a clue do You?"

You truly have absolutely no clue. The more you talk, the less intelligent you make yourself look (if that's even possible at this point). You can saying "Ponzi scheme", "socialism", etc. until you're blue in the face but it won't ever make your assessment any more correct. We all agree Social Security needs to be reformed in some way. It isn't a socialist program and does not nor has it ever had the same intent as a Ponzi scheme. You can talk out of your ass all you want. You can post articles from websites that you openly disparage (an action that discredits you automatically). It won't change the fact that you have no point and you're being blatantly dishonest.

As Iketihlu suggested, I'm sure you will give all the extra money you receive from Social Security back to the government to allocate it accordingly. But I bet you're too much of a hypocrite to do that. And I bet you'll copy and paste another article about Social Security being a Ponzi scheme tonight or tomorrow as well. You just love to try to hammer those moot points home!

January 28, 2013 at 9:30 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

One does not necessarily collect all that one invests in life or accident insurance either. Only the unlucky do, and those will collect far more than they paid in Does that make it wrong or bad? Is insurance something that should be discarded with the rest of the progressive ideas that our society has come up with over the years?

January 29, 2013 at 6:47 a.m.
Lr103 said...

What does Mrs. Smith suggest for all those children with illnesses or injuries who've never worked or paid into the system? Some maybe children suffering with autism and whose parents are her friends and neighbors who receive SSI for their autistic children? What about Widows who receive SS Widows benefits and their surviving children who receive a separate SS allowance? Will she throw them under the bus too?

SSI is for individuals who never worked or didn't get to work long enough to meet all the quarters required to fully qualify for regular SS or SSDA benefits. Mostly mentally or physically handicapped children and some adults meet the requirements for SSI, who will never be able to fully hold down a job or earn enough to make a liveable wage.

Surely she has friends with disabled children who receive SSI. Does she really think when the cuts start they'll stop only at disabled people who did work and paid into all of their quarters to SS, leaving those who didn't alone?

Surviving Widows benefits are paid to women whose spouses passed away, but the suriving spouse either never worked outside the home or left the workforce to raise a family or care for a sick child or elderly aging parent before they could meet all their quarters, which was the norm for hers and prior generations. They're usually either too young (60 and younger) to qualify for regular SS, didn't work long enough or never worked outside the home and, therefore didn't pay into the SS system). Usually age 60 or younger is the threshold to qualify for spousal suvivors benefits. Younger than 60, there may have to be a younger child in the household in order to qualify.

This is the deep dark hole Mrs. Smith will open in her effort and desire to hurt someone or that group over there; falsely believing all her friends, neighbors, associates will be spared.

January 29, 2013 at 8:47 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

lkeithlu said... "One does not necessarily collect all that one invests in life or accident insurance either."

This is exactly why I only carry insurance required by law or that is free to me (provided by my employer). I have savings that are plenty to cover my potential liabilities. That would be the "archaic" way of doing things for all the "progressives" out there. When government forces you to participate in insurance they are enslaving you to corporations. When the government is the insurer they are enslaving you to government.

This is why government is so keen on levying inheritance taxes, so they can sap family wealth and diminish their ability to be able to protect themselves from liabilities, thus making them more dependant on government and corporate insurance "protections".

A citizen that has no use for government "protection" is difficult to control and needs to be brought down from that perch of independence.

The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave... yeah, right.

January 29, 2013 at 9:25 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Lr103 said... "Will she throw them under the bus too?"

No, she would be one of the first there to lend a hand.

It seems apparent, based on how you seem to think others would behave, that you would be the one standing on the curb with your hands in your pockets.

January 29, 2013 at 9:29 a.m.
conservative said...

The Liberal solution to Socialism Security is to do nothing, well almost nothing. Liberals are very active demagoging the issue and lying about the sustainability of the Ponzi like system.

Over the years, the AARP and the Demoncrats have constantly put forth such lies as "it is your money" even though many early recipients received many times what they put into the Ponzi scheme. The AARP and the Demoncrats often told these that this excess they were receiving was "interest."

Of course the biggest lie is that "trust fund" lie. There is no real money in it just some form of an IOU as Ms Smith correctly referred to. Those IOUs can only be paid by tax increases in my opinion, where else would they get it? But how long will it be before the young and dumb figure out their ever increasing high Socialism Security taxes are only going to current retirees and not to their own retirement. Will they continue to be used?

January 29, 2013 at 10:47 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

"The Liberal solution to Social Security is to do nothing, well almost nothing." - con-man

The conservative "solution" is no solution at all. If the wing-nuts thought they could dispense with SS all at once, immediately, they would jump at the chance; but they know how unpopular that would be, so they come up with ways to do it incrementally and then privatize it completely. In other words, privatization is the only "solution" that they come up with. But then, that is their "solution" to everything.

"... how long will it be before the young and dumb figure out their ever increasing high Social Security taxes are only going to current retirees and not to their own retirement. Will they continue to be used?" - con-man

It is no secret how social security works. How long did it take you with your thick-as-a-brick brain to figure out what every other halfway intelligent person has known all along? From the day of its inception SS has been transparent about how it works. Your attempt to make it look like something secretive or suspect is ludicrous. You're only making yourself look more foolish with every word you type.

January 29, 2013 at 11:52 a.m.
conservative said...

Now, if you like irony you will enjoy the irony of the young and dumb voting Demoncrat in hopes of getting programs funded by others while they pay ever higher Socialism Security taxes to fund the retirement of others, unaware those high Socialism Security taxes are not going to their own retirement.

Oh, the deceit of greed!

January 29, 2013 at 12:23 p.m.
Lr103 said...

BigRidgePatriot said... Lr103 said... "Will she throw them under the bus too?" No, she would be one of the first there to lend a hand. It seems apparent, based on how you seem to think others would behave, that you would be the one standing on the curb with your hands in your pockets.

Simply lending a hand isn't enough, Big. Are you saying Smith is wealthy enough that she could cover all a widows expenses, medical and other, plus all the expenses required to take care of a disabled or terminally ill child, without going broke herself? How long do you that would last before the bitterness and resentment builds and erupts like an exploding Pulsar more so than it already has against those in need?

January 29, 2013 at 1:10 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

This is exactly why I only carry insurance required by law or that is free to me (provided by my employer). I have savings that are plenty to cover my potential liabilities.

You have savings to cover debilitating illness such as cancer or transplants? Somehow, I find that hard to believe. Do your savings cover your family and liabilities if you are killed or disabled in an accident? You must be quite wealthy. Most people I know cannot. Even with insurance I have seen cancer or heart disease deplete a family's assets in a hurry.

January 29, 2013 at 1:16 p.m.
Easy123 said...

"unaware those high Socialism Security taxes are not going to their own retirement."

That statement is demonstrably false. As long as you're paying in, you are paying towards your own retirement. It's not literally the same money that you paid in but only a fool would make that assumption. As long as people as paying in to SS, it can't never go broke and the benefits you are entitled to under the program will always be there. You might not get as much as your predecessors but the fact remains you are still paying towards your own retirement.

Oh, the deceit of ignorance!

January 29, 2013 at 4:11 p.m.
conservative said...

easy:

"You might not get as much as your predecessors but the fact remains you are still paying towards your own retirement."

Almost Exactly!

Your "might" is what makes it almost exactly. There is no "might" about it. It is a certainty that the young and dumb will never get back any where near what they will pay in to the Ponzi scheme.

Just like those who were the first recipients of Socialism Security received many times what they paid in, the later recipients will receive MANY TIMES LESS what they paid in, if the Ponzi scheme doesn't collapse before then. I say it will collapse because the young and dumb will eventually figure it out and vote out the system. Why would a rational person vote to sustain a program where he gets in return only a small portion of what he paid in?

Do you bank or invest where you get negative returns? Does your bank only allow you to withdraw 20-30 dollars for every 100 dollars you deposit, keeping the rest?

Now take your time, I don't want you to answer wrong.

January 29, 2013 at 6:03 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"Almost Exactly!"

So you're admitting that what you said was a lie? At least you realize your dishonesty. Don't worry, I'll wait for you to try to wriggle out of admitting you're a liar. LMFAO!

"Your "might" is what makes it almost exactly. There is no "might" about it. It is a certainty that the young and dumb will never get back any where near what they will pay in to the Ponzi scheme."

That is a false assumption. You have been currently complaining that people are receiving too much and now you are acting it's a bad thing for people to receive a closer amount to what they paid in. Which is it? Is it a Ponzi scheme when people get what they paid in or not?

"Just like those who were the first recipients of Socialism Security received many times what they paid in, the later recipients will receive MANY TIMES LESS what they paid in"

That is an assumption from you. Your basing this entirely on the assumption that nothing is done going to done to change the current system dynamics. SS taxes have already been raised 2%. That influx of money can keep the current system going longer by itself.

"if the Ponzi scheme doesn't collapse before then."

It's mathematically impossible for the current system of Social Security to collapse.

"Why would a rational person vote to sustain a program where he gets in return only a small portion of what he paid in?"

They wouldn't and they aren't. Most people here have stated that the current state of Social Security needs to be revamped. I've already stated that. The people opposing changes in SS are not young people or, necessarily, Democrats. They are old people that want to keep their current benefits. You are oblivious to facts.

"Do you bank or invest where you get negative returns? Does your bank only allow you to withdraw 20-30 dollars for every 100 dollars you deposit, keeping the rest?"

These are false equivalents. Have you stopped beating your wife?

"Now take your time, I don't want you to answer wrong."

Take your time to pull your foot out of your mouth. You have a false sense of your own intelligence.

January 29, 2013 at 7:21 p.m.
conservative said...

"You might not get as much as your predecessors but the fact remains you are still paying towards your own retirement."

Almost Exactly!

Those were your words, not mine. My words "Almost Exactly!"can not possibly be a lie. You are admitting by that statement of yours that I was correct. Congratulations for recognizing the truth! See, even you can recognize the truth if you try.

However, you immediately lied. Why read the rest of what you wrote, you constantly lie when corrected. Now, lie some more to someone else. This is why I seldom read or respond to anything you write.

Go ahead and needlessly write several pages. Make my day, show everyone how immature you are.

January 29, 2013 at 7:56 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"Those were your words, not mine. My words "Almost Exactly!"can not possibly be a lie."

I was talking about these words: "unaware those high Socialism Security taxes are not going to their own retirement.". By agreeing with my statement, you have admitted that you were, in fact, lying in the statement I mentioned above. People paying in would be paying toward their own retirement. See how that works? Are you too ignorant to understand or are you just a coward?

"You are admitting by that statement of yours that I was correct."

No, I haven't. That statement does not prove you were right in any way.

"Congratulations for recognizing the truth! See, even you can recognize the truth if you try."

You're highly delusional and this proves it.

"However, you immediately lied. Why read the rest of what you wrote, you constantly lie when corrected. Now, lie some more to someone else. This is why I seldom read or respond to anything you write."

More proof of your delusion. I haven't lied. You have. You hung yourself with your own words. And you won't admit it so you project your own dishonesty on me. You don't respond to anything I say because you have been intellectually bested and proven to be a liar by myself many times before. You constantly lie when you're corrected. Ask anyone that has interacted with you. You try to wriggle out of every lie and bit of ignorance you entangle yourself in. This serves as more evidence of your projection and delusion.

"Go ahead and needlessly write several pages. Make my day, show everyone how immature you are."

That description fits you to a T. LMFAO! More projection from you. You are truly oblivious to how ignorant you really are. Make my day, slither off like the snake you are!

Mark this down as another instance on me owning you. Run away, cowardly conservative! I'll continue to point out your ignorance and dishonesty while you act like you don't read what I write. LMFAO!

January 29, 2013 at 8:18 p.m.
conservative said...

Here is good article explaining how the Socialism Security Ponzi scheme has worked.

Note the words "Today's retirees are first to pay more into system than they'll get out of it"

"Social Security forecast bleak"

"Today's retirees are first to pay more into system than they'll get out of it"

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Social-Security-forecast-bleak-3764675.php#ixzz2JTH86xoK

January 30, 2013 at 10:07 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Per your article:

"A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank."

The average life expectancy for men in the U.S. is 75. This article is using calculations 7 years (82 years of age) over that average. The average life expectancy for women in the U.S. is 80. The article is using calculations 5 years (85 years of age) over that average. That doesn't seen very reliable considering the difference in funds paid in and paid out is less than $50K. Why not go by more accurate lifespan numbers?

"Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes."

You didn't mention that part of the article.

Read up:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3261

If the amount paid in and paid out were nearly equal, wouldn't that conflict with your false assumption that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? Don't you want those two numbers to be closer to equal?

You're hopelessly ignorant.

January 30, 2013 at 10:21 a.m.
conservative said...

Here are excerpts from the previously mentioned article concerning the Socialism Security Ponzi scheme:

"WASHINGTON — People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press."

"Previous generations got a much better bargain, mainly because payroll taxes were very low when Social Security was enacted in the 1930s and remained so for decades."

'"For the early generations, it was an incredibly good deal," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy Social Security commissioner who is now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "The government gave you free money, and getting free money is popular."'

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Social-Security-forecast-bleak-3764675.php#ixzz2JTKA6YYo

January 30, 2013 at 10:37 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Per your article:

"A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank."

The average life expectancy for men in the U.S. is 75. This article is using calculations 7 years (82 years of age) over that average. The average life expectancy for women in the U.S. is 80. The article is using calculations 5 years (85 years of age) over that average. That doesn't seen very reliable considering the difference in funds paid in and paid out is less than $50K. Why not go by more accurate lifespan numbers?

"Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes."

You didn't mention that part of the article.

Read up:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3261

If the amount paid in and paid out were nearly equal, wouldn't that conflict with your false assumption that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? Don't you want those two numbers to be closer to equal? I'll take your silence as you're conceding the argument.

You're hopelessly ignorant and a cowardly liar to boot. I bet you'll post at least 5 more times today using your same, false premise of Social Security being a Ponzi scheme. And you'll keep incorrectly referring to it as "Socialism" Security as well.

I own you, bro. LMFAO!

January 30, 2013 at 11:05 a.m.
conservative said...

More from the article about the Socialism Security Ponzi scheme:

"Social Security forecast bleak"

"Today's retirees are first to pay more into system than they'll get out of it"

"If you retired in 1960, you could expect to get back seven times more in benefits than you paid in Social Security taxes, and more if you were a low-income worker, as long as you made it to age 78 for men and 81 for women."

"As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents."

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Social-Security-forecast-bleak-3764675.php#ixzz2JTbjlynF

January 30, 2013 at 11:29 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Posts referring to Ponzi scheme: 1

Using the term "Socialsim" Security: 1

I'm 1 for 1 in both categories.

Per your article:

"A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank."

The average life expectancy for men in the U.S. is 75. This article is using calculations 7 years (82 years of age) over that average. The average life expectancy for women in the U.S. is 80. The article is using calculations 5 years (85 years of age) over that average. That doesn't seen very reliable considering the difference in funds paid in and paid out is less than $50K. Why not go by more accurate lifespan numbers?

"Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes."

You didn't mention that part of the article.

Read up:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3261

If the amount paid in and paid out were nearly equal, wouldn't that conflict with your false assumption that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? Don't you want those two numbers to be closer to equal? I'll take your silence as you're conceding the argument.

You're hopelessly ignorant and a cowardly liar to boot. I bet you'll post at least 5 more times today using your same, false premise of Social Security being a Ponzi scheme. And you'll keep incorrectly referring to it as "Socialism" Security as well.

I own you, bro. LMFAO!

January 30, 2013 at 11:36 a.m.
conservative said...

I will get back to the "Social Security forecast bleak" - "Today's retirees are first to pay more into system than they'll get out of it" article, but here is a scary thought for the young and dumb:

"Only in the case of Social Security will people be asked to pay a second time for what they’ve already paid for: all these IOUs in the Social Security Trust Funds. Since the money is gone, taxpayers will be asked to pay once again for the $2.6 trillion in the trust funds — once the program starts cashing in its IOUs — in the form of new taxes or more deficit spending (future taxes, higher interest rates, or future downgrades, or a mix of the three)."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/275898/ponzi-scheme-vs-social-security-veronique-de-rugy

January 30, 2013 at 11:38 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Posts referring to Ponzi scheme: 2

Using the term "Socialsim" Security: 1

Read up:

Fact #10: Social Security can pay full benefits through 2033 without any changes. Relatively modest changes would place the program on a sound financial footing for 75 years and beyond.

Social Security’s costs will grow in coming years as members of the large Baby Boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) move into their retirement years. Since the mid-1980s, however, Social Security has collected more in taxes and other income each year than it pays out in benefits and has amassed combined trust funds of $2.7 trillion, invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities. The trust funds will enable Social Security to keep paying full benefits through 2033 without any changes in the program, even though

One of the two funds, the Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund, faces exhaustion in 2016. (The much bigger Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund would last until 2035. Combined, the two funds would be exhausted in 2033.) Policymakers should address DI's pending depletion in the context of action on overall Social Security solvency. If they are unable to agree on a sensible solvency package in time, however, they should reallocate revenues between the two trust funds, as they have often done in the past.

After 2033, when the combined trust funds will be exhausted if no changes are made, Social Security would still be able pay three-fourths of its scheduled benefits using its annual tax revenue. Alarmists who claim that Social Security won’t be around when today’s young workers retire either misunderstand or misrepresent the projections.

The long-term gap between Social Security’s projected income and promised benefits is estimated at 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 75 years (and 1.5 percent of GDP in 2086). By coincidence, that only slightly exceeds the revenue loss over the next 75 years from extending the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000.

Letting the tax cuts expire would not “pay for” fixing Social Security, which has different sources of revenues; conversely, letting them continue would not directly harm Social Security. Nevertheless, members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat.

A mix of tax increases and modest benefit reductions — carefully crafted to shield the neediest recipients and give ample notice to all participants — could put the program on a sound financial footing indefinitely. As Social Security approaches its 80th birthday, policymakers have an opportunity to reassure future generations that they, too, can count on this successful program.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3261

You really suck at this.

January 30, 2013 at 11:46 a.m.
conservative said...

Hard to believe, but even the very Liberal CBS News sometimes will tell the truth.

"Bleak Prospects for Social Security Fix"

"Many Democrats adamantly oppose any cut in benefits to reduce cost and some won't accept a gradual increase in the retirement age, something that was done in the last overhaul in 1983"

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500395_162-6763865.html

January 30, 2013 at 12:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

Hard to believe, but that article is from August 11, 2010.

You REALLY suck at this.

January 30, 2013 at 12:20 p.m.
conservative said...

The truth is a problem for some, so you just have to keep repeating the truth knowing that the majority will eventually get it. There will always be some who are unable/refuse to recognize truth.

Socialism Security is quite similar to a Ponzi scheme:

"Social Security has many similarities to a Ponzi scheme but it’s even worse. The main difference is that Ponzi schemes are voluntary and Social Security is mandatory. Everyone is forced to pay Social Security payroll taxes whether they want to be part of the system or not. Just like Charles Ponzi’s fraudulent scheme, money from “later investors” or young workers is transferred to “earlier investors” or retirees."

"Ponzi schemes are always great for earlier investors but rip off those who invest later on. The number of retirees is growing far faster than the number of new workers. The ratio of workers to retirees has grown from 42 to 1 in 1940 to just 3.3 to 1 today. Social Security is facing more than $20 trillion in unfunded future liabilities. Young people actually believe that they have a better chance of seeing UFOs than a Social Security check made out to them when they retire."

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/social-security-is-a-mandatory-ponzi-scheme

January 30, 2013 at 1:35 p.m.
shen said...

An elderly gent worked for more than 50 years at a foundry doing hard labor. When he retired, and for the remainder of the years he lived, died at 86, he only received about $69.00 (yes sixty-nine bucks) a month in retirement pay from that company. If not for social security he'd have been sleeping under a bridge somewhere.

The argument "People will get less out of their social security than they paid into it" doesn't make any rational sense. Simply because people who have paid into a private retirement plan don't always get out of it what they paid into it if they die young. At least social security is there for both the worker and the family. For the family in the case the worker lose his or her life, and there's a spouse and children left behind. It's not always that way in the private employment sector.

January 30, 2013 at 1:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Posts referring to Ponzi scheme: 3

Using the term "Socialsim" Security: 2

Read up:

Fact #10: Social Security can pay full benefits through 2033 without any changes. Relatively modest changes would place the program on a sound financial footing for 75 years and beyond.

Social Security’s costs will grow in coming years as members of the large Baby Boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) move into their retirement years. Since the mid-1980s, however, Social Security has collected more in taxes and other income each year than it pays out in benefits and has amassed combined trust funds of $2.7 trillion, invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities. The trust funds will enable Social Security to keep paying full benefits through 2033 without any changes in the program, even though

One of the two funds, the Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund, faces exhaustion in 2016. (The much bigger Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund would last until 2035. Combined, the two funds would be exhausted in 2033.) Policymakers should address DI's pending depletion in the context of action on overall Social Security solvency. If they are unable to agree on a sensible solvency package in time, however, they should reallocate revenues between the two trust funds, as they have often done in the past.

After 2033, when the combined trust funds will be exhausted if no changes are made, Social Security would still be able pay three-fourths of its scheduled benefits using its annual tax revenue. Alarmists who claim that Social Security won’t be around when today’s young workers retire either misunderstand or misrepresent the projections.

The long-term gap between Social Security’s projected income and promised benefits is estimated at 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 75 years (and 1.5 percent of GDP in 2086). By coincidence, that only slightly exceeds the revenue loss over the next 75 years from extending the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000.

Letting the tax cuts expire would not “pay for” fixing Social Security, which has different sources of revenues; conversely, letting them continue would not directly harm Social Security. Nevertheless, members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat.

A mix of tax increases and modest benefit reductions — carefully crafted to shield the neediest recipients and give ample notice to all participants — could put the program on a sound financial footing indefinitely. As Social Security approaches its 80th birthday, policymakers have an opportunity to reassure future generations that they, too, can count on this successful program.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3261

There are some that have their head so far up their ass that they will continue to spout false assumptions and premises.

January 30, 2013 at 1:41 p.m.
conservative said...

Continuing with the article dealing with the Ponzi scheme aspect of Socialism Security -

"Social Security forecast bleak"

"Today's retirees are first to pay more into system than they'll get out of it"

"As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents."

"Not anymore."

"A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank."

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Social-Security-forecast-bleak-3764675.php#ixzz2JV5iiXEB

January 30, 2013 at 5:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Posts referring to Ponzi scheme: 4

Using the term "Socialsim" Security: 3

Almost there!

Per your article:

"A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank."

The average life expectancy for men in the U.S. is 75. This article is using calculations 7 years (82 years of age) over that average. The average life expectancy for women in the U.S. is 80. The article is using calculations 5 years (85 years of age) over that average. That doesn't seen very reliable considering the difference in funds paid in and paid out is less than $50K. Why not go by more accurate lifespan numbers?

"Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes."

You didn't mention that part of the article.

Read up:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3261

If the amount paid in and paid out were nearly equal, wouldn't that conflict with your false assumption that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? Don't you want those two numbers to be closer to equal? I'll take your silence as you're conceding the argument.

You're hopelessly ignorant and a cowardly liar to boot. I bet you'll post at least 2 more times today using your same, false premise of Social Security being a Ponzi scheme. And you'll keep incorrectly referring to it as "Socialism" Security as well.

I own you, bro. LMFAO!

January 30, 2013 at 7:17 p.m.
conservative said...

Continuing the article dealing with the Ponzi scheme aspect of Socialism Security and notice the quote is from another Liberal source.

This is just too easy!

"Social Security forecast bleak"

"Today's retirees are first to pay more into system than they'll get out of it"

'"Future generations are going to do worse because either they are going to get fewer benefits or they are going to pay higher taxes," said Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury official who has studied the issue as a fellow at the Urban Institute."

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Social-Security-forecast-bleak-3764675.php#ixzz2JV88teXW

January 30, 2013 at 7:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Posts referring to Ponzi scheme: 5

Using the term "Socialsim" Security: 4

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Your ignorance is so predictable.

Per your article:

"A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank."

The average life expectancy for men in the U.S. is 75. This article is using calculations 7 years (82 years of age) over that average. The average life expectancy for women in the U.S. is 80. The article is using calculations 5 years (85 years of age) over that average. That doesn't seen very reliable considering the difference in funds paid in and paid out is less than $50K. Why not go by more accurate lifespan numbers?

"Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes."

You didn't mention that part of the article.

Read up:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3261

If the amount paid in and paid out were nearly equal, wouldn't that conflict with your false assumption that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? Don't you want those two numbers to be closer to equal? I'll take your silence as you're conceding the argument.

You're hopelessly ignorant and a cowardly liar to boot. I bet you'll post at least 2 more times today using your same, false premise of Social Security being a Ponzi scheme. And you'll keep incorrectly referring to it as "Socialism" Security as well.

It's just too easy to keep you going and have you repeat the same disproven claims over and over and over. I predicted you would do this earlier today and you totally didn't disappoint. I own you, bro. LMFAO!

January 30, 2013 at 7:30 p.m.
conservative said...

More Liberals referring to Socialism Security as a Ponzi scheme.

Be sure and watch the video.

Now, read from the website below and WATCH the exchange between Chris Mathews and Tom Russert where they referred to Socialism Security as a "bad Ponzi scheme."

This is just too easy!

"RUSSERT: And if you’re going to make tough decisions as a president, you have to answer tough questions. What are you going to do? Show us how you’re going the lead us. Everyone knows Social Security, as it’s constructed, is not going to be in the same place it’s going to be for the next generation, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives."

"MATTHEWS: It’s a bad Ponzi scheme, at this point. Yeah."

"MATTHEWS: It’s a bad Ponzi scheme, at this point. Yeah."

"MATTHEWS: It’s a bad Ponzi scheme, at this point. Yeah."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/09/13/flashback-2007-tim-russert-and-chris-matthews-agree-social-security-b#ixzz2JVCzF7u6

January 30, 2013 at 7:37 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Read up:

Fact #10: Social Security can pay full benefits through 2033 without any changes. Relatively modest changes would place the program on a sound financial footing for 75 years and beyond.

Social Security’s costs will grow in coming years as members of the large Baby Boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) move into their retirement years. Since the mid-1980s, however, Social Security has collected more in taxes and other income each year than it pays out in benefits and has amassed combined trust funds of $2.7 trillion, invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities. The trust funds will enable Social Security to keep paying full benefits through 2033 without any changes in the program, even though

One of the two funds, the Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund, faces exhaustion in 2016. (The much bigger Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund would last until 2035. Combined, the two funds would be exhausted in 2033.) Policymakers should address DI's pending depletion in the context of action on overall Social Security solvency. If they are unable to agree on a sensible solvency package in time, however, they should reallocate revenues between the two trust funds, as they have often done in the past.

After 2033, when the combined trust funds will be exhausted if no changes are made, Social Security would still be able pay three-fourths of its scheduled benefits using its annual tax revenue. Alarmists who claim that Social Security won’t be around when today’s young workers retire either misunderstand or misrepresent the projections.

The long-term gap between Social Security’s projected income and promised benefits is estimated at 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 75 years (and 1.5 percent of GDP in 2086). By coincidence, that only slightly exceeds the revenue loss over the next 75 years from extending the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000.

Letting the tax cuts expire would not “pay for” fixing Social Security, which has different sources of revenues; conversely, letting them continue would not directly harm Social Security. Nevertheless, members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat.

A mix of tax increases and modest benefit reductions — carefully crafted to shield the neediest recipients and give ample notice to all participants — could put the program on a sound financial footing indefinitely. As Social Security approaches its 80th birthday, policymakers have an opportunity to reassure future generations that they, too, can count on this successful program.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3261

It's just too easy to keep you going and have you repeat the same disproven claims over and over and over. I predicted you would do this earlier today and you totally didn't disappoint. I own you, bro. LMFAO!

January 30, 2013 at 7:42 p.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Easy, what's in the trust fund? Federal debt? How can that be paid? Only by taxes, or else by cutting benefits to what the system can afford. If the money were under a mattress, SS could dig it out and spend it; but to get money that the federal government owes, the fed has to take it from taxes.

January 31, 2013 at 1:24 a.m.
conservative said...

"Social Security a Ponzi scheme? Yes" JOHN STOSSEL

"Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! There, I said it. To the extent people believe there are trust funds with their names on them, Social Security is absolutely a Ponzi scheme. So is Medicare. People need to hear it."

"Many people think that when the government takes payroll tax from their paychecks, it goes to something like a savings account. Seniors who collect Social Security think they’re just getting back money that they put into their “account.” Or they think it’s like an insurance policy — you win if you live long enough to get more than you paid in. Neither is true. Nothing is invested. The money taken from you was spent by government that year. Right away. There’s no trust fund. The plan is unsustainable. Medicare is worse."

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110916/OPINION02/709169987

January 31, 2013 at 7:41 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Read up:

Fact #10: Social Security can pay full benefits through 2033 without any changes. Relatively modest changes would place the program on a sound financial footing for 75 years and beyond.

Social Security’s costs will grow in coming years as members of the large Baby Boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) move into their retirement years. Since the mid-1980s, however, Social Security has collected more in taxes and other income each year than it pays out in benefits and has amassed combined trust funds of $2.7 trillion, invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities. The trust funds will enable Social Security to keep paying full benefits through 2033 without any changes in the program, even though

One of the two funds, the Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund, faces exhaustion in 2016. (The much bigger Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund would last until 2035. Combined, the two funds would be exhausted in 2033.) Policymakers should address DI's pending depletion in the context of action on overall Social Security solvency. If they are unable to agree on a sensible solvency package in time, however, they should reallocate revenues between the two trust funds, as they have often done in the past.

After 2033, when the combined trust funds will be exhausted if no changes are made, Social Security would still be able pay three-fourths of its scheduled benefits using its annual tax revenue. Alarmists who claim that Social Security won’t be around when today’s young workers retire either misunderstand or misrepresent the projections.

The long-term gap between Social Security’s projected income and promised benefits is estimated at 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 75 years (and 1.5 percent of GDP in 2086). By coincidence, that only slightly exceeds the revenue loss over the next 75 years from extending the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000.

Letting the tax cuts expire would not “pay for” fixing Social Security, which has different sources of revenues; conversely, letting them continue would not directly harm Social Security. Nevertheless, members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat.

A mix of tax increases and modest benefit reductions — carefully crafted to shield the neediest recipients and give ample notice to all participants — could put the program on a sound financial footing indefinitely. As Social Security approaches its 80th birthday, policymakers have an opportunity to reassure future generations that they, too, can count on this successful program.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3261

It's just too easy to keep you going and have you repeat the same debunked claims over and over and over. I predicted you would do this yesterday and you didn't disappoint. I own you, bro. LMFAO!

January 31, 2013 at 8:35 a.m.
conservative said...

"Social Security a Ponzi scheme? Yes" JOHN STOSSEL

"Social Security is nothing more than a promise from politicians. The next gang can break the promise."

"Twice the government has argued before the Supreme Court that Social Security is not insurance. In 1960, Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Arthur Sherwood Flemming submitted a brief to the courts stating: “The contribution exacted under the Social Security plan is a true tax. It is not comparable to a premium promising the payment of an annuity commencing at a designated age.”'

"In a ruling that denied a man’s property claim to Social Security benefits, the Supreme Court said, “It is apparent that the noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”'

"So anyone who believes Social Security is an investment plan really has only himself to blame."

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110916/OPINION02/709169987

January 31, 2013 at 8:51 a.m.
conservative said...

"Social Security a Ponzi scheme? Yes" JOHN STOSSEL

"So anyone who believes Social Security is an investment plan really has only himself to blame."

"If you want evidence, listen to how politicians talk about your Social Security “contributions.” They are taxes and nothing more. No one pretends they are premiums. In fact, President Obama and the Republicans want to stimulate the economy by extending a cut in the payroll tax for workers and cutting the employer’s share of the tax — but without reducing Social Security benefits."

"Now, I like tax cuts more than the next person, but as Freeman editor Sheldon Richman points out, this one has a complication the politicians don’t seem to care about:"

'“President Obama’s jobs program calls for cuts in both sides of the payroll tax. That tax finances Social Security and Medicare. Social Security and Medicare are already taking in less money than they need to pay retirees. So they will have to cash in more of the Treasury IOUs left behind when previous surpluses were used to finance general expenditures. But the Treasury is also already running a deficit, a trillion dollars-plus. So it will have to borrow more in the capital markets in order to pay back the Social Security and Medicare funds. Unless Obama makes up the lost revenue by changing the tax code. But then money will be withdrawn from the economy in the form of higher taxes so it can be put back into the economy through the payroll-tax cut. Somehow that’s supposed to stimulate the economy.”'

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110916/OPINION02/709169987

January 31, 2013 at 10:18 a.m.
conservative said...

Why was there no outrage over those payroll tax cuts (that are suppose to fund Socialism Security)pushed by Owebama?

Liberals constantly whine about tax cuts for the rich, yet the rich escaped paying those taxes that are supposedly funding that mythical trust fund that these same Liberals claim exists.

January 31, 2013 at 10:40 a.m.
conservative said...

The AARP has been and is the biggest liars and hypocrites of all concerning Socialism Security. They have gotten many especially the elderly to believe that there is a trust fund that contains the money they have "invested" along with the "interest" it has accrued.

Here the AARP uses Jane Bryant Quinn who contradicts their past lies. I guess the AARP thinks their sheep won't notice. You see if it were not for the working stiff the current retirees would not get their current check.

"My final point … and it isn't a myth, it's a fact. If young people switched their payroll taxes into private accounts, the government would have to borrow $6.5 trillion or more (depending on the details) to keep paying out benefits to current retirees."

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-11-2011/5-social-security-myths.2.html

January 31, 2013 at 12:22 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Lr103 said... Lr103 said... "Will she throw them under the bus too?" ..."Are you saying Smith is wealthy enough that she could cover all a widows expenses, medical and other, plus..."

No Lr103, what are you trying to say, that she will throw them under the bus, or that she will not be able to help them to the full extent that you think they need to be helped. You should think just a little bit before you accuse someone of being willing to do harm to others. In my experience, those who are most willing to give of themselves see less use for government larges. Those who would rather not step up to help their neighbour are the first to demand that the government do it on their behalf at the expense of someone else.

January 31, 2013 at 12:25 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

lkeithlu said... "You have savings to cover debilitating illness such as cancer or transplants? Somehow, I find that hard to believe. Do your savings cover your family and liabilities if you are killed or disabled in an accident? You must be quite wealthy. Most people I know cannot. Even with insurance I have seen cancer or heart disease deplete a family's assets in a hurry."

lkiethlu, my favourite liberal on this forum... I am not invulnerable from every possibility. I could get hit by a bus tomorrow and it would all be over. Such is life. I have found that living in constant fear and insuring against every possibility makes you poor and the insurance companies rich. (Or, the government if you allow them to pretend they take responsibility) I have lived a pretty full life considering my age and would have a great deal to be proud of if I died tomorrow. Yes, what you say is true, if a person was so selfish as to spend the families security to prolong a failing life they could leave the family broke. That seems to be the way to do things these days. If you see your role as executor of the family estate and take that responsibility seriously you might think of your children before you exhaust family resources in the hope of extending your life a few more years.

On the other hand, if some nameless, faceless government wants to pour money down the hole, more power to them... (<the statists way of looking at things)

January 31, 2013 at 12:42 p.m.
timbo said...

Lance Armstrong is an amateur compared to Barack Obama and most politicians. Lying is their stock and trade. I got involved in politics to find out one thing, is it as corrupt as it seems?

The answer is, it's much worse than I thought. Both sides are corrupt and are only interested in retaining power. Robin knows this very well since she was knee deep in it for years. The game she played was good to her for awhile but bit her when she was no longer useful.

It is impossible for anyone to get to the "top" of the political machine and be honest.

January 31, 2013 at 2:20 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Robin Smith reminds me of two winos swaying over an empty bottle of stolen Thunderbird.

After she drinks nearly the entire bottle she swiped, she passes it to the democrat wino beside her.

When the Democrat wino drinks the remaining swig and throws down the empty bottle Robin bellows, "You bastard! You drank all the wine!"

January 31, 2013 at 4 p.m.
Lr103 said...

BigRidgeP said: "You should think just a little bit before you accuse someone of being willing to do harm to others. In my experience, those who are most willing to give of themselves see less use for government larges. Those who would rather not step up to help their neighbour are the first to demand that the government do it on their behalf at the expense of someone else."

Actually, I think it is you, who should think before you accuse someone of not helping out their neighbor. There's a difference between stepping up to the plate to help a neighbor with a cooked meal, gas money for their car, running an errand and paying for continous medical care for a sick or disabled child or adult. Paying the utility bills, mortgage month after month, buying groceries for a widow and her children whose spouse died or was killed. You never said how long anyone, no matter how large their financial assets are could last before they became broke, resentful themselves.

Have you ever seen a child who need constant medical attention on a ventilator struggling to breathe? A severely mentally handicapped child or adult who required constant, round the clock care? We're not talking here about a little feel good charitable act from time to time. We're talking about constant, hourly, daily round the clock needs that can break even the most wealthiest person.

It's insulting to any rational thinking person who has assisted in caring for the disabled for numberous decades and accuse them of not willing to help out, when they've more than had hands on experience with the situation. One who knows both the financial, emotional and psychological burdens those families suffer, even with assistance. Baking cakes and cookies then taking them over to a neighbor are not what we're talking about here. You apparently don't have a clue.**

January 31, 2013 at 5:26 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.