pokerfied.com Promoting poker discussions.

Main Date: 22 Dec 2008 21:52:44 From: RichD Subject: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security?   Date: 17 Jan 2009 09:21:13 From: travisgod@aol.cominyrface Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history > The trillions being printed now simply forestall the inevitable, and with another trillion or so in > Alt-A and Options ARMs re-sets coming in the next two years, will the Fed just print another trillion > or so to bail the banks out again? Probably. The only road out of deflation is printing. Debtmoney facing default caused by ponzi inflection cannot be stopped. The m1 multiplier is <1 now. At current trends, we have potentially less than a year before absolute monetary collapse. The housing bubble is a symptom, though, not a cause. The cause, again, is a global inflection point in industrial economics. If you review the industrial age dating back 200 years or so, you can trace growth along an energy supply curve. The fools in finance simply thought that it was them that was driving things when it was not. Money is like hydraulic fluid, not a driver. All forms of debt including the money itself, are facing similar default mechanics. > As sure as night follows day, the current deflationary trends will spike up to rampant inflation and > the USD will become monopoly money. Making imported goods beyond the reach of the average Joe will be > the only way to curb an unsustainable, consumption-driven economy. I agree. But this phenomenon will not be confined to our currency. The entire global economy, including yours, overgrew. Look at car sales YoY changes even in Brazil. There's nowhere that didn't participate. The US's dismantlement of BW1 was bad enough, but Japan was the first ponzi currency nation to hit the wall and they have driven credit-based expansion for 2 decades to avoid the consequences of their export-driven ponzi. China was just a late-stage entrant into this. The outcome in the nearterm is that China faces either depression precipitating a revolt and overthrow of the Communist Party or we turn them into a giant labor camp. They simply cannot "decouple," nobody can. However, marginal rates of return on labor can't be stopped from going to zero. In the meantime the party continues. The situation now is that the music has stopped, but we've all been at parties where the DJ is breaking down his kit yet people are still hitting the keg and lines on the mirrors. > This crisis ain't the failure of capitalism; it's the failure decades of govt intervention to prop up > unsustainable businesses like GM, AIG etc etc. More so, it is the failure of economics as a "profession." Economists and bankers see GDP=f(x) where f(x) is a finance function and x is them. They ignored real-world factors all along. No amount of lending, credit, or even fiat printed money can cause a past-peak oil well to increase production on an EROI basis. Finance cannot make nonprofitable endeavors profitable. They cannot violate laws of physics; they just thought they could. Economists are aping 19th century physicists and trying to pretend to be scientists when they all subscribe to various articles of faith. > Who would vote for such dire medicine? Trav, the issue here is that no-one will get elected on a > platform of ugly truth and reality. > > GDS Then we all collapse, I guess. Math doesn't care what people want, neither do oil wells. Socialism and this notion that recessions must be avoided when the very levers of power are the ones causing them by trying to increase rates of growth to make even MORE good times are what caused this. We have not had capitalism for sometime. Even if we purge all debt via jubilee and use sound monetary practices, we still have the same energy and resources problems that can no longer be hidden and sure as shit can't be papered over by bankercrap. Trav   Date: 16 Jan 2009 16:41:22 From: travisgod@aol.cominyrface Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history > No, all you need is economic growth. =A0To wit: People do just fine with = their > own 401k's and pension plans, which are just taking some of their own mon= ey, > investing them and expecting some return (beyond inflation) on that > investment. =A0Even with zero population growth, this strategy works fine= . Oh that's it, huh? Just economic growth? Wow. We all know that the fed can just print money to make that happen. Trav     Date: 17 Jan 2009 01:01:14 From: GreenDistantStar Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history travisgod@aol.cominyrface wrote: >> No, all you need is economic growth. To wit: People do just fine with their >> own 401k's and pension plans, which are just taking some of their own money, >> investing them and expecting some return (beyond inflation) on that >> investment. Even with zero population growth, this strategy works fine. > > Oh that's it, huh? Just economic growth? Wow. > > We all know that the fed can just print money to make that happen. > > Trav The trillions being printed now simply forestall the inevitable, and with another trillion or so in Alt-A and Options ARMs re-sets coming in the next two years, will the Fed just print another trillion or so to bail the banks out again? As sure as night follows day, the current deflationary trends will spike up to rampant inflation and the USD will become monopoly money. Making imported goods beyond the reach of the average Joe will be the only way to curb an unsustainable, consumption-driven economy. This crisis ain't the failure of capitalism; it's the failure decades of govt intervention to prop up unsustainable businesses like GM, AIG etc etc. Who would vote for such dire medicine? Trav, the issue here is that no-one will get elected on a platform of ugly truth and reality. GDS "Let's roll!"   Date: 15 Jan 2009 19:02:07 From: Michael Price Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Jan 16, 6:53=A0am, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com > wrote: > <shuura...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:861ae982-d733-4c62-8f31-3d07e729d910@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > "The fact that politicians embrace it changes absolutely nothing. =A0It > is essentially a Ponzi scheme." > > One significant difference: In a Ponzi scheme, the recipients of funds ke= ep > collecting those funds forever (at least in theory)... whereas with socia= l > security, the point at which you can collect funds is very carefully link= ed to > your current age/the expected age when you die, which makes for a very fi= nite > calculation of how much you'll cost the system. > > There's no reason social security can't work as originally intended -- th= e > fact that it's often in danger of running of out money is entirely due to > mismangement, and has nothing to do with the fundamental concept. It was originally intended to get politicians reelected, so yeah I guess. Of course elections will be irrelevent when the banknotes turn to toilet paper and everyone under the age of 65 riots about SS taxes they can't pay.   Date: 15 Jan 2009 12:27:35 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history > There's no reason social security can't work as originally intended -- the > fact that it's often in danger of running of out money is entirely due to > mismangement, and has nothing to do with the fundamental concept. The original intention was to help people who needed help - elderly people without savings, the unemployed, or other cases of hardship. It was never intended to be a blanket retirement package for everybody - and therein lies the problem. As it stands now, the majority of Americans are depending on social security as their primary means of making ends meet after retirement, because most Americans don't have anything close to adequate personal savings. Add to that the mismanagement, and you've got a recipe for failure. It may not fit the Ponzi definition perfectly, but as it stands now it's pretty damn close.   Date: 15 Jan 2009 15:07:00 From: travisgod@aol.cominyrface Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history > There's no reason social security can't work as originally intended -- the > fact that it's often in danger of running of out money is entirely due to > mismangement, and has nothing to do with the fundamental concept. Huh? It's a pyramid, plain and simple. Without an ever-increase amount of payors, benefits to payees cannot be sustained. Yes, the government's expenditure of the funds each and every year on pork is abominable. Trav     Date: 15 Jan 2009 16:46:34 From: Joel Koltner Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history <travisgod@aol.com > wrote in message news:0833c402-6183-4241-9413-3188c3125290@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > Without an ever-increase amount of payors, benefits to payees cannot > be sustained. No, all you need is economic growth. To wit: People do just fine with their own 401k's and pension plans, which are just taking some of their own money, investing them and expecting some return (beyond inflation) on that investment. Even with zero population growth, this strategy works fine. Granted, economic growth is typically easier to come by if there's population growth as well. ---Joel   Date: 15 Jan 2009 10:47:17 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23 2008, 1:05=A0am, Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net > wrote: > On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: > > > Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? > > SS is not a Ponzi scheme. =A0It is well understood that the basis of SS i= s > that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the > economically-useless elderly. =A0It may or may not make sense, but it is = a > social contract embraced by all politicians. The fact that politicians embrace it changes absolutely nothing. It is essentially a Ponzi scheme. > There is no deception. True... this is one case where they're being quite brazen about ripping you off.     Date: 15 Jan 2009 11:53:08 From: Joel Koltner Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history <shuurai11@gmail.com > wrote in message news:861ae982-d733-4c62-8f31-3d07e729d910@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com... "The fact that politicians embrace it changes absolutely nothing. It is essentially a Ponzi scheme." One significant difference: In a Ponzi scheme, the recipients of funds keep collecting those funds forever (at least in theory)... whereas with social security, the point at which you can collect funds is very carefully linked to your current age/the expected age when you die, which makes for a very finite calculation of how much you'll cost the system. There's no reason social security can't work as originally intended -- the fact that it's often in danger of running of out money is entirely due to mismangement, and has nothing to do with the fundamental concept.   Date: 15 Jan 2009 07:09:06 From: cr113 Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Jan 14, 6:35=A0pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net > wrote: > cr113wrote: > > > On Dec 23 2008, 12:05 am, Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: > > > > > Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? > > > > SS is not a Ponzi scheme. =A0It is well understood that the basis of = SS is > > > that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the > > > economically-useless elderly. =A0It may or may not make sense, but it= is a > > > social contract embraced by all politicians. > > > > There is no deception. > > > Then why does the government send me my own social security > > "statement" like it's my own private retirement account? It is a ponzi > > scheme. But all they need to do is start calling it a redistribution > > plan and they are off the hook. > > =A0 =A0Your employer gives you a statement of your earnings. =A0Does that= mean > work for a scam artist, and are one yourself? Are you for real? OK, I'll try to explain this to you so that you can understand it. I have a private retirement account called a 401K. The managers of this account send me a statement showing me the current status of my funds. It's my money and it actually exists. Now contrast this to Social Security. The managers of this "account" send me a statement to make me "think" I actually have a separate account with my money in it. But this is not true. There is no "holding" place for my social security funds. The money does not exist. When it comes time for me to retire the government will seize money from those who work and give it to me. Now do you see the scam?   Date: 14 Jan 2009 22:33:51 From: Greegor Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: > Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? On Dec 23 2008, 12:05 am, Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net > wrote: > SS is not a Ponzi scheme. =A0It is well understood that the basis of SS i= s > that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the > economically-useless elderly. =A0It may or may not make sense, but it is = a > social contract embraced by all politicians. > > There is no deception. They started paying out to disability cases who are not retirement age, some as young as 18, and some didn't pay IN diddly. When they did that, Social Security stopped being like insurance for workers and became a social welfare program without calling it that. The numbers of psych disability cases is HUGE Lifeling payouts to disability cases has to be the VAST majority of money paid out. Are there any stats that compare payouts to disability cases to payouts to people who actually paid IN to the system? The deception comes in the fact that SS was converted from being like an insurance policy and tied to what you pay IN, to a welfare program without actually calling it what it is now. SS is not in a mess because of retirees, it's in a mess because of the MASSIVE number of "disability cases" living off it long term. A HUGE portion of those are on psych disability.     Date: 15 Jan 2009 18:03:24 From: Charlie E. Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:33:51 -0800 (PST), Greegor <Greegor47@gmail.com > wrote: >On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? > >On Dec 23 2008, 12:05 am, Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> SS is not a Ponzi scheme.  It is well understood that the basis of SS is >> that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >> economically-useless elderly.  It may or may not make sense, but it is a >> social contract embraced by all politicians. >> >> There is no deception. > >They started paying out to disability cases who are >not retirement age, some as young as 18, and some >didn't pay IN diddly. When they did that, Social Security >stopped being like insurance for workers and became >a social welfare program without calling it that. > >The numbers of psych disability cases is HUGE >Lifeling payouts to disability cases has to be the >VAST majority of money paid out. > >Are there any stats that compare payouts to >disability cases to payouts to people who >actually paid IN to the system? > >The deception comes in the fact that SS was >converted from being like an insurance policy >and tied to what you pay IN, to a welfare program >without actually calling it what it is now. > >SS is not in a mess because of retirees, it's >in a mess because of the MASSIVE number >of "disability cases" living off it long term. > >A HUGE portion of those are on psych disability. And, you have data and numbers to support this assertion? Now, my wife has been on SSDI for 15 years now, started in the mid 80's. But of course, you probably don't consider blindness a suitable disability, either... Charlie       Date: 15 Jan 2009 19:36:59 From: James Arthur Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Charlie E. wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:33:51 -0800 (PST), Greegor > <Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >>> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >> On Dec 23 2008, 12:05 am, Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>> SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is >>> that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >>> economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a >>> social contract embraced by all politicians. >>> >>> There is no deception. >> They started paying out to disability cases who are >> not retirement age, some as young as 18, and some >> didn't pay IN diddly. When they did that, Social Security >> stopped being like insurance for workers and became >> a social welfare program without calling it that. >> >> The numbers of psych disability cases is HUGE >> Lifeling payouts to disability cases has to be the >> VAST majority of money paid out. >> >> Are there any stats that compare payouts to >> disability cases to payouts to people who >> actually paid IN to the system? >> >> The deception comes in the fact that SS was >> converted from being like an insurance policy >> and tied to what you pay IN, to a welfare program >> without actually calling it what it is now. >> >> SS is not in a mess because of retirees, it's >> in a mess because of the MASSIVE number >> of "disability cases" living off it long term. >> >> A HUGE portion of those are on psych disability. > > And, you have data and numbers to support this assertion? > > Now, my wife has been on SSDI for 15 years now, started in the mid > 80's. But of course, you probably don't consider blindness a suitable > disability, either... > > Charlie THAT is a perfectly good and valid reason for a Social Security system. It's the forced-labor retirement plan part that sucks. Cheers, James Arthur     Date: 15 Jan 2009 09:43:38 From: krw Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history In article <91f9461b-d478-4ecb-8c27- e5f7c45fc1fb@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com >, Greegor47@gmail.com=20 says... >=20 > On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: > > Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >=20 > On Dec 23 2008, 12:05 am, Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > SS is not a Ponzi scheme. =A0It is well understood that the basis of SS= is > > that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the > > economically-useless elderly. =A0It may or may not make sense, but it i= s a > > social contract embraced by all politicians. > > > > There is no deception. >=20 > They started paying out to disability cases who are > not retirement age, some as young as 18, and some > didn't pay IN diddly.=20 SSI < > SS retirement benefits SSI makes some sense, though still unconstitutional. > When they did that, Social Security > stopped being like insurance for workers and became > a social welfare program without calling it that. Since "that" started on day-1, it's always been a social welfare=20 program. =20 > The numbers of psych disability cases is HUGE > Lifeling payouts to disability cases has to be the > VAST majority of money paid out. "has to be" < > "is" =20 > Are there any stats that compare payouts to > disability cases to payouts to people who > actually paid IN to the system? Ever heard of "Google"? This information is all there. > The deception comes in the fact that SS was > converted from being like an insurance policy > and tied to what you pay IN, to a welfare program > without actually calling it what it is now. What do you think SSI is, if not insurance. The retirement=20 benefits are the real scam. =20 > SS is not in a mess because of retirees, it's > in a mess because of the MASSIVE number > of "disability cases" living off it long term. Absolute nonsense. > A HUGE portion of those are on psych disability. I'm certainly no fan of SS, or of the federal government, but this=20 is simply more unsubstantiated nonsense.   Date: 14 Jan 2009 19:35:20 From: Michael A. Terrell Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history cr113 wrote: > > On Dec 23 2008, 12:05 am, Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: > > > > > Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? > > > > SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is > > that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the > > economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a > > social contract embraced by all politicians. > > > > There is no deception. > > Then why does the government send me my own social security > "statement" like it's my own private retirement account? It is a ponzi > scheme. But all they need to do is start calling it a redistribution > plan and they are off the hook. Your employer gives you a statement of your earnings. Does that mean work for a scam artist, and are one yourself? -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.   Date: 13 Jan 2009 10:11:55 From: cr113 Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23 2008, 12:05=A0am, Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net > wrote: > On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: > > > Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? > > SS is not a Ponzi scheme. =A0It is well understood that the basis of SS i= s > that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the > economically-useless elderly. =A0It may or may not make sense, but it is = a > social contract embraced by all politicians. > > There is no deception. Then why does the government send me my own social security "statement" like it's my own private retirement account? It is a ponzi scheme. But all they need to do is start calling it a redistribution plan and they are off the hook.     Date: 13 Jan 2009 15:42:35 From: Mason C Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:11:55 -0800 (PST), cr113 <cr113@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Dec 23 2008, 12:05 am, Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >> >> > Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >> >> SS is not a Ponzi scheme.  It is well understood that the basis of SS is >> that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >> economically-useless elderly.  It may or may not make sense, but it is a >> social contract embraced by all politicians. >> >> There is no deception. > >Then why does the government send me my own social security >"statement" like it's my own private retirement account? It is a ponzi >scheme. But all they need to do is start calling it a redistribution >plan and they are off the hook. > You are receiving statements regarding the contract. It is true that the government -- the politicians -- have not been clear in their descriptions of the SS system. Politics. Mason Clark *Greater America in the Age of Rebellion* http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html -- many excerpts you can see --   Date: 06 Jan 2009 03:13:00 From: Michael Coburn Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:15:47 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: > "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net> writes: > >> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >> news:gjberk317pd@news7.newsguy.com... >>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:14:11 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>> >> Heavy snip to get to the idiot's only comment : . >>> >>> When a person retires then that person is no longer contributing to >>> the society and is instead taking from the society as was planned and >>> as was intended by the person and the society. No matter what you or >>> anyone else might _FEEL_ about it the facts remain the same: After >>> the point of retirement, the productive are supporting the non >>> productive. >>> >> Again, idiot boy, assuming they saved for retirement and have >> investments, this is WRONG. >> They are producing by means of their investment capital. No, moron. They are not. They are sucking income from the people who are now EMPLOYING _real_ capital to produce. Or they could be sucking income simply from indebtedness they have managed to foist on the current producers by "investing" in a war and receiving a tax cuts at the same time. But the bottom line is not going to change in any event: The producers of the economy will be SHARING the products they produce with the non producing retirees. >> They aren't >> producing with their backs, but their capital allows others using their >> backs to produce more because of the assets they provide. This is basic >> economics. Actually... It is Republican horseshit. If you observe the 7.5 trillion that the Fed will be creating from the ether over 8 months then you will understand that money is not capital. And that is seminal in understanding "savings" and real economics. This country is in a very sad state of affairs today because of the misallocation or _real_ resources that _your_ holy investors have made. > Beldin, I think you're probably wasting your sorcery trying to explain > basic economics to some of the folks here. But a good effort, I'll give > you that. (For those interested, my favourite layman's text is anything > by Thomas Sowell). Thomas Sowell probably gets a lot of stuff right. That has little to do with Beldin the nincompoop. -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson     Date: 07 Jan 2009 06:23:37 From: Beldin the Sorcerer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net > wrote in message news:gjui7s41lrq@news5.newsguy.com... > On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:15:47 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: > >> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net> writes: >> >>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>> news:gjberk317pd@news7.newsguy.com... >>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:14:11 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>> >>> Heavy snip to get to the idiot's only comment : . >>>> >>>> When a person retires then that person is no longer contributing to >>>> the society and is instead taking from the society as was planned and >>>> as was intended by the person and the society. No matter what you or >>>> anyone else might _FEEL_ about it the facts remain the same: After >>>> the point of retirement, the productive are supporting the non >>>> productive. >>>> >>> Again, idiot boy, assuming they saved for retirement and have >>> investments, this is WRONG. >>> They are producing by means of their investment capital. > > No, moron. They are not. Yes, shithead, they are They are sucking income from the people who > are now EMPLOYING _real_ capital to produce. Or they could be sucking > income simply from indebtedness they have managed to foist on the current > producers by "investing" in a war and receiving a tax cuts at the same > time. But the bottom line is not going to change in any event: The > producers of the economy will be SHARING the products they produce with > the non producing retirees. No, fuckhead. Man alone produces X Man plus tools produces T(x) (which is far greater) Investment capital provides tools. You're a shithead, who's probably a socialist. > >>> They aren't >>> producing with their backs, but their capital allows others using their >>> backs to produce more because of the assets they provide. This is basic >>> economics. > > Actually... It is Republican horseshit. If you observe the 7.5 trillion > that the Fed will be creating from the ether over 8 months then you will > understand that money is not capital. Shithead, the fed won't be creating anything. They'll be BORROWING a lot, of course. And that is seminal in > understanding "savings" and real economics. This country is in a very > sad state of affairs today because of the misallocation or _real_ > resources that _your_ holy investors have made. No, fuckhead. We're discussing retiree savings and SSI as a ponzi scheme. You want to point out that some idiots invest really badly? No argument. > >> Beldin, I think you're probably wasting your sorcery trying to explain >> basic economics to some of the folks here. But a good effort, I'll give >> you that. (For those interested, my favourite layman's text is anything >> by Thomas Sowell). > > Thomas Sowell probably gets a lot of stuff right. That has little to do > with Beldin the nincompoop. Mikey, how long you been a mental defect? When you can't understand using capital to boost productivity, you need serious help.       Date: 07 Jan 2009 19:50:53 From: krw Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 06:23:37 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net > wrote: > >"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >news:gjui7s41lrq@news5.newsguy.com... >> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:15:47 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: >> >>> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net> writes: >>> >>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>> news:gjberk317pd@news7.newsguy.com... >>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:14:11 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>> >>>> Heavy snip to get to the idiot's only comment : . >>>>> >>>>> When a person retires then that person is no longer contributing to >>>>> the society and is instead taking from the society as was planned and >>>>> as was intended by the person and the society. No matter what you or >>>>> anyone else might _FEEL_ about it the facts remain the same: After >>>>> the point of retirement, the productive are supporting the non >>>>> productive. >>>>> >>>> Again, idiot boy, assuming they saved for retirement and have >>>> investments, this is WRONG. >>>> They are producing by means of their investment capital. >> >> No, moron. They are not. >Yes, shithead, they are > > They are sucking income from the people who >> are now EMPLOYING _real_ capital to produce. Or they could be sucking >> income simply from indebtedness they have managed to foist on the current >> producers by "investing" in a war and receiving a tax cuts at the same >> time. But the bottom line is not going to change in any event: The >> producers of the economy will be SHARING the products they produce with >> the non producing retirees. >No, fuckhead. > >Man alone produces X >Man plus tools produces T(x) (which is far greater) >Investment capital provides tools. > >You're a shithead, who's probably a socialist. Bingo! Comrad Coburn considers all capital property of the state. If you didn't earn a paycheck (and spend every nickle) this week you didn't produce anything and must be killed.   Date: 29 Dec 2008 21:18:44 From: Michael Coburn Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:14:11 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:gj8iad01km0@news4.newsguy.com... >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:56:23 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >> >>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>> news:gj7cft3svn@news6.newsguy.com... >>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 06:05:49 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:gj4drk02cvk@news1.newsguy.com... >>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:48:25 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:gj3rle02cvj@news1.newsguy.com... >>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:26:27 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:gj1h3g4gts@news1.newsguy.com... >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:07:17 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:gire5i212db@news3.newsguy.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:34:10 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme. The government can reduce benefits or raise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revenues as appropriate. Part of the disaster of a Ponzi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme is it is the result of free market choices. There >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is nothing (or little) free about the funding of Social >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Security. It is backed up by the coercive powers of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government. (One could argue and many have that this, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SS. I wouldn't agree with them, but it would be a coherent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-workers in the expectation that they too will get money >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from future workers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> workers to provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the current workers expect the same and more when >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they too stop working. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, this is false. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Most pensions are set up by funding investments that produce >>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptable returns which can then pay retirees pensions. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No matter how you do it, the productive younger people will >>>>>>>>>>>> be supporting the elderly or the elderly will croak >>>>>>>>>>>> prematurely. If Mr. Republican is deriving his income from >>>>>>>>>>>> some "investment" such as dividends those dividends are added >>>>>>>>>>>> to cost of goods in the here and now and prices are thereby >>>>>>>>>>>> increased. The productive will pay one way or the other. >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no other source from which the support might come. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's false. >>>>>>>>>>> Using capital previously amassed to produce more goods IS >>>>>>>>>>> being productive. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are making the argument that investment in _real_ capital >>>>>>>>>> makes it possible for the current producers to create more >>>>>>>>>> goods than they would otherwise been able to produce and that >>>>>>>>>> the holders of stocks and bonds that financed that _real_ >>>>>>>>>> capital development are entitled to a share of it. I do not >>>>>>>>>> disagree. But that does not negate the fact that the current >>>>>>>>>> producers (with or without the better _real_ capital) will be >>>>>>>>>> providing for the current retired. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You can make your argument ONLY if you assume "producers" are >>>>>>>>> people who produce food only. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. The point is fact regarding all consumables. >>>>>>> Money is a consumable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me put you on a desert island with tons of money and see you >>>>>> "consume" it. >>>>> As soon as you consume a TV set. >>>>> Scroll up, you just said you WEREN'T talking solely about food. >>>> >>>> I said that money is not a consumable. You seem to have a problem >>>> with equating that to "not food". Any product that provides direct >>>> utility in use is a consumable. That also includes home lawn mowers, >>>> dish washers and stereos, a hammock, a fishing pole, a guitar, and >>>> lots of other _stuff_. It even includes ones domicile. >>> Go consume a lawnmower. Then consume a racecar. Do it on that desert >>> isle. >> >> The one with all the piles of money and nothing else? > Show me where you hypothesized "and nothing else" > > > >> Wealth is a product of land and labor with _real_ capital playing a >> large assisting role. Try to remember it. > No, Wealth is a product of capital, period. Microsoft didn't build it's > fortune mining materials to use to store it's software. > > > >> >>>>>>>>> If you include money, that's false. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Money is not a consumable or anything other than an accounting >>>>>>>> mechanism. >>>>>>> Ok, you fail. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not by the rules of real economics. >>>>> YES, by the rules of economics. >>>> >>>> (sigh) >>> Yeah, we both know you're an idiot. >> >> We both know just about as much as I know. Your contribution is >> somewhat scanty. >> > You can't even make a coherent sentence. > > You fail utterly to understand what money is. > >>>>>>> Money is consumed when you spend it. >>>>>>> It's a measure of society's value of your contribution, however >>>>>>> you contribute it. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is, as you say, a measure of ............... (whatever). >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's theoretically possible for every retiree to have a huge >>>>>>>>> pile of cash in their bedroom to support them in their >>>>>>>>> retirement. It's more practical for them to take that cash and >>>>>>>>> invest it so it grows, and they use the income from that cash to >>>>>>>>> pay for their needs. This is the common view of what >>>>>>>>> "production" is : production of all goods and services. Capital >>>>>>>>> invested in any company, used well (or 'productively') produces >>>>>>>>> a good or service that yields an income. Assuming that income is >>>>>>>>> large enough to provide food, clothing, shelter, etc for the >>>>>>>>> elder investor, that person is indeed producing enough to >>>>>>>>> support himself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This plan depends on economic growth, of course. AND it depends >>>>>>>>> on someone else doing the manual labor. Of course, so do most of >>>>>>>>> us. I've not harvested any kind of food since working in my >>>>>>>>> mother's garden decades ago. I go to work, and 'produce' in my >>>>>>>>> job, surely. But if my job were filing papers, I'd be doing >>>>>>>>> little different than an elderly person collecting a dividend >>>>>>>>> check. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My only point was and still is that the productive people will be >>>>>>>> producing while we all are consuming. That is a social reality. >>>>>>>> There is much to be said for _investing_ when young so as to be >>>>>>>> able to retire at an appropriate age. FICA taxes essentially >>>>>>>> _force_ that on people who might well have otherwise not done so. >>>>>>>> That seems to be some sort of claim that the SS system is a >>>>>>>> savings system, but it is not. The consumption foregone by the >>>>>>>> producers (that amount paid in the form of FICA) goes to support >>>>>>>> the elderly. >>>>>>>> Some people save and invest even more than the FICA tax payers >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> they have better retirements because of it. They are able, in >>>>>>>> their old age, to command even more of the labor of the current >>>>>>>> producers because of their additional claims on output. >>>>>>> You're missing the point. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think not. >>>>> More likely you not think. >>>> >>>> I am correct in what I have said. And it will not be changing. The >>>> retirees do not produce, yet they consume. The producers produce. >>>> What part of this reality are you having a problem with? >>> You being retarded. >>> The retires produce. They do it by means of investment capital. >> >> They have already "invested". That part is over. In the here and noe >> that consume while others produce. That is reality. > No, they haven't. > More to the point, they continue to do so. Those dividend checks come > because they own stock. > > > >>>>>>> "output" includes "Output made possible by additional capital". A >>>>>>> guy with a stick can plow X acres. A guy with a combine planter >>>>>>> can plow considerably more. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The money invested causes additional productivity. >>>>>> >>>>>> And you want to show that I am unaware of this, why? Seems to me >>>>>> that I have addressed it twice, but perhaps not. Clearly, I have >>>>>> addressed it at least once. As a matter of fact, this increased >>>>>> productivity afforded by _real_ capital is the _MAJOR_ reason that >>>>>> social security is NOT a Ponzi scheme. >>>>> No, SSI IS a ponzi scheme. >>>>> There's no investment. There's no use of capital. >>>> >>>> If there is no investment then where did all that _real_ capital come >>>> from? The SS system has always run in the black. The FORCED savings >>>> are what allowed the investing. As a matter of fact the Republicans >>>> have been robbing the SS system for many years in order to grant tax >>>> cuts to the rich. The rich, according to the Republicans, were doing >>>> a lot of "investing" with all that money they saved by virtue of the >>>> tax cuts. The Republicans lied. >>> Yep, you're a fucking shithead. >> >> Just a big ole "poopie head" because I cite the reality, eh. > No, because you fail utterly to cite the reality. The facts are > apparently beyond your limited understanding. > > >>> There's no investment. There's taxes that are redistributed. > THAT'S the facts. > SSI taxes are collected. SSI benefits are paid out. The difference is > spent by the government. > > > >>> >>>> <<<<<<<<<<<< stupidity deleted >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> The only stupidity is in your post. >>> >>> THIS isn't stupidity. >>> To use an overly simplified example, collecting pension money and >>> running a lemonade stand with the money and reinvesting the profits is >>> very different than collecting pension money and distributing it to >>> retirees. >>> >>> In the former, the capital produces something and grows in value. In >>> the latter, nothing is produced. >> >> Retirees do not operate lemonade stands or banks or anything else. >> They are retired. But you will refuse to know this fact of objective >> reality because it interferes with your religious bias. > Ok, not only are you a shit for brains, you're a FUCKING shit for > brains. > > Retirees don't need to operate anything. They only need to help > capitalize businesses. Indeed, it works even better if they begin that > capitalization before they are retired. > > As in a 401k plan, investing and growing for retirement. When a person retires then that person is no longer contributing to the society and is instead taking from the society as was planned and as was intended by the person and the society. No matter what you or anyone else might _FEEL_ about it the facts remain the same: After the point of retirement, the productive are supporting the non productive. -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson     Date: 30 Dec 2008 03:23:58 From: Beldin the Sorcerer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net > wrote in message news:gjberk317pd@news7.newsguy.com... > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:14:11 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > Heavy snip to get to the idiot's only comment : . > > When a person retires then that person is no longer contributing to the > society and is instead taking from the society as was planned and as was > intended by the person and the society. No matter what you or anyone else > might _FEEL_ about it the facts remain the same: After the point of > retirement, the productive are supporting the non productive. > Again, idiot boy, assuming they saved for retirement and have investments, this is WRONG. They are producing by means of their investment capital. They aren't producing with their backs, but their capital allows others using their backs to produce more because of the assets they provide. This is basic economics. If you build a factory and hire someone to run it for you completely, you're producing because you capitalized that factory, even if you sit home and masturbate for the next fifty years. If 100,000 retirees invest in a company so they defacto do that as a group, it's the same thing. If 100,000 retirees just hold their hands out for SSI, because retirees before them did, then it's a ponzi scheme. Nothing gets produced at all that way. No economic growth, no means of increasing distributions to the elderly without simply taking more from the current workers.       Date: 05 Jan 2009 08:15:47 From: Gernot Hassenpflug Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net > writes: > "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:gjberk317pd@news7.newsguy.com... >> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:14:11 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >> > Heavy snip to get to the idiot's only comment : > . >> >> When a person retires then that person is no longer contributing to the >> society and is instead taking from the society as was planned and as was >> intended by the person and the society. No matter what you or anyone else >> might _FEEL_ about it the facts remain the same: After the point of >> retirement, the productive are supporting the non productive. >> > Again, idiot boy, assuming they saved for retirement and have investments, > this is WRONG. > They are producing by means of their investment capital. > They aren't producing with their backs, but their capital allows others > using their backs to produce more because of the assets they provide. > This is basic economics. Beldin, I think you're probably wasting your sorcery trying to explain basic economics to some of the folks here. But a good effort, I'll give you that. (For those interested, my favourite layman's text is anything by Thomas Sowell).   Date: 29 Dec 2008 18:32:19 From: Michael Coburn Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:33:22 -0500, suds macheath wrote: > ----And, the fact remains that American fascists have more in common > with the ultra right than the left...leftist fascists is indeed an > oxymoron. NO matter how many times you slap them in the face with reality they just continue the rightarded rant. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html ------------- Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson     Date: 15 Jan 2009 18:14:53 From: Mark Goldberg Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Michael Coburn wrote: > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:33:22 -0500, suds macheath wrote: > >> ----And, the fact remains that American fascists have more in common >> with the ultra right than the left...leftist fascists is indeed an >> oxymoron. > > NO matter how many times you slap them in the face with reality they just > continue the rightarded rant. > > http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html ------------- > Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist > conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply > through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by > the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... > Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to > say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And > if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which > theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of > chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, > it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war > is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of > history. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is one of the most stupid definitions ever concocted. Or don't you actually get that it's workd salad and essentially retarded? Marxian socialism contributed 150 millions slaugtered and reduced humans to those dead numbers... and was overthrown, by it's own detritus, as much as anything else. The dead did speak. Mark   Date: 28 Dec 2008 18:59:25 From: Michael Coburn Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:56:23 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:gj7cft3svn@news6.newsguy.com... >> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 06:05:49 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >> >>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>> news:gj4drk02cvk@news1.newsguy.com... >>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:48:25 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:gj3rle02cvj@news1.newsguy.com... >>>>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:26:27 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:gj1h3g4gts@news1.newsguy.com... >>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:07:17 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:gire5i212db@news3.newsguy.com... >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:34:10 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as >>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate. Part of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is >>>>>>>>>>>>> the result of free market choices. There is nothing (or >>>>>>>>>>>>> little) free about the funding of Social Security. It is >>>>>>>>>>>>> backed up by the coercive powers of the government. (One >>>>>>>>>>>>> could argue and many have that this, rather than being a >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>> with them, but it would be a coherent argument.) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for >>>>>>>>>>>> non-workers in the expectation that they too will get money >>>>>>>>>>>> from future workers. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of >>>>>>>>>>>> workers to provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? >>>>>>>>>>>> Because the current workers expect the same and more when >>>>>>>>>>>> they too stop working. >>>>>>>>>>> Ok, this is false. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Most pensions are set up by funding investments that produce >>>>>>>>>>> acceptable returns which can then pay retirees pensions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No matter how you do it, the productive younger people will be >>>>>>>>>> supporting the elderly or the elderly will croak prematurely. >>>>>>>>>> If Mr. Republican is deriving his income from some "investment" >>>>>>>>>> such as dividends those dividends are added to cost of goods in >>>>>>>>>> the here and now and prices are thereby increased. The >>>>>>>>>> productive will pay one way or the other. There is no other >>>>>>>>>> source from which the support might come. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's false. >>>>>>>>> Using capital previously amassed to produce more goods IS being >>>>>>>>> productive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are making the argument that investment in _real_ capital >>>>>>>> makes it possible for the current producers to create more goods >>>>>>>> than they would otherwise been able to produce and that the >>>>>>>> holders of stocks and bonds that financed that _real_ capital >>>>>>>> development are entitled to a share of it. I do not disagree. >>>>>>>> But that does not negate the fact that the current producers >>>>>>>> (with or without the better _real_ capital) will be providing for >>>>>>>> the current retired. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can make your argument ONLY if you assume "producers" are >>>>>>> people who produce food only. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. The point is fact regarding all consumables. >>>>> Money is a consumable. >>>> >>>> Let me put you on a desert island with tons of money and see you >>>> "consume" it. >>> As soon as you consume a TV set. >>> Scroll up, you just said you WEREN'T talking solely about food. >> >> I said that money is not a consumable. You seem to have a problem with >> equating that to "not food". Any product that provides direct utility >> in use is a consumable. That also includes home lawn mowers, dish >> washers and stereos, a hammock, a fishing pole, a guitar, and lots of >> other _stuff_. It even includes ones domicile. > Go consume a lawnmower. Then consume a racecar. Do it on that desert > isle. The one with all the piles of money and nothing else? Wealth is a product of land and labor with _real_ capital playing a large assisting role. Try to remember it. > >>>>>>> If you include money, that's false. >>>>>> >>>>>> Money is not a consumable or anything other than an accounting >>>>>> mechanism. >>>>> Ok, you fail. >>>> >>>> Not by the rules of real economics. >>> YES, by the rules of economics. >> >> (sigh) > Yeah, we both know you're an idiot. We both know just about as much as I know. Your contribution is somewhat scanty. >>>>> Money is consumed when you spend it. >>>>> It's a measure of society's value of your contribution, however you >>>>> contribute it. >>>> >>>> It is, as you say, a measure of ............... (whatever). >>>> >>>>>>> It's theoretically possible for every retiree to have a huge pile >>>>>>> of cash in their bedroom to support them in their retirement. It's >>>>>>> more practical for them to take that cash and invest it so it >>>>>>> grows, and they use the income from that cash to pay for their >>>>>>> needs. This is the common view of what "production" is : >>>>>>> production of all goods and services. Capital invested in any >>>>>>> company, used well (or 'productively') produces a good or service >>>>>>> that yields an income. Assuming that income is large enough to >>>>>>> provide food, clothing, shelter, etc for the elder investor, that >>>>>>> person is indeed producing enough to support himself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This plan depends on economic growth, of course. AND it depends on >>>>>>> someone else doing the manual labor. Of course, so do most of us. >>>>>>> I've not harvested any kind of food since working in my mother's >>>>>>> garden decades ago. I go to work, and 'produce' in my job, surely. >>>>>>> But if my job were filing papers, I'd be doing little different >>>>>>> than an elderly person collecting a dividend check. >>>>>> >>>>>> My only point was and still is that the productive people will be >>>>>> producing while we all are consuming. That is a social reality. >>>>>> There is much to be said for _investing_ when young so as to be >>>>>> able to retire at an appropriate age. FICA taxes essentially >>>>>> _force_ that on people who might well have otherwise not done so. >>>>>> That seems to be some sort of claim that the SS system is a savings >>>>>> system, but it is not. The consumption foregone by the producers >>>>>> (that amount paid in the form of FICA) goes to support the elderly. >>>>>> Some people save and invest even more than the FICA tax payers and >>>>>> they have better retirements because of it. They are able, in their >>>>>> old age, to command even more of the labor of the current producers >>>>>> because of their additional claims on output. >>>>> You're missing the point. >>>> >>>> I think not. >>> More likely you not think. >> >> I am correct in what I have said. And it will not be changing. The >> retirees do not produce, yet they consume. The producers produce. >> What part of this reality are you having a problem with? > You being retarded. > The retires produce. They do it by means of investment capital. They have already "invested". That part is over. In the here and noe that consume while others produce. That is reality. >>>>> "output" includes "Output made possible by additional capital". A >>>>> guy with a stick can plow X acres. A guy with a combine planter can >>>>> plow considerably more. >>>>> >>>>> The money invested causes additional productivity. >>>> >>>> And you want to show that I am unaware of this, why? Seems to me >>>> that I have addressed it twice, but perhaps not. Clearly, I have >>>> addressed it at least once. As a matter of fact, this increased >>>> productivity afforded by _real_ capital is the _MAJOR_ reason that >>>> social security is NOT a Ponzi scheme. >>> No, SSI IS a ponzi scheme. >>> There's no investment. There's no use of capital. >> >> If there is no investment then where did all that _real_ capital come >> from? The SS system has always run in the black. The FORCED savings >> are what allowed the investing. As a matter of fact the Republicans >> have been robbing the SS system for many years in order to grant tax >> cuts to the rich. The rich, according to the Republicans, were doing a >> lot of "investing" with all that money they saved by virtue of the tax >> cuts. The Republicans lied. > Yep, you're a fucking shithead. Just a big ole "poopie head" because I cite the reality, eh. > There's no investment. There's taxes that are redistributed. > > >> <<<<<<<<<<<< stupidity deleted >>>>>>>>>>>> > The only stupidity is in your post. > > THIS isn't stupidity. > To use an overly simplified example, collecting pension money and > running a lemonade stand with the money and reinvesting the profits is > very different than collecting pension money and distributing it to > retirees. > > In the former, the capital produces something and grows in value. In the > latter, nothing is produced. Retirees do not operate lemonade stands or banks or anything else. They are retired. But you will refuse to know this fact of objective reality because it interferes with your religious bias. -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson     Date: 29 Dec 2008 14:14:11 From: Beldin the Sorcerer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net > wrote in message news:gj8iad01km0@news4.newsguy.com... > On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:56:23 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > >> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >> news:gj7cft3svn@news6.newsguy.com... >>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 06:05:49 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>> >>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>> news:gj4drk02cvk@news1.newsguy.com... >>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:48:25 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:gj3rle02cvj@news1.newsguy.com... >>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:26:27 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:gj1h3g4gts@news1.newsguy.com... >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:07:17 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:gire5i212db@news3.newsguy.com... >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:34:10 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate. Part of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the result of free market choices. There is nothing (or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> little) free about the funding of Social Security. It is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> backed up by the coercive powers of the government. (One >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could argue and many have that this, rather than being a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with them, but it would be a coherent argument.) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-workers in the expectation that they too will get money >>>>>>>>>>>>> from future workers. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of >>>>>>>>>>>>> workers to provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the current workers expect the same and more when >>>>>>>>>>>>> they too stop working. >>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, this is false. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Most pensions are set up by funding investments that produce >>>>>>>>>>>> acceptable returns which can then pay retirees pensions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No matter how you do it, the productive younger people will be >>>>>>>>>>> supporting the elderly or the elderly will croak prematurely. >>>>>>>>>>> If Mr. Republican is deriving his income from some "investment" >>>>>>>>>>> such as dividends those dividends are added to cost of goods in >>>>>>>>>>> the here and now and prices are thereby increased. The >>>>>>>>>>> productive will pay one way or the other. There is no other >>>>>>>>>>> source from which the support might come. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's false. >>>>>>>>>> Using capital previously amassed to produce more goods IS being >>>>>>>>>> productive. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are making the argument that investment in _real_ capital >>>>>>>>> makes it possible for the current producers to create more goods >>>>>>>>> than they would otherwise been able to produce and that the >>>>>>>>> holders of stocks and bonds that financed that _real_ capital >>>>>>>>> development are entitled to a share of it. I do not disagree. >>>>>>>>> But that does not negate the fact that the current producers >>>>>>>>> (with or without the better _real_ capital) will be providing for >>>>>>>>> the current retired. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You can make your argument ONLY if you assume "producers" are >>>>>>>> people who produce food only. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. The point is fact regarding all consumables. >>>>>> Money is a consumable. >>>>> >>>>> Let me put you on a desert island with tons of money and see you >>>>> "consume" it. >>>> As soon as you consume a TV set. >>>> Scroll up, you just said you WEREN'T talking solely about food. >>> >>> I said that money is not a consumable. You seem to have a problem with >>> equating that to "not food". Any product that provides direct utility >>> in use is a consumable. That also includes home lawn mowers, dish >>> washers and stereos, a hammock, a fishing pole, a guitar, and lots of >>> other _stuff_. It even includes ones domicile. >> Go consume a lawnmower. Then consume a racecar. Do it on that desert >> isle. > > The one with all the piles of money and nothing else? Show me where you hypothesized "and nothing else" > > Wealth is a product of land and labor with _real_ capital playing a large > assisting role. Try to remember it. No, Wealth is a product of capital, period. Microsoft didn't build it's fortune mining materials to use to store it's software. > >> >>>>>>>> If you include money, that's false. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Money is not a consumable or anything other than an accounting >>>>>>> mechanism. >>>>>> Ok, you fail. >>>>> >>>>> Not by the rules of real economics. >>>> YES, by the rules of economics. >>> >>> (sigh) >> Yeah, we both know you're an idiot. > > We both know just about as much as I know. Your contribution is somewhat > scanty. > You can't even make a coherent sentence. You fail utterly to understand what money is. >>>>>> Money is consumed when you spend it. >>>>>> It's a measure of society's value of your contribution, however you >>>>>> contribute it. >>>>> >>>>> It is, as you say, a measure of ............... (whatever). >>>>> >>>>>>>> It's theoretically possible for every retiree to have a huge pile >>>>>>>> of cash in their bedroom to support them in their retirement. It's >>>>>>>> more practical for them to take that cash and invest it so it >>>>>>>> grows, and they use the income from that cash to pay for their >>>>>>>> needs. This is the common view of what "production" is : >>>>>>>> production of all goods and services. Capital invested in any >>>>>>>> company, used well (or 'productively') produces a good or service >>>>>>>> that yields an income. Assuming that income is large enough to >>>>>>>> provide food, clothing, shelter, etc for the elder investor, that >>>>>>>> person is indeed producing enough to support himself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This plan depends on economic growth, of course. AND it depends on >>>>>>>> someone else doing the manual labor. Of course, so do most of us. >>>>>>>> I've not harvested any kind of food since working in my mother's >>>>>>>> garden decades ago. I go to work, and 'produce' in my job, surely. >>>>>>>> But if my job were filing papers, I'd be doing little different >>>>>>>> than an elderly person collecting a dividend check. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My only point was and still is that the productive people will be >>>>>>> producing while we all are consuming. That is a social reality. >>>>>>> There is much to be said for _investing_ when young so as to be >>>>>>> able to retire at an appropriate age. FICA taxes essentially >>>>>>> _force_ that on people who might well have otherwise not done so. >>>>>>> That seems to be some sort of claim that the SS system is a savings >>>>>>> system, but it is not. The consumption foregone by the producers >>>>>>> (that amount paid in the form of FICA) goes to support the elderly. >>>>>>> Some people save and invest even more than the FICA tax payers and >>>>>>> they have better retirements because of it. They are able, in their >>>>>>> old age, to command even more of the labor of the current producers >>>>>>> because of their additional claims on output. >>>>>> You're missing the point. >>>>> >>>>> I think not. >>>> More likely you not think. >>> >>> I am correct in what I have said. And it will not be changing. The >>> retirees do not produce, yet they consume. The producers produce. >>> What part of this reality are you having a problem with? >> You being retarded. >> The retires produce. They do it by means of investment capital. > > They have already "invested". That part is over. In the here and noe > that consume while others produce. That is reality. No, they haven't. More to the point, they continue to do so. Those dividend checks come because they own stock. > >>>>>> "output" includes "Output made possible by additional capital". A >>>>>> guy with a stick can plow X acres. A guy with a combine planter can >>>>>> plow considerably more. >>>>>> >>>>>> The money invested causes additional productivity. >>>>> >>>>> And you want to show that I am unaware of this, why? Seems to me >>>>> that I have addressed it twice, but perhaps not. Clearly, I have >>>>> addressed it at least once. As a matter of fact, this increased >>>>> productivity afforded by _real_ capital is the _MAJOR_ reason that >>>>> social security is NOT a Ponzi scheme. >>>> No, SSI IS a ponzi scheme. >>>> There's no investment. There's no use of capital. >>> >>> If there is no investment then where did all that _real_ capital come >>> from? The SS system has always run in the black. The FORCED savings >>> are what allowed the investing. As a matter of fact the Republicans >>> have been robbing the SS system for many years in order to grant tax >>> cuts to the rich. The rich, according to the Republicans, were doing a >>> lot of "investing" with all that money they saved by virtue of the tax >>> cuts. The Republicans lied. >> Yep, you're a fucking shithead. > > Just a big ole "poopie head" because I cite the reality, eh. No, because you fail utterly to cite the reality. The facts are apparently beyond your limited understanding. > >> There's no investment. There's taxes that are redistributed. THAT'S the facts. SSI taxes are collected. SSI benefits are paid out. The difference is spent by the government. >> >> >>> <<<<<<<<<<<< stupidity deleted >>>>>>>>>>>> >> The only stupidity is in your post. >> >> THIS isn't stupidity. >> To use an overly simplified example, collecting pension money and >> running a lemonade stand with the money and reinvesting the profits is >> very different than collecting pension money and distributing it to >> retirees. >> >> In the former, the capital produces something and grows in value. In the >> latter, nothing is produced. > > Retirees do not operate lemonade stands or banks or anything else. They > are retired. But you will refuse to know this fact of objective reality > because it interferes with your religious bias. Ok, not only are you a shit for brains, you're a FUCKING shit for brains. Retirees don't need to operate anything. They only need to help capitalize businesses. Indeed, it works even better if they begin that capitalization before they are retired. As in a 401k plan, investing and growing for retirement.     Date: 28 Dec 2008 15:11:57 From: A Man Beaten by Jacks Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On 28 Dec 2008 18:59:25 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net > wrote: >We both know just about as much as I know. Your contribution is somewhat >scanty. That's why we call him Bell Dingbat here. Don't feed the troll plz.       Date: 29 Dec 2008 14:14:30 From: Beldin the Sorcerer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo > wrote in message news:gbnfl4ht2crv89godncu8f7v5i79ehmgdr@4ax.com... > On 28 Dec 2008 18:59:25 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> > wrote: > >>We both know just about as much as I know. Your contribution is somewhat >>scanty. > > That's why we call him Bell Dingbat here. Don't feed the troll plz. There's no trolling, Jackie the cokeman.   Date: 28 Dec 2008 08:13:49 From: Michael Coburn Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 06:05:49 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:gj4drk02cvk@news1.newsguy.com... >> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:48:25 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >> >>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>> news:gj3rle02cvj@news1.newsguy.com... >>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:26:27 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:gj1h3g4gts@news1.newsguy.com... >>>>>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:07:17 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:gire5i212db@news3.newsguy.com... >>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:34:10 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >>>>>>>>>> On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. >>>>>>>>>>> The government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as >>>>>>>>>>> appropriate. Part of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is >>>>>>>>>>> the result of free market choices. There is nothing (or >>>>>>>>>>> little) free about the funding of Social Security. It is >>>>>>>>>>> backed up by the coercive powers of the government. (One >>>>>>>>>>> could argue and many have that this, rather than being a Ponzi >>>>>>>>>>> scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree with them, >>>>>>>>>>> but it would be a coherent argument.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for >>>>>>>>>> non-workers in the expectation that they too will get money >>>>>>>>>> from future workers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of >>>>>>>>>> workers to provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? >>>>>>>>>> Because the current workers expect the same and more when they >>>>>>>>>> too stop working. >>>>>>>>> Ok, this is false. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Most pensions are set up by funding investments that produce >>>>>>>>> acceptable returns which can then pay retirees pensions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No matter how you do it, the productive younger people will be >>>>>>>> supporting the elderly or the elderly will croak prematurely. If >>>>>>>> Mr. Republican is deriving his income from some "investment" such >>>>>>>> as dividends those dividends are added to cost of goods in the >>>>>>>> here and now and prices are thereby increased. The productive >>>>>>>> will pay one way or the other. There is no other source from >>>>>>>> which the support might come. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's false. >>>>>>> Using capital previously amassed to produce more goods IS being >>>>>>> productive. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are making the argument that investment in _real_ capital makes >>>>>> it possible for the current producers to create more goods than >>>>>> they would otherwise been able to produce and that the holders of >>>>>> stocks and bonds that financed that _real_ capital development are >>>>>> entitled to a share of it. I do not disagree. But that does not >>>>>> negate the fact that the current producers (with or without the >>>>>> better _real_ capital) will be providing for the current retired. >>>>>> >>>>> You can make your argument ONLY if you assume "producers" are people >>>>> who produce food only. >>>> >>>> Nope. The point is fact regarding all consumables. >>> Money is a consumable. >> >> Let me put you on a desert island with tons of money and see you >> "consume" it. > As soon as you consume a TV set. > Scroll up, you just said you WEREN'T talking solely about food. I said that money is not a consumable. You seem to have a problem with equating that to "not food". Any product that provides direct utility in use is a consumable. That also includes home lawn mowers, dish washers and stereos, a hammock, a fishing pole, a guitar, and lots of other _stuff_. It even includes ones domicile. >>>>> If you include money, that's false. >>>> >>>> Money is not a consumable or anything other than an accounting >>>> mechanism. >>> Ok, you fail. >> >> Not by the rules of real economics. > YES, by the rules of economics. (sigh) >>> Money is consumed when you spend it. >>> It's a measure of society's value of your contribution, however you >>> contribute it. >> >> It is, as you say, a measure of ............... (whatever). >> >>>>> It's theoretically possible for every retiree to have a huge pile of >>>>> cash in their bedroom to support them in their retirement. It's more >>>>> practical for them to take that cash and invest it so it grows, and >>>>> they use the income from that cash to pay for their needs. This is >>>>> the common view of what "production" is : production of all goods >>>>> and services. Capital invested in any company, used well (or >>>>> 'productively') produces a good or service that yields an income. >>>>> Assuming that income is large enough to provide food, clothing, >>>>> shelter, etc for the elder investor, that person is indeed producing >>>>> enough to support himself. >>>>> >>>>> This plan depends on economic growth, of course. AND it depends on >>>>> someone else doing the manual labor. Of course, so do most of us. >>>>> I've not harvested any kind of food since working in my mother's >>>>> garden decades ago. I go to work, and 'produce' in my job, surely. >>>>> But if my job were filing papers, I'd be doing little different than >>>>> an elderly person collecting a dividend check. >>>> >>>> My only point was and still is that the productive people will be >>>> producing while we all are consuming. That is a social reality. >>>> There is much to be said for _investing_ when young so as to be able >>>> to retire at an appropriate age. FICA taxes essentially _force_ that >>>> on people who might well have otherwise not done so. That seems to >>>> be some sort of claim that the SS system is a savings system, but it >>>> is not. The consumption foregone by the producers (that amount paid >>>> in the form of FICA) goes to support the elderly. Some people save >>>> and invest even more than the FICA tax payers and they have better >>>> retirements because of it. They are able, in their old age, to >>>> command even more of the labor of the current producers because of >>>> their additional claims on output. >>> You're missing the point. >> >> I think not. > More likely you not think. I am correct in what I have said. And it will not be changing. The retirees do not produce, yet they consume. The producers produce. What part of this reality are you having a problem with? >>> "output" includes "Output made possible by additional capital". A guy >>> with a stick can plow X acres. A guy with a combine planter can plow >>> considerably more. >>> >>> The money invested causes additional productivity. >> >> And you want to show that I am unaware of this, why? Seems to me that >> I have addressed it twice, but perhaps not. Clearly, I have addressed >> it at least once. As a matter of fact, this increased productivity >> afforded by _real_ capital is the _MAJOR_ reason that social security >> is NOT a Ponzi scheme. > No, SSI IS a ponzi scheme. > There's no investment. There's no use of capital. If there is no investment then where did all that _real_ capital come from? The SS system has always run in the black. The FORCED savings are what allowed the investing. As a matter of fact the Republicans have been robbing the SS system for many years in order to grant tax cuts to the rich. The rich, according to the Republicans, were doing a lot of "investing" with all that money they saved by virtue of the tax cuts. The Republicans lied. <<<<<<<<<<<< stupidity deleted >>>>>>>>>>>> -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson     Date: 28 Dec 2008 08:56:23 From: Beldin the Sorcerer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net > wrote in message news:gj7cft3svn@news6.newsguy.com... > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 06:05:49 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > >> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >> news:gj4drk02cvk@news1.newsguy.com... >>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:48:25 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>> >>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>> news:gj3rle02cvj@news1.newsguy.com... >>>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:26:27 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:gj1h3g4gts@news1.newsguy.com... >>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:07:17 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:gire5i212db@news3.newsguy.com... >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:34:10 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. >>>>>>>>>>>> The government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as >>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate. Part of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is >>>>>>>>>>>> the result of free market choices. There is nothing (or >>>>>>>>>>>> little) free about the funding of Social Security. It is >>>>>>>>>>>> backed up by the coercive powers of the government. (One >>>>>>>>>>>> could argue and many have that this, rather than being a Ponzi >>>>>>>>>>>> scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree with them, >>>>>>>>>>>> but it would be a coherent argument.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for >>>>>>>>>>> non-workers in the expectation that they too will get money >>>>>>>>>>> from future workers. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of >>>>>>>>>>> workers to provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? >>>>>>>>>>> Because the current workers expect the same and more when they >>>>>>>>>>> too stop working. >>>>>>>>>> Ok, this is false. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Most pensions are set up by funding investments that produce >>>>>>>>>> acceptable returns which can then pay retirees pensions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No matter how you do it, the productive younger people will be >>>>>>>>> supporting the elderly or the elderly will croak prematurely. If >>>>>>>>> Mr. Republican is deriving his income from some "investment" such >>>>>>>>> as dividends those dividends are added to cost of goods in the >>>>>>>>> here and now and prices are thereby increased. The productive >>>>>>>>> will pay one way or the other. There is no other source from >>>>>>>>> which the support might come. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's false. >>>>>>>> Using capital previously amassed to produce more goods IS being >>>>>>>> productive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are making the argument that investment in _real_ capital makes >>>>>>> it possible for the current producers to create more goods than >>>>>>> they would otherwise been able to produce and that the holders of >>>>>>> stocks and bonds that financed that _real_ capital development are >>>>>>> entitled to a share of it. I do not disagree. But that does not >>>>>>> negate the fact that the current producers (with or without the >>>>>>> better _real_ capital) will be providing for the current retired. >>>>>>> >>>>>> You can make your argument ONLY if you assume "producers" are people >>>>>> who produce food only. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. The point is fact regarding all consumables. >>>> Money is a consumable. >>> >>> Let me put you on a desert island with tons of money and see you >>> "consume" it. >> As soon as you consume a TV set. >> Scroll up, you just said you WEREN'T talking solely about food. > > I said that money is not a consumable. You seem to have a problem with > equating that to "not food". Any product that provides direct utility in > use is a consumable. That also includes home lawn mowers, dish washers > and stereos, a hammock, a fishing pole, a guitar, and lots of other > _stuff_. It even includes ones domicile. Go consume a lawnmower. Then consume a racecar. Do it on that desert isle. > >>>>>> If you include money, that's false. >>>>> >>>>> Money is not a consumable or anything other than an accounting >>>>> mechanism. >>>> Ok, you fail. >>> >>> Not by the rules of real economics. >> YES, by the rules of economics. > > (sigh) Yeah, we both know you're an idiot. > >>>> Money is consumed when you spend it. >>>> It's a measure of society's value of your contribution, however you >>>> contribute it. >>> >>> It is, as you say, a measure of ............... (whatever). >>> >>>>>> It's theoretically possible for every retiree to have a huge pile of >>>>>> cash in their bedroom to support them in their retirement. It's more >>>>>> practical for them to take that cash and invest it so it grows, and >>>>>> they use the income from that cash to pay for their needs. This is >>>>>> the common view of what "production" is : production of all goods >>>>>> and services. Capital invested in any company, used well (or >>>>>> 'productively') produces a good or service that yields an income. >>>>>> Assuming that income is large enough to provide food, clothing, >>>>>> shelter, etc for the elder investor, that person is indeed producing >>>>>> enough to support himself. >>>>>> >>>>>> This plan depends on economic growth, of course. AND it depends on >>>>>> someone else doing the manual labor. Of course, so do most of us. >>>>>> I've not harvested any kind of food since working in my mother's >>>>>> garden decades ago. I go to work, and 'produce' in my job, surely. >>>>>> But if my job were filing papers, I'd be doing little different than >>>>>> an elderly person collecting a dividend check. >>>>> >>>>> My only point was and still is that the productive people will be >>>>> producing while we all are consuming. That is a social reality. >>>>> There is much to be said for _investing_ when young so as to be able >>>>> to retire at an appropriate age. FICA taxes essentially _force_ that >>>>> on people who might well have otherwise not done so. That seems to >>>>> be some sort of claim that the SS system is a savings system, but it >>>>> is not. The consumption foregone by the producers (that amount paid >>>>> in the form of FICA) goes to support the elderly. Some people save >>>>> and invest even more than the FICA tax payers and they have better >>>>> retirements because of it. They are able, in their old age, to >>>>> command even more of the labor of the current producers because of >>>>> their additional claims on output. >>>> You're missing the point. >>> >>> I think not. >> More likely you not think. > > I am correct in what I have said. And it will not be changing. The > retirees do not produce, yet they consume. The producers produce. What > part of this reality are you having a problem with? You being retarded. The retires produce. They do it by means of investment capital. > >>>> "output" includes "Output made possible by additional capital". A guy >>>> with a stick can plow X acres. A guy with a combine planter can plow >>>> considerably more. >>>> >>>> The money invested causes additional productivity. >>> >>> And you want to show that I am unaware of this, why? Seems to me that >>> I have addressed it twice, but perhaps not. Clearly, I have addressed >>> it at least once. As a matter of fact, this increased productivity >>> afforded by _real_ capital is the _MAJOR_ reason that social security >>> is NOT a Ponzi scheme. >> No, SSI IS a ponzi scheme. >> There's no investment. There's no use of capital. > > If there is no investment then where did all that _real_ capital come > from? The SS system has always run in the black. The FORCED savings are > what allowed the investing. As a matter of fact the Republicans have > been robbing the SS system for many years in order to grant tax cuts to > the rich. The rich, according to the Republicans, were doing a lot of > "investing" with all that money they saved by virtue of the tax cuts. > The Republicans lied. Yep, you're a fucking shithead. There's no investment. There's taxes that are redistributed. > > <<<<<<<<<<<< stupidity deleted >>>>>>>>>>>> The only stupidity is in your post. THIS isn't stupidity. To use an overly simplified example, collecting pension money and running a lemonade stand with the money and reinvesting the profits is very different than collecting pension money and distributing it to retirees. In the former, the capital produces something and grows in value. In the latter, nothing is produced.   Date: 27 Dec 2008 05:18:44 From: Michael Coburn Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:48:25 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:gj3rle02cvj@news1.newsguy.com... >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:26:27 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >> >>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>> news:gj1h3g4gts@news1.newsguy.com... >>>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:07:17 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:gire5i212db@news3.newsguy.com... >>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:34:10 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >>>>>>>> On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. >>>>>>>>> The government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as >>>>>>>>> appropriate. Part of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the >>>>>>>>> result of free market choices. There is nothing (or little) >>>>>>>>> free about the funding of Social Security. It is backed up by >>>>>>>>> the coercive powers of the government. (One could argue and >>>>>>>>> many have that this, rather than being a Ponzi scheme, is what >>>>>>>>> is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree with them, but it would be a >>>>>>>>> coherent argument.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for >>>>>>>> non-workers in the expectation that they too will get money from >>>>>>>> future workers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of >>>>>>>> workers to provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? >>>>>>>> Because the current workers expect the same and more when they >>>>>>>> too stop working. >>>>>>> Ok, this is false. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most pensions are set up by funding investments that produce >>>>>>> acceptable returns which can then pay retirees pensions. >>>>>> >>>>>> No matter how you do it, the productive younger people will be >>>>>> supporting the elderly or the elderly will croak prematurely. If >>>>>> Mr. Republican is deriving his income from some "investment" such >>>>>> as dividends those dividends are added to cost of goods in the here >>>>>> and now and prices are thereby increased. The productive will pay >>>>>> one way or the other. There is no other source from which the >>>>>> support might come. >>>>> >>>>> That's false. >>>>> Using capital previously amassed to produce more goods IS being >>>>> productive. >>>> >>>> You are making the argument that investment in _real_ capital makes >>>> it possible for the current producers to create more goods than they >>>> would otherwise been able to produce and that the holders of stocks >>>> and bonds that financed that _real_ capital development are entitled >>>> to a share of it. I do not disagree. But that does not negate the >>>> fact that the current producers (with or without the better _real_ >>>> capital) will be providing for the current retired. >>>> >>> You can make your argument ONLY if you assume "producers" are people >>> who produce food only. >> >> Nope. The point is fact regarding all consumables. > Money is a consumable. Let me put you on a desert island with tons of money and see you "consume" it. >>> If you include money, that's false. >> >> Money is not a consumable or anything other than an accounting >> mechanism. > Ok, you fail. Not by the rules of real economics. > Money is consumed when you spend it. > It's a measure of society's value of your contribution, however you > contribute it. It is, as you say, a measure of ............... (whatever). >>> It's theoretically possible for every retiree to have a huge pile of >>> cash in their bedroom to support them in their retirement. It's more >>> practical for them to take that cash and invest it so it grows, and >>> they use the income from that cash to pay for their needs. This is the >>> common view of what "production" is : production of all goods and >>> services. Capital invested in any company, used well (or >>> 'productively') produces a good or service that yields an income. >>> Assuming that income is large enough to provide food, clothing, >>> shelter, etc for the elder investor, that person is indeed producing >>> enough to support himself. >>> >>> This plan depends on economic growth, of course. AND it depends on >>> someone else doing the manual labor. Of course, so do most of us. I've >>> not harvested any kind of food since working in my mother's garden >>> decades ago. I go to work, and 'produce' in my job, surely. But if my >>> job were filing papers, I'd be doing little different than an elderly >>> person collecting a dividend check. >> >> My only point was and still is that the productive people will be >> producing while we all are consuming. That is a social reality. There >> is much to be said for _investing_ when young so as to be able to >> retire at an appropriate age. FICA taxes essentially _force_ that on >> people who might well have otherwise not done so. That seems to be >> some sort of claim that the SS system is a savings system, but it is >> not. The consumption foregone by the producers (that amount paid in >> the form of FICA) goes to support the elderly. Some people save and >> invest even more than the FICA tax payers and they have better >> retirements because of it. They are able, in their old age, to command >> even more of the labor of the current producers because of their >> additional claims on output. > You're missing the point. I think not. > "output" includes "Output made possible by additional capital". A guy > with a stick can plow X acres. A guy with a combine planter can plow > considerably more. > > The money invested causes additional productivity. And you want to show that I am unaware of this, why? Seems to me that I have addressed it twice, but perhaps not. Clearly, I have addressed it at least once. As a matter of fact, this increased productivity afforded by _real_ capital is the _MAJOR_ reason that social security is NOT a Ponzi scheme. -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson     Date: 27 Dec 2008 06:05:49 From: Beldin the Sorcerer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net > wrote in message news:gj4drk02cvk@news1.newsguy.com... > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:48:25 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > >> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >> news:gj3rle02cvj@news1.newsguy.com... >>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:26:27 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>> >>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>> news:gj1h3g4gts@news1.newsguy.com... >>>>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:07:17 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:gire5i212db@news3.newsguy.com... >>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:34:10 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >>>>>>>>> On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. >>>>>>>>>> The government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as >>>>>>>>>> appropriate. Part of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the >>>>>>>>>> result of free market choices. There is nothing (or little) >>>>>>>>>> free about the funding of Social Security. It is backed up by >>>>>>>>>> the coercive powers of the government. (One could argue and >>>>>>>>>> many have that this, rather than being a Ponzi scheme, is what >>>>>>>>>> is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree with them, but it would be a >>>>>>>>>> coherent argument.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for >>>>>>>>> non-workers in the expectation that they too will get money from >>>>>>>>> future workers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of >>>>>>>>> workers to provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? >>>>>>>>> Because the current workers expect the same and more when they >>>>>>>>> too stop working. >>>>>>>> Ok, this is false. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Most pensions are set up by funding investments that produce >>>>>>>> acceptable returns which can then pay retirees pensions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No matter how you do it, the productive younger people will be >>>>>>> supporting the elderly or the elderly will croak prematurely. If >>>>>>> Mr. Republican is deriving his income from some "investment" such >>>>>>> as dividends those dividends are added to cost of goods in the here >>>>>>> and now and prices are thereby increased. The productive will pay >>>>>>> one way or the other. There is no other source from which the >>>>>>> support might come. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's false. >>>>>> Using capital previously amassed to produce more goods IS being >>>>>> productive. >>>>> >>>>> You are making the argument that investment in _real_ capital makes >>>>> it possible for the current producers to create more goods than they >>>>> would otherwise been able to produce and that the holders of stocks >>>>> and bonds that financed that _real_ capital development are entitled >>>>> to a share of it. I do not disagree. But that does not negate the >>>>> fact that the current producers (with or without the better _real_ >>>>> capital) will be providing for the current retired. >>>>> >>>> You can make your argument ONLY if you assume "producers" are people >>>> who produce food only. >>> >>> Nope. The point is fact regarding all consumables. >> Money is a consumable. > > Let me put you on a desert island with tons of money and see you > "consume" it. As soon as you consume a TV set. Scroll up, you just said you WEREN'T talking solely about food. > >>>> If you include money, that's false. >>> >>> Money is not a consumable or anything other than an accounting >>> mechanism. >> Ok, you fail. > > Not by the rules of real economics. YES, by the rules of economics. > >> Money is consumed when you spend it. >> It's a measure of society's value of your contribution, however you >> contribute it. > > It is, as you say, a measure of ............... (whatever). > >>>> It's theoretically possible for every retiree to have a huge pile of >>>> cash in their bedroom to support them in their retirement. It's more >>>> practical for them to take that cash and invest it so it grows, and >>>> they use the income from that cash to pay for their needs. This is the >>>> common view of what "production" is : production of all goods and >>>> services. Capital invested in any company, used well (or >>>> 'productively') produces a good or service that yields an income. >>>> Assuming that income is large enough to provide food, clothing, >>>> shelter, etc for the elder investor, that person is indeed producing >>>> enough to support himself. >>>> >>>> This plan depends on economic growth, of course. AND it depends on >>>> someone else doing the manual labor. Of course, so do most of us. I've >>>> not harvested any kind of food since working in my mother's garden >>>> decades ago. I go to work, and 'produce' in my job, surely. But if my >>>> job were filing papers, I'd be doing little different than an elderly >>>> person collecting a dividend check. >>> >>> My only point was and still is that the productive people will be >>> producing while we all are consuming. That is a social reality. There >>> is much to be said for _investing_ when young so as to be able to >>> retire at an appropriate age. FICA taxes essentially _force_ that on >>> people who might well have otherwise not done so. That seems to be >>> some sort of claim that the SS system is a savings system, but it is >>> not. The consumption foregone by the producers (that amount paid in >>> the form of FICA) goes to support the elderly. Some people save and >>> invest even more than the FICA tax payers and they have better >>> retirements because of it. They are able, in their old age, to command >>> even more of the labor of the current producers because of their >>> additional claims on output. >> You're missing the point. > > I think not. More likely you not think. > >> "output" includes "Output made possible by additional capital". A guy >> with a stick can plow X acres. A guy with a combine planter can plow >> considerably more. >> >> The money invested causes additional productivity. > > And you want to show that I am unaware of this, why? Seems to me that I > have addressed it twice, but perhaps not. Clearly, I have addressed it > at least once. As a matter of fact, this increased productivity afforded > by _real_ capital is the _MAJOR_ reason that social security is NOT a > Ponzi scheme. No, SSI IS a ponzi scheme. There's no investment. There's no use of capital. To use an overly simplified example, collecting pension money and running a lemonade stand with the money and reinvesting the profits is very different than collecting pension money and distributing it to retirees.   Date: 27 Dec 2008 00:08:14 From: Michael Coburn Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:26:27 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:gj1h3g4gts@news1.newsguy.com... >> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:07:17 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >> >>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>> news:gire5i212db@news3.newsguy.com... >>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:34:10 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >>>>>> On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The >>>>>>> government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. >>>>>>> Part of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the result of free >>>>>>> market choices. There is nothing (or little) free about the >>>>>>> funding of Social Security. It is backed up by the coercive >>>>>>> powers of the government. (One could argue and many have that >>>>>>> this, rather than being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. >>>>>>> I wouldn't agree with them, but it would be a coherent argument.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. >>>>>> >>>>>> SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for >>>>>> non-workers in the expectation that they too will get money from >>>>>> future workers. >>>>>> >>>>>> In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of workers >>>>>> to provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? Because the >>>>>> current workers expect the same and more when they too stop >>>>>> working. >>>>> Ok, this is false. >>>>> >>>>> Most pensions are set up by funding investments that produce >>>>> acceptable returns which can then pay retirees pensions. >>>> >>>> No matter how you do it, the productive younger people will be >>>> supporting the elderly or the elderly will croak prematurely. If Mr. >>>> Republican is deriving his income from some "investment" such as >>>> dividends those dividends are added to cost of goods in the here and >>>> now and prices are thereby increased. The productive will pay one >>>> way or the other. There is no other source from which the support >>>> might come. >>> >>> That's false. >>> Using capital previously amassed to produce more goods IS being >>> productive. >> >> You are making the argument that investment in _real_ capital makes it >> possible for the current producers to create more goods than they would >> otherwise been able to produce and that the holders of stocks and bonds >> that financed that _real_ capital development are entitled to a share >> of it. I do not disagree. But that does not negate the fact that the >> current producers (with or without the better _real_ capital) will be >> providing for the current retired. >> > You can make your argument ONLY if you assume "producers" are people who > produce food only. Nope. The point is fact regarding all consumables. > If you include money, that's false. Money is not a consumable or anything other than an accounting mechanism. > It's theoretically possible for every retiree to have a huge pile of > cash in their bedroom to support them in their retirement. It's more > practical for them to take that cash and invest it so it grows, and they > use the income from that cash to pay for their needs. This is the common > view of what "production" is : production of all goods and services. > Capital invested in any company, used well (or 'productively') produces > a good or service that yields an income. Assuming that income is large > enough to provide food, clothing, shelter, etc for the elder investor, > that person is indeed producing enough to support himself. > > This plan depends on economic growth, of course. AND it depends on > someone else doing the manual labor. Of course, so do most of us. I've > not harvested any kind of food since working in my mother's garden > decades ago. I go to work, and 'produce' in my job, surely. But if my > job were filing papers, I'd be doing little different than an elderly > person collecting a dividend check. My only point was and still is that the productive people will be producing while we all are consuming. That is a social reality. There is much to be said for _investing_ when young so as to be able to retire at an appropriate age. FICA taxes essentially _force_ that on people who might well have otherwise not done so. That seems to be some sort of claim that the SS system is a savings system, but it is not. The consumption foregone by the producers (that amount paid in the form of FICA) goes to support the elderly. Some people save and invest even more than the FICA tax payers and they have better retirements because of it. They are able, in their old age, to command even more of the labor of the current producers because of their additional claims on output. -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson     Date: 27 Dec 2008 02:48:25 From: Beldin the Sorcerer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net > wrote in message news:gj3rle02cvj@news1.newsguy.com... > On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:26:27 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > >> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >> news:gj1h3g4gts@news1.newsguy.com... >>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:07:17 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>> >>>> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>> news:gire5i212db@news3.newsguy.com... >>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:34:10 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >>>>>>> On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The >>>>>>>> government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. >>>>>>>> Part of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the result of free >>>>>>>> market choices. There is nothing (or little) free about the >>>>>>>> funding of Social Security. It is backed up by the coercive >>>>>>>> powers of the government. (One could argue and many have that >>>>>>>> this, rather than being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. >>>>>>>> I wouldn't agree with them, but it would be a coherent argument.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for >>>>>>> non-workers in the expectation that they too will get money from >>>>>>> future workers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of workers >>>>>>> to provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? Because the >>>>>>> current workers expect the same and more when they too stop >>>>>>> working. >>>>>> Ok, this is false. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most pensions are set up by funding investments that produce >>>>>> acceptable returns which can then pay retirees pensions. >>>>> >>>>> No matter how you do it, the productive younger people will be >>>>> supporting the elderly or the elderly will croak prematurely. If Mr. >>>>> Republican is deriving his income from some "investment" such as >>>>> dividends those dividends are added to cost of goods in the here and >>>>> now and prices are thereby increased. The productive will pay one >>>>> way or the other. There is no other source from which the support >>>>> might come. >>>> >>>> That's false. >>>> Using capital previously amassed to produce more goods IS being >>>> productive. >>> >>> You are making the argument that investment in _real_ capital makes it >>> possible for the current producers to create more goods than they would >>> otherwise been able to produce and that the holders of stocks and bonds >>> that financed that _real_ capital development are entitled to a share >>> of it. I do not disagree. But that does not negate the fact that the >>> current producers (with or without the better _real_ capital) will be >>> providing for the current retired. >>> >> You can make your argument ONLY if you assume "producers" are people who >> produce food only. > > Nope. The point is fact regarding all consumables. Money is a consumable. > >> If you include money, that's false. > > Money is not a consumable or anything other than an accounting mechanism. Ok, you fail. Money is consumed when you spend it. It's a measure of society's value of your contribution, however you contribute it. > >> It's theoretically possible for every retiree to have a huge pile of >> cash in their bedroom to support them in their retirement. It's more >> practical for them to take that cash and invest it so it grows, and they >> use the income from that cash to pay for their needs. This is the common >> view of what "production" is : production of all goods and services. >> Capital invested in any company, used well (or 'productively') produces >> a good or service that yields an income. Assuming that income is large >> enough to provide food, clothing, shelter, etc for the elder investor, >> that person is indeed producing enough to support himself. >> >> This plan depends on economic growth, of course. AND it depends on >> someone else doing the manual labor. Of course, so do most of us. I've >> not harvested any kind of food since working in my mother's garden >> decades ago. I go to work, and 'produce' in my job, surely. But if my >> job were filing papers, I'd be doing little different than an elderly >> person collecting a dividend check. > > My only point was and still is that the productive people will be > producing while we all are consuming. That is a social reality. There > is much to be said for _investing_ when young so as to be able to retire > at an appropriate age. FICA taxes essentially _force_ that on people who > might well have otherwise not done so. That seems to be some sort of > claim that the SS system is a savings system, but it is not. The > consumption foregone by the producers (that amount paid in the form of > FICA) goes to support the elderly. Some people save and invest even more > than the FICA tax payers and they have better retirements because of it. > They are able, in their old age, to command even more of the labor of the > current producers because of their additional claims on output. You're missing the point. "output" includes "Output made possible by additional capital". A guy with a stick can plow X acres. A guy with a combine planter can plow considerably more. The money invested causes additional productivity.   Date: 26 Dec 2008 07:23:08 From: MooseFET Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 24, 7:55=A0am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net > wrote: > MooseFET wrote: > > > The poor funding of the VA is one of the shameful examples of failing > > to really support the troops that needs both parties have been very > > guilty of. > > > Service for service and drug for drug the VA pays far less than the > > civilian health care services. =A0There is no reason why it can't be > > providing gold plated service at the same price as a civilian system > > rather than pinching every penny and trying to do it for less. > > =A0 =A0The VA system is one of the most efficient in the world, just WAY > under funded. Large, for profit hospitals are wanting to copy their > methods. I think they should let the VA license it to raise more funds. > Then they would have more money to provide even better care. The VA system is currently free for everyone to use. The fact that it is known to work better but the others don't switch to it indicates that there are those who oppose efficiency and have the power to prevent it. Opposing it makes sense because the inefficiencies are all somebodies income. > > =A0 =A0As an example of supreme political stupidity, our CONgress decided > that anything related to teeth is not a health problem so some Veterans > have continuing bad health, requiring more clinic or hospital visits and > medication than the dental work would cost. The whole idea that teeth are a special case is silly. We don't have special insurance for our ears. The phrase "best politicians money can buy" comes to mind. Unfortunately, politicians have to spend a great deal of their time begging for money. This puts them in debt to those that they are supposed to be regulating. The switch to internet based fund raising may reverse the situation but up till now those with enough money to matter were exactly the folks who you want to keep away from the politics.   Date: 26 Dec 2008 02:55:44 From: Michael Coburn Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:07:17 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:gire5i212db@news3.newsguy.com... >> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:34:10 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >> >>> "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>> news:49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >>>> On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The >>>>> government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. >>>>> Part of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the result of free >>>>> market choices. There is nothing (or little) free about the funding >>>>> of Social Security. It is backed up by the coercive powers of the >>>>> government. (One could argue and many have that this, rather than >>>>> being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree >>>>> with them, but it would be a coherent argument.) >>>> >>>> >>>> SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. >>>> >>>> SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for non-workers >>>> in the expectation that they too will get money from future workers. >>>> >>>> In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of workers to >>>> provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? Because the current >>>> workers expect the same and more when they too stop working. >>> Ok, this is false. >>> >>> Most pensions are set up by funding investments that produce >>> acceptable returns which can then pay retirees pensions. >> >> No matter how you do it, the productive younger people will be >> supporting the elderly or the elderly will croak prematurely. If Mr. >> Republican is deriving his income from some "investment" such as >> dividends those dividends are added to cost of goods in the here and >> now and prices are thereby increased. The productive will pay one way >> or the other. There is no other source from which the support might >> come. > > That's false. > Using capital previously amassed to produce more goods IS being > productive. You are making the argument that investment in _real_ capital makes it possible for the current producers to create more goods than they would otherwise been able to produce and that the holders of stocks and bonds that financed that _real_ capital development are entitled to a share of it. I do not disagree. But that does not negate the fact that the current producers (with or without the better _real_ capital) will be providing for the current retired. -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson     Date: 26 Dec 2008 13:26:27 From: Beldin the Sorcerer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net > wrote in message news:gj1h3g4gts@news1.newsguy.com... > On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:07:17 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > >> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message >> news:gire5i212db@news3.newsguy.com... >>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:34:10 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: >>> >>>> "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>>> news:49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >>>>> On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The >>>>>> government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. >>>>>> Part of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the result of free >>>>>> market choices. There is nothing (or little) free about the funding >>>>>> of Social Security. It is backed up by the coercive powers of the >>>>>> government. (One could argue and many have that this, rather than >>>>>> being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree >>>>>> with them, but it would be a coherent argument.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. >>>>> >>>>> SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for non-workers >>>>> in the expectation that they too will get money from future workers. >>>>> >>>>> In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of workers to >>>>> provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? Because the current >>>>> workers expect the same and more when they too stop working. >>>> Ok, this is false. >>>> >>>> Most pensions are set up by funding investments that produce >>>> acceptable returns which can then pay retirees pensions. >>> >>> No matter how you do it, the productive younger people will be >>> supporting the elderly or the elderly will croak prematurely. If Mr. >>> Republican is deriving his income from some "investment" such as >>> dividends those dividends are added to cost of goods in the here and >>> now and prices are thereby increased. The productive will pay one way >>> or the other. There is no other source from which the support might >>> come. >> >> That's false. >> Using capital previously amassed to produce more goods IS being >> productive. > > You are making the argument that investment in _real_ capital makes it > possible for the current producers to create more goods than they would > otherwise been able to produce and that the holders of stocks and bonds > that financed that _real_ capital development are entitled to a share of > it. I do not disagree. But that does not negate the fact that the > current producers (with or without the better _real_ capital) will be > providing for the current retired. > You can make your argument ONLY if you assume "producers" are people who produce food only. If you include money, that's false. It's theoretically possible for every retiree to have a huge pile of cash in their bedroom to support them in their retirement. It's more practical for them to take that cash and invest it so it grows, and they use the income from that cash to pay for their needs. This is the common view of what "production" is : production of all goods and services. Capital invested in any company, used well (or 'productively') produces a good or service that yields an income. Assuming that income is large enough to provide food, clothing, shelter, etc for the elder investor, that person is indeed producing enough to support himself. This plan depends on economic growth, of course. AND it depends on someone else doing the manual labor. Of course, so do most of us. I've not harvested any kind of food since working in my mother's garden decades ago. I go to work, and 'produce' in my job, surely. But if my job were filing papers, I'd be doing little different than an elderly person collecting a dividend check.       Date: 26 Dec 2008 09:03:05 From: da pickle Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Beldin the Sorcerer" <snip very reasonable post > You make excellent points at times. They are also the times when points are delivered without invective.         Date: 27 Dec 2008 05:52:45 From: Beldin the Sorcerer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com > wrote in message news:8OidnQPmRPKxb8nU4p2dnAA@giganews.com... > "Beldin the Sorcerer" > > <snip very reasonable post> > > You make excellent points at times. > > They are also the times when points are delivered without invective. There's never invective. There's often manipulation to get people to reveal their real issues. > >         Date: 26 Dec 2008 11:57:16 From: Michael A. Terrell Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history da pickle wrote: > > "Beldin the Sorcerer" > > <snip very reasonable post> > > You make excellent points at times. > > They are also the times when points are delivered without invective. Go find your own invective ;-) -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.   Date: 24 Dec 2008 20:59:51 From: Michael A. Terrell Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Michael Coburn wrote: > > What he is describing is very efficient but underfunded system. I have > had no problem with the VA health care even though I have diabetes and > high blood pressure. I get proper meds and I exercise a lot and that > seems to do me. I see the doc when I need to and if an emergency arises > the VA will pick up the cost of the civilian services as needed. I do > not have to pay the larcenous "protection racket" insurance people. If I > want to pay for some sort of "specialist" I can certainly do so. What VA clinic do you use? Has your VA doctor ever threatened to kill another employee in front of patients? When you need to see your doctor does the nurse tell you there is nothing wrong with you when you can't see, or that you are wasting her time because "THIS ISN'T A HOSPITAL! DOES IT LOOK LIKE A HOSPITAL TO YOU?" I agree that the VA has improved quite a bit in the last 10 years but there is still some dead wood and unstable people working there, and you never know who you will run into. > >> I am sure what you two have described here is not happening in Canada. > > > > No, it doesn't because Canuckistanis come *HERE* for health care. > > I do not believe this crap and I don't think most intelligent people will > buy it either. In the vast majority of cases the travel expenses would > be too high. But that won't stop the liars on the right. Nothing will > ever stop their protection of the rich. > > -- > "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.   Date: 25 Dec 2008 01:33:32 From: Michael Coburn Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:31:34 -0600, krw wrote: > In article <addaaf00-36a9-4b09-a0d5-6c6044ef15b4 > @e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, wannabesomeonecares@gmail.com says... >> >> "Gernot Hassenpflug" <gernot@NOTE049.local> wrote in message >> news:m21vvynknx.fsf@NOTE049.local.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so- >> tickle-me... >> > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes: >> > >> >> Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: >> >>> >> >>> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes: >> >>> >> >>> > Michael Coburn wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> If you served your country and have VA medical care, and if you >> >>> >> bought a house in a low tax area as an investment in your >> >>> >> retirement, then $1000 a month is doable. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > If that VA health care doesn't kill you. >> >>> >> >>> I suppose one could argue that all growth-based business is Ponzi >> >>> scheme-like: if people don't invest in it, you don't get your >> >>> initial money out again. What makes a business viable is its >> >>> assets, and SS doesn't have any. Hence... >> >> >> >> >> >> Try living as a disabled Veteran on a VA disability pension and >> >> getting nothing but 'attitude' when you have a medical problem. The >> >> idiot nurse won't even listen to the symptoms. She just tells me to >> >> drive to the VA hospital. Its over an hour one way and there is no >> >> parking, unless you get there before 7:30 in the morning. >> >> >> >> The last time I had to see her, I couldn't open my right eye. She >> >> said "There's nothing wrong with you. Go to Walgreens and buy some >> >> @#$%^ eyedrops and take care of it yourself." I demanded to see my >> >> doctor. He was upset that I hadn't gone to the VA emergency room. I >> >> managed to catch a no show seat on the DAV shuttle. I'd had a palsy, >> >> and it took six months and seven trips to the hospital for it to >> >> heal. >> > >> > Your story saddens me. If it is any consolation, be happy you are in >> > the US and not in Japan, where hospitals will refuse t treat you if >> > they think you are a serious case, since their ratings will drop if >> > anyhting happens to you. rahter leave you to die in the car park, or >> > better still, the ambulance driving from hospital to hospital and >> > they keep refusing you.... not nice at all. most foriegners go back >> > home in that case before it is too late (kidney, liver problems, >> > etc.) but for the locals its tickets pure and simple. >> >> >> I wonder where the hell Herb Cannon is. He should read this. He always >> says the capitalistic health care in the U.S. is far superior than our >> "socialistic" health care in Canada. > > Idiot. What he is describing *IS* the socialistic VA health care system > here. This is *exactly* why most of us don't want any part of > government run anything. What he is describing is very efficient but underfunded system. I have had no problem with the VA health care even though I have diabetes and high blood pressure. I get proper meds and I exercise a lot and that seems to do me. I see the doc when I need to and if an emergency arises the VA will pick up the cost of the civilian services as needed. I do not have to pay the larcenous "protection racket" insurance people. If I want to pay for some sort of "specialist" I can certainly do so. >> I am sure what you two have described here is not happening in Canada. > > No, it doesn't because Canuckistanis come *HERE* for health care. I do not believe this crap and I don't think most intelligent people will buy it either. In the vast majority of cases the travel expenses would be too high. But that won't stop the liars on the right. Nothing will ever stop their protection of the rich. -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson   Date: 24 Dec 2008 13:33:03 From: Mike Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 24, 10:22=A0am, h...@nospam.com wrote: > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:52:08 -0500, Mark Goldberg > > <msgoldb...@optonline.net> wrote: > >Mike wrote: > > >> This is a joke right? =A0I mean, many of us take care of our elderly > >> parents. > > >> We also take care of those shitbag illegal aliens just fine too. =A0Ya > >> know, just for fun. > > >> Mike > > >Just to comment on your ....'this is a joke right?' > >Wannabe is a marxist, and a nazi. He wants the illegals to own america > >and for america to be destroyed. > > oh shit, I love it when say stuff like that. =A0A Marxist AND a Nazi.... > > damn, you can't pay for entertainment this good..... The end result of both Marxism and Nazism is Fascism. They are essentially two sides of the same coin.     Date: 27 Dec 2008 13:49:34 From: MooseFET Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 27, 11:53=A0am, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info > wrote: > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 07:55:43 -0800 (PST), MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> w= rote: > >On Dec 27, 5:03=A0am, h...@nospam.com wrote: > >[....] > > >> in the case of anarchy, it's not me that is my concern. =A0It's the > >> millions of sheeple out there who can't function without a shepherd > > >I only worry about the perhaps 1 in 1000 who are for perhaps reasons > >of mental defect truly evil and better armed than me. =A0A couple of > >hand guns will defend the home against the minor crook but isn't much > >good against the guy with a machine gun. > > >One only needs to look at any "failed state" situation to see that > >there are enough very bad guys around to make life hell for the rest > >of us unless we act together. > > An example on our border: Mexico Mexico is far short of failed state. If their economy gets a lot worse, it could tip over the edge. > > Mason Clark > *Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*http://frontal-lobe.info/greater= america.html > =A0-- many excerpts you can see --     Date: 24 Dec 2008 14:38:15 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:33:03 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc563@yahoo.com > wrote: >On Dec 24, 10:22 am, h...@nospam.com wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:52:08 -0500, Mark Goldberg >> >> <msgoldb...@optonline.net> wrote: >> >Mike wrote: >> >> >> This is a joke right?  I mean, many of us take care of our elderly >> >> parents. >> >> >> We also take care of those shitbag illegal aliens just fine too.  Ya >> >> know, just for fun. >> >> >> Mike >> >> >Just to comment on your ....'this is a joke right?' >> >Wannabe is a marxist, and a nazi. He wants the illegals to own america >> >and for america to be destroyed. >> >> oh shit, I love it when say stuff like that.  A Marxist AND a Nazi.... >> >> damn, you can't pay for entertainment this good..... > >The end result of both Marxism and Nazism is Fascism. it is nothing of the sort. Totalitarianism is the end result of Marxism and Fascism. Nazism is Fascism. Marxism and Fascism are opposites. > >They are essentially two sides of the same coin. they're two sides of the totalitarianism coin.       Date: 24 Dec 2008 22:11:11 From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:38:15 -0700, hal wrote: > > it is nothing of the sort. Totalitarianism is the end result of Marxism > and Fascism. Nazism is Fascism. Marxism and Fascism are opposites. > Only in that the Marxists are "people's socialists", who take your money away to give handouts to the lazy, negligent and stupid poor people, and the Nazis are "national socialists", who take your money away to give handouts to the lazy, negligent and stupid rich people. (see "bailout".) Ergo, they're just the two wings of the same bird, i.e., Statists. Where do you stand? Are you man enough to take the quiz? >:-> http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html I score 100% Libertarian, FWIW. Thanks, Rich   Date: 24 Dec 2008 10:55:04 From: Michael A. Terrell Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history MooseFET wrote: > > The poor funding of the VA is one of the shameful examples of failing > to really support the troops that needs both parties have been very > guilty of. > > Service for service and drug for drug the VA pays far less than the > civilian health care services. There is no reason why it can't be > providing gold plated service at the same price as a civilian system > rather than pinching every penny and trying to do it for less. The VA system is one of the most efficient in the world, just WAY under funded. Large, for profit hospitals are wanting to copy their methods. I think they should let the VA license it to raise more funds. Then they would have more money to provide even better care. As an example of supreme political stupidity, our CONgress decided that anything related to teeth is not a health problem so some Veterans have continuing bad health, requiring more clinic or hospital visits and medication than the dental work would cost. -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.   Date: 24 Dec 2008 07:19:35 From: MooseFET Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 24, 6:03=A0am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net > wrote: > wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com wrote: > > > "Gernot Hassenpflug" <ger...@NOTE049.local> wrote in message > >news:m21vvynknx.fsf@NOTE049.local.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so- > > tickle-me... > > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> writes: > > > >> Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: > > > >>> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> writes: > > > >>> > Michael Coburn wrote: > > > >>> >> If you served your country and have VA medical care, and if you = bought a > > >>> >> house in a low tax area as an investment in your retirement, the= n $1000 a > > >>> >> month is doable. > > > >>> > =A0 =A0If that VA health care doesn't kill you. > > > >>> I suppose one could argue that all growth-based business is Ponzi > > >>> scheme-like: if people don't invest in it, you don't get your initi= al > > >>> money out again. What makes a business viable is its assets, and SS > > >>> doesn't have any. Hence... > > > >> =A0 =A0Try living as a disabled Veteran on a VA =A0disability pensio= n and > > >> getting nothing but 'attitude' when you have a medical problem. =A0T= he > > >> idiot nurse won't even listen to the symptoms. She just tells me to > > >> drive to the VA hospital. =A0Its over an hour one way and there is n= o > > >> parking, unless you get there before 7:30 in the morning. > > > >> =A0 =A0The last time I had to see her, I couldn't open my right eye.= She > > >> said "There's nothing wrong with you. Go to Walgreens and buy some @= #$%^ > > >> eyedrops and take care of it yourself." =A0 I demanded to see my doc= tor. > > >> He was upset that I hadn't gone to the VA emergency room. =A0I manag= ed to > > >> catch a no show seat on the DAV shuttle. I'd had a palsy, and it too= k > > >> six months and seven trips to the hospital for it to heal. > > > > Your story saddens me. If it is any consolation, be happy you are in = the > > > US and not in Japan, where hospitals will refuse t treat you if they > > > think you are a serious case, since their ratings will drop if anyhti= ng > > > happens to you. rahter leave you to die in the car park, or better > > > still, the ambulance driving from hospital to hospital and they keep > > > refusing you.... not nice at all. most foriegners go back home in tha= t > > > case before it is too late (kidney, liver problems, etc.) but for the > > > locals its tickets pure and simple. > > > I wonder where the hell Herb Cannon is. He should read this. He always > > says the capitalistic health care in the U.S. is far superior than our > > "socialistic" health care in Canada. > > > I am sure what you two have described here is not happening in Canada. > > =A0 =A0The VA is not the same as US health care, in general. =A0It is an > example of an under funded system that is forced to hire some people who > don't give a damn. There is, and has been a shortage of good nurses for > years. =A0Civilian hospitals can pay more than the VA, so their choice is > more limited. The poor funding of the VA is one of the shameful examples of failing to really support the troops that needs both parties have been very guilty of. Service for service and drug for drug the VA pays far less than the civilian health care services. There is no reason why it can't be providing gold plated service at the same price as a civilian system rather than pinching every penny and trying to do it for less. > > --http://improve-usenet.org/index.html > > aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white > listed, or I will not see your messages. > > If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in > your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm > > There are two kinds of people on this earth: > The crazy, and the insane. > The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.   Date: 24 Dec 2008 07:13:21 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 24, 9:09 pm, ingvald44 <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > patmpow...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Dec 23, 3:51 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <nob...@fool.foo> wrote: > >> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:00:24 -0800 (PST), patpowerss...@gmail.com > >> wrote: > > >>> On Dec 23, 1:35 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote: > >>>> The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or > >>>> (2) the new workers don't produce enough. > >>>> As now set up, continuous growth is required. > >>> I'm not sure. There was an increase the in SS tax and cut in benefits > >>> in about 1998 to take care of that, I thought. > >> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The > >> government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. Part > >> of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the result of free market > >> choices. There is nothing (or little) free about the funding of > >> Social Security. It is backed up by the coercive powers of the > >> government. (One could argue and many have that this, rather than > >> being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree with > >> them, but it would be a coherent argument.) > > > Social Security doesn't offer a positive return. The very idea of a > > Ponzi scheme in which none of the investors expect to make money is > > silly. > > Hell I would be happy just to get back the 200 grand they took off me > while I was working. After taxes, that. Also, and you have to pay > income tax on your pitiful little check --double taxation. I will not > live long enough to recover what I paid in so what the hell kind of a > deal is that? > Ingvald44 Its not a great deal, but if it really were a Ponzi scheme you would be promised the moon and get zero.   Date: 24 Dec 2008 07:12:11 From: MooseFET Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 24, 5:00=A0am, wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com wrote: > "Gernot Hassenpflug" <ger...@NOTE049.local> wrote in message > > news:m21vvynknx.fsf@NOTE049.local.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so- > tickle-me... > > > > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> writes: > > >> Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: > > >>> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> writes: > > >>> > Michael Coburn wrote: > > >>> >> If you served your country and have VA medical care, and if you bo= ught a > >>> >> house in a low tax area as an investment in your retirement, then = $1000 a > >>> >> month is doable. > > >>> > =A0 =A0If that VA health care doesn't kill you. > > >>> I suppose one could argue that all growth-based business is Ponzi > >>> scheme-like: if people don't invest in it, you don't get your initial > >>> money out again. What makes a business viable is its assets, and SS > >>> doesn't have any. Hence... > > >> =A0 =A0Try living as a disabled Veteran on a VA =A0disability pension = and > >> getting nothing but 'attitude' when you have a medical problem. =A0The > >> idiot nurse won't even listen to the symptoms. She just tells me to > >> drive to the VA hospital. =A0Its over an hour one way and there is no > >> parking, unless you get there before 7:30 in the morning. > > >> =A0 =A0The last time I had to see her, I couldn't open my right eye. S= he > >> said "There's nothing wrong with you. Go to Walgreens and buy some @#$= %^ > >> eyedrops and take care of it yourself." =A0 I demanded to see my docto= r. > >> He was upset that I hadn't gone to the VA emergency room. =A0I managed= to > >> catch a no show seat on the DAV shuttle. I'd had a palsy, and it took > >> six months and seven trips to the hospital for it to heal. > > > Your story saddens me. If it is any consolation, be happy you are in th= e > > US and not in Japan, where hospitals will refuse t treat you if they > > think you are a serious case, since their ratings will drop if anyhting > > happens to you. rahter leave you to die in the car park, or better > > still, the ambulance driving from hospital to hospital and they keep > > refusing you.... not nice at all. most foriegners go back home in that > > case before it is too late (kidney, liver problems, etc.) but for the > > locals its tickets pure and simple. > > I wonder where the hell Herb Cannon is. He should read this. He always > says the capitalistic health care in the U.S. is far superior than our > "socialistic" health care in Canada. > > I am sure what you two have described here is not happening in Canada. Bad things have happened in the Canadian system too. It is less common but I have read some horror stories. The guy, Harper IIRC, you folks have elected seems, according to some, to hate the system and is setting out to break it. You only pay about 60% of what we down down here and you get care that is equal or better than we do. 75% wouldn't be surprising since we pay about 25% of what we call health care costs as profit for the insurance companies. Exactly where the extra 15% comes from I haven't been able to find a good explanation for. It may just be that your weather has killed off all the weak ones. :) > > Wannabe > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D   Date: 24 Dec 2008 09:03:36 From: Michael A. Terrell Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history wannabesomeonecares@gmail.com wrote: > > "Gernot Hassenpflug" <gernot@NOTE049.local> wrote in message > news:m21vvynknx.fsf@NOTE049.local.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so- > tickle-me... > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes: > > > >> Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: > >>> > >>> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes: > >>> > >>> > Michael Coburn wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> If you served your country and have VA medical care, and if you bought a > >>> >> house in a low tax area as an investment in your retirement, then $1000 a > >>> >> month is doable. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > If that VA health care doesn't kill you. > >>> > >>> I suppose one could argue that all growth-based business is Ponzi > >>> scheme-like: if people don't invest in it, you don't get your initial > >>> money out again. What makes a business viable is its assets, and SS > >>> doesn't have any. Hence... > >> > >> > >> Try living as a disabled Veteran on a VA disability pension and > >> getting nothing but 'attitude' when you have a medical problem. The > >> idiot nurse won't even listen to the symptoms. She just tells me to > >> drive to the VA hospital. Its over an hour one way and there is no > >> parking, unless you get there before 7:30 in the morning. > >> > >> The last time I had to see her, I couldn't open my right eye. She > >> said "There's nothing wrong with you. Go to Walgreens and buy some @#$%^ > >> eyedrops and take care of it yourself." I demanded to see my doctor. > >> He was upset that I hadn't gone to the VA emergency room. I managed to > >> catch a no show seat on the DAV shuttle. I'd had a palsy, and it took > >> six months and seven trips to the hospital for it to heal. > > > > Your story saddens me. If it is any consolation, be happy you are in the > > US and not in Japan, where hospitals will refuse t treat you if they > > think you are a serious case, since their ratings will drop if anyhting > > happens to you. rahter leave you to die in the car park, or better > > still, the ambulance driving from hospital to hospital and they keep > > refusing you.... not nice at all. most foriegners go back home in that > > case before it is too late (kidney, liver problems, etc.) but for the > > locals its tickets pure and simple. > > I wonder where the hell Herb Cannon is. He should read this. He always > says the capitalistic health care in the U.S. is far superior than our > "socialistic" health care in Canada. > > I am sure what you two have described here is not happening in Canada. The VA is not the same as US health care, in general. It is an example of an under funded system that is forced to hire some people who don't give a damn. There is, and has been a shortage of good nurses for years. Civilian hospitals can pay more than the VA, so their choice is more limited. -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.   Date: 24 Dec 2008 05:48:07 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23, 7:49 pm, "John Jetson" <j.jet...@optusnet.com.au > wrote: > <wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:fa51df7c-a4cb-4d66-a84d-60ff6fa3b630@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > "Mason C" <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote in message > >news:na11l4hu087btq6a13hkookspfsags6bof@4ax.com... > >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > >>>On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: > >>>> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? > > >>>SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is > >>>that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the > >>>economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a > >>>social contract embraced by all politicians. > > >>>There is no deception. > > >> No deception perhaps. But it has the nature of a Ponzi scheme. > >> A continuous stream of new "investors" -- new workers -- is needed > >> to pay the older "investors" who didn't fully pay for their SS insurance. > > >> The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or > >> (2) the new workers don't produce enough. > > >> As now set up, continuous growth is required. > > >> Continuous growth (with some wiggles) has been history and > >> will continue, we hope. > > >> (If necessary, let in millions of immigrant workers.) > > >> ( By the way, Japan's "SS" is in real trouble. They don't have a > >> sufficient birth rate and don't welcome immigrants. ) > > > The Social Security in Canada pays the senior citizens the bare > > minimum for sustenance. I think it is about a thousand dollars. That > > is not really a great stress on the system if you have a big enough > > workforce. Another thing is that people don't live forever. The > > average life expectancy is about 87, so on average a poor senior > > citizen can only draw from the system for 22 years. Also, a well off > > senior citizen can hardly get anything at all. It is a nice thing that > > we take care of the old so that they can live out their twilight > > years in dignity. > > An alternative view is one held in Inuit culture where if an individual is > are unable to chew hides for leather(contribute to the group) they where > left an icefloe overnight (euthanased). This may seem harsh but it meant > that the group survived in the harshest on conditions. The question we need > ta ask ourselves is can we afford to support these people (are our > conditions harsh enough) and if not would you be the executioner. shhh! They might hear you in DC.   Date: 24 Dec 2008 05:47:20 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23, 3:51 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <nob...@fool.foo > wrote: > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:00:24 -0800 (PST), patpowerss...@gmail.com > wrote: > > >On Dec 23, 1:35 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote: > >> The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or > >> (2) the new workers don't produce enough. > >> As now set up, continuous growth is required. > >I'm not sure. There was an increase the in SS tax and cut in benefits > >in about 1998 to take care of that, I thought. > > That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The > government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. Part > of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the result of free market > choices. There is nothing (or little) free about the funding of > Social Security. It is backed up by the coercive powers of the > government. (One could argue and many have that this, rather than > being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree with > them, but it would be a coherent argument.) Social Security doesn't offer a positive return. The very idea of a Ponzi scheme in which none of the investors expect to make money is silly.     Date: 24 Dec 2008 09:09:04 From: ingvald44 Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history patmpowers@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 23, 3:51 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <nob...@fool.foo> wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:00:24 -0800 (PST), patpowerss...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 23, 1:35 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote: >>>> The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or >>>> (2) the new workers don't produce enough. >>>> As now set up, continuous growth is required. >>> I'm not sure. There was an increase the in SS tax and cut in benefits >>> in about 1998 to take care of that, I thought. >> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The >> government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. Part >> of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the result of free market >> choices. There is nothing (or little) free about the funding of >> Social Security. It is backed up by the coercive powers of the >> government. (One could argue and many have that this, rather than >> being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree with >> them, but it would be a coherent argument.) > > Social Security doesn't offer a positive return. The very idea of a > Ponzi scheme in which none of the investors expect to make money is > silly. Hell I would be happy just to get back the 200 grand they took off me while I was working. After taxes, that. Also, and you have to pay income tax on your pitiful little check --double taxation. I will not live long enough to recover what I paid in so what the hell kind of a deal is that? Ingvald44   Date: 24 Dec 2008 05:00:11 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Gernot Hassenpflug" <gernot@NOTE049.local > wrote in message news:m21vvynknx.fsf@NOTE049.local.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so- tickle-me... > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes: > >> Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: >>> >>> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes: >>> >>> > Michael Coburn wrote: >>> >> >>> >> If you served your country and have VA medical care, and if you bought a >>> >> house in a low tax area as an investment in your retirement, then $1000 a >>> >> month is doable. >>> > >>> > >>> > If that VA health care doesn't kill you. >>> >>> I suppose one could argue that all growth-based business is Ponzi >>> scheme-like: if people don't invest in it, you don't get your initial >>> money out again. What makes a business viable is its assets, and SS >>> doesn't have any. Hence... >> >> >> Try living as a disabled Veteran on a VA disability pension and >> getting nothing but 'attitude' when you have a medical problem. The >> idiot nurse won't even listen to the symptoms. She just tells me to >> drive to the VA hospital. Its over an hour one way and there is no >> parking, unless you get there before 7:30 in the morning. >> >> The last time I had to see her, I couldn't open my right eye. She >> said "There's nothing wrong with you. Go to Walgreens and buy some @#$%^ >> eyedrops and take care of it yourself." I demanded to see my doctor. >> He was upset that I hadn't gone to the VA emergency room. I managed to >> catch a no show seat on the DAV shuttle. I'd had a palsy, and it took >> six months and seven trips to the hospital for it to heal. > > Your story saddens me. If it is any consolation, be happy you are in the > US and not in Japan, where hospitals will refuse t treat you if they > think you are a serious case, since their ratings will drop if anyhting > happens to you. rahter leave you to die in the car park, or better > still, the ambulance driving from hospital to hospital and they keep > refusing you.... not nice at all. most foriegners go back home in that > case before it is too late (kidney, liver problems, etc.) but for the > locals its tickets pure and simple. I wonder where the hell Herb Cannon is. He should read this. He always says the capitalistic health care in the U.S. is far superior than our "socialistic" health care in Canada. I am sure what you two have described here is not happening in Canada. Wannabe =======     Date: 24 Dec 2008 12:31:34 From: krw Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history In article <addaaf00-36a9-4b09-a0d5-6c6044ef15b4 @e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com >, wannabesomeonecares@gmail.com says... > > "Gernot Hassenpflug" <gernot@NOTE049.local> wrote in message > news:m21vvynknx.fsf@NOTE049.local.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so- > tickle-me... > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes: > > > >> Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: > >>> > >>> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes: > >>> > >>> > Michael Coburn wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> If you served your country and have VA medical care, and if you bought a > >>> >> house in a low tax area as an investment in your retirement, then $1000 a > >>> >> month is doable. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > If that VA health care doesn't kill you. > >>> > >>> I suppose one could argue that all growth-based business is Ponzi > >>> scheme-like: if people don't invest in it, you don't get your initial > >>> money out again. What makes a business viable is its assets, and SS > >>> doesn't have any. Hence... > >> > >> > >> Try living as a disabled Veteran on a VA disability pension and > >> getting nothing but 'attitude' when you have a medical problem. The > >> idiot nurse won't even listen to the symptoms. She just tells me to > >> drive to the VA hospital. Its over an hour one way and there is no > >> parking, unless you get there before 7:30 in the morning. > >> > >> The last time I had to see her, I couldn't open my right eye. She > >> said "There's nothing wrong with you. Go to Walgreens and buy some @#$%^ > >> eyedrops and take care of it yourself." I demanded to see my doctor. > >> He was upset that I hadn't gone to the VA emergency room. I managed to > >> catch a no show seat on the DAV shuttle. I'd had a palsy, and it took > >> six months and seven trips to the hospital for it to heal. > > > > Your story saddens me. If it is any consolation, be happy you are in the > > US and not in Japan, where hospitals will refuse t treat you if they > > think you are a serious case, since their ratings will drop if anyhting > > happens to you. rahter leave you to die in the car park, or better > > still, the ambulance driving from hospital to hospital and they keep > > refusing you.... not nice at all. most foriegners go back home in that > > case before it is too late (kidney, liver problems, etc.) but for the > > locals its tickets pure and simple. > > > I wonder where the hell Herb Cannon is. He should read this. He always > says the capitalistic health care in the U.S. is far superior than our > "socialistic" health care in Canada. Idiot. What he is describing *IS* the socialistic VA health care system here. This is *exactly* why most of us don't want any part of government run anything. > I am sure what you two have described here is not happening in Canada. No, it doesn't because Canuckistanis come *HERE* for health care. > Wannabe Smart, but will neverbee. -- Keith   Date: 24 Dec 2008 00:06:29 From: OrangeSFO Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Besides, there won't be any ice floes soon anyhow.   Date: 24 Dec 2008 00:05:35 From: OrangeSFO Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23, 4:49=A0am, "John Jetson" <j.jet...@optusnet.com.au > wrote: > The question we need > ta ask ourselves is can we afford to support these people (are our > conditions harsh enough) and if not would you be the executioner. Don't give the "conservatives" any ideas.   Date: 24 Dec 2008 06:11:33 From: Michael Coburn Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:30:34 -0800, Werner wrote: > On Dec 23, 2:14 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:04:12 -0800, Werner wrote: >> > On Dec 23, 3:40 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote: ... >> >> >> One thing that is wrong with bean counting dumbass Republican >> >> projections is that they assume that technological innovation and >> >> _real_ capital development will not increase productivity and/or >> >> that this increased productivity will not show up as wage increases >> >> which will then show up as increase FICA revenues.  That is probably >> >> because in Republican America the increased productivity is being >> >> sucked up by the owners and the wage earners are getting the shaft >> >> and have been since 1980. It is a Republican self fulfilling >> >> prophecy. >> >> > What do have to say about Democrat projections? In 1935, President >> > Franklin D. Roosevelt promised the American people that the new >> > Social Security Tax would be invested at 3 per cent interest, so >> > that, by 1983, the tax could be ended and returns on the investments >> > would guarantee a retirement income for all Americans. >> >> >http://uproar.fortunecity.com/celebrity/273/socialsecurity01.html >> >> > Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Nationwide War on the >> > Sources of Poverty >> > March 16, 1964 >> >> > ... I have called for a national war on poverty. Our objective: total >> > victory. >> >> > ...And in the future, as in the past, this investment will return its >> > cost many fold to our entire economy. >> >> > ...The new program I propose is within our means. Its cost of 970 >> > million dollars >> >> > oops! >> >http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtmlThe 2008 Social >> > Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded >> > liability of these two programs has reached $101.7 trillion in >> > today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of the U.S. >> > economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt. The >> > unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits that have >> > been promised to retirees and what will be collected in dedicated >> > taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of the debt >> > rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this funding >> > gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax increases, >> > large benefit cuts or both. >> >http://retirementreform.org/socialsecurity/brief-analysis-616-social- >> >> security-and-medicare-projections-2008 >> >> >> >> >> >> >http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Poverty.shtml >> >> >> The other point that seems to be missed is that the demands for >> >> output being greater in the future than today and the workforce >> >> being smaller will have also increased wages (supply vs demand for >> >> labor).  And again, the wage increases will increase the FICA tax >> >> revenues just like they did in the 90's (there were some small wage >> >> gains in the 90's). >> >> >> The worst thing we can do is to bring more immigrants to lower >> >> wages. >> >> >> The SS system is not defunct unless we let Republicans run the >> >> government. >> >> My original statements stand.  What FDR did or did not do or say is not >> relevant today.  The crap that was sold by Reagan and Greenspan is that >> by "investing" in Social Security (raising FICA tax to allow tax cuts >> for the rich) the SS system would be saved by "tickle down" as the >> economy grew and wages rose.  It didn't work because giving rich people >> a tax cut just allows them to buy more T-Bills.  Nothing else happens. >> >> -- > > > Democrats changed this law because they needed to keep funding the ever > costlier Great Society Programs. And the moon is made of green cheese. -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson   Date: 23 Dec 2008 19:30:34 From: Werner Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23, 2:14=A0pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net > wrote: > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:04:12 -0800, Werner wrote: > > On Dec 23, 3:40=A0am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote: ... > > >> One thing that is wrong with bean counting dumbass Republican > >> projections is that they assume that technological innovation and > >> _real_ capital development will not increase productivity and/or that > >> this increased productivity will not show up as wage increases which > >> will then show up as increase FICA revenues. =A0That is probably becau= se > >> in Republican America the increased productivity is being sucked up by > >> the owners and the wage earners are getting the shaft and have been > >> since 1980. It is a Republican self fulfilling prophecy. > > > What do have to say about Democrat projections? In 1935, President > > Franklin D. Roosevelt promised the American people that the new Social > > Security Tax would be invested at 3 per cent interest, so that, by 1983= , > > the tax could be ended and returns on the investments would guarantee a > > retirement income for all Americans. > > >http://uproar.fortunecity.com/celebrity/273/socialsecurity01.html > > > Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Nationwide War on the > > Sources of Poverty > > March 16, 1964 > > > ... I have called for a national war on poverty. Our objective: total > > victory. > > > ...And in the future, as in the past, this investment will return its > > cost many fold to our entire economy. > > > ...The new program I propose is within our means. Its cost of 970 > > million dollars > > > oops! > >http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtmlThe 2008 Social > > Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded > > liability of these two programs has reached $101.7 trillion in today's > > dollars! That is more than seven times the size of the U.S. economy and > > 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt. The unfunded > > liability is the difference between the benefits that have been promise= d > > to retirees and what will be collected in dedicated taxes and Medicare > > premiums. Last year alone, the size of the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. > > If no other reform is enacted, this funding gap can only be closed in > > future years by substantial tax increases, large benefit cuts or both. > >http://retirementreform.org/socialsecurity/brief-analysis-616-social- > > security-and-medicare-projections-2008 > > > > > > >http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Poverty.shtml > > >> The other point that seems to be missed is that the demands for output > >> being greater in the future than today and the workforce being smaller > >> will have also increased wages (supply vs demand for labor). =A0And > >> again, the wage increases will increase the FICA tax revenues just lik= e > >> they did in the 90's (there were some small wage gains in the 90's). > > >> The worst thing we can do is to bring more immigrants to lower wages. > > >> The SS system is not defunct unless we let Republicans run the > >> government. > > My original statements stand. =A0What FDR did or did not do or say is not > relevant today. =A0The crap that was sold by Reagan and Greenspan is that > by "investing" in Social Security (raising FICA tax to allow tax cuts for > the rich) the SS system would be saved by "tickle down" as the economy > grew and wages rose. =A0It didn't work because giving rich people a tax c= ut > just allows them to buy more T-Bills. =A0Nothing else happens. > > -- Democrats changed this law because they needed to keep funding the ever costlier Great Society Programs.   Date: 23 Dec 2008 19:27:22 From: Werner Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23, 9:34=A0pm, wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com wrote: > "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message news:6fd8d7f0-f152-4e8e- > > a2d0-d6a09ce57...@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 23, 12:26 pm, wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> ... The only thing that have saved your country from > >> bankruptcy is the ability to print money. > > >> Regards, > > > It is my sense that Canada does this as well. That would explain why > > the C$ has again dropped in value against the US$. But I do think your > > currency will have to do less of this printing. I'm counting on it. > > Please let me explain to you why the Greenbacks suddenly shot up > against all major currencies right after the big fallout of the Credit > Crunch. > > It is not an indication that the Greenback is strong. It does not make > any sense because the U.S. financial system almost collapsed. > we agree on this. > The reason for the rise in the Greenback is the Law of Supply and > Demand. Because of the credit crunch, the U.S. banks cannot legally > afford to loan out any money to businesses. The businesses are dying > due to lack of cash flow, and the Greenback is therefore in short > supply in the currency market. The Greenback went up because it is in > short supply due to the credit crunch, not because of its real > strength. > > Regards, It seems to have more to do with flight to safety after foreign markets tanked. http://www.savingtoinvest.com/2008/10/us-dollar-rising-and-outlook.html   Date: 23 Dec 2008 18:34:45 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Werner" <whetzner@mac.com > wrote in message news:6fd8d7f0-f152-4e8e- a2d0-d6a09ce5714d@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com... On Dec 23, 12:26 pm, wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com wrote: >> ... The only thing that have saved your country from >> bankruptcy is the ability to print money. >> >> Regards, >> > > > It is my sense that Canada does this as well. That would explain why > the C$ has again dropped in value against the US$. But I do think your > currency will have to do less of this printing. I'm counting on it. > > Please let me explain to you why the Greenbacks suddenly shot up against all major currencies right after the big fallout of the Credit Crunch. It is not an indication that the Greenback is strong. It does not make any sense because the U.S. financial system almost collapsed. The reason for the rise in the Greenback is the Law of Supply and Demand. Because of the credit crunch, the U.S. banks cannot legally afford to loan out any money to businesses. The businesses are dying due to lack of cash flow, and the Greenback is therefore in short supply in the currency market. The Greenback went up because it is in short supply due to the credit crunch, not because of its real strength. Regards, Wannabe =======     Date: 23 Dec 2008 20:55:47 From: FL Turbo Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:34:45 -0800 (PST), wannabesomeonecares@gmail.com wrote: > >"Werner" <whetzner@mac.com> wrote in message news:6fd8d7f0-f152-4e8e- >a2d0-d6a09ce5714d@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >On Dec 23, 12:26 pm, wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com wrote: >>> ... The only thing that have saved your country from >>> bankruptcy is the ability to print money. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >> >> >> It is my sense that Canada does this as well. That would explain why >> the C$ has again dropped in value against the US$. But I do think your >> currency will have to do less of this printing. I'm counting on it. >> >> > > >Please let me explain to you why the Greenbacks suddenly shot up >against all major currencies right after the big fallout of the Credit >Crunch. > >It is not an indication that the Greenback is strong. It does not make >any sense because the U.S. financial system almost collapsed. > >The reason for the rise in the Greenback is the Law of Supply and >Demand. Because of the credit crunch, the U.S. banks cannot legally >afford to loan out any money to businesses. The businesses are dying >due to lack of cash flow, and the Greenback is therefore in short >supply in the currency market. The Greenback went up because it is in >short supply due to the credit crunch, not because of its real >strength. > > >Regards, > >Wannabe >======= A frightening scenario. The Gummint dumps money into the banks to help their liquidity. The banks respond by hoarding the money and refusing to lend it out to businesses. I dunno. Maybe some astute RGP Financial wizard can explain that there are Gummint financial wizards who can bypass that Catch 22 situation.   Date: 23 Dec 2008 21:21:14 From: Michael A. Terrell Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Michael Coburn wrote: > > If you served your country and have VA medical care, and if you bought a > house in a low tax area as an investment in your retirement, then $1000 a > month is doable. If that VA health care doesn't kill you. -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.     Date: 24 Dec 2008 11:30:52 From: Gernot Hassenpflug Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net > writes: > Michael Coburn wrote: >> >> If you served your country and have VA medical care, and if you bought a >> house in a low tax area as an investment in your retirement, then $1000 a >> month is doable. > > > If that VA health care doesn't kill you. I suppose one could argue that all growth-based business is Ponzi scheme-like: if people don't invest in it, you don't get your initial money out again. What makes a business viable is its assets, and SS doesn't have any. Hence...       Date: 23 Dec 2008 23:43:40 From: Michael A. Terrell Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes: > > > Michael Coburn wrote: > >> > >> If you served your country and have VA medical care, and if you bought a > >> house in a low tax area as an investment in your retirement, then $1000 a > >> month is doable. > > > > > > If that VA health care doesn't kill you. > > I suppose one could argue that all growth-based business is Ponzi > scheme-like: if people don't invest in it, you don't get your initial > money out again. What makes a business viable is its assets, and SS > doesn't have any. Hence... Try living as a disabled Veteran on a VA disability pension and getting nothing but 'attitude' when you have a medical problem. The idiot nurse won't even listen to the symptoms. She just tells me to drive to the VA hospital. Its over an hour one way and there is no parking, unless you get there before 7:30 in the morning. The last time I had to see her, I couldn't open my right eye. She said "There's nothing wrong with you. Go to Walgreens and buy some @#$%^ eyedrops and take care of it yourself." I demanded to see my doctor. He was upset that I hadn't gone to the VA emergency room. I managed to catch a no show seat on the DAV shuttle. I'd had a palsy, and it took six months and seven trips to the hospital for it to heal. -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.         Date: 24 Dec 2008 15:37:22 From: Gernot Hassenpflug Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net > writes: > Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: >> >> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes: >> >> > Michael Coburn wrote: >> >> >> >> If you served your country and have VA medical care, and if you bought a >> >> house in a low tax area as an investment in your retirement, then $1000 a >> >> month is doable. >> > >> > >> > If that VA health care doesn't kill you. >> >> I suppose one could argue that all growth-based business is Ponzi >> scheme-like: if people don't invest in it, you don't get your initial >> money out again. What makes a business viable is its assets, and SS >> doesn't have any. Hence... > > > Try living as a disabled Veteran on a VA disability pension and > getting nothing but 'attitude' when you have a medical problem. The > idiot nurse won't even listen to the symptoms. She just tells me to > drive to the VA hospital. Its over an hour one way and there is no > parking, unless you get there before 7:30 in the morning. > > The last time I had to see her, I couldn't open my right eye. She > said "There's nothing wrong with you. Go to Walgreens and buy some @#$%^ > eyedrops and take care of it yourself." I demanded to see my doctor. > He was upset that I hadn't gone to the VA emergency room. I managed to > catch a no show seat on the DAV shuttle. I'd had a palsy, and it took > six months and seven trips to the hospital for it to heal. Your story saddens me. If it is any consolation, be happy you are in the US and not in Japan, where hospitals will refuse t treat you if they think you are a serious case, since their ratings will drop if anyhting happens to you. rahter leave you to die in the car park, or better still, the ambulance driving from hospital to hospital and they keep refusing you.... not nice at all. most foriegners go back home in that case before it is too late (kidney, liver problems, etc.) but for the locals its tickets pure and simple.           Date: 24 Dec 2008 09:06:39 From: Michael A. Terrell Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: > > Your story saddens me. If it is any consolation, be happy you are in the > US and not in Japan, where hospitals will refuse t treat you if they > think you are a serious case, since their ratings will drop if anyhting > happens to you. rahter leave you to die in the car park, or better > still, the ambulance driving from hospital to hospital and they keep > refusing you.... not nice at all. most foriegners go back home in that > case before it is too late (kidney, liver problems, etc.) but for the > locals its tickets pure and simple. You would think the ratings system would slam them for that practice. X number of patients were refused treatment, and died. WHy even have ambulances? It sounds like they will refuse to treat you if you can't walk in without help. -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.             Date: 25 Dec 2008 09:56:42 From: Gernot Hassenpflug Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net > writes: > Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: >> >> Your story saddens me. If it is any consolation, be happy you are in the >> US and not in Japan, where hospitals will refuse t treat you if they >> think you are a serious case, since their ratings will drop if anyhting >> happens to you. rahter leave you to die in the car park, or better >> still, the ambulance driving from hospital to hospital and they keep >> refusing you.... not nice at all. most foriegners go back home in that >> case before it is too late (kidney, liver problems, etc.) but for the >> locals its tickets pure and simple. > > > You would think the ratings system would slam them for that > practice. X number of patients were refused treatment, and died. WHy > even have ambulances? It sounds like they will refuse to treat you if > you can't walk in without help. Nope, else they wouldn't do it. If you get a chance to speak to Japanese doctors educated in the US... and perhaps on sabbatical or something, they cna fill you in.   Date: 24 Dec 2008 01:13:39 From: Michael Coburn Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:57:29 -0800, Werner wrote: > On Dec 23, 1:54 am, wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com wrote: >> "Mason C" <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote in message >> >> news:na11l4hu087btq6a13hkookspfsags6bof@4ax.com... >> >> >> >> > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net> >> > wrote: >> >> >>On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >> >>> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >> >> >>SS is not a Ponzi scheme.  It is well understood that the basis of SS >> >>is that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >> >>economically-useless elderly.  It may or may not make sense, but it >> >>is a social contract embraced by all politicians. >> >> >>There is no deception. >> >> > No deception perhaps.  But it has the nature of a Ponzi scheme. A >> > continuous stream of new "investors" -- new workers -- is needed to >> > pay the older "investors" who didn't fully pay for their SS >> > insurance. >> >> > The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or (2) >> > the new workers don't produce enough. >> >> > As now set up, continuous growth is required. >> >> > Continuous growth (with some wiggles) has been history and will >> > continue, we hope. >> >> > (If necessary, let in millions of immigrant workers.) >> >> > ( By the way, Japan's "SS" is in real trouble.  They don't have a >> > sufficient birth rate and don't welcome immigrants. ) >> >> The Social Security in Canada pays the senior citizens the bare minimum >> for sustenance. I think it is about a thousand dollars. That is not >> really a great stress on the system if you have a big enough workforce. >> Another thing is that people don't live forever. The average life >> expectancy is about 87, so on average a poor senior citizen can only >> draw from the system for 22 years. Also, a well off senior citizen can >> hardly get anything at all. It is a nice thing that we take care of the >> old so that they can live out their twilight years in dignity. > > > > This is the case in the US as well. Average check is about $1000/mo. > There is little dignity in that. > > http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml If you served your country and have VA medical care, and if you bought a house in a low tax area as an investment in your retirement, then $1000 a month is doable. I live in Port Orchard, Wa. I have been snowed in for 5 days but I am safe and warm and fine and well. The Temps have been cold for here reaching as low as 20F but that is not typical. High for Saturday is supposed to be 44F. IN the summer it is not hot, typical high of 80F. Planning, planning, planning. -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson   Date: 23 Dec 2008 14:33:03 From: Werner Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23, 4:24=A0pm, krw <k...@att.zzzzzzzzz > wrote: > In article <2ac7fd43-efe0-42ad-b99e- > 7b8d93bde...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, whetz...@mac.com > says...> > > > > > On Dec 23, 1:58=A0pm, krw <k...@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > > In article <c277ccb6-c421-4e3e-9c4b-a445dcfc9376 > > > @p29g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com > > > says...> > > > > > "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message news:4a1b166e-3393-4a7= 2- > > > > a473-75b0d569f...@s36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > This is the case in the US as well. Average check is about $1000/= mo. > > > > > There is little dignity in that. > > > > > >http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml > > > > > $1000/mo surely won't get you to live in luxury, but you can eat an= d > > > > live in an apartment instead of starve and freeze in the street. > > > > > The SS system is working just fine, except that your government spe= nt > > > > all the collected funds on Vietnam and Iraq invasions. Protracted w= ars > > > > and military misadventures have drained your Treasury dry. There is > > > > one simple solution to that: Fire up the printing press into high g= ear > > > > and print the Greenbacks out of thin air to pay for everything. You= r > > > > country would have gone bankrupt long time ago if it were a > > > > corporation. The only thing that have saved your country from > > > > bankruptcy is the ability to print money. > > > > Absolute nonsense. > > > Well yes, the US has been borrowing the money. But like the citizens, > > the country can count on losing credit rating. Borrowing is likely to > > become more expensive. Who wants to hold the $Ts being created now? > > Apparently, quite a few people. =A0You know, the reason that the Ts > have little yield isn't because no one wants them. =A0... I understand that - avoid losses in other asset classes. But there are people who expect the dollar to collapse soon. When they get tired of getting paid back with depreciated dollars foreigners can make loans to other governments.   Date: 23 Dec 2008 13:02:32 From: Werner Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23, 1:58=A0pm, krw <k...@att.zzzzzzzzz > wrote: > In article <c277ccb6-c421-4e3e-9c4b-a445dcfc9376 > @p29g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com > says...> > > > > > "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message news:4a1b166e-3393-4a72- > > a473-75b0d569f...@s36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > > > > This is the case in the US as well. Average check is about $1000/mo. > > > There is little dignity in that. > > > >http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml > > > $1000/mo surely won't get you to live in luxury, but you can eat and > > live in an apartment instead of starve and freeze in the street. > > > The SS system is working just fine, except that your government spent > > all the collected funds on Vietnam and Iraq invasions. Protracted wars > > and military misadventures have drained your Treasury dry. There is > > one simple solution to that: Fire up the printing press into high gear > > and print the Greenbacks out of thin air to pay for everything. Your > > country would have gone bankrupt long time ago if it were a > > corporation. The only thing that have saved your country from > > bankruptcy is the ability to print money. > > Absolute nonsense. Well yes, the US has been borrowing the money. But like the citizens, the country can count on losing credit rating. Borrowing is likely to become more expensive. Who wants to hold the $Ts being created now?     Date: 23 Dec 2008 23:41:41 From: Robert Baer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Werner wrote: > On Dec 23, 1:58 pm, krw <k...@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>In article <c277ccb6-c421-4e3e-9c4b-a445dcfc9376 >>@p29g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com >>says...> >> >> >> >>>"Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message news:4a1b166e-3393-4a72- >>>a473-75b0d569f...@s36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... >> >>>>This is the case in the US as well. Average check is about $1000/mo. >>>>There is little dignity in that. >> >>>>http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml >> >>>$1000/mo surely won't get you to live in luxury, but you can eat and >>>live in an apartment instead of starve and freeze in the street. >> >>>The SS system is working just fine, except that your government spent >>>all the collected funds on Vietnam and Iraq invasions. Protracted wars >>>and military misadventures have drained your Treasury dry. There is >>>one simple solution to that: Fire up the printing press into high gear >>>and print the Greenbacks out of thin air to pay for everything. Your >>>country would have gone bankrupt long time ago if it were a >>>corporation. The only thing that have saved your country from >>>bankruptcy is the ability to print money. >> >>Absolute nonsense. > > > > Well yes, the US has been borrowing the money. But like the citizens, > the country can count on losing credit rating. Borrowing is likely to > become more expensive. Who wants to hold the $Ts being created now? *THAT* is a very -good- questoin, and if the answer becmes "nobody", then the Us and "taxpayers" are up the proverbial creek without the paddle, boat or river...     Date: 23 Dec 2008 15:24:08 From: krw Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history In article <2ac7fd43-efe0-42ad-b99e- 7b8d93bded3a@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com >, whetzner@mac.com=20 says... >=20 > On Dec 23, 1:58=A0pm, krw <k...@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > In article <c277ccb6-c421-4e3e-9c4b-a445dcfc9376 > > @p29g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com > > says...> > > > > > > > > > "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message news:4a1b166e-3393-4a72- > > > a473-75b0d569f...@s36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > This is the case in the US as well. Average check is about $1000/mo= . > > > > There is little dignity in that. > > > > > >http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml > > > > > $1000/mo surely won't get you to live in luxury, but you can eat and > > > live in an apartment instead of starve and freeze in the street. > > > > > The SS system is working just fine, except that your government spent > > > all the collected funds on Vietnam and Iraq invasions. Protracted war= s > > > and military misadventures have drained your Treasury dry. There is > > > one simple solution to that: Fire up the printing press into high gea= r > > > and print the Greenbacks out of thin air to pay for everything. Your > > > country would have gone bankrupt long time ago if it were a > > > corporation. The only thing that have saved your country from > > > bankruptcy is the ability to print money. > > > > Absolute nonsense. >=20 >=20 > Well yes, the US has been borrowing the money. But like the citizens, > the country can count on losing credit rating. Borrowing is likely to > become more expensive. Who wants to hold the $Ts being created now? Apparently, quite a few people. You know, the reason that the Ts=20 have little yield isn't because no one wants them. ...but that=20 isn't why wannabe is spouting nonsense. =20   Date: 23 Dec 2008 12:59:31 From: Werner Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23, 12:26=A0pm, wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com wrote: ... The only thing that have saved your country from > bankruptcy is the ability to print money. > > Regards, > > Wannabe > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D It is my sense that Canada does this as well. That would explain why the C$ has again dropped in value against the US$. But I do think your currency will have to do less of this printing. I'm counting on it.     Date: 23 Dec 2008 23:40:06 From: Robert Baer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Werner wrote: > On Dec 23, 12:26 pm, wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com wrote: > ... The only thing that have saved your country from > >>bankruptcy is the ability to print money. >> >>Regards, >> >>Wannabe >>======= > > > > It is my sense that Canada does this as well. That would explain why > the C$ has again dropped in value against the US$. But I do think your > currency will have to do less of this printing. I'm counting on it. You *know* how to count eleven trillion dollars one at a time???   Date: 23 Dec 2008 19:28:50 From: Michael Coburn Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:34:10 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >>> >>> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The >>> government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. Part >>> of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the result of free market >>> choices. There is nothing (or little) free about the funding of >>> Social Security. It is backed up by the coercive powers of the >>> government. (One could argue and many have that this, rather than >>> being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree with >>> them, but it would be a coherent argument.) >> >> >> SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. >> >> SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for non-workers in >> the expectation that they too will get money from future workers. >> >> In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of workers to >> provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? Because the current >> workers expect the same and more when they too stop working. > Ok, this is false. > > Most pensions are set up by funding investments that produce acceptable > returns which can then pay retirees pensions. No matter how you do it, the productive younger people will be supporting the elderly or the elderly will croak prematurely. If Mr. Republican is deriving his income from some "investment" such as dividends those dividends are added to cost of goods in the here and now and prices are thereby increased. The productive will pay one way or the other. There is no other source from which the support might come. -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson     Date: 25 Dec 2008 18:07:17 From: Beldin the Sorcerer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net > wrote in message news:gire5i212db@news3.newsguy.com... > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:34:10 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > >> "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >>> On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >>>> >>>> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The >>>> government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. Part >>>> of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the result of free market >>>> choices. There is nothing (or little) free about the funding of >>>> Social Security. It is backed up by the coercive powers of the >>>> government. (One could argue and many have that this, rather than >>>> being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree with >>>> them, but it would be a coherent argument.) >>> >>> >>> SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. >>> >>> SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for non-workers in >>> the expectation that they too will get money from future workers. >>> >>> In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of workers to >>> provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? Because the current >>> workers expect the same and more when they too stop working. >> Ok, this is false. >> >> Most pensions are set up by funding investments that produce acceptable >> returns which can then pay retirees pensions. > > No matter how you do it, the productive younger people will be supporting > the elderly or the elderly will croak prematurely. If Mr. Republican is > deriving his income from some "investment" such as dividends those > dividends are added to cost of goods in the here and now and prices are > thereby increased. The productive will pay one way or the other. There > is no other source from which the support might come. That's false. Using capital previously amassed to produce more goods IS being productive.     Date: 23 Dec 2008 14:20:44 From: krw Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history In article <gire5i212db@news3.newsguy.com >, mikcob@verizon.net says... > > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:34:10 +0000, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > > > "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message > > news:49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > >> On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: > >>> > >>> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The > >>> government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. Part > >>> of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the result of free market > >>> choices. There is nothing (or little) free about the funding of > >>> Social Security. It is backed up by the coercive powers of the > >>> government. (One could argue and many have that this, rather than > >>> being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree with > >>> them, but it would be a coherent argument.) > >> > >> > >> SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. > >> > >> SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for non-workers in > >> the expectation that they too will get money from future workers. > >> > >> In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of workers to > >> provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? Because the current > >> workers expect the same and more when they too stop working. > > Ok, this is false. > > > > Most pensions are set up by funding investments that produce acceptable > > returns which can then pay retirees pensions. > > No matter how you do it, the productive younger people will be supporting > the elderly or the elderly will croak prematurely. If Mr. Republican is > deriving his income from some "investment" such as dividends those > dividends are added to cost of goods in the here and now and prices are > thereby increased. The productive will pay one way or the other. There > is no other source from which the support might come. What unmitigated bullshit.   Date: 23 Dec 2008 19:14:00 From: Michael Coburn Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:04:12 -0800, Werner wrote: > On Dec 23, 3:40 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote: ... >> >> One thing that is wrong with bean counting dumbass Republican >> projections is that they assume that technological innovation and >> _real_ capital development will not increase productivity and/or that >> this increased productivity will not show up as wage increases which >> will then show up as increase FICA revenues.  That is probably because >> in Republican America the increased productivity is being sucked up by >> the owners and the wage earners are getting the shaft and have been >> since 1980. It is a Republican self fulfilling prophecy. >> >> > > What do have to say about Democrat projections? In 1935, President > Franklin D. Roosevelt promised the American people that the new Social > Security Tax would be invested at 3 per cent interest, so that, by 1983, > the tax could be ended and returns on the investments would guarantee a > retirement income for all Americans. > > http://uproar.fortunecity.com/celebrity/273/socialsecurity01.html > > Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Nationwide War on the > Sources of Poverty > March 16, 1964 > > ... I have called for a national war on poverty. Our objective: total > victory. > > ...And in the future, as in the past, this investment will return its > cost many fold to our entire economy. > > ...The new program I propose is within our means. Its cost of 970 > million dollars > > > oops! > http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml The 2008 Social > Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded > liability of these two programs has reached $101.7 trillion in today's > dollars! That is more than seven times the size of the U.S. economy and > 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt. The unfunded > liability is the difference between the benefits that have been promised > to retirees and what will be collected in dedicated taxes and Medicare > premiums. Last year alone, the size of the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. > If no other reform is enacted, this funding gap can only be closed in > future years by substantial tax increases, large benefit cuts or both. > http://retirementreform.org/socialsecurity/brief-analysis-616-social- security-and-medicare-projections-2008 > > > http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Poverty.shtml > > > > > >> The other point that seems to be missed is that the demands for output >> being greater in the future than today and the workforce being smaller >> will have also increased wages (supply vs demand for labor).  And >> again, the wage increases will increase the FICA tax revenues just like >> they did in the 90's (there were some small wage gains in the 90's). >> >> The worst thing we can do is to bring more immigrants to lower wages. >> >> The SS system is not defunct unless we let Republicans run the >> government. My original statements stand. What FDR did or did not do or say is not relevant today. The crap that was sold by Reagan and Greenspan is that by "investing" in Social Security (raising FICA tax to allow tax cuts for the rich) the SS system would be saved by "tickle down" as the economy grew and wages rose. It didn't work because giving rich people a tax cut just allows them to buy more T-Bills. Nothing else happens. -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson   Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:58:45 From: Jorge Mataleo Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history > =95 The government claimed that the Social Security taxes you paid > belonged to you, and were being squirreled safely away in a trust fund > on which you could begin to draw at the age of 65. But instead of > putting the money in a trust fund, the Treasury spends the difference on > roads, sex-education programs, parks etc. Oh no!! Roads, parks and sex education! What a waste; who needs them?!   Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:26:59 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Werner" <whetzner@mac.com > wrote in message news:4a1b166e-3393-4a72- a473-75b0d569f8a0@s36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > > > > > This is the case in the US as well. Average check is about $1000/mo. > There is little dignity in that. > > http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml $1000/mo surely won't get you to live in luxury, but you can eat and live in an apartment instead of starve and freeze in the street. The SS system is working just fine, except that your government spent all the collected funds on Vietnam and Iraq invasions. Protracted wars and military misadventures have drained your Treasury dry. There is one simple solution to that: Fire up the printing press into high gear and print the Greenbacks out of thin air to pay for everything. Your country would have gone bankrupt long time ago if it were a corporation. The only thing that have saved your country from bankruptcy is the ability to print money. Regards, Wannabe =======     Date: 23 Dec 2008 12:58:25 From: krw Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history In article <c277ccb6-c421-4e3e-9c4b-a445dcfc9376 @p29g2000vbn.googlegroups.com >, wannabesomeonecares@gmail.com says... > > "Werner" <whetzner@mac.com> wrote in message news:4a1b166e-3393-4a72- > a473-75b0d569f8a0@s36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > This is the case in the US as well. Average check is about $1000/mo. > > There is little dignity in that. > > > > http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml > > > $1000/mo surely won't get you to live in luxury, but you can eat and > live in an apartment instead of starve and freeze in the street. > > The SS system is working just fine, except that your government spent > all the collected funds on Vietnam and Iraq invasions. Protracted wars > and military misadventures have drained your Treasury dry. There is > one simple solution to that: Fire up the printing press into high gear > and print the Greenbacks out of thin air to pay for everything. Your > country would have gone bankrupt long time ago if it were a > corporation. The only thing that have saved your country from > bankruptcy is the ability to print money. Absolute nonsense.   Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:04:12 From: Werner Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23, 3:40=A0am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net > wrote: ... > > One thing that is wrong with bean counting dumbass Republican projections > is that they assume that technological innovation and _real_ capital > development will not increase productivity and/or that this increased > productivity will not show up as wage increases which will then show up > as increase FICA revenues. =A0That is probably because in Republican > America the increased productivity is being sucked up by the owners and > the wage earners are getting the shaft and have been since 1980. It is a > Republican self fulfilling prophecy. > What do have to say about Democrat projections? In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt promised the American people that the new Social Security Tax would be invested at 3 per cent interest, so that, by 1983, the tax could be ended and returns on the investments would guarantee a retirement income for all Americans.=A0 http://uproar.fortunecity.com/celebrity/273/socialsecurity01.html Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Nationwide War on the Sources of Poverty March 16, 1964 ... I have called for a national war on poverty. Our objective: total victory. ...And in the future, as in the past, this investment will return its cost many fold to our entire economy. ...The new program I propose is within our means. Its cost of 970 million dollars oops! http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7 trillion in today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits that have been promised to retirees and what will be collected in dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax increases, large benefit cuts or both. http://retirementreform.org/socialsecurity/brief-analysis-616-social-securi= ty-and-medicare-projections-2008 http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Poverty.shtml > The other point that seems to be missed is that the demands for output > being greater in the future than today and the workforce being smaller > will have also increased wages (supply vs demand for labor). =A0And again= , > the wage increases will increase the FICA tax revenues just like they did > in the 90's (there were some small wage gains in the 90's). > > The worst thing we can do is to bring more immigrants to lower wages. > > The SS system is not defunct unless we let Republicans run the government= . > > -- > "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson   Date: 23 Dec 2008 08:57:29 From: Werner Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23, 1:54=A0am, wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com wrote: > "Mason C" <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote in message > > news:na11l4hu087btq6a13hkookspfsags6bof@4ax.com... > > > > > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > >>On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: > >>> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? > > >>SS is not a Ponzi scheme. =A0It is well understood that the basis of SS= is > >>that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the > >>economically-useless elderly. =A0It may or may not make sense, but it i= s a > >>social contract embraced by all politicians. > > >>There is no deception. > > > No deception perhaps. =A0But it has the nature of a Ponzi scheme. > > A continuous stream of new "investors" -- new workers -- is needed > > to pay the older "investors" who didn't fully pay for their SS insuranc= e. > > > The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or > > (2) the new workers don't produce enough. > > > As now set up, continuous growth is required. > > > Continuous growth (with some wiggles) has been history and > > will continue, we hope. > > > (If necessary, let in millions of immigrant workers.) > > > ( By the way, Japan's "SS" is in real trouble. =A0They don't have a > > sufficient birth rate and don't welcome immigrants. ) > > The Social Security in Canada pays the senior citizens the bare > minimum for sustenance. I think it is about a thousand dollars. That > is not really a great stress on the system if you have a big enough > workforce. Another thing is that people don't live forever. The > average life expectancy is about 87, so on average a poor senior > citizen can only draw from the system for 22 years. Also, a well off > senior citizen can hardly get anything at all. It is a nice thing that > we take care of the old so that they can live out their twilight > years in dignity. This is the case in the US as well. Average check is about $1000/mo. There is little dignity in that. http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml   Date: 23 Dec 2008 07:30:34 From: Mike Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23, 9:52=A0am, Mark Goldberg <msgoldb...@optonline.net > wrote: > Mike wrote: > > > This is a joke right? =A0I mean, many of us take care of our elderly > > parents. > > > We also take care of those shitbag illegal aliens just fine too. =A0Ya > > know, just for fun. > > > Mike > > Just to comment on your ....'this is a joke right?' > Wannabe is a marxist, and a nazi. He wants the illegals to own america > and for america to be destroyed. > > Just so you get what the joke actually is..... > > Makr Thanks for filling me in. I ususally don't pay attn to his posts so I was kinda behind on the game...     Date: 23 Dec 2008 10:53:58 From: Mark Goldberg Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Mike wrote: > Thanks for filling me in. I ususally don't pay attn to his posts so I > was kinda behind on the game... And I assure you I wouldn't make such an accusation and assertion without overwhelming evidence. It's neither a joke nor a laughing matter. Mark   Date: 23 Dec 2008 06:35:30 From: number6 Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23, 1:05=A0am, Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net > wrote: > On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: > > > Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? > > SS is not a Ponzi scheme. =A0It is well understood that the basis of SS i= s > that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the > economically-useless elderly. =A0It may or may not make sense, but it is = a > social contract embraced by all politicians. > > There is no deception. OK Ponzi Program rather than scheme ...   Date: 23 Dec 2008 06:16:53 From: Mike Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23, 8:21=A0am, wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com wrote: > "John Jetson" <j.jet...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news: > > 4950de48$0$3799$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > > > > > > <wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:fa51df7c-a4cb-4d66-a84d-60ff6fa3b630@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com..= . > > >> The Social Security in Canada pays the senior citizens the bare > >> minimum for sustenance. I think it is about a thousand dollars. That > >> is not really a great stress on the system if you have a big enough > >> workforce. Another thing is that people don't live forever. The > >> average life expectancy is about 87, so on average a poor senior > >> citizen can only draw from the system for 22 years. Also, a well off > >> senior citizen can hardly get anything at all. It is a nice thing that > >> we take care of the old so that they can live out their twilight > >> years in dignity. > > > An alternative view is one held in Inuit culture where if an individual= is > > are unable to chew hides for leather(contribute to the group) they wher= e > > left an icefloe overnight (euthanased). This may seem harsh but it mean= t > > that the group survived in the harshest on conditions. The question we = need > > ta ask ourselves is can we afford to support these people (are our > > conditions harsh enough) and if not would you be the executioner. > > The Americans are basically doing what you claim the Inuit culture had > been doing. Rather than leaving them on an ice floe, the Americans > simply leave their old, who are down and out, to starve and freeze to > death in the streets. > > Maybe all the troubles the Americans have been facing all these years > is God's wrath coming down on these heartless bastards.- Hide quoted text= - > > - Show quoted text - This is a joke right? I mean, many of us take care of our elderly parents. We also take care of those shitbag illegal aliens just fine too. Ya know, just for fun. Mike     Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:52:08 From: Mark Goldberg Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Mike wrote: > > This is a joke right? I mean, many of us take care of our elderly > parents. > > We also take care of those shitbag illegal aliens just fine too. Ya > know, just for fun. > > Mike Just to comment on your ....'this is a joke right?' Wannabe is a marxist, and a nazi. He wants the illegals to own america and for america to be destroyed. Just so you get what the joke actually is..... Makr       Date: 24 Dec 2008 08:22:19 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:52:08 -0500, Mark Goldberg <msgoldberg@optonline.net > wrote: >Mike wrote: > >> >> This is a joke right? I mean, many of us take care of our elderly >> parents. >> >> We also take care of those shitbag illegal aliens just fine too. Ya >> know, just for fun. >> >> Mike > >Just to comment on your ....'this is a joke right?' >Wannabe is a marxist, and a nazi. He wants the illegals to own america >and for america to be destroyed. oh shit, I love it when say stuff like that. A Marxist AND a Nazi.... damn, you can't pay for entertainment this good.....         Date: 27 Dec 2008 07:55:43 From: MooseFET Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 27, 5:03=A0am, h...@nospam.com wrote: [....] > > in the case of anarchy, it's not me that is my concern. =A0It's the > millions of sheeple out there who can't function without a shepherd I only worry about the perhaps 1 in 1000 who are for perhaps reasons of mental defect truly evil and better armed than me. A couple of hand guns will defend the home against the minor crook but isn't much good against the guy with a machine gun. One only needs to look at any "failed state" situation to see that there are enough very bad guys around to make life hell for the rest of us unless we act together.           Date: 27 Dec 2008 11:53:42 From: Mason C Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 07:55:43 -0800 (PST), MooseFET <kensmith@rahul.net > wrote: >On Dec 27, 5:03 am, h...@nospam.com wrote: >[....] >> >> in the case of anarchy, it's not me that is my concern.  It's the >> millions of sheeple out there who can't function without a shepherd > >I only worry about the perhaps 1 in 1000 who are for perhaps reasons >of mental defect truly evil and better armed than me. A couple of >hand guns will defend the home against the minor crook but isn't much >good against the guy with a machine gun. > >One only needs to look at any "failed state" situation to see that >there are enough very bad guys around to make life hell for the rest >of us unless we act together. An example on our border: Mexico Mason Clark *Greater America in the Age of Rebellion* http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html -- many excerpts you can see --         Date: 24 Dec 2008 18:51:50 From: Mark Goldberg Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history hal@nospam.com wrote: > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:52:08 -0500, Mark Goldberg > <msgoldberg@optonline.net> wrote: > >> Wannabe is a marxist, and a nazi. He wants the illegals to own america >> and for america to be destroyed. > > oh shit, I love it when say stuff like that. A Marxist AND a Nazi.... > > damn, you can't pay for entertainment this good..... All anyone has to do is google up his love of marxist ideology, his love of Adolph Hitler, and all the goals. This is not in dispute. Yes, a marxist and a nazi ideologue. And of course, you were shown this in the past. Mark           Date: 24 Dec 2008 17:23:14 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:51:50 -0500, Mark Goldberg <msgoldberg@optonline.net > wrote: >hal@nospam.com wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:52:08 -0500, Mark Goldberg >> <msgoldberg@optonline.net> wrote: >> >>> Wannabe is a marxist, and a nazi. He wants the illegals to own america >>> and for america to be destroyed. >> >> oh shit, I love it when say stuff like that. A Marxist AND a Nazi.... >> >> damn, you can't pay for entertainment this good..... > >All anyone has to do is google up his love of marxist ideology, his love >of Adolph Hitler, and all the goals. This is not in dispute. > >Yes, a marxist and a nazi ideologue. > >And of course, you were shown this in the past. you're a complete dumbshit Mark. Merry Christmas > >Mark     Date: 23 Dec 2008 08:30:15 From: krw Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history In article <69df3cba-4aef-4ecf-ab7d-5acb8d8f8749 @w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com >, mikejc563@yahoo.com says...>=20 > On Dec 23, 8:21=A0am, wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com wrote: > > "John Jetson" <j.jet...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news: > > > > 4950de48$0$3799$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <wannabesomeoneca...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:fa51df7c-a4cb-4d66-a84d-60ff6fa3b630@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com= ... > > > > >> The Social Security in Canada pays the senior citizens the bare > > >> minimum for sustenance. I think it is about a thousand dollars. That > > >> is not really a great stress on the system if you have a big enough > > >> workforce. Another thing is that people don't live forever. The > > >> average life expectancy is about 87, so on average a poor senior > > >> citizen can only draw from the system for 22 years. Also, a well off > > >> senior citizen can hardly get anything at all. It is a nice thing th= at > > >> we take care of the old so that they can live out their twilight > > >> years in dignity. > > > > > An alternative view is one held in Inuit culture where if an individu= al is > > > are unable to chew hides for leather(contribute to the group) they wh= ere > > > left an icefloe overnight (euthanased). This may seem harsh but it me= ant > > > that the group survived in the harshest on conditions. The question w= e need > > > ta ask ourselves is can we afford to support these people (are our > > > conditions harsh enough) and if not would you be the executioner. > > > > The Americans are basically doing what you claim the Inuit culture had > > been doing. Rather than leaving them on an ice floe, the Americans > > simply leave their old, who are down and out, to starve and freeze to > > death in the streets. > > > > Maybe all the troubles the Americans have been facing all these years > > is God's wrath coming down on these heartless bastards.- Hide quoted te= xt - > > > > - Show quoted text - >=20 > This is a joke right? I mean, many of us take care of our elderly > parents. Likely not. What do you expect from a weenie; projection. > We also take care of those shitbag illegal aliens just fine too. Ya > know, just for fun. Must be fun. Californiaa sure loves 'em.   Date: 23 Dec 2008 05:42:28 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On 23 dec, 07:35, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info > wrote: > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: > >> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? > > >SS is not a Ponzi scheme. =A0It is well understood that the basis of SS = is > >that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the > >economically-useless elderly. =A0It may or may not make sense, but it is= a > >social contract embraced by all politicians. > > >There is no deception. > > No deception perhaps. =A0But it has the nature of a Ponzi scheme. > A continuous stream of new "investors" -- new workers -- is needed > to pay the older "investors" who didn't fully pay for their SS insurance.= =A0 > > The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or > (2) the new workers don't produce enough. > > As now set up, continuous growth is required. Not true. Some social security schemes were set up to be "fully funded" - the Dutch system is an example - and they are much less troubled by decreasing birth rates and increasing life expectancies. > Continuous growth (with some wiggles) has been history and > will continue, we hope. > > (If necessary, let in millions of immigrant workers.) > > ( By the way, Japan's "SS" is in real trouble. =A0They don't have a > sufficient birth rate and don't welcome immigrants. ) The quick and dirty answer to the problem posed by increasing life expectancy is raise the age of retirement. This is already happening in some countries. In Germany, Bavaria has already raised the age of retirement for younger workers from 65 to 68. If you were over 60 at the time your retirement age wasn't affected, but slightly younger workers were moved up to 66 ... -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen   Date: 23 Dec 2008 05:21:07 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "John Jetson" <j.jetson@optusnet.com.au > wrote in message news: 4950de48$0$3799$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > > <wannabesomeonecares@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:fa51df7c-a4cb-4d66-a84d-60ff6fa3b630@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> The Social Security in Canada pays the senior citizens the bare >> minimum for sustenance. I think it is about a thousand dollars. That >> is not really a great stress on the system if you have a big enough >> workforce. Another thing is that people don't live forever. The >> average life expectancy is about 87, so on average a poor senior >> citizen can only draw from the system for 22 years. Also, a well off >> senior citizen can hardly get anything at all. It is a nice thing that >> we take care of the old so that they can live out their twilight >> years in dignity. >> > > An alternative view is one held in Inuit culture where if an individual is > are unable to chew hides for leather(contribute to the group) they where > left an icefloe overnight (euthanased). This may seem harsh but it meant > that the group survived in the harshest on conditions. The question we need > ta ask ourselves is can we afford to support these people (are our > conditions harsh enough) and if not would you be the executioner. > > The Americans are basically doing what you claim the Inuit culture had been doing. Rather than leaving them on an ice floe, the Americans simply leave their old, who are down and out, to starve and freeze to death in the streets. Maybe all the troubles the Americans have been facing all these years is God's wrath coming down on these heartless bastards.     Date: 23 Dec 2008 15:28:41 From: Beldin the Sorcerer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history <wannabesomeonecares@gmail.com > wrote in message news:7ee9901f-c7ec-4d8d-bbc5-597224e16856@l42g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > "John Jetson" <j.jetson@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news: > 4950de48$0$3799$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> <wannabesomeonecares@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:fa51df7c-a4cb-4d66-a84d-60ff6fa3b630@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> >>> >>> The Social Security in Canada pays the senior citizens the bare >>> minimum for sustenance. I think it is about a thousand dollars. That >>> is not really a great stress on the system if you have a big enough >>> workforce. Another thing is that people don't live forever. The >>> average life expectancy is about 87, so on average a poor senior >>> citizen can only draw from the system for 22 years. Also, a well off >>> senior citizen can hardly get anything at all. It is a nice thing that >>> we take care of the old so that they can live out their twilight >>> years in dignity. >>> >> >> An alternative view is one held in Inuit culture where if an individual >> is >> are unable to chew hides for leather(contribute to the group) they where >> left an icefloe overnight (euthanased). This may seem harsh but it meant >> that the group survived in the harshest on conditions. The question we >> need >> ta ask ourselves is can we afford to support these people (are our >> conditions harsh enough) and if not would you be the executioner. >> >> > > > The Americans are basically doing what you claim the Inuit culture had > been doing. Rather than leaving them on an ice floe, the Americans > simply leave their old, who are down and out, to starve and freeze to > death in the streets. Are you fucked, son? They get SSI benefits well above subsistance levels. If they're in an area where it's VERy expensive to live, they can qualify for food stamps. How fucking retarded are you? > > Maybe all the troubles the Americans have been facing all these years > is God's wrath coming down on these heartless bastards. > Or maybe you're just a shithead.   Date: 23 Dec 2008 08:40:38 From: Michael Coburn Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:35:30 -0800, Mason C wrote: > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote: > >>On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >>> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >>> >>> >>SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is >>that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >>economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a >>social contract embraced by all politicians. >> >>There is no deception. > > No deception perhaps. But it has the nature of a Ponzi scheme. A > continuous stream of new "investors" -- new workers -- is needed to pay > the older "investors" who didn't fully pay for their SS insurance. > > The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or (2) the > new workers don't produce enough. > > As now set up, continuous growth is required. > > Continuous growth (with some wiggles) has been history and will > continue, we hope. > > (If necessary, let in millions of immigrant workers.) > > ( By the way, Japan's "SS" is in real trouble. They don't have a > sufficient birth rate and don't welcome immigrants. ) One thing that is wrong with bean counting dumbass Republican projections is that they assume that technological innovation and _real_ capital development will not increase productivity and/or that this increased productivity will not show up as wage increases which will then show up as increase FICA revenues. That is probably because in Republican America the increased productivity is being sucked up by the owners and the wage earners are getting the shaft and have been since 1980. It is a Republican self fulfilling prophecy. The other point that seems to be missed is that the demands for output being greater in the future than today and the workforce being smaller will have also increased wages (supply vs demand for labor). And again, the wage increases will increase the FICA tax revenues just like they did in the 90's (there were some small wage gains in the 90's). The worst thing we can do is to bring more immigrants to lower wages. The SS system is not defunct unless we let Republicans run the government. -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson     Date: 23 Dec 2008 01:00:37 From: Bill T Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Money is a measure of intergenerational trust. Let's say it is Year 2020, you are a 70 year old retiree who has made $10 million shorting GM way back in 2008. You want your lawn trimmed but you are too old and decrepit to do it yourself. Juan and Juana can do it for you but are dubious that you can offer anything in return. The government guarantees that someone will invent a gidget or Windows 9. That is the basis of SS.   Date: 23 Dec 2008 08:31:12 From: Michael Coburn Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:47:48 -0800, Bill T wrote: > On 12/22/2008 22:35, Mason C wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T<wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >>> On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >>>> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >>>> >>> SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS >>> is that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >>> economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is >>> a social contract embraced by all politicians. >>> >>> There is no deception. >> >> No deception perhaps. But it has the nature of a Ponzi scheme. A >> continuous stream of new "investors" -- new workers -- is needed to pay >> the older "investors" who didn't fully pay for their SS insurance. > > SS is a pyramid structure, but it clearly states it. > > >> The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or (2) the >> new workers don't produce enough. >> >> As now set up, continuous growth is required. > > Yep. Probably won't happen. Old folks want to aggrandize to themselves > the production of the young, and can do so via the ballot box. It will > take a few election cycles, but eventually the young workers will refuse > to give 30 -50 % of their money to their granddads. > > For example, if you spent 20 years as a cop in California, you can > retire at age 42 and collect the equivalent of $100K for the rest of > your life (another 40 years). This is ridiculous, and at some point all > of us will rise up and say "No". And this has nothing to do with Social Security. >> Continuous growth (with some wiggles) has been history and will >> continue, we hope. > > > >> (If necessary, let in millions of immigrant workers.) >> >> ( By the way, Japan's "SS" is in real trouble. They don't have a >> sufficient birth rate and don't welcome immigrants. ) >> >> >> Mason Clark >> >> *Greater America in the Age of Rebellion* >> http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html >> -- many excerpts you can see -- -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson     Date: 23 Dec 2008 11:30:32 From: Robert Baer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Michael Coburn wrote: > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:47:48 -0800, Bill T wrote: > > >>On 12/22/2008 22:35, Mason C wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T<wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >>>> >>>>>Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >>>>> >>>> >>>>SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS >>>>is that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >>>>economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is >>>>a social contract embraced by all politicians. >>>> >>>>There is no deception. >>> >>>No deception perhaps. But it has the nature of a Ponzi scheme. A >>>continuous stream of new "investors" -- new workers -- is needed to pay >>>the older "investors" who didn't fully pay for their SS insurance. >> >>SS is a pyramid structure, but it clearly states it. >> >> >> >>>The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or (2) the >>>new workers don't produce enough. >>> >>>As now set up, continuous growth is required. >> >>Yep. Probably won't happen. Old folks want to aggrandize to themselves >>the production of the young, and can do so via the ballot box. It will >>take a few election cycles, but eventually the young workers will refuse >>to give 30 -50 % of their money to their granddads. >> >>For example, if you spent 20 years as a cop in California, you can >>retire at age 42 and collect the equivalent of $100K for the rest of >>your life (another 40 years). This is ridiculous, and at some point all >>of us will rise up and say "No". > > > And this has nothing to do with Social Security. > > >>>Continuous growth (with some wiggles) has been history and will >>>continue, we hope. >> >> >> >>>(If necessary, let in millions of immigrant workers.) >>> >>>( By the way, Japan's "SS" is in real trouble. They don't have a >>>sufficient birth rate and don't welcome immigrants. ) >>> >>> >>>Mason Clark >>> >>>*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion* >>>http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html >>> -- many excerpts you can see -- > > > > > > THe Federal Reserve, and indirectly, Congress are the worst Ponzi schemes. Print all the money your cronies want: trillions of dollars. Let the "voters" pay and pay and...   Date: 23 Dec 2008 00:00:24 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 23, 1:35 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info > wrote: > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: > >> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? > > >SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is > >that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the > >economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a > >social contract embraced by all politicians. > > >There is no deception. > > No deception perhaps. But it has the nature of a Ponzi scheme. > A continuous stream of new "investors" -- new workers -- is needed > to pay the older "investors" who didn't fully pay for their SS insurance. > Social Security has been around since the thirties. So this older investor has got to be over 110 years old and only missed a year or two of payments. I can live with that. > The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or > (2) the new workers don't produce enough. > > As now set up, continuous growth is required. > I'm not sure. There was an increase the in SS tax and cut in benefits in about 1998 to take care of that, I thought.     Date: 23 Dec 2008 03:51:00 From: A Man Beaten by Jacks Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:00:24 -0800 (PST), patpowersspam@gmail.com wrote: >On Dec 23, 1:35 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote: >> The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or >> (2) the new workers don't produce enough. >> As now set up, continuous growth is required. >I'm not sure. There was an increase the in SS tax and cut in benefits >in about 1998 to take care of that, I thought. That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. Part of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the result of free market choices. There is nothing (or little) free about the funding of Social Security. It is backed up by the coercive powers of the government. (One could argue and many have that this, rather than being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree with them, but it would be a coherent argument.)       Date: 23 Dec 2008 15:33:12 From: Beldin the Sorcerer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo > wrote in message news:3g91l45sol2spkh1sdvhunsutro306rflv@4ax.com... > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:00:24 -0800 (PST), patpowersspam@gmail.com > wrote: > >>On Dec 23, 1:35 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote: > >>> The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or >>> (2) the new workers don't produce enough. > >>> As now set up, continuous growth is required. > >>I'm not sure. There was an increase the in SS tax and cut in benefits >>in about 1998 to take care of that, I thought. > > That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The > government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. So could Ponzi. The definition of a Ponzi scheme is that no actual investment is made, and "returns" come from new "investors".       Date: 23 Dec 2008 01:20:29 From: Bill T Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: > > That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The > government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. Part > of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the result of free market > choices. There is nothing (or little) free about the funding of > Social Security. It is backed up by the coercive powers of the > government. (One could argue and many have that this, rather than > being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree with > them, but it would be a coherent argument.) SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for non-workers in the expectation that they too will get money from future workers. In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of workers to provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? Because the current workers expect the same and more when they too stop working.         Date: 23 Dec 2008 15:34:10 From: Beldin the Sorcerer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >> >> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The >> government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. Part >> of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the result of free market >> choices. There is nothing (or little) free about the funding of >> Social Security. It is backed up by the coercive powers of the >> government. (One could argue and many have that this, rather than >> being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree with >> them, but it would be a coherent argument.) > > > SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. > > SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for non-workers in > the expectation that they too will get money from future workers. > > In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of workers to > provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? Because the current > workers expect the same and more when they too stop working. Ok, this is false. Most pensions are set up by funding investments that produce acceptable returns which can then pay retirees pensions.         Date: 23 Dec 2008 07:39:22 From: krw Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history In article <49507267$0$5519$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com >, wctom1 @pacbell.net says... > > On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: > > > > That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The > > government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. Part > > of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the result of free market > > choices. There is nothing (or little) free about the funding of > > Social Security. It is backed up by the coercive powers of the > > government. (One could argue and many have that this, rather than > > being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree with > > them, but it would be a coherent argument.) > > > SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. AlBore's "Lock box" and all? > SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for non-workers in > the expectation that they too will get money from future workers. Because they're not fed up enough to hang a few congresscritters. > In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of workers to > provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? Because the current > workers expect the same and more when they too stop working. Not true. You assume that there is no investment.         Date: 23 Dec 2008 04:48:02 From: A Man Beaten by Jacks Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:20:29 -0800, Bill T <wctom1@pacbell.net > wrote: >On 12/23/2008 00:51, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >> That's another reason it isn't (necessarily) a Ponzi scheme. The >> government can reduce benefits or raise revenues as appropriate. Part >> of the disaster of a Ponzi scheme is it is the result of free market >> choices. There is nothing (or little) free about the funding of >> Social Security. It is backed up by the coercive powers of the >> government. (One could argue and many have that this, rather than >> being a Ponzi scheme, is what is wrong with SS. I wouldn't agree with >> them, but it would be a coherent argument.) >SS is a pyramid structure, and is clearly identified as such. >SS works (so far) because workers are willing to pay for non-workers in >the expectation that they too will get money from future workers. I'd correct that. It works because workers are COERCED into paying for non-workers. They're not pissed off about it enough to stage a revolution or anything. And so long as it looks likely that any generation of retirees is likely to get something worked out for them as they retire, they'll probably remain placid. You could say their willingness is indicated by the electoral system continuing to elect people who support this state of affairs, but this is somewhat questionable. After all, both parties' representatives will probably continue to placate retirees. Old farts are the number one source of reliable votes for both parties. But it's not like workers are actually directly choosing to contribute, or have an immediately available option to terminate their participation. If you asked any particular individual, they probably would (mostly foolishly) choose to forego their safety net. If you left it entirely up to individuals to make retirement choices, you'd end up (as you did before SS) with a lot of people making stupid choices that left them destitute at the end of their lives. >In fact all pension schemes rely on the the willingness of workers to >provide goods and services to non-workers. WHy? Because the current >workers expect the same and more when they too stop working. I'd say exactly the opposite. The necessity for pension schemes is precisely because of the UNWILLINGNESS of people to act rationally, combined with our distaste for the sight of elderly, decrepit fools on the streets dying in a society where, unlike the past, you can't really depend on your descendants to support you for the rest of your life. I.e. if we did away with compulsory schemes like Social Security, we'd eventually see horrors that would require even more inefficient solutions.   Date: 22 Dec 2008 22:54:33 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Mason C" <masoncXXX@XXXfrontal-lobe.info > wrote in message news:na11l4hu087btq6a13hkookspfsags6bof@4ax.com... > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote: > >>On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >>> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >>> >> >>SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is >>that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >>economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a >>social contract embraced by all politicians. >> >>There is no deception. > > No deception perhaps. But it has the nature of a Ponzi scheme. > A continuous stream of new "investors" -- new workers -- is needed > to pay the older "investors" who didn't fully pay for their SS insurance. > > The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or > (2) the new workers don't produce enough. > > As now set up, continuous growth is required. > > Continuous growth (with some wiggles) has been history and > will continue, we hope. > > (If necessary, let in millions of immigrant workers.) > > ( By the way, Japan's "SS" is in real trouble. They don't have a > sufficient birth rate and don't welcome immigrants. ) > > > The Social Security in Canada pays the senior citizens the bare minimum for sustenance. I think it is about a thousand dollars. That is not really a great stress on the system if you have a big enough workforce. Another thing is that people don't live forever. The average life expectancy is about 87, so on average a poor senior citizen can only draw from the system for 22 years. Also, a well off senior citizen can hardly get anything at all. It is a nice thing that we take care of the old so that they can live out their twilight years in dignity.     Date: 28 Dec 2008 17:01:05 From: Mike Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 24, 5:11=A0pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net > wrote: > On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:38:15 -0700, hal wrote: > > > it is nothing of the sort. =A0Totalitarianism is the end result of Marx= ism > > and Fascism. =A0 Nazism is Fascism. =A0Marxism and Fascism are opposite= s. > > Only in that the Marxists are "people's socialists", who take your money > away to give handouts to the lazy, negligent and stupid poor people, and > the Nazis are "national socialists", who take your money away to give > handouts to the lazy, negligent and stupid rich people. (see "bailout".) > > Ergo, they're just the two wings of the same bird, i.e., Statists. > > Where do you stand? Are you man enough to take the quiz? >:->http://www.t= headvocates.org/quizp/index.html > > I score 100% Libertarian, FWIW. > > Thanks, > Rich Well said     Date: 23 Dec 2008 19:11:13 From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:54:33 -0800, wannabesomeonecares wrote: ... > Another > thing is that people don't live forever. So, not just a Ponzi scheme, but one that's based on death. What a cheerful thought! (NOT! >:-[) Thanks, Rich     Date: 23 Dec 2008 23:49:33 From: John Jetson Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history <wannabesomeonecares@gmail.com > wrote in message news:fa51df7c-a4cb-4d66-a84d-60ff6fa3b630@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > "Mason C" <masoncXXX@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote in message > news:na11l4hu087btq6a13hkookspfsags6bof@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >>>On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >>>> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >>>> >>> >>>SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is >>>that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >>>economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a >>>social contract embraced by all politicians. >>> >>>There is no deception. >> >> No deception perhaps. But it has the nature of a Ponzi scheme. >> A continuous stream of new "investors" -- new workers -- is needed >> to pay the older "investors" who didn't fully pay for their SS insurance. >> >> The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or >> (2) the new workers don't produce enough. >> >> As now set up, continuous growth is required. >> >> Continuous growth (with some wiggles) has been history and >> will continue, we hope. >> >> (If necessary, let in millions of immigrant workers.) >> >> ( By the way, Japan's "SS" is in real trouble. They don't have a >> sufficient birth rate and don't welcome immigrants. ) >> >> >> > > > The Social Security in Canada pays the senior citizens the bare > minimum for sustenance. I think it is about a thousand dollars. That > is not really a great stress on the system if you have a big enough > workforce. Another thing is that people don't live forever. The > average life expectancy is about 87, so on average a poor senior > citizen can only draw from the system for 22 years. Also, a well off > senior citizen can hardly get anything at all. It is a nice thing that > we take care of the old so that they can live out their twilight > years in dignity. > An alternative view is one held in Inuit culture where if an individual is are unable to chew hides for leather(contribute to the group) they where left an icefloe overnight (euthanased). This may seem harsh but it meant that the group survived in the harshest on conditions. The question we need ta ask ourselves is can we afford to support these people (are our conditions harsh enough) and if not would you be the executioner.       Date: 23 Dec 2008 08:09:50 From: WG Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "John Jetson" <j.jetson@optusnet.com.au > wrote in message = news:4950de48$0$3799$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... >=20 > An alternative view is one held in Inuit culture where if an = individual is=20 > are unable to chew hides for leather(contribute to the group) they = where=20 > left an icefloe overnight (euthanased). This may seem harsh but it = meant=20 > that the group survived in the harshest on conditions. The question we = need=20 > ta ask ourselves is can we afford to support these people (are our=20 > conditions harsh enough) and if not would you be the executioner.=20 An old Myth,,, the Inuit take care of their old just fine. I'm sure at some point in time it may have occurred as an isolated = incident.         Date: 24 Dec 2008 01:16:26 From: John Jetson Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "WG" <wgilmour@I-zoom.net > wrote in message news:giqo1b$l3e$1@news.motzarella.org... "John Jetson" <j.jetson@optusnet.com.au > wrote in message news:4950de48$0$3799$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > > An alternative view is one held in Inuit culture where if an individual is > are unable to chew hides for leather(contribute to the group) they where > left an icefloe overnight (euthanased). This may seem harsh but it meant > that the group survived in the harshest on conditions. The question we > need > ta ask ourselves is can we afford to support these people (are our > conditions harsh enough) and if not would you be the executioner. An old Myth,,, the Inuit take care of their old just fine. I'm sure at some point in time it may have occurred as an isolated incident. Not meant as a criticism but as illustration of where the good of the group takes precedence over the rights of the individual. This is in contrast to US society where the individual takes precedence over everything           Date: 23 Dec 2008 08:32:15 From: krw Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history In article <4950f2a6$0$7879$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au >, j.jetson@optusnet.com.au says... > > "WG" <wgilmour@I-zoom.net> wrote in message > news:giqo1b$l3e$1@news.motzarella.org... > > "John Jetson" <j.jetson@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:4950de48$0$3799$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > An alternative view is one held in Inuit culture where if an individual is > > are unable to chew hides for leather(contribute to the group) they where > > left an icefloe overnight (euthanased). This may seem harsh but it meant > > that the group survived in the harshest on conditions. The question we > > need > > ta ask ourselves is can we afford to support these people (are our > > conditions harsh enough) and if not would you be the executioner. > > An old Myth,,, the Inuit take care of their old just fine. > I'm sure at some point in time it may have occurred as an isolated incident. > > Not meant as a criticism but as illustration of where the good of the group > takes precedence over the rights of the individual. This is in contrast to > US society where the individual takes precedence over everything As it should be. The individual *should* take care of the infirm, uncoerced.   Date: 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 From: Bill T Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: > Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? > SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a social contract embraced by all politicians. There is no deception.     Date: 26 Dec 2008 16:03:09 From: bub Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T <wctom1@pacbell.net > wrote: >On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >> > >SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is >that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a >social contract embraced by all politicians. > >There is no deception. so where's the giant lock box with all that money in it?     Date: 24 Dec 2008 19:40:36 From: Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history <hal@nospam.com > wrote in message news:fik5l49roajqu19924ckr73b29038p6b23@4ax.com... > On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:51:50 -0500, Mark Goldberg > <msgoldberg@optonline.net> wrote: > >>hal@nospam.com wrote: >>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:52:08 -0500, Mark Goldberg >>> <msgoldberg@optonline.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Wannabe is a marxist, and a nazi. He wants the illegals to own america >>>> and for america to be destroyed. >>> >>> oh shit, I love it when say stuff like that. A Marxist AND a Nazi.... >>> >>> damn, you can't pay for entertainment this good..... >> >>All anyone has to do is google up his love of marxist ideology, his love >>of Adolph Hitler, and all the goals. This is not in dispute. >> >>Yes, a marxist and a nazi ideologue. >> >>And of course, you were shown this in the past. > > you're a complete dumbshit Mark. > > Merry Christmas > >> The idea of a "Marxist Nazis" is as ridiculous as a "Buddhist Pope". Normally when Mark Goldberg goes off in a tangent like this, his Hamas and PLO boyfriends would immediately spit-roast him to shut him up and calm him down.       Date: From: Subject:     Date: From: Subject:     Date: 23 Dec 2008 15:21:54 From: Beldin the Sorcerer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:4950449d$0$5556$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >> > > SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is > that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the > economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a > social contract embraced by all politicians. It's a ponzi scheme. It satisfies the definition of one. Present recipients are paid from the monies received from new investors. It's a fully disclosed, federally mandated Ponzi scheme. > > There is no deception. That's irrelevent.       Date: 23 Dec 2008 10:39:19 From: krw Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history In article <mm74l.673$BC4.500@nwrddc02.gnilink.net >, beldinyyz@verizon.net says... > > "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:4950449d$0$5556$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: > >> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? > >> > > > > SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is > > that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the > > economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a > > social contract embraced by all politicians. > > It's a ponzi scheme. > It satisfies the definition of one. Present recipients are paid from the > monies received from new investors. > > It's a fully disclosed, federally mandated Ponzi scheme. Show me where it's disclosed to be a Ponzi scheme (that it really is). The politicians keep telling us about "lock boxes" and "investments in treasury instruments" and all that rot. > > There is no deception. There is. Transparent, but there is. > That's irrelevent. True 'nuff.     Date: 23 Dec 2008 14:52:59 From: Raveninghorde Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T <wctom1@pacbell.net > wrote: >On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >> > >SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is >that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a >social contract embraced by all politicians. > >There is no deception. There is in the UK. It's called national insurance. A common refrain is "I paid national insurance all my life so I'm entitled to.....". But it entitles people to absolutely FA. However the political shysters don't make it clear to Jo Public that it's just a tax and not an insurance.     Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:35:51 From: Mark Goldberg Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Bill T wrote: > On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >> > > SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is > that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the > economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a > social contract embraced by all politicians. > > There is no deception. Here's an article... I neglected to keep the authors name. But it's a decent review from 2005 and I think there is certainly a deception and a denial by 'all' politicians. Mark ----------- Most Americans, unaware of the machinations and deceptions that attended the birth of Social Security when it was signed into law on August 14, 1935, think it’s some kind of pension system where they pay premiums in the form of payroll taxes which are put aside in a trust fund from which they can draw benefits once they reach the age of 65. The late Sen. Carl Curtis, R-NE, elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1939, made a careful study of Social Security when it began making payments in 1940. As he told a friend of mine, he tried mightily to get the Roosevelt administration to stop calling the program an old-age insurance program and describe it for what it is: a tax on workers to pay benefits to those no longer working. Had they and his colleagues listened to him we wouldn’t be facing a fiscal catastrophe down the road. But nobody was in the mood to listen because they recognized that the Social Security system would be the goose that laid the golden eggs – not for workers and retirees, but for Congress and the federal government who could loot the system to their heart’s content, using the money to pay for all the social welfare spending schemes they otherwise would have had to finance by raising income taxes. Social Security was a Ponzi scheme that carried within it the seeds of an eventual collapse as long as it continued to be operated as it was created to operate. It was based on what amounts to a series of misjudgments and criminal deceptions. • When the government established Social Security, they didn’t plan for most Americans to live long enough to collect the benefits. In 1940, the life expectancy was 63.6 years and the age at which benefits were paid was and is 65. And if you did live that long, you probably wouldn’t have been around much longer to draw money from the system. In other words, they found a new way to collect money from you based on the fiction that that it was yours and you could start collecting it when you reach 65, which they figured most of you would not. • The government claimed that the Social Security taxes you paid belonged to you, and were being squirreled safely away in a trust fund on which you could begin to draw at the age of 65. But instead of putting the money in a trust fund, the Treasury spends the difference on roads, sex-education programs, parks etc. The trust fund gets an I.O.U. If you die before reaching 65, which they expect you to be gracious enough to oblige them by doing, your survivors in most cases collect a big fat zero. Things are no different today, except that we Americans have been stubborn enough to live a lot longer, with life expectancy of the average American now approaching 80. That of course means that if you retire at 65 and live to be 80, you’ll be collecting benefits for 15 years. That’s significant in light of the fact that there are fewer and fewer workers paying into the system to provide Social Security benefits to more and more retirees. Wrote the Heritage Foundation’s Rich Tucker "… starting in 2018 … the system will owe more in benefits than it will collect in taxes. Heritage Foundation Social Security expert David John estimates 'annual deficits will exceed $100 billion within about five years, $200 billion after about ten years, and $300 billion after about fifteen years.'" At that point the burden will fall on income tax payers who will get socked with a horrendous tax bill. Tragically, the Democrats like the system just as it is – they’re hooked on looting the trust funds and they don’t want to get off the gravy train. Keep that in mind the next time you hear one of them lying about those rascally Republicans plotting to kill Social Security.       Date: 23 Dec 2008 12:00:20 From: suds macheath Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Mark Goldberg wrote: > Bill T wrote: >> On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >>> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >>> >> >> SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS >> is that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >> economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is >> a social contract embraced by all politicians. >> >> There is no deception. > > Here's an article... I neglected to keep the authors name. But it's a > decent review from 2005 and I think there is certainly a deception and a > denial by 'all' politicians. > > Mark > ----------- > > Most Americans, unaware of the machinations and deceptions that attended > the birth of Social Security when it was signed into law on August 14, > 1935, think it’s some kind of pension system where they pay premiums in > the form of payroll taxes which are put aside in a trust fund from which > they can draw benefits once they reach the age of 65. > > The late Sen. Carl Curtis, R-NE, elected to the U.S. House of > Representatives in 1939, made a careful study of Social Security when it > began making payments in 1940. As he told a friend of mine, he tried > mightily to get the Roosevelt administration to stop calling the program > an old-age insurance program and describe it for what it is: a tax on > workers to pay benefits to those no longer working. Had they and his > colleagues listened to him we wouldn’t be facing a fiscal catastrophe > down the road. > > But nobody was in the mood to listen because they recognized that the > Social Security system would be the goose that laid the golden eggs – > not for workers and retirees, but for Congress and the federal > government who could loot the system to their heart’s content, using the > money to pay for all the social welfare spending schemes they otherwise > would have had to finance by raising income taxes. > > Social Security was a Ponzi scheme that carried within it the seeds of > an eventual collapse as long as it continued to be operated as it was > created to operate. It was based on what amounts to a series of > misjudgments and criminal deceptions. > > • When the government established Social Security, they didn’t > plan for most Americans to live long enough to collect the benefits. In > 1940, the life expectancy was 63.6 years and the age at which benefits > were paid was and is 65. And if you did live that long, you probably > wouldn’t have been around much longer to draw money from the system. In > other words, they found a new way to collect money from you based on the > fiction that that it was yours and you could start collecting it when > you reach 65, which they figured most of you would not. > > • The government claimed that the Social Security taxes you paid > belonged to you, and were being squirreled safely away in a trust fund > on which you could begin to draw at the age of 65. But instead of > putting the money in a trust fund, the Treasury spends the difference on > roads, sex-education programs, parks etc. The trust fund gets an I.O.U. > If you die before reaching 65, which they expect you to be gracious > enough to oblige them by doing, your survivors in most cases collect a > big fat zero. > > Things are no different today, except that we Americans have been > stubborn enough to live a lot longer, with life expectancy of the > average American now approaching 80. That of course means that if you > retire at 65 and live to be 80, you’ll be collecting benefits for 15 > years. That’s significant in light of the fact that there are fewer and > fewer workers paying into the system to provide Social Security benefits > to more and more retirees. > > Wrote the Heritage Foundation’s Rich Tucker -----Heritage Foundation? Here's were I quote the Center For American Progress, as featured in the WSJ..... http://www.retirementdebate.com/2008/04/23/strengthening-americas-first-and-foremost-retirement-plan/ Over the course of the next five to ten years, as more and more baby boomers retire, the program will stop running a surplus, as it currently does, and will need to start drawing upon the reserves that have been built up over the years. This will happen as planned when Social Security was reformed in the early 1980s. In the longer run, however, those surpluses will be used up–in 2041 to be exact, according to most recent estimates. This means Social Security payments to retirees will thereafter rely solely on payroll taxes. * *Yet even after 2041, Social Security will be able to pay higher beneï¬�ts (adjusted for inflation) than current retirees receive, although the payment would only be about 78 percent of promised beneï¬�ts.** "The next president should not preclude certain reforms–as President Bush did when he limited the scope of his commission to strengthen Social Security by prohibiting it from considering any measure to increase revenues to Social Security. Instead, the next president must be open to a wide range of potential reforms. Modernizing Social Security for the next 75 years could entail both revenue increases and decreases, and some benefit improvements and reductions. Because incomes of the highest earners have increased far faster than the Social Security payroll tax cap, which is linked to average wages, Social Security now collects payroll taxes on less than 85 percent of all wages and benefits–a significantly lower percentage than it did in 1983 when 90 percent of taxable earnings were subject to the payroll tax. Proposals to increase this cap above which earnings are no longer subject to payroll taxes has garnered bipartisan support. Raising the cap on payroll taxes above the current threshold, or by imposing a 3 percent surcharge on income over $200,000–a small tax increase on those who benefited most from Bush’s tax cuts–could put Social Security on sound financial footing well into the future. Other proposals, which should be carefully considered, are changes to the existing benefit formulas to maintain the intended insurance character of Social Security. Already policymakers, including President Bush but also current Congressional Budget Office director Peter Orszag, have pointed toward possible benefit changes, including benefit increases to minimum benefits and improved spousal benefits, alongside benefit cuts, particularly for high-income earners to better account for current trends in employment and health in old age. For Americans to continue to be able to retire with security and dignity will critically depend on Social Security. To continue the retirement success story that is Social Security, the program will have to be modernized. Privatization, however, is the wrong way to go–as the American public made clear when they rejected President Bush’s plan in 2005. Instead of repeating past mistakes, the next president should seek to modernize Social Security by preserving guaranteed benefits, increasing national saving, and fostering generational responsibility."         Date: 23 Dec 2008 11:08:48 From: krw Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history In article <UH84l.11830$dc4.67@bignews2.bellsouth.net >,=20 sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says... >=20 > Mark Goldberg wrote: > > Bill T wrote: > >> On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: > >>> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? > >>> > >> > >> SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS= =20 > >> is that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the=20 > >> economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is= =20 > >> a social contract embraced by all politicians. > >> > >> There is no deception. > >=20 > > Here's an article... I neglected to keep the authors name. But it's a= =20 > > decent review from 2005 and I think there is certainly a deception and = a=20 > > denial by 'all' politicians. > >=20 > > Mark > > ----------- > >=20 > > Most Americans, unaware of the machinations and deceptions that attende= d=20 > > the birth of Social Security when it was signed into law on August 14,= =20 > > 1935, think it?s some kind of pension system where they pay premiums in= =20 > > the form of payroll taxes which are put aside in a trust fund from whic= h=20 > > they can draw benefits once they reach the age of 65. > >=20 > > The late Sen. Carl Curtis, R-NE, elected to the U.S. House of=20 > > Representatives in 1939, made a careful study of Social Security when i= t=20 > > began making payments in 1940. As he told a friend of mine, he tried=20 > > mightily to get the Roosevelt administration to stop calling the progra= m=20 > > an old-age insurance program and describe it for what it is: a tax on= =20 > > workers to pay benefits to those no longer working. Had they and his=20 > > colleagues listened to him we wouldn?t be facing a fiscal catastrophe= =20 > > down the road. > >=20 > > But nobody was in the mood to listen because they recognized that the= =20 > > Social Security system would be the goose that laid the golden eggs ?= =20 > > not for workers and retirees, but for Congress and the federal=20 > > government who could loot the system to their heart?s content, using th= e=20 > > money to pay for all the social welfare spending schemes they otherwise= =20 > > would have had to finance by raising income taxes. > >=20 > > Social Security was a Ponzi scheme that carried within it the seeds of= =20 > > an eventual collapse as long as it continued to be operated as it was= =20 > > created to operate. It was based on what amounts to a series of=20 > > misjudgments and criminal deceptions. > >=20 > > ? When the government established Social Security, they didn?t=20 > > plan for most Americans to live long enough to collect the benefits. In= =20 > > 1940, the life expectancy was 63.6 years and the age at which benefits= =20 > > were paid was and is 65. And if you did live that long, you probably=20 > > wouldn?t have been around much longer to draw money from the system. In= =20 > > other words, they found a new way to collect money from you based on th= e=20 > > fiction that that it was yours and you could start collecting it when= =20 > > you reach 65, which they figured most of you would not. > >=20 > > ? The government claimed that the Social Security taxes you paid= =20 > > belonged to you, and were being squirreled safely away in a trust fund= =20 > > on which you could begin to draw at the age of 65. But instead of=20 > > putting the money in a trust fund, the Treasury spends the difference o= n=20 > > roads, sex-education programs, parks etc. The trust fund gets an I.O.U.= =20 > > If you die before reaching 65, which they expect you to be gracious=20 > > enough to oblige them by doing, your survivors in most cases collect a= =20 > > big fat zero. > >=20 > > Things are no different today, except that we Americans have been=20 > > stubborn enough to live a lot longer, with life expectancy of the=20 > > average American now approaching 80. That of course means that if you= =20 > > retire at 65 and live to be 80, you?ll be collecting benefits for 15=20 > > years. That?s significant in light of the fact that there are fewer and= =20 > > fewer workers paying into the system to provide Social Security benefit= s=20 > > to more and more retirees. > >=20 > > Wrote the Heritage Foundation?s Rich Tucker >=20 > -----Heritage Foundation? Here's were I quote the Center For American=20 > Progress, as featured in the WSJ..... >=20 > http://www.retirementdebate.com/2008/04/23/strengthening-americas-first-a= nd-foremost-retirement-plan/ >=20 > Over the course of the next five to ten years, as more and more baby=20 > boomers retire, the program will stop running a surplus, as it currently= =20 > does, and will need to start drawing upon the reserves that have been=20 > built up over the years. This will happen as planned when Social=20 > Security was reformed in the early 1980s. There *ARE*NO* surpluses. <sheesh > ...and some here think the=20 Ponzi scheme is fully disclosed. <rest of stuff snipped - not worth even reading after comments=20 about "reserves" >           Date: 24 Dec 2008 08:40:29 From: suds macheath Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history krw wrote: > In article <UH84l.11830$dc4.67@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, > sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says...> >> Mark Goldberg wrote: >>> Bill T wrote: >>>> On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >>>>> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >>>>> >>>> SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS >>>> is that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >>>> economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is >>>> a social contract embraced by all politicians. >>>> >>>> There is no deception. >>> Here's an article... I neglected to keep the authors name. But it's a >>> decent review from 2005 and I think there is certainly a deception and a >>> denial by 'all' politicians. >>> >>> Mark >>> ----------- >>> >>> Most Americans, unaware of the machinations and deceptions that attended >>> the birth of Social Security when it was signed into law on August 14, >>> 1935, think it?s some kind of pension system where they pay premiums in >>> the form of payroll taxes which are put aside in a trust fund from which >>> they can draw benefits once they reach the age of 65. >>> >>> The late Sen. Carl Curtis, R-NE, elected to the U.S. House of >>> Representatives in 1939, made a careful study of Social Security when it >>> began making payments in 1940. As he told a friend of mine, he tried >>> mightily to get the Roosevelt administration to stop calling the program >>> an old-age insurance program and describe it for what it is: a tax on >>> workers to pay benefits to those no longer working. Had they and his >>> colleagues listened to him we wouldn?t be facing a fiscal catastrophe >>> down the road. >>> >>> But nobody was in the mood to listen because they recognized that the >>> Social Security system would be the goose that laid the golden eggs ? >>> not for workers and retirees, but for Congress and the federal >>> government who could loot the system to their heart?s content, using the >>> money to pay for all the social welfare spending schemes they otherwise >>> would have had to finance by raising income taxes. >>> >>> Social Security was a Ponzi scheme that carried within it the seeds of >>> an eventual collapse as long as it continued to be operated as it was >>> created to operate. It was based on what amounts to a series of >>> misjudgments and criminal deceptions. >>> >>> ? When the government established Social Security, they didn?t >>> plan for most Americans to live long enough to collect the benefits. In >>> 1940, the life expectancy was 63.6 years and the age at which benefits >>> were paid was and is 65. And if you did live that long, you probably >>> wouldn?t have been around much longer to draw money from the system. In >>> other words, they found a new way to collect money from you based on the >>> fiction that that it was yours and you could start collecting it when >>> you reach 65, which they figured most of you would not. >>> >>> ? The government claimed that the Social Security taxes you paid >>> belonged to you, and were being squirreled safely away in a trust fund >>> on which you could begin to draw at the age of 65. But instead of >>> putting the money in a trust fund, the Treasury spends the difference on >>> roads, sex-education programs, parks etc. The trust fund gets an I.O.U. >>> If you die before reaching 65, which they expect you to be gracious >>> enough to oblige them by doing, your survivors in most cases collect a >>> big fat zero. >>> >>> Things are no different today, except that we Americans have been >>> stubborn enough to live a lot longer, with life expectancy of the >>> average American now approaching 80. That of course means that if you >>> retire at 65 and live to be 80, you?ll be collecting benefits for 15 >>> years. That?s significant in light of the fact that there are fewer and >>> fewer workers paying into the system to provide Social Security benefits >>> to more and more retirees. >>> >>> Wrote the Heritage Foundation?s Rich Tucker >> -----Heritage Foundation? Here's were I quote the Center For American >> Progress, as featured in the WSJ..... >> >> http://www.retirementdebate.com/2008/04/23/strengthening-americas-first-and-foremost-retirement-plan/ >> >> Over the course of the next five to ten years, as more and more baby >> boomers retire, the program will stop running a surplus, as it currently >> does, and will need to start drawing upon the reserves that have been >> built up over the years. This will happen as planned when Social >> Security was reformed in the early 1980s. > > There *ARE*NO* surpluses. <sheesh> ...and some here think the > Ponzi scheme is fully disclosed. > <rest of stuff snipped - not worth even reading after comments > about "reserves"> You mean, not worth reading because it's not a right wing think tank.... ---Yet, Repubs wanted to put the non-existent surplus in private accounts.... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/MNGC3DDBTR1.DTL ---Even the Heritage Foundation admits there are surpluses...<jeez > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/MNGC3DDBTR1.DTL David John, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation who favors private accounts, said the proposal hit a political nerve. "The one thing that you hear at every Social Security meeting is somebody standing up, and usually they're red in the face and want to know, 'Why don't you just start by not spending the surplus on things it was not intended to be used for?' " John said. "Saving the Social Security surplus for Social Security is something that hits a real chord, and that's true left, right and center, and it's also true for young and old." ----No reserves....<sheesh >             Date: 24 Dec 2008 11:54:03 From: krw Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history In article <YRq4l.12262$n_5.4506@bignews7.bellsouth.net >, sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says... > krw wrote: > > In article <UH84l.11830$dc4.67@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, > > sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says...> > >> Over the course of the next five to ten years, as more and more baby > >> boomers retire, the program will stop running a surplus, as it currently > >> does, and will need to start drawing upon the reserves that have been > >> built up over the years. This will happen as planned when Social > >> Security was reformed in the early 1980s. > > > > There *ARE*NO* surpluses. <sheesh> ...and some here think the > > Ponzi scheme is fully disclosed. > > > <rest of stuff snipped - not worth even reading after comments > > about "reserves"> > > You mean, not worth reading because it's not a right wing think tank.... No, I mean your premise is *stoopid* so nothing useful can follow. You've proved my point several times now. -- Keith               Date: 25 Dec 2008 11:23:39 From: suds macheath Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history krw wrote: > In article <YRq4l.12262$n_5.4506@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, > sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says... >> krw wrote: >>> In article <UH84l.11830$dc4.67@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, >>> sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says...> > >>>> Over the course of the next five to ten years, as more and more baby >>>> boomers retire, the program will stop running a surplus, as it currently >>>> does, and will need to start drawing upon the reserves that have been >>>> built up over the years. This will happen as planned when Social >>>> Security was reformed in the early 1980s. >>> There *ARE*NO* surpluses. <sheesh> ...and some here think the >>> Ponzi scheme is fully disclosed. >>> <rest of stuff snipped - not worth even reading after comments >>> about "reserves"> >> You mean, not worth reading because it's not a right wing think tank.... > > No, I mean your premise is *stoopid* so nothing useful can follow. > You've proved my point several times now. > > -- > Keith Your intellectual cowardice is telling.... ------Repubs wanted to put the non-existent surplus in private accounts.... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/MNGC3DDBTR1.DTL ---Even the Heritage Foundation admits there are surpluses...<jeez > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/MNGC3DDBTR1.DTL David John, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation who favors private accounts, said the proposal hit a political nerve. "The one thing that you hear at every Social Security meeting is somebody standing up, and usually they're red in the face and want to know, 'Why don't you just start by not spending the surplus on things it was not intended to be used for?' " John said. "Saving the Social Security surplus for Social Security is something that hits a real chord, and that's true left, right and center, and it's also true for young and old." ----No reserves....<sheesh >                 Date: 25 Dec 2008 13:25:28 From: krw Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history In article <1nO4l.12778$nD1.11595@bignews5.bellsouth.net >, sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says... > krw wrote: > > In article <YRq4l.12262$n_5.4506@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, > > sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says... > >> krw wrote: > >>> In article <UH84l.11830$dc4.67@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, > >>> sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says...> > > > >>>> Over the course of the next five to ten years, as more and more baby > >>>> boomers retire, the program will stop running a surplus, as it currently > >>>> does, and will need to start drawing upon the reserves that have been > >>>> built up over the years. This will happen as planned when Social > >>>> Security was reformed in the early 1980s. > >>> There *ARE*NO* surpluses. <sheesh> ...and some here think the > >>> Ponzi scheme is fully disclosed. > >>> <rest of stuff snipped - not worth even reading after comments > >>> about "reserves"> > >> You mean, not worth reading because it's not a right wing think tank.... > > > > No, I mean your premise is *stoopid* so nothing useful can follow. > > You've proved my point several times now. > > > > -- > > Keith > > Your intellectual cowardice is telling.... Your fascism is showing. -- Keith                   Date: 29 Dec 2008 11:35:30 From: suds macheath Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history krw wrote: > In article <1nO4l.12778$nD1.11595@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, > sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says... >> krw wrote: >>> In article <YRq4l.12262$n_5.4506@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, >>> sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says... >>>> krw wrote: >>>>> In article <UH84l.11830$dc4.67@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, >>>>> sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says...> >>>>>> Over the course of the next five to ten years, as more and more baby >>>>>> boomers retire, the program will stop running a surplus, as it currently >>>>>> does, and will need to start drawing upon the reserves that have been >>>>>> built up over the years. This will happen as planned when Social >>>>>> Security was reformed in the early 1980s. >>>>> There *ARE*NO* surpluses. <sheesh> ...and some here think the >>>>> Ponzi scheme is fully disclosed. >>>>> <rest of stuff snipped - not worth even reading after comments >>>>> about "reserves"> >>>> You mean, not worth reading because it's not a right wing think tank.... >>> No, I mean your premise is *stoopid* so nothing useful can follow. >>> You've proved my point several times now. >>> >>> -- >>> Keith >> Your intellectual cowardice is telling.... > > Your fascism is showing. > ----<Yawn > Another confused Loonytarian..... http://www.slate.com/id/2202489/                     Date: 29 Dec 2008 11:47:52 From: krw Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history In article <TX66l.14019$M01.4586@bignews3.bellsouth.net >, sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says... > > krw wrote: > > In article <1nO4l.12778$nD1.11595@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, > > sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says... > >> krw wrote: > >>> In article <YRq4l.12262$n_5.4506@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, > >>> sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says... > >>>> krw wrote: > >>>>> In article <UH84l.11830$dc4.67@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, > >>>>> sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says...> > >>>>>> Over the course of the next five to ten years, as more and more baby > >>>>>> boomers retire, the program will stop running a surplus, as it currently > >>>>>> does, and will need to start drawing upon the reserves that have been > >>>>>> built up over the years. This will happen as planned when Social > >>>>>> Security was reformed in the early 1980s. > >>>>> There *ARE*NO* surpluses. <sheesh> ...and some here think the > >>>>> Ponzi scheme is fully disclosed. > >>>>> <rest of stuff snipped - not worth even reading after comments > >>>>> about "reserves"> > >>>> You mean, not worth reading because it's not a right wing think tank.... > >>> No, I mean your premise is *stoopid* so nothing useful can follow. > >>> You've proved my point several times now. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Keith > >> Your intellectual cowardice is telling.... > > > > Your fascism is showing. > > > > ----<Yawn> Another confused Loonytarian..... > http://www.slate.com/id/2202489/ You *are* and idiot. ...but you've been demonstrating that fact here for some time.                 Date: 25 Dec 2008 11:10:12 From: da pickle Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "suds macheath" > ----No reserves....<sheesh> If it were not for double talk, there would be no talk at all about the "reserves" ... no legislature since the very beginning has been able to "not spend" any "reserve" of any size. There may be no good way to turn this pyramid into a viable retirement vehicle, but they keep "talking." It is a "dole" of a different sort. It is a "deferred benefit" program with peculiar "qualifications." It is dependent on the solvency of the guarantor. It can be changed at any time. The "promises" are an illusion.           Date: 23 Dec 2008 17:48:41 From: Mark Goldberg Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history krw wrote: > In article <UH84l.11830$dc4.67@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, > sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says...> >>> Wrote the Heritage Foundation?s Rich Tucker >> -----Heritage Foundation? Here's were I quote the Center For American >> Progress, as featured in the WSJ..... >> >> http://www.retirementdebate.com/2008/04/23/strengthening-americas-first-and-foremost-retirement-plan/ >> >> Over the course of the next five to ten years, as more and more baby >> boomers retire, the program will stop running a surplus, as it currently >> does, and will need to start drawing upon the reserves that have been >> built up over the years. This will happen as planned when Social >> Security was reformed in the early 1980s. > > There *ARE*NO* surpluses. <sheesh> ...and some here think the > Ponzi scheme is fully disclosed. > > <rest of stuff snipped - not worth even reading after comments > about "reserves"> ----------------- I believe you are correct. There are no 'reserves'. And McDuff likes this sort of group. Here's a bio on the 'group' that peddled this fluff. The Center for American Progress (CAP) describes itself as "a nonpartisan research and educational institute" aimed at "developing a long-term vision of a progressive America" and "providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals." Robert Dreyfuss reports in the March 1, 2004 edition of The Nation: "The idea for the Center began with discussions in 2002 between [Morton] Halperin and George Soros, the billionaire investor. … Halperin, who heads the office of Soros' Open Society Institute, brought [former Clinton chief of staff John] Podesta into the discussion, and beginning in late 2002 Halperin and Podesta circulated a series of papers to funders." Soros and Halperin recruited Harold Ickes -- chief fundraiser and former deputy chief of staff for the Clinton White House -- to help organize the Center. It was launched on July 7, 2003 as the American Majority Institute. The name was changed to Center for American Progress (CAP) on September 1, 2003. The official purpose of the Center was to provide the left with something it supposedly lacked -- a think tank of its own. Regarding the new think tank proposed by Soros and Halperin, Hillary Clinton told Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine on October 12, 2003, "We need some new intellectual capital. There has to be some thought given as to how we build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democrat Party's values." She later told The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss, "We've had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The Center is a welcome effort to fill that void." Persistent press leaks confirm that Hillary Clinton, and not Podesta, is ultimately in charge of CAP. "It's the official Hillary Clinton think tank," an inside source confided to Christian Bourge of United Press International. Robert Dreyfuss notes in The Nation, "In looking at Podesta's center, there's no escaping the imprint of the Clintons. It's not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile -- or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton." Dreyfuss notes the abundance of Clintonites on the Center's staff, among them Clinton's national security speechwriter Robert Boorstin; Democratic Leadership Council staffer and former head of Clinton's National Economic Council Gene Sperling; former senior advisor to Clinton's Office of Management and Budget Matt Miller; and others. In addition to the aforementioned individuals, CAP's key personnel also includes Director of Media Strategy Debbie Berger, daughter of Clinton national security chief Sandy Berger; Sarah Rosen Wartell, who serves as Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer, and General Counsel; Mark David Agrast, Senior Vice President for Domestic Policy; and Robert O. Boorstin, Senior Vice President for National Security and International Policy. One of CAP's primary missions is to carry out "rapid response" to what it calls conservative "attacks" in the media. To this end, CAP maintains more than a dozen spokespeople ready to appear on short notice on national talk shows to debate or respond to conservative commentators. Among CAP's expert commentators are its own President, John Podesta; Eric Alterman, who claims expertise on the subject of media; and CAP Senior Vice President Morton Halperin, who offers to speak on national security. On May 3, 2004, CAP helped to launch David Brock's Media Matters for America - which claims to serve as a "watchdog" organization monitoring "rightwing" media for ethics and accuracy. According to The New York Times, Brock conferred with Hillary Clinton, Senator Tom Daschle, and former Vice President Al Gore about Media Matters before embarking on the project. "Mr. Brock's project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress," notes the Times, and John Podesta "introduced [Brock] to potential donors." CAP posts daily "Talking Points" to guide the likeminded in their disputes with conservatives. The organization has also established an American Progress Action Fund as a "sister advocacy organization" that "transforms progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world." The March 2004 Foundation Watch newsletter of the Capital Research Center reports that CAP raised $13 million in 2003. Part of that money came from George Soros, who had pledged $3 million, to be paid in $1 million increments over three years. Part came from Herbert and Marion Sandler, co-CEOs of the Oakland, California savings and loan holding company Golden West Financial Corporation (S&L). Other recent donors to CAP include the Rockefeller Family Fund; the Irving Harris Foundation, the Philip Murphy Foundation, the New York Community Trust, the Overbrook Foundation, the Peninsula Foundation, the Robert E. Rubin Foundation, the San Francisco Foundation, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Open Society Institute, and the Robert and Irene Schwartz Foundation.             Date: 24 Dec 2008 08:30:46 From: suds macheath Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Mark Goldberg wrote: > krw wrote: >> In article <UH84l.11830$dc4.67@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, >> sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com says...> > >>>> Wrote the Heritage Foundation?s Rich Tucker >>> -----Heritage Foundation? Here's were I quote the Center For American >>> Progress, as featured in the WSJ..... >>> >>> http://www.retirementdebate.com/2008/04/23/strengthening-americas-first-and-foremost-retirement-plan/ >>> >>> >>> Over the course of the next five to ten years, as more and more baby >>> boomers retire, the program will stop running a surplus, as it >>> currently does, and will need to start drawing upon the reserves that >>> have been built up over the years. This will happen as planned when >>> Social Security was reformed in the early 1980s. >> >> There *ARE*NO* surpluses. <sheesh> ...and some here think the Ponzi >> scheme is fully disclosed. >> >> <rest of stuff snipped - not worth even reading after comments about >> "reserves"> > ----------------- > > I believe you are correct. There are no 'reserves'. And McDuff likes > this sort of group. Here's a bio on the 'group' that peddled this fluff. ----And the "Heritage Foundation" is an ultra right wing think tank....making the point that I tend to accept their findings as much as you accept CFAP's.... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation The Foundation wields considerable influence in Washington, and enjoyed particular prominence during the Reagan administration. Its initial funding was provided by Joseph Coors, of the Coors beer empire, and Richard Mellon Scaife, heir of the Mellon industrial and banking fortune. The Foundation maintains strong ties with the London Institute of Economic Affairs and the Mont Pelerin Society. With a long history of receiving large donations from overseas, Heritage continues to rake in a minimum of several hundred thousand dollars from Taiwan and South Korea each year. In autumn of 1988, the South Korean National Assembly uncovered a document revealing that Korean intelligence gave $2.2 million to the Heritage Foundation on the sly during the early 1980s. Heritage officials "categorically deny" the accusation. <snip un-identified smears >               Date: 24 Dec 2008 19:05:53 From: Mark Goldberg Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history suds macheath wrote: > ----And the "Heritage Foundation" is an ultra right wing think > tank....making the point that I tend to accept their findings as much as > you accept CFAP's.... Well.... 'ultra-right wing. That must mean they sit around hatching plans of sinister means. Well, let anyone read and compare their thoughts and ideas. And then compare. I will bet the leftists and marxists like your CFAP's and most people will find facts and figures reputable and thoughtful from such as the Heritage Foundations. You are a marxist. You are a moral, ethical and factual equivocator. And if someone thinks I'm making this up... let them google up your posts and examine this for accuracy. Ala- 'ultra-right wing'. The history and depth of the articles, the level of discourse and discussion is remarkably more a discussion in one group versus the others. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which one is which. As far as liberal fascism goes- that would without a doubt go to the CFAP's ideology, and methodology, and yours. Mark                 Date: 25 Dec 2008 11:21:03 From: suds macheath Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Mark Goldberg wrote: > suds macheath wrote: > >> ----And the "Heritage Foundation" is an ultra right wing think >> tank....making the point that I tend to accept their findings as much >> as you accept CFAP's.... > > Well.... 'ultra-right wing. That must mean they sit around hatching > plans of sinister means. ---Your definition, not mine. > > Well, let anyone read and compare their thoughts and ideas. And then > compare. > > I will bet the leftists and marxists like your CFAP's and most people > will find facts and figures reputable and thoughtful from such as the > Heritage Foundations. ---As well as reasoned arguments from CFAP and other left center think tanks. You are a marxist. ---No, Goldie, I'm not a Marxist....that just shows others how ultra right you really are. Perhaps dangerously so. You are a moral, ethical and > factual equivocator. ----You are a liar..... > > And if someone thinks I'm making this up... let them google up your > posts and examine this for accuracy. ---Indeed, let them...let's make sure they stay in context, shall we? I'll be waiting for the posts where I champion Marxism and admit to being such. > > Ala- 'ultra-right wing'. The history and depth of the articles, the > level of discourse and discussion is remarkably more a discussion in one > group versus the others. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which one > is which. As far as liberal fascism ---An oxymoron developed by the ultra right.... goes- that would without a doubt go > to the CFAP's ideology, and methodology, and yours. ---Fascism has more in common with the ultra right than with the left. Indeed, the true fascists in the US identified with the ultra right in regards to religion, nationalism, and economic theory. The right knows this, and manufactures this noise to fool the non intellectually curious.                   Date: 27 Dec 2008 08:05:31 From: Mark Goldberg Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history suds macheath wrote: > Mark Goldberg wrote: >> suds macheath wrote: >> >>> ----And the "Heritage Foundation" is an ultra right wing think >>> tank....making the point that I tend to accept their findings as much >>> as you accept CFAP's.... >> >> Well.... 'ultra-right wing. That must mean they sit around hatching >> plans of sinister means. > > ---Your definition, not mine. No... your definition. > >> >> Well, let anyone read and compare their thoughts and ideas. And then >> compare. >> >> I will bet the leftists and marxists like your CFAP's and most people >> will find facts and figures reputable and thoughtful from such as the >> Heritage Foundations. > > ---As well as reasoned arguments from CFAP and other left center think > tanks. No.... and as I said, you didn't compare; you merely pretended that it's all the same, but I don't believe that, nor would most. That's part of the problem of factual, historical, and ethicl equivalency. > > You are a marxist. > > ---No, Goldie, I'm not a Marxist....that just shows others how ultra > right you really are. Perhaps dangerously so. You are a leftist. I should be more precise at times. > > You are a moral, ethical and >> factual equivocator. > > ----You are a liar..... > >> >> And if someone thinks I'm making this up... let them google up your >> posts and examine this for accuracy. > > ---Indeed, let them...let's make sure they stay in context, shall we? > I'll be waiting for the posts where I champion Marxism and admit to > being such. > Leftist, or let's be more precise....a socialist. I stand corrected. >> >> Ala- 'ultra-right wing'. The history and depth of the articles, the >> level of discourse and discussion is remarkably more a discussion in >> one group versus the others. I'll leave it to the reader to decide >> which one is which. As far as liberal fascism > > ---An oxymoron developed by the ultra right... Not at all. And in fact- this is a century swamped with liberal fascism. In fact 'national socialism' and 'the socialism of marxism' and 'communism' were swarmping half the world, ate up and devastated- which is historical fact- much of that world, and was overthrown-so that world might live again. That is no 'oxymoron' invented by the 'ultra-right' You of course, are an historical and moral equivocator. The destruction of the communist world ( forget the national socialist's who all dragged us in a world war with 50 million dead ) were not people of capitalism or constitutional democracies. It's part of the whole socialist denial bit... the final dance. The mass homicidism of the gulags, the deaths of 4 millions in the Ukraine with failed 5 yr plans, the mass homicides of the Khmer Rouge, the 60 million thought slaughtererd by Meow the chairman, and the largest murder factory on earth- n korea, are somehow expressions not the fault of 'socialism', but because the capitalists exist, or as some of the real nuts of socialism like to ply... they never happened. Ultra right wing indeed. . > ---Fascism has more in common with the ultra right than with the left. Absolutely false. Not a bit of truth to that. And the fact that the conservative movements of the century knew they could fall to that, and said so and failed and analyzed it effectively and for the vast majority did not fall to that... as opposed to the socialist movements- all which fell to that tyranny, show the difference. Tyranny is always possible. That is part of the challenge of governance, and thinking. That the left, like you, has always by definition, been in denial as to their possible self enslavement, and the tyranny over nations, shows why 150 millions were slaughterd by the left, and why it's the cornerstone of their politically 'correct' strait jacket' that literally destroyed entire nations, and not even having the decency to admit the immense and immeasureable destructions it wrought. > Indeed, the true fascists in the US identified with the ultra right in > regards to religion, nationalism, and economic theory. The right knows > this, and manufactures this noise to fool the non intellectually curious. And of course... what you just said, is the definition of historical equivolency, and .... noise. The left destroyed half the world, and then denied it's culpability, being a self contained phony messianic movement that lives on with blinders, and new self deceptions. All political movements contain human ignorance. Socialism specializes and believes in the cultivation of that ignorance- teaches it, demands it, and in it's path, leaves want, hunger, and failure. That was the history of the last century. The 'right' was neither holy, nor blameless, nor even at nobles noble. And at other times, it was most effective, most decent and successfull in granting opportunity and freedoms to large percentages of populations. Your left's religions, of messianic madness left a swarth of death unparalleled in human history. And the denial of it's own culpabliity is too others eyes.... astonishing. Mark                     Date: 29 Dec 2008 11:33:22 From: suds macheath Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Mark Goldberg wrote: > suds macheath wrote: >> Mark Goldberg wrote: >>> suds macheath wrote: >>> >>>> ----And the "Heritage Foundation" is an ultra right wing think >>>> tank....making the point that I tend to accept their findings as >>>> much as you accept CFAP's.... >>> >>> Well.... 'ultra-right wing. That must mean they sit around hatching >>> plans of sinister means. >> >> ---Your definition, not mine. > > No... your definition. ---Let's bring it up, Goldie....google it.... >> >>> >>> Well, let anyone read and compare their thoughts and ideas. And then >>> compare. >>> >>> I will bet the leftists and marxists like your CFAP's and most people >>> will find facts and figures reputable and thoughtful from such as the >>> Heritage Foundations. >> >> ---As well as reasoned arguments from CFAP and other left center think >> tanks. > > No.... and as I said, you didn't compare; you merely pretended that it's > all the same, but I don't believe that, nor would most. That's part of > the problem of factual, historical, and ethicl equivalency. >> >> You are a marxist. >> >> ---No, Goldie, I'm not a Marxist....that just shows others how ultra >> right you really are. Perhaps dangerously so. > > You are a leftist. I should be more precise at times. ----I'm a centrist...you are a reactionary Zionist.... >> >> You are a moral, ethical and >>> factual equivocator. >> >> ----You are a liar..... >> >>> >>> And if someone thinks I'm making this up... let them google up your >>> posts and examine this for accuracy. >> >> ---Indeed, let them...let's make sure they stay in context, shall we? >> I'll be waiting for the posts where I champion Marxism and admit to >> being such. >> > Leftist, or let's be more precise....a socialist. ----You are a liar.... I stand corrected. ---I have just corrected you..... >>> >>> Ala- 'ultra-right wing'. The history and depth of the articles, the >>> level of discourse and discussion is remarkably more a discussion in >>> one group versus the others. I'll leave it to the reader to decide >>> which one is which. As far as liberal fascism >> >> ---An oxymoron developed by the ultra right... > > Not at all. ---Yes, indeed... And in fact- this is a century swamped with liberal fascism. > In fact 'national socialism' and 'the socialism of marxism' and > 'communism' were swarmping half the world, ate up and devastated- which > is historical fact- much of that world, and was overthrown-so that world > might live again. > > That is no 'oxymoron' invented by the 'ultra-right' ---Yes, indeed. Why was fascism the darling of the corporatists in the 30"s? Why were the Socialists the first victims of the fascists governments > You of course, are an historical and moral equivocator. The destruction > of the communist world ( forget the national socialist's who all dragged > us in a world war with 50 million dead ) were not people of capitalism > or constitutional democracies. ----China has been destroyed? Do tell.... > > It's part of the whole socialist denial bit... the final dance. The mass > homicidism of the gulags, the deaths of 4 millions in the Ukraine with > failed 5 yr plans, the mass homicides of the Khmer Rouge, the 60 million > thought slaughtererd by Meow the chairman, ----Is this some kind of rightist joke, or are you really this ignorant? and the largest murder > factory on earth- n korea, are somehow expressions not the fault of > 'socialism', but because the capitalists exist, or as some of the real > nuts of socialism like to ply... they never happened. > > Ultra right wing indeed. ---Yes, fascism, especially the American brand, has more in common with the ultra right that the center left, Goldie... > . > >> ---Fascism has more in common with the ultra right than with the left. > > Absolutely false. > Not a bit of truth to that. ---It is indeed, Goldie.....you're afraid to google the American Nazi Party, the Aryan Nation, or any of the real deal American Fascicts, aren't you? http://www.americanfascistmovement.com/platform.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lincoln_Rockwell "When compared to other political icons of the 1960s, Rockwell was a combination of radical-reactionary and counter-revolutionary, meaning that he sought to counter the perceived leftist progressive cultural revolution in America ----Wow, that sounds like you, Goldie. Are you *sure* you're not a fascist? and preserve its old way of life by going out of the mainstream to become a frontline fighter. But unlike other radical groups, Rockwell always made sure his was law abiding and often claimed they had to "break their backs" to be so." ----Looks like you're mighty confused, Goldie...or, you're drinking deep of the conservative Kool Aid... > And the fact that the conservative movements of the century knew they > could fall to that, and said so and failed and analyzed it effectively > and for the vast majority did not fall to that... as opposed to the > socialist movements- all which fell to that tyranny, show the difference. > Tyranny is always possible. That is part of the challenge of governance, > and thinking. That the left, like you, has always by definition, been in > denial as to their possible self enslavement, and the tyranny over > nations, shows why 150 millions were slaughterd by the left, and why > it's the cornerstone of their politically 'correct' strait jacket' that > literally destroyed entire nations, and not even having the decency to > admit the immense and immeasureable destructions it wrought. > >> Indeed, the true fascists in the US identified with the ultra right in >> regards to religion, nationalism, and economic theory. The right knows >> this, and manufactures this noise to fool the non intellectually curious. > > And of course... what you just said, is the definition of historical > equivolency, and .... noise. The left destroyed half the world, and then > denied it's culpability, being a self contained phony messianic movement > that lives on with blinders, and new self deceptions. > > All political movements contain human ignorance. Socialism specializes > and believes in the cultivation of that ignorance- teaches it, demands > it, and in it's path, leaves want, hunger, and failure. That was the > history of the last century. The 'right' was neither holy, nor > blameless, nor even at nobles noble. And at other times, it was most > effective, most decent and successfull in granting opportunity and > freedoms to large percentages of populations. > > Your left's religions, ----I thought the Left were atheists, Goldie... of messianic madness left a swarth of death > unparalleled in human history. And the denial of it's own culpabliity is > too others eyes.... astonishing. ----And, the fact remains that American fascists have more in common with the ultra right than the left...leftist fascists is indeed an oxymoron.     Date: 23 Dec 2008 01:44:26 From: Irish Mike Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:4950449d$0$5556$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >> > > SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is > that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the > economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a > social contract embraced by all politicians. > > There is no deception. Well, not until the Democrats looted the deposits. Irish Mike     Date: 22 Dec 2008 22:35:30 From: Mason C Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T <wctom1@pacbell.net > wrote: >On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >> > >SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is >that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a >social contract embraced by all politicians. > >There is no deception. No deception perhaps. But it has the nature of a Ponzi scheme. A continuous stream of new "investors" -- new workers -- is needed to pay the older "investors" who didn't fully pay for their SS insurance. The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or (2) the new workers don't produce enough. As now set up, continuous growth is required. Continuous growth (with some wiggles) has been history and will continue, we hope. (If necessary, let in millions of immigrant workers.) ( By the way, Japan's "SS" is in real trouble. They don't have a sufficient birth rate and don't welcome immigrants. ) Mason Clark *Greater America in the Age of Rebellion* http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html -- many excerpts you can see --       Date: 23 Dec 2008 10:28:33 From: GreenDistantStar Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history Mason C wrote: > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >>> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >>> >> SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is >> that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >> economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a >> social contract embraced by all politicians. >> >> There is no deception. > > No deception perhaps. But it has the nature of a Ponzi scheme. > A continuous stream of new "investors" -- new workers -- is needed > to pay the older "investors" who didn't fully pay for their SS insurance. > > The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or > (2) the new workers don't produce enough. > > As now set up, continuous growth is required. > > Continuous growth (with some wiggles) has been history and > will continue, we hope. > > (If necessary, let in millions of immigrant workers.) > > ( By the way, Japan's "SS" is in real trouble. They don't have a > sufficient birth rate and don't welcome immigrants. ) This eight part series is essential viewing for anyone interested in the outcomes associated with exponential growth. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY Watch in its entirety, or don't watch it at all...IMHO. GDS "Let's roll!"       Date: 22 Dec 2008 23:47:48 From: Bill T Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On 12/22/2008 22:35, Mason C wrote: > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T<wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >>> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >>> >> SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is >> that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >> economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a >> social contract embraced by all politicians. >> >> There is no deception. > > No deception perhaps. But it has the nature of a Ponzi scheme. > A continuous stream of new "investors" -- new workers -- is needed > to pay the older "investors" who didn't fully pay for their SS insurance. SS is a pyramid structure, but it clearly states it. > The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or > (2) the new workers don't produce enough. > > As now set up, continuous growth is required. Yep. Probably won't happen. Old folks want to aggrandize to themselves the production of the young, and can do so via the ballot box. It will take a few election cycles, but eventually the young workers will refuse to give 30 -50 % of their money to their granddads. For example, if you spent 20 years as a cop in California, you can retire at age 42 and collect the equivalent of $100K for the rest of your life (another 40 years). This is ridiculous, and at some point all of us will rise up and say "No". > > Continuous growth (with some wiggles) has been history and > will continue, we hope. > > (If necessary, let in millions of immigrant workers.) > > ( By the way, Japan's "SS" is in real trouble. They don't have a > sufficient birth rate and don't welcome immigrants. ) > > > Mason Clark > > *Greater America in the Age of Rebellion* > http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html > -- many excerpts you can see --         Date: 23 Dec 2008 15:31:52 From: Beldin the Sorcerer Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:49505cb0$0$5538$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > On 12/22/2008 22:35, Mason C wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T<wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >>> On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >>>> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >>>> >>> SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is >>> that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >>> economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a >>> social contract embraced by all politicians. >>> >>> There is no deception. >> >> No deception perhaps. But it has the nature of a Ponzi scheme. >> A continuous stream of new "investors" -- new workers -- is needed >> to pay the older "investors" who didn't fully pay for their SS insurance. > > SS is a pyramid structure, but it clearly states it. > So what? > >> The SS scheme fails if there are (1) not enough new workers or >> (2) the new workers don't produce enough. >> >> As now set up, continuous growth is required. > > Yep. Probably won't happen. Old folks want to aggrandize to themselves > the production of the young, and can do so via the ballot box. It will > take a few election cycles, but eventually the young workers will refuse > to give 30 -50 % of their money to their granddads. They'll also need to be willing to get less. The problem is, no one wants to get less. What we really need is an OPTION for no-cost ederly housing with food and medical care.... that requires you to move where the housing is, and accept what's there.         Date: 23 Dec 2008 03:48:02 From: A Man Beaten by Jacks Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:47:48 -0800, Bill T <wctom1@pacbell.net > wrote: >On 12/22/2008 22:35, Mason C wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:05:04 -0800, Bill T<wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote: >>> On 12/22/2008 21:52, RichD wrote: >>>> Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? >>> SS is not a Ponzi scheme. It is well understood that the basis of SS is >>> that future workers will pay for the ongoing consumption of the >>> economically-useless elderly. It may or may not make sense, but it is a >>> social contract embraced by all politicians. >>> There is no deception. >> No deception perhaps. But it has the nature of a Ponzi scheme. >> A continuous stream of new "investors" -- new workers -- is needed >> to pay the older "investors" who didn't fully pay for their SS insurance. >SS is a pyramid structure, but it clearly states it. SS isn't a Ponzi scam for two reasons. One is that it is not in theory an inevitable catastrophe. The other is that it is not in practice an inevitable mathematical catastrophe. It could become a catastrophe due to how we actually execute it, but it is not inevitably a mathematical catastrophe. The Social Security Administration used to have this document on their webpage, which is now only on archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20011007160228/www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.html While this is an accurate description of why Social Security is not a Ponzi scam, it is somewhat disturbing the Bush Administration, for whatever reason, has removed it from the site. Have they changed something that makes it not true, or does the phrase "Ponzi scam" just make them a little antsy occurring right on the SSA website, when it does, indeed, have similarities to a Ponzi scheme. (Or was it just the "Hun" helmet that did it?) Incidentally, the name "Ponzi" still does show up on the SSA website in a few places: http://tinyurl.com/8wn9vp Most notably, Charles Ponzi is on a list of people (in the first hit) that the SSA has a file on. I suspect that some originally legitimate funds have sometimes turned into Ponzi scams, as investment advisors or brokers with previously good records hit a bad patch and seek out "investors" to continue paying their previous high rates of return to avoid disappointing or driving away their current customers. Then it becomes a habit, and eventually, the inevitable mathematics of the Ponzi takes over. I suspect Madoff's scam was something of this sort. SS could turn out that way, too, given a lack of oversight and accountability. One hopes the disaster isn't already afoot.   Date: 22 Dec 2008 22:08:54 From: XaQ Morphy Subject: Re: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history On Dec 22 2008 11:52 PM, RichD wrote: > Did they ever nab the guy who invented Socialist Security? Check igotskillz's web page, he probably has a link somewhere. --- Morphy xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com http://www.donkeymanifesto.com "SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio ______________________________________________________________________  : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com