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, 12:05am, 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, 10:22am, 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, 5:03am, 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 its 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 wouldnt 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 hearts 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 didnt
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
wouldnt 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, youll be collecting benefits for 15
years. Thats 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 Foundations 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 theyre hooked
on looting the trust funds and they dont 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
benefits (adjusted for inflation) than current retirees receive, although
the payment would only be about 78 percent of promised benefits.**

"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