NOTHING I posted asserted or implied that retirees should get ready to die.
Instead I observe that compulsory infantalization doesn’t make us stronger, it makes us weaker.
right -
Humans age whether there’s a loaded gun muzzle to our head or not.
I’m not advocating against retirement planning.
I’m observing the undisputed fact that Social Security is administered at gunpoint.
It is not voluntary.
It is compulsory.
Logic and grammar school English attends to that.
I replied to:
This exact quotation repeats a pathetic, insulting dismissive attempt to misrepresent my conservative position.
It is an insinuation clearly intended to offend and ridicule.
YOU don’t support it.
I don’t support it.
Yet you let it stand, and harangue me for calling the poster on it.
I mean what I say and say what I mean.
And the quoted offensive misrepresentation of my position is for practical purposes a lie; whether rules here permit me to say so or not.
And I didn’t call it or the poster a lie / liar.
My posted comment was:
Dispute that!
Anyone that misrepresents my position is subject to being corrected; as I did in this case.
If there’s any problem at all with that please ban me permanently.
And anybody that does should be smacked down with nuclear vigor.
You’ve NEVER get ANY of that from me.
Instead, my factual and as yet perhaps contradicted, but NOT refuted observation is that it’s a Ponzi scheme.
Eh, superficially so at best. You elided part of the definition (“in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources”). A Ponzi scheme is a fraud, based on deceit. Social Security is not.
Because it requires paying out lavish returns to investors, but is not actually producing any profits, a Ponzi scheme requires exponential growth in the number of investors, or it will collapse. This isn’t true of Social Security.
Definitely simplistic BS but there is no avoiding the effects.
There is no mention of the advertising industry in the article. But I can play Dinah Shore in my head, “see the USA in a Chevrolet”. Half a century after the Moon landing and economists can say how many cars we have thrown on the junk heap each year. Some problems were started before Boomers were born and we were taught it was The American Way.
But then most of the world wanted to imitate us because Hollywood brainwashed them.
The Century of the Self 1 - Happiness Machines - Adam Curtis (subtitulado español) | Documental
The crucial point is it careens toward catastrophic collapse, and is closer to that crash and burn with ever second that elapses.
There’s not even a controversy about it.
DON’T take my word for it. Google it yourself.
What you will find as an absolute certitude is precisely what I verified.
Page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page of reports that the wheels are going to come off this sucker.
And it’s all ENTIRELY unnecessary.
Social Security is historically the exception, not the rule.
For most of American history, there was no Social Security Administration.
Guess what.
The sky did not fall.
And if it’s such a bargain; why the $#@! must it be administered at gunpoint ?!
Have you considered that many of the factors affecting society as the baby boomer wave moves through it is due to the self-evident fact that it is, in fact, a population wave? That, for instance, it costs more in total to educate students when there are a lot of them than when there are, relatively, fewer of them?
This is not to say that public education funding isn’t infested with politics, because it certainly is, but the above is surely also a factor.
So your theory is that people should not be “forced” to contribute to their retirement, because (a) they’re quite capable of doing it on their own, and (b) the public retirement fund is a pyramid scam.
Questions:
1 (a). If people are smart enough to know that they need to save for retirement, why the hell are so damn many of them not doing it? Why are so many of these geniuses, far from saving for their retirement, whining about the evil gubbermint taking money out of their paychecks for their retirement in the future when they’d be so much better off spending it on beer today?
1 (b). In your libertarian utopia, what do you propose to do with retirees who failed to save for their retirement and now can’t afford to survive?
Perhaps you are confused between the principle of social security and the particular management of this particular system. If social security is a “scam”, how come other social security systems are doing so well – in fact, much better than most most people’s individual retirement investments?
I just want to back up the others who are refuting the nonsense that Social Security is a pyramid scam. Pyramid scams are scams because they promise a fixed return. Change the return and any scheme becomes doable for the long term. Social Security not only has a variable return but the point of payout is also variable. Moreover, either the return or the point of payout can be - and certainly has been - easily changed at any time Congress votes to do so.
What happened before Social Security? For one thing, people lived on average 20 or years less than they do today. Yet, they tended to retired only a few years earlier at most. So making a direct comparison between the two is simply not supportable.
The point of all government is to “inflict mandatory participation on us.” Some of us rather like civilization.
As I often say, libertarianism is to the social sciences what creationism is to the physical sciences.
As is your claim (among others) that establishing safety nets for people through a government agency is “infantilizing.”
You were not Modded for that effort to mock and mischaracterize anyone else’s position.
Rather, you were advised that calling other posters liars, (the effect of your statement “Tell them any lie you like.”) is against the rules.
Tom’s instruction in post #76 was simply a reminder about the rule against lying. If he believed you were accusing another poster of lying, the result may have been different.
The rules of this forum do not permit you to accuse another poster of lying in Great Debates or Elections. They also do not permit you to question moderator instructions (some leeway exists, obviously). If you have a complaint or question about moderation, that belongs in About This Message Board.
A repeat of any of the above will result in warnings.
No. But a lot of people died in miserable poverty. Social Security isn’t a panacea, but it prevents a lot of misery.
This one of those unwinnable arguments. Your philosophy it appears does not tolerate that degree of social engineering. Mine embraces it. And there we get stuck, with no good resolution between the two positions.
In some cases, the general austerity being visited upon the post Boomer generations started not with the Boomers themselves, but with their Greatest Generation parents. For example in 1978, voters in still fairly conservative California approved Proposition 13 which clamped down on property tax rates. This law was an emergency response to a coastal real estate market which was just then entering its state of permanent white-hot insanity. Ordinary homeowners who for ten or twenty years had been paying off their modest monthly mortgages of a few hundred dollars, or had entirely paid off their mortgages, were now being forced to sell and move, because their property tax rates were tied to market values. I can definitely see the problem here; people shouldn’t be taxed out of their own houses that way. So Proposition 13 became law, but the impact on kids then in school would be minimal, because it took some time for its full effects to be realized. I’m sure that didn’t hurt its chances at the voting booth, because those middle aged parents who voted it in had kids of high school age. I’m not saying that Proposition 13 was wrong, but it set off other issues that the state has never dealt with.
No.
A “theory”, your word, which you introduced, not me; means:
When I was a boy in the 1950’s, U.S. citizens were admired, envied as “rugged individualists” and “self-reliant”.
That doesn’t come up anymore.
I’m 100% OK with retirement.
In fact, I’m retired. I retired at age 43, in 1997.
My reservations about Social Security include:
It’s compulsory; 401K is not.
SCOTUS has already ruled that citizens have no legal right to any of the $money they’ve paid into Social Security. That their “entitlement” is only whatever congress says it is.
Why not set an income% standard?
10% of whatever the citizen / tax payer’s yearly income is?
And grant each tax payer some leeway; within the limits of the plan, to choose which investment vehicle best suits their investment profile?
Is individual choice really so bad?
It is a pyramid scam.
But perhaps the more important detail is that disempowering a nation, an entire People is a savage blow. It weakens and thus threatens us as both a People, and as a nation.
Society as a whole benefits when individuals accept responsibility for themselves.
The mindless dismissal that: - oh it’s OK, the government will take care of it -
cripples us as a People.
Because we don’t have to. The government will take care of that for us.
Beer is an investment in a larger size of trouser.
A 401K is an investment in future (life long) financial security.
iirc it was Albert Einstein that called compound interest the 11th wonder of the world.
You mock me, which I gather is permissible here. I seem to be the only one here to whom rules apply.
I never said it was Utopia.
Instead, my factually undisputed position is that we are being compelled at gunpoint to participate in a scam that is intrinsically bankrupt; and that the date of that insolvency is known to economist, accurately predicted based upon the most conventional forms of economic analysis and population / employment trends.
What do you propose to do with the corpses?
You remind me of the citizen that leapt from the top of the Empire State Building, and as he plummeted to his demise was heard out the 10th story window saying: “No problem so far!”
Where do you draw the line?
Reductio ad absurdum:
What % does government confiscate from U.S. worker salary for SS? Betw. 6% - 7%?
Well if that’s so optimal, why not 10%?
And if 10% would be an improvement, why not 22.539%?
And if 22.539% would be more than twice as good; why not 50%?
But why all the half-stepping?!
If government can handle my finances better than me; why the $#@! am I allowed to handle any of $it?
Why not simply $take it $all? Think of the bargain I’d get on Cheerie-O’s!
Without proof, let’s accept that as a premise.
I’ve never seen a one-sided coin.
So there’s winners & losers under the SS scam. Fine.
Then how could there possibly not be, without SS?
Have you considered utilitarianism? The greatest benefit to the greatest number within a population?
The mere idea that government bureaucrats can spend / invest YOUR money more $wisely than you is a conspicuous absurdity. I’ve never paid $900.oo for a toilet seat. Have you?
piffle -
When my promotion to Emperor of the Cosmos is finalized, the Social Security administration will be tastefully phased out.
Until then:
You want “Social Security”? Splendid.
Why not make participation voluntary, with an alternate option for those of us that actually want our money?
Social Security funds are not guaranteed.
BUT !!
With FDIC & FSLIC bank funds are.
So why are you settling for the lesser standard?
As long as you keep harping on this theme in which you erroneously claim that Social Security was supposed to be a fund into which a worker paid to be paid back their own funds after retirement, you are going to fail to persuade anyone of your position.
(Without even getting into the fact that, short of dying shortly after retirement, a worker or their spouse/survivor can expect to receive rather more money than they contributed.)
It’s not that, either. It doesn’t require an exponentially-increasing number of participants paying in; pyramid schemes do.
It’s unclear if you read those cites…this is from one:
Both Social Security and Medicare face long-term financing shortfalls under currently scheduled benefits and financing. Lawmakers have a broad continuum of policy options that would close or reduce the long-term financing shortfall of both programs.
There’s nothing inherent in Social Security that would make it fail. It just requires tweaks and adjustments over time, like any large program, or large anything.
There was enough of a problem that the law was passed, so…
Referencing a program that’s been defunct since 1989 as a recommendation for Social Security privatization does not inspire confidence.
Expecting all your fellow citizens to abandon a highly useful and effective social insurance system so you can bask in flattering propaganda about the “national character” rosily remembered from your childhood is both unrealistic and extremely selfish.
I somehow doubt that there were really that many foreigners in the 1950s envying indigent elderly Americans for their “rugged individualism”. Americans were envied after WWII for our comparative wealth, not for letting poverty-stricken old people starve in the name of “self-reliance”.
Not at all. Tons of people will invest their money stupidly, or not at all. Maybe you would invest it wisely, maybe less wisely than you would think.
Besides, you’re always at risk of losing your assets, even wisely invested ones. A big accident in your life, and you go bankrupt, kissing bye bye to your wisely invested retirement money.
But more importantly, a lot of people won’t save at all. Even if it’s their fault, the fact is that we won’t let the elderly starve to death under a bridge. We’ll end up paying for their lodging, food, medical expenses, etc… So, yes, I want people to be forced to chime in a state fund (and not a private fund, because those can go bankrupt too or be mismanaged, and the end result will be the same : peniless old people we have to take care of).
I’ve left this entire screed intact because it is some sort of masterpiece! Not a masterpiece of reason, fact or logic, of course, but still a masterpiece in its own way.
I will confine my comments to just two words from the screed: “Ponzi” and “gunpoint.” (Though now I see that “Ponzi” came from yet another screed by the same author. Wow! He is a prolific creator of “masterpieces,” isn’t he?)
First note that Social Security has been around for more than 80 years, has met its obligations, and still has trillions of dollars in surplus! Charles Ponzi didn’t do that; neither did Bernie Madoff. sear is correct that if nothing is done the SocSec surplus will run out in the 2030’s. One solution to this would be to … (wait for it) … do something! For example the maximum income subject to SocSec tax could be increased. Such an increase seems rather appropriate because one explanation for the coming SocSec deficits is that, due to rising income inequality, an ever-diminishing share of the total pie is subject to the SocSec tax.
However the last thing that many Americans want is to actually solve the SocSec funding issue. It is far better, in their view, to rant and rave about liberal profligacy, the evils of socialism, and government bankruptcy than to actually address problems. If the problems were fixed what would they have to whine, rant and rave about? It appears sear includes himself in this camp.
The other word that caught my attention was “gunpoint.” This is one of WillFarnaby’s favorite words — is there some whining YouTube channel that likes to overuse this word? Where did you pick it up, sear? Alex Jones’ channel? Some other Rant/Rave blog? Reading WillFarnaby’s posts here?
I’ve been involved with SocSec for more than fifty years and not once have they ever drawn a gun on me! I’ve even experimented with not paying taxes for several years — still no gun!
So I’ll do sear the courtesy of assuming that by “compelled at gunpoint” he really meant “compelled” — he just wanted to practice extravagant hyperbole as part of an audition to be Alex Jones’ sidekick.
We are compelled, every day. I’m compelled to breathe. I’m compelled to provide security for my family. I’m certainly compelled to pay my electricity bill — losing the a/c is not an option for me. When I get my haircut, I feel compelled to pay the barber (though, just as with the IRS, I don’t think they’d draw a gun on me if I refused.) I’m compelled to slow down when schoolchildren are crossing the road. And yes, I’m compelled to pay my taxes, just as the citizens of ancient Sumeria were 5000 years ago.
To treat the tautology “compulsory taxes are compulsory” as some great insight into political theory is to make a self-mockery of a human’s capacity to reason. The phrase “compelled at gunpoint” was enough to ensure that sear’s entire screed was uninformed and worthless — reading the rest of it was just idle recreation.
Have you ever done any reading about the Depression? The “rugged individualists” and “self-reliant” masses were destitute. The overwhelming majority of the country saw that the private sector and private charity had utterly failed. They wanted - demanded, screamed for, threatened - the government to do something. Social Security was one of the things that came out of that. How can you possibly not understand that? The very people you are holding up as examples were the ones who created Social Security. Talk about cognitive dissonance!
Oh, and this is dismal.
No, FDIC absolutely does not guarantee all deposits. They are guaranteed only up to $250,000 per owner. That’s the same type of limitation that protects Social Security from being a pyramid scheme. And, of course, the FDIC was instituted during the Depression because of all those rugged and self-reliant people who had their private savings wiped out by failing banks and therefore turned to the government for protection.
I’m just about your age, BTW, so you can’t use that as an excuse for this level of ignorance about history, government, and economics. I went to public schools in the 50s. They taught this stuff, reinforced by the experiences of my parents who saw how critical it was for government to protect its citizens and not leave them to the uncaring mercies of the private sector. Now I have a chance to teach you if you want to learn.
I have NEVER made any such assertion.
Extremely to the contrary, I’ve correctly harped on the FACT that it is NOT!! unlike 401k etc.
Same with Prohibition (the 18th Amendment). So …
Whatever you say.
You have succinctly and persuasively refuted a position I’ve never taken.
My position remains that if participation at a certain percent of income is mandatory, at least give the citizen a choice; slush fund (current SS), or a more rational investment vehicle closer to the 401k model.
Every NFL team in the U.S.A. competes to participate in and win the superbowl each year.
But only one of them ever wins.
Just because they’re not smart enough to invest wisely why should that impede me?
That’s what insurance is for.
That’s a persuasive argument for my position.
I’m not arguing against retirement investments.
To the contrary, I’m the current beneficiary of my own.
Instead I’m challenging the PROVEN insolvency-bound SS system.
If it was the only possible option; then splendid.
It never was.
Is a choice of A or B really more horrific to contemplate than communism?
Thanks.
a) Ponzi in the sense that current payments are NOT provided by prior revenues (which have already been squandered on alternate budge priorities); but instead by current revenues.
That can work as long as current revenues exceed current benefits outlays.
We know that’s not going to last much longer.
s #96 continues:
You’re welcome to misinterpret the literal meaning of my posted words all you like.
But I could not possibly mean the word “gunpoint” more literally.
Gunpoint in the sense that, even if the gun is in the holster right now, if a citizen resists participation in SS, the inevitable slide toward martial oppression begins.
Step one may be mild enough, a tersely worded letter calling attention to non-compliance.
Continue to avoid compliance, and follow on letters are more forcefully worded, more threatening.
Reductio ad absurdum, continue non-compliance long enough, and eventually there’s going to be a “knock on the door”.
Don’t you see?
Government is a “protection racket”.
If you don’t pay “the man” the Mafia will break your legs.
If you don’t pay the government, they’ll throw you in the dungeon.
Other than that, the differences are window dressing.
You’re going to have to do much better than post hoc ergo propter hoc to snow me.
Social Security may have existed after the Great Depression.
Social Security did not solve or end the Great Depression.
Reductio ad absurdum.
Where do you draw the line?
If government handling ~7% of your income is good, would government handling ~14% of your income be twice as good?
Why not optimize it?
Let government take and spend 100% of our income! Then we’ll no longer need to worry about:
I gather government may have been as much the problem as it was the solution in that case.
Boom / bust seems to be the natural pattern for economies.
Glass-Steagel may have helped avert it for a while, but Clinton / Gingrich got rid of that.
Frank-Dodd was intended to replace it, and it seems Trump / Ryan have that canned as well.
That’s right boys & girls. Soon again the Republicans will have working class men & women $bailing out the $millionaires again.
It’s just a matter of time.
This is equally true (“true” only in the sense that its big bundle of melodramatic libertarian-extremist hyperbole contains a tiny core of fact about the coercive power of government in general) of all taxes, not just Social Security taxes.
No rational grownup objects to paying a tax merely on the grounds that THE GUMMINT CAN JAIL ME IF I DON’T AND IT’S NOT FAAAAAAIR WAAAAAAAAHHHH.
[QUOTE=sear]
Soon again the Republicans will have working class men & women $bailing out the $millionaires again.
It’s just a matter of time.
[/QUOTE]
Fortunately, the last several times that’s happened, the elderly among the bailers-out weren’t left destitute, largely because they had their Social Security. The fate of the non-wealthy elderly who got shafted by millionaires back before Social Security tended to be far worse.
