With Democratic disapproval ratings in the quadruple digits, it's a foregone conclusion that Republicans will not only retake Congress, but hold it for the next 20,000 to 25,000 years. Experts also predicted the one-sided election results would cause Barack Obama to die on the spot, at which point the nation's leading conservative talk-radio host would be sworn in as president of the United States forever
Perhaps Democrats need to take a fucking chill pill, hmm?
The subject of race has come up recently in comments....
"We're bringing new voices and perspectives into the movement every day, and the addition of some more coloreds is only the beginning," Tea Party spokesman Michael Kealey told reporters, adding that he was "excited to welcome Negroes into the fold."
Please direct your competing victimization to the editorial board of The Onion.
Finally (the best for last, of course), the subject of "coercive government force to extract money from people" (aka Obama's taking Whitey's Money) has come up in comments again. For those of you who feel this way (special dedication to Flat Earther), will you you take this pledge?
I, __________ __________ ________
principles of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word
that I shall strictly adhere to the following: I pledge to eliminate
all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of
and participation in any socialist goods and services including but
not limited to the following:
Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
US Postal Service
Roads and Highways
Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
The US Railway System
Rest Areas on Highways
Bridges
Sidewalks
Public Water/Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower,
dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)
FDA Approved Food and Drugs
Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children
Treatment at Any Hospital/Clinic That Ever Received Funding From
Local/State/Federal Government
Medical Services and Medications That Were Created/Derived From Any
Government Grant/Research Funding
Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and
Velcro (NASA Inventions)
Use of the Internets, email, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for
computer networking
Foodstuffs /Meats/Pro duce/
With/That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies
Public Education
Government grants/loans for higher education
Attending publicly funded or state colleges/universities
SWORN ON A BIBLE AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF ____IN THE YEAR ____.
_________________ _________________
Name/Town/State
Disconnect your computer from the internets,
sign and hand deliver to the appropriate agencies.
principles of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word
that I shall strictly adhere to the following: I pledge to eliminate
all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of
and participation in any socialist goods and services including but
not limited to the following:
Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
US Postal Service
Roads and Highways
Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
The US Railway System
Rest Areas on Highways
Bridges
Sidewalks
Public Water/Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower,
dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)
FDA Approved Food and Drugs
Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children
Treatment at Any Hospital/Clinic That Ever Received Funding From
Local/State/Federal Government
Medical Services and Medications That Were Created/Derived From Any
Government Grant/Research Funding
Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and
Velcro (NASA Inventions)
Use of the Internets, email, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for
computer networking
Foodstuffs /Meats/Pro duce/
With/That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies
Public Education
Government grants/loans for higher education
Attending publicly funded or state colleges/universities
SWORN ON A BIBLE AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF ____IN THE YEAR ____.
_________________ _________________
Name/Town/State
Disconnect your computer from the internets,
sign and hand deliver to the appropriate agencies.
For the record, I will not be taking this pledge. I fully support all of these services which apparently means that I am supporting fascism.
Seig Heil!
64 comments:
I will not take the pledge and am proud to have the government run those services.
No Markadelphia, the subject of race was brought up by you - twice on the front page of this blog. Nice try at revisionist history - that it came from the comments section of your blog.
I will not take the pledge as I have need for all these services provided by the government. What about you, rld?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/we-will-never-be-united-as-a-nation-as-long-as-the,17764/?utm_source=morenews
Another great Onion article. Written by Markadelphia.
I will not take the pledge. I am proud and happy to have this form of socialism in our country. Well, right wingers, are you going to take the pledge?
Wow, anonymous, talk about missing the point. Nice Rove, though. I submit that the part of no compromise is the party of Kurts. Plus, Kurt pretty much looks like every conservative blogger I have ever seen photographed.
And I will not take the pledge if someone is taking track of votes somewhere.
There is a difference between limited government and no government.
But it has to be all or nothig with you folks, right?
Limited = None.
Definitions mean nothing to liberals. That's the Minnesota education system at its finest.
To be honest, I didn't find this as funny as your assertion that Social Security isn't really a Ponzi scheme, you see, because they mean well.
Mythbusters indeed.
are you morons willing to swear off all things provided by the greedy, corrupt, criminal private sector who exploit people? didn't think so hipocrites.
Hey, Mark. Found your site via Andy. I will not take the pledge.
I don't see anyone taking the pledge yet. Perhaps they just like to pick and choose what socialism they hate. Time for some heads to explode. I like to make money, I have a lot of it, and I still think we need more government regulation. Why? Because things have gotten to far out of control.
In fact, I think President Obama has done a lot to help the private sector make money. Corporate profits have risen under him faster than any other 18 month period since the 1920s. Numbers don't lie. Bush took nearly four years to post gains like this and Obama did it in less than half that time. Even better for conservatives, it was all done at the expense of the worker which is the real reason why the Democrats are going to lose big. I would think that most of you right wingers would be happy with all of this. Profits up, Dems losing, and the american worker fucked by greed. Just the way you like it--less people in the middle class to spend money which means more money and power at the top with no real hope of anyone getting up there. Spare me the "pull yourself up the bootstraps and work hard" argument. I didn't have to work hard for my money. I was simply born in the right family.
@Damn Teabaggers: That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. How on earth did you come up with that analogy?
Why? Because things have gotten to far out of control.
Okay, I'll bite - what things are out of control, and what regulations would address that?
In fact, I think President Obama has done a lot to help the private sector make money.
What exactly does the President do (good or bad) that controls private sector profits? I smell the myth of the rightful ruler.
Just the way you like it
I'm curious, but do actually know a conservative that SAYS that is what they want - or is this just a voice in your head you like to argue with?
I didn't have to work hard for my money. I was simply born in the right family.
And I bet mommy and daddy make sure that you can't fuck that up and blow it all. That's certainly the case with every trustifarian I've ever met. I wonder how many generations THAT will last.
Hey sasquatch - quote soemone on here saying that that is just the way they like it.
So if I sign the pledge do I get my fucking money back? Do I get to not pay taxes from here on out? Thought not.
Difference between public and private sector. I can choose not to purchase services in the private sector. I have no choice in the public. And damned little say.
I guess all Democrats have voices in their head now. Sorry sasquatch. I hope you stick around but I won't blame you if don't. There is a decided refusal to accept reality around these parts.
I'd also like to hear from Damn Teabaggers how exactly Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.
I guess all Democrats have voices in their head now.
If you are going to say "what conservatives want/like/say" and you don't actually QUOTE one (and it would really be nice if it was someone HERE) that says such - then what fucking voice are we to assume you are conversing with? It's just like that bullshit you pulled about some undefined other people that supposedly believe in perfectly competitive markets.
Or are you agreeing that you have to be a bit batty to be a Democrat?
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme as current pay-outs are based on current receipts - not what YOU paid in. If you only got back what you put in, your benefits are exhausted in about 4 years (which is just a bit more than retirement-to-death span was at SS inception). If SS wasn't dependent on that revenue stream, no one would ever talk about the change in recipient to worker ratio, and that the decline in that is worrisome.
Now, if we accepted that SS is nothing but a transfer payment from current workers to ones we want out of the workforce (also a big driving factor in why FDR wanted it) AND it wasn't funded regressively AND recipients were means-tested - then it would be a whole different story. It wouldn't be SS as we know it though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going."
What part of that is unclear?
What part of that does not accurately describe Social Security?
I can only spot one discrepancy: With Social Security, you don't have to be enticed because you don't have the option not to pay in.
"Social Security is a Ponzi scheme as current pay-outs are based on current receipts - not what YOU paid in"
This.
Even if we ever got to the point where we scrapped SS, I would never get my money back BECAUSE THEY ALREADY SPENT IT.
I don't really know where to go with your assertions here, guys, but I guess I'll give it another shot. To put it simply, they are false and the analogy to Ponzi is ridiculous. The problem is that you can't contain your bias regarding government and I wonder if you can offer any sort of serious critical analysis.
Now, if you wanted to have a discussion about the pros and cons of social services, the original vision of the trust fund and how it has changed or even the whole nanny state thing, it would probably be more substantive. As it stands, you are making a claim that is flat out wrong and has been proved to be wrong. Did any of you read the link? The guy that wrote a book about Ponzi said the two aren't the same. Here it is again.
Mitchell Zuckoff, author of "Ponzi's Scheme: The True Story of a Financial Legend," and a URI graduate, addressed the persistent comparison in a recent interview with PolitiFact Wisconsin. "The important difference and the fundamental difference is that there is no secret to how Social Security is run," he said. "No one is being misled; no one is taking the money and running..."
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2010/oct/03/john-loughlin/loughlin-compares-social-security-ponzi-scheme/
There is no intent to deceive. That is how it is not like Ponzi scheme. The people that have paid into SS over the years have begun to receive their payments when they reach 65. Have any of them been defrauded out of their money? I'm not talking about possible futures...I'm talking about now. Is the money all gone? Last time I checked, Ponzi did not have a base of 2.5 trillion dollars. Why don't we ask SS recipients who also got ripped off by Madoff and find out which they think is a Ponzi scheme?
For God's sakes go read the link again since I know you won't take my word for it and try to remove your collective heads from your asses. I just got back from seeing "Inside Job" (I'll be posting something about it tomorrow) and your mindset with stuff like this feeds the problem and makes it grow. It's monumentally frustrating to me that you think SS is a Ponzi scheme and yet you call for less regulation of the people who actually engage in Ponzi schemes which nearly took down the world's economic structure! Good grief...
Wow Mark,
I don't know why but I am continuously amazed by your ability to write something without understanding the import of what you wrote.
There is no intent to deceive. That is how it is not like Ponzi scheme.
Really? That's the difference?
You need to think about that real hard and answer this question - why is it necessary for a ponzi scheme to employ deceit?
Figured it out? It's because a ponzi scheme is structurally unsound - the math doesn't add up. It must employ deceit to entice people to invest in it. Unless of course you can employ the force of law to mandate people invest in it.
As for the rest of your head up ass of a comment - your statement about people not having been paid yet shows that you have absolutely no idea how such a scheme actually works.
To put it simply, they are false and the analogy to Ponzi is ridiculous.
And your evidence to SUPPORT that is??? A newspaper/blog interview with a guy who wrote a book? A guy who isn't even an actuary, an economist or an accountant but a journalism professor? A guy who knows NOTHING about SS or even finance in general for that matter.
There is no intent to deceive.
Yet SS is based on a deception - that you are getting back the money you paid in. You ask any SS recipient and they will believe to their bones that they are collecting on money that was taken from them and put somewhere to be paid back out. If that was true, even remotely true, then NO one would be talking about the beneficiary to worker ratio.
From the SSA website:
"There are currently 2.9 workers for each Social Security beneficiary. By 2035, there will be 2.1 workers for each beneficiary."
If the SSA is talking about it, don't you think it has SOME implication?
Have any of them been defrauded out of their money?
Depends on what they believe - that they are taking money from current receipts or from some special piggy bank called the Trust Fund. The truth is THEIR payments IN were paid out to other people, and the payments OUT to them are coming from other people. That includes payments to upper and middle income retired people coming out of middle and lower income current wage earners.
Is the money all gone?
Yes. All that is in the Trust Fund is a promise to collect money out of future taxes. You think there's actual dollar bills or gold coins in there?
I just got back from seeing "Inside Job"
Who fucking cares what movies you see - stop confusing them with reality. Pull your head out of your ass and research something a little more deeply than gobbling up whatever bullshit some liberal jackass on the web has to say.
BTW, meant to refer you to another bit from Manzi...
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/251039/our-so-called-experts-jim-manzi
Since I doubt you'd find that on your own - given that it isn't on KOS or TPM.
Yes, I read the link, the first time.
There is no intent to deceive.
And that's all you have. In other words, as I said above,
Social Security isn't really a Ponzi scheme, you see, because they mean well.
I thought it was ballsy of you before, when you claimed to be able to divine people's thoughts and intentions. But SS was passed... how many decades ago? So by claiming to know the intent of SS, now you're claiming to be able to commune with the dead.
Not to mention you're claiming that of every single politician who has ever taken a position supporting SS, not one of them, not even one of the Republicans, was lying or "intended to deceive."
Personally I'd find it easier to believe you can commune with the dead.
I'm not talking about possible futures...I'm talking about now. Is the money all gone?
SS is paying out more than it takes in today, Mark. Yes, the money is all gone. What is being paid out now is money stolen from other programs, originally intended for other purposes.
I can't say I'm surprised that you don't understand this, since you believe we could borrow money for eternity and never even attempt to pay any of it back, and it'd be okay because there's always another chump to accept our assertion that "no really, I'll pay it all back, I swear!"
Guard Duck, your bias about government force has overwhelemed you. It's pointless to discuss this further. And your views will continue to empower those who are making our economy worse.
Juris, I'll always have time for Manzi. I agree with much of what he has said even if you don't like the extent to which I did or how I did it.
You are wrong about what I read. Completely ridiculous claim.
Juris (and everyone else for that matter), until you see "Inside Job" further discussion is pointless. I know you will probably ignore me but you really need to see this film this weekend if you have the time. I'm asking you a personal favor, juris. I've been complimentary to you when you have personally insulted me. I know we don't know each other in person but you owe it to yourself, as a person that I know seeks knowledge, to see this film.
We're having the wrong debate and ignoring the actual problem. See my post later today.
You are wrong about what I read. Completely ridiculous claim.
What, because I actually went to the SSA website and you reference a journalism website interview with a journalism professor cum author? And I'm the one making ridiculous claims? You haven't even ATTEMPTED to argue that SS actually is a pension and not an income transfer.
until you see "Inside Job"
Jaysus H. Christ, I am NOT going to see some fucking Hollywood bullshit about the "global financial crisis". Not as a personal favor, not as a command from God.
If you can't get it through your thick skull that screenwriting, directing and acting are NOT reality, then not only do I pity you, I pity every child that has to endure every minute under your tutelage.
It's not Hollywood bullshit...it's a documentary and I am imploring you to open up your mind a little bit. It details exactly what happened in very accessible and no nonsense way. In all honesty, it renders most of what we debate about moot.
I was hoping to get a post up today but won't because I got busy with some stuff. Tomorrow...
From a review of 'Inside Job' -
"This movie is a good basic primer about the financial crisis of 2008 for those who haven't really been following this story and have little or no financial knowledge."
I guess you might identify with that, but I would wager that Juris and Last have more than enough financial knowledge to render this thing into "Hollywood bullshit."
"I expected more from a full-length feature documentary. I've seen TV shows that delved into greater depth on this issue. This movie pushes the right emotional buttons but ultimately, it's light fare for those on a low-intellect diet."
No wonder you are touting it....
Yes, I read the link. It says just what you do, that while the mechanics of it may be functionally identical,
There is no intent to deceive. That is how it is not like Ponzi scheme.
Uh huh. In other words,
"Social Security isn't really a Ponzi scheme, you see, because they mean well."
When was SS enacted? Late 30s, early 40s, wasn't it? I thought you were ballsy when you claimed to divine the thoughts and motives of the living. Now you claim to be able to commune with the dead.
I'm still waiting on your post calling for an investigation into the finances of the Obama '08 campaign. Why do I get the feeling I'm going to be waiting a long time?
Of course liberals can commune with the dead, DT. How else can you explain the fact that dead people always seem to vote Democrat?
It's not Hollywood bullshit...it's a documentary and
So was "An Inconvenient Truth". And your point is? Are you suggesting that "documentary" and "Hollywood bullshit" are necessarily different things? Micheal Moore and Al Gore are Exhibit A for the argument that that's bullshit.
Guard Duck, I guess I need to remind you that it was Last in Line who showed me House of Cards well over a year ago. I considered this to be an excellent supplement to my existing knowledge. Inside Job furthered that and built on much of the research and many of the concepts started there. Go ahead and read my post today for my further thoughts on it.
As to your review, where is the link so we can see what site it is from? I am also more interested in your thoughts on the film, not someone else's words. Go see it and let me know what you think. I think when you do that you will find this opinion to be quite ridiculous.
Damn Teabaggers,
I'm going to try this from a different approach. Ponzi ripped people off. They paid in and never got their money back. Unless you have some information that I don't, people have been paying into social security for years and, when they reach age 65, collect that money. My grandmother has been receiving checks for the last 28 years. If she had invested in a Ponzi like scheme, would she be getting a regular check? Remember, in your answers, I'm not talking about hypotheticals or the future. I'm talking about past and present definable facts.
I still don't see anyone taking the pledge or refusing to do so as the "commies" on here have done. I also see we have oh so cleverly diverted to personally insulting and attacking Mark. Looking through some old posts, this seems to happen quite often. I am hereby challenging any conservative, libertarian, classic liberal or whatever you call yourselves to either take the pledge or explain why you won't, listing the services that you accept as being appropriate socialism.
Tick tick, good people...no answer means your claims about socialism are pure nonsense.
Tick tick, good people...no answer means your claims about socialism are pure nonsense.
What an intellectually vacant piece of shit.
No, I'm not going to accept your premise that either I agree with you 100% or I'm an anarchist who wants no government services or regulations of any sort whatsoever. I've owned a dog who was too smart to fall for that asinine fallacy, and I find it extremely disappointing that apparently you do.
You are aware that SS is running deficits right now, today, right? Ponzi didn't have the multitude of things going that the Federal government does. So if you're willing to actually be accurate,
people have been paying into social security for years and, when they reach age 65, collect that money.
That is a crock of shit, and you are thoroughly aware that it is. No, they do not collect that money, ever. They can't, because it was spent decades before. What they collect is money borrowed or extorted from someone else "farther down the food chain". So far as I can tell, what they're collecting now is money borrowed from the Chinese. If Ponzi had been able to rob anyone and everyone around him at gunpoint to pay off his earlier "investors", and thus had "successful investors" to show the banks so he could borrow more money to keep the scam running, he'd have arrived at exactly the same place SS is in right now.
What you're trying to claim is that it isn't a Ponzi scheme because it hasn't collapsed yet.
I still don't see anyone taking the pledge or refusing to do so as the "commies" on here have done. I also see we have oh so cleverly diverted to personally insulting and attacking Mark.
How about you answer the questions I posed to you? What specifically is out of control and what regulations will address that? What does the President actually do that affects corporate profits? What conservative has ever said that they want what you claim they do?
Your erstwhile challenge is as childish and stupid as that pledge. No wonder you are fixated on it.
FW-I didn't set up the rules. Purity tests, remember? So, if you support some forms of socialism than you are a socialist according to the people you support. This is what you accuse Mark of all the time. If you are saying that this has changed, then stop branding him as such. And admit that you refuse to take the pledge.
DT-what the hell are you talking about? First, I would suggest that you find some medication that brings your shuttle back to the planet Earth. Second, please call the Social Security Administration and relate to them your concerns. Perhaps they can help you see that what you are saying is completely fucking bat shit crazy.
Juris-If you take the pledge or refuse to take the pledge, I will answer your questions. Until then, I will not answer your questions. I resubmit my statement: Your claims about socialism and government force are complete nonsense.
To pick an example from your list and show you why it's asinine,
Treatment at Any Hospital/Clinic That Ever Received Funding From
Local/State/Federal Government
This assumes that the hospital/clinic/etc. would not exist at all if not for government funding. To be sure, that's probably true in the last several years. Why? Because they are required under government mandate to incur costs treating people who will not be paying. In other words, they are required by law to spend resources they have no way of recovering.
So if you'd make any attempt at accuracy instead of constructing a strawman, as in
I pledge never to go to an Emergency Room with no means of paying and expect them to treat me free of charge
...you'd have no trouble getting signers. But an actual stand on actual principles isn't what you want, is it? Hardly surprising, the majority of your party has been working hard to avoid taking an actual stand on actual principles this entire election season.
"You are aware that SS is running deficits right now, today, right?"
No, it isn't. This has been proven to be a lie.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/jun/24/michele-bachmann/bachmann-says-social-security-running-deficit-and-/
"What you're trying to claim is that it isn't a Ponzi scheme because it hasn't collapsed yet."
I don't know where else I can go with you on this subject. Every statement you make on SS is either false or filled with unreasonable fear. Or both. It's based on emotion and lack of reason. You don't trust the government. I get it. That doesn't mean you can make things up to suit your statements. Or word smith ideas into oblivion. If you start dealing with the facts (ex: people have been getting social security checks for 65 years, the recession's effect on the program, social security has decreased poverty in elderly from 50 percent to 9 percent of our population) and examine the positives of the program, we might be able to go somewhere.
Juris and sasquatch, if I may be so bold, I think that an excellent regulation question has been asked in the Inside Job thread. I have some thoughts on it. Let's continue that thought there.
Mark, I don't know what Last said, but based on your unique ability to take what a person says and twist it to hear what you want, I would prefer to hear Last say that you two agree on something.
As to who wrote the review? A nobody, irrelevant. Just like this movie. The idea that one could learn anything profound about such a complex subject in the course of a two hour movie makes the idea that it is anything other than a basic, very basic primer a ludicrous idea. The time constraints alone mean that any particular subject they go into detail upon constrains other subjects to minimum attention or even complete lack of attention.
I don't know where else I can go with you on this subject.
No Mark, I don't know where else we can go.
Your first defense that SS isn't a ponzi scheme is that it has 'no intent to deceive'. Your follow up is the 'proof' that people are still being paid. You haven't addressed that structurally, functionally they are the same.
The reason a ponzi scheme has to deceive is that people (the investors) will not invest in it without being deceived. Because it is not financially sound. It is not financially sound because the first investors are paid by the investment of the follow on investors. That structure doesn't work because at some point in the future there are more payments to the earlier investors than there are current payments by the later investors. It is at that point that people stop receiving their money and the whole thing collapses.
The longer the Maddoff-like figure running the ponzi can keep that from happening the longer the scheme can function. As long as the scheme is functioning the early investors are receiving their money and are happy with the program.
You say the SS is still paying? Well so does a ponzi until it is out of money. That is one of the key aspects of a ponzi - the early investors HAVE to get paid in order to become testimonials to encourage further investment.
You say there is no intent to deceive? Yet your own link that supposedly disproves that SS is running a deficit says:
"...retirement of the baby-boom generation will cause benefit payments to increase more than revenues.”
More payout than income? Check.
"it’s also built up a big trust fund that it can tap when necessary"
Oh good, they actually have money to cover shortfalls...right?
"The “trust fund” is more or less an accounting device"
Wait...what?
“We have all our trust fund dollars in special-issue treasury bonds that earn interest. We’re not borrowing from the treasury.”
So our 'trust fund' dollars are 'safe' because the government account is filled with IOU's from a different government account? You do know that other government account is totally in the red also right? Remember that debt/deficit thing?
I have to go to work, but I'll leave with one question before I return to this later.
What would you say if Maddoff was covering the debts of his ponzi with IOU's from one of his 'other' accounts. Would there be no 'intent to deceive' then?
>No, it isn't. This has been proven to be a lie.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/jun/24/michele-bachmann/bachmann-says-social-security-running-deficit-and-/
You sure about that little boy? Have you read the update that politifact made to that post where they sort of clear their throat and say, "er yeah, well, ok, I guess the "trust fund" isn't actually like funds in a bank."
>I don't know where else I can go with you on this subject. Every statement you make on SS is either false or filled with unreasonable fear. Or both. It's based on emotion and lack of reason.
Laughable. Absolutely laughable. Once again Mark - you are welcome to explain to all of us how the "trust fund" is something more than an accounting fiction, such as actual money in an actual bank. Please, I'm dying to hear your reason filled explanation. The funny part is that you are actually arrogant about your abject ignorance such that you actually seem to consider people that don't agree with you to just be unfortunate souls that you aren't able to enlighten with your towering intellect.
Arrogant AND stupid at the same time isn't a good way to go through life son.
More personal insults, little or no facts.
thanx for summarizing your posts here jeffc.
I don't know where else I can go with you on this subject. Every statement you make on SS is either false or filled with unreasonable fear. Or both. It's based on emotion and lack of reason.
I don't know where you can go with this either. Every one of my statements on SS is either asking you to define the differences, or mildly paraphrasing your answers, thus:
There is no intent to deceive = They mean well.
People have successfully collected = The scheme hasn't collapsed yet.
Since you have apparently decided not to see news that contradicts your predetermined opinion, there's little I can do. Especially when you've decided the fact that the mechanics of SS are identical to a Ponzi scheme as defined by Wikipedia, and that's even admitted to by the very person you linked as a "no it's not" voice, apparently don't matter because so far it's still working and there's no chance a politician of all people would try to con a constituent, so obviously there can't have been any intent to deceive...
...and any attempt of mine to submit that suppositions of that sort are even a little bit on the thin side are dismissed as "either false or full of unreasonable fear"...
...I have to admit, I feel as if I've been caught trying to explain something to a doorknob or a kitchen appliance. The chances of one of those objects actually hearing and intellectually considering what I've said can't be any worse than what I'm facing here.
So... never mind, I'll stop wasting your time and mine.
Hey Jeff - hows about you step up to the plate:
"you are welcome to explain to all of us how the "trust fund" is something more than an accounting fiction, such as actual money in an actual bank."
Anything?
No, it isn't. This has been proven to be a lie.
Funny M but the SSA seems to think there is a problem. But I'm sure if some half-assed website that can't even begin to claim non-partisanship tells you otherwise, you just have to believe it. Like you, they can't even make a decent correction.
Are you really claiming that SS/TF is some pot of money that isn't tax receipts?
BTW - as an employee of a public school district, do you even pay into SS?
"Have you read the update?'
Of course but that doesn't mean that any of Bachmann et al's lies are true. Again, we are making giant leaps based on emotional feelings about the government.
"you are welcome to explain to all of us"
I think before that is done I'd you to explain to all of us how Social Security has defrauded people for the last 65 years. Show me exactly where people have not received their checks and government has ripped them off. Not the future. No speculation. Right now. Get some testimonials from people that are on Social Security who can back your claim. Until then, I'm not going to play your word smith games.
DT, I reject your analogies. I presented my arguments and you have rejected them largely due to your emotional distrust of government. There has been no intent to deceive, the money is not gone, and future predictions aren't facts. Deal with these three facts and we can continue.
Juris, it's not a pot of money but it is a fund that is taken care of quite well by the government. The intimation that stormtroopers are looting the castle is preposterous and frustrating...frustrating because that's exactly what the private financial sector is doing. And so very badly wants to do with that 2.5 trillion. Invest in the government? Fuck that...Lenny the investment banker from Wall Street wants some rails lined up on a high class whore!
A question for everyone: Why does the GOP and their supporters want to privatize social security? The actual reason..not the fairy tale that they tell you so they can get their greedy mits on your dough.
SO THEY CAN MAKE MORE MONEY. Do any of you understand how greed works? Do any of you understand that the federal government (a limp penis at present) is the only thing standing between you and them? A government that is supposed to protect us against force and fraud?
I don't pay into SS (MN is 1 of 14 states that uses their own retirement system) but I still wholeheartedly support the program as it supports my grandmother for one. Here's a little fact for you: She invested money with a private firm and all of it. Gone. But she still gets a check from SS like clockwork.
Tell me again who ripped her off.
As your physician, Mark, I strongly recommend that you cease engaging individuals who exhibit such high levels of paranoia and distrust. It is not physically, emotionally, or mentally healthy.
Juris, it's not a pot of money but it is a fund that is taken care of quite well by the government.
No M, it isn't. All it is are US Treasury bonds. The same ones sold to private investors (or the Chinese govt), and that get paid off the same way - out of tax receipts (in the future). You can rant and rave like a lunatic all you want, but it doesn't change the plain and simple truth. Not one bit.
Every dollar paid out today for current beneficiaries is from current workers paying in. There is no other source. Future benefits will be paid from future workers paying in (and THAT is why there is concern about the beneficiary/worker ratio). If this was a straight-up pension there wouldn't be any question/concern about that.
I don't pay into SS
As I expected.
Your grandmother took a risk on the private investment. If she didn't understand that, she should've just kept it in the bank (or some other very low risk place). The SS checks she is collecting today aren't from HER contributions back then - they are from everyone else (except you of course) paying in today. You DO understand that, right?
Do any of you understand how greed works?
Of course I do, but you don't. You oppose greed on a moralistic level - ironically, another instance of you being cut from the same cloth as those you most hate, right-wing social cons.
>I think before that is done I'd you to explain to all of us how Social Security has defrauded people for the last 65 years. Show me exactly where people have not received their checks and government has ripped them off. Not the future. No speculation. Right now. Get some testimonials from people that are on Social Security who can back your claim.
Sure - just as soon as you can point to where I claimed that Social Security is ripping people off - which, of course, I didn't. What I did claim is that Social Security is like a Ponzi scheme in function, and I have already conceded that yes, it does differ from a Ponzi scheme in that it doesn't intend to deceive. (Sort of.) You apparently take great comfort in that. I do not, because I have taken the time to understand how Social Security is funded. You don't seem to have. But hey, you won't believe me, I'm a troglodyte, so how about the social security trustees?
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
"Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983."
and
"After 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation’s retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers."
Now - the trustees go on to say that these deficits will be made up via the trust fund:
"The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084."
So of course the question becomes - what exactly is this trust fund thing? If it's a big pile of money, then hey, there shouldn't be a problem right? We'll just debit this big trust fund account until 2084, and until then, no biggie. Except, that isn't how it works:
"The Department of the Treasury currently invests all program revenues in special non-marketable securities of the U.S. Government on which a market rate of interest is credited. The trust funds represent the accumulated value, including interest, of all prior program annual surpluses and deficits, and provide automatic authority to pay benefits."
(cont)
Or, as the OMB puts it:
"These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)"
Get that? "do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future." Thus, when those bonds are redeemed by Soc Sec, the government has to pay them using its usual means of getting money - taxing it, borrowing it, or printing it. This means that Social Security represents a general fund deficit this very year. Not in 2084. If the "trust fund" were to disappear tomorrow, it would not make a whit of difference as to how Soc Sec checks are funded. Whatever Soc Sec taxes didn't cover would have to be made up by taxes, borrowing, or printing.
The long term problem with Social Security, then, is that it is indeed a Ponzi scheme in fuction. The amount of money that goes out of it has no relation to the amount of money that goes into it, and so it eventually runs out when the number of people paying into isn't enough to support the people getting payments from it.
>Until then, I'm not going to play your word smith games.
Translation: I am unable to answer these basic questions, so I'll make an ultimatim based on a premise the other person never made and ride away victorious. Yeah, we've seen this before.
>Why does the GOP and their supporters want to privatize social security? The actual reason..not the fairy tale that they tell you so they can get their greedy mits on your dough.
It could also be, you contemptible moron, that people used a little common sense and understanding to note that the mechanism used to fund Social Security is not sustainable as the number of payees rises relative to the number of payers. Which is happening right now. (Unless you continuously increase borrowing, taxing, or printing.) Thus, a more sensible way of arranging social security is where retirement money is taken from people and put into a REAL trust fund, that is, a trust fund with actual assets that the government can't choose to spend away. Now, you may think that is too risky. Fine, but there is no free lunch here. Using the system in place now, demographics will only get worse, and taxes will have to go higher and higher to support those demographics.
>Juris, it's not a pot of money but it is a fund that is taken care of quite well by the government.
A "fund" eh? Unlikely, but would you care to expand on this? Does a "fund" contain actual assets or not in your definition?
The Social Security Act of 1935 set the qualifying age for retirement benefits at 65. Of course, in 1935 the life expectancy of an American male was only 58...
...but there was no intent to deceive, honest.
DT, I reject your analogies.
Of course you do.
I presented my arguments and you have rejected them largely due to your emotional distrust of government.
You presented your arguments and because you cannot bring yourself to accept my reasoning, you have to claim it isn't actually reasoning at all. Sorry, but you don't get to put emotions into me that aren't already there. "Emotional distrust" is an assumption of yours, rather than a fact. I'm applying a more reasonable standard to possible answers to SS questions than you apply to any question involving the private sector.
There has been no intent to deceive, the money is not gone, and future predictions aren't facts. Deal with these three facts and we can continue.
Intent to deceive is impossible to prove one way or another. A middle school age kid on a debate team would know this. But that's a "fact" in your world, huh?
"The money isn't gone"... I don't know what Michelle Bachmann said, nor do I care. That's a "fact" only if you ignore what the Social Security Administration itself says.
"Future predictions aren't facts." That one I'll buy. It's the only "fact" that is actually factual in the bunch.
So... in order to "continue", I have to
1. accept an unprovable supposition as factual
2. accept as fact a premise apparently based on "Michelle Bachmann said it, therefore it's a lie," even though that premise flies directly in the face of the assessment made by the Social Security Administration itself, and
3. believe that 2+2 doesn't actually equal 4 until you write it down.
Failure to do all of that equals "false or filled with unreasonable fear."
But on the other hand, this
...frustrating because that's exactly what the private financial sector is doing. And so very badly wants to do with that 2.5 trillion. Invest in the government? Fuck that...Lenny the investment banker from Wall Street wants some rails lined up on a high class whore!
...is not.
Mark, you need to stop and think for a moment about why Haplo9 is drawing a correlation between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security. The answer is quite obvious. It's the same reason why the other people here are wording their comments the way they do.
So Dr. Smith - rather than your feigned "i'm going to diagnose these people because i'm, like, totally above it all" schtick, you're going to step up to the plate and explain where we have erred in our facts and understanding, right?
I know what they are doing, doc, both here and then in the latest post where they play the baiting game and then claim to "win" when I decide that it's pointless to debate someone who refuses to be reasonable.
Time for the humor route and we'll see if that works. Saying that SS is like a Ponzi scheme is saying that I'm like a gay man because I have a penis. I'm not gay (could never give up the hotness of chicks and their curves) but using the logic of Hap, GD, DT et al, I am like a gay man because I have a penis as other gay men do. Can any of you see how ridiculous that sounds? The information that you detail above (complete with more personal insults) feeds into this.
"If she didn't understand that"
Classic blaming the victim. So when a thief robs me, it's my fault and not his? My grandmother thankfully had money invested elsewhere and in lower risk accounts so the damage wasn't as bad as it could've been. But she still lost money. And why? Because no one bothered to regulate CDOs. But she still gets her SS check like clockwork.
There's another issue here that is sort of percolating under the surface and that's a fear of loss of control. In all your comments, this is what I clearly see.
Classic blaming the victim. So when a thief robs me, it's my fault and not his? My grandmother thankfully had money invested elsewhere and in lower risk accounts
Mark, read what you write.
Invested
Risk
Look up the definitions of these words.
So funny. I actually lay out my reasoning and the facts that it rests on, and rather than dispute the facts or the reasoning, Mark makes a nonsensical analogy. Mark, the function of a Ponzi scheme is well understood. So is the function of Social Security. So saying that Social Security is *like* a Ponzi scheme is a testable statement. If you think my reasoning is wrong, explain why. It shouldn't be that hard for you, as you seem supremely confident that there is some flaw in my reasoning - some flaw that you seem unwilling to point out. But it's much easier to say "your reasoning is bad bad bad!" rather than actually grappling with said reasoning, isn't it?
>that's a fear of loss of control.
Once again, be specific Mark. What control do we fear losing? This is the second time you have thrown this one out there with absolutely no backing. Oh, my own theory would be that you throw this out to try to distract from the issue at hand, but here's your opportunity to prove me wrong and put some meat behind it. What say you?
...it's pointless to debate someone who refuses to be reasonable.
But in order to be considered reasonable, one must:
1. Agree that there was/is no intent to deceive. Unlike you, I don't profess to read minds or commune with the dead, so I not only consider that one unproven, but unprovable. But that doesn't matter, the unprovable assertion must be treated as fact to be "reasonable".
2. Agree that "the money is not gone", in other words accept your word and Politifact's over that of the Social Security Administration's own accountants, even as you patronize me for my "emotional distrust of government".
3. Agree that predictions are not facts, even to the extent of predictions as basic as predicting that if you push someone off a cliff, they will fall to the ground.
Given the conditions, I think I'll wear "unreasonable" as a badge of honor.
>I know what they are doing, doc, both here and then in the latest post where they play the baiting game and then claim to "win" when I decide that it's pointless to debate someone who refuses to be reasonable.
I never knew that "explain the reasoning behind your position" is playing some kind of game. It's as if Mark thinks that being asked to come up with a rationale for the positions he holds is some kind of unreasonable demand.
There isn't winning or losing on a blog comment thread. The point of laying out your reasoning is so that it can be exposed to differences of opinion, such mistakes in your reasoning can be identified. Unfortunately, you don't do well with reasoning. This is how conversations with you generally go:
Mark: x, y, and z.
Commenter: what is your reasoning behind x? that doesn't make sense because of a, b, and c.
Mark: saying that x isn't true is like saying I'm gay because I have a penis.
Commenter: wtf? How about explaining x, or refuting a, b, or c?
Mark: Clearly, you are only interested in playing games and "winning" the conversation.
Commenter: nothing about x, a, b, or c?
Mark: ....
I've lost count of the numbers of times that has played out, both here and at TSM. Respect is earned, little boy..
A summation of an argument with Mark:
Mark: x, y, and z.
Commenter: I don't think x is right because of a, b, and c.
Mark: Saying x isn't right is like saying I'm gay because I have a penis.
Commenter: wtf? what about x? (or a, b, and c?)
Mark: See, now you are just playing games and trying to "win" the argument.
Commenter: So nothing about x, a, b, or c?
Mark: ...
I have lost count of how many arguments have gone this way, both here and at TSM. This one looks to be the same. Respect is earned, child..
...then claim to "win" when I decide that it's pointless to debate someone who refuses to be reasonable.
No M, I'm not attempting to win a bigger dick contest with you. I'm actually attempting to educate you. It is beyond sad how vehemently you reject the opportunity to learn, and I wonder once again, how you can possibly teach.
Classic blaming the victim.
Well, there are any number of ways this could have happened. She might have simply invested in something very risky. She might have been defrauded. Or something in between. I don't know, but assumed it was not a deliberate fraud. In which case she didn't really invest, did she? In that case she would've just been conned.
But she still lost money. And why? Because no one bothered to regulate CDOs.
She was invested in those? Really? I think you are lying. I've never heard of those offered as investment vehicles to individuals, they were only institutional.
Every single investment has some degree of risk, from near zero to incredibly speculative. It isn't wrong to invest in the high end of the risk spectrum (where you might lose all of your investment) - as long as you know what the risk is. Hiding the risk is fraud; knowing what the risk is but wanting to blame someone else isn't fraud, it is just childish.
There, as reasonable a response as you could get, despite my urge to scream fuck you at least twice at your insolent, ignorant arrogance.
Post a Comment