"Who are you going to believe?" they ask," me or your lyin' ears?" Well, the answer is my lyin' ears because, starting today, you will be able to click on the tag and see all the posts with direct quotes from those very same conservatives and libertarians. Some may be in politics, some may be my family, and some will be pulled from comments...like this one.
We aren't as gullible as the Democratic base who sop up stupid as a rule.
This was written by 6Kings in comments in a ROTFLMFAO attempt to prove that Nikto's comment about how change, to the Right, is like Kryptonite. Hmm....
So, enjoy the "Voices Inside My Head" as it will be sticking around for awhile.
58 comments:
Anyone think this will actually decrease Mark's penchant for avoiding discussing actual points that were made in the comments? Me either.
I don't understand what you are saying here. If you are trying to be cute, then maybe but Mark addresses points all the time in comments. He just doesn't answer them the way you want him to and so you pout like a baby.
Hey, I just found this blog via Politico. It's pretty great. I've read through a few of the posts and comments and I have noticed that there seems to be an inordinate obsession with Mark and not the actual points he makes. It's as if you hope to somehow tag the point as being inaccurate if Mark is wrong or illogical. It seems a too personal to me. I plan to stick around and defend the points Mark makes because they really are insightful. Conservatives are off their rocker these days and people seem to be accepting it as normal when it isn't.
Have fun with my screen name. I've posted on other forums and have enjoyed it when I read people telling "Santa" that he is an idiot or an asshole. It's highly entertaining.
>He just doesn't answer them the way you want him to and so you pout like a baby.
If you put a period right after the word "them" and ignore the rest, you have your answer. I've lost count of the number of times Mark has done this. My favorite though is probably Social Security, when we asked Mark to explain how the trust fund works, and how we were wrong about it. He just acted like the whole thing didn't happen. Good times. More recently is the "fucking over" by rich people - another classic in Mark's refusal to get specific.
>It's as if you hope to somehow tag the point as being inaccurate if Mark is wrong or illogical. It seems a too personal to me.
There's a 3+ year history that you may not know about, dating back to Mark's comments at a different blog, The Smallest Minority: http://www.smallestminority.blogspot.com/
That's where the personal comes from. (Well, that and Mark's habit of denigrating people that disagree with him, without being able to provide a rational basis for doing so.)
>I plan to stick around and defend the points Mark makes because they really are insightful.
Good luck. Maybe you can do better than Mark. I've been trying to get Mark to explain some of the principles he operates by, and the closest I can see so far is "whatever feels right at the time."
Aww, eaten post.
>He just doesn't answer them ..
If you just left it at that, you would have your answer. My favorite is Social Security, where Mark was asked to explain how the trust fund works, and how (as he claimed) we had it wrong. He passed. The latest is his refusal to get specific about how he (or anyone else) gets fucked over when a rich person gets richer.
>I plan to stick around and defend the points Mark makes because they really are insightful.
Good luck. After seeing the comment you left in the previous thread, my guess is you'll need it.
"...people seem to be accepting [conservatism] as normal when it isn't."
Interesting point, Santa. What would you define as 'normal'? Reaganism in the '80s? Goldwater in the '60s? Buckley since '55? Great Depression era Hoover?
dw
Hey! Made the front page!
Although it is addressing the somewhat facetious dig at dumbocrats rather than the arguments. The beat marches on...
This was written by 6Kings
Very good M. You actually read what a real person wrote to you. Truly a step in the right direction.
So, enjoy the "Voices Inside My Head" as it will be sticking around for awhile.
Of that there is little doubt.
Oh, hello angela - nice to see you back. I don't suppose you responded back in that last thread did you? Or that you are going to offer up how some rich person fucked you over in order to get/stay wealthy?
Fuck you, Santa.
Correct me if I am wrong but don't conservatives think that a woman's place is subservient to a man? It does say that in the Bible.
If you cite the Bible as supposed authority for it, doesn't thinking that require you to also think that all conservatives are Christians and all liberals are not? According to this line of argument, Nancy Pelosi should hate "that bitch in the House" for not being subservient enough. She claims to be a Christian, does she not?
Just for the record, I don't claim to be one.
See how funny it sounds when you tell Santa to fuck off?
DT: The hatred for Nancy Pelosi is rooted in the evangelical interpretation of the Bible. A woman should obey her man. Ms. Pelosi did not obey them and I'm sure that many of them are wondering why she is not barefoot and pregnant in a kitchen.
6King: But that was your whole argument. You won't accept their points because liberals are gullible. You've been trained to believe that they all sop up stupid.
So there isn't a chance that I simply may *disagree* with her? It isn't hate and it is because I disagree with the way she votes. Do you think we should wait until bills are passed to find out what is in them?
The Claim: "Voices Inside My Head" refers to a few of my readers who are under the mistaken impression that conservatives/ libertarians don't actually say the things they say and that I make it all up due to voices in my head. Or a straw man argument.
The Reality: The hatred for Nancy Pelosi is rooted in the evangelical interpretation of the Bible.
Yep. Ignore every argument ever made about disagreeing with Pelosi's policies and ideas, and use an argument never made by conservatives.
"Voices in the head" lives! Thanks for proving Marxy wrong, Santa!
>The hatred for Nancy Pelosi is rooted in the evangelical interpretation of the Bible. A woman should obey her man. Ms. Pelosi did not obey them and I'm sure that many of them are wondering why she is not barefoot and pregnant in a kitchen.
Oh Santa. You talked like you had something to bring to the discussion, and here you are doing nothing better than trading in cheap stereotypes. The good old "opposition = fundamentalist troglodytes". What's next? Oh. Wait. I know what's next. Opposition to Obama = racist troglodytes, right? It's so much easier to stereotype than to actually engage points, don't you think? On the plus side for you, you'll fit right in with Mark.
I always thought liberals were supposed to be the ones that were good at not stereotyping, but I guess that's just an urban legend or something.
> I guess that's just an urban legend or something.
It's Marketing!
Or Markadelphiaing!
Or Marxaphaisaing!
or something…
Not a biblical expert here, but I believe that the bible says a woman should submit to her husband as head of household, not just any male in the species.
Regardless, congress should submit to the will of the people. The fact that their approval rating is in the toilet is evidence that they do not, and pelosi is a classic example of that. Not something to be lauded by the left.
That's the conservative base, Haplo9. It may not be you personally but that is who wins you elections: Old, white men who want women to obey them. Michelle Bachmann says it all the time. She obeys her husband.
Regarding Social Security, I just finished reading that thread. You do have it wrong and Mark explained it again and again. It would be like a Ponzi Scheme if the government kept everything a secret and didn't send out notices regarding the state of the fund. The goal of Ponzi Scheme is to swindle people out of money not simply to hand out more money that it is taking in. In fact, it usually ends up with someone like Bernie Maddoff blowing all the money and bilking people out of their savings. If the SSA had done that, you would have a legitimate gripe. But they haven't and the only reason why you are pissed is because your money is paying for someone else which is yet another way it's not like a Ponzi Scheme. Ponzi or any others didn't pay other investors off. They did for a little while maybe but then they just stole all the money. I think it's sad that you can't admit when you are wrong given Mark's continued points proving this to be so. He also proved a link to Politifact, a non partisan source of information.
Perhaps a more accurate definition, if you are looking for a government entity to slam, is the defense department. They take in billions and secretly blow it on all sorts of things we know nothing about. What do we get in return? I don't get a letter in the mail from them detailing what they have spent my tax dollars on that year.
As some point in the future, the SSA will be overhauled and the potential financial problems it faces will be solved. I have no doubt that you will continue to complain about it because it is effective socialism. As Mark has said, it's because you just don't like it and it is living proof that you are wrong about some things.
"It may not be you personally..."
Excellent observation Santa, your statement sums up the 'voice in the head' point of view. If it isn't 'us personally', then you are wasting keystrokes trying to tell 'us personally' what we think.
"As some point in the future, the SSA will be overhauled and the potential financial problems it faces will be solved."
Interesting point Santa, any idea HOW it will be overhauled?
dw
Welcome Santa. You fit in well here...debating "what conservatives think" as opposed to what the people here actually type in response to you. It's real easy to focus on the wackos in the other party, it's a little more difficult to take on an experienced person who simply has a different point of view than you, which is why you sure seem to go back to the "conservative view" you have in your head...it's easy to take that guy on isn't in - you kick butt in every exchange with that guy.
Solutions are few and far between coming from you lefties on social security. I've typed the following on this board before, maybe I'll type it again...
When FDR introduced the Social Security (FICA) program, he promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary, that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program, that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, that the money the participants put in would go to an independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program and no other Government program, and that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Fast forward to 2010 - the folks who are now receiving a social security check every month are being taxed on 85% of that money, politicians eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding, the independent "Trust fund” no longer exists – SS is put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it every year, and immigrants who come here at age 65 begin receiving benefis immediately even if they never paid a dime into the program. Good work so far...and we should trust the word of the people you voted for again?
Social Security pays out benefits according to a complicated formula based in part on recipients’ lifetime earnings. I’d be open to adjusting that formula so that the wages you make in the future “earn” you fewer Social Security benefits. Perhaps it could be said that a 65-year-old has a moral right to the payments that have been promised to him but a 21-year-old in his first day at work doesn’t have a moral right to benefits he hasn’t earned yet. Every plan to adjust the benefits formula recognizes this distinction. (That is, it lowers the rate at which benefits are earned going forward). The alternatives to reducing the future benefits of middle-income and high-income workers are 1) to tax them more heavily (which is pretty stupid econimcally and politically or 2) let the system “collapse,” i.e., not pay the benefits and thus also incur many of those objections. And while there are a lot of problems with Social Security, it doesn’t have to keep spiraling toward bankruptcy every election cycle. Cut the growth of future benefits and it has a chance to be sustained for decades to come.
>It may not be you personally but
Oh! So not everyone conforms to your stereotypes. Crazy world. But:
>that is who wins you elections: Old, white men who want women to obey them. Michelle Bachmann says it all the time. She obeys her husband.
Ah - so you have some kind of evidence in support of this claim right? Could you by chance share it? Or is Michelle Bachmann enough for you? (Btw, no idea what you are talking about there. Do you have a link to what she says?)
I'll give you the same life hint i gave Mark: if your preferred explanation for how the world works is that most people who disagree with you do so for base, venal, or otherwise objectionably non rational reasons, that might be a little bit too.. convenient.
Welcome, Santa, I hope you survive the experience. It sounds so weird to write that...:) Now that you have been labelled as a sinner I hope you stick around and remind my loyal readers of their sad and too often paranoia regarding the federal government.
Sarge-wtf? Where the hell have you been?
Last-the solutions of which you speak are actually coming from both parties. I watched Mitch Daniels last night on the Last Word and he had some pretty good ideas. He is a Republican and, thankfully, does not think that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.
As to your assertions in the second paragraph, I'd like to see some citations on your assertions preferably from unbiased sources.
Generally speaking, though, I do agree with your solutions. There are many people that don't need to have the benefits paid out to them so the formula does indeed need to be altered. The age of retirement should be raised to 70 and there should be a new formula for inflation compensation. The one now is ridiculous.
I'd like to give last in line credit for not whirring into birther land and offering a practical solution that would be agreeable to many people.
>Regarding Social Security, I just finished reading that thread. You do have it wrong and Mark explained it again and again. It would be like a Ponzi Scheme if the government kept everything a secret and didn't send out notices regarding the state of the fund.
You sure you read that thread? You are stuck on the same nonsense that Mark was stuck on (and the politifact article was stuck on.) The intent of Social Security or a Ponzi scheme is irrelevant. The reason a comparison between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security is meaningful is because they share a similar structure, and as a result, they will have the exact same problems towards remaining solvent. That shared structure being that the only way they can remain solvent is while the amount of money being paid in is greater than or equal to the amount of money being pulled out by beneficiaries. Since the amount of money going out of Soc Sec is always increasing, (more retirees, COLA) you will need ever greater amounts of money paid in to keep it solvent. That means more workers paying in, or more money taken per worker. Unless demographics are on your side, (which they no longer are) you can't add more workers to the pool. Which means that higher taxes will be necessary, per worker, which you can do until it is politically impossible to do so.
You'll notice that a Ponzi scheme fails for the same reasons - either it can't add more people, or it doesn't get enough money from the people already paying into it to support the beneficiaries.
Therefore, a comparison between Soc Sec and a Ponzi scheme is an interesting exercise. You may not like it because a Ponzi scheme has bad connotations to it, which is fine, but that doesn't make the comparison invalid. Feel free to let me know how my understanding of how either a Ponzi scheme or Social Security works is wrong, and I will revise or retract the comparison accordingly.
>And while there are a lot of problems with Social Security, it doesn’t have to keep spiraling toward bankruptcy every election cycle. Cut the growth of future benefits and it has a chance to be sustained for decades to come.
This is probably the only politically plausible solution, unfortunately. Ideally, I'd prefer to avoid programs that rely on favorable demographics to stay solvent (because favorable demographics won't necessarily last), but it seems like it would take a mighty big sea change for the public to be ok with defined contribution instead of defined benefit.
>You do have it wrong and Mark explained it again and again. It would be like a Ponzi Scheme if the government kept everything a secret and didn't send out notices regarding the state of the fund.
Stuck on the same thing as Mark I see. Why do you guys think that the intent of Ponzi vs Social Security is so important? If Social Security is destined to fail because it shares a similar structure as a Ponzi scheme, does it matter whether it was designed with the best of intentions? Those good intentions won't make it solvent.
Forget about the intent; a comparison between Soc Sec and a Ponzi scheme is meaningful because their structure is similar. Both of them have ever increasing numbers of beneficiaries, and thus require ever increasing amounts payers. For a Ponzi scheme, this only works while you can fool people into joining; for Soc Sec, this only works while you have a good payer to payee ratio. When that is no longer true for a Ponzi scheme, it folds. When that is no longer true for Soc Sec, it goes into the red. The mechanism is the same though. I understand if you don't like the comparison to Ponzi because that has negative connotations, but that doesn't make the comparison invalid.
Am I wrong about how the two things work? Feel free to point it out if so.
> Am I wrong about how the two things work? Feel free to point it out if so.
Brussel Sprouts!
Oops. Sorry there, Haplo. I was channelling Marxy logic for a second.
Owwww!
If Santa doesn't mind, I'll answer for him.
Wow. I am never going to get used to that:)
It does make the comparison invalid because Ponzi and all the rest eventually didn't pay out. Often, it was rather quickly that the well ran dry and off they were with the money. This is known as fraud. Social Security continues to pay out and has been responsible for reducing poverty in the elderly. They are not engaging in fraud.
This betrays your belief that entitlements like social security are stealing. They are not. This is an all too familiar problem that we have here. You are tying to tie an act of thievery to a government program that, while not perfect, has provided for the general welfare of our country. It's a classic example of how the Right operates. We don't like something so let's lie about it and a bunch of fearful and ignorant people will believe us.
Ironically, with all the moaning that goes on about logical fallacies, this one is a great example of the fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy#Fallacy_of_Accident_or_Sweeping_Generalization
For example.
1. Cutting people is a crime.
2. Surgeons cut people.
3. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.
So, in this case
1. Ponzi Schemes pay out more money than they take in.
2. Social Security pays out more money than it takes in.
3. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.
Of course, there are a couple of problems beyond just the fallacy. Ponzi schemes end up not paying out at all. Social Security will just start paying out more than it takes in this year. This is due to the recession, not the evil federal government pyramid scammers.
Here's that link again.
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2010/oct/03/john-loughlin/loughlin-compares-social-security-ponzi-scheme/
"Publicly measuring a 75-year-old U.S. government program against such a massive crime is not only overstating the issue, it's bordering on irresponsible.
False."
Bordering? It is massively irresponsible but that's how you folks operate.
What does the SSA have to say about all of this?
http://web.archive.org/web/20041001-20051231re_/http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.html
Loads of information there, concluding with...
"The American Social Security system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi's scheme lasted barely 200 days."
Holy sheeit! Someone just get their ass handed to them on a platter. Actually, Mark, I am disappointed that you didn't notice their fallacy earlier. It's sort of like how you don't notice that your feet aren't moving in volleyball. You must have been out living your life. How dare you!
See how funny it sounds when you tell Santa to fuck off?
You've obviously never hung out with people who go to Santacon or Santarchy, or even just pub crawl while dressed as Santa.
This betrays your belief that entitlements like social security are stealing.
Who here said entitlements are stealing? Who? Oh, wait, I know - it was a Voice in Your Head (which I've decided will be the name of the next band I'm in).
What SS is not is an insurance/annuity - which is exactly how FDR sold it. Your granny doesn't believe she is getting benefits from current workers, she thinks it is coming out of an account she contributed to. Which is sorta plausible for the first 4 years of benefits payments (even if still not actually true).
It isn't stealing, but it is an income transfer - from people who are working (and whom we want to work) to people who are not working (whether they need the money or not). Do you understand that?
Haplo9, Speaking Truth, Damn Teabaggers, dw, GuardDuck, and any other douche who thinks that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme=pwned by Mark.
Last in line=the only sensible one of the lot.
Yo, M or oojc or any other half educated dimwit - please explain why even the SSA is concerned with the worker to beneficiary ratio. If it doesn't matter.
Buehler? Buehler?
>It does make the comparison invalid because Ponzi and all the rest eventually didn't pay out.
Let me get your logic straight here. Two things may share a similar structure, (and you didn't dispute my contention that they share a similar structure, btw, and nor do any of your links) and yet it is invalid to draw comparisons between the two because one hasn't failed. Yet. Ok..
A good example of one of Mark's classic problems. He has started with a conclusion in his head, and anything that deviates from that conclusion must be because of invalid, base, or otherwise flawed reasons. The comparison between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security couldn't possibly be a useful exercise towards understanding why Social Security will have solvency problems in the future, you see. It's that I hate taxes.
>3. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.
Mark, you do realize that there is a difference between what you wrote above and the phrase "Social Security is like a Ponzi scheme in certain ways." Do you? I haven't claimed that Social Security literally is a Ponzi scheme from top to bottom. That's been you, from the very start, trying to distract. Let the ego go man.
>Ponzi schemes end up not paying out at all.
Incorrect. Ponzi schemes do pay out to those who are at the top of the pyramid until they fold. They don't pay out to everyone. Wait a second. Naw, we needn't be concerned that things that are structured similarly might also not pay everyone when they run low on resources. Crazy talk.
>This is due to the recession, not the evil federal government pyramid scammers.
Incorrect. (Nor did I claim that it was due to evil government scammers.) The recession has sped things up, no doubt, but this mess has been years in the making due to demographics. Fewer people paying in + more people taking out = problem. You don't have to be a math whiz to figure out where that is going to go.
Man, it really gets some peoples panties in a bunch to point out similarities between Ponzi schemes and Social Security. Let's try the below, leaving out Ponzi.
Statement: Social Security, as it is structured, will have solvency issues in the future because it requires a favorable ratio of payers to payees. As demographics change and the ratio becomes unfavorable, something will have to give - either taxes go up, or benefits go down, or some combination of both. This is a consequence of the structure of Social Security as a defined benefit system rather than a defined contribution.
Agree/disagree? If disagree, what do I have wrong?
Here is an article I've tried linking to before, but blogger crapped it out. So, we'll try again, because ALL of you lamebrain lefties could really learn something if you would simply read it (repeatedly if necessary).
>So, we'll try again, because ALL of you lamebrain lefties could really learn something if you would simply read it (repeatedly if necessary).
Wait. Mark said me worship CEO's. Link not worship CEO's. Me not understand.
Haplo, you are not a voice in M's head - you may think and speak as you see fit.
Come to think of it, maybe I do understand why M is so incapable of engaging with the people that actually comment here.
What SS is not is an insurance/annuity - which is exactly how FDR sold it.
That can't be true, because there was no intent to deceive. Marky said so, and he's never wrong!
Did any of you guys review the link that Mark provided from the SSA?
"There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go insurance programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end. As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system, and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.
If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs, and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes or any other fraudulent form of financing; it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems."
I think Haplo9's new statement is more or less in line with what the SSA says. I have no issue with debating the solvency concerns with Social Security and exchanging ideas on how to solve those problems. There are some good ideas out there from both sides of the aisle. But it's not fraud and the comparison between Social Security and Ponzi schemes is simply more fear mongering driven by the unrealistic libertarian view of the world.
>Did any of you guys review the link that Mark provided from the SSA?
Sure did. You'll notice this key little bit here, right after they concede that Ponzi schemes and Social Security share a similar structure (oh but it's only a "superficial" similarity):
"As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever."
Would you say that assumption/hope has held up over time? I wouldn't. Neither would the SSA:
"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."
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
>But it's not fraud
Have I claimed it is? The most I'd say is that it's initial promises were quite over-optimistic.
>and the comparison between Social Security and Ponzi schemes is simply more fear mongering driven by the unrealistic libertarian view of the world.
So the comparison on specific parts is valid, you just don't like it. Aww. Maybe you should get over it?
You know what fear mongering is? When Republicans actually tried to do something about Social Security's problems last time around (i won't even claim it was the best thing - at least it was something), rather than try to help fix the problem, Democrats used the issue to claim that R's wanted to throw granny out into the streets. That's fear mongering Santa. You were no doubt outraged at that bit of irresponsibility. (One of the few times that the Republican party seemed to actually be trying to do something about a real problem.)
"Have I claimed it is?"
Yes, when you compared it to a Ponzi scheme. By even saying it was "like" a Ponzi scheme you are coloring SS as fraud. As I have said before, this is a classic propaganda technique used by the Right all the time.
Actually, the Democrats would have been correct about throwing granny on the street. If SS had been privatized, where would that money be today, Hap, after September of 2008?
There is a part of me that really wants SS to have the option of investing in the financial sector. You guys can all go do that and I'll keep my money with the government. Then we could see once and for all we gets swindled.
Yet I would go along with your statement above regarding solvency. That's an entirely different debate and one that should be had by all sides with a variety of solutions offered. Last's solution above is a great one. I think Mitch Daniels has some good ideas as well. Both of these gentlemen are conservatives. I think we should raise the retirement age and adjust the formula for inflation. That would solve some of the solvency issues.
The program needs fixes but it doesn't need to be thrown out which is generally the view of libertarians and think tanks like the Cato Institute. They represent the interests of people that actually would love to swindle you out of your money because they know very well that there is a sucker born every minute. Comparisons to pyramid scams and Ponzi schemes are used to demonize an entity which has an excellent track record...especially when you compare it to the financial sector. But that's the whole point of the propaganda, right?
>Yes, when you compared it to a Ponzi scheme. By even saying it was "like" a Ponzi scheme you are coloring SS as fraud. As I have said before, this is a classic propaganda technique used by the Right all the time.
Really, you should get over it, because you don't have a leg to stand on. You have now conceded that the comparison between a Ponzi scheme and SS is valid - you just don't like the coloring. Well, wah. I don't care about the coloring - it's either a useful comparison (because of the structural similarities) or it isn't. I should also note that you happily engage in the sort of thing you decry here when you call it the "Bush tax cuts for the rich" or "Bush's war for oil" so your outrage rings quite hollow.
>If SS had been privatized, where would that money be today, Hap, after September of 2008?
Well Mark, it would be down about 15%, assuming you invested all of it right at the peak before the downturn. If you had invested before that high point, it would be down less, or up depending on when you invested it. What, were you expecting that the answer would be all gone? Only if you know nothing about the stock market.
>There is a part of me that really wants SS to have the option of investing in the financial sector.
Personally, I'd go for index based funds that are away from the financial sector. But if you're saying you'd support that, great. Much better to be able to invest it rather than have it be immediately spent by the government.
>I'll keep my money with the government.
Heh. You are aware that your money isn't "kept" by the government, right?
>Last's solution above is a great one.
His solution will definitely help the solvency of Social Security. You are overlooking one big problem though - it's easy to add benefits to entitlement programs. It's quite hard to take them away, even when it's the right thing to do. Witness French riots over raising the retirement age by a couple of years. This is why you want a system that doesn't need to be tinkered with, to avoid the political perception of trying to take things away, even when it's the right thing to do. A defined contribution based system won't suffer from this problem.
Haplo, by chance are you a Boglehead?
Where would the money be today? Well, any senior that would have invested their tiny portion (that's all it was btw) of SS money 100% in stocks would be an idiot. There are many things to invest in besides stocks.
> What, were you expecting that the answer would be all gone? Only if you know nothing about the stock market.
Well, if you had invested in secured stock with GM, the answer would be "mostly gone", and that wouldn't have been due to corporate actions.
...and I'll keep my money with the government.
M still doesn't get it. Your money isn't "with the govt" - it is paid out to today's beneficiaries. You don't have a piggy-bank to crack when you hit 65.
What you have is the hope that there are enough workers to support your benefits payments when the time comes. You, who are likely to have a nice comfortable retirement, will be collecting money from young, minimum wage workers (amongst others) until the day you die. So tell us again, how that is all so progressive and wonderful - supporting the middle and even upper classes on the backs of contemporary workers.
>Haplo, by chance are you a Boglehead?
Nope - never heard of it till you mentioned it. Just my own opinions on retirement investing - I'm pretty conservative, and if at all possible I prefer to avoid sectors that can fairly easily rise and fall based on shifting political winds. (You could say that about any sector I guess, but financial and certain parts of healthcare seem particularly vulnerable this way.)
No, I get it just fine, folks. I trust the system set up by the government and have no problem with people getting money now from what I am paying. It's a state level for me, incidentally, and SS for the wife. I don't trust any one I have ever given money to in the private sector. We lost 40K in 2008. That's a lot of money to me...not sure about you folks.
Hap-I believe I have demonstrated the fallacy of over generalization in your analogy. Do you reject my analysis? I've offered explanation after explanation as to how the comparison is anywhere from superficial to irresponsible to downright false. Yet you still won't accept any of this. Just can't lose the argument can you?
Oh, and declaring yourself the victor won't work either. Seriously, how old are you?
M, you don't get it at all if you think you've invested with the govt via SS. All you are really counting on is the program continuing as is (or at the least continuing enough that you get yours). That probably will be the case, and as long as it is, the system will never get reformed.
>I believe I have demonstrated the fallacy of over generalization in your analogy.
You have demonstrated that you don't like the comparison. You haven't otherwise demonstrated any sort of fallacy, unless you twist the word "fallacy" to mean "things Mark doesn't like."
>Do you reject my analysis?
Yes, though it's not an analysis, so much as you saying "it's downright mean to compare a Ponzi scheme to SS, even when the two do share certain similarities." That is known as an opinion. Fine, duly noted. Have I made a factual error you can point to? Some misunderstanding of how a Ponzi scheme or SS works?
>Oh, and declaring yourself the victor won't work either. Seriously, how old are you?
Er.. huh? Where did I do that? How does one even do that in an internet comment thread? If you mean my comment "get over it", I'm pointing out that you simply blow a gasket each time one of us points out the similarities between a Ponzi scheme and SS. Your blown gasket does not make the comparison invalid, it just makes it one you don't like. Tough.
>I believe I have demonstrated the fallacy of over generalization in your analogy.
You have demonstrated that you don't like the comparison. You haven't otherwise demonstrated any sort of fallacy, unless you twist the word "fallacy" to mean "things Mark doesn't like."
>Do you reject my analysis?
Yes, though it's not an analysis, so much as you saying "it's downright mean to compare a Ponzi scheme to SS, even when the two do share certain similarities." That is known as an opinion. Fine, duly noted. Have I made a factual error you can point to? Some misunderstanding of how a Ponzi scheme or SS works?
>Oh, and declaring yourself the victor won't work either. Seriously, how old are you?
Er.. huh? Where did I do that? How does one even do that in an internet comment thread? If you mean my comment "get over it", I'm pointing out that you simply blow a gasket each time one of us points out the similarities between a Ponzi scheme and SS. Your blown gasket does not make the comparison invalid, it just makes it one you don't like. Tough.
(huh, eaten comment, even though it was shorter. Guess that's not it.)
>I believe I have demonstrated the fallacy of over generalization in your analogy.
Only if you redefine the word "fallacy" to mean "things Mark doesn't like." You don't like that I make a (limited) comparison between Ponzi and SS. Tough. Unless I have something factually wrong (and hey, be my guest to demonstrate such), it's a valid comparison. That you blow a gasket when I make it doesn't make it invalid.
>Oh, and declaring yourself the victor won't work either. Seriously, how old are you?
Huh? When/where did I do that?
I'd say that he's about 6th to 8th grade, Mark, at least at the maturity level. It's that Randian adolescent power fantasy thing you talked about a while back. Factually wrong, Haplo9? The very definition of a Ponzi Scheme contains the word "fraud" in it. There is no fraud in Social Security. You have been told this again and again but you refuse to accept it. Words have meanings. Tying Social Security to a Ponzi scheme even in a "limited" way implies that it is fraud which is the goal of your analogy. At least be honest about that. You should also be honest about the little trick you played on Mark with your statement above. You left Ponzi Scheme out of your revised analysis and shifted the discussion to the more appropriate issues with the SSA raised on their site. Then you went back and claimed "victory" by saying that Mark conceded that they were the same by agreeing with your statement. He did no such thing. Very serpentine.
It's the MATH, stupid, er, I mean, Santa.
>Tying Social Security to a Ponzi scheme even in a "limited" way implies that it is fraud which is the goal of your analogy. At least be honest about that.
No, actually, I really am not trying to associate SS with fraud. If I was, I would say something like "SS is fraudulent." Strangely enough, I haven't said that. You know, for a teacher, you'd think Mark would want to embrace open questioning. You know, something like "Compare and contrast Ponzi schemes and SS. Describe (if any) the ways in which they are similar, and the ways in which they are not similar." For Mark though, even asking the question is a heresy. Again, I'm sorry that it bothers you so much, but your discomfort with the question doesn't mean it shouldn't be asked or answered.
>You left Ponzi Scheme out of your revised analysis and shifted the discussion to the more appropriate issues with the SSA raised on their site.
The funny part about this is there is nothing changed about my analysis - all I did is leave out the word "Ponzi", which apparently is causes some kind of Pavlovian reaction in you.
>Then you went back and claimed "victory" by saying that Mark conceded
I see, so pointing out that Mark has not actually disputed any of the facts I have presented about how Ponzi schemes or SS works is the same as declaring victory. Seriously. Are we even speaking the same language? Why do you read things in that aren't actually written? Wouldn't I say something like "I won" if I was going to do something so silly as declare victory?
A slightly humorous note for you Santa. You know how I made a post up there where, upon recognizing that you guys simply can't be rational when the word "Ponzi" is said in the same sentence as "SS", I tried to restate things in a way that doesn't use the word "Ponzi"? Maybe you could check - who was it that brought Ponzi back into the thread after my post?
Post a Comment