Perry's Ponzi Scheme

[JoeChalupa]

http://craigcrawford.com/

Why did the Texas governor risk scaring all retirees in Wednesday’s GOP debate? To impress Wall Street, of course.

We are in the Money Primary stage of presidential politics. Rick Perry calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” and a “monstrous lie” is an obvious bid to show Wall Street that he would do what George W. Bush tried and couldn’t do: Privatize Social Security.

There’s just no calculating how much money Perry could raise from those who would reap billions from a new system that funneled retirement funds into the stock market instead of the federal treasury.

What seems politically disastrous right now could lead the Perry campaign laughing all the way to the bank.



For Perry it is all about the benjamins.

[boutons_deux]

Killing Social Security so (some of) those $Ts would flow into criminal Wall St's filthy, stealing hands is 100% why the VRWC/financial sector is paying so much to kill SS.

[SnakeBoy]

Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry
Shikha Dalmia | September 7, 2011

Rachel Maddow and her MSNBC guests are scandalized that Rick Perry stuck to his guns that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme during the presidential debate tonight. “This kind of rhetoric will hurt him in the general elections,” they reassured each other. They didn’t flat out say that Perry was wrong, but actually he is. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. It is much worse.
Here are three reasons why:

One, a Ponzi scheme collects money from new investors and uses it to pay previous investors—minus a fee. But Social Security collects money from new investors, uses some of it to pay previous investors, and spends the surplus on programs for politically favored groups—minus the cost of supporting a massive bureaucracy. Over the years, trillions of dollars have been spent on these groups and bureaucrats.

Two, participation in Ponzi schemes is voluntary. Not so with Social Security. The government automatically withholds payroll taxes and “invests” them for you.

Three: When a Ponzi scheme can’t con new investors in sufficient numbers to pay the previous investors, it collapses. But when Social Security runs low on investors—also called poor working stiffs—it raises taxes. Indeed, Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner points out,

Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase.

And given that the worker-to-retiree ratio is expected to fall from 3-1 today to 2-1 in 2030 (down from 16-1 in 1950) these taxes will only go up unless the government decides to kick retirees in their dentures and slash benefits.

Rick Perry should stop soft-peddling the issue and tell it like it is.

[boutons_deux]

Social Security Is No More A Ponzi Scheme Than Is Anything Else That Relies On Future Economic Growth

A certain class of “smart set” conservative and centrist types persist on believing that analogies between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme are, though perhaps politically unwise, fundamentally sound. This is nuts.

Consider something that nobody says is a Ponzi scheme — your 401(k). What happens here is that you work while you’re working age. You earn money. You take some of that money to buy shares in firms. Your expectation is that at a future date when you’re not working anymore, you’ll be able to exchange those shares for money. More money than you paid for them in the first place. Why would that work? Well, it could work because you were just stupendously lucky. But the reason we anticipate that it will work systematically is that we anticipate that there will be economic growth. In the future, people will in general have more money, so assets will be more valuable. Save today, sell tomorrow.

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/09/08/314095/social-security-is-no-more-a-ponzi-scheme-than-is-anything-else-that-relies-on-future-economic-growth/

[boutons_deux]

Is Texas A Ponzi Scheme?

the state of Texas itself has a whiff of pyramid scheme about it. As I’ve discussed extensively recently, the combination of proximity to Mexico and (admirable) housing policy has led to rapid population growth in the state far exceeding the national average:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/fredgraph3.png

But how sustainable is this? Texas’ 2 percent annual population growth rate used to be higher than the national average, but lower than the world average. But today Texas is growing not just faster than the country as a whole, it’s growing much faster than the world’s 1.2 percent population growth rate. How long is Texas going to keep that up? Ten years? Twenty years? It seems to me that at some point, Texas is destined to converge to the national average at which point certain important elements of its economic model are going to fall apart.

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/09/08/314336/is-texas-a-ponzi-scheme/

[SnakeBoy]

True, if the liberals keep fleeing the states they have fucked up and coming to Texas we will be in trouble.

[boutons_deux]

Liberals coming to TX? hardly, it's MXicans and central Americans.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

True, if the liberals keep fleeing the states they have fucked up and coming to Texas we will be in trouble.

Too bad conservatives have already fucked up all the states.

[vy65]

Social Security Is No More A Ponzi Scheme Than Is Anything Else That Relies On Future Economic Growth

A certain class of “smart set” conservative and centrist types persist on believing that analogies between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme are, though perhaps politically unwise, fundamentally sound. This is nuts.

Consider something that nobody says is a Ponzi scheme — your 401(k). What happens here is that you work while you’re working age. You earn money. You take some of that money to buy shares in firms. Your expectation is that at a future date when you’re not working anymore, you’ll be able to exchange those shares for money. More money than you paid for them in the first place. Why would that work? Well, it could work because you were just stupendously lucky. But the reason we anticipate that it will work systematically is that we anticipate that there will be economic growth. In the future, people will in general have more money, so assets will be more valuable. Save today, sell tomorrow.

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/09/08/314095/social-security-is-no-more-a-ponzi-scheme-than-is-anything-else-that-relies-on-future-economic-growth/

lol not analogous at all.

[Wild Cobra]

Social Security Is No More A Ponzi Scheme Than Is Anything Else That Relies On Future Economic Growth

A certain class of “smart set” conservative and centrist types persist on believing that analogies between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme are, though perhaps politically unwise, fundamentally sound. This is nuts.

Consider something that nobody says is a Ponzi scheme — your 401(k). What happens here is that you work while you’re working age. You earn money. You take some of that money to buy shares in firms. Your expectation is that at a future date when you’re not working anymore, you’ll be able to exchange those shares for money. More money than you paid for them in the first place. Why would that work? Well, it could work because you were just stupendously lucky. But the reason we anticipate that it will work systematically is that we anticipate that there will be economic growth. In the future, people will in general have more money, so assets will be more valuable. Save today, sell tomorrow.

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/09/08/314095/social-security-is-no-more-a-ponzi-scheme-than-is-anything-else-that-relies-on-future-economic-growth/
LOL...

The stupidity that one can "rely" on future growth.

Is that trash even worth reading?

[Wild Cobra]

True, if the liberals keep fleeing the states they have fucked up and coming to Texas we will be in trouble.
Very true.

Oregon stated getting "californicated" about 40 years ago. We are really fucked up now, after being one of the best places to live then.

[Capt Bringdown]

On the one hand you've got creeps such as Perry and Ron Paul calling for the elimination of so-called entitlement programs and on the other you've got the bipartisan consensus that there needs to be "reform." All of this is secondary at this point, the primary goal is to make Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid the scapegoats for the financial crisis.

[ElNono]

Very true.

Oregon stated getting "californicated" about 40 years ago. We are really fucked up now, after being one of the best places to live then.

I lived there for a while in '95. It was great.
You can move if you don't feel at home, you know? I'm sure you can compete for a parts-changer job in Texas with some wetbacks.

[Wild Cobra]

I lived there for a while in '95. It was great.
You can move if you don't feel at home, you know? I'm sure you can compete for a parts-changer job in Texas with some wetbacks.
If you though it was great in '95, you should have seen it in '75.

[ManuBalboa]

Fuck Social Security.

[DMX7]

Fuck Social Security.

Manubalboa: Where's my check, please?

[BlackSwordsMan]

Sweet a new Texas president hadn't had one of those in a while.

[Wild Cobra]

Sweet a new Texas president hadn't had one of those in a while.
Better than a Chicago president with unorthodox ties.

[boutons_deux]

The Social Security Benefits of Sitting Senators Revisited

Social Security has just entered its 77th year as an essential source of economic security for millions of Americans in their retirement. However, some politicians – such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Rick Perry of Texas – have recently said that Social Security is bankrupt and will not be there for them or their children. This is not an accurate assessment. The latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) show that Social Security will remain fully solvent through 2038. Even if Congress makes no further changes to the program, Social Security will be able to pay slightly more than 80 percent of scheduled benefits from 2039 on.

CEPR has updated its table (incorporating the newest CBO projections) to show the scheduled Social Security benefit for each current member of the Senate.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/senators-ss-2011-09.pdf

[ElNono]

Better than a Chicago president with unorthodox ties.

Is it?

[ElNono]

If you though it was great in '95, you should have seen it in '75.

I was two years old in '75.

[Wild Cobra]

I was two years old in '75.
I was already holding down a steady job. I remember those days.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lmao Wild Chodebrah acting like he's had a high paying job for years.

We all know you're some lower middle class bible banging mouth breather who makes $30,000 - $40,000 at most in gross wages.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao Wild Chodebrah acting like he's had a high paying job for years.

We all know you're some lower middle class bible banging mouth breather who makes $30,000 - $40,000 at most in gross wages.

He probably grosses upwards of $70k but yeah his disposable income is much less. The oregonian has a classified that has industrial maintenance supervisors salary offers and they were about that.

Thats what makes his position on economics so hilarious.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao Wild Chodebrah acting like he's had a high paying job for years.

We all know you're some lower middle class bible banging mouth breather who makes $30,000 - $40,000 at most in gross wages.
LOL... You're just another ankle-biter.

I'll probably pay just less than $20k in taxes this year. I contribute a full 15% to my 401k lowering my taxable. My gross pay this year will be more than double your high estimate.

In '75, I had a job paying just less than double minimum wage. In '78 I was making $8.50/hr.

I don't consider my job a high paying job. I am finally with my latest promotion, making the same hourly pay as I did in 2000.

Bible Banging...

Boy oh boy. You have me way off. Just because I grew up with Quakers, doesn't mean I follow their path.