No babies? Italy blames its 'mamma's boys'

NBC News ^ | Nov. 14, 2005 | Stephen Weeke

[rolling_stone]

grumble about no Social Security because we are not reproducing the next work force.



Uh Social Security is a Ponzi-Pyramid scheme and it shouldn't be dependent on adding more suckers to it in order to prolong its collapse, but it is...

Any Insurance company that proposed such a scheme would be in jail for fraud..but Congress just makes the fraud worse, adding more benefits that they can't pay...

[steve-b]

Or, grumble about no Social Security because we are not reproducing the next work force.

The Socialist Ponzi Scam is doomed in any case; thus, invoking it as a reason for this policy or that is irrelevant.

[firebrand]

Germany and Italy are both reluctant to promote bigger families, because of their history during the Second World War. The Nazis and the Italian fascists were both big promoters of the birth rate.

[firebrand]

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. If there were more workers and fewer Social Security retirees, it would still be the same system but with plenty of money to support it. It is only the present, possibly temporary, demographics that has made it appear untenable to some.

There may be many things wrong with it, but calling it a Ponzi scheme just confuses the issue. It was not designed on the premise of a continually growing worker base.

[firebrand]

just like moron Americans, wanting designer clothes, luxury cars, plasma screen TVs, vacation homes, etc, etc.

And if they would stop watching television, they wouldn't be seduced by all these worthless material goods. Television is the real monster that is eating our culture.

[rolling_stone]

....Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. If there were more workers and fewer Social Security retirees, it would still be the same system but with plenty of money to support it. It is only the present, possibly temporary, demographics that has made it appear untenable to some...

.....There may be many things wrong with it, but calling it a Ponzi scheme just confuses the issue. It was not designed on the premise of a continually growing worker base.....

It was not designed for a lot of things, but it has become a fraudulent pyramid/Ponzi scheme (calling it anything else would confuse the issues), it cannot pay what is "promised". What Roosevelt proposed and what we have today are two different programs, it has grown to what it is today by our Politicians who used/use it for political purposes. It is a Socialist Welfare Scheme of the largest magnitude, and calling it a Ponzi/Pyramid scheme is being polite.

"IF" there were more workers and less retirees..that's a big if that is not going to change in the foreseable future. If it was a viable plan it would not depend on more workers and less retirees, the benefits would be actuarially correct, which it is not. By the way we are promised nothing it is not insurance nor a retirement plan, we have not vested property rights in it and Congress can change it at any time leaving us with little or nothing..some plan huh?

http://www.ssa.gov/history/history.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/attarian/attarian8.html

http://www.free-market.net/resources/lit/time-to-end-ss.html

[steve-b]

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme.

It depends on new people coming in (rather than returns on old investments) to pay off the promises to the people who were in before. That's the definition of "Ponzi Scheme".

[masadaman]

Amish and Italians have another perhaps more important difference: the GRAVY!

[firebrand]

Don't cite links at me, as I am very well informed on this subject. It does have an insurance component, in the sense that if you die too early you don't get back what you put in, etc.

If there had been no baby boom, we would not even be considering Social Security's demise at this point. The population grew too fast. That does not make it a Ponzi scheme to begin with, or even as it was changed later.

If a flu came along that attacked the elderly--as opposed to the young and strong, as the 1918 flu did--we'd be right back where we started, with plenty of people paying in and fewer receiving benefits. Not that I want that to happen. I'm just pointing out that changes in demographics do not mean the scheme is fraudulent, or has even unintentionally evolved into what could properly be called a Ponzi.

[paulat]

This is not a hostile question, but do you see the irony in your screen name....you identify yourself totally as a mom. You are just duplicating your bitter recollection of your husband's grandmother.

[firebrand]

Ponzi used new subscriptions to pay off earlier investors at fabulous rates. The higher the rates he paid, the more investors were attracted. Up to a point where there were not enough unsubscribed investors left to bilk, he couldn't pay those rates any more, and it all collapsed. That's a Ponzi scheme.

In order to talk about Social Security intelligently, and possibly remedy the faults that may be built into it, or the temporary crisis, if it exists, it's important that we not call it by the name of a fraudulent scheme that has no analogy to it.

[andysandmikesmom]

I dont think my recollection of my husbands grandmother was bitter...it was an observation, of how much she spoiled and doted on him...

And I call myself AndysandMikesMom, because my two boys, my sons, are two of the things in life that I am most proud of....

[Dan Evans]

Italian lover boy is mooching off of momma. BIG DIFFERENCE!

That's what I've been saying. What's your point? Do you think Italians are going to start getting married and having kids if their parents kick them out? I think there is more to it than that.

[Dan Evans]

Germany and Italy are both reluctant to promote bigger families, because of their history during the Second World War. The Nazis and the Italian fascists were both big promoters of the birth rate.

If that's true, it's pretty stupid of them. Promoting population growth=bad because the fascists did it. Or maybe "Hitler didn't smoke so people who don't smoke are Nazis". Dumb.

[Clemenza]

Mexicans, especially urban Mexicans, are heavily "westernized." Remember that Mexico culturally is half-European.

In South Florida (where I am typing these words), 90% of the Latinos are westernized, many even being blondes. Even Colombians and Nicaraguans with a little Indian blood could be considered as western as yours truly.

With the exception of Indians from the Altiplano, and blacks from Rio De Janeiro, Latin Americans are more western than many so called "good" immigrants like the Chinese, East Indians, and Koreans. Regulated legal immigration from Latin America is not a problem, unrestricted illegal immigration is.

[ozzymandus]

So basically, they're a bunch of real-life Raymonds, without the Anglo-Saxon wife. Quite a change from the mighty Legion of Mussolini, eh? Wait a minute, I guess not.

[HitmanLV]

Part of the issue is a side-effect of the same kind of cultural issues we have here. A man doesn't need to marry a woman to enjoy her sexual goodies. There are enough attractive women who give that up for a relatively low cost (compared to marriage, for example), that there just isn't a need to marry and raise a family.

Men in the western world can now enjoy the upside of sexual pleasure without the downside of commitment, with the added bonus of variety. You can't really blame them for going down that path.