Skip to comments.Perry and the Ponzis
Posted on 09/12/2011 3:14:24 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Until a half a minute ago, liberals called Social Security a Ponzi scheme, too.
Is Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry a courageous and welcome truth teller for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, or is he being needlessly provocative instead? Or maybe you think Perrys Ponzi comparison is just plain wrong. I favor the truth-teller option, but the debate will surely go on.
In any case, its certain that Perrys Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way original. Not only have a raft of conservatives called Social Security a Ponzi scheme over the years, quite a few very respectable liberals have done so as well. It is clearly wrong either to treat the Ponzi-scheme analogy as unprecedented or to rule it altogether out of legitimate public debate. A historical tour of the use of the Ponzi-scheme metaphor will make the point.
Jonathan Last has already identified a 1967 Newsweek column by liberal economist and Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson as perhaps the earliest use of the Social Security/Ponzi-scheme comparison in public argument. Samuelson was actually drawing on the Ponzi analogy to defend Social Security. His claim was that the perpetual succession of human generations establishes the conditions for a sustainable Ponzi scheme. Regardless of whether Samuelson was the first commentator to use the Ponzi analogy, he has clearly been the most influential. Policy briefs and books churned out by conservative think tanks such as Heritage and Cato have cited Samuelsons Ponzi column for years. This is likely how the comparison made its way into public debate.
Samuelsons idea that Social Security could best be understood as an enduring and rational Ponzi scheme grew out of his overlapping-generations model, introduced in a seminal 1958 paper. Samuelsons model implied that public debt in general, and Social Security in particular, could be financed over successive generations without major tax increases. In the 1980s, Samuelsons overlapping-generations model was seized upon by Keynesian economists to serve as a microeconomic foundation for their favored theories and plans.
The unfortunate weakness of Samuelsons model is its assumption that a growing economy will produce continual population increase. In an April 1978 follow-up in Newsweek to his original 1967 column, Samuelson acknowledged that demographic reality was disproving this assumption. Samuelson repeated his use of the Ponzi analogy and continued to defend his hopes for Social Security as best he could. While Samuelson hung onto some slim indications in 1977 that U.S. fertility might be on the upswing, it grew increasingly clear to critics that the postBaby Boom decline in births was not going to be reversed. Increasingly, Samuelsons Ponzi-scheme analogy was seized upon by those who doubted Social Securitys long-term soundness. Continued
I miss Joshlyn Elders. She wasn't afraid to speak her liberal mind -- she was a vocal and open book to how LIBERALS view the masses.
So.... the Clinton's had to kick their Attorney General (black female -- OMG! the damage done to identity politics) to the curb.
"But I'm saying we are loosing the people who are going to pay my social security. And that bothers me." -- Joycelyn Elders
Joshlyn Elders, Surgeon General of the United States - September 8, 1993 December 31, 1994
Elders: October 1993 regarding funding for AIDS research and the fact that most of us will probably die:
"We know most of the people that die with heart disease and cancer are our elderly population you know and we all will probably die with something sooner or later and we've been investing certainly in cancer and heart disease and I feel that we should continue, I'm not downplaying that. But I'm saying that we are losing the people that's going to pay my Social Security and that bothers me."
In January 1993, Bill Clinton appointed Joshlyn Elders the United States Surgeon General, making her the first African American and the second woman (following Antonia Novello) to hold the position. [Bill Clinton appointed Elders to be the Director of the Arkansas Department of Health - 1987].
She argued for an exploration of the possibility of drug legalization and backed the distribution of contraceptives in schools. President Clinton stood by Elders, saying that she was misunderstood......
In 1994, she was invited to speak at a United Nations conference on AIDS. She was asked whether it would be appropriate to promote masturbation as a means of preventing young people from engaging in riskier forms of sexual activity, and she replied, "I think that it is part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught." This remark caused great controversy and resulted in Elders losing the support of the White House. White House chief of staff Leon Panetta remarked, "There have been too many areas where the President does not agree with her views. This is just one too many." Elders was fired by President Clinton as a result of the controversy in December 1994.
"Safer guns and safer bullets" probably didn't help her either.
The only reason the Left wants to keep us "healthy," and the old and curable alive, is to fund Social Security. So Obama's Universal Health Care (that the Democrats have ruled we must join) is to keep people alive (until of course they cost too much to economically contribute to the rest) -- to sustain enough workers to continue funding (prop up) the system whereby Elites hold power for the continuance of Them through iron-clad control of our money and our lives.
Perry Campaign: Remember When Romney Compared Social Security to a Criminal Enterprise? [quote from Romney's book] " What would happen to the bankers responsible for misusing the money? They would go to jail. But what has happened to the people responsible for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security? They keep returning to Congress every two years. [end quote]
York goes on the say Bachmann's camp was unhappy with how few questions she got at last week's Reagan Library debate, and quotes the Bachmann adviser saying she will make clear she disagrees with Perry on Social Security if asked:
"Certainly not," the adviser says. "She strongly disagrees with his position on that, and it's clearly not something that's going to sit well with the people of Florida and Iowa and South Carolina and many of the early states, where there is a large population of seniors who rely heavily on Social Security. For [Perry] to scare them is wrong."<<<
I was thinking, "Hallelujah! Great ad, Rick! Somebody finally has the guts to tell the truth", and then I got to the bottom and saw that it was a Mitt Romney ad.
Yo, Mitt, are you invested in SS?
Ah, the magic of lighting.
Our historical tour of the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme confirms what we already knew: Rick Perrys remarks are uncharacteristically bold for a politician, most especially a candidate in the midst of a presidential race. Yet Perrys Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented. On the contrary, the Ponzi comparison has been a staple of conservative warnings about Social Securitys financial soundness for decades. More intriguing, the Ponzi scheme analogy was popularized by a liberal Nobel Laureate economist, who initially offered it as a defense of the system, acknowledging only later that his defense was at least partially flawed. In the decades that followed, many honest liberals have made the Ponzi scheme comparison in the course of calling for systemic reform. Those liberals have bemoaned bipartisan deception and timidity on the Social Security issue, and praised those rare and courageous political souls, such as Alan Simpson, who were willing and able to call a Ponzi scheme by its real name.--From the article.
Maybe at the next debate Perry should say: "The truth? You want the truth? You can't handle the truth."
Those who want to “save” Social Security” are for the status quo.
Social Security must be phased out (those on it and those coming on it will not be punished for having to adhere to the rules — but those groups should be the beginning of the end of this ponzi scheme). There are not enough “worker bees” to take from, to sustain this — so taxes will go up (add “health care” the Libs have waiting in the wings) and you have an economy that can no longer recover and/or survive.
It’s time to change this. WAY past time to change this.
Gov. Rick Perry it being honest, like the leader of a free country should be.
You would think Rick Perry was the first one to call Social Security a Ponzi Scheme.
Interesting logo on that Romney flyer, lower-right. The R almost looks as though it was taken from an Obama campaign logo.
All he has to say is “while I believe Social Security was unconstitutional when set up and resembles any modern ponzi scheme, it was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court and being that is the case, we have to fix the problems within it to make it solvent for future generations. There are people of working age and of healthy body scamming the system, causing it to go broke. We will find these people scamming the system and deal with them appropriately”.
The first time since Adam and Eve that anyone thought the need of government schools to teach the act of masturbation was a requirement.
The last argument required against affirmative action, is simply the name joslyn elders.
Man, I can't wait for his next telemarketer to call.
"Evil - Goldwater-like" Gov. Perry = It will be a dark and stormy America.
"Easy on the eyes" Romney = It will be sunshine and lollipops in America.
Why do you not rebut the Romney post you put up?
If Rick Perry cannot dislodge the RINO Romney
he has absolutely ZERO chance against Obama.
Mitt says any attempt to rein in spending will have to include "entitlement reform".
Gee, Mitt, which entitlement do you think is in need of reforming? And why is it in need of reforming?
Note who Romney cites for his information (lower left of flier)---
---"Huffington Post" and "MSNBC Morning Joe."
Fact:All of us are going to die. If you die before you’ve contributed enough to the Ponzi Scheme that is Social Security, that means (hopefully) you won’t be drawing upon it either. I don’t expect see anything from it when I retire, in any case.
Fact: There are two kinds of people; those who masturbate and those who lie about it. The teaching (or not) of such however, should be left to parents.
Fact: Drugs are substances only, and actions undertaken upon partaking of such are the responsibility of those who partake, period. We have laws to penalize those who harm others. Just as one who commits robbery or murder because the victim was “X” shouldn’t incur more stringent penalties on the basis of “hate”, neither should the one who partakes in any “prohibited” substance be called to account unless their actions cause direct harm to others in society. It’s all about personal responsibility, folks. “Hate Crimes” legislation doesn’t make sense. Neither does legislation that imprisons fellow citizens solely on the basis of their ingesting substances which are deemed off-limits according to the current War on (some) Drugs as being “too dangerous for availability”, and that being determined via often faulty, special-interest-biased “research” on such. Just as it doesn’t matter what you were “thinking” when you knifed the dude in the parking lot of the 7-11, it doesn’t matter how you were “feeling” when you plowed your car over a curb and into a cluster of Code Pink protesters after a half dozen shots of tequila and a few bowls of premium hydro. Stupid is as stupid does. And merits its just reward.
This is where Perry will wrap RomneyCare around his neck and pull tightly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.