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 Perry’s Ponzi comparison is just plain wrong. I favor the truth-teller option, but the debate will surely go on.
In any case, it’s certain that Perry’s 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 Samuelson’s Ponzi column for years. This is likely how the comparison made its way into public debate.
Samuelson’s 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. Samuelson’s 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, Samuelson’s 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 Samuelson’s 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 post–Baby Boom decline in births was not going to be reversed. Increasingly, Samuelson’s Ponzi-scheme analogy was seized upon by those who doubted Social Security’s long-term soundness. Continued
A)Where does Socialist Security's security come from and who does it go to?
B) How is that different from a Ponzi scheme?
I was thinking it looks more like the PBS logo. Or a cookie cutter. Which is how good little Progressives view humans.
Gee, Mitt, just how long do you plan on being President?
Things aren't so scary when you identify them and work together on a plan to defeat the beast. Americans MUST have this conversation. MOST Americans WANT this conversation.
After the Perry-Bernake "treat him ugly" comment was hyped by the msm -- within a week, the other "debaters (I guess they heard from their supporters and saw Perry's numbers shoot up) were echoing Gov. Perry (notice Brian Williams didn't have to ask Perry about QE) at the Ronald Reagan Library debate.
Couldn't have picked a better metaphor myself.
Somehow, it seems that common sense, asking people to “do the math” ..... or actually doing it for them .... is viewed as an insult, a career ending gaffe, something for which one needs to apologize for.
Perhaps with legislators in Washington who believe a Marine barracks on a Japanese island will capsize the island it has become impossible to underestimate the intelligence of the mean IQ inside the beltway .... or of the electorate for that matter
Is this how it all ends?
That graphic isn’t the one I posted.
I posted the one of a young Obama, wearing a hat smoking.... and it appeared on the thread that way.
But now it appears that it has morphed into a green face.
Not my post to you.
Only if we don't address the truth like adults and Americans and conservatives.
Just heard Pawlenty on “Fox and Friends” say that he’s backing Mitt Romney.
That’s okay. No offense taken, even if offense was meant. ;) I’m disgusted with the hypocrisy also. Here’s to the end of the reign of The Once!
Moving along.....
Pawlenty was against RomneyCare before he backed off RomneyCare, then three days after demurring at the debate, “Tim Pawlenty punches back at Romney (on Twitter)” and now Tim has settled nicely into Mitt’s camp as a supporter of RomneyCare and Social Security.
And on that note, FRiends might want to check out and weigh in on this American Thinker piece:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/obamas_gift_has_stopped_giving.html
Seems some think the 2012 election could turn on such an issue. Then, perhaps not so much.
FJ
If I have to vote between RomneyCare and ObamaCare, I’ll go with PaulCare, at least in the primaries. In the general election, I’ll go with Bar-O-Soap Care before I’ll go for another four years of ZeroCare.
FJ
Wrong link. Swear I haven’t been imbibing. Hic.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/the_democrats_2012_victory_plan.html
I was turning the channel and caught the beginning of Obama's "preach" at Ground Zero" (about the first sentence and one half) and moved on. It struck me (again) how shrill and unfeeling he talks. I ponder how Ronald Reagan would have sounded when he addressed the people mourning their loved ones at the memorial.
President Ronald Reagan - Address on the Challenger Disaster
A great cautionary tale. However, we shouldn’t lose sight that America is inherently center-right, traditionally, and when the prevailing political climate swings too far to the left of the majority’s comfort zone, and especially if it swings way, way to far, and too fast to the left of the majority’s comfort zone (as in a naked attempt at a Marxist takeover), the majority is still armed to the teeth, and the following adage will likely apply:
“There are three things all wise men fear: A sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man. (credit Patrick Rothfuss)
America is that “Gentle Man” and when roused, will defend the principles of the founders quite vigorously.
FJ
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.