Skip to comments.Rep. Ryan: Rick Perry is right on Social Security
Posted on 09/21/2011 2:58:05 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee on Tuesday drew fire from Democrats for backing Texas Gov. Rick Perrys description of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.
Social Security fits the technical definition of a Ponzi scheme, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told conservative Laura Ingraham on her radio show.
Its not a criminal enterprise, but its a pay-as-you-go system, where earlier investors or say, taxpayers get a positive rate of return, and the most recent investors or taxpayers get a negative rate of return, he said. That is how those schemes work.
Perrys description of the Social Security as a Ponzi sceheme has been attacked by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Perrys leading challenger for the GOP presidential nomination. Romney criticized Perry for scaring seniors and wanting to abolish the program, warning that the Republican nominee needs to work to reform the program.
Theyre both right, Ryan said of Perry and Romney. [Social Security] is not working, it is going bankrupt, and current seniors will be jeopardized the most by the status quo.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee pushed back against Ryans comments.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Mitt Romney called Social Security "a criminal enterprise."
Good for Ryan. I have had high hopes for him.
With all due respect, who on this forum would disagree? Your helium balloon is filled with lead on this one.
Of course it is a Ponzi Scheme,there is No argument there,the Problem is WHAT the Hell do you do about it.
Like Fast and Furious,We have committed an act of war against the State of Mexico by shipping thousands of High Powered Weapons to Barbaric Drug lords which have Killed Hundreds of Mexicans,Been used against their Police which are Operating on American Taxpayer Dollars and we to this date have Not even briefed mexican law enforcement or Government authorities. Now was Watergate more or less notorious? Where is the Press or the Clowns running for the Republican Nomination on this?
Talk about outrageous.
With all due respect, how many of these “Ponzi Scheme” articles are there going to be? WHO CARES? The real story is ithat the system will go broke unless someone submits legislation that will fix it, WHICH HAS HAPPENED!.
Last Tuesday, Republican Presidential candidate, Cong. Thaddeus McCotter, introduced the SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT (HR 2889) which saves Social Security WITHOUT raising the Payroll Tax, WITHOUT raising the retirement age, WITHOUT REDUCING BENEFITS, and WITHOUT privatizing the system. WHERE ARE THE STORIES? WHERE ARE THE ANALYSES? WHY THE BLACKOUT?
OF COURSE IT IS OUTRAGEOUS! My point was obviously missed because I did not elaborate. As far as this forum is concerned, so what if Ryan agrees? We here know what to do about it and that is simply throw all career politicians out on the keester.
We know that very few people under consideration for the nomination have the guts to call it what it is and for that I give Perry credit for launching into the breach but just because someone else agrees with it is not the end all for his ultimate credibility.
I guage his credibility on the whole picture and being that not one of the declared candidates says anything in the debates about F&F to me is a very bad mark on them all, including Perry. Why is every politician afraid of making the F&F mounting evidence a campaign issue?
Not only do we have people in our own country dead because of this gun control wet dream, Mexico now says that over 200 have died in their country because of it.
Nobody died because of Solyndra or Lightsquared and whatever else is sure to come along because the real nasty one is being covered up by distractions like this story that Ryan agrees with Perry. WE GET IT ALREADY! And we have known it is a ponzi scheme since anyone of us looked at it objectively.
So with all due respect, Perry gets one atta-boy but who is counting the aw $h!ts on the rest of the picture?
Geez, this gets me steamed.
Rick Perry told the truth about Social Security.
How else could you describe a system that requires more workers to support retiring workers?
As a native Texan, there are several issues (immigration, vaccination) that I definitely disagree with Perry but on this one, Perry was absolutely correct.
Which means that you either end it for those currently drawing Social Security, so that the younger generations can use their money to save for their own retirement. Or you continue to tax those who will never see Social Security in order to continue to fund the retirement of those drawing it. Which does Ryan recommend?
Darn right he did.
And the Dems know that the American people know he did too.
Actually, a poster did just the other day. And a lot of establishment RINOs fear straight talk on entitlements - you know, the ones that have continually sandbagged conservative reforms to entitlement systems.
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
Hope Perry brings this up in Thursdays debate
People are forgetting one thing.
Social Security did not start out as a Ponzu scheme,THE DEMOCRATS TURNED IT INTO ONE.
It started out being paid for by people who would one day use it to subsidise their retirement. The money was in trust.
It was never meant as a total package for retirement.
It was turned into what it is today by Democrats, They stole the trust money and spent it, then they taxed it then they refused to admit it was going broke,when Bush tried to save it.
Today, Thanks to Democrats it is a Ponzi scheme.
Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, Max Keiser - Social Security Ponzi Scheme
You might get something from this exchange.
Ponzi’s scheme was eventually been declared illegal, but when one uses the expression “Ponzi Scheme” that doesn’t mean one is talking about the illegality. It could be discussion about what the Scheme was that Ponzi actually dreamed up.
An “ace up my sleeve” might get me shot in a card game, but as a description of a strategy, it is simply a description. You put an ace up the cuff of your sleeve and pull it out when needed.
“Ponzi Scheme” can simply be a description of a system, a strategy.
The Scheme is to have a first generation of investors receive their payoff from a second generation of investors who receive their payoff from a third generation, etc. If you promise 5 investors 100 for a $50 investment, and then sell that same plan to 20 each 2nd generation investors, you can then pay the 5 original investors their payoff of $100. To pay the 2nd generation you need to come up with a minimum of 3rd generation investors to pay off the 20...the $2000 you owe them. Your plan, of course, is that the 40 hear that the 1st generation turned their money over very quickly, so they will give you the 2000 needed.
Each generation gets more difficult to pay until finally you have too many new investments to pay off the previous generation because you simply can’t find enough new investors.
That is the case with Social Security. A future smaller generation will not be able to pay off the previous generation unless someone lowers the amount that they must pay....or they simply refuse to pay anything at all or are so broke they are incapable of paying anything at all.
No one is saying Social Security is illegal when they call it a “ponzi scheme”. They are simply explaining how it has one generation pay off the investment of a previous generation.
That puts the lie to Social Security which was supposed to be an individual generation funding their own retirement.
Sadly, the government spends their money before they retire.
You are completely wrong. It was a Ponzi scheme from the get go. The first person to get a social security check paid in $250 and got over $25,000 in benefits before she died. This is not a retirement investment program, it is a welfare program.
GRRRREAT posts! Thread BUMP!
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.