Posted on 08/29/2011 12:58:04 PM PDT by martosko
Bernie Madoff is in prison for doing what Social Security does everyday...taking money from new subscribers to pay current clients and hoping that there are enough new people to keep the con going. Madoff lined his own pockets with a rake off while what Social Security payments are not spent in benefits go into government coffers to be spent foolishly. I fail to see much difference except Madoff is in prison while the Social Security people still have jobs.
Only special Government Bonds are allowed to be spent on other govervment programs.
Texas is also ranked low in high school graduation rate.
Texas is 49th in verbal SAT scores in the nation and 46th in average math SAT scores. Can we trust him to reform Washington?
Relevance to Social Security being a Ponzi Scheme?
That's a separate program with separate funding, SSI.
Lol, the Perry cheerleading squads sure do try to control what can and can't be said on their pep rally threads.
Let me clarify (posting on my phone makes me likely to leave out details).
Social Security income is supposed to have been invested in marketable Treasury Bonds, but instead the idiots in Washington invests most of it in non-marketable IOU's (Special Government Securities) so they can spend it on other programs. There is no "lock box", just a bunch of worthless IOU's.
I'm not sure this would qualify as a ponzi scheme, but it definitely qualifies as theft in my book.
How is that question “cheerleading”?
Yes.
It meets almost every classic definition of a Ponzi scheme. If you take money from current investors to pay off earlier investors and there are no real investments ever made, it is a Ponzi scheme. That is what the federal government is doing. The only difference between the federal government and a Ponzi scheme perp is the federal government can actually point a gun at the new investors and make them pay up anyway. The Ponzi perp has to rely on inducing new investors with the returns he is paying old investors. But they both are lying about where the money is.
Most of the Perry threads are cheerleading and there is always one or more participants trying to prevent discussion of any Perry negatives, often trying to enforce some restrictive standard of what Perry issues can and can’t be discussed.
It is a Ponzi scheme. What else would you call a scheme where yesterday’s receipts have been spent and tomorrow’s payments are made with the money collected today?
when started 33 persons contributed for ever one recipient, now 3 contribute per recipient- just do the math- it aint gonna work
And the life expectancy was less than 70 years. The politicians just couldn’t stand to see a pile of money put in their care and just had to piss it away.
There is a difference between preventing discussion vs asking WTF you’re talking about and why it has any relevance to the thread’s topic or any normal tangents thereto when it doesn’t. The topic here is SS; enumerating unrelated issues in a degrading tone is trolling, not discussing.
I mean really, why DID Burger King dump their mascot?
Relevance to Social Security being a Ponzi Scheme?
as if it were somehow improper, or not allowed, for a poster to make comments about Perry on any subject other than SS. I've seen others try the same form of censorship on other Perry threads. I've never seen any group try to censor and control what can and cannot be said on threads the way Perry supporters do. Of course, it's all really an attempt to prevent people from posting legitimate and factual points about Perry that many consider to be significant negatives.
And I'm not the only one noticing this. Don't care what you think. There are many negatives concerning Perry and people should be free to discuss them on any Perry thread.
Too many Perry supporters want the Perry threads to be pep rallies with no negative facts allowed. If the site owners want this to be a Perry pep rally site, they should tell us. If not, people who start these numerous threads shouldn't start them if all they want is agreement and cheerleading for Perry.
And, as I've said on other threads, I'm not totally against Perry, but I do think his record on important issues should be discussed. I might eventually support Perry, but I'll have no illusions about what his stances on issues are. If he should become president, we need a conservative Congress to keep him in check on some issues.
Suppose you are planning on retiring as a Military Veteran. There is no money saved up for you either.
So there is no debate, Military Veterans signed up to a retirement program without any money saved for the future. Screwed like the Social Security beneficiaries.
“I do think his record on important issues should be discussed.”
Fine. So start a thread about his record on important issues which should be discussed.
You just dumped an unrelated query into a focused discussion using an accusatory tone and then started whining when asked WTH it had to do with the subject at hand, and you responded with “help! help! I’m being repressed!” BS.
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.