PDA

View Full Version : Ayn Rand COLLECTED SS / MEDICARE


hcap
01-29-2011, 08:58 AM
Gee, This sounds sooooo familiar

...Rand called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers.” She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”

“Morally and economically, the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull.” ----Rand in a 1972 newsletter,

.................................................. .........

I guess writing about dividing the world into "producers" and "collectivists" didn't interfere too much however when she was on the collectivist dole..

Rand was an anchor similar to some poor food stamp recipient, or a single mom on welfare.

Does not include how much her writings were also an anchor on society. But that is another topic. ;)

johnhannibalsmith
01-29-2011, 10:04 AM
Al Gore flies in airplanes and rides in cars. This seems like it'll be an enlightening thread.

prospector
01-29-2011, 10:04 AM
if she paid it..she earned it
period

lsbets
01-29-2011, 10:08 AM
So are you saying that she should have declined SS, allowing the government to keep the money which was involuntarily confiscated from her? You've lost it Hcap.

Let's Roll
01-29-2011, 11:36 AM
"This message is hidden because hcap is on your ignore list. "

Robert Goren
01-29-2011, 11:41 AM
Ayn Rand was not the first person to preach one thing and live another way. She wasn't the last either.

GameTheory
01-29-2011, 12:03 PM
Ayn Rand was not the first person to preach one thing and live another way. She wasn't the last either.Any Rand was an extremist and had her share of personal foibles, to say the least. She was very much an ivory tower thinker, but that doesn't mean she wasn't leaning in the right direction much of the time.

Still, what hcap is getting at is just stupid, as if all non-liberals are looking at Ayn Rand as a model of how to live. Che Guevara was a mass murderer and a serial rapist, but you still find him on the chests of lots of young liberal college chicks...

Tom
01-29-2011, 12:04 PM
Ayn Rand was not the first person to preach one thing and live another way. She wasn't the last either.

Like
Obama, costing taxpayers $1 million bucks for his vacation while we have almost 10% unemployment? Or going around the world apologizing for America and then daring to use the term American Exceptionalism in his Joke of the Union speech?

Yeah, Ayn paid for both benefits.
Obama never paid for anything in his miserable life.

Obama ----*spit* FUBO!

Tom
01-29-2011, 12:05 PM
Poor hcap...he tries so hard to find someone to blame since he can't point to anything Obama has done good....must be awful to wait so many years, under Bush, and then crap out.

Robert Goren
01-29-2011, 12:06 PM
A far better person to read would be Eric Hoffer.

Spiderman
01-29-2011, 12:13 PM
Averill Harriman, Governor of New York and Ambassador to the United Nations, declined to accept Social Security payments. His family holdings were immense real estate properties and railroads.

I don't know of any others who refused SS payments. But, someone like Rand, who espoused against government support and was well-to-do, should practice what she preaches.

Spiderman
01-29-2011, 12:14 PM
A far better person to read would be Eric Hoffer.
The "Ordeal of Change" is a must read. Thanks for mentioning Eric Hoffer, a blind longshoreman.

BlueShoe
01-29-2011, 12:18 PM
Al Gore flies in airplanes and rides in cars.
Speaking of good old Al, the genius (?) that invented the internet and told the world that we are doomed by global warming, wonder how large his air conditioning bill has been lately. What with one of the coldest winters on record, guess that Al is kind of laying low and not saying much.

boxcar
01-29-2011, 12:47 PM
Averill Harriman, Governor of New York and Ambassador to the United Nations, declined to accept Social Security payments. His family holdings were immense real estate properties and railroads.

I don't know of any others who refused SS payments. But, someone like Rand, who espoused against government support and was well-to-do, should practice what she preaches.

Why? HER MONEY was confiscated from her under the force of law, and she should just walk away from that? Have you completely lost your marbles!? She should not only take as much of her money back as she can, but I only wish she could sue the U.S. government legalizing a Ponzi Scheme which is illegal in the real world! :bang: :bang:

Methinks your cobwebs, Spidey, have come home to roost in the hollows of your cranial cavity. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Robert Goren
01-29-2011, 12:48 PM
Averill Harriman, Governor of New York and Ambassador to the United Nations, declined to accept Social Security payments. His family holdings were immense real estate properties and railroads.

I don't know of any others who refused SS payments. But, someone like Rand, who espoused against government support and was well-to-do, should practice what she preaches. And he was a democrat.

Spiderman
01-29-2011, 12:59 PM
Why? HER MONEY was confiscated from her under the force of law, and she should just walk away from that? Have you completely lost your marbles!? She should not only take as much of her money back as she can, but I only wish she could sue the U.S. government legalizing a Ponzi Scheme which is illegal in the real world! :bang: :bang:

Methinks your cobwebs, Spidey, have come home to roost in the hollows of your cranial cavity. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

I'll save this post for if and when Social Security comes under attack, this year. I will see if you remain constant to the above statement.

Tom
01-29-2011, 01:00 PM
A far better person to read would be Eric Hoffer.

Wasn't he on C.H.I.P.S. ?

Robert Goren
01-29-2011, 01:03 PM
Wasn't he on C.H.I.P.S. ?:lol: Him, too

Tom
01-29-2011, 01:04 PM
I don't know of any others who refused SS payments. But, someone like Rand, who espoused against government support and was well-to-do, should practice what she preaches.

Do you get a paycheck?
If you do, you will know that money YOU earned was taken from you and what you get from SS will NEVER be as much as what you kicked in, unless you don't get a paycheck or snuck over the border.

For people who actually earn their own living, SS is not government support, it is government stealing.

For those of you who depend on others to carry your weight, it is certainly is a government support.

Tom
01-29-2011, 01:06 PM
I'll save this post for if and when Social Security comes under attack, this year. I will see if you remain constant to the above statement.

How about this for fair - everyone gets back all that they have put in so far and the program ends tomorrow?

Most of us will lose some money, but far less than if we keep doling it out to those who have been leeching off the system.

boxcar
01-29-2011, 01:12 PM
I'll save this post for if and when Social Security comes under attack, this year. I will see if you remain constant to the above statement.

By all means save it because when SS comes under attack -- when this reprobate government decides it's now time to pull the rug out from under the people -- when it decides to switch horses in mid stream -- when it pulls a bait and switch, then it will only prove my point on how corrupt politicians are.

SS was a VERY BAD IDEA from its inception that should never have happened. The whole concept should have found its way to an abortion clinic the minute the idea found verbal expression. :rolleyes: You know there are good reasons why Ponzi Schemes are outlawed out in the real world. :rolleyes:

I'm all all for it's total elimination, but it's demise must be orderly, gradual and structured in a way so that people who have paid into it for "x" years will be guaranteed that they'll get their money out. But that's not what is going to happen. We both know that. What's going to happen is that the government will screw the "little guy" it purports to love so much. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

hcap
01-29-2011, 01:52 PM
Why? HER MONEY was confiscated from her under the force of law, and she should just walk away from that? Have you completely lost your marbles!? She should not only take as much of her money back as she can, but I only wish she could sue the U.S. government legalizing a Ponzi Scheme which is illegal in the real world! Funny that we never heard about her reliance on SS and medicare as she grew older.

"Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax. By 1974, the two-pack-a-day smoker, then 69, required surgery for lung cancer. And it was at that moment of vulnerability that she succumbed to the lure of collectivism."

She made a wrong decision in her life and smoked. Shouldn't she cover her own medical expenses. Medicare is not top tier treatment. It is a the first form of Obamacare and a public health plan. Shouldn't she have taken responsibility for her own well being and not partaken in a redistribution of medical wealth?

Considering all her novels and philosophy, I understand why public knowledge of her situation would have undermined her integrity.

But hey, you gentlemen don't seem to care.

Tom
01-29-2011, 01:59 PM
But hey, you gentlemen don't seem to care.

No, we get it. YOU miss the obvious. SS is nothing more than a filter, to syphon off a portion of your money to others, so YOU end with less than you earned and less than if you invested it yourself.

SS is NOT an entitlement to people who put into it.
Only to anchors.

If you put into SS all your life, you are screwed by it.

GameTheory
01-29-2011, 02:03 PM
Considering all her novels and philosophy, I understand why public knowledge of her situation would have undermined her integrity.

But hey, you gentlemen don't seem to care.Why should we? For the sake of argument, let's say she had no integrity. Who cares?

Tom
01-29-2011, 02:05 PM
hcap- he has nothing left to hang onto.

johnhannibalsmith
01-29-2011, 02:48 PM
Why should we? For the sake of argument, let's say she had no integrity. Who cares?

Applause-o-meter nearing 10.

mostpost
01-29-2011, 03:43 PM
Speaking of good old Al, the genius (?) that invented the internet and told the world that we are doomed by global warming, wonder how large his air conditioning bill has been lately. What with one of the coldest winters on record, guess that Al is kind of laying low and not saying much.
About once a month, some knucklehead comes on one of these threads and says AL Gore claimed he invented the internet. Congratulations on being "Knucklehead of the Month" for January.

One more time. Al Gore never said he invented the internet. He said he took the initiative in creating the internet. The basis of the internet was an interconnected set of computers used by the military to connect different bases and facilities. Al Gore and others drafted legislation which transferred that infrastructure to civilian status and allowed everyone to connect to the network.

The internet was not invented by anyone. The internet was created by the legislators who drafted and passed the legislation legalizing it. Gore was one of those legislators.

Today is January 29, 2011. I wonder how long it will be before I have to correct this again.

mostpost
01-29-2011, 03:45 PM
Why should we? For the sake of argument, let's say she had no integrity. Who cares?
By this can I assume if Obama does something which is contrary to something he previously said, your response will be "Who cares."? :eek:

johnhannibalsmith
01-29-2011, 03:49 PM
By this can I assume if Obama does something which is contrary to something he previously said, your response will be "Who cares."? :eek:

You really equate Ayn Rand with Obama on this subject?

boxcar
01-29-2011, 03:53 PM
Funny that we never heard about her reliance on SS and medicare as she grew older.

"Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax. By 1974, the two-pack-a-day smoker, then 69, required surgery for lung cancer. And it was at that moment of vulnerability that she succumbed to the lure of collectivism."

She made a wrong decision in her life and smoked. Shouldn't she cover her own medical expenses. Medicare is not top tier treatment. It is a the first form of Obamacare and a public health plan. Shouldn't she have taken responsibility for her own well being and not partaken in a redistribution of medical wealth?

Considering all her novels and philosophy, I understand why public knowledge of her situation would have undermined her integrity.

But hey, you gentlemen don't seem to care.

Oh, no, no, no. The fact that the government has legalized this dangerous substance we call "tobacco" makes the government even more culpable than she is! The U.S. government, therefore, should be made to pick up her tab for it's bad decision to keep tobacco legal. By legalizing it, the U.S. government has given its tacit approval for use, DESPITE ITS HYPOCRITICAL WARNINGS on tobacco products. The actions of the government are inconsistent with its words. But what else is new? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
This is the government YOU LOVE so much and into which you put all your misguided faith. Live with it!

Boxcar

boxcar
01-29-2011, 04:03 PM
By this can I assume if Obama does something which is contrary to something he previously said, your response will be "Who cares."? :eek:

OH...there you go with your lame analogies again. :bang: :bang: Will you ever learn? (Asked rhetorically, of course.) Her decisions and actions are personal and very limited in scope. His decisions and actions are national and can even be international in scope and, therefore, will impact millions if not billions of people's lives. Therefore, we will continue to "care" whenever the Liar-in-Chief moves his lips.

Please, please, stay away from analogies. It takes someone with at least the IQ the size of a small child's waistline to draw a sound one. There isn't a lib on this forum who qualifies. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

mostpost
01-29-2011, 04:16 PM
OH...there you go with your lame analogies again. :bang: :bang: Will you ever learn? (Asked rhetorically, of course.) Her decisions and actions are personal and very limited in scope. His decisions and actions are national and can even be international in scope and, therefore, will impact millions if not billions of people's lives. Therefore, we will continue to "care" whenever the Liar-in-Chief moves his lips.

Please, please, stay away from analogies. It takes someone with at least the IQ the size of a small child's waistline to draw a sound one. There isn't a lib on this forum who qualifies. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar
You're confused. Again. It's not about either Ayn Rand or Barack Obama. The issue is GameTheory's attitude. If he doesn't care about the integrity of Ayn Rand, then he can't care about the integrity of Barack Obama. Whether the perceived cause of the lack of integrity is personal or public is irrelevant.

mostpost
01-29-2011, 04:23 PM
No, we get it. YOU miss the obvious. SS is nothing more than a filter, to syphon off a portion of your money to others, so YOU end with less than you earned and less than if you invested it yourself.

SS is NOT an entitlement to people who put into it.
Only to anchors.

If you put into SS all your life, you are screwed by it.

If you never contributed to Social Security, you do not get a benefit. The amount of your benefit is based on the amount you contributed.

GameTheory
01-29-2011, 04:26 PM
By this can I assume if Obama does something which is contrary to something he previously said, your response will be "Who cares."? :eek:When was Ayn Rand ever president? Why should I care about her *personal* failings? It has nothing much to do with her ideas. I'm not even a fan of Rand, so I'm not sure where you're going here.

The issue is GameTheory's attitude. If he doesn't care about the integrity of Ayn Rand, then he can't care about the integrity of Barack Obama. You'll have to spell out that logic for me. Comparing Obama to Rand is totally arbitrary. So if I care about Obama's integrity (whom I haven't even mentioned, so I don't know how that became the issue), then I have to care about the integrity of every other living person? What are you talking about?

Whether the perceived cause of the lack of integrity is personal or public is irrelevant.Well, I think there is a huge, a colossal, difference between public and private, so you'll have to elaborate on just what your reasoning is here also.

johnhannibalsmith
01-29-2011, 04:26 PM
You're confused. Again. It's not about either Ayn Rand or Barack Obama. The issue is GameTheory's attitude. If he doesn't care about the integrity of Ayn Rand, then he can't care about the integrity of Barack Obama. Whether the perceived cause of the lack of integrity is personal or public is irrelevant.

WHAT?!?!? Nothing in this makes sense to me and yeah, I'll concede that I'm a significant factor in that issue, but holy hotsauce hamburgler.

mostpost
01-29-2011, 04:31 PM
No, we get it. YOU miss the obvious. SS is nothing more than a filter, to syphon off a portion of your money to others, so YOU end with less than you earned and less than if you invested it yourself.

SS is NOT an entitlement to people who put into it.
Only to anchors.

If you put into SS all your life, you are screwed by it.
Let's look at this statement. To keep things simple, let's say you earn $40,000 a year for 42 years (Age 20 to age 62.) The Social Security calculator tells us your monthly benefit is $1558 a month. Social Security tax is 6.2%. In forty two years you contributed $104,160. Divide $104,160 by $1558. You get 66.8.(That's months) That means in less than six years you have exhausted all the money you put into social security. You are one on the Anchors you are complaining about. :eek:

TrifectaMike
01-29-2011, 04:47 PM
No, we get it. YOU miss the obvious. SS is nothing more than a filter, to syphon off a portion of your money to others, so YOU end with less than you earned and less than if you invested it yourself.

SS is NOT an entitlement to people who put into it.
Only to anchors.

If you put into SS all your life, you are screwed by it.
Let's look at this statement. To keep things simple, let's say you earn $40,000 a year for 42 years (Age 20 to age 62.) The Social Security calculator tells us your monthly benefit is $1558 a month. Social Security tax is 6.2%. In forty two years you contributed $104,160. Divide $104,160 by $1558. You get 66.8.(That's months) That means in less than six years you have exhausted all the money you put into social security. You are one on the Anchors you are complaining about. :eek:

Your employer also contributed 6.2% in your name. Just a little missing fact..ehh!

Mike

Mike

mostpost
01-29-2011, 04:58 PM
Let's look at this statement. To keep things simple, let's say you earn $40,000 a year for 42 years (Age 20 to age 62.) The Social Security calculator tells us your monthly benefit is $1558 a month. Social Security tax is 6.2%. In forty two years you contributed $104,160. Divide $104,160 by $1558. You get 66.8.(That's months) That means in less than six years you have exhausted all the money you put into social security. You are one on the Anchors you are complaining about. :eek:

Your employer also contributed 6.2% in your name. Just a little missing fact..ehh!

Mike

Mike[/QUOTE]

OK> I will grant you that. Which changes the time you become an anchor from six years to twelve years. But here is another thing. The employer contributed in your name because he had to. It was required by law. Do you think, do you really think that the employer would add that contribution to your salary? Seriously? The contribution may have been in your name, but it was not your money.

johnhannibalsmith
01-29-2011, 05:04 PM
OK> I will grant you that. Which changes the time you become an anchor from six years to twelve years. ...

You subsidize yourself through your own contributions for 12 years rather than 6 after all, (hmmm.... avg lifespan ~ 77...) using your own argument and real facts instead of yours -- and you retaliate by declaring the anchorism is doubled which I don't grasp...

One of us is completely off it today.

boxcar
01-29-2011, 05:06 PM
Your employer also contributed 6.2% in your name. Just a little missing fact..ehh!

Mike

Mike

OK> I will grant you that. Which changes the time you become an anchor from six years to twelve years. But here is another thing. The employer contributed in your name because he had to. It was required by law. Do you think, do you really think that the employer would add that contribution to your salary? Seriously? The contribution may have been in your name, but it was not your money.[/QUOTE]

One thing we do know: Is that with SS, the employers will definitely include their SS contributions into their employment compensation policies and budgets and we can be dead certain that those contributions will never matched in our paychecks!

Boxcar

Spiderman
01-29-2011, 05:09 PM
By all means save it because when SS comes under attack -- when this reprobate government decides it's now time to pull the rug out from under the people -- when it decides to switch horses in mid stream -- when it pulls a bait and switch, then it will only prove my point on how corrupt politicians are.

SS was a VERY BAD IDEA from its inception that should never have happened. The whole concept should have found its way to an abortion clinic the minute the idea found verbal expression. :rolleyes: You know there are good reasons why Ponzi Schemes are outlawed out in the real world. :rolleyes:

I'm all all for it's total elimination, but it's demise must be orderly, gradual and structured in a way so that people who have paid into it for "x" years will be guaranteed that they'll get their money out. But that's not what is going to happen. We both know that. What's going to happen is that the government will screw the "little guy" it purports to love so much. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

I am calling you on the Ponzi Scheme concept that you keep spouting. Can you provide facts about contributions to SSA over a period of years and the payment to the individual?

There may be isolated instance where people have contributed for 30-40 years and unfortunately, pass before they can collect a penny. You can support your statement by securing data from SSA about a 25-year old in 1971 who is turning 66 in 2012. How much has the person contributed and much will they receive in monthly payment to the age of 80?

There would be infinite age differences and life expectancies. I will be interested in a median to satisfy your Ponzi Scheme claim. Just the facts.

BlueShoe
01-29-2011, 05:14 PM
Congratulations on being "Knucklehead of the Month" for January.
Were I to compete for that prize I would not even have a chance to finish in the money, you and Cappy would have the race sewed up, and would be a cinch to run one two in either order. The other libs on the forum would fill out the minor slots.

boxcar
01-29-2011, 05:17 PM
You're confused. Again. It's not about either Ayn Rand or Barack Obama. The issue is GameTheory's attitude. If he doesn't care about the integrity of Ayn Rand, then he can't care about the integrity of Barack Obama. Whether the perceived cause of the lack of integrity is personal or public is irrelevant.

You're becoming more dishonest than Hcap, daily. And trust me: That is saying A LOT!

This is what you wrote in #28:

By this can I assume if Obama does something which is contrary to something he previously said, your response will be "Who cares."? :eek:

Yes, it was about GT's attitude toward Rand, which is precisely why you tried to draw a parallel between what you perceive is Rand's lack of integrity and BO's integrity.

Secondly, as GT very ably pointed out already, your lame analogy implies that in order for anyone to be critical of the integrity of a public, elected official, then somehow we must also be critical of private person's personal decisions or actions. This is too absurd to even honor with anything but a cursory retort: As stated previously, Obama's decisions and actions can impact, for better or for worse, millions or even billions of people in the world. This is precisely why so many people pay so much attention to the president of the U.S. and, relatively speaking, could care less about the inconsequential Rand's of the world. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Stay away from analogies. Please.

Boxcar

boxcar
01-29-2011, 05:20 PM
I am calling you on the Ponzi Scheme concept that you keep spouting. Can you provide facts about contributions to SSA over a period of years and the payment to the individual?

There may be isolated instance where people have contributed for 30-40 years and unfortunately, pass before they can collect a penny. You can support your statement by securing data from SSA about a 25-year old in 1971 who is turning 66 in 2012. How much has the person contributed and much will they receive in monthly payment to the age of 80?

There would be infinite age differences and life expectancies. I will be interested in a median to satisfy your Ponzi Scheme claim. Just the facts.

Do you understand what a Ponzi Scheme is? Tell me in your own words what you think it is. And this subject has bandied about quite often during the years on this forum for your info.

Boxcar

Spiderman
01-29-2011, 05:30 PM
Do you understand what a Ponzi Scheme is? Tell me in your own words what you think it is. And this subject has bandied about quite often during the years on this forum for your info.

Boxcar

Oh, you're answering a question with a question? Ponzi Scheme is a fraudulent investment operation. Does that satisfy your interpretation?

Instead of subject being bandied about, show me the money. From all of the astute anti-government types, one should be able to find the facts to prove it is a fraudulent scheme.

Just the facts.

boxcar
01-29-2011, 05:42 PM
Oh, you're answering a question with a question? Ponzi Scheme is a fraudulent investment operation. Does that satisfy your interpretation?

Instead of subject being bandied about, show me the money. From all of the astute anti-government types, one should be able to find the facts to prove it is a fraudulent scheme.

Just the facts.

Hey, you wanna see the money? Get up off your lazy duff and do your own homework and quit expecting people to do it for you.

And furthermore, your short one-liner answer tells me all I have to know about your knowledge on the subject, which is Zero. Any moron can generalize by saying it's a "fraudulent investment operation". You obviously don't understand the key parallel mechanisms that exist between Ponzi's Scheme and SS. Admittedly, there a couple of differences, but those differences pale by comparison to the stronger and more fundamental similarities.

Do your OWN homework. Maybe for once in your life you'll actually accomplish something on your own over which to rightly feel proud.

Boxcar

Spiderman
01-29-2011, 05:47 PM
Hey, you wanna see the money? Get up off your lazy duff and do your own homework and quit expecting people to do it for you.

And furthermore, your short one-liner answer tells me all I have to know about your knowledge on the subject, which is Zero. Any moron can generalize by saying it's a "fraudulent investment operation". You obviously don't understand the key parallel mechanisms that exist between Ponzi's Scheme and SS. Admittedly, there a couple of differences, but those differences pale by comparison to the stronger and more fundamental similarities.

Do your OWN homework. Maybe for once in your life you'll actually accomplish something on your own over which to rightly feel proud.

Boxcar

It's your claim, not mine. You are alleging that SSA is a scheme to take money from citizens and give them less in return. Back it up with facts, just the facts.

Tom
01-29-2011, 06:09 PM
There would be infinite age differences and life expectancies. I will be interested in a median to satisfy your Ponzi Scheme claim. Just the facts.



Fact #1 - it is out of your control, therefore unfair.
Fact #2 - if you die and never collect, your family also loses. Unfair.
Fact # 3 - it is unsustainable without steal from our more productive citizens. Unfair.

boxcar
01-29-2011, 06:37 PM
It's your claim, not mine. You are alleging that SSA is a scheme to take money from citizens and give them less in return. Back it up with facts, just the facts.

And since you doubt this, you're the one who needs to do your homework, so as to convince yourself. And really when it comes right down to brass tacks...you don't need graphs and charts and tables and the rest. A scam is a scam is a scam no matter how you massage the numbers. Numbers only serve as a distraction from the real issue which is the fundamental structure of the plan. Johnathan Hoenig said it best on FNC back in May of last year:

“Social Security is, by definition, a Ponzi scheme. It is Bernie Madoff on the largest scale. They lock you up for things like this. There is no savings, there is no investment, there is no ownership, there is no account with your name on it. They’re just looting you today with the promise that they’re going to loot future generations on your behalf.”

In short, it's a Rob Peter-to-Pay Paul scam. All the major parallel components that Hoenig mentioned apply to any Ponzi Scheme and to SS. So, connect the dots.

Boxcar

TJDave
01-29-2011, 07:29 PM
Oh, you're answering a question with a question? Ponzi Scheme is a fraudulent investment operation. Does that satisfy your interpretation?

Instead of subject being bandied about, show me the money. From all of the astute anti-government types, one should be able to find the facts to prove it is a fraudulent scheme.

Just the facts.

"The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that Social Security will pay out $45 billion more in benefits this year than it will collect in payroll taxes, further straining the nation's finances. The deficits will continue until the Social Security trust funds are eventually drained, in about 2037."

Show ME the money.

WHERE are those trust funds...exactly? :rolleyes:

boxcar
01-29-2011, 07:31 PM
"The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that Social Security will pay out $45 billion more in benefits this year than it will collect in payroll taxes, further straining the nation's finances. The deficits will continue until the Social Security trust funds are eventually drained, in about 2037."

Show ME the money.

WHERE are those trust funds...exactly? :rolleyes:

They exist in delusional minds. :D

Boxcar
P.S. Heck...at this point, I'd even settle for a "lock box". :lol: :lol:

Spiderman
01-29-2011, 08:05 PM
They exist in delusional minds. :D

Boxcar
P.S. Heck...at this point, I'd even settle for a "lock box". :lol: :lol:


You know that the locked-box was broken into, using Social Security funds for other items. That was a violation. Yes, the SSA program needs tweaking to become whole. Reducing payroll taxes was a bad move by Obama and I am still up-in-arms about it.

Just the facts.

Spiderman
01-29-2011, 08:09 PM
"The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that Social Security will pay out $45 billion more in benefits this year than it will collect in payroll taxes, further straining the nation's finances. The deficits will continue until the Social Security trust funds are eventually drained, in about 2037."

Show ME the money.

WHERE are those trust funds...exactly? :rolleyes:

Think you should read your own statement.

boxcar
01-29-2011, 08:24 PM
You know that the locked-box was broken into, using Social Security funds for other items. That was a violation. Yes, the SSA program needs tweaking to become whole. Reducing payroll taxes was a bad move by Obama and I am still up-in-arms about it.

Just the facts.

Here's another fact you can toss into "fact"-laden grab bag of tricks: That "lock box" is the General Fund. :lol: :lol:

SS is on life support and you say it only needs "tweaking". You're funny! :lol:
This Ponzi Scheme needs to find the graveyard! Period.

Boxcar
P.S. I betha it would be very easy to find more than few shovel-ready workers to do the dastardly deed, too. :lol: :lol:

TJDave
01-29-2011, 11:34 PM
You know that the locked-box was broken into, using Social Security funds for other items. That was a violation.

There NEVER WAS or WILL BE a Social Security Trust Fund!

A fund needs to be funded.

It is a $4.652 trillion dollar accounting PARLOR TRICK and meets the classic definition of a PONZI SCHEME.

boxcar
01-29-2011, 11:54 PM
There NEVER WAS or WILL BE a Social Security Trust Fund!

A fund needs to be funded.

It is a $4.652 trillion dollar accounting PARLOR TRICK and meets the classic definition of a PONZI SCHEME.

In virtually every sense , it qualifies as a "classic" Ponzi Scheme. However, it lacks one very minor component -- that of a "promise of riches" by the government, which is something the con artists in the private sector always employ. However, having said this --there's still a lot of irony in the lack of such of promise because the irrefutable fact is that the earliest "investors" in SS truly reaped a windfall, since they paid so little into it. And this is how classic scams work in the private sector, also. The "first ins" are the "first outs" and receive relatively large rewards thanks to the investments of the "last ins", and this further feeds the greed and entices the early investors to invest even more. And so the cycle continues...until someone is caught in the private sector. But in the public domain, there's no such justice.

Boxcar

Tom
01-30-2011, 01:14 AM
Too fair to be a ponzi scheme - you can opt out of a ponzi scheme.
This is out and out robbery by organized crime - the US Government.

NJ Stinks
01-30-2011, 01:40 AM
However, having said this --there's still a lot of irony in the lack of such of promise because the irrefutable fact is that the earliest "investors" in SS truly reaped a windfall, since they paid so little into it.
Boxcar

Ever heard of inflation? :sleeping:

Tom
01-30-2011, 01:55 AM
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

hcap
01-30-2011, 07:44 AM
Speaking of good old Al, the genius (?) that invented the internet and told the world that we are doomed by global warming, wonder how large his air conditioning bill has been lately. What with one of the coldest winters on record, guess that Al is kind of laying low and not saying much.

About once a month, some knucklehead comes on one of these threads and says AL Gore claimed he invented the internet. Congratulations on being "Knucklehead of the Month" for January.

One more time. Al Gore never said he invented the internet. He said he took the initiative in creating the internet. The basis of the internet was an interconnected set of computers used by the military to connect different bases and facilities. Al Gore and others drafted legislation which transferred that infrastructure to civilian status and allowed everyone to connect to the network.
......The internet was originally funded by the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency—which had been created in the wake of Sputnik—and was based on packet switching technology invented by a professor at a public university.

Btw, this was in a way an outcome of the space race. Another example of how it started with sputnik and ended with the US landing on the moon.

Contrary to the latest gaffe from Einsteinian grade scholar Sarah Palin.

Tom
01-30-2011, 12:19 PM
Contrary to the latest gaffe from Eintseinian grade scholar Sarah Palin.

FTFY.

hcap
01-30-2011, 01:04 PM
As Palin put it so eloquently

"WTF?"

Tom
01-30-2011, 01:06 PM
The 46 Internet Dictionary spelling.

Hey, Sarah wants to make friends - she has a peace offering.

boxcar
01-30-2011, 01:14 PM
Ever heard of inflation? :sleeping:

You're clueless. What I wrote has nothing to do with inflation. Go back to sleep and try not to post anything again until you have something of substance to say.

Boxcar

boxcar
01-30-2011, 01:15 PM
As Palin put it so eloquently

"WTF?"

She's just expressing BO's sentiments. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar