Comments on: Picking Apart the ‘Ponzi Scheme’: Is Rick Perry Right?

By: Rosita Stancombe

Rosita Stancombe — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:25:30 +0000

Interesting site, I will have to check out some of your other posts.

By: JT

JT — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:02:16 +0000

“For sure, it’s troubling that young taxpayers may not have Social Security benefits, but that’s not fraud, that’s a public debate,” Jackson continued.

Direct quote from the article. The problem is we’ve known for years that various administrations have raided the SS account to fund their pet/pork projects for years. The protestations of those paying into it (us) have gone ignored for decades. There is no way for us to NOT pay into SS, even when we KNEW the money would be stolen out of it to pay for pet/pork projects!!! We now have a SS account that is filled only with IOU’s from a gov’t that is broke because there are no more piggy banks left for them to raid.

At any other time when someone takes your money and doesn’t return it, it’s called a crime – theft. Except when the thief is that bastage Uncle Sam.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:31:52 +0000

Lets see, we are being paid our Social Security today, not be a return on any invested money, but from the contributions of others. Hmm. if they stop paying we stop collecting! Gosh, I sure hope the kids keep paying!

By: arkie vet

arkie vet — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:24:58 +0000

MR everyman–”" Well, a few of your ideas have merit, I have to give you that, but some fall short..
1.) If you subject all taxes to FICA, then you legally have to offer SSI benefits to all tax payers.. so it doesn’t really accomplish anything except make the system bigger.. Unless you are simply proposing STEALING money from wealthy people to pay for SSI without giving them any recompensation.. (I am sure Obama and the other wealth redistribution progressives would think this was a great idea..)
2.) raising the tax rate an additional 0.05% will do little.. remember it was 1% of $1400 when we started , now its 6.3% of 96,000..
3.) returnig the retirment age to 65 to “pump money back into the economy” is absolutely an abysmal idea.. Its going broke now.. returning the age to 65 will just break it faster.. remember that when it began, the average life expectancy was just over 69 (four years beyond the eligibility age of 65) Now, life expectancy is 79.. 12 years beyond the eligibility age of 67. the eligibility age does not need to be lowered, it needs to be RAISED to a minimum of 74 with the partial eligibility age going from 62 to 67… COLA should be suspended until the program is solvent and should only be raised when inflation meets a predetermed limit (ex: as long as inflation stays below 2%, then there is no cola..) Your last two points are spot on however, privatizing a portion in a protected (no loss fund) is the best way to move it from a completely government sponsored entitlement program to a self sustaining one with minimal risks to future recipients. (that was the corner stone of the Bush plan that congress shot down during his atttempts to privatize the program. Lastley i agree completely that it needs to be taken out of the general fund.. and congress should NOT be able to use the money for anything other than SS programs..

By: D.Coggin

D.Coggin — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:01:35 +0000

It’s funny to see these Attorney types in their delicate parsing of words…. Everyone knows it’s a ponzi scheme, except for the LIARS and THIEVES who control it. Kind of like a tax being called a fee. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, eats like a duck…. its a “waterfowl” to these FOOLS.

By: Mr Everyman

Mr Everyman — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 05:32:46 +0000

Social Security can be given continuing strength by: 1. make all income subject to the FICA taxes (no cap). This will cover 99% of any shortfall. 2. raise the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 6.7% to build the reserve fund. 3. return the retirement age to 65 retroactively. This pumps money back into the economy that is needed right now. 4. return the Social Security COLA formula to the best paying one, for the same reason as #3. 5. ADD (and only add) a mandatory 2% to 3% IRA style account to the Soc. Sec. program. This private sector componant may pay well (up markets) or $0.00 (down markets) and cannot be withdrawn or loaned against. 6. return the Social Security fund to being independent of the general budget. This reverses what President Lyndon Johnson approved and, stops politicians dipping paws into the honey jar. 7. set-up a separate tax for catagories of people (immigrants) who never paid into a participating Social Security system.
The above should repair the Social Security system for an additional century.

By: Chip Daigle

Chip Daigle — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 06:07:05 +0000

Rick Perry is Right – It is a Ponzi scheme. It wasn’t designed like that but when people started living longer it became out of balance that will eventually crash. We need to quit demogoguing the issue and start talking about something to bring the program back into balance. Even Chris Mathews called it a Ponzi Scheme. The most fair and balanced solution is to move the Retirement age back a couple of years. The worst thing we can do is to cut SS Contributions of the Employees by 50% which would cut the total funds coming into SS by 25%

By: JSB

JSB — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 19:44:24 +0000

At least 20 years ago I recognized social security as a fraud and wrote a letter to my local newspaper. The essence of my letter was that social security has been presented as an insurance program. Insurance companies take your premiums and invest them to make sure they will have enough money to pay eventual claims. Social security taxes were not invested, they were spent. If an insurance company did the same thing the executives would be sent to prison and the company forced into bankruptcy. Unfortunately the government employees will not be sent to prison for same kind of chicanery. If Nancy Altman did not recognize it as a fraud 20 years ago she wasn’t paying attention.

By: Eddie

Eddie — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:14:19 +0000

Perry is right, in the beginning there were some 159 covered workers per retiree, today it is less than three workers. The so-called trust fund is a drawer of IOUs that we are paying the interest on, and will be paying the principal as they are cashed in. When the CBO calculates the final year of solvency it fails to reveal the IOU situation. Of course the money cannot be kept in a vault as inflation would erode it, however the reason I say it is a fraud is that the vast majority of the people I discuss SS with haven’t the vaguest idea of the facts. Most fall into the government stole it category not realizing the truths I state above.

By: Fed UP

Fed UP — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:40:26 +0000

So something that people paid into is a scheme? Perry, what is your problem?

I always knew that they were trying to do away with the middle class and the poor and here’s solid proof.