Skip to main content

Generational Warfare

You know, like Social Security.

Social Security implodes, politicians and retirees surprised

Submitted by bsfootprint on Sat, 09/10/2011 - 09:36
bsfootprint's picture
Social Security Implodes, Politicians and Retirees Surprised

When Social Security implodes, it seems that only politicians and retirees will be surprised.

Well, OK, the kneepad media will feign surprise, too.

I suppose they'll be shocked, SHOCKED! when it happens. We'll hear the familiar cries: Why didn't someone warn us?

Then the finger-pointing will begin in earnest. Where did the money go? Was it the conservatives politicians? Was it the liberal politicians?

Got news for ya, buddy. It was just about all of them. At worst, they took part in the scam. At best, they looked the other way. Even the few who tried to warn you had to back away from dealing with Social Security, the third rail of American politics.

Filed under
  • Login to post comments
  • Share this

Quote:  “The beauty about [Social Security] is that it is actuarially unsound. Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privileges that far exceed anything he has paid in.” – Paul Samuelson

Submitted by bsfootprint on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 22:06
bsfootprint's picture

Economist Paul Samuelson, supporting and defending Social Security in his February 13, 1967 Newsweek column tells us without reservation: Social Security is indeed a Ponzi scheme.

Samuelson acknowledges:

  • Social Security depends on continual growth of younger workers joining the workforce to pay current recipients, and
  • Social Security recipients are paid benefits far in excess of anything they pay in during their working years.

Don't believe me? Here's a snippet from the book Social security: false consciousness and crisis By John Attarian:

Um.. what happens when the population is no longer growing? What happens when the taxable base upon which benefits rest is no longer greater than taxes paid historically by the generation now retired...?

I'd tell you but you'd probably hate me.

Via: Ed Driscoll.

Quote: 

The beauty about social insurance is that it is actuarially unsound. Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privileges that far exceed anything he has paid in. And exceed his payments by more than ten times as much (or five times, counting employer payments)!

How is this possible? It stems from the fact that the national product is growing at compound interest and can be expected to do so as far ahead as the eye cannot see. Always there are more youths than old folks in a growing population. More important, with real incomes growing at some 3 per cent per year, the taxable base upon which benefits rest in any period are much greater than the taxes paid historically by the generation now retired...

Social security is squarely based on what has been called the eighth wonder of the world—compound interest. A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived. And that is a fact, not a paradox.

Who Said It?: 
Paul Samuelson
Quote Source Links: 
http://books.google.com/books?id=zBQ0BzYdtiUC&pg=PA27&dq=%22the+beauty+about+social+insurance%22+samuelson
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2011/09/08/the-beauty-of-social-insurance-is-that-it-is-actuarially-unsound/
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/ponzi_scheme_pedigree.html
Filed under

Ponzi was an amateur

Submitted by bsfootprint on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 14:04
bsfootprint's picture
FDR: Ponzi was an Amateur

Charles Ponzi couldn't hold a candle to the creators of the long con chain-letter pyramid scheme known as Social Security.

Look: If a program requires ever-expanding numbers of new contributors at the bottom to keep the payouts coming to those at the top, it's a pyramid scheme, a Ponzi scheme, a chain-letter, a generational transfer scheme, a welfare program, or any number of other things, but it's not insurance, it's not an investment, it's not a retirement plan, and it's not a bank account. And because 'contributions' (taxes) are mandatory for most people, it's financial rape under color of authority. Got it?

When Social Security collapses, will anyone end up behind bars? Can we exhume FDR and try him for fraud? How about all the other politicians since then who talk about the phantasmagorical Social Security 'trust fund' or 'lock box'? (The only thing there is a pile of IOUs -- more debt.)


Update1

Rick Santelli hands it to Tom Friedman:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000044440

Via: market-ticker.org

Update2

Here's a great quote from a liberal, Nobel prize-winning economist, acknowledging the Ponzi-ness of Social Security quoted in a book titled Social security: false consciousness and crisis:

The beauty of social insurance is that it is actuarially unsound. Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privileges that far exceed anything he has paid in... A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi scheme ever contrived. And that is a fact, not a paradox.

(Emphasis mine)

So: According to Paul Sameulson, defending Social Security... it is actuarially unsound and retirees receive benefit privileges far in excess of anything they have paid in.

Yup. It's a Ponzi scheme, a pyramid scheme, a generational transfer, it's welfare, or all of them. Get over it.


Sources: 
Rick Santelli Tells Arch Globalization Advocate Friedman He Is An Idiot (www.zerohedge.com)
Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry (It's worse!) (reason.com)
Social security: false consciousness and crisis (books.google.com)
Ponzi Scheme Pedigree (www.americanthinker.com)
Filed under

Obama admits there is no Social Security "trust fund"

Submitted by bsfootprint on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 14:07
bsfootprint's picture

No money to pay Social Security checks?

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Obama told "CBS Evening News" anchor Scott Pelley

If there's a trust fund, why wouldn't there be any "money in the coffers"?

It's hiliarious–politicians of all stripes talk about a Social Security "trust fund" that's "fully funded" when it suits them, and they say there's no money whenever it furthers the narrative.

Here's Harry Reid lying to reassuring us that the Social Security system is "fully funded for 40 years" and that "the arithmetic works":




High-stakes comedy!

The money's there, the system works, it's fully funded! Except it's not. If you won't let us take on additional debt, we might not be able to send out Social Security checks.

President Obama said, in effect, that if we don't raise the debt limit, there may not be any money to send out Social Security checks. Note to Democrats: Pick one story and stick to it, ok?

There is no money. There never was. It was always a pay-as-you-go, generational transfer Ponzi scheme. The FedGov taxes workers (or borrows money) to pay your Social Security benefits.

Now that the boomers are hitting retirement age, it all goes downhill from here. Continue reading or add a comment»

Sources: 
The Myth of Social Security (tammybruce.com)
Obama: Debt-limit impasse could halt Social Security checks (www.latimes.com)
Harry Reid: 'The Arithmetic on Social Security Works' -- 'It's Not in Crisis' (videocafe.crooksandliars.com)
Social Security is NOT At Risk On Debt Ceiling (market-ticker.org)
Filed under

Leaderless and loving it

Submitted by bsfootprint on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 06:28
bsfootprint's picture

Charles Hugh Smith's must-read post The Shape of Things To Come reminded me of one of my pet peeves.

Among other things, Smith talks about the dismal state of leadership in America:

The weakness of what passes for "leadership" today is not just a matter of bad luck but of the corruption of politics to the point that it only attracts sycophants, moral midgets and sociopaths. It's easy to blame those attracted to the game for this, but the real cause is the American people, who reject honesty in favor of artifice and promises. The American public is child-like, self-centered, myopic, ill-informed and ultimately uncaring about anything but getting their share of the swag.

Thus anyone who promises that their share of the swag will remain untouched wins, and anyone who suggests the swag is unsustainable is rejected as "judgmental" or "negative." To the degree a nation gets the leadership it demands, then the U.S. is in trouble. We're now a nation of spoiled teens who get to elect their parents. No surprise, the 'rents who never enforce any rules, never challenge their own bosses (the kleptocrats) and who dole out the most allowance win every time.

Thus we get leaders who refuse to challenge the Financial Power Elites, cartels and fiefdoms because the Status Quo would devote all its stupendous wealth and influence to defeating a challenger, and we get leaders who refuse to be honest with the American people because that honesty is rejected as unwelcome.

Ideally, a leader persuades the public to grow up rather than pander to their basest desires, but such a leader would only have one term of office.

Smith is spot-on in his analysis of the relationship, as well as the childlike character of the American voting public.

But this raises a critical issue.

Adults don't need leaders.

Read that again. Adults don't need leaders.

Do you disagree? Why?

Adults don't need leaders. As far as government is concerned, they need, at most, representatives. (Why we need representatives is a subject for another day.)


Which is why leaders don't encourage (or insist on) adult behavior from the electorate. Why would they? As Smith pointed out, they'd not last long in today's climate. But they also know that they'd be mostly unnecessary, because adults don't need leaders.

Why do people talk and act as if they need to be led somewhere? Are they helpless children? Do they want to be helpless children? Or mindless cattle?

The public clamor for leadership has led us to our present situation. We have been led to the brink of economic catastrophe by leaders who promised to take care of us, who promised to make it all better, if only we'd entrust them with our financial and physical well-being.

The promises were empty lies. All of them. They knew they couldn't take care of you. They knew they couldn't make it all better. They knew they could get more votes, and thus be elected and re-elected, if they continued assuring us that they would make some other people pay for our prosperity and security. Guess what? We almost always pay. And when we don't, it's our offspring who will pay.

I don't want to be led anywhere. I can find my own way. And I suspect that, if you reflect on it for a while, you'll feel the same way.

I'm leaderless and loving it.

Update1

Linked at Doug Ross @ Journal - Thanks!

Filed under