Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's hard to take Newt seriously when he's such a lying hypocrite adulterer. He voted to establish the Department of Education, he supported TARP, he supported Cap and Trade, he flip flopped on the "Patriot" Act, he was a lobbyist, he made over a million dollars from Freddie Mac, he thinks the President has the dictatorial power to execute American citizens, and he thinks killing foreign scientists is a-okay so long as it's "deniable."
Newt Gingrich is NOT a conservative, he's a slimeball human being. He's disgusting even by Washington D.C. standards.
Medicare and Medicaid are the problem, not Social Security.
All of them are problems. Problems that we should be able to address. Instead, what we have are a bunch of people who scream bloody murder if you even mention that they're having problems.
To say Medicare is a problem and not Social Security is like saying the you've got head trauma, which we don't need to worry about, because your jugular is shooting out blood like Mt. St. Helens.
Of course though it's a ponzi scheme and it's un-Constitutional so it should be done away with anyway.
Okay Governor Perry, a ponzi scheme is a purposely fraudulent investment swindle that promises big investment returns and accounts with balances that collapses when there are no more new investors. It is designed to be benefit the few at the expense of many.
Social security is not an investment so has no promises of any returns, there are no account balances, and as long as people are born to grow up and enter the workforce there will always be new participants. It also isn't fraudulent as nobody is being misled (it says right on your annual statement that benefits are only an estimate and could change) and a payout has never been missed. It has already benefited many millions of people and will benefit many millions more.
Does SS need tweaking? Certainly. But that doesn't make this tired talking point about it being a ponzi scheme true.
If we do away with social security what do you plan on doing if people don't save up at money for retirement? Let them live like old people in third world countries under bridges?
Okay Governor Perry, a ponzi scheme is a purposely fraudulent investment swindle that promises big investment returns and accounts with balances that collapses when there are no more new investors. It is designed to be benefit the few at the expense of many.
Social security is not an investment so has no promises of any returns, there are no account balances, and as long as people are born to grow up and enter the workforce there will always be new participants. It also isn't fraudulent as nobody is being misled (it says right on your annual statement that benefits are only an estimate and could change) and a payout has never been missed. It has already benefited many millions of people and will benefit many millions more.
Does SS need tweaking? Certainly. But that doesn't make this tired talking point about it being a ponzi scheme true.
I use ponzi scheme as a shorthand for what SS really is: an unsustainable and un-Constitutional monstrosity ripe with moral hazard. It can't be sustained because requires new workers above replacement level. Our birth rates are declining and our population is getting older. There's not enough workers replacing the ones who are retiring, not to mention people are living longer so they are using SS for a lot longer than even FDR could have imagined. Also, the SS "trust fund" gets raided by politicians every chance they get.
People were misled when Social Security was instituted, I recommend reading about he history of the program, it's quite interesting. Basically it was sold as a kind of retirement "insurance" and people were led to believe, and many still do, that the money they pay in gets set aside for them in old age. The trick is that you and I are paying for retirees right now and in theory the younger generation will pay for us when the time comes. It's flawed though, as I have already pointed out, our birth rates are declining, not to mention we're in a sinking economy, people are living longer, and the baby boomers are retiring now. Don't get me started on SS Disability and other schemes that are bankrupting the system.
None of this really matters though, the question that cuts to the heart of the matter is, is it Constitutional? The answer is no. I know it's "old fashioned" to imagine upholding the Constitution as the law of the land but the Constitution has no expiration date that I'm aware of. It's just as much the law of the land today as it was 200 years ago.
Originally Posted by quality guy I don't care much for Gingrich....but I have to wonder how perfect are you? You write about Newt; ''What a waste of oxygen.'' ABOVE
That judgment coming from you, who tampered with, and twisted and distorted a post of mine Friday night, and when exposed..you finally confessed and admitted your guilt...although attempting to excuse yourself, rationalizing that I never post anything of substance. Well, regardless if I do or don't, maybe people will carefully examine how much 'substance' is involved in your commentary, and see if you may deserve the same scrutiny you are so quick to measure out to others? __________________________________________________ _______
Wow, like a slick, cunning politician, you take my point regarding you completely out of context...and attempt to judge me...Again. Well, I'm confident....wise people 'get it.'
As for now, I'm going step outside and see if I can recover my 'wasted oxygen.'
I'm confident very few "get" you because you talk a lot but never really say anything.
Yes. I'm voting for the one candidate who cares a lick about the Constitution, doesn't endorse torture, doesn't endorse murder, doesn't endorse aggressive wars, doesn't endorse un-Constitutional big government schemes, supports sound money, and cares about cutting spending.
I use ponzi scheme as a shorthand for what SS really is: an unsustainable and un-Constitutional monstrosity ripe with moral hazard.
Then you use the term incorrectly, as is your prerogative.
Quote:
It can't be sustained because requires new workers above replacement level. Our birth rates are declining and our population is getting older. There's not enough workers replacing the ones who are retiring, not to mention people are living longer so they are using SS for a lot longer than even FDR could have imagined.
Actually it has been demonstrated that relatively minor tweaks make is quite sustainable, including what you alluded to about adjustments to the retirement age.
Quote:
People were misled when Social Security was instituted, I recommend reading about he history of the program, it's quite interesting. Basically it was sold as a kind of retirement "insurance" and people were led to believe, and many still do, that the money they pay in gets set aside for them in old age.
How ss works is quite transparent, they explain it every year in a statement mailed out.
Quote:
It's flawed though, as I have already pointed out, our birth rates are declining, not to mention we're in a sinking economy, people are living longer, and the baby boomers are retiring now.
The United States does not have a negative replacement birth rate, and our population is projected to grow. Most estimates for worker/retiree ratio either level off or rise/fall slightly after 2030.
Quote:
None of this really matters though, the question that cuts to the heart of the matter is, is it Constitutional? The answer is no. I know it's "old fashioned" to imagine upholding the Constitution as the law of the land but the Constitution has no expiration date that I'm aware of.
This is just your opinion of course (the Supreme Court disagreed) and has no bearing at all on your incorrect regurgitation of the "ponzi scheme" talking point.
I know you are big on the "ruin doom impossible to fix" fear-mongering hand waving angle for most topics, but social security is far from some difficult to salvage program that will bankrupt us.
Currently, Social Security spending is about 4.8% of the GDP. This spending is estimated to rise to about 6.1% of the GDP by 2035 and will linger around 6% for the next fifty years after that. This is about a 27% increase in Social Security spending as a percentage of GDP. That’s not a small number, but it is a manageable one, especially when one considers that that period will witness the retirement of the Baby Boomers. If it gets its economic house in order, the US could conceivably afford to spend 6% of its GDP on Social Security for a very long time.
Moreover, due to reforms during the Reagan era, Social Security is more sustainable now than it used to be. According to the Congressional Research Service, the worker earning an average income who retired at 65 in 1980 drew out more in benefits than he had put in through taxes and accumulated interest in less than three years. An average 65-year-old retiring in 2002 would have to collect for almost 17 years for that to happen; the retirees of 2020 would have to collect for nearly 21 years to reach that point.
The entire $5.3 trillion shortfall over the next 75 years would be wiped out if payroll taxes were increased by 1.1 percentage points for both workers and employers. It would also disappear if Congress started taxing all wages, not just those below $106,800, said the Senate report, citing projections by the actuaries at the Social Security Administration.
On the benefits side, more than three-fourths of the shortfall would vanish if Congress reduced annual cost-of-living increases by 1 percentage point each year. Social Security recipients get annual increases based on inflation. This January, for the first time since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975, there was no increase because prices decreased last year.
About 23 percent of the shortfall would be gone if Congress gradually increased the age when retirees qualify for full benefits from 67 to 68. Nearly a third of the shortfall would disappear if the full retirement age were gradually increased to 70.
Also = what do you plan on doing if we follow your advice to get rid of social security then tens of millions of people start to reach old age with no savings?
You want Barack "welfare" Obama over someone who pushed the government for welfare reform and balanced budgets?
You people don't make any sense. You folks are like the Paul supporters who, if Paul can't win, mise well vote for Obama.
They're freaking polar opposites.
Newt might be the most liberal Republican but then again you're comparing them to people who want to throw 11 million people out of the country (Bachman); who want to really turn the government into a theocracy (Santorum); who don't know a lick about FP (Cain) and who makes no sense at all and just goes on the attack to hide the fact that he doesn't have a clue what he's doing (Perry).
We have a president who doesn't have a clue how to lead or negotiate with the other side (or is unwilling to), who is also derisive (and divisive) and how the hell is that working out? That's not a leader, that's a third world petty dictator...
And if all that doesn't matter to you, you're still behind Obama, then one last argument is to be had if you think Newt is corrupt. Obama is a Chicago Politician. Enough said... Home of corrupt politician flag factory.
Surely I've never made such a statement to want Obama. Newt may be a bright man but a President he is not. You my kind sir must do your research. If anything Cain would be your best shot, Santorum close second.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
