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.
if you don't want to use standards of today that's one thing. he didn't make some disparaging comments about Japanese people- he locked them in jail and stole their businesses.Sorry that's not something you can just dismiss so easily.
He robbed the American people of their gold- no time period ever makes this acceptable.
You talked about civil rights for blacks when he did way more harm than good so you bringing up civil right for blacks was absurd. His policies led to more segregation not less.
I already agreed with you that his banking policies were mostly good. I don't know why you're mentioning them again and arguing with me on something we agree on.
Of course social security is a forced ponzi scheme. What about it isn't a ponzi scheme?Without new money coming in (which is forced) it completely collapses on its own. It's bleeding money despite the fact we now pay way more into it percentage wise than people did when it started.
And the bigger topper- the economy was AWFUL for the duration of his presidency.And he was a 3+ term president not some one term guy with bad luck. Sorry but you can't be a president for over 12 years, always have a terrible economy and reasonably be considered a good president. People were living in those Hoovervilles you mentioned for so long because of the awful economy.By the "standards of the day" a ton of people were starving and homeless.Despite people starving he had farmers not only destroy food in an effort to drive up food prices- but that didn't even work. By the "standards of the day" that's deplorable.
The eldery were not a large percentage of hoovervilles in any disproportionate way.In fact they were overwhelmingly male immigrants.
SS is only a Ponzi if our elected officials allow it. Otherwise our monetarily sovereign federal gov't along with its central bank can meet ANY SS payment at any time.
The New Deal didn't go far enough. If we're going to do something similar, go balls to the wall with it. I keep hearing rumors of repatriations that include over $300K for each black. Go for half of that and we'll be talkin'.
Of course social security is a forced ponzi scheme. What about it isn't a ponzi scheme?Without new money coming in (which is forced) it completely collapses on its own. It's bleeding money despite the fact we now pay way more into it percentage wise than people did when it started.
Do you know anything about Charles Ponzi? He was a swindler with two felony convictions before his infamous swindle in the early 1920's.
In 1920 he promised investors in a securities firm that that he would double their money in 90 days or increase it by half in 45 days. Yet, before the end of 1920 he was busted because his fraudulent scheme imploded. He spent 14 years on prison.
Why is Social Security not a Ponzi Scheme:
1. Unlike a fraudulent secretive Ponzi scheme, Social Security’s finances are transparent to the public, as required by law including detailed annual reports.
2. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. Current contributors pay for current beneficiaries. It transfers income from the current generation of workers to the current generation of retirees.
3. It does not require a doubling of participants every time a payment is made to a current beneficiary or a geometric increase in the number of participants
4. The program has been running for 80 years with no issues. Congress has adjusted and revised the program over eighty years ago to account for funding levels, number of retirees, etc. and there is every reason to believe it will do so as necessary in the future.
Why is Social Security not a Ponzi Scheme:
[...]
4. The program has been running for 80 years with no issues. Congress has adjusted and revised the program over eighty years ago to account for funding levels, number of retirees, etc. and there is every reason to believe it will do so as necessary in the future.
It’s been managed so well that it will be cash flow negative in less than a decade. The only program in worse shape is Medicare.
It’s been managed so well that it will be cash flow negative in less than a decade. The only program in worse shape is Medicare.
And both can be centrally supported with any amount of new money so that they never have a problem. More people might understand this after the federal gov't and Fed are done with this recession.
Do you know anything about Charles Ponzi? He was a swindler with two felony convictions before his infamous swindle in the early 1920's.
In 1920 he promised investors in a securities firm that that he would double their money in 90 days or increase it by half in 45 days. Yet, before the end of 1920 he was busted because his fraudulent scheme imploded. He spent 14 years on prison.
Why is Social Security not a Ponzi Scheme:
1. Unlike a fraudulent secretive Ponzi scheme, Social Security’s finances are transparent to the public, as required by law including detailed annual reports.
2. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. Current contributors pay for current beneficiaries. It transfers income from the current generation of workers to the current generation of retirees.
3. It does not require a doubling of participants every time a payment is made to a current beneficiary or a geometric increase in the number of participants
4. The program has been running for 80 years with no issues. Congress has adjusted and revised the program over eighty years ago to account for funding levels, number of retirees, etc. and there is every reason to believe it will do so as necessary in the future.
Yes I've read a lot about Charles Ponzi actually.
And I stand by my statement that it's a forced Ponzi scheme.
The rates of return have nothing to do with the fact it's a ponzi scheme.
A ponzi scheme does not mean you have to literally promise the same rates that Charles Ponzi did.
Bernie Madoff ran a ponzi scheme for over 30 years before he got caught specifically because he didn't promise the outlandish rates of returns that Charles Ponzi did.
Just because it's the government that forces me to give them my money for something I don't remotely wish to be a part of does not mean it isn't fraudulent.
The bolded point in particular is laughable.
Last edited by djohnslaw; 06-13-2020 at 11:26 AM..
Yes I've read a lot about Charles Ponzi actually.
And I stand by my statement that it's a forced Ponzi scheme.
The rates of return have nothing to do with the fact it's a ponzi scheme.
A ponzi scheme does not mean you have to literally promise the same rates that Charles Ponzi did.
Bernie Madoff ran a ponzi scheme for over 30 years before he got caught specifically because he didn't promise the outlandish rates of returns that Charles Ponzi did.
Just because it's the government that forces me to give them my money for something I don't remotely wish to be a part of does not mean it isn't fraudulent.
The bolded point in particular is laughable.
Your impression does not reflect the realities of modern fiat.
You/we do not need to be taxed to fund SS. Any future shortcomings can be centrally created.
So SS would be a Ponzi only if our elected officials remain without more knowledge of modern fiat.
Granted we could run into trouble if future seniors are so flush with cash due to SS that they buy up all available goods and services, and our younger folks can no longer afford them. But then we know we went too far...
Yes I've read a lot about Charles Ponzi actually.
And I stand by my statement that it's a forced Ponzi scheme.
The rates of return have nothing to do with the fact it's a ponzi scheme.
A ponzi scheme does not mean you have to literally promise the same rates that Charles Ponzi did.
Bernie Madoff ran a ponzi scheme for over 30 years before he got caught specifically because he didn't promise the outlandish rates of returns that Charles Ponzi did.
Just because it's the government that forces me to give them my money for something I don't remotely wish to be a part of does not mean it isn't fraudulent.
The bolded point in particular is laughable.
The rates of return are relevant in that both Ponzi's and Madoof's schemes eventually failed. I never meant to infer you had to promise a return of "X" to quality as a Ponzi scheme.
But the point stands that even Madoff's scam eventually fell when the market tanked because it was an actual scam.
By contrast, Social Security has an 80 year track record and is based in transparency. Ponzi and Madoof were both scam artists who would up in prison. Nothing you can spin will change that.
We're not going to learn anything because there isn't the political will to do so.
The correct way to have handled stimulus is to give everyone a certain UBI, then claw back some of that on their 2020 taxes next year. Claw back everything for the $250K+ filers. Claw back some for most folks over $100k outside of the highest COL areas. Chain the clawback proviso to local incomes and COL. My rate of pay in TN is not equivalent to the same salary in SF - claw back more from me. You avoid the front-loaded administrative overhead that way.
The problem with chaining this year's aid to last year's income is that the layoffs are so fast-moving that there is no guarantee that last year's high earner isn't sitting broke on his ass today. Money needs to be gotten into the hands of as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
We've missed the boat on this. The government effectively terminated the livelihoods of tens of millions of people, then failed to backstop them on wages and even make them on whole in a timely manner on benefits like UI for which they otherwise qualified.
Given the current political environment, I expect no further relief for individual taxpayers, or even small businesses and state/local governments.
The rates of return are relevant in that both Ponzi's and Madoof's schemes eventually failed. I never meant to infer you had to promise a return of "X" to quality as a Ponzi scheme.
But the point stands that even Madoff's scam eventually fell when the market tanked because it was an actual scam.
By contrast, Social Security has an 80 year track record and is based in transparency. Ponzi and Madoof were both scam artists who would up in prison. Nothing you can spin will change that.
Social Security started at 1 percent and now it's 6.2 percent from both the employer and employee. If they left it at 1 percent it would have long ago completely collapsed. If people weren't forced to contribute it would completely collapse. If Madoff could have forced people to cough up 12.4 percent of their salaries he could have kept his scam going too. Eventually SS going to completely collapse. Maybe it will be after 100 years. Maybe after 120 but it's definitely going to collapse. Honestly Madoff keeping his scam going for 30 years is far more impressive than SS going for 80.
Madoff and Ponzi ended up in prison because what they did was illegal. The gov't saying something is legal doesn't make it sustainable or not a scam. It absolutely is Ponziish in nature.
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.
