@blankfist you have a unique talent for packing a huge number of factual errors and logical fallacies into so few words.

SS is solvent for 50 years according to every study done by organizations without a particular political axe to grind.

The commitment of SS is still on the books, and I fully intend to make sure that people like yourself don't try to force the government to break it.

People who put their money in 401k or IRA's and retired in the last few years lost their shirts, while their social security checks kept coming on time.

As for a Ponzi scheme, that's when you offer an investment that gives an impossibly high return (15% or something higher), and you pay the dividends with the money from new people coming into the system. It's completely unsustainable, because you've committed to a permanent, compounding return, and there's always going to be a finite number of new customers you can attract.

In social security, you're giving a fixed benefit to people until they die, while every new entrant to the workforce is automatically going to pay into the system. It does need some tweaking of the benefit/tax balance from time to time if you have population growth spikes (or crashes), but you have 65 years to deal with the problem before it becomes a crisis.

You'd only need major changes if something drastic happened, like someone inventing a longevity treatment that suddenly raised life expectancy from 75 to 375, or if a virus rendered 75% of the population infertile. Even so, the system could be rebalanced to deal even with extreme scenarios like those.

The only real threat to its stability is a political movement that seeks to break the system, either directly by phasing it out, or indirectly by refusing any attempt to raise taxes to maintain the commitment.

The myth is SS is solvent for the next 50 years. The truth is its solvent only because government can tax to be so. And that's where SS apologists claim it's not a Ponzi scheme, because there's no promise of a return on investment (as in, you pay us but we have zero obligation to pay you.).

What gives the government the ability to tax you now to pay others yet gives them zero obligation to give you a return on your investment? Nothing except that it's welfare. It should be an investment into your retirement, but it's not. Why specifically?

Because the government has no obligations to its people, which has been proven in US Supreme Court cases. So, technically is it a Ponzi scheme? Not if you're not guaranteed a return on your investment. That just makes it theft at the barrel of the gun, doesn't it?

It is a Ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.

Why do Ponzi schemes collapse?
With little or no legitimate earnings, the schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue.

The government is taking your money and handing it out to those currently on social security. The scheme continues only if there is more money going to the system than going out.


Unfortunately The baby boomers are starting to hit retirement and there will not be enough suckers (you the young) to keep it going and it will collapse unless the elected bet some balls and fix it.


Netrunner don't even bother posting your "there shit loads of money in the SS fund. The sky is blue and all is ok"


The fund is empty everyone knows it. Everyone under 50 pretty much know that they will get the shaft.

The bottom line is that both parties have have been more interested in themselves than the people. They would rather see they system derail than truly look at fixing it.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I'd be more comfortable with this story if the dude was being charged with some sort of fraud, but he's charged with rape. Rape is unconsensual sex and that is not what transpired here. She gave apparently consent before and during; it can't be withdrawn retroactively.
If she wanted that sort of guarantee then she should have had a lawyer draw up a contract.
I hope I misunderstood your example of a girl passing out while drinking. Someone who is unconscious can't consent so I don't see how that could not be rape. If she was just really trashed, gave consent and later regretted it, I'd agree that's not rape. The guy is probably a scumbag, but he's in the clear legally.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
One last thought; if you disagree with me I will agree with you so long as you answer one question.
If fraud is a crime---say you make a ponzi scheme---because you lie and cheat people out of a commodity, then why is it not fraud (at least) cheating people out of a commodity known as sex through lies? Sex is the oldest commodity after all...
Too, fraud is nothing but a lie. No actual stealing happens... So fraud is BS? Or is there a special exception?
Prove to me that fraud is a crime because of more than just a lie and being a cheat, and I will agree that this is not a crime either.



Of course it is rape to have sex with a passed out person because consent can only based off expectations relative of why you are engaging in the act. Remember, in Israel, rape by deception is not technically rape. It is more fraud based than that. It is a different culture.

My strongest argument is; is it consent when the sex is based on critically false notions?

Thanks for the better argument out of everyone! I agree that your way is much more acurate than all the other people who accept lying as just another day in the hood.

Oh---and it is rape even when "consent" is given by a really trashed person. Of course that only applies to females, mind you. But what can you do?

>> ^Sniper007:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since May 3rd, 2010" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw">Lawdeedaw
Lying is only a crime if you are required at the moment to tell the truth. Many people speak falsities all throughout their days. Unless you are under a perpetual admonition to speak the truth, there is no crime. Laws do exist which place such admonitions, and thus, turn all lies into crimes. However these Laws stem from Biblical origins and are thus rejected out of hand by most.
For American Jurisprudence, a lie is only a crime if you've sworn you're word that it's the truth. Like, on the witness stand. Or, in a contract. Which is one reason why some people sign a CONTRACT before they have SEX. So they have something in writing that they can use to prosecute any offender(s). Most marriage contracts have these terms in them.
I'd agree with you in that it's a crime to lie. But a lie is not a rape.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
One last thought; if you disagree with me I will agree with you so long as you answer one question.
If fraud is a crime---say you make a ponzi scheme---because you lie and cheat people out of a commodity, then why is it not fraud (at least) cheating people out of a commodity known as sex through lies? Sex is the oldest commodity after all...
Too, fraud is nothing but a lie. No actual stealing happens... So fraud is BS? Or is there a special exception?
Prove to me that fraud is a crime because of more than just a lie and being a cheat, and I will agree that this is not a crime either.



Yes, you are correct. However, the answer to that is simple; if the laws were changed to make it illegal, then that would make the argument moot. I still like your answer best of all because it addresses a point I did not think about.

I'd be more comfortable with this story if the dude was being charged with some sort of fraud, but he's charged with rape. Rape is unconsensual sex and that is not what transpired here. She gave apparently consent before and during; it can't be withdrawn retroactively.

If she wanted that sort of guarantee then she should have had a lawyer draw up a contract.

I hope I misunderstood your example of a girl passing out while drinking. Someone who is unconscious can't consent so I don't see how that could not be rape. If she was just really trashed, gave consent and later regretted it, I'd agree that's not rape. The guy is probably a scumbag, but he's in the clear legally.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

One last thought; if you disagree with me I will agree with you so long as you answer one question.

If fraud is a crime---say you make a ponzi scheme---because you lie and cheat people out of a commodity, then why is it not fraud (at least) cheating people out of a commodity known as sex through lies? Sex is the oldest commodity after all...
Too, fraud is nothing but a lie. No actual stealing happens... So fraud is BS? Or is there a special exception?
Prove to me that fraud is a crime because of more than just a lie and being a cheat, and I will agree that this is not a crime either.

>> ^NetRunner:

Revisionist history would be declaring that the economic crisis was caused by interest rates, housing subsidies, or "propping up" the housing industry, and not about a bunch of greedy banks building themselves a de facto ponzi scheme.

You know why you don't? Because a) nothing about this crisis disproves anything about New Keynesian economics, and b) because apparently you consider criticism about how regulators didn't enforce the laws on the books to not be criticism.


It can't be the fault of the banks AND the bad policies of the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve? Then, you sir, lose. Good day.

@Lawdeedaw

Lying is only a crime if you are required at the moment to tell the truth. Many people speak falsities all throughout their days. Unless you are under a perpetual admonition to speak the truth, there is no crime. Laws do exist which place such admonitions, and thus, turn all lies into crimes. However these Laws stem from Biblical origins and are thus rejected out of hand by most.

For American Jurisprudence, a lie is only a crime if you've sworn you're word that it's the truth. Like, on the witness stand. Or, in a contract. Which is one reason why some people sign a CONTRACT before they have SEX. So they have something in writing that they can use to prosecute any offender(s). Most marriage contracts have these terms in them.

I'd agree with you in that it's a crime to lie. But a lie is not a rape.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

One last thought; if you disagree with me I will agree with you so long as you answer one question.

If fraud is a crime---say you make a ponzi scheme---because you lie and cheat people out of a commodity, then why is it not fraud (at least) cheating people out of a commodity known as sex through lies? Sex is the oldest commodity after all...
Too, fraud is nothing but a lie. No actual stealing happens... So fraud is BS? Or is there a special exception?
Prove to me that fraud is a crime because of more than just a lie and being a cheat, and I will agree that this is not a crime either.

One last thought; if you disagree with me I will agree with you so long as you answer one question.


If fraud is a crime---say you make a ponzi scheme---because you lie and cheat people out of a commodity, then why is it not fraud (at least) cheating people out of a commodity known as sex through lies? Sex is the oldest commodity after all...

Too, fraud is nothing but a lie. No actual stealing happens... So fraud is BS? Or is there a special exception?

Prove to me that fraud is a crime because of more than just a lie and being a cheat, and I will agree that this is not a crime either.

>> ^blankfist:

I'm NOT defending the banks, but this smacks of revisionist history, because no one is talking about manipulated interest rates, housing subsidies, and propping up the housing industry influenced the bubble inflation and bursting.

Revisionist history would be declaring that the economic crisis was caused by interest rates, housing subsidies, or "propping up" the housing industry, and not about a bunch of greedy banks building themselves a de facto ponzi scheme.

>> ^blankfist:
This is what scares me about Obama. Because he's president now, he is incapable of making any substantial critique of the government's failings in our economy. Sure, he may point the finger at Bush, which is an easy target, but never do you hear anyone from his administration discuss the failures of the Federal Reserve's egregious financial dick-fingering and the Keynesian model altogether.


You know why you don't? Because a) nothing about this crisis disproves anything about New Keynesian economics, and b) because apparently you consider criticism about how regulators didn't enforce the laws on the books to not be criticism.

>> ^brain:
I hate this video. She seems to have some good points here and there, but most of it seems like total propaganda to make you hate cap and trade.

Occasionally she gets a bit too dismissively pessimistic, but ultimately she's not saying that cap & trade as envisioned wouldn't work, she's mostly saying that the same evil companies and their lobbyists are getting things put into the existing legislation that will make it meaningless, and possibly worse than meaningless.

For example, I knew about the giveaway part, but I didn't know you could get credits for offsets. They either need to kill that, or regulate the crap out of it.

That's where the new Ponzi scheme will come from -- fake carbon offsets.

This site would be so much more pleasant if it wasn't completely overwhelmed by 16 year old liberal nutjobs like Nithern who haven't done enough research to realize that both Dems and Repubs have been complete fiscal retards for a really long time. Nithern, you bring up the old Clinton surplus myth. Read this:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

If you can't understand it, let me break it down for you: there was never a surplus under Clinton. Ever. There are two parts of the national debt. Imagine you're a household and you have a mortgage and credit card debt. You take out a second mortage on your home and pay down some of your credit card debit. Home debt goes up, credit card debt goes down. Then you go all over the city and tell people you reduced your credit card debt! Whee! You don't tell them you went deeper into debt elsewhere in order to do it. Do you realize how ridiculous of an accomplishment this is?

Moreover, Social Security payments are adjusted for the CPI. The CPI is the government's way of calculating rises in the cost of living. In the 90s, the Boskin commission was formed to look for "bias" in the way the CPI was calculated. Let me translate that for you: hey guys, we need reduce Social Security obligations without anyone noticing by subjectively omitting certain price increases, thereby artificially lowering the CPI against which SS payments are adjusted.

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html

Perhaps there is no accurate measure for the underemployed, but discouraged workers (jobless for over a year) are no longer counted when they used to be prior to the Clinton admin. It's a goofy new category created to intentionally make the number look more timid that historical numbers and nothing more. Both the CPI and the way unemployment are calculated changed during the Clinton administration as short term "fixes" of problems that need real solutions that no citizen is ever going to vote for. So if you think Clinton solved jack shit fiscally, I've got news for you: we're going to need something 100x more potent. And it won't happen, because people are retards like you. Think about it. You bitch about the Iraq war, and rightfully so, but before you were born the Democrats started a useless little war called "Vietnam" that led to Nixon severing our currency's last link to gold. Oh, and we lost about 50k soldiers. Which is sad, because you can always count on communism to fail by itself, which is exactly what happened after we pulled out.

You cry about the lack of Republican regulation. We need more regulation like we need a hole in the head. You don't even know what the word means, it's just some magical decree for officiating infractions in a game that can't exist without "subsidy fever". I mean, there's laws against stealing and killing and defrauding, and then there's handing out free money while impossibly trying to stop people from gambling with it. People's hope for gain is NORMALLY offset by their fear of loss. That goes out the window in an economy where anyone can borrow foreign money cheaply for a depreciating asset that they're convinced is an infinitely appreciating piggy bank. It goes out the window WITHIN the government, because politicians are by nature operating with money it appropriated rather than labored for. A "GSE" like Fannie and Freddie need way more regulation that any bankruptcy-fearing company.

Moreover, no one cares what bank they give their money because all bank deposits are insured by the FDIC. No investor gave a shit what loans Freddie and Fannie were spewing out because they were implicitly backed by the federal government. The home bubble got a huge boost from a 97 tax law excepting certain home sales from capital gains taxes. Because politicians like being the candyman. They don't think about the unintended consequences of creating artificial demand and employment in certain sectors with all their subsidy intervention bullshit. TO THIS DAY, FHA loans are being made requiring only 3% down. All the private subprime lenders? Couldn't have happened unless a politically motivated central bank exists to PRICE FIX the cost of borrowing in the market. Spike the punch, see mayhem that ensues, then resolve that the solution isn't to kill the spiker, but rather to hire more police officers to regulate the effects caused by the spiker. That's great logic. I hope you're regulating your regulators, too, because the SEC was told of Madoff's scheme 8 FUCKING TIMES and didn't do jack shit about it. I have more confidence in genuine personal risk of loss regulating behavior than some fucknut at the SEC. If only you would support an economy that wasn't so awash in fucking subsidies.

Social Security is another Democrat timebomb. Why not bring that shit up? It operates like a ponzi scheme and if you know how ponzi schemes work, you know that early investors win at the supreme expense of later investors. Guess who that later investor is? It's you!

usury.
thats what it was called many years ago.
to lend someone money at interest was considered parasitic and people who engaged in the practice were killed.
thats right...death.
bankers are a parasite on society.they produce nothing,create nothing (except debt,owed to them)and add nothing of substantial value to society.

in this century alone financial institutions were regulated in regard to interest.that all changed in the 80's and ever since the interest started to creep up,hidden charges,"convenience fees".the fractional monetary system is the biggest ponzi scheme going and the federal reserve has it locked.

i applaud this young lady for recognizing that she was stepping on peoples faces to get a paycheck.will someone replace her?of course!there is always someone willing to subjugate others to benefit themselves,but not this young woman.good for her.

how many out there can truly say they would do the same as this young lady?
i know i would because i have.cost that company a pretty penny too.
what worth is a paycheck at the detriment of another?or many?
how far would you go?at what depth would you dig?where would you draw the line?
the subjugation of my fellow man is not worth any amount of money.thats my philosophy anyways,seems its this young womans also.
bravo young lady.

I gotta agree with Ron on this, but it's nice to see some real back and forth. I just wish we could get some real debate instead of some 5 min talking points roundtable on Larry King or something. Interesting notes I've heard but never see discussed:

* Given a single payer system: How will preventative medicine work in principal? If person A begins smoking and gets lung cancer, does that person get the same deal as everyone else? Or more likely, if person A is obese and as a result has to have more treatments for a particular problem, does that give the government or the people paying the right to decide what he can and can't eat? Just thinking. (Following along with the ban of Trans-fats, and the talk about a soda tax)

* With the close ties of the healthcare cos and the government now, what incentive would they have to sever the relationship? A million in campaign funds pre-single payer is the same as a million post-single payer. This is what I've heard some people refer to as the rise of Medical Industrial Complex(An obvious play off the old Military Industrial Complex term).

* Why isn't closer examination given to US healthcare pre-HMOs? I might be missing something, but this didn't seem to be a hot button issue in the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's?

* Why is the term 'insurance' used so incorrectly? If I used the term fire insurance the way some are using health insurance, people would start looking at me funny. The catastrophic-centric part seems neglected and now it covers everything from a skinned knee to a tumor. Can we give it a new name or something to differentiate? Maybe just use health care?

* Assuming the GAO's analysis that the US government is effectively broke, and social security is essentially a ponzi scheme, how does that factor in to the debate? Or put generally, given the last 8 years of Bush (including a Patriot Act, 9/11 & Katrina), what evidence is there that any major new system will be run any better and cost any less?

* Following along with the post about laws changing to define rights: If we have a framework to change the laws, and the right to healthcare is HUGE change, why isn't an official constitutional amendment being put forth that makes the responsibilities clear? Seems that if we could draft something as dumb as 'no alcohol', something can be proposed in regards to healthcare.

Just thinking out loud here. I have lots more questions (including the role of States) if anybody is still awake at this point

-Without some of the corporate welfare that went on, our recession would have been a full blown recession similar to the one that hit china under the same circumstances.

-Without gov barriers on free international trade we'd be screwed because american products cost are high to very high compared to international slave labor crap

-If people controlled their own retirement they simply wouldn't do it OR they'd end up losing ALL their money (as opposed to MOST of their money) in a financial meltdown like the current recession

-Private charity would probably only happen if you read a chapter of the gospel in exchange for a ham sandwich

-And a cut of 50% of government spending is simply naive

There's no proof of any of this. 1) There's no proof the bailouts helped the recession, and it was manipulation of markets that lead to the recession in the first place.

2) With Social Security, the government's version of the Ponzi Scheme, you are essentially saying people are too irresponsible and stupid to live with freedom and self-reliance. And everyone, even if they choose not to save, should be guaranteed a payout when they retire.

3) Private charity happens all the time. Even in hospitals, there are charity wings. People are very generous. But, less want to give when there's a safety net already in place and they're taxed so heavily as it is.

4) Cutting taxes by 50% is not nearly enough. Abolishing the income tax completely would only cut the Federal income by 1/3. Think about that. Why do they need so much money to operate? Is it to pay for those 700+ hegemonic military bases in 130 countries overseas? Yeah, we couldn't do without those.