Comments on: Where Will They Go To For More Money? http://www.onebigdog.net/where-will-they-go-to-for-more-money/ "Let that be a lesson to you, boys and girls. Don't ever argue with the Big Dog because the Big Dog is always right" Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:27:03 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: oilyryzer http://www.onebigdog.net/where-will-they-go-to-for-more-money/comment-page-1/#comment-147824 oilyryzer Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:27:12 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8991#comment-147824 Darrel, your Kool-aid is getting warm. How about a refill? Darrel, your Kool-aid is getting warm. How about a refill?

]]> By: Big Dog http://www.onebigdog.net/where-will-they-go-to-for-more-money/comment-page-1/#comment-147809 Big Dog Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:18:36 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8991#comment-147809 And even that is often too much.... And even that is often too much….

]]> By: Mike Radigan http://www.onebigdog.net/where-will-they-go-to-for-more-money/comment-page-1/#comment-147790 Mike Radigan Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:01:19 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8991#comment-147790 Darrel, I don't try to confuse you with more than one thought at a time. :) Darrel, I don’t try to confuse you with more than one thought at a time. :)

]]> By: Darrel http://www.onebigdog.net/where-will-they-go-to-for-more-money/comment-page-1/#comment-147773 Darrel Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:20:55 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8991#comment-147773 The Bernie Madoff bit is of course tongue in cheek. The Ponzi scheme claim is an anti-SS canard going back to at least Milton Friedman in the 1950's. The Bernie Madoff bit is of course tongue in cheek. The Ponzi scheme claim is an anti-SS canard going back to at least Milton Friedman in the 1950′s.

]]> By: Darrel http://www.onebigdog.net/where-will-they-go-to-for-more-money/comment-page-1/#comment-147772 Darrel Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:18:10 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8991#comment-147772 BLK: "the Chinese, who will no longer invest in them-">> DAR Oh really? Did they sell the $789.6 they have invested in Treasury bonds as of November? (note: they bought an additional $76 billion from 11/08 to 11/09). D. ----- http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt BLK: “the Chinese, who will no longer invest in them-”>>

DAR
Oh really? Did they sell the $789.6 they have invested in Treasury bonds as of November? (note: they bought an additional $76 billion from 11/08 to 11/09).

D.
—–
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

]]> By: Blake http://www.onebigdog.net/where-will-they-go-to-for-more-money/comment-page-1/#comment-147744 Blake Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:57:03 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8991#comment-147744 Their value is ficticious- just ask the Chinese, who will no longer invest in them- Their value is ficticious- just ask the Chinese, who will no longer invest in them-

]]> By: Blake http://www.onebigdog.net/where-will-they-go-to-for-more-money/comment-page-1/#comment-147743 Blake Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:55:22 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8991#comment-147743 There REALLY is no money in SS anymore, just IOUs from both parties- but SS should never have been started in the first place, front-loaded with built in debt as it was. Example- The first recipient of SS was a lady who had paid in exactly 27 dollars before she retired, and yet was given 15,000 dollars in benefits, over the rest of her life- there were many more like that, so the program was in trouble from the start- and it has become no more viable now that it has been plundered, and Medicare, the OTHER socialistic program that never should have been, is even worse off. How ANYONE can justify these programs is beyond me. It is just a blatant display of how badly the government can and does screw up. There REALLY is no money in SS anymore, just IOUs from both parties- but SS should never have been started in the first place, front-loaded with built in debt as it was.
Example- The first recipient of SS was a lady who had paid in exactly 27 dollars before she retired, and yet was given 15,000 dollars in benefits, over the rest of her life- there were many more like that, so the program was in trouble from the start- and it has become no more viable now that it has been plundered, and Medicare, the OTHER socialistic program that never should have been, is even worse off.
How ANYONE can justify these programs is beyond me. It is just a blatant display of how badly the government can and does screw up.

]]> By: Mike Radigan http://www.onebigdog.net/where-will-they-go-to-for-more-money/comment-page-1/#comment-147732 Mike Radigan Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:41:57 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8991#comment-147732 Darrel, you take every tongue-in-cheek comment too seriously. Have a sense of humor. I guess I'll have to more careful with this too and add a wink. Darrel, you take every tongue-in-cheek comment too seriously. Have a sense of humor. I guess I’ll have to more careful with this too and add a wink.

]]> By: Darrel http://www.onebigdog.net/where-will-they-go-to-for-more-money/comment-page-1/#comment-147721 Darrel Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:23:56 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8991#comment-147721 MIKE: "SS is just one big Ponzi scheme.">> DAR SS is not a Ponzi scheme. Here's the difference: *** "There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go insurance programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end. As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system, and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs, and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes or any other fraudulent form of financing; it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems.[94]" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_%28United_States%29#Criticism_of_Social_Security_as_a_pyramid_or_Ponzi_scheme" rel="nofollow">Link</a>. MIKE: “SS is just one big Ponzi scheme.”>>

DAR
SS is not a Ponzi scheme. Here’s the difference:

***
“There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go insurance programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end. As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system, and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs, and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes or any other fraudulent form of financing; it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems.[94]”

Link.

]]> By: Darrel http://www.onebigdog.net/where-will-they-go-to-for-more-money/comment-page-1/#comment-147720 Darrel Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:18:48 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8991#comment-147720 Bigd: "The Supreme Court has established that no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits.">> DAR Yes, that's true. But since politicians can hardly bring themselves to even *touch* that "third rail," how likely are we to see any elected officials actually "end payments?" Not very. I just wish they had the balls to tweak and adjust it as necessary. They will. D. ---------------- "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." -- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54 Try it and see. Bigd: “The Supreme Court has established that no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits.”>>

DAR
Yes, that’s true.

But since politicians can hardly bring themselves to even *touch* that “third rail,” how likely are we to see any elected officials actually “end payments?” Not very.

I just wish they had the balls to tweak and adjust it as necessary. They will.

D.
—————-
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a
tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible
and they are stupid.”
– President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54

Try it and see.

]]>