Who has a better chance of winning with Obama?

[Admiral Yi]

Just heard on CNN that Romney is beating up Perry for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme.

Raises Perry a notch or two in my book.

[DGuller]

Just heard on CNN that Romney is beating up Perry for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme.

Raises Perry a notch or two in my book.

Really?  Being slanderously factually incorrect raises someone a notch or two in your book?  Is it just me, or did Yi go Hansie on us in the last month or so?

[Admiral Yi]

Really?

Really!

Being slanderously factually incorrect raises someone a notch or two in your book?

  No.

Is it just me, or did Yi go Hansie on us in the last month or so?

Not just you.  Money has been calling me a Tea Bagger for much longer than a month, and Raz has been calling me a Kool Aid drinker for longer than that.  You're in exalted company.

[Razgovory]

Just heard on CNN that Romney is beating up Perry for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme.

Raises Perry a notch or two in my book.

Really?  Being slanderously factually incorrect raises someone a notch or two in your book?  Is it just me, or did Yi go Hansie on us in the last month or so?

I think Yi had the misfortune of being born wealthy and always has his eye out for the government or poor people taking his hard earned cash.

[Barrister]

While the term "ponzi scheme" is a rather heated term, I don't see how it is 'factually inaccurate'.  Payments out of SS are funded by people making new current contributions, exactly like a ponzi scheme.

[DGuller]

Not just you.  Money has been calling me a Tea Bagger for much longer than a month, and Raz has been calling me a Kool Aid drinker for longer than that.  You're in exalted company.

The thing is, it seemed like you were getting more even-handed and were becoming a moderate Republican in the last few years.  However, in the last month or two, for whatever reason you rebounded to the right so hard that Hansie would probably think you're a nutcase.

Really, cheering people on for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, or saying that you could easily see a Democrat not reacting to 9/11, is just dedicated idiocy.  You can do better, much better.

[DGuller]

While the term "ponzi scheme" is a rather heated term, I don't see how it is 'factually inaccurate'.  Payments out of SS are funded by people making new current contributions, exactly like a ponzi scheme.

Maybe you don't, but someone who AFAIK is educated in economics like Yi should.  There is more to Ponzi scheme than just paying from current contributors to past contributors.  One somewhat material difference between pay-as-you-go systems and Ponzi schemes is that pay-as-you-go systems do not require ever-increasing numbers of participants to sustain themselves.

[Admiral Yi]

Maybe you don't, but someone who AFAIK is educated in economics like Yi should.  There is more to Ponzi scheme than just paying from current contributors to past contributors.  One somewhat material difference between pay-as-you-go systems and Ponzi schemes is that pay-as-you-go systems do not require ever-increasing numbers of participants to sustain themselves.

A Ponzi scheme relies on payments from new members to pay inflated returns to previous members, and lures new members with the promise of the same inflated returns that previous members are recieving.  A Ponzi scheme doesn't necessarily have to lure ever-increasing numbers of participants (although it certainly helps prolong it).

One of the reasons I have such a beef with Social Security is that I read a very thought provoking article on the politics of Social Security a long time ago.  The article pointed out that there are two demographic humps in the US, the baby boomers and the children of baby boomers.  So politics dictates that you don't cut benefits while the boomers are stll alive, voting, and recieving benefits.  You cut benefits when the generation in between the two hits retirement age, when boomer children are the ones paying benefits and the boomers are dead.   That in-between generation includes me.  The athors of the article were proposing the creation of an advocacy group along the lines of AARP to protect the interests of my generation, but obviously that came to nothing.

[DGuller]

Maybe you don't, but someone who AFAIK is educated in economics like Yi should.  There is more to Ponzi scheme than just paying from current contributors to past contributors.  One somewhat material difference between pay-as-you-go systems and Ponzi schemes is that pay-as-you-go systems do not require ever-increasing numbers of participants to sustain themselves.

A Ponzi scheme relies on payments from new members to pay inflated returns to previous members, and lures new members with the promise of the same inflated returns that previous members are recieving.  A Ponzi scheme doesn't necessarily have to lure ever-increasing numbers of participants (although it certainly helps prolong it).

One of the reasons I have such a beef with Social Security is that I read a very thought provoking article on the politics of Social Security a long time ago.  The article pointed out that there are two demographic humps in the US, the baby boomers and the children of baby boomers.  So politics dictates that you don't cut benefits while the boomers are stll alive, voting, and recieving benefits.  You cut benefits when the generation in between the two hits retirement age, when boomer children are the ones paying benefits and the boomers are dead.   That in-between generation includes me.  The athors of the article were proposing the creation of an advocacy group along the lines of AARP to protect the interests of my generation, but obviously that came to nothing.

Oh, you read an article.  I see.

[Admiral Yi]

 

[Sheilbh]

The reason you shouldn't cut the benefits of baby boomers isn't the politics it's the basic fairness.  They've been paying for 40-50 years on a basic assumption of what they'll get.  It's simply wrong for the state to be leading them along for all that time and then cut the benefits they'll receive right before retirement and it's unfair to do that before they have time to get an alternative.

[Barrister]

The reason you shouldn't cut the benefits of baby boomers isn't the politics it's the basic fairness.  They've been paying for 40-50 years on a basic assumption of what they'll get.  It's simply wrong for the state to be leading them along for all that time and then cut the benefits they'll receive right before retirement and it's unfair to do that before they have time to get an alternative.

But that's where the "ponzi scheme" analogy works.  Sure, the boomers have assumed that after paying in for 30-40 years, but that money isn't sitting in a bank account - it was used to pay part retirees.

[Zoupa]

Not just you.  Money has been calling me a Tea Bagger for much longer than a month, and Raz has been calling me a Kool Aid drinker for longer than that.  You're in exalted company.

I too shat on your head and I don't even get a mention.

We used to be so close Yi. WHAT HAPPENED??? 

[derspiess]

The reason you shouldn't cut the benefits of baby boomers isn't the politics it's the basic fairness.  They've been paying for 40-50 years on a basic assumption of what they'll get.  It's simply wrong for the state to be leading them along for all that time and then cut the benefits they'll receive right before retirement and it's unfair to do that before they have time to get an alternative.

Is making a small cut to their benefits any worse than me not seeing a penny of my contributions when I retire? 

I just want some way to opt out.  Keep the money I've paid into the system up to this point-- I won't expect any SocSec benefits when I reach retirement age-- and let me put the money I'm being taxed for SocSec into a private account. 

[Sheilbh]

But that's where the "ponzi scheme" analogy works.  Sure, the boomers have assumed that after paying in for 30-40 years, but that money isn't sitting in a bank account - it was used to pay part retirees.

The UK's not got any system like social security, though we've got a contributory principle; over here the costs of pensions are mostly met out of government revenue.  There's no idea that you're paying into your pension when you're paying national insurance, you're paying a tax and you'll get a pension at the end of it.

But what you're saying doesn't change my opinion that the state's shouldn't cut the benefits of the boomers because they don't have time to set up private schemes that would safely cover the loss of what they'll expect to receive.  Any shortfall should be met by central funds and the scheme redesigned to be sustainable for other generations.