UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
now that's funny.
Note to retirees - It is not your money...
- Thread starter NLXSK1
- Start date
i have said this 1,000,000,000,000 times..... SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT A PONZI SCHEME.
A PONZI SCHEME IS AN ENTERPRISE PROMISING RETURNS ON INVESTMENT (PROFIT) BASED ON FRAUDULENT CLAIMS. IT IS AN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.
SOCIAL SECURITY IS A SOCIAL SAFETY NET THAT IS UPFRONT ABOUT IT'S CAPABILITY AND TRANSPARENT IN IT'S INTENTIONS.
no matter how much you say it's a ponzi scheme. it isn't. i'm sorry my man, YOU ARE WRONG.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
but the key factor differentiating ponzi schemes from other investment frauds, and in fact the very NATURE that defines a Ponzi Scheme is the pyramid design, where New Money is constantly required to pay off Old Money, with no real growth or investment to generate that New Money, which is why New Money must come from New Investors, resulting in a scheme which is doomed from the start. eventually you run out of New Investors, and thus run out of New Money.
Ponzi Schemes are elaborate games of financial Musical Chairs, and eventually somebody is always left standing, and thus loses.
pretending that "Sosh Security" is anything but a Ponzi Scheme is easily tested.
Could ANY private entity create a system that mirrors "Sosh Security" without being busted by the SEC?
would anyone actually join that scheme if they were told up-front that the scheme was in fact just a money aggregating pyramid, just like "gifting clubs", eventually somebody sooner or later was gonna lose everything, and given the transparently idiotic nature of the scheme that person could well be YOU?
"Sosh Security" was is and will always be a government run Ponzi Scheme, but it's government sanction does not change it's nature. it's still piles of new money paying out for old money and the Operators ar the only ones who are guaranteed a return on their "investment"
if you are going to get technical, every investment activity is a Ponzi scheme. new money comes in to pay out original investors.
the mechanics of the money flow isn't what differentiates a Ponzi Scheme from other legitimate business enterprises.
what differentiates it is the fact that the ponzi scheme LIES to its investors about where the money is going, how it's being spent, and misleads investors to believe that there will be a return on orignal investment, paperwork is falsified, it's essentially a large shit pile.
social security does not lure investors with misleading and fraudulent claims.... everybody participates and everybody is eligible to benefit.... they're different...
it's really not that hard to understand man....
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
and there's your mistake.
for Non-Ponzi investments the return for the investors come from an increase in INTRINSIC value of the company, profits from the activity of the company, or somebody else buying out your intertest in the company because THEY think the company will make more money.
Ponzi schemes like Sosh Security do not MAKE money, they TAKE money based on a fraudulent promise of a return on the dupe's investment with ANOTHER DUPE'S MONEY sometime in the future that dupe is likewise promised similar returns, and it all works great until the pool of available untapped dupes starts top dry up.
actually yes it is. thats the ONE defining characteristic that makes Ponzi Schemes different from any other fraud, or in fact any REAL investment
nope. even UP FRONT Ponzi Schemes, like the aforementioned "Gifting Clubs" are still Ponzi Schemes, even if they go to great pains to explain how there IS NO ACTUAL INVESTMENT, and you require more dupes down the "Gifting Chain" to get your promised rewards. those are still Ponzi Schemes, despite having no fraud involved.
NOPE again. Sosh Security made the promise of a secure retirement income FUNDED BY A TAX ON OTHERS for the first recipients, and has been pushing the cart down the road ever since.
every dime in Sosh Security "contributions" i have ever "gifted" has already been disbursed to other earlier "gifters", who in turn funded the "gifts" of their predecessors, etc etc etc, until you come to the "Top Teir Recipients" who did NOT pay the Sosh Security tax, but DID recieve the Sosh Security payout, much like the top tier of any Ponzi Scheme.
thats right. it's easy to understand. they took my money to give to current retirees, and promise that when im old enough they will take some other poor sap's money and "Gift It" to me, at least as long as the pool of suckers remains strong.
That Bro, is a Ponzi Scheme.
Why argue about the definition of ponzi scheme when you know exactly what he means: the money originally invested is GONE. People arent receiving their money, they're receiving money from new investors. And unless there are more new investors to pay off THOSE investors, then the system crashes. You honestly don't see how that is VERY DAMN CLOSE to a ponzi scheme? Ffs...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
because he who controls the language controls the debate, and right now KKKynes is raping the language like the bad moslem man raped him as a vulnerable and impressionable child.
social security is not a ponzi scheme, it is responsible for the financial security of millions, will be solvent for decades as is, and will be solvent forever by simply raising the cap above $108k.
ya wanna know who weathered the massive bush recession the best? seniors. why? social security. especially because bush failed to privatize it right before the massive bush recession came rolling in, thank Dog.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
actually, the SEC does a great job of explaining how the Sosh Security "program" is in fact a Ponzi Scheme.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] [h=3]What is a Ponzi scheme?[/h] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] "[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity. [/FONT]"
that neatly describes Sosh Security in a nutshell, older "investors" get paid from the "investment" of new "investors", ad infinitum until the New Money pool dries up and the Scheme collapses.
thanks Securites and Exchange Comission.
[/FONT]
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that definition proves that SS is not a ponzi scheme.
my cat can quack like a duck if you tease him with the fuzzy ball on a string enough, but that doesn't make him a duck.
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
Grow a brain. The government in charge of running Social Security are crooks. You're stupid for believing and trusting such a massive; corrupt network of bureaucracies. Democrats create programs, steal a bunch of money from people, and then destroy it. You're killing Social Security, You're molesting senior's Medicare, and you're such low lifes that democrats need to create Obombercare, so that you can steal even more money. Wack job leftists started stealing money out of hard working American's paychecks decades ago. You're pathetic, garbage for ethics.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
When he isn't giving long winded diatribes devoid of logic to overwhelm the debate, he is coming with such mamadas as language rape. Maybe both. Maybe distorting your arguments. Maybe just lying through his teeth. Maybe all of the above.
I give him credit for having such a complex playbook and advancing so far with pure bullshit. It is rather impressive actually to see someone win a few hands with no good cards.
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
“that definition proves that SS is not a ponzi scheme.
my cat can quack like a duck if you tease him with the fuzzy ball on a string enough, but that doesn't make a duck." -buck
If it quacks like a duck, then it could also be u. buck
" legitimate investment activity. "
Glad you brought it up because thats not what this is. SS is a forced investment that makes the government more money so that it can grow and expand its powers; making people even more dependent. When somebody dies before they get into mid 70s, then all the money the government took from that person would have been better off helping the person stay alive. The government sucks at spending my money, I could do a way better job. Why the hell do I need to watch a clown in the oval office juggle around 12 balls all day, when I could be better off investing the money myself? I've had it with all the distractions , its not working anymore. Opt me the hell out of social security, just cut me a check right now. Medicare too. If Congress hates the Obombercare that they passed so much, then why can't I opt out too?!? If the IRS gets to opt out while at the same time enforcing the law, why can't I opt out. Is this what its become? I'm now just a subject of the ruling class? Its not a shared responsibility payment. Its theft.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
sorry AC, but "new investors money paying out old investors, with no legitimate business activityto support the claimed returns" is the definition of a Ponzi Scheme, and also an apt description of Sosh Security.
all Sosh Security needs now is a "team" of dedicated "investors" to drum up a significant "Down Line" and Sosh Security will be solvent forever right?
Sosh Security was founded on the promise of Free Money to everybody, until the money runs out, and it hasnt changed a bit, save the Money is spent, and the "lockbox" contains only IOU's
"raping the language" is what YOU (and bucky) do, like claiming a slave bound from birth till death to serve a single house rather than a household or person is not chattel, and thus not a slave, therefore, he is a volunteer.
THAT is language rape.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
says the only white person in stockton california.
Pistil
Member
Everybody breath. This will all be cleared up in a relatively short time. Once all the older generations pass and the dogmas, cover-ups, lies and fear dissipate, the younger generations will rise with a new consciousness. They are doing so now. It is all too easy to fall prey to the angry cynicism and fear. Love to you all.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Not all slaves are chattel.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
so one is either Chattel or a volunteer, but now, not all slaves are chattel, apparently the volunteer slaves could just up and quit when that oar started chafing...
really, how many versions of this nonsense story are you going to experiment with?
you are still lying, but now you are lying about your lies.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/535485/serfdom
"serfdom, condition in medieval Europe in which a tenant farmer was bound to a hereditary plot of land and to the will of his landlord. The vast majority of serfs in medieval Europe obtained their subsistence by cultivating a plot of land that was owned by a lord. This was the essential feature differentiating serfs from slaves, who were bought and sold without reference to a plot of land. The serf provided his own food and clothing from his own productive efforts. A substantial proportion of the grain the serf grew on his holding had to be given to his lord. The lord could also compel the serf to cultivate that portion of the lords land that was not held by other tenants (called demesne land). The serf also had to use his lords grain mills and no others.
The essential additional mark of serfdom was the lack of many of the personal liberties that were held by freedmen. Chief among these was the serfs lack of freedom of movement; he could not permanently leave his holding or his village without his lords permission. Neither could the serf marry, change his occupation, or dispose of his property without his lords permission. He was bound to his designated plot of land and could be transferred along with that land to a new lord. Serfs were often harshly treated and had little legal redress against the actions of their lords. A serf could become a freedman only through manumission, enfranchisement, or escape."
serfs were slaves, bound to the property instead of the person who owned it.
your endless word games are as pointless as your mysterious inexplicable undefinable political "philosophy"
Protip: it's not a philosophy unless it is defined. otherwise it's just a notion.