(08-01-2012 02:41 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Seems like a good guy. Keep getting the word out, max.

This.

Elements within the Ron Paul movement were huge backers of Cruz ... and Campaign for Liberty did several emailers about his progress. That's all I need to know I would vote for him.

That fact that he scares you only helps his case in my mind.

(08-01-2012 02:19 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  If someone could explain to me how SS isn't a ponzi scheme, I'd love to hear it.

New investments (young people's $) go to pay off the old investors (retirees), and the fund manager (govt.) spends the money to support their lavish lifestyle.

Seriously? We went over this a few weeks ago. Politifact rated it false. Ponzi schemes necessarily have to fail because if 5 people support one person, eventually you have 5 billion people who need 25 billion to support them, but the world's population is only 6 billion. But Social Security can continue indefinitely, and in fact Germany has had such a system for 130 years. Also, it's not fraudulent.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...zi-scheme/

Quote:So how valid is the comparison?

Mitchell Zuckoff, a Boston University journalism professor who has written a book on Ponzi, noted three critical dissimilarities between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme, which by definition is both fraudulent and unsustainable.

"First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled," Zuckoff wrote in a January 2009 article in Fortune. "...Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns."

Second, he wrote, "A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted. That's when the last people to participate are out of luck; the music stops and there's nowhere to sit. It's true that Social Security faces a huge burden — and a significant, long-term financing problem — in light of retiring Baby Boomers. … But Social Security can be, and has been, tweaked and modified to reflect changes in the size of the taxpaying workforce and the number of beneficiaries. It would take great political will, but the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing."

Third, Zuckoff wrote, "Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme... At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see "Social") resolved to create a safety net (see "Security") in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones.That might rankle, but it's not fraud... None of this is to suggest that Social Security is a perfect system or that there aren't sizeable problems facing the incoming administration and Congress. But it's not a Ponzi scheme. And Ponzi himself, who died in a hospital charity ward with only enough money for his burial, would never have recognized it as his own."

We agree with Zuckoff’s interpretation. We rated Perry's November 2010 comparison of Social Security and Ponzi schemes False, and we stand by that ruling. The comparison still deserves a rating of False.

Do I have to go through all of these points and explain why they're bat sh!t?

(08-01-2012 01:20 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Just in case anyone thought the GOP was becoming less bat ****, some fun facts about the guy the Texas GOP nominated for senate last night--

1) Ted Cruz Believes George Soros Leads A United Nations Conspiracy To Eliminate Golf: In 1992, President George H.W. Bush joined the leaders of 177 other nations in endorsing a non-binding UN document known as Agenda 21. This twenty year-old document largely speaks at a very high level of generality about reducing poverty and building sustainable living environments. Nevertheless, Cruz published an article on his campaign website claiming that this non-binding document is actually a nefarious plot to “abolish ‘unsustainable’ environments, including golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads.” To top it off, Cruz lays the blame for this global anti-golf conspiracy at the feet of a well-known Tea Party boogieman — “The originator of this grand scheme is George Soros.” Paved roads and golf courses are in danger? And this is what the elder Bush wanted, or somehow Soros tricked him into supporting such a scheme? Do I really have to explain the insanity of that?

2) Ted Cruz Wants To Gut Social Security: In an interview with the Texas Tribune Cruz labeled Social Security a “ponzi scheme” and outlined a three-step plan to gut this essential program. Cruz would raise the Social Security retirement age, cut future benefits, and implement a George W. Bush-style plan to privatize much of the program. In other words, in addition to forcing them to work longer for fewer benefits, Cruz would place retirees at the mercy of a fickle stock market. Had Social Security been privatized during the career of a worker who retired near the end of the Bush Administration, that worker would have retired with less money in their privatized account than they would have if they’d simply kept their money between their mattress and box spring. It's not a Ponzi scheme for reasons I just posted. And no, Owl, it's definitely true. The Dow Jones fell to 6,000 at the end of Bush's term, which was its lowest point since 1997. So if SS was privatized in 1998, and you retired in 2008, yes, it is definitely true that you would have been better off stuffing the cash in your boxspring.



3) Ted Cruz Wants To Party Like It’s 1829: The Constitution provides that Acts of Congress “shall be the supreme law of the land,” and thus cannot be nullified by rogue state lawmakers. Cruz, however, co-authored an unconstitutional proposal claiming two or more states could simply ignore the Constitution’s command and nullify the Affordable Care Act so long as they work together. Although the Constitution does permit states to join in “interstate compacts” that have the force of law, under the Constitution such compacts require the consent of Congress and can be vetoed by the President. Cruz falsely claimed that states do not need to meet these Constitutional requirements to undermine laws they don’t like. Oh my God, really, people? It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to se he's just making sh!t up. It's not a matter of interpretation; it's a matter of him being crazy. Even Scalia wouldn't vote to allow that.

4) Ted Cruz Is An Islamophobe: At a campaign event earlier this month, Cruz touted another of the Tea Party’s favorite conspiracy theories, claiming that “Sharia law is an enormous problem” in this country. Although it is common for far right politicians to claim that American law is somehow being replaced with Islamic law, these claims have absolutely no basis in reality. Few American courts have ever even mentioned Sharia or Islamic law, and those that have generally only do so in contracts or similar cases where a party before the court agreed to be bound by Sharia law. Again, retarded. ThinkProgress addressed it well. The times Sharia law is applied is when people agree by contract to have it apply, so the courts are really just applying an American principle-- choice of law. Nobody in America is in any danger of having it apply to them involuntarily.

5) Ted Cruz Campaigned On How He Helped Texas Kill A Mexican: Cruz’s very first campaign ad encouraged GOP primary voters to support him because he helped make it easier for Texas to kill an “illegal alien.” According to the ad, “Cruz fought all the way to the Supreme Court” after “the UN and World Court overruled a Texas jury’s verdict to execute an illegal alien.” In reality, the case Cruz won had nothing to do with whether Texas had the authority to kill this man. Rather, it concerned whether Texas could defy a treaty requiring it to inform foreign nationals who are arrested of their right “to request assistance from the consul of his own state.” Even North Korea honored this treaty that Cruz fought to undermine. This isn't so much bat sh!t. Terrible case though.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07...-ted-cruz/

(08-02-2012 09:15 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(08-01-2012 02:19 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  If someone could explain to me how SS isn't a ponzi scheme, I'd love to hear it.

New investments (young people's $) go to pay off the old investors (retirees), and the fund manager (govt.) spends the money to support their lavish lifestyle.

Seriously? We went over this a few weeks ago. Politifact rated it false. Ponzi schemes necessarily have to fail because if 5 people support one person, eventually you have 5 billion people who need 25 billion to support them, but the world's population is only 6 billion. But Social Security can continue indefinitely, and in fact Germany has had such a system for 130 years. Also, it's not fraudulent.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...zi-scheme/

Quote:So how valid is the comparison?

Mitchell Zuckoff, a Boston University journalism professor who has written a book on Ponzi, noted three critical dissimilarities between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme, which by definition is both fraudulent and unsustainable.

"First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled," Zuckoff wrote in a January 2009 article in Fortune. "...Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns."

Second, he wrote, "A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted. That's when the last people to participate are out of luck; the music stops and there's nowhere to sit. It's true that Social Security faces a huge burden — and a significant, long-term financing problem — in light of retiring Baby Boomers. … But Social Security can be, and has been, tweaked and modified to reflect changes in the size of the taxpaying workforce and the number of beneficiaries. It would take great political will, but the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing."

Third, Zuckoff wrote, "Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme... At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see "Social") resolved to create a safety net (see "Security") in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones.That might rankle, but it's not fraud... None of this is to suggest that Social Security is a perfect system or that there aren't sizeable problems facing the incoming administration and Congress. But it's not a Ponzi scheme. And Ponzi himself, who died in a hospital charity ward with only enough money for his burial, would never have recognized it as his own."

We agree with Zuckoff’s interpretation. We rated Perry's November 2010 comparison of Social Security and Ponzi schemes False, and we stand by that ruling. The comparison still deserves a rating of False.

So, because we know its a sham, makes it OK? Gotcha... It is akin to a Pyramid Scheme, MLM, and Ponzi, just minus the whole "recruitment" part because we have an "endless" supply of money to re-distribute.

So, Max, let me get this straight.

The fact that the German social security system has been running for 130 years means somehow that our system, which will run out of money about the time it reaches 100 under current projections, is not a Ponzi scheme?

And it's not misleading that social security has been sold for generations as a "trust fund" into which you make payments to secure your retirement benefits, but now we find out that it is instead a "mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns"?

And even though the numbers say social security runs out of money in 25 years, and nobody seems to have the political will to solve the problem, it's not "unsustainable" because somehow, magically, mysteriously, the political will to fix it is going to materialize where there is none today?

And, granting that the original intent of social security may have been moral (back when it was a trust fund), that makes it somehow still moral and principled even though it has morphed from trust fund to politicians' slush fund?

And it's not fraudulent for Harry Reid to insist that "social security is not broken today" and therefore we don't need any changes, when clearly without change it's going to be very broken in the future? I really have a hard time distinguishing Harry Reid from Bernie Madoff on this one.

And when we talk about the deficit, why do we get told that, "oh, we only need to worry about the debt we owe to outsiders, the rest isn't real debt because we owe it to ourselves," but when we talk about it from the social security side the related receivables are good as gold? Isn't it true that if the debt isn't real then the social security assets aren't real either? And isn't it further true that if those assets aren't real then social security is in a whole lot worse shape than we thought? And isn't it fraudulent to pretend simultaneously the debt isn't real but the receivable arising from the same transaction is?

And a JOURNALISM professor is somehow regarded as an expert to address a financial issue? Wouldn't an economist or a CPA be more likely to, say, pass a Daubert challenge on the issue?

This is my problem with Politifact. They address issues from a journalist's perspective, because that's who they are. As a result, much of their analysis tends--like here--to be very superficial. I don't think they really understand the issues, or at least their reporting often indicates that they do not.

(08-01-2012 01:27 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Ted Cruz is a nutjob. That is why he won in Texas.

Name calling again, Robert?

You know who is a nut? Anyone who believes the federal government can be a force for good. Do you believe that Robert?