Science > Abortion > Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . .
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Barney Lyon" |
| Date: |
08 Feb 2005 10:23:00 PM |
| Object: |
Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
.. . . and still the Repubs shout about "obstructionism." More of their
lies.
Lost amidst the recent press about potential judicial nominations
battles and the Republican's "nuclear" strategy are the facts about the
federal judiciary today.
The fact is that our federal courts are, both quantitatively and
ideologically, beyond the tipping point. Already, more than
three-quarters of the federal appellate courts in our country are
dominated by Republican appointees. This is a dramatic difference from
2000, when Democratic and Republican appointees were represented in
almost equal number on the circuit courts. The difference will become
even more stark over the next four years as this President's
nominations agenda continues on its divisive path.
Although Republicans talk of obstruction, the fact is that President
Bush had more of his judges confirmed in his first term than either
President Reagan, the first President Bush, or President Clinton had
confirmed in their first four years. President Bush had 204 of his
appointees to the federal bench confirmed, out of a total of 877
judicial seats. President Bush filled the seats he inherited as a
result of Republican obstruction of Clinton nominees - plus newly
created seats -- with his own appointees, many of whom were selected
for ideological reasons rather than through the customary and
well-established bipartisan judicial selection commissions.
The result is that, with 32 of President Bush's circuit court nominees
confirmed by the Senate, ten out of the 13 appellate circuits in this
country currently have more Republican appointees than Democratic
appointees. If all of the President's currently pending circuit court
nominees are confirmed, 11 of the 13 circuits will tilt right. Had all
of President Clinton's nominees been confirmed, the circuit courts
would have been evenly split.
Moreover, of the ten circuit courts that currently have more Republican
appointees today, six of them are significantly out of balance, such
that Republicans enjoy at least a two-to-one advantage over the
Democratic appointees. On no appellate court today do Democratic
appointees have that advantage, not even on the Ninth Circuit, which is
regularly referred to by some Republicans as "out of the mainstream."
When Democratic appointees enjoyed just a 60% majority on the Ninth
Circuit, some Republican senators argued that no more Democrats should
be confirmed to that court. Were that principle to apply today, the
Senate should not confirm any more Republican nominees to the ten
circuits already dominated by Republican appointees. Of course,
Republicans are not advocating this position today, but the public
should be.
The circuit courts of appeals are the courts of last resort for 99% of
cases. They are where final decisions are made on issues such as
workers' rights, women's rights, civil rights, and the rights of
criminal defendants.
Studies have shown that party affiliation matters in how judges vote.
For example, a recent report by Professor Cass Sunstein at the
University of Chicago Law School found that appellate judges appointed
by Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and this President Bush have
more conservative voting patterns than judges appointed by any other
president in the past 80 years. These differences are particularly
pronounced in cases involving campaign finance, discrimination and
civil rights.
.
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
12 Feb 2005 10:10:33 AM |
|
|
In article <e11r011abfcet93f98bbrt1rbgtkrh3ml5@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:54:44 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <r5tq01tor9cbt6abh0ml439qlilmjdsgfe@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:
Republican propaganda. Nothing else.
But it isn't written by a Republican, you dimwit! It's
your own ilk, a Democrat, just the one that is
believing in God!
<Yawn> Distortions, lies, *****. Is that all you have?
OK.
So let's sum it up
Yeah. Lets. You will say anything in your vile hatred.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
12 Feb 2005 10:51:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:10:33 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
Republican propaganda. Nothing else.
But it isn't written by a Republican, you dimwit! It's
your own ilk, a Democrat, just the one that is
believing in God!
<Yawn> Distortions, lies, *****. Is that all you have?
OK.
So let's sum it up
Yeah. Lets. You will say anything in your vile hatred.
I feel helpless.
People. Honestly. Just look at what _evidence has been
presented here_. I mean, don't take my word for it, but
all I ask for is cutting ad hominem, looking at particular
arguments and evidence on particular subjects and judging
for yourself.
--
Ophelia asks: let a hundred flowers bloom in *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
12 Feb 2005 10:56:04 AM |
|
|
In article <3lcs01ltnei9pec2ucv0dl682c82jjkit7@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:10:33 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
Republican propaganda. Nothing else.
But it isn't written by a Republican, you dimwit! It's
your own ilk, a Democrat, just the one that is
believing in God!
<Yawn> Distortions, lies, *****. Is that all you have?
OK.
So let's sum it up
Yeah. Lets. You will say anything in your vile hatred.
I feel helpless.
Lost, you mean.
People. Honestly. Just look at what _evidence has been
presented here_. I mean, don't take my word for it, but
all I ask for is cutting ad hominem, looking at particular
arguments and evidence on particular subjects and judging
for yourself.
You mean like this:
You don't even get that you come
across as the biggest jerks on the block, don't you?
or this:
Make your argument, loser, or shut up.
or this:
Excuse me, but what can I do but laugh when offered
as indeed childish theory as 'da hatred of themselves;
inner hatred, imagine dat'.
If you want an "argument" pull you head out of your ***** long enough to
to explain what you want to know without all the *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
12 Feb 2005 12:24:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:56:04 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
OK.
So let's sum it up
Yeah. Lets. You will say anything in your vile hatred.
I feel helpless.
Lost, you mean.
No, I feel like you choose to persist in ignorance
against all the evidence - debating with you is
like debating with Creationist, honestly.
I'm a technolibertarian and you're the equivalent
of Jesus freak here.
People. Honestly. Just look at what _evidence has been
presented here_. I mean, don't take my word for it, but
all I ask for is cutting ad hominem, looking at particular
arguments and evidence on particular subjects and judging
for yourself.
You mean like this:
You don't even get that you come
across as the biggest jerks on the block, don't you?
or this:
Make your argument, loser, or shut up.
or this:
Excuse me, but what can I do but laugh when offered
as indeed childish theory as 'da hatred of themselves;
inner hatred, imagine dat'.
If you want an "argument" pull you head out of your ***** long enough to
to explain what you want to know without all the *****.
That was merely ad hominem I served out in return for your
ad hominem - people are not in awe and afraid to oppose
the left-liberals just for you having this air of fake superiority.
I don't say that it's raining when leftists like you try to *****
on me.
You're obviously dishonest in pretending that ALL I presented
was reciprocal ad hominem.
Learn to behave yourself without being condescending or
else you're going to get more treatment like the one
I leashed out to you.
Yep, it's hard to be left-liberals nowadays. :->
But you're visibly getting more polite. See, game theory
and 'tit for tat' strategy work. Even you have the
chance to see the light and become the libertarian,
trust me. ;o)
--
Ophelia asks: let a hundred flowers bloom in *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
13 Feb 2005 12:27:54 PM |
|
|
--
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:24:21 +0100, Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com>
wrote:
That was merely ad hominem I served out in return for your ad
hominem
All these ad hominem's make the thread boring. Try to keep ad
hominem's directly relevant to the argument and somewhat
interesting - for example that statists are power hungry, and
by an amazing coincidence are usually of the class of people
that actually existent statism benefits, rather than the people
that actually existent statism is supposedly intended to
benefit. Otherwise it is too tedious to read your posts.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
7+YTtK4ZscF6sJX9AzUV0GmHLB7sj73O7dzUE3l1
4kmA9dmfD+z3b91HgdL5x4gKNKDJCXSeph13rlDUk
--
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
12 Feb 2005 01:25:43 PM |
|
|
Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:56:04 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
OK.
So let's sum it up
Yeah. Lets. You will say anything in your vile hatred.
I feel helpless.
Lost, you mean.
No, I feel like you choose to persist in ignorance
against all the evidence - debating with you is
like debating with Creationist, honestly.
Tell us how libertarians plan to fund the building of public highways.
Show us that you're not just a mindless ideologue without a clue.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
12 Feb 2005 03:14:34 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:25:43 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
OK.
So let's sum it up
Yeah. Lets. You will say anything in your vile hatred.
I feel helpless.
Lost, you mean.
No, I feel like you choose to persist in ignorance
against all the evidence - debating with you is
like debating with Creationist, honestly.
Tell us how libertarians plan to fund the building of public highways.
Show us that you're not just a mindless ideologue without a clue.
But I have already posted lengthy response precisely that on the
subject? You can read more on the subject in this fringe
periodical, The Economist.
Besides, highways are not that important: social security,
among other subjects, IMHO is much more important in
relative terms.
What you don't get is that the ideology doesn't have to
demolish insight. It can, if you are left-liberal, but it
doesn't have to as a general rule. It can even provide
greater motivation for research. Like David D. Friedman
put it, some evangelics are willing to forego honesty
for sake of rhetorical effectiveness; others are not.
--
Commies are the problem and nukes are the solution - those
were the days... ;o)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
12 Feb 2005 04:18:19 PM |
|
|
In article <mcss0119m4v8tshclcgkh5v9nuabv9e3vh@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:25:43 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
OK.
So let's sum it up
Yeah. Lets. You will say anything in your vile hatred.
I feel helpless.
Lost, you mean.
No, I feel like you choose to persist in ignorance
against all the evidence - debating with you is
like debating with Creationist, honestly.
Tell us how libertarians plan to fund the building of public highways.
Show us that you're not just a mindless ideologue without a clue.
But I have already posted lengthy response precisely that on the
subject? You can read more on the subject in this fringe
periodical, The Economist.
I read the Economist every month. It doesn't say what you claim.
Besides, highways are not that important: social security,
among other subjects, IMHO is much more important in
relative terms.
Social Security is fine. It is a Red Herring to keep the people from
focusing on the poor job the Republicans are doing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
12 Feb 2005 07:00:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:18:19 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
But I have already posted lengthy response precisely that on the
subject? You can read more on the subject in this fringe
periodical, The Economist.
I read the Economist every month. It doesn't say what you claim.
It was in Technology Quarterly:
http://economist.com/science/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2724381
Besides, highways are not that important: social security,
among other subjects, IMHO is much more important in
relative terms.
Social Security is fine.
Not according to The Economist for instance:
http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=975689
And please, no rubbish about The Economist being
"simplistic Republican propaganda". Repubs may
have simplistic propaganda, but PAYG has fundamental
faults that will only get worse. It's guaranteed.
S.s. is not fine at all. There are countries on this planet
that went from 30% of take home wage being taken in
s.s. "contributions" up to almost 50% in 25-30 years.
Demographics you see. The resulting unemployment
(most likely as the result of s.s. being similar to govt
expenditures in effect, i.e. consumption without
prior investment) varies from 12% to almost 20%.
Want to see such a picture in America? I assure you
it can happen because it already happened in some
European countries.
Note that one-time supporter of s.s., Paul
Samuelson, has recently eaten his words of
support for the scheme. He admitted that
demographics can demolish that. It
went smth like "The demography can make
the thorns in the social security scheme
bigger than otherwise" or smth to the tune.
Anyway, s.s. is like this guy who is falling
from the roof and asked at third floor how
he's doing - "just fine for now, thank you".
TechCentralStation's Arnold Kling has also
extensively written on problems inherent
in s.s.
It is a Red Herring to keep the people from
focusing on the poor job the Republicans are doing.
Get real. S.s. being in essence Ponzi scheme is no
fault of any political party today.
--
All governments lie, but leftist governments lie more than others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
12 Feb 2005 08:31:52 PM |
|
|
Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
But I have already posted lengthy response precisely that on the
subject? You can read more on the subject in this fringe
periodical, The Economist.
I read the Economist every month. It doesn't say what you claim.
It was in Technology Quarterly:
http://economist.com/science/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2724381
Besides, highways are not that important: social security,
among other subjects, IMHO is much more important in
relative terms.
Social Security is fine.
Not according to The Economist for instance:
http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=975689
Pretty sleazy propaganda. Anybody honest knows that there is no
relationship between a ponzi scheme and social security, but that,
apparently, doesn't stop ideologue from pushing the lie.
And please, no rubbish about The Economist being
"simplistic Republican propaganda".
It's not simplistic, but it is dishonest and it is propaganda.
Repubs may
have simplistic propaganda, but PAYG has fundamental
faults that will only get worse. It's guaranteed.
That's why it's worked so well for 70 years and will continue to work
well.
S.s. is not fine at all.
Of course it is.
There are countries on this planet
Non sequitur.
It is a Red Herring to keep the people from
focusing on the poor job the Republicans are doing.
Get real. S.s. being in essence Ponzi scheme is no
It's a complete lie. Right-wing propaganda.
Sheep.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
12 Feb 2005 09:00:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:31:52 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Besides, highways are not that important: social security,
among other subjects, IMHO is much more important in
relative terms.
Social Security is fine.
Not according to The Economist for instance:
http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=975689
Pretty sleazy propaganda.
No, it's solid research, it just gets in the way of some childish
obsessions.
Anybody honest knows that there is no
relationship between a ponzi scheme and social security, but that,
apparently, doesn't stop ideologue from pushing the lie.
You're just exceptionally dense. S.s. IS Ponzi scheme: it
merely redistributes what is paid in. As long as demography
works in its favor, per analogiam as long as people believe
that scheme is viable. When they stop believing / demography
changes from "always more young people" to "not so anymore",
the returns on the scheme become negative.
Ludwig von Mises predicted that in very beginning, he
had no vested interest in lying whatsoever, because
by the time s.s. was being implemented he was already
old:
"Mises' 1949 comments on Social Security and government debt read as
if they had been written yesterday: "Paul in the year 1940 saves by
paying one hundred dollars to the national social security
institution. He receives in exchange a claim which is virtually an
unconditional government IOU. If the government spends the hundred
dollars for current expenditures, no additional capital comes into
existence, and no increase in the productivity of labor results. The
government's IOU is a check drawn upon the future taxpayer. In 1970 a
certain Peter may have to fulfill the government's promise although he
himself does not derive any benefit from the fact that. Paul in 1940
saved one hundred dollars.... The trumpery argument that the public
debt is no burden because 'we owe it to ourselves' is delusive. The
Pauls of 1940 do not owe it to themselves. It is the Peters of 1970
who owe it to the Pauls of 1940.... The statesmen of 1940 solve their
problems by shifting them to the statesmen of 1970. On that date the
statesmen of 1940 will be either dead or elder statesmen glorying in
their wonderful achievement, social security."(pp. 847-848)"
And please, no rubbish about The Economist being
"simplistic Republican propaganda".
It's not simplistic, but it is dishonest and it is propaganda.
It is honest, you're just childish in your attitude to the
problem. I know it's painful, but just let it go. You lost
this part. It's indefensible.
Repubs may
have simplistic propaganda, but PAYG has fundamental
faults that will only get worse. It's guaranteed.
That's why it's worked so well for 70 years and will continue to work
well.
It won't. It was consumption without prior investment. First
generation wanted to get a free ride and push the debts onto
the future generations. Now we're left with debts to pay and
the debts mount up.
Let me guess: you're not young? If you're not, it's pretty
obvious why you want to upkeep it. I'm young and I
painfully learned to watch when someone wants to
cheat me. This is one of those cases.
S.s. is not fine at all.
Of course it is.
Of course it's not, you child.
There are countries on this planet
Non sequitur.
Why? Hate the evidence? Want 19% unemployment
while simultaneously 50% of take home pay being
taken for s.s.? This is what's happening. And employers
would rather bite their left legs off than employ more
workers. Not with this kind of overhead costs on
employment.
s.s. is really just huge and regressive tax, the
opposite of progressive tax that you left liberals
love so much, on wage. This is the worst kind
of sabotage to the workers' wages you could imagine.
I mean linear tax is hell of a progression in comparison
to that. The poorer you are, the bigger chunk of
your purchasing power goes into the scheme. And
the shorter you live, the less you use it while paying
the same. It is precise opposite to "progressive"
approach of left-liberals. And you're so dense you
don't even get it.
It is a Red Herring to keep the people from
focusing on the poor job the Republicans are doing.
Get real. S.s. being in essence Ponzi scheme is no
It's a complete lie. Right-wing propaganda.
Sheep.
Sheep is what you are. If you had a shred of understanding
of economics and willigness to work on the evidence, you
would not write such pure feel-good wishful thinking
as you do.
--
Democracy is like a baseball bat or a gun:
it is fair to use it - in self-defense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
12 Feb 2005 11:01:04 PM |
|
|
Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Besides, highways are not that important: social security,
among other subjects, IMHO is much more important in
relative terms.
Social Security is fine.
Not according to The Economist for instance:
http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=975689
Pretty sleazy propaganda.
No, it's solid research,
Don't start lying to me, *****. It's an opinion piece.
Anybody honest knows that there is no
relationship between a ponzi scheme and social security, but that,
apparently, doesn't stop ideologue from pushing the lie.
You're just exceptionally dense.
You're just a stupid fool.
S.s. IS Ponzi scheme:
You're lying.
it
merely redistributes what is paid in.
That isn't what a ponzi scheme is, sheep.
Every insurance company "merely redistributes what is paid in", except
that insurance companies also take a cut as profit while SS doesn't.
You might try to insist that all insurance companies are ponzi
schemes, but you'll just look like an idiot. Or rather, you'll just
continue to look like an idiot sheep.
And please, no rubbish about The Economist being
"simplistic Republican propaganda".
It's not simplistic, but it is dishonest and it is propaganda.
It is honest,
It's propaganda. Right-wingers hate SS because it doesn't allow
people to be as greedy at the expense of society. You resort to
all manner of sleazy propaganda to convince people of your lies.
Repubs may
have simplistic propaganda, but PAYG has fundamental
faults that will only get worse. It's guaranteed.
That's why it's worked so well for 70 years and will continue to work
well.
It won't.
Why not?
It was consumption without prior investment.
70 years so far and it's still working just fine.
First
generation wanted to get a free ride and push the debts onto
the future generations. Now we're left with debts to pay and
the debts mount up.
Except that SS is running a net SURPLUS, but you right-wing sheep
seldom bother to educate yourself regarding the actual facts.
Let me guess: you're not young?
Let me guess: You didn't graduate from college?
S.s. is not fine at all.
Of course it is.
Of course it's not, you child.
Stamp your foot and somebody might believe you
There are countries on this planet
Non sequitur.
Why?
SS is relevant to the USA. What other countries do doesn't apply.
It is a Red Herring to keep the people from
focusing on the poor job the Republicans are doing.
Get real. S.s. being in essence Ponzi scheme is no
It's a complete lie. Right-wing propaganda.
Sheep.
Sheep is what you are. If you had a shred of understanding
I've already shown that your claim is a lie. Like a fanatical
ideologue you cling to your lies rather than look at the facts.
Sheep.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Clore" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts .. . |
13 Feb 2005 01:25:19 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
S.s. IS Ponzi scheme:
You're lying.
it
merely redistributes what is paid in.
That isn't what a ponzi scheme is, sheep.
Every insurance company "merely redistributes what is paid in", except
that insurance companies also take a cut as profit while SS doesn't.
You might try to insist that all insurance companies are ponzi
schemes, but you'll just look like an idiot. Or rather, you'll just
continue to look like an idiot sheep.
The OED defines Ponzi scheme: "A form of fraud in which
belief in the success of a fictive enterprise is fostered by
payment of quick returns to first investors from money
invested by others."
Not much like social security. Notice: "fictive enterprise"
& "quick returns".
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
13 Feb 2005 01:56:05 PM |
|
|
Dan Clore wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
S.s. IS Ponzi scheme:
You're lying.
it
merely redistributes what is paid in.
That isn't what a ponzi scheme is, sheep.
Every insurance company "merely redistributes what is paid in",
except
that insurance companies also take a cut as profit while SS
doesn't.
You might try to insist that all insurance companies are ponzi
schemes, but you'll just look like an idiot. Or rather, you'll
just
continue to look like an idiot sheep.
The OED defines Ponzi scheme: "A form of fraud in which
belief in the success of a fictive enterprise is fostered by
payment of quick returns to first investors from money
invested by others."
Not much like social security. Notice: "fictive enterprise"
& "quick returns".
It's not a good definition, and you took that bad, uninformative
definition and focused on a couple of the peripheral elements of it.
The central point of interest in the Ponzi scheme is *how* it works and
*why* it collapses, not the points you mention, which it shares with
countless other fatally flawed get-rich-quick schemes.
Social Security structurally resembles a Ponzi scheme. As the Wikipedia
explains, a Ponzi scheme "involves paying returns to investors out of
the money raised from subsequent investors, rather than from profits
generated by any real business." Social Security, analogously, involves
paying current recipients out of the money raised from tomorrow's
recipients, rather than from a return on investments made from the
money paid in previously by current recipients.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
13 Feb 2005 04:40:03 PM |
|
|
<constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote:
Dan Clore wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
S.s. IS Ponzi scheme:
You're lying.
it
merely redistributes what is paid in.
That isn't what a ponzi scheme is, sheep.
Every insurance company "merely redistributes what is paid in",
except
that insurance companies also take a cut as profit while SS
doesn't.
You might try to insist that all insurance companies are ponzi
schemes, but you'll just look like an idiot. Or rather, you'll
just
continue to look like an idiot sheep.
The OED defines Ponzi scheme: "A form of fraud in which
belief in the success of a fictive enterprise is fostered by
payment of quick returns to first investors from money
invested by others."
Not much like social security. Notice: "fictive enterprise"
& "quick returns".
It's not a good definition, and you took that bad, uninformative
definition and focused on a couple of the peripheral elements of it.
It's a good definition and you're just trying to alter the definition
to fit with your propaganda.
The central point of interest in the Ponzi scheme is *how* it works and
*why* it collapses, not the points you mention, which it shares with
countless other fatally flawed get-rich-quick schemes.
Excep that nobody has ever claimed that SS is any kind of a "get rich
quick" scheme.
Social Security structurally resembles a Ponzi scheme.
It does not. Stop lying.
As the Wikipedia
explains, a Ponzi scheme "involves paying returns to investors out of
the money raised from subsequent investors, rather than from profits
generated by any real business." Social Security, analogously, involves
paying current recipients out of the money raised from tomorrow's
recipients, rather than from a return on investments made from the
money paid in previously by current recipients.
But SS isn't an investment and doesn't promise any returns, so it's
not a ponzi scheme.
SS is retirement insurance. It's run like an insurance.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
14 Feb 2005 10:06:20 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote:
Dan Clore wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
S.s. IS Ponzi scheme:
You're lying.
it
merely redistributes what is paid in.
That isn't what a ponzi scheme is, sheep.
Every insurance company "merely redistributes what is paid in",
except
that insurance companies also take a cut as profit while SS
doesn't.
You might try to insist that all insurance companies are ponzi
schemes, but you'll just look like an idiot. Or rather, you'll
just
continue to look like an idiot sheep.
The OED defines Ponzi scheme: "A form of fraud in which
belief in the success of a fictive enterprise is fostered by
payment of quick returns to first investors from money
invested by others."
Not much like social security. Notice: "fictive enterprise"
& "quick returns".
It's not a good definition, and you took that bad, uninformative
definition and focused on a couple of the peripheral elements of it.
It's a good definition and you're just trying to alter the definition
to fit with your propaganda.
So you say, but you're just talking.
The central point of interest in the Ponzi scheme is *how* it works
and
*why* it collapses, not the points you mention, which it shares with
countless other fatally flawed get-rich-quick schemes.
Excep that nobody has ever claimed that SS is any kind of a "get rich
quick" scheme.
That "exception" to the discussion of a Ponzi scheme makes no sense in
context.
Social Security structurally resembles a Ponzi scheme.
It does not. Stop lying.
So you say but I go on to explain how they are alike.
As the Wikipedia
explains, a Ponzi scheme "involves paying returns to investors out
of
the money raised from subsequent investors, rather than from profits
generated by any real business." Social Security, analogously,
involves
paying current recipients out of the money raised from tomorrow's
recipients, rather than from a return on investments made from the
money paid in previously by current recipients.
But SS isn't an investment and doesn't promise any returns, so it's
not a ponzi scheme.
I didn't say it was an investment, in fact I said it really is not an
investment. I've made no statement about the *claims* made for it, I'm
talking only about how it is structured.
SS is retirement insurance. It's run like an insurance.
Possibly, but the point of likening it to the Ponzi scheme is to
clarify why it is going to go bankrupt when there aren't enough people
paying into the system, and that explanation remains valid whether or
not it is "retirement insurance." The Ponzi scheme is a simple scheme
that looks superficially appealing for obvious reasons but also
eventually collapses for obvious reasons, and Social Security has a
similar vulnerability.
Moreover insurance typically reduces risk in case of the unforeseeable,
in case of accidents, and while there is an element of the
unforeseeable (i.e., how long you live after you retire), the main
current function of Social Security is not to reduce risk, but to
replace saving for one's retirement. Therefore it is appropriate to
consider its strengths and weaknesses as they compare to normal means
of saving for one's retirement - such as making ordinary investments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
14 Feb 2005 01:16:31 PM |
|
|
<constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote:
Dan Clore wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
S.s. IS Ponzi scheme:
You're lying.
it
merely redistributes what is paid in.
That isn't what a ponzi scheme is, sheep.
Every insurance company "merely redistributes what is paid in",
except
that insurance companies also take a cut as profit while SS
doesn't.
You might try to insist that all insurance companies are ponzi
schemes, but you'll just look like an idiot. Or rather, you'll
just
continue to look like an idiot sheep.
The OED defines Ponzi scheme: "A form of fraud in which
belief in the success of a fictive enterprise is fostered by
payment of quick returns to first investors from money
invested by others."
Not much like social security. Notice: "fictive enterprise"
& "quick returns".
It's not a good definition, and you took that bad, uninformative
definition and focused on a couple of the peripheral elements of it.
It's a good definition and you're just trying to alter the definition
to fit with your propaganda.
So you say, but you're just talking.
At least I've got a definition. You've got nothing but lies.
The central point of interest in the Ponzi scheme is *how* it works
and
*why* it collapses, not the points you mention, which it shares with
countless other fatally flawed get-rich-quick schemes.
Excep that nobody has ever claimed that SS is any kind of a "get rich
quick" scheme.
That "exception" to the discussion of a Ponzi scheme makes no sense in
context.
That's because your claims make no sense.
Social Security structurally resembles a Ponzi scheme.
It does not. Stop lying.
So you say but I go on to explain how they are alike.
You go on to continue lying.
As the Wikipedia
explains, a Ponzi scheme "involves paying returns to investors out of
the money raised from subsequent investors, rather than from profits
generated by any real business." Social Security, analogously, involves
paying current recipients out of the money raised from tomorrow's
recipients, rather than from a return on investments made from the
money paid in previously by current recipients.
But SS isn't an investment and doesn't promise any returns, so it's
not a ponzi scheme.
I didn't say it was an investment,
Then it's not a ponzi scheme.
SS is retirement insurance. It's run like an insurance.
Possibly, but the point of likening it to the Ponzi scheme is to
clarify
You're LYING. It's not a ponzi scheme and isn't run like a ponzi
scheme and doesn't resemble a ponzi scheme. It's retirement
insurance.
Moreover insurance typically reduces risk in case of the unforeseeable,
Like SS.
in case of accidents, and while there is an element of the
unforeseeable (i.e., how long you live after you retire), the main
current function of Social Security is not to reduce risk, but to
replace saving for one's retirement.
Stop lying, *****. NOBODY suggests that SS should replace saving
for retirement and SS DOES reduce the risk of running out of money
in one's retirement.
Why the hell do you feel it necessary to lie? Are you such a stupid
sheep that you simply refuse to accept anything but right-wing
disinformation?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
14 Feb 2005 01:37:31 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't say it was an investment,
Then it's not a ponzi scheme.
That's debatable. Why do we call anything aside from Ponzi's own actual
scheme (which ended long ago) a "Ponzi scheme"? Because of resemblance
to Ponzi's own scheme. There's a resemblance between Social Security
and Ponzi's scheme. Of course there are differences and I've recognized
them, but as I've tried to explain the point of the comparison, as I've
seen it made, is to make clear what it is about Social Security that
has people worried about it long-term.
You're LYING. It's not a ponzi scheme and isn't run like a ponzi
scheme and doesn't resemble a ponzi scheme. It's retirement
insurance.
Calling it "retirement insurance" doesn't prove anything one way or
another, it just slaps a different label on it, one that is not
especially illuminating, since "ponzi scheme" actually has many
illuminating definitions and discussions through the Onelook dictionary
search, while "retirement insurance" has no definition or discussion
through that, pretty comprehensive, search (Onelook indexes almost one
thousand online dictionaries and other reference works). Call it
"retirement insurance" if you want to obfuscate the problems with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
14 Feb 2005 10:29:31 PM |
|
|
<constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't say it was an investment,
Then it's not a ponzi scheme.
That's debatable.
It is not a ponzi scheme.
Why do we call anything aside from Ponzi's own actual
scheme (which ended long ago) a "Ponzi scheme"?
Why don't you pull your head out of your ***** and read the definition
for "ponzi scheme"?
Because of resemblance
to Ponzi's own scheme.
Which SS is not.
There's a resemblance between Social Security
and Ponzi's scheme.
The same "resemblence" that's between every insurance plan and a
ponzi scheme. The same "resemblence" that's between every business
and a ponzi scheme. That's how a ponzi scheme works - it's similar
enought to legitimate investments that suckers are fooled.
But like insurance companies and other businesses, SS is not a ponzi
scheme, despite superficial resemblances.
Of course there are differences and I've recognized
them,
Diffrences which mean that SS is not a ponzi scheme.
but as I've tried to explain the point of the comparison, as I've
seen it made, is to make clear what it is about Social Security that
has people worried about it long-term.
What has people worried is the rught-wing disinformation that is
designed solely to get people to go along with being screwed.
The fraud isn't in SS. The fraud is in the attacks on SS.
You're LYING. It's not a ponzi scheme and isn't run like a ponzi
scheme and doesn't resemble a ponzi scheme. It's retirement
insurance.
Calling it "retirement insurance" doesn't prove anything one way or
another,
Words mean things, idiot. Whining because the words contradict your
idiotic disinformation just makes you look stupid.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
15 Feb 2005 04:33:12 AM |
|
|
--
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:29:31 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Why don't you pull your head out of your ***** and read the
definition for "ponzi scheme"?
I google for definition: ponzi scheme
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=definition%3A+%22ponzi+sch
eme%22
: : Definition:
: :
: : The term Ponzi scheme is often misused as a synonym
: : for a pyramid scheme, the essential difference is
: : that Ponzi scheme participants are not offered any
: : direct financial incentive for bringing in other
: : participants. However, they are likely to tell
: : their friends about the investment opportunity. The
: : fact that early participants in a Ponzi scheme are
: : paid off from the monies collected by later
: : participants is normally known only to the operator
: : of the Ponzi scheme. The participants are instead
: : offered a story to explain their high investment
: : returns
In social security, the early participants are paid off from
the moneys collected from later participants, and this fact,
though not entirely concealed, is obfuscated from the public.
Thus social security is a ponzi scheme.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
9/oMsg63B5c5n2abzfqbjuo2WB6jC2XG1K5tWY0n
4EEsoM2LfFc5980qbsV2pCgXqgDxIyY3BjLs5gpUw
--
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
15 Feb 2005 10:15:50 AM |
|
|
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
--
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:29:31 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Why don't you pull your head out of your ***** and read the
definition for "ponzi scheme"?
I google for definition: ponzi scheme
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=definition%3A+%22ponzi+sch
eme%22
Too bad that you didn't actually read it through.
: : Definition:
: :
: : The term Ponzi scheme is often misused as a synonym
: : for a pyramid scheme, the essential difference is
: : that Ponzi scheme participants are not offered any
: : direct financial incentive for bringing in other
: : participants. However, they are likely to tell
: : their friends about the investment opportunity. The
: : fact that early participants in a Ponzi scheme are
: : paid off from the monies collected by later
: : participants is normally known only to the operator
: : of the Ponzi scheme. The participants are instead
: : offered a story to explain their high investment
: : returns
In social security, the early participants are paid off from
the moneys collected from later participants, and this fact,
though not entirely concealed, is obfuscated from the public.
That much is true for every insurance plan.
Thus social security is a ponzi scheme.
Except the SS isn't presented as an investment opportuniy and no
returns in the investment are promised.
Thus, SS is not a ponzi scheme and you're just another right-wing
halfwit who cannot think for yourself.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
15 Feb 2005 05:41:40 PM |
|
|
--
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
I google for definition: ponzi scheme
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=definition%3A+%22ponzi
+scheme%22
: : Definition:
: :
: : The term Ponzi scheme [...] The fact that early
: : participants in a Ponzi scheme are paid off from
: : the monies collected by later participants is
: : normally known only to the operator of the Ponzi
: : scheme. The participants are instead offered a
: : story to explain their high investment returns
In social security, the early participants are paid off
from the moneys collected from later participants, and this
fact, though not entirely concealed, is obfuscated from the
public.
Ray Fischer
That much is true for every insurance plan.
Not for life insurance or private retirement plans.
In "insurance" the lucky pay the unlucky, thus evening out the
risk, and everyone knows this is how it is supposed to work.
In life insurance or a private pension plan, you are supposed
to receive money based on what you pay in. Social Security
pretends to work like a private pension plan, but in fact does
not. Hence a Ponzi.
Were any private pension plan to operate like social security,
the operators would be jailed for fraud.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Y7PE85dvTNBi+GyP/6bjo1l8VBopnf5EbSLBxLP7
4SCC9ZFt8tyNqqLIPTbkHbcyQFnHs+pvF5aRnoDbE
--
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
15 Feb 2005 10:13:43 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
I google for definition: ponzi scheme
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=definition%3A+%22ponzi
+scheme%22
: : Definition:
: :
: : The term Ponzi scheme [...] The fact that early
: : participants in a Ponzi scheme are paid off from
: : the monies collected by later participants is
: : normally known only to the operator of the Ponzi
: : scheme. The participants are instead offered a
: : story to explain their high investment returns
In social security, the early participants are paid off
from the moneys collected from later participants, and this
fact, though not entirely concealed, is obfuscated from the
public.
That much is true for every insurance plan.
Not for life insurance or private retirement plans.
Sure it is (and, by the way, lumping together pensions with life
insurance isn't very honest).
In "insurance" the lucky pay the unlucky, thus evening out the
risk, and everyone knows this is how it is supposed to work.
Likewise SS.
In life insurance or a private pension plan, you are supposed
to receive money based on what you pay in.
Since when? Take out a $1,000,000 life insurance policy and if you
die after making just $5,000 in payments your heirs still get the
million.
Social Security
pretends to work like a private pension plan,
Now your LYING again. It works like returement insurance.
Were any private pension plan to operate like social security,
the operators would be jailed for fraud.
Especially since SS isn't a pension plan.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
16 Feb 2005 09:43:30 AM |
|
|
--
James A. Donald
In social security, the early participants are paid off
from the moneys collected from later participants, and
this fact, though not entirely concealed, is obfuscated
from the public.
Ray Fischer
That much is true for every insurance plan.
James A. Donald
Not for life insurance or private retirement plans.
Ray Fischer
Sure it is (and, by the way, lumping together pensions with
life insurance isn't very honest).
In a private pension plan, the money from each contributor is
invested, and when the contributor grows old those investments
are used to provide his pension. Thus even if there were no
more contributors, the plan would be just fine, is just fine.
Such plans come and go all the time. In social security the
money from each new contributor is immediately spent on older
contributors (and on bombs, crack whores, and boondoggles named
after your local senator) There is no trust fund.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
KRTAokF85Z8LR5qhuVFPiwfY4XsUSie0DhsfF7v8
4EDI2+FNDOKBH61Hmh4+VC43dCfDHGvAD7DE2OK4/
--
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
17 Feb 2005 01:04:20 AM |
|
|
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
In social security, the early participants are paid off
from the moneys collected from later participants, and
this fact, though not entirely concealed, is obfuscated
from the public.
That much is true for every insurance plan.
Not for life insurance or private retirement plans.
Sure it is (and, by the way, lumping together pensions with
life insurance isn't very honest).
In a private pension plan, the money from each contributor is
invested, and when the contributor grows old those investments
are used to provide his pension.
Except that pension plans do not manage individual accounts.
The contributors' investments are pooled (just as with SS)
and payments are made from the fund (just like SS). The amount
of the payment is not determined by the contributors' investments
but is determined usually by length of service.
Thus even if there were no
more contributors, the plan would be just fine, is just fine.
Unless it isn't.
In social security the
money from each new contributor is immediately spent on older
contributors
That's a lie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
17 Feb 2005 01:30:01 AM |
|
|
--
James A. Donald
In a private pension plan, the money from each contributor
is invested, and when the contributor grows old those
investments are used to provide his pension.
Ray Fischer
Except that pension plans do not manage individual accounts.
The contributors' investments are pooled (just as with SS)
In SS they are not pooled, but immediately spent. That is the
difference. It is not whether the funds are aggregated or
not, but whether there are any funds.
In social security the money from each new contributor is
immediately spent on older contributors
That's a lie.
That is a fact. There is no trust fund.
Money paid in from contributors is counted against the deficit,
and is thus immediately available to be spent on handouts,
bombs and such, and is immediately spent.
Any excess of contributions over payouts, caused by the fact
that young people outnumber old people, is treated as profit,
available for spending on senatorial boondoggles, midnight
basketball, thousand dollar toilet seats, "deficit reduction",
and all the rest . The increase in "Bonds" that the government
supposedly owes social security does not increase the
governments deficit, because the social security "surplus" goes
into general revenue.
Let us imagine the hypothetical kingdom of King Rusevelt, to
illustrate the accounting principles at work. King Rusevelt
applies the accounting principles introduced by president
Roosevelt, but in a simpler world, so you can easily see what
he is up to.
In the kingdom of king Rusevelt most people earn a thousand
pieces of gold each year from age twenty to age sixty, then at
age sixty they retire on their savings, which were kept in big
steel boxes, and on average they die at seventy.
Then it was noticed that some people croaked at sixty, and some
people lived to a hundred, that ten years was only the average,
so private pension companies appeared. If you gave them a
hundred pieces of gold a year for forty years, plus a fee, then
when you grew old they would give you four hundred pieces of
gold for as long as you lived, which on average was ten years.
Then evil king Rusevelt noticed a lot of gold in the boxes of
the pension funds, so he announced national social security,
and immediately spent the gold. For this he was loudly
cheered for relieving the terrible depression caused by
capitalism, even though strangely the depression continued to
persist for far longer than any previous depression
As it happened, young people far outnumbered old people, so
contributions coming in far outnumbered payments out. King
Rusevelt spent this money on armies and on appeasing the
barons, relying almost wholly on funds from social security,
with very little in the way of other taxes, yet announced that
his budget was in near balance, despite a rapidly increasing
accounting item showing "bonds" and "certificates of
indebtedness" in "The social security trust fund"
If King Rusevelt says his budget is roughly balanced, he is
mingling the social security funds with his own. If he is
mingling the funds with his own, there is no "trust fund"
This story differs from the actual president Roosevelt, only in
that King Rusevelt is relying wholly on money embezzled from
pensions to fund his kingdom, while Roosevelt and every
government since only relies partially.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
8B5KJ42ChSCMNwPvrbBkgPXvO3Jzh1pCBkmnHXfi
4LoNDFQMUUHYxzrIcrxaQk4T2mRr8xPs2gbdncdXg
--
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
17 Feb 2005 10:39:36 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
In a private pension plan, the money from each contributor
is invested, and when the contributor grows old those
investments are used to provide his pension.
Except that pension plans do not manage individual accounts.
The contributors' investments are pooled (just as with SS)
In SS they are not pooled, but immediately spent.
You're lying. The Social Security Administration has a
trillion-dollar surplus which is largely invested in US treasuries.
In social security the money from each new contributor is
immediately spent on older contributors
That's a lie.
That is a fact.
According to the US government, you're lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Clore" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts .. . |
18 Feb 2005 04:08:49 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
According to the US government, you're lying.
Ouch!
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Clore" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts .. . |
14 Feb 2005 03:13:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dan Clore wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
S.s. IS Ponzi scheme:
You're lying.
it
merely redistributes what is paid in.
That isn't what a ponzi scheme is, sheep.
Every insurance company "merely redistributes what is paid in",
except
that insurance companies also take a cut as profit while SS
doesn't.
You might try to insist that all insurance companies are ponzi
schemes, but you'll just look like an idiot. Or rather, you'll
just
continue to look like an idiot sheep.
The OED defines Ponzi scheme: "A form of fraud in which
belief in the success of a fictive enterprise is fostered by
payment of quick returns to first investors from money
invested by others."
Not much like social security. Notice: "fictive enterprise"
& "quick returns".
It's not a good definition, and you took that bad, uninformative
definition and focused on a couple of the peripheral elements of it.
Both elements I quoted from the OED are essential components
of the Ponzi scheme. Potential investors must believe the
fraud that the pay-off comes from a legitimate, profitable
business (in Ponzi's case, playing off the different
exchange values of stamps and international reply coupons).
Likewise, they are enticed by the hopes of fast, easy money
(in Ponzi's case, within a few months). Social Security has
neither of these features.
The central point of interest in the Ponzi scheme is *how* it works and
*why* it collapses, not the points you mention, which it shares with
countless other fatally flawed get-rich-quick schemes.
It also shares the pyramid structure with countless other
get-rich-schemes.
Social Security structurally resembles a Ponzi scheme. As the Wikipedia
explains, a Ponzi scheme "involves paying returns to investors out of
the money raised from subsequent investors, rather than from profits
generated by any real business." Social Security, analogously, involves
paying current recipients out of the money raised from tomorrow's
recipients, rather than from a return on investments made from the
money paid in previously by current recipients.
It does indeed structurally resemble a Ponzi scheme, in this
very limited way. But everyone knows that the money for
Social Security comes from taxes taken from wages, and that
Social Security pays to old, mostly retired people. So
pointing out this similarity does nothing to illuminate the
case.
The point of identifying Social Security as a Ponzi scheme
is clearly to create a negative association between it and a
criminal scam, not to illuminate how it works. Arguments
against Social Security can and should be made on the real
facts, not on such propagandistic misidentifications.
*****
Wikipedia describes a number of differences between state
pensions such as Social Security and Ponzi schemes:
Are state pensions Ponzi schemes?
It has been suggested that some state pension systems, such
as the U.S. Social Security system and the U.K. State
pension systems are actually large-scale Ponzi schemes.
Under these systems, incoming payments (taxes or other kinds
of non-voluntary contributions) are not saved or invested to
pay for future benefits. Instead, the taxes (perhaps with
some general government revenues) are used to pay for
current benefits.
State pension systems, though they are pyramid schemes, lack
a number of basic features that define Ponzi schemes, and so
are somewhat different:
* There is no belief that there are large profits coming
from something; rather, it is clear that these are
pay-as-you go systems, where workers (at any given time) are
providing money to those who have retired.
* A Ponzi scheme offers high short-term returns in order to
entice new investors, whose money is needed to fund payouts
to early investors. Once the illusion of high returns
shatters, the flow of new investors stops and the scheme
collapses. By contrast, a state pension system relies on the
tax power of the state to ensure continuous funding.
* State pension systems are in some way insurance rather
than investment systems. A person who dies before retirement
gets no money back (regardless of what he/she paid in).
Someone who lives to a very old age continues to get
payments regardless of the amount of money he/she has paid in.
* Because receipts (taxes) and payouts (entitlements) can be
calculated quite accurately in the short term (five to ten
years), and predicted (with a range of assumptions) for
periods beyond that timeframe, there will never be a sudden
collapse.
* General tax revenues can be used to supplement worker
payments into the systems, although many taxpayers will be
unhappy with such supplementation. Similarly, benefits can
be reduced through the political process, either
across-the-board or by reducing benefits to the well-off,
although there will clearly be opposition by those who will
get less.
On the other hand, if the next generation is much smaller
than the previous one or if the life-span increases
sufficiently, the scheme no longer works and the promises
cannot be fulfilled. Instead, the pensions must be cut
dramatically and/or the taxes must be raised enormously.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . |
15 Feb 2005 07:47:38 PM |
|
|
--
Dan Clore
Both elements I quoted from the OED are essential components
of the Ponzi scheme.
You are just twisting words. The essential component of a
Ponzi scheme is that the operator claims to be investing money
on behalf of the investor, and he lies.
Thus, when one receives letters from the government about "your
social security account", when one hears of "the trust fund",
and "the lock box", this makes social security a ponzi scheme,
for there is no account, no trust fund, and no lock box.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Ep6Yvmo3vdJbn2xm5OAlkeAIoGI8UPnsbohb/kRe
4vBsp4I12N4q3lxXrdrya2+ig6FxYO0Y4WZgvF7bn
--
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
