[nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled

[T. Joseph Carter]

Person C puts money in to the system so that person B gets a return 
on his investment, because his investment was used to pay person A.

Didn't Bernie Madoff go to prison for that?

Joseph

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 08:34:39AM -0700, Mike Freeman wrote:
>Actually, although in theory, this is certainly true, in reality, 
>this assertion is based upon asumption which, while used to sell the 
>original program and gain public support, has never been true, to 
>wit, that Social Security is a social insurance program. In fact, 
>beginning on Day One of the program and continuing to the present, 
>Social Security was then, is now and (unless Congress says otherwise) 
>a pay-as-you-go program; current taxpayers pay for current retirees 
>although it looks to those contributing to Social Security as if 
>they're contributing to a trust fund. Lest we doubt this, remember 
>that SS benefits were issued almost from the program's inception and 
>this could not have been done were the program a true "trust fund". 
>But FDR could have never sold a true trust fund. to Congress or to 
>the people.
>
>Mike
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: <ckrugman at sbcglobal.net>
>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 10:59 PM
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled
>
>
>>And we must not forget that
>>Social Security would not be in the unfunded position that it is in 
>>had the trust fund not been raided to cover other government 
>>expenditures as it has been raided many times over the past years.
>>Chuck
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "T. Joseph Carter" 
>><carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
>>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 12:50 AM
>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not 
>>get labeled
>>
>>
>>>According to the US Debt Clock (privately run and woefully 
>>>inaccessible), the current total US liability per person is in 
>>>the neighborhood of $350,634.  If you spread the wealth evenly, 
>>>the total US national assets (public and private), per person, 
>>>are only $234,237.  That means if you follow the current doctrine 
>>>of soak the rich and make sure nobody has any more than everyone 
>>>else gets, every single man, woman, and child in these United 
>>>States would still owe a total of $116,377.
>>>
>>>I've got no idea how much of that is owed to other countries like 
>>>China and how much of that is owed to Grandma (the largest 
>>>unfunded liability of the government is Social Security), but 
>>>there you have it.  If everything we own, all of our land and 
>>>possessions are taken as payment of the national debt, we all 
>>>still owe something in the neighborhood of the value of my 
>>>family's house, pre-housing debacle.
>>>
>>>The government has no money to pay squat.  One of these days, 
>>>Social Security is going to not get paid because our debtors are 
>>>going to start demanding a return on their investment.  That's 
>>>basic Economics 101. WHEN that happens, not if, people looking 
>>>for the government to pay their bills are going to be screwed.
>>>
>>>Ask the teachers in California how well they can spend IOUs.  In 
>>>time, that'll be readers' SSI and SSDI checks.  The alternatives 
>>>are a complete and immediate collapse of the dollar or 
>>>Zimbabwe-style inflation.  Scary stuff.
>>>
>>>You cannot spend money indefinitely without the ability or desire 
>>>to pay. If you and I do that, we will at least destroy our credit 
>>>rating or at worse go to jail for fraud.  The Weasel Caucus 
>>>(which seems to be the only thing bi-partisan in DC anymore) is 
>>>doing the same and has been apparently since before I was born.  
>>>They probably won't face any real consequences for it.
>>>
>>>We will, sooner or later.  And it's gonna hit certain populations 
>>>(like blind people collecting SSI and SSDI for example) a whole 
>>>lot harder than it's going to hit political fat cats who quibble 
>>>over which model of Gulf Stream Jet they are forced to fly in.
>>>
>>>If the media wants to see real anger in the streets, wait till 
>>>people figure out just how screwed we really are, courtesy of a 
>>>whole bunch of fat elephants and complete donkeys, who will have 
>>>moved their not inconsiderable assets to safety long before it 
>>>happens.
>>>
>>>Ready to vote them all out,
>>>
>>>Joseph
>>>
>>>
>>>On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:43:03PM -0500, David Andrews wrote:
>>>>Well, the government probably has more money, and can provide 
>>>>things in a more even-handed regular way.  Yes, there are 
>>>>problems with administering government programs -- but private 
>>>>ones too.  Who hasn't had billing problems with an insurance 
>>>>company, a phone company, a a bank or a credit card company.  
>>>>Any large system that tries to make everybody, and everything 
>>>>the same is going to have these kinds of problems.  If you 
>>>>think the government has a monopoly on the bad stuff, or that 
>>>>the private sector could administer a large program without 
>>>>mistakes, fraud and the rest of it is just thinking selectively 
>>>>to make a point.
>>>>
>>>>Dave
>>>>
>>>>At 11:43 PM 4/22/2010, you wrote:
>>>>>Chuck, I don't know you of course, but based on your 
>>>>>comments, I'm tempted to think that you don't receive social 
>>>>>security or Medicare benefits. I and many of my friends can 
>>>>>relate horror story after horror story involving the 
>>>>>bureaucracy and ineptness of various government programs. 
>>>>>I've asked many liberals in amicable debates why they believe 
>>>>>that the government is better able to provide assistance than 
>>>>>the private sector. I ask on a historical, efficiency and 
>>>>>motivational basis. At the end of the arguments, though many 
>>>>>platitudes come across, I've never received a solid answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>RyanO
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org