by purplesofa 130 Replies latest jw friends
Did it in real life, I don't need to play a game. Lost our house, had no savings. We managed to paint our way into a falling down rental that kept a roof over our heads until we could work some things out. We did what we did because we had to. Didn't qualify for government support. Ten years later I went into rehab and actually fixed what was wrong.
Not saying all poor people are alcoholics/addicts, just saying that was my experience.
Thanks for all your responses, We are fortunate to hear the success stories of coming out of hard times. I doubt we will get a response from a homeless person. Which I am glad no one here is homeless, that we know of, but it's very easy to see how it happens. This was a good PSA, and again thanks for your input.
Be kind to those in need and displaced, it's difficult.
purps
The only thing between my relative and homelessness is my house. He could never make it out there right now. It's devastating.
NC
EDIT: Had something to say, but had misread the OP.
@purplesofa My point is that it's illegal to raise the rent above a certain percentage per year. If you don't have the money, you don't pay the landlord and the landlord can't take the money out of your account nor can he kick you out from one day to the other. Also, a street kid breaking the window (as the game said) is on the landlord, not the renter and your renters insurance will say that as well. Same goes for the bank, why would you pick a bank that charges you if you go under $50 balance if you're poor? You don't, you do that only for savings accounts with interest and then if you empty your savings, you close the account.
He has to go to the police to kick you out but then he has to prove that he provided notice. They will most likely try to get him to go to court and there his claim will be struck down and the contract may actually become void depending on your jurisdiction. Small claims court has those type of a-holes all day and the judges are not nice to those people.
People that are poor think they have no way out but I've been in those situations. I've had to live with 2 people off $1200/month, $800 rent and and my landlord wanted my money early and came to my door every month for it. I said tough sh*t, I don't have it and he claimed a lot of things including kicking me out, I lived there for another year and a half. You have to fight to survive but it's in no way impossible and the game just tries to force you in situations that are unrealistic or at least situations that some basic knowledge won't fix to make you feel bad and donate to the cause. No different than JW's trying to make you feel bad about the situations in this world in order for you to donate even though the situations overall are improving.
I'm not saying those situations don't exist but I've seen also that there are reasons people are in those situations going from lack of intelligence to lack of control. I know a JW couple that never has any money. You could say it stems from involvement with crime (he used to be a drug runner) but not even the money give their kids good clothes or basic food supplies - me and my wife have given and bought more clothing for their kids than the parents. However they continue living in an expensive part of town even though their jobs are further away and last year they bought 4 32" TV's on Black Friday, I also found out they continue paying on timeshares they never could afford to visit. After that I gave up as it was clear it's not because they don't have money, it's because they have a lack of intelligence AND a lack of control.
Another family member is also "poor" (also a JW). He has been dodging taxes for years, he has bought 5 cars off the lot in 7 years each time the loan of the previous one adding on to the new loan. When we bought a house, he became jealous and bought a small town house for about the same price but he also quit his well-paying job (and he did so many times before with the same large local employer that he is now on the blacklist) because his boss told him that his performance was lacking and he needed to pick it up (he wasn't getting fired though). He started working minimum wage with a $800 mortgage, $500 car payment, utilities, townhouse community fee, $15,000 due in taxes. Yes, those type of people don't have a bank account and cash their checks where it cost $5-10 because he would never have anything (even though they cannot garner wages beyond minimum wage)
The fact that we're forced by the federal government to pay into it is a crime on their part, but more so a culpability on ours for allowing it to continue.
We all pay taxes and some of the monies go to things we would rather not pay for. I don't like supporting the war but that is where most of my tax money goes. You don't like paying ss? Here's a hanky--go blow your nose.
Yes, I would rather my money not go to subsidize oil companies. May I have a hanky too Robdar?
poor people are poor because they make stupid decisions. Not only in how they manage their money, but in how they manage their lives - education, family planning, investments, behavior, it all goes into the quality of their lives and whether they are or are not successful financially.
---------------------j
and THIS is exactly why so many people GIVE UP on humanity....sammies
The formatting may suck but the article is still good.
Poverty & Public Policy
Vol. 2: Iss. 4 Article 8 (2010)
The U. S. System of Social Security:
Emphatically Not a Ponzi Scheme
Max J. Skidmore,
University of Missouri-Kansas City
Abstract
This article, written by
PPPEditor-In-Chief Max J. Skidmore, references
information from his and others' research, including quoted information taken from
the Security and Exchange Commission’s own website to disassociate the U.S.
Social Security System from recent allegations that it is a kind of Ponzi or
"Pyramid" scheme. It is pointed out that social insurance, unlike Ponzi programs,
offers sustainable revenues for contributing patrons and not get-rich-quick scenarios.
Keywords:
Social Security, Ponzi scheme, pyramid scheme, social insurance
Recommended Citation:
Skidmore, Max J. (2010) “The U. S. System of Social Security: Emphatically Not a
Ponzi Scheme,”
Vol. 2: Iss. 4, Article 8.
DOI:
10.2202/1944-2858.1138
Available at:
- 161 -
© 2010 Policy Studies Organization
Published by Berkeley Electronic Press
A “Ponzi scheme” takes its name from a pyramid plan in 1920 that
its originator, an Italian immigrant to the United States, Carlo (or “Charles”)
Ponzi, promised would pay huge returns to investors. They could double
their money, he told them, in 90 days. Profits to the early investors came
from amounts paid in by subsequent investors, but the promised returns were
so great that paying each wave of investors required a geometric increase in
the number of investors in the next wave. If every investor remained in the
scheme, the successive requirements for new investors to keep the system
going would fairly quickly exceed the population of the earth. Obviously,
this is unsustainable. Ponzi schemes inevitably collapse. As the Securities
and Exchange Commission of the United States explains on its website:
In the classic “pyramid” scheme, participants attempt to make
money solely by recruiting new participants into the program. The hallmark
of these schemes is the promise of sky-high returns in a short period of time
for doing nothing other than handing over your money and getting others to
do the same.
1
When the promoter of the scheme can no longer find the enormous
number of new investors required to keep it going, the scheme collapses.
The collapse is not only inevitable, but comes rapidly. Social insurance bears
no relation to pyramid, or Ponzi, schemes. “The first modern social
insurance program began in Germany in 1889 and has been in continuous
operation for more than 100 years. The American Social Security system has
been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi’s scheme
lasted barely 200 days.”
As I make clear in
not a Ponzi, or pyramid, scheme; it bears no resemblance to one.”
Social Security does not promise great riches, and in fact is not an investment
scheme at all. All participants benefit. Even the unusual person with no
dependents who dies before retirement without ever having become disabled
has received a measure of protection from disability insurance. This person
may also have benefited indirectly by not having to support elderly relatives
who are independent because of Social Security. The situation of such a
person is similar to that of the homeowner who has fire insurance but never
1
Securities and Exchange Commission, “Pyramid Schemes,”
http://www.sec.gov/answers/pyramid.htm (accessed October 12, 2010).
2
Larry DeWitt, “Ponzi Schemes vs. Social Security,” Research Notes and Special
Studies by the Historian’s Office, Social Security Administration, Research Note #25,
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/ponzi.htm (accessed October 12, 2010).
3
Max J. Skidmore, Securing America ’s Future: A Bold Plan to Preserve and Expand
Social Security
(Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2008), Appendix C: “SocialSecurity and Ponzi Schemes.”
- 162 -
Poverty & Public Policy, Vol. 2 [2010], Iss. 4, Art. 8
http://www.psocommons.org/ppp/vol2/iss4/art8
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2858.1138
has a house fire; that homeowner has benefited from the insurance coverage,
and is hardly likely to consider it unfortunate that his house didn’t burn.
Social Security does not encourage risk, and certainly does not benefit a
manipulator. In fact, it “turns the notion of a Ponzi scheme upside down;
instead of impoverishing all but a few, for nearly three-quarters of a century
it has provided extensive benefits to virtually the entire population.”
No Ponzi scheme can survive for an extended period, and none can pay benefits
to all who participate—or even to more than a very few of them. All
participants in a Ponzi scheme lose their investments, except for the initial
handful of investors (and, of course, the promoter).
Why, then, have there been so many allegations in recent years to
the contrary? People may be misled by failure to understand pyramid
schemes. It is true that they promise to pay returns to early investors from
the amounts paid in by other investors, and Social Security also pays
benefits from amounts paid in by other contributors. Ponzi schemes, though,
promise huge returns on investments and thus require a geometric increase
of new investors, which is impossible. Social Security, in contrast, is
essentially a transfer program from one group to another, and requires no
increases in the number of new participants, let alone an unsustainable
geometric increase. In fact, every society throughout humanity’s existence
has had some arrangement for supporting those who are too young or too old
to work, and that support has come from workers. Modern societies have
arranged to do it with great efficiency through the social insurance
mechanism.
There is more involved here, however, than simple
misunderstanding, or ignorance. There have been deliberate attempts to
mislead the public, in order to undermine confidence in Social Security.
Take comments by the late economist, Milton Friedman, for example. He
frequently hinted, and sometimes actually said, that Social Security is a
Ponzi scheme.
5One can be reasonably certain that he knew better, since he
was a Nobel laureate in economics and undoubtedly understood what a
Ponzi scheme actually is. Similarly, Social Security’s opponents have
pointed to comments by another Nobel laureate in economics, Paul
Samuelson, who remarked in 1967 that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme,
but one that worked. What the critics miss is that Samuelson, who was
known for witty remarks, and who knew full well that Ponzi schemes cannot
4
5
January 11,
1999, op. ed.
- 163 -
Skidmore: The U. S. System of Social Security: Emphatically Not a Ponzi Scheme
© 2010 Policy Studies Organization
Published by Berkeley Electronic Press
work, was joking. He also once quipped that economists had predicted nine
of the past five recessions.
But this does not explain why there is opposition to social insurance.
To begin to understand, we must look at what Social Security is and does,
and at the political ideologies that it reflects—and offends.
The American Social Security program, based on legislation enacted
in 1935 as part of the “New Deal” of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, has
operated efficiently and economically since its first regular benefits were
issued in 1940. During these 70 years Social Security has become an integral
part of the fabric of American life, and is probably the most popular
government program in the country’s history. Without fail, the system
provides retirement benefits to workers who have worked within the system,
with additional benefits for their spouses and minor dependents. Benefits
also include payments to surviving dependents of deceased wage earners and
beneficiaries. Moreover, for more than half a century the system has
provided disability benefits as well.
Another fact that is too easy to overlook is that Social Security not
only enables enormous numbers of retirees and others to live independently,
but as it does so it ensures that inflation will not erode its benefits, as is
likely to happen with income from private investments. In other words,
benefits from Social Security retain their purchasing power, regardless of
what happens in the economy. Another source of security from the program
is that one cannot outlive Social Security’s retirement benefits. They can
never be exhausted regardless of how long a retiree lives.
Those who are not actually receiving checks from Social Security
may yet benefit indirectly from the system. The independence that Social
Security confers upon its beneficiaries also frees most of the population who
are still working from having to provide direct support to their elderly or
disabled parents or grandparents.
Despite all this, there has always been a small group of opponents.
Most of these, such as quasi anarchists from the libertarian Cato Institute, are
motivated by ideology. Their opposition reflects philosophical objection to
government programs, and they form the intellectual core of the opposition.
The force behind the opposition, though, comes from economic interests—
multi-billionaires such as the (also ideologically libertarian) Koch brothers,
Charles and David of Koch Industries in Wichita, Kansas, and from
investment banker Peter G. Peterson, who held the position of secretary of
commerce under President Richard Nixon. Charles Koch was a founder of
Cato, and he and David continue to fund the Institute and other related
6
See Skidmore, Securing America ’ s Future, 186-187.
- 164 -
Poverty & Public Policy, Vol. 2 [2010], Iss. 4, Art. 8
http://www.psocommons.org/ppp/vol2/iss4/art8
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2858.1138
efforts. For example, they provided funds to begin the anti-government “teaparty”
movement in the United States.
7Peterson for years wrote diatribes
against “entitlements,” including Social Security, and then became more
sophisticated in his attacks. He was instrumental in forming the Concord
Coalition, and subsequently created the
Fiscal Times
and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation; he endowed the latter with one billion dollars to work
against Social Security, and was a major instigator of the recent “town hall”
meetings across the country that attempted to create fears that the deficit, not
unemployment, is America’s greatest current economic danger.
8Peterson has been especially skillful in working with mainstream
groups to obscure any perception of extremism. The Concord Coalition has
been notably successful in this regard. The intellectual foundation of the
effort to undermine Social Security, however, dates to an article by Stuart
Butler and Peter Germanis that Cato published in 1983, “Achieving a
‘Leninist’ Strategy.”
9Butler and Germanis openly set forth plans for a longterm
project to destroy public confidence in the system, reassure the elderly
that their interests would be protected in order to dispel their opposition to
“reform,” and establish a coalition with those “who will reap benefits” from
a private system, including “the banks, insurance companies, and other
institutions that will gain from providing such plans to the public.”
10By
“reassuring” the elderly, Butler and Germanis propose to buy their support,
or at least to ensure that they do not protest when the security of their
children and grandchildren is put at risk. Their strategy of incremental
attacks has been effective, but they were proven too cynical in their hope
that the elderly—who continue fiercely to protect Social Security—would
react with complete selfishness.
The overall result has been decades of well-funded propaganda
suggesting that Social Security is unsustainable. That view came to have
tacit support from official quarters when Ronald Reagan became president.
Reagan had campaigned against Social Security for years prior to entering
politics officially, and then attempted to cut the program severely when he
took office. His efforts brought such political backlash that he promised in
7
For an excellent analysis of the actions of the Koch brothers, see Jane Mayer, “Covert
Operators: The Billionaire Brothers Who are Waging War Against Obama,”
The New Yorker,October 13, 2010.
8
See Max J. Skidmore, “The People, the Economy, and the Issues: A Participant Reports
on National ‘Town Hall’ Meetings on the Deficit,”
Poverty & Public Policy2 (3) (2010),
Article 2, http://www.psocommons.org/ppp/vol2/iss3/art2.
9
Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis, “Achieving a ‘Leninist’ Strategy,” Cato Journal3
(Fall) (1983): 2.
10
548.
- 165 -
Skidmore: The U. S. System of Social Security: Emphatically Not a Ponzi Scheme
© 2010 Policy Studies Organization
Published by Berkeley Electronic Press
so many words that under his administration there would be no more assaults
on America’s cherished program. He remained true to his word, and even
appointed a commission of Republicans and Democrats to deal with the
system’s cash-flow troubles in 1982. That commission’s recommendations
led to the 1983 revisions to the Social Security Act that were designed to
secure the program’s financing.
Official opposition became overt during the administration of
George W. Bush, especially in his second term. By the time of Bush’s
presidency, his Republican Party had become far more ideological than has
been the norm for American political parties, and had come to devote itself
to privatization and de-regulation whenever possible. Its foremost answer to
all economic questions came to be lowering taxes. Even going to war
brought no tax increases. Astonishingly, as it took the country to war, the
Bush administration actually
taxes—a circumstance that probably
was unique in the history not only of the United States but also of the world.
Thus, it could hardly be surprising that hostility to Social Security had
become imbedded in the official positions of Bush and his party.
For example, the Bush administration not only attempted to divert
Social Security funds into private accounts, but also promulgated a “tactical
plan” to portray the program as unsound. The administration’s actions at the
time led some Social Security employees to complain that the Bush officials
were advancing their political agenda by using money from the trust funds.
11Part of this effort involved “cleansing” the website of the Social Security
Administration (SSA). The SSA website had always been a model of
objective public information, but Bush’s appointees filled it with
propagandistic warnings that the system was unsustainable unless
considerably revised. The website until Bush’s second term had included an
excellent discussion of the Ponzi scheme allegation. That discussion had
been available as late as December 3, 2005, barely more than a month before
his second term was about to begin. After that, however, it seemed to have
vanished.
Happily, Ponzi information now has returned to SSA’s website.
Immediately upon Bush’s departure, the site began again to deal expertly
with the question.
This time it took the form of an excellent essay by the official
historian of the Social Security Administration, Larry DeWitt. Significantly,
DeWitt’s essay, “Ponzi Schemes vs. Social Security,” which is highly
11
New York Times,
January 16, 2005; see also Skidmore,
185.
12
, 186.
- 166 -
Poverty & Public Policy, Vol. 2 [2010], Iss. 4, Art. 8
http://www.psocommons.org/ppp/vol2/iss4/art8
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2858.1138
detailed both in its description of the nature of pyramid schemes (complete
with graphs) and in its explanation of Social Security, is dated January
2009—the month that Barack Obama took office as President of the United
States.
There now should be no more confusion, no allegation that Social
Security is a Ponzi scheme. Undoubtedly, though, considering the huge
economic force backing the attacks against the system, and considering the
compliant role of the media, the attempts to confuse and mislead the public
will continue.
Under the circumstances, only one possible way exists for the public
ever to have even a chance at being well informed. That way will be if those
who recognize that the stakes are high, who understand the situation, and
who are concerned for the future of Social Security work at every
opportunity to counter the propaganda with accurate information.
References
Butler, Stuart, and Peter Germanis. 1983. “Achieving a ‘Leninist’ Strategy.”
Cato Journal
DeWitt, Larry. 2010. “Ponzi Schemes vs. Social Security.” Research Notes
and Special Studies by the Historian’s Office, Social Security
Administration, Research Note #25.
https://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/ponzi.htm (accessed October
12, 2010).
Friedman, Milton. 1999. “Social Security Chimeras.”
New York Times , January, op. ed.
Mayer, Jane. 2010. “Covert Operators: The Billionaire Brothers Who are
Waging War Against Obama.”
The New Yorker , October 13, 2010.
Pear, Robert. 2005. “Social Security Enlisted to Push its Own Revision.”
New York Times
Securities and Exchange Commission. 2010. “Pyramid Schemes.”
http://www.sec.gov/answers/pyramid.htm (accessed October 12, 2010).
Skidmore, Max J. 2008.
Securing America’s Future: A Bold Plan to
Preserve and Expand Social Security
. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield (Appendix C: “Social Security and Ponzi Schemes”).
13
Dewitt, “Ponzi Schemes vs. Social Security.”
- 167 -
Skidmore: The U. S. System of Social Security: Emphatically Not a Ponzi Scheme
© 2010 Policy Studies Organization
Published by Berkeley Electronic Press
Skidmore, Max J. 2010. “The People, the Economy, and the Issues: A
Participant Reports on National ‘Town Hall’ Meetings on the
Deficit.”
Poverty and Public Policy2 (3), Article 2.
, January 16, 2005. 3 (Fall): 2.13 See Skidmore, Securing America’s Future Securing America’s Future, Robert Pear, “Social Security Enlisted to Push its Own Revision,” 12 lowered Ibid. , 6 See, e.g., Milton Friedman, “Social Security Chimeras,” New York Times, Ibid., 186. 4 Securing America’s Future , “Social Security is
3 2 http://www.psocommons.org/ppp/vol2/iss4/art8 Poverty & Public Policy:
But that test was indeed rigged.
------
It is rigged. Typing and input is my expertise and I failed - I think it was designed to fail for a number of reasons and one of those is to show how often and easy it is to deny you that job regardless of how highly skilled you are. You walk away with a sense of failure, believing something is wrong with your skills - which were exactly what they advertised for - but in reality, with 10,000 applicants for that one job, you may not have gotten it simply because you were too old, out of the work force too long, the wrong gender, the wrong color, too experienced, too seasoned or just because you don't have contacts inside.
It's a fact that a lot of people that apply for a job in which they have good references and skills will get turned away for any number of reasons. The person applying for the job often sees it as a failure on their part and internalizes that feeling and it becomes a vicious circle that starts to feed on hoplessness, inadequacy and despair. I think that was one reason the test was rigged - to reflect the humiliation and unsurety one goes through in trying to land a job they know they can do.
But......hey, (sarcasm) it's all your own fault you lazy sob...sloth...idiot...moron...jerk...low life..........and who says there isn't a war going on???? sammies
