RE: Some Facts.

[ridgeway <riridgew@nyx.net>]

In response to the objective data from widely published
Social Security experts I advanced in the post:
* Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 13:00:01 -0400 (EDT)
* From: ridgeway <riridgew@nyx.net>
* Subject: RE: Some Facts.

The following was posted:

* Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 18:29:15 -0400 (EDT)
* From: "William J. Burrows" <bill_burrows@amecom.com>
* Subject: RE: Some Facts.
* Thanks Ridgeway for the best possible summary of all we, who
* recognize the real lie behind SS, have been trying to say for
* days. The theft is real no matter how much Mr Myers and others
* try to philosophize it away. Read my quote from Peter Ferrera
* posted a few days ago. I would repost it but no one wants to
* hear the truth from me either.

Thanks. Glad to be of service. 
 
You are most correct when you imply that it's hard to get 
out the truth about SS paralleling a Ponzi Scheme (e.g. 
the objective data for the declining Lifetime-Internal-
Rates-of-Return for successive cohorts forced through 
the SS system).

It is a hard sell for several reasons.  Although
there is much analytical evidence to support the 
Ponzi claim (as referenced in my post), it 
does require an above average literacy in math and 
finance to comprehend.  Also working against us is 
that the press and the bureaucrats have a liberal bias 
(i.e. they support Democrats and believe that redistribution
of income and wealth is a legitimate function of
government).  When you combine these two factors, 
well, that's the reason the truth about SS is not
more widespread. Consider the moderator's summary 
of these Ponzi discussions given below....

* Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 12:28:16 -0400 (EDT)        
* From: National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>      
* Subject: DAILY SUMMARY May 5 - May 10              
* Contributor: SUMMARY: Barbara Brandon             
* ...The Ponzi Scheme - A Fellow of the Society of 
* Actuaries debunked the Ponzi scheme attack on the 
* securities held by the Social Security Trust Funds; 
* he stated that U.S. government bonds are the soundest
* securities in the world and that to analogize the 
* funds to a Ponzi scheme is false...

Below is a copy of the "debunking" argument referred to above:

* Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 13:24:49 EDT
* From: RRand98163@aol.com
* Subject: RE: Responses to "Values" questions
* The present SS structure does not constitute a Ponzi scheme, 
* which by definition depends on a rapidly and ever increasing 
* stream of new entrants.  The trust funds consisting of US 
* government bonds, the soundest securities in the world, 
* do exist. Assertions to the contrary are lies.
* Robert J. Randall, Fellow of the Society of Actuaries

The above appears to be intended as a reply to:

* Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 19:59:39 -0400 (EDT)
* From: james n <nnnn@aol.com>
* Subject: RE: Responses to "Values" questions
*
* Speaking of values, what about truth? 
* Most are now aware of the ponzi-scheme nature of SS....
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the attack, it was on the the "ponzi-scheme
nature of SS" --- the "structure" of SS.  

Sorry, but there is absolutely no evidence given by
the actuary, or any reference made to any objective data, 
that "debunks" in any way the claim that the SS system 
does not have characteristics in common with a Ponzi 
Scheme (I must wonder if the actuary works for the SSA or
other government agency and is simply sticking to the
party line ??? --- to be complete I now officially
ask the actuary to give references to his experts
that have published Rates-Of-Return calculations
that support his claim that SS is not Ponzi-like).
In order to show that SS is not like a Ponzi Scheme, 
the actuary need only show that the Rates-of-Return 
(or other such objective measures) for cohorts passing 
through SS is constant or increasing.  In fact the
objective evidence (which I gave expert publised references 
to) shows the contrary --- the rates of return are in 
fact generally decreasing for the successive cohorts 
through the SS system.  Moreover, the following post was
made in reply to the actuary's post that clearly
gives direct objective facts to support the Ponzi 
like nature of SS:

* Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 07:00:24 -0400 (EDT)                            
* From: bill larsen <dadbill@surfnet1.net>                               
* Subject: RE: Responses to "Values" questions                           
*                                                                              
* You do not consider less than 50% of a work force forced to pay OASI         
* a low rate and then engulfing 100% of the non government work force
* (except amish and menenite) and increasing the tax from 2% to 10.3%
* (OASI tax) constitutes a ponzi scheeem?
*
* Take a look at 5-8-99's postings and see just what the tax rate should
* have been to pay the OASI benefits of those born 1917 to 1932.
*
* It is by definition a ponzi scheem. The increase in the tax of over
* 21,000% over 65 years I think is fast enough especialy when you factor
* in increasing the working pool by 100% over the same time.
*
* I do not own any US Treasury Junk bonds, but I do have a few thousand
* junk Treasury Notes in cash, The rest is in stocks as it has been for
* 25 years or more.

The initial paragrahps are very good!  They advanced simple, 
straightforward, crushing objective numerical evidence to 
destroy the actuary's assertions.  Why didn't the moderator
mention this excellent post??

The last paragraph immediately above should not have been included,
such hyperbole was not well used --- it should have been pointed
out that the Bonds in the trust fund are just a part of the 
claims to collect taxes from future workers, a small part of 
what would be required to pay for the large unfunded liablities
in the form of SS promised benefits --- the Ponzi effect itself!
Note:  If you wanted to take a humerous swipe at the trust
funds using hyperbole, I suggest you simply quote Senator
Fritz Hollings D-S.C. who said about the SS trust funds...: 
"there are no funds, there is no trust, investing in the SS
trust funds is like investing in Confederate War Bonds!!"
(be sure and mentally say that with a deep southern accent).

Now, the key point in setting all this up is --- why did 
the moderator state as a matter of fact that the actuary
"debunked" the Ponzi scheme attack????  Why didn't 
the moderator mention the objective evidence given
to support the claim that SS has a Ponzi nature???
Could it be that the moderator is biased????? 
It would be better for an independent moderator to 
be more careful and use neutral reporting language like:
  
     "An actuary asserted that a poster's claim 
      of a ponzi-scheme nature to SS was not correct.  
      Data was advanced by a frequent poster to 
      support the Ponzi Scheme argument.
      A new poster gave several published
      references of data from SS experts 
      purported to support the Ponzi 
      scheme nature of the system."

The above is the way a good, neutral, unbiased
reporter would have described the claim vs counter
claim about the Ponzi assertions (similar kinds
of bias seems to appear in other summaries and other
aspects of the organizers of this debate). 

If you read the reports from the Associated Press, other
wire services and newspapers you get the same liberal
bias (hell ~ 89% voted of them for Clinton) or the same 
level of ingorance in recognizing objective, hard data 
when it is given -- let alone the reporters actually going 
out and doing extensive research to prepare themselves. 
At the very least I expect unbiased reporting!!!!  

THESE are the reasons we can not rely on the media, 
the government, and even the organizations hosting this 
very debate to get the truth out to the general public on 
Social Security (and many other key subjects that a well-
informed electorate needs to make good decisions --- a 
requirement for a demoacracy according to Jefferson).
===========================================================