[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly

"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"

ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby

Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!

"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"

7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith

Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening

Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas

Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel

Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?

What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked

Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225

EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza

New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets

Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start?

"Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work"

test

"Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working"

"Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly"

"Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home"

"The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity"

"How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy"

Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Rick Perry is Right: Social Security Really is a Ponzi Scheme
Source: Dissenting Opinions
URL Source: http://jwpegler.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... -is-right-social-security.html
Published: Sep 10, 2011
Author: Eric Blankenburg
Post Date: 2011-09-10 21:05:00 by jwpegler
Keywords: None
Views: 116833
Comments: 228

Rick Perry's comments during this week's GOP debate at the Reagan library has caused quite a stir in the liberal media.

During the debate, Governor Perry defended the words in his book, calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme".

After the debate, the "analysis" on MSNBC was truly fun to watch as every commentator sat shelled shocked over the fact that a politician would dare to use these words to describe America's most sacred welfare program.

The only person on the panel who had a clue about what might be going on was Ed Schultz who at one point questioned whether or not whether young people would stick with Obama or jump on the Perry bandwagon.

Unlike the political and media establishment in this country, young people understand that they are going to get the short end of the Social Security "inter-generational compact". Schultz surprisingly realized that Perry's message might resonant with young people.

Let's take a quick look at the Social Security system and see if Perry might be on to something.

The people who got into the Social Security system very early got back on average 15 times the amount of money they paid in. They got a great deal and were raving proponents of the system.

The people receiving Social Security benefits today are getting back on average 2 1/2 to 3 times what they paid in. They are also generally strong proponents of the system.

Today, Social Security is paying out more every year than it takes it. We are borrowing money from the foreigners, like the Chinese and Saudis to pay current benefits. As the huge Baby Boom generation retires, the amount of debt we incur each year will quickly escalate until it blows up in our face and old people without resources really do wind up in the street.

So, what happens when my generation starts to retire in 15 to 20 years and what will happen to my kids?

We will all be left holding the bag.

There is a financial MODEL that describes this. The model is called a Pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme or a Bernie Madoff scheme. The people who get it in early make out like bandits and the people who get it late get screwed.

That is exactly how the Social Security system will play out.

The fact is that the Social Security is a pay-as-you­-go welfare system that transfers money from young, struggling families to relatively well-to-do retired people. There isn't any "trust fund". The words "trust fund" are used to describe a mountain of debt. A mountain of debt is NOT a trust fund. It's a mountain of debt. Today, the mountain of debt in the Social Security system is so great that it cannot be paid.

Peel away the emotion, the Orwellian language about the "trust fund", and the other political rhetoric, and just look at the financial facts. Then this all becomes very clear.

Rick Perry is absolutely right and I am actually impressed that a politician would tell the truth about this. It's truly amazing.

The big question is what can be done?

Long term, people need to be able to save for their own retirements. Social Security needs to be taken back to it's roots as a program that supplements the income of retirees who are truly poor, through no fault of their own.

Today, 25% of people over 65 have pension or investment income that places them in the "wealthy" category. They still get Social Security benefits, so long as they don't work for their income. Why should young struggling families hand money over the wealthy retired people?

They shouldn't. Means testing Social Security will go a long way to make it solvent for the future.

When Social Security was implemente­d, the retirement age was 65. The average life expectancy was 59 for men and 61 for women. Most people didn't live long enough to get a check. Today, the retirement age is still 65. However, life expectancy is 73 for men and 78 for women.

The math just doesn't work.

We need to gradually raise the retirement age to keep up with life expectancy.

Bravo to Perry for telling it like it is. I certainly agree with Ed Schultz that a lot of young people will find this message appealing.

The other group who should find this message appealing are wealthy retirees who are stealing from their children's and grandchildren's future. Will they finally put their selfishness aside and say: "no more"? Probably not, but we'll see.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 126.

#1. To: All, sneakypete, hondo68, A K A Stone, BorisY, Captialist Eric, CZ82, Murran, no gnu taxes, nolu chan, e_type_jag, We The People (#0)

Ping

jwpegler  posted on  2011-09-10   21:11:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: jwpegler, e_type_jag, hondo68, lucysmom, nolu chan, NewsJunky, eskimo, mcgowanjm (#1)

The people who got into the Social Security system very early got back on average 15 times the amount of money they paid in. They got a great deal and were raving proponents of the system.

SS is a retirement insurance program - it does not function like a "Christmas club" account where after a period of deposits you get your money back when the day comes around.

You want a ponzi scheme? Invest in the private sector like Wall Street.

Godwinson  posted on  2011-09-11   14:30:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Godwinson (#23)

SS is a retirement insurance program - it does not function like a "Christmas club" account

It is a government program and does not function like any commercial insurance program. With the government program, the "insurer" can change the benefits at any time and in any manner of its choosing. You can pay in for 40 years, retire, and the government may increase, decrease, or eliminate the benefits. There would be political consequences, but the government has the power to do it. An insurance company cannot unilaterally absolve itself of responsibility. The only government responsibility is to pay in accordance with the effective law, but they can always change the law.

The fund itself basically consists of bookkeeping entries. The money collected has been transferred to the general fund and spent. The government is over $14T in debt.

The amount in the fund, including any interest, is a bookkeeping entry. It is payable by the U.S. government. If the government does not have the funds, there are few ways to produce the funds on demand. They can just print money which acts like a tax, decreasing the value of all existing U.S. currency, and the value of all savings. They can collect the amount needed with revenue, but that is just handing the bill to the people to pay them what they are owed (or what is due by law). They could borrow the money, or perhaps sell some national infrastructure.

In its current form the system will go bust. Effective reform means changing the eligibility or benefits to reduce the overall payment to beneficiaries, or to increase the revenue stream coming in.

nolu chan  posted on  2011-09-11   18:28:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: nolu chan, eskimo, jwpegler (#34)

It is a government program and does not function like any commercial insurance program. You can pay in for 40 years, retire, and the government may increase, decrease, or eliminate the benefits.

Commercial insurance companies change their benefit programs all the time and in many cases they don't pay out.

Godwinson  posted on  2011-09-11   22:17:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Godwinson (#40)

Commercial insurance companies change their benefit programs all the time and in many cases they don't pay out.

Can you cite an instance of where all contributions have been completed, as with a retiree, the plan payout is due, and the company simply decides not to pay for any reason other than default (bankruptcy)?

nolu chan  posted on  2011-09-12   3:14:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: nolu chan (#41)

Can you cite an instance of where all contributions have been completed, as with a retiree, the plan payout is due, and the company simply decides not to pay for any reason other than default (bankruptcy)?

Dawn Kay-Woods filed suit against Minnesota Life Insurance Company alleging the insurance company violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by failing to pay an insurance claim after her husband died in a one-vehicle car crash on March 7, 2007.

http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/208897-insurance-company-sued-for-not-paying-off- mortgage-after-husbands-death

Godwinson  posted on  2011-09-12   11:25:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Godwinson (#57)

[nc] Can you cite an instance of where all contributions have been completed, as with a retiree, the plan payout is due, and the company simply decides not to pay for any reason other than default (bankruptcy)?

[Godwinson] Dawn Kay-Woods filed suit against Minnesota Life Insurance Company alleging the insurance company violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by failing to pay an insurance claim after her husband died in a one-vehicle car crash on March 7, 2007.

http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/208897-insurance-company-sued-for-not-paying-off- mortgage-after-husbands-death

This case has nothing to do with an insurance company just deciding not to pay. It had no legal liability to pay anything.

This case was removed to Federal jurisdiction where it was decided in the United States District court for the Southern District of Illinois. The case, heard before District Judge Michael J. Reagan, was Dawn M. Kay-Woods, Plaintiff vs. Minesota Life Ins. Co., Defendant, Case No. 08-cv-0211-MJR, dismissed by order of April 8, 2009.

Plaintiff Dawn Kay-Woods ("Dawn") had no legitimate legal claim to payment. The policy contained an explicit provision exempting it from liability for the death of the insured if his death resulted incident to his commission of a felony. At the time of his fatal collision with a tree, he was was drunk and his driver's license had been revoked for DUI. Driving while on a DUI suspension was a felony. As the Court determined, "In the case at bar, construing the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Dawn, the non-movant, the Court reaches the only conclusion permissible on the ample record before it – MLIC is entitled to summary judgment." As a matter of law, Dawn Kay-Woods had no case.

At 4-5:

Where the terms of an insurance policy are clear and unambiguous, they must be applied as written. Terms are ambiguous if they are reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, “not simply if the parties can suggest creative possibilities for their meaning.” BASF, 522 F.3d at 819. Ambiguous terms are construed against the drafter of the policy, but a court should not search for ambiguities where none exists. Id.

There is no ambiguity in the contract here. On May 23, 2006, MLIC issued the insurance policy in question to Dawn and Brian – Contract #0390019 001101554159 (“the Policy,” copy at Doc. 43). The Policy includes an accidental death and dismemberment benefit, furnishing a lump sum payment when MLIC receives “proof satisfactory to us that you died or suffered a dismemberment loss” resulting from an accidental injury.

An exception to coverage is central to this case. The Policy plainly provides that benefits will not be paid if the death or dismemberment results from or is caused directly by, inter alia, “your commission of a felony” (Doc. 43, p. 3). The issue is whether Brian’s March 2, 2007 death in a one-vehicle accident resulted from his commission of a felony.

The accident report prepared by the Illinois State Police (Doc. 31-4, pp. 12) states:

Unit 1 [Brian’s vehicle] was traveling northbound on Rt. 111 at Whispering Oaks Lane. Unit 1 left the roadway on the right shoulder for no apparent reason and traveled 192 feet before striking a tree.... Witness 1 stated Unit 1's brake lights were activated shortly before it struck the tree. No skid marks on roadway or grass. The driver of Unit 1 was declared dead on scene. Unit 1 driver’s license was in Revoked Status at time of crash.

The Jersey County Coroner’s toxicological evaluation establishes that, at the time of his death, Brian Woods’ blood contained 0.184 gm% alcohol (ethanol) and 0.094 mg/ml cocaine (Doc. 31-4, p. 3). Under Illinois law, a blood alcohol level of 0.08% or more constitutes driving while under the influence (DUI). 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(1). Driving under the influence with a suspended or revoked driver’s license for a previous DUI constitutes a Class 4 felony. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(d)(1)(G) and (d)(2)(A).

At 7

When he received the May 2003 reckless driving citation, Brian’s “license was still revoked for the prior DUI conviction,” and the “reckless driving conviction resulted in the DUI revocation being extended” (id. ¶¶ 5-6, emph. added). Additionally, the Glahn Affidavit attests: “As of March 2, 2007,” Brian’s “driving license remained revoked for DUI” (id., ¶ 7, emph. added; see also driving record at Doc. 57, p. 6). Because Brian’s license was revoked for a prior DUI offense when he was DUI on March 2, 2007, he was committing a Class felony at the time of the fatal crash.

At 10-11:

The Policy excludes accidental death coverage if the death resulted from or was caused by the insured’s “commission of a felony” (Doc. 43, p. 3). Brian Woods was driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of the fatal crash. At that time, his license was revoked for a prior DUI conviction. The Illinois Vehicle Code provides that driving under the influence of alcohol on a revoked license that resulted from a previous DUI violation is a Class 4 felony. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(d)(1)(G) and (2)(A). Therefore, under Illinois law, Brian was committing a felony at the time of his death.

[...]

Furthermore, this Court may find that a genuine issue of material fact exists, precluding summary judgment, “only if sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party exists to permit a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Argyropoulos, 539 F.3d at 732, citing Sides v. City of Champaign, 496 F.3d 820, 826 (7th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1450 (2008). In the case at bar, construing the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Dawn, the non-movant, the Court reaches the only conclusion permissible on the ample record before it – MLIC is entitled to summary judgment.

C. Conclusion

No genuine issue of material fact remains, and MLIC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court GRANTS MLIC’s renewed motion for summary judgment (Doc. 57). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant Minnesota Life Insurance Co. and against Dawn M. Kay-Woods herein. This Order results in the cancellation of all settings herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 8th day of April 2009.

- - -

Doc 70 - Dawn M Kay-Woods v Minnesota Life Ins Co, ILSD (2009), MJR Memorandum and ORDER

nolu chan  posted on  2011-09-12   16:07:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: nolu chan (#65) (Edited)

It had no legal liability to pay anything.

That is a matter of opinion that has to have a court figure out - clearly the customer who paid for the insurance thinks otherwise. Thus, Social Security thus is better than private versions and more reliable.

Read also:

California investigates 10 life insurance companies over lack of payments to beneficiaries

http://www.insure.com/articles/lifeinsurance/california-life-insurance-investigation.html

Godwinson  posted on  2011-09-12   16:11:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Godwinson (#66)

Read also:

California investigates 10 life insurance companies over lack of payments to beneficiaries

http://www.insure.com/articles/lifeinsurance/california-life-insurance-investigation.html

These investigations (not cases) have nothing to do with the insurer changing the terms of benefits or refusing to pay on demand.

The issue involved is the alleged failure of the insurer to identify and seek out the beneficiary of unclaimed benefits, or to pay the unclaimed benefit to the state.

nolu chan  posted on  2011-09-12   17:26:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: nolu chan (#69)

Insurance companies amend their terms all the time. Insurance companies deny payments all the time. The investigations show insurance companies doing so on a wide scale.

Godwinson  posted on  2011-09-13   10:30:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: Godwinson (#92)

Insurance companies amend their terms all the time. Insurance companies deny payments all the time. The investigations show insurance companies doing so on a wide scale.

Then you should not be meeting such an insurmountable problem providing an on-point example. So far you have provided an example that a court threw out because the claim was explicitly outside the pre-existing coverage, and irrelevant investigations into insurance companies not paying unclaimed benefits.

You have provided not a single example of an insurance company changing the terms of a policy during the term of paid coverage. They may always set new terms prior to entering into a new contract.

nolu chan  posted on  2011-09-13   14:41:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: nolu chan (#107) (Edited)

http://www.mlnlaw.com/Articles/Insurance-Company-Loses-Lawsuit-over-Cancelling- Coverage.shtml

INSURANCE COMPANY LOSES LAWSUIT OVER CANCELLING COVERAGE

A Boulder County, Colorado jury found that an insurance company was in breach of contract when it canceled Jennifer Latham’s health insurance coverage after her wreck. The jury awarded $37 million in damages to Latham.

Godwinson  posted on  2011-09-13   14:57:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: Godwinson (#108)

A Boulder County, Colorado jury found that an insurance company was in breach of contract when it canceled Jennifer Latham’s health insurance coverage after her wreck. The jury awarded $37 million in damages to Latham.

You only document that they CANNOT LAWFULLY do as you claim. The contract can be enforced.

Unlike the Federal government program. They can just up and change the law and you cannot sue them to change it back again, or pay the benefits no longer authorized by law. There is no legal recourse.

nolu chan  posted on  2011-09-13   16:23:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: nolu chan (#109)

Unlike the Federal government program. They can just up and change the law and you cannot sue them to change it back again

You talk as if the govt is not of the people, by the people, for the people and a third party.

Godwinson  posted on  2011-09-13   16:29:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: Godwinson (#111)

You talk as if the govt is not of the people, by the people, for the people and a third party.

I talk as if the sovereign enjoys sovereign immunity and can only be sued with permission. If Congress passes a law, and the President signs it, and it is constitutional (however bad it may be), what do you think you can ask a court to do for you?

If Congress passed a law repealing Social Security in its entirety, all benefits null and void, and the President signed it into law, who would you sue, and for what?

The people can vote out the politicians and/or amend the Constitution. That takes a while.

nolu chan  posted on  2011-09-13   19:07:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#126. To: nolu chan (#117)

The people can vote out the politicians and/or amend the Constitution. That takes a while.

Yea, because the American court system is a quick system, right?

Godwinson  posted on  2011-09-13   21:51:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 126.

#127. To: Godwinson (#126)

the American court system is a quick system, right?

As compared to amending the Constitution?

nolu chan  posted on  2011-09-13 23:40:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 126.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com