Rand Paul: Medicare Is Socialism And Social Security Is A Ponzi Scheme

[You kip if you want to...]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTRJiqX_2M0

[SvenssonRS]

Let the man believe what he wants. He's still better than Conway.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Let the man believe what he wants. He's still better than Conway.

     True, though that seems to me like a rather reckless attitude. If he were to hypothetically advocate mass executions of people who he disagreed with, I doubt that he would still be better than Conway.

[Lunar]

Hey, he was calling everything he didn't like "socialism" before it was cool.

And, in the way that Republicans declares everything Obama does as socialism, it's pretty unremarkable, to me, to refer to Medicare similarly, except lots of voters really like Medicare.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Go Rand!

Too bad he's not talking like that today. Instead he's become just another 'moderate'.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Can it really be argued that Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme?

[Torie]

Can it really be argued that Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme?

No, but it is a necessary Ponzi scheme.

[Lunar]

Could the phrase "Ponzi Scheme" have meant something marginally [not by THAT much] less harsh in the 90's before the Madoff and other scandalramas collapsed?

Random thought. 

[Torie]

Could the phrase "Ponzi Scheme" have meant something marginally [not by THAT much] less harsh in the 90's before the Madoff and other scandalramas collapsed?

Random thought. 

No. But the thing is, is that the obligations are really just a part of the debt. So even if you really had a lock box, what you would really be doing is just paying off the debt with the lock box money. I mean, the government is not going to buy stocks, or corporate bonds, while still having trillions of dollars of treasury bonds and bills outstanding. Money is fungible.

[Sam Spade]

Ponzi schemes abound all around us, not just among individuals, but within corporations, and indeed, within government.  After all, one of the three major borrowers detailed in Hyman Minsky's financial instability hypothesis is the Ponzi borrower - therefore, at every point in history, it is almost certain that Ponzi schemes exist and they undoubtedly multiply in number exponentally towards the end of a debt cycle.

Individual schemes usually collapse first, then corporate, then government, but most of the time the real major schemes are in no danger of collapsing as you're not far enough down the parabola yet. 

With social security, there is a fundamental and recurring way to keep the parabola from exploding - namely either lower benefits or raise the retirement age.  Raising taxes or creating more debt to pay for rising costs will not suffice for obvious reasons.

[PrisonerOfHope]

You can not call Social Security a Ponzi Scheme as it is not fraudulent in any way, being the most open and discussed government program, nor for profit of any individual or group.  A definition from the Financial Dictonary:

A  fraudulent  investing  scam  that  promises  high  rates  of  return  at  little  risk  to  investors.  The  scheme  generates  return  by  acquiring  new  investors.

Social Security generates return by investment in US Govt securities.  Though some have balked at this being a low return, the return is quite high when adjusted for risk.  Further, for those who's "401ks are now 201ks" you can hardly claim it as the paragon of promising "high rates of return at little risk".

Further, it is actually SSI, the I being Insurance for death or disability.  When you consider what you get in the private insurance market, it is a great bargain.

You can call either Medicare or Social Security 'socialism', but for the vast majority of the world that is not derogatory, though that is what was intended.

[SvenssonRS]

Let the man believe what he wants. He's still better than Conway.

     True, though that seems to me like a rather reckless attitude. If he were to hypothetically advocate mass executions of people who he disagreed with, I doubt that he would still be better than Conway.

Of course not, because that would be inexcusable. This is just the expression of opinions that I suspect will turn out to be entirely harmless.

[Brittain33]

...but most of the time the real major schemes are in no danger of collapsing as you're not far enough down the parabola yet. 

With social security, there is a fundamental and recurring way to keep the parabola from exploding - namely either lower benefits or raise the retirement age.  Raising taxes or creating more debt to pay for rising costs will not suffice for obvious reasons.

Well said. Social Security may be a Ponzi scheme in the sense that it pays out based on current contributions, if that is the definition, but it is not an unstable Ponzi scheme of the type usually connoted by the name.

[Free Palestine]

He could've just said they're unconstitutional.  Whether or not it's SOCIALISM is irrelevant.

[Franzl]

He could've just said they're unconstitutional.

Sure...but why are you encouraging him to lie?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

He could've just said they're unconstitutional.

Sure...but why are you encouraging him to lie?

Where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to enact Medicare and Social Security?

[Democratic Hawk]

He could've just said they're unconstitutional.

Sure...but why are you encouraging him to lie?

Where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to enact Medicare and Social Security?

Where in the Consititution is the federal goverment authorized not ....?

[Free Palestine]

He could've just said they're unconstitutional.

Sure...but why are you encouraging him to lie?

Where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to enact Medicare and Social Security?

Where in the Consititution is the federal goverment authorized not ....?

Article I, Section VIII contains the delegated powers of Congress, which does not include anything about Social Security or Medicare.  The Tenth Amendment states that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states.  The idea that Congress can do whatever it pleases so long as it doesn't necessarily violate the Constitution is utter bullsh-t, and I hear a lot of it here.  If we're going to go with that theory, then we might as well not have a written Constitution.

A Constitutional amendment to give the federal government the power to set up entitlement programs could easily be passed.  The Constitution was written as a compact between the states, with certain powers delegated to the central government.  The only way for more power to be obtained by the central government, is through the amendment process, which required two-thirds approval by both houses of Congress, and approval by three-fourths of the states.

[hawkeye59]

Where does congress say you can ban slavery?

[Free Palestine]

Where does congress say you can ban slavery?

What?

The Constitution has something called the amendment process.  Slavery was allowed under the original Constitution, but it was changed with an amendment.

[??????????]

Where does congress say you can ban slavery?

Apparently the constitution can't fix stupid.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I find it hilarious that he called 2 of the most popular programs socialism.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I find it hilarious that he called 2 of the most popular programs socialism.

Socialism can't be popular?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I find it hilarious that he called 2 of the most popular programs socialism.

Socialism can't be popular?

This is Rand Paul that we're talking about.

[Vepres]

I find it hilarious that he called 2 of the most popular programs socialism.

Socialism can't be popular?

This is Rand Paul that we're talking about.

Point being...?