Tell me: Am I frickin' Dreaming?

Jarod said:
I agree you need to adjust SS, but its not a pyramid scheem. A pyramid scheem requires an expanding base by its defination, think of the shape a pyramid takes???

We need to adjust to account for increasing life expectancy, for example we should raise the retirement age to account for the increased life span of the average user. There are times when the base paying for the service will shrink compared to those using it, but that is temporary. There will also be times when the base will grow compared to those using the program. SOmetimes there will be shortfalls and other times there will be surplus.
Click to expand...

Unfortunatly, the base did grow to a point where it was much larger compared to those using it, and everyone was happy while the government took that money and spent it on who knows what. Now that base is coming of age to collect, and they didn't produce enough babies. They needed to reproduce more! If every couple had 4 children, it would be fine, but every generation has to do that to keep the program working. Classic pyramid...
 
Al Gore was the one the Republicans made fun of for sugesting the Lock Box idea, basically he wanted to make it so that the money going into SS could not be raided for other projects. The money would be placed in a Lock Box, then held and used only for funding SS.

If you have 10 people paying for SS, and 10 people recieving benefits, the base remains the same and the program remains solvent. If those numbers remain stable then SS does not require an expanding base and thus is not a pyrmid scheem. Get it, first graders?
 
Grind said:
huckabee is a retard and so are you for being facetious as usual. How many board members have expressed support for this man in the first place? I haven't seen much from my own observations. It's been only 12 hours since you first posted this thread do you think people just jump all over everything you say?
Click to expand...


Grind, why do you follow me around, and chirp out from the peanut gallery? Go pay mainman his bet, and stop following me around, with stupid little comments.
 
Jarod said:
Al Gore was the one the Republicans made fun of for sugesting the Lock Box idea, basically he wanted to make it so that the money going into SS could not be raided for other projects. The money would be placed in a Lock Box, then held and used only for funding SS.

If you have 10 people paying for SS, and 10 people recieving benefits, the base remains the same and the program remains solvent. If those numbers remain stable then SS does not require an expanding base and thus is not a pyrmid scheem. Get it, first graders?
Click to expand...

It's not solvent at 1:1 with current rates and payout. The situation you describe is the endstate scenario. the pyramid become a rectangle or even an inverted period and is no longer solvent.

Do you know how much each worker would have to pay if it WAS 1:1? Jarod, you're a fool.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
Al Gore was the one the Republicans made fun of for sugesting the Lock Box idea, basically he wanted to make it so that the money going into SS could not be raided for other projects. The money would be placed in a Lock Box, then held and used only for funding SS.

If you have 10 people paying for SS, and 10 people recieving benefits, the base remains the same and the program remains solvent. If those numbers remain stable then SS does not require an expanding base and thus is not a pyrmid scheem. Get it, first graders?
Click to expand...

You don't have 1 to 1 Kindergardener. It was 16 to 1 in 1950, today its about 3 to 1, and when I retire, it is expected to be 2 to 1. I better start producing babies now!
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's not solvent at 1:1 with current rates and payout. The situation you describe is the endstate scenario. the pyramid become a rectangle or even an inverted period and is no longer solvent.

Do you know how much each worker would have to pay if it WAS 1:1? Jarod, you're a fool.
Click to expand...

It does not require an expanding base... thus its not a Pyramid scheem you idiot!

JUST LOOK AT THE SHAPE OF A PYRAMID!
 
Jarod said:
It does not require an expanding base... thus its not a Pyramid scheem you idiot!

JUST LOOK AT THE SHAPE OF A PYRAMID!
Click to expand...

the pyramid as a visual model is a snapshot at one point in time you fucking ignorant cretin.
Pyramid SCHEMES exist IN TIME and REQUIRE AN EXPANDING BASE to continue successfully.

The volume of the pyramid grows over time, but is still pyramidal in shape if it's healthy. The base grows too, in the model of a "healthy" pyramid scheme
 
AssHatZombie said:
the pyramid as a visual model is a snapshot at one point in time you fucking ignorant cretin.
Pyramid SCHEMES exist IN TIME and REQUIRE AN EXPANDING BASE to continue successfully.

The volume of the pyramid grows over time, but is still pyramidal in shape if it healthy. The base grows too, in the model of a "healthy" pyramid scheme
Click to expand...

I agree a Pyramid scheem requires constant growth of the base to survive.. SS does not. SS requires that the base not be smaller than the top, but it does not require constant expansion.
 
Jarod said:
I agree a Pyramid scheem requires constant growth of the base to survive.. SS does not. SS requires that the base not be smaller than the top, but it does not require constant expansion.
Click to expand...
It requires that the base be larger than the "top", or the receivers. At 1:1 the price would be too high.
 
When there are 16 people paying for your retirement, they only have to pay 1/16th of your check. Say you get a $1000 check, they only have to pay $62. When you have 3 people paying, then they have to pay $333. When it's 2 people, its $500. Seriously, how will we be able to support SS without creating an expanding base?
 
Damocles said:
It requires that the base be larger than the "top", or the receivers. At 1:1 the price would be too high.
Click to expand...

That is still not a pyramid scheem. Even IF ss required a 2 to 1 or a 10 to 1 ratio that would not be a pyramid scheem, because it does not require a constantly expanding base. If SS required a 1 to 1 this year and a 2 to 1 next, and a 4 to 1 the next and so on, it would be a pyramid scheem.
 
DigitalDave said:
When there are 16 people paying for your retirement, they only have to pay 1/16th of your check. Say you get a $1000 check, they only have to pay $62. When you have 3 people paying, then they have to pay $333. When it's 2 people, its $500. Seriously, how will we be able to support SS without creating an expanding base?
Click to expand...

Productivity.

When ss started out, therer where what, 80 workers per retiree?

Now, there's what, three per retiree?

Do you think contributions went up exponentially, almost three orders of magnitude? I don't think so. More producitivty means more income, overall
 
Cypress said:
Productivity.

When ss started out, therer where what, 80 workers per retiree?

Now, there's what, three per retiree?

Do you think contributions went up exponentially, almost three orders of magnitude? I don't think so. More producitivty means more income, overall
Click to expand...

the system is insolvent you idiot. it's not a success.

Yeah. crack that whip, boss. You make me sick.
 
Jarod said:
That is still not a pyramid scheem. Even IF ss required a 2 to 1 or a 10 to 1 ratio that would not be a pyramid scheem, because it does not require a constantly expanding base. If SS required a 1 to 1 this year and a 2 to 1 next, and a 4 to 1 the next and so on, it would be a pyramid scheem.
Click to expand...
If you require a 10 to 1, and the top is getting larger than the bottom, the pyramid begins to fall, that is the point where we are right now.

As originally designed the SS system was not a pyramid scheme. Currently it is. Since the money is not put into any savings and the payout comes from those at the bottom it must expand in order to continue at the same level or the bottom must pay more, or the top must be forced to be smaller, i.e. Raise the age of 'retirement'.

The "little fixes" are the same as the top of a pyramid 'adjusting' it to make it last longer when the failure has become apparent.
 
Cypress said:
Productivity.

When ss started out, therer where what, 80 workers per retiree?

Now, there's what, three per retiree?

Do you think contributions went up exponentially, almost three orders of magnitude? I don't think so. More producitivty means more income, overall
Click to expand...


Yep, the key is productivity. Not the ratio of workers to retirees.

SS want from a worker/retiree ratio of 18-1 in 1950, to 4-1 in 1965 without collapsing. Because of gains in productivity
 
Cypress said:
Yep, the key is productivity. Not the ratio of workers to retirees.

SS want from a worker/retiree ratio of 18-1 in 1950, to 4-1 in 1965 without collapsing. Because of gains in productivity
Click to expand...
At that time the government hadn't yet decided to spend all the money from SS in the general funds. It was far more solvent as it didn't yet rely solely on those below the "top" to keep it so.
 
Jarod said:
That is still not a pyramid scheem. Even IF ss required a 2 to 1 or a 10 to 1 ratio that would not be a pyramid scheem, because it does not require a constantly expanding base. If SS required a 1 to 1 this year and a 2 to 1 next, and a 4 to 1 the next and so on, it would be a pyramid scheem.
Click to expand...

oh my god, you're a total retard, Seriously, I've never met anyone more stupid. What you're desribing is the pyramid CHANGING SHAPE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top