home

Dick Armey: Social Security A "Corrupt Ponzi Scheme"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:31:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Think Progress:

< Bell Curve Sully | Monday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dick Armey: Social Security A "Corrupt Ponzi Scheme" | 31 comments (31 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    So the (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 03:13:08 PM EST
    idiot is saying that Reagan turned Social Security into a ponzi scheme and that it would be better if it went back to the way SS was in the 70's before the GOP messed with it? Boy, this is rich. Armey is such an idiot.

    "Idiot" is too charitable for that guy (none / 0) (#7)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 04:35:11 PM EST


    Parent
    You & I may think he is an "idiot" (none / 0) (#13)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 07:11:39 PM EST
    ...but, did you ever think we'd see his likes again on the national stage (Tea Party et al.) Unfortunately, he may be a cunning flim-flam man and con artist having his last national hurrah as he rakes it in. When pundits give credence to the "genuine" anger or anything of the TParty, think of Armey & his ilk. (Where is his old sidekick, Tom Delay?)

    Parent
    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Tove on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 03:23:04 PM EST
    Ron Johnson, the Tea Party/Republican candidate for Senate here in Wisconsin is running t.v. ads saying the exact same thing. Here is the ad.

    The money is gone? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 04:47:19 PM EST
    The I.O.U. to the people isn't any good but all I.O.U.s to investors are worth 100 cents on the dollar and so are all the junk derivatives?  This guy is a whacko idiot.  Tell us the real truth.  Tell us the whole truth Dumb Johnson.

    Parent
    Sadly Obama (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by hookfan on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 08:11:34 PM EST
    seems invested in undercutting ss and medicare by cutting its funding:
    link.  "Obama also told Scaramucci the White House may still propose a temporary cut to Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes to encourage new hiring."

    Parent
    But, but ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by ghost2 on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 08:16:48 PM EST
    Why would the so-called progressives, such as BTD, want to talk about THAT?

    We only critize republicans here.  When republicans want to cut SS, they are heartless bastards who are throwing the elderly out of their homes.

    When democrats want to cut SS, we look away and pretend nothing is happening.

    Parent

    "We only critize republicans here?" (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 09:43:02 PM EST
    Really?

    Is tonight your first night here?


    Parent

    OR we repeat Republican talking points (none / 0) (#20)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 09:38:08 PM EST
    in a hyper-heated election season?

    Parent
    Well that and the fact that if anyone actually (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 10:13:02 PM EST
    viewed Armey or Johnson credible they'd possibly be open to legal action- you can't delegitamize the treasury without recourse.

    Parent
    No, that would be Wall Street (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by robotalk on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 04:06:18 PM EST
    See, what really happened is the govt took lots of money out of social security (why Gore called for a lock box) instead of appropriately taxing the wealthy and now doesn't want to pay it back.

    Actually it was LBJ in 1965 (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 06:21:16 PM EST
    who took it out of the lock box and Reagan didn't show up for 16 years...

    Parent
    What about your boy, Nixon? (none / 0) (#14)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 07:13:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Boy I'm just boiling mad now (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 05:08:00 PM EST
    The money is gone?  Someone tell China their money is gone then too.  How can China's money be more special than my money?

    The U.S. will not default on its (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 06:37:39 PM EST
    other financial obligations but want permission to default on their obligation to the citizens of this country.

    Never ending wars, tax cuts to the extremely wealthy, and you can rest assured that they will pay back every penny to the banks who purchased T-bills with the zero $ funds they get.

    Parent

    He's right (3.00 / 2) (#10)
    by diogenes on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 06:12:35 PM EST
    Instead of being a properly funded pension scheme with real assets it gave all its money to the US to cover US deficits.  If it is such a good idea for a pension to buy treasury bonds then why don't all the pensions and endowment funds do it?

    i'm betting (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 08:54:35 PM EST
    there are lots of people with pension funds who now wished those funds had only invested in government bonds, bonds backed by the "full faith and credit" of the government. this would be as opposed to investments backed by the full faith and credit of wall street. which group do you think would not have seen the value of their 401(k) drop like a stone recently?

    Parent
    No kidding (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 09:36:19 PM EST


    Parent
    time frame??? (none / 0) (#29)
    by diogenes on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 09:14:12 PM EST
    If you're so smart, then you and the Dems can invest all of your personal money in treasury bonds right now and sell everything else.

    Parent
    Niiice..... (none / 0) (#1)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:51:52 PM EST
    Isn't he the backer of the Tea Party? Don't you love it when it all comes together?

    The guy is 70 years old - wonder if he's (none / 0) (#3)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 03:17:39 PM EST
    collecting.  

    Maybe (none / 0) (#4)
    by hookfan on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 03:22:51 PM EST
    he and Durbin can team up for a not so funny bipartisan comedy routine. . .

    mr. armey is hardly an idiot. (none / 0) (#18)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 09:00:10 PM EST
    he's a scammer, but not an idiot. he knows full well that what he said is a crock. he also knows full well that the majority of tea partiers aren't particularly well informed. heck, if they were, they wouldn't be tea partiers, now would they?

    excess social security taxes are saved for future use, in the trust fund. like any monies in savings, they don't just sit there, gathering dust, they are invested, in special gov't bonds, that will be paid off when due. social security has never lost money, nor has it ever missed a payment to its beneficiaries, at the amounts mandated by law.

    private pension funds can't say the same thing.

    again, armey knows this. he's betting (and with good reason) that his audience doesn't.

    Unfortunately, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 09:47:31 PM EST
    "......the majority of tea partiers aren't particularly well informed."

    besides calling them "idiots" we brilliant Progressives, especially the "Socialist" Progressive Obama, haven't done much to educate them.
     

    Parent

    to a degree, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 11:21:41 PM EST
    i might agree with you on that.

    besides calling them "idiots" we brilliant Progressives, especially the "Socialist" Progressive Obama, haven't done much to educate them.

    unfortunately, the GOP has spent the better part of the past 30 years convincing people that:

    a. social security won't be there for them, when they retire., and

    b. the MSM has a liberal bias.

    they've done a pretty darn good job of it, to the point where the MSM, in a ridiculous effort to prove them wrong, goes out of its way to act like these are serious people, with serious points of view, that should be given equal weight with people who actually know what they're talking about.

    how can the electorate be educated, if the press itself refuses to deal in reality?

    Parent

    Didn't say (none / 0) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 03:26:57 AM EST
    it would be easy. But first, you have to try.

    Michael Dukakis had a 17 point lead over G. Bush #1 blown away with a ten second "Willie Horton" ad.

    It can be done, but like I said, first you have to try.

    Parent

    Picture (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 03:47:25 AM EST
    a caricature of a cackling, pot bellied, cigar smoking banker,  smirking as he's foreclosing on a middle class working family.

    Graphic & voice over: "in 1970 the top 1% took home 8% of all the income in America. Last year  the same 1% increased it to 23% of all the money.

    During that same time, Mr. & Mrs. Average working American, YOUR income went DOWN as much as 10%!

    The Republicans (picture McConnell & Boehner) say that the Rich didn't get enough, AND if YOU don't give them another 700 billion dollars to add to our deficit they will stop President Obama and Congress from giving you folks a break on your taxes."

    And I'm just an amateur; imagine what the D's, with all their money, could do IF they just tried.


    Parent

    What makes us think... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 08:10:04 AM EST
    Brand D isn't working for the top 1% same as Brand R?  

    It's a tight-rope both parties walk, they gotta look like they're fighting the good fight, while behind the scenes the plan is to fail the have-nots in favor of the have-mores...like a prize-fighter taking a dive but making it look good.  

    Brand D and Brand R just have a different style of "making it look good", catered to their respective traditional bases.

     

    Parent

    I get your point (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 08:29:49 AM EST
    But if the Dems had a behind the scenes plan it would have been told to Politico by an unnamed party official long ago.

    Parent
    no argument there (none / 0) (#31)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 12:17:31 AM EST
    but while both sides are dripping in Benjamins, and blood, in this case at least, I'd rather have the loose change fall on some poor and middle folks than the embezzling banker class.

    Parent
    My only (none / 0) (#30)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 09:53:29 PM EST
    Addition to your idea would be instead of McConnell and Boehner, the ad should target the most familiar faces of the "Tea Party," including those who don't (yet) hold office.  Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, etc., they need to be revealed in this light.  The whole "regular folks" lie could be exposed with even moderate light, if any light shiners dared point in that direction.

    Parent
    Dick Armey: Social Security A "Corrupt Ponzi Scheme" | 31 comments (31 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment