Social security is an investment operation that pays benefits to its participants from their own money or the money paid by subsequent participants, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. [/quote] No, not really. Social security is a TAX not an investment. Social security never claims to make any profit. Ponzis are not sustainable, Social Security is. |
|
|
|
That alone should tell you it is not a Ponzi.
Two hallmarks... One is that it is not sustainable. It would be utterly unsustainable without the power of the state to back it. Second is that social security is not pretending to have nor does it rely on profits. There are no investors.
It has compulsory payments, again backed by threat of the power of the state. Logical fallacy there. It DOES have the power of the state to back it, it is compulsory. You may not like it but it is not unsustainable nor it is a Ponzi. |
|
|
|
Really? Actually that is from having payouts to people 65 to death which is always less people then from working age to 65.
If it takes an increased number of contributors to pay off the earlier contributors, it's the mark of a ponzi. Also: A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_schemeThat alone should tell you it is not a Ponzi. Two hallmarks... One is that it is not sustainable. Social security obviously is. Second is that social security is not pretending to have nor does it rely on profits. There are no investors. |
|
|
|
Did anybody hear that story a little while ago about a bank that mistakingly foreclosed on the wrong house?
If I remember correctly, the couple then successfully sued the bank and the bank refused to pay up, so
they hired a company to foreclose on the bank. It was quite funny actually.
Let me see if I can dig up the article for more accurate details
I remember that as well but no link. They actually got to the point of a sheriffs order to take goods from the bank for auction but the bank paid then on the spot. |
|
|
|
even at 1.9 workers per retiree
That's the ponzi. Really? 1.9 is in FAVOR of the system. It might be (wrongly) considered a ponzi if there were less workers then retirees like police and firefighters manage to happen due to early retirement. Having payouts to people 65 to death which is always less people then from working age to 65. The amount changes because of things like the baby boomers but apparently even that is not even enough to screw it up. What screws it up is people living longer. Changing the retirement age while politically unpopular will fix it even for the 2037 problem, that or cutting benefits. |
|
|
|
Wow. A Bitcoin story on Slashdot WHILE I have modpoints.  This is gonna be fun. |
|
|
|
Wouldnt the largest ponzi scheme on this blue rock we stand on be the US government's social security & medicare programs?
If the ever expanding income of new younger workers weren't pumped into the system on a yearly basis, wouldnt the entire thing crumble?
Nope. Social security is solvent by any sane measure. Medicare needs fixing. The actual issues with the solvency of Social Security are extremely minor. The massive Social Security trust fund will allow the program to pay out benefits at the current level until 2038. At that point — absent modifications to the program — revenues will only be able to pay out 81 percent of promised benefits. That is to say, if the federal government did absolutely nothing over the next 27 years to shore up Social Security, a one time cut of 19 percent in 2038 would make the program solvent into the infinite horizon. This would be a sub-optimal way forward, but it underscores how solid Social Security is: even at 1.9 workers per retiree, the program could pay out at 81 percent of the current, inflation-adjusted rate without increasing revenue at all. http://mattbruenig.com/2011/08/16/the-myth-of-social-security-insolvency/ |
|
|
|
|
The auction ended at $350 + 15 ship. Guess I will price my 4 non s 16gb unlocked at about $250. Was hoping for more but I will settle as I only am paying $299 for a 32gb iPhone 5.
|
|
|
|
Disagree. It was well publicized in pretty much every 911 documentary I have seen that they were ready to shoot down hijacked planes. Having another plane crash into an occupied area would cause more death and everyone inside the plane is dead anyhow. A shoot down would not change much other then maybe make the government LOOK MORE COMPETENT. |
|
|
|
|
On another point.... what is the point?
The American people accept that fighters where out there and would have shot hijacked planes down if they could that day. While the facts do not support a shoot down, would it be a conspiracy? Sure it would have changed the sentiment around that flight but it would not even be earth shattering even if i did happen. This flight 93 conspiracy theory is even dumber then the trade center stuff.
|
|
|
|
They have a picture of the engine core being dug from the crater. The thing that guy thought was the engine was just the fan, and for him 300 yards was considerable distance.
As a state police fire marshal and criminal investigator, Trooper John F. Marshall has seen his share of gruesome crime scenes... For the first two or three days, Marshall walked the surrounding countryside looking for airplane parts. "I found a lot of parts," said Marshall, who was awarded a 2000 Law Enforcement Agency Directors award for identifying a man nearly four years after he was found murdered. "The biggest part I found was one of the plane's engines. It was about 600 yards from the crash site itself. I think they took it out with a winch on a bulldozer."Marshall, who served four years in the Air Force, said he found many parts that he couldn't specifically identify. The Sharon Herald Monday, Oct. 8, 2001 While inaccurate, he did not measure, he guessed. The measurement is 300 yards UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT MOVED THE POND. |
|
|
|
Only light paper an insulation went any distance.
I tend to take an eyewitness description of a cop that was there over the words of those of us that weren't: State police Maj. Lyle Szupinka said investigators also will be searching a pond behind the crash site looking for the other recorder and other debris. If necessary, divers may be brought in to assist search teams, or the pond may be drained, he said. Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site." "It appears to be the whole engine," he added. Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a "briefcase." "If you were to go down there, you wouldn't know that was a plane crash," he continued. "You would look around and say, `I wonder what happened here?' The first impression looking around you wouldn't say, `Oh, looks like a plane crash. The debris is very, very small. http://www.flight93crash.com/whole_engine.txtI'll be happy to post more eyewitness testimony if need be. It's more fruitful than reading a magazine article by someone that wasn't even there. They have a picture of the engine core being dug from the crater. The thing that guy thought was the engine was just the fan, and for him 300 yards was considerable distance. |
|
|
|
There was not a wide debris field.
Eight miles from the crash site is a wide debris field. Nothing heavy went more then 300 yards. Only light paper an insulation went any distance. |
|
|
|
FACT: Experts... Let's review: First you claimed that if the plane was shot down, there would have been a wide debris field. After being shown the wide debris field, you then said the wind blew papers and insulation around and that all heavy objects were in the crater. After being shown that at least one engine wasn't in the crater but was about a half mile from it, you post a link to a mass market magazine that also pushed the "wind blew the papers around" theory. There was not a wide debris field. You are not reading. Anything that you do not agree with is "mass market" , "government data" etc. The engine WAS in the crater. A single piece of the engine (not the core but the front fan) was 300 yards away in the direction of travel. Makes sense to me.  |
|
|
|
Engines along with everything else with any weight was in the hole in the ground.
An engine core was 2000 feet from the crater. Roving Engine Claim: One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner." FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur. Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-flight-93 |
|
|
|
So you think that paper and insulation that blew to Indian Lake constitutes a six mile debris field?
Moving the goalposts? Your original statement: A plane shot down would leave debris over a large area It's well known that Flight 93 left a wide debris field. Full engines don't blow around. We're all entitled to our opinions. I try to conform my opinion to what's known, not what I want to believe. Thats right, they don't. Engines along with everything else with any weight was in the hole in the ground. |
|
|
|
... you are not entitled to your own facts. Seems you are only entitled to government "facts". So I'll reiterate. Please show me one single other airplane impact site/crater than lacked an airplane (excluding the one that went down in the everglades, for obvious reasons). That site is missing a plane, bodies, luggage, debris... etc. Bodies do tend to turn into vapor when hitting things at 500mph. The debris at the site are quite consistent with what would be expected. Most of the metal is there. Pretty much all of the wt7 site lies are addressed here including crash sites. https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page2 |
|
|
|
A plane shot down would leave debris over a large area It did leave a debris field over a large area. "A second debris field was around Indian Lake about 3 miles from the crash scene. Some debris was in the lake and some was adjacent to the lake. "More debris from the plane was found in New Baltimore, some 8 miles away from the crash. "State police and the FBI initially said they didn't want to speculate whether the debris was from the crash, or if the plane could have broken up in midair." 1 Additionally, Flight 93's debris field covered anywhere from three to six miles and, as CNN reported, pieces of the plane were found six to eight miles from the main impact area: "Authorities also said another debris site had been cordoned off six to eight miles away from the original crash debris site." 2 State police Maj. Lyle Szupinka said investigators also will be searching a pond behind the crash site looking for the other recorder and other debris. If necessary, divers may be brought in to assist search teams, or the pond may be drained, he said. Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site." "It appears to be the whole engine," he added. Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a "briefcase." 3 http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93site.htmlYou are entitled to your own opinions.... you are not entitled to your own facts. So you think that paper and insulation that blew to Indian Lake constitutes a six mile debris field? |
|
|
|
How do you reconcile the obviously fake impact crater of Flight 93 with the theories that government was or was not involved?
If the government was involved, why shoot down the plane and fake an impact crater?
If the government was not involved, why should we believe 100% of the official story after they covered up the shooting down of Flight 93?
The impact crater for flight 93 is consistent with other plane impact craters. Please, show me one single other plane impact crater that looks like the one left by Flight 93. That plane was shot down. This comes from personal conversations with former air force, current commercial pilots. That does not even take 5 SECONDS of thought. A plane shot down would leave debris over a large area, but the 'truther' movement concentrates their effort on how SMALL the crater is. |
|
|
|
0.94 amps? Geez the fans in these cards use 12W
They are variable speed and almost never draw 12w. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
