NBC Republican Debate @ the Reagan Dome

[Mr Bean]

Few notes, (Two stolen from HuffPo)

Social issues were noticeably absent from tonight's debate, with no questions about abortion or same-sex marriage.

-- Amanda Terkel

Which I find VERY odd as that was one of the things I was looking forward to was the amount of I hate abortion we'd get from each one of them.



Second note(Mine own)
Perry out and out called for an end of Social Security, that can't play well with... well anyone.

Third(Mine)
I love Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan if only to demonstrate how shitty a government figure Cain would be. By all means lets cut every tax to 9% and add a national sales tax of 9%, funny enough this means that in my local area this would raise a bottle of Coca Cola an extra two dimes on top of our sales tax already here. Sales tax being the most regressive possible tax in existence and boy would I have loved having to pay an extra 3000$ on my car purchase two years ago, or hell an extra 150$ for computer parts on top of my states sale tax as well.

Stealing from Huffpo the estimates were that if implemented Cain's 9-9-9 plan would shrink government revenue by as much as 65%

Second part stolen from Huffpo

"Galileo was outnumbered for a spell!" he declared. He got the analogy exactly wrong. Galileo was the scientist; the church and its allies, who knew nothing about the scientific method, were lined up against him. He never answered the question about which scientists he had consulted. He suddenly looked like the guy Karl Rove says he is, "a guy who only cares about soundbites."

I literally face palmed when he delivered his Galileo line.

[Dalton]

Thoughts from the trenches:

Santorum: polished fluff.
Gingrich: hyperaggressive agitator.
Romney: kinda frazzled-looking; his hair was a mess but he came prepped.
Perry: smug, leathery and evasive. Definitely high on the nod list.
Bachmann: barely present, but coherent. Still nuts.
Paul: WTF? Did he take crazy pills?
Cain: the rent is too damn high.
Huntsman: sane, well-spoken but needs to control his eyebrows.

[Executor32]

Thoughts from the trenches:

Santorum: polished fluff.
Gingrich: hyperaggressive agitator.
Romney: kinda frazzled-looking; his hair was a mess but he came prepped.
Perry: smug, leathery and evasive. Definitely high on the nod list.
Bachmann: barely present, but coherent. Still nuts.
Paul: WTF? Did he take crazy pills?
Cain: the rent is too damn high.
Huntsman: sane, well-spoken but needs to control his eyebrows.

Bah, Cain only wishes he had Jimmy McMillan's sense of style.

I lol'd at Perry comparing Social Security to a Ponzi scheme. Evidently, he has no idea how one actually works.

[Master of Ossus]

I lol'd at Perry comparing Social Security to a Ponzi scheme. Evidently, he has no idea how one actually works.

How does it work, then?

[Darth Wong]

Well, first off, a Ponzi scheme fraudulently claims to be an investment, where you put in money and get return on your investment. Social Security, on the other hand, makes no claim to be an investment fund, and the only people who think it's a retirement investment fund are ignorant twits who don't bother to read.

Social Security is just welfare for old people. The first SS recipient, Ida May Fuller, paid only $24.75 into the system and got back $22,888.92 over the rest of her lifetime (from here). It was never represented as an investment fund, and so any comparisons to Ponzi schemes are false and misleading by definition.

The fact that millions of Tea Party idiots say things like "I paid a lot of money into Social Security and I want to make sure it's still there when I retire" only proves that they're morons, not that SS is a Ponzi scheme.

[Master of Ossus]

Well, first off, a Ponzi scheme fraudulently claims to be an investment, where you put in money and get return on your investment. Social Security, on the other hand, makes no claim to be an investment fund, and the only people who think it's a retirement investment fund are ignorant twits who don't bother to read.

Social Security is just welfare for old people. The first SS recipient, Ida May Fuller, paid only $24.75 into the system and got back $22,888.92 over the rest of her lifetime (from here). It was never represented as an investment fund, and so any comparisons to Ponzi schemes are false and misleading by definition.

The fact that millions of Tea Party idiots say things like "I paid a lot of money into Social Security and I want to make sure it's still there when I retire" only proves that they're morons, not that SS is a Ponzi scheme.

So in other words the only distinction between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security is that the SSA is honest about how it's structured?

It has the same characteristics of any other Ponzi scheme: investment returns that don't come close to covering payments, necessitating continued investment by new members of the scheme (coupled with inevitable collapse). It even makes exactly the same types of claims to try and get more people to buy into it: it guarantees payments that no legitimate investment broker would be able to guarantee.

Seems to me that saying something is a Ponzi scheme if it meets every criteria except for fraud doesn't show that the speaker lacks any understanding of how it works. It just says that they're using a functional definition of the term.

Edit: as to the welfare point, he's clearly not describing it as some generic tax program--and SS is not some generic welfare program paid out of taxes. He's obviously referring specifically to the Trust Fund aspect of Social Security, which does fit every characteristic of a Ponzi scheme except for fraud. You can argue that we ought to have welfare for old people, but the way in which the US has set up that welfare program involves a substantial investment component. In fact, it relies upon it.

[Dominus Atheos]

[Darth Wong]

Well, first off, a Ponzi scheme fraudulently claims to be an investment, where you put in money and get return on your investment. Social Security, on the other hand, makes no claim to be an investment fund, and the only people who think it's a retirement investment fund are ignorant twits who don't bother to read.

Social Security is just welfare for old people. The first SS recipient, Ida May Fuller, paid only $24.75 into the system and got back $22,888.92 over the rest of her lifetime (from here). It was never represented as an investment fund, and so any comparisons to Ponzi schemes are false and misleading by definition.

The fact that millions of Tea Party idiots say things like "I paid a lot of money into Social Security and I want to make sure it's still there when I retire" only proves that they're morons, not that SS is a Ponzi scheme.

So in other words the only distinction between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security is that the SSA is honest about how it's structured?

Since the only thing wrong with a Ponzi scheme is the fact that it fraudulently claims to be an investment, yes. What's the problem?

It has the same characteristics of any other Ponzi scheme: investment returns that don't come close to covering payments, necessitating continued investment by new members of the scheme (coupled with inevitable collapse).

But IT'S NOT AN INVESTMENT, Einstein. That's the whole point. Calling it a Ponzi scheme and then accusing it of "not covering investments" is stupid, because it is not an investment scheme, any more than welfare is an investment scheme.

It even makes exactly the same types of claims to try and get more people to buy into it: it guarantees payments that no legitimate investment broker would be able to guarantee.

What part of "it's not an investment scheme" do you not understand? It's a kind of welfare, not investment. Nobody says "welfare is a Ponzi scheme" because it's universally understood that it makes no pretenses of being an investment.

Seems to me that saying something is a Ponzi scheme if it meets every criteria except for fraud doesn't show that the speaker lacks any understanding of how it works. It just says that they're using a functional definition of the term.

But the fact that they're fraudulent is the only reason Ponzi schemes are illegal. Did this not occur to you?

Edit: as to the welfare point, he's clearly not describing it as some generic tax program--and SS is not some generic welfare program paid out of taxes. He's obviously referring specifically to the Trust Fund aspect of Social Security, which does fit every characteristic of a Ponzi scheme except for fraud. You can argue that we ought to have welfare for old people, but the way in which the US has set up that welfare program involves a substantial investment component. In fact, it relies upon it.

The fact that a government program can have its own trust fund does not mean it's an investment fund. Investment is not a transitive property. Do you seriously think that because SS runs its own investment fund, it becomes an investment fund? It is ultimately still a glorified welfare program paid from tax money.

[Thanas]

Romney/Huntsmen might be the most politically acceptable ticket and the one less likely to do damage.

[Kodiak]

Romney/Huntsmen might be the most politically acceptable ticket and the one less likely to do damage.

Two Mormons would be a tough pill for Americans to swallow.

[UnderAGreySky]

Americans or Republicans? Assuming they were actually on the ticket, how many independents out there would not vote for them because they are Mormons? Because if they do go up against Obama, I think the Republican will hold their nose and vote for them just like most "liberals" will vote for the Democrats in spite of being pissed at Obama.

[Dalton]

Romney/Huntsmen might be the most politically acceptable ticket and the one less likely to do damage.

I absolutely refuse to accept, endorse or even consider voting for any nominee or candidate who supports enacting legislation to deliberately oppress civil liberties based on religious objections.

[Patrick Degan]

It has the same characteristics of any other Ponzi scheme: investment returns that don't come close to covering payments, necessitating continued investment by new members of the scheme (coupled with inevitable collapse). It even makes exactly the same types of claims to try and get more people to buy into it: it guarantees payments that no legitimate investment broker would be able to guarantee.

Seems to me that saying something is a Ponzi scheme if it meets every criteria except for fraud doesn't show that the speaker lacks any understanding of how it works. It just says that they're using a functional definition of the term.

Edit: as to the welfare point, he's clearly not describing it as some generic tax program--and SS is not some generic welfare program paid out of taxes. He's obviously referring specifically to the Trust Fund aspect of Social Security, which does fit every characteristic of a Ponzi scheme except for fraud. You can argue that we ought to have welfare for old people, but the way in which the US has set up that welfare program involves a substantial investment component. In fact, it relies upon it.

All of that is, quite simply, a lie. Social Security has never promised a greater return to beneficiaries than their contributions into the system over the course of a working lifetime, and it's trust fund is renewed by payroll taxes. SSI is no investment scheme, has never been advertised or structured as an investment scheme, and has never promised ever increasing profit to contributors, i.e. taxpayers. It's payouts are a matter of obligation by law —which means Congress doesn't have the option to simply renege on its agreement with the American people and "run off with the money" anymore than they have an option to repudiate the national debt. By the terms of every honest test, the comparison between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme fails, and you and dishonest imbeciles like Rick Perry screaming to the moon that it is one are of no account. A thing which is not a Ponzi scheme does not become a Ponzi scheme by mere declamatory fiat.

[General Mung Beans]

Romney/Huntsmen might be the most politically acceptable ticket and the one less likely to do damage.

I absolutely refuse to accept, endorse or even consider voting for any nominee or candidate who supports enacting legislation to deliberately oppress civil liberties based on religious objections.

What's trying to be said here? That Romney would enact such legislation?

[Dalton]

Romney/Huntsmen might be the most politically acceptable ticket and the one less likely to do damage.

I absolutely refuse to accept, endorse or even consider voting for any nominee or candidate who supports enacting legislation to deliberately oppress civil liberties based on religious objections.

What's trying to be said here? That Romney would enact such legislation?

Hey, dickhead, Romney signed a pledge last month that stated that he'd support an Amendment banning gay marriage.

[eion]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/09/0 ... al-debate/

Which basically means the only GOP candidate who get Dalton's approval would be Fred Karger, who is gay and of course has next to zero chance of getting the nomination let alone winning, but he's said he's running not to win, but to inspire the next generation.

Dalton, do all of you really need to listen to the audio? Maybe you guys can just take it in turn to have your IQs lowered during future debates. Unless of course your job at the peacock is directly related to sound, in which case I'm very very sorry for you this presidential season.

[Imperial Overlord]

Okay, so Ron Paul is a libertarian nut job who is willing to publicly support legalizing heroin but he's against gay marriage? What kind of double think does he employ to justify that? It's not really surprising, American libertarianism has always been far too cozy with the regressive 19th Century robber baron mindset, but that's such a blatant example of the "fuck principles and personal liberties, I wanna have money" thinking that seems to be their true mindset.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Near as I can tell, Ron Paul doesn't think there should be any government recognition of marriage period. Not sure how his idea is supposed to work. Then again, he's a guy who openly admits that reading Ayn Rand is what converted him to libertarian principles. Don't expect it to be logically sound.

[Thanas]

Romney/Huntsmen might be the most politically acceptable ticket and the one less likely to do damage.

I absolutely refuse to accept, endorse or even consider voting for any nominee or candidate who supports enacting legislation to deliberately oppress civil liberties based on religious objections.

Yeah, that is pretty indefensible.

[Elheru Aran]

As far as marriage goes, I think having a civil form of marriage that anybody can consent to whether man, woman, or somewhere in between, is an excellent backup. The religious jackholes can have their own legally recognizable weddings, everybody else can just get married by a justice or something. Not having a system that allows for civil marriages is NOT a good idea, if that's what Ron Paul is talking about, as that would prevent certain groups of people from being able to form legally recognized unions between partners.

At this point I'm just really, really hoping the Democrats can throw up a serious contender against Obama and the Republicans. It's disgusting how far to the right the majority of American politics have swung; none of the Republican candidates even really come close to getting my vote, aside from Huntsman or maybe even Paul.

Given how things go, if Ralph Nader runs again I might even vote for him instead of giving any of the major parties my vote... so far they aren't worth it. Last time I felt like things could actually change was when Obama got elected. Now? Forget it.

[Lord Zentei]

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/upl ... apz022.png

I had honestly never heard of Fred Karger before. I admit that I was surprised how poorly Huntsman did on that chart, perhaps I should take a more critical look at him.

I had certainly heard of Gary Johnson, though I didn't mention him before since he has even less chance than Huntsman to gain the nomination, and wasn't even in the debate to boot. Johnson is an actual libertarian, as opposed to the pseudo-libertarians in the Republican party (who pay lip service to libertarian talking points, while not supporting civil liberties). He's also a libertarian when it comes to spending, i.e. he would use low taxes and low spending - both on moving welfare to managed care and reducing interventionist wars. He did deliver a balanced budget as governor of New Mexico, and is generally well regarded there.

[Master of Ossus]

Since the only thing wrong with a Ponzi scheme is the fact that it fraudulently claims to be an investment, yes. What's the problem?

And another problem with Ponzi schemes is that they redistribute funds based on a criteria that people find unfair--i.e., based on who gets into the system first and withdraws their money first. This is the one that is true of Social Security.

But IT'S NOT AN INVESTMENT, Einstein. That's the whole point. Calling it a Ponzi scheme and then accusing it of "not covering investments" is stupid, because it is not an investment scheme, any more than welfare is an investment scheme.

Except that the trust fund is an investment scheme that was meant to self-fund Social Security payments to Baby Boomers and which will unambiguously fail to do so.

I don't deny that Social Security began as a purely pay-as-you go welfare program, but creating the Trust Fund significantly altered its character to the point where it must be viewed as both a welfare program and an investment management group.

The fact that a government program can have its own trust fund does not mean it's an investment fund. Investment is not a transitive property. Do you seriously think that because SS runs its own investment fund, it becomes an investment fund? It is ultimately still a glorified welfare program paid from tax money.

Yes. Possession of a trust fund mandates that you have some investment portfolio with which you are saving funds. Whether the goal is a "glorified welfare program" or not, by saving money you have an investment portfolio.

All of that is, quite simply, a lie. Social Security has never promised a greater return to beneficiaries than their contributions into the system over the course of a working lifetime, and it's trust fund is renewed by payroll taxes.

It's payouts are a matter of obligation by law —which means Congress doesn't have the option to simply renege on its agreement with the American people and "run off with the money" anymore than they have an option to repudiate the national debt.

These two ideas are directly contradictory. You cannot hold them at the same time.

If Social Security has not promised a greater return to beneficiaries than their contributions into the system, then the current levels of Social Security benefits are far too high and so we must be able to reduce them or (alternatively) increase the tax rate significantly in order to cover these to a level that is far and above higher than the retiree generation (that you claimed was "never promised a greater return... than their contributions into the system over the course of a working lifetime"). We could also mix-and-match the two ideas that you find so contrary to the entire thing. But we cannot do neither of them.

SSI is no investment scheme, has never been advertised or structured as an investment scheme, and has never promised ever increasing profit to contributors, i.e. taxpayers.

The trust fund has been "advertised" as self-funding Social Security, remember? That's what the entire issue of solvency has been about.

[Dalton]

Dalton, do all of you really need to listen to the audio? Maybe you guys can just take it in turn to have your IQs lowered during future debates. Unless of course your job at the peacock is directly related to sound, in which case I'm very very sorry for you this presidential season.

If I was working in the cave (graphics playback room), I would have likely killed the audio. However, since I was in the front row of the control room, that's not an option.

[Napoleon the Clown]

The problem with Ron Paul as POTUS is that he has very, um, interesting views on the Constitution. Look at his position on leaving civil liberties up to individual states. He basically thinks the 14th Amendment can go blow itself, if there's any logical consistency in his belief structure. He would neither bet a net gain nor a net harm to the GLBT community in the US because he'd be even more impotent than Obama is, especially because the stuff he'd actually do would only reduce federal discrimination and open the flood-gates fully on state level discrimination.

[Darth Wong]

Since the only thing wrong with a Ponzi scheme is the fact that it fraudulently claims to be an investment, yes. What's the problem?

And another problem with Ponzi schemes is that they redistribute funds based on a criteria that people find unfair--i.e., based on who gets into the system first and withdraws their money first. This is the one that is true of Social Security.

That is not why they are illegal. They are illegal because they are fraudulent.

The following is the crux of our disagreement:

Except that the trust fund is an investment scheme that was meant to self-fund Social Security payments to Baby Boomers and which will unambiguously fail to do so.

If a government had a surplus, and used its investment surplus to partially fund its obligations, would that make the entire government into an investment fund?