This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Blast From Paul Krugman's Past: "Social Security Is A Ponzi Scheme And Will Soon Be Over"

Tyler Durden's picture


It is one thing (what thing that is we are not sure, but we have heard others say it, so like all good lemmings we will say it too) for Rick Perry to call Social Security a ponzi scheme. After all he is some crazy, foaming in the mouth conservative, as uber-Keynesian liberal Paul Krugman may call him. And that's fine. What confuses us, however, is why Social Security would be called a ponzi by the same liberal noted previously: none other than Paul Krugman himself.

Exhibit A, from a distant 1997, which perhaps one would have expected to remain buried (source):

Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).

This coming from the same person who a year ago said the following much anticipated truism, and has in the interim become a caricature of himself:

So where do claims of crisis come from? To a large extent they rely on bad-faith accounting. In particular, they rely on an exercise in three-card monte in which the surpluses Social Security has been running for a quarter-century don’t count — because hey, the program doesn’t have any independent existence; it’s just part of the general federal budget — while future Social Security deficits are unacceptable — because hey, the program has to stand on its own.


It would be easy to dismiss this bait-and-switch as obvious nonsense, except for one thing: many influential people — including Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the president’s deficit commission — are peddling this nonsense.


And having invented a crisis, what do Social Security’s attackers want to do? They don’t propose cutting benefits to current retirees; invariably the plan is, instead, to cut benefits many years in the future. So think about it this way: In order to avoid the possibility of future benefit cuts, we must cut future benefits. O.K.


What’s really going on here? Conservatives hate Social Security for ideological reasons: its success undermines their claim that government is always the problem, never the solution. But they receive crucial support from Washington insiders, for whom a declared willingness to cut Social Security has long served as a badge of fiscal seriousness, never mind the arithmetic.


And neither wing of the anti-Social-Security coalition seems to know or care about the hardship its favorite proposals would cause.

The only question we have for the Nobelist: is some form of affective disorder a necessary and sufficient condition to espouse the virtues of government dumping endless capital in what said Nobelist himself calls a Ponzi scheme, and just how would the overlord, John M. Keynes, fell about this?

h/t John Poehling


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:38 | 1665848 anynonmous
anynonmous's picture

Krugman is not worth the pixels



he did come out supporting death panels back on  Nov 14 2010:


"Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it's not going to happen now."  video ABC Amanpour

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:59 | 1665977 PulauHantu29
PulauHantu29's picture

Death Panels will be implicit, not explicit. The reimbursement to doctors will become so low they will refuse to treat you. The number of doctors who accept Medicare/Medicaid is less then 15% in many cities.

Hey, we all gotta go sometime, right?


Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:18 | 1666060 anynonmous
anynonmous's picture

apologies for bringing up health care I should have stopped typing at pixels



this is theater of the absurd

circa April 2009  Cramer (whom Doug Kass affectionately refers to as El Capitan ) compares Krugman and Roubini to characters from somehting called Gilligans Island



Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:23 | 1666074 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture




Paul Krugman, if you're reading your incompatible statements that ZH'er John Poehling has highlighted for you, whether you ambled in over here on your own, or were sent a link by one of your lackeys, all I have to say to you is:



Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:31 | 1666102 Religion Explained
Religion Explained's picture

Yes, and DIAF after, slowly.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:59 | 1666187 redpill
redpill's picture

Combine this with his completely classless 9/11 anniversary editorial and it tells you all you need to know about this piece of shit.  He's a hydra of hypocrisy and lies.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:34 | 1666283 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Unfortunately, he was right.  Seriously, did you read his article?  He was complaining about the turning Sept. 11 into a fascist wet dream.  Are you so crazy to want more regulation and government supervison?  That was what he was complaining about.  Talk about blinders dude.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:15 | 1666402 GilaMonster
GilaMonster's picture

He didn't back up his talk and accusations, so before you start all the haliburton bs, krugman should man up and give facts or shut the fuck up and maintain being a nobel ponzi prize whiner.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:05 | 1666529 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Go suck Krugman's weiner, you sorry ass sockpuppet

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 06:50 | 1667740 nmewn
nmewn's picture

A nice article identifying past & present "liberals" who have called Social Security a ponzi...

Oh my...

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 09:08 | 1668006 tovar2
tovar2's picture

well put Redpill

when the boots are out in the streets guys like him will go into hiding

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:03 | 1666198 I only kill chi...
I only kill chickens and wheat's picture

Watch out for the KDI, they'll get yer for sure. Krugeman Defense Industries, they're everywhere.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 06:19 | 1667711 Pay Day Today
Pay Day Today's picture

Does KDI make orbital lazer platforms for zapping incoming alien invaders with?

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 06:58 | 1667746 nmewn
nmewn's picture


And they also make cute little shovels stamped with the word "Ready" on them to dig and refill trenches, day after day, for no apparent reason.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:20 | 1666067 duckhook
duckhook's picture

The number of baby boomers collecting medoacre is going to be so large that Doctor's will have no choice but to accept medicare

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 06:54 | 1667743 jabu
jabu's picture

The other choice, you ass, is to quit practicing medicine in public.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:25 | 1666079 GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

"Hey, we all gotta go sometime, right?"

Yes we do. I just hope my time to go isn't while I'm sitting in a restaurant with my family when a terminally-ill patient with a Czech SKS who's been screwed over by "the healthcare industry" decides to take out his frustrations with our corrupt, innane and inept healthcare system on the patrons of the restaurant.

One thing about our future of which I am quite certain is much less courtesy, decency, and humanity, all of which is brought to you by our owners. Meanwhile, the other thing you can be certain of is many of the slaves and serfs will defend their owners before, during and after this has happened.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:32 | 1666104 Stelan
Stelan's picture


Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:44 | 1666329 johnnynaps
johnnynaps's picture

Well, you might be correct if you hold a viewpoint like mine. I see the baby boomers as the one's in control of this disasterous way of life. They hoard jobs and assets. They want the can kicked down the road because it suits their best interests of allowing my generation to deal with the shit-storm. No one from my generation has made these irrational, unConsitutional, retarded policies or laws. As far as I'm concerned, my master boomers can do what they will do best the next 20 years. And, they want to cry inept and unfair as they collect a pension and the remaining SS amounting to double what I make at 50 hours of work a week for just hanging around doing NO good! -PS, to the obvious boomer argument.....I did not ask for this way of life. I would rather work less and enjoy nature more living with a lesser ICRAP standard. Thank you for ruining the please choke on those dentures.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 02:25 | 1666678 zhandax
zhandax's picture

If I were not 95% convinced that the global ponzi would collapse within the next 15 months, I would say 'lots of luck changing it when it gets dumped in your generation's lap' numbnutz.  Guess you have never tried to talk sense to an incumbent representative?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:10 | 1666037 camaro68ss
camaro68ss's picture

Oooo head fake bitchez!!!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:30 | 1665849 Debtless
Debtless's picture

Beware the bearded financial hacks.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:07 | 1666022 X.inf.capt
X.inf.capt's picture




Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:02 | 1666517 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

She said that it was not in the best interests of the market to let the Greeks go into an uncontrolled default, as it would roil the markets that are already jittery about the debt situation.

So let me get this straight. The broader markets are reliant upon a known bankrupt nation with negative income, (in hock to the rest of them), to not defaulting on its obligations to pay back their loans. The creditors, in trying to stop the inevitable, offers the bankrupted Greeks more money in order to stop the default.

This ain't about solvent or insolvent sovereigns, this is more profound. This is most assuredly about the fundamental promise of payment, inherent in all good faith redemptionless paper promises to pay, being broken. Once one debtor fails to pay, in this overleversaged Ponzi that risks all saved capital, the faith once broken, and the wound open for all to see, will transform this psychology to one of panic.

I panicked first (long ago) and managed to get the fuck outta this intact, ahead of the herd.

Get ze silver, get ze gold, get ze beer.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:34 | 1665851 treemagnet
treemagnet's picture

First SheepDogOne loses his faith, then Krugman pulls his head clean out of his ass.......I need a drink, too much for a Tuesday (?), I'm just a man.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:40 | 1665883 NumNutt
NumNutt's picture

Next thing you know TPTB will be telling everyone to start buying gold. That would be when you know we are in deep shit.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:12 | 1666050 evolvedmonkey
evolvedmonkey's picture

No, that is when we STOP buying gold and start selling.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:30 | 1666101 X.inf.capt
X.inf.capt's picture

I not selling my pre65 dimes, i dont give a DAMN what anybody says....

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:34 | 1665868 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Social Security? How bout the whole US economy? How bout the entire debt-structure of the Western World? 

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:33 | 1666106 Helix6
Helix6's picture


Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:34 | 1665869 bugs_
bugs_'s picture

KREEEEEEWG MAN!  he was high and was compulsively honest  - it was 1997


Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:36 | 1665871 moonstears
moonstears's picture

I think it's the beard, that's why they listen to him. Point taken, I'm growing a goat. Knew I was on the right track when the wife started "hating" on it! P.S. Who's the last actual, factual Nobel winner with worth who gave some value to the world, in any catagory? MLK, maybe?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:16 | 1666053 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

MLK would be about right for "social sciences"...and all else vis a vis "the humanities." Or is it just humanity period? Anywho physical sciences--well, just look at your i-phone, or your e-trade account. No stopping the revolution of Quantum mechanics.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:24 | 1666077 knukles
knukles's picture


Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:34 | 1666108 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

Seems you have to be a transnational progressive lapdog to get one these days.

Wonder why?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:55 | 1666173 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

As opposed to a transgender gobbling fascist fuckwad?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:17 | 1666241 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

I always treasure your well reasoned and articulate responses.


Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:36 | 1666290 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

And I'll always treasure your mom enjoying the kibbles on the floor.  She's so funny!

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:45 | 1666469 The_Jew_Bear
The_Jew_Bear's picture

I always tresure your krout dissembling.


Let's go again, Krout. This time with nukes.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:56 | 1666505 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

It would help you seem less moronic if you spelled kraut correctly.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:04 | 1666523 BigDuke6
BigDuke6's picture


Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:22 | 1666571 The_Jew_Bear
The_Jew_Bear's picture

Wow, it would be great if there was a point to you your existance other than sucking Nazi cock.


Wed, 09/14/2011 - 02:37 | 1666771 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

I see what you're up to. Trying to cash in that 500 dollar per nuke jew fine.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:21 | 1666563 The_Jew_Bear
The_Jew_Bear's picture

It would help you seem less moronic if you had a point other than bile.

Also, It would help if you realized that languages are translated phonetically: either is correct in English, you perfectly stupid Nazi moron.

Look it up.


Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:39 | 1666608 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

But nice try on the blustering lie.

Gotta give you a point for chutzpah.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:46 | 1666143 fxrxexexdxoxmx
fxrxexexdxoxmx's picture

The last Nobel prize winner who has violent kinetic value to unarmed women and children: B. Hussein Obama, peace is as peace does Ear Leader, his biological father, Frank Marshall Davis would have been proud.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:38 | 1666619's picture

Who's the last actual, factual Nobel winner with worth who gave some value to the world,



Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:36 | 1665872 vegas
vegas's picture

Liberal Theology 101: Pay no attention to what I said yesterday, as that was intended for rubes who need my elite take on things.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:55 | 1665915 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Conservative Theology 101:  oh, never mind.    Krugman is an asshole and so is Perry and so is every current candidate competing with Perry.  Paul is great for his desire to end the Fed and dismantle the MIC, but he would let children starve in the street in the name of freedom (no, churches won't step up, get over it). I wish more than 5% of the population could overcome the left/right paradigm.  

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:12 | 1666051 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

LetThemEat Rand Theology:  Whatever you say, I'm against it.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:57 | 1666180 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Exactly.  Blow a couple of trillion on pointless wars and tax cuts for the rich and you've got a giant hard on. 

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:24 | 1666082 Founders Keeper
Founders Keeper's picture

[Paul is great for his desire to end the Fed and dismantle the MIC, but he would let children starve in the street in the name of freedom (no, churches won't step up, get over it).]---LetThemEatRand

Rand, no one wants to see children starving.  Constitutional conservatives like me just believe it's NOT the FEDERAL government's job to feed our kids. 

Feeding kids is the responsibility of parents.  Beyond that grandparents.  Beyond that siblings, step-parents, in-laws, uncles, aunts, cousins, 2nd cousins, grand aunt and uncles.

Beyond that, friends, neighbors, churches, and volunteer community organizations. 

Beyond that, local community, townships, city, county, state.

Sounds like you need to join a different church.

(This statement is not an endorsement or denouncement of any political party or candidate.  I am Tea Party.  I endorse our Founding Fathers, documents, and principles.)



Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:34 | 1666110 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I understand that you have justified your narcissim by calling it a political ideology.  Enjoy the Randaid.   I do not believe this country was founded on self-centered prickness.  But it is certainly moving in that direction.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:01 | 1666192 Founders Keeper
Founders Keeper's picture

[I do not believe this country was founded on self-centered prickness.]---LetThemEatRand

Indeed, no, this country was NOT founded on self-centered prickness.

It was founded on God-centeredness.  (Not any one religion's God.  There were at least half a dozen competing sects in 1776.  Instead, the God shared by most sects and expressed universally in the Bible.)

From God-centeredness comes our belief, acceptance, and responsibility for our God-given individual rights, i.e. "unalienable rights." 

If you understand the concept of unalienable rights, then the all the remaining documents, principles, and the actions of our Founders will make sense to you.


Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:26 | 1666260 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So you are making the point that Jesus [or other fill in the blank omnipotent beings that were worshiped by early Americans] hate poor people and would rather the poor die than be helped by those who have more than they need?  Really?  

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:42 | 1666630's picture

The same government that wastes trillions of dollars killing poor people all over the world actually loves poor people and is their only hope?

That's just crazy, dude.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 05:21 | 1667578 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

"Non Sequiter", look it up.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 06:36 | 1667724 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Dear stupid, ignorant, strawman arguing douchebag LetThemEatRand,

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

You should read these two short paragraphs until they are burned into the back side of your eyeballs and you see them wherever you look.

Speaking of Alinsky strawman arguments...I've finally settled on my favorite for you pricks.

I like football. But I don't like the football made out of skins of little puppies. Do you?

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 09:26 | 1667999 G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture


Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:01 | 1666361 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



It was founded on God-centeredness.


It was founded on the principle of individual rights which government must recognize and protect.   That is stated explicitly  in the Declaration of Independence and the preamble of the Consititution for the United States of America.

While the Founders apparently believed said rights come from God, nowhere in the bible does it say that.  Nowhere from Genesis to Revelation does it say anything about individual rights.

In fact the bible says quite the opposite.  One's freedom to exist and work and prosper comes from God's protection and blessing, not from rights. 

Of course it also says God's protection and blessing are contingent on knowing and doing what God says ...which very few Americans do, hence very few Americans have God's protection and blessing.

And yes Christ said the very same things, over and over again, along with the Apostles, all the way thru the new testament.

So no, America wasn't founded on "God-centeredness".

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:03 | 1666382 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

According to the Randers, America and its founders fucking hate poor people.   

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:33 | 1666438 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

According to me, you're a douchebag troll.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:46 | 1666476 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Me, me, me, me.  
Fuck you. 

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:46 | 1666640's picture

Do you believe that people own themselves? If they do then your government safety net which depends on forced participation is a crime against humanity. If people don't own themselves, what's the point of working? Slaves only work hard enough to prevent being beaten and their lives generally suck. Nobody wins in the "people don't own themselves" game.

You're the hater although you don't seem to know it.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:57 | 1666506 The_Jew_Bear
The_Jew_Bear's picture

a faustian bargain indeed.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:12 | 1666508 The_Jew_Bear
The_Jew_Bear's picture


Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:21 | 1666566 Founders Keeper
Founders Keeper's picture

[While the Founders apparently believed said rights come from God, nowhere in the bible does it say that.]---cranky-old-geezer

Hi cranky.

Sorry you went to the trouble of refuting a position I never stated.  Indeed, I know of no where in the Bible enumerating our unalienable rights.  They are rights our Founders believed were given us by God.

Now, if you take the position our Founding Fathers, our founding documents, and principles were NOT God-centered, we can have an enlightening discussion on that.


Wed, 09/14/2011 - 09:04 | 1667941 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



I believe the Founders were dedicated to following some of the principles taught in the Bible.

But to be frank about it, the Founders made a huge mistake trying to fit those principles into an "individual rights" framework, which was their creation, not biblically supported, and therefore not sanctioned nor blessed by God.

Scripture clearly states if one teaches something contrary to "God's way", it is not sanctioned nor blessed by God.  If anything it is cursed.

While well-intentioned I'm sure, the Founders unwittingly adopted and taught a concept that runs contrary to biblical teaching, which explains why it began to fail almost before the ink was dry on the DOI and the Constitution.  God simply wasn't supporting it nor blessing it.

God's blessing of America in the early days was from it's leaders knowing and practicing Godly principles, exactly what the bible says.  It wasn't from their "individual rights" concept, which God never blessed because it was contrary to God's way, and sure enough began failing right out of the gate.

Instead of promoting their "individual rights" idea, the Founders should have stated in the DOI and preamble of the Constitution that America's leaders were duty-bound to know and practice Godly principles, which is fully consistent with the bible, fully consistent with God's way, and would have been fully sanctioned and blessed by God. 

But they didn't say that. Instead they adopted this "individual rights" concept, which is actually an attempt to secure God's blessings without God if you stop and think about it.

Part of their motivation for adopting their "individual rights" concept was the Magna Carta where the "individual rights" idea originated.  I could explain why and how that concept developed, but it's outside the scope of this comment.  What's relevant here is that concept isn't biblically supported, and therefore not blessed.

So yes, the Founders, however well-intentioned, actually made a big Oooops.  They screwed up.  They unwittingly planted the seeds of America's eventual downfall.  And we see that happening right now.  We're living in it.  We're watching the downfall of America. 

Why is it happening now?  It's very simple.  America's leaders have rejected Godly principles.  And we're seeing the results of it.  The nation is no longer blessed, and is actually cursed, which is exactly what the bible says from Genesis all the way thru Revelation, from cover to cover.

Thu, 09/15/2011 - 02:25 | 1672121 Founders Keeper
Founders Keeper's picture

Hi cranky.  Sorry I haven't got back to you sooner.  Full day today.  Even now I should be headed toward bed.  Nevertheless, I'd like to let you know I read your Reply.

Yours was an excellent post.  Enlarging the discussion. 

I believe this is at the heart of your position: 

While well-intentioned I'm sure, the Founders unwittingly adopted and taught a concept that runs contrary to biblical teaching, which explains why it began to fail almost before the ink was dry on the DOI and the Constitution.  God simply wasn't supporting it nor blessing it.

The ideas of Natural Law and Unalienable rights span the ages, yet coalesced in our Founders.  See Marcus  Cicero, William Blackstone, and John Locke.  In their writings you will find they argue pursuasively "any analysis of essential elements of God's code of divine law reveals that it is designed to promote, preserve, and protect man's unalienable rights." (W. Cleon Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap p.132)

Our Founders of course did not "teach" unalienable rights.  Those rights are self evident.  For example, I know as a child of God, I have the right to worship Him as I choose, or not worship Him, or deny His very existence.  And as I choose to worship, my practice in doing so must not deprive you of your right to worship.  Self evident, as in common sense based on God's code of divine law.  After all, reason and common sense is God given.

Was our nation's founding a failure from the start?  Our nation's founding, cranky, is not perfect.  Our Founding Fathers would be the first to admit that.  This whole deal is an experiment.  No one ever tried it before.  Our Founders had serious doubts.  Everyone had doubts.  Our Founders were trying to strike a balance in governance: At the center between socialism on the far left and anarchy on the far right.  Governance is a man-made construct, and is as flawed and vulnerable as man himself.

The founding of our nation, the direction of our Founding Fathers, and the legacy of our founding documents are inspired by God.

God's fingerprints are all over this deal if only you look.


Thu, 09/15/2011 - 03:48 | 1672208 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



Sorry FK, but you're just flat wrong about this "unalienable rights from God" stuff.

There is ZERO scriptural support for the concept.  NONE.

These alledged "unalienable rights" are NOT self-evident.  If they were they would be recognized by government, by other people, etc, not only here in America but around the world since everybody allegedly has them.

If people had an "unalienable right of life", God would not have wiped out thousands of people at various times througout human history.

If people had an "unalienable right of liberty" God and Christ and the Apostles would have opposed slavery.  But they didn't.  Under the law of Israel, which God allegedly spelled out, someone deep in debt could be sold into slavery to the creditor until the debt was paid off or until the next debt jubilee, whichever occurred first.  What did God say about it?  Just treat them right.  Don't abuse them.  That's it.  That's all he had to say about it.  And Christ said the very same thing.

If people had an "unalienable right of property" God would make sure every human being was able to function and work and prosper and have property.  But that's obviously not the case. Some people are born with crippling conditions and deformities rendering them unable to function and work and prosper and have property.

Moreover, God would be duty-bound to prevent other people and government from infringing on those alleged "unalienable rights".  But that's obviously not the case either.

No, God's "fingerprints" are NOT all over America's founding.  If they were, the Founders would not have had to fight a revolutionary war with the British crown costing thousands of lives and untold property damage to secure America's independence.  It would have been more like Israel's founding, sending a Moses type messenger to King George saying "let these people go or God will destroy your fucking nation".  The colonists wouldn't have had to lift a finger.  Just sit back and watch God wipe out Great Britain.

And no, there was no mention of individual rights in the law God spelled out when Israel was founded.  No mention at all.  In fact the very opposite was clearly stated, "obey me or I'll wipre your asses out like I did those fucking Egyptians"  And he DID wipe their asses out eventually becaue they DIDN'T obey him.  The original nation called Israel more or less ceased to exist.

So no, there is NO scriptural credibility to this concept of "unalenable rights".  It is purely a man-made concept which God completely ignores.

The ONLY thing in the founding documents that could be ascribed to God is admonitions to practice Godly principles.  But that's what the bible says, all the way through. 

The Founders were God-fearing men for the most part.  THAT'S why America got off to a relatively good start and did well for a while ...until successive leaders of America were NOT Godly men and REJECTED those principles and America started faltering.

...just like Israel did incidentally.  You could study the history of Israel and see exactly the same pattern we see in America.

Fri, 09/16/2011 - 00:13 | 1676120 Founders Keeper
Founders Keeper's picture

Another excellent post, cranky.

I'm afraid I have to leave it as agreeing to disagree.

And really, you're quite a bit more knowledgable than you let on in your regular posts.  I hope to see more of it.

Thank you for challenging me to take my game up a notch. 

God Bless.


Fri, 09/16/2011 - 13:08 | 1677650 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

This "unalienable rights" stuff is man's attempt to impose some sort of duty on God to guarantee peope's life and prosperity.

That's exactly what it is.  People trying to impose some sort of obligation on God to protect them from government tyranny, give them a life free from government tyranny, and guarantee their prosperty ...REGARDLESS of whether they obey God or not.

That RIGHT THERE is the CORE of this "unalienable rights" stuff.  People wanting God to protect and prosper them WITHOUT obeying God, while COMPLETELY IGNORING what God tells them to do.

And Americans are THE WORST at wanting God's protection and blessings while COMPELTELY IGNORING what he says.

Of course it DOESN'T WORK.  It never works.  It never has worked and it never will work. 

God is not fooled.  God is not mocked.  God's atttitude is "You can take your "unalienable rights" bullshit and shove it up your ass.  You obey me, do what I say, or I'll wipe your sorry rebellious ass out."

And yes, that's exactly what he did all down through human history, time after time, and yes he feels the very same way today about Americans and everybody else on this planet the bible CLEARLY states, over and over again.  It's the MAJOR THEME of the entire bible, Genesis through Revelation, Christ confirmed it, the Apostles confirmed, everybody else in the bible confirmed it via words or their own example or both.

No, God does NOT recognize any sort of "unalienable rights" nonsnese. 


Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:41 | 1666458 Joseph Jones
Joseph Jones's picture

I've read and listened to the Bible.  There's no vs. promoting anything like "rights" except your right to suffer in hell for eternity. 

Also, there's no exception to the NT commands against any kind of violence for any reason.  There's no "right" to murder the king because he set taxes too high, or taxed without representation.

These ridiculous blasphemies agasint Christ are all from the pit of hell.  

Persons who understand that the Kingdom is within us, not made with hands, our "Jerusalem" is a holy city not of this earth, are clear that we have no need for a physical salvation.  Our salvation is purely in the spiritual realm.  "Worship" (proskuneo) is not in the time/space domain either (see John 4).  There is no such thing as a "worship service".  There is no clergy/laity split as taught in every God-forsaken hell hole AKA "church" (all believers are "priests", see Hebrews).  There is no word correctly translated "church".  Jesus was indeed not a "jew" (word did not exist till 1775, sorry, see the Oxford English Dictionary).  Jesus was not King of the Jews, but rather "leader of the Judeans" (in the 1st C "Judean" had only a georgraphic signficance, not religious).  

Jesus is also not coming in the future, one of the worst blasphemies taught in churchianty.  THIS entertaining 1 hour video is a great introduction to this view.     

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 09:46 | 1668190 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



As long as you're listing biblical facts, you might as well add there is no coming "rapture" where so-callled "christians" or "believers" are wafted off to "heaven".

The bible does speak of a few obedient people being "removed to a place of safety" to escape end-time cataclysmic events.  It doesn't say where that "place of safety" is, and there is no indication said "place of safety" is anywhere beyond this planet. 

And a big "ata boy" to anyone who knows how long said people will be in said "place of safety", which is clearly stated in Revelation.   

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:11 | 1666542 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

And if none of them step up to the plate and feed those kids, let the buggers die? Would you have the taxpayer pick up the remains and dispose of it? Or will your church take care of that?

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:30 | 1666582 Founders Keeper
Founders Keeper's picture

[And if none of them step up to the plate and feed those kids, let the buggers die?]---FeralSerf

Hi FeralSerf. 

Then it's up to you and I, Feral.  Personal responsibility.  But, you don't sound up to that yet.


Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:25 | 1666084 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

Was Ron Paul asked if he would let children starve in the street in the name of freedom or are you making this shit up?

As I recall, he was asked if a young healthy man who declined getting health insurance got hurt or sick what would happen under his plan.  He gave some story about Churches helping those in need which I agree with you that it ain't gonna happen.

Regardless, the guy who declined health insurance who later gets injured or sick is on his own in my book.  That would teach others to pay for health insurance.  Otherwise, by taking care of them regardless, they are incentivized to decline insurance because of the safety net.  You change bad behavior by providing consequences to bad decisions.  By having no negative consequences, there is no reason to take the insurance.

Ron Paul is correct about this but Liberals can't get their heads around this logic.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:39 | 1666119 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"That would teach others to pay for health insurance...."

In your world, health insurance actually pays for treatment when needed.  And everyone who wants it and who works hard can afford it.   Must be a nice, clean, happy unicorn world.  This website often [correctly] makes fun of "unicorn to market."  Do you perhaps see a connection with your unrealistic point of view?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:51 | 1666157 Silverdes
Silverdes's picture

You know what's unrealistic? Believing that the federal government can provide a safety net for every single illness, misfortune, and unforeseen even for every single person in this country. That's the ONLY way you can guarantee that everyone will have equal coverage, and that system will collapse before it can even be put to good use.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:59 | 1666186 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Holy crap!  Social Security has kept your dumbass crackwhore granny off the street and your bummed out?  Get that skank back to work!

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:56 | 1666501 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

Stay with the question.  You are veering off course.  The question related to someone who could afford insurance but declined because they didn't feel they needed it.

With respect to those who cannot afford health insurance, excluding those that would rather spend their money on flat screen TVs, XBoxes, and trips to Disney World, being poor is a bitch.  Who, other than some liberal minded nutjob, ever said that everyone has a right to health insurance?  If you believe that everyone has a right to health insurance, there's no need to discuss this point any further although do you know what people did before health insurance ever existed?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:56 | 1666177 Dingleberry
Dingleberry's picture

Everyone WANTS freedom, but apparently few want the consequences.  Ergo dumb-ass statements about children starving, voluntarily uninsured getting hurt, etc.  Look, IF YOU DON'T WANT FREEDOM, THEN FUCKING SAY SO!!!  Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:00 | 1666190 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Exactly!  Shut up fuckwad!

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:45 | 1666474 LongBallsShortBrains
LongBallsShortBrains's picture

"Ron Paul is correct about this but Liberals can't get their heads around this logic."

Creating a moral hazard is beyond their comprehension as well. That is why the libtard followers love these great ideas. They don't see how it is better to let Tyrone worry about his own healthcare ( or education, school lunch, unemployment, feeding himself, retirement, etc.) so that tyrone can learn and be productive.

Instead we should hold all taxpayers financially responsible for tyrone at the point of a gun, and just give to Tyrone that which is needed.

The thing that Tyrone really needs are the skills and incentive to get responsible about his own life. But how many government jobs does that create in education, school administration, food stamp office, unemployment claims rep, social security employees, etc. etc.?

You see, when we want to let people depend on themselves, there is no need for all of these government "jobs". That is not good for those who wish to enable government for their own profit.

I think that the libtards deep down want the government to help Tyrone because they never will. They are ticks on the same dog. They never think about where the taxes come from.

Why is it ok to steal from one American in order to feed another American? Because it creates jobs in the government.

Just my opinion... Bitchez!

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:10 | 1666539 The_Jew_Bear
The_Jew_Bear's picture

"Libtards"? don't you see that you're just obeying?

Don't you have a mind of your own? Jesus Christ dude, you embarrass us.


To concern yourself with surface political conflicts is to make the mistake of the bull in the ring, you are charging the cloth. That is what politics is for, to teach you the cloth. Just as the bullfighter teaches the bull, teaches him to follow, obey the cloth.

Wiliam S. Burroughs

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:32 | 1666602 LongBallsShortBrains
LongBallsShortBrains's picture

Yes, I obey. I pay ss. But I am dumb enough to know to never depend on it.

If you could run social security with no employees, no paperwork, no buildings, no expenses from anywhere but paying out bennies, I would agree that it is a good system if voluntary.

Tell me where the money comes from to pay these other liabilities.

If there were no ss today, would you propose the system we have now?

I am a freedom lover who is not fooled by the left vs right republicrat/demoblican bs.

I call the libtards the people who are usually on the left that want to pay for shit from government money as if the government doesn't have to steal a dollar from one taxpayer, waste 81¢ on paying government employees and expenses, before giving 16¢ to what we are actually paying for. ( we lost 3¢ somewhere. We started 4 committees to look into that)

Don't take it personally. You have been brainwashed is all.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:05 | 1666528 The_Jew_Bear
The_Jew_Bear's picture

You are corect, but you don't understand liberals. We want freedom. We want to work together with our fellow man. Liberals were defending freedom since before the Revolution. The Founders were all liberals. Your MSM brain can't handle that. Fuck, I know. You are a slave to propaganda. And yes, I support Ron Paul. I am not stupid, and I act in my own intereestes. Paul/Sanders. my dream ticket.

Thu, 09/15/2011 - 02:50 | 1672152 janus
janus's picture

bettah watch out, jew bear!

you're heging mighty close to the Truth.  you're gonna accrue some malingering sissies around you; first they gonna test ya, then ya gonna bash the shit outta them; then they gonna try to nip yer heel, then you're gonna kick their teeth in; finally, they'll just start huntin your posts and flaggin ya with that faggoty red arrow down (again, stout homos, janus apologizes -- i'm insulting the bitches among your ranks)

oh, yer gonna get you some haters with talk like that.

i let you loose on 'compassionate' fascist the other day -- and, brutha, that was some mutha-fuckin what-for you gave him...but i haven't seen him today.  when i see that bold faced print, the dark shadow starts to creep over him, and he can sense his DOOM!

jew bear, seein how you're a thinker and all, janus has a request: think this whole democracy thing through, and then tell me what you think of its long term prospects.

i'd like to hear your take on the matter.

ps if that video offended you in any way; you won't get anymore like it (but, you know janus, he's gotta try).

you got my respect, jew bear.

You shall put these words of mine on your heart and on your soul;  and you shall tie them for a sign upon your arm, and they shall be as totafot between your eyes, janus
Thu, 09/15/2011 - 02:54 | 1672158 janus
janus's picture


i didn't even see your proposed ticket: paul/sanders!

now, i did vow to never again vote; so i'll say that i'd be willing to fight fascists in the streets until their blood overwhelms the sewers (where they belong) to support that ticket.  but, i'm afraid i never go back on an oath.

but i like yer style even more now.


Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:34 | 1666107 Religion Explained
Religion Explained's picture

If you were starving I would let you die for sure. I'd personally help the kids I could though. But again, you? No way. Starve all trolls.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:11 | 1666219 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

At what age do you cut off your altruism towards children and hatred towards adults?  How about if a really lazy 25 year old has a 7 month old fetus.  Do you extract the fetus and give it to Rick Perry to immunize, and let the lazy 25 year old die of her wounds because she doesn't have health insurance?  And if the 7 month old fetus survives and becomes a useless eater at age 18, do you kill him too while worshiping your strange Owl diety?

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:00 | 1666374 Clinteastwood
Clinteastwood's picture

Well, obviously you are not a physician.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:47 | 1666478 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Ha!  douche.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:06 | 1666384 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

I think I have a new definition of "assinine" now. Thanks.

Tell me you don't vote, and are sterile, or I might cry.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 05:29 | 1667633 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

You must have gone long on "Straw",

<------------------- scarecrow builders go thataway...

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:32 | 1666275 Meridian
Meridian's picture

I wish 100% of the population would quit trotting out fashionably snobby "left/right paradigm" claptrap to dismiss everything for which they can't come up with a reasoned argument - it's really getting tedious. The Liberal/Conservative continuum is a meaningful construct and you can't wish it away every time someone points out the absurdity of your liberal ideals.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:46 | 1666335 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

And this is your reasoned argument for what exactly?  "I'm right and your're wrong?"  You just made my point, Meridian.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 05:30 | 1667637 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

It's quite simple:

Our work, or your (Big Brother's) guns:  pick one, you CANNOT have both!

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:19 | 1666408 GilaMonster
GilaMonster's picture

charity + goobermint = redistribution which equates to slavery for the producers

I bet you don't donate shit unless there is a tax deduction...especially your personal time. Oh sure, it is all solved with money, douche bag.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 05:31 | 1667647 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Time to put your FRNs where yer mouth is, alleviate some suffering:

Otherwise, WHY are YOU on THIS planet?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:37 | 1665873 NorthenSoul
NorthenSoul's picture

So, you assert that Krugman had no right to rethink his position on SocSecin the last 14 years? That he couldn't possibly, I don't know, revisit the issue, analyze it anew and change his mind because the facts mandated him to do so? Do you even allow for this possibility?

Or are you just playing cheap ass politics for the fuck of it?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:41 | 1665888 Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

Absolutely, why - is it not that other much admired Econ PhD holder (that would be Ben Bernanke) who a long, long time ago (in the distant 2004), said that Operation Twist is a failure? Surely he too must have changed his mind since he is about to unleash it on us in one week.

As to your question, it also is very possible that in the past 14 years Social Security morphed, at least in the eyes of some... well one, from Ponzi to non-Ponzi.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:47 | 1665925 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Ya but he got I'm not a dumbass medal. So he's a sacred cow. Of course he gives spoiled milk but he's still a sacred cow. And it's really too late to take the medal back without looking like complete fucknuts.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:14 | 1666056 catacl1sm
catacl1sm's picture

If not for the fact that Congress started to include SS funds as part of the General Fund to "balance" the budget under Clinton and a Republican Congress, then SS would be solvent for a few more decades. That doesn't make it less of a ponzi scheme, but SS's long viability has become a pressing issue at a time when we can least afford it.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:19 | 1666065 G. Marx
G. Marx's picture

The increase in FICA taxes under Reagan, to assure the future financial viability of SS given the problems brewing in the eighties, were spent from the get-go by the democratic congress run by Tip O'Neil. Democratic Senator Patrick Moynihan, on the floor of the senate, complained vociferously about this during Pappy Bush's administration ('88-'92). Get your facts straight. Excess funds have been spent from the very beginning.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:00 | 1666189 Rick64
Rick64's picture


Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:36 | 1666288 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Intragovernmental agency debt. Borrowing what you loaned. Or being your own bank within your own bank under some sort of banking mobius strip.

You can knock of 5 trillion of debt from it but since only taxpayers can pay for something. There's no way to retire it.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:52 | 1666485 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

"As soon as the first surpluses began to roll in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything. The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan’s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.  

5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006. (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspan’s role in initiating the Social Security surplus revenue.)

6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers. Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund."

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:39 | 1666126 Stelan
Stelan's picture

Is it possible for you in your lifetime to post a comment without dripping the F bomb?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:43 | 1666136 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Its possible. Show me a world that I don't hate and curse.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:57 | 1666179 Rick64
Rick64's picture


Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:52 | 1666356 New Survivalist
New Survivalist's picture

Fuck it.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:59 | 1665978 knukles
knukles's picture

Maybe they saw Jesus.  Er, too politically incorrect.
They saw the GOP debate.  Nope, too uninspiring.
Maybe they saw Confirmation Bias!
Yeah, that's it!
To hell with principles, its' the argument that counts!  Me being right!  Yeah, that's what I didn't say when I said that before, because how should I know that I'd be twisting principles, placing them behind money, power, property and prestige at a later date, when doing so is totally justified to justify my own political bias.... 

Come on, that's not fair to remind me of that.

No, I just didn't say that either, did I.

Uh.  Nope.

I never said it.
No one heard me.
I was really just thinking it.
Thinking about it trying on the idea for size.
Trying to gauge the zeitgeist back then through Scientific Economic research.
Not enough of that done.
Too much seat of the pants political pablum and opinion made to look like a Vast Repository of Knowledge.
I wasn't there when somebody else said it.
Why are you trying to blame that on me?
I didn't mean it the way you're taking it.
You took my words out of context.

Don't you breath a word of this to my readers or editor.

I'm turning off the comments section because I know what's gonna happen.  Seriously, I believe in free speech, but enough is enough.


Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:10 | 1666014 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I'm sure I'll be endlessly flamed for this, but there is a difference between pointing out that a "generation" puts more in than it takes out, and calling the system a Ponzi scheme in general.  Pensions by definition involve contributions by large groups.  A properly run pension system will take in the same in total than it pays out, but many contributors will take out far more than they put in.  Others will die the day after they retire, and their contributions will be redistributed to the survivors.  Individual retirement accounts like 401K's have the huge disadvantage that you have to assume you'll live until you are 100, and save accordingly.  I think that Krugman (whom I think is an idiot in almost all ways), was trying to point out in his more recent article that SS is underfunded because the funds have already been spent for OTHER programs.   This is not an endorsement of Krugman who is an idiot, but it would be nice if we could all recognize that the individual retirment plan sucks giant ass and we're all suckers for giving up on the idea of a pension scheme.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:22 | 1666073 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

Social Security is a scam because there is NO, NONE, ZERO guarantee of ANYTHING, EVER.  It is at the whim of congress to approve each and every year.  It is a TAX, plain and simple.  It is even labelled a TAX.    Only morons think otherwise.

If we must have a nanny state for the simple minded that cannot put aside for their future, then, putting the 14% of a person's wages aside in a PRIVATE fund of their choosing, to be withdrawn ONLY if 62 or older or upon serious illness would be the way to go.      Even people of modest incomes would be staring at hundreds of thousands of dollars at 62+, and could withdraw at their leisure what the wanted, when they wanted, period -- since it is, after all , THEIR MONEY, EARNED, WITH THEIR LABOR.


What's the matter, Huffpo kick you out or something?



Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:27 | 1666090 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You must be kidding if you think the best answer for the average Joe is to save enough personally so that he can pay his living expenses w/ inflation to age 100, including medical expenses, insurance, taxes, etc.   "Even people of modest incomes would be staring at hundreds of thousands..." You can spend that much in 2 weeks in intensive care, brainiac.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:38 | 1666118 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

Humm.  First,   Hate to tell this to you, but the SS tax is 14% and is being taken from the 'avergae joe' today (the 14% is split between the employer contribution and the employee contribution, unless you are self employed, then you fork over the entire amout yourself)

Second, What the heck does a pension have to do with health care insurance???   How does social security help with intensive care???


Third, my parents were 'working joes' and European immigrants to boot.   They both worked and were able to save plenty.   They are both in their eighties and want for nothing and are amazed at the situation of some of their 'friends' that are still alive.   Of course, they didn't blow their money on new cars, new clothes, plastic doo-dads and lots and lots of liquor.   They didn't get divorced multiple times and they never missed a day of work.     Peddle your story to those that don't know better

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:45 | 1666141 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

And where does the 14% go my ideological friend?  Does it go into a SS trust fund, or is it spent on military doo dads and liquor for Geithner meetings with Goldman Sachs?  How much do your immigrant parents collect from SS and Medicare each year?  Be honest.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:03 | 1666201 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

You are making a mistake to think you can argue rationally with a Republic.  They are impervious to logic.  Treat them like the dog shit they are.  Scrape the shoe and move on. 

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:14 | 1666230 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I know, but I like to watch them run into themselves.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:17 | 1666238 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

I know.  I have the same problem.  It's like a train can't look away. 

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:31 | 1666435 ReadySteadyGo
ReadySteadyGo's picture

You two should fuck and get it over with.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:49 | 1666487 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

We did, and we gave birth to an ignorant cunt named ReadySteadyGo.  

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:34 | 1666286 robobbob
robobbob's picture

there was nothing about LTER's arguments that were logical. they were entirely emotional appeals.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:43 | 1666325 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Interesting statement from someone who has injected neither emotion nor logic to this discussion.  Wait, I take that back.  You injected the emotion of irrational fear of being challenged in your childish beliefs.   Never mind.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:27 | 1666425 GilaMonster
GilaMonster's picture

Bring out the books, show the accounting, otherwise your just a loon barking at the moon. The truth is there was never a seperate fund, and it is being siphoned off on bullshit disabilites and payments to plenty that were never ORIGINALLY covered. What a joke, all you do is try this lame slight of hand with wars and booze, SSI was gone long before 2001 and all the BS wars after it. You can only redistribute for so long, then like a parasite that kills the host, you go along looking for another creature to suck out the life.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:41 | 1666456 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Seems to me I read somewhere that the "I" in OASDI was "Insurance".  You know, that thing where a lot of people pay in for an unlikely event like living to 100 or getting a heart transplant that one of them can't afford, but the lot of them can afford if they pool their money?  (You know: in good hands, Allstate, the umbrella, Rock of Gibralter, all that shit?)

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:45 | 1666471 UGrev
UGrev's picture

You said the magic word.. I was waiting for you to say it: INFLATION. Maybe if our HACKS WITH PhD's didn't fuck with our monetary system to the point that the current purchasing power of the FRN is 97% of what it was in 1913, perhaps we could plunk down cash for most common medical expenses. Insurance would be relegated to that of major incidents.

Even with that increased purchased power, I'd imagine that the cost on shit like heart surgery would be no where near the cost it is now. IMO, Insurance is just an inflation compensatory facility for lack of purchasing power. 

Don't even get me started on shit like the IRS.. we didn't need it then and we don't need it now. 

Was that popping sound your head exploding or you pulling it out of your ass?

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 01:54 | 1666659 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

"Maybe if our HACKS WITH PhD's didn't fuck with our monetary system to the point that the current purchasing power of the FRN is down 97% of what it was in 1913, perhaps we could plunk down cash for most common medical expenses. Insurance would be relegated to that of major incidents."

I fixed it for ya :-)

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 07:10 | 1667757 UGrev
UGrev's picture

Thanks.. late night posts.. but I'm glad the point got through :)

Mon, 09/19/2011 - 02:38 | 1683761 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

It did. :-)

Your point is well taken.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:36 | 1666115 Skid Marks
Skid Marks's picture

Is it for the audience to decipher what the author is saying or is it the responsibiliy of the performer to convey his thoughts in a manner that is understood by the audience?  We should not have to guess or debate what Krugman is saying or has said. It is up to him to tell us. If he changed his mind about something, he should say it. Otherwise it is fair to deduce that he is flapping in the wind.

Isn't there some other person of notable stature who could be discussed and quoted herein?  Someone who has a serious degree of respectability from this crowd, who we can discuss without the all too often conclusion that the guy is an idiot. Isn't it time to simply ignore Krugman instead of paying so much attention to someone who is held in such low regard?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:17 | 1666062 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

"ooops. Oh yeah, that."

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:30 | 1666099 ReactionToClose...
ReactionToClosedMinds's picture

really ... Bernacke trashed Op Twist in 2004?

While ago read The Econclasts .... thoguht it was a good book (can understand not everyone might agree, etc. ... especially Krugman & NYTimes set) .

Therein, Operation Twist is recounted in great depth.  Robert Mundell (yup, anothr Nobel Laureate ... he was a student of Uncle Miltie Friedman), no slouch, made the case against all the neo-classical doubters.  All the Harvard/Yale JFK Econs disdained this ... but methinks JFK was told by old Devil Joe Father (as dirty but seriously experienced biz person) to go forward with it against the Administration Establishment Economists/theory.    Very very different cicumstances back then ... an understatement ... so I am not advocating it's use today if name not being abused.  But it was part of what worked to create a mid-60s boom ... I know I clearly remember it ..... 1964 was a takeoff.

This in no way is endorsement of 'today' ... and I'm not sure what was done then is the same as being advocated now ....

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:30 | 1666430 Ponzi Unit
Ponzi Unit's picture

It was the 1962 tax cuts.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:41 | 1665901 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

No, the assertion is that Krugman is a hack. Why are you defending him?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:09 | 1666030 barliman
barliman's picture


Liberal mindset - a degenerative disorder marked by the willingness to deny facts in favor of ideology. Originally thought to be a temporary mental phase manifesting itself in adolescence (generally age 13 - 22) where the desire to assert independence expresses itself in rejection of familial values while pedagogically conforming to the "norms" of its age group, it has become recognized over the last fifty years that this dysfunctional behavior has been instituitionalized in colleges & universities.

Many individuals afflicted by this condition display increasingly dissocial behavior that had previously been associated with cults and fanatic groups. They will accept any premise advanced by anyone similarly afflicted regardless of contrafactual evidence provided to them. There is a strong tendency to paranoic behavior that causes them to see anyone disagreeing with them as being an enemy. Any statement the sufferer (or fellow sufferer) has made may be completely changed due to further "analysis" of the position previously espoused. Any statement made by someone not afflicted is treated as an unenlightened and uninformed attack that demonstrates a lack of intelligence. Research suggests that the disorder may have presented inself in the form of witchhunts of the 17th century and other periods of mass hysteria throughut history.


Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:35 | 1666111 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

like "The Financial Bubble: And how I learned to love it!" for example.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:09 | 1666215 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Shorter barliman:  I throw up a bunch of nonsense and let the goobers cheer. 


Nice try with your moronic assertions.  You may wish to look up the term "useful idiot".  Keep on spewing Mr. Fascist.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:37 | 1666292 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

If we bothered to parce out the libTrolls on ZH....we'd discover most of them are gov't employees. Pigs at the trough. The oink sector.

Thu, 09/15/2011 - 03:21 | 1672192 janus
janus's picture

ahem, queer bait!

i've been beggin you to 'parce' (sic) out this lib for several days now (perhaps you should reference the word parse in your dictionary; i don't think it means what you think it does -- in fact, there is no possible way to make that word "parse" accomodate the use it seems you intend; however, if you insist on 'parsing' me, or any other, lib -- please, be our guest; your wanton feeblemindedness will do more for our cause than you could possibly know.  i applaud and encourage your sustained efforts at self-immolation -- effort, hell, you're fuckin doing a bang-up job!  i've never seen a self-immolulator of such incedible efficency determination.  kudos!  excelcior!)

i've drawn a line in the mutha fuckin sand!

you, like a nutless turd-sniffer, have crept back...shortin those sentences to a sparse bit of inanity.

i am a government troll; but the government has not yet seized the septer.

it will be a government based on the principal of NO GOVERNMENT!

and if JANUS gets his hand on that septer; you betta run and hide amongst yer slimy swine siblins -- cause the time for keepin score has ARRIVED!

i'll give you one more day to totally capitulate; lest i unleash the Angel of Death on that username and avatar.


i've been toyin with you thus far; i'm about to savage you.

tear the fascist DOWN!

peto abyssus,



Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:45 | 1666333 barliman
barliman's picture


"You are making a mistake to think you can argue rationally with a Republic. They are impervious to logic. Treat them like the dog shit they are. Scrape the shoe and move on."

"Nice try with your moronic assertions. You may wish to look up the term "useful idiot". Keep on spewing Mr. Fascist."

Thank you for proving the validity of my observation.


Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:49 | 1665938 P Rankmug
P Rankmug's picture

All you have to understand per Krugman is that an increasing POG indicates deflation, despite 5000 years of evidence to the contrary.  Then you can put all of Krugman's gibberish in perspective.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:52 | 1665955 Saul Sage
Saul Sage's picture

Krugman also just called rick santelli's question of whether SS was a ponzi "idiotic." Rick yelling back at pig vomit calling him an idiot was golden.   

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 21:58 | 1665976 Dasa Slooofoot
Dasa Slooofoot's picture

That was the other NYT hack Friedman, i believe.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 22:06 | 1666013 knukles
knukles's picture

Ah, half of one, six dozen of the other.  Throw in Maureen Dowd and you can get the best of uber-liberal intellectual capacity that man's got to offer.

Hmmm.  Now, taking that to a reasonable conclusion, if aliens were scoping out this planet, deciding whether it's to be destroyed to make room for an intergalactic piss stop, that would give them more than ample reason to justify destroying this place without any fucking reservations, whatsoever.

Is the NYT really that dangerous to the whole planet?
I believe in free speech as much as the next guy, but this puts a whole different light on the topic.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:03 | 1666199 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

NYT: Printing all the news that fits the Narrative.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:10 | 1666220 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Says the Faux News plant.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 23:40 | 1666295 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

The day that I hear/read of Paul Krugman pointing out the CRIMINALITY of The Federal Reserve conducting monetary policy whereby they transfer trillions from responsible savers/401(k) slaves/retirees/middle class taxpayers to the criminal fucking banksters and ultimate slimeball crime bosses heading the Primary Dealers and rest of the scum on Wall Street is the day I cut him an ounce of slack.

Krugman is always crying for more fiscal stimulus, and yet he hasn't yet once said a peep about the treason of The Bernank, which took at least 2 trillion and as much as 5.3 trillion that was loaned or literally given to History's Greatest Train Heisters, aka Wall Street & Investment Banks, that could have been used for the fiscal stimulus he so desperately wanted/wants to see occur, but that now can not be so used, because it's already gone into the Banksters/Scamster's slush fund accounts, mouths, bellies and up their noses.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:55 | 1666500 Helix6
Helix6's picture

Actually, Krugman has been saying exactly that for years.  He published a nuice summation of his views on that subject in <i>The Great Unravelling</i>.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!