Finance
Rick Santelli And Thomas Friedman Tangle Over Social Security ‘Ponzi Scheme’
- Posted on September 8, 2011 at 9:50pm by
Scott Baker
- Print »
- Email »
Mediaite reports:
On Thursday’s edition of Squawk Box, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and CNBC’s Rick Santelli traded epithets over whether Social Security was a Ponzi scheme as Governor Rick Perry has argued.
“Your question is idiotic,” fumed Friedman, when asked whether Social Security was a type of pyramid scheme. “You’re idiotic!” responded Santelli.
The heated on-air exchange began as Santelli questioned Friedman directly whether there was any legitimacy to Perry’s suggestion.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 582 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 411 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 363 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 411 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 363 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (228)
whatisay
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:57pmFriedman said Obama should be a dictator. He deserves NO respect.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 3:40amSocial Security has been alive and well for the last, what, sixty years? SS is one of the most popular government programs in the history of the United States and it’s solvent for twenty years at least. Your parents and/or parents have depended on SS checks to live out their lives after retirement without becoming paupers. Many have been spared the indignity of begging for money and sleeping and ultimately dying under bridges because of this program.
Nlegitimatete economist would agree that SS is a “Ponzi scheme.” There’s a reason we have Social Security. It’s because Americans got sick of seeing old people (not the rich, they’ve got the dough) of losing their income, their homes and dying in poverty. You want to go back to that era and relive that so you’ll understand why we have SS? Vote “yes” on that only if you can pay 100% of your parent’s medical care (without insurance), housing and day to day living expenses.
Or maybe your parents are rich. In that case, vote to get rid of SS.
Report Post »Smug
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 5:54amSS meets every definition of a Ponzi scheme but one. Ponzi sceme’s are illegal, SS is not.
Report Post »ObserverMI
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 6:02amjzs says:
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 3:40am
Many have been spared the indignity of begging for money and sleeping and ultimately dying under bridges because of this program.
” There’s a reason we have Social Security. It’s because Americans got sick of seeing old people (not the rich, they’ve got the dough) of losing their income, their homes and dying in poverty. Vote “yes” on that only if you can pay 100% of your parent’s medical care (without insurance), housing and day to day living expenses.”
You believe that S.S. stopped loss of income, dying of poverty, paid 100% of medical care, housing and living expenses?
Compare apples to apples would ya?
When S.S. started out, it was 35 people paying into it with 2 taking from S.S. Now it’s opposite that. How is that not a ponzi scheme? The congress and administrations have ‘stolen’ the money with promissory notes and spent it wildly on big government and it’s no longer there. That is ‘not’ a ponzi scheme?
Social security may have been well intended yet it was also a political tool, which was scarfed down by spending whores, money that was and is not theirs and at ‘our’ the tax payers loss.
Report Post »They should be ‘stripped’ of all powers such as this. They are irresponsible far past the point of being criminal.
The the plank with them all.
loriann12
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 6:03amMy dad used social security to SUPPLIMENT his income, not as his sole source of income. He worked for Proctor and Gamble for 26 years, and had profit sharing (free stock in the company). He determined how much he needed to take out each month to make it last until he was 80. Social Security was set up to suppliment one’s retirement, not be the sole source of income. You can’t live comfortable on SS, it’s not enough. And besides, which is worse, having your family have to take care of you or becoming dependent on the government? They would have made more money had they been allowed to keep that instead of it coming out of their checks every week and investing it themselves. Right now, I’m paying for my parents ss, through paycheck deductions, and I’ll probably not see a dime of what I put in. I believe that is the definition of a ponzi scheme. It was originally to be only 1% taken out and matched by the employers.
Report Post »Robey1960
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 6:23amYou have to ask Friedman to define Ponzi Scheme and see if his definition fits SS. Here is the definition of Ponzi Scheme:
Report Post »“A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned.”
The first part of the definition, “…a fraudulent investment operation…” would not define SS, if one believes once the Government defines it and creates it, it is not fraudulent. The truth is, ANY scheme like this, no matter who creates it, is not sustainable. However, DARE to be the President in office when the checks stop going out! See what happens then!
Pecans
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 6:43amPerry is wrong. It is not a Ponzi Scheme in the historical meaning of the word. It is more accurately described as a fraud. It is no different than a private pension fund investing your money in an investment (in this case the federal debt) with no hope of getting your principal back, much less earning a return on the investment
Report Post »FreedomNowNotLater
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 6:44amto JZS – Here we go the entitlement mentality. If people would stop expecting the government, wait a minute, should be working taxpaying Americans, to foot the bill and take care of them our country would be a better place. We should get rid of every entitlement out there. Time for people to take care of themselves. I’m tired of paying for lazy, ignorant, can’t do for themselves and illegals. Good thing I have pride to get up every morning and go to work. But then again I know the definition of responsibility.
Report Post »dangandg
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 7:52amThe system is 60+ years old that’s part of the problem. It is treated a sacred and everyone is scared to make real change that would make it better as it has become a politic baseball bat for fear mongers. And comments such as yours about old people dieing in the streets keep the lie alive.
Sixty years ago most Americans did not have the wealth we enjoy today (well the wealth we had 3 years ago) no 401K’s, home ownership was a third what it is today, and no means to save like we have currently. Courage and guts is what built this county and it what is needed to get us out of this mess, not fear.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 8:14amSmug, Robey, and Pecans,
Report Post »Your semantic games don’t change the nature of the beast. So the govt is INTENDING it to be a benevolent, profitable venture. That’s nice. But congress has been raiding the fund the whole time and counting on dwindling incoming revenues to keep the system afloat. If it’s not fraud by INTENTION, it’s fraud by NEGLIGENCE. They know it’s going on, and they’re not stopping it.
Why does the fact that it’s a govt program somehow absolve them of the crime of defrauding?
JZS,
Your straw man is unusually weak today. Need stronger coffee? No one wants SS to disappear, the debate is about HOW to fix it, NOT IF it should be fixed. But even IF congress did nothing and allowed it to default (in 6 years, NOT 20: http://news.yahoo.com/social-security-disability-verge-insolvency-090119318.html), the times we live in now are much different than the 1930s, the median income is higher and the means to privately help seniors and other needy people has vastly expanded. Your assumption that govt provides better than the private sector for the needy is borne out in not a single example that I can think of.
politicianssuck
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 8:15am@ Smug
Tell me where in the Constitution SS is legal. No where does the Constitution allow the Government to do this. If you say SS is a tax and The Constitution allows taxation you are wrong. Nowhere does it say the Federal Government is allowed to spend our tax dollars on whatever it likes. In fact it is very clear and only gives the Federal Government 17 specific things it is allowed to spend our money on.
Report Post »ishka4me
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 8:18amMr. freidman came of as an arrogant *****. Talk about refusing to talk about the elephant in the room. Another example why noble prizes fore peace or economics are worthless to society.
Report Post »Lesterp
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 8:35amJZS, Walk into any SS office these days and you will find you are the oldest person there. My wife and I retired at 49 years of age and went into the local office to get new SS cards and we were by far the oldest people in the office. SS is broken period. I don’t want it taken away but I DO want it fixed!
Report Post »FNTM
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 8:44amSocial Security has turned out to be an integral part of many seniors lives. That being said it still is being run as a Ponzi Scheme perpetrated by our federal government. All past investments have been spent while current investors pay Social Security payments/returns. What is not Ponzi about that other than SS is legal?
Perhaps the way that it is run today is the real reason why congressmen get panicky when the suggestion is brought up to actually invest some of the SS income in corporate bonds and/or stocks. They fall all over themselves trying to scare people into the idea that you may lose half of your investment. They tell us it is way too risky to put your SS in the stock market. They might even be right given their track record with running anything.
Personally i would be thrilled to think that at least half of the money we paid in to SS was really there – tangible – instead of the ‘promise’ that the taxpayer will pay more to make up for all the federal stealing they have done over the years.
Report Post »old white guy
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 9:14amlestrp. you and your wife retired at 49 and started drawing ss. jeez you are part of the problem. it was to be drawn at 65 years of age after working most of your life. all other ss giveaways were not intended.
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 9:51am@JZS,
I’ll concede that ss has kept some people out of the poor house. But let me ask you what the consequence on humanity is when no one feels the personal obligation to care for their own family or at least help them through rough times because there is always some form of government assistance that they are already paying for that their family member is elligible for if they need it? I’ll tell you what. Because of gov’t welfare and charity (which are unconstitutional and tantamount to theft) we have grown into a culture that will let our mothers and fathers grow old and die in nursing homes. We pass homeless without a second glance and mumble profanity as we pass them. Gone are the days when a widowed grandmother will be asked to move in with her eldest child and live with the family and enjoy the rest of her life comfortably. All thanks to gov’t welfare and to top it off, it has also made us a nation of debt. So your idolized soc. sec. has made us a bunch of heartless debters. Good job man. Bravo.
Unfortunately it seems that you cannot see past the first movement of the hand. I bet you are horrible at chess. I seriously doubt that you can see the repercussions of even your own actions.
Report Post »Vigilante
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 10:33am@JZS
Report Post »Yes I agree with you, the problem is that the goverment has spent all this money and there is not such a Trust Fund.
For the goverment it has been income pure and simple, and they kick the can down the road.
If all this money was in the Trust Fund… We would not have this problem!!!
Simple Skeptic
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 10:44am@ JZS
“it’s solvent for 20 years at least”
The ‘SS Trust Fund’ has no money. How is that solvent? There is no vault with trillions of dollars in it. The only thing the SS Trust Fund has is IOU’s (Treasury Notes) in it, which are obligations of the American people to pay…that isn’t solvent.
Report Post »Lesterp
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 2:19pmOld white guy, Please read my post again! It says nothing of collecting SS. People with itchy typing fingers seem to be the problem!
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 9:38pm@ VIGILANTE,
Unfortunately your assessment of the situation is false. Even if the government had put all of the money collected from social security in a vault locked away safely in a nuclear bunker, the amount of inflation over the past 50 years alone would ruin the entire system. A gallon of gas used to cost a dime or two. An ear of corn was a measely couple cents. If that money were socked away and never invested and allowed to grow it would be worthless today and would only cover a fraction of anyone’s retirement.
I’m not religios but I do seem to remember about 3 men in the bible who were given equal amounts of wealth for safe keeping. One kept it hidden away and returned it in full. The other two loaned it and invested it making the wealth grow to ~3 and ~10 times what it had been. The one who kept it hidden away was scolded and given one town to govern. The others were given 3 and 10 towns to govern. Now the facts here are foggy in my memory, but the moral of the story is clear. You should invest your money so that it helps you and others as well.
Report Post »tommee
Posted on September 10, 2011 at 9:21amHey Simple Skeptic… you say: “The ‘SS Trust Fund’ has no money. How is that solvent? There is no vault with trillions of dollars in it. The only thing the SS Trust Fund has is IOU’s (Treasury Notes) in it, which are obligations of the American people to pay…that isn’t solvent.”
You seem to miss the fact that the American people also have obligations to pay for all other government IOU’s as well – U.S. Treasury Instruments (Bonds, Bills, Notes etc.) – there is no cash sitting in a vault to cover the purchase of U.S. Securities by private citizens, investment institutions, mutual & pension & funds, foreign countries, etc.. According to your logic all parties who purchase U.S. Treasuries for investment and safety of their money would be holding worthless paper.
Social Security IOU’s are no different than any other financial obligation of the U.S. government. If the government defaults on any of them, the whole country defaults – that is, unless you think the money invested by wealthy Americans is more important than the money contributed to SS by the average working citizen.
Report Post »FaithfulFriend
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:56pmTotal number of abortions in the U.S. since 1973: 48 million +
The abortion scheme broke the ponzi scheme more than anything else did. Liberals love to destroy everything they create. Literally.
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 11:23pmLabor produces Wealth. Reduction in the labor force takes away gains.
Report Post »Bluzie
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 11:42pmI’ve also seen it mentioned that with the abortions libs are actually reducing the number of future libs. I heard it mentioned on some show a couple weeks ago…..not sure if it’s theory or there is some study behind it, but the saying is that if the aborted would have been born they more than likely would have been raised in a liberal household and would have grown to be a liberal.
Report Post »JoeIsuzu
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 12:21amThe abortion is responsible for the recession, real estate prices and coming depression.
Ya gotta read http://timingsecrets.com/newsletter/2008-10-11-Black-Plague_of_Real-Estate.php
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 12:49amI’m with Santelli on this one.
Report Post »ILUVJESUS
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 1:23amYou mean to tell me that there areAmericans so ignorant that they actually believe that there is a social security fund that we workers are all paying into that is goingto come back to us when we retire? There is no fund! They have just told us this! The gov spends it every year!
Report Post »simply one voice
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 4:19amFAITHFULFRIEND…
48 Million Abortions in the USA since 1973. Wow! The Truth; straight-up, no chaser. I wonder if God will bless and help the USA, now as we approach the dawn of world catastrophe?
Report Post »HKS
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 7:42amSort of like Gomez and his trains? For those of you old enough to know.
Report Post »Patriot Z
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:56pmcall SS a turnip if you want. it still does not change the fact that it is insolvent. socsec is not working and we cannot keep propping up a failing system simply because we are scared to change. SS WILL collapse soon and what then? its better to phase out and retool now than have the whole thing collapse under its own weight and then the people who are so scared and screaming “dont touch my checks’ will really be SOL
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 1:08amIt’s interesting that the people that told us that there was no problem with the housing market are now telling us that there is no problem with Social Security. Fool me once…
Report Post »Smug
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 5:56amIt doesn‘t work cause it’s a Ponzi scheme. Perry was right.
Report Post »NILAP
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:55pmThe more the Tea Partyers say Ponzi Scheme they will insure 4 more great years of President Obama. And I hope Michelle is starting to plan some more vacations for the First Family in 2013. They deserve them after what they have been through.
Report Post »ccgraphics20
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 11:05pmThe more Obama spews the same B.S. and continues with Alinsky’s class warfare, he ridiculous spending, and the more utters “pass the bill” before anybody knows what’s in it — which has been done with ALL OF HIS BILLS, the BIGGER DEFEAT HE IS GOING TO GET!
Report Post »The best vacation for the Obama’s is coming up: they are gonna be taken out with the trash.
tkelly33
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 11:06pmWTF? The First Lazy Bastard & his family deserve more vacations? When have they worked and what have they been through? OverVacationing Syndrome merits more vacations? Not on my dime.
Report Post »studentofeib
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 11:10pmanother “glittering jewel of collossal ignorance”
Report Post »the58thstate
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 11:14pmdisagree. i think it will get people looking at it for what it is and that is a scheme. there is NO MONEY in the lil lock box. all there is is i-o-u’s! its broke and the more people see it they’ll want a change.
Report Post »chalkdust
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 12:07amDefinition of a ponzi scheme from Businessdictionary.com: “Scam in which gullible public is enticed with the promise of very high returns in a very short time, but is based on paying off the early ‘investors’ from the cash from (hopefully ever increasing number of) new ‘investors.’ The whole structure collapses when the cash outflow exceeds the cash inflow. The originators of the scheme, however, usually disappear with large sums a few days before the crash. Named after Charles Ponzi (1882-1949), an Italian immigrant to the US who, during 1919-20 collected more than fifteen million dollars from some 40,000 eager people by promising to double their investment in 90 days. See also pyramid scheme”.
While Social Security doesn’t fit the definition perfectly the main characteristics are the same. …”is based on paying off the early ‘investors’ from the cash from (hopefully ever increasing number of) new investors”.
Report Post »You’re welcome to your opinions but not your own facts. If you think Social Security is not like a ponzi scheme because the Government operates it, then I truly feel sorry for you.
madarain
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 12:42amWhat the Obamas deserve for what they have done to America will be meeted out to them by God Almighty. He promises Justice and claims Vengence as His right, not ours. If not for this fact; that God says “Vengeance is Mine” and not ours, you would see a much different response from Christians than you do today. Christian bashers the world over confuse obedience and discipline in response to their relentless attacks as weakness. They don‘t understand God’s promise to protect his own and deliver eternally poetic, and probably ironic justice on those who make war against his people, like Barach & Michelle Obama.
Report Post »madarain
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 12:50amNilap: What the Obamas deserve for what they have done to America will be meeted out to them by God Almighty. He promises Justice and claims Vengence as His right, not ours. If not for this fact you would see a much different response from Christians than you do today. Christian bashers the world over confuse obedience and discipline in response to their relentless attacks as weakness. They don‘t understand God’s promise to protect his own, and His ability to delivery eternally poetic, and probably ironic justice on those who make war against his people, like Barach & Michelle Obama.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 12:53amWhile Social Security doesn’t fit the definition perfectly the main characteristics are the same. …”is based on paying off the early ‘investors’ from the cash from (hopefully ever increasing number of) new investors”.
You’re welcome to your opinions but not your own facts. If you think Social Security is not like a ponzi scheme because the Government operates it, then I truly feel sorry for you.
==========================================================
AMEN TO THAT!
Report Post »I differ though on feeling sorry for people. If they want to go through life being dumb, so be it, this is still a free country for a little longer.
Eleutheria
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 1:05am“The more the Tea Partyers say Ponzi Scheme they will insure 4 more great years of President Obama.”
Yes because in liberal bizarro, world telling the unadulterated truth is a bad thing.
“And I hope Michelle is starting to plan some more vacations for the First Family in 2013. They deserve them after what they have been through.”
What have they been through?
They’ve been handled more gently than any first family since the Kennedys.
Report Post »heyjim55
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 2:01amMaybe you can pay for those vacations yourself?
Report Post »en2deep
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 6:27amHe\she can’t pay for more vacations. Anyone rooting for four more years of these policies are living off the system, not paying into the system.
Report Post »jtm45
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:52pmSantelli is my hero,i saw him live, on TV anyways, at the chicago exchange when he went off.
Report Post »he would make a great politician.
HKS
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 7:45amHe is the only thing that network has resembling sanity, I don’t know how he stands it, I just turn them off but he has to live with it everyday.
Report Post »LinkedIn G
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:51pmI don’t do msnbc
Report Post »gr8photoman
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:42pmSantelli is Da Man. If I were Secretary of the Navy I’d name a destroyer after the guy. He‘s a frickin’ wrecking ball! I love it!
Report Post »HARDWORKPAYS
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:58pmI wonder what it is like to live in la la land as these libs do? How can they stand to act like other people are stupid, when they are obviously lying to perpetuate the dream? What a joke they have become. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Report Post »wisehiney
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:39pmTea love Santelli, deep deep, down down
Report Post »lacabeza
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:35pmIf you make it legal then it isn’t a bad thing anymore.
Mobs to Unions
Ponzi scheme to Social Security
Go Rick!
Report Post »TyrannyNoMore
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:31pmSocial Security is worse than a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are voluntary! If you don’t pay into S.S., you are fined or go to jail.
Report Post »BluifoxEd
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:29pmBada bing bada boom
Report Post »S G Applebee
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:29pmWhy is it that Liberals demanded a “public option” when it came to Healthcare, but they won’t give the “public” the “option” to opt out of Socialist Security?
Report Post »Bluebonnet
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:39pmSocial Security is a Ponzi scheme. They long ago spend any money in the fund. They give it away for every other program that has nothing to do with SS. They have been faithful to those who’ve been drawing, but it’s broke and not enough paying into the SS now to keep it alive for all the younger people who are paying into it and will never have a chance to collect. This is PONZI
Report Post »King David
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:27pmTom Friedman is an IDIOT.
There I feel good.
Report Post »ProbIemSoIver
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:36pmCLASSIC !!!
Report Post »Santelli Rocks !!!
dfree
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 11:27pmsantelli does rock, says what he means
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:24pmI’m glad Perry said what he did — even though many Repubs. are saying he shouldn’t have and it will hurt him. No – don’t think so. Things like this have to start being said and stop dancing around these huge issues that no one wants to mention. Think there will finally be a constructive discussion on the truth of this particular Ponzi scheme now. Rush used much of his program today backing him up.
Report Post »To tell you the truth, I didn’t know about the background of SS until lately – ANOTHER unbelivable corrupted scheme on the American people by the Dems in order to make sure they make people dependent upon them and therefore keep their votes/power. It’s more than sickening. I want all of these horrible devious schemes exposed, along with the devious people. The list is long but I’m finally feeling some hope that it may actually happen.
AmeriCat
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:23pmLove, Love, Love Rick Rantelli,
…………………………..Father of the Tea Party!
Report Post »AmeriCat
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:27pmRick Santelli has a wonderful way of speaking Truth
Report Post »….saying exactly what We The People are thinking!
….TEA
Okie from Muskogee
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:18pmI absolutely love this video. I hope it goes viral.
Freidman could not answer honestly when “legality” is taken out of the conversation. He tries to deflect citing Reagan and then calls names.
Rick was spot on and standing with truth. Love it!
I like how it ends when Rick says I sure feel good!
Report Post »Lonescrapper
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:43pmHow is it the left can laud Reagan and then never follow any of his policies?
Report Post »GeorgieJo
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 11:43pmRick Santelli is MY HERO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clone him immediately
Report Post »He is a TRUE AMERICAN
Brem
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:16pmFreidman can only look smart when he is talking to chardonnay sipping liberals but not with tea party patriots who understand the real world
Report Post »Ponyexpress
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:15pmFreidman is a fool:
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.
The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors. Usually, the scheme is interrupted by legal authorities before it collapses because a Ponzi scheme is suspected or because the promoter is selling unregistered securities. As more investors become involved, the likelihood of the scheme coming to the attention of authorities increases
Report Post »dnewton
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 12:01pmI think it is more correct to say that Social Security morphed into a Ponzi scheme as the congress “improved” and “fixed” it. When you had 140 people supporting one person, it was much more stable than when you have about three or four people supporting one person. The congress acted like you could hang any benefit onto it with no impact. I think there have been about 40 increases in the tax rates since it started but those increases can not possibly cover the promised benefits. These tax increases have functioned as a tax on labor which makes foreign labor with out an equivalent SS tax more appealing or the construction of machines to replace workers.
Report Post »amerbur
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:11pmIt is called honesty. Thomas Friedman does not know the meaning of the word.
Report Post »MODEL82A1
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:06pmThomas Friedman (and his money) would last about half a day in the CBOE pits.
Report Post »larryhot13
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:03pmwhy cant we get Politicians that tell the truth like Santelli.
Report Post »Friedman obviously didnt want to ask the simple question when forced to define what a Ponzi Scheme is and what Social Security is defined as right now.
RepubliCorp
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:01pmSo there
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:01pmThey borrowed all the money, the Prez even said if we don‘t keep borrowing checks won’t go out, so to me, if you have to keep borrowing money to pay off the first ones who paid in, classic Ponzi scheme. Sooner or later you run out of new people.
Report Post »LinkedIn G
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:10pmEveryone needs to have six kids … to pay for their parents and grandparents.
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:15pmWhat did Biden say about the folly of the Chinese, you have an aging population and too few of kids to take care of them. Sort of like us.
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:00pmThe entire Obama Administration is the Grand Ponzi Scheme.
Report Post »RightPolitically
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 9:55pmEither a Ponzi Scheme or a Shell Game, take ya pick!
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 10:04pmHow about plain old thievery.
Report Post »