Saturday, May 29, 2010

Social Security: Jonathan Hoenig on Cashin' In

by the Left Coast Rebel

This morning I caught Jonathan Hoenig (left) on Fox News' Cashin' In. I transcribed while enjoying a cup of Saturday morning java:

"Social Security by definition is a Ponzi scheme. It is Bernie Madoff on the largest scale, they lock you up for things like this. There is no savings, there is no investment, there's no ownership, no account with your name on it - there's just looting you today with the promise that they will loot future generations on your behalf."

Jonathan is just my kind of guy. Leftist talk show host Mark Liven (spelling?) followed Hoenig's statement by saying,

"Don't worry, the law says that you are required to get Social Security, the only way that you won't get Social Security is if Republicans are elected and they do what Jonathan wants."

I wish that were true. Any student of history will note that Republicans have done quite the opposite. Mark is also woefully ignorant of history. Cato's Michael Tanner explains:

Many people believe that Social Security is an "earned right." That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as "contributions," as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.
Are you pro-choice, liberals? Time to privatize!


  1. This is a volatile topic, Rebel. I got hammered for simply SUGGESTING that we CONSIDER PARTIAL privatization.....And remember what happened to Paul Tsongas in 1992. He tried to meaningfully address this issue and got swept aside by Clinton. The political will (among both politicians AND the electorate) may simply not be there to solve this problem. Unfortunately.


  3. >workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.

    Legal plunder, anyone?

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. oops, posted to the wrong post. Stupid me :(

  6. Is that "privatize" as in "worthless mutual funds?" Better idea - put it in a jar and bury it in the back yard. Better idea yet - buy whiskey and .22 shells for trade stock when the economy collapses!

  7. Gorges Smythe is close. Better yet, insist government do its damned job and maintain the value of our currency. With a stable dollar and low inflation, we could all simply put our money in a low interest savings account and be able to take care of ourselves.

  8. Please check this one out!

    But please sit down while watching

  9. Great comments all. I find myself in specif agreement with SilverFiddle.

    A sound monetary policy based on value. Gold anyone?

    In a time that has apparently long since past my grandparents did very well in the system SilverFiddle describes.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.