Bronco Billy Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 link People retiring right now and living average lifespans will receive less in Social Security benefits than they paid in. This is the first time that this has happened. And that doesn't account for the loses based on time/value of money. People who got in early and retired in say 1960 got benefits 7 times what they paid in. That's exactly the formula of a ponzi scheme. And before you lefties deride and dismiss the source as being Fox News, notice that they are working off an analysis by the AP - hardly a bastion of conservative thought. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I suppose it's a good thing that I've never, once, considered SS benefits in my retirement planning. The writing has been on the wall for some time now. This is not news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I suppose it's a good thing that I've never, once, considered SS benefits in my retirement planning. The writing has been on the wall for some time now. This is not news. wurd, i don't like surprises Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I'm certain that the HC system proposed by the current admin will not run into any problems with regard to the "savings" projections. Seriously, the govt. is usually dead on in their cost projections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 This isn't a true apples/apples comparison. Social Security changed quite a bit over the years including more coverage and programs that weren't part of the original bill. Still, the negative return is troubling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Wow. We haven't known for years that with life spans expanding well beyond what they were when the bill was written? Yeah, we have. Doesn't change the fact it is quite simply one of the most successful program ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Wow. We haven't known for years that with life spans expanding well beyond what they were when the bill was written? Yeah, we have. Doesn't change the fact it is quite simply one of the most successful program ever. Does it change the fact that something must be done about it? Or is it OK to just continue to use it as a way to get votes? Great...it WAS a succesful program. Now it is not. It must be addressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatGreg Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I plan to live to 100. That way I get more than I paid in (I hope). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I plan to live to 100. That way I get more than I paid in (I hope). Unless you're a white female, it ain't gonna happen, any of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 Successful = guaranteed to be insolvent in the future and providing a negative return over a significant portion of the time before then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 link People retiring right now and living average lifespans will receive less in Social Security benefits than they paid in. This is the first time that this has happened. And that doesn't account for the loses based on time/value of money. People who got in early and retired in say 1960 got benefits 7 times what they paid in. That's exactly the formula of a ponzi scheme. And before you lefties deride and dismiss the source as being Fox News, notice that they are working off an analysis by the AP - hardly a bastion of conservative thought. Just because the system worked well at one time, and not so much now, doesn't make it a ponzi scheme. In fact, your definition of he "exact formula of a ponzi scheme" is pretty much the definition of fiction. A ponzi scheme benefits one group of people the most: those that STARTED the scheme. Please tell me how SS benefited FDR in 1935. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 It used to work and it is not by definition a Ponzi scheme - I guess all is well with the SS program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Yep, not news, not a ponzi scheme and needs to be fixed. But like others, I've long since considered any SS I get in retirement as gravy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 A ponzi scheme benefits one group of people the most: those that STARTED the scheme. Please tell me how SS benefited FDR in 1935. We no longer have politicians? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) Just because the system worked well at one time, and not so much now, doesn't make it a ponzi scheme. In fact, your definition of he "exact formula of a ponzi scheme" is pretty much the definition of fiction. A ponzi scheme benefits one group of people the most: those that STARTED the scheme. Please tell me how SS benefited FDR in 1935. Precisely. It's isn't anywhere close to being a 'ponzi scheme' if you, ya know, actually use the definition. It was written at a time when people worked longer and lived less in retirement. How is this news? And haven't solution been getting kicked around for years? I'm all for raising the age you collect and we'll probably have to means test it at some point. But it's fixable, it's just a matter of someone getting the balls to touch the 'third rail' or whatever they call it. Now, cue the Faux talking points of socialism in 3, 2, 1... Edited August 7, 2012 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I really think its more of a fonzi scheme. We just need him to double fist bang (insert fist bang joke here) the treasury and it will straighten everything out 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Looks like Bronco BIlly got his talking points memo delivered to him this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) Ponzi scheme. Noun: A investment swindle in which returns are paid to investors from money paid by subsequent investors. Looks like SS sure fits that. Multiple sources give an equivalent definition. Sorry swammi Edited August 7, 2012 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Ponzi scheme. Noun: A investment swindle in which returns are paid to investors from money paid by subsequent investors. Looks like SS sure fits that. Multiple sources give an equivalent definition. Sorry swammi Except SS isn't an investment 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Ponzi scheme. Noun: A investment swindle in which returns are paid to investors from money paid by subsequent investors. Looks like SS sure fits that. Multiple sources give an equivalent definition. Sorry swammi If that is your gripe, take it up with the corpse of the gipper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 You're right steve - it is capital forcibly taken by the Federal government. Unless you use the liberal definition of investment, which is synonymous with taxation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Can we just stop with the whole big bad gubment is "forcibly" taking everything away from me crybaby meme? You live in a representative democratic republic where you have elected representatives to determine what the role of government should be and how its citizens should pay for it. You hate the tyranny so much here go ahead and try live in some 3rd world country run by a dictator and then tell me how bad you got it. :oldrolleyes: 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 Lol grunge. Read the Federalist Papers to see how limited the FedeRal government was intended to be and how that shaped the Constitution, and then compare that with the size and scope of government now. But I do appreciate your open-mindedness and tolerance in deference to the opinions of others. Funny that the far right used to offer the same alternative to those they disagreed with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Can we just stop with the whole big bad gubment is "forcibly" taking everything away from me crybaby meme? You live in a representative democratic republic where you have elected representatives to determine what the role of government should be and how its citizens should pay for it. You hate the tyranny so much here go ahead and try live in some 3rd world country run by a dictator and then tell me how bad you got it. :oldrolleyes: Ya know, I've been saying the same thing to people who are up in arms about "poverty" and "starving children" in the US... It merely falls on deaf ears and they keep complaining about the same BS. That being said... actually I have no clue what I'm talking about or even why I'm typing anything in here, really. The other day my majestic basset hound was on the couch licking the flab of skin where his balls once resided. He really started getting in to it and then started kind gnawing on that area where the middle o his thigh connects with his belly. He was gnawing and gnawing, snorting, really getting into it. He rolled off the couch and landed with a thud. He stopped breifly and then went back to licking the flab of skin where his nuts were once housed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 It used to work and it is not by definition a Ponzi scheme - I guess all is well with the SS program. You appear to be the only person making this suggestion. Everyone else disagrees with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.