Ice1 Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) Somebody call Al, where did he put that Lock Box? LBJ made SS the equivalent of a Ponzi Scheme decades ago. There is no money actually in Social Security; There is however, a bunch of IOU's. Edited August 7, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I heard that SS was up 78% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy 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 That's a start. There is also the promise of abnormally high returns, lack of transparency, falsified documents, and so forth to name a few. Did your sources list those items? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) Yep, the definitions speak to early investors getting high returns - like 7 times what they invested as opposed to later investors getting increasingly negative returns, about those running the show failing to be transparent with investors, and would conceivably include Congress breaking into the SS trust fund and appropriating the capital established there. What's your point? Edited August 7, 2012 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj 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. same here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi 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 in·vest·ment/inˈves(t)mənt/ Noun: The action or process of investing money for profit or material result whooops....sorry bb.....no monies put into ss were done so for the purpose of turning a profit. Thus, but your own definition, ss cannot be a ponzi scheme. perhaps a nice game of chess? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 whooops....sorry bb.....no monies put into ss were done so for the purpose of turning a profit. Thus, but your own definition, ss cannot be a ponzi scheme. perhaps a nice game of chess? Might want to fact check that statement. Pretty sure the government puts a % return on all the money the borrow/errr spend as they move this to the general fund annually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 same here That's great for you, Det, me and some others. But I am sure the percentage of people that count on that money far outweighs the prepared ones. Some people have no choice but to count on that money. What will happen when it is not there for those people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 That's great for you, Det, me and some others. But I am sure the percentage of people that count on that money far outweighs the prepared ones. Some people have no choice but to count on that money. What will happen when it is not there for those people? If we're lucky, death panels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) in·vest·ment/inˈves(t)mənt/ Noun: The action or process of investing money for profit or material result whooops....sorry bb.....no monies put into ss were done so for the purpose of turning a profit. Thus, but your own definition, ss cannot be a ponzi scheme. perhaps a nice game of chess? Congrats on winning the battle of semantics because ponzi schemes are vastly related to investments and not government sanctioned policies that have the same effect, but I wouldn't go too far celebrating your victory when the program was essentially designed to be a retirement savings account. Maybe that's not technically an investment, but it sure seems to be designed for pretty much the same purposes of putting money somewhere rather than spending it (which if it was the person's choice would be an investment that likely appreciates)... Or to put it even more simply, investment is not what defines a ponzi scheme, nor is even the illegality or even intention of a scheme persay. It's the effect that's the same and what's relevant here, when you have a system that never had money in the first place, and relies on future tax-payers, investors, whatever, to foot the bill for payments. The rest is just semantics. Also, it's far more complicated than just that, IIRC it has to do with bonds and debts and things, I'd have to do some refreshers on all of that, but it may actually be even more of a ponzi scheme if this money taken isn't strictly appropriated to payments out, as I'm unsure it is... One of the only good things Bush ever did to push for privatized SS accounts. At least it's a start for those who don't want the government managing their savings to where you're lucky to get an equal return at best if they don't collapse it before then. Edited August 8, 2012 by delusions of grandeur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 8, 2012 Author Share Posted August 8, 2012 Jesus H Christ, we as a country have a SS system that is broken, as it was destined to be when it was created, Congress has robbed its trust fund because they can't be responsible, and there's a large group in Washington who want to just ignore the problem and push it to the next generation where it will be much, much worse. Hundreds of millions of Americans are goimg to get royally screwed on this deal. So what do some here want to discuss? Gotcha games of semantics. Then people wonder how we got here in the first place? :shakinghead: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Would FDR, were he alive today with his beliefs unchanged since his time, support Social Security as it has become? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Yep, the definitions speak to early investors getting high returns - like 7 times what they invested as opposed to later investors getting increasingly negative returns, about those running the show failing to be transparent with investors, and would conceivably include Congress breaking into the SS trust fund and appropriating the capital established there. What's your point? Point is, yes, SS is broken according to the article's analysis, but it is not a Ponzi scheme. You're reaching there. ETA: I'd sure like to find the source material for that article. 7x for the first retirees I believe without doubt, but the negative return part I'd like to see corroborated from another source at least. Edited August 8, 2012 by The Irish Doggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Jesus H Christ, we as a country have a SS system that is broken, as it was destined to be when it was created, Congress has robbed its trust fund because they can't be responsible, and there's a large group in Washington who want to just ignore the problem and push it to the next generation where it will be much, much worse. Hundreds of millions of Americans are goimg to get royally screwed on this deal. So what do some here want to discuss? Gotcha games of semantics. Then people wonder how we got here in the first place? :shakinghead: Well maybe people shouldn't use assinine titles for their threads. You're like a reporter trying to grab people's attention with a catchy headline (which is utter BS). And this from the one of the guys who seems so willing to split hairs in every debate he has. SS is screwed up no doubt. The question should be "what are we going to do about it". But you didn't post that. And when people try to discuss it with you, you still try to argue that it is a ponzi scheme (and have others chiming in with their own definitions to justify that it is one). You should have just said early on (after being exposed as NOT A PONZI SCHEME) "Ok, its not a ponzi scheme, but it is messed up, what do we do." Instead you continue defending your point that it is ponzi scheme. Then rip others for arguing semantics with you. So who exactly is missing the point and more concerend with defending their initial bogus point? Nobody here who has argued that this isn't a ponzi scheme has said that SS is screwed up. Edited August 8, 2012 by stevegrab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 BB blows in busting out hyperbole and wonder why people who wouldn't mind an actual conversation make sure the terms are correct. BB, you're part of the problem you are shaking your head at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenzal rhomb Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Imtaking that extra 2 percent for the last two years and investing in lottery tickets with the windfall 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 The working definition of "Ponzi Scheme" is the first question that must be answered and agreed to before anyone can have a worthwhile conversation about whether or not SS is a PS or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 8, 2012 Author Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Not sure how anyone can argue that a ponzi scheme isn't a scam that uses later investors' capital to pay off earlier investors and thus make the investment look sound and lucrative; or that SS doesn't do exactly that. But its always easier for some to attack the message rather than respond to the crux of the issue, which is that SS is now providing a negative return for Americans who live an average lifespan. People being forced to invest in SS by the government are now looking at losing money - and again that does not account for the time/value of money, which is substantial over an average person's lifetime. SS is looking at being completely insolvent in just over 20 years and all some here want to argue about is that they have been greatly offended at the labeling of the broken system. Edited August 8, 2012 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Not sure how anyone can argue that a ponzi scheme isn't a scam that uses later investors' capital to pay off earlier investors and thus make the investment look sound and lucrative; or that SS doesn't do exactly that. Seriously, if it was a bank taking people's savings accounts to pay off their previous obligations,and then not paying them back their returns without more new investors until it eventually all blows up, we'd call it exactly that. When WCOFF used new entrants to pay off past winners until they went under and left the latest winners holding the bag, we called that a ponzi scheme... But it's as if because it's the government and a forced tax instead of a volluntary investment, that somehow makes it any better. To me, it actually makes it worse, because at least I have a choice to opt out of other ponzi schemes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 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 So what do some here want to discuss? Gotcha games of semantics. Then people wonder how we got here in the first place? :shakinghead: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Seriously, if it was a bank taking people's savings accounts to pay off their previous obligations,and then not paying them back their returns without more new investors until it eventually all blows up, we'd call it exactly that. When WCOFF used new entrants to pay off past winners until they went under and left the latest winners holding the bag, we called that a ponzi scheme... But it's as if because it's the government and a forced tax instead of a volluntary investment, that somehow makes it any better. To me, it actually makes it worse, because at least I have a choice to opt out of other ponzi schemes. @ "forced tax." What, as opposed to the unforced variety? The average person is incredibly stupid. Even "above average" people aren't that bright. If you don't force them to save they won't. Instead, they will grow old and the rest of us will just end up with even more "forced taxes" in order to take care for them at that point. Even *with* social security today's average senior citizen doesn't have enough to support themselves. So unless you've got a magic cure for stupid, forcing people to contribute to social security is the next best thing. (Well, actually death panels would be the next best thing, but that's a different story). The most effective means to manage and administer social security is a separate issue. Edited August 8, 2012 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 LOL at BB and conspiracy theory guy complaining about semantics, considering the title of the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 @ "forced tax." What, as opposed to the unforced variety? Used to for emphasis to make the point that something forced is certainly not any better than volluntary entering into your traditional ponzi scheme. The average person is incredibly stupid. Even "above average" people aren't that bright. If you don't force them to save they won't. Instead, they will grow old and the rest of us will just end up with even more "forced taxes" in order to take care for them at that point. Even *with* social security today's average senior citizen doesn't have enough to support themselves. So unless you've got a magic cure for stupid, forcing people to contribute to social security is the next best thing. (Well, actually death panels would be the next best thing, but that's a different story). The most effective means to manage and administer social security is a separate issue. This is where forced comes into play again. If they insist that I'm too stupid to save for myself, then at least give me the option of choosing where my investment goes, because yes savings is supposed to be a form of investment, instead of paying into a fund I'll never get my money back out of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Used to for emphasis to make the point that something forced is certainly not any better than volluntary entering into your traditional ponzi scheme. This is where forced comes into play again. If they insist that I'm too stupid to save for myself, then at least give me the option of choosing where my investment goes, because yes savings is supposed to be a form of investment, instead of paying into a fund I'll never get my money back out of. It can't work that way because the first generation to receive SS didn't pay in. We're a generation behind, and losing ground not just because the net returns suck balls, but because there are too many old people and not enough workers. So blame grandma and the unemployed. Furthermore, specifically because most people are very stupid, we cannot trust them to invest wisely when it comes to their social security savings. Though somewhat condescending, it is much safer for the government to assume that you are an idiot when it comes to investing. The benefit is a stable, baseline level of subsistence living for everyone. Because if you gamble on a lama farm - and lose - its the other, more responsible minority of people that have to bail you out. I know its insulting coming to grips with the fact that your government thinks you're an idiot. But statistically speaking, they're probably right. Edited August 8, 2012 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 So blame grandma and the unemployed. Na, it's much easier to just blame FDR 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.