It is a Ponzie Scheme. Many people have said the same thing for years. I can’t believe anyone but a loony lefty would try to deny it.

Lots of old people about to quit their jobs, not a lot of young people to pay taxes, doh.

gordonbloyershow says:
May 29, 2010 at 4:54 pm
It is also one of the few things keeping the economy from declining further, you go ahead and get rid of it and see how many senior citizens continue to vote for your side, and watch the economy fall further down the sh*tter simultaneously.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. I don’t know how else you could describe it. It’s exactly what Madoff was doing but on a massive multi-trillion dollar scale.

Sooner or later Social Security will have to be scrapped. It’s not sustainable. It’s a big scam. Old people who already get SS should be able to keep getting it, but people who are my age (28) should be moved into a new system. One that is based on reality and sound economics rather than fraud.

Whether or not you describe it as a “scheme”, there’s big trouble ahead. If the usual pattern holds, nothing will be done until it’s way too late.

http://ezinearticles.com/?What-is-the-Total-Unfunded-Liability-of-the-US-Government?&id=3531013

Social Security is definitely a Ponzi scheme. If a businessman ran a pension plan in this way, he would be thrown in prison. Managing people’s retirement money in this way is completely and totally illegal, when done by private businesses.

By definition, a Ponzi scheme takes place pays when an investment pays “returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned” (according to Wikipedia). This is exactly how the Social Security funds are managed.

All the money you and I have “invested” in Social Security over the years, via our contributions and our employers’ matching contributions, has already been spent. Every penny of it (and more). If this isn’t a Ponzi scheme, I don’t know what is.

Social Security was a workable system when people were retiring with 8 children and 40 to 50 grandchildren paying into the system. That was a long time ago.

The network always runs a disclaimer on those shows. Every. Single. One. of them in the biz block.

The fact that you wrote a story about this, Frances, troubles me.

Daniel, I know that, because I watch this show every week, and mentioned that it was standard. It’s just not standard during a segment– or at least I’ve never seen it roll while someone was talking, and especially not when they aren’t talking about the stock market. The point is so that people won’t sue Fox if they follow financial advice and lose money– no advice of the kind was happening in this segment. I would’ve written up this post anyway because his comments struck me as noteworthy, but the disclaimer (which seems to have popped up coincidentally, but still, humorous coincidence), just added an extra element to it. You think the fact I thought it out of the ordinary that someone called social security a ponzi scheme to be troubling?

Charles Ponsi would be very proud of the SS plan.

If you think Madoff ran a huge scam, Amway has ripped off millions of people for several decades, to the tune of 10s of billions of dollars.

Read about it on this website: http://thenetprofitgroup.yolasite.com and forward the information to everyone you know, so they don’t get scammed.

Amway is a scam, and here’s why: Amway pays out as little money as they can get away with, so they support the higher level IBOs ripping off their downline via the tool scam.

As a result, about 99% of IBOs operate at a net loss, while the top 1% make several TIMES more from their Amway tool scam than from the Amway products. This was made illegal in the UK in 2008, but our FTC is unable to pull their heads out of their butts to stop it here.

S.S. is just a Democrat ponzi scheme which they play politics with when Republicans point out that its doomed to fail and when they try to make reforms to save it.

I hear a lot of bitching and moaning, but are any of you going to actually try to revoke it? NO! Because when you get old enough you’ll want to live off of it. And because it would be political suicide

UnReashonalbe Lib, I have been trying to find the part of my comment that said, “get rid of it”. It can be fixed. Democrats block all fixes because they are just reasonable libs.

gordonbloyershow says:
May 29, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Wow, that made absolutely no sense whatsoever. I also see that you still can’t spell despite things being spelled out FOR YOU. How hard is it to read, bloyer, honestly? Democrats don’t block fixes. Did you miss the welfare reforms enacted during the Clinton administration?

Dumb Lib, what can’t you understand? Welfare is not Social Security. Why do you keep changing the subject? The republicans were in charge of congress and forced Clinton to do that reform. Set down your copy of Mao’s Red Book and read American History.
You are the one that wrote, “you go ahead and get rid of it and see how many senior citizens continue to vote for your side, and watch the economy fall further down the sh*tter simultaneously.” Then I wrote, “I have been trying to find the part of my comment that said, “get rid of it”. Do have to explain that to you again? I know you are a dimwit.
Show me your badge as the spelling police.

Do I have to explain…………………….

@Frances

I found the fact that you made an extra quip about the network running a disclaimer troubling. Sure, Jonathan said something newsworthy (for this site, understandably so). The fact that you posted about a coincidence makes me worry for you, that’s all.

Disclaimer? Why a disclaimer? Anyone who knows what a Ponzi scheme is, and what Social Security is, knows that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme works like this: A con artist offers his marks a very good return on their investment (the government has the added advantage that it can order its marks to participate.). The first marks get the advertised return. As more and more people fall for the scam, the scammer pays early investor from the money put in by later investors. Eventually the scam falls apart because there is not enough money coming in to pay the advertised return on investment to the later marks. Can anyone tell me how – if at all – a Ponzi scheme differs from Social Security?

Of course, the scale is different. SS deals in trillions, where a large Ponzi scheme deals in millions. So is the time line. Decades for SS, months or years for the Ponzi scheme. And the politicians who perpetratied SS have all died, whereas a private sector scammer hopes to move on when the jig is up. But the principle is the same, and the effect on the poor boobs left holding the bag.

So, no disclaimer needed, but why is anyone surprised?

They have a point, it is actually worse than a Ponzi scheme. It is more like a reverse pyramid scheme combined with a bubble scheme.

Disclaimers aside, since LBJ had some legislation passed so he coul tap the Social Security fund for $14 BILLION (1968 dollars!!!!!), Social Security has been a Ponzi scheme.

OOPS, typo “could”

Sainted “neo-con man” Ronald Reagan DOUBLED social security taxes. THAT tarnishes his halo, eh?

Nevertheless, SocSec remains a reliable and safe way to invest for retirement. Its fund is solvent and will continue to be so for decades.

An adjustment will be necessary to keep it solvent down the line. Currently, only the first $100K or so of individual income is taxed. Billionaire or bartender, you top out at one-hundred thou. increasing the limit would not hurt the bartender – who probably never gets close to the limit – and would be relatively painless for wealthier folks. A lower rate could apply to earnings above the current limit, for example.

In view of the carnage wrought upon the financial sector by Wall Street’s unbridled greed, abandoning SocSec for 401(k)s and the like would be foolish. Bank IRAs are just about the only truly safe private investment, since they are usually FDIC insured.

Calling SocSec a “Ponzi scheme” is inaccurate and dishonest. All funds received are ultimately dispensed legally. The Social Security Administration is a government agency. As such, it does not operate for profit, and probably runs on a 3-4 percent overhead Can you say the same thing about ANY of the big banks? Goldman Sachs? AIG? THEY would be the guys handling your retirement $$$ if SocSec bit the dust.

Definition: SSucker

Consider an American citizen conscript, of the United States Government, who is compelled as a tax slave to ‘invest’ under penalty of law in the federal Social Security and Medicare Ponzi schemes.
Such a citizen must gamble in the fraudulent SS-Ponzi and MC-Ponzi schemes (games), or face incarceration in federal prison.

Any such scheme is normally and usually the results of criminal enterprise; except when administrated by the federal government.

Both SS-Ponzi and MC-Ponzi shall ultimately collapse and defraud those who ‘invest’ (gamble) in such schemes (games).

But if a citizen’s religion despises gambling, Uncle Sam ignores Freedom of Religion and uses legal coercion to force participation.

Read More:
http://www.americanfairhoperetirement.com/

Sorry, but the non-existence of original mal-intent is a frail excuse for Social Security. The behemoth began life with good intent, but transitioned into fraud over the years. Politicians now secretly realize that Social Security functions ‘effectively’ a Ponzi scheme, but most are too gutless to tell the American public.

Read More;
http://www.socialsecurityponzischeme.com/

OR…..maybe we’d like to take invest OUR OWN MONEY to live on when we are old instead of trusting the government to take care of us when it is not far from bankruptcy and printing money driving the nation further and further into debt like that’s a solution….  NO ONE should expect to “live off of” SS…if you weren’t responsible enough to save any money during your entire working life, than you are an idiot!

Perfect explanation and you are SO correct!