• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?

Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?

  • Yes - absolutely

    Votes: 8 14.5%

  • Yes - it's more-or-less the same as

    Votes: 15 27.3%

  • No - but it's pretty close

    Votes: 4 7.3%

  • No - not even close

    Votes: 21 38.2%

  • Social Security is safe and secure, please stop scaring people.

    Votes: 12 21.8%

  • This is a crummy question with no relevance.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    55
Sheik Yerbuti said:
There is no illusion you will get back more and how much you get back actually depends on how long you live. Another departure from ponzi schemes. It's not an investment for profit. It's an investment to make sure that even the poorest of the elderly gets a few bucks to live on. It's more like an insurance policy.
Click to expand...

Theres gads of people that pay into it for decades and die before they collect a dime.....the average SS check is a whopping....1100 a month and theres many people thats all they have to live on....Bernie Madhoff had a ponzai scheme and EVERYONE got screwed....no one gets screwed by SS...everyone pays into it...everyone that lives long enough collects it...
 
No it's worse.

If you die, at least under a Ponzi scheme, when it still has legs, your heirs can get a significant amount of money.
Under SS, they don't get very much of what was taken from you.

Now that the system is faltering, there is an incentive for government to get elderly people off the roles.
Not saying they actually will but the incentive exists.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No it's worse.

If you die, at least under a Ponzi scheme, when it still has legs, your heirs can get a significant amount of money.
Under SS, they don't get very much of what was taken from you.

Now that the system is faltering, there is an incentive for government to get elderly people off the roles.
Not saying they actually will but the incentive exists.
Click to expand...

You are assuming SS is an investment. It is not, it is an insurance. In act, it's proper name is Retirement Insurance benefits. Social Security actually includes that and a number of other programs, such as disability, unemployment, SSI, etc.
 
Redress said:
You are assuming SS is an investment. It is not, it is an insurance. In act, it's proper name is Retirement Insurance benefits. Social Security actually includes that and a number of other programs, such as disability, unemployment, SSI, etc.
Click to expand...

It's a terrible insurance program.
If SS were a private business, investors would be fleeing from the corporation because of the massive unfunded liabilities.

I don't have a problem with disability insurance, unemployment (on a state level) and SSI but SS retirement is a boondoggle.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's a terrible insurance program.
If SS were a private business, investors would be fleeing from the corporation because of the massive unfunded liabilities.

I don't have a problem with disability insurance, unemployment (on a state level) and SSI but SS retirement is a boondoggle.
Click to expand...

The point being is that what it isn't, is a ponzi scheme.
 
Yes and No. Yes because most people only pay in 1/3 of what they actually receive in Social Security, No because it's inherit design is to give money to people when they are older or become financially unable to take care of themselves. It's kind of like a country insurance per say, except it can't balance its own books and/or has an almost unlimited way to gain income to fund it. Either way it is a old idea dying hard. My generation was always promised we would always pay into a system we would never be able to withdrawal from.
 
Catawba said:
I never said he did, what I said was that since 1945, Republican Presidents have approved more spending than Democrat Presidents. Show me the Republican vetoes of spending since 1945? QUOTE]

Again, very misleading.

November 2007 "Bush rejected a $606 billion bill to fund education, health and labor programs, complaining that it is too expensive and is larded with pork"
Vetoes
Bush President vetoes $23-billion water bill
Bush vetoes (again) - references 6 other times, too

This is just a quick google search. I'm sure there are endless others (here's the wiki summary), although, several Presidents have been reticent to use the veto too much while they still have a chance at compromise. If Congress has the numbers, vetoes don't matter much.

Ford (R): 66 vetoes
Carter (D): 31 vetoes
Reagan (R): 78 vetoes
Bush 1 (R): 44 vetoes
Clinton (D): 37 vetoes
Bush 2 (R): 12 vetoes
Obama (D): 2 vetoes
Most of the vetoes have to do with spending. But, Congress has the power to override, and the President will take most of the blame for a government shut-down.

There is no refuting that with a Republican controlled Congress, from 1996 to 2000 the increase in debt decreased to the point of the debt actually decreasing in 2000. Then, in the years following, when the House and Senate were divided, debt increased. Then, when House and Senate were Republican again, the debt increase began decreasing again. Finally, when Democrats controlled House and Senate recently, the debt increased dramatically.

Also, spending in and of itself isn't actually a tremendous issue. Debt is the issue. The amount of spending only becomes an issue when it can't be supported (Social Security, for example). It doesn't support itself. So, the treasury will have to support it eventually or it will default.
Click to expand...
 
jamesrage said:
It looks like it meets the definition of a Ponzi Scheme.

Ponzi Scheme | Define Ponzi Scheme at Dictionary.com
: an investment swindle in which early investors are paid with sums obtained from later ones in order to create the illusion of profitability
Click to expand...
I didn’t know that the investors in a Ponzi scheme are informed in the beginning that “early investors are paid with sums obtained from later ones in order to create the illusion of profitability” as they were and are about SS.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. It requires investors to invest their money for the purpose of making more money,
Click to expand...

Your saying that the SS recipients are getting exactly what they put in and that it is not dependent on those who do not yet qualify for SS to pay for it? Obviously it is you trying to distort the truth. SS recipients require younger generations who do not qualify for SS to pay for it.


SS does not fit this defintion.
Click to expand...
Yes it does, you choose to ignore the definition. The fact is in order to get money from SS it requires those who do not yet qualify for SS to pay into it and seeing how most Americans on SS were not paying $1,177 a month when they were working.So they are expecting a profit in return for their investment and cost of living increases both of which do not come out of thin air and require those who do not qualify IE new investors to pay for it.

Average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker


who seek to make points by deception
Click to expand...

The only deception is by you libs trying to claim it isn't a ponzi scheme and that people 20-30 years from now will be able to collect.

We should not allow this.
Click to expand...

We should not allow people like you to make false claims it isn't a ponzi scheme or worse.
Make real arguments. Use honest logic. And denounce those like Perry who don't.
Click to expand...


It is people like you who are dishonest. If it was a private company doing exactly the same thing as SS they would have been arrested. A Ponzi Scheme SS requires new investors who are under the assumption that they will get more to put in money so that the old investors can be paid just like SS requires new people who are under the assumption they will get more in order to pay money into so that those who qualify will receive it.
 
jamesrage said:
If it was a private company doing exactly the same thing as SS they would have been arrested. A Ponzi Scheme SS requires new investors who are under the assumption that they will get more to put in money so that the old investors can be paid just like SS requires new people who are under the assumption they will get more in order to pay money into so that those who qualify will receive it.
Click to expand...

Interesting point in that if a private company were doing this (Ponzi Scheme or not), the "investors" would be bailing out and it would crash. Once everyone figures out that their money isn't going to provide a return without a miracle, no one else invests in a private company or a scam. If the private company gets fixed (or the con gets convincing again), then investors start investing again. The difference here is that the government is making us invest. The upside is that the gov't is backing our investment. The downside is that they backed all the sub-prime loans, too, and look how that turned out.
 
stsburns said:
Yes and No. Yes because most people only pay in 1/3 of what they actually receive in Social Security, No because it's inherit design is to give money to people when they are older or become financially unable to take care of themselves. It's kind of like a country insurance per say, except it can't balance its own books and/or has an almost unlimited way to gain income to fund it. Either way it is a old idea dying hard. My generation was always promised we would always pay into a system we would never be able to withdrawal from. Strange statement...
Click to expand...
Who said this ?
Makes no sense ?
 
Indeed social security is "similar" to a Ponzi Scheme...But the term "Ponzi Scheme" implies a criminal intent. Our government has no "criminal intent". . .
Socialism implies sharing...This is where the right has trouble...sharing is an anathema to them....
 
"It is people like you who are dishonest. If it was a private company doing exactly the same thing as SS they would have been arrested. A Ponzi Scheme SS requires new investors who are under the assumption that they will get more to put in money so that the old investors can be paid just like SS requires new people who are under the assumption they will get more in order to pay money into so that those who qualify will receive it. "

I draw SS and as I paid into it over the years, I asumed that the gov't was investing the funds to get a decent return. Instead, the gov't was borrowing the money at low interest rates and not funding the future. At this time, it does look like a ponzi scheme, but clearly it was not the original intent. Mismanagement and deception by our politicians is the root problem and it is not just with Social Security. We have the habit of electing and re-electing the most self serving group of scumbags on God's green Earth. Vote third party, any third party, you cannot do worse than what we have!
 
jamesrage said:
Your saying that the SS recipients are getting exactly what they put in and that it is not dependent on those who do not yet qualify for SS to pay for it? Obviously it is you trying to distort the truth. SS recipients require younger generations who do not qualify for SS to pay for it.



Yes it does, you choose to ignore the definition. The fact is in order to get money from SS it requires those who do not yet qualify for SS to pay into it and seeing how most Americans on SS were not paying $1,177 a month when they were working.So they are expecting a profit in return for their investment and cost of living increases both of which do not come out of thin air and require those who do not qualify IE new investors to pay for it.

Average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker




The only deception is by you libs trying to claim it isn't a ponzi scheme and that people 20-30 years from now will be able to collect.



We should not allow people like you to make false claims it isn't a ponzi scheme or worse.



It is people like you who are dishonest. If it was a private company doing exactly the same thing as SS they would have been arrested. A Ponzi Scheme SS requires new investors who are under the assumption that they will get more to put in money so that the old investors can be paid just like SS requires new people who are under the assumption they will get more in order to pay money into so that those who qualify will receive it.
Click to expand...

I'am saying they are not investing in a stock with the purpose of having their money make money, which is by clear definition what a Ponzi scheme is. You cannot have a Ponzi scheme otherwise. And collecting more is not equal to expecting your money to be invested in a profit making environment. You are simply wrong in your perception of what is going on.

As for collecting, were you promised exactly what you put in? Have those who have gotten benefits only gotten what was put in? I don't suggest there is no problems that need to be worked on, but SS is not a ponzi by either definition or by intent.

And no, a private company would not be arrested. You're just buying into the lie James.
 
jamesrage said:
Your saying that the SS recipients are getting exactly what they put in and that it is not dependent on those who do not yet qualify for SS to pay for it? Obviously it is you trying to distort the truth. SS recipients require younger generations who do not qualify for SS to pay for it.
Click to expand...
I didn't see anybody stake the claim that you get out of SS exactly what you put in. Where did you see that?

jamesrage said:
It is people like you who are dishonest. If it was a private company doing exactly the same thing as SS they would have been arrested. A Ponzi Scheme SS requires new investors who are under the assumption that they will get more to put in money so that the old investors can be paid just like SS requires new people who are under the assumption they will get more in order to pay money into so that those who qualify will receive it.
Click to expand...
This is where your argument falls apart. Social Security does not advertise you will get more than you put in. People know they may not receive anything at all if they don't live long enough to reach the age of eligibility
 
The big problem issues SS is not its forced savings for people to fund minimal retirement with some redistribution added. The social benefits are manifold and have been well worth it. The problem is becoming one where low income people will not be able to save enough money (forced by SS or on their own) during the years they can work to pay for the longer old age during which they can’t work. The longer old age is mostly due to better health care and better medicine. Increasing the retirement age does not fix this problem since it doesn’t increase the employable age. We may be forced to go back to what we had before which was if you can’t afford it you don’t get it and pay up front please for medical needs, housing and food. The Tea Bagger we met with the $90,000 medical bill for his heart attack would not have burdened his family, you and us, if the law allowed the hospital where his wife works to refuse to accept him.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
The big problem issues SS is not its forced savings for people to fund minimal retirement with some redistribution added. The social benefits are manifold and have been well worth it. The problem is becoming one where low income people will not be able to save enough money (forced by SS or on their own) during the years they can work to pay for the longer old age during which they can’t work. The longer old age is mostly due to better health care and better medicine. Increasing the retirement age does not fix this problem since it doesn’t increase the employable age. We may be forced to go back to what we had before which was if you can’t afford it you don’t get it and pay up front please for medical needs, housing and food. The Tea Bagger we met with the $90,000 medical bill for his heart attack would not have burdened his family, you and us, if the law allowed the hospital where his wife works to refuse to accept him.
Click to expand...

You got through 90% of your post sounding reasonable and then you spilled into this political 'tea bagger' crap at the end.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I didn't see anybody stake the claim that you get out of SS exactly what you put in. Where did you see that?
Click to expand...

So in other words the current SS recipients rely on new investors/those who do not qualify for SS to pay into it in order to get what they are getting now.

Ponzi scheme | Define Ponzi scheme at Dictionary.com
: an investment swindle in which early investors(Those who are currently on SS) are paid with sums obtained from later ones(those who do not qualify for SS yet) in order to create the illusion of profitability(The money SS current recipients put in a long time ago plus extra money they get from non-SS recipients today)

This is where your argument falls apart. Social Security does not advertise you will get more than you put in. People know they may not receive anything at all if they don't live long enough to reach the age of eligibility
Click to expand...

But most people expect that will get their money back plus extra and more when they are finally eligible to receive SS.
 
jamesrage said:
So in other words the current SS recipients rely on new investors/those who do not qualify for SS to pay into it in order to get what they are getting now.

Ponzi scheme | Define Ponzi scheme at Dictionary.com
: an investment swindle in which early investors(Those who are currently on SS) are paid with sums obtained from later ones(those who do not qualify for SS yet) in order to create the illusion of profitability(The money SS current recipients put in a long time ago plus extra money they get from non-SS recipients today)



But most people expect that will get their money back plus extra and more when they are finally eligible to receive SS.
Click to expand...

Except there is no illusion of profitability. How much have wages increased since, lets say, 1950?
 
jamesrage said:
So in other words the current SS recipients rely on new investors/those who do not qualify for SS to pay into it in order to get what they are getting now.
Click to expand...
That doesn't answer the question ... who said SS recipients get out of it exactly what they put in?

As far as SS relying on "new investors", so does my homeowners insurance policy. That doesn't make it a ponzi scheme.

jamesrage said:
Ponzi scheme | Define Ponzi scheme at Dictionary.com
: an investment swindle in which early investors(Those who are currently on SS) are paid with sums obtained from later ones(those who do not qualify for SS yet) in order to create the illusion of profitability(The money SS current recipients put in a long time ago plus extra money they get from non-SS recipients today)
Click to expand...
SS is not an "investment swindle" nor does it create an "illusion of profitability." 2/3rds of your definition don't even apply which leaves one baffled at how you can continue calling SS a ponzi scheme.

jamesrage said:
But most people expect that will get their money back plus extra and more when they are finally eligible to receive SS.
Click to expand...
SS does not create any such illusion, which according to the definition you gave, is one of the components of a ponzi scheme; along with it not being fraudulent. Just look at the effort you have to exert to twist the definition of a ponzi scheme to make it look like SS.

Here's a cyber-broom ... sweep up the pieces of your shattered argument. :cool:
 
Pinkie said:
I'm not sure they knew "from the very beginning", Aunt Spiker. But now? By 2025, there'll be something like two workers for every 10 retired people, if nothing changes.

This problem has been pointed out to us since I was 16 years old, but no one wants to volunteer to have his benefits reduced so that the solution can be sought. Mine, mine, mine, everyone chants....it's just so disturbing.
Click to expand...
Two workers for every ten retirees? Come on now, let's not overexaggerate.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. It requires investors to invest their money for the purpose of making more money, as in the stock market, in which the person taking the money doesn't invest, but does something brings in more investors under the same pretense. SS does not fit this defintion. You're doing what too many do, trying to bend reality to fit something you want it to fit. It doesn't. It is enough to say SS needs some work because boomers are going to be a huge drain. There are many legitimate arguements that can be presented. But to make false comparisons once again cheapens the debate, and takes a serious issue and puts it in the hands of the idiots, like perry, who seek to make points by deception. We should not allow this. Make real arguments. Use honest logic. And denounce those like Perry who don't.
Click to expand...
If SS was worth a damn, baby boomers wouldn't be a huge drain. Furthermore, ending SS for younger people wouldn't be the political kiss of death that it is. We are paying our parents, and that's why no one wants to end it, cause it would be like turning the spigot off. Remember the budget deal, and Obama said he couldn't guarantee SS checks would go out?
 
jamesrage said:
So in other words the current SS recipients rely on new investors/those who do not qualify for SS to pay into it in order to get what they are getting now.

Ponzi scheme | Define Ponzi scheme at Dictionary.com
: an investment swindle in which early investors(Those who are currently on SS) are paid with sums obtained from later ones(those who do not qualify for SS yet) in order to create the illusion of profitability(The money SS current recipients put in a long time ago plus extra money they get from non-SS recipients today)



But most people expect that will get their money back plus extra and more when they are finally eligible to receive SS... An interesting statement to prove.....I seriously doubt if this is the official SS stance...But foolish minions may utter this falsehood.. .....
Click to expand...
James, you seem to be anti-social security...
Why ?
Or, why do conservatives dislike the working man ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom