Social Security Is a Fantasy and Ponzi Scheme; How to Fix It

Reader Comments
Back to article

Private banks inventing infinite supplies of fiat currency.

Jim Schaffer of LA 2:55PM May 06, 2011

Sorry, but it is an inviolate law of the Universe that Ponzi schemes can’t be fixed or made to permanently function. This is similar to the Universes’ guarantee for failure of perpetual motion. Neither Social Security nor Medicare gets a 'free-pass'!
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/

Badbill911 of MS 5:56PM May 02, 2011

Hey, the 401K money was built on a "Goverment" tax defered investment. I think it is time for the "Goverment" to take that also. I mean...come on...the money can be managed better by them and distributed to the needs of the many.... better. Why stop there? Corporate pensions have lots of money. Make them a "New" program for everyone. Why stop there in your quest to steal others hard earned wealth. I say put all real estate in control of the states. When you are living, you, kinda, rent the home from the "people". But, each home should be regularly inspected so as to keep the home in good condition. Why stop there? Is it really wise for a nation to let its people gather large amounts of money in bank accounts when that money could be used to help the nation as a whole? Go after it I say! Limit how much someone can save...take the rest! Next, limit how much a average person can spend on personal items and a "Goverment" manager will control your income and spending. NOW WE ARE TALKING!

John of WA 6:05PM February 04, 2011

That's fine. If you want to means test, go right ahead. But first, how about giving me back every dollar I've paid into SS over the last 39 years with a minimal return of, let's say 2%, and you can do whatever you want with your SS. If you means test SS you've just changed it from a retirement supplement plan to a welfare entitlement plan. Additionally, the government will fail it's promise to every American who paid into it. That'll get you all re-elected. Great job! Way to think outside the box. I've got a better idea. How about the governement repaying every dollar back into SS that it borrowed. Wow. That ought to fix the govenment induced deficit to the plan. Just quit cheating the people who makes this country strong.

Greg of FL 10:11AM November 04, 2010

If Means Testing Social Security is to be implemented, there is only one way that would make if fair for the masses: Total Lifetime Earnings........NOT assets at retirement.
To assess need at retirement would penalize those who acted and chose responsibly over their working lifetimes, those who accepted financial responsibility for their futures by saving, investing and by delaying gratification (vacations, boats, cars, etc.) and not spending every dollar they earned. To means test using assets at retirement will simply allow for the continued irresponsible behavior in saving and spending by future generations. It is patently unfair to have those who acted responsibly throughout their working lives to be forced to subsidize those who made different choices and spent and not save throughout their lives!

Mark of WI 7:09AM July 03, 2010

I agree something must be done. I also agree that the current system is not sustainable and additional sacrifices must be made. That being said, if someone has paid 14% of their income to SS over their entire working life, I think they are not crazy or greedy in thinking they may get some benefit. This was the fundamental premise of SS when it was enacted. Everyone pays in, and everyone gets paid out.
In the end, if we want to call for more sacrifice, I am fine with it. Let's make sure that the "test" we use in telling someone they must give up the benefit they paid for is at least rational (you can't say it is fair). It should be conducted with 2 methodologies, both total net worth and existing defined pensions. That way it will include people who saved via investments and/or a 401K and people who secured their retirement through their employer (be it privite or government). Let's also put some thought into ensuring that we don't reward people for not saving for their own retirement.
Just my thoughts.

Cubby of GA 11:26AM June 30, 2010

The San Diego State instructor has both tenure and a fully indexed, government paid pension.
Relatively speaking, that makes her rich - all through retirement. So is she willing to give up these forms of "social security"? I'd guess not

Don Blanding of MN 11:13AM February 15, 2010

The one thing that people just can't seem to get through their heads is this: If you take something from somebody without their permission, IT IS STEALING. Just because a population has empowered a government to do the stealing via taxes, fees, fines, or gunpoint doesn't make it less criminal. We have the least criminal government in the world--maybe--but Americans have got so used to government stealing from some to give to others that they think it's normal and right. Democrats are the vanguard for this behavior; it's written into the party's planks, and repubs aren't far behind.

Kuni Lemmel of CO 6:08PM February 03, 2010

If you don't need it you don't get to collect - otherwise the company goes broke. Difficult concept, uh?
Rich folks don't need the extra $1,000 a month - They've already got 5 big screens, everything HSN has to sell and a golf ball washer - while down the road a widowed granny lives in a leaky travel trailer eating crackers and cat food - for the holidays she gets a can of cheeze-whip.
Stop reading the dogmatic ideology of Ayn Rand and Robert Ringer - "Survival of the fittest" went out with the first village campfire (Or, maybe you'd like to shove the old folks away from the warmth because they didn't gather enough wood?).
The game has got to change - a phase out of benefits based on date of birth and retirement income makes sense.
Bunch of cry babies whining with a silver spoon in their mouth, and stamping their Bruno Maglis.
Remember, there's no trailer hitch on a hearse - but you take with you the garment of your soul, and the fewer stains the better.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 12:40PM February 03, 2010