Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
tims

Social Security = Ponzi Scheme?

58 posts in this topic

Yeah...it's structured the same way. I copied an article about this into the 'Financial Meltdown' thread...it is on page 25 of that thread, I think...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's shocking the number of peeps up here in the peoples republic of st louis county that will not accept the idea that ss needs changes, big time, to make it solvent. they believe that it just needs some tweeking or that no matter what, government will still send out the checks. they are right on the later. knowing government, they will just fire up the printing presses. government is not immune to economic factors.

of course, these are the same people who believe government is the answer to everything and its wrong to want to keep more of your money instead of handing it over to buereuacrats(sp) in dc

their politics are stuck in 1965

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something needs to change, but there are people like me that have paid into it for so long that if it goes away or changes too much in the way we can draw money, I will have to work til I am too old and feeble to get out the door. The Govt has made us dependent on a system that needs help and all we get is lip service from both sides.

This should have been addressed decades ago. This waiting til things get to a critical state with that many people depending on it is beyond belief. I have been putting money in to IRAs and 403bs and a fairly large amount at that, but with the tank of the market I probably lost over 50% of my portfolio and set me back years financially. And I am pretty darn certain that there are many in that same boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in that boat upnorth.

floatin' in that one, too.

Also, it may be already happening but it isnt unthinkable of a day were not only mom and pop get ss but so do sis and bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fishing with ya all as well. What do you do though? YOu can't cry cause you lost the money, that's part of the risk. But SS has to be fixed so there is something there for those of us that have been paying for 20/30 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social Security has been raided so long its actually less prudent then a good Ponzi scheme. It should be infinitely large. Think how many people pay into it for 50-60-70 yrs and never collect a dime. Its just been stolen from us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social security is fine, and with a few minor modifications (such as elimination of the income tax cap) would have more money than it knows what to do with.

These "SS is dying" conversations are meant to cause fear to act on something that really needs no action.

SS is fine, but what is really under attack is not the financial viability of the program but the idea that in our society one should care about what happens to the person across the street or that we should care about other people.

Quote:
The Social Security Non-Crisis

Noam Chomsky

Khaleej Times, June 1, 2005

In the debate over Social Security, US President Bush’s handlers have already won, at least in the short term. Bush and Karl Rove, his deputy chief of staff, have succeeded in convincing most of the US population that there is a serious problem with Social Security, which opens the way for considering the administration’s programme of private accounts instead of relying on the public pension system.

The public has been frightened, much as it was by the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

The pressure on politicians is rising as leaders in the US House of Representatives hope to draft Social Security legislation by next month.

For perspective, perhaps it should be noted that Social Security is one of the least generous public pension systems among advanced countries, according to a new report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The Bush administration wants to "reform" Social Security — meaning dismantle it. A huge government-media propaganda campaign has concocted a "fiscal crisis" that doesn’t exist. If some problem does arise in the distant future, it could be overcome by trivial measures, such as raising the cap on the regressive payroll tax.

The official story is that the Baby Boomers are going to impose a greater burden on the system because the number of working people relative to the elderly will decline, which is true.

But what happened to the Baby Boomers when they were zero to 20? Weren’t working people taking care of them? And it was a much poorer society then.

In the 1960s the demographics caused a problem but hardly a crisis. The bulge was met by a big increase in expenditures in schools and other facilities for children. The problem wasn’t huge when the Baby Boomers were zero to 20, so why when they’re 70 to 90?

The relevant number is what’s called the dependency ratio of working people to population. That ratio reached its lowest point in 1965. It won’t reach that point again until 2080, according to Social Security Administration figures.

Projections that far ahead are meaningless. Furthermore, any fiscal problem that might arise in caring for the elderly "boomers" has already been paid for, by the payroll tax rise of 1983, designed for this purpose. And by the time the last "boomer" has died, the society will be far richer, with each worker producing far greater wealth.

In other words, we’re already past the crisis. Anything that comes is just a matter of one or another kind of adjustment.

Meanwhile a very real fiscal crisis is looming: namely, medical care. The United States has one of the most inefficient systems in the industrialised world, with per-capita costs far higher than other nations and among the worst health outcomes. The system is privatised, one reason why it’s so inefficient.

But "reforming" the health care system is not on the agenda. So we face an apparent paradox: The real and very serious fiscal crisis is no crisis, and the non-crisis requires drastic action to undermine an efficient system that is quite sound.

Rational observers will seek differences between the Social Security and health care systems that might explain the paradox.

The reasons are simple. You can’t go after a health system under the control of insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations. That system is immune, even if it is causing tremendous financial problems, besides the human cost.

Social Security is of little value for the rich but is crucial for survival for working people, the poor, their dependents and the disabled. And as a government programme, it has such low administrative costs that it offers nothing to financial institutions. It benefits only the "underlying population," not the "substantial citizens," to borrow Thorstein Veblen’s acid terminology.

The medical system, however, works very well for the people who matter in a system where health care is effectively rationed by wealth, and enormous profits flow to private power for highly inefficient management. The underlying population can be treated with lectures on responsibility.

The US Congress has recently enacted bankruptcy reform that tightens the stranglehold on the underlying population. About half of US bankruptcies result from medical bills.

Opinion and official policy are out of step. As in the past, most Americans favour national health insurance. In a 2003 Washington Post-ABC News poll, 80 per cent regarded universal health care as "more important than holding down taxes."

Social Security is based on an extremely dangerous principle: that you should care whether the disabled widow across town has food to eat. The Social Security "reformers" would rather have you concentrate on maximising your own consumption of goods and subordinating yourself to power. That’s life. Caring for other people, and taking community responsibility for things like health and retirement — that’s just deeply subversive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social security is fine, and with a few minor modifications (such as elimination of the income tax cap) would have more money than it knows what to do with.

These "SS is dying" conversations are meant to cause fear to act on something that really needs no action.

SS is fine, but what is really under attack is not the financial viability of the program but the idea that in our society one should care about what happens to the person across the street or that we should care about other people.

Quote:
The Social Security Non-Crisis

Noam Chomsky

Khaleej Times, June 1, 2005

In the debate over Social Security, US President Bush’s handlers have already won, at least in the short term. Bush and Karl Rove, his deputy chief of staff, have succeeded in convincing most of the US population that there is a serious problem with Social Security, which opens the way for considering the administration’s programme of private accounts instead of relying on the public pension system.

The public has been frightened, much as it was by the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

The pressure on politicians is rising as leaders in the US House of Representatives hope to draft Social Security legislation by next month.

For perspective, perhaps it should be noted that Social Security is one of the least generous public pension systems among advanced countries, according to a new report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The Bush administration wants to "reform" Social Security — meaning dismantle it. A huge government-media propaganda campaign has concocted a "fiscal crisis" that doesn’t exist. If some problem does arise in the distant future, it could be overcome by trivial measures, such as raising the cap on the regressive payroll tax.

The official story is that the Baby Boomers are going to impose a greater burden on the system because the number of working people relative to the elderly will decline, which is true.

But what happened to the Baby Boomers when they were zero to 20? Weren’t working people taking care of them? And it was a much poorer society then.

In the 1960s the demographics caused a problem but hardly a crisis. The bulge was met by a big increase in expenditures in schools and other facilities for children. The problem wasn’t huge when the Baby Boomers were zero to 20, so why when they’re 70 to 90?

The relevant number is what’s called the dependency ratio of working people to population. That ratio reached its lowest point in 1965. It won’t reach that point again until 2080, according to Social Security Administration figures.

Projections that far ahead are meaningless. Furthermore, any fiscal problem that might arise in caring for the elderly "boomers" has already been paid for, by the payroll tax rise of 1983, designed for this purpose. And by the time the last "boomer" has died, the society will be far richer, with each worker producing far greater wealth.

In other words, we’re already past the crisis. Anything that comes is just a matter of one or another kind of adjustment.

Meanwhile a very real fiscal crisis is looming: namely, medical care. The United States has one of the most inefficient systems in the industrialised world, with per-capita costs far higher than other nations and among the worst health outcomes. The system is privatised, one reason why it’s so inefficient.

But "reforming" the health care system is not on the agenda. So we face an apparent paradox: The real and very serious fiscal crisis is no crisis, and the non-crisis requires drastic action to undermine an efficient system that is quite sound.

Rational observers will seek differences between the Social Security and health care systems that might explain the paradox.

The reasons are simple. You can’t go after a health system under the control of insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations. That system is immune, even if it is causing tremendous financial problems, besides the human cost.

Social Security is of little value for the rich but is crucial for survival for working people, the poor, their dependents and the disabled. And as a government programme, it has such low administrative costs that it offers nothing to financial institutions. It benefits only the "underlying population," not the "substantial citizens," to borrow Thorstein Veblen’s acid terminology.

The medical system, however, works very well for the people who matter in a system where health care is effectively rationed by wealth, and enormous profits flow to private power for highly inefficient management. The underlying population can be treated with lectures on responsibility.

The US Congress has recently enacted bankruptcy reform that tightens the stranglehold on the underlying population. About half of US bankruptcies result from medical bills.

Opinion and official policy are out of step. As in the past, most Americans favour national health insurance. In a 2003 Washington Post-ABC News poll, 80 per cent regarded universal health care as "more important than holding down taxes."

Social Security is based on an extremely dangerous principle: that you should care whether the disabled widow across town has food to eat. The Social Security "reformers" would rather have you concentrate on maximising your own consumption of goods and subordinating yourself to power. That’s life. Caring for other people, and taking community responsibility for things like health and retirement — that’s just deeply subversive.

now you see why SS is in trouble. i see you accused others in another post of having their heads in the sand as it relates to GW. you're doing the same as it relates to SS.

all the same lines were stated by those who told us fannie and freddie needed no reform and it was doing fine

chode and this chomsky are blaming people for the problems of SS and ignoring a government which is just as greedy and has shown is incapable of managing SS

the government should never be in the business of providing for all because it cannot. you're equating the idea of that if you dont want more of your money going to Dc, well that means you dont care about people in need. i never understand the total belief in government that some people have. its the same blind faith to hand over more of your money into a system that at the very least, the politicians have mismanaged for the last 40 years

"caring for your neighbor" does not mean sending more and more money to washington to be spent by politicians with no accountability and to create more and more agencies that are inefficient and only purpose to create a dependency class for the purpose of lifelong voters. caring for your neighbor means helping them out if they fall sick or injured by given them food or helping them with odd jobs or donating to your local food shelf or church or things like that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that SS is fine. In fact I can tell you the date that SS will collapse. It will be November 30 2018. I know this because I will be eligible the next day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree chode! Think of what would have happened if the invest in stocks scheme with SS would have happened.

Can anyone state a fact of how much SS was drained for other Govt.Financing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree chode! Think of what would have happened if the invest in stocks scheme with SS would have happened.

Can anyone state a fact of how much SS was drained for other Govt.Financing?

they have been raiding SS since at least the 1960's

i'm not crisis mongering. simply pointing out that the same people who told us fannie and freddie were doing fine are the same ones who tell you SS is fine. it needs changing and updating without punishing acheivement and simply throwing money at the same system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: sparcebag
I agree chode! Think of what would have happened if the invest in stocks scheme with SS would have happened.

Can anyone state a fact of how much SS was drained for other Govt.Financing?

they have been raiding SS since at least the 1960's

If its being raided what's causing the big scare tactic?

Maybe they want big money to profit more??By handleing it??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: tacklejunkie
Originally Posted By: sparcebag
I agree chode! Think of what would have happened if the invest in stocks scheme with SS would have happened.

Can anyone state a fact of how much SS was drained for other Govt.Financing?

they have been raiding SS since at least the 1960's

If its being raided what's causing the big scare tactic?

Maybe they want big money to profit more??By handleing it??

the SS surplus has been taken out of SS and put into the general fund for decades. and what do politicians do when they get new money? spend like drunken sailors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would like to see SS become a program for those who are truly poor. not as part of a retirement program

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who'd put into it? Isn't that what welfare is for?

Its discusting to read the local paper here!Every day its another bust of collecting welfare while working for Jennyo Turkey processing! Of course the busted people have 2-3 different IDs with different names,And are illegles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who'd put into it? Isn't that what welfare is for?

Its discusting to read the local paper here!Every day its another bust of collecting welfare while working for Jennyo Turkey processing! Of course the busted people have 2-3 different IDs with different names,And are illegles

SS is a form of welfare. many elderly people hate being told that but it is. i dont have the answer to SS reform but i think we have had enough so called blue ribbon commissions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

besides Fannie and freddie, auto industry, a private industry that functioned its benefits program almost similar to the governments, another example of governments promising bennies for all one needs to look right here in duluth. years ago, contracts were signed with city employees to provide health care coverage to them even when they retired. now we are going bankrupt and our city council voted to raise taxes yet we are driving business away and shrinking the tax base. imagine that on a national level

socialism, marxism, or any type of wealth distribution program totally ingnores human behavior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is jarrods article he posted

Here's another one...this one written by Peter Schiff:

December 17, 2008

In Madoff We Trust

As the multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Wall Street insider Bernard Madoff unravels in the media spotlight, the nation is being presented with a rare opportunity to understand the true nature of many of our most cherished financial structures. Hopefully we have the wisdom to connect the dots.

Although the $50 billion loss engineered by Madoff is truly a staggering accomplishment (and was done using old-fashioned fraud rather than the mathematical wizardry that has characterized Wall Street’s recent larcenies) the size of the scheme pales in comparison to the multi-trillion dollar Ponzi structures run by the United States government. In fact, rather than looking to jail Madoff, President-elect Obama should consider making him our new Treasury secretary. If not that, at least make him the czar of something!

Madoff’s inspiration came from Charles Ponzi, the Italian-born American immigrant who promoted an investment plan in the early 1900s’ that traded postal coupons. Rather than paying investors from legitimate investment returns, Ponzi hit upon the innovative idea of paying out early investors with money collected from new investors. By creating an illusion of success, interest in his investment plan ballooned. Over time the schemes have become known by many other names, such as chain letters or pyramid schemes. They are united by the fact that they always fail in the end.

When the influx of new investors inevitably slows to the point where distributions to current investors can no longer be maintained, investors look to withdraw funds. When this happens, the entire structure falls apart. The profits received by those who “invested” early as well so any funds skimmed off by the promoter, are offset by all the losses of those who came late to the party.

To a large extent, the same concept has driven the major asset bubbles of the last decade. Given the ridiculously high valuations that were assigned to tech stocks and real estate during their respective booms, the only way the bubbles could be perpetuated was if newer “investors” could be found to pay even more outrageous prices (the greater fool). But when these new buyers balked, the whole structure crumbled. Although there was no Ponzi or Madoff to orchestrate these manias, the entire financial and economic apparatus of the country had successfully convinced the public that “investments” in tech stocks and condominiums were bullet proof and that the supply of new buyers was endless.

Unfortunately, the Ponzi economy doesn’t stop there. A chain letter is no more viable when run by governments than when run by private citizens. However, government orchestrated pyramids have the advantage of required participation. As a result, they can maintain the illusion of viability for several generations. But the longer such schemes operate the larger will be the losses when they ultimately collapse.

The Social Security Administration runs its “trust funds” with precisely the same methods used by Madoff and Ponzi. As money is collected by from current workers, the funds are then dispersed to those already receiving benefits. None of the funds collected are actually invested, so no investment returns are ever generated. Those currently paying into the system are expected to receive their returns based on the “contribution” made by future workers. This is the classic definition of a Ponzi scheme. The only difference is that Ponzi didn’t own a printing press.

The United States Government runs its own balance sheet based on the Ponzi principal as well. Our national debt always grows and never shrinks. As existing debt matures, proceeds are repaid by issuing new debt. Interest payments on existing debt are also made by selling new debt to investors. The whole scheme depends on an ever growing supply of new lenders, or the willingness of existing lenders, to continue to roll over maturing notes. Of course, as was the case with Madoff, if enough of our creditors want their money back, the music stops playing.

In Madoff’s case, the rug pulling was provided by the huge financial losses suffered by some of his clients in other non-Madoff investments. When enough of these clients looked to sell some of their apparently well-performing Madoff assets to help offset such losses, the scam collapsed. The same thing could befall the United States Government. Now that China and our other creditors are looking to spend some of their U.S. Treasury holdings to stimulate their own economies, look for a similar outcome with even more dire implications.

The main difference is that while Madoff took elaborate steps to conceal his scheme, the U.S. government operates in broad daylight. It truly is amazing how faith in government is so pervasive that many can believe that politicians will succeed where private individuals fail, and that governments are somehow immune to the economic laws that govern the rest of society. Like those unfortunate to have been duped by Madoff and Ponzi, the world is in for a rude awakening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in a bad construction accident,the year before work comp carriers got the laws changed,They only need to cover a disabled person 22 months after full recovery,Of which I'm rated at 85% disabled.It was, they would carry for life,I received 485 a week through work comp carrier(Not state comp Private)They changed the law to 22 months!

So now why make employers carry high rate work comp when it covers basically medical only? Just another insurance scam?

Here I am On SS getting a meager check I think welfare would give me more,but I'm not broke enough to qualify.

Thats one reason JUST ONE I always state big money gets big money and basically leaves the common people left out!

Without SS I would be on welfare,So what kind of program would help on the job injured & disabled people? Its Not insurance!Or work comp!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SS is designed to keep people just at the point in need but not to do well. most gov programs do that. that way, if you are in need and dependent on gov. you will never vote out the hands that feed you, regardless how crooked they are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what about the insurance coverage I HAD! Is was to help in this situation,But it was taken away after years of paying into,And not only me think of all the monies they collect! Then refuse to honor the deal,And in the case of setting limits,they just turn one to govt. support.How'd that happen? The rich being greedy!AGAIN Lie cheat & steal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what about the insurance coverage I HAD! Is was to help in this situation,But it was taken away after years of paying into,And not only me think of all the monies they collect! Then refuse to honor the deal,And in the case of setting limits,they just turn one to govt. support.How'd that happen? The rick being greedy!

gov. is prone to the same greed as private business. the difference is gov has the power to take from people to fund their greed.

i do support safety nets. a temporary one. but the idea of more and more people on gov programs is not only freedom restricting but unsustainable in the long term.

the same mentality that everybody should have the right to national health care is the same mentality that brought us the idea everybody has the right to a house

and i hate crisis mongering. SS reform should be treated as a challenge. the last time we were given a crisis by the gov. we ended up in a never ending war

there seems to be a mindset with some in this country that winning an election then makes you an expert on controlling climate, managing and running healthcare and retirement, running an auto industry or any industry, ect ect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do ins co.s, with the states approval. But yet the work comp is a required need to be in busisness in this state.

One rips ya off and the other turns its back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0