- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Social Security as a near-bankrupt Ponzi scheme explained
Posted on 6/7/25 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 6/7/25 at 4:11 pm
LINK
This isn’t new information. Democrats just continue to gaslight in the face of irrefutable facts.
quote:
During a House oversight DOGE subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Garcia grilled Power the Future CEO Dan Turner while holding up a posterboard of a past tweet calling Social Security a "government-sponsored Ponzi scheme."
"Madoff went to jail for it. Congress runs on it," the post said. "I should be able to keep 100% of my money and not watch government waste it with a paltry percentage return."
Garcia then suggested that post was evidence that Turner lacks the credibility to be testifying about the billions of federal tax dollars directed to left-wing NGOs.
quote:
"A Ponzi scheme and so I think it's interesting, of course, as one of our Republican witnesses is calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and that's the person that we should be taking advice from here today," Garcia said.
quote:
A Ponzi scheme operates by taking money from new investors to pay current investors," Agresti said. "That's the definition given by the SEC, and contrary to popular belief, that's exactly how Social Security operates."
quote:
"What it does is, it transfers money when we are young and working and paying into Social Security taxes," Agresti said. "That money, the vast bulk of it, goes immediately out the door to people who are currently receiving benefits. Now, there is a trust fund, but in 90 years of operation, that trust fund currently has enough money to fund two years of program operations."
quote:
"Every single study shows social security going completely bankrupt in the next few years. Garcia and other democrats know the iceberg is ahead but rather than turn the ship, they are yelling at the iceberg about the senior citizens onboard," Turner said. "This Ponzi scheme is collapsing fast, and turning my tweets into posters is not going to stop it."
This isn’t new information. Democrats just continue to gaslight in the face of irrefutable facts.
9
Posted on 6/7/25 at 4:13 pm to High C
Only because they're giving OUR money away like it's covered in the plague.
Posted on 6/7/25 at 4:14 pm to High C
If SS was a private pension fund, the managers would go to jail.
Posted on 6/7/25 at 4:28 pm to High C
The reason it’s not a Ponzi scheme is because the government says it’s legal.
Ponzi schemes are illegal, so SS can’t be a Ponzi scheme.
Even though it has all the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme.
Ponzi schemes are illegal, so SS can’t be a Ponzi scheme.
Even though it has all the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme.
Posted on 6/7/25 at 5:05 pm to LSUbest
quote:
OUR money
Posted on 6/7/25 at 5:38 pm to High C
It's not a Ponzi Scheme. SS is a poorly run annuity that the Government forces you to participate in.
Posted on 6/7/25 at 6:02 pm to La Place Mike
You need to look at how SS was formed. Believe it or not they had actuary charts then as well. They knew, or could accurately access how many people would be working, the contribution etc.
They set it up so it would build a mountain of cash with the interest it would collect. It was law that it could not be touched. But then the crafty congress realized the law said "it" cant be touched and defined that as the money contributed NOT the interest, so they passed legislation to use the interest to cover their shortfalls beginning with Kennedy. He did not touch it, but LBJ and every president after him took the interest.
But it wasnt going fast enough so they passed SSI which enabled another 7.5 million to double dip. But that wasnt going fast enough so obama changed the regs on what is "permanently" disabled.
So no Dorothy its not that "we didnt realize so many people would get old".
They set it up so it would build a mountain of cash with the interest it would collect. It was law that it could not be touched. But then the crafty congress realized the law said "it" cant be touched and defined that as the money contributed NOT the interest, so they passed legislation to use the interest to cover their shortfalls beginning with Kennedy. He did not touch it, but LBJ and every president after him took the interest.
But it wasnt going fast enough so they passed SSI which enabled another 7.5 million to double dip. But that wasnt going fast enough so obama changed the regs on what is "permanently" disabled.
So no Dorothy its not that "we didnt realize so many people would get old".
Posted on 6/7/25 at 6:14 pm to High C
Well I mean… it’s definitely not a retirement plan. Never heard of a plan where you put money in and get significantly less out.
Social security wouldn’t be necessary if you just let people put their money in legitimate growth funds.
The mentally and physically handicapped could still be provided for via regular taxes.
Social security wouldn’t be necessary if you just let people put their money in legitimate growth funds.
The mentally and physically handicapped could still be provided for via regular taxes.
Posted on 6/7/25 at 6:28 pm to trinidadtiger
quote:
You need to look at how SS was formed.
I have. Thats why I called it a poorly run annuity.
quote:
Believe it or not they had actuary charts then as well.
Yes. Actuarial Science had been around a very long time.
Posted on 6/7/25 at 6:32 pm to High C
Boomers were told they would have 20 years of SS payments to live off of.
In all honesty, we need to raise the SS age up to 80. When they stood up SS the age to collect was 2 years past the average life expectancy.
In all honesty, we need to raise the SS age up to 80. When they stood up SS the age to collect was 2 years past the average life expectancy.
Posted on 6/7/25 at 6:36 pm to High C
quote:
"Every single study shows social security going completely bankrupt in the next few years. Garcia and other democrats know the iceberg is ahead but rather than turn the ship, they are yelling at the iceberg about the senior citizens onboard," Turner said. "This Ponzi scheme is collapsing fast, and turning my tweets into posters is not going to stop it."
Just means test and raise the retirement age. And raise the income amount that is taxable.
Posted on 6/7/25 at 6:50 pm to High C
Interesting to think what would have happened with Gore’s lockbox.
Compared to Bush with his wars, patriot act, and other misdeeds, even for neocons, Gore is a big history “what if”.
Compared to Bush with his wars, patriot act, and other misdeeds, even for neocons, Gore is a big history “what if”.
Posted on 6/7/25 at 6:51 pm to The Eric
quote:
Never heard of a plan where you put money in and get significantly less out.
That depends on how long you live. Most people over estimate how much THEY put in to SS.
quote:
Social security wouldn’t be necessary if you just let people put their money in legitimate growth funds.
You might invest the 6.2% but most will not. That's why we SS in the first place.
Posted on 6/7/25 at 6:52 pm to dgnx6
quote:
The reason it’s not a Ponzi scheme is because the government says it’s legal.
It’s not a Ponzi scheme because everyone knows ahead of time where the money is going. In a Ponzi scheme people think they are making a legitimate investment but they are not. That’s not SS at all. The SS system is transparent. It’s poorly run, and it is political in the sense that they overspend to buy votes. But it is not a Ponzi Scheme
Posted on 6/7/25 at 6:52 pm to The Eric
quote:
Well I mean… it’s definitely not a retirement plan. Never heard of a plan where you put money in and get significantly less out.
Not necessarily. One of the problems SS is having right now is that people are taking out more than they put in. Someone who is 80 yrs old now, who started taking SS benefits when they turned 67 has taken out $320,000 - based on the national average monthly payout of $2K p/month.
If that same person made $60 K for 40 years straight, they paid in $144K during that time.
Posted on 6/7/25 at 7:00 pm to La Place Mike
The point is, not whether it was an ROI equivalent to the DOW, the point is it never would be in the shape it is had congress not started double and triple dipping into it.
Second, when they set it up they KNEW people would live longer, the life expectancy from 1800 to the 1900s grew dramatically, any idiot would know it would continue to grow. The problem, once again, is congress, both parties stealing from it knowing they would be long gone before it reached this point........unfortunately some of them are still there.
Second, when they set it up they KNEW people would live longer, the life expectancy from 1800 to the 1900s grew dramatically, any idiot would know it would continue to grow. The problem, once again, is congress, both parties stealing from it knowing they would be long gone before it reached this point........unfortunately some of them are still there.
Posted on 6/7/25 at 7:05 pm to nealnan8
quote:
If that same person made $60 K for 40 years straight, they paid in $144K during that time.
Inflation alone makes that 144K worth over 300K, add in a modest interest rate and the aforementioned person is still getting short changed.
Posted on 6/7/25 at 7:07 pm to La Place Mike
quote:
It's not a Ponzi Scheme. SS is a poorly run annuity that the Government forces you to participate in.
Yep, such a great investment for taxpayers when they retire. So great that you can pay into this “security” bullshite for 50 years without the option to not do so, if you die on day two of retirement and don’t have a living spouse or juvenile dependent, poof all that money is gone. And it’s going to some other bullshite.
I’m not the type to hate on boomers but GD, this is 100% on them. They were gullible and allowed this system of theft.
Posted on 6/7/25 at 7:11 pm to Rekrul
quote:
Yep, such a great investment for taxpayers when they retire.
It's not an investment.
quote:
I’m not the type to hate on boomers but GD, this is 100% on them.
How is that?
Posted on 6/7/25 at 7:12 pm to High C
quote:
Democrats just continue to gaslight in the face of irrefutable facts.
Lets see:
President- Republican
House- Republican
Senate- Republican
Supreme Court Majority- Republican
And you are mad a Democrats?
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News