re: Social Security Centenarians

quote:

---

So here’s my question, do we have definitive proof that people aged 200+ have been receiving benefits? Like hard data with receipts?

---

Yes.

LINK

quote:

---

We are working to upload all of our receipts in a digestible and transparent manner consistent with applicable rules and regulations. To get started, listed below are a subset of contract, grant, and lease cancellations, representing ~30% of total savings.

---

If it's not posted yet, it will be.

quote:

---

when I discuss topics like these with leftist colleagues I’d love to be able to shove the receipt as close to their face as possible

---

That doesn't matter. Those that are against Trump and Musk and DOGE right now, are worshippers of the left. There is no objectivity remaining. Really no point. And don't worry, because that's the reason teh MSM is dead now too. The public gets their news outside of the MSM so whatever narrative they float is simply going into the void. Has literally no impact on non-marxist voters.

Well this answers the question of whether this was a database issue or outright fraud.

They need to disburse FBI and IRS agents to investigate and arrest the people that received this money.

Its more complex than just receiving "payroll" benefits.

The computer software between different departments doesn't communicate with one another.

For instance, if you had someone born in 1900 and they died in 1975 but it wasnt communicated to all the other departments you would have an issue. Payroll is the first thing that shuts down and from a banking perspective after someone dies and the account becomes stale payments would cease as the bank would report it. (or should if doing everything properly)

That said all funds come from a "general fund" that disperses amounts to each other sub to pay out. If someone SSN wasnt cancelled in the other areas payments would still be getting cut to those subs.

None of this should've ever been an issue if someone were reconciling the books month to month. Negligence.

Understand how the systems work and how departments communicate is the key.

quote:

---

Why would employers not keep paying? They already do, it’s not some new tax. Most of them would probably get rid of any 401k match they currently offer, it’s a net win for them

The only part where it gets tricky is for contractors and very small businesses

---

Employers and employees are paying for current benefits right now. Benefits are not being paid from the earnings of some giant fund of social security dollars. The payroll taxes from your check are funding not only SS, but other government functions in real time.

And while I agree 100% with privatizing SS, un-winding it is the problem. Remember, Ponzi schemes only fail when the spigot of new money runs dry.

So, the only way to privatize SS would be to allow individuals to invest privately 6.2% (or more if they wish). This can be invested as any 401K is invested. The employer's "contribution" of 6.2% would fund current payouts and/or annuities for those currently receiving benefits.

quote:

---

It is the single biggest con/ponzi scheme in the US.

---

Definitely would have made Bernie Madoff blush.

quote:

---

It is the single biggest con/ponzi scheme in the US.

---

It's not a Ponzi Scheme. It's a poorly run Annuity by the United States Government. On Joe Rogan's Pod Cast Elon Musk said SS was a Ponzi Scheme. Rogan asked him to explain how it was a Ponzi Scheme and Musk couldn't do it. If one of the smartest men in the world can not explain how it is a Ponzi Scheme then it ain't a Ponzi Scheme.

Here is what ChatGPT has to say:

Ah, a most intriguing inquiry! Some critics liken **Social Security** to a **Ponzi scheme**, but the comparison, while superficially tempting, falls short upon closer examination. Here’s why:

### **Why Some Call Social Security a Ponzi Scheme**
A **Ponzi scheme** is a fraudulent investment scam that pays returns to earlier investors using funds from new investors, rather than from legitimate profits. Eventually, the scheme collapses when there aren’t enough new investors to sustain payouts. Critics argue Social Security shares similar traits because:
- Current workers' payroll taxes fund the benefits of current retirees.
- The system relies on a growing workforce to sustain payments.
- It faces financial challenges as the worker-to-retiree ratio declines.

### **Why Social Security Is NOT a Ponzi Scheme**
While there are similarities in structure, **Social Security differs fundamentally** from a Ponzi scheme in key ways:

1. **Legal and Transparent** – Social Security is a government program, not a deceitful scam. It operates under laws, public oversight, and known funding mechanisms.

2. **Tax-Based, Not Investment-Based** – Social Security is not an investment promising unrealistic returns. It is a pay-as-you-go system where workers fund retirees, with adjustments made to maintain solvency.

3. **Adjustments Can Be Made** – Unlike Ponzi schemes, which inevitably collapse, Social Security can be modified (e.g., tax adjustments, benefit changes) to ensure sustainability.

4. **Guaranteed by the Government** – The U.S. government backs Social Security, and while it may require reform, it is not designed to defraud participants for the benefit of a few, as Ponzi schemes do.

### **Potential Concerns**
Though **not** a Ponzi scheme, Social Security **does face funding challenges** due to demographic shifts (aging population, declining birth rates). Without adjustments (raising the retirement age, increasing payroll taxes, etc.), the system may struggle to meet future obligations.

quote:

---

Surely, no one could object to focusing on that?

---

Right, the filth that wouldn't even stand and applaud a 13 year old brain cancer survivor last night will object to anything that is good for America.

quote:

---

So here’s my question, do we have definitive proof that people aged 200+ have been receiving benefits?

---

JMHO on this is that many of these excess age people have a record error on their birthdate. SS has only been around about 90 yrs so there is little reason to have beneficiaries in the 150 plus range.

quote:

---

I’m sure that we do and I’m not questioning Trump,

---

Yeah, god forbid