Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The Reality of Social Security that is Run by Criminals

Posted 5 years ago on Aug. 14, 2012, 9:33 p.m. EST by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

People have money taken out of their paycheck, and the employer is taxed the same amount, in order to create funds to create your retirement package.

Its dependent on how much you pay in. Those who pay in a lot get a lot. Those who don't, dont get much. My uncle isnt going to get a ton. My aunt is going to get a ton. My dad is going to really collect, my mom is going to do average.

Its all a scam. That money isnt there. DC doesnt keep track of money like that. They dont care. Its a big trough that the pigs feed out of every tax season.

The proof in just how corrupted and misused would be in this case- the younger generation opts out. SS is not used as a retirement tool for your own personal welfare, its used to fund all the bullshit tha the feds love to get their dirty paws into.

If the younger generation opted out, it wouldnt just collapse SS, but it would collpase the entire federal goverenment. The gov would not be able to function without that 12+% weekly collection from every working american, that entire system would collapse.

Which is bullshit, because that money is supposed to be put aside for future use. Its not.

And this is why I say I want out. Its not because I dont think its a good plan. Its because its run by people who simply cannot be trusted. They are destroying it, they are destroying almost everything, with no end in sight.

There is no special account with my money I have already paid into waiting for me, collecting interest (preferably higher than the rate of inflation haha).

DC is out of control, and they are going to look out for each other long before they look out for me.




Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

I'm not sure where you get the facts, but most of what you say is untrue.

By law all money collected for Social Security is deposited in the Social Security Trust Fund. That has been the case since 1939, when the sytem was established. http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

A group of Trustees manages the Trust Fund, which now also includes Medicare premiums collected evenly from employers and employees for a total of 2.9% of gross income. Right now, part of the "tax" cuts are a reduction in the percentage employees pay in premiums, but not employers, which makes no sense to call this a tax cut, since it's nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Interest is collected on the deposited amounts and you can get complete information at http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/funds.html

Social Security is a well functioning program. The major causes of losses have been payments to non-contributors such as minor survivors and others. Even with the baby boomers coming up for retirement, the entire system, including Medicare, can easily continue to be solvent for as long as the government stands by eliminating phony "tax" cuts by politicians, removing the income cap on Social Security contributions, and increasing the retirement age to reflect much longer life expectancies.

More or less don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

To corroborate and compliment your excellent comment :

fiat lux et fiat justitia ...

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago


[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

You're welcome. The 99% MUST wake up to Ryan's plans and intentions re Social Security & Medicare / Medicaid and is it some sort of a cosmic coincidence that PR's own surname encompasses and contains his heroine's self assumed first name {Ayn} !!! Sophistry or portent ?!!

Thus, for you and others - an extremely self-revealing Ryan speech :

Ryan is a devotee of Ayn Rand and we all need to listen to Paul Ryan's views on "Personalising Social Security" ; "Privatising Medicare" ; "Individualised Retirement Accounts" (another potential huge sop to Wall St.) and his avowed intentions to "make every worker a capitalist". Please scroll down to the audio file (just near the star rating) ; click play ... but do have a big barf bucket handy !!!

caveat emptor ...

[-] 5 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

Paul Ryan and others like him are a threat to Social Security, Medicare, and the few remaining safety-programs that remain.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 5 years ago

Unfortunately, Social Security is in fact being run like a Ponzi scheme. Here's why: when social security taxes are collected, they are in theory placed in the "social security trust fund."

That fund is essentially a fiction, an accounting trick. Here's why: The funds are "invested" in treasury bills. The government lends the money to itself, then gives itself a T-bill as an IOU, and the IOU is the "investment." The money itself is immediately put in the general fund and spent on general government spending -- the war, bridges, salaries, pork, whatever.

When it comes time to pay out the social security funds, the T-bills are cashed in, but there's no money anywhere to cash them out -- the money was spent almost immediately, and the U.S. government has no surplus money -- the only "investment' was the government lending money to itself, to be paid back from future revenues (ultimately, taxes from the same population of taxpayers that got taxed the first time around), and the only collateral was the government's IOU in the form of a T-bill. So, since there's nothing there to pay off that T-bill with, they get the money from 1) new tax revenue, or 2) borrowing it from folks like the Chinese government. The split is about 60% new tax revenue, 40% borrowing.

1 is the classic trait of a Ponzi scheme -- paying off old investors with money from new investors, rather than from claimed but non-existent or fraudulent investments.

Another trait of a Ponzi scheme is that it only works as long as you have a fresh crop of suckers that's big enough to pay off the old crop. Social security has that same issue: since they don't actually invest the money (unless you count lending money to yourself as an investment), they need a continual crop of new taxpayers and bond buyers that's big enough to pay off the older ones that are now receiving benefits. The baby boomer bubble is too big and population growth is too slow, so the new crop just isn't big enough to keep the scam going. That's why everybody is so concerned about Social Security going broke, and why some compare it to a Ponzi scheme.

The accounting and "investments" are dishonest at best, fraudulent at worst. If you tried this sort of accounting at a private organization and got caught, you'd probably go to jail.

If you care about Social Security, you should be very concerned about all of this. Some day, there's going to be hell to pay, because the current funding method is completely unsustainable, and everyone involved knows it.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

Let me put the matter as simply and bluntly as possible, while avoiding any rigmarole about your misuse of "Ponzi scheme." If T-Bonds become worthless, no working person will have to worry about a retirement fund, because the entire economy will have collapsed.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 5 years ago

But that's precisely the point. A T-bill is only valuable if you can find a buyer for it. If you keep running the scheme long enough, eventually both taxpayers and potential bond investors become skittish and your T-bills do indeed become worthless, because people don't believe you can pay them back, so they don't buy. And selling them to yourself doesn't count -- in order to come out money ahead, you have to sell them to third party investors like governments, pension funds and the general public. If they don't think you're good for the money, they don't buy and your funding dries up.

That's precisely what happened in Greece: Rather than financing public benefits with a sound taxation and investment scheme, they chose to rely on hypothetical future revenue and massive borrowing via the sale of government securities. Eventually both taxpayers and bond buyers became skittish and the whole thing collapsed. The proximate cause of the Greek economic crisis was that investors would no longer purchase Greek government T-bills at any interest rate and Greek government finances collapsed as a result, since that borrowing was the fiscal foundation of Greek government finance and spending. So now Greece is dependent on handouts from other governments to pay pensioners.

Keep it up long enough and it'll happen here too, except that we probably won't be getting a bailout from the Germans. The Chinese government is already making unhappy noises about the level of borrowing by the U.S. government because they're worried about the safety of the money they've already invested in T-bills. And if one day they just decide to stop buying them altogether, like investors did with Greece, it'll cause a massive economic crisis here, just like it did in Greece, since overnight the government will be facing a 40% revenue shortfall.

You're right though. If that happens, retirement planning will be something of a back burner issue, after things like eating. But it might be nice if someone did something about it before then.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

The US government definitely needs to control its spending habits, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Social Security is a viable system, if the politicians stop using it as a money tree.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 5 years ago

I completely agree. Social Security is a necessary and valuable thing; and the problem isn't Social Security itself -- if there had been a real trust fund in the first place, with real investments, we probably wouldn't be where we are. The problem is as you say -- its the fact that the government has been raiding Social Security to pay for wars, porkbarrel projects and other things unrelated to Social Security; and to hide the true scope of the deficit in non-Social Security funding. The current problem is that they have already done the raiding, and so now the money's not there; so there's a big, big problem.

So they definitely have to stop raiding Social Security, but they now also have to fill the gigantic funding hole they've already created by their prior theft. That will be painful, no matter how you do it.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33486) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

SS must be the distraction subject of the day.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

In other circumstances it may be, but considering Ryan's and some other politicians' fixation with privitizing Social Security or basically dismantling it piece at a time, the topic may be quite relevant.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33486) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

True - I just thought that it drew more attention than it deserved. But maybe that's just me. I just figured that everyone was already up to speed on the fact that Mittens and Smarmy were toxic and should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. I also figured that people here would be up to speed that WallStreet should never get to handle those funds.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

Maybe we're expecting too much.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33486) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Too much from the public? At this point in time I would say we are in trouble - deep trouble - with the ignorance of the public. It's why I keep trying to get people to share information out onto the internet social media and also to have educational leaflets to hand out at gatherings.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

Agreed: educate, agitate, protest.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33486) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Keep-on Keeping-on. {:-])


[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago


[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

is this helpful? "Few budgetary concepts generate as much unintended confusion and deliberate misinformation as the Social Security trust funds. Political candidates of both parties have accused their opponents of “raiding” the trust funds.[1] Some writers disparage the trust funds as “funny money” or “IOUs.”[2] All these claims are nonsense. In fact, the Social Security trust funds are invested in Treasury securities that are every bit as sound as the U.S. government securities held by investors around the globe; investors regard those securities as being among the world’s very safest investments.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

"By law".....You think the gov gives a shit about laws? About your pathetic retirement account? They bomb whoever the hell they want. They print however they want. They give themselves incredible healthcare and give the people shit. They give themselves raises whiel UE continues to go up.

Like I said, take away the cash flow to the gov right now from the SS program and it collapses. They are using as revenue, not as a seperate retirement account, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fuckin fool!!!!!!

"By law"....Gimme a fuckin break. Illegal wars all over the place. WAR. KILLING. ..... "by law".....wake the fuck up dude.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

Apparently you gave up reason with your language skills.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 5 years ago

This is an unusual case where "political realities" are on our side. They may be moving toward the point you claim but i don't believe we are at the point that they want the masses stirred up as this would do.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

Few budgetary concepts generate as much unintended confusion and deliberate misinformation as the Social Security trust funds. Political candidates of both parties have accused their opponents of “raiding” the trust funds.[1] Some writers disparage the trust funds as “funny money” or “IOUs.”[2] All these claims are nonsense. In fact, the Social Security trust funds are invested in Treasury securities that are every bit as sound as the U.S. government securities held by investors around the globe; investors regard those securities as being among the world’s very safest investments.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

Treasury securities....what difference does that make??? That means the money is being used elsewhere. A treasury security is a piece of paper. You could loan me money and then i could spend it all and give you a piece of cardboard and call it a john's treasury security. That doesn't mean the money is solvent....or that they can afford to pay back people because they're held in treasury securities. It still means massive printing of money, or debt from foreign lenders to fulfill the obligation.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

"piece of cardboard and call it a john's treasury security" - maybe you are capable of learning since this is also correct (i think that is number 3). money can be almost anything people agree on (and has been for centuries). go to the store with some green paper and you can buy whatever you like. you can even use plastic so no paper changes hands. graeber expains it well and the poor populist farmers understood it - looks like you are finally getting the idea! unlike gold which you cannot eat or use for anything other than decoration - beaver pelts can be useful.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

Once again you're not getting the point of what i'm saying. Your article is trying to claim that this money isn't being used somewhere else....it absolutely is. How does the federal reserve fund the government? It buys treasury securities so the gov can use the money. To try to claim that all this SS money isn't being used and is invested in "treasury securities" is nonsense. The money has been used....and you have a "cardboard IOU" from the US government to pay you back a future date. That future date being one in which they can't fulfill their obligations for most of us and have to resort to the printing presses to devalue what little money you will get back from them. Using tricky words to say that your money is invested in "treasury securities" makes it sound like its solvent and hasn't been used...that's BS and misleading.

Who cares if you cant eat or utilize gold....its use is for a medium of exchange that can't be manipulated and doesn't deteriorate..which allows you to exchange the goods you can eat or use. Is there another currency that has these qualities? If i had 10$ of gold in 1913 and 10$ in paper notes in 1913.....guess how much the 10$ in paper would be worth today? 40 cents....i think you know what the gold would be worth. Why should someone be able to devalue my retirement/childrens education because i'm forced to save my money in a depreciating currency?

For something to be money what is the most important aspect of it? That it can't be recreated. What's the only currency that can fulfill this obligation, even when dealing with governments.....gold.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

well if you bought gold in 1982 you would not be eating very well. it is a hedge aginst inflation (as i am doing for the last 10 yrs) but again that has nothing to do with the discussion. it was very simple - try to stay with it - social security funds are invested in treasuries and treasuries are considered very safe by investors - which part do you disagree with

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

Which part do i disagree with....your post:

"Political candidates of both parties have accused their opponents of “raiding” the trust funds.[1] Some writers disparage the trust funds as “funny money” or “IOUs.”

That's exactly what they're doing. What does government do with the money invested in treasuries? It spends it!! Your article is misleading. Another big note "treasuries are safe".....over what time period? When the US governments 70 trillion dollar unfunded liability scam comes tumbling down? Are they safe then? When they start printing 80% of the budget to satisfy it? 100%? Is it safe then?

Are treasuries going to be safe when all countries get out of the dollar and it's no longer the reserve currency of the world?


To say that you can guarantee the safety of treasury securities 30 years out with the cascade of debt coming down on this country during that time period is crazy. The only way to pay for this is through depreciating dollars which screws the people out of their retirement.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

i didn't think you would be able to handle it but i thought i would try - here is the comment in question - "investors regard those securities as being among the safest"...now answer this - very simple yes or no - do investors consider them safe - what is the interest rate on the 30 and who is buying them - who holds them?? the rich you moron! china you simpleton, central banks - should i go on! i know our govt but who else - that's right - investors have bid the rate down to nothing - why becasue they consider them safe. listen to bloomberg and try to understand what they mean when the talk about a flight to quality. it was a yes or no question - now you can argue that they are not safe - i don't want to hold a 30 treasury - i am holding gold but that is not the question.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

I'll answer your question if you answer mine.

Yes, investors TODAY....view them as safe. There is no way that the government won't fulfill its debt obligations....but then it comes to the question of HOW. Most likely printing money to make up the shortfall devaluing the currency and putting greater strain on the dollar forcing people out of it. We're not talking about how safe treasuries are today for SS...we're talking a decade or two down the road. Those are two entirely different questions. Can you guarantee treasury securities in 20 years? 61 trillion in unfunded liabilities.


Now answer my question. Doesn't the government use the money put into treasuries? There is no pool of money sitting around for SS....there is a budget line for it...but the money isn't "saved". Correct?

Your article is misleading....an IOU is exactly what it is...and the money has been spent.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

thank you , thank you , thank you - a straight answer - all is good in the world! yes treasuries are an iou - when my brother, who is very wealthy, buys treasuries (i cannot convince him to put some money into gold) the government takes his money and spends it on aircraft carriers (stupid idea don't you think - they will certainly not stop a terrorist) and gives it to corporations to move overseas etc. then they take your tax dollars and give them back to my brother as interest payments. after two yrs when the note comes due they sell another one to some stooge and give that money to my brother. sounds like a ponzi scheme to me which was the original point of the whole discussion. similar to stocks - they take money from a new buyer to pay the old buyer - musical chairs - look out when the music stops! here is a bit from dean baker if you are interested i can get you the whole thing - and please don't say any ron pualish stuff that you know i will think is nonsense (even if you don't!) - this was the best back and forth we have had so let's leave on a good note! - "The way in which Social Security is ostensibly similar to a Ponzi scheme is that it depends on new workers in the future to meet obligations that it incurs today. This also happens to be true of any debt issued by either the government or the private sector.

If the size of the working population in the United States collapsed tomorrow, then it would not have the tax revenue to pay off government bonds. Similarly, if the public stopped buying General Electric's products, it would also be unable to pay off its bondholders. Yet no one in their right mind would describe the bonds issued by the federal government or General Electric as Ponzi schemes. The comparison is quite deliberately intended as a slander against the integrity of the program. It has no meaningful basis in reality.

At the most basic level, Social Security has 100 percent transparency in its finances. Anyone who cares can find the past, current, and projected future income and cost of the program in great detail in the annual trustees reports. The basis of every Ponzi scheme is deception: the claim of enormous returns. There is zero deception in Social Security.

And, these projections show that the program can pay all benefits for the next 35 years with no changes whatsoever. They also show it can pay more than 75 percent of benefits indefinitely. A tax increase that is less than 5 percent of projected wage growth over the next three decades would make allow it to pay all benefits into the indefinite future.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago


"and please don't say any ron pualish stuff that you know i will think is nonsense"

made me laugh. I always use my knowledge though...not his.

Is it fraudulent? Debateable. I would say it started out with good intentions and ended up being another pool of money for congress without much thought to its solvency in the future or the best interests of the people. It would have been very easy to design a system of forced savings for the people where their money wasn't spent and was actually invested in ways that would earn them more money. If it was really for the benefit of the people (which it very well was probably intended) it turned out to be a benefit for goverment.

Could we fix it and turn things around? Absolutely. Would i opt out to invest my money somewhere else if i could for my retirement? Absolutely and i think that hsould be an option for people.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

"investors regard those securities as being among the safest"...ofcourse the do. The USA can print money. They are currently losing money, compared to the inflation rate. And thats even on a 1 yr bill. If you consider that a sound move, please, line up to be farmed.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

the statement is correct as the rate of interest shows - where do you hold your money - bank of america - lehman brothers - counter party risk is a big risk and as you say the government can print money so it cannot go broke. these are very unsual times! i assume you know the point he is making - you do right?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Check out these pathetic rates of return because the markets realize its all total bullshit...


If T bonds were so great, other nations wouldnt be dumping them at any cost right now. Investing in debt by the worlds largest debtor is possibly the worst thing someone could do.

It's why we are also now the world leader in buying our own debt. No one wants it. And Im not even sure how someone buys their own debt. Thats how fucked up this entire thing has become.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

you never answerd my question - where would you put your money? as to rates, i think you have it backwards - if treasuries were not safe countries would be dumping them - rates are so low because they are considered safe - look at spanish rates. would you rahter hold treasuries or spanish or greek bonds? the fact that you cannot understand how a country buys it's own debt is telling - look at japan over the last 20 yrs and then look at their currency.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

I do have to say though, that the markets are so rigged right now that its hard to look at any big financial numbers and think its an accurate explanation of things in terms of healthiness.

All being manipulated to hold up this junk system as long as humanely possible, in my opinion.

I gotta bounce off, but I would love to talk about this more. I think we need more talk like this, instead of the he said, she said nonsense.

I would put my money in hard assets. They are going to keep up with inflation, and serve a purpose. I dont think there is a safe place to capital right now in terms of pieces of paper. Its getting ripped off all over the place the last 5 years.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

I understand how they buy their own, the processes and what not, but Im saying that when it comes to buying ones own debt, it just doesnt make sense. Its not a sound policy.

Here are the rates from 1996, before eveyone started dumping them. When they were actually valued.


[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

i can only repeat what i said. first can you answer my question? where whould one put their money?? i am very aware of interest rates and the history. i am pow for a disabled uncle and i am having trouble getting incoem to pay his bills! the more valuable a bond the lower the rate will be - that is as the price of a bond goes up it's rate goes down. i would be very happy if you answer my first question. - gotta go to work (teaching tennis in the hot sun!)- more later?

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

"this is what you wrote - The "right" that i was using was intended to be "riiighhhhhhht".......the implication is that you framed the question incorrectly - once again you are on the wrong side of the facts - i need to drink to try to get to your level - not enough in the house at the moment"

Lol, dude....you're seriously goint to argue about this? I'd rather be going back and forth on the economy.

If i wanted you to answer me it would have been in the form of a question...which requires a "?" symbol. Did i use a "?" symbol? No....therefore what was the purpose of what i said? It was a statement "right"...requiring nothing on your end. I'll spell it out for you next time.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

little boy

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

"how about this - you have too much time on your hands"

You mean to actually sit down and sift through the data to know what the hell i'm talking about instead of just spewing random stuff? I'm guilty as charged.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

no that is not what i meant

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

old man


[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

correct - that is the 2nd time you have said something that is accurate

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

still waiting for something that you've said that is accurate.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

how about this - you have too much time on your hands

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

If we had sound money it wouldn't really matter where you put your money...you could keep it at home in a safe. Increased productivity would help your money increase in value and you wouldn't have to gamble in the market if you didn't want to. If we didn't have increased productivity then your money would hold its value.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

you are on a different subject - one that we have discussed too much. one that you cannot seem to understand so i would rather not play with you anymore. the statement was -" "investors regard those securities (treasuries) as being among the safest" - the statement is accurate. then the question was - given the world we live in - where do you put your money? i know you put it in gold and i agree to some extent.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

"i just answered your question"

The "right" that i was using was intended to be "riiighhhhhhht".......not in the form of a question like you assumed...so you didn't answer any question.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

so once again you admit to being wrong - you did not set up the sentence properly - maybe it was freudian on your part but seems to me that you know you are lost and this was just a symptom. maybe you should drink more- are you of age?

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

Did you see a question mark in my response implying a question? I formed the sentence perfectly well...once again you're wrong....maybe you should hold off on the drinking and pay attention to what you're looking at before you go off on a tangent. Maybe it was just a dumbass mistake on your part when you were caught up in being a douche.....and didn't have anything to do with your true intellect...i won't hold it against you.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

this is what you wrote - The "right" that i was using was intended to be "riiighhhhhhht".......the implication is that you framed the question incorrectly - once again you are on the wrong side of the facts - i need to drink to try to get to your level - not enough in the house at the moment

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

One that i seem to not understand....right.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago


[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 5 years ago

assertions without any specifics to back it up....i'm getting used to that coming from you flip.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

i just answered your question

[-] 3 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 5 years ago

Ayn Rand and her husband both collected Social Security and were benificiaries of the Medicare government health insurance program.She made a big noise in her day,but in the end she did not live by her own philosophical ideals.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

Good point but please do not equate 'an elaborate psychopathy' with "philosophical ideals" !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 5 years ago

Shadz,as always you are on the job with pinpoint accuracy.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Difference between collectin what you were stolen from, versus just collecting.

[-] 3 points by elf3 (3892) 5 years ago

Borrowing from the people's Social Security pool should be illegal. It's not SSI that is faulty it's crook politicians stealing from it that are depleting it. SSI is only a Ponzi scheme because dirty crooks we charged with it have dipped their hands into it - as an example - they didn't eliminate financial advisers / investors when Madoff pulled a ponzi scheme on the people investing with him - they jailed Madoff. It would be like saying, well now, this is why we have to end all financial advising to begin with.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

That's why I want out. I simply dont have any faith in this government anymore. Just look at this election. What an embarrassment.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

I agree completely. It shocks me that we are required, by law, to pay into something which as it currently stands is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. It is truly mind blowing. A lot of the criticism of SS would go right down the drain if only it was not operated so ponzi-like.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33486) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

You should send this out as an open letter of protest of the mismanagement of government. ( what is this like your 2nd post? )

BTW - SS can and should be fixed.

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

2nd Top Post? All together, or on this topic?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

the FED makes low percent loans to certain banks

that in turn loans that to everyone else

that's how we get money into the system

[-] 2 points by Krypton (73) 5 years ago

Social Security will fail when enough people are out of work, and the tax rate on the rich is low enough (and tax loopholes big enough), that no money goes toward the fund.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

SS will fail at the same time everything else does- when the interest rates start to go up because the markets say to hell with an economy that relies on money printing stimulus.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

I'm not saying that just Social Security is a ponzi scheme. I'm saying the ENTIRE monetary system is ponzi scheme.

Apparently the treasury agrees....


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

There are government bonds that back the trust fund, FACT,

The wealthy have been taking from the worker's retirement account to pay for current expenditures, this allowed them to report lower deficient so that people would not be as upset about the debt caused by the Reagan tax cuts, now that there is not extra money to steal the deficient looks much worse when in reality it has been very bad for decades, except for a short time in 2000-2001 when it was really balanced before the GOP pushed through the Bush tax cuts and got the country back on track to turn everything over to the bankers as the GOP has planned all along.

Bottom line the answer is to let the wealthy pay the debt that their politicians ran up (after all no body gets to Washington without money from the 1%) with their huge fat trust funds, instead of stealing my retirement.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

I think people should be allowed to opt out of contributing to it under the stipulation that the same 12% must be set aside in some other kind of approved retirement account. Like an IRA or something similar where people have some different investment options. Otherwise people will piss through all their money and have nothing left when they are retired. I have no doubt though that people will make much better decisions in how to invest that money than the government for the simple reason that people care about their own money a lot more than the government cares about peoples' money.

[-] 3 points by jbgramps (159) 5 years ago

Well, I’m an old guy on Social Security. Glad I have it. My small retirement is not enough.

I do not know the solution. But the problem is, left to themselves, the majority of people wouldn’t have any retirement. Most people don’t plan that far ahead. So from my prospective, Social Security has kept millions of people out of poverty. If it wasn’t for Social Security a lot of people would have no income when they can’t work anymore. I’m one of the folks who planned ahead, only to have my 401K almost wiped out.

So be careful when giving people options. Too often they make the wrong decision and could end up old and destitute.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

If you re-read my post you will see that I said people must contribute the same 12% that is currently contributed to SS into an account that they cannot touch until retirement. That way they cannot piss it away. I have no doubt SS works well for you as it does for my grandparents. You paid into it your whole life and now it is paying you.

I am 32 though and I have serious doubts that SS will work as well in 35 years when I am in your shoes. The government is using that 12% I give them to do God knows what. Not to sound like a rabid Republican, but it is essentially a ponzi scheme and we all now that those can work great for awhile, but eventually collapse. I don't want to be the one who gets screwed.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

I think you're off base. There is a lot of misinformation going around, but take it from a senior, and seasoned investor. Don't be stupid. Placing your money with Social Security is the best move a young guy can ever make right now. If you put into Social Security even in thirty years you have a good chance of getting something back which will with good likelihood assure you from destitution in your old age. If you don't put into it, you'll surely have nothing. Don't tell me your so desperate that you have to have that 12% of your petty pay check right now.

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I don't want that 12% now. I just want to invest as my own money. Something like an IRA where I have to set aside that amount for retirement. In Flemming v. Nestor, the SCOTUS ruled that SS payments are not the property of the beneficiary and that Congress can change the amount of the payments, up or down, at any time. I don't trust Congress. I made over the maximum for SS contributions last year so I paid a ton of money into it without a guarantee that I will ever see that money again.

SS works great for you, as it does for my grandparents. I am only 32 though and I would rather just keep my own retirement money and manage it myself. I just want that option because I am 100% positive that I care more about my own retirement than Congress does.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

I know plenty of people who do investing as a living, and they all agree that investing in an institution that is insolvent is a horrendous idea. Same for the "safety" of treasury bonds.

SS isnt even keeping up with inflation, most years now they dont even give it a cola increase.

The only thing that is keeping the economy going right now is rabid money printing. Thats it. And once the markets decide thats enough of that, the entire thing goes to shit.

They raise the retirement age in the next two years guaranteed.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33486) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

WallStreet can not be an option - 401K's took a beating during the plunge towards the bottom.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

What do you mean by Wall Street? Large investment banks or all stocks and bonds? These should be the decisions that individuals are allowed to make on their own. My portfolio has already recovered everything lost in 2008 and then some and for the most part I basically use things as simple as stock, bond, and real estate index funds. Assuming that you did not sell at the bottom, most 401Ks have recovered much of what was lost.

The options should include all types of investments and the individual should be allowed to chose based on their risk tolerance. There should also be options for those who do not want to (or cannot) manage their own money. But again, this should be a choice that an individual makes - it is their money after all.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (33486) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

People can mess around with investments - but not with retirement money - retirement money needs to be guaranteed and insured.

  • Let people invest with their SPARE money.
[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

What spare money?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33486) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Exactly the point - there is none to risk gambling.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

I don't know of any way to have a guaranteed, insured investment. That is basically an arbitrage scenario which may be accomplished with options contracts but it requires a very skilled investor with a lot of money, and is typically a zero-sum game.

A guaranteed risk-free investment essentially does not exist, and even if you found something that was close to it, the return would be so low it would fail to keep up with inflation. You need to assume some level of risk in order to get any kind of return. I am sure a very conservative stock/bond/real estate portfolio has a better risk/return profile than our current SS system.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33486) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Sorry SS is guaranteed. The system aint broke it has just been robbed and that can be corrected.

No absolute guarantee on retirement accounts = Not gonna happen to SS.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

How is SS guaranteed? Seriously, how can any type of investment be guaranteed?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33486) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Sorry - no sale. We ( you ) have sailed these waters before and gotten the same results - people telling you that privatizing SS is a Bad Idea.

Next issue. NEXT!!!

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

Anything? Again, I am not trying to be a dick but I have always understood SS to be something that works well right now, but the payouts can be changed at any time by Congress to fit what is being taken in, as laid out in that SCOTUS decision. I just want to know on what you base your assumption that the payments are guaranteed. I am more than willing to admit that I am wrong, I would just like to be shown why.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33486) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

SS is backed up by the federal government and so the whole of the USA - it will only fail if we let it.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

But the law clearly says that the payment we are due are not our property, but rather something that Congress can change at any time. This has been upheld by the SCOTUS. So SS payments are really only guaranteed as much as one trusts Congress. Do you really have that much trust in our elected representatives? I am going to go out a limb and say no, because if you did, you, like me and everyone else here, would not be on this message board right now.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33486) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

SS is just one more reason that government needs to be brought under proper control.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

I'll agree with you on that. But under our current system, neither you or myself are guaranteed anything in regards to SS except that we have to make our payment into it this week. I only hope I get back what I put in when I retire. I am certainly not banking on it though and will have enough set aside in my own retirement accounts so that if I do get SS payments, it will simply be icing on the cake.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33486) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

That would be the way to go - prepare for the worst that could happen while continuing to work to bring about the best that could happen.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

No really, I guess I just don't get it. How is SS guaranteed? You are quick to dismiss me but you don't really explain how you reach your conclusions.

In Flemming v. Nestor, the SCOTUS ruled:

"It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original [Social Security] Act, and has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it '[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision' of the Act. 1104, 49 Stat. 648, 42 U.S.C. 1304. That provision makes express what is implicit in the institutional needs of the program."

This hardly sounds like a guarantee to me. Basically the court ruled that Congress can change SS benefits as needed to fit the program and that individuals do not have a contractual right to receive SS payments.

This is why I ask why you say that SS is guaranteed because according to SCOTUS it is not guaranteed and as we all know, SCOTUS rules the land.

[-] 1 points by EFFOFFnwo (8) 5 years ago


[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

yep i know im not getting a dime back so im saving my own dam money in trust and other sources for my retirement. Even if i did do social security i will be better of with my own money saved than what i would get with social security.

I would have no problem with paying into it then just opting out i wont need social security but i know there will be poor and others who wont be like me



[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Ryan or Obama, our SS is already losing value, its going to get worse for the sake of a global takeover.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

SS is fine only republicans want us to believe it has financial trouble so they can have an excuse to destroy it likethey have wanted since the dems created it.

Don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise.