If social security is not a form of socialism, then what is it, a form of capitalism?

Originally posted by Jazzyguy

Someone definitely need to put a stop to the ponzi scheme for good.

well, since they can't make payments come august, sounds like the first steps have been taken

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by Jazzyguy

Someone definitely need to put a stop to the ponzi scheme for good.

well, since they can't make payments come august, sounds like the first steps have been taken

It is not a ponzi scheme. Debt deal or not social security will continue to be paid. Obama is just stooping real low with his fear mongering. While the government spends the surpluses in social security, it also issues bonds to the trust to cover that spending. Thus the social security trust fund is actually a huge government bond fund. Government bonds are assets no matter how little faith you may have in them.

Edit: Sorry to see you are not a moderator but a site adminstrator. makes it even worse in my eyes.

Crakeur, as a moderator you are suppose to get with the website theme and deny ignorance. Post after post from you is spouting some political rhetoric which has no basis in truth. I think it reflects badly on ATS.

reply to post by Crakeur


Which would not been happening if the Federal Government had just left it alone. Intstead, the Fed. estimates how much in benefits it is going to need to payout for the year, then takes the rest and leaves an IOU as an investment. After all we all know the federal government will pay it back with intrest.....

Imagine how much money would be in the SS fund had the federal government not been stealing....err i mean "borrowing" all the extra funds from it since its inception.

Originally posted by Dreamwatcher
reply to post by Crakeur

 

Which would not been happening if the Federal Government had just left it alone. Intstead, the Fed. estimates how much in benefits it is going to need to payout for the year, then takes the rest and leaves an IOU as an investment. After all we all know the federal government will pay it back with intrest....

.

Imagine how much money would be in the SS fund had the federal government not been stealing....err i mean "borrowing" all the extra funds from it since its inception.

Sitting there doing what? It would have to be invested safely one place or another which means government backing no matter how you get down to it. Should we just hand it over to a hedge fund? How much new cash would have to be printed to make up for that big wad just sitting there?

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


they can take cash and give iou's all they want. the United States is insolvent and cannot pay those debts so they have screwed the Social Security pooch but, still, it's nothing more than a ponzi scheme.

the first people put money in and when they want to take it out, they operator gets new money, from new contributors, to cover the withdrawals.

so, let's see, my dad is collecting social security and I am paying in so that he can be paid.

if the money was invested, and each individual had an accounting of their money, it would be a different story but the gov't promised everyone they'd get paid and now they cannot do it. there's more money going in than coming out.

when that happened to Bernie Madoff, he turned himself in. Is Uncle Sam going to fess up to the same?

I doubt it.


Lastly, I am a member of abovetopsecret.com first and foremost and my opinions are as welcome here as everyone else's.

madoff vs. social security:
www.truthinaccounting.org...

an interesting article:
www.nationalreview.com...
excellent quote:

the cash has been replaced by IOUs from the federal government, but, in order for the federal government to pay back Social Security, it will have to borrow the money from the public, increasing the deficit and the national debt, or tax Americans once again.

and more
econlog.econlib.org...

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
I just don't get it. Before this whole debt ceiling fiasco people (except for the liberals) want to eliminate social security because it's such a budget buster, including the libertarian Mr. Ron Paul, who wants to phase it out. But now people actually have the chance to eliminate social security for good, they chicken out, now they want to keep it. What's the matter here?

It is a socialist program.

We are a socialist nation.

People who disagree simply do not understand what socialism means.

The only capitalist elements left in our nation are of the corporate nature.

But, as to why it is bad? It's not. There are a lot of programs that are included in the "entitlement" package that are bad but those (ironically) are the capitalist-based ones like subsidies to pay farmers to not grow food so they can keep the commodities market manipulated or subsidies for oil and tobacco. Those are the bad ones. SS and Medicare are only bad in the sense they are federal and not state-ran.

Personally, I'd prefer we keep them unless we could prove that our states had free reign.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


Compared to what is in there now?

We tried the system you support, letting the government "borrow" the extra money. How much is in the SS system now compared to leaving it alone?

Full faith in the government?. Is that why there is all the talk about just shutting down SS instead of PAYING BACK THE "BORROWED" MONEY WITH INTEREST LIKE THE GOVERNMENT PROMISED?

So yeah, the people would have been better off not earning interest at all instead of having the money DISAPPEAR all together.

Originally posted by Crakeur
it's the biggest, longest running ponzi scheme ever.

Wrong.

Ponzi schemes fail due to their lack of new contributors. They're destined to fail the second they're instituted.
Social Security actually works, provided the funds are only used for what they're intended.

Originally posted by spinalremain

Originally posted by Crakeur
it's the biggest, longest running ponzi scheme ever.

Wrong.

Ponzi schemes fail due to their lack of new contributors. They're destined to fail the second they're instituted.
Social Security actually works, provided the funds are only used for what they're intended.

Sorry sir, but you are wrong. There are now many fewer contributors than there are collectors. This is the point where ALL ponzi schemes fail.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by spinalremain

Originally posted by Crakeur
it's the biggest, longest running ponzi scheme ever.

Wrong.

Ponzi schemes fail due to their lack of new contributors. They're destined to fail the second they're instituted.
Social Security actually works, provided the funds are only used for what they're intended.

Sorry sir, but you are wrong. There are now many fewer contributors than there are collectors. This is the point where ALL ponzi schemes fail.

Ponzi scheme monies aren't invested. They go in, they go out. Social Security creates surplus when it is used for what it's intended for.

reply to post by spinalremain


social security was meant to act in the following manner:

employee pays money in during each year of work (including any employer contribution). Money grows as employee continues to work. Employee reaches age of retirement and collects.

that is fine and is not in any way a ponzi.

here's how the system actually works.

employee puts money in as above. gov't borrows the money, promising to pay it back. social security pool dwindles as more retirees are taking out than new employees are putting in. gov't can't pay back debt. retirees screwed.

had the gov't not used the money, there should, in theory, be enough there for the folks taking it out. sadly, the gov't used the money and now there are less monies going in than going out. this means that, over time, even if the money was there, they'd be draining the account faster than they would be replenishing it.

when new contributions are used to pay old contributors, you've got a ponzi or pyramid. that's really all there is to it. yes, it's slightly different in that we are forced to contribute and the gov't never intended on being incapable of meeting the obligations of their debt but Madoff never thought he'd have to put back the money he clipped either.

personally, I think Obama's announcement of not making payments in august is tied to the insolvency of social security and not a threat related to the debt ceiling.

Originally posted by notquiteright
Socialism involves taking money that one taxpayer pays in and giving it to another who is in need. Social Security is set up so that a person pays into it and then has the opportunity to get it back when they reach a certain age. It has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism.

Your "contributions" to SS first are paid to someone else's benefits. Your benefit will come from someone behind you. And so on. In short, it is Socialist because money is stolen from you and given to another for their benefit.

/TOA

reply to post by Crakeur


I understand how it works and what you're saying. I think using the term ponzi scheme, especially after the Madoff incident, is just a gross overstatement and used for political reasons. It may resemble a ponzi scheme in that man A pays in, and eventually man B withdraws, but the similarities end there. I also understand that the system is in need of reform or it will eventually collapse. The monies were spent. They weren't spent on what they were intended for though. How many economic programs would be sustained if the funds are constantly diverted for other things?

I think it's a sad situation. There are people who have paid into it for 30+ years of their career. To not receive anything in return past 2017 would be theft in my eyes. In that regard it would resemble a ponzi scheme again I suppose, but its failure isn't due to its format as much as it is its abuse by the fed using it as a slush fund.

i find it interesting that when the idea of SS was first put into action, they set the mandatory age of collection at an age that most folks were never expected to reach. and if you didn't live that long guess what? they just keep the money

You seem to be asking if social security is socialism, why aren't they getting rid of it. Ron Paul and other libertarians do want to get rid of it, but the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats, they don't really want to eliminate anything. I think that answers your question about why they don't get rid of it. Because most of this debt ceiling talk is drama. They want people to be emotionally attached so they target social security since everyone has a stake in it. It's manipulation of the public. Your other question as to it being socialism or capitalism, it is most certainly socialism, it is socialism in nature because it is forced on people, they do not get to make their own choice, that is the main reason why it is considered socialism. If it was just an open market investment where you picked what you wanted to invest in, it would be capitalism. Hope this answers your questions.

If the government wasn't full of bastards , they would have set up SS in such a way to benefit the people whom invested in it , rather then some budget number when doing creative math at budget time .

Either way , we can't let the old get screwed on our watch folks , regardless of the BS

Originally posted by notquiteright
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

I would rather see this money being held for the particular person paying it in and accumulating interest.

Does the US not have superannuation funds that serve this purpose? In Australia we pay a percentage of our salary into an investment fund that we can collect when we retire, we also have an aged pension (akin to your SS I imagine) that is provided to retirees in sub par financial situations.

There is nothing inherently wrong with socialism* anyway. Distribution of wealth is a good thing.




*When implemented in a social democracy.