27 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I give it about 2 months into the next D presidency when the entirety of right wing media suddenly notices the government has a stake in all these companies and starts panicking about how we're a full-blown Communist country.

i can see the headlines now ... Dems Usher In The Communist Era.

13 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Well, he's actually 100% right about that. Social security is the largest ponzi scheme in the history of the world. The government is literally robbing people of what otherwise could be dignified secure retirements.

Well, sure it is, but I've been putting into SS for approximately 35 years, soooo.......

13 hours ago, toolg said:

Proving that Maga worships a false God.

Those who will not live by the Law shall die by the law.

14 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Well, he's actually 100% right about that. Social security is the largest ponzi scheme in the history of the world. The government is literally robbing people of what otherwise could be dignified secure retirements.

Tell that to the seniors in the 1930s that lost all of their investments to the Great Depression.

whether it's the great depression or the government stealing our money, it's the same end result. we get F'd.

24 minutes ago, toolg said:

Tell that to the seniors in the 1930s that lost all of their investments to the Great Depression.

1. They're all dead by now

2. Yeah - that's the point. We started making payments right away funded by workers. Hence, redeeming participants are funded by new investors - which is definitionally a Ponzi scheme. You're just proving that it was designed that way.

49 minutes ago, toolg said:

Tell that to the seniors in the 1930s that lost all of their investments to the Great Depression.

And what do we tell all the seniors that are still working today instead of being able to retire, because rather than being able to put an extra 6-12% of their income into their retirement for the past 40 years, they've been instead paying into a ponzi scheme that gives them a paltry "return" compared to what they otherwise could have been receiving?

28 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

1. They're all dead by now

2. Yeah - that's the point. We started making payments right away funded by workers. Hence, redeeming participants are funded by new investors - which is definitionally a Ponzi scheme. You're just proving that it was designed that way.

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

And what do we tell all the seniors that are still working today instead of being able to retire, because rather than being able to put an extra 6-12% of their income into their retirement for the past 40 years, they've been instead paying into a ponzi scheme that gives them a paltry "return" compared to what they otherwise could have been receiving?

Social Security isn't an investment. The money paid in is given to the seniors collecting it now. It is a tax. The benefit is seniors have a safety net not tied into markets. That's the whole plan.

The most unbelievable part of Trump's spending spree is that Republicans will sit there with a straight face in a couple years and act like they sincerely give a sheet about the debt.

57 minutes ago, toolg said:

Tell that to the seniors in the 1930s that lost all of their investments to the Great Depression.

Look, the way the government operates social security is literally the same exact way that Bernie Madoff operated his ponzi scheme. Madoff would take money from new investors and put it in a pot. He'd then use that money to fund his lifestyle. And he had a continual trove of new investors coming in. And that money would just continue to go into the pot to fund his lifestyle. Then, when investors would request a withdrawal, he would take that money from the pot (which had been growing thanks to the continual influx of new investors) and pay it out to the investors requesting their withdrawals. And as long as the influx of new money was larger than the amount of payouts he had to make, he could keep the scheme going while also funding his own lifestyle from that very same pot of money he's using to make payouts. The scheme went belly up during the financial crisis as the amount of money being requested to be paid out became larger than the amount of money being put in by new investors. And so all of the late entrants into the scheme were left holding the bag as they had paid money in, and that money was then used to pay out previous investors.

The government is LITERALLY doing the same exact thing with social security. Current workers are paying social security tax. That money then goes into a general revenue pot. The government uses that money to fund the general budget as well as to payout current retirees. As the ratio of current workers to current retirees shrinks, the pot will eventually be drained and we'll get to the point where the ponzi scheme crashes and you'll have over a hundred million people who have paid into social security their entire lives and will receive $0 from it in retirement.

21 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

And what do we tell all the seniors that are still working today instead of being able to retire, because rather than being able to put an extra 6-12% of their income into their retirement for the past 40 years, they've been instead paying into a ponzi scheme that gives them a paltry "return" compared to what they otherwise could have been receiving?

Suckers who were forced into a Ponzi scheme by threat of imprisonment.

We're all the guys who end up losing when Madoff is exposed.

10 minutes ago, toolg said:

Social Security isn't an investment. The money paid in is given to the seniors collecting it now. It is a tax. The benefit is seniors have a safety net not tied into markets. That's the whole plan.

Right, it's a ponzi scheme. What you are describing is a ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes function only as long as the ratio of payers to payees is at an appropriate number.

Just now, Phillyterp85 said:

Right, it's a ponzi scheme. What you are describing is a ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes function only as long as the ratio of payers to payees is at an appropriate number.

And when it started, even by 1945, there were over 40 workers paying in for each retiree. And the average life span was low.

Now, it's below 3 per retiree, and people are living much longer (66 to 79).

This is why the scheme is about to fail - not enough contributors and too many withdrawals.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Look, the way the government operates social security is literally the same exact way that Bernie Madoff operated his ponzi scheme. Madoff would take money from new investors and put it in a pot. He'd then use that money to fund his lifestyle. And he had a continual trove of new investors coming in. And that money would just continue to go into the pot to fund his lifestyle. Then, when investors would request a withdrawal, he would take that money from the pot (which had been growing thanks to the continual influx of new investors) and pay it out to the investors requesting their withdrawals. And as long as the influx of new money was larger than the amount of payouts he had to make, he could keep the scheme going while also funding his own lifestyle from that very same pot of money he's using to make payouts. The scheme went belly up during the financial crisis as the amount of money being requested to be paid out became larger than the amount of money being put in by new investors. And so all of the late entrants into the scheme were left holding the bag as they had paid money in, and that money was then used to pay out previous investors.

The government is LITERALLY doing the same exact thing with social security. Current workers are paying social security tax. That money then goes into a general revenue pot. The government uses that money to fund the general budget as well as to payout current retirees. As the ratio of current workers to current retirees shrinks, the pot will eventually be drained and we'll get to the point where the ponzi scheme crashes and you'll have over a hundred million people who have paid into social security their entire lives and will receive $0 from it in retirement.

It is literally the same except Madoff is not running Social Security. So it is not the same.

2 minutes ago, toolg said:

It is literally the same except Madoff is not running Social Security. So it is not the same.

He'd probably have done a better job.

It's the exact definition of a Ponzi scheme, with the added benefit of forced participation.

2 minutes ago, toolg said:

It is literally the same except Madoff is not running Social Security. So it is not the same.

Actually, yes the government is using the money just as Madoff used it. To fund its lifestyle. It's not like the government is taking the money that comes in through social security taxes and then putting it in some secure place so that it can only be used for social security payouts. The government takes that money and puts it into the general revenue pot to pay for the general budget.

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

He'd probably have done a better job.

It's the exact definition of a Ponzi scheme, with the added benefit of forced participation.

Really? Madoff would have done better? Is that why his investors lost out but Social Security is still chugging along 90 years later?

it's not really chugging along any longer. more like struggling to get up a slight incline.

1 hour ago, toolg said:

Tell that to the seniors in the 1930s that lost all of their investments to the Great Depression.

By the way, at the height of the great depression, unemployment reached 25%.  So what do you think would happen to social security payouts if we were to have another great depression style event where we hit 25% unemployment and social security tax revenue becomes a fraction of what they are currently collecting?  

7 minutes ago, toolg said:

Really? Madoff would have done better? Is that why his investors lost out but Social Security is still chugging along 90 years later?

LOL if Madoff had been allowed to force people to participate in his fund under threat of imprisonment, his fund would still be going strong today. 

5 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

By the way, at the height of the great depression, unemployment reached 25%.  So what do you think would happen to social security payouts if we were to have another great depression style event where we hit 25% unemployment and social security tax revenue becomes a fraction of what they are currently collecting?  

We'd have to cut back on our $1.5T military budget?

34 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

We're all the guys who end up losing when Madoff is exposed

One of my college buddy's sister lost $10M in that Madoff scheme

Trump sleeps and farts. This guys face is priceless.

Trump craps his pants in Notre Dame.