 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
||
 |
Debt Increased more under Geithner than between the US Founding and 1991. It increased $3,723,575,990,130.10 from Jan. 26, 2009 until June 30, 2011:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-increased-more-under-geithner-under
CBO-Long Term Outlook Daunting
“In the annual Long-Term Budget Outlook, the legislature’s budget scorekeepers said that the ratio of debt to GDP this year will be 69 percent, 7 percentage points higher than last year. In 2021, the CBO predicts debt will reach 76 percent of GDP, but under a more dire—and more likely—scenario, the public debt will be 101 percent of GDP 10 years from now, well into the economic danger zone of 90 percent or more.”
The stalling of the US recovery raises big, scary questions. After a recession, this economy usually gets people back to work quickly. Not this time. … read more
In a Ponzi Scheme current investors are paid with current “contributions”. In Social Security, current retires are paid from the taxes taken from current taxpayers. In a Ponzi Scheme and Social Security, money collected currently is not invested to product income. Finally, early participants get a huge return on their money. The first Social Security beneficiary, Ida May Fuller collected nearly $23,000 from Social Security and yet contributed only $24.75.
The only possible distinguishing factor between what Ponzi did and what Social Security does is intent and that it is not voluntary (the original Ponzi Scheme was obviously voluntary). While some would argue that the intent of Social Security was not fraudulent, many people would disagree that the intent of some of the people who established was fraudulent. The concept of a “trust fund” or “lock box” for Social Security taxes was never a reality and the money was spent on government programs as it came in. Some have argued that it is possible to die without getting any Social Security so it isn’t a Ponzi Scheme. Obviously it is possible to die without getting any return from a Ponzi Scheme too.
In short, Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme in all respects except, perhaps, the intent to be a fraudulent scheme.
The real question is: Does the argument that Social Security not fraudulent, yet has all the remaining characteristics of a Ponzi Scheme, really excuse Social Security from being a Ponzi Scheme? The answer is no, the effect is the same whether the intent was good or not.
Some relevant reading, continually updated:
American Thinker March 16, 2005 – The Social Security Ponzi Scheme
Forbes, Why Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme