6 votes

Socialist Insecurity

I’m not sure how people were fooled into letting the government control their retirement, or why people now are so intent on “preserving” Social Security. The program promised security in exchange for some small economic freedoms (in the form of a tax). The government would provide "old-age insurance" for the elderly who couldn't work to support themselves anymore. Sounds good, right?

Now, over 70 years later, most people in their 30s and younger realize that they almost definitely will not be collecting a Social Security check. What went wrong? Well, nothing. For the textbook-definition Ponzi scheme that it is, Social Security was a huge success. For the people depending on it, a constant source of disappointment and uncertainty.

Read the rest:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It was not REALLY a Ponzi.

It was not REALLY a Ponzi. Interest rates used to be so high, that if you had $400,000 in savings you could keep it there, and live FINE off of your interest. It was around 10% or more. The VAST amounts of social security money, if not grabbed for other things by our elected officials, would have compounded grandly, and, it could easily have stayed solvent,IMO.
BUT, Congress did not keep its hands off of it, and the Federal Reserve meddled with its central economic planning and more socialist programs put people on the dole. It can NOT be brushed off as a Ponzi scheme. There is much more to its demise than that.

helvering v. davis

it's a tax.
nothing more, nothing less.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

It IS a Ponzi scheme, it always has been

Crickett, you make a common error when talking about Social Security and the potential earnings from Social Security "contributions.
How would you propose that the government could "invest" the "money"?
Do you want the government to invest in the stock market?
Wouldn't that mean that they would have to protect the investments and favor one company or stock over another?
How could the government invest in any bank, stock or anything else without disrupting the free market.
The fact is that the government can not invest trillions of dollars without disastrous consequences, and the first to retire on Social Security were paid by the people still working and it has been that way since day one, there has NEVER been a "trust fund" of any kind.
It started off with false promises and premises and nothing has changed.

This May Stray a Bit...

But I wanted to say something about many so called GOP 'conservatives' in this matter. Not long ago I was listening to a radio broadcast on my local Fox affiliate station. The 'conservative' host was discussing the various issues related to the new healthcare law, specifically its effect on already existing programs like medicaid and medicare. In the process, even Social Security came up, and how the Obama administration was doing nothing to 'save it'. Countless 'conservatives' were calling in, and everyone (including the host) were decrying this new 'socialist' law. Yet one of their major complaints was how the new 'socialist law' would cut into these other, already existing programs... programs that are themselves coerced and socialistic in nature.

The whole episode was sadly hilarious. "OBAMA! You keep your hands off my medicare and social security, you.... you socialist!"

Conservative talk radio makes

Conservative talk radio makes me want to blow my brains out. So much crap they say ISN'T conservative at all, and then libertarians are treated like redheaded stepchildren by the pundits. Then I hear people like my cousin say "I like Glenn Beck. He never changes and he's always right." Sigh. I even heard Limbaugh say Obama's exec orders weren't that bad.

But to follow up on your post, I would imagine most of those callers didn't even have a clue how SS worked or why its totally immoral to begin with. Also shows why we have 2 big government parties in office.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


Good post, bad opening line.

You really have trouble understanding that Social Security was enacted long before most of us were born? That we never consented, never were given a chance to voice an opinion at all? When I went to get my first job, I was told I could not work without the card. I was all of 15, needed a job so I went and got my card - like every other person I knew.
I don't understand how you let Obamacare happen. What is wrong with you, anyway? See what I mean?

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

You're putting words in my

You're putting words in my post. Nowhere did I blame the current generation, and I even criticize the whole idea of forcing a following generation to pay for existing pensioners.

Thanks though!

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


Did not mean to do that

I was expressing a general theme that occurs, and your opening line seemed to echo that theme.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.