Looks right

[Xavier_Onassis]

No Ponzi scheme can exist for 70 years or more. In the original Ponzi scheme. people wanting to make a killing are asked to sell more shares to those they knpw, increasing the number of Ponzi suckers exponentially. In Social Security, people have children, and certainly do not have as many as those selling Ponzi membership in a pyramid scheme.

There is no question that if people were allowed to make their own investment decisions, we would have at least as many old folks starving as there were in 1932. Most Americans --most people- are poor judges of how to invest money. They think that lottery tickets are a wise investment, when, in fact they are just voluntary taxes.

[kimba1]

bonds is a funny thing,awhile back I talk to a co-worker who bought several bonds mean to fund the parking in the museum that I worked in and she talked about how good and investment it is. but keep pointing out that since it`s pretty much a loan from you and eventually the city will owe the amount promised and it`s alot cheaper to simply tax you for the money. she kept saying but she`ll make money. just saying pointing out those bonds is not very good for the government but thiers enough people buy those bonds.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Municipal bonds are usually sold to very rich people who know little about investing and do not wish to lose money. I invest in bond funds., generally not with a large percentage of city,. state or country bonds, because it is a better deal for me to collect the higher interest and then just pay the tax. 9%-1.5% is more than 4% tax free. If I had oodles more money, government bonds would be a better deal, because I would be in a higher tax bracket. But if I used my head and got decent advice, I would still be better off buying mostly non-government bond funds. You can sell a fund at any time. Individual bonds have a more difficult market to access. The management fee on bond funds is usually under 1%, and if you hold them for over 90 days and buy dfrom a discount broker, you will pay no commissions.

[sirs]

No Ponzi scheme can exist for 70 years or more.

Why not?  If the Fed is running it, who's going to take it on?  Not to mention that's not the Ponzi scheme currently being employed, with the shell game of moving debt to pay more debt, that is actually the point being made in this tangent.  So, put aside the ponzi scheme referred to as Social Security, since that is more of a deflection, and has far more built in talking points to pull from, and focus on the current one being referenced, please.  That's the one I've brought up, that Plane is also responding to.  Not SS

That is if, you can.

[sirs]

    That looks like a good definition for Ponzi scheme.

    I don't believe the definition should include "unless done by a government".

It shouldn't, but since the MSM is more a propaganda tool at this point, vs reporting current news, regardless of who it might effect negatively, don't expect any qualifiers to be recognized

[Plane]

No Ponzi scheme can exist for 70 years or more. In the original Ponzi scheme. people wanting to make a killing are asked to sell more shares to those they knpw, increasing the number of Ponzi suckers exponentially. In Social Security, people have children, and certainly do not have as many as those selling Ponzi membership in a pyramid scheme.

There is no question that if people were allowed to make their own investment decisions, we would have at least as many old folks starving as there were in 1932. Most Americans --most people- are poor judges of how to invest money. They think that lottery tickets are a wise investment, when, in fact they are just voluntary taxes.

   Social Security is a tax.
    A regressive tax.
     The receipts from Social security are spent with the general fund, if SS were subtracted from consideration, then there was never a surplus of any kind during the Clinton administration.

      Social Security is an investment just like the Lottery is an investment , it isn't.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is not supposed to be an investment. It is a pension and a retirement insurance policy. And a bloody good idea.

[kimba1]

don`t know about seventy years but I don`t think it collapsed when Madoff was doing it. he was reported on by his own son.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Madoff knew that he would be unable to sustain the withdrawals that would come with the decline in the market.
He was a thief, but he was very good with numbers. I don't think his scheme lasted as a hedge fund for more than 15 years. He was at one time actually investing his clients' money.

The fact remains that if not for Social Security, a much larger number of elderly people would be left with nothing because of poor investments.

[Plane]

  Social Security is not an investment either.

    There is no pool of investments for social security funds anywhere.

         If it has a strength that Bernie Madoffs fund didn't have it is that it can rope in everyone as a contributor and need not persuade volunteers.

        The era of expansion has ended , it peaked while Clinton was President.

        If we do well the decline can be managed , with reductions in service and payouts kept gradual.

         If the young learn how bad the deal is for them , we may not do well at all.

[kimba1]

but the thing about social security is that how much does the government owe from it? it has dipped into quite afew times and I don`t recall it`s been paid back

[Plane]

  Social Security is an entitlement.

    In theory it must be paid even if Uncle Sam must sell its last Tank.

     Much more likely it will be paid with deficit spending until the Young realize what is being done to them.

     Then they will demand a rule change.

[Plane]

No Ponzi scheme can exist for 70 years or more. In the original Ponzi scheme. people wanting to make a killing are asked to sell more shares to those they knpw, increasing the number of Ponzi suckers exponentially. In Social Security, people have children, and certainly do not have as many as those selling Ponzi membership in a pyramid scheme......................

Is the trend to have enough more children that it will not break their backs to carry the old?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The solution in this country has always been that when Americans have fewer children, we compensate by admitting more immigrants. I don't think that FDR intended Social Security to be funded by the same amount of contributions forever.

No one is going to abolish Social Security.
Juniorbush spent months trying to make minor modifications and no one was interested.

[sirs]

It had prescious little about lack of interest, and far more about it being that what minor modifications (your words, not mine) that were being floated, were being reported as tantamount to gutting everything, and throwing everyone on the street.  Nice to see the truth coming out.....how many years later now?