Comments on: Social Security: Ponzi Scheme, Unconstitutional?

By: legalinvestigations

legalinvestigations — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 20:29:52 +0000

Roosevelt wanted to be the big hero, and start paying out to seniors right away. Everybody’s money should have went into a government account that earns interest so people could actually be rich when they retire. As for the senior back then, Socialist Boy should have came up with something else. The Social Security scourge is a huge tax that yields meager payments at retirement.

By: The Libertarian: Social Security - a Ponzi Scheme ?

The Libertarian: Social Security - a Ponzi Scheme ? — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 05:33:33 +0000

[...] Security « JONATHAN TURLEY Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme? | Cooper, Adel & Associates Social Security: Ponzi Scheme, Unconstitutional? – Tenth Amendment Ce.. Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme? Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme? Ã¢€” Marginal [...]

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:50:54 +0000

It is perhaps ironic that the very reason they define it as not being a Ponzi scheme, is also the very reason it is most evil.

Unfortunately a majority of the American people pretty much all of whom have never known a country without this ponzi scheme scam imposed upon them, have been told all their life that its the greatest thing sense sliced bread all the while they been forced to throw their good money into it.

I fear we will not be rid of this ponzi Scheme until its rate of return are so low and actual costs so high that it's unbearable.

By: Carly EngageAmerica

Carly EngageAmerica — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:18:42 +0000

Making Social Security sustainable would fix the dilemma and put an end to the argument of whether or not the program is a “Ponzi scheme.” Such things as raising the retirement age could help. This needs to be done because seniors spend an ever-increasing number of years in retirement, during which taxpayers finance a large fraction of their incomes and medical expenses. The growing length of retirement for men in part reflects a decline in the number of years spent working. Since 1900, male life expectancy at age 20 has risen by 14 years, yet working-life expectancy is currently lower than it was when Theodore Roosevelt was first elected president. At the start of the last century, a 20-year-old man could expect to live an additional 42 years, during which he could expect to work 38 years; the average period of retirement was thus relatively short. By 2004, life expectancy for a typical 20-year-old man had climbed to 56 years, yet his working-life expectancy was still 38 years (http://eng.am/qglaR0).

By: Bob Greenslade

Bob Greenslade — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 22:40:51 +0000

Social Security is worse than a Ponzi scheme because failure to participate results in the theft of your property and possible loss of your liberty.

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:16:48 +0000

I always wondered why miscellaneous words were capitalized in the constitution. Perhaps it was to highlight importance within the sentence to or to highlight the specific object the sentence was about. Like My Dog Spike ate a ball. Dog could be capitalized throughout the entire sentence since it is referring to the object that the sentence was about. Ball is not because the sentence isn't about the ball but about the dog which is why it is capitalized. It would be interesting if someone could find some 18th century grammar rules to find out why it was capitalized. Fascinating…

By: Len

Len — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:51:09 +0000

Gotta correct you here. You stated that the constitution grants powers to make laws for common defense and general welfare, this is incorrect. The power to tax was being defined by the clause of common defense and general welfare, and the powers beneath were those that were granted for common defense and general welfare. The fact that all the powers were prefaced by a capitalized "To" was intentional, and meant to indicate what the powers were, and as the rest of the taxing clause uses lower case "t"s then it is clear these are not powers.

By: Richard Ahern

Richard Ahern — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 01:40:30 +0000

Social SAecurity at one time was set in a Trust Fund "Lock Box" Then they decided to put it into the General Fund. Since then we have Social Security=IOU'S, and they have been useing it to buy votes and spending it for ohers purposes othe then what it was intended for. We must Encourage savings with no taxes. Government cannot be trusted. WASTE-FRAUD-MISMANAGEMENT IN ALL AREAS OF GOVERNMENT-Audir every Department. We chould save billions..Retirn to a Constitutional Republic, which we are. Our of Control Government Waster Watchers Inc www.wastewatchersinc.org Richard-Ahern-Vice President (510) 791-7964

By: Mike Shafer

Mike Shafer — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:04:28 +0000

While there is little I find myself in agreement on with Rick Perry I do have say I believe he has this one correct. The Social Security program, as practiced over the years, clearly relied on an ever increasing based of those paying into the system to make current payments. If that isn't a Ponzi scheme please explain how so.

As to Mitt Romney's rationalization of arguing past practice then one could say any given condition, however disagreeable, should be remain. The fact that a bad idea, flawed in it's practice of finance, has been allowed to continue since 1935 is no basis for the justification of continuing that flawed institution.

It is no secret that government likes to create programs of dependency under the guise of helping the people, so that they may control the electorates' vote via the via offer of spoils.

Regarding that Ponzi scheme called Social Security there is no reason that the Federal Government couldn't make the program voluntary. The fact is your benefit is based upon your work and contribution history. It would be a simple procedure to take this one step further and if you chose to not pay in then you will receive no benefit.