jungle

This is exactly why you should review the history of how the program was handled. How money paid in was used for many other purposes over decades and why the "fund" is nothing more than a debt and money going out is very soon if not now just the same or less than money going in, there is however a large stack of IOUs, which may or may not be worth anything. It started with the promise to never take more than 3%, but is now, with additions near 14.7% of pay. Again with no firm promise of any return EVER.

What you are seeing, and what exactly is on the books are two entirely different matters, and there has been a willful effort to hide this from the public along with the spending of much of SS funding on other pork.

Many people were given the option not to join and as a whole they have done much better at funding their own retirement as a smaller and more carefully directed group.

You have not proven anything other than mismanagement, a complete disregard for the public's funds, zero performance guarantee, and an attempt at defense of one of the most poorly managed and bloated examples of organized public fraud. A fraud where the rules of payout vary by whim and many of us are likely to be left holding an empty bag.

Speaking of empty bags and criminal misconduct:

Fannie Mae seeks $10.7 billion in new US aid after posting $15.2 billion second-quarter loss
By Alan Zibel, AP Real Estate Writer
On Thursday August 6, 2009, 7:25 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Fannie Mae plans to tap $11 billion in new government aid after posting another massive quarterly loss as the taxpayer bill from the housing market bust keeps growing.




The mounting price tag for the rescue of Fannie and its goverment-sponsored sibling, Freddie Mac, is surpassed only by insurer American International Group Inc., which has received $182.5 billion in financial support from the government so far.

Fannie Mae's new request for $10.7 billion from the Treasury Department will bring the total for Fannie and Freddie to nearly $96 billion. Freddie is expected to report its quarterly results on Friday.

The government has pledged up to $400 billion in aid for the two companies, which play a vital role in the mortgage market by purchasing loans from banks and selling them to investors. They have been under government control since last September, when their near-collapse helped set off the financial crisis.

Together, Washington-based Fannie and McLean, Va.-based Freddie own or guarantee almost 31 million home loans worth about $5.4 trillion. That's about half of all U.S home mortgages.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I think anyone can see the track record of government sponsored entities leaves a great deal to be desired. And it is far from over.

ryan1234

De Toqueville's quote "The American Republic will endure until Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the public's money" .....that day has come and went....... now Congress bribes the public with the money of the public's children and grandchildren.

FighterHayabusa

Ah yes. I remember when Bush walked into the Social Security vaults and declared the bonds "worthless pieces of paper". That's when he won over the hearts and minds of the American People for his Social Security reform... er ...

I don't know what kind of super sleuthing you think you had to do to find that inter-governmental debt is not accounted for when deficit numbers are reported (no, Clinton did not really have a surplus), but it is actually public record so you've wasted your time. Your problem is with political spin, not a Madoff style rip off. The information is available for everyone to see, yet we never vote the bums out for "juking the stats". Iraq war funding was also not included in deficit reports. This is another reason why I'm a single issue voter at this point - term limits, baby.

jungle

You keep mentioning a name that tells us you can't be aware of all that went on for decades before. There isn't a spin, there is a mountain of debt, there is no fund and the terms are likely to change again many times in the future.
What is sad is that we have been dealt a losing hand on many of these programs for decades and will be forced to pay for decades for what we really didn't need at all.

SS and medicaid/care are the two largest components of Federal spending and by drawing in the population to these ponzi schemes a large administrative component has been created with very little benefit to the majority who pay into them.


The sad truth is that we have entrusted our hard earned money and our nation for decades to a group of people who have returned the favor by saddling us all with a staggering debt which will have an adverse effect on us for many generations. You really can't spin it any other way.

FighterHayabusa

So let's get this straight, we elect an official that raises the social security tax from 3% to 15% and various other things that for the sake of argument are gross mismanagement. All of these things they do right in front of our noses. This is exactly equal to private citizen Ponzi saying he has a wonderful investment, the old investors are paid not by the returns they think they are getting, but by money from the new investors, and in reality it's just Ponzi spending it on luxury goods for himself? I'm sorry, sounds like a reach. The onus is not on me to look back to the past if you're trying to prove this claim, so you may as well enlighten me.

jungle

I'm sorry, you are correct, it's a great program and the mountain of debt built up by this and other programs is exactly what we deserve. We should be thankful that we can spend more of our time working to fund such things.
After all, what else would we do with our time? Surely others know best what we should do and be, it isn't a ponzi scheme, just a well run responsible way to make us all better.

FighterHayabusa

Dude, seriously, I want to know what the heck you're talking about in past...

I don't think I'm claiming it's a well oiled machine, saying it's not a Ponzi scheme is far from that. But if you really want to be scared, take a look at the retirement system in Greece. At least we're not them.

SayAgain

Ponzi scheme: A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually offers returns that other investments cannot guarantee in order to entice new investors, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep the scheme going.

According to this definition SS is a ponzi scheme. If everyone quit paying right now - do you think it would be funded adequately to get the money out that you put in (and your employer matched).

We are forced to contribute and at the end the Government hands the money out on their terms - how much and when you get it. Imagine if you had had that money the whole time to invest - at the end it's yours and you make the decisions what to do with it. Spend it all, or not, or jeez even pass some on to your kids!

SayAgain

And I've put an offer on a short sale on a house that's just sitting on someone's desk for weeks now. No wonder the housing market is such a mess!

SayAgain

Some good points - I've always said something similar to the term limits. We should re-elect no one. Make it the law. You can serve one term, then someone else would serve, then if the original person wanted to serve again, they'd have to run for re-election, but only serve one term again. It's a less efficient way for politicians to get in there and wheel and deal. And if their constituents felt they were well represented by that person, they could serve again at a later date.

I agree on limits on liability - I don't even know what a doctor pays (and therefore us) for liability insurance in a year. And insurance should be given back to the consumer. They could pick a plan that fits them. If you're a 60 year old woman, you won't need to be covered for pregnancy. My employer doesn't cover my auto insurance, my auto insurance doesn't pay for dings, just large accidents, so why not my health insurance. It would be portable, wouldn't need to worry about pre-exisiting. Still not a perfect world, but would prefer that to the government deciding what care I can and can not have access to, and the time frame in which to get access.