Medicare Gets New Lease On Life; Social Security Remains Healthy

[one...two...tree 2,762]

intergenerational contract sounds like an old geezer with a young wife.

Careful. You're gonna knock over the apple cart here.

[SMR 368]

Fortune Magazine Refutes 'Social Security Ponzi' Claim

First, social security is misleading people. The claim is that I will receive benefits when I retire. But considering the plan will become unsustainable by 2037 by conservative estimates, the plan will be restructured before I see a dime and the nature of the restructure is presently undefined making this safety net more like jumping blind.

Second, Social Security, in it's present form, is doomed to fail. That's the bottom line of the OP. Although the article was trying to claim that all is fine since it will fail later than some expected, the end result is the same.

A Ponzi scheme is based on people believing that they can get financially secure through some simple method that can't fail. Similarly, Social Security is based on people believing they can gain financial security through a system that can't fail. That is the basic motivation behind both systems and it's identical.

[john & jean 37]

intergenerational contract sounds like an old geezer with a young wife.

I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK!!

[Texanadian 10]

Intergenerational Contract.........Sheesh. First of all, good contracts have the option of being able to read and sign them before they take effect. Even better contracts have the option of letting the person choose to sign them or to pass on the contract. Using the intergenerational contract method, we could just as easily say that the Federal Debt obligation is an intergenerational contract. Each generation can overspend, pay some of it, and pass the rest on to the next gen.

Fortune Magazine Refutes 'Social Security Ponzi' Claim

There is no reason to think that Madoff couldn't have kept the thing going. It only ended because his kids reported him to the authorities. Once the landslide of people came demanding their money back, he didn't have enough to cover it. The same thing happens at banks during bank runs.

Regardless of names and titles, the fact remains that Social Security depends on the next generation to fund it's liabilities. It has to be "saved" over and over again. It isn't honest with people because the majority of people still think that the money they contribute to it somehow is set aside for them. That's why every time the question of should Social Security be eliminated, the answer by people is always "Sure, as long as I can get back my money that I've put in." They don't realize that the money they put in is gone the second they put it in there.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I still love the people who call the SSA and ask for how much they have in the account. The Federal Douches who answer the phone are some dumb and clueless.