The National Ponzi Scheme

Fred Garvin's picture

The National Ponzi Scheme

According to Social Security trustee estimates, around 2016 the amount of Social Security benefits paid will exceed taxes collected. That means one of two things, or both, must happen: Congress will raise taxes and/or slash promised Social Security benefits. Each year the situation will get worse since the number of retirees is predicted to increase relative to the number in the workforce paying taxes. In 1940, there were 42 workers per retiree, in 1950 there were 16, today there are 3 and in 20 or 30 years there will be 2 or fewer workers per retiree.

Fred Garvin's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by skyspy on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 7:42pm.

The worst kind. It has been thrust upon us by our government. Professor Edgar Browning of Texas A&M agrees with you. He even dedicated a few chapters to this subject in his most recent book on economics.
Stealing from Each Other: How the Welfare State Robs Americans of Money and Spirit

Good read, and he backs up everything he says with references and statistical history of economics in this country. Numbers don't lie, only politicians do.

One thing is very clear; if we all had our money in our own private retirement accounts the politicans wouldn't be able to "borrow" (read steal) it for illegals who have never paid a dime into SS. We would be in control of money that we EARNED. Wow, what an idea. We could invest it in a risky stockmarket or safer more conservative investments. Either way the choice would be ours, and it could not, would not, be stolen for people who have never paid a dime into the system.

It costs 338 billion with a B to give illegals medicare, food stamps, and welfare. Pelosie and crooked politicians on both sides want to give illegals our social security. Even though they have never paid a dime into the system. This was defeated narrowly the last time it was up for vote. What will happen the next time it comes up for a vote?? Who wants to take this chance? Let's take this option away from our crooked politicans.

Submitted by Nitpickers on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 7:51pm.

Better than the SS system?????

I know many still getting their SS checks, but have lost 40% of their "private retirement," and will likely die even if they hold on until it may come back some.

SS is here to stay. If we can bail out crooked banks and other money-changers, we can donate a few trillion to the SS retirees in 2045!

Submitted by skyspy on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 9:03pm.

Where do you think the criminals borrowed the money from to fund all of their pork projects? They did print much of it that is why the value of the dollar equals dirt. Where do you think all of that money came from? The illegals paying back taxes, or the dems paying any taxes at all? Where do think all of the money is coming from?

How much you lost depends on how diversified your portfolio is/was. I will never get back all of the money I have put into the crooked PONZI scheme. I would have been better off keeping it in a safe at home. I least I would still have all of MY money.

Our SS is being mis-managed by the same government that took over the Mustang Ranch in Nevada for tax evasion in the early 90's. By law our government had to manage it. It lost so much money that it finally closed. Our social security is being managed by the same wortheless idiots and crooks who couldn't even run a whore house selling booze and make money!! If that doesn't scare the hell out of you I don't know what would.

Submitted by Bonkers on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 4:56am.

The entire market is down 40% sky!

No amount of diversification would have saved anybody's money!

If they keep it for a few years, it MIGHT come back some, but has further down to go yet.

Our last government wanted us to eliminate SS and put our money into mutuals for retirement. (The stock market).

If you think that would have been a good idea you certainly are confused.

Letting individuals (Libertarians) govern is a dam fool idea.

Submitted by swac on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 9:59pm.

All you right wingnuts. Keep away from SS. This is the only program that is safe from private enterprise.
I am not up on the latest figures but it used to be that only one in ten ever got any money back from private pension plans. Those plans are run for the profit of the Insurance companies not the retirees.

Submitted by skyspy on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 1:00am.

Actually I have never heard of anyone not getting paid from a 401k. Insurance companies? You mean broker or investment firm...

In most plans you have a choice of how much risk you are willing to take. You have to put some effort into it. I only know of one person who lost big in the downturn, but he had all of his investments in one thing. He did not diversify, so he got crucified.

If you use a broker for your investments outside of 401k make sure they aren't "churning" (selling and buying needlessly to generate extra bonuses/fees for themselves) your account. If they try to talk you into buying or selling anything do your homework first.

Ameritrade has very low fees, easy to use.

Bless your heart for relying on our government and social security.

mapleleaf's picture
Submitted by mapleleaf on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 5:03pm.

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, and Social Security retirement benefits aren’t about to run out, no matter what Fred says.

Imagine money flowing like water into a barrel. The old folks have been filling up the barrel for years and years. Now the barrel has a spigot at the bottom to let water out, and a pipe at the top brings water in.

For years and years, there’s been more water flowing into the barrel as Social Security taxes than has been let out through the spigot as Social Security retirement benefits.

So, even if the current forecast is that less water will start flowing in than will be let out in benefits by 2016, the barrel will still be pretty full, and it is not scheduled to run out until about 2045. At that point, there will be only enough water coming in to pay out about 75% of what current benefit formulas allow.

That needs to be fixed. And it sure wasn’t W’s proposal to privatize Social Security and have our money invested in the stock market that would have fixed it. We dodged a bullet there, and we now seem to have a man in the White House with the will and smarts to handle the problem properly. No thanks to Fred.

So let all the whiners out there bitch all they want and display their stupidity and utter ignorance. The smarter people in America have regained control of the asylum, and am I ever thankful!

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 9:18pm.

When the program was first started there were 17 workers per retiree.

As of 1960 that ratio had dropped to 5.1 workers per retiree.

As of 2005 that ratio had dropped to 2.1 workers per retiree.

Currently, the Social Security trust fund is taking in more in payroll taxes than it is paying out in benefits. There is about $850 billion in the trust fund and it will grow $4 trillion in the next 20 years. This is due to general rise in workers wages. But by 2020, payment to beneficiaries will exceed taxes paid into the system. The chart at the right shows how the trust fund will increase just beyond the year 2020 and then decrease. If nothing is done to address this decline, the trust funds will be exhausted by 2034. At that time, it is estimated that Social Security will only be able to meet 73% of its benefit obligations.

To continue with your analogy, “a pipe at the top and a spigot at the bottom” is what SS started out being.

A more accurate description in today’s terms would be, “a straw at the top with a fire hose at the bottom”.

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 8:56pm.

Here is an excerpt from a interview given by David Walker last year.. Who is David Walker? Read on..
David Walker is the comptroller general of the United States of America. Basically he is our chief accountant. This is not a political position. He was appointed originally by Reagan, reappointed by Clinton but always unanimous in the Senate. He never spoke out. He has finally said an avalanche is coming and no one's willing to talk about it and so he will tell you what really is coming. I beg you to listen to this man because he's the only one telling you the truth about what's happening in Washington because he's the guy who keeps the books.

"The deficits we're running now are manageable. Our current debt levels that we have now are manageable. The problem is that even though the deficits have come down for three years in a row, our unfunded promises for Social Security and Medicare have risen dramatically. In our total fiscal hole it is $53 trillion. That's $440,000 per household. So the problem's not where we are, it's not where we've been. It's where we're headed unless we end up making dramatic and fundamental reforms.
In 1950 we had 16 people paying into Social Security for every person retired. Now we have 3.3 to 1. We're going to have 2 to 1 by 2030. Same ratios for Medicare. We've never faced this before. This is a tsunami of spending that can swamp our ship of state if we don't get serious."
He said Social Security will run out by 2035 possibly even sooner if something was not done last year...
Maple there is no bank account with yours or our money in it.. The Congress spent it years ago.. We are currently paying for yesteryears promises.. if that is not a Ponzi scheme it is hardly any distinction between the two..

NUK_1's picture
Submitted by NUK_1 on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 8:28pm.

Since there must be a fantasyland somewhere that SS exists in instead of reality, why not just make SS voluntary for all workers? See, you seem to think that current workers aren't paying off the earlier workers, so there shouldn't be a problem at all.

What you call "ignorance" and "stupidity" is laughable when you fail to recognize the very obvious truth that anyone with an IQ above room temp should be able to ascertain: the new pay-off the old. That is no different than a ponzi scheme, though SS has the added twist of being a compulsory ponzi scheme where new participants are forced under threat of imprisonment to take part in the scam. You take away the new participants, and SS collapses very quickly because there are a lot of people receiving SS benefits that never paid a dime into the scam as well as people "living too long" and getting more than their "fair share" of what they contributed + interest + inflation.

mapleleaf's picture
Submitted by mapleleaf on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 9:23am.

If you lie often enough and loud enough, some people will believe you, but the people who do are not known as the sharpest knives in the drawer. Hitler’s minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels employed this technique, and it’s known to work, but not with everybody (and certainly not me).

The Social Security website ( makes it very clear that people must earn credits to qualify for Social Security benefits. These credits come from a record of taxable earnings. It generally takes a minimum of 40 credits to qualify for retirement benefits. In 2009, each $1,090 of earnings counts as one credit, with a maximum of four per year. Thus it takes 10 years of work to qualify for ANY retirement benefit from Social Security.

NUK_1, you made the statement that there are a lot of people receiving SS benefits that never paid a dime. Unless you are referring to spouses collecting spousal benefits, or young children collecting survivors' benefits, you're plain and simply dead wrong.

NUK_1, that chainsaw of yours is dangerously close to your head, and perhaps that's the source of your problem. Whatever it is, the BIG LIE ain't gonna work with sane people.

Submitted by Spyglass on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 10:48am.

It's really that simple...

I'll pose it again, just in case you missed it the first time...

"Since there must be a fantasyland somewhere that SS exists in instead of reality, why not just make SS voluntary for all workers? See, you seem to think that current workers aren't paying off the earlier workers, so there shouldn't be a problem at all."

Submitted by boo boo on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 2:26pm.

The reality is 50% of our population can't/won't or are unable to save for retirement. What happens when that population hits their retirement age, close to 150 million of them? Does anyone think those 150 million people are going to let you keep your money/property? You have only to look at the third world countries to see what happens when those who have nothing to eat, see those who have plenty. Wars, famine, crime, etc., no stable Government. Nothing in this world is perfect but Social Security is better than nothing at all. One way or the other we will all pay, that is just the way it is if we want to stay a strong viable country. If not it is only a matter of time before we to slip into that third world status.

zoes's picture
Submitted by zoes on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 3:16pm.

"What happens when that population hits their retirement age...."

Who says everyone gets to quit working and retire just because they hit 'retirement age'? What happens to the people who don't have an income in place to retire on is that they keep working and paying their bills. Retirement isn't a right. It is just a goal.


"Never love anything that can't love you back."

eodnnaenaj1's picture
Submitted by eodnnaenaj1 on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 3:31pm.

I really agree with your comment - "who says everyone gets to quit working" - amen to that. There are lots of us who, for various reasons, will have to continue working way past retirement age; I'll get to retire when I retire permanently, in the ground.

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 11:10am.

Maple does not get it.. He BELIEVES in the Goverment.. He BELIEVES they are there for them.. He BELIEVES they will take care of them..
He BELIEVES they are all good and Rightous people.. They would never spend his money that he paid in.. no way.. Along as Maple retires in the next 10 years he is absolutely correct.. SS will be there for him.. 20 Years from now nah.. it's gone we all know it.. Maple just can not see out of the hole he has stuck his/her head into..

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 3:34pm.

Skyspy, in your words:

"That joker has an answer for everything."

A lot of Americans are counting on "that joker" to put forth ideas that, when weighed, measured, and debated, pull us out of this economic tail spin. You tend to not speak favorably of Basmati and his presidential name-calling. It's odd that you would take a seat at his table, but that's your prerogative.

"Too bad he can't find a way to make his buddies stop CHEATING on their taxes. I wonder what his answer is for that problem."

President Obama's Solution.

Daschle resigns. Nancy Killefer withdraws.

From the CNN article: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Daschle "did a service to President Obama" by stepping aside.

People working to keep the country focused on the problem at hand; not the pundit politics; refreshing!

I have a "If not these programs, then WHAT programs" question for all of the anti-social programs crowd (lindsey, feel free to duck and dodge or drool mindlessly while singing with pigs pulled from you know where as you see fit).

Skyspy, you tend to focus on illegal aliens as if they are the main draw on social programs. The rest of the "No socialized programs" crowd calls SS a Ponzi, but offer no solutions outside of "privatization of SS accounts."

To be sure, Illegal aliens are a draw on our social programs:
Cost of illegal immigration study.

But note this from the Center for Immigration Studies' report:

"With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services."


"On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households."

So, how do we solve a problem that has more to do with poverty level than legal status? As the study puts forth, the vast majority of the costs of our social programs (programs that were funded and existed under the Reagan administration for those of you who like to call our current President a "joker," "socialist," Marxist," "communist," etc.) are produced by legal households living in poverty.
With the unemployment rate moving upwards, we will see more and more families, including local families who are difficult to ignore, fall into poverty and the quicksands of unemployment or underemployment.

Nobel Prize - winning economist Paul Krugman estimates in a January 2009 letter to President Obama,
"Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research group that analyzes government programs, recently estimated the effects of a rise in the unemployment rate to 9%, a worst-case scenario that now seems all too likely.....As many as 10 million middle-class Americans would be pushed into poverty..."

So, what do we do, guys? More than ten million Americans ADDED to the poverty class that is already immense. Do we watch them starve? Burn their bodies for heat? What do we do? End WIC, SS, Medicaid, medicare, foster care?

What SOLUTIONS do you offer? Are millions of Americans just too lazy to go get one of those "executive jobs" that fred garvin says exist? Should we only fund government programs that provide police, fire, and paramedic response to affluent neighborhoods?

What are your S O L U T I O N S??????

Submitted by skyspy on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 5:57pm.

Joker is tame compared to some of the names the Republicans have been called.

I'll e-mail you some references about the money we have spent on illegals. I'm not trying to change your mind. You can delete it if you want.

My solution for the tax cheats is they should be treated like you and I would be. Which would be stiff fines and or 5-10 in the federal pen.

I still think that we all should have the choice of having our SS put in our own private retirement account. I don't need big brother to help me with my investments. People could make their own choices about how much risk they wanted to take. They could stick with gov bonds or invest in the stock market if they felt like taking the chance.

If we would lower the corporate tax rate to at least compete with other countries I think our companies would stay here. They would keep jobs here in the U.S. That would help our unemployment problem. Encourage companies to keep jobs here. Reward them for keeping jobs here instead of punishing them with yet higher taxes.

Got to go

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 9:42pm.

Beautiful night! I'm not thin skinned. Just thought you should know the strange company you are keeping with the Presidential lampooning. You know me. I think politicians are fair game. But many a conservative really reveres the office of the Presidency and they might take offense........ HA! Who am I kidding?

Anyway, I summed up my points to Hutch below. If we focus on immigration, which I believe is a separate debate, we won't address the majority draw on our social programs.

Have a good weekend. I'm off to make 67% of my income.

Fred Garvin's picture
Submitted by Fred Garvin on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 4:16pm.

That alone would enable companies to grow, hire more employees, and might even bring some companies back that fled the U.S. due to the high tax rate.

That is one idea, but not the only solution.

barry's boondoggle idea is filled with too much unnecessary spending.
We can't spend our way out of this mess, and barry's ideas will only sink us further into the hole.

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 9:46pm.

Much appreciated. I think hitting the corporate side is what Republicans tried for 8 years. It hasn't worked. Now we have a frozen credit market problem, and enriching Exxon won't fix that. Near term we have to spend lots and lots of money to create jobs that will immediately put money in consumer's pockets, as well as keeping corporate rates low. And, I believe, we (meaning you and I through the money Uncle Sam uses)should guarantee the obligations of banks providing they loan that money out and not sit on it. Either way, it looks like the ball is finally rolling. Remember, whether you guys like it or not, Obama is the President and as such he gets a very big say in things. So does the majority party. If it doesn't work, you'll have the next at bat.

Submitted by Spyglass on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 4:00pm.

that there is no SS trust fund. I still say it.

But, since you asked...I think our tax system is driving companies out of the Country. I think our Govt spends WAY too much money on things we don't need, all the while ignoring things we do need at times. I wish the Dept of Ed didn't exist on a National level. I wish other Countries would pick more of the tab on a Worldwide basis on defense. How much money do we need to spend manning the 38th parallel by ourselves? Or protecting the entire world from the goons in the Middle East? Add to the fact, we have many of them captured, and we have a POTUS who wants to set them free to go and be terrorists again (I couldn't believe my ears when he said this).

I would never be against a safety net. I've never said that.

All that said, I simply said the SS fund did not exist..I'm not sure where all your other arguments came from.

hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 3:46pm.

As far as the tax cheats go, why wasn't the third one canned, I would think that as the head of the NY Fed, the man could have his taxes right, just what is the limit you can cheat on your taxes and still attain an cabinet post, it must be over $50,000 right, but less the whatever Daschle paid, don't you think he's ticked off now he paid that money for nothing. If the illegal immigrants were infringing on your job maybe you would feel a little different, ask the construction guys how they feel, because we never had a problem getting houses built before this became a problem so that crap(sorry about the C word John Munford) about them only doing the work we won't do, don't carry no water with me. I'm not feeling stimulated here, you know what I mean?

I yam what I yam....Popeye

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 3:54pm.

I think he should have been canned. That's all I can do. I can't go fire him. I don't agree with his nomination or the confirmation.

As for illegal aliens, you completely miss my point:

I pointed out that illegal immigration is a problem, but sending every illegal alien in the US home will not SOLVE our problems. Will it? To those that don't like Social Security, Medicaid, medicare, WIC, etc., those programs still exist and use tax money without one check to an illegal. So, Hutch, what do we do with the LEGAL CITIZENS living in poverty and losing jobs NOW if we throw out the social programs we like to call pure socialism and even, at times, communistic? What do we do with the newly unemployed Fayette County workers, PTC ex-employees, and millions of legal citizens drawing unemployment?

If the answer is "they are on their own," then just say that. But one way or another, they either have to be dealt with or ignored.

hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 4:39pm.

When one of our illegal brethren goes to the hospital they treat him, or her, right? Do you believe, really believe, that the illegals don't suck up any money from the social programs? If they don't don't cost us any money why does California and Texas spend so much money on them? I have no problem with legal people drawing from our government, hell the way it's going I may be drawing from it soon, I used to be able to fall back on construction when times got tough, I'm a pretty good trim carpenter, but from what Obama's economic adviser says, I'm the enemy because I'm white and I guess I won't be eligible for any of that stimulus money, I'm not feeling the love here you know. Maybe I missed the, lets see what is that cute little phrase you, sniff and our old friend Basmati love to use, oh here it is, situational outrage, that's it, the situational outrage you used against Geithner, had it had been Bush, you snif and Main would have been foaming at the mouth over the tax deal, just the way ya'll were foaming over ol' Joe the plumber, what right did he have to question Obama when he owed all of 1200 bucks, yet here's Geithner, selected, approved and appointed with nary a word from the big three on here, that's what Git is always harping about, he'll slam a Repub just as quick as he'll slam a Dem, but ya'll somehow always give a pass as long as it's a Dem. Let me be clear here, I hope like Hell Obama pulls this out, I'll be tickled pink if he does, but on the other hand I'm hoping that I'm not the one thrown under the bus to make it happen.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 9:13pm.

You obviously have missed my messages in a few posts, brother.
You hit me with this uppercut:

"the situational outrage you used against Geithner, had it had been Bush, you snif and Main would have been foaming at the mouth over the tax deal, just the way ya'll were foaming over ol' Joe the plumber, what right did he have to question Obama when he owed all of 1200 bucks, yet here's Geithner, selected, approved and appointed with nary a word from the big three on here, that's what Git is always harping about, he'll slam a Repub just as quick as he'll slam a Dem, but ya'll somehow always give a pass as long as it's a Dem."

Hutch, you must have missed me saying this

Anytime I've mentioned Daschle or Geithner, it has been to say they should be crap canned. Every time. I don't know how much clearer I can be. I feel they are as dishonest with taxes as your plumber joe. But, Hutch, my big problem with joe aka Sam the plumber is he belonged in the middle of presidential debates as much as Paris Hilton did. And his "you'll raise the taxes on the business I want to buy" was pure horse hockey. Anyway, On to Illegal Immigration.

You asked me, "Do you believe, really believe, that the illegals don't suck up any money from the social programs?"

No Hutch. And I said so right above us HERE.

Here is my EXACT quote: "To be sure, Illegal aliens are a draw on our social programs:
Cost of illegal immigration study."

My link even shows how much illegals cost us. But my point, Hutch, is that illegal immigration and Social Security are two different problems. there is no way to fix social securitiy by just focusing on illegal immigration. Walter E. Williams, who wrote the original article this blog is based on, NEVER even mentions illegal immigration. My point to Skyspy is that you miss the social security problem if you only look at illegal immigration. That is due to the fact that legally poor Americans are the biggest draw on our social programs.

You will never see me condone illegal immigration. You have never heard me say they do the jobs we won't. That isn't what I believe.

My belief is you go after drug dealers and growers to fight drugs and you go after the employers of illegals to stop their immigration. We have seen over the last several months that illegal aliens go back home when they can't work. It's more affordable to be broke in Mexico than it is here.

Hope that clears any misunderstanding. Have a great weekend, and
don't Gerald Ford any golf spectators Laughing out loud

hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 9:43pm.

The way i see it, Joe's tax problem qualifies him for a cabinet post in this administration, in fact, I'm tossing my hat into the ring, and to prove my resolve, I'm no longer going to pay taxes and if I get caught I'll just use that democrat excuse of oops, my bad, must have been an oversight. BTW, just what qualifies a person to ask questions of a candidate, does he have to have a degree, a certain amount of money, own a business. Was he the wrong party? If I remember right,Obama never did answer his question, was the question not valid?

I never hit spectators because they're usually rolling on the ground laughing and when I hit the safest place to be is on the fairway or green. You have a good weekend to, we have to get up early to make the kids interview at Pebblebrook HS for the Gov's honors thingy and then rush back to Starr's Mill HS for the district honor band thing.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Submitted by PTC Avenger on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 4:11pm.

We should use some of the stimulus bill money to build a giant leaf blower and blow all the illegal immigrants back over the border. They've sucked California dry and the state is now on the brink of insolvency. Illegals cost the United States billions and billions of dollars every year, money that would be better spent on hardworking, legal American families. The Statue of Liberty inscription asks for your tired and poor, well guess what it is Americans who are tired and poor. It's time to stop the liberal BS and start looking out for numero uno - hardworking, decent, taxpaying American families.

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 9:37pm.

"It's time to stop the liberal BS and start looking out for numero uno - hardworking, decent, taxpaying American families."

Which party was this man in?

Is this candidate a liberal or democrat?

Count the votes that Senator McCain cast. It's time to do what? you asked? I don't want to be too blunt, but your political party has lost virtually all credibility on this issue. Your presidential candidate looked no different from President Obama. So, I guess you need to point those fingers at yourself and YOUR party for not being true to your beliefs in the candidate you put through at the primaries. Not a liberal problem at all.


Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 4:28pm.

The unfortunate reality in California is that the Latino vote is incredibly powerful. I don't expect any changes there with respect to undocumented individuals. It's the sympathy factor.

I'm afraid action is too little and too late.
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 8:36pm.


Submitted by Spyglass on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 5:18pm.

I have a golf cart bridge for sale in PTC you can buy.

Fred Garvin's picture
Submitted by Fred Garvin on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 5:16pm.

It's a well known fact that there is no Social Security trust fund.

Ignorant blowhards like mapleleaf prefer to stick their heads in the sand and blame Republicans for everything fail to take heed, and do so at their own peril.

Submitted by FayetteFlyer on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 2:35pm.

This very thought hit me like a brick just last night! SS is this government's PONZIE scheme. My long enough and even I can find something I agree w/ Fred about!

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 1:07pm.

I have not planned on SS for years.. WE will never see it, but I still have to pay for it..

Submitted by Chow on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 9:04pm.

Obama has just announced one of his heretofore unknown plans for “change”. Obama proposes to raise the age for drawing social security to the average life span which is now age 75. Since most people will be dead before they can receive payments, the problem is solved. The plan is flexible because the age limit automatically rises if life spans increase.

Everyone will continue to pay into social security so the government can continue to sell bonds to the pension fund but the name will be changed from social security to the government charity fund to avoid any fraudulent intent.

Submitted by skyspy on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 9:13pm.

That joker has an answer for everything.

Too bad he can't find a way to make his buddies stop CHEATING on their taxes. I wonder what his answer is for that problem.

Comment viewing options

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