Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Didnt Reagan under a conservative government allow the money to be spent, in order to pay for the debt left over after the great society act?
It therefore would now be a ponzi scheme, where past investors pay new investors, until the outflows outpace inflows and it fails.
claiming it’s unsustainable due to long-term obligations exceeding tax revenue.
Dude literally took over the system that allows the government to create money out of thin air, tellin us the government’s gonna run out of money.
Also, your fake department is named after the first meme coin. Which you tried to pump-and-dump on live TV. Ponzi-scheming motherfucker.
What an idiot. Tons of rich people know that social security is a riot tax (it's not but that's how they see it).
@MicroWave Ponzi schemes by their nature are short-lived; According to Wikipedia, Charles Ponzi's original scheme ran just over a year before collapsing. All pyramid schemes require a pool of investors that is constantly expanding, which is not the situation with Social Security.
This is pseudo-science. There's nothing in the "nature" of ponzi schemes that makes them "short-lived", because these terms are subjective and unscientific. Many ponzi schemes have lasted for much longer than the original. See also global capitalism.
With social security, the pool of investors is the entire country's population. This large size and government backing stabilises it. But the financials still rely on continuous population growth, forever, to work well.
The key financial metric in social security is the ratio of pay-ins to pay-outs. For example, it could be 5 paying employees for every retiree. The social security scheme has some minimum, critical ratio that is needed to maintain the tax rates and benefit levels. And if that minimum is, say, 5:1 workers to older retirees, that implies a population in a state of exponential demographic growth.
Right now, the US is propping up its lack of organic demographic growth with immigration, and accumulated trust fund savings from an earlier era. Japan had massive problems with its social security when its population stagnated.
Notice, however, that the government of Japan did not just implode like a securities fraud. This is because governments are fundamentally not like private sector criminals running Ponzi schemes.
And if that minimum is, say, 5:1 workers to older retirees, that implies a population in a state of exponential demographic growth.
Well, not necessarily; it relies on the average person working for 5x as long as they spend retired. If we start working at 20, and retire at 65, and the ratio is 5:1, then it allows for an average of 9 years of retirement per person before we die. The problem is that now people are living a lot longer than they were in the 1920s, which is why there's been discussion if raising the benefits age to 70. This would allow for 10 years of benefits, taking us to an average lifespan of 80 (which happens to be just about what the average lifespan in the US actually is.)
If the population is stagnant, but the age distribution remains steady, this would let the system self-sustain. It becomes problematic when there's a higher ratio of retirees to people just entering the workforce, though.
Lol moron doesn't know what a Ponzi Scheme is.
Hang on... I... I have an idea. 😈
The more news I read the more I think of judge dredd as the future for the USA.
Corporate Takeover of Government
Elon Musk and DOGE and the budget cuts, like a megacorp executive running essential public services for profit.
Trump & Musk pushing privatization, bust like how corporations in Judge Dredd control everything from housing to law enforcement.
Weakening Social Safety Nets
Cutting Social Security, making healthcare deniable based on religious beliefs (Arkansas bill), reducing government services looks like pushing society toward a survival-of-the-fittest model to me.
The rich live in luxury, while everyone else is left to fend for themselves like the division in Judge Dredd’s Mega-City One.
Authoritarianism & the Rule of the Few
Trump’s policies, Vance’s ideology, Musk’s influence, the US is shifting toward rule by billionaires and strongmen, bypassing democratic institutions.
The Rise of Private Justice & Armed Control
Musk’s obsession with tech-based policing & surveillance (like Neuralink, AI, and robot enforcement) eerily mirrors corporate-controlled law enforcement in dystopian fiction.
And worst of all, Rob Schneider is there.
you would know
Who?
Oh he is surely referring to our reliance on perpetual population growth and being the genius he is, I’m sure he has the solution of how to fund it with a shrinking population.
/s
Well he does have a large part of the solution. Not in his mind, in his hoard. End the payment limit, take the tax percentages back to the Reagan years, and he and the other billionaires would be funding it without breaking a sweat.
Fuck you, Incel King. Go eat your own shit and die.