Who has a better chance of winning with Obama?

[Sheilbh]

Anybody know what case this is and what the conclusion was?

I've not read this page fully, but could it be one of these:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

[Ideologue]

Which could all be replaced with a guaranteed income.

Agreed.  I'm not sure if I mentioned earlier, but my personal beef with the social security umbrella is that the largest component is net-loss social welfare that could just as easily be replaced with net-gain workforce retraining (much shorter term of collection, taxes resume once the payee has re-entered the workforce).

Well, in fairness, a guaranteed income would be a net loss on a much larger scale (although it would obviate minimum wages, welfare, and SS benefits).

[Razgovory]

The investing news community seems highly in favor of calling it a ponzi, apparently. There is one thing I'd like to know more about. In this piece:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11245193/1/addressing-social-securitys-ponzi-scheme.html

There is this nugget of info:

I am under impressed with the investment communities ability to detect a ponzi scheme after the Madoff affair.  At least a ponzi scheme they aren't actively running.

[Caliga]

SS isn't a ponzi and I'm getting tired of hearing it compared to one.  It may appear to have some similarities to a ponzi scheme, but Social Security can be maintained indefinitely, though that will most likely require raising taxes.  Ponzi schemes by their very nature cannot be maintained indefinitely since they have no real (or maybe realistic is the better term) sustainable income streams, and have made earlier promises of returns to investors that must be maintained... the SSA can always adjust payouts if they must.

[MadImmortalMan]

SS isn't a ponzi and I'm getting tired of hearing it compared to one.  It may appear to have some similarities to a ponzi scheme, but Social Security can be maintained indefinitely, though that will most likely require raising taxes.  Ponzi schemes by their very nature cannot be maintained indefinitely since they have no real (or maybe realistic is the better term) sustainable income streams, and have made earlier promises of returns to investors that must be maintained... the SSA can always adjust payouts if they must.

There's also a minor detail of intent to defraud.

[Caliga]

Goes without saying.

Really, if Social Security is a ponzi, then all insurance programs are ponzi schemes.

[Admiral Yi]

Goes without saying.

Really, if Social Security is a ponzi, then all insurance programs are ponzi schemes.

No they're not.  Insurance companies maintain reserves to pay off expected losses.

[Caliga]

No they're not.

Ah, so we're in agreement, then.

[Admiral Yi]

Ah, so we're in agreement, then.

Except for the parts where we're not. 

[dps]

Done some looking into the married couple thing.  Social Security is more than 50% of income for around 51% of married couples, but 73% of unmarried beneficiaries - I imagine that's especially the case because of the relatively high number of unmarried, often widowed, women in the age group. 

I would assume that the difference is simply that for the married couples, often one of them is still working.  Of course, even unmarried beneficiaries may still be working, but if we assume that, say, half of all beneficiaries still work and that the percentage is the same for married and single beneficiaries, then among married beneficiares, in 75% of case, at least one of the 2 still work, and only in 25% of the cases do neither work.  I don't know the percentage of beneficiaries who still work (I used 50% for the example, but I don't think it's that high), but no matter the percentage, unless it's far higher for single than for married beneficiaries, the percentage of married beneficiaires in which at least one still works is going to be higher.

[dps]

SS isn't a ponzi and I'm getting tired of hearing it compared to one.  It may appear to have some similarities to a ponzi scheme, but Social Security can be maintained indefinitely, though that will most likely require raising taxes.  Ponzi schemes by their very nature cannot be maintained indefinitely since they have no real (or maybe realistic is the better term) sustainable income streams, and have made earlier promises of returns to investors that must be maintained... the SSA can always adjust payouts if they must.

While you're correct, you are ignoring the fact that there is little political will to raise taxes and even less to reduce SS payments.  The political reality makes it more similar to a ponzi scheme than it is in theory.

[frunk]

I think the current political reality makes government as a whole more like a ponzi scheme that has reached its inevitable end.  No ability to raise revenue or borrowing and the only cuts should come from the "other guy's" programs.  I don't see anything particular about SS in that regard.

[dps]

I think the current political reality makes government as a whole more like a ponzi scheme that has reached its inevitable end.  No ability to raise revenue or borrowing and the only cuts should come from the "other guy's" programs.  I don't see anything particular about SS in that regard.

SS has long been the "3rd rail" of American politics.  Republicans can propose cuts in funding for the arts and some social programs, and Democrats can propose cuts to military spending (as long no military bases or defense plants in their state/district are affected), but anyone who proposed cutting SS benefits might as well resign their office and retire from politics right then.  And probably should hire a bodyguard.

[derspiess]

SS has long been the "3rd rail" of American politics.  Republicans can propose cuts in funding for the arts and some social programs, and Democrats can propose cuts to military spending (as long no military bases or defense plants in their state/district are affected), but anyone who proposed cutting SS benefits might as well resign their office and retire from politics right then.  And probably should hire a bodyguard.

Republicans have been spineless when it comes to SS reform, and Dems pretend like there are no problems with it whatsoever.  Both have been equally annoying.

[frunk]

SS has long been the "3rd rail" of American politics.  Republicans can propose cuts in funding for the arts and some social programs, and Democrats can propose cuts to military spending (as long no military bases or defense plants in their state/district are affected), but anyone who proposed cutting SS benefits might as well resign their office and retire from politics right then.  And probably should hire a bodyguard.

I agree.  A similar type of deadlock to the historical SS one has been extended to the government budget as a whole, with equally good results.