this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
417 points (97.5% liked)

politics

20531 readers
4287 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Elon Musk called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” claiming it’s unsustainable due to long-term obligations exceeding tax revenue.

Critics, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, accused him of pushing privatization to benefit the wealthy. Musk also made false claims about Social Security mispayments.

His comments come amid looming Social Security cuts and restructuring. The Social Security Administration warns of potential fund shortages by 2035.

Democrats advocate for raising the tax cap on high earners to strengthen the program.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 19 points 11 hours ago

Oh, so SS is a ponzi scheme now? Well then, I hope you do something about that, Musk. And then I'd like my tens of thousands of dollars that were taken from my paycheck back, please. After all, if I paid into the system and I haven't used any benefits yet since I'm not at retirement age, you should be able to pay me back after you seek recompense from all the "mispayments" going on, right?

This is the billionaire class trying to do a rug pull. Don't believe their accusations of fraud and abuse, they're doing anything they can except raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for it. It's your money. You paid faithfully into the system. If they mismanaged the funds by borrowing against it to fuel military quagmires all around the world, that's a "them" problem. Hold the government accountable and do not let them cancel your retirement entitlements.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 21 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Elon Musk called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” claiming it’s unsustainable due to long-term obligations exceeding tax revenue.

Being a Ponzi scheme requires fraud. In a Ponzi scheme, the fraudster fraudulently claims that an investor is making a larger return than he is, then -- for a while -- pays him back from future investments from other investors. It is intrinsically unsustainable.

Social Security isn't fraudulent. It states explicitly that people contributing to Social Security are providing the funds to people who are withdrawing from it. It may not be sustainable to maintain a fixed level of benefits at a fixed level of taxation if the fertility rate is declining, but the lack of sustainability isn't what makes a Ponzi scheme a Ponzi scheme. It's the presence of fraud, which does not exist for Social Security.

I remember that the Social Security Administration website used to have a page up explicitly describing why it wasn't a Ponzi scheme.

[–] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 13 hours ago

"Full self-driving"

[–] Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 20 points 15 hours ago

You know what, if they destroy Social Security just because Musk said so, I have no doubt there will be blood. Too many people from too many demographics in too many places rely on it just to SURVIVE, let alone abuse it in any meaningful way.

This would honestly be one of, if not the fastest ways to spark a civil war, outside of rolling troops into major cities and opening fire. Why? Because you'd suddenly have millions of people unable to feed themselves, in a country where there are significantly more guns than people, and they'd all have ample cause to march on DC.

THAT SAID, I doubt Musk and Trump have thought of that, because they're 2 drug-addled lunatics who do not and never have cared about long-term ramifications. I'm sure other Republicans are shitting themselves in fear right now, as the Dipshit Duo get ready to kill the Political Golden Goose, but none of them can speak up for fear of losing power.

What a fucking mess.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 18 points 15 hours ago

It's one of the most popular social programs in American history. It's also OUR FUCKING MONEY ELON.

[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 21 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Does he feel like way about all pension programs or just the ones he is trying to plunder?

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 hours ago
[–] d33pblu3g3n3@lemmy.world 24 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

The favorite dumb argument from the guys who constantly defraud governments via tax dodging and subsidies.

Despicable thief and con man.

[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Is it possible that every single day I wake up, open Lemmy and get new outraging bullshit from this fantastic duo? Where they get those insane ideas? Don't they get tired? Go to play golf or so

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 3 hours ago

Where they get those insane ideas?

They're not new. The Reich Wing has been saying this for decades, ever since Reagan started taking an ax to the program.

[–] wanderwisley@lemm.ee 8 points 16 hours ago

Elon is a anamorphic Ponzi scheme.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 31 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Alternative headline: expert on ponzi schemes bemoans what he sees as competition

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 99 points 1 day ago (4 children)

The 2025 earnings tax cap for social security is $176k.

If those richest among us, like Elon who makes billions per year, had to pay social security tax on a larger percentage of their earnings, or on all of it like those of us making less than $176k annually, the system would easily be solvent in perpetuity. The only reason it’s potentially at risk is because rich assholes have lobbied successfully in order to not pay into it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 63 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Conservatives think the government should be run like a business. You're not buying or selling anything, the point is to serve the people you fucks.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] meowmeowbeanz@sopuli.xyz 26 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

If Musk dislikes "Ponzi schemes," maybe start by rejecting government subsidies for his ventures.

🐱🐱

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago

No no no, not like that. - Moscow musk

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 19 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Social security is never going to "run out" it's continuously funded, that's how it works. America lacks curiosity and an attention span beyond a couple seconds. Conservatives loudly accuse (while projecting), demand detailed explanation and then immediately become disinterested in the explanation they demanded - mostly because they can't comprehend the basic concepts and their eyes glaze over. For the most part they are unserious, homicidal and suicidal and just looking for an excuse to have an outburst.

Don't let them leech your energy trying to explain or debate. They don't know or care what you are talking about.

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

It can run out if the amount if money being distributed exceeds the amount of money being collected. Such as when there are a large number of retirees (the "baby boomer" generation is much larger then the one preceeding it) or fewer workers (eg. if immigration slows or birthrates drop).

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

The point is that it won't. Your internet could torn off next ninth if you don't pay your fucking bill... But you pay your FUCKING bill. There's no validity in your position. It's a right wing propaganda talking point - you're either ignorant of that or complicit in it. Either way, do better.

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It's basic economics, if our population declines (either because people have less babies or immigration declines; both of which are currently happening) there will be less money going in to social security. While that's happening, the number of retirees is greatly increasing.

In terms of your internet service analogy, this is like losing your job at the same time your internet rates get raised. You can't pay your bills if you don't have any money.

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 1 points 58 seconds ago

It's basic BAD FAITH economics. Your point about "less money going in" is a self fulfilling prophecy by the GOP - They dismantle finding sources for the social safety net programs actively and then loudly complain that those programs are doomed.

In the "America great again" years that the lead poisoned boomers are longing for, we had income tax for the highest earners around 90%. So Reagan, bushes and trump give out huge tax cuts to the wealthy, gut the IRS so that money isn't coming in and then ignorant and/or deceptive little foot soldiers like yourself rush in to carry water for the lie and try to create fact through repetition. You are wrong, period, end of story. The only Epsom is of you ate being used and are unaware or if you are willingly perpetuating this bullshit in bad faith.

Your bad position is SO played out in fact, that here is a clip that is a decade old explaining how you are wrong and trying to prop up an old, tired lie. https://youtu.be/k3dK-z9F4C0

Shame on you, bud. You seem smart enough to know better.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 187 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It's not a Ponzi Scheme when there's nobody standing to profit you dumb fucking idiot fuck. It's been getting funded for almost 100 years, and has only recently been under fire by assholes like you who accumulate wealth and remove it from being eligible for such a social safety net. Now you're worried we're coming for yours and Rogan's money to fund it, and we will.

Y'all need to stop listening to these morons pal around and podcasts. They mean to harm you and your families, and take away the already middling social programs that benefit you, not them.

[–] athairmor@lemmy.world 53 points 1 day ago

“If I’m not getting rich off it, someone else is.”

That’s how conservatives, from the rich to the poor, see the world.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s not just recently, conservatives have been threatening social security for decades.

Recently as in the last few decades. Reagan pretty much started all this bullshit, and it's been a tug of war since.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

His bullshit he's spouting isn't even true. US life expectancy hasn't even increased at all over the past 20 years, and has only gone up by like 7 years over the past 50 and they've increased retirement age since then.

[–] caffinatedone@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago

Yep. It’d be inconvenient for them to note that the funding issues are primarily driven by increasing concentration of income which falls above the Social Security withholding cap. If they’d just remove that cap, then no issue.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 92 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Send that nazi back to South Africa

[–] BlueLineBae@midwest.social 10 points 1 day ago

Put that thing back where it came from or so help meeeee

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Better off being sent up to join Willzyx

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 58 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I understand what he is saying. It kinda looks like one at first glance, because contributions from current workers go first to pay current retirees.

But what he misses is that we did it that way on purpose. The end goal was to make Americans more secure as a country. Americans could work at their jobs and be confident that they would be taken care of in their old age by the younger generation as a whole, Americans taking care of each other. I understand that the money I pay in now is going to support my parents and their generation, and I really dont mind. We'll see if these dimwits ruin it by the time I need it.

Everything with these MAGA idiots is zero-sum. If they are paying money to anyone, they need to be the ones getting the benefits from it, otherwise it is a "scam". The problem with zero-sum is that there always have to be winners and losers. And if the people in power are always the winners, what does that make us?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

The existence of disability insurance (SSDI), in and of itself, is enough to refute this "ponzi scheme" bullshit.

There are people who have never paid a cent into Social Security, yet receive benefits.

Imagine that with an actual ponzi scheme... Instead of giving Peter's money to Paul, you give it to Sally who's paraplegic,, can't work, and has paid nothing into the fund.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 41 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I mean, in a way he’s not wrong. The money gets funneled from all of us all the way to the top.

But the thing is, the money does get distributed - all of it. The Ponzi at the top is us again, stealing from it to pay for infrastructure or defense spending.

And that is fine because that type of scheme with a large moat is called insurance. And so long as we can continue to pay out distributions, it is solvent.

But it isn’t solvent, because premiums haven’t kept up with payouts and the payouts for the baby boomers are massive. And if we don’t take some kind of action (e.g. increased premiums, disqualification for the rich, increase the benefit age) then payouts will eventually need to decrease.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 87 points 1 day ago

Actually, the remedy Social Security needs is to remove the income cap. Elon Musk pays just as much into social security as I do: ~$10,900

It's because there's a cap: $176,100. Once you earn that much in income you don't have to pay into social security anymore! It's ridiculous!

Basically, the richer you are, the less you're paying into social security as a percentage of your income. It's the opposite of progressive (just like HSAs).

Remove the cap and people like Musk will be paying millions into Social Security every year. It'll make it solvent again in no time at all.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah no, he's wrong. Government is not a for-profit venture. When you are providing services to citizens, it's not a scam.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 2 points 11 hours ago

And a very merry fuel subsidy to you as well.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 23 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Lol Bro doesn't know what a Ponzi Scheme is

[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

He doesn't know what almost anything really is, despite all the bullshit he spouts. He's the human embodiment of the Dunning Kruger effect.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tree_frog@lemm.ee 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Okay crypto-fascist whatever you say

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 19 points 1 day ago

Says the guy who made most of his fortune on taxpayer money and hype.

[–] Waldowal@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Should have listened to Al Gore: Lockbox

[–] turnip@lemm.ee 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (3 children)

No, what happened during the Reagan administration is that the government recognized that decades in the future, the predicted change in the age pyramid would mean more retirees and fewer workers to support them. So rather than slightly increasing SS taxes in the future to cover this, they started increasing SS taxes immediately and investing that overpayment in Treasury bonds (this is the origin of the Social Security "trust fund" which is routinely misrepresented as the entirely of the SS system). This SS trust fund money is primarily what allowed Reagan to run enormous deficits ("fiscal conservative" lol) without causing interest rates to spiral out of control.

There is absolutely nothing about Social Security which is in any way like a Ponzi scheme. It is simply a pension plan applied to the whole country instead of just an individual company.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 10 points 1 day ago

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›