You know, admitted, that; why try to prove their claim with facts INVALIDATING it? The election is over, man, and did not exactly vindicate that strategy.

When we say food stamps provide "sustenance" we do not mean they make people fat, or rich, or that government cheese is delicious: They survive, with a minimum nutrition standard. Living off MREs is SUSTAINABLE; soldiers can survive on nothing else indefinitely without muscle loss, lethargy or other malnourishment. Many options are tastier and many others cheaper, but that is irrelevant to sustainability. Soldiers on MREs can SUSTAIN a days march; whether to a field position, the next camp or nowhere except back to last nights camp is irrelevant to that. Sufficient soldiers with adequate arms can SUSTAIN an attack; whether it goes like San Juan Hill, Normandy or Picketts Charge does not change that. An attacks sustainability does not depend on its outcome (often, the reverse is true.)

I bolded the condition satisfied by "Kinda hard to run in the red any sort of pension or savings plan where your customer pool has been increasing every year." I agree "Any given year in which the number of people 18-65 outnumber the number of people 65+ that SS doesn't bring in more than it shells out would represent an epic disaster of mismanagement nearly worthing of mass public hangings," but that does NOT mean SS is a Ponzi: It means SS has been mismanaged since (at least) 2011, even though contributors outnumber beneficiaries >2:1, so "get a rope...." Evidently, Bushs idea to raise the witholding limit then declare multiple witholding tax "holidays" was somewhat inefficient, one might even say, "mismanaged."

Social Security was not just in the black the 1 or 2 months it had a mere handful of beneficiaries but a nation of contributors to eventually pay: It was in the black for each of 900 consecutive months. Literally half "current" beneficiaries were not even BORN when it was created; we (should) have moved past Ponzi comparisons.

Name three 1935 investments that immediately paid their full legally obligated return, each and every month, but STILL had $2.5 trillion in the bank after 75 years. Hell, name ONE: All stocks went up AND down over time, so people who retired on stocks in 1995 or 2000 did great, but those who did it in 2002 or 2009 took a bath (hence we do not do that with SS.) Inflation often outpaced CDs and Treasury securities—EXCEPT (wait for it...) SSs unique Treasury securities, because the CoLA ensures SS ALWAYS beats inflation.

Incidentally, saying, "it is not a Ponzi but it is but I just do not want to CALL it that" is as contradictory as it is inconsistent. My goal here was separating baseless criticism and excuses for SSs abolition from valid criticisms motivating sincere reform. Your inconsistent use of "sustainable" just further muddies rather than clearing the water (not accusing you, but I suspect other Republicans favor it for just that reason.) You have a good mind; wasting it carrying water for rather than fixing the GOP would be tragic. You have no obligation to accept absurd Dem partisanship, but none to accept it from Republicans either, and the sad truth is doing so harms rather than helps your party. It may be impossible to go broke appealing to the Lowest Common Denominator, but the GOP is sure giving it the old college try.

I not only can but YOU DID: "Any given year in which the number of people 18-65 outnumber the number of people 65+ that SS doesn't bring in more than it shells out would represent an epic disaster of mismanagement." As long as contributors outnumber beneficiaries everything is fine; what makes a Ponzi a Ponzi is that it cannot accomplish that for more than a few months, let alone indefinitely. Ponzis cannot wait two GENERATIONS for new contributors to be born, grow up and enter the workforce, while half their beneficiaries die before reaching eligibility age. Social Security can and does, which makes all the difference in the world. You already explicitly conceded that, so htf can you now say things like:

It still is; we just need to adjust the benefit terms to reflect a centurys worth of changing reality. How best to do that is a valid vital discussion, but it is inane to claim SS was always a Ponzi scheme and thus inherently, inevitably, doomed from the outset to go bankrupt. You KNOW that; why else shy away from the Ponzi charge? If Cannoli and A2Ks charges are substantively valid so is their terminology; if not, not. It is impossible to accept MY logic but THEIR claim, because the two are contradictory. Pick the logic OR the claim; "both" is not among your options.

Not really; they have repeatedly said outright SS was ALWAYS a Ponzi scheme, and therefore a swindle that COULD not remain solvent, on ANY basis. Not that it became one (which does not really work; a Ponzi schemes fraud is inherent in its fundamental structure) but ALWAYS WAS one. That is the basis of their claim SS was always a moneypit that MUST be abolished because it CANNOT be saved. And the fact is, urging we replace defined benefit retirement insurance with gambling at Atlantic City North is still urging we abolish SS, even if the reasons are different. If the GOP honestly thinks it can sell that to America in the wake of Ken Lay, Worldcom, Lehman Bros., Merrill-Lynch, Citigroup et al. fraudulently robbing investors: Good luck.

Did they? They still say SS could never avoid bankruptcy on any basis. Not "unless it always had more contributors than beneficiaries" (which they claim is impossible, because SS is a Ponzi.) Not "unless benefits were restricted to equal or less than contributions." No way, no how: NO reform can salvage SS, because it was a fraudulent Ponzi from inception. Maybe you are not hearing what they are saying, because you and they are NOT making the same argument. At all. You are making my arguments to support their contention; do you genuinely not see the contradiction in that, and if so, HOW?! Their postulates are "absurd" but their conclusion valid?

"...an increase in obligations can conceal the sustainability of a system"? Was that a Freudian slip? Because CONCEALING SSs sustainability is EXACTLY what increased obligations did. It remains as institutionally sustainable as ever (despite many Republicans contending just the opposite,) but raising total benefits without proportionately raising contributions is finally, after 75 years, yielding a net loss.

"Robbing Peter to pay Paul" is back to saying, "SS is a Ponzi scheme, but I will not take the heat for using the term." Call it what it is. Social security insurance—around the world—consists of "robbing" Peter and Pauls 5 kids to pay the 2 of them; nothing unsustainable in that, so few other countries are having our problem. Since 1983 Americans have partially paid their OWN benefits as well as their parents, precisely because the Boomers created a (temporarily) top heavy population pyramid. Debating whether we get the best or even a good return is fair; calling the system mathematically and inherently unsustainable is just horrible math.

... That means investment risk and return are inherently proportional. High risk, low return investments are unmarketable, because less risk provides the same return. High risk investments are only marketable with proportionaly high return.

Again, one aspect of a much larger valid discussion. Here is the thing though:

That discussion is impossible until we put to rest the popular but false claim SS is BY NATURE unsustainable. The tens of millions of conservatives who believe it are not interested in better managing what they insist is inherently a Ponzi scheme. The tens of millions of liberals who hear that claim cannot believe conservative demands for "reform" are made in good faith rather than as a Trojan horse for ending SS altogether. Citing all reasons the Ponzi charge is substantively false yet insisting it is nonetheless substantively true but the term unmarketable does not help.

I could ask what non-gambling you have in mind apart from government securities (of which the entire SS trust fund consists; converting them to T-bills etc. would change nothing.) But it is irrelevant while your Congressional delegation tries to abolish SS under the guise of "reforming" it, reducing the Dem delegation to fighting a holding action rather than saving SS. While that impasse endures, SSs chance of doing so diminishes; it is not INHERENTLY unsustainable, but IS unsustainable on its CURRENT TERMS. That was the whole point of "starving the beast," was it not?

Once we agree SS is not an inherently unsustainable Ponzi that must be abolished ere insolvency, THEN we can talk about ways to manage it better. As long as one side tries to get rid of it as a money pit the other cannot take any supposed "reforms" seriously, so no progress is possible.

Again, a valid aspect of a much larger administrative discussion. If/when we ever get past "SS was a fraud doomed to bankruptcy from the start and must be ended before it takes the country down with it" I will be happy to go there. Until then that is not an option, because even when a Republican makes a sincere reform proposal much of the party still uses SSs cited flaws as an excuse to abolish it, prompting most Dems to resist ALL GOP reform efforts (sincere and otherwise.)

More simply: Until we agree SS was not inherently a lost cause from the start, discussing how to save it is pointlesss.

No argument, and as to treating SS as insurance rather than (other) investment: "Old Age, Survivors And Disability Insurance Program." What could be clearer?

By that definition defaulting on most federal debt would be moral within 20 years. Even if that were moral it could never be tenable. YOU tell my mom it is "moral" to deny her SS benefits after she paid into the system her whole life. Do not kid yourself that argument will get easier to sell once most Boomers are gone and retiree numbers fall. We do not have that kind of time, but if we did the "Baby Bust" would reduce much of SSs funding problems. But you will NEVER convince most adults who lived through the past decade they are better off putting their retirement savings in the hands of Lehman Bros. or Ken Lay than the federal governments.