Really. Have any figures to refute the "claim" global human population has steadily risen throughout recorded history? The only exception I know is, again, the Black Deaths peak. Otherwise, population has steadily risen, more than quadrupled in the last century alone. Even in 1920 global population was higher than in 1910, despite the Great Wars mass slaughter from 1914-1918 and the Spanish Flu epidemics even higher 1919 toll. Those who devised SS a decade later were surely KEENLY aware of the actuarial risk of such things. However, they probably figured if THAT did not reverse population growth, nothing else was likely to either.

Speaking of "a little research before spouting off" though, the SS beneficiary/contributor ratio is actually 2.74, not 2:

56,758,000 Social Security beneficiaries as of December 31, 2012 (SSA http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/FACTS/)

155,511,000 US workers as of December 2012 (USBLS http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm)

2:1 is SLIGHTLY lowballing it (by ~42 million workers, despite the Great Recession.) At "full employment" (i.e. 95%) the ratio would be <3.2. At full employment, and assuming 19% of SS beneficiaries will (as now) always be people <65, 2060 is the ONLY time in the next FIFTY YEARS of Census Bureau projections the ratio will hit 2:1—when it will be 1.99. In 2040 and 2045 it actually goes UP, thanks to the Baby Bust. The long terms trend in US birth rates, mortality and immigration are for the US population to rise through at least 2060, when it will be ~420 million. Far more significant to this discussion is that the Boomer spike in elderly population growth will end ~2035; afterward the rate at which both median age and elderly populations rise will be cut in HALF.

As long as contributors>beneficiaries it is not a Ponzi. Barring some catastrophe preferentially targeting ablebodied adults over children and the elderly (EXACTLY what both World Wars AND the Spanish Flu did WITHOUT lowering the US population,) people >65 will NEVER outnumber people <65. I am not even sure that is true in Africa (have not checked) despite what AIDS is doing to their population pyramid. Note the term "population PYRAMID;" grouping population by age inevitably takes that shape, which is what makes social securitys structure inherently sustainable: Population growth is ALWAYS a pyramid.

Ponzis do not fail because of the pyramid, but because it cannot extend indefinitely; SSs MUST. For those with math skill you claim, THAT is "self evident."

Now, we can debate and discuss whether it can pay a given return for a given period, or whether any given return is justified—but NOT until we get past the factually false notion it is inherently doomed to insolvency. Knowingly misrepresenting the facts precludes convincing anyone aware of them "reform" is sincere, rather than a smokescreen for abolition. Here is the real kicker: Even IF claims SS beneficiaries will soon (or ever) outnumber workers were true, it would mean the majority of Americans were on SS. Good luck convincing them to end it. But then, if you are as smart as you claim, you probably realize that if you convince everyone NOT on SS to rescind it from everyone who IS that will ALWAYS be a majority, even though the attempt is based on claiming the opposite. That is unworthy of you, or should be.

"Facts are facts," indeed.

"The Social Security model that has been saddled upon the American People was crafted by morons" is an opinion, unless you meant "moron" in the literal historical sense, in which case it is a falsehood disproven by every IQ test ever taken by every member of FDRs "Brain Trust."

"it was not, and could not, ever actually work indefinitely" is a mathematical falsehood disproven by your own admission the current worker:retiree ratio is 2:1, which also means it is not a Ponzi, since the number of contributors is nowhere near the number of beneficiaries, nor will be for the foreseeable future.

"the people who put it together knew it, and LIED to gain a political advantage" is an opinion AND supposition, unless you have documented evidence, let alone proof, Frances Perkins (or Francis Townsend) 1) knew SS could not work but 2) intentionally told the US public otherwise to 3) gain political advantage.

I do not ignore, only cite, the facts, with documented sources. Ideology is irrelevant to their veracity, though their veracity is VERY relevant to the wisest ideology.