Shock: Chris Matthews Admits Social Security Is Ponzi Scheme
It's not often that you see a member of the liberal media elite concede an important point to conservatives. It's even rarer when the person doing it is Obama cheerleader Chris Matthews. But that's just what happened during last night’s “Hardball” when the former Tip O’Neill aide dared to state the obvious fact that Social Security is remarkably similar to a Ponzi scheme—a truth that has become not just inconvenient to the left, but almost verboten.
Matthews’s admission occurred in a discussion about Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry who has come under a huge amount of fire from the left and even from fellow candidates for repeatedly stating that the pay-as-you-go nature of Social Security has many similarities to a classic Ponzi pyramid scheme.
Democrats and their media allies have tried to shield the American public from this fact but Perry’s continued usage of “Ponzi scheme” in his rhetoric has significantly raised awareness of Social Security’s fundamentally unsound nature, and in the process earned him the ire of the professional left.
That’s why Chris Matthews’s almost blithe admission is all the more surprising when he asked Republican strategist Todd Harris: “How does a Republican deal with the fact that it is a Ponzi scheme, in the sense that the money that’s paid out every day is coming from people who paid in that day?”
The discussion that followed was remarkably free of the usual liberal imprecations and fearmongering, to the credit of both Matthews and Democratic strategist Steve McMahon who was also participating in the discussion. See video below for the full context, transcript of Matthews's specific remarks below:
Social Security had to be for everybody. No means test. You paid for it while you worked. When you retired and had not other form of income, this would help you out. In fact a lot of people in the old days were impoverished without Social Security. It’s a great anti-poverty program.
But then people started to live past 65. Even the great Franklin Roosevelt didn’t make it to 65. In those days, if you made it to 65, you were lucky, you got a few bucks out of Social Security. Today, lots of people fortunately make it past 65. They live into their 80s and 90s. They’re still getting checks. The system doesn’t work that way anymore. It’s not as healthy as it once was. So, how does a Republican deal with the fact it is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that the money that’s paid out every day is coming from people who paid in that day? It’s not being made somewhere.
This conversation comes in stark contrast to the one that NB’s Noel Sheppard noted yesterday between CNBC’s Rick Santelli and Tom Friedman during which the latter seemed almost ontologically unable to admit that a system that pays old stakeholders with the funds of new ones is basically a Ponzi scheme.
Instead of focusing on the general principle, Friedman kept getting hung up on the specific difference that private pyramid schemes are illegal.
“A Ponzi scheme is a criminal endeavor and I don’t think this is it,” Friedman insisted.
See the rest of Sheppard’s entry for a thorough debunking of Friedman's nonsense.
Hat tip: Bryan Preston who notes: "So now, Mitt Romney has positioned himself to the left of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Social Security. Do I need to point out that that’s not going to help in a GOP primary?"
- Matthew Sheffield's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Chris finally put down that
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 3:23pm.
Chris finally put down that crack pipe?
Only briefly while he gets a
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 3:55pm.
Only briefly while he gets a new stash.
“A Ponzi scheme is a criminal
Submitted by ThePickle on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 3:24pm.
“A Ponzi scheme is a criminal endeavor and I don’t think this is it,” Friedman insisted.
OK putz let me put it small words for ya.
If ANYONE (other than the government) were operating a scheme that mirrored "Social Security" in every aspect, that person would be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced for engaging in an illegal "Ponzi" scheme.
The reason that "Social Security" ISN'T a crime is because this "ponzi scheme" was enacted by an act of Congress.
I mentioned earlier that all
Submitted by okie-pastor on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 3:45pm.
I mentioned earlier that all you have to do to make your point to anyone who disagrees that its a ponzi scheme is to ask them what a ponzi scheme is, if they don't know then enlighten them and remind them how social security works and why it will implode.
Can you imagine if John McCain had said to Norah ODonells snarky comment about Rick Perry not being electable by saying extreme, stupid things like social security is a ponzi scheme: "well Norah if you have evidence that it is NOT one Im more than eager to listen!". BOOM. She would be speechless. Absolutely Speechless. "uh uh uh you are supposed to agree with me and not challenge what I say!"
Exactly
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 3:45pm.
Convicted felon Bernie Madoff comes to mind.
Friedman's claim that Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme because it is legal, appears to be a corollary of Nixon's assertion that if the President (namely him) does anything, it's legal.
This is like other government ventures --
Now the question becomes
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 3:57pm.
Now the question becomes "Will someone or some entity challenge its legality under the definition of 'ponzi scheme'"? Class action?
The time seems to be right.
Excellent points. I've said
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 3:58pm.
Excellent points. I've said before that government in many respects is the biggest peddler of vice in our society.
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James MadisonSocial Security has been called a Ponzi scheme ...
Submitted by Fredy on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 4:33pm.
... for more than 60 years! This is nothing new.
The entire debate of Perry's use of the word is a distraction from Obama's FAILED economic plans.
You are correct....
Submitted by GregE on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 8:58pm.
and Perry should have known better than to use the term Ponzi scheme. Sure, that's what it is, but he could have explained some points of illegality, then tell the viewer the points of Social Security...........one being legal, one not. One run by government, one not. So basically, government is above the laws they create.
Its only a Ponzi scheme if
Submitted by redfish on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 4:48pm.
Its only a Ponzi scheme if you think it has to be self-funding to work. People are told its self-funding, and I think it should be self-funding, but to be honest, you can always run SS in a solvent manner by milking the necessary money from rich people. Which is how its ended up working, in a real sense.
No.
Submitted by ArrowSmith on Sat, 09/10/2011 - 12:52pm.
That's not how SocSec was sold to the American people. We were told by FDR that it was a pension scheme. So now it's "soak the rich" time and screw any morality. America is circling the drain!
However, Perry who addressed
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 4:47pm.
However, Perry who addressed the issue needs to go one step further by noting that Congress took every penny of the Social Security surplus all those years to "invest" it in social spending. Liberals admitted to this malfeasance years ago when they justified deficit spending as "investments." So what's been the return on those "investments", zero, nada, zilch!
Perry needs to drive home the point IF Social Security were run like a pension fund then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. The fact is Congress squandered over $2.5 trillion of trust fund money.
Tangentially, what's Obama doing about the Fraud, Waste and Abuse in Social Security? What has he done to verify that the people getting checks are actually alive? Or even going to the proper person? Nothing! But he wants a tax increase and claims it is fair to tax the "rich" more because he failed at his job of management? I call that INCOMPETENCE!
entitlement reform
Submitted by nanabanana on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 5:50pm.
Someone explain Paul Ryan's idea to me again?
http://www.roadmap.republican
Submitted by GregE on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 9:12pm.
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/
roadmap
Submitted by nanabanana on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 9:26pm.
Thanks, GregE - bookmarked it. Kinda thought the idea had merit when I first heard of it.
Cris Madnews is a
Submitted by gr29az on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 7:30pm.
Cris (tingles) madnews is a ponzi scheme
Nevermind the terminology
Submitted by GregE on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 8:55pm.
Drop the term Ponzi scheme (as Perry should have done), and simply explain what a Ponzi scheme is. Compare the merits, not the labels.
Government's own link.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm
Thing is, I am not FORCED to pay into a defined Ponzi scheme. Go figure.
Government run Social Security Program = Ponzi Scheme
Submitted by gruyere cheese on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 10:41pm.
Our Social Security Program is not privatized, it is managed by the government. They, "the government" do not inform us "the tax payers" how our social security money is being spent or, if, our investment is losing value like a 401K. You borrow from Paul to pay Peter -- how can this be interpreted as a sensible business investment?
Just a note
Submitted by ArrowSmith on Sat, 09/10/2011 - 12:54pm.
it's considering conventional wisdom by the left these days that any pushing the idea of SocSec as a Ponzi scheme is batshit crazy. I guess Chris Matthews is thrown under the bus.