Marxism Never Sleeps

Tyler Durden's picture

And another chart that needs additional exposure...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
snowball777's picture

Marxist soldiers, bitchez!

Oh regional Indian's picture

Hardly the full impact graph.

Take a look at the excludees. SNAP, Vets...transfer payments...hmmmmmm.....

And while you are at it, remember this:


Careless Whisper's picture

Yeah, but take a look at the "includes", like Social Security recipients. They paid for those benefits. Prolly paid more than what they're getting in return. Social Security currently takes in more annually than it pays out. But whatever, the gov borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends. That's not good. So why not just slash everything, across the board? Everything means everything, and just deal with it because otherwise we will have bigger problems. Right?


cpu's picture

1) You don't pay for your SS benefits.  Your money goes to pay other people's

benefits.  You have no money at the SS administration with your name on it.

2) There is no SS trust fund.  It has ALWAYS been a transfer program from

workers to non-workers.

3) SS doen NOT take in more that it pays out.  In 2009 it started cashing IOUs

to pay benefits.


Careless Whisper's picture

It has ALWAYS been a transfer program from workers to non-workers.

Don't you mean a transfer program from workers to retired workers who just got done paying a lifetime of transfer payments for others?


Fukushima Sam's picture

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors.

Charles Wilson's picture

Fleming vs. Nestor

Helvering vs. Davis

'N you can look it up.



Miss anthrope's picture

+applause thank you                    a ponzi scheme=social security

malek's picture

Just like the subtlety that gov't workers don't pay in. Let's split some more hairs!

Libertarian777's picture

not quite.

SS use to be an 'insurance', small premiums everyone paid, and only got benefits if you exceeded average life expectancy (65 when SS started).

SS had a sufficiently large base that politicians over the past 10 years could promise the SAME benefits to EVERYONE who is now on average living beyond 65), so instead of whatever small % living beyond expected average age, and claiming SS, EVERYONE claims SS now.

So beneficiaries increased but the insurance premiums everyone paid remain constant. At no time in the last 30 years has anyone paid in enough to cover their benefit.

Even now, I pay a lot less than my SS statement says I can claim. I'm not betting on that benefit being worth anything in real terms when I retire. SS is an income tax, plain and simple, the proceeds are NOT invested in anything (government debt is NOT an 'investment' to me, anymore than giving money to a homeless person is an investment).

So much like Bernie Madoff, investors who got paid their '10% annual returns' and cashed out, are upset that the ponzi was discovered and the other investors are asking for a clawback.

SS recipients are in the same ponzi scheme. Unfortunately the SS 'asset' base was so large, the ponzi scheme could go on for a while, until 2009, when it hit that inflection point.Remember if Bernie Madoff could hide a $30-60 bn ponzi for 30 years, how long could you hide a $900bn ponzi?

cpu's picture


You don't even have to retire.  I work with 2 guys who have reached full

retirement age and are drawing a full SS check while continuing to work.


snowball777's picture

Then why do they keep sending me letters about my "account" with those 4-digit monthly number projections?

Manthong's picture

I believe that for economy reasons they stopped sending the annual statements.

Or was is some other reason?

snowball777's picture

Nope, the SSA sent me mine last year...I remember doing the calculations to see exactly where it landed on the insurance to Ponzi spectrum (my contributions versus the likely amount they'd have to pay out if I live to a ripe old age). IIRC, I was into the pockets of future children for about $100k depending on when I decide to quit working.


cpu's picture

The fine print on that statement says that Congress can change this at any time.


ATM's picture

And the supreme court has ruled that govt benefit payments are not a contract but a rovacable promise.

Even at that I know that SSI payment will be made o me and you. The problem is that the value of the payments is going to be a near if not zero.

The govt controls two variables in the equation. The actual payments and the value of the payments because they control the value of our currency. It's political suicide to reduce the payments but they can blame the greedy speculators, the rich, the hedge funds or anyone else when the dollar collapses. That's what always happens.

Bobbyrib's picture

Basically it is just another tax.

Harlequin001's picture

no, basically it's a scam that pretends to provide a benefit or entitlement in later years that you don't actually have.

A tax we expect to pay and be spent for our benefit probably during the coming year...

It is a scam, outright.


rufus13's picture

Careless Whisperer: SSI is a TAX. No individual payer of SSI "withholding" develops a property interest or a specific obligation against the US Gov't or the Social Security Administration. There is no "trust fund", there is only non-marketable IOU's which will/may be paid by selling real US Treasury Obligations to the market (or to the FRB, as much of the sales are now) to generate current funds to send out checks to the little people. 

"SSI takes in more than it pays out": Sorry, wrong, old data. Getting worse demographically and as folks can't find work they retire ASAP as rules allow or get themselves "disabled" to qualify for early-retirement. Humiliation being better to most folks than trying harder or working for less than their last job. 


What are the actual obligations of the US Gov? Look at the Constitution:

We have to pay legitimate debt already incurred, or at least the interest on that debt. We need to pay the current earned-pay of Federal employees (but they can be laid off or let go to prevent future pay), statutory retirement obligations of Federal employees and the nation needs defending, but not at the current level of funding. There is NO OBLIGATION to pay "social welfare benefits" or "Social Security benefits".  Of course, social unrest begins when checks don't arrive, so inflation will reduce actual value of SSI benefits to half over a decade, also reducing the US Debt by half over the same decade, all the while Gov't "official statistics" will be manipulated and  re-adjusted for the advantage of the ruling classes who get to spend dot-gov money first. 


Some Gov't functions should not be cut at all, and some should be 97% cut, depending on if the activity is mandated by the Supreme Law of the United States. 

Austerity means less Government hand outs and fewer gov't jobs handing out goodies. 



Freddie's picture

Hope & Change bitchez.   Quite a few Umaba c*** s'ers here on ZH voted for this in 2008.

JW n FL's picture

yeah it started in 2008.. before then everything was perfect. fucking nigger ruined the world!

malikai's picture

Hardly Marxism. In real Marxism, people like Blankfein and Dimon would have been hanging from trees long ago.

legal eagle's picture

Tell Saddam that. Just so are clear, the fraud by the government and the banks caused this mess. The sheeple did not.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Steve Pieczenik said Saddam was not hung, and is alive and kicking.  The big lie is afoot.

TheBadgersSett's picture

True story. Uncle Saddam and Bin Laden are both working as tour reps on the Bulgarian Riviera.

cossack55's picture

I thought they were chillin' with Ken Lay in Denver.

Pure Evil's picture

Nah, they're all down in Costa Rica knockin' back girlie drinks and wank spankin' 12 year old virgins.

toady's picture

Don't forget Hendrix, Jim Morrison & JFK (he is getting really old now...)

Slewburger's picture

Fucktard junkers.

Agreed. Saddam is/was a CIA asset under Bush I. Poor quality phone video was "leaked", clearly propaganda. As is the pictures of the "fortress" Tim Osman was in.

gwar5's picture

Well, you're right but....

The banks get rich pushing massive U.S. social spending and debt pushed by the socialist democrat politicians. Our debt becomes their most secure assets, fractional banking does the rest. I don't ever recall Goldman Sachs or JPM lobbying for USA austerity. They own us. 

The do-gooder street marxist/socialists are just tools sabotaging their own warped cause and making the banks rich.

"Marxism never sleeps, so neither shall I." -- Gulag inmate, Soviet Union

snowball777's picture

Because without SS those old people wouldn't still be beholden to the banks, just directly?

Pull the other one.

Dan Alter's picture

Massive social spending?? You are grossly misinformed. Social Security has 2.4 trillion of US govt IOUs in its trust fund on which Congress has graciously agreed to pay 2% interest. It is massively over funded. At 4% we would be talking about an increase in benefits and a cut in the tax rate. You do know how compound interest works don't you?

We are spending a trillion a year on six wars of aggression and not a word about it from you. War spending when we are not being attacked is murder by us. We do not have a budget problem without the war spending.

We spend 18% of GDP on medical, twice what every other industrial country spends to give medical to all there  citizens. We do not have a budget problem with a rational single payer system, and that does not mean a government or insurance company bureaucrat can tell you who to see or what to take.


Our problem is people like you who spit out the word socialism like a dirty word, and then speak and act as if promoting the General Welfare = socialism is wrong.

We live by exchange and that is by inspection a social activity.

Grow a mind capable of critical thinking instead of spouting untrue and non factual nonsense.


Greenhead's picture

And where do you suppose the money should come from to pay the interest or redeem the tbills?  That money is gone, it has been spent, it doesn't belong to the government anymore.  So where should the new money come from?  Taxes?  More debt? Printing?  You seem to believe that there is something sacred about Social Security that makes it different from all the other entitlement programs.  Just because someone paid taxes with a special name to them doesn't make them any different to the fedgov once they came in the door.  Get over yourself and the idea that any promise has to always be kept by these guys.  Things change and all kinds of folks have gotten money from Social Security for many different reasons that had nothing to do with "retirement".  Now the money is gone, but we can always raise the debt ceiling and borrow more!  Someone will surely want to loan us more money so we can replace the Trust Fund bonds.  Grow a mind...

Miss anthrope's picture

"Things change and all kinds of folks have gotten money from Social Security for many different reasons that had nothing to do with "retirement". 


Can I just say that you must be young.  I kept thinking that the young people around here might swing the pendulum back to honesty and integrity.  Looks like that isn't happening. 

Why doesn't someone sue the FEDS over the situation that SS is a ponzi. If it is ponzi then it is illegal.  Isn't it. This is when my libertarian roots and my self-reliance back-ground start getting me in trouble with the "entitlement"  and big government players crowd.

rufus13's picture

SSI: biggest, longest-running Ponzi scheme of all time. Yes, it's been illegal the whole time, but Roosevelt threatened to pack the SCOTUS if they didn't okay it. After a while workers hoped to get some of their money back and it became politically popular. 

It sucks to be 40-something and be looking at 27 more years of paying in more-and-more for nothing. 



robobbob's picture

ummm, you understand where that "interest" comes from, right? and what eventually happens to all systems dependant on "compound" interest, right?

"spit out the word socialism like a dirty word", and yes, it is a filthy word to anyone who believes in individual freedom.

it is a synonym for slavery. its the elites road back to the good old days of feudalism, complete with fealty and retainers.

AustriAnnie's picture

Saying that SS is over funded because it is full of IOU's which are essentially owed from one gov't entity to another, on top of which it must pay interest to itself, is a little bit of a stretch don't you think?

Social Security is essentially a TAX.  It is a wealth transfer from workers to non-workers.  There is no "trust fund" which indicates anything other than wealth transfer and interest payments which will cost Americans even more money (compounded interest is burden to the taxpayers in this instance, it does not indicate growth of wealth, but rather growth of debt).  Anytime there is a small surplus in SS taxes, the gov't spends the money and issues an IOU to itself.  As we all know, the gov't does not create wealth with which to pay off debts, the burden of the debt falls on taxpayers and/or loss of purchasing power by means of debasing the currency to pay debt with cheaper dollars, throwing the burden on future generations.

"The government admits as much in the FY 1996 Budget of the United States document entitled Analytical Perspectives, "These balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures -- but only in a bookkeeping sense. Unlike the assets of private pension plans, they do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. ...When determining the trust fund balances, the government normally considers both public transactions and intra-governmental transfers. But in determining whether a trust fund program contributes to the deficit, it can be useful to consider just the public transactions. For example, in FY 1994 the Social Security Trust Fund took in $335.0 billion in tax receipts from the public. It spent $317.6 in benefit payments to the public. This gave it a public transactions accounting basis surplus of $17.4 billion. That was a real surplus, which Congress spent. However, when intra-governmental interest and contributions transfers are included, the Social Security Trust Fund had a surplus of $56.8 billion. This is the amount of bogus securities the government issued to itself for that trust fund. The real surplus, $17.4 billion, was used as an offset to general expenditures, an action which the government brags about as a method of reducing the deficit but which in actuality was a general tax increase hidden in FICA taxes during the 1980s under the guise of "prefunding" benefits: prior to this time Social Security had generally levied only the taxes necessary for the payment of benefits.(5) Since the trust fund securities cannot and do not finance program expenditures, this is clearly a deceitful abuse of language.

While it's true that "a trust fund must use its income for purposes designated by law," this law requires any surplus to be "invested" in Treasury securities.(6) Never mind that spending the actual cash surplus on general expenditures while writing yourself an IOU does not constitute an "investment" in any meaningful sense of the term: Congress interprets the law in this manner and the public lacks legal standing to challenge this interpretation, since by law it is the U.S. Government, not the public, which owns the trust funds' income and assets."

There are multiple sources which explain this.  Even gov't publications have admitted as much, and Alan Greenspan admitted it as well.


I'll be the first to agree with you that the cost of war is a larger contributor to our financial problems. I'd love to see the war spending stop as well.  I will agree with you that we live by exchange and that it is a social activity.  VOLUNTARY exchange is an activity of free men.  Exchange of wealth from one party to another, by force, is slavery.


Freddie's picture

The sheeple watching elites TV for the 24x7 brainwashing enabled it.  TV is the matrix to brainwash the sheep.

JW n FL's picture

he is a repubic hair plant.

SuperRay's picture

i don't get you send me to a promo for some scumbag movie that glorifies the criminals who continue to rape us?  wtf?

A Nanny Moose's picture

Light a banker a fire, keep him warm for the night. Light a banker on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

ebworthen's picture


How many "transfer payments" have the banksters received?

Hard to blame people for joining the "I'm broke, bail me out and give me food" bandwagon.

How many banksters get catered lunches with our politicians that they have bought, and get bailed out and loans at 0.25% from Uncle Ham on the backs of our children?

What part of "moral hazard" do those fools in Washington and Wall Street not understand?

Hangings, more hangings.

malikai's picture

They understand the facts perfectly well. We are not here by accident.

101 years and counting's picture

"Hangings, more hangings."

Um, at this point, I'd be happy with some perp walks. 

cossack55's picture

Screw that. Beheadings, baby, speaking of healthcare, where is Dr. Guillotine?

nonclaim's picture

Hardly Marxism. In real Marxism, people like [... would be dead.]

Only in theory. In all real life implementations it needed a powerful oligarchy to "make it work". Paradoxically, it'll always need an oligarchy to function and, thus, will never work as envisioned. [Not to mention this is the least problem of the whole Marxism, which is completely flawed.]