Well, sort of.
I think when it was thought up, the premise was each generation would produce more and more Social Security paying wage earners who would outnumber prior generations and so sustain the system. Also, the average lifespan pst retirement was pretty low back then. It has exploded recently.
However, under Johnson, Carter and Clinton the system was distorted by using the fund for non-Social Security purposes, and the population dynamics changed. The number of collecting, non-paying raiders increased with the explosion of under the table earning illegals.
So it wasn’t a Ponzi scheme when it originated, but has now become one. Never trust the government to run anything, especially with your money.
No, it was clear from the beginning what SS was. Go read the Jacoby piece on SS that has been posted today.
And the demographics were bad in in the 30s when the law was enacted. The Post-War Baby Boom put off the crisis for a while, but in the 30s no one could forsee that temporary reprieve.
The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.
The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.
You left out Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
SS is, by definition, a Ponzi scheme.
What you are trying to describe is sone form of a SUCCESSFUL Ponzi scheme.
It is still a Ponzi scheme.