Social Security is a Ponzi scheme

Ladies and Gentlemen, I take deep offence to the fact that my opponent is accusing me of supposedly straw manning my arguments. I have done none of the kind and I have responded to all of my opponent's arguments. Apparently, he did not want to rebut them all and just picked a few which he thought he could defeat. I would like to point out that my opponent is much more guilty of straw manning than me (I haven't), especially in this round where he has not rebutted anything presented.1. Transfer payment of Social SecurityMy opponent's case is simply that a government is not restrained my monetary constraints and therefore can spend ad infitum. As a result, there is no transfer of payments between generations because the government is using "new money."Here is what SSO Gov has to say about the transfer of money(1)"Dependent upon an unsustainable progression, a common financial arrangement is the so-called "pay-as-you-go" system. Some private pension systems, as well as Social Security, have used this design. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end. As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system"From the picture and quote, we can clearly see that SSO Gov has conceded that Social Security is a transfer of payments from the old generation to the new generation. As long as there are enough of the new generation, the scheme will not fail (refer to Point 4).Obviously, the point of the system continuing on forever is true, if it can maintain a forever lasting amount of investors, which cannot occur in a Ponzi Scheme. A Ponzi Scheme could also continue on forever if there were enough new investors covering the old investors, but alas there are not. This is why Social Security will fail in the near future.This explanation of how the Social Security payments work is exactly one that corresponds with a Ponzi Scheme.For my opponent to prove that the government has no operational constraint and that it translates to Social Security, he must have:1. Proven that the government has unlimited money at disposal (Theoretically impossible).2. Proven that the government takes the FICA tax and spends it elsewhere (Lack of evidence).3. Proven that the money the older generation receives is not the money that the younger generation pays out (Countered by myself and a plethora of evidence).The BOP clearly laid with him as the evidence of monetary redistribution (which he disputed to) was shown by myself.In fact:"When the OASI and DI Trust Funds require redemption of these securities to make expenditures, the Government finances those expenditures out of accumulated cash balances, by raising taxes or other receipts, by borrowing from the public or repaying less debt, or by curtailing other expenditures." (2)From this, we can clearly see that the government does not have unlimited money which it can spend when expenditures are required. Instead, the government 1) Raises taxes (not unlimited) 2) Borrowing (not unlimited) and 3) Curtailing various expenses (not unlimited).My opponent has failed to provide the burden of proof against my case which states that there is no monetary transfer between the old and young generations.2. Money from new investors is given to old investorsThis point was sufficiently proved in C1. My opponent and I could go all day about whether a tax classifies as an investment but that is irrelevant to the case at hand. My opponent has brought this up for some arbitrary reason that does not fall into our current debate.3. No or very little profit is transactionHere my opponent has conceded to my point. However, he goes onto say that a Ponzi Scheme has a fraudulent profit. This is false and was demonstrated as pure nonsense in the first round. A Ponzi Scheme is simply the redistribution of money from one party to another party. No real profit is made during the transaction, but instead there is simply the siphoning of money.4. Lack of New investorsHere, my opponent has completely straw manned my argument. Instead of providing accurate rebuttals for my points, he has simply summarized them and apparently declared them "contradictory", even though that is completely false.A Ponzi Scheme fails because of a demographic problem; the fact that there aren't enough new investors supporting the old investors. I pointed out that a Ponzi Scheme fails because of the Dependency Ratio, which is a demographic problem. My opponent has completely ignored my arguments.There are only a finite number of people in this world, and the crux of a Ponzi Scheme failure as well as a Social Security failure, is the fact that the ratio of old dependents to new dependents will become too high to upkeep. This is evidently shown by my studies linked in Round 1 about how Social Security will fail.A Ponzi Scheme does not direcly contribute to this issue, and neither does Social Security. A Ponzi Scheme is based on this issue of everlasting investors, which eventually fails. The only reason why Social Security has lasted so long is because it transfers money later on in a person's life, rather than almost immediately. Also, Social Security is implemented by a tax, and therefore not voluntary like a Ponzi Scheme.A Ponzi Scheme fails because of the Dependency Ratio.My opponent has not addressed any of my arguments.5. FraudulentMy opponent's argument as a metaphor is pretty much:1. All Cigar are white.2. A black cigar is not white.3. Therefore, a black cigar is not a cigar.Replace white with fraudulent and this is my opponent's argument.I have already shown how a fraudulent distinction of whether Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme is superficial.In fact, Social Security even fits under my opponent's definition of fraud:Fraud 1 a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right[For it to be fraudulent, I must prove that there is either a surrender of a legal right, or a perversion of truth.The Social Security program promises its retirees returns on their investments when they retire (3).According to a recent study by the Cato Institute(4): Mueller assumes that the returns to workers investing in the stock market will be 77 percent less over the next 75 years than stock market investors have earned over the past 75 years. He projects that the rate of economic growth over the next 75 years will decline by over 50 percent compared with the past 75 years, and he fails to account anywhere for the increase in economic growth that would result from Social Security privatization. By 2037, the expected payouts will only be about 3/4 of the promised benefits (5).The mechanics of the Social Security system prove it to be unsustainable, and yet it was enacted.Social Security is a fraud. It is the perversion of truth for citizens to systematically part with their money because of promised, but not given, benefits.However, this argument is completely superficial. The mechanics of Social Security are exactly that of a Ponzi Scheme.ConclusionMy opponent has completely straw manned by arguments and has not rebutted them in the slightest.Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.(1)http://www.ssa.gov...(2)http://www.ssa.gov...(3) http://www.ssa.gov...(4)http://www.cato.org...(5)http://americanvision.org...