Social Security Worse than a Ponzi Scheme

Michael Tanner, National Review September 1, 2011

Get FREE NRO Newsletters

August 29 Issue

Subscribe to NR

Renew

August 29 Issue | Subscribe | Renew

Page Tools

TEXT RESIZE

RSS Feed

Print Version

NRO Links

Set Sail with NR

Join Mark Steyn, Fred Thompson, John Bolton, VDH, Jonah, Jay, Rich, Ramesh, Mona, S.E., KLO, Andy, and dozens of more conservative all stars on the National Review 2011 Caribbean Cruise, November 12-19.

Subscribe to NR

Subscribe to National Review magazine today and save 70 percent off the newsstand price!

Conservative Grads

Learn more about the NR Collegiate Giving Clubs, a special service designed for readers who donate to universities and want to maximize the impact of their giving.

Get NRO Newsletters

MOST-READ CONTENT

Michael Tanner

Archive | Latest | Log In

August 31, 2011 12:00 A.M.

Texas governor Rick Perry is being criticized for calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” Even Mitt Romney is reportedly preparing to attack him for holding such a radical view. But if anything, Perry was being too kind.

The original Ponzi scheme was the brainchild of Charles Ponzi. Starting in 1916, the poor but enterprising Italian immigrant convinced people to allow him to invest their money. However, Ponzi never actually made any investments. He simply took the money he was given by later investors and gave it to his early investors, providing those early investors with a handsome profit. He then used these satisfied early investors as advertisements to get more investors. Unfortunately, in order to keep paying previous investors, Ponzi had to continue finding more and more new investors. Eventually, he couldn’t expand the number of new investors fast enough, and the scheme collapsed. Ponzi was convicted of fraud and sent to prison.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Social Security, on the other hand, forces people to invest in it through a mandatory payroll tax. A small portion of that money is used to buy special-issue Treasury bonds that the government will eventually have to repay, but the vast majority of the money you pay in Social Security taxes is not invested in anything. Instead, the money you pay into the system is used to pay benefits to those “early investors” who are retired today. When you retire, you will have to rely on the next generation of workers behind you to pay the taxes that will finance your benefits.

As with Ponzi’s scheme, this turns out to be a very good deal for those who got in early. The very first Social Security recipient, Ida Mae Fuller of Vermont, paid just $44 in Social Security taxes, but the long-lived Mrs. Fuller collected $20,993 in benefits. Such high returns were possible because there were many workers paying into the system and only a few retirees taking benefits out of it. In 1950, for instance, there were 16 workers supporting every retiree. Today, there are just over three. By around 2030, we will be down to just two.

As with Ponzi’s scheme, when the number of new contributors dries up, it will become impossible to continue to pay the promised benefits. Those early windfall returns are long gone. When today’s young workers retire, they will receive returns far below what private investments could provide. Many will be lucky to break even.

Eventually the pyramid crumbles.

Of course, Social Security and Ponzi schemes are not perfectly analogous. Ponzi, after all, had to rely on what people were willing to voluntarily invest with him. Once he couldn’t convince enough new investors to join his scheme, it collapsed. Social Security, on the other hand, can rely on the power of the government to tax. As the shrinking number of workers paying into the system makes it harder to continue to sustain benefits, the government can just force young people to pay even more into the system.

In fact, Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase.

In addition, at least until the final collapse of his scheme, Ponzi was more or less obligated to pay his early investors what he promised them. With Social Security, on the other hand, Congress is always able to change or cut those benefits in order to keep the scheme going.

Social Security is facing more than $20 trillion in unfunded future liabilities. Raising taxes and cutting benefits enough to keep the program limping along will obviously mean an ever-worsening deal for younger workers. They will be forced to pay more and get less.

Rick Perry got this one right.

— Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

COMMENTS 73

EXPAND

$.getJSON('http://nr-media-01.nationalreview.com/outloudopinion/articles/275908/yes-it-ponzi-scheme-michael-tanner?jsoncallback=?', function(data){ if (data.audio) { $("#outloudopinion").html('

Listen to the Audio Version

').show(); AudioPlayer.embed("outloudaudio", { soundFile: data.audio, titles: "Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme" }); } }); SORT Newest FirstOldest First Bart : 08/31/11 18:53 Link Report Abuse

"A small portion of that money is used to buy special-issue Treasury bonds that the government will eventually have to repay, but the vast majority of the money you pay in Social Security taxes is not invested in anything."

This is not true. The Government has no obligation to repay the special-issue Treasury bonds that are issued to Social Security - the bonds are nothing more than a mechanism (we could use a spreadsheet or a ledger book) by which we account for accumulated surpluses of Social Security tax receipts over Social Security expenditures. Accordingly, it is not that a "majority" of the money is not invested, but rather that none of the money is invested.

When Social Security runs a deficit (e.g., $100 billion), then the Government has 5 choices: 1. Finance the deficit by cutting general spending. 2. Finance the deficit by raising general taxes. 3. Finance the deficit by borrowing money. 4. Obviate the deficit by raising Social Security taxes. 5. Obviate the deficit by decreasing Social Security benefits.

Congress has plenary power to do one or more of these (and if it does nothing then #5 is what occurs). It doesn't matter in the least whether Social Security is asking for $100 billion by tendering $100 billion in special-issue Treasury bonds or by sending a memo to the President saying "We need $100 billion."

Nor does it matter whether the Social Security "trust fund" has $1 trillion or $0 in special-issue Treasury bonds or even whether Congress cancels all the bonds and stops including their "value" of these bonds in its statement of the national debt.

Every year that Social Security runs a deficit, we have a problem that we can deal with in one or more of the five ways. The existence or amount of the "bonds" in the "trust fund" is irrelevant. Congress can deal with the yearly problem on a yearly basis, or can pass long-term or even "permanent" (in the limited sense that Congress can do anything that is "permanent") changes to the system.

The latter option will become more palatable if and when the public gets tired of or annoyed with yearly fixes to the system or when someone comes up with such a great idea that Congress thinks it can pre-empt the yearly fixes.

It also means, by the way, that we do not face a Social Security "crisis" that is a result of Social Security going "broke" when the "trust fund" runs out of "bonds." Instead, we face a chronic, yearly problem that, although pernicious, will not change by an iota when the "trust fund" is exhausted. The day after the "trust fund" is exhausted will look exactly like the day before the "trust fund" is exhausted. What matters - always - is the yearly deficit.

Reply to this comment rippercat : 08/31/11 17:54 Link Report Abuse

This article reveals its bias by ommitting the role that Social Security surplusses over the past decades have enabled administrations to offset and thus hide budget deficits. All of that borrowed money is owed back to the Social Security fund and, if paid as it should be, will carry Social Security for decades more.

What this author believes as so many advocates of killing Social Security also do, is that the US government should not be held to account for its past liabilities. They see only cuts to social programs and inflationary destruction of debt as solutions.

The author also does not point to a time-frame wherein the several trillions of "unfunded" debt will accumulate. Maybe he has extrapolated out a trillion years?

What an intellectually vacuous piece

Reply to this comment Timely Renewed : 08/31/11 15:57 Link Report Abuse

The only permanent solution is to restore the original constitutional limits on the federal government. The only way I can see to do that is constitutional amendments restoring the Constitution's original meaning and structure. However, the federal Congress is not going to approve by two-thirds vote constitutional amendments limiting federal power. Therefore, we must first amend the amendment process itself to eliminate the unnecessary convention now required by Article V and permit States to directly initiate amendment proposals. This will break the current de facto federal congressional and judicial monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, and permit grassroots patriots on the state level to restore the Constitution by amendment without having to go through Ponzi-scheme-loving Washington, DC. See External Link

Reply to this comment Albigensian : 08/31/11 13:36 Link Report Abuse

In fairness to Ponzi, he lacked the authority to compel "contributions."

In any case, a small first step toward solvency might be to stem the bleed-out from SSI "disability" claims.

It's an open secret that just about any claim for disability payments will succeed with the aid of a lawyer who knows how to work the system.

Tightening eligabilty rules (and practice) for disability payments is a small step, but perhaps one that is politically feasible.

Reply to this comment DOOM161 : 08/31/11 12:52 Link Report Abuse

What's the difference between Madoff and the Fed? Madoff didn't forace anyone to invest.

Reply to this comment MarkW : 08/31/11 13:16 Link Report Abuse

Madoff is in jail. The fed ...

Reply to this comment Anton Philidor : 08/31/11 12:36 Link Report Abuse

Mr. Tanner once again provided incorrect information about Social Security. He wrote:

[End quote]

Actually, of course, every nickel paid into Social Security is immediately removed. Some - now all - goes to pay benefits, the rest - when there was money remaining - to pay for everything else. The bonds left behind are only records of the amounts taken.

Social Security is now broke, in that more is being paid out than taken in dedicated taxes. The Ponzi scheme has an insufficient number of new investors, and the federal budget has to pay for the promises. The amount expended will get worse for decades.

Though Congress and the President could change the promises, they are unlikely to do so. Democrats run on preserving entitlements, and Republicans are finding out that the surest way out of office is to threaten entitlements.

There may be some generational warfare, but given that one generation is likely to be single-minded about entitlements while later generations might care about something - anything - else, expect decades of reduced government, high taxes, and increasing debt. The country can get through this period if it's lucky. But that's all that can be expected for decades, skrimping through.

Reply to this comment Bulldog 82 : 08/31/11 12:15 Link Report Abuse

The system was always destined to fail. It would have lasted longer if we had large families like they did when the system was created but, with "birth control" and abortion, the system collapse was accelerated dramatically.

Don't believe me? We have aborted roughly 15% of our population since Roe v Wade. The number is probably higher but not all abortions are reported as such. Now factor in the pregnancies that never happened (which is impossible to quantify but can be estimated, looking at past birth rates) and you can see why we are talking about this and not our grandchildren.

Reply to this comment HEWCPA : 08/31/11 12:37 Link Report Abuse

Bulldog 82, you are now ready for your illegal immigration epiphany.

Why hasn't either party prosecuted the other party when they had power for dereliction of duty over not enforcing our borders?

EXACTLY because both political sides know damned well Social Security is nothing but a Ponzi scheme desperate for the "new investors."

Illegal immigrants pay 15% of their earnings -- approximately one entire days work out of a week -- to fund a program that will NEVER pay them a benefit because their paperwork is fraudulent. It is nothing more than new Ponzi money in to pay old Ponzi investors. Their next generation of legitimate chilren/citizens are just your garden variety Ponzi victim.

Reply to this comment Chad R : 08/31/11 11:43 Link Report Abuse

Setting aside the question of whether the federal government should be engaged in retirement planning, let's play policy fantasy with some realistic numbers. According to the Social Security Administration, the average monthly social security benefit is currently around $1,177. If one is unfortunate enough to die, the benefit is gone (unless there's a non-earning or lesser-earning spouse). What if workers were allowed to invest their 6.2% contribution into a controlled investment environment similar to the Thrift Savings plan for federal employees?

Fantasy Assumptions: - Length of working career: 35 years (Surely it's reasonable, even with the Left, to assume we can all find gainful employment or reach the projected income level by age 25 and work to age 60.) - Length of retirement: 25 years (this gets the aforementioned to age 85) - Return on investment (historical S&P adjusted for inflation): 7% - Average Salary: $27,041 (This is actually current per-capita income, including workers and non-workers.) - Disbursement Annuity Rate: 3%

Using the assumptions above, the average retiree at age 60 would own a nest egg worth approximately $232,000 if he or she paid 6.2% of gross income into a retirement account. With the life expectancy shown above, the average monthly annuity payment equals $1,110, or about the same as that expected under the current system. In other words, it's possible for the private sector to offer roughly the same benefit with half of the contribution, and these are conservative fantasy numbers. This is like projecting Adrian Peterson to average 2 yards per carry and a couple of touchdowns on the season. More amazing, if this fantasy had occurred about 60 years ago, today's retirees would own Social Security retirement assets worth in excess of $9 trillion, and there would be no unfunded liability. Using the current per-capita income figure for the next 35 years yields a total investment value in excess of $71.6 trillion. Besides the obvious benefit of individuals owning these assets, the overall benefits to the economy would likely be quite substantial. The downside is that Dems would have one less issue to demagogue, and individuals would have one less program whose funding depended on the government.

A couple of asides. Today's social security participant can expect to work to age 67 to qualify for the full benefit. Using this extended career length of 42 years, the average fantasy worker would only need a 5.1% inflation-adjusted return to achieve the same result. As for the working poor, the minimum wage is currently $7.25/hour. So, what about the performance-challenged sap who graduates high school, or not, and just works at McDonald's his whole life for the current minimum wage? No cost of living increase, no career advancement. He's not even qualified to ask, "Do you want to supersize?"� With a career spanning 48 years, he could amass a tidy little nest egg worth around $330,000 and take home $1,850 per month in retirement.

The above doesn't even touch the remaining 6.2% employer contribution. This could be professionally managed, out of control of Congress, and used to pay for odd situations, premature death or disability insurance, or to provide some type of minimal income guarantee for catastrophic situations. Those with the inclination, or those paid to think and/or write, can take the fantasy even further.

Reply to this comment TheLeopard : 08/31/11 17:18 Link Report Abuse

Really good point, Chad. Unfortunately you're making the mistake of being reasonable, logical and insightful, something not embraced by the majority of politicians at this point. Expediency in preserving their own jobs overrides the practicalness of your excellent suggestion. Sorry.

Reply to this comment pathman1066 : 08/31/11 15:15 Link Report Abuse

I dig what you're saying and totally agree that even anemic private-sector investing is better than SS.

But 48 years worth of inflation would make that tidy little nest egg of $330,000 a whole lot less useful than we regard it today.

In no way does that invalidate your primary thesis, but the reality is that someone of borderline ability who's scraping by now will probably need some sort of extra assistance when in their dotage, even if the private sector were more fully engaged in mandatory retirement savings.

But one point that does not often get made is, if the government were to mandate that even just a portion of the payroll tax be invested in one or more individually owned private sector vehicles, collectively that would amount to a HUGE injection of capital into the private sector. That would mean more $$ for well-performing companies and promising startups, greatly increasing our chances of robust long-term economic growth.

Too bad Dems are more interested in holding and increasing their power rather than doing what's best for the nation.

Reply to this comment pathman1066 : 08/31/11 15:13 Link Report Abuse

I dig what you're saying and totally agree that even anemic private-sector investing is better than SS.

But 48 years worth of inflation would make that tidy little nest egg of $330,000 a whole lot less useful than we regard it today.

Still, one point that does not often get made is, if the government were to mandate that even just a portion of the payroll tax be invested in one or more individually-owned private sector vehicles, collectively that would amount to a HUGE injection of capital into the private sector. That would mean more $$ for well-performing companies and promising startups, greatly increasing our chances of robust long-term economic growth.

Too bad Dems are more interested in holding and increasing their power rather than doing what's best for the nation.

Reply to this comment Chad R : 08/31/11 16:17 Link Report Abuse

pathman: Appreciate your comments [we're on the same page], but note the returns are all adjusted for 4% annual inflation. Using the average nominal historical yield of 11% gives the same investor a nest egg of around $1.26 million.

Reply to this comment pathman1066 : 08/31/11 22:10 Link Report Abuse

Sorry, my bad, missed the fact that you'd adjusted for inflation. Re-ran the numbers and it jibes with yours.

(I also have no idea why my first post popped up twice.)

Playing semi-devil's advocate, that 11% 50-year average doesn't fully acknowledge the fact that, for prolonged periods (e.g. 1960s through 1970s), returns sucked. In the proposed system, for example, if one were unfortunate enough to be starting work in the 60s, it would've taken about 20 years to start seeing better annual returns. Of course, the returns in the 80's would've helped compensate for the lousy prior 20 years, especially since you'd have 20 years worth of savings as a base of growth.

I think it also underscores the importance of starting early and having a long work career. Even retirement at 60 is a little unrealistic these days; if my health holds, I plan on working at least until I hit 70.

Bottom line: SS is a horrendous crime against the American people. Although it is a useful litmus test to gauge another person's political acumen, though: if they endorse the system as is and/or prefer "government risk" to "private sector risk," then they are either a.) hopelessly brainwashed by years of socialist propaganda; b.) a blithering idiot.

Or c.) both

Reply to this comment carlosincal : 08/31/11 11:53 Link Report Abuse

The time value of money is amazing. We need to move to Health Savings Accounts.

Reply to this comment HEWCPA : 08/31/11 16:30 Link Report Abuse

HSAs are great. But even though in theory one can stuff away money tax deferred in them, IMO they function better as a short term vehicle to do what they're designed for -- pay medical costs.

IRAs are the vehicle simlar to FICA. I would suggest changing IRA contribtuion limits to an expression of percentage of earned income, like a SEP, but a lower limit equal to FICA (12.4%) would be reasonable, and that should be combined with an offsetting exclusion from the FICA tax. Maybe not an entire 12.4% on enactment, maybe a couple percent, as Bush proposed, maybe allowing a full conversion from FICA to IRA of a 10 or 20 year phase in period.

Reply to this comment carlosincal : 08/31/11 11:32 Link Report Abuse

Perry's purpose in life

is to drive this point home and force people to ask how entitlements got included in the national debt.

Reply to this comment David James : 08/31/11 11:31 Link Report Abuse

I find any effort to 'save' SS laughable. The 'system' is flat broke. The system WILL bankrupt America, as would any 75 TRILLION dollar unfunded liability. Just because or nation hasn't the cojones to admit this is a crisis doesn't mean there isn't one.

Reply to this comment Jack in Silver Spring : 08/31/11 22:18 Link Report Abuse

David James - Social Security doesn't hold a candle to medicare; it's medicare that we really bankrupt us and the US.

Reply to this comment Apotropoxy : 08/31/11 11:27 Link Report Abuse

Republicans cannot win a presidential election if they insist that Social Security is a criminal enterprise. BTW: Who is the Ponzi that makes all the dough under SSI?

Reply to this comment MarathonMan : 08/31/11 20:58 Link Report Abuse

The Ponzi is (are?) the banks siphoning off the money for "loaning" the US government money to meet all the obligations that it could not pay in sound money. Amazing how our income taxes always cover the interest on all those loans isn't it? Couldn't the government just as easily print dollar bills knowing there will be inflation instead of accumulating debt to banks to fund this ridiculous unpayable entitlements? The Ponzi is definitely the TBTF banks.

Reply to this comment Georg Felis : 08/31/11 11:25 Link Report Abuse

Assignment for the class: Put together a video/audio clip mashup of all the other candidates, politicians, and news reporters who have called Social Security a Ponzi scheme so far.

If the Liberals are going to have vapors over the thought of their favorite wealth redistribution tool being called...well, what it is... then we should show that Rick Perry is not alone in his opinion, but in fact is walking in the path that many have trod, even some Liberals.

Reply to this comment Widening Gyre : 08/31/11 10:51 Link Report Abuse

If I invest money in a private fund instead of in Social Security, it is still that case that someone has to do the work, so that I can get a return on my investment. Even if money really did grow on trees, someone would have to put in the work to manage those orchards.

So, who is it that must do the work, so that my private fund pays off? It is the next generation of workers. And, my fund will not pay off unless there are many such workers.

Either the length of retirement must decrease to former values (off those oldies!), or the amount of money spent in retirement must decrease (warehouse them!), or more cost-efficient means of providing for them must be found.

Privatization is not the solution. It merely defers and disperses the problem. Now, no doubt many readers can point to how well their stocks or real estate did, compared to expected rate of SS returns. But that is because in recent decades we have seen a population explosion, for which an ever-increasing portion of production value has been siphoned off the the investor class. That is simply another form of Ponzi scheme. It cannot go on forever.

Reply to this comment NJ JIm : 08/31/11 13:16 Link Report Abuse

If Congress had been unable to spend the money in the trust fund they would have been forced to cut spending, raise taxes or borrow more from the private sector. Since raising taxes is politically problematic, one can assume they would have cut or borrowed. If they borrowed, then all of the money they have fleeced from the trust fund would now be counted as public debt and we would have ran into the debt crisis much sooner than now and spending cuts would already been forced on DC. So in a way, the SS trust fund made it possible for the pols in DC to get us into our current dilemma.

Moreover, if the trust fund would have been allowed to invest in the private sector, even through mutual funds or very low risk investments, significant income would have been derived by the trust fund over the years, which would have reduced its unfunded liabilities. Moreover, the increased investment in the private sector by the trust fund would have generated greater economic activity, which would have increased tax revenues in both the the trust fund and the general treasury.

Either way, by using the SS trust fund to divert money from the private sector to the public sector has been a significant and growing anchor on the U.S. economy for 75 years.

Reply to this comment HEWCPA : 08/31/11 12:18 Link Report Abuse

"Privatization" is the only solution!

It FIXES the problem by forcing the retirement FUND to FUND investments!

What do you call federal banking regulations regarding reserves? Isn't that nothing more that "privatization" of banking capital?

Why is "privatization" necessary for banks but "not the solution" for entitlements?

Moreover, the astronomical size of Social Security prevents it from legitimately becoming a centrally controlled fund for defined benefits. As we've seen with the de facto fascist takeover of auto manufacturers, government shareholding results in political shareholding which, when the amounts to be invested equal entire market capitalizations of entire industries and markets CAN ONLY lead comprehensive fascism at best, communism at worst as the governmetn trust fund has voting control of everything in the currently private sector.

The real world has, over the past generation, evolved away from unsustainable defined benefit plans to "privatized" sustainable defined contribution plans. The governemt's only hope is to admit reality and follow suit.

Reply to this comment carlosincal : 08/31/11 11:40 Link Report Abuse

That's not the point at all. Social Security would have worked if they handn't raided the fund. They spent the money and put t-notes in. These notes have to be paid back by taxpayers who are stuck paying back what was stolen from them.

Reply to this comment Jim McSweeney : 08/31/11 11:29 Link Report Abuse

The return on investment is just the result of an increased population? Really? Higher productivity had nothing to do with it?

Reply to this comment Widening Gyre : 08/31/11 14:38 Link Report Abuse

Higher productivity did have something to do with it. I even mentioned higher productivity (in other words) in the concluding part of my original remarks.

But keep in mind that "higher productivity" often happens when less-productive workers are discharged, with the remaining workers doing more. This is a consequence of labor surplus. The remaining workers, who do more, often do it by working more hours, thus devoting less time to their families (if they have them), or having no families. Both of these have negative consequences: Less time for families means more problems; no families = Ponzi scheme.

Now, if by "privatization" we mean payout commensurate with payin, that's good. But a system does not need to be private to do that. It's just that politicians who promise now, with delivery after they are gone, have the right words to get elected. But we can say the same for (say) hedge fund managers.

In a full-page color display ad, which I've seen both in the program for a classical music organization (traditionalists hang out there) and for a roller-derby type organization (non-traditionalists hang out there), some man now in his 80s (I guess) proclaims, "I haven't worked since 1979!" It's an ad for a retirement community, or some sort of thing. My point: He's proud of that. Someone else is paying for it. In his case, it was via real estate appreciation rather than SS, meaning that younger people couldn't afford to live as well as he could. That because there has been more population to compete for the real estate that he lived on, when he was young. Ponzi scheme!

Reply to this comment HEWCPA : 08/31/11 16:21 Link Report Abuse

"Both of these have negative consequences: Less time for families means more problems; no families = Ponzi scheme."

****

Pardon me for pointing this out to you, the post I quote above is just plain and simply irrational and false

"Ponzi scheme" means Ponzi scheme which is well described in the article, it is not a general perjorative term.

Moreover real estate appreciation is not a "Ponzi scheme," it's real estate appreciation, again, plain and simple.

Describing Social Security as a ponzi scheme is not just blurting out some perjoratice statement, it is, plain and simply, an accurate description of the financing scheme of Social Security.

"Hedge fund managers," in stark contrast, manage funds with actual assets. You plain and simply cannot, rationally and honestly, "say the same for hedge fund managers."

Plain and simple (and rational)

Reply to this comment

Older Posts

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.

Your Name * Your E-mail * The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. Your Comment *

* Designates a required field.

NRO Articles | Article RSS | Author Directory

//'); //]]> //'); //]]> var google_adnum = 0; function google_ad_request_done(google_ads) { var ad_unit = ''; if (google_ads.length == 0) { return; } if (google_ads[0].type == "flash") { ad_unit += 'Ads by Google' + ' ' + '' + '' + ''; } else if (google_ads[0].type == "image") { ad_unit += 'Ads by Google '; } else if (google_ads[0].type == "html") { ad_unit += google_ads[0].snippet; } else { if (google_ads.length == 1) { ad_unit += 'Ads by Google' + google_ads[0].line1 + '' + google_ads[0].line2 + '' + google_ads[0].line3 + 'Read Full Article »

Social Security Worse than a Ponzi Scheme

Related Articles