I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. A Ponzi scheme is "A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. "

My disagreement revolves entirely around the word fraudulent. I follow the legal definition of fraud:

In the United States, common law recognizes nine elements constituting fraud:
1. a representation of an existing fact;
2. its materiality;
3. its falsity;
4. the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;
5. the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
6. the plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;
7. the plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;
8. the plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and
9. consequent damages suffered by the plaintiff.

Fraud requires all nine of those be established, more than one could be debated especially outside of intent to convict in court, but #4 is a safe bet, because unless someone wants to name a specific individual it is pretty obvious most liberals believe SS is not an innately flawed construct.

So, again, I do not consider it a Ponzi Scheme because I do not believe it was fraudulent, my disagreement with the others is essentially the difference between two people debating if an astrologer is a fraud or not, one saying she is and the other saying she believes in it thus not a fraud, but both agreeing there is little to no reason to believe in her forecasts.

I do not know how this keeps confusing you, and I am more than passing angry at what seems like a deliberate misreading of my comments. Especially when they are so clear and this disagreement with others of the type you suggest does not seem to exist in their eyes either.