Social security is not socialism but it needs to be privatized

Please. Take your stupid questions to Kellyanne Conway care of whitehouse.gov.

 

It was a sincere question. But your dismissive attitude is noted. If you keep treating other posters in a disrespectful way, you will be banned.

 

And if those investors, who are not really investors at all, just working class folks, put it into a stock vehicle that loses everything, then what?
They will have nothing left.
SS is the safe way. It keeps people from losing their entire retirement money.

 

You should not have implied that I did not know how to use Google, seeing as I am at least computer-literate enough to be posting on an online forum. But keep insulting me and others, though. I have been reporting as many of your posts as possible. I want to see you banned.

 

Well, I don't trust Wall St. to handle my Social Security.
I have a couple 401K's & overall, they do well.
However, not one cent is guaranteed.
So I sure as hell do not want them with my SS money.
SS can be an easy fix.
Just raise the cap on everyone.
Politicians will not do that because they prostitute themselves to rich donors & corporations.
And, come to think of it, politicians are also rich.

 

1. What? I'm not disagreeing with the Supreme Court. I'm disagreeing with the relevancy of your reference to the case. The decision in McCullough v. Maryland has hardly anything to do with the creation of a private banking entity that has the ability to make consequential choices regarding monetary policy and the power artificially manipulate interest rates for any reason whatsoever, including but not limited to political motivations. Additionally, you did not bother responding to the fact that the Fed has resisted requests for Congressional audits for years. And see my previous posts... I did make multiple constitutional arguments especially pertaining to federal powers expressed in the Constitution.

2. Again, what are you talking about? https://www.google.com/amp/seekinga...ere-does-the-fdic-get-its-money?client=safari The FDIC is a federally-created "corporation" that has the ability to BORROW MONEY IN AN ALMOST UNLIMITED FASHION to secure a steady cashflow. Since when does the government have the right to unilaterally form an independent corporation? Why does the government insist on partaking in the business of insurance? And again, you did not even bother responding to my points and questions regarding the banks playing with house money.

Finally, your premise is utterly flawed. A purely capitalist economy doesn't need the federal government interjecting itself where it does not belong. If a business fails, it goes bankrupt. That is why bankruptcy laws exist. If a business knows that there are no bailouts, the enterprise will be much more careful about its financial practices. Thus, the banks that failed in 2008 should not have been bailed out at the taxpayer's expense.

 

And you show how very little you know.

Look at the number and depth of recessions prior to 1935. Most all of them associated with bank runs and failures.

AND

FDIC doesn't bail out banks. It reimburses depositors for their deposits. If the FDIC is forced to take over a bank the bank's assets are liquidated. That's not exactly a "bailout."

 

I trust our financial sector even less at this point.

 

Social security taxes are calculated separately and mandated to go into and stay in the Social Security fund, not to be taken out to bail out the government for other activities.

 

That's been the law since Social Security existed. There's nothing underhanded about it. Converting the treasury securities to cash does not increase the federal debt, since it's already recorded as intra-governmental debt.

 

1. Do you just not like answering direct questions or responding to legitimate challenges to your perspective?

2. You made an unsupported claim right there. You can't just state something as fact, not provide a single reliable source or valid explanation, and expect me to believe you. So, right now, you are completely and utterly wrong on that point.

3. When did I ever say that the FDIC did that? As an independent government corporation, it insures private bank accounts for individual depositors. Thus, the banks are protected from gambling with funds associated with the aforementioned accounts. You're right; this is not the same as the bailouts that took place following the financial collapse of 2008. I am not arguing that at all. Again, the existence and reach of the FDIC was one factor with regard to the causes of the crash. I am asserting that the federal government has no right to be in the insurance business.

You haven't responded to any of my posed questions, referenced sources, or made arguments. I'm still waiting for at least ten answers and a comprehensive refutation of the content of my previous posts.

 

Not if it is fair and equitable it won't. And why is that? Because to be fair and equitable, the lid will have to come off the maximum benefit proportionately. This is one of the little dirty secrets libs don't want anyone to know.

 

There is absolutely NO reason for it to be recorded as debt if the money was kept in trust instead of being spent like a Ponzi scheme. No matter how you libs want to spin it, it's a coffer that's emptied each and every year whether or not there was a surplus or not.

 

If it was private, it would be free of the spending fools in Washington.

 

If it was private it wouldn't be there.

Every time Republicans run for office they claim they support SSI and then immediately try to destroy it

 

No insurance company annuity has ever failed as SS has and as far as I know the state insurance programs for them have never been needed. If you could pick and choose from a long list of companies with different types of annuities with different risk reward levels instead of a one size fits none SS system you would be far better off. I have a couple of annuities as 20% of my retirement portfolio. One is 4% guaranteed while the other is guaranteed minimum of 2% and could go as high as 7% at maturity based on what the stock market does over the next ten years. If an SS program was run like this and even if it was mandatory you would have lots of choices and freedom instead of the money down a rat hole system we have now

 

SS is the safe way? It's only "safe" in that the government can tax the crap out of our children to pay us back the money we paid in that they in turn spent. That's not safe its criminal.

 

Part of debate and discussion is to challenge an assertion made by your adversary. Part of running from debate and discussion is to ridicule your adversary when they challenge your assertions. Just my two cents.

 

SS could be rescued temporarily by means testing and raising the age limit at which you can draw it but it's still in the end a government boondoggle.

 

Mainly because wages are so much lower the payroll tax isn't bringing in nearly enough dollars relative to inflation, even with the raising of the percentage from 3% to 7.5%; current payees are paying in less dollars in real terms than those paying in 1970. And your right SS tax revenues get dumped into the General Fund and used to subsidize 'everybody else', like pork barrel stuff, highways, military spending, giant bank bailouts, Wall Street subsidies, subsidies for companies off-shoring to Red China and elsewhere, etc.

The only reason the Wall Street propagandists want to 'privatize' it is so they can loot it and put it to death by a thousand cuts, via 'management fees,', churning to generate commissions, embezzlement, etc. The myth that 'private markets are less corrupt, more efficient, and better managed' is just weird bull(*)(*)(*)(*) hacks sell to ideologues and swindlers. Their 'argument' is basically the lie that their Ponzi schemes are better than the other Ponzi schemes, a laughable premise on its face; the government has been bailing out Wall Street and 'private markets' from its failures from beginning of the country.

 

The SS fund is unfortunately the SS fraud. The money is gone and it's not invested, it is spent.

 

Yes, the innernetz is full of anecdotal stories from those peddling some meme or other, and of course nobody as ever lost money in the stock market if we go by innernetz 'investors' and their anecdotes; everybody makes millions and gets 400% returns every year or something. lol

Oh yes, and if Federal subsidies for insurance company monopolies were to end, your 'annuities' would be total scrap overnight. Be careful what you wish for.

 

Agreed, this was flawed from the very beginning but it worked for many years as more and more people paid into it and outnumbered those being paid out of it. As in all Ponzi schemes though the wheels eventually fall off and we are there now

 

Well managed and regulated and monitored insurance annuities have a near perfect record

 

Annuities are recognized as the single safest investment out there and have a long record of success.