Social security is not socialism but it needs to be privatized

You forget investing is gambling. Privatised ss is not the answer. The answer is cutting off the hand of those in government that feel the need to spend our money. Social Security is socialism. Denying that is ridiculous. Social Security is given to people that haven't paid their fair share all of the time. It's a big problem with the program and it's the reason it is socialism. If you only received what you paid in then it would be a 401k or a pension, but we are giving it to drug addicts and disabled people that haven't paid anything in some cases. Handing over my money to stock market moguls to gamble it away is not the answer. Investment firms are some of the worst slims to slither on this planet and you want to willing hand over our money to them. You are being mislead like you have been your whole life. The government, bankers, investment firms, corporations, and the media are not your friends. They are the people responsible for our subjugation.
Wake up buddy the place where you are from doesn't exist anymore. You now live in a socialist country that pretends to be a free and open society. Can you be free and subject to a jurisdiction? It's rhetorical the answer is NO.

 

"If you're playing with house money, why wouldn't you gamble to your heart's content? After all, even if you lose, you'll get bailed out anyway."

Neither the fed nor the FDIC bails out banks. You are stuck in an ideological roundabout unable to exit because you're stuck with a misconception you cannot release.

The SCOTUS has held that the federal government can, in fact, charter a "national bank" and make determinations as to how that bank will operate. As of now the Congress has no legal authority to audit the fed. If the Congress wants to audit the fed all they have to do is pass the supporting legislation.

The fed has acted, mostly successfully, since the 1930s to smooth economic bumps. The Bailout/stimulus in 2008/2009 may have saved the global economy but it was the fed that kept enough money in circulation to allow the global economy to recover.

Once again:

The SCOTUS has found that the federal government can charter a national bank AND determine it's operating parameters.
The SCOTUS has found the FED to be a legal entity operating legally.
No bank in required to join the FDIC. State banks, as an example, are not covered by FDIC. But, if they do join they agree to rules and provisions of membership. Among those rules is that the insurance protects depositors not investors.

It is a system that was put in place because the free market failed to provide stability and confidence. Prior to 1935 the US suffered a major depression/panic/recession about every 4 years with most related to failures in banking and money supply. Since 1935 all of the recessions but 2007 were relatively minor with most related to cutbacks in government spending and, of course, the 2007 recession directly related to rolling back regulations designed to prevent banks from undertaking just the activities that led to the recession.

The creation of the FED helped the government respond to changes in the economy by controlling the money supply and the FDIC eliminated the public panic that caused bank runs and subsequent bank failures.

There are times when the "free market" is highly destructive and greed needs to be reined in to protect the public.

 

Three Texas counties, Brazoria, Galveston, and Matagorda, all chose to give county employees the option of forgoing SS in lieu of a private pension plan in the early 80's. Their benefits are much higher than their similar counterparts who receive SS checks. The benefits overall are better such as the life insurance policy that is tied to each account and since it's private, the account itself can be passed on following the death of the account owner.

 

Ron Paul's plan for social security was the best in my view. Fulfill the promises to those who paid into the system, and allow for young people to opt out of it. Pretty much no young person has any confidence that they will get any benefit from a failed govt. program that is taking their money now with no guarantee for future returns.

 

Good point actually, SS today has morphed into socialism but in the OP I was referring to the original version of it which is old age retirement. Old people that are drawing out on a lifetime of paying in are not in the socialist part of SS, they are in the annuity division.

 

Hang on...

You pay in a certain amount over time.
At a specified time you receive a guaranteed return.
You get that return until death.

How is that different from an annuity?

In any case. I support investing SS proceeds into federal and state govt bonds. I do not support turning over SS to any privatization scheme because:

1. "Fees" for this can go 3% per year. That some 90 BILLION per year paid to the management companies.
2. Investment risk. Investment in other than federal/state bonds creates risk and risk implies an eventual loss.
3. Biggie here. Imagine dumping nearly 3 trillion dollars onto the stock market. Stock prices would naturally explode but without the underlying revenues and profits to support those prices the market would eventually collapse rendering that 3 trillion worth maybe half or less the original investment.

SS is best left as it is while repairing weaknesses by eliminating the 2009 tax cut, raising the max income levels, and expanding income sources.

 

Er ... SS hasn't failed.

 

Reread the original question. It was not an attempt to gather information or challenge a position, it was simply a dumb question trolling for a response.

 

So you would take an actual solution and create another problem in the interest of "fairness" to the richest 2% of the population who don't even NEED Social Security benefits because of their already advantageous position...

How very Republican

 

Exactly why I said in the OP that SS is just a horribly mismanaged annuity fund and should be turned over to private firms that actually invest instead of spend.

- - - Updated - - -

It's an out of control train headed toward a trestle that isn't there.

 

As long as there is a federal gov't in the USA, it is the safest way.
So what would happen if many lose their entire retirement savings by not being smart investors. As most people are not? You didn't address this.

 

I completely agree, sawyer. Thanks for your support. Dadoalex DID run away from my question, didn't he?

It was a sincere question. So basically what you are doing when faced with a question that you don't like (or maybe can't answer?), is to accuse it of trolling for a response, thus absolving yourself of having to answer it. If this is your idea of a "debate" then I must say it's quite pathetic.

 

As I said it's only as safe as the governments ability to increase taxes on our children to pay old people back the money they invested and the government spent. That's an illusion of safety and the little man behind the curtain is being exposed. I have address repeatedly how private annuity companies have an excellent record and nobody has lost any money in them compared to SS where all the money is gone.

 

All the money is gone? Didn't you say you collect SS?
How are people collecting SS checks if all the money is gone?
If you deposit money into a bank savings account. Do you think you can actually go to the bank and physically see every penny you've deposited? No, the bank uses that money for other things. But you will be able to draw it out if you want it.

 

A bank invested your money and has assets, the government spent your SS money and it's gone. My SS check is not return on investment, it's new people and new tax revenues and the Ponzi scheme is running low on new enrollment.

 

It's not gone. It's invested into the country in some manner.

Where Do Social Security Taxes Go?

Social Security taxes that workers and employers pay are credited to the Social Security trust funds. The trust funds are defined by law as a way to set aside money that is earmarked for Social Security. A Board of Trustees oversees the trust funds. It is made up of the Secretary of the Treasury, who is the managing trustee, the Secretaries of Labor and of Health and Human Services, the Commissioner of Social Security, and two public trustees from different political parties who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/where-taxes-go

 

Please. Your intellectual laziness is not my issue. But, because you're having such angst about it and I am, after all a compassionate person...

The reason the FED has the name "FEDERAL" in it is because...now pay close attention because this is important...

THAT WAS THE NAME THEY DECIDED TO GIVE IT!

I mean after all, anyone could look up and see that the names "First Bank" and "Second Bank" had already been tried and failed so they obviously decided to try something new.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fract.htm

What does it matter if the called it the "Federal Reserve Bank" or "The US place where we manage banking at the national level in order to ensure greater economic stability and minimize the impact of local economic variations on the nation as a whole." The TUSPWWMBATNLIOTEGESAMTIOLEVOTNAAW

Don't you agree that "The Federal Reserve Bank" is just a better name?

 

How is it intellectual laziness to question something that you put forth? Also, how is my insistence that you back up your own claim "angst"? Do you always ridicule and belittle your debate opponent when you have no answers?

Also, it has nothing to do with whether I personally think "the Federal Reserve Bank" is a better name or not. I mostly have issues with your claim that "for the FDIC...No bank is forced to join. If you don't then cannot use terms like Federal or National in your name or advertising". You seem to be saying that an entity can only put the word/s like Federal or National in their name if they fulfill some sort of requirement. If I read this wrong, feel free to correct me but please do not insult me or call me names.

 

I never put forth any reason for the Federal Reserve Bank being named the Federal Reserve Bank. You said you wanted to know why because of "curiousity" or some such twisted coil of lawn fertilizer.

State banks are not required to join the FED. If they do not join then they cannot use the terms "Federal" or "National" in the bank's name because of the implication that the bank's deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/709

Just not that hard.

 

Are you calling my curiosity "lawn fertilizer"?

 

Well you claim it was curiosity then you claim it is challenging me to backup something I never said, now you're back to curiosity..

You decide.

 

It doesn't matter whether it was curiosity or just my challenging you. You should not compare me or any aspect of me to "lawn fertilizer". Do you always belittle your debate opponent like this?

 

I've been following the nonsense you're spewing. You earned it.

shrug

 

So if *I* think that all YOUR posts are "garbage" (and in fact I do feel this way), I can start comparing you to lawn fertilizer and if you object, I can say that you "earned it"?

 

Debate opponent? No, not at all.

You? C'mon now.