Social security is not socialism but it needs to be privatized

Health care is not a right.

 

So we are in agreement except on the issue Dodd-Frank addressed the problem. Dodd-Frank was yet another "look over here instead of there" law like Obamacare. No new laws should exceed 100 pages, or at least be read and understood by ALL legislators BEFORE they are passed. Pelosi says, "we'll know what's is it after we pass it" and Dodd-Ftank needs to be torn up before we actually find out what's in it. By that time it will be too late just like the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act.

Steve

 

Difference is our SS money is loaned to the government by the government and is never paid back. It's basically a money laundering scheme that would put a private company in court and it's top officials in prison. Seen Bernie Madoff lately? He did very close to what our government has done.

 

You can thank the unconstitutional reach and existence of the Federal Reserve & the creation of the FDIC (and by extension, government-insured bank accounts) for that.

 

Evidence of embezzlement is missing money

 

SS law states that the excess shall be invested in safe fixed assets. Stocks don't qualify and in my opinion as a former financial planner, they would be completely wrong, bad, inappropriate, etc.

Why? Because there would be times when funds that came into the Trust Fund when the stock market was high, but needed to be taken to pay current obligations when the market is low, guaranteeing a very significant loss. Equity assets are not usually suitable for funds or investments that are periodically accessed for proceeds.

 

Access to medical care really ought to be viewed that way, though. No one should be restricted in that, especially not by something as cruel as money. It's like saying people don't have a right to food, water and oxygen.

 

I think you sell people short. The vast majority of people don't want to to work until they die or end up in the poor house and will start saving for their old age at some point in life. Others would move in with family etc but in the end it's your call or at least should be.

 

Really?

Be specific about the Dodd-Frank shortcomings.

It's not perfect but is a step in the right direction. At least until TrumpCo finishes gutting it then it's back to 2007.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cognitive-dissonance.asp

 

As always, blame the victim.

I tell you what, I hope that you will never get into the situation where your cognitive ability is on the decline and you will be unable to process all the nice things your financial adviser is trying to sell you, making the best return for himself instead of you.

I've seen it first hand with my elderly inlaws, who had to fight tooth and nail to get their assets out of the claws of a bad financial adviser who made lots of commission. And they were in a beautiful office with nice suits, all looking very trustworthy.

I rather rely on my monthly SS check, which the lowly paid government clerk WILL send out, because they have no financial gain in not doing it.

 

Where is all the money that purchased trillions of dollars worth of T-bills, T-notes, and T-bonds that pension funds and domestic and international investors hold as investments? It's gone! Spent as part of the general fund!

Do you think this is any different? OF COURSE IT'S GONE! And those proceeds will be developed when those investments need to be redeemed. You invest money in stocks. It's gone! If it was an IPO it was spent! Want your money back? You have to sell your stocks to another investor who wants them. Then you get his money. Why his? -because your money is gone!

 

Every citizen should have to pay for services or goods that are produced by someone else. Nothing is ever free.

I am genuinely sorry that this concept hurts your feelings, but it's the truth.

 

SS is a badly run annuity fund not an investment fund. Private annuity funds have a pretty stellar record and would do a far better job than this joke of a government run program that has indeed turned into a Ponzi scheme.

 

"the right of Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"? How can we all have life and/or happiness without health? Healthcare is a right, just not a legally-defined right...... -yet.

 

Posted all the information on this thread.

However, if you'd like to expand on your thoughts rather than issue a blanket, unsupported statement I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

 

This is actually really simple concept to explain. Have you ever been to a casino?

 

It's not a "Ponzi scheme". A Ponzi scheme has the goal of enriching the perpetrator of the scheme and leaves one, some, or all the participants "holding the bag" at the end. That is the reason Ponzi schemes are illegal. There is no similarity to SS any more than there is a similarity to auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, or any other insurance.

 

When you say something is a right, you're implying that it is free. For example, I don't have to pay to think or speak freely.

However, in a capitalist society, every citizen must give proper compensation for goods or services that are produced by another citizen. Thus, health care is not a right.

 

If you're happy about that, then pull out your wallet and donate it to the unfortunate folks.

With that objection aside it seems like we can privatize Social Security.

 

Privatized retirement accounts could be invested wholly in US Treasury bonds, which over a workers lifetime of work years would provide a much greater return at retirement and would be owned by the retiree who could will it to his family. Financial managers need not be involved.

Would have to be phased in carefully, but would eventually be superior to the current system.

 

This is not factually correct. Defense is roughly 14% of federal government spending, Social Security is roughly 22% of government spending.

 

I can certainly name additional shortcomings of Dodd-Frank beyond what was mentioned but you are obviously heavily invested in democrat politics and there is no point in arguing with you. Just ignore the fact democrats have been losing power since 2010 because of their policies and overreach.

Steve

 

Making it up, eh?

Webster says ...
"Right: Conformed to the constitution of man and the will of God, or to justice and equity; not deviating from the true and just; according with truth and duty; just; true.
That to which one has a just claim.
That which one has a legal or social claim to do or to exact.
Privilege or immunity granted by authority."



You say a "right" is free. How about the right to a prompt, fair trial by jury? How about the right to vote in elections for public officials?

You didn't think it through.

 

Argument could be made that government handling of SS is outright organised crime

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody lost a dime in annuity funds

 

I'm pretty sure we agree, but from my point of view social security funds should be in trust, not a slush account for the general fund. Lawyers get disbarred and possibly go to prison for commingling trust funds with their operating account. The same should hold true for SS. I'm just skeptical about the load fees from private annuity funds, that and an annuity isn't liquid. I do not foresee the government ever setting up individual annuities for individual taxpayers, if for no other reason than administration burden and then what about the unfunded or underfunded people who either didn't contribute enough or lived too long. A good start is to STOP USING SS for a budgetary slush fund! Everytime there is a threat of a government shutdown, both sides whine about SS checks not going out. This is BS, and needs to be a separate fund with NO fungibility.