Social security is not socialism but it needs to be privatized

SS operates within the laws written by those that use those very laws to spend our money in ways to promote their political careers

 

I'm sorry, did the Merriam-Webster staff write the Constitution? Are they experts in free-market capitalism?

That definition is pathetic.

 

SS is socialism in that you are forced to participate,other than that it is nothing more than a horribly mismanaged government run annuity.

 

How about this as a compromise:

Social Security is ended at the federal level, perhaps by allowing the young to opt out. Then the states that want to implement Social Security can create their own system and we don't all have to be in one national system.

 

Socialism is a black sort. Social are for Christians how are these.

 

SS money is not invested it is spent. Government loans itself money then spends it and never does pay the pay the fund back. This is nothing less than a money laundering embezzlement Ponzi scheme on a grand scale

 

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and a government slush fund.

 

Difference is government doesn't invest SS funds, it spends them. Where is all that money from all those years where more money was coming in than going out? It's gone, it's spent its history.

 

It shouldn't exist at all. There's no sense in compromising with people who lack basic economic knowledge.

 

SS has no money. That money is spent. Current retiree's depend on an ever new crop of investors or SS collapses which is indeed the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

 

Going to be difficult to make that work. You do know how Ponzi schemes work don't you? Somebody is going to be left without a chair when the music stops.

 

I quoted the Constitution and you still object. Well the, let me give you more...

Section 8
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

This right is the basis of copyright and patent laws. But you have to pay money to secure such rights.


Section 9
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

According to this Constitutional provision, jailed people may require their jailer to justify their imprisonment to a court. President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of this right during the Civil War met with strong opposition. This is not free.


Article III
Section 2
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

In accordance with this, anyone accused of a crime has a right to a trial by jury, except in the case of impeachments. This right was further defined and strengthened by the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th amendments. This doesn't fit your "definition".


Amendment VI
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed"

You didn't check the Constitution.

 

"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."

Perhaps you could focus.

 

And BTW, what does the Constitution have to do with capitalism?!!

- - - Updated - - -

And I guess life insurance is also a "horribly mismanaged annuity".

 

Of course you can. So your problem is that no law should exceed 100 pages. Have you considered smaller fonts? It could change your life.

 

In the first sentence you can only be referring to current practices stemming from current revenue being insufficient to pay for current obligations. But you switch in the second sentence. There you can only be referring to by-gone days when SS was experiencing an excess of revenue that was invested in the Trust Fund. And yes, the government pays the fund back. That is how current revenue shortfall is made up to pay current obligations: the Trust Fund Treasuries are redeemed as necessary.

Good God man, you're SO WRONG about all this!

 

No evil corporation needs to be involved. Contributions to a individual trust account could be automatically invested in US government bonds. Over a working lifetime the result would be much higher than the present system for the retireee, and he would own it and could will it. Would take a small amount of government workforce to administer.

I would not need to be subject to the vagaries of the stock market.

 

But the federal government controls the money. I'm opposed to inflating the currency to roll over government debt, but if we can use it to get out of this hell (which never could have occurred on a gold standard in the first place) then I'm definitely okay with it.

So stop collecting taxes from the young, allow them to save for themselves, and continue payments to seniors.

- - - Updated - - -

Well it shouldn't, but you're going against people who are buying votes with taxpayer money. I don't care how logical and sound your argument is, that's a hell of an enemy.

I think our shot is much better if we can just let them do their socialist utopia in a handful of states and we can move elsewhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Life insurance is voluntary, that's the whole key in this debate.

 

The perfect definition of a Ponzi scheme.

 

I am attempting you provide you with a rather insightful analogy instead of spitting dry facts and numbers at you. Again, have you ever been in a casino?

 

I don't envision a vast majority doing that at all. Really, few have the self-discipline (not to mention the know-how) necessary to invest and save.

 

That is not true! Where in hell do you think the Treasuries in the SS Trust Fund came from? THEY ARE INVESTMENTS! LOL!

Noooooooo, you don't know about the SS Trust Fund, right? Try Googling "social security trust fund".

 

So the government should save for us.

...Even as their economy policy motto is "savings are leakage." LOL

 

Oh? You've piqued my curiosity. I agree if they're taking and using that money contrary to the law, or perhaps even in a technically legal way that still robs us.

 

You don't understand the difference between rights and liberties, but I'll still play your game.

1. Holding and protecting intellectual property is a right. The fees that you so kindly referenced came later and are associated with service costs. This hardly proves your point.

2. What monetary cost to an individual is associated with Section 9?

3. How doesn't it fit my definition?

4. How does a speedy and public trial conflict with the definition I put forth?