Social security is not socialism but it needs to be privatized

In other words honest financial folks are like other honest folks.

You will never have a system without risk. Even SS has risk, While at this time the risk is minimal ... so to is the gain.

 

How many AAA rated companies went out of business in the great recession?
The raters basically we're lying. Paid off so to speak.

SS has to be there, without the fear of losing everything.
How many people will understand financial records? Very few are educated in that area.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, I haven't seen only a few call out anything Trump has done.
I am neither party, don't like em either.

Trump got 62M votes, my guess is near 60M of them were R voters. For that's about what Romney got.

 

Yes, there is always risk. With SS being fed gov't, the gov't would have to fail. In other words no USA.
If that happens, retirement funds will be the least of our worries.
So shore up the system that is safe and make it sound.

SS is suppose to be about 1/3 of one's retirement portfolio. And the rest is suppose to be one's own savings now. Since pensions have pretty much went the way of the dinosaur. Now if you take away that safe 1/3, many could have nothing.

As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, 47% of Americans have no savings.

 

First of all, let me apologize for my late response.

Again, you do not seem to understand that the FDIC's insuring bank accounts of depositors in member banks inhibits the free market from working as it should. I never said that the FDIC bailed out the big banks in 2008. So no, I'm not stuck in anything. You're stuck because you're wrong on this issue. The government does not have the constitutional right to form an independent corporation that allows banks to use depositors' money to gamble with little to no risk. Can you cite any legal precedent for this? How about a pertinent Supreme Court case? You can't because it doesn't exist.

Additionally, you do not seem to understand that the Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE BANK. This fact renders your argument weak. And it is laughable to suggest that the Fed has been "most successful" of anything as of late. Could you please explain to me how quantative easing has been successful by any means? Or would you maybe prefer to explain the effectiveness of the Fed's arbitrary artificial manipulation of interest rates?

Big banks should be allowed to fail, and the idea of the government being able to bail out any business is anticapitalist. Thus, the pure free market is the best economic system to employ because of the fact that it champions personal responsibility and accountability. You seem to misunderstand the reality that our current system is clearly closest to crony capitalism.

 

No AAA insurance annuity has ever gone broke. They are extremely well regulated and by law have to have cash reserves sufficient to cover guaranteed benefits. Let's cut to the chase here though. Both sides of the isle love SS as is because they have both been raiding it for decades and it has become a slush fund for politicians to draw from to fund their latest greatest get votes scheme. They do not want this to go away! If they no longer have access to our retirement funds they will have to go to voters and explain why they want to raise their taxes to fund whatever scheme and dream they come up with next and that is much tougher than just skimming the funds from our SS retirement account.

 

You think the federal government is to big to fail? Who is there to bail it out if it did? Many municipalities and some states have already had to make drastic cuts if not scuttle entirely retirement funds. You think it cant happen to the federal government? You have better faith than a nun. Right now the risk is low. The return has always been s h i t e. It always will be. It sucks the most for those who need it the most.

True, way to many live paycheck to paycheck. Way to many of those do so because they make poor choices. So why do folks make bad choices? Is it because they just don't know any better? Is it because they can? They can because they have a government that enables them to.

 

I absolutely think the fed gov't can fail. No gov't has lasted forever.
But if the fed gov't goes away, I fear more than retirement accounts will be affected.

Poor choices are made for a plethora of reasons. There are more poor choices made than people who make them.

As is always the case, the more secure the investment, the less return one gets.

 

First, no bank is forced to join the FED. If they do, there are benefits. If they don't, they don't get the benefits. The FDIC doesn't in any way interfere with the "free market" it is a "member fee" used to ensure through insurance that deposit accounts are protected should the bank fail. The government does not force any bank to join the FED nor does it force any depositor to use an FDIC banks. Banks join the FED and FDIC because it offers them a competitive advantage.

The SCOTUS ruled in 1819 that the federal government could, in fact, charter a bank. So the unconstitutional thing is invalid.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/316

The economic collapse of 2008 and the financial industry's deleveraging of assets over the next several years served to suck trillions of dollars out of the global economy. Banks didn't have money to lend. Banks sometimes didn't have the money for daily operations. Businesses couldn't get loans. Homeowners couldn't get loans. Without these credit markets the money supply would continue to shrink turning the "great recession" into the "2nd Great Depression." QE served to pump liquidity into the market and in so doing helped shorten and minimize the effects of the "Great Recession."

Banks failing is not the prevue of the FED or the FDIC. Bailouts to banks in 2008 were voted on by Congress and signed onto by President Bush. Actions by the FED served to pump money into the economy not save any particular bank. You're conflating the issues.

 

THANK YOU!

Can we agree? Government doing for the people is disabling and isn't the answer. Education is enabling and is the answer.

 

For the third time, the FDIC has almost unlimited borrowing ability as a government-created independent corporate entity. https://www.google.com/amp/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/136368-where-does-the-fdic-get-its-money

And for the last time, the Federal Reserve is a private bank. McCulloch v. Maryland has nothing to do with the creation of the Federal Reserve, so go ahead and find another case for me. You can't. I'm not sure why you insist on pressing this issue; that case is clearly irrelevant.

No. QE served as a temporary band-aid to a serious wound that required surgery. We should have bitten the bullet when we could have; now, with the stock market bubble, we should be prepared for a financial disaster of epic proportions. Unfortunately, businesses do fail sometimes. But businesses should be allowed to go bankrupt. That's capitalism. In this case, we should not have introduced the idea of bailouts in the first place. Government-insured bank accounts are part of this problem, as is the unconstitutional existence of a private bank that has the ability to make consequential fiscal decisions and sway the public via political pandering.

I'm not conflating any issues. I have stuck to my original contention that the Federal Reserve and the FDIC are unconstitutional entities as they exist today. You're just simply ignoring the facts that I continue to present.

 

We can and should do both.
If we can educate the society, then we can move to just using smart people saving money. That is a looonggg way off.

 

I don't know what you think you're babbling about but I posted about CHILE and their failed retirement privatization scheme.

That has NOTHING to do with Venzuela

 

You miss the point. If for some reason the government "fails"...we're so screwed that retirement is the LAST thing to worry about

 

So you would have preferred a full fledged Depression to the Great Recession we had instead?

Because that is what your "solution" would have given us

 

I would have preferred that we had addressed these issues earlier. Both parties are to blame. Eisenhower and Coolidge at least knew what they were doing in terms of fiscal policy.

Carter was a bad President. Nixon was a liar. Ford was... whatever Ford was. Johnson was economically illiterate, and so was Bush Sr. In all honesty, Reagan and Clinton only had "successful" presidencies due to technological innovation. Bush Jr. was also an economic illiterate; his bailout of the big banks was especially reprehensible. And don't get me started on Obama's pumping of federal money into the hands of the auto industry, let alone the asinine "stimulus package."

In short, we haven't had real free markets in a long time. And it's frustrating to watch.

 

I would have preferred we left the New Deal policies regarding banking in place but that didn't happen.

Your solution to what DID happen however would have resulted in a Depression

 

That point was so obvious i did not think it required retort.

 

1. The New Deal policies regarding banking are what tanked the economy in the first place. FDR was illiterate pertaining to fiscal issues and monetary management. See my previous posts for further analysis; in short, the government should not be policing private businesses and should stay out of the way of the economy for the most part.

2. The Depression is nothing compared to what is coming next. If we had bitten the bullet in 2008, we could have avoided a major financial crisis. All our government has done is kick the can down the road. Take a look at the stock market. That is a bubble waiting to burst right there.

 

And again...

The FDIC has borrowing authority. And? AND?
That borrowing authority which was raised in response to the economic collapse in 2008 does not protect banks, it protect DEPOSITORS. If the bank goes under, it goes under. The FDIC protects depositors. The money the FDIC is authorized to borrow? It pays back from member dues.

I will rely on the SCOTUS decisions over your opinion on the subject of the constitutionality of the FED. The 1819 decision affirmed Congress' power to establish a bank. It has been more than 100 years since the Fed was established and some 85 since the FDIC was established and, despite all the whining from your types, not a single decision at any level has moved to overturn the 1819 decision. That, quite simply, is reality. The FED and the FDIC are in fact permitted entities under the constitution.

As for evidence? I need only show you the one decision that made the FED OK. If you think it's not OK it is up to you to demonstrate using similar evidence. That is SCOTUS decisions.

QE effect? The unemployment rate is back to where it was when the recession started. The stock market is back to levels above where it was when the recession started. Inflation has been kept under control. The "bailouts" and stimulus may have kept the economy from going over the cliff but it was the FED that pulled us back to safety.

 

WHat a crock of (*)(*)(*)(*). New Deal banking policies altered the landscape in very positive ways. Instead of Depression every decade or so we had NONE since the Great Depression of the 30s. What DID happen was a "near depression" in 2008 resulting from the "modernization" roll back of some New Deal banking policies

Save us your economic prediction. Conservatives have been predicting THAT for years now.

 

The next "victims" of the Ponzi scheme will then be Gen X'ers and then millennials. This planet only has so many square feet on it to plant new participants contributing. At some point, the contributors will dwindle and the Ponzi scheme will end up breaking the backs of the new upcoming generations. A perpetual Ponzi scheme only works on the assumption that the pool of incoming funds is never ending.
What happens when a shift in age demographics suddenly dries the pool up? This is why the system is so flawed a destined to fail. The money should be invested in something tangible, in real assets,not based on new money funding the system and the ability of the government to fire up the printing presses. That never ends well, ask Venezuela.

 

Lift the cap on the payroll tax and it's solvent forever, F the tiny % of people effected, they won't be hurt at all. I'm one of them, I'll pay the extra tax willingly.

 

This has been addressed earlier and everyone involved conceded the point that once you go this route you are admitting the SS Ponzi scheme has crashed and burned and a new source of revenue must be found to prop it up. Removing the cap and taxing the rich to finance a retirement program is redistribution of wealth and turns what was ostensibly a self financed program into welfare for the old. Some people are fine with that I just don't happen to be one of them.

 

Nothing has crashed and burned. The system would be updated. And the hysrtionics are hilarious

 

Social Security needs to be a choice - you chose to participate and to what degree, or you chose to not participate.
If you participate you receive benefits.
If you do not, you do not.
In either case, you are responsible for your choices.