Social security is not socialism but it needs to be privatized

Are you ashamed of yourself?

 

First, on the constitutionality of the FED:

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

You lose.

FDIC is insured by dues paid by member banks. So, not government money.

IS this what you were complaining about?

 

The Federal Reserve is a private bank, so McCulloch v. Maryland is irrelevant. And the main decision made in that case was with regard to state taxation of federal banks. That has nothing to do with the existence of a PRIVATE BANK that has the power to make consequential monetary policy and artificially increase or decrease interest rates. So yeah, I'm pretty sure you lose on that point.

And by the way, if the Fed is doing such a great job, why would its board members resist repeated requests for Congressional audits? Why does the Fed have the power, as a private entity, to print money at will?

In terms of the FDIC, again, you essentially made my argument for me. Why do those dues exist anyway? Why should member banks be mandated to pay to ensure that their depositors' accounts are insured? How is that constitutional? That sounds a lot like an unnecessary, unconstitutional mandate to me. Unless an issue arises specifically regard interstate commerce, the government certainly does not belong in banking or business.

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.

 

He can't decide if he was a financial planner or adviser. I'm scratching my head, what's the difference?

He won't answer your point blank questions because............he was selling products, you need life, health, and a securities license in most states to do so. Great advice! Pssst..........hey you, want to park some of your dead cash here? Have I got a candy apple red roadster for you that goes fast and flashy.

Honestly folks who call themselves financial advisers who both give advice and sell on commission have a conflict of interest in my opinion. I would not go to a broker for financial planning, but rather pay a fee for services guy who isn't vested in selling you a thing.

 

Yep, so instead of discussing the issues and risk learning something, a personal attack is much safer and makes us feel just as good, eh? I had training in financial planning including the different asset classes, their characteristics, the laws affecting them, their performance and suitability in different applications, and why their suitability varies per application. So maybe, just maybe, I might have some reliable information on it for you. But personal attacks are simpler and more fun, eh?

 

so you think privatized will fail? and do not want a backup plan for when it does?

.

 

You do realize that isn't SS's fault, right? You realize the problem is strictly one of government spending exceeding revenue, right?

Ok, you're presenting as one who is informed. Let's see if that is accurate. Tell me how the Trust Fund Treasuries are redeemed. You say "they can only be redeemed with the federal government", whatever that means. How are they redeemed?

Then you are saying that you know better than the almost 100% of financial planners, chartered financial consultants, pension managers, insurance companies, banks, mutual funds, wealthy investors and their personal investment managers, and the governments and citizens of the rest of the world who hold most of the Treasury securities traded on the open market. And BTW, if the Trust Fund Treasuries default, allTreasuries will default because they are one class of government debt instrument and are all subject to the same relevant laws.

Foreign buyers simply don’t have any “alternatives to the Treasury market in terms of depth and liquidity,” as Vassili Serebriakov, Currency Strategist at Wells Fargo says.

A sudden sell off in Treasuries would spark a collapse in the value of the U.S. dollar. And that’s the last thing foreign investors want.

All Treasuries, including those in the Trust Fund, are backed by "the full taxing authority of the U.S. government" so any default or any confiscatory tax would produce a complete failure of the government and they are going to do anything and everything to prevent that from happening. So Treasuries are safe and the rest of the world knows it.

Try this: https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-safest-investment-417037

"Funding from the Treasury"? Like what, T-note and T-bonds?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you a busybody who wants to judge everyone? I know how you judge, righty.

 

Actually raising the cap at which SS payroll deductions are no longer taken out solves "the crisis" completely and permanently.

It's really that simple

 

Well, this thread has gotten to the normal point at which the right runs out of propaganda, spin, and distortion and so are now resorting to personal attacks and character assassination to save their pathetic butts. I'll be stepping out then so you righties can have more space to play with yourselves.

 

Oops! I meant "play among yourselves".

 

All it needs is to be put into a "lock box".

 

My financial statement from my annuity company shows me exactly where my money's at and what it's earning whereas the SS slush fund tells me nothing but smoke and mirror illusions of where my money went.

 

That's what I thought , a distinction without a difference so your attempt to discredit someone for calling you one instead of the other was as dishonest as your SS assessments

 

It's never paid back, it's new money from new taxes on new people. It's a Ponzi scheme not a return on investment.​

 

As I said private annuity companies have a great record

 

No silly guy. It was a snarky way of replying to a guy who was spewing nonsense about "Ponzi schemes" and "worthless IOUs" and numerous other aspects that are readily available for anyone to learn about on the web, but who would rather spread nonsense.... sorta like you.

 

That would be a start for the future but you can't put already missing funds in a lock box, they are gone forever.

 

Most if not all your post are snarky which doesn't help your case at all. Most of us don't give much credence to snarky posters. If you have real knowledge on a subject and can make your case you don't need snark.

Edit: it also makes you sound gay. " Not that I have anything against gays" (Seinfeld)

 

IMO there might be ways to get them back, possibly by charging various segments of the economy for non-level regulations and even wars that favored them in days gone by. After all, the money was stolen to pursue ends for which it was not mandated.

Maybe a few years of someone like Sanders would be useful after all...

 

I don't trust government to handle SS, they have already proven they will just spend it and they would in time find a way to break into the lock box

 

Then make an argument. It's not a personal attack, it's an analysis of the entire progressive ideology from which all these policies spring. It's a logical fallacy to attack someone in place of an argument, but it's not a logical fallacy to attack someone and then provide an argument. It's the icing on the cake (though I don't think I personally attacked you).

You completely ignored the rest if my post which dealt specifically with the topic.

My argument is that individuals could invest the money in safe assets such as treasuries and receive a better return on their money than social security. Do you have a response to that?

 

??

How is it that everything else tax dollars are spent on is "mandated" but not war? It's not mandated when you don't like it?

 

As for the FED...I'll take the opinion of the SCOTUS over you ESPECIALLY when you fail to make any legal or constitutional arguments.

As 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. FDIC members pay insurance for the same reason you pay insurance. Just in case.

Both the FED and the FDIC were put in lace in response to the abject failure of the free market to protect the economy from the failures of the banking system.

 

So how come the Federal Reserve can have the word "federal" in their name? They are not even a part of the government.

 

Correct word is "Insurance Companies"

But, as noted, annuities can and do, at times, lose money. Peoples monthly checks can shrink.

Annuities record of failing rarely is due to the fact that they are insurance products and not investments and these insurance products are themselves insured by law. Still, here in Florida, if your annuity does go under you are only insured for up to $250k.