Are Social Security "Privitization" Schemes Unconstitutional?

[hotdog]

I've always agreed with Madison's explanation that the spending clause gave Congress power only to spend for purposes otherwise enumerated in the Constitution, not for any purpose at all.

If one argues that the spending clause empowered Congress to spend for any purpose at all, then one would have to explain the remaining clauses in Article I, Section 8. What possible purpose would they serve?

They take up space. No wanted a really small constitution.

 

[Damocles]

On page eleventy.

So, basically you made a post so you could curse at Tinfoil with no purpose, then threw out a link that didn't prove Tinfoil wrong because you thought it would make you look cool?

I'm good with that, but I was hoping you could show that somehow Bush hadn't "never ever" considered forcing you into buying something rather than letting you choose to go a different route with a small portion of the insurance you are forced to purchase from the government.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Fixed.

So you admit that your OP was just a whiny little pathetic attempt at a gotcha moment? Good of you.

Not really.

Yes it is moron. If you don't think SS is an investment plan, then once again you have no clue what you are talking about. This is not to say that ALL insurance is an investment, but SS is. So is universal life. So is whole life... etc...

 

[Bonestorm]

I am a financial adviser. If you don't think insurance is an investment, then you are right in line with the majority of a mis-informed public. Insurance can be a tremendous investment vehicle. A universal life policy is like a Roth IRA on crack. But like any investment vehicle, you have to use it properly. If not, it can hurt your portfolio. Educate yourself before making snide comments on topics you clearly have no understanding of.

Life insurance (not "insurance" generally) can be an investment vehicle for high net worth individuals looking to avoid taxation of their estate and probate, but in general "insurance" is not an investment.

 

[hotdog]

So, basically you made a post so you could curse at Tinfoil with no purpose, then threw out a link that didn't prove Tinfoil wrong because you thought it would make you look cool?

I'm good with that, but I was hoping you could show that somehow Bush hadn't "never ever" considered forcing you into buying something rather than letting you choose to go a different route with a small portion of the insurance you are forced to purchase from the government.

Why can't the government force people to do stuff.

 

[Onceler]

I don't get the "SS isn't an investment plan" logic.

SS is dying. If it makes more sense to turn it into an investment plan - if it saves the gov't money, reduces the deficit and universally puts seniors in a much better position for retirement - how can you not consider it? Is it enough to just say "it's not an investment plan" and deny that it could work much better that way?

 

[Damocles]

Why can't the government force people to do stuff.

Obviously they can, the question is "should they" and "is it constitutional", not whether they can. The people with the more powerful guns and the power can do a lot of things they shouldn't.

 

[Bonestorm]

So you admit that your OP was just a whiny little pathetic attempt at a gotcha moment? Good of you.

No, there are folks that have proposed mandatory private accounts as the social security reform of choice, including CATO, if I recall correctly. I requested that you provide me those plans of which you are aware so that I may see them. My request remains unfulfilled to date.

Yes it is moron. If you don't think SS is an investment plan, then once again you have no clue what you are talking about. This is not to say that ALL insurance is an investment, but SS is. So is universal life. So is whole life... etc...

That's a pretty strong argument you've got there. SS is an investment because you say so. Nice.

 

[Bonestorm]

I don't get the "SS isn't an investment plan" logic.

SS is dying. If it makes more sense to turn it into an investment plan - if it saves the gov't money, reduces the deficit and universally puts seniors in a much better position for retirement - how can you not consider it? Is it enough to just say "it's not an investment plan" and deny that it could work much better that way?

If you don't get the "SS isn't an investment plan" logic, then you don't understand what Social Security is, what it is designed to do and how it is funded. It's no wonder you support privatization.

 

[Damocles]

I don't get the "SS isn't an investment plan" logic.

SS is dying. If it makes more sense to turn it into an investment plan - if it saves the gov't money, reduces the deficit and universally puts seniors in a much better position for retirement - how can you not consider it? Is it enough to just say "it's not an investment plan" and deny that it could work much better that way?

Basically you are redirecting the investment. We invest in Social Security, and we get terrible negative returns.

 

[hotdog]

Obviously they can, the question is "should they" and "is it constitutional", not whether they can. The people with the more powerful guns and the power can do a lot of things they shouldn't.

If the people, the presidents, Congress, Supreme Court have believed that it is constitutional for over 70 years then it is constituional. This is a republic after all and their has not been any serious opposition to social security ever. It is also a good thing that the government provides people with a retirement plan.

 

[Onceler]

If you don't get the "SS isn't an investment plan" logic, then you don't understand what Social Security is, what it is designed to do and how it is funded. It's no wonder you support privatization.

When I see an electric car, I don't think "cars were made to run on gas. We need to stick with gas-fueled cars."

It's not enough to say "it's not an investment plan, so this can't be considered." If it works better as an investment plan, if it's sustainable as an investment plan, if it reduces the deficit as an investment plan, and if seniors benefit more from it being an investment plan...it's borderline insane not to consider making it an investment plan.

 

[Bonestorm]

When I see an electric car, I don't think "cars were made to run on gas. We need to stick with gas-fueled cars."

It's not enough to say "it's not an investment plan, so this can't be considered." If it works better as an investment plan, if it's sustainable as an investment plan, if it reduces the deficit as an investment plan, and if seniors benefit more from it being an investment plan...it's borderline insane not to consider making it an investment plan.

And if ifs were fifths we'd all be drunk.

 

[hotdog]

When I see an electric car, I don't think "cars were made to run on gas. We need to stick with gas-fueled cars."

It's not enough to say "it's not an investment plan, so this can't be considered." If it works better as an investment plan, if it's sustainable as an investment plan, if it reduces the deficit as an investment plan, and if seniors benefit more from it being an investment plan...it's borderline insane not to consider making it an investment plan.

No we need the government to research electrical cars and design on thats as efficient and cheap as gas powdered ones.

 

[Onceler]

And if ifs were fifths we'd all be drunk.

That's a lazy answer. The "ifs" I list are all pretty probable, and they are CERTAINLY more probable than SS being able to survive in its current form.

People can't bury their head in the sand on SS any longer. It's dying.

 

[hotdog]

That's a lazy answer. The "ifs" I list are all pretty probable, and they are CERTAINLY more probable than SS being able to survive in its current form.

People can't bury their head in the sand on SS any longer. It's dying.

Everyone knows it can't survive in its current form. Even the republicans and democrates know that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Life insurance (not "insurance" generally) can be an investment vehicle for high net worth individuals looking to avoid taxation of their estate and probate, but in general "insurance" is not an investment.

In the case of SS, it IS an investment.

As for other insurance, you are simply misinformed on the benefits that are now available. It is not just for high net worth people looking to avoid the estate tax. Probate is not an issue as even a life insurance policy can go through probate if beneficiaries aren't named properly.

 

[Bonestorm]

That's a lazy answer. The "ifs" I list are all pretty probable, and they are CERTAINLY more probable than SS being able to survive in its current form.

People can't bury their head in the sand on SS any longer. It's dying.

Oncelor, I've argued this issue on many occasions. I'd rather not re-hash the same arguments I've have ad nauseum with a person that I know is not going to change his mind about anything. If that's lazy, then, yes, it is a lazy answer.

 

[hotdog]

In the case of SS, it IS an investment.

As for other insurance, you are simply misinformed on the benefits that are now available. It is not just for high net worth people looking to avoid the estate tax. Probate is not an issue as even a life insurance policy can go through probate if beneficiaries aren't named properly.

The stock market is an auction. Unless your an initail buyer or the company issues new stock your not providing the company with any capital but everyone knows that every time you buy a stock your investing so social security must also be an investment.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't get the "SS isn't an investment plan" logic.

SS is dying. If it makes more sense to turn it into an investment plan - if it saves the gov't money, reduces the deficit and universally puts seniors in a much better position for retirement - how can you not consider it? Is it enough to just say "it's not an investment plan" and deny that it could work much better that way?

That is because people like Nigel spout off the same moronic crap they always do about insurance. They have NO idea what they are talking about. He stomps around shouting 'its insurance not an investment' because he thinks it makes him sound intelligent. Instead it just shows him for the fool he is.