• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Social Security = 2%/yr gain. why not invest in US Treasuries?

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
27,331
1,357
126
Why doesnt the US govt invest social security $ in US Treasuries and earn more than 2%/yr?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,626
5,923
126
because then congress couldn't steal as much money.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
9
81
Originally posted by: ElFenix
because then congress couldn't steal as much money.
yeap. wich is one of the big problems with SS congress keeps takeingit.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
61,338
5,186
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
because then congress couldn't steal as much money.
Winner winner $35 a plate schmooze with the politicians dinner!
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
because then congress couldn't steal as much money.
Yep. There are any number of investments that are safe and would actually help future retirees much more than Social Security. But, Social Security is just another source of money for the federal government to be spent. There is nothing in the Social Security fund except IOUs.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Because hippies are dumb with money. But still want the gubment to do everything for them instead of privaticizing SS.

Unfortunately hippies and commies are allowed to vote. :(
 

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
Originally posted by: JEDI
Why doesnt the US govt invest social security $ in US Treasuries and earn more than 2%/yr?
YOU WANNA REFORM THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF IT!!!! HOW DARE YOU TOUCH THE THIRD RAIL!!!!!



I agree that the entitlement program should be reformed. What you've described might be on shaky grounds since it would be the government who gives out the money to indigent folks who would then invest in gov. bonds...do you see the circular money flow that I do? Not that I disagree with your proposal but it seems awfully shaky.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
61,338
5,186
126
Originally posted by: spidey07
Because hippies are dumb with money. But still want the gubment to do everything for them instead of privaticizing SS.

Unfortunately hippies and commies are allowed to vote. :(
Hippies? Like they have any political pull. It's the freaking AARP that's blackballing the whole thing.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: JEDI
Why doesnt the US govt invest social security $ in US Treasuries and earn more than 2%/yr?
Because Social Security isn't an investment, and shouldn't be thought of as such. It's merely a tax, with a promised, undefined future benefit which you may or may not get, if there's money available at that time. Even the Social Security Administration says as much:

"There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.

In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right."

Link

You have no legal right to anything from SS, no matter what you've paid in, and Congress can reduce or eliminate benefits at any time. Is it any wonder the program is mandatory? Only a fool would contribute to SS otherwise.
 

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
Originally posted by: vi_edit
Originally posted by: spidey07
Because hippies are dumb with money. But still want the gubment to do everything for them instead of privaticizing SS.

Unfortunately hippies and commies are allowed to vote. :(
Hippies? Like they have any political pull. It's the freaking AARP that's blackballing the whole thing.
You've hit the nail on the head. Their size and clout is directly related to their membership -- luckily the AARP stranglehold over the retirement system will be severely diminished in coming decades. The greatest generation was excellent at fighting wars and making babies but they're fascist-like when it comes to politics.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY