General Discussion

bhikkhu

(10,789 posts)

42. That whole statement is boneheaded-wrong

Wed May 8, 2013, 11:41 AM

May 2013

Private companies have been looting and diluting private retirement funds for ages, perfectly legally. Every time the stock market goes down, every time a company goes bankrupt, or the slow drip of "administrative fees" applied against investment accounts...nobody goes to jail.

The government invests the money paid into SS in special treasury bonds, which are, by design, more secure than any other financial instrument. You have to misunderstand the whole concept of money to object to how SS funds are handled.

"Now they are cutting benefits" is false. Last month they were discussing reducing the CPI adjustments to future benefits in some cases, and the firestorm that predictably unleashed makes it very unlikely that any reduction will ever happen - politically, its practically untouchable.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What Really Sank Gun Control: Distrust of Government [View all] xchrom May 2013 OP

Yet once its an electronic record it will always exist. dkf May 2013 #1

Frankly ... GeorgeGist May 2013 #2

I do. nt Mojorabbit May 2013 #82

The ACLU gives a damn. LAGC May 2013 #89

+100. n/t Skip Intro May 2013 #86

If the intent is to determine who should not have a gun... badtoworse May 2013 #3

I'm a fan of that idea Recursion May 2013 #5

This is what my concealed carry permit allows. rl6214 May 2013 #49

yup this, it would go a long way to strengthen support for background checks loli phabay May 2013 #57

because DonCoquixote May 2013 #98

I ask again: what are you willing to offer? Recursion May 2013 #4

How about this for an offer - Fewer of our kids will be killed by gun violence el_bryanto May 2013 #18

but they won't. thats the point. nt galileoreloaded May 2013 #21

Nonsense -sensible gun registration laws, with a real background check el_bryanto May 2013 #23

Yes, which is why *we would like to pass them* Recursion May 2013 #30

This is such an idiotic question - the truth is the people you represent will accept no compromise el_bryanto May 2013 #36

WTF? I'm not a representative of anybody Recursion May 2013 #37

When you come into this discussion and say "Look you have to give them something" el_bryanto May 2013 #38

In my experience, a deal where both sides come away with something... badtoworse May 2013 #93

A compromise means something needs to be given up in return. rl6214 May 2013 #50

Most gun rights advocates can accept the current restrictions... Pelican May 2013 #100

That dog won't hunt Major Nikon May 2013 #76

sure thing bro. galileoreloaded May 2013 #84

Not sure who you mean by "we" Major Nikon May 2013 #87

i meant you. nt galileoreloaded May 2013 #91

It's interesting you would think so Major Nikon May 2013 #96

ok galileoreloaded May 2013 #97

Not if nothing passes. Recursion May 2013 #24

True, but it's a distrust by a small fraction of Americans that leveraged their power to 54 senators reformist2 May 2013 #6

So you actually trust the government? badtoworse May 2013 #7

My point is that the majority of Americans are fine with background checks. reformist2 May 2013 #8

Actually it's almost half... dkf May 2013 #12

48% said background checks may lead to confiscation - and then most said that's fine with them! reformist2 May 2013 #15

It's not about the background checks; it's about trusting the government with information badtoworse May 2013 #17

Look at the polls, 90% support background checks. You might be happy, but you're not in the majority reformist2 May 2013 #19

Do you trust the government to keep track of your Social Security? DanTex May 2013 #29

If I had my druthers, I would have opted out of Social Security and invested the money myself badtoworse May 2013 #32

So do you actually think people should be able to opt out of Social Security? DanTex May 2013 #34

I like the Australian model where you have to invest a portion of your wages in a qualified fund. badtoworse May 2013 #44

So let's see. You want to privatize social security. You oppose gun control. DanTex May 2013 #48

Social Security TnDem May 2013 #52

Social security is not destined for eventual failure. DanTex May 2013 #59

Your point about the Fed raises a glaring conflict of interest issue badtoworse May 2013 #66

"the inevitable consequences of the Fed's non-stop printing presses (i.e inflation)" DanTex May 2013 #70

Everyone has their own view about investment prudence and expectations for the future badtoworse May 2013 #72

That's why it's good that SS funds are invested conservatively, not based on speculation or opinion. DanTex May 2013 #73

The discussion is about trust in the government badtoworse May 2013 #54

Just pointing out that you seem to agree with Rand Paul about everything. DanTex May 2013 #56

Remember the famous quote from Alan Greenspan TnDem May 2013 #60

The government has not managed social security for the sole benefit of its beneficiaries badtoworse May 2013 #64

What exactly has it done that you object to? DanTex May 2013 #65

See Post 66 badtoworse May 2013 #67

Post 66 doesn't answer the question at all. DanTex May 2013 #68

A private company has to prudently invest retirment contributions badtoworse May 2013 #69

The SS funds are invested prudently. Treasuries are the safest investment vehicle out there. DanTex May 2013 #71

That whole statement is boneheaded-wrong bhikkhu May 2013 #42

See No. 44 badtoworse May 2013 #45

Bad example, social security is broke and my three sons will never see a penny from it. rl6214 May 2013 #51

Gee, what a surprise, "pro-gun progressives" repeating right-wing talking points... DanTex May 2013 #53

Do you deny that the social security fund has been raided for years rl6214 May 2013 #55

Social security has not defaulted on any of its obligations. DanTex May 2013 #58

I trust the government all the time bhikkhu May 2013 #40

I thonk you are very naive badtoworse May 2013 #46

You're welcome to bhikkhu May 2013 #88

How much screaming have you heard on this board when Obama offered up Social Security cuts... badtoworse May 2013 #90

Because...they want to take your guns away? bhikkhu May 2013 #92

I keep my guns safe - it's called being a responsible gun owner badtoworse May 2013 #94

Because the alternative is to trust every single gun owner bhikkhu May 2013 #95

I think you missed the point. badtoworse May 2013 #99

Well, that would be a decent compromise bhikkhu May 2013 #101

54 Senators voted for it nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #39

Oops! So it's even worse! (I'll let my error stand, so your post makes sense.) reformist2 May 2013 #81

Thing is, it wasn't people who voted down M-T it was CONGRESS HereSince1628 May 2013 #9

Worse -- it was the Senate. This was never going anywhere in the House Recursion May 2013 #31

Oh come on... I call BS to that! ananda May 2013 #10

Quinnipiac polls says 48% believe background checks will lead to confiscation. dkf May 2013 #13

And then most said that background checks are fine with them anyway! reformist2 May 2013 #16

It proves the OPs point. This isn't a small extremist minority. It's half the population. dkf May 2013 #61

We have voter registration databases so why not gun registration databases, too? LonePirate May 2013 #11

Could it be, Bazinga May 2013 #25

That's all nonsense. Voter registration banks contain party affiliation which correlates highly ... LonePirate May 2013 #27

what sunk gun control is money from right wing lunatics bowens43 May 2013 #14

The bigger point is that distrust of government is the foundation of ALL opposition to gun control Demo_Chris May 2013 #20

Yes, all is lost, all is lost! Pholus May 2013 #28

The distrust is earned every day, every year, probably as long as governments have existed Demo_Chris May 2013 #74

I believe you when you say guns aren't your issue. Pholus May 2013 #79

I believe government exists for government, and it is our job to make it serve us... Demo_Chris May 2013 #80

Only insofar as you're saying you need to be active in the process. Pholus May 2013 #83

The interesting idea here is not "gun control" melm00se May 2013 #22

Well maybe if governments would obey the rules they claim to follow there would be more trust. JVS May 2013 #33

you mean like operating melm00se May 2013 #43

That's my feeling as well. We just watched the Calif. State Legislature pass truedelphi May 2013 #78

Yeah, that and ignorance gopiscrap May 2013 #26

Patch-able holes in a boat rather than sunk... LanternWaste May 2013 #35

The majority of the senate voted nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #41

The problem with every gun control compromise is that rl6214 May 2013 #47

What would you like in return for Universal Background Checks? jmg257 May 2013 #62

Just look at the shear number of laws being put forth rl6214 May 2013 #75

Why should we trust the Government? Savannahmann May 2013 #63

What really sank gun control was: Zoeisright May 2013 #77

The government has been losing trust rapidly since the 60s and 70s davidn3600 May 2013 #85