Would we need Social Security if we properly regulated Wall Street?

[Maid Mesmera]

The purpose behind SS is to provide a safety net for the elderly in case they lost their savings in a stock market crash, right? But, stock market crashes can be prevented if Wall Street is properly regulated. In fact, that's how stock market crashes *have been* prevented in the past. If stock markets didn't crash and people didn't lose their savings, we wouldn't need SS and would then be in a good position to get rid of it, right?
How would I know: I'm not a liberal. No liberal would ever call for the abolition of Social Security, like I do.
If regulations can't prevent stock market crashes, then explain to me why, after we enacted Glass Steagall and other regulations, we didn't have a stock market crash from the 1930's to 1987.

[PATHETIC]

We would still need SS low income people spend every penny to survive and can't invest.

[Wj]

Stock market crashes occur naturally and are part of human nature, as markets are reflections of people's decisions. Regulating wall street will not prevent them.

[SCE2AUX2]

We don't need Social Security anyway.

[BILL]

One there is only so much stock to go around. Two stocks go up and down without or with regulation. So when you retire your stock investments might be on the down so you would not have as much money you thought. 401Ks are losers, invest in Roth IRAs, you pay your taxes now as taxes really never go down on income. Buy ETFs in precious metals.

[How would I know]

Wow liberals have no idea how the real world works.

Even excluding the vote buying aspect of the bill, social security was created for people who did nothing to save for their retirement.

But the real problem is that there is absolutely no way any regulation could prevent people from losing their savings in the stock market.

[jehen]

Wrong - the purpose was to insure a dignified retirement for everyone. At the time it was implemented the average wage earner had insufficient income to properly save for retirement and worked until death or died because they could not work. And here we are again. The average wage earner has never had sufficient income. Additionally many have had their pensions stolen, underfunded or dissolved in bankruptcy, or were falsely promised magnificent returns on a 401K as a failed substitute for an adequate pension. A compulsory retirement contribution and plan administered by the government is the only way to insure adequate funding, adequate benefits, and keeping the greedy moneyed interests from getting their mits on those funds or shirking their responsibilities in the social contract operating a limited liability corporation in the public sphere.

[341]

I've made over $250K in the Market in just the last 12 months and am now a minor millionaire with a $940K investment portfolio....."Wall street" isn't the enemy it's just serves as the Market Place to allow equities to find their true value and provide a liquid environment....think of it as a super walmart where many goods are provided to many buyers which allows the true value to be established and where if you want to buy or sell their are always those willing to sell or buy. Crashes are a reminder that where their is high reward there is also high risk....they serve to make investors more realistic in their risk taking, which is a good thing.

[213]

it would not have saved
the retirement savings / 401K
of Enron employes that got screwed

yes we would still need SS
there is a world of people
who spent every cent they made
on food, clothing, and housing

[ex arcam]

Where the heck did you get the idea that THAT was the purpose of Social Security?