Wouldn't privatizing social security work to undermine democracy in the United States?

[Matthew D Rises]

Already the misinformation committee blames poor market performance on anything as petty as the President sneezing. Many are not educated enough to know how that is none sense and some are convinced their investments are weakened by government.
If SS were privatized wouldn't that throw all the people to the wolves? Giving wall street maximum influence and directing government not by the ballot box by the board room?

[Paladin]

no

[Shovel Ready]

Wolves are a growing problem, but that is because of liberals who won't let people shoot them.

[Lady Laissez Faire]

If Wall Street had competition, instead of preferential treatment by POLITICIANS, we would all be better off.

[John W]

No Businesses are out to make money you simply put your money in the best company

The Government already spent the Social security money

[Daniel]

No but it would be stupid. It is a matter of supply and demand when you add that much new money you devalue the market because you are increasing demand and no added supply.

[ARC98]

ABSOLUTELY NOT. Just listen. So i dont know if I understood your question but really in my opinion social security AT ALL undermines democracy because really should the government really have to force you to save money for your retirement NO. You should be able to make that choice. For example Social Security in my idea would be something your bank could help you with if you wanted them to.

Get it?

[Peter]

There has been a lot of opposition to social security since the 1930s, on the part of sectors of extreme wealth and privilege, especially financial capital. They don’t like it, for several reasons. One is the rich don’t need it. For them, it’s meaningless. It’s a tiny addition to their retirement and doesn’t mean much. Another is, if the financial institutions and the insurance companies can get their hands on this huge financial resource—for example, if it’s privatized in some way or vouchers—that’s a huge bonanza. They’ll have trillions of dollars to play with, the banks, the investment firms and so on.

But there’s a more subtle reason why they’re opposed to it. Social Security is based on a principle that you care about other people. You care whether a disabled widow is going to be able to have food to eat. And that’s a notion you have to drive out of people’s heads. The idea of solidarity, sympathy, mutual support, that’s doctrinally dangerous. The preferred doctrines are just care about yourself, don’t care about anyone else. That’s a very good way to trap and control people. And the very idea that we’re in it together, that we care about each other, that we have responsibility for one another, that’s sort of frightening to those who want a society which is dominated by power, authority, wealth, in which people are passive and obedient. And that’s a considerable part of the drive on the part of small, privileged sectors to undermine a very efficient, very effective system on which a large part of the population relies, actually relies more than ever,because personal wealth was very much tied up in the housing market. That was people’s personal wealth. Well, OK, that, quite predictably, totally collapsed. People aren’t destitute by the standards of, say, slums in India or southern Africa, but they're suffering severely. And they have nothing else to rely on, but what the pittance that they’re getting from Social Security. To take that away would be just disastrous.

[KarenL]

No, it would not destroy this Republic. It would however, greatly upset the Democratic Party who gave us this Ponzi Scheme. People in America saved for their families and old age from 1790 to the 1940's It was not until the "Progressives" gave us Income Tax, which allowed the government to invade your privacy in 1913, Prohibition in 1918, which destroyed privacy within your dwelling and basements (where you were likely to brew beer on old "soap stoves" or make wine). The great "Father" who "does not speak with forked tongue" FDR by EO outlawed ownership of gold and designed Social Security as a means to drain off cash from the people to his friends hired in the quickly growing bureaucracy that he was constructing. But your grandparents still saved --- the WW II ended the Democratic Congress say all the money from FICA in an account so they increased the payout on the "policy" without raising premiums. LBJ destroy the myth by moving these "funds" to be replaced with IOU from your great great great grandchildren.

If Congress would allow people to privately save for their future without the invasion of the IRS and future taxes, people would go back to savings. Some would buy gold/silver/platinum/rare earths. Some would buy land, some (if allowed) would buy into sports teams like people of GB did with the Packers back in the 1920's. Yes, some people (today) do not know how to save, but they could learn again.

Wall Street power would return to the people if government was not able to use your money to pick winner (SoLyndra,GE, et al) and losers (oil, coal, mining companies). Business buy politicians because Politicians make it profitable to do so. Microsoft was "saved" by the DoJ and was given a monopoly in exchange for hooks in its bloatware to allow agencies to track emails. spending, viewing. CIO get a exogenous budget increase variable every 24-30 months to make them buy all new hardware/software to run on MSFT bloatware. Coincidence, don't think so.

If you want your say in today's world, demand control of your assets and privacy, like our Founding Fathers gave us, long before the "Progressives" sought to enslave everyone.

The American People are the most generous in the world, if left to their own volition. But the leeches of government bureaucracies who need to spend your hard earned money to justify their worthless existence will not let people vote on how tax money ought to be spent or even how it should be raised.

[Crybaby]

It would be here today and gone tomorrow. Always vote against that I say