What did you think of Pawlenty's answer when he said People under 40 should have a choice on Social Security?

[Dreadlock Rasta]

I think people under 40 should have a choice whether they want their money in a private market, or whether it should go straight to the Govt.

But that's just me, thinking of the GDP as a whole and how it would expand when there's new source of money invested into the investment sector.

What do you think?

[Festus]

Sure, I thought that was ok. It is the American way.

[yep]

I agree with him. We all know that the govt is an unconscionably lousy steward of our money.

[AverageJoe]

Who's he kidding.

The people under 40 are going to be paying for the social security recipient's income one way or another.

[Cantankerous]

I think that abolishing social security is a losing strategy for the GOP. Everyone should pay their taxes, and the rich should pay the same percentage of social security as everyone else, which is not currently happening. If they did we would have no crisis.

[Alan Turing]

Well that is one way to destroy social security.

I used to agree with Pawlenty but after the crash of the stock market I realize that it would be a disaster to put all of your retirement money into the market no matter how it was distributed.

Best to leave Social Security alone. It does not have a problem that cannot be solved by the thing that Republicans NEVER mention, raising the income taxes of the very wealthy back up above 45%.

[Eliot K]

Most people are not qualified to make good investment choices.

Investment does not increase demand for goods and services. For example, right now corporate cash holdings are extremely high, money (borrowing) is very cheap, and yet there is very little increase in domestic means of production.

That is because there is very low demand for additional goods and services. I think it's called a recession when this happens.

So, increasing cash available for investment can only serve to increase the cost of stocks, rather than improve the economy.

What we really need is to put money in at the bottom of the economy, where people will spend it, creating demand, which will then require investments in means of production, and then the economy will recover.

[ndmagicman]

Investment bankers and Wall Streeters have wanted to get their hands on the SS fund for decades. Pawlenty's idea does nothing but make the rich, richer. It does not serve the interests or the needs of the people who truly need the program. It is another typical Republican attack on the working and middle class of this country.

[justagrandma]

There is plenty of money in the investment sector of the stock market.

The everlasting problem with choices that impact on older people is that if they've made the wrong choice, they leave us back to supporting them. A sixty six year old isn't going to be getting a new job with ease. We have 401ks and a variety of other vehicles should someone have enough to invest in the first place. If someone should retire and need that money, and the market is down, what will they live on? And if they have not made good choices, or their money has been stolen, as keeps happening, then what other reserves will they have?

I suppose if they were willing to sign a binding agreement that precludes them from seeking government help if it goes sour for them maybe its a choice. But then we would have to be prepared for the consequences of the elderly being out in the streets or forced into living with their children.

[Bug]

I think it was a pitch to give his Wall Street overlords control over MORE of our money.

People under 40, and over, already have the opportunity to privately invest in a retirement fund. And when the market goes boom again and they lose everything, guess who will have to step in to take care of them?