Where are all the young conservatives who wanted to privatize Social Security?

[crafty]

and put it in the stock market? Aren't you glad you didn't? Almost one half of it would have been gone by tonight.
http://www.factcheck.org/article305.html

[Mr. Peabody]

the funds were to be invested in bond funds, not the 'stock market'
Most bond funds are cruising on at +4%-5%. I would take that now!!

[relievedsail283]

Yeah and we have to thank Barney Frank for this stock market decline.

[Bryan]

Well if the plan had actually been to completely privatize social security maybe. However this was never the plan. The plan was to allow people to invest 5% of their social security withholding taxes (FICA) into the market. While those investments would not be doing well at this time, just as most 401Ks aren't, the market will recover in time. I support anything that takes social security out of the hands of the government who haven completely mismanaged the fund to a point possibly beyond repair.

Edit: Here is the problem with this debate. There is no debate. Republicans, the GAO and the SSI Trust Board of Directors all give a bleak outlook for the future of Social Security. However, whenever the subject is broached Democrats just immediately begin fear mongering to the elderly about how their benefits will be stripped. So maybe the Republicans don't have all the answers, but at least they are willing to acknowledge that there is a problem. There are debates we need to be having in this country and this is one of them, but the answer cannot just be raise taxes.

[Iratelawyer875]

I'm right here. Here's the thing. We would have been given the CHOICE to invest it how we pleased. In interest bearing CD's, money market accounts, precious metals, the stock market, or other. Even if I had invested it in the stock market, I may have lost half of the value, but atleast it would be mine. That's still better than losing 100% of it, which will happen eventually because Social Security will not exist when I retire.

So ask yourself, would you rather have your money in an account that you control... Or would rather the government throws it in a black hole never to be seen from again?

Social security should be OPTIONAL.

[bzimms]

Here's a person how doesn't take the time to understand an issue. They just take what they hear on MSNBC and spout their opinions left and right...

Actually, my retirement hasn't lost a dime. You know why? Because I haven't sold it! In fact, I am increasing my contribution because I can buy WAY more stock for my buck. So just because the market isn't a bull market right now, it will be some time in the future. Then silly people like yourself will be buying the stock that I sell to you for obscenely higher than what I paid, because you want to get in when the going is good. Haha... nice try!

In all actuality, I would much rather have SS abolished so I can take my 6.2% and invest it in my own pocket. Just because people in the 1930's didn't know how to invest is not my problem!

[dnafairy]

Still here. Still want it. I haven't given up on my 401k, just rebalanced it. You'd only lose half if you were invested 100% in stock. And now might be the ideal time to offer private SS. That might actually get the market moving in the right direction again if we offered a massive new investment vehicle like that.

[Angel Of Death]

Even if we assume you are right.Which is better 50% of what I have put into Social Security,or 0% of what I've put in after Social Security goes bankrupt around 2030? Actually,it's essentially bankrupt now.

AD

[Reason Enforcer]

I'm a Libertarian, but here. I'd rather have half of what I would have invested than the none I'll be getting out of the federal run bankrupt SS.