Your social security would have been handed to the very same companies now being bailed out to save them from complete failure even as executives run away with the money. Yeah-they care about serniors. SENIOR MANAGEMENT.

Even through this very tough time in the last year, I'm down about 5% ytd. For the previous four years, I was earning close to 20% per year.

What sort of average return do you reckon I'm getting from Social Security, you socialist baby POS? Get out of my pocket, and let me retire with some money!

And while you made 20% the average worker got ZERO while you sit on your fat ass.

YOUR money? Bullshite. If I have to bail out YOUR investments, it isnt YOUR money, its mine/ours.

TAX THE RICH-they shafted us for decades and now want us to pick up the tab for the greed.

Time to pay the piper you greedy bastard.

To bad RML s/s privatization wasn't explain right by GB. The average worker if allowed to do so, were able to put 5% of their s/s into their OWN retirment account early on in their carrer, they would be a lot better of at retirement time. It would more than likely pay more than the max monthy benifit s/s pays now. I have been paying into my own retirement account for years. Not going to be rich at retirement but I'll be OK, and have money to give to the kids when I die. You really get nothing from s/s. I'll stop ther and save it for another post about s/s. Hint: It's the biggest government rip off going.

Its not a ripoff at all when you consider that it is a lot more than a retirement fund suppliment (yes-it was NEVER meant to be your only post-working days retirement fund, but in some cases, its all people could get-especially low income people). It is also a disability insurance so that if you get too hurt or sick to work you can collect an income rather than simply useless and broke from that point on.

People dont always spend their money well on the best insurance or retirment funds. Other people are simply foolish and spend anything they get from their paycheck. You can make the argument (a fair one) that it isnt your fault that others are irresponsible and or unlucky, but the fact is that if we dont provide a protection then we end up supporting them anyway-we cant and dont just let them die off.......it isnt the American way. At least the amount of money you get is modest so it isnt worth WANTING to collect it right away.

But again-it isnt just a retirement fund and many people couldnt afford to get an insurance policy/retirement fund on the pittances they earn.

Its easy as a person of means to talk about being better at spending your money and how you could do better with it, but the fact remains hat not everyone is in a position to play the game the way you would. You need to remember that this is the ONLY retirement and disability insurance plan for many working Americans who are earning 30K or less per year (often under 15K!) and these are people you dont consider until you think about it-these are the fast food workers, the day laborers, the janitors, the groundskeepers, and daycare people, etc....people you try hard to pay as little as possible.....

RML- You missed the point of my post. My point is if we were allowed to put 5% of our s/s into our OWN retirement account we would better off at retirement, than if we didn't. That is the 5% GB was talking about to privatize. Every employee in this country can afford to do this.

Oh by the way, I am very aware of laborers, the janitors, the groundsworkers, and the daycare people. I have been one of them all my life. Never going to be rich, never going to be one of those snivelly have noter's either. I got what I got. It's not much. But at least I've been able to put a little away for my OWN retirement.

"I've been able to put a little away for my OWN retirement."

And you wont be turning down your social security either. And I pray you dont need it before you retire, but if God forbid you get hurt or sick before you retire SS will be there for you. When combined with your meger savings, the SS will certainly help.

MY point is that the SS is a sure thing, republican scare tactics not withstanding. It was imvented in a time when people wound up with NOTHING when they retired or got disabled and when companies didnt do squat for their employees (a direction companies are going again you will notice).

MOST Americas are not wealthy. Most make well UNDER 250K even when you combine the husband and the wife.

Wall Street STEALS money from the small investor between the fees and the bad investments. Could you possibly luck out with the right mix and at the right time? Of course you MIGHT. You might score big in Vegas too.....someone has to win of course. I think we both know that in most cases, the house wins.

Is SS perfect? No. But it is better than the nothing most Americans would get without it.

What everyone seems to be over looking is that there really isn't some big box full of money, labeled Social Security. Instead there is a big box labeled Social Security PROMISES. As we all know, what ever the government giveth it can taketh just as easily. I would love to be able to take back 5% of what the government takes out in SS taxes to add to my own savings. That would be just a measly 5 cents out of every dollar. I know I can do a better job of making it grow than the government can and I wouldn't have to worry about the current 'ME' generation trying to figure out how to get it back.

What everyone seems to be over looking is that there really isn't some big box full of money, labeled Social Security. Instead there is a big box labeled Social Security PROMISES. ##### Promises made by our government to its people. The money will be there for anyone who qualifies. No one has every missed a check they were entitled to. As we saw when the public went crazy after the Bush theft attempt, no one wants to see SS go away in favor of Wall Street. I think recent events have made it even more clear why. Yes-It is POSSIBLE to invest well and then retire at the right time to make out well-but it is equally possible to invest badly and to retire at the wrong time (can you assure yourself that you will retire when the market is up?). SECURITY is the word you keep missing-SOCIAL just means it is for everyone-from the janitor to the CEO. You have clearly bought into the scare tactic used by republicans trying to end social security to free up more money for Wall Street thieves. Sorry dude-it wont happen. The people know it will be there when private stuff isnt. If you want to go to the casino of Wall Street fine-use YOUR money. I wish you all the best-but dont gamble with MY money. And as to your "its only 5%" comment I think we both know that is like saying its only one beer.....once the door is open lobbyists would push for more and more, starving the program and eventually it would be 50/50 or worse....and then we would learn as we learned in the last few weeks that its all a shell game.....your retirement would be history.....as many 401Ks are down big time today..... "As we all know, what ever the government giveth it can taketh just as easily." Well it is true that the government can taketh away-it requires votes and government leaders touching the third rail. As we have just seen, Wall Street can not only taketh away with little recourse to the investor, but the fact that YOU made the decisions about where to invest means they simply say "you takes your chances"....house wins!!! bring on the golden parachutes!!! At least the government is responsible-names and faces would be associated with a failure to pay the SS promises....it WILL be protected. If you dont get your SS I assure you things will be worse on Wall Street and elsewhere too. "I would love to be able to take back 5% of what the government takes out in SS taxes to add to my own savings. That would be just a measly 5 cents out of every dollar. I know I can do a better job of making it grow than the government can and I wouldn't have to worry about the current 'ME' generation trying to figure out how to get it back." People from all generations put a lot more than 5% of their money into 401Ks and other investments on Wall Street. Many are crying now and demanding FBI investigations etc.....but for now the money is gone and any hope of seeing it again is lost. You say you can do better than the government? Well, how do you propose we deal with Wall Steet and their thievery? Me generation indeed.....

You make a rather well reasoned argument, but it is one with which I don't agree. First, there's the falacy that investing in the market requires some form of lucky timing if one is to come out with a secure retirement. If someone has been investing in the market for the last 30 years (since 1978) then your annualized returns have been 10%. So, if you invested $1000 in 1978 and then continued to sink $1000 per year then you'd have somewhere around $140k ($110k return on $31k of total investment). Funds are down around 10% this year (which has been about as bad a year as one could expect), so that $140k would be $124k if one was to retire this year. Even in the worst stock economic environment since the Great Depression, losses haven't exactly offset gains (nor come close to doing so).

One should also remember that you retire not with your entire portfolio, but with the portion needed for a certain time period (one month, or one year). Even in a modest and very safe investment vehicle meant mostly to maintain portfolio value in retirement, one can expect 2-3% growth, which would eventually offset these short-term "losses" (which are only real losses if you just got in the market this year).

You claim that Social Security will be there, and if it's not then there are much bigger problems in the rest of the economy. I've heard the argument before -- but the question isn't whether Social Security will be there, but in what form? Will I have to be 75 to collect? How much lower will my benefit be than people who are collecting today? You're also ignoring the oportunity cost of my 10% annualized return, which I've already shown to have been secure in the long-run. Basically, your argument is that some guaranteed return, no matter how insignificant an amount, nor how much it costs me, nor whether or not I can even hope to live to collect it is better than even a minor risk of losing everything. In fact, there is almost no mathematical potential for losing everything (or even very much if total returns over time are considered) from a well diversified portfolio -- basically you're just being paranoid and using your paranoia to justify ripping people off and ensuring that they retire poorer than they have to.

First of all I'm not avocating to do away with s/s. I know the benifit that is there for everyone. I will however, will always be a strong avocate for taking 5% or maybe as high as 10% of what I pay into s/s and put into my own privite account. I would think if we could ever do this, there be a 5% or 10% less benifit at retirement age. Which would be fine with me. So far no one has been able to explain to me why this is such a bad idea and what there is to be afarid of. We would be managing our own account, not the government.

Did you know that FDR wanted s/s to be privite accounts?

"Basically, your argument is that some guaranteed return, no matter how insignificant an amount, nor how much it costs me, nor whether or not I can even hope to live to collect it is better than even a minor risk of losing everything. "

As usual, you ignote the insurance component of S/S. Should you become disabled via illness or accident you can collect SS much sooner. An early retirement can also allow you to collect at a lower amount too-there are options and there is the unforseen disability issue to consider. Stocks, bonds, etc dont care if you are hurt or sick--they are what they are.

So this is more than just retiremet planning we're talking about. What if you need that money in your 30's or 40's because of accident or illness?

If you believe you can invest well enough to cover something taking you down tomorrow or when you're in your sixties, please feel free to say so.

Long term disability insurance is cheap. Much cheaper than Social Security, and it pays better. Which means, of course, even poor people would be better off buying their own LTDI than paying Social Security taxes, and they'd get superior coverage. Thanks for playing.

OK then Fax. How did you plan to make all these poor people use a given portion of their meager income to pay for insurance and retirement rather than the rent or food? SS is forced savings-to make it all voluntary so it opens up the money for better uses looks nice until you realize that many of your new investors would run for the nearest liquor store or buy lottery tickets/go to the casino with your extra cash.

PS--After those trips to the liquore store and the casino they still can get disabled and eventually maybe even live to retire.....and when they have no income you would have the government do what? Let them die? No. The government picks up the tab with no offsetting revenue to cover the tab.

You guys belong in private industry fax-you just dont know how to govern without a complete lack of understanding of what government is for and how to run it.