Would privatizing Social Security save the fund from drying up. Your thoughts on Privatizing Social security.?

WASHINGTON -- President Bush tried and failed to fix Social Security's long-term finances with his own party in control of Congress. His determination to keep trying, even as Democrats take over, is fueling speculation that he is ready to meet their price for coming to the bargaining table: dropping his goal of letting workers create private retirement accounts.





While Democrats don't take over the House and Senate until January, already some in both parties are reading tea leaves for signs of administration flexibility, including in recent remarks by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.





For Mr. Bush, private accounts are a way of reducing Social Security's future obligations, and central to his concept of an "ownership society" in which Americans rely less on government.





Democrats, along with the seniors group AARP, oppose personal accounts because they would initially require heavy government borrowing, and could leave future retirees at risk of market downturns.

Would privatizing Social Security save the fund from drying up. Your thoughts on Privatizing Social security.?
no
Reply:This is a loaded question because there is no good answer. For those who are against Big Government the temptation is to throw such programs aside. I, as a stock trader, know how to invest better than the Government, but then that is not the case with many who would be hurt if they were in charge themselves.





So in a way it's like asking who could drive in Germany. There, if you're not good enough (as you probably know) you don't get on the highway. So then anyone such as myself with a history of investing gets to be self-directed but someone with lesser skills doesn't?





But I do know one thing - that if you started saving $20 a week for 35 years at compound interest, it would probably be better than what Social Security would be paying, and would have cost you less. So maybe the answer is Government Bonds? But then again, we'd be at the mercy of Big Brother.
Reply:it would work... as long as the market goes up... consistently... any dips could plunge people near retirement into poverty...





that's a big gamble if you ask me...





I don't like to gamble on retirement...
Reply:Social security was never intended to be an actual retirement plan, it was suppose to be temporary. So 100 dollars put in 40 years ago is still 100 dollars today even though 100 dollars has no where near the same buying power today. Social security never accounted for inflation, never planned on people living past 65, and never planned on the baby boomers. So plain and simple it is going to dry up, it is just matter of time.





Privatization could be a fix and let some growth occur which is needed for it to survive. It kind of upset me that Clinton came up with the idea but the dems killed it because Bush would have got the credit.





Me personally, I think anyone less than 30 should write it off, you probably are not getting it. I'm 36 and not counting on it, I have personal IRAs, mutual funds, and stocks planning for my future. I think everyone else should do the same, it doesn't take much to start saving and investing, I don't really count on the government to get it right.
Reply:Ever since Health care has been semi-privatized, the abuses have skyrocketed! If we do that to SS, then what's next? No...we MUST wait 'til the Dems take office. As for the AARP sold the elderly down the river, w/its support of Shrubya's 2nd coup. So, they're off MY list!
Reply:Privatizing would be the death of Social Security. Many seniors already lost money in the lousy market. Just ask someone who retired 10 years ago, and they will tell you they are getting one tenth of what they started out with. Bush wants to talk that sorry old line of less governement because he has the resources to take care of his aging parents. The average person does not and will not have the income to retire themselves and provide for two sets of parents if they happen to be married. Instead the federal government should take the leadership in creating programs of support for families. Bush shows a huge lack of respect for the elderly population.
Reply:Privatizing Social Security will jeopardize the limited income of those who have contributed, and are now receiving benefits through the Social Security Act.





President Bush wants Americans to rely less on government; yet, insists U.S. citizens embrace and reward illegal immigrants with financial and educational benefits they are not entitled to. The No Child Left Behind Act, promoted by Laura Bush, and signed into law by her husband, demands the public school systems in the U.S. to accept any child (legal or illegal) into U.S. public schools, which are then obligated to provide special classes for those children. Public schools are mandated to provide ESL, and other benefits for Hispanic students not available to non-Hispanic students.





I have been a public school teacher for 40 years. The No Child Left Behind Act's detremental effect on education exceeds the U.S. Government's decision in the late 1800's to send Native American children to U.S. Government Indian Boarding Schools.
Reply:Privatizing Social Security wouldmake the problem worse, since as it's currently run, the funds to pay for current retirees come from the contributions of current workers. If they are allowed to put this money into private accounts, where will the money for curren retirees come from?





Plus, it would be turning what is an insurance program into an investment program, and investments do not always achieve their objective. What happens if someone's portfolio goes ENRON on them? Too bad, you have to work at WalMart when you're 80 and ailing? Workers already have an investment program available for them. It's called an IRA. Also, 401K's.