If the Social Security fund was invested in the stock market...?

[kentuck]

You would probably be getting a letter in the mail in the next week or so stating that your next SS check would be about 10-20% less because of the drop in the market. But, there is no need to panic. That is just the way the market operates.

Those that support the idea of privatizing Social Security are always very quite on the subject matter when the market is as volatile as it is now.

But this is the time to look at the ideas of the free marketeers. Are you sure you want your Social Security tied up in the stock market? Who do you trust the least - the government or the stock market?

Which do you want handling the Social Security fund?

37 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	The same one handling my 401K?
	0 (0%)
	My personal stock broker?
	0 (0%)
	The US Government?
	37 (100%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[guillaumeb]

1. Perhaps this should be a poll. eom

[Hoyt]

2. If it had been invested in 1940s, we'd all be retired and able to withstand a 20% cut. But

I think it's way too risky to jump in at this point as some right wingers' proposals that would allow one to invest their supposed SS fund in stocks. Of course, the truth of the matter is -- younger workers today fund the SS for older people and we depend on the government to keep the program going. It's probably a good bet it will continue unless GOPers take over.

[Human101948]

10. Except that if Wall Street gets their hands on SS there will be significant fees...

and that is exactly why thie scheme is floated and returns are misrepresented. For example--

Nor did anyone know that part of Raimondo's strategy for saving money involved handing more than $1 billion – 14 percent of the state fund – to hedge funds, including a trio of well-known New York-based funds: Dan Loeb's Third Point Capital was given $66 million, Ken Garschina's Mason Capital got $64 million and $70 million went to Paul Singer's Elliott Management. The funds now stood collectively to be paid tens of millions in fees every single year by the already overburdened taxpayers of her ostensibly flat-broke state. Felicitously, Loeb, Garschina and Singer serve on the board of the Manhattan Institute, a prominent conservative think tank with a history of supporting benefit-slashing reforms. The institute named Raimondo its 2011 "Urban Innovator" of the year.

The state's workers, in other words, were being forced to subsidize their own political disenfranchisement, coughing up at least $200 million to members of a group that had supported anti-labor laws. Later, when Edward Siedle, a former SEC lawyer, asked Raimondo in a column for Forbes.com how much the state was paying in fees to these hedge funds, she first claimed she didn't know. Raimondo later told the Providence Journal she was contractually obliged to defer to hedge funds on the release of "proprietary" information, which immediately prompted a letter in protest from a series of freaked-out interest groups. Under pressure, the state later released some fee information, but the information was originally kept hidden, even from the workers themselves. "When I asked, I was basically hammered," says Marcia Reback, a former sixth-grade schoolteacher and retired Providence Teachers Union president who serves as the lone union rep on Rhode Island's nine-member State Investment Commission. "I couldn't get any information about the actual costs."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926#ixzz3xu1bmhJX

[Hoyt]

14. I would not want SS in the stock market. But if I knew someone who could turn my $200 in savings

into a million bucks through managing my money, I'd gladly pay them $500,000, even more.

[Human101948]

16. Yes, if they could guarantee that they would not share it with you...

and I can guarantee that.

[ronnie624]

24. Money doesn't just spontaneously become more money.

Value doesn't materialize out of thin air. It has to have a source of energy. In the case of profits from Wall Street investments, more often than not, they are derived from the energy of dirt-cheap labor in poor countries, at the expense of the environment.

When people finally understand the folly of capitalism, we'll be able to provide real security for our society.

[Hoyt]

26. If they ever understand it. You won't get many people alive today who will work for bartered

services. Probably a good way to live, if almost everyone gets it. Don't think that will happen anytime soon.

[ronnie624]

27. I'm skeptical of the assumption

that capitalism and 'bartering' are the only possible alternatives for organizing a sophisticated, technologically advanced economy.

And you're right, people would be highly resistant to a transition from capitalism. Greed is a powerful motivator, but it offers no security; only a pathway to waste, corruption, injustice and environmental destruction.

[Travis_0004]

3. not quite

My 401k has doubled since 2008. I dont care about a 20% correction. This will pass, and I should average 8% over my lifetime.

Meanwhile the SS trust fund will get about 3%.

[kentuck]

5. Without government bailouts and intervention in 2008-2009...

When the stock market was at 6700, without the bailouts, the stock market may have gone even lower and your return was not a guaranteed proposition.

[Travis_0004]

8. I dont disagree

I might come off as an ass, but 2008 was the best thing that ever happened to me. I lost about 10%, then bought up long term bonds. Their value skyrocketed and I made good money. I then bought stocks at a huge discount, and saw great gains for a few years.

[enid602]

4. fund?

Well first off, there would have to be a SS fund.

[kentuck]

7. Yes.

So long as the working people of this country are contributing this money from each paycheck, it cannot go broke. Once it is the discretion of the government or the market to pay without any contributions from workers, it will be on quick road to bankruptcy.

[TBF]

12. Had it been a "lock box" from the start

this wouldn't even be a conversation.

[1939]

15. Blame LBJ and his "unified budget" NT

[enid602]

21. fund

As I understand it, the 'fund' cosists of some IOU's in a drawer at the Fed.

[A HERETIC I AM]

23. Are you being facetious?

[ronnie624]

29. Revenue for SS goes into the general fund.

In its place is issued a special, non-marketable bond (an IOU), presumably, with the full faith a credit of the US government.

[A HERETIC I AM]

31. Calling a US Treasury security an "IOU"....

Is to diminish the integrity of those securities to the level of something a child gives another child.

The IOU in a drawer bullshit comes from the mouth of GW Bush.

It is inaccurate and simplistic

[ronnie624]

32. The SS website

refers to the revenue as "borrowed". The special issue securities, issued in its place, have no marketable value, and will have to be paid back. That, by definition, makes them IOUs. The greed bags who want to privatize or even eliminate SS, have been known to say "worthless" IOUs, and I don't agree with that characterization at all.

It's likely you and I are in agreement on most major issues.

[A HERETIC I AM]

36. No, by definition they are anything BUT IOU's

And you are wrong to categorize them as having "No marketable value".

They are called "SPECIAL ISSUE" because they have two important provisions available only to the SS trust funds;

1). They are redeemable on demand at face value, unlike regular US Treasury Bonds which are only redeemed at face value upon maturity (Often referred to as a "PUTABLE Bond", as they can be "put" back to the issuer at any time), and

2) They have a fixed value as they do not trade on the open market. THIS is why I say you are wrong to say they have no marketable value.

Sure, you and I can't buy one of these securities, but they most certainly have value.

The primary difference between these securities and an "IOU" is that they are BONDS that pay periodic interest payments TO THE TRUST FUNDS

By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.

In the past, the trust funds have held marketable Treasury securities, which are available to the general public. Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.

Also;

Why do some people describe the "special issue" securities held by the trust funds as worthless IOUs? What is SSA's reaction to this criticism?

Money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, well in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity.

The above quotes can be found here;
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#&a0=6

It is indeed likely that you and I are in agreement on many issues, but US Treasury Securities are a particular fascination of mine and I am fairly well versed in their structure, issuance and pricing. Suggesting the securities held by the Social Security Trust Funds are IOU's is again, inaccurate and simplistic and is frankly an insult to the integrity of these instruments.

[ronnie624]

37. Essentially,

your problem, is that I have "insulted the integrity" of an interpretation of the facts, that you have a strong emotional investment in.

Sorry about that.

[A HERETIC I AM]

42. No, my "problem" is you are wrong

(GASP!! Someone is wrong on the Internet!!) and you now seem to refuse to admit it in spite of
presented evidence.

But that's OK. I have no strong emotional investment in anything other than facts, a subject you are apparently rather cavalier in your "interpretation " of.

Be well.

[ronnie624]

43. The info you posted, which I read long ago,

makes crystal clear, that SS revenue is in fact borrowed and must be repaid. Also, it does not say the special issue securities cannot be characterized as IOUs. It says they are not "worthless". You have posted nothing that validates your ideologically driven views.

[A HERETIC I AM]

49. "ideologically driven views"?!?

Wait a sec...I have to.....

And then.....

However, this exchange has almost gotten me to the point of but now I am more like

::::deep breath:::: OK.......this should do it for me.....

The info you posted, which I read long ago,

And clearly did not understand a single word of....

makes crystal clear, that SS revenue is in fact borrowed and must be repaid.

Yup. Borrowed by the General Fund and replaced by a security that pays interest. Just like any other entity that borrows money by issuing a FUCKING BOND. But their website ALSO states that they are required by law to purchase government securities with the money they receive from the likes of you and me, ie, they buy US Treasury Bonds, and are NOT issued IOU's

Jesus H. Christ on a turd unicycle juggling shit muffins with asshole frosting.

Also, it does not say the special issue securities cannot be characterized as IOUs.

You know, the other day I baked a Betty Crocker Chocolate cake. I noticed that nowhere on the box did it say I COULDN'T call it a Strawberry Banana Cream Pie. So that's what I did. The others that had some were a wee confused, understandably so, but I insisted it was a Strawberry Banana Cream Pie.

Seriously? Is that the best argument you have? Is THAT where your logic path takes you? "Well, they don't say I can't call it an IOU, so THAT must be what they are."

Unbefuckinglieveable

It says they are not "worthless".

Right. And neither did I. YOU insinuated it though;

here
"The special issue securities, issued in its place, have no marketable value, and will have to be paid back."

You have posted nothing that validates your ideologically driven views.

So...what you are saying here is that because I know the difference between an IOU - an INFORMAL agreement or document with no specification regarding terms or repayment and a Government debenture with an Indenture, I am ideologically driven?

Really?

If I had to conduct a class where the curriculum was to describe how the United States Treasury issues debt securities, it would probably take me a couple hours, tops and MOST people would be able to grasp the material by the time I wrapped.


You on the other hand..........

As I said in my post above, GW Bush started this bullshit of calling the securities held by the Social Security Trust funds "IOU's".

So, when you insist on continuing arguing this same, lame, inaccurate point, you have set up your tent RIGHT NEXT TO this fucking idiot;


Remember? This numbnuts?




Remember?



Jesus H. Douchebag Keerist on a skateboard losing it badly on a ski ramp.

[ronnie624]

56. Sorry, but I never made it past the emoticons. n/t

[LiberalAndProud]

57. Too bad. I managed to learn something from the text.

I am infinitely tired of the propaganda espoused first by the other party become part of our daily lexicon in America echoed from both sides of the aisle. We all know we're being manipulated, we just don't notice when it happens to us.

[A HERETIC I AM]

58. Thank you.

That's very kind of you to say.

[ronnie624]

59. Okay, I went back and read it,

and promptly regretted it. There was absolutely nothing of substance; just a lot of angry, illogical ranting.

Calling the special securities that replace revenue with a promise to repay it, IOUs, is not a political statement, but instead, a statement of fact. They are referred to thus by myriad sources, and for a perfectly logical reason: a written promise to repay borrowed money, is in fact, an IOU.

[A HERETIC I AM]

63. .....

If I had to conduct a class where the curriculum was to describe how the United States Treasury issues debt securities, it would probably take me a couple hours, tops and MOST people would be able to grasp the material by the time I wrapped.


You on the other hand..........

If I included the differences between an IOU and a Bond Indenture....
6 weeks, minimum.

[ronnie624]

67. Do you utilize ad hominem attacks

in the process of 'teaching' your 'students'?

[A HERETIC I AM]

69. .....

That's not ad hominem. Your tent is all the way up front.

Right next to Shrubs.

[ronnie624]

73. That isn't going to mitigate the damage to your credibility.

Your arguments consist of appeals to authority: 'I'm a teacher, therefore my opinion is correct.' ad hominem attacks and attempts to intimidate into accepting your ideologically driven interpretation of the facts, and little else. The info you posted, contradicts some of your claims, and does not support your view.

Your arguments are bogus and irrational.

[A HERETIC I AM]

75. .....

"Your arguments are bogus and irrational."


Project much?

BTW, as far as the text of your post is concerned?

Here's a book for ya;



And FWIW, I'm a truck driver. I clearly have no credibility.

[kentuck]

64. Does the US Government put IOU's in a box to pay the Chinese for their loans?

Why would the Chinese be paid differently than the Social Security fund?

[ronnie624]

66. Make your point. Don't be scurd. n/t

[kentuck]

68. My point is:

Is the debt to the SS fund different from the debt owed to the Chinese and other countries? If so, how?

[A HERETIC I AM]

70. Why...they're IOU's!

It's IOU's all the way down.


<-- do I really need this?

[ronnie624]

71. I'm not sure. I'll look into that.

If it is different, does that make it okay or not okay, to refer to special issue securities as IOUs?

[A HERETIC I AM]

72. Of course you're not sure

Because you have repeatedly demonstrated that this material is beyond your grasp and it's doubtful that you'll come to the right conclusion regardless of whether or not you "look into it"



(Now I'm just having fun)

[ronnie624]

74. Lol. n/t

[KansDem]

76. Say, A HERETIC I AM...

Was it ever explained why W gave Merkel a shoulder squeeze? I thought it was one of the more bizarre moments of his presidency, but never heard or read why he did it.

[A HERETIC I AM]

79. Outside of the fact that he probably thought it was charming....

No, I don't recall ever having read an explanation.

He was probably trying to be "down home friendly " or some such bullshit.

Clearly the Chancellor didn't appreciate the gesture

[dumbcat]

50. Whut?

2) They have a fixed value as they do not trade on the open market. THIS is why I say you are wrong to say they have no marketable value.

Dude? What? You just contradicted yourself in two sentences. They do not trade in the open market. Thus they have no marketable value.

[A HERETIC I AM]

52. You're right. I'm wrong.

See? How easy is that?!?

(Not directed at you, rather the other poster)

You are exactly correct, I did indeed contradict myself.

A better way to word it would have been;

2) They have a fixed value which means their price, and therefore interest yield, does not change at the whims of the daily trades of the bond market. This provides a more stable value calculation to the SS Trust funds. It is wrong to suggest they have no "marketable value" however, because the market these securities are subject to is only that directly between the SS Trust Funds and the US Treasury. They are payable on demand at face value. The market therefore is for their face value, which in the parlance of the bond market is "Par"


Better?

[dumbcat]

54. They are not marketable, and thus have no market value

A single buyer does not make a "market." It becomes a private contractual obligation.

[A HERETIC I AM]

55. Let me help you a bit further;

[Warren Stupidity]

60. the "market" here is "US Treasury Bonds" and as long as those are "marketable"

and have "market value" so do the us treasury bonds held by the SS trust fund. If in fact the government collapses and its bonds become worthless, the trust fund will also cease to have value.

[dumbcat]

61. You don't even know what a market is

or what bonds the SSTF holds. End of Discussion.

[ronnie624]

62. The selective, ideologically driven ignorance is truly perplexing, at times. n/t

[tk2kewl]

6. there are winners and losers in the world

and your a loooooooooooooooser!



I'll go with the current plan

[whatthehey]

9. Why?

Would it have to pay out its entire balance this month?

What happened to the hundredfold increase in the value of its stock market holdings since SSI taxes began to be collected not to mention the dividends it's been collecting for those nigh 80 years, usually varying between 2.5 and 5%?

If people are quiet on the benefits of DCA and a century plus of proven CAGR just because the DJIA goes down 1.5% one day and up the same amount the next day, then they either don't understand the issue at all or more likely have gotten tired of explaining it to others who don't.

Me? I'd personally advocate a good mixed model of investing for any large fund, and the SSA is essentially the world's largest fund. If I with my paltry investments am sensible enough to neither be 100% in risky volatile penny stocks nor 100% in low yield bonds and am doing reasonably well because of that good sense, I suspect the financial geniuses the Feds could hire to manage a few trillion could be both more sensible and more successful given the chance.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. This is an amazingly ignorant post

Last edited Thu Jan 21, 2016, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Given that the Stock exchange manages to grow over the medium to long term from 3 to 6 percent per year.

That does not mean I want that in Wall Street but the is an astoundingly ignorant op

[Doctor_J]

13. Bernie, with his hammer and sickle

rec

[ProfessorGAC]

17. Way Too Much Money

It would cause the bubble of all bubbles because the gains in intrinsic value and productivity would pale in comparison to the increased valuation.

Then with hyperinflated securities, the people with the most in there already dump and run making such high returns that just keeping as cash would be ok.

Then since reinvestment in those securities would be a weak deal (high prices, gross overvalue), the cash would be used to expand productivity in foreign countries, potentially leading to negative macroeconomic growth. Then the bubble bursts.

It's a really silly idea compared to just using it as a "pay as you go" mutual run by the government.

[Glassunion]

18. Why the f*ck would I want my SS money to go towards paying

the multi-million dollar bonuses of assholes who will in all probability tank the fund through incompetence, willful mismanagement, and illegal dealings?

Would they use the fund to bail out the banks when (it ain't an if) they tank the banking system again?

The last thing you want is for it to be publicly traded in a corrupt, and under-regulated system.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

20. The GOP accuses us of picking winners and losers?!?!?!?!

[bvar22]

22. I wittnessed the immediate aftermath of Katrina. I saw many, many square MILES

of homes, rich & poor, completely destroyed, along with their entire contents.
For the first couple of weeks, it was like an After the Apocalypse movie.
This was after the latest round of refinancing and unexplained, magical increases in "Property Values" as the bubble was close to bursting.

After Katrina, I realized that The Banks were holding Square Miles of worthless paper.
I still believe Katrina, and the destruction of square miles of highly mortgaged property was the start of the Property Value Bubble Collapse and the Banking Crisis of 2007.

After a good but unfinished career in a technical field, my job was outsourced. I was paying high rent (Minneapolis) and, due to aging (56 at the time) and the beginning of some health problems, became unemployable in anything beyond minimum wage, no benefits jobs.

My wife & I made a radical decision at the time.
In 2006, we sold EVERYTHING,
cashed in IRAs early and paid the penalties,
found inexpensive Bubble Proof pristine property in the Arkansas Mtns.
bought the property outright, moved there,
and started growing healthy food, healthy Honey Bees, and healthy free range chickens.

We live with no mortgage or other payments for anything, drive old cars (I'm a good mechanic among other things), build everything ourselves, and participate in a surprisingly active rural Black Market...cash only. We avoid buying anything NEW whenever possible.
If we need something, we either make it ourselves, or buy salvage or 2nd hand and make it work.
Wall Street can Live or Die without our money or concern.

Our yearly goal is to continue reducing our Carbon Footprint even further,
produce more, "consume" less, and become more involved with local Humanitarian Issues.

So far, so good.
In October, we will have been here in the Hard Wood forests of very rural, pristine Arkansas for 10 years.

This is not for everybody.
We have no dependents, strong backs, enjoy this work,
and have a very compatible Skill Set that makes this easy for us most of the time.
I opted for early Social Security at 62.

---bvar22 and Starkraven
Living Well on a LOW taxable income
and stuff we learned in the 60s.

[haele]

25. Social Security is an insurance fund, not a retirement fund...

And so, I don't mind seeing a lower return on it than I would with an IRA or CD. It's there to provide a basic allotment upon a retirement age, the loss of a provider's income (if you're a dependent child), or a disability - no matter if one thinks they are rich or poor.

If you pay into the fund along with everyone else, it's there for you when you need it. That's how insurance is supposed to work.

So long as the fund is secure and growth stable, and payments can be depended on, Social Security shouldn't care what the stock market does. That's what investment funds are for.

As it is, with a 401K and two IRAs, I figure if the market doesn't tank again, I can count on perhaps $100 a month from them for 20 - 25 years or so, or a lump sum of $70K (after fees and taxes) from the $90K + that will be in the accounts when I'm 65.
That will be enough to pay off the final 10 years of my $45K student loan for the BS I got last year, and put the rest into a college fund for the grandkids.
So I guess my retirement will depend on what I might inherit from my mom (probably around $200K, unless she outlives me - which she very well might) and my ability to continue to work for the next 15 - 20 years into my 70's (so I can wait to start collecting the max SS I can get). I also plan to start socking away the reserve retiree military pension I'll start to receive when I turn 60 (in 3 1/2 years) into both a rainy day and a trust fund.

But Social Security will be the majority of my retirement until I die. Honestly - if I had been required to put money in an IRA, or some other retirement fund instead of SS, over the ups and downs of a typical working-class experience over the period post 1980's, I don't know if I would have been able to put as much money into retirement as I have been required to do through the Social Security tax.
The amount of time I spent between jobs, or had been faced with a long-term emergency expenses, or even amount of the times I changed employers or had to work part-time would have significantly cut into my ability to put a disciplined regular 5% of all income off the top into a retirement fund. One needs to make money over the basic cost of living to be able to even think of saving money, and at least 20% of my employment over the years has provided a level equal to or just above a basic minimum income to maintain my household and basic expenditures (especially health and child-rearing).

And I certainly don't think half my employers would have been so generous in matching whatever retirement vehicle I would have gotten through work if I was dependent strictly on a 401K or pension.

While it may just be dinner and entertainment money to some lucky retirees who were able to save up a million or more before they were 60, our regular tax payments into Social Security will keep me and my disabled spouse in our double wide well into our decrepitude, and still leave us with perhaps a little to pass on to our kids. And that's taken a huge load off my mind.

Haele

[Samantha]

41. Social Security is an insurance policy against poverty in one's senior years

and in that context should never be put at risk for America's seniors.

Sam

[BuelahWitch]

28. You know they'd hire some gov't contractor to handle it

Doubt it would be actual gov't employees. I prefer that my social security funds be kept OUT of the stock market, thank you!

[Samantha]

30. I asked that question in 2008 if Social Security had been privatized as Bush* wanted

what percentage would have been lost in that "crash." Two days later Paul Begala answered that question on cable: 40 percent would have been lost.

Sam

[whatthehey]

38. and it would all have been more than regained, with dividends

[kentuck]

39. Right.

If you needed your money in 2008, too bad.

[whatthehey]

44. If you needed all of it in one year, it should have been in bonds

And no that's not a financial genius/professional level of knowledge needed insight, or I wouldn't have it. It's been blasted nonstop in any popular article, show or discussion about retirement since at least the Reagan administration.

[Samantha]

40. Some people on Social Security must have their money on time

not when the market recovers. Social Security should never be privatized.

Sam

[whatthehey]

45. I'm not sure why timeliness is affected by diversified investment.

I still got my dividends in 2008, same as any other year.

[bemildred]

33. I want them collateralized with CDOs, 400 trillion $$$ of that sloshing around in the markets.

Then I want to be able to cash out my future SSI income and blow it all on consumer goods and Las Vegas.
Obligatory:

[FSogol]

34. Why is this even a question on a Democratic website?

[hunter]

35. ... then someone would have figured out how to steal it.

That's how we make billionaires in the U.S.A.

[FreeJoe]

46. It doesn't work that way

The portion of Social Security that goes into the fund (or out of it now days) is relatively small. It is primarily a transfer system from current workers to current retirees. When the income from current taxes is greater than current payments, that money gets invested in federal government bonds. When there is a shortfall, the bonds are sold back to the treasury and the money covers the shortfall.

If the surplus was invested in other instruments (stocks, private bonds, or whatever), changes in the value of the fund would not impact the amount of money paid out. If the returns were lower than the return from the bonds, we might deplete the fund earlier. Only then would benefits be cut.

To the heart of your question, though, I would not like the federal government to invest that money in private entities. I know that Calpers and other large state pension plans do and they see higher average returns than SS, but I still think it would be bad. It would be an uncomfortable political intertwining of government and private interests.

[madville]

47. Depends when it was invested

If it was invested last year, sure it would be down 20% right now. If it had been invested in 2004 when the DJIA was 8,000 it would still be at 100% gain over the last 12 years, double what it was then.

The market in the short-term is about timing, in the long-term it will go up.

In 20 years with the current strategy of buying US debt the Trust Fund will be gone. In 20 years the DJIA will likely be double what it is today.

Pension funds invest significant chunks in the market for a reason, those that stuck with it through 2008/2009 have seen their investments double since then.

[B Calm]

48. I would have a problem investing my SS money into companies that outsource American

Jobs.

[hollysmom]

51. if social security (and disability) were invested in the stock market, I would have a

lot more people living with me.

[RB TexLa]

53. At the time of receiving benefits the person's funds would not be invested in

something as fluid as stocks. They wouldn't even be invested in mutual funds at that point. This is a stupid argument in that a privatized SS investment account would be just like any other retirement account the person would move from more aggressive investments to less aggressive investments as they move toward using the funds.

All privatization of SS investing ideas I've seen actually had limits on investment options to a degree. Your letter would never happen under any of these plans as people receiving benefits would no longer be in an accumulation phase with any of their SS investments in the stock market.

[kentuck]

65. Sort of like mortgage securities?

Why would the Social Security fund be invested differently?

[cantbeserious]

77. Never Trust Someone Whose Paycheck Relies On Your Money

eom

[Turbineguy]

78. Wall Street's function used to be

connecting those who need money for economic activity with those who have money to invest. Now we have "Sharktank" for that. Wall Street job is to be a parasite on our society.