[Methos8]

That's why social security should remain in relatively risk free investments. The only reason for a government enforced savings program like SSA is to keep people from becoming destitute and dependent on the government. And then individual's private investments should make up the difference in quality of life. But it should be run like a savings program and not a transfer program.

Well once social security switches to a savings-account based program, I think anyone who would like to opt-out of the retirement-based portions (leaving disability and other things aside for the moment) should be allowed to.

Im an accounting/financial professional who doesn't need the government to tell me what I should and shouldn't be investing in. Im more than capable of evaluating my own financial risk on my own without big brother's help.

[DannyTN]

"Well once social security switches to a savings-account based program, I think anyone who would like to opt-out of the retirement-based portions (leaving disability and other things aside for the moment) should be allowed to."

I disagree. It should be a forced savings program, a cash value program, where the value of the benefit is tied to the value of the cash contributions plus earnings. People should NOT be able to opt out. And they should only be able to withdraw funds at a rate that doesn't exceed their life expectancy.

Even finance professionals like us can be wiped out and end up dependent on the government, due to a variety of causes, from business and economic turmoil to catastrophic illness in the family. But the fact is if you eliminated SSA, Medicaid and Welfare would balloon. And guess who would pay? We would. In my opinion, responsible people benefit more from having a program like SSA in place for everyone, than the irresponsible people do. Because SSA by it's enforced nature holds the irresponsible to a minimum level of responsibility.