SS vs. Private Savings

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Just can't talk sense to morons.

Keep paying. SS isn't going anywhere.

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: BBond

I really would like an explanation of the hatred and contempt you express for them.

Their generation certainly had the opportunity to fix the problem, but didn't. Now they expect my generation to foot the bill for it. I think that is just cause for the contempt towards SS recipients.

But you forget that during the Reagan/Bush administration the "problem" was supposedly "fixed". Our Social Security taxes skyrocketed and we were told the system would be solvent. The baby boomers retirement benefits would be there. Now, twenty years later, the baby boomer are told, on the eve of their retirement, that the money isn't there.

Just what do you expect people who paid into a system all their working live to do when they're told what should be the most stable leg of their "three legged stool" is gone?

Why do you hold the people who were forced to pay the highest amount of their earnings into the system accountable instead of the politicians who frittered away their retirement income? And if this "crisis" is so imminent then it was imminent in 2001 as well.

Why didn't the people who are complaining about having to pay their share now complain when Bush set about emptying the treasury with his irresponsible millionaire enrichment program disguised as a tax cut ? Why didn't anyone insist the federal government pay back some of the billions it owes to the Social Security fund? Instead, after the money is gone, the system is declared "in crisis" and "fixes" are proposed that will destroy the program.

One of the ways in which America has changed is her new found hatred of and her desire to abandon the elderly. Well, let me clue you in. If yo don't plan on aging you only have one other alternative.

you are missing the point. SS invests it's funds in treasuries. It keeps records of the principal and the interest it expects to receive. as it stands now there is a shortfall between the value of the treasuries, expected contributions a few decades down the road and current promises by the government to pay out benefits.

check out this week's NY Times

the original FICA tax was 1%. now it's 15%

this is what happens when the number of people receiving benefits rises and the number of people paying them falls

 

[GrGr]

At least some proponents of SS "reform" are upfront about that it is an ideological issue.

I'd like to see how real the stock markets historical return figures are.

"The stock market's historical returns (some 7 percent a year) are predicated on a hypothetical investor who bought an array of stocks in the past, reinvested all dividends, never cashed in and never paid commissions or fees.

Well, that is not how investing works in the real world.

An especially grave danger is that investors would withdraw their funds before retirement, a pattern that is pronounced in 401(k) plans. It would be politically very difficult to refuse people access to accounts that were sold to them on the premise that they (not the government) would own them.

The Congressional Budget Office analysis also likely understates the costs to individuals of privatizing Social Security. The borrowing that would be needed to establish private accounts could lead to higher interest rates, a weaker dollar and slower economic growth. It is also likely that future tax hikes would be required to cover the interest payments on the additional national debt.

The only hands-down winner would be Wall Street, as fees to manage millions of accounts poured in. Current stockholders would also stand to benefit, as increased demand pushed up stock prices, giving existing owners a gain at the expense of newcomers who would be forced to buy high. The affluent, who could afford professional investing advice, would also be advantaged, even though everyone would be taking the same risks.
The Black Chronicle

 

[irwincur]

I agree the payroll tax rates are too high. It creates surpluses for the federal government to steal for other programs. It should be flat pay as you go tax that produces a balanced SS budget with no surplus going to the federal government.

The problem with this is that 12.5% is obviously not enough, by 2013 they will have to cut benefits by 28% (something the libs are not telling us). As the worker to collector ratio drops (16:1 in 1930, 3 or 4:1 now, 1:1 in 2025) you will need to raise the corresponding rates. So in 2025 with a 1:1 ratio, worker A will have to fund his SS as well as pay for collector B's full SS payments since there are no assets. Effective tax rates will have to be near 50% to keep up with this.

If SS continues, it looks like the US is not far from the 90+% EFFECTIVE tax rates of the social welfare states in Europe. Which by the way are slated to start dropping into default sometime after the first quarter of this century.

People need to realize here that SS is purely based on future credit and as such has no real assets. It is a Ponzi scam - look it up and explain to me how this illegal scam can be pawned off to us as a successful program. To me, a successful program is one that is self sustainable for the long term.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Condor
That is totally ignoring the history. SS was the result of all of the other systems failing.

There was no system before SS.

Sure there was. The companies depended on retirement programs and there was the stock market and interest paying accounts in banks. When they all folded during the great depression, SS was developed as a stop gap to prevent people from leaping from tall buildings again. Now, we want to base SS on the very reason it was developed.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You surprise me, Condor-

" That is totally ignoring the history. SS was the result of all of the other systems failing."

Precisely correct, and an observation that cuts to the heart of the matter.

Couple that with the idea that history repeats itself, and it's easy to see why many folks aren't ready for any kind of radical changes in that highly successful program...

Why were you surprised? Thought I was just here for my good looks?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: BBond

I really would like an explanation of the hatred and contempt you express for them.

Their generation certainly had the opportunity to fix the problem, but didn't. Now they expect my generation to foot the bill for it. I think that is just cause for the contempt towards SS recipients.

But you forget that during the Reagan/Bush administration the "problem" was supposedly "fixed". Our Social Security taxes skyrocketed and we were told the system would be solvent. The baby boomers retirement benefits would be there. Now, twenty years later, the baby boomer are told, on the eve of their retirement, that the money isn't there.

Just what do you expect people who paid into a system all their working live to do when they're told what should be the most stable leg of their "three legged stool" is gone?

Why do you hold the people who were forced to pay the highest amount of their earnings into the system accountable instead of the politicians who frittered away their retirement income? And if this "crisis" is so imminent then it was imminent in 2001 as well.

Why didn't the people who are complaining about having to pay their share now complain when Bush set about emptying the treasury with his irresponsible millionaire enrichment program disguised as a tax cut ? Why didn't anyone insist the federal government pay back some of the billions it owes to the Social Security fund? Instead, after the money is gone, the system is declared "in crisis" and "fixes" are proposed that will destroy the program.

One of the ways in which America has changed is her new found hatred of and her desire to abandon the elderly. Well, let me clue you in. If yo don't plan on aging you only have one other alternative.

Every administration in my memory has stolen from the SS system. They bought out the railroad retirement in the 70's. Most presidents start their administration by trying to figure out how to get to the pot of gold at the end of the SS rainbow without anyone noticeing.

 

[Tom]

As to the historical stock market returns-

point 1. they're historical. It is foolhardy to predict the same kind of returns endlessly into the future, unless you really do your homework as the reasons why the historical returns are what they are and if those conditions still exist. some examples that apply to the USA..
a. Western expansion - small population, tremendous potential for growth in resources, farming etc.
b. Industrial revolution- greatly changed productivity of workers
c. transportation revolution- roads, railroads, airplanes, trucks cars.
d. information revolution - telegraph, telephones, computers, internet
e. put B, C and D together and you get vastly more efficient use of worldwide resources
f. education revolution - GI bill, low cost universities.

All of these things are part of the reason the stock market has gone up as much as it has, historically.

Do you see similar continuing increases in these areas as happened in the past ?

Do you see E having an effect on the USA's economy ?

How is the USA education system doing, compared to our competitiors ?


point 2. Do we have historical evidence for the USA stock market as far as what happens when it goes from a voluntary system, to a quasi-mandatory system ?

 

[Genx87]

You were clearly suggesting that there everybody else is on welfare. Who are those "everybody else"?

And now you're trying to tell me changing the subject isn't a good sign for your argument when it was you who changed the subject and brought welfare into this thread. So I pointed out to you that the only real welfare program left is the welfare program that takes federal tax dollars from what are, with few exceptions, the "blue" states and redistributes those tax dollars to, with few exceptions, what are the "red" states.

I only brought up welfare because you resorted to the tried and tested liberal fear mongering of everybody will be homeless without this social program.

I simply said if they are out of money they should qualify for welfare like everybody else. Everybody being whoever needs to be on welfare.

If you don't want to talk about welfare and you don't want to face the truth about the welfare system in America...then don't bring it up.

We are talking about SS reform. Simply saying people will need to qualify for welfare doesnt open the debate upto how welfare is currently run. I know you would like to do that because then you can throw around your figures that show red states leaching off blue states and get off the subject of SS reform. But that is for another thread.

Well, that is not how investing works in the real world.

These are retirement funds, they are not supposed to be the equivalent of a day-traders account. These funds will be held for decades before being cashed in. Currently with my Roth IRA I cant touch the money before aged 62 without incurring a penalty. This partially privatized account should be the same. And before any of you yap about "Well it is our money and what if I need it for a car payment?". You cant even get money from SS until aged 65. At worst this would be a slight improvement if the money is needed right now. At best the fund grows significantly larger and provides a better quality of life post age 65.

SS is on the road to destruction. If we dont so something about it now then we all pay.

 

[irwincur]

All of these things are part of the reason the stock market has gone up as much as it has, historically.

Yes they are. You also have to realize that industrial efficiencies have also gone up. The average worker today is capable of doing more worn than an entire team at the turn of the century. There is room for, and will be plenty more growth keeping America the premiere free market economy in the world - Europe out greatest competitor is shrinking, and China will eventually face an economically stalling Civil War. Furthermore, as the rest of the world grows richer, parity will only increase wealth here - the home of most of the worlds multinational corporations - and the place where profit returns. Who cares about transportation, it is a non factor these days as it is a built in assumption. Education, whether you agree or not is fine, it it was soooo bad why are their record enrollments in colleges and universities every year? Why does the US dwarf the rest of the world in terms of advanced education?

Do you see similar continuing increases in these areas as happened in the past ?

I see no reason why America will not maintain its current position as the premiere financial center of the world. We are more competitive than ever, we are more profitable than ever, and we still develop, patent, and deisgn more products than anyone else. Furthermore, as cost parity rises in the world, job liquidity will decrease and jobs will flow back to America where high tech production is still king.

Do you see E having an effect on the USA's economy ?

Don't really know what you are getting at with this one? More efficient resources use would benefit everyone, particularly the US as we mantain a near monopoly in multinational corporations.

How is the USA education system doing, compared to our competitiors ?

As stupid as people make the US out to be, it is hard to see exactly how some of the 'dumbest' people on the planet could amass such amounts of power in such a short period of time. Education is bad because educators want you to think it is, because they want some big hearted (but stupid) liberal to toss them more money - mainly for raises and bonuses that their 2/3 year schedule does not really deserve. In terms of rank we are competitive, not to mention we have the highest ranking advanced education.

 

[GrGr]

I thought the first rule of the stocks market is: Past performance does not guarantee future results.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: GrGr
I thought the first rule of the stocks market is: Past performance does not guarantee future results.[/i]

There you go with that sanity again.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: GrGr
I thought the first rule of the stocks market is: Past performance does not guarantee future results.

There you go with that sanity again.

Are you looking at aggregate performance or the performance of an individual corporation?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: GrGr
I thought the first rule of the stocks market is: Past performance does not guarantee future results.

There you go with that sanity again.

Are you looking at aggregate performance or the performance of an individual corporation?

Let's start with aggregate performance as the SS reform proponents are using it as a guarantee. See my question posted above.

"I'd like to see how real the stock markets historical return figures are."? I'm not interested in any happyhappy-joyjoy theoretical figures but real world performance warts and all.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: GrGr
I thought the first rule of the stocks market is: Past performance does not guarantee future results.

There you go with that sanity again.

Are you looking at aggregate performance or the performance of an individual corporation?

Let's start with aggregate performance as the SS reform proponents are using it as a guarantee. See my question posted above.

"I'd like to see how real the stock markets historical return figures are."? I'm not interested in any happyhappy-joyjoy theoretical figures but real world performance warts and all

I won't say anything in the stock market is guaranteed (nothing in life is except death and taxes, taxes ha! ), but with nearly 100 years of data from the stock market, we can analyze long term trends and make suitable projections off of them. i.e. nobody can tell the future, but a long term trend has been established, and really that's the best anybody can do. Even SS isn't guaranteed. What happens if we have a Viva Che revolution and our government is dismantled?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: GrGr
I thought the first rule of the stocks market is: Past performance does not guarantee future results.

There you go with that sanity again.

Are you looking at aggregate performance or the performance of an individual corporation?

Let's start with aggregate performance as the SS reform proponents are using it as a guarantee. See my question posted above.

"I'd like to see how real the stock markets historical return figures are."? I'm not interested in any happyhappy-joyjoy theoretical figures but real world performance warts and all

I won't say anything in the stock market is guaranteed (nothing in life is except death and taxes, taxes ha! ), but with nearly 100 years of data from the stock market, we can analyze long term trends and make suitable projections off of them. i.e. nobody can tell the future, but a long term trend has been established, and really that's the best anybody can do. Even SS isn't guaranteed. What happens if we have a Viva Che revolution and our government is dismantled?

You are comparing stock market downturns to revolutions? Stock market is for gambling, not rainy day savings.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: GrGr
I thought the first rule of the stocks market is: Past performance does not guarantee future results.

There you go with that sanity again.

Are you looking at aggregate performance or the performance of an individual corporation?

Let's start with aggregate performance as the SS reform proponents are using it as a guarantee. See my question posted above.

"I'd like to see how real the stock markets historical return figures are."? I'm not interested in any happyhappy-joyjoy theoretical figures but real world performance warts and all

I won't say anything in the stock market is guaranteed (nothing in life is except death and taxes, taxes ha! ), but with nearly 100 years of data from the stock market, we can analyze long term trends and make suitable projections off of them. i.e. nobody can tell the future, but a long term trend has been established, and really that's the best anybody can do. Even SS isn't guaranteed. What happens if we have a Viva Che revolution and our government is dismantled?

You are comparing stock market downturns to revolutions? Stock market is for gambling, not rainy day savings.

The last hundred years of growth in the US and the world was oil driven. That won't be the case for the next one hundred years.

 

[cockeyed]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: BBond

I really would like an explanation of the hatred and contempt you express for them.

Their generation certainly had the opportunity to fix the problem, but didn't. Now they expect my generation to foot the bill for it. I think that is just cause for the contempt towards SS recipients.

But you forget that during the Reagan/Bush administration the "problem" was supposedly "fixed". Our Social Security taxes skyrocketed and we were told the system would be solvent. The baby boomers retirement benefits would be there. Now, twenty years later, the baby boomer are told, on the eve of their retirement, that the money isn't there.

Just what do you expect people who paid into a system all their working live to do when they're told what should be the most stable leg of their "three legged stool" is gone?

Why do you hold the people who were forced to pay the highest amount of their earnings into the system accountable instead of the politicians who frittered away their retirement income? And if this "crisis" is so imminent then it was imminent in 2001 as well.

Why didn't the people who are complaining about having to pay their share now complain when Bush set about emptying the treasury with his irresponsible millionaire enrichment program disguised as a tax cut ? Why didn't anyone insist the federal government pay back some of the billions it owes to the Social Security fund? Instead, after the money is gone, the system is declared "in crisis" and "fixes" are proposed that will destroy the program.

One of the ways in which America has changed is her new found hatred of and her desire to abandon the elderly. Well, let me clue you in. If yo don't plan on aging you only have one other alternative.

BBOND:You got it right. As I recall, in 1983 SS tax was increased in anticipation of the coming Baby Boom retirement. Now they like to keep talking about how it is a pay-as-you-go system; that stopped in 1983 when building a surplus began. Everything would have been fine if the politicians didn't keep overspending in the following years and now they want to blame Social Security. Cut back on the Tax give-aways under this administration and the SS funding would be there.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: GrGr
I thought the first rule of the stocks market is: Past performance does not guarantee future results.

There you go with that sanity again.

Are you looking at aggregate performance or the performance of an individual corporation?

Let's start with aggregate performance as the SS reform proponents are using it as a guarantee. See my question posted above.

"I'd like to see how real the stock markets historical return figures are."? I'm not interested in any happyhappy-joyjoy theoretical figures but real world performance warts and all

I won't say anything in the stock market is guaranteed (nothing in life is except death and taxes, taxes ha! ), but with nearly 100 years of data from the stock market, we can analyze long term trends and make suitable projections off of them. i.e. nobody can tell the future, but a long term trend has been established, and really that's the best anybody can do. Even SS isn't guaranteed. What happens if we have a Viva Che revolution and our government is dismantled?

You are comparing stock market downturns to revolutions? Stock market is for gambling, not rainy day savings.

I compared risk to risk. They were not on the same level obviously, but GrGr was skeptical of the stock market's performance. I was just pointing out that the bonds that our SS is tied up in are not invincible either. There is risk associated with everything, but it's clear that both options (private investment and Social Security) are quite acceptably safe for long term, conservative investment purposes as long as long term, conservative investment strategies are employed.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: irwincur
[ ... ] particularly the US as we mantain a near monopoly in multinational corporations. ...

I know I've called you on this before, but let me offer this friendly tip again: you will never be taken seriously as long as you continue to make up stuff like this. It's one thing to exaggerate, spin, selectively pick and choose information that supports your position, but you're talking out of your rectum.

Over 60% of the companies on Fortune's 2004 Global 500 are non-U.S. companies, including five of the top ten. Most are multinationals. The U.S. may have more large multinationals than any other single country, but we don't even have a majority, let alone a monopoly.

Just for the record.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: GrGr
I thought the first rule of the stocks market is: Past performance does not guarantee future results.

There you go with that sanity again.

Are you looking at aggregate performance or the performance of an individual corporation?

Let's start with aggregate performance as the SS reform proponents are using it as a guarantee. See my question posted above.

"I'd like to see how real the stock markets historical return figures are."? I'm not interested in any happyhappy-joyjoy theoretical figures but real world performance warts and all

I won't say anything in the stock market is guaranteed (nothing in life is except death and taxes, taxes ha! ), but with nearly 100 years of data from the stock market, we can analyze long term trends and make suitable projections off of them. i.e. nobody can tell the future, but a long term trend has been established, and really that's the best anybody can do. Even SS isn't guaranteed. What happens if we have a Viva Che revolution and our government is dismantled?

You are comparing stock market downturns to revolutions? Stock market is for gambling, not rainy day savings.

The last hundred years of growth in the US and the world was oil driven. That won't be the case for the next one hundred years.

It will of course be driven by something else. Things change, we move on.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: GrGr
I thought the first rule of the stocks market is: Past performance does not guarantee future results.

There you go with that sanity again.

Are you looking at aggregate performance or the performance of an individual corporation?

Let's start with aggregate performance as the SS reform proponents are using it as a guarantee. See my question posted above.

"I'd like to see how real the stock markets historical return figures are."? I'm not interested in any happyhappy-joyjoy theoretical figures but real world performance warts and all

I won't say anything in the stock market is guaranteed (nothing in life is except death and taxes, taxes ha! ), but with nearly 100 years of data from the stock market, we can analyze long term trends and make suitable projections off of them. i.e. nobody can tell the future, but a long term trend has been established, and really that's the best anybody can do. Even SS isn't guaranteed. What happens if we have a Viva Che revolution and our government is dismantled?

You are comparing stock market downturns to revolutions? Stock market is for gambling, not rainy day savings.

The last hundred years of growth in the US and the world was oil driven. That won't be the case for the next one hundred years.

It will of course be driven by something else. Things change, we move on.

Sure it will. Future technologies #37, #43 and #67. And then you build a huge spaceship, load it with blondes (or your preferance) and off to Alpha Centauri you go.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: GrGr
I thought the first rule of the stocks market is: Past performance does not guarantee future results.

There you go with that sanity again.

Are you looking at aggregate performance or the performance of an individual corporation?

Let's start with aggregate performance as the SS reform proponents are using it as a guarantee. See my question posted above.

"I'd like to see how real the stock markets historical return figures are."? I'm not interested in any happyhappy-joyjoy theoretical figures but real world performance warts and all

I won't say anything in the stock market is guaranteed (nothing in life is except death and taxes, taxes ha! ), but with nearly 100 years of data from the stock market, we can analyze long term trends and make suitable projections off of them. i.e. nobody can tell the future, but a long term trend has been established, and really that's the best anybody can do. Even SS isn't guaranteed. What happens if we have a Viva Che revolution and our government is dismantled?

You are comparing stock market downturns to revolutions? Stock market is for gambling, not rainy day savings.

The last hundred years of growth in the US and the world was oil driven. That won't be the case for the next one hundred years.

It will of course be driven by something else. Things change, we move on.

Sure it will. Future technologies #37, #43 and #67. And then you build a huge spaceship, load it with blondes (or your preferance) and off to Alpha Centauri you go.

:thumbsup:

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: GrGr
I thought the first rule of the stocks market is: Past performance does not guarantee future results.

There you go with that sanity again.

Are you looking at aggregate performance or the performance of an individual corporation?

Let's start with aggregate performance as the SS reform proponents are using it as a guarantee. See my question posted above.

"I'd like to see how real the stock markets historical return figures are."? I'm not interested in any happyhappy-joyjoy theoretical figures but real world performance warts and all

I won't say anything in the stock market is guaranteed (nothing in life is except death and taxes, taxes ha! ), but with nearly 100 years of data from the stock market, we can analyze long term trends and make suitable projections off of them. i.e. nobody can tell the future, but a long term trend has been established, and really that's the best anybody can do. Even SS isn't guaranteed. What happens if we have a Viva Che revolution and our government is dismantled?

You are comparing stock market downturns to revolutions? Stock market is for gambling, not rainy day savings.

The last hundred years of growth in the US and the world was oil driven. That won't be the case for the next one hundred years.

you are probably right

too bad humans have this habit of inventing new things and overcoming adversity

Only two companies that were in the Dow Jones 100 years ago are around today. 3M and GE. As recently as 50 years ago only the rich had phones, TV was a new invention and it was theorized that one day there would be a few dozen computers in the world. Today a Dell Axim is many times more powerful than those first computers, 70% of people have a cell phone with more minutes than they need.

In the mid-1800's the main form of energy was water and electricity was still confined to lightning. There are many other forms of energy out there other than oil that haven't been exploited yet.

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: GrGr
I thought the first rule of the stocks market is: Past performance does not guarantee future results.

There you go with that sanity again.

Are you looking at aggregate performance or the performance of an individual corporation?

Let's start with aggregate performance as the SS reform proponents are using it as a guarantee. See my question posted above.

"I'd like to see how real the stock markets historical return figures are."? I'm not interested in any happyhappy-joyjoy theoretical figures but real world performance warts and all

I won't say anything in the stock market is guaranteed (nothing in life is except death and taxes, taxes ha! ), but with nearly 100 years of data from the stock market, we can analyze long term trends and make suitable projections off of them. i.e. nobody can tell the future, but a long term trend has been established, and really that's the best anybody can do. Even SS isn't guaranteed. What happens if we have a Viva Che revolution and our government is dismantled?

You are comparing stock market downturns to revolutions? Stock market is for gambling, not rainy day savings.

picking individual stocks is gambling

people with 401k's invest in diversified funds that spread risk among dozens of stocks. The only time bonds outperformed stocks is during the inflation of the late 1970's and early 1980's. But if you look at the long term, a diversified stock porfolio has always outperformed everything else. All you need to do is put money into a SP500 index fund and you are pretty much guaranteed to outperform 90% of all stock funds over the long term.