Should Social Security include private retirement accounts?

Yes
No
Resources for this issue
Reviews of this issue

This issue has been approved by whereIstand editors.

Do not use this page to take a stand on this issue.

This page shows the dialogue between users and editors regarding the merits of this issue. If you have comments about the issue's wording, relevance, etc., write them here. Only registered whereIstand members can edit an issue. Users must register in order to participate in all aspects of the whereIstand community.

9/25/2008 12:50:16 PM

Set as news: False

9/15/2008 4:35:36 PM

Set as news: True

11/26/2006 8:27:30 AM

issue revision:

per comments
Should Social Security include personal retirement accounts?
Yes
No

11/26/2006 8:27:06 AM

private it is ..

11/14/2006 11:32:28 PM

Good change, "privatization" was too much of a buzzword... speaking of which, do we call them "personal accounts" or "private accounts"?

11/10/2006 10:10:16 PM

issue revision:

per vizinertia's comments
Should Social Security be privatized?
Yes
No

11/10/2006 4:07:32 PM

No, it doesn't work with a yes/no option. It sounds like 100% privatization, like happened to the Post Office. I don't think anyone advocates that, at least not yet. The issue is whether any portion of the funds can be "privatized," by allowing individuals to opt for keeping a portion of their funds under their own control. The question as asked doesn't capture the proposal(s) actually on the table.

11/10/2006 1:36:37 PM

Like Eddie, I think this is a re-iteration of the Bush plan question; however, I like this one better.  Go with it!

11/10/2006 1:06:28 PM

Is this too close to the approved issue asking whether President Bush's proposed changes to social security (aka privatization) will fix the system?  Seems to be posing essentially the same question. 

11/10/2006 12:29:37 PM

Please...lets do this.

11/6/2006 5:52:09 PM

this one is crying out for public figure evidence ...