So let me get this straight,

This dimwitted old man is outraged that Elon (or the GOP) wanted to 'privatize' Social Security Fund by investing it in the stock market rather than having it forcibly borrowed to the US government earning a 2.5% annual return? This guy, and the liberals on this site, do realize that if the Fund was invested in the S&P back in 2000 when it the S&P was ~1,500 and the Fund was ~$800B, it that amount would have grown to $3.0T today vs. the $1.4T the government return provided? In short, we would not be looking at the SS being in default in less than a decade. If we would have invested in the S&P in 2000 for the existing funds AND used the subsequent annual transfers since then, we would have ~$12T in the Fund, or 'lock box', now which would have made it the world's largest sovereign wealth fund. But nope, dumb Democrats demanded that 2.5% interest rate. You really can't fix stupid.

Does any liberal on this site think that loaning SS money to the government at a 2.5% interest rate was the right move as opposed to investing it in the stock market or running it like a sovereign wealth fund? Or hell, like CalPERS or CalSTRS or TIAAF-CREF? Can we all at least agree that restricting the SS Fund to only lending to the government at a 2.5% rate for the last 30 years has been colossally stupid and cost SS recipients trillions of dollars?

"They also don't care about reducing the size of government.
When has that happened? At either a Federal or State level?
#29 | Posted by eberly"

I trust under DOGE that the government can be reduced for the first time in the nation's history. Meanwhile, the Dems run to judges to stop any firing or cut screeching how this will kill people. It is the equivalent to saying that the DMV can't cut 10% because it is the model of peak efficiency and that a 10% cut will cause all license issuing to stop. No one would believe that because the DMV is a running joke because of how inefficient it is and the fact that pretty much every American has witnessed that inefficiency first hand. However, Dems still think there is no fat to cut in the rest of government. I am a realist and have worked in private industry. I would say that EVERY large private company could cut 10% or more of the workforce and have NO IMPACT on productivity. I would say that number is equal, or likely, much higher in the government since downsizing has never occurred. This concept is foreign for liberals as I sense they have never worked for a successful company.