(MONEY Magazine) – THIS MONTH:

--Save money buying life insurance online. --Lobby your employer for better benefits.

With the six-year-old Bull market still rolling along, a large portion of the public is beginning to think that stock market profits could bail out the country's Social Security system. The latest indication of this growing sentiment is MONEY readers' massive support for the idea in our December survey on how to prevent Social Security from plunging into insolvency in 15 years. The highlights:

--A solid 87% of respondents said that some Social Security payroll taxes ought to be invested in private securities, including stocks, rather than in U.S. Treasury securities only, as required under current law.

--Yet you are highly skeptical about letting government officials have a hand in that investing. A whopping 94% worry that politicians might encourage certain stock investments for political reasons.

--Fully 69% want the power to invest their own Social Security money themselves.

--And 74% would deny government help (through welfare) to individuals whose poor choice of investments leaves them with insufficient funds to retire on.

Clearly, you have strong opinions about reforming Social Security; more than 10,000 MONEY readers mailed or faxed in their views. To arrive at our findings, we tallied a statistically valid random sample of 1,000 of those surveys; 26% of the respondents were retired. Thomas Rizzuto, 38, a self-employed lawyer in Endicott, N.Y., expressed the majority's sentiment: "I have not relied on the government to make my way so far," he told MONEY, "and I don't intend to in retirement."

Despite your enthusiasm for stocks, it looks as though you're not entirely sure you can count on them to pay your Social Security benefits. Respondents split 47%-53% on whether the size of a person's Social Security benefit should be based on his or her employment earnings as it is now or on the actual investment returns on the public's Social Security funds. Also, roughly one in four (24%) wants to preserve the current system of guaranteed benefit checks. They would let the Social Security Trust Fund itself--not individuals--invest in stocks.

Respondent Robert Rocco, 57, a retired engineer from Los Angeles, worries about what could happen to the financial markets if the government suddenly became a large stock buyer and seller. "We don't know because there's never been a similar situation," says Rocco. Perhaps this unease is the reason why 6% of readers oppose investing any Social Security tax money in stocks. Another 55% worry that the securities market might not deliver the returns they need for a comfortable retirement.

Another popular reform idea was delaying the retirement age for receiving full Social Security benefits. A striking 70% favor raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 by 2016, instead of 2037 as currently scheduled (though 10% prefer not to do this, and another 20% adamantly say no way). But you're less willing to see the retirement age pushed back to 70 by 2037. Some 52% go for this idea; 48% are opposed.

And attention, Congress: Benefit cuts aren't off limits either. A majority of respondents (53%) support cutting benefits for future retirees with income above $50,000. Only 27% approve of cutting benefits for everyone, however.

To ensure that the Social Security cash invested in private accounts is there when you quit working, 53% of you favor banning withdrawals from such accounts before retirement. Also, 61% say that payouts from these accounts ought to be made in monthly installments to help keep you from outliving your money.

MONEY readers generally strongly oppose hiking Social Security taxes to keep the system financially sound. A sizable 70% say they'd be unwilling to pay any more tax than their current 6.2% rate. Only 15% favored a higher tax rate in exchange for the ability to invest some of their Social Security contributions.

Reforms that would affect current retirees produced the most rancor. We offered three proposals: Reduce cost-of-living increases; tax any benefits that exceed contributions; and lower benefits for retirees earning more than $50,000. None of these ideas attracted a clear majority, either positively or negatively--though taxing benefits that exceed contributions was the most acceptable, with 54% voicing at least modest support.

To make sure your opinions get to the policymakers who may well overhaul the nation's pension plan, we're sending a summary of your responses to William Roth (R-Del.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Bill Archer (R-Texas), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Additionally, we'll forward copies to the heads of the congressional subcommittees on Social Security, the members of Congress who have proposed major Social Security reforms and President Clinton.

Clinton is one American who won't be surprised by your enthusiasm for privatization. During an interview with him last August, he told MONEY that our readers would almost certainly do fine under such a revamped Social Security system--but admitted that he worried about retirees with less investment savvy.