So remind me - when was the last time you heard anyone refering to the University of Texas as a world class institution? Was it, perhaps, when Ann Richards was Governor?

It is estimated that financial institutions will make something in the neighborhood of $291 billion from the commissions on investments if Social Security funds were returned to private hands. Atrios has a good article on the harm that will likely befall many people if Social Security is privatized. It's an awful idea, and if intended to sincerely help citizens, it merely points up how out of touch the administration is with its citizens. Your average American is not a sophisticated investor. The smartest ones will put their money in low risk investments for a low rate of return. Most will probably put the money in the stock market. The sudden influx of cash chasing the available stocks will likely inflate the price phenomenally. Smart money will take the inflated prices, sell off, and put the money into low risk. When the adjustment inevitably comes, the prices will fall and then the smart money will calmly buy back the good stocks at much lower prices than they sold them.

Re: GDF's comments, I've seen studies that show that the vast majority of private investors do a much worse job of managing their money than institutional investors do. Privatizing Social Security, if Dumbya gets to do it, is going to result in a nightmare.

I remember my brother-in-law [a Republican stockbroker] saying about this back in the 1990s:
"It's a great deal for the boiler room guys. Count on this as a honeypot for the scam artists, the account churners, and the other scum of the industry."

History Lesson for the Day:

Why we have Social Security.
Once upon a time, back in the 20th Century, the stock markey was hot, hot, hot! Then it was not, not, not! Herbert Hoover was president, and it was 1929, and the stock market went to pot, pot, pot! Everybody lost money, and some lost a lot, lot, lot!

OK, enough of the Finance with Dick and Jane. Social Seciurity was set up as a safety blanket by a nation which had seen hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people lose savings, investments, businesses and homes in the grand financial collapse called the Great Depression. The whole system collapsed. Insurance annuities? Not if the insurance company's gone broke. Savings accounts? Gone--and no FDIC/FSLIC to cover them money? The stock market? A seething tornado of fiscal destruction. People realized that a safety net was needed, one outside of the risks of the private sector.
But now my bank can dabble in insurance and investments again--just like the old days in 1928. Why? Because they can make more money that way!
Excuse me, I have to go and scream.

Not trying to be contrary here, but I am curious... why is it wrong for me to want to have control over my retirement contributions? Don't get me wrong. I support a "safety net", but I would like the choice as to whether or not I can opt into it. As it stands presently, I don't have a choice. Why is it that I should not be given that choice?

Many regards,
A Curious Taxpayer

It is wrong becuase you don't have enough sense to take care of yourself. You need to turn your money over to the government so they can decide how best to spend it.

Curious, the brave and valiant Anonymous at 5:55 is a fool.

It's wrong because it's *gambling*, and it's gambling which is encouraged by the House.

Put it this way - if someone who worked for a casino told you to take your money out of your savings account and bet it on the roulette wheel or the card table or the dice, because you could multiply your investment many times more and much faster that way, than by leaving it in the bank - would you do it?

If not, why not?

This is the essence of the "privatize social security" movement - the people pushing it are the House, and do you think they care if you lose your life savings and end up in the street with no recourse?

I speak as someone who got screwed out of over a thousand dollars via 401k, because I followed the advice of the professional financial planners, who got their cut regardless.

No, ordinary human beings *don't* know how to invest their own money, and that's what all those "finanical advisors" and stockbrokers and insider traders and sundry people being investigated by the SEC count on. That's how they get rich.

It's all a shell game, and you know who takes home the money at the end of the day, right?

I, too, have lost money in retirement accounts, but it was my money to lose. No one elses. Mine. My responsibility. That's all I am saying. I want total responsibility for my life, my family, my finances, etc. And I want that choice. If you feel more secure putting your retirement in the hands of the government, that should also be your right. You can put your savings there gleefully, and I won't fault you for it. But I simply want the chance to put my money elsewhere. Again, I ask... why is the desire to have this choice wrong?

Mr/M's Curious might want to try this post by
economist Brad DeLong. He has a comments section. A commenter there reminded another poster that " social security is an insurance concept", not an investment instrument. I've made the journey from, for privatizing back to being against it. A combination of age, but mostly the wisdom that comes with age tells me that we need "retirement" insurance backed by "the people" for the "common good". Social Security as a public program is a very good proposition for most americans most of the time. Thats the most you can expect from any social policy.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004-2_archives/000401.html

yes but people like Curious are against the common good. They want to use roads and post offices and the internet, but they don't want to put anything back into it, they don't want to maintain the infrastructures that keep civilization going. They're the same as the swine that ate the Roman empire alive from inside.

This is why I fucking *hate* libertarians any more - either they're so bloody stupid that they don't realize how much they're leeching off everyone else by necessity of growing up in America, or they don't care.

Either way - their attitude is "I got mine, screw you," and then they whine when the rest of us say, "no, screw YOU, you selfish bastard."

Social Security is "social" not Private Security. It is a program for the masses. Not for the individual. It is a tax. The cost for living and working here in the U.S. What you get back for the tax is income after you retire, so you can retire.

The Depression was real and the reason we are not in a Depression right now is that programs like "Social Security" are out there. If you remember back in the 1980's there were these things called Savings and Loans or Savings Banks depending on the part of the country you lived in. They were allowed to expand their portfolio beyond the Home Loans and consumer laons that they were used to. Within a few years look what happened a crash, a crisis. The Privitizaion of Social Security would be the same thing. The difference would be that the individuals would be poor folk instead of vice presidents sons.

First, there is the common good, Curious. Then there is the ultra-common good, which is when you see about two million people lose all of their money and they are destitute and the government has to step in and provide services so we don't have elderly people starving in the streets, so you and I have to pay even higher taxes because those people, not you of course because you are a brilliant invester, would die in the street in front of your house otherwise, which would create a public health concern not to mention it would make your kids very upset when they have to step over the bodies to get onto the school bus.

And Jo? Jo? HEY JO FISH? You have to check this one out. It is so right up your alley. http://www.glcq.com/pti_961.htm

Nothing in my post insinuates that I am against the "common good." In fact, I will reiterate that I have no problem with Social Security as a program for those who want to rely on the government for their retirement security. Were I an advocate of abolishing Social Security entirely, I could understand the questions of "What about the security of our citizenry?" but that's not my position. Having a safety net available for people who need it is essential for a large society such as ours.

That being said, I would prefer to have a choice in the matter. I would prefer to have that responsibility myself. To me, this is a question of security v. responsibility for my own future well being, in which case I choose the latter.

---

As for bellatrys' statements saying that I am against the common good, and equating me to "swine" in the Roman Empire, I would say that you have mischaracterized my position. (I would also add that ad hominem attacks are counterproductive to your argument, but that's a subject for another post.) I gladly pay postal fees, tolls, and ISP fees because I use them. The distinction that should be made between those items, and Social Security is this - I could do a better job investing in my future than the government can. I cannot do a better job building my own roads and creating my own telecom infrastructure (which would be a ludicrous assertion to begin with).

This position does not make me selfish; if anything, the position of denying me, and others who take a similar stance, the right to choose how to prepare for retirement is the more selfish position.

Another one who misses the point. If enough of the population opts out, that's enough to flush the whole program. Also, when you buy into Wal-Mart because you think it's a safe bet, and then Wl-Mart suddenly goes into the dumper when you are 56, and ou wind up losing your house at age 65 and you're living on the street, do you think your Republican pals are going to give you some sort of supplemental income to keep you from starving to death? Nope. They'll be exactly like you and they'll be the ones pissing on you while you sleep in an alley, and it's the Democrats who will be giving you a bed and food. Oh, but that sort of thing would never happen to you, right? Right? Couldn't possibly. You're too smart for that.

I'll bet you don't get the point this time either.

For the record, just because someone takes a Republican position does not make them a Republican. To wit, I support the decriminalization of drugs, which certainly would not endear me to many Republicans.

Back to the original topic... the implication of making a choice is that you have to be responsible for the consequences. (I realize that is a foreign concept in today's society, but I digress.) I would never advocate anyone choose to privatize their retirement contributions unless they had some semblance of understanding of what they were doing. If a person is not comfortable preparing themselves for eventualities such as a personal, or financial hardship, they will likely not be responsible enough to invest their retirement savings.

That being said, I think most people could do better than a negative rate of return. Very few people in this, and future generations will recoup their contributions to Social Security. Conversely, a simple money market, even at today's low interest rates would yield a minimum of 1-2%, far more palatable than what Social Security yields now.

Further, from a practical standpoint, I would guess that a substantial number of Americans would choose the compulsory, government-administered method of retirement savings over the privately administered one if for no other reason than the fear of the apocalypse such as you so eloquently elaborated upon above.

Quite simply, I just want to have the right to choose a private account while preserving your right to choose a government account. I don't see the problem in that proposal.

Social Security would produce fine returns if Congress and presidents kept their hands off of it. That's number one. Even now it is easily fixed with a small adjustment, but the anti-Social Security voices won't allow that, preferring it to be ailing.

Second, I guess you didn't understand what I wrote. I hate to have to make things painfully clear. Most of the time, I kind of enjoy discussions with people who can see what you are saying without having to have it explained to them as if they were 8 years old.

If that sounds condescending, snotty, or patronizing, then let me make this clear too: it is all three.

When a society has a disproportionately large number of people living in abject poverty, the society as a whole suffers. Got that? Your notion of making a choice would be fine if it were not a choice that has a net negative effect on everyone else as a whole. Got it? Common good was the phrase used. Do you understand what that means? Or do you prefer a society in which, if you are one of the lucky few, you get to live behind bars with hired security to keep the starving masses from robbing you?

See, the US of the 1930s, before there was a Social Security system, had this gigantic Depression, and millions of people became poor. The government, observing this, decided that this was a bad thing.

Good lord, I'm gonna have to recount ten or fifteen years of American history to get this bozo on the same page.

Okay, let's just go somewhere else with this for a moment.

Your remarks about being responsible for yourself are stupid. Please explain how the elderly people wiped out by the Silverado Savings and Loan thefts were irresponsible by putting their money in the bank.

One last thing. What stops you from having both a public and private account? I do. So do millions of others. Are you incapable of having both?

Why the personal attacks? Why not just debate policy instead of namecalling? Is this essential to changing people's policy beliefs? Is it even effective? I'm suspect that such a tactic would prove fruitful, as it certainly doesn't affect my own position.

It is insulting that you would seek to determine my level of personal responsibility. I don't seek to determine yours, because I don't know you, or anything about your individual situation. I do, however, know my own, and I know without question that I am, and want to be in as many ways as possible, responsible for myself and my family. This includes Social Security contributions.

Now, no one said that I was incapable of maintaining two distinctly different accounts. From reading the posts, I cannot see how that would enter into the debate. However, I will reiterate my desire for the publicly maintained retirement account to go into my custody instead of that of the government because of the reasons heretofore discussed. If you prefer two distinctly separate accounts, I support that choice for you. If a politician determined that your right to that choice should be revoked, I would disagree with him/her on that matter.

I do agree with you that politicians on both sides of the aisle have mismanaged Social Security. However, even if the returns were more substantial than they are presently, I would still favor the CHOICE of means of financing one's retirement.

As you cite the Great Depression as cause for the initiation of Social Security, I would like to take the opportunity to agree with you on the matter. Social Security was a good thing in its time. It helped guarantee that elderly Americans were able to have something substantive in their later years. At the time, it was more solvent because there were far more people putting into the program than were taking out. Because of increased life expectancy, and a burgeoning elderly population, that is no longer the case.

As I recognize that Social Security will be of little or no use to me and my family when I reach the age at which I will beging to withdraw from it, I seek alternatives. The choice of privatization is just such an alternative. Read that again. Not privatization carte blanche. The CHOICE of privatization. What is fundamentally wrong with giving individuals the choice regarding Social Security?

What is obvious, and has been throughout this discussion, is that you have no notion of enlightened self-interest and cannot comprehend the notion fo the common good, so tat it all comes back to petty selfish concerns for you and you aren't capable of seeing how the greater good benefits you. I was at pains to explain that to you, but you don't get it.

As for personal attacks, I do not suffer fools easily. I see a fool, I call him a fool. I see some dimwit who wants to make his selfishness into government policy, I note the dimwittedness too. If I seem unconcerned about it giving offense, it is only because I am unconcerned about it giving offense. I tire of trying to explain the simplest concepts to people who feel public policy should be determined by what they want instead of what is best for all. I grow exhausted by ideologues whose ideology is entirely based on "ME, I WANT FOR ME! GIVE ME MINE! MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE!"

You remind me a lot of Daffy Duck in the episode where he and Bugs Bunny get into Aladdin's cave and they find the treasure. Whenever I encounter someone like you, I think of that scene in the end where the shrunken Daffy Duck hops into the oyster with the pearl in it screaming, "Mine mine mine, I'm rich, I'm a happy miser."

Yeah, younger workers should "invest". The stock market is no different than laying my retirement money down in Vegas.

As I already said, I am all for the "greater good". Thus, I would preserve Social Security as an alternative to those who would prefer it. We agree on that point. The only diffeence is that I would provide an alternative for those who would want one. Why is having a choice wrong?

I don't see the need to respond to the ad hominem attacks any further. I just wanted to gain some insight into the rationale behind them. I think you adequately provided that.

As far as the comment thereafter that younger workers should "invest", I would say that this entire treatise has been not as much an endorsement of privatization of Social Security as much an endorsement of the choice between the two. I don't see that as an unreasonable proposition.

Curious if you're so much for it put your name in your ID.

Stand where you say or GTFO.

You want no taxes or a flat tax? Go pave your own goddamend streets and stay off other's property while you do it (including the public's).

Stay on your land, keep your comments to self. Libertarians raped Jeffersonian policy and tried to apply somewhere it would not work.

News has it right- it's a crapshoot. Until Bushron faces jail time for S&L scandals and the Enron/Reliant fiasco why should anybody trust the market or anyone who supports their policy and platform?

Burden of proof is on Bushco. His merit has not been observed in any matter over which he has governed.

Welfare reform? You mean subsidized business below living wage...

Various acts of Hooverism abound in this thread. The tax cuts scrutinizers have yet to prove any of their policy has worked.

Recession followed every major tax cut in the modern era.

The minor tax cut was under Big Dog, and he increased the tax revenue by raising wage level. Minimum wage raise has always accompanied upswings in the economy.

"But unemployment increased..."
Because you can't draw unemplyoment without the benefit of having been emplyoed. More jobs= more people to draw umemployment on the cyclical jobs markets (seasonal/farm/peak production/summer from school work).

Now who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes?

Clinton marginally decreased/increased tax but expanded wage levels which stimulates demand.

Until you have shown any time when social security posted a loss you are just blowing your own horn. Investments see companies (especially IPOs) go broke all the time.

Don't turn Social Security into an IPO. The 401k program is a supplement to SS. CLinton helped facilitate it, and the money helped the market expand in valid new segments. Unfortunately the bigwhigs inflated numbers, and things cooled despite Greenspan's vote of confidence.

Clinton used the 401k to enable expansion. He controlled the market crash to new tech sectors of overgrowth by the 401k supplements.

These could not stand on their own but could work for long term curve of stability and short term corrective measure to curb market trends.

Presently my 401 is showing seventy percent return in about seven year's time. Not bad, but I'm not expecting a lot out of it.

He does not diversify his fund and had to adjust drastically at other times.When he plays it right it balloons.

Right now that balloon's fulla air, the market isn't. He bet against the trends this go round from seeing what the cool-down did.

Bush economy is so bad with outsourcing that the market saw a lot of people cash 401 early. See the effect? Nothing to stabilize the downswings.

So honestly the Bush balloon already has deflated in terms of median input. CLinton expnaded the market by increasing median means to invest. Until you get past the paycheck-to-paycheck mode Bush put middle America it doesn't matter.

Bigwhigs get a big refund and keep the money in narrow portions, most often in commodities/currencies when the market is down. Middle class folks would present a much more diverse investment plan and make the market settings much more secure.

The Big Dog got it right, as best could be done.

I'm not sure what all that has to do with my position on Social Security reform. None of what I believe has anything to do with George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, the 401k, unemployment, the flat tax, or any of the other items listed therein.

We can debate the virtues of Keynesian market intervention versus the Laffer Curve on another thread if you so choose, but this is not the topic here. All I am saying is that I want the choice of how to invest my retirement savings. That's all. It's pretty simple really.

Um, you do know that there's a very old, very common joke that Libertarians are "Republicans who smoke dope" --?
For the record, just because someone takes a Republican position does not make them a Republican. To wit, I support the decriminalization of drugs, which certainly would not endear me to many Republicans.

IOW, no, you're not such a rara avis as you fancy yourself.

The common good is *not* just the stuff you happen to use - or which you realize you are benefitting from - that's the difference between "common good" and memememe!

And you aren't brave enough to put an email addy, so why *should* we listen to you?

(BTW, "You're a coward," just like "you're stupid," is not an ad hominem argument. It's an accusation. There's a difference. But you don't seem to be smart enough - even if you like to blabber on - to tell that. This puts you, again, in the same boat as most of the other libertarians I see posting away...)

I disagree pretty sharply with Curious, but the ad hominem attacks really aren't useful.

Here's why we have Social Security: We voted for it. Our duly elected representatives held a vote and enacted it. That's how it works in a democracy.

There are lots of government programs I wish I could opt out of -- the war in Iraq for one, as well as missile defense. Like Social Security, they're intended to keep me safe. Unlike Social Security, they're not doing a good job.

But I can't pull my money out of them, because that's not how a democracy works.

An immediate increase of 1.89% of payroll combined with 2004 GDP growth of 2.7% (which we beat already), 1.8% in 2005, and 1.6% in the out years would solve the entire Social Security gap. This according to those way out zanies who bring you the Annual Report of the Trustees of Social Security.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/pubs.html which includes three Cabinet Secretaries.

Say we don't increase payroll taxes. If we beat those economic numbers we push the date of Trust Fund exhaustion back, (and it has been being pushed back at the rate of a year and a half per year since 1996). Without us doing anything at all.

What is the price of inaction?
In 2003 the Trustees said it would take an immediate increase of 1.92% of payroll. In 1996 an increase of 2.23%, all backed with similarly pessimistic (and in all cases beaten) economic projections.

There is a word for a problem that left unaddressed requires an ever shrinking fix. That word is not 'crisis'.

Funny I have sent a bunch of critics to that site with the challenge to actually read the Annual Report. It must be a black hole, because they rarely make it back with any numbers backed responses.

The other problem with privatizing social security is it wouldn't actually save people money.

Under a privatized system, current workers would pay for their own future retirement. The way it works now, current workers pay for current retirees.

So if we privatize, current workers would have to pay for their own retirement *as well as* the retirement of the baby boomers. As a 28-year-old man, I don't fancy being double-taxed for the next 30 years.

Also, the amount of new federal bureaucrats needed to enact a national 401(k) is truly staggering. Not to mention the amount mutual fund companies would skim off the top for fees.

To "bellatrys", I don't fancy myself anything more than an individual who cares for the rights of the individual. That would include you, me, and everyone else who posts to this blog. As difficult as it is for you to comprehend, this is not a "me me me" position, but one of empowering ALL individuals to be able to make a concerted choice.

Additionally, I do not post an email address because I don't use email to argue policy differences. That is what blogs are for. I find that email is counterproductive to my daily routine, so it is irrelevant to me.

Finally, if you want to delve into semantics, you can call something an accusation where I call it an ad hominem attack. Po-TAY-to... Po-TAH-to. Surely even you can see that your point is irrelevant to the question of enabling individuals to choose between private and public stewardship of their retirement accounts.

---

Now to the more rational side of this debate...

Tony, I am not arguing WHY we have Social Security. I understand that in a democratic system, we vote for certain items that are enacted, and we do so because it is generally the will of the electorate. I want Social Security to remain in place for those (like you) who want the perceived safety that it provides. What I advocate is nothing more than an alternative for people who believe that they can better manage their retirements.

Bruce, your assessment about the Social Security gap is a valid one, although to further understand those figures, I would like to know what rate of entry into the Social Security program is assumed. That is to say that if more people enter the program than are presently anticipated, the gap would grow further.

Certainly, the gap in funding and expenditures can be closed, but that's not even the point here. Even if Social Security had a billion dollar surplus, that fails to address whether an individual can or cannot care for his own retirement account instead of relying on Uncle Sam to do so for him.

And Tony (again...), I don't believe that partial privatization would be double taxation. For example, if I choose privatization, the proceeds would go into a private fund. Choosing the traditional Social Security program would mean funding the traditional SS trust fund. The nature of having two options is that one is mutually exclusive of the other.

Actually, your argument against a new federal bureaucracy is an interesting one, although I would add that adding another bureaucracy is not truly private. Your scenario is more akin to taking Social Security funds and allowing the government to invest them in the stock market. Much like all of the previous scenarios, that is not one which I would endorse.

As for the fear of mutual fund fees, in private accounts, if an investor does not like the fees they are being charged, they are free to move the investment into another investment vehicle. It is that level of competition that keeps the mechanism going. It is also common to have no load, no fee funds, like income funds and money markets that do not have this overhead attached. As a pragmatist, I would certainly place my retirement proceeds there as opposed to investing in a single, high risk, high yield security as some people have suggested. All of that being said, the return on a private investment even with mutual fund fees would exceed the return from Social Security presently, which is why I would certainly prefer the private fund. You may disagree. Again, this gets back to the fundamental issue of being given the CHOICE.

This discussion has been very interesting to shed some light where people stand in their opposition to the partial privatization of Social Security. I appreciate the insight, although I am still compelled to believe that offering a choice to the taxpayer is better than the current restrictive, low yield system in which we are presently rooted.

Thanks for chipping in, everyone. I was getting rather exasperated trying to explain the notion of "common good" to someone who keeps claiming he gets it while, at the same time, that person is not getting it. As for "ad hominem" attacks, strictly speaking, no I di'int. I did not say "Curious is an idiot and therefore his arguments are false." I basically asserted that "those are idiotic arguments, and Curious is an idiot because he or she is incapable of comprehending a simple idea." Those are two entirely different propositions.

Um, you do know that there's a very old, very common joke that Libertarians are "Republicans who smoke dope"
That might be why they can't remember the Great Depression.

And privatizing social security would absolutely result in double taxation. We'd still have to fund the system that's already in place for those who don't have time to build up a nest egg in their private accounts.

Another point to consider ... SS doesn't just do retirement. It also provides for people who are disabled or orphaned. The stock market won't help those people.

And yet another question ... in the interests of freedom, can I opt out of paying taxes to fund the fire department? I'm very safe with matches, and I don't think I'm going to need it.

G.D.

Therein lies the problem. Exasperation has no place in an argument of facts and logic. This would explain the need for namecalling. Both of your sentences called me an idiot for having a dissenting opinion. I'm fairly certain that such tactics do not present a compelling argument. Perhaps your mind has been changed by being called an idiot, but for some strange reason, I don't feel swayed afterward.

Let's look for an area in which we can agree. We both desire the "common good". We both believe that Social Security provides a "common good", although I hold the opinion that it could be done better privately. We both want what is best for ourselves, our peers, our children, etc. We disagree on how best to achieve that. These things I understand.

What I don't understand is why it is so wrong to allow those who believe one to choose that one, and those who believe the other to choose the other. This is the fundamental error of the Republican Party, which does not agree with giving people the right to control their reproductive activity, the gender of their life partner, or whether or not they can smoke marijuana in their spare time. It is the Republican Party that has been tagged as the "anti-choice" Party, and, in the above cases, that certainly seems to be the case.

That being said, why would you (and I assume that you lean Democrat, since this site is run by "Democratic Veteran", so I would anticipate that the regulars here would have a similar set of beliefs), why would you deny others the right to choose how to best prepare for their retirement? Why is a choice in one area right, yet another is wrong? Why is the government best suited to control my finances, but not my social life? I just find those positions to be incongruent.

Tony,

Again, your points are exactly why I support keeping Social Security intact, but giving those who can better manage their finances a means of doing so privately. If you like how SS does it, by all means, stay in it. I support that right for you.

And to your question about fire departments, I do not equate paying local fire taxes to preparing for my retirement. They are two different things. But since you asked, if I thought I could do a better job protecting my home from fire, I would certainly seek to do so. But I can't, nor can anyone else. This is why such a public work is not only desirable, but necessary.

"Bruce, your assessment about the Social Security gap is a valid one, although to further understand those figures, I would like to know what rate of entry into the Social Security program is assumed. That is to say that if more people enter the program than are presently anticipated, the gap would grow further.

Certainly, the gap in funding and expenditures can be closed, but that's not even the point here. Even if Social Security had a billion dollar surplus, that fails to address whether an individual can or cannot care for his own retirement account instead of relying on Uncle Sam to do so for him."

I quote this in full just to point out the fatuity. First the first paragraph doesn't even make sense. Social Security is not a program that workers chose to enter or not. The Social Security Report "anticipates" that workers subject to Social Security taxes will in fact be taxed and should they survive draw benefits. The "rate of entry" is entirely dependent on the economic and demographic make up of the nation. What you implicitly admit here is that you are unwilling to actually grapple with those assumptions. Read the Report.

Your second paragraph is even more egregious. The whole basis of the debate is that we are dealing with a system in dire crisis and the only question is how to manage that crisis. Your suggestion is that this is in the end all about 'my money' and 'freedom' and not about the financial soundness of the Trust Fund ignores every editorial presented on this topic for the last twenty years. Because if it ain't broke we don't need to fix it.

If Social Security in fact had a "billion dollar surplus" (and if you actually had read the report instead of spouting off you would know you could replace 'billion' with 'trillions') the answer would not be to privatize the system or a portion of it with some sort of government managed private investment system. The answer would be something much nearer and dearer to your heart. You cut the goddamn payroll tax and let free citizens decide how and whether they want to invest the extra dollars in their take home pay.

You don't just get to shift the grounds of argument here.

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams