If you say so. My memory is not that good. Does it really matter whether I said it was the greatest as opposed to one of the greatest?

I do think that Social Security is one of mankind's greatest achievements, ever. Whether it is number 1, I really couldn't say.I'm not following you.

All I'm saying is that the system needs attention. AFAIK Bush is not responsible for the current problems, but he also has done nothing to address them. All he has done is proposed things that would privatize, and thereby destroy, the system. Fortunately, he was not able to get that done.Nothing. Why do you ask?

Well, it's one theory I have heard put forth. . . . .

Well, if you think this is the greatest or one of the greatest achievements, you certainly are setting your bar way low. This is a situation that can only be described as FUBAR.

So going from 22 to 4 or 5 is just "needs attention" to you? I think you are way understating the problem. It cannot sustain itself under the current situation nor will it be able to do so when the baby boomers retire. Still think it is a great achievement that just "needs attention"?

Because you speak of a little dose of socialism that makes capitalism work. I'm talking about a little dose of sewage in a barrel of fine wine. Same thing. Sewage either way.

It's been going for more than 70 years without ever missing a check, AFAIK. I have known many fellow Americans who would have fallen into poverty without it. It has very low overhead. No private sector program could replace it. If that is FUBAR to you, then we have different definitions of FUBAR.Maybe, but you are oversimplifying it, IMHO.Yes. So do many economists.Sounds like you are getting all hung up on the word - "socialism".

Crap, that means I'll have to work til I'm 90 or drop dead which ever comes first.

The words "forced participation" encompass almost EVERYTHING that is wrong with it.

No, I don't doubt the government's ability to force people to do things... and that is one of the biggest problems with the current system. I should not be forced to invest MY money into a retirement "safety net", as you call it, that has always yielded poor returns.

Furthermore, there is no assurance of ANY return on the investment! If you die before you collect, your money is gone. A lifetime of social security payments can go down the tubes in an instant, unavailable to your family or heirs.... Yet we are FORCED to participate in this bull$h!t, and are told that it is "good for society"?!?!... :rolleyes:

As I described above, this is another huge part of the problem.

The money you pay in was YOUR money. It should REMAIN your money, even after you die, and should go to your heirs. It should NOT be redistributed as some anonymous bureaucrat sees fit.

Mike

That is your definition of good? What did "many fellow Americans" do before it? They relied on themselves instead of sucking on someone's teat. All it has done is raised a couple generations of dependents and made a huge slush fund for the govt to play games with.

How about a program of one's design? How about people do what YOU are doing? Preparing for their own retirement? With this program in place, all it does is keep the baby at Momma's teat and that baby will not grow up and learn to feed itself.

How so? You went from 22:1 all the way down to 4:1 and you think it is just going to need a tweak? You don't think the ratio is a huge drop? It was designed around that ratio. Today the ratio is way different.

Do those economists think it can sustain itself the way it is? I think not. It is going to need some serious work when you shrink the ratios that much. What about those that think it is going to be a huge problem? Sure, if you wanted to dump enough money, it can be fixed. But what do we get out of it? Another generation of dependents and a larger slush fund for govts to play with?

Well, as long as you can keep snapping that whip, you'll be just fine . . .

But lets say it is such a good program. Why would we all have to be forced to participate? Should I force you to take the money I am giving away with no strings attached?

I would say that it could be redistributed only if the person has no heirs.

We disagree. So far, my side is in the majority.

Starved, froze, stole, etc.Many people cannot or will not do that. If we didn't have better things to do on this fine spring day, we could debate the merits of providing a safety net that will protect many deserving people and many able-bodied parasites. Suffice it to say, that I vote in favor of continuing (or even increasing) our modest payroll deductions to pay for that safety net. You disagree.No. The system needs adjustment. From what I've read, the necessary adjustments are not onerous.l

You are correct. Your side is in the majority. Now which direction is the majority headed at this time? Seems to be going south, don't you think or are we as well of as before? We were one of the economic superpowers if not the greatest economic superpower. Where are we today? Which direction is that heading? Which direction has it been heading?

How about those that prospered? Or did that not happen before SS?

So let them starve or freeze. Why is that a problem? Why do we need to have a "cradle to grave" approach? What happened to survival of the fittest? Has it become survival of the unfit?

So, the contributor base is way shrunk. this system is now operating in a situation that it was not designed for and you think the adjustments are not onerous? What about my question where I shrunk your paycheck from 2200 a month to 400 a month. Would you say that your lifestyle changes are going to be onerous or not?

Happened all the time. Still does. Those people don't need SS.That's where I disagree.From what I've read, that is not going to happen.

Why? What value are they if they are too stupid to take care of themselves?

What I am saying is that drastic a cut in the number of people contrubuting is going to make a huge dent. Same as if you had your paycheck brought down from 2200 to 400. Why do you think that all it needs is a little tweak?