I heard somewhere that Social Security is optional, and their is a way to get rid of the Social Security card. Anyone have details?

Gene Chapman tore up his Social Security Card and threw it in the trash.

http://genechapman.blogspot.com

Pete Hendrickson has the IRS send him back every penny that is withheld from his paycheck.

http://www.obstacledelusions.com/

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/MoreVictories.htm

I can't find anywhere in the United States Constitution where it says we have to have a social security number tatooed on our foreheads.

Thanks for blogging LP. Who is Shane Cory?

I would have Socialist Security privatized under the following conditions:
-The savings accounts are tax exempt
-Money is invested in an actual BANK, NOT the stock market.

Why do so many people think they know better than the person who earned the money how it should be invested, spent, saved, or whatever?

There should be NO requirements on what you do with your retirement money.

"Privatizing" Social Security is meaningless if it means the government still gets to say where and when you save/invest the money you earned.

I think that the problem is the mass media and special interest groups...scare the public into submission. I don't want to be insulting but it seems that there is a whole lot of Americans who are just too brainwashed into this scheme to ever change it. These people can't be convinced that reform is good for the future. I've tried using logic, but it doesn't faze these people. How sad that the general public can't even come to reason with this issue.

I agree with the immediately above post absolutely...

Return to those who have put in what they have put in, and then drop the system like a ton of bricks.

W really needs to get out from under his handlers and actually talk to a group of people who might have an idea or two. his constant preaching to the choir (fake town hall meetings) is really hurting the initiative.

whether you think it is legal, constitutional, or not, social security is broken. honest and open discussion is vital to getting this monkey off of the backs of the taxpayers.

the LP actually praised W for opening the dialog and addressing the issue http://www.lp.org/media/article_100.shtml

what do you guys think of an LP town hall meeting on the issue with open and honest debate on an actual solution (other than abolition - that dog won't hunt) to the problem. with a follow-up presentation to congress??

Let's actually work on this issue. I think if the LP can show they have real solutions to real problems then we can not only help the nation, but advance as a party and increase personal liberties.

Let's use this blog as a tool.

and to start the debate instead of just spouting off "we should do this..." I offer the following initial ideas (silly though the may sound):

start taking bids for a private accounting firm to take over management of the fund. management would be for 4 year increments (off presidential election cycle) with re-bidding every cycle. to pay for the management, the accounting firm would have limited opportunity to invest a small percentage of the fund with their own profits based solely on growth of the fund. if they don't make money for SS, they don't make money for themselves. this would not only give a huge incentive to grow the fund but would remove the fund's availability from the fingers of congress, who too often leaches money to cover budget gaps.

or put the entire SS fund on a comodity (i.e. gold) based system in order to limit the effects of changes in dollar value to the system.

any other ideas?

IIRC, Shane Cory is the LP.org webmaster.

From what I've seen, he's been doing a better job than previous webmasters.

QUOTE: "Who is Shane Cory?"

He's already answered that. He wrote, "I own Cory Consulting, an Internet services firm and also own and serve as the editor of the Washington Dispatch. I'm not HQ staff, I'm a consultant. I serve as LP.org's webmaster and editor. I've been working with the LP for over a year."

Source: http://www.lpedia.org/index.php/User_talk:Lpadmin

QUOTE:

"Why do so many people think they know better than the person who earned the money how it should be invested, spent, saved, or whatever?

"here should be NO requirements on what you do with your retirement money.

"'Privatizing'Social Security is meaningless if it means the government still gets to say where and when you save/invest the money you earned."

I concur.

Mike (from post #5): Some people don't respond to logic alone. You have to also put emotion into it!

Tell the skeptics about how Social Security started out costing very little, but has gradually cost us a greater percentage of our paychecks over its history. This makes it difficult for lower income and even middle income families to save ANYTHING for themselves! I thought I read somewhere that over 10% of our paycheck goes to Social Security (maybe that's wrong)?

Tell them about how we're enslaving our children by forcing them to pay for the elderly, while most likely never receiving the same benefits when they are at retiring age. People use scare tactics all the time, but this one is true: Ignoring the problem (Democrats) is only going to lead to higher taxes and/or the weakening of our economy. Phony private accounts (Republicans) are just prolonging the inevitable outcome described in the last sentence.

We need to GRADUALLY end Social Security, FOR OUR CHILDREN'S SAKE!

I would happily let the government keep all my current assets in social security if I was allowed to keep all my future earnings with no deductions. This ponzi scheme is ruining my life.

I've been listening for years how politicians are going to be " tough on crime". Yet there seems to be problems here in florida regaurding child rapists and killers still. What no one questions is why are non-violent drug offenders spending more time in prison than these werewolves? Somebody needs to stand up for children and end this madness. I have 2 sex offenders who live on my street in Lehigh Acres. End the drug war, and let's protect the youngins'.

Rex Curry, a Libertarian defense attorney, has burned his Social "Slave" Card and has led many followers to do the same. http://rexcurry.net/ssnburn.html

From what I know, Bush's plan is a good way to head us in a direction of NO social Security at all. I would just hope bush becomes more blunt in his intentions, though the Media and democrats will tear him apart if he does. FDR has turned this nation in to a state full of sheep dependent on Government hand outs.

I'm all for allow social security money to be invested in stocks and bonds. The key is not to hold onto your stock for longer than 10yrs.

The investment account would increase the cash flow into the markets pushing them higher which would lead to better cash-flows for corporations which in turns benefits the economy as a whole.

I just don't think I like the idea of increasing government spending to make it happen. Once it's in operation it'll be cheaper than the current system, just the cost to get their is freightening.

The question I keep asking myself is, is the Social Security program in place for my own benefit, or do I contribute to help other people out? Their is no doubt that if I were allowed to keep that extra Social Security money from my paycheck, I could earn much more retirement money than the current program through personal investment. The program is nothing more than welfare for old people.

Somehow, "seniors" got by in our country until 1935 without Social Security. Also, don't most "seniors" have grown children who should be able to help them out, instead of forcing their hands into everyone else's pockets via Social Security?

so... I take it from the silence and redirection of the question posed that the LP members have NO real ideas as to how to fix this problem??

(I know that isn't true)

I really think the LP should jump onto this issue and present a real, viable solution

We DO have a solution to fix the "problem". Get rid of Social Security.

The only reason there is a problem is because Social security exists. Just because a Socialist creates something and the government keeps it for some decades does not mean we have to preserve it. SS is nothing but "Stealing from the rich to give to the poor".

End it and your problem is solved. Libertarians do not believe in a Nanny state, which makes sure FOR YOU that you will have enough money to retire in the future.

"start taking bids for a private accounting firm to take over management of the fund. management would be for 4 year increments (off presidential election cycle) with re-bidding every cycle. to pay for the management, the accounting firm would have limited opportunity to invest a small percentage of the fund with their own profits based solely on growth of the fund. if they don't make money for SS, they don't make money for themselves. this would not only give a huge incentive to grow the fund but would remove the fund's availability from the fingers of congress, who too often leaches money to cover budget gaps."

Don't you think that'd just increase corporate corruption in DC? It'd be another corporation involved with government somehow, feeding at the trough... and you just KNOW they'd put up cash to support the duocracy.

We need to do something about this... but advocating immediate and total privatization isn't going to do anything. You want to maintain your principles and demand all or nothing? Great, don't ruin the work of the rest of us while we gradually try to whittle it down.

For what it's worth, I think Bush's idea isn't enough. All it'll do is fuel a speculation bubble, subsidize (government-approved) corporations again, and put a trillion-dollar hole in our national debt. If the transition costs are that enormous, we'd better have something more to show for it.

Maybe for now, we can gradually raise the retirement age to, say, 75, while grandfathering those currently in the system. Social Security wasn't supposed to be a retirement fund when initially set up, so we can most likely successfully campaign on raising the retirement age. Then, we'll need less money to fund the system as is, and we can successfully campaign on lowering the payroll tax. Then, we'll dismantle the system further from there-but we have to take it slow if we want to win ANYONE over.

Actually, nameless, our presidential candidate (Michael Badnarik) in 2004 did offer a clear alternative. He said to give people the choice. They could individually choose to keep their social security, or they could opt out. Those who stayed in would support each other's retirement thereby. Those who chose to opt out would sacrifice what they've already paid in.

Mr. Badnarik went on to point out that this was the exact approach taken by Chile in the late 1970s. The option was implemented, and within just a few years, over 95% of the people had opted out of the program! It was a roaring success.

"nameless", I think this thread has a FEW ideas about how to fix Social Security, and I think Stuart raises a good point. Any change to Social Security needs to be presented (and hopefully implemented) as GRADUAL to receive support.

Stuart makes a good point about raising the age you must be to receive benefits. I'd like to have our SS taxes on our paychecks be reduced .75% each year (or something like this) until the tax has been eliminated. At the same time, we make a cut-off point for who can receive benefits (anyone born after 19__ will NOT receive Social Security, so do your best to pay for the elderly AND make your own retirement account.

Bush's plan to give less money per check to wealthier SS recipients makes a lot of sense, too. All these things would lead to a system that pays for seniors and soon-to-be seniors, while eliminating the program for younger Americans. I'm not an economist, so I don't know the exact figures of what would work best, but these are just some basic ideas of what could be done.

Also, the younger you are (but still eligible for SS benefits), the smaller the checks.

Oops, not exactly what I meant: The later you were born (but still eligible for SS), the smaller the checks. You knew what I meant, though, right?

Another problem I have with Social Security is the severe hypocracy of a good number of cases.

The second largest group of contributors to Social Security is African American Men. Their average lifespan is up to around 65 and very few ever take up to 1/3 of what they put in.

The single largest benifactor is the older white woman for whom contributed the least out of any US demographic group. Now you have a system that takes from poor black men and give to middle class white women and yet the Democrats, the champion of the poor black man is all for it. Hypocracy at its finest.

I'm all for abolishing the system, however it's not politically feasable, so the solution? I would have to say a combination of raising the retirement age and placing the assets of the entire system in income producing investments.

Allowing individual to manange this on their own is nearly asking for failure.

I think that people are down on private investment accounts that are controlled by the government. We've seen what a mess they've made of everything else, and the point is to get them out of our retirement planning, so why put up with the many strings that are likely to be attached to private accounts?

People keep talking about the high level of federal borrowing that will be "necessary to pay for" the social security privatization. The government doesn't NEED to borrow. It holds vast land assets, which it could sell to make up the difference. Here in my home state of California, the federal government owns around 46% of all acreage -- literally almost half the state!

Uncle Sam, give me my "40 acres [of California real estate] and a mule," and let me opt out of Social Security for the rest of my working years, and you can keep whatever you got from me in the past. I'll make no claim on Social Security. You won't have to borrow to pay for THAT arrangement.

".....placing the entire system in income producing investments.
Allowing individual to manage this on their own is nearly asking for failure."
Are you kidding me? First this statement places even more trust in the government to make investments and less trust in the individual. Right now we should be looking at 3 options Sen. Sunnis (not sure about the spelling) republican out of New Hampshire, the Cato plan, or Badnarik's plan to allow us to opt out.

"Another problem I have with Social Security is the severe hypocracy of a good number of cases.

The second largest group of contributors to Social Security is African American Men. Their average lifespan is up to around 65 and very few ever take up to 1/3 of what they put in.

The single largest benifactor is the older white woman for whom contributed the least out of any US demographic group. Now you have a system that takes from poor black men and give to middle class white women and yet the Democrats, the champion of the poor black man is all for it. Hypocracy at its finest."

This is an EXCELLENT point, and it's things like this that'll help us score points with the Democratic base when/if we ever get to make our proposals to Congress. The Republican base will already be with us, because a lot of Republicans want to just ditch it altogether (but realize that's not easily done in DC politics).

"People keep talking about the high level of federal borrowing that will be "necessary to pay for" the social security privatization. The government doesn't NEED to borrow. It holds vast land assets, which it could sell to make up the difference. Here in my home state of California, the federal government owns around 46% of all acreage -- literally almost half the state!"

It's a good idea, but there is a problem with it. We have to keep the plan simple enough that the average American can understand it. Getting this dog to hunt will be hard enough without the environmental lobby joining forces with the AARP to shut us up. And you know they'll be after us if we try to privatize a scrap of federal land. So we need to keep these issues separate, and slowly phase out Social Security.

Besides, if we DO privatize federal land, the most politically feasible way to do it would be to turn over the nature preserves to the Sierra Club/Greenpeace/whoever for either a song and a dance, or for nothing. They're going to oppose the plan quite hard if we make them pay money they barely have to "save" these lands from corporate development, but if we just give it to them then not only will we be successfully privatizing a LOT of land and saving the federal government a lot of money, we'll be giving these environmental organizations a way to make money AND we'll be gaining clout in Washington. If the environmentalists perceive that Libertarians are trustworthy and can be trusted with the environment, they'll be less likely to join coalitions against our policies.

Quote: "The key is not to hold onto your stock for longer than 10yrs."

This is incorrect. On average, the stock market has produced annualized returns of over 10%. The 10% returns compound more the longer you leave them in.

Why on earth would anyone ever want to hold onto stock for LESS than 10 years?!? Hold onto it as long as possible... the longer the better!

Quote: "People keep talking about the high level of federal borrowing that will be "necessary to pay for" the social security privatization. The government doesn't NEED to borrow. It holds vast land assets, which it could sell to make up the difference. Here in my home state of California, the federal government owns around 46% of all acreage -- literally almost half the state!"

Great idea, I completely agree.

Quote: " Getting this dog to hunt will be hard enough without the environmental lobby joining forces with the AARP to shut us up. And you know they'll be after us if we try to privatize a scrap of federal land. So we need to keep these issues separate, and slowly phase out Social Security."

And....? Who cares if "they'll be after us"? Half of the so-called environmental nuts are operating on half-baked science anyhow ("global warming"). To be honest, most of them haven't a clue (and I speak from experience as someone who finally "saw the light" and got out of that belief system).

Quote: "The second largest group of contributors to Social Security is African American Men. Their average lifespan is up to around 65 and very few ever take up to 1/3 of what they put in.

The single largest benifactor is the older white woman for whom contributed the least out of any US demographic group. Now you have a system that takes from poor black men and give to middle class white women and yet the Democrats, the champion of the poor black man is all for it. Hypocracy at its finest."

I guess I'm lost here... how exactly does the fact that "poor black men" (your descriptors) have shortened life expectancies and "middle class white women" (again, your descriptors) have longer life expectancies jive with hypocrisy? Please elaborate...

Quote: "I'm all for abolishing the system, however it's not politically feasable, so the solution? I would have to say a combination of raising the retirement age and placing the assets of the entire system in income producing investments.

Allowing individual to manange this on their own is nearly asking for failure."

I agree that the system should be abolished, but 'placing' the assets of the system into anything other than the hands of those who paid in the first place is no better than it is now. Government-controlled assets are not "privatized", no matter where they're "invested"...

Raising the age on retirement is a fraud. What do you think would happen to an insurance company who said, "Okay, we see that you've paid in all this money for x years, and the contract said we'd pay out at 65, but now we're raising it to 75... oh and by the way, we're also cutting your benefits and you won't get nearly as much we told you"??? They'd be in jail and out of business faster than a death row inmate's death sentence case review passes on George W. Bush's desk!!!

Don't screw workers over more than they already have been by "raising the age"- get rid of the program altogether.

This does leave the problem of "how do we take care of those who have paid in already?" but I like the idea of selling off "government" assets to do so. We could use the proceeds to fund people's "benefits" while simultaneously stopping paying in new taxes on it, and gradually weaning people off the government nipple of Social Security and Medicare.

People should take responsibilty for their own retirement and insurance. That's what IRA's, 401(k) plans, and insurance exist for. It's also why financial planners (of which I am one) exist. We do it better (and much less expensively!) than Uncle Sam ever did.

Stuart- I'm sorry that you think that selling government assets to work our way out of social security HONESTLY and WITHOUT BORROWING is a non-starter, or too complex for people to accept. I do agree with you that it is possible that environmentalists may carp, but the FedGov has TENS OF MILLIONS OF ACRES. Not all are in Yosemite or precious, fragile wilderness areas. If an asset sale (or giveaway to younger/willing citizens in lieu of social security benefits) were administered seriously, it could involve assets that, while attractive as real estate, would leave environmentalists little room to object.

I think that exchanging land for benefits (or for cash to pay benefits) is about as simple a concept as one can have, not likely to confuse anyone. And I also think that, since the object is to allow the US and Social Security system to remain flush while keeping promises to those who paid into Social Security, the LAST thing we need to do -- whether or not it is politically "popular" -- is to GIVE federal land to conservationists. If they want to BUY it to help keep Social Security afloat and preserve nature, great. Exchange value for value. That's all I'm talking about. Either exchange assets for cash to keep Social Security alive while we're gradually winding it down, or award assets in settlement of future claims that younger citizens might make on the system that will be pretty well wound down by the time their turn comes to benefit from it. DON'T borrow. DON'T raise taxes. Conduct "the people's business" in an ethical, responsible way.

good discussions, I knew you had it in you.

Stuart, please note that I pointed out that my ideas were "silly" I know that privatization is not feasible, and agree with the ultimate phasing out of the system. but I wanted to put something forth instead of simply saying, "hey, somebody should do something" If I had the answer, I would be running for office.

Brandon, bringing something that was built over decades to an abrupt end will have explosive results. Gradual is a must. But it's the first step that I'm looking for (and I hope the LP finds).

Libertarian TV, i had forgotten about Badnarik's approach. Good point. Can we get more information on the specifics?

jnice, the ideas are starting to flow. I hope it builds. I really think we need an LP town meeting or brainstorming session to see if there's anything off the wall that we might be able to look at.

Matt, what are the CATO and Senator Sunnis (?) plans? could you elaborate?

The land sell plan seems like a temporary band-aid(TM) fix. it might raise funds temporarily, but the underlying problem would still remain.

Ryan also makes some good points, contracts (even if they were arranged under duress) have been made. The government must be made to uphold its end of the arrangement. But it looks like the government is willing to renegotiate the deal and it's up to us to accept the offer (to renegotiate) and find an arrangement that works the best and ensures the most liberty.

Right now the Chile, opt-out plan seems not only the most promising, but since it has been implemented (in a somewhat similar situation), the positives and negatives should be readily available.

Anyone from the LP want to go to Chile?

sorry if I missed anyone, your responses have been very productive

I can save for my own retirement, damnit!
Must the state be involved in every aspect of our lives?

Privatization is a big step in the right direction; however I doubt it's goning to happen anytime soon.

here's the CATO plan

http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-32es.html

I can't say that I like the part about the "remaining" 6.2 percentage, but it looks like a good starting point for negotiations. It has the opt-out provisions, but the part of the remaining 6.2 percent looks like forced charity. I'm a charitable person, but I don't like someone else forcing my hand.

here's the Sununu (R-NH) plan

http://sununu.senate.gov/social_security.html

his plan seems much more complicated and includes a government gurantee of benefit amounts. I think the guarantee spoils the deal. but the gist of the plan is phased-in increases in the amount of a person can invest (up to)

5% of the first $10,000 of income and 2.5% of any anycome above $10,000.

starting in the year 2016, people could invest 10% of the first $10,000 of income and 5% on the wages above $10,000

and the government would control the investment options.

Nameless, you asked about more information regarding the Badnarik plan. I recommend a number of resources to you.

The first is my own website at http://www.libertariantv.com, where you can see two videos of Mr. Badnarik speaking about his plan.

There are also many articles on the 'Net that deal with the Chilean solution. Here are a few of them:
1. http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-17-97.html
2. http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp2.html
3. http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-mt092496.html
4. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4000/is_200310/ai_n9310772

I also tried to find articles opposing the Chilean system. The options available include:
1. http://www.socwatch.org.uy/en/informeImpreso/pdfs/chile2003_eng.pdf
2. http://hnn.us/articles/10297.html
3. http://www.spunk.org/library/otherpol/critique/sp001280.html

Personally, I think their criticisms of the approach itself are pretty weak. They correctly oppose the Chilean military dictatorship which implemented the plan, but that's no reason to conclude that giving people the choice of whether to use state-sponsored approaches to retirement planning or to opt out of that planning is somehow a bad thing.

-------

David wrote, "I'm all for abolishing the system, however it's not politically feasable, so the solution? I would have to say a combination of raising the retirement age and placing the assets of the entire system in income producing investments."

I agree that we have not currently won the battle and that the polls currently suggest that Americans are afraid of private alternatives. But I would also suggest that Bush is harming our cause more than he is promoting it and that this is the root of much of that opposition. In fact, I claim that Bush's attempt to take "small steps" is at the root of the opposition, a thought I would commend to those here who advocate "small steps." Small steps inevitably look like some sort of a sellout and ultimately win no one over.

However, I would disagree that this is a battle we cannot win. We can. Don't give up the fight.

I'd also suggest that your proposal of "raising the retirement age and placing the assets of the entire system in income producing investments" only serves to promote and perpetuate the ponzi scheme and empower those who politically profit by it. It does nothing to fight or even begin to reverse the power and influence of the ponzi scheme.

I agree that Social Security is an unsustianable Ponzi scheme. Nevertheless, I can understand how the public has a hard time getting overly concerned about a potential Social Security deficit decades in the future when the Federal government is running a deficit of $400 billion each year. Why worry about future deficits if current defits are running out of control?

Add to that George Bush's merely tangential relationship with veracity, I don't find it all surprising that his "Trust me, I'll fix Social Security. Don't you worry," as fallen on deaf ears.

Libertarian TV, thanks for the info!

I am one who believes the Social Security system can go away and I wouldn't care. I feel I could make more money with that 15.3%.

I'll be honest. I listen to Ed Schultz, and I'm afraid he doesn't get it on SS. He's always constantly talking about increasing taxes to pay for it, which is exactly what has been happening since it has come to life, plus he is always acting as though we are just going to put it in the stock market, when it needs to be properly diversified. Anybody could tell you that.

My only concern is what those who rely in SS Disability would do? Nobody has ever addressed that issue.

Also, if we were going to keep the current system, the easiest way to keep it fully funded is to stop waging unconstitutional wars on other sovereign nations and to quit this rediculous foreign policy.

Social Security (SS) is an unconstitutional and communist program. The only way to fix it is to get rid of it. SS, like many other things like compulsory seatbelt laws, is based on the notion that the people are too stupid manage their own affairs and the government knows best.

The main argument used in favor of keeping SS is that people wont save for their retirements and then they'll end up on welfare. Why, that’s such a great point - and a perfect example of why unconstitutional handout programs like welfare need to be gotten rid of with the same stroke of the pen.

Bush's so-called "plan" (Bush considers a desired goal, along with at least three words like “values” that are likely to trigger knee-jerk reactions from the guinea pigs in the focus groups, written on the back of a dinner napkin to qualify as "plan") is simply a rouse for him to funnel our money to his buddies. His buddies run solid and trustworthy organizations like Enron and WorldCom. Now there is a great investment idea! Your retirement is safe with these people!

There is no better time than the present for the LP to take advantage of our platform position of SS eradication. We need to offer Americans a choice and provide for them a way to keep their money and do with it as they see fit.

If you want to hear it from the horses mouth, I believe that this privitization reform plan by George W. Bush and his croneies is just a guise. I peronally believe privitization is not the actual goal, and that Bush's real plan is a mass theft of the American people's money on behalf of Corporate America. Remember that Corporate America as well as certain special interest groups have their hands deep into the pockets of the U.S government. Corporations provided the lions share of the funding to Bush's reelection campaign as well as most of the Republicans and Democrates in congress. It all smells a little too fishy to me.

not to fuel the fire, Matthew, but the private accounts would funnel a huge amount of funding into the market.

nothing for corporations to sneeze at

and if one thinks the corporate hacks aren't lobbying for their firms to be included on the limited investment list, one would be more than a little naive

the Chile plan looks best. with all said and done, there was a 93% opt-out and there's no reason to expect any different here. 7% funding, I think, is enough to cover the disability portion

I'm not understanding this Chilean plan. Is it totally free, or are their some strings attached? If the plan were purely opt-in/opt-out, then everyone would probably opt out, and it wouldn't exist anymore. The fact that the government is still managing it leaves me suspicious.

Social Security ran it's time. Originally put together as a supplemental income program, such as like welfare and other government "giveaways", once the depressionw as over, it was instituted as retirement plan. Over the years, people have paid taxes into it, it has been restructured and such, the program has definatley outlived its origianl purpose. If the money we pay into this program can be given back to the people, there probably won't be as much of a problem of considering the extra money put aside for self-sufficiant retirement programs. The opt-in/opt-out option is there, but for the government to tell you about it is totally unreliable. They want the money just as bad so that they can fund other programs with it, not just social security itself. In fact, if you were to abolish every government social program, there would be more charity's, public and private, that would be more than willing to help these people out. After considering the fact that "privatizing" is just another Leninist way of giving government the power to take it and invest it with the opportunity to blow it instead of the people doing it themselves. But then again, why blame on ourselves when we can blame someone else, the social democratic way of life. And to think, we are taught "we" are the government in schools, but we are not educated enough to make our decisions considering retirement. Abolish this nonsense system!!!!!!!!!!

While understanding that Social Security is far from a perfect solution, let us consider the following.

We already have Private Retirment accounts they are called IRA's. The deduction for these accounts are still not a a level that makes them a replacement for Social Security. As Libertarians, we make noise about the size of BIG government, but support making a NEW system to replace a broken one rather than utilize what is already available. This is against what we supposedly believe in "Limited Govenment"!

Second, and this is my reason for NOT supporting the plans that have been proposed - even though it is agreed that we need to reform the system. It is being proposed to place the financial future of retirees into the hands of many that can't manage to save enough money to put a down payment on a house or a car. Who will bear the burden of supporting these people, and I suspect that there will be millions of them, when the get to retirement and have NOTHING?

The WORST mistake I ever made in my life was trying to set up retirement accounts (private sector) in the late 1980's. What I got was $1000 starter accounts on each (Pioner II and American Capital Pace) but what I got STUCK with was an incorrect Social Security Number (559-90-7280), incorrect address data, and in a short time, a tax audit (paper audit), and endless excuses from CPA's, tax lawyers and government agencies about how to solve the 'problem'. I paid a second (private sector) stock broker to fix the problem with stocks (Common Sense, $500 mutual fund and $2000 IRA) but unfortunately, the wrong SSN was perpetuated!
I sure would like to know how much trouble was caused to the individual who has (or had) the wrong SSN (559-90-7280), and if the government harrassed him into the ground like they did me.

I think we have a government that is (in the words or Ronald Reagan) the PROBLEM, not the solution. They are a collection of troublemakers. Our government agencies can't decide if they are our masters or our servants!