Phoenix32890 wrote:Quote:This does not consitute elimination of the social security benefits that baby boomers expected throught the time they paid into the program but it does consitute the possibility that what was promised to them will not be paid in full.
Craven- Oh, I understand that. (It's just that you can explain it better than I do! 
) And that is precisely why the privitization concept was promulgated. What I was attempting to do was allay the fears of some members who apparently thought that social security was going away completely, in favor of private retirement programs.
Thing is, many economic conservatives want it to go away completely. Heck, I'm not a socio-economic conservative but I favor a different system too.
But privatizing even a part of it just further endangers it as the system depends on revenue that would be redirected to private coffers.
For this to happen without reduction of outlay we can't have the kind of deficit spending/tax cuts.
I think people are right to be worried.
The outlay issue is a tough one to win in America, winning it by "starving the beast" (cut taxes, as this is an easy political win and increase discretionary spending in popular budgets)
is something to worry about.
The way things are being done seems to be headed toward total elimination. I actually think that's a good idea, but only if it's done above the table, not by starving the beast (the nature of starving the beast as a methodology is such that some of the beastlets starve too).
