[Woodworker]

Do some research. Here's a start:

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee04-pr.htm

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10055.html

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st272/

http://advanced-stock-selection.com/SocialSecurityDraft.htm#FWI

http://www.advanced-stock-selection.com/social-security-II.htm

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR00/lr2F20.html



The above are pro's. This one is a "con". It makes assumptions that fix the outcome of the analysis IMHO, but you need to look at both sides.

http://www.safehaven.com/showarticle.cfm?id=2357&pv=1


Given my references, you can guess where I'm at.

[HankReardon]

Okay, your "con" link seems to go on the premise of entirely privatizing Social Security instead of partial privatization. A common purposeful omission, mentioning privatization of the system without using the words "partial" and "voluntary". Socialist Democrat dishonesty, scaring the old people.

We all know why the Democrats are against the reform of the SS system:

1; They do not want good things to happen while a Republican is in office.

2; They do not want more and more people to become less and less dependant on government.

3; They want to have the issue of problems with Social Security to campaign on. Democrats do not want solutions to campaign issues they can use in the future.

Anyone else have any reasons why Democrats do not want Social security reform?