[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?

[Woodworker]

In the "con" article, the premises are:

1. Additional investment will not result in new economic growth, only P/E ratio decline.

2. No one starts saving for retirement until they're about 40.

That fixes the outcome of the debate. If you need more evidence, then Google "Russian Retirees" and check the news for Dec. 04 through Feb. 05. The Russia government could not afford to raise taxes enough to maintain retirement benefits, so they drastically cut & eliminated benefits.