[Old Sarge]

Arkinsaw: You are assuming that the speaker is implying that you and I have ownership of our money just because he told his listerners that they don't. Another logical fallacy.

Please tell me, FRiend, where it's a fallacy to disagree that confiscated monies are ours at all.

Ditto: Then you don't understand the logic behind privatizing a portion of SS contributions.

Then educate me - will it not result in larger SS availability over ong-term?

Both: We all concur, I believe, that SS = re-distribution of wealth on a national scale.

[Ditto]

Then educate me - will it not result in larger SS availability over ong-term?

It simply says that a portion of what you now pay into SS will go to a private retirement investment fund, that you control, is in your name, and will belong to your estate if you die, not the government coffers. My father for instance, died at age 58. Of all the money he paid into SS over his lifetime, only $255 was given to the family as a death benefit. The government kept the rest.

Privatizing the portion of SS above the safety-net portion would have the effect of involving more people from the lower end of the income scale in planning for their own future as opposed to relying on the nanny state (i.e. Democrat Party) for their future.

That is what Cain is advocating.