[ReleaseTheHounds]

Good analysis of how Social Security reforms should be of top priority interest to women -- but NOW and other "women's groups" are on the wrong side, once again. When will women wake up to the fact that their self-appointed "leaders" are socialist-Demo sympathizers pursuing an agenda that is NOT in the interests of most American women?

[ReleaseTheHounds]

SSFMK PING!

[jacquej]

What about those of us who are way "behind the times", and stay home to raise our children, earning no money ever?

I wonder how many of us there are? We are the ones most threatened by all of the "social" problems.

[kittymyrib]

Let's not forget that 28% of the generation that should be paying into the system now was aborted by women. You reap what you sow.

[NonValueAdded]

The Clinton administration's Social Security Agency has been telling this to us for years on the annual statement mailed to us automatically a month before our birthdays [I wonder how much that costs]. This is nothing new. Also, not only will the Payroll Tax [no, lets continue the myth and say the FICA Premium] have to increase, but as all the IOU's from the US Govt [yes, the lockbox] are redeemed by the SSA, general revenue will need to increase to pay for this. It's going to be a double hit.

[Nick Danger]

Workers would invest in bonds and stocks and accrue a significant nest egg throughout their working lives, which could be drawn upon at retirement.

In addition to giving workers the chance to accrue savings, this reform would prefund future benefits, making Social Security sustainable over the long run. Instead of relying on taxes from future workers to pay benefits, retirees would draw upon assets built up over decades.

That's a bunch of nonsense caused by the money illusion. Having a bunch of "money" does no good if the generation producing the goods and services is not large enough to produce what they and their children need, plus enough to supply what retirees want to buy with "money."

This would become apparent when people tried to "draw down their nest egg" at retirement. How do you draw down a nest egg? By selling it. If there are more people trying to do that than there are people saving for their own retirement (those are the people who are available to buy these financial assets) you end up with the same problem we have now. It's just that instead of the government defaulting on its promises, you experience the 'default' as plummeting stock, bond, and housing prices caused by too many people trying to sell at once into a market that is thin on buyers. The "nest eggs" decline in value by the same amount that the government would have 'defaulted' on.

The people who say, "Let's not forget that 28% of the generation that should be paying into the system now was aborted by women" have the best handle on what will cause this default. That's not just an abortion rant; it goes to the heart of the problem, which is the declining ratio of workers to retirees.

No retirement program of any kind can work if the ratio of workers to retirees gets too low. The working generation has to feed themselves and the nation's children. Whatever resources the working generation has to support dependents have to be apportioned among young dependents and old dependents. For the old to use governmental force to take more for themselves at the expense of children is just plain wrong.