[Looper]

This article's spin and paternalism are annoying. So the poor, stupid worker who doesn't know that he's supposed to save and can't handle those confusing investments needs someone--the government, perhaps--to step in and take car of him. The real story is that the returns on a 401k blow away "returns" on our Social Security "investments" (Clinton-speak for "taxes"). Give me ownership of MY SS, put in my account, the supposed "lockbox," and I'll make out just fine, thank you. I'll take the freedom and accept the responsibility.

[Gig]

Hi Looper. No argument from me with devolving social security back to the individual, if it is done correctly: 1) the individual must control, 2) must be mandatory withholding that the individual self-directs, 3) investment options are pre-defined within certain catagories that can be "re-balanced" periodically, and 4)the account assets are owned by the individual and can be transferred upon death to beneficiaries.

These would be the major provisions for a new social security program, IMHO.

Now, so far as the private citizen being responsible for their future? They already are. Social Security is not much to live on in your retirement years and, as far as I kow, no one is forcing anyone to contribute to ANYTHING except the SSA.

[Tauzero]

"The real story is that the returns on a 401k blow away 'returns' on our Social Security 'investments' (Clinton-speak for "taxes")."

In a few years the real story might be quite different.

[Poohbah]

Yes, we must protect people from their own weakness, because only WE represent the People's Will!

It wasn't any fun with Robespierre, and it got less and less fun with each rerun.