A: Because it is now, and always has been, a Ponzi scheme, i.e. something palmed off as an "investment" but where the the early "investors" are actually paid off with the "investments" of later ones instead of actual growth dividends?

B: The ratio of workers to retirees has fallen from 42-to-1 in 1942 to three-to-one today? And will fall to 2-to-1 by 2050? And this while benefits have been drastically broadened from their original intent?

C: Because the main function of the Social Security system isn't providing a safety net for the elderly, but to enslave the most reliable voting group in America to the Federal government? Not one person can rationally justify the system in any way other than by their desire to redistribute wealth for political ends.

D: Because unlike private investments there is absolutely no buildup of equity, and if the person who has paid into it for forty years dies, the entire value vanishes into the coffers of the State?

If I had stuck every last dime I dumped into Social Security over the past thirty-plus years into the blue-chip stock market, I'd be sitting on almost a million bucks worth of stocks. But better and wiser people than myself are forcing me at gunpoint into their idea of a retirement system. Right now if I retire at 66, I'm going to haul down about $2,000 a month. Some of which will be taxed. If I can hang on until I'm 108, I will be able to match that million dollars.

The idea that I should even be given a choice in the matter is so alien to liberals that some of them still have no idea what I'm talking about.

What's really astonishing is that the press is treating what Greenspan is saying as though nobody had ever said it before.

Waiting for another one of those Snake-River-Canyon-sized leaps of logic: "Brosz thinks there are a lot better ways than Social Security to provide for his old age --------------->> Brosz wants old people to die in the gutter and be eaten by whatever rats are left over after the old people have eaten most of them."