Don,

Of course what you are saying has merit. That's why, if you read my longer post, you'd have noticed that I said "manditory" savings.

But give me a little credit for being able to do the math. If I had invested the amount of money privately that I have "invested" in SS I would have a considerably healthier retirement...

...and more flexibility with the money that was mine

...and my wife who survives me would have all the money that we have worked together for (rather than the death benefit that is a slap in her face -- based on husband-as-breadwinner. How patronizing is that?)

...and politician after politician (from both sides) would not be able to hold me hostage to my fears year after year after year after...

Bobert,

I'll gladly concede the likelihood that the government will gladly continue to pay SS recipients even though it merely increases the national debt. But let's not have it both ways. If that's not risky, then lets turn a deaf ear to politicians from either side of the aisle when they use that as a scare tactic to get us to vote for them.

And let's also come clean about the "savings account" aspect of the program. By your own admission: "they(sic) way it it (sic) is designed I'll most likely be able to not only recoup my money plus a lot more than that" ...is an admission that the program is not paying recipients what they paid in. It is, and always has been, taking money from a (increasingly smaller per capita) pool of taxpayers and redistributing it. That being the case, how can the program ever hope to break even? ....... unless it too is tied to the very productivity that the Democrats are telling us will harm those who might opt for private accounts.