Bobert, we've never stopped discussing "strengthening the system". There is a difference between not discussing the premise and disagreeing about conclusions.

You insist on judging the merits of the system on its noble intentions, but it is not the intentions that are casting it upon the rocks -- it is the finacial heart of the matter.

You say, "even though I will most likeley collect more than I put into the system, lots of folks will collect considerable less or none of what they paid into the system but I'm still fine with that...

...but it is that cavalier attitude -- that, somehow or the other, there need not be any sound fiscal policy -- no logical connection between revenue and expense -- that is at least part of why it is in the mess it's in. It doesn't really matter if you're "fine with that" if the system does not balance in a society that has an increasingly smaller number of people to pay for the increasing larger number of recipients.

What you are "fine with" isn't the issue. Is it?

So, what I hear you saying is that you want to discuss *strengthening the system* as long as what we conclude is "fine with you"?

Hope your day's a ducky one!!