People, did you know this about Social Security?

awesome, i did not know.

You also forgot to say that the people receiving benefits now got a paltry 1 percent return on their money. My generation the baby boomers will get a negative return. Future generations may see nothing.

Also if the government books were like a business you would include the deficit on social security and medicare with the regular deficit. If you were to include that the debt is closer to 56 trillion dollars.

Chile privatized their system long ago. Those retirees are doing great. You never hear of folks from Chile leaving Latin America like they do in other countries because they are doing so well.

A lot of people do not want to believe this. Oh well let them see when they reach the age to collect their SS and they will see. The Democrats are taking everything away from the older citizens but making sure they get a good retirement for themselves!!!!

There is a book out called "Screwed: The undeclared War on the Middle class"....all of the presidents since either Lyndon Johnson or Reagan have been secretly "borrowing" money from the social security fund to pay for budget deficits and wars (like Vietnam, etc). The fund will sometime in the future not have enough money in it to pay for baby boomer generation retirement and those older than them.

So they are encouraging immigration and illegal immigration to make up for the lower fertility rates to bolster social security (but it takes jobs away from older Americans and the immigrants don't spend much money here and send a lot of money home and live several families in one apartment in order to live on lower wages and use welfare to pay for their increased fertility rates on lower wages, put a drain on the healthcare system due to lower wages with no job benefits ,etc, etc, etc).

Another thing politicians like Bush are doing is fomenting a war between older Americans about to retire (or already retired) and younger Americans and immigrants...by proposing privatization of social security..that they get to put "their money" in a private investment for "them" instead of going into the general social security fund. Younger people like this idea of "their" money going only to fund "their" retirement. But Social Security is not about an investment fund, it is about a failsafe program to protect older Americans who can't even get a job if they wanted to (due to age discrimination). In the depression, older people starved to death and died of exposure in the cold/heat when they didn't have social security. This AGE WAR is going to bring us back to that troubling time. If young people are not funding social security, then the president can say "Oh, well, the money is not there in the fund because it is going to the young people"....not because they have ALREADY SPENT IT by "borrowing" it to cover up the national debt and pay for wars (like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan).It is an AGE WAR to cover up presidential secret spending away of social security.

You can see the Age War now with Obama playing up to the younger voters and younger voters saying they want some vague "change"...not the older experienced people like Hillary or esp. McCain (they really think he is too old, not taking experience as a possible good thing in a president).

Obama's top contributor is said to be Goldman Saks, a proponent of privatization of social security. This disturbs me as he is playing up to the youth vote and has millions to run for president, but supposedly doesn't take lobbyist money. Isn't that like believing in the tooth fairy?

Of course all of the other candidates might be bought out too.

Your assertions are not supported by the historical record. If they are so easy to verify, please post your sources. Acceptable prove would be the Congressional Record and newspaper reports (of that time the act was passed) of the actual speeches of those involved. Uninformed rants, editorials, self serving books are not prove.

If the Democrats did all these things, why didn't the Republicans, from 2001 to 2006 when they had absolute control of Congress and the White house repeal or change it? Those that perform acts of omission are just as guilty.

Assuming everything you say is true, those actions were all in the fairly distant past, and no doubt had bi-partisan support in order to have been enacted . . . just as Social Security had to have bi-partisan support to have been enacted in the first place.

The reality remains that today it is the Republicans who indeed do want to take Social Security away!

Sorry, that's just too much reading for the first thing in the morning. I'll look at it later.