Except that Social Security has no resemblance to any
pyramid scheme. It doesn't not depend upon an
exponentially increasing number of investors. It doesn't
depend upon increasing the number of investors at all.

The appearance that it is a good deal depends on increasing
the number of investors.

No it does not.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:31:52 GMT,

Because
the only propaganda I see is propaganda of older people who want to
steal my money and leave me with debts,

I'm a young worker and I either will find some way to make enough
money so I don't have to rely on s.s. or I emigrate somewhere where I
will not have to foot the bill for the crumbling Ponzi scheme.

Yes, I know it's all simpleminded Republican propaganda

http://www.techcentralstation.com/121702A.html

The Greediest Generation
By Stephen W. Stanton

Social Security is falling off a cliff,

taking baby boomers down with
it.

There are two ways to avoid a hard landing:

Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system.

Simply put, benefits are
paid from current tax receipts as soon as they are collected. Today,
there are 3.4 working taxpayers for every Social Security beneficiary.
According to the Social Security Administration's own estimates, that
ratio should drop to 2.1 per retiree by the year 2030, perhaps even
lower. No matter how hard politicians try to spin it, the math is
immutable. There will be fewer workers to "pay", and more retirees to
"go".

The bottom line is that under the current pay-as-you-go system,
benefits would decline, or taxes would increase dramatically, or both.

Critics of privatization point to the recent stock market declines to
scare voters into opposing privatization. And the market has indeed
declined considerably in the past two years. However, this fact makes
the critics' scare mongering no less preposterous. Even at September's
lows, the lowest monthly closing level in five years, the S&P 500 was
roughly twice its level of ten years ago, for an annual return of
6.9%. Going back to September 1990, the annual return jumps to 8.5%.
Even going back all the way to September of 1960, the S&P 500 has
returned 6.7% annually.

This is a critical point, since private Social Security accounts would
never be intended for short-term investors.

Workers contribute a
portion of each paycheck from their very first days in the workforce
continuing throughout their careers. A typical worker would build up
assets for forty years, from age 25 to 65. Upon retirement, assets
would be drawn down slowly, for perhaps thirty years or more.

With an
individual account active for the better part of a century, short-term
fluctuations are meaningless, only long-term trends matter.

When temporary market downturns do occur, workers can benefit through
"dollar cost averaging," buying additional shares at a discount.

Seniors would not be especially sensitive to market declines if they
rely on investment income to fund their benefits instead of capital
gains.

They should invest in high quality assets yielding reliable
dividends and interest payments, so that no stock must be sold in a
downturn to fund retirement benefits.

OK.

So let's sum it up

Yeah. Lets. You will say anything in your vile hatred.

I feel helpless.

Lost, you mean.

No, I feel like you choose to persist in ignorance
against all the evidence - debating with you is
like debating with Creationist, honestly.

Evidence? When did you offer any evidence? Insults is all you have.

I'm a technolibertarian and you're the equivalent
of Jesus freak here.

See?

People. Honestly. Just look at what _evidence has been
presented here_. I mean, don't take my word for it, but
all I ask for is cutting ad hominem, looking at particular
arguments and evidence on particular subjects and judging
for yourself.

You mean like this:

You don't even get that you come
across as the biggest jerks on the block, don't you?

or this:

Make your argument, loser, or shut up.

or this:

Excuse me, but what can I do but laugh when offered
as indeed childish theory as 'da hatred of themselves;
inner hatred, imagine dat'.

If you want an "argument" pull you head out of your ***** long enough to
to explain what you want to know without all the *****.

That was merely ad hominem I served out in return for your
ad hominem -

You sure have a lot of excuses.

people are not in awe and afraid to oppose
the left-liberals just for you having this air of fake superiority.

More insults. You are just another right wing hypocrite.

You're obviously dishonest in pretending that ALL I presented
was reciprocal ad hominem.

You Are A Liar. I never said "reciprocal." You did.

Learn to behave yourself without being condescending or
else you're going to get more treatment like the one
I leashed out to you.

You overestimate yourself. I like it when people like you act as you
do. It demonstrates far better than I could ever state what it takes
to be a neo-con.

Yep, it's hard to be left-liberals nowadays. :->

Not at all. I love it. It is called pride, honor, and integrity.

You
appear to be just another hate mongering flash in the pan.

But you're visibly getting more polite. See, game theory
and 'tit for tat' strategy work. Even you have the
chance to see the light and become the libertarian,
trust me. ;o)

Funny how you are unable to explain WHY anyone would want to be a
libertarian. (Other than being irresponsible.)