Reply #10: ..

[54anickel]

The shortage is what the fund will be short if people are allowed to divert a portion of the FICA tax they pay now into a private account instead. If the problem NOW is not enough coming in from taxes to pay for those recieving benefits, how will allowing $ to be diverted help? That's the shortfall. That's what they want to borrow for (to make up the difference). But they want to be able to span that expense over 75 freaking years! They've never done budgets that long - how many budget programs implemented just 40 years ago are still around?

Papau posted this regarding the 75 years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x13105

The rest of your questions are more to the missing facts regarding the entire privatization plan. They just aren't putting a lot of details out there, probably by design. Instead they say how broke the system is, and they aren't really even able to back that statement up with facts. There have been many arguments on both sides of this. Of course the tax cut and the ME fiasco certainly helped to put a huge dent in the budget. Was it an attempt to break SS to begin with? They have wanted to "kill the beast" for years.

Here's an article from where the commision attempts to clarify

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~11851~2587290,00.html

Then of course, they have to deny that this will benefit the Street
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53665-2004Dec9.html

Clinton had proposed a modernization of SS as well. I don't remember the details - he would have allowed money to be invested in some of the same trust or fund options that gov't employees have. Perhaps you should look back to the arguments they used against his proposal.

Can't really help with an argument against it beyond what you've seen as there just isn't enough information about the proposal available. You've read what the arguments are stating SS isn't in that bad of shape, it doesn't need this drastic of a change.