What's that word, "Security", doing in Social Security? Could that be the reason for the pitiful rate of return? It's called rate and risk. High risk, high return (possibly). Low risk, low return. It's not that difficult to understand. Banks, CD's, the Stock Market all offer much higher rates of return because of the risks associated with them. The only risk faced by depositors into the SS Trust is from politicians.

And wit45, you know as well as I do that we can all (or at least, most) make a case for putting our money into investments that provide a much higher payoff than Soc. Sec. , but that's not the point. If your investments fail, the populace doesn't want to see you homeless and starving, which is why SS exists in the first place. If SS is your ONLY income source, you'll be close to homeless and starving anyway.

I know that if you were a politician, and you said "Let's abolish Soc Sec because if you can't get a better deal somewhere else, you're an idiot", you'd be out of office the next election.

How has your portfolio done recently? Unless you're a master tactician, the market's been pretty ugly lately. In other words, it's lacked any "security". Of course, the market is there for anybody who wants to invest in it. I don't think draining funds from Social Security to let people invest is the right thing to do.

By the way, the studies I've seen show that dollars in the hands of a middle-income consumer are kept in circulation at a much higher rate than dollars in the hands of the upper-income consumers. Of course, that was quite a few years ago, but I believe the trend still holds true.

BTW, wit, not all us liberals are lazy pot smokers, and I take offense at your insinuation. I can tell from that same post, that you are very interested in promoting your own welfare. Any interest in promoting the general welfare?

Fish on........