"Kevin" wrote in message
...
Charly got it right on the actual policy. It was/is meant
as a supplemental in old age. As far as theft, well...
There is no SS fund. All the money goes into the general fund
kinda like petty cash account.

This wasn't the case until about a dozen years ago. The Social Security fund
was off-budget, meaning that the politicians couldn't touch it. It had
accumulated a huge surplus in anticipation of the baby boomer retirement
bulge that's beginning now. However, the national debt became so severe in
the 80s that the Congress passed a law putting SS on the budget so the pols
could tap into the excess funds. That surplus has now been drawn down to the
point where they talk about a crisis--but it was their own fault. Social
Security IMHO should be removed from the budget. For too many people it is
the prime source of income in retirement: the poor, the self-employed, those
without company benefits, etc. Yes, it's easy to say that private investment
returns more, but millions can't afford to invest.

But why not eliminate Social Security and allow people to invest the money
they save? Because it's a welfare program. Like everyone else I'll draw out
all of my investment and interest in less than 5 years. If I draw SS for
more than that, it's welfare. Dirty word in these parts, eh? I'd rather have
at least some income sheltered from the greedheads running private
investments, and from the fluctuations in the market brought on by
short-term profit seekers. And when your invested funds run out, you're left
with nothing. At least SS gives you an income you can count on.

Congress knows that touching SS is a political third rail. It's what
Jefferson said (in another context) was like holding a wolf by the tail. You
don't like it, but you don't dare let go.

Bob