My definition of the current Republican Party?

You call that an insult? It was just a lol line. You had one.

And the claim that 'I always start with an insult' is a LIE. You must be a filthy gutter-fighting Republican brownshirt troll. (This, now, was an insult. See the difference?)

Now, let me remind you again of your original tall tale:

I'm afraid your latest hand-waving does nothing to infuse truth into that whopper. Let's go thru it:

None of that does anything to refute that 'privatizing social security' means privatizing the income stream the government is now using to fund existing SS benefits. The income must be replaced somehow, or the benefits must be replaced somehow. You have some further big schemes for that? Neat. But absent further major restructuring of practically everything, yes, the government would have to increase its borrowing. As I said.

Close 'nuff, don't be so deflecting.

Oh dear, they can't have their stock and take their profit too? Gosh, why does anyone ever buy stock, when there's such a horrid dilemma built into the system? You're just fogging here. Would stock prices go up when a great big new income stream hit the market? Of course. Would existing large holders benefit a lot from that? Of course. Nothing you say challenges these realities.

Well, this is true. But FICA taxes never were an investment program. They were taxes, some of which went to pay current benefits, and most of which went into the general fund to pay for anything and everything. FICA is the flat, regressive income tax on the working class, sold by lying politicians of both parties, who kept increasing it to 'assure future benefits.' Except the taxes were always spent instantly and never did a damn thing to 'assure future benefits.' But I digress.

You cleverly invited me to digress with your comment, which had NOTHING to do with the point you were pretending to respond to.

No I didn't.

I don't doubt that the 1%s at the top of the food industry like the food stamp program. What does that have to do with whether the 1%s at the top of finance and banking would like SS privatization? Nothing, that's what. You said they wouldn't be affected one bit. Now you say, 'well, the food guys benefit from their thing too, so it's OK.' You changed your tune here, mate.

That's nice. Will there not be admin costs and fees involved regardless? Will they not, given the billions in investment we're talking about, be huge?

Sorry, all that fog doesn't mean that the1%s 'don't benefit a bit,' does it?

Really, this is another argument. I should't have giged you here. It's just distracting. My bad.

Again, you're responding to to asterisked footnote, not the main point. I don't argue that an actual investment program can't outperform a tax program that is dishonestly sold as some sort of quasi-investment program. You know, it SS had just been honestly sold as a inter-generational transfer program--you pay for the benefits for the retired now, and future workers will pay for yours--that could have been better for everyone. Because it would not have supported raising SS taxes over what was needed for current benefits each year, and the working class could have kept a lot of money. But that's blood under the bridge.

In any case, it still doesn't mean the 1%s won't benefit....

 

And the way to get there is through brinksmanship; http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/30/whats-the-reason-for-the-gops-brinkmanship/

 

1. That is an IDIOTIC term.
2. What you're saying is essentially irrelevant with respect to what I previously addressed.