Chris Rugaber wrote

A government-provided safety net is a great thing and not socialist. Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by government--the nationalization of industry ...

The American Heritage Dictionary wrote -

so·cial·ism n. 1.a. A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community.

The American Heritage Dictionary also wrote -

cap·i·tal·ism n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.


I am writing -

To the degree that we do not have a choice about paying into SS, our representative government is telling us they "own" our production. To the degree that the our representative government is deciding how to distribute the fruits of our labors they are exercising Socialism. I did not say that was bad. I said it was socialism. FDR described SS as socialisms on more than one occassion himself.

The problem with Social Security is that it is not Capitalist Security. SS has always and continues to spend its capital, rather than conserving its capital and spending only the earnings. When people start talking about investing part of SS they are talking about Capitalist Security.

SS is not a safety net. It is bankrupting this country and that is hurting and will continue to hurt everybody. The only possible way out of this mess is with capitalism. We have to gradiently move from continuously spending all our capital, to storing up the capital and living off the income. We have to move from the Socialist view point of Government providing the answer to the Capitalist view point of the individual taking responsibility.

Isn't this what the Motley Fool is all about?

Pete