Multiple Choice Poll I figure the title will gain some attention, but I'm serious and would like to focus on a philosophical standard. When I talk to different people on the lower half of the economic scale, it is reaffirmed that the purpose of SS was and is outstanding, to force people to save for their retirement, kicking and screaming even if they don't wanna. Is this something the government should be pushing or should it steer clear of individuals lives? There is an argument that the government should act as our big brother. Should it? After many years of consideration, I realize that the only way the human race can move forward is by putting more emphasis on the group over the individual. For this you need government, along with the integrity to really look out for the needs of society as a whole. As long was we spend our time consumed with enriching ourselves at the expense of our neighbors we are still cave men. The SS program was created in the 1930's by President Roosevelt. The largest single problem with this program that from the moment it was conceived and carried forward through one of the richest economic periods of the U.S., while it was subverted/continuously robbed by politicians of both parties. If it was not, I'm convinced there would be enough funds to carry it through the baby boomer retirements. IMO, the idea is sound. It's the execution that needs to be fixed. If you are dead set against the current plan, how about a government sponsored 401K, where contributions are required, that can't be tapped until retirement? In this way the government does not assume the obligation and the individual still maintains responsibility? I'd like to know how many people at MacRumors support the concept of SS as a security net for retirees if it was constructed in such a manner to be a viable long term program?