Maybe I should have responded sooner, but I see no logical connection between your posts subject line and body.

Calling it a Ponzi scheme is calling it both criminal fraud and a mathematical impossibility; that is a call for abolition, not reform. The Tea Partiers lapping that up like their mothers milk sure heard "end" rather than "reform," as Perry intended. You know I hate when you are obtuse, but more importantly, you also know it is counterproductive, a diversionary rather than constructive tactic.

Much like saying, "So what if some of the GOP wants to end SS; some of the other one is racist!" So any unconscionable act is suddenly excusable after all if opponents do something WORSE? Did Stalins numerically greater butchery of his nations own civilians excuse Hitlers? I did not ask the Dems flaws; trust me, I already have a pretty extensive list of my own. The issue is whether axing SS is wise, much less needed, and dodging that question while trying to implement ones personal answer at the expense of tens of millions of Americans is shameful. I have more respect for Republicans who openly and proudly admit the desire to end SS than for those insisting they just want to "reform" it by ENDING it in favor of "letting" everyone who can afford to play the stock market do so (which they already can.)

Getting rid of witholding tax and guaranteed benefits to "let" people invest their own money (if they can) is functionally the same as ending SS. That is how it worked (or rather, did not) before and would be after SS. We both know that because neither of us is stupid; let us be honest enough to admit it. If telling the truth about a policy alienates public support, maybe there is a good reason why.

Except the DoD does not tax separately and pay all its expensese from that budget; if it did, we would not be >$16 trillion in debt.