If you want to put forth and argument employing the path of reason and evidence, then saying "worse than the mafia" defeats it, as that is plainly an emotional weasel word tinged statement.
Federal programs are better for programs which require consistency across states. Where localization is more important, then state should do it, perhaps with federal guidelines. Social Security is better as a federal program.
Well, that's either true or false, and you've not provided evidence of the claim. Please provide a source for this claim.
Weasel words. One could say the same about big corporations, and so, as such, it's a meaningless statement. Not all businesses are corrupt, not all government enterprises are corrupt. There is bureaucracy in big business, as well, and I know that first hand. There will always be the problem of bureaucracy in any large enterprise, public or private, due to bigness and the difficulty of managing large enterprises.
More weasel words and emotional arguments. The truth is always on a case by case basis, you are generalizing. The same could just as easily be said of the private world.
By the way, try and do a FOIA request in a corporation. End of argument. For those who seem to think private enterprise is beyond reproach, I have one word for you: "Enron".
More emotional charged weasel words. Dismissed. Please make reasoned statements, and support it with sourcing.
Private investment is voluntary. There is a large swath of people who are not endowed with as much wisdom as those who are wise enough to invest money in way that will take care of themselves when they are older.
Republicans will say: "you made bad choices, so suffer, I don't care".
Democrats believe differently, we care. We understand that there are people who lack sufficient ability, and need help. At least when they are older, they will have something which is a lot better than nothing. The right will say "you don't have the right to take money from me and give it to someone else". That's a bogus argument, taxes are a collective thing, not a I take this from you and give it to joe, kind of thing. Either you support taxation, or you don't, there is no in between. Voters decide, ultimately.
No, Soc Sec is not security, not any any sense of the word, but for those in that group, it helps a lot. To argue "which is better, soc sec or private investment" is a red herring, therefore.
Free markets are great for a lot of things, except two things, as I've said before, health care and real estate. Social programs don't cause homelessness, free markets with insufficient regulation do.
FYI, forum members would appreciate it if you employed the use of smaller paragraphs, separate according to separate ideas.
