3/15    http://CNN.com now has bar charts linked in from the front page with before
        and after annual benefits comparing (1) the current system and (2)
        a new system with 4% of wages contributed to private accounts and
        indexing of minimum benefits to prices rather than wages.
        For a person born in 2005, the guaranteed benefit of a low-income
        individual would be $3,000/year, compared to $15,500/year under the
        old system!  (Yes, this assumes that Mr. Loser invests all of his
        private account into "approved mutual fund gone broke".  Guess who
        will be supporting Mr. Loser and his failed private account?  I guess
        his kids or some private charity.  Yay!)
        Granted, the $15,500/year figure assumes we don't change the system
        at all, which doesn't make sense if there isn't enough money to cover
        all payments starting in 2042.
        Any bar charts should really be comparing (1) The Democratic Proposal
        vs. (2), so people should really start providing graphs for (1).
        What is the Democratic Proposal?  Raising the retirement age by a year
        from 67 to 68, or increasing the income bracket taxed for SS.
        Hmm, actually, that would make the graph look like (1) the current
        system, wouldn't it?
        \_ Does the system actually go broke in 2042 or does it simply pay
           less benefits?
           \_ Depends on how you look at it, but I guess "less benefits"
              is better.
              \_ I think in the classic bankruptcy definition there's a big
                 difference.
                 \_ the wording has been updated -op