>>>>That's not quite how it works.'
>>>>Those who are contributing now are supplying the cash to pay those who are on social security now.
>>>>Your money is not being saved for your retirement. The younger generation will pay for your
>>>>retirement. If your group out numbers the younger people, your social security cheque will likely be
>>>>smaller or non-existent. Don't you love socialism?
>>>
>>>Actually, during socialism proper, the retirement fund was full, thank you, and the retirements were regular.
>>>
>>>>And remember Clinton? Didn't he balance the books or something by using the social security money?
>>>
>>>Remember that child of transition from socialism into capitalism, Milošević? He and his thugs have plundered the retirement fund several times over; health too.
>>>
>>>Besides, Clinton didn't take the money out of the fund - he just replaced it with bonds. If the Chinese creditors can take these bonds, so can the US retirees ;).
>>
>>Remember the uproar over privatizing social security when Bush suggested it? He was not the first:
>>
>>http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=337
>
>BTW, how did it happen that Peruvian social security got pwned by Citibank? I still can't get this new colonialism globalization. Does that mean that Nebraska Retirement Fund may be in some Ukrainian bank, or that Japanese Post Office Retirement Fund may all of a sudden find itself invested in an Argentinian bank?

Not us, the Saudis! Ask Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz al Saud (the biggest single investor):

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/08/news/companies/citigroup_alwaleed.fortune/index.htm

It's in almost every country in the world:

http://www.mcn.org/e/iii/citilord.htm