No way to administer such a program without a large entity which would have the same issues at government in the end, with just as little accountability. The best one can hopeful is that at least if it is at the state level, it can't get out of control too easily as people can leave the state and go to a better run state. That competition would, one would hope, keep balance in check. I'm assuming your way is no social safety net whatsoever? Let everyone die of starvation, etc., and just let the poor have at one another?
Busted man LOL. From what I've read and considering I've never met one person who wanted to get rid of their own SS I assume it's a vast majority. So I don't know for a fact but I'd bet a beer I'm right.
Friday Mar 15, 2013 2:30 pm Survey Shows Overwhelming Public Support for Social Security http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/14725/the_ss_austerity_battleship/
Did you even read that article or just go with the headline. There were no questions about who should run a safety net, just that the SS safety net should be increased. The argument is whether people would go for a state or federally run program.
1) So you're going to fall back on that old liberal line of attack eh? 2) That's a fallacy of THE FALSE DICHOTOMY but of course you already knew that didn't you? 3) What happened to your whining here, just curious did you forget what you wrote? I mean surely a sensitive type like you wouldn't be trying to sneak in a jab of your own would you?: 4) Here let me help you out buddy.