I agree that private accounts would be a bad idea in and of themselves. But see, I don't even like the concept of it existing in its current form. It'd be one thing if it was truly a retirement savings plan of some kind, but it's not. No one ever stands a chance of getting back the money they put into Social Security.

Also objecting was James Roosevelt Jr., whose grandfather, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, signed the Social Security Act into law. "He was adamant that Social Security was an insurance program … not an investment plan," James Roosevelt said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=452757

Now personally I would have no objection to a government retirement plan as long as it would be possible to get my money out of it once I reach a certain age. But even if there were no problem with Social Security that wouldn't be the case.

I dunno if the social security bond thing will work, but maybe it's a way to reconcile the two needs of the social security program fulfilling its current obligations and also allowing ud young folk to recoup our investment as it were.
No, I'm a college kid making less than ten grand a year and I'm sick of paying hundreds of dollars into Social Security that I know I'll never get back.

And if I'm thinking like a "true conservative," then what does that make all these numbskulls (Bush included) that are trumpeting private accounts as the best thing since sliced bread?

Besides, I don't think I'm going outside the definition of liberal:

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas;

Favoring proposals for reform,

And did you know that thew almighty "conservative" concept of the government keeping its hands out of economic affairs is also part of the definition of liberal?

a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

Amazing eh?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal