Why is there a Soc Sec debate?

I'm having a difficult time figuring out the opposition on the Social Security debate. I don't understand the opposition to the "privatization" aspect, and I certainly don't understand why there's a problem with "means testing".

As for privatization, it makes so much sense to me to have a portion (I'd make how big a portion optional, personally) of the social security tax invested in the market (in relatively safe broad based funds, not risked in individual stocks), and kept as a personal asset that can be passed to heirs that it blows my mind that anyone can argue against it. If we were talking about your 401K and your options were: A) Let the government invest the money, or B) You choose the funds, which would everyone take? Doesn't the FICA tax strike everyone as a complete rip off? It's this large portion of your paycheck (MATCHED by your employer!!! to make matter worse) that you get back after you retire, if you live so long. And people don't want at least a portion of that money, which they're going to take from you either way, in a fund that provides a far better return, and that can be passed to your heirs?

The only argument against doing it that's truthful is that it has the potential of making people less dependent on the government, which is... well... to some, a bad thing. Of course one argument is "Don't give that money to the greedy bastards on Wall Street." Right... don't give it to people whose job is to make money grow and create wealth as quickly as possible. Leave it with the government, which is so good at waste and inefficiency. If you have $1,000 and you have a choice of paying someone $100 of it to turn it into $2,000 in 5 years, or paying no one anything and having that same $1,000 turn into $1,100 in 5 years, which is the right choice? The arguments I've heard are so lame, and so dependent on people being ignorant, that it really makes me scratch my head in wonder. Truthfully, it's difficult to figure out what the "no privatization" people have as an agenda, except that it's NOT what's best for people who would like to build some wealth and not have to depend on the government for their retirement.

Now a Democrat has convinced Pres. Bush basically that means testing is a good idea. President Bush likes the idea, because it really makes sense. Some people can afford not to get paid their Social Security. If it's an insignificant portion of someone's retirement plans, that's the time to "stick it to the rich"! But, Dems are saying no. Wait... it's a Democrat's idea. Yes, but Bush put it forward.

So... what's going on here? Doesn't it seem that helping the little (working class) guy create a larger nest egg for retirement, and helping his heirs to have a leg up in the future, should be something the Democrats are all over? Why would they not want to help the working person create wealth for themselves? Clinton actually suggested it once... but, then again, they all forget that they voted for regime change in Iraq in 1998 too, after Clinton talked about Saddam's evil dictatorship and weapons of mass destruction. How can you be "standing on principle" when you're telling people that you're still going to levy a tax they can't avoid, and you're going to give them a paltry retirement income from it, rather than allowing that person to "own" a part of the money that's being confiscated, invest it in something that pays a reasonable return (and is ALWAYS safe when viewed over time), get more money in their retirement, and pass the remainder to their heirs? What's the "principle" in preferring the former scenario to the latter? Um... dependency? And why would any good Democrat be against "means testing" for getting benefits? Doesn't that really make sense too? I mean, yes, you're screwing people that paid into the system who aren't getting any of it back, but you've screwed them once by taking it in the first place, and they don't need it. You could even make it optional. Ask people in the top 1% of earners and I'll bet 98% would be happy not to bother taking their Social Security checks, particularly if someone gave them a choice so it was done by free will, rather than being just another confiscation.

What it seems like to me is that the good of the people is absolutely NOT being addressed by the Democrats in the debate. Once more, rhetoric is being substituted for substance, and a reliance on ignorance and the ability to inflame passions is the strategy of choice, rather than a having a serious discussion of the merits of different ideas. Have "truth" and "facts" become completely irrelevent concepts in politics? It seems so. I know the Republicans do it too, but when people are going around touting how evil and stupid Pres. Bush is because he wants to give people back a small portion of what's being confiscated from them in order to let them see if they can, from among a few relatively safe options, pick something to invest in that can bring them literally hundreds of thousands more dollars for their retirement, I have to believe it's farther out of hand on one side than the other.