They want minimum wage laws to be abolished, too... "too" meaning in addition to social security? I've never, ever seen anyone in the business world (or anyone outside of fringe libertarian circles, really) advocate the abolition of social security. Source?

Cia Worldfactbook is not a good source aswell,  some countries reporting an population number that is 5-10% higher than what CIA factbook has. 
Most important is that the majority of those countries were having a annually surpluss before the GFC started.

On topic:  having subburbs with 20-30% of the population unemployed, an justice system that is a joke and some discrimination is asking for problems...

You are both spot on.

*sigh* Plenty of sources around if you look:

http://www.nasi.org/usr_doc/Kimberly_Morgan_Paper_09_19_06.pdf

http://www.dove777.com/socialsecurity.html

Let's look at this logically okay? Can we agree, according to polls, that the majority of Americans wish to leave Social Security alone, and would prefer to increase payroll taxes instead?

Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/31/1001269/-What-the-American-People-really-Want--according-to-a-few-Polls

So why would conservatives go against what over half of the population want? Surely it would be a disaster come the next election....

Except you made it sound like this was so new trend under reagan.  Which was my point.  It wasn't.  Therefore there was never a real surplus.

As for why they should be able to do it?  Social Security is and always has been a "pay as you go" system.

The very fact that Fica taxes were used to pay other peoples social security instead of actually being  a savings program makes it so.  FICA taxes are no different from any other tax. 

The whole talk of surpluses have always been a myth because FICA has always been like every other single tax that's existed. 

And why did they loose all moral breaks that normally stop us from doing so ?

Can we agree that nothing you've posted shows anyone actually calling for the end of social security? No business leader has called for the end of the program, and contrary to that conspiratorial bunch of shit at the second link very few Republicans have even made a serious attempt at tackling the kinds of serious reform that would be needed to make it sustainable. Even the biggest Tea Party types in office tend to hem and haw whenever you bring up entitlement reform because, yes, entitlements are extremely popular. But being extremely popular does not make them good programs.

This past year social security reached the tipping point and now pays out more than it takes in. This wasn't expected to happen until 2016, but the government was yet again overly optimistic about how their own Ponzi schemes work. The Democrats may indeed be on sound political ground by screaming and hollering every time someone talks about even touching entitlements, but that isn't leadership. I strongly suspect anyone under 30 will be cursing their very names one day.

Do you really believe you're going to get a business leader actually come out and say in public that Social Security has to end because they no longer wish to pay the payroll tax? Honest bet that if that happened, that leader would go down quicker than a $2 hooker. They prefer to let their money do the talking, and this is exactly the kind of crap that happens when you're able to donate undisclosed amounts to politicians. Australia doesn't allow that, so employers are more public about the situation of payroll tax.

Republicans are more crafty. They adopt a plan such as the Ryan plan, which slashes Social security to useless levels, and they stick behind it, despite the ongoing criticism by the public. Last I checked, a hell of a lot of Republicans supported the Ryan plan (ie. Dismantlement of Social Security phase 1).

I said it before and I'll say it again. The fund that the American people pay into is supposed to have enough surplus to remain afloat until 2037. That is provided no government looting has taen place, and if that's the case, then that's your government's dumb fault.

Once again, the employee - not the employer - pays the social security tax.

Your entire position is a bunch of conspiratorial nonsense. Republicans hate poor people! Paul Ryan wants to destroy social security! So do business leaders even though they won't say it but I know they do! Social security is good until 2037 and if not that's not social security's fault!

Government-run pension programs require good governance, something that isn't exactly in abundance here. I'm glad things are working out so swimmingly for your little country with its 20 million people, but what works for 20 million isn't going to work for 310 million. Just as a ton of people can run a million dollar business, only very few have the wherewithal to run a billion dollar business and fucking nobody on Earth is smart enough to run a multi-trillion dollar business. The federal government of the US needs to come clean about their little Ponzi scheme and then butt the fuck out of people's lives.

Actually they both pay, not that it matters... since if neither did they'd be forced to make up the difference anyway so people could save for retirement.

Although again, none of it is actually going to your retirement, as it's been ruled that nobody has any accrued property rights to social security.