1) All of it can't be implemented in the current system because of how Social Security is built.  Social Security has zero saved funds.  If you want to kill it, then replace it with a better system, that would make sense, but there is no point in reforming a car into a boat.

If you own a car, yet use it to transport heavy loads around, truc weights and such, does that mean the car is broken? No, it means it's being used for the wrong purposes. Social security has no problem with collecting, but the problem with the paying stems from the middle part which is broken, and that's spending what should be saved.

2)  Again, there is no saved funds to make this work and the US government democrats included does not want to be in the buisness of being involved in real investments.

They want to be involved in the here and now with little regard to the future, because the here and now is where votes are. That includes both sides of politics.

3)  That more or less is what they do with the money... and it hasn't work.  Infrastructure funds largely get wasted on roads that go to nowhere because every congressmen is making proposals and to get road money you have to have a plan.

No. Your previous two answers just stated that has zero savings. You cannot have it both ways. So which is it?

While Education is screwed due to an oversimplified focus on passing standardized tests to make sure you keep public funding leading to teaching of only what's on the test and nothing useful, and in other cases outright fraud.

Which is why you keep the criteria broad so they cannot focus on small parts. In fact, make the questions realte to knowledge on the field, not just a carbon copy of a question from a textbook. I'm not sure how corruption can take place with this, since our side requires independent adjudicators to be present on site when testing is performed, and only they are able to handle such documents for relay.

4) Exact Quote "No, I can not promise that social security checks will go out in August if we don't reach a deal". 

Taken out of context, considering it was said during questions about the effects of the Republicans holding the government hostage, and whether government services will be able to resume as normal. Let's not stoop to Fox News level of quoting here....

5)  If I were retired now and extremly selfish i would.  Of course, if I was Greek and retired I'd be for running their government into the gutters some more so I could live comfortably too.  Well actually I take that back.  If I were retired now, i'd want social security to end, while taking care of those who paid into it their entire lives.  Which is what I want now actually.

I've already stated before that no matter what the outcome is, if social security goes or not, the American people better not lose their money over it, the money they spent their lives putting into it. I'm still in disagreeance of what needs to happen, whether fixed or replaced, but I will agree that if government suddenly say that social security has ended and all money put in has dried up, there will be riots that make London's look like a Sunday picnic.

6)  Actually I'm not commiting a falacy... as the whole point of a Median income is that it isn't much effected by the rich getting more and more money.

Basic math. If you increase the maximum in a series, the median will rise. That just gives the false impression that the numbers in the series that didn't change (middle and lower values) are better off than before.

1) Actually it has a problem with collecting too, as it doesn't collect enough money.

Then put more into it. You don't think you'll be doing that under a privatised scheme anyway? Money doesn't get created out of thin air, and those investors demand a return...

2)  Which is exactly why the system is unsustainable

You call it unsustainable, I call it consequence from recklessness. Once again, the system is sound. It's the operators that are the cause. Reinstate the restrictions that Raegan took away from Social Security spending.

3)  I read it wrong... i'd point out the US unlike Australia, never actually posts a budget surplus.  Amusingly your showing why fiscal conservatism pays off.  You have surpluses. 

No, just because fiscal conservatism holds the notion of surpluses doesn't mean that the liberal side supports debt and deficit. Completely different spectrum altogether.

4)  Except it's not quoted out of context.  Very specifically if he doesn't make a deal, the very first bills he is not paying is Social Security.  Despite Social Security supposidly being a government bond.  The Government doesn't consider not paying social security a default on it's obligations.

I mentioned this before. The first thing I would've cut in that event would be congress' wages. We'd see then how quickly they'd come to an agreement.

5)  Which is why the Republicans want to fix via privatisation.  The Democrats want no changes.  So your choices in america are, A slow move to privatisation and a chance for everyone to save, vs a game of jenga waiting to collapse on retirees.

Once again, move to privatisation or not, to government is still responsible for paying back what is currently owed. You couldn't just change the system and say "right, let's start over again"

6) I'd recheck your basic math.  Increasing only the high end values in no way effects the Median.  Your thinking of a Mean.  The whole point of the Median is that it isn't effected by extreme outliers nearly as much as a simple average.

It depends if the series is person based, or dollar based. In a dollar based series, the wealthy cover the median of the spectrum since they own > 50% of assets.

Aside from which the number of millionaries and billionares and the amount of money the rich make per year has been going down since 07.  That's why our Tax receipts are way lower then they used to be, the money being more equally spread around means that it's taxed at a lower overall rate.  Which is ironically a perverse incentive of progressive taxation... the government can get more money without raising taxes by creating more millionaries and focusing the money on the super rich.

What exactly do you mean by "get more money"? Do you mean creating more wealth for the country, or getting more in taxes? The only way to generate more money for the rich without affecting the mother classes refers to the first point anyway. There are only two ways to generate overall wealth. The first is using resources already accumulated in surplus before (ie. Fossil fuels). The second is creative physical labour. Things such as investment, borrowing etc. are merely existing wealth being pushed around. Now, we can exploit the first one all we like, but the sad truth is, stored energy in fossil fuels are finite. They wont last forever, so building an economy based purely on that will be suicide within the next century. The second point, physical creative labour, is achieved by the workers. If you increase the percentage of the wealthy, you decrease the percentage of the workers, thus decrease the overall generation of wealth. A  correct ratio of wealthy to workers must be maintained, you can't just say more wealthy is better.

1) Under a privatised scheme it wouldn't need to collect as much because it could earn far more then the "5%" rate the US government uses.

You seem very confident about that. Tell me, do you have any proof that the privatised scheme WILL produce at least a promised 5% in a SAFE manner, or will it be just like superannuation where your money can be robbed, and the superannuation investment companies still make a profit, even though they make a net loss? Where does that money come from? I stated this before, superannuation is a riskier option. The 2007 GFC pushed people's superannuation levels to pre-2000 levels (this is despite them putting 8 years worth of contributions in them), yet firms such as Colonial First State were still able to pay a healthy dividend to their investors.

2)  Reagan didn't take away restrictions on social security spending.  This is how it was done when FDR started.  You can look it up in the Social Security Act, it states that social security money can ONLY be spent on US treasuries.

What Reagan did was force more people to pay into it.  Previously fedral employees were aloud to opt out of social security... vecause it sucked.  Raised the Retirement Age, and increased the tax on it.

All that money goes to fill the gap in medicare, who's taxes are also way too low to cover even medicare. 
People probably think reagan lifted regulations because it was the first time in a long time that social security actually had a surplus.  It had been running deficits to the point of where Reagan and Tip O'Neil (Democrat Speaker of the house) had to work together to prevent the system from crashing by like, 1984 or 85.

So really your proposing we add new regulations.  That the Democrats don't want because the social security money hides the true amount of the deficit every since Lyndon B Johnson (D), signed a law that made Social Security off budget.

http://ampedstatus.org/how-your-social-security-money-was-stolen-where-did-the-2-5-trillion-surplus-go/#gre

Check out the section "III: How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off one of the Greatest Frauds Ever Perpetrated against the American People"

3)  Could of fooled me by US standards.  Heck that's why we've run so many deficits lately.  The Republican party has been run by the Neocons who are horrendeously, socially conservative and fiscally liberal.

What a narrow-minded way of thinking. This is the same crap that Fox News pulls to try and give the term "liberal" a bad name.

4)  People proposed that and a number of Congressmen actually promised to forgo their salarys or donate them to chairty during the shutdown.  Some democratic senators apparently live paycheck to paycheck though.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0411/Rep_Sanchez_I_cant_give_up_my_paycheck.html

I guess then that it would favour those living off corprate donations, hence once again why political donations are a bad idea. Nobody can be made accountable anymore.

5)  And, AGAIN, you could, by privatising it gradually, both pay what is owed and do it slowly.  The options right now in washington are "Privatise it" or "leave it" you keep arguing for an option that Democrats AND Republicans are outright against.

Bth are aganst it because both are termed right-wing parties now. If government still has to pay it back now, how is that going to help the budget defecit for the next 30 years? By then, the boomer surge will be over and the aging population will recede.

In general though, what you seem to missing is you are arugeing for an option that isn't on the table.

And why isn't it? Because your government has been so bought out by corporate interest that they are rubbing their dirty little hands together waiting for another cash cow to pull money out of. Social Security is the last government-owned piggybank, so it's only logical that Wall Street is looking to get their hands on it. After all, win or loss, they will still generate billions from it. It will be the average worker that pays into it that has that option of losing.