Does the government have a responsibility to keep Social Security as is for those already invested in the program?

Nick, your newly worded question is better. Now after choosing yes or no, you have to define that responsibility and explain the cut-off of responsibility as Andy said.

FYI, when you are editing an issue (and I know the editing process bites), "allow selection of multiple options" means checkboxes instead of radio buttons... squares (many) instead of circles (one).

Issue prior to edits:

Issue prior to edits:

That's true Nick, but how can it be worded so that we can discuss where a cut-off of responsibility or gradation thereof should be?

The reason I don't like the question as it's worded is that nobody will answer no... I mean extremists, maybe. But the idea is to get closer to the dividing line between the two main camps. In this case, I think there's no dispute. Everyone will agree that there is something due to people... everyone already agrees this. The question should be more about how much leeway the government should have in putting in changes that, whatever their intention, might fuck things up.

I like Andy's proposed question because after you've chosen yes or no you have a lot of flexibility to support your answer with a range of reasons

Issue prior to edits:

Issue prior to edits:

But what about the details and options? Maybe this is a multiple-selection issue.

What should the government's responsibility be to those already invested in the current Social Security program?

• The plan should not change for people that have already paid into Social Security
• Individuals, unless they choose to opt-out, should always remain with traditional Social Security
• etc.

Yes, indeed.