A very wise friend of mine says “Any time they change things, they are NOT doing you a favor”. I wonder how much government oversight there would be in some new “privatized” or “contracted out” SS system. I’m just naturally skeptical and pessimistic about all of it.
That’s all right, since I’m sure a lot of us have said similar things about libertarians after reading some of your more notable posts on this board. 
Well, I for one, would go on record as saying that, in the case of libertarianism, it is not the ambassadors but rather the product that I find wanting.
Contracted out to do what? The proposal from what I understand it is that 50% of what is taken out for SSI now, you decide what to do with it. What, you want govt oversight of your own choices?? Hell, plunk the money in a money market fund or just a savings account and youll end up with more than youd get from the govt.
Not quite. “Unlike private pension funds, the Social Security Trust Fund does not hold any marketable assets to secure workers’ paid-in contributions. The Social Security Trust Fund ‘invests’ surpluses in non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed ‘by the full faith and credit of the government’.” (Cite.)
Put another way:
“They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.” — Fiscal Year 2000 Federal Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337
That’s like asking: do the carnivorous mammals have a better chance of getting their claws into your chickens when foxes and wolves guard the henhouse, or when you guard it?
“Social Security is not a savings, investment, or pension plan, and there are no individual Social Security accounts.” (Cite.)