It’s refreshing to see someone who has “enough” money to not worry about Social Security going bankrupt or not put forth an opinion that might not quite match what would be expected from someone in his social strata. Mark’s analysis is clear and complete, unbound by conventional wisdom of “minding your own buisness” or “it’s not your problem.”

Thank you.

Secondly, Bush is trying to restore the “social program” and make it work, even though it was deisgned not to work by setting the age requirements at the time so little of that money would be returned. I disagree with Bush, he should just get rid of the entire social program and all others. If we didn’t have to pay so much money into the govt. we would have money left over for retirement.

If I had control over the money I am putting into social security the worst I could do would be to loose it all. My worst is the same as the government’s best. Why wouldn’t I be in favor of privitization?

The $12M in fines the NASD got from FC will be used as a restitution (refund) pool and for investor education. I urge any and all of you who have a problem with what FC did to contact your US Senators and tell them you want an official probe into high ranking Air Force officials who may have “aided and abetted” this organization.

Please visit the NASD and SEC websites for more details on exactly what was done and why:

http://www.nasd.com

http://www.sec.gov (see litigation section)

To the gutsy Air Force captain who advised his airmen not to take FC’s calls, I salute you, sir. If the JAG officers give you any guff, tell them you’re protecting your troops and it’s too bad they aren’t.

One thing that wasn’t mentioned, and leads me to believe the entry is biased (as it is Mr. Cuban’s right) is that he never once pointed out the potential in privatization, and obviously there must be potential, or it would not be considered.. And also, he never mentioned that it was merely an OPTION.

Sure the average Joe Schmo might roll the dice and lose, but that’s Joe’s decision. I don’t want to live in a country that tells me I don’t have the right to control my own money. Privatization is just a choice. Isn’t that a big buzz word for most liberals? Choice.

Say it with me, left-wing.. CHOICE..

So SOMETHING has to be done about it.

Also, much of the current debate on Social Security is based, not on the Congressional Budget Office figures, but on the Social Security trustees’ figures — which assume a lower rate of economic growth than at any time in this country’s history, even the period that included the Great Depression. Basically, you only have a genuine crisis in Social Security if you have something worse than the Depression coming up (in which case we’d not only be losing Social Security, we’d be holding bake sales for the Air Force).

The real issue isn’t Social Security. The real issue is runaway spending on other programs combined with runaway tax cuts. If the politicians really think they can fix government by trashing Social Security — the one program that actually works as it is supposed to, then they have one more screw loose than I thought. Not to mention absolutely no ethical standards at all.

Our ability to properly fund national defense is undermined in a time of war by massive tax cuts for the rich. Our health care programs like Medicare are terminally screwed up because we refuse to deal with administrative overhead and cost control in health care. Our government has run amok trying to nationalize education policy and spending. These are the real problems. Trying to blame Social Security is a pathetic, outrageous excuse by politicians who do not belong in public office.

The GOP sold deregulation of the energy market to California in similar terms, look what happened.

I would be much more willing to accept the claim that Social Security is in crisis if the administration showed the slightest interest in cutting back on any of their pet projects to help cut the deficit. Things like delaying the abolition of inheritance tax. Come to that why can’t they axe their star wars boondoggle that is clearly junk and use some of the $30 billion saved to buy armored Humvees for our troops in Iraq?

The amounds being discussed are insignificant over the timelines. The $11 trillion shortfall Bush mentions is over the ‘infinite horizon’ whatever that means. The real 75 year shortfall is only $2 trillion of so which is equivalent to five years of Bush administration deficits.

The Clinton administration raised taxes to save social security. The only thing that went wrong with that plan is that Bush then used the money to fund massive tax cuts for the most well off.

If social security is in crisis as the administration claims then why isn’t the even larger current account deficit an even greater danger?