[Copernicus]

Neither you nor the prof have a very solid understanding of Social Security. Search for threads on SS here where misunderstandings similar to yours are rebutted.

The most glaring error he makes is calling for lifting the income ceiling. Social Security already has significant wealth transfer aspects. The benefit formula is front-loaded in favor of lower wage earners compared to their contributions, but at least some recognition is given to higher contribution levels in the form of benefits, and the formula is capped at the same levels as the contributions are capped. To take the ceiling off taxes without simultaneously lifting the ceiling off the benefit formula is just another general tax in disguise.

Enron he is clearly off base on. If he truly believes the market is free and unregulated, he should have his tenure revoked, it isnt even close. Youre response at least digs at his foundations.

Likewise sub-prime. The market is far from unregulated, and the less regulation there is, the more likely deceitful practices would occur. The description of the situation as a "collapse" is a bit hyperbolic as well. Most of the echoes of sub-prime itself are already fading. The underlying weakness in the housing market is not due to sub-prime, its just part of the cycle housing has always experienced.

His numbers of 1% vs 20-30% fees for public vs private handling of SS is ludicrous, and he should be embarassed for using them.

Search for Iron81s recent thread on this which has more realistic numbers from a government study. I point out some of the inconsistencies in those numbers in the thread, but his 20-30% is so far off he truly is off in Ward Churchill territory.