Annenberg sometimes does good factchecking, but this one is quite a bit over the top with the headline of it being a "whopper." While they labor and find some over-statements, the fact-checking seem like a labor of love by someone who likes the idea of privatizing social security and believes the Republican spin/lies about SS being in dire straits. The fact that the bad idea of privatizing was in a bill that phased it in gradually is not widely known, and the phase-in could well have been struck if the Republicans had had their way.

Fact check is generally a fair organization. Obama went out on a limb on this one. I guess the Obama argument is A) If Bush's SS reform had passed, and B) one put ALL their money in financial stocks, and C) one was expecting Social Security 20 years from now, they would have lost a major part of the 25% of Social Security invested in the market. Its scare tactics carried to an extreme. But it probably works as a political campaign argument.

This Fact Check must not have read all of the comment and focused only on the bold section. The first sentence is about the need of social security. Then the rest is prospective. Even if part of some to many is in a mutual fund rather than in social security, we now know that mutual funds are not as secure as a bank account or social security.

I always like FactCheck--even when they're creaming my candidate. Better yet, I learned something from the article. At 58 myself, I don't expect to be able to live on Social Security. So I do have an IRA too. It's been cut by more than half twice now in the stock market--this year being the latest. I keep asking the professionals who are supposed to advise me about this for something else to invest in, and they have no other suggestions. So I just keep getting wiped out. At this rate, I don't ever expect to be able to retire. So I certainly am worried about the safety of retirement savings. But I'm also grateful to FactCheck for clarifying the proposals.

FactCheck.org is always very good at digging the details and demonstrating whether a claim is false or true, or exaggerated or glossed over. In this case they address the hyperbolic way in which Obama turned the current Wall Street crisis into a nightmare had Bush & McCain succeeded in privatizing Social Security. While the facts as checked are not correct (no one over the age of 58 would have been phased in into the new system, so technically Obama was wrong) the point made by the candidate was that the whole philosophical approach of privatization is dead wrong. So in this case FactCheck.org, while technically correct, proves to be nitpicky.

Fact Check doing its job, documenting distoritions and lies on the campaign trail. This time the culprit is Obama distoring the risk that "privatizing" Social Security, supported by McCain, would have presented to current retirees.

The news analysis is good journalism. The actual statements of the candidate at fault are presented and the correct information is provided.

This article begs the question whether privatizing social security is a good idea. It seems to me that if the stock market crashes, so does privatized social security. The article presents an intentionally confusing argument.