Obama is right to point out Clinton wishy washy on Social security.

Van:

Why don't you reach into your stack and educate us on Hillary's position on Social Security.....

Seems that the president wannabe doesn't want to talk about Social Security, maybe you can tell us what she plans to do.

Or maybe she doesn't have a plan to begin with!

Jerry

Who is Van? Your post looks like a reply to one Van - I can't quite figure out what you are replying to !! Has Rush been sending you his Oxycontin?

Instead of talking about poll numbers, and who has ads, and who attacked who, and giving 30 second sound bytes at the debates...how about having the media encourage candidates to talk about the issues!!

If the candidates see they just have to BS their way through the campaign, that doesn't do any good.  I want some actual DEBATES and arguments between the candidates, and not just the "top tier" candidates that the media obsesses over.

What I find amazing is how baught and paid for our so called news is. Over the weekend a story broke out about Hillary that provided evidence of Hillary commiting the biggest Campaign law fraud in our nations history. It also included her getting caught in her web of lies.

Yet, only fox did a story on their website, which qickly disappeared and was not once covered on air. MSNBC and CNN did not even cover it at all.

Search YouTube for the 2 part video to see this evidence:
The Shocking Video Hillary Does NOT Want You To See! (1of2)

Hillary should be in jail, not running for commander in chief. It makes me sick that our major news outlets bury corruption quicker then the Republician party.

Giuliani might want to look at what Canada's prostate cancer survival rates are (around 87%) before lumping all "socialized" or universal-access medicine together.

From 2007 EzineArticles.com...'in the United Kingdom if prostate cancer is confined to the prostate gland at diagnosis the chance of surving is 70%.'  Guiliani lies about the statistics to sing the praises of the "best health insurance coverage in the world" of which 40-50 million citizens of the United States have zero opportunity in which to take advantage..they have absolutely no coverage.  The out and out lies from right wing zealots attacking a healthcare system in which all of our citizens have a safety net of coverage has only just begun.  Nevermind that most Americans have nowhere near the wonderful healthcare enjoyed by Rudolph Guiliani. Another statistic to point out..this one is not a lie...the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia are all democracies, they are all allies, and the all have a form of healthcare that addresses the needs of all of their citizens.  It is be noted as well that as democracies, they could vote to abolish national healthcare at any time..they have not...there must be a reason.

Jerry,

We all know that Clinton doesn't have a plan on social security. Van can't discuss the issues but the poll numbers that are meaningless

Or maybe she doesn't have a plan to begin with!

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Monday, October 29, 2007 12:29 PM)

You are such a freaking troll. It's a always a great idea to talk up social security during an election, that's why it's affectionately called the political, "third rail".
I remember some stupid president we had back in ought five, I think it was, who said, "I've got political capital, and I'm going to spend it to change social security." I am trying to remember how well that worked out, do you remember?

It might not be the smartest thing for any candidate to do, that is, make your plans to reform social security a centerpiece of your campaign.

What, by the way are the republican plans? Paul wants to eliminate it, the rest want to privatize it? What do the republicans say? They are just waiting to attack anything the democrats propose, and some are willing to play right into their hands...

Unless you can succeed in getting the kind of bi-partisan support that was achieved the last time we reformed social security, back when Reagan was President, it doesn't matter what your plans are. If a newly re-elected republican president with both houses and the supreme court in his corner went down in flames with his proposal, flawed as it was, says that it will take a lot more then proposing the same options that have been there from the outset;

Raise the retirement age
Lower benefits
Change the parameters of eligibility  
Increase the cut-off for taxation to $200-250,000.00+ from the current $91,000
Make allowances (tax breaks) for individuals to spur private investment, or personal accounts.

Every option pisses off some group, but it isn't like everyone doesn't know what the options are. It isn't a question of imagination, it's a matter of pragmatism of implementation.

Van

TLabonte, Ottawa, ON (Sent Monday, October 29, 2007 1:02 PM)

Your percentage is for the few who survive waiting for years to be treated in your brave-new-world system that is Canada.  Of course you sanctimonious, arrogant, full-of-metastases Canadians can brag about a statistical aberation when many of your countrymen have dropped off the rankings in terms of survivorship percentages because THEY ARE ALREADY DEAD!

I tried to find sources for Julie's prostate cancer socialized medicine claim and could not.  Maybe someone can point me to the source.  What I did find said that the survival rate for prostate cancer was 99% in the US and 77% in Europe (could not find England broken out). But the article said that survival of all cancers was best in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, all "socialized" medicine societies.

While googling I found that others (not the media!!) had also tried to fact check Julie's claim and concluded that the 44% claim for England is just an outright lie.

Reese, my, my...you are one bitter character in the hills of WVA.  No wonder you live in "shady" springs as you play a deceitful game with the most recent figures on prostate cancer survival.  Go back to YOUR words..."in the United Kingdom if prostate cancer is confined to the prostate gland at diagnosis the chance of surving is 70%"... That "if" is a mighty big if, Reese, and the figure that Giuliani was referring to deals with ALL stages/locations of that malignancy.  So who the hell is lying here?  Your are, obviously.  Next time, you left wing imbecile, do your research before shooting off your grade school mouth.

Instead of Social Security, I wish Obama would concentrate on Iraq and Iran.

Only Obama and Edwards are the two major anti-war candidates.along with Ron Paul, Dodd and Richardson.

The Republicans and Clinton are all pro-war.

We need to end the war in Iraq and stop the drift to war with Iran.

This should be a big issue for Obama (and Edwards).
Make the war the issue, don't get muddled in Social Security unless you have a simple, clear, effective solution.

I really think the press is trying to make the war a 'non-issue'.
That plays into Hillary's hands.

FLB; Maybe you should ask yourself if you can believe anything on FOX NEWS.  They are not exactly bi-partisan.

Maybe she wants to make private accounts like santoriom hows his new job working out?  The politicions do the peoples work not the other way round like the puckers where the politicions tell the people whats what.You need to be led we think for ourselves it is what made this country great, the individual.

Poll numbers 2006 .They were dead on, not like karl roves math,  can you say President Clinton hopefully while choking.

Goverment sponserd healthcare is only for employees and their families,congress, senate, excutive judicial, aparachicks and all the rest here on gilligans isle.Healthcare we dont need no stinking healthcare,well when the poor are getting infectious diseases you might want them to vist a hospital ,or maybe you want them making your lunch or cleaning your house or driving you in a cab its your choise get them healthcare now or we all suffer later .Im for helping poorer people than myself how bout you pricetag to high?

It is amazing to heart people say that somehow every right wing person of power ie. president minority leader chief justice all are duped by hilliary ,you would think after 6 years of total domination of the republican party they would have arrested her.Maybe after all is said and done you are just a bunch of crybabies who cant take a womwn whipping your ass at every turn.EAT IT AND WEEP.

Ahhh FILBI11, you saw it on FOX news and then it went away and was never seen again? Hmmmm, sounds like maybe it was a fabricated story...something that FOX news does all the time. That makes you are a dumb freakaziod for believing it.

While I haven't read an exact policy or strategy on Social Security, I agree with Obama's basic points.  Everyone must pay into the Social Security system, no matter your income.  Every government program should be paid into by all - that is true social welfare.  As can be said from Enron - private retirement accounts should not be relied upon.  Incomes come and go - everyone must pay.  I'll never need Medicare or Medicaid, but I pay it.  I'll probably never get to use Social Security, but I pay into it.

If New Hampshire voters have the good sense to support Ron Paul then it will be clear they still believe in the words, "Live Free or Die."

What are the social security plans of the republican candidates...I mean ones that actually have a chance to pass in any congress...I can't remember now, how many of the republicans voted for the brilliant plan from bush?

The Sosial Security issue is not its solvency - that really is not difficult to fix - adjust the retirement age, adjust the amount of tax, or do both.  The real issue is whether we phase out Social Security as we know it, in favor of a system in which those who are able to save and invest are able to shelter more of their savings and investments from taxation in order to provide for their retirement.  Working families, the guy on the street, they are not able to save anything near what retirement requires.  But Wall Street loves the idea.  To me, its a no brainer.  Don't go messing around with Social Security beyond what may be absolutely required to fix it.

The real issue, it seems to me, is how we are going to fix America's health care system.  Health care providers, drug manufacturers, equipment and appliance manufacturers, the government,and insurance companies, it seems, are all over-the-top n the share of GNP they require.  And unless we find a way to get them back to some reasonable efficiency they will bankrupt America.

The hospitals and the doctors and the drug manufactureres are not going to reign themselves in.  This is an interstate problem, and the central government is going to have to step up and begin to provide the answers.

Andy, this is a blog on politics. It'll, as a result, have poll stories and advertisement stories.

Mike Henry: The idea is not to have folks add money into private accounts in addition to SS, it is INSTEAD of.

The return on SS is about 1%; even the most naive investor could do better in a money market. Plus, it'd cut out a huge federal beauracracy

Cancer Research Specialist, can you provide a citation supporting Rudy? You should be good at citations unless you are a ringer.

U2, U 2 should have found Van if you just peruse the messages. jerry was just using a pre-emptive strike against Van.

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, October 29, 2007 1:24 PM)

Why cut off Social Security taxation at $250K? If I made a million a year (I don't), and had to pay Social Security Tax against all of it, that would be about $62,000, if my calculations are correct, leaving a mere $938,000 minus income tax. I could live on that, and I personally would not begrudge a single penny.

Easy for me to say, I guess, but how about you million-bucks-a-year folks? How many of you are there? What percentage of you are dead set against setting aside a portion of your earnings to help make the lives of those who've gone before you sufficiently secure? What a fascinating poll that would be!

Ms. common sense.
Watch the 2 part video on YouTube "The Shocking Video Hillary Does NOT Want You To See! (1of2)" and then speak. otherwise your just another mindless drone

Bruce, NV: '...The return on SS is about 1%; even the most naive investor could do better in a money market. Plus, it'd cut out a huge federal beauracracy''''

Bruce, Social Security funds AREN'T INVESTED.
Any funds that come in are immediately taken away by the politicians for use in the general fund.  
We get IOUs, instead of investments.
Thank, ex-Senator Phil Gramm (Tex) for preventing SS funds from being kept and invested ('not on my watch').

The State of California invests it's employees' and its' teachers' retirement funds. CalPers and Stars (?) both get a high rate of return.
The Feds won't allow a similar system because Wall Street investment houses want to steal iyr SS funds.  

The United States will be tens of trillions of dollars in debt by mid-century due to Social Security, including Medicare. In addition to ending exorbitant military spending for the maintenance of the empire, America must slash Social Security and Medicare benefits by over 50 percent. The alternative to fully retain and fully correct the insolvency is to increase taxes by 65 to 90 percent. It is unconscionable to lay this burden on future taxpayers.

As costly as the pursuit of an empire is, this is a "welfare-warfare" state. The welfare (Social Security, Medicare, TANF, etc.) part of that is financially more costly than the warfare. Government expenditures on entitlement programs (mandatory spending) are much greater than "defense" (discretionary spending).

Of course, many of the posters suggesting an easy and necessary fix to maintain Social Security ignore the Constitution. It neither provides for social entitlement programs nor standing armies to conduct aggressive foreign wars. To refuse to entertain a gradual termination of Social Security and other entitlement programs is an expectation of socialism; the Constitution does not lay down that framework.

The direct link for the story that none of the news agency covered is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw

Like bushes preemptive strike on iraq for wmds and much like bush jerry was off by a mile

I wouldn't bother to waste 10 minutes watching the video like provided by FLBill.  Go read the write-up on "Peter Paul" in Wikipedia and then decide whether this is a trustworthy person to be believed or a multiply convicted crook and con man.  If you think he is believable, then you should watch the video.

The "40 million", "47 million", whatever million numbers about "Americans without health insurance" numbers are total lies:

1.  The numbers include ILLEGAL ALIENS.

2.  The numbers include people who CHOOSE not to have coverage (you know, live a healthy lifestyle and are fine paying for doctor visits the way they pay for everything else - with cash).

3.  The numbers include people who are without coverage for a day or a week as they transition jobs (i.e. they decline COBRA between the time they quit Job A and are eligible for coverage at Job B).

Lies, lies, lies - that's the only "healthcare solution" the socialists have.

Van:

What you are proposing is what happened to us in Iraq.  Everybody was pragmatic.  Everybody was all for instant implementation.  Nobody wanted to actually do the planning.  Nobody wanted to give up anything to get a consensus.  

Never again, partner.

It is even more important to inform voters of what these people have done and said in the past than it is to hear what they are saying today.

Such as; McCain tells us he "finally gets-it" about amnesty yet he refused to vote against the Dream Act just a few days ago when he was shown arguing to appoint a judicial nominee on the floor of the Senate only hours earlier.

Also, the story on Peter Paul and the Hillary is absolutely true whether some folks choose to deny it or not.

This is what reporters are supposed to be doing. They are not supposed to be sucked up to the hindends of special interests and it's far past time we let them know in no uncertain terms. Let them hear your voices!!

Quote: Go read the write-up on "Peter Paul" in Wikipedia and then decide whether this is a trustworthy person to be believed

Of course its says that. Thats what slime politicians do to people who have something on them. They trash them to oblivian to make um like a crook or con man. Watch the video yourself before making an assumption like that. That is Hillarys voice in that video (part 2) stating she was well aware of what was going on. Yet she and her staff stated she had no idea. She had the FBI conficate all the evidence, which is just now getting returned and being made public so Peter Paul didn't have a leg to stand on for the trial. The Judge in the case was appointed by the Clintons. Need I say more.

Proof is in the video. Yet our media which is baught and paid for would not even cover it. hmmmm

Hillary should be in jail

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):