Posts with the tag Social Security

Medical Reform

Susan — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:36:07 EDT

After 40 years spent working, I developed serious medical problems. Because I put money into the social security system, I receive $1400 a month to live on from them, stripped down to $1308 to pay for medicare and medication. My cost of living I've managed to get down to $950 a month by cutting out everything but rent, phone, unilities and transportation. $684 gets spent on medical expenses and medication not covered by Medicare. Until now, the extra $326 has been coming out of savings but savings is almost gone.

Next month that $684 figure will jump to $1,238.00 because medication is only paid for up to a certain dollar amount.

Change is Powerful...Change for the Better!

MALA RAJ — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:32:34 EDT

An out cry for change and only this govt can make a difference. bec we have a smart and sensible president. We need a smart & intelligible leader to change this course, who but you Mr.President Obama?

Social security: I often wondered in the two decades I have worked & contributed to this plan called "Social Security", If we call our selves capitalist why are we in a govt prog to save for our future. I can understand a 401k, pension, provident fund etc. but why Social Security, sounds so Russian. The govt is in no better position than any other investor who has lost money in the stock market, bonds etc. Like any other citizen who is in deep waters with their investments, so is the govt today. The trouble has been brewing for quite some years. Perhaps Social Security money has been used for war... Well the glitter of the up market is done with, the invested money ....gone. The Social Security system was truly created for one to invest and to realize its benefits in ones retirement. As time went by Social Security money was being paid by one and was being realized by senior retires, bec their money was spent by the govt. Today my question is why should we invest Social Security money knowing for sure we are not going to see any in another 10yrs. not 2037, I feel this money will be depleted by 2016, at the rate at which we are spending. It wasn't in Economic Times but Vanity Fair had published awareness figures like $14 billion per month spent on Iraq war & $5 Trillion was our deficit in the year 2007. That was an alarm we should have woken up to.Today our deficit is growing $9.6 trillion and ticking.

The govt is making small changes with hope the economy will turn around. It may well turn around, but not too long and too strong. We have to stop the unemployment rate from increasing and work towards creating long term permanent employment. This is only the result of what actions we took for an easy way out to make money, by shipping out our manufacturing to China & other countries, 20 yrs back. Then slowly many sectors were being totally outsourced: Petroleum, steel, technical services, our admin call centers, research, development, technology, production of agriculture,storage of vital information,even our pay roll, automobile we drive, furniture we sit on, clothes we wear, to the souvenirs of this country we treasure and the food we eat. 20 years later,today the result a whole generation is hurt, financially and educationally, A rich country, today much depleted of everything only because of our unwise decisions & reckless spending.20 yrs back no one realized the impact all that would have on a generation of American kids & us today.

The recession we are facing is only the preliminary impact we are experiencing today. How did one think we can have employment & education here and it will survive, if we are paying overseas for all our goods and services. We were for the past decade, surviving on other countries excess dollar invested in this country & merely trading foreign goods, strengthening others economy. The inevitable happened, no circulation of healthy dollar with in the country which led for the longest time to the weakest dollar and the greed artificially elevated inflation. The result economic and fiscal implosion. I am reminded & forced to compare of the first Krakatau's Prelude the largest eruptions in historic times. A mere warning, the real stupendous paroxysmal eruption, a series of cataclysmic explosions happened few months later, it collapsed the island beneath the sea.Just the same the biggest economic explosion is yet to come if we do not change our course or ways, if not it will spell devastation.

Suggestions :

1)Social Security: Effective 2010 Jan 1st, discontinue the prog of Social Security, if you have the interest of the future American generation at heart.a)People who have paid into the prog so far see if it can be paid in some small way, with the premium put away, a plan similar to pension.b)The govt should not touch the money for war or any other govt purpose.c)The prog should be discontinued if the govt can not find a way to do justice to serve the people. Why have a prog which is going to be a failure.

2) Cut budgets on war: If the federal is spending 60cents to a $1, we need to wake up. This country is spending beyond its limits. Osama Bin Laden is one man, has he drained the treasury of this huge and the most powerful country on earth. Is he successful or are we not doing the right thing? The republicans sold Ice cubes to the Eskimos, made Americans believe there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq for 2 terms. At what cost did we terminate Saddam? I thought the target was Osama. Are the Democrats unable to sell a Ulu to the Eskimos?History does repeat itself, In 1960, did France not demand for payment of its debt in gold rather than its dollar.( when America had unwisely printed money for the Vietnam war & to fund its social prog's) 40yrs later we have not learned our lesson a wrong war in Iraq and a drained economy with weak dollar. Lets not drag it to Afghanistan. Send a special force to finish him(Osama). No need for a war , we do not have the resources, that's a fact.

3)Employment: We have to bring our jobs back to this country. Until then there is no moksha for USA. The CARS for clunkers is a great prog. but a very short term plan. Let us have effective 5years & 10 years plans.a) Bring back manufacturing to this country (composition by sector-Industries GDP is 19.6% 2008est), give incentives for manufactures in this country.We are aware dept. of commerce is putting tariff on smaller industries on various products, not sufficient lets focus on the largest Industry a $500Billion Automobile Industry.Lets reestablish & revive the American automobile brand & production Industry.b)Foreign car companies can export parts and raw materials to USA- but not fully completed cars. Why should we have a Japanese made cars "Toyota" leading in car sales in this country, whose economy are we pampering? why are we proud of it? It's time we begin assembly lines not only for American made cars but also foreign brand cars. Cost of foreign cars will also rise due to domestic productions, The money is in circulation within the country, creation of jobs which will reduce the unemployment growth and this will increase the purchase of power of individuals. c)America has to wake up to support local industries and manufacturing units so any automobile imported in finished product form, the tax imposed is heavy and costly-make it 380% now people will have to buy local cars & the money will be in circulation with in the country.

4)Vital Jobs: Bring back research & development & call centers back, that's our only salvation. Our countries unemployment rate is 9.7% and the fact is 17.8% are below poverty level (54.2million people)(Source:US bureau of labor statistics), Creation of jobs, a way to stabilize & retain a well balanced & sound economy. It will take time to grow but the next generation will be thankful for the change of our actions.

5)Technology:

a)Minimum wage is not an issue here esp in IT industry, because an average employee in an information technology industry makes $50k to $60k if employed in this country, be it an American resident or an individual from another country with work permit and when outsourced from other countries its about $20k to $30k.

b)The next question arises, what %age of computer lit people are available in this country. Well my question is what %age of computer lit are unemployed in this country. Well We got to give first preference to Citizens & Permanent Residents, this will certainly reduce in the incoming employees on work permit.

c)Tax, out sourcing of IT Industry after all IT is a great %age of the service industry which is 79.2% (2008est GDP). The treasury department could find a huge gold mine considering IT industry represents a higher %age of the service industry segment.

6)Money: Track American money invested in other tax heaven countries & bust them, Good job on the UBS Zurich based, Swiss bank. Well that was possible because they made the mistake of opening their banks on the US soil(UBS Bank USA) . Way to go Mr.President. I think its time to put sanctions on tax haven countries, who are helping people launder money & avoid taxes, countries such as Switzerland.

7)Education:Shutting schools & reducing budget on education, Increasing school tuition is not the way to go. we are just making our next mistake which is going to reflect 20yrs from now. In October 2000, some 3.8 million young adults were not enrolled in a high school program and had not completed high school. These youths accounted for 10.9 percent of the 34.6 million, 16- through 24-year-olds in the United States in 2000. This is the status drop out rates over the last decade, between 347,000 and 544,000 10th- through 12th-grade students left school each year without successfully completing a high school program. In the year 2008 it was 1.2 million.

If the United States‘s likely dropouts from the Class of 2006 had graduated, the nation could have saved more than $17 billion in Medicaid and expenditures for uninsured health care over the course of those young people‘s lifetimes.

Increasing the graduation rate and college matriculation of male students in the United States by just 5 percent could lead to combined savings and revenue of almost $8 billion each year by reducing crime-related costs.(Source:National Center for Education Statistics (NCES))

The country has not seen a straight forward, honest & sincere President as you, since Abraham Lincoln. Mr.Clinton was a true gift to this country, We need more than one good President.Time for some real action, Change is powerful, more so if its for the better.The real solid growth in any economy is manufacturing, it is the life line of any country. Let us not worry about high cost of labor in this country, when you make the other alternative of import difficult by raising taxes then automatically our cost is of no issue. It is time to be self sufficient and reliable on our selves. I would love to see good ole "Made in USA"!

America's Forgotten Health Reform NOW!

AmericaForgotMe — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:57:38 EDT

Dear President Obama and Congress:

Do NOT CAVE and GIVE UP the Public Option. Please Be Strong. So many will be disappointed, and perhaps even worse die without this reform. Please stand up for what you believe in, as do so many Americans, Canadians, and British. Health Care Affordability and Access is as important a human right as is Freedom of Speech and Religion. Of course any reform will be better than none; however, we need big change to fight greed and corruption, as well as ensure quality. We need preventative medicine and stress reduction to be the new focus and health care. Current “Sick Care” is to “Preventative Medicine as “Regular Car Maintenance” is to “waiting till your car breaks down, costing much more money and damage.

Health Care Affordability and Access is as important a HUMAN RIGHT as is Freedom of Speech and Religion! Of course any reform will be better than None; however, we need big change to stop the corruption and greed. We need preventative medacine and stress reduction to be the new focus of health care. It is the difference between getting your car maintatenanced vs. waiting until it stops running to get it fixed for a much higher cost. Pre-existing clauses is why many even wealthy self-employed or underinsured persons cannot get health insurance. Obviously it is not just the dirt poor, disabled, or unemployed suffering, but all the ones WHO Make this great nation go round!

Is it true Medicaid will be expanded to include all people who are under the 133% Poverty line? I am NOT Pregnant Adult Too disabled too work. Won SSI back in 2006. Now that husband left, and I have no income, cannot even drive, I have no health coverage. SSI made me start from scratch all over again. Totally a nightmare, unless it is true that all poor folks, esp. the ones waiting for SSI approval, who I call America’s Forgotten get Medicaid. Current Law in Texas Medicaid only helps kids, the pregnant, those already with SSI approval, and those with rare forms of breast and cervical cancer. Most Americans do not know that not everyone really poor can get Medicaid who needs it. verage either. SSA made me start from scratch all over again. Totally a nightmare, unless this is true that all poor folks, esp. the once waiting for medical SSI Approval, cho I call America's Forgotten get Medicaid. Current lawn in TX Medicaid only helps kids, the pregnant, those already approved for SSI, and those with rare forms of breast/cervical cancer. Most Americans do not know this. Not every state offers medicaid to anyone who needs it.

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane”. - Martin Luther King, Jr

It is the moral decent human thing to do, that's why! Pass this bill Now!

Didn't the insurance companies spend over 15 billion dollars in 1994, in negative add campaigns, to kill reform to our health insurance system? I wonder how much they are spending this time?

At least double, probably closer to triple. They and the PharmCos will fight this tooth and nail.

Colossians 2:8

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Myself and Millions of Fellow Americans are counting on YOU to make the difference!

Sincerely,Rachel Dawn Nesmith Russell

No Co-Ops, No Watering Down of Health Care Reform

Larry Gordon — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:48:35 EDT

Much of the news media has mentioned that Republicans and some Democrats are trying to water down Health Care Reform with co-ops and other inferior changes to Health Care Reform. The American people and President Obama must not allow this to happen.

If Congress were obligated to use this Health Care Reform plus Social Security that most Americans use, these systems would be some of the best in the country. It is time Congress got in touch with the American people, what their needs are, and how they can service the American people and not special interest groups, lobbyists, and, unfortunatele, in some cases, self-serving members.

SOCIAL SECURITY STIMULUS CHECK

George McCasland — Wed, 13 May 2009 05:11:01 EDT

The Nursing Home I'm in received my Social Security Stimulus check, but nows says I owe them $250 so I won't be getting any of it.

Why politics must be discussed

wbarrett — Tue, 12 May 2009 16:48:23 EDT

I grew up in the midwest in a family in which politics was rarely discussed. Nebraska -- mother was from farm country near Sioux City, Iowa. Except for my father, who I think admired FDR for his efforts in alleviating the suffering of the great depression, most of the Nebraska farmers were confirmed Republicans. (Still are, it appears)

I voted that way, too, until the Vietnam war and some university friends pointed out the folly of my thinking. My last GOP vote was for Ike, and I don't much regret it -- he was fine president. Also, the Democratic party was dominated by a southern faction determined to keep Jim Crow in place -- that disgusted me.

My point is that it took a chance encounter at a party, and someone willing to break through the trivial party chatter to wake me up. That shouldn't be the case -- we need to reach across to others and discuss issues, and learn to do it in a dispassionate way. We surely can come together if we are willing to reconsider our own biasses, listen to others, and keep our focus on the common needs of all our citizens.

With Barack in office, I really can hope that a new era is dawning, in which we can discuss the real issues confronting our nation, and the state of California in particular. I'm concerned about many issues, and just can't decide on any particular priority -- Barack is right that liberal progress must proceed on many fronts at once. I'm pleased that he has the wisdom, intelligence and energy to keep on top of them all.

I maintain a web page with a dozen or so essays that I've written, along with a few others from various media articles -- see below. See especially my comments about no child left behind -- George Bush's well-meaning, but terrible educational testing policies. As a university teacher, that strikes home, as I see the results of our educational system in the students that I'm training in computer engineering.

http://www.wbarrett.us/index.html

Help Boomers Retire and Help the Economy?

Judy — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:49:53 EDT

With the poor economy and the decreased value of many people’s retirement accounts, the number of older people returning to or not leaving the workplace is growing, especially as the Baby Boom generation increasingly reaches retirement age. Why not reduce the age that a person can qualify for the maximum social security benefits from 70 to 62 or 65? This would likely result in the immediate retirement of a large number of people, freeing space for new employees. It would also put money into the economy as both retirees and the newly employed who replace them would have more to spend. If the age were set at 65, retirees would also qualify for Medicare benefits. A cap could be placed on earnings from wages or salary for anyone receiving these increased social security benefits to ensure that recipients actually leave the workforce; anyone exceeding that cap would have their benefits reduced to the old levels. These increased benefits could also be time limited to only those people retiring in, say, the next 3 years. The expense of the increased social security and Medicare benefits would need to be funded, but those costs may be offset by the potential benefits of decreased unemployment. It would be interesting to run the numbers on this idea to see whether it might have merit.

Disclosure: My husband and I wouldn't quality under the time-limited option I'm suggesting, though if the benefits were extended another couple years, we would.

Social Security - Reform?

Charley — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:12:59 EST

Once again the foes of Social Security are making big noises about "entitlement reform" and the alleged dire consequences of failing to gut Social Security either through benefit cuts or privatization. The Petersen Institute is launching a major TV ad campaign about how horrid it will be if we don't emaciate Social Security (they call it reform, but it's the same idea). They and the Blue Dogs in Congress are calling a "Fiscal Responsibility Roundtable" that Obama has agreed to attend.

Fiscal Responsibility? Where were they during the Bush Administration? When did they oppose the wasteful Iraq War? When did they oppose the massive waste, abuse and fraud in the Pentagon? Apparently that spending was OK, but spending money on poor, old and sick people - that's irresponsible, dontcha know.

The last thing we need Mr. President is to cut benefits to those most vulnerable in this time of economic hardship, but that's just what these people want you to do. In fact, if you really wanted to stimulate the economy you should try increasing benefits. The retirement of the baby boom generation will cause Social Security to use some of its massive trust fund to pay benefits for a few years. The problem is that the government has already spent that money and they don't want to honor their fiduciary obligations to the American people by paying it back. Tough luck!

I'm quite sure that the extra millions that Social Security will need in about 30 years to pay full benefits could be saved from the Pentagon alone, but failing that, simply eliminating the salary cap and making every worker pay the same percentage of income would solve the problem and then some.

Every few years the same people (mostly the banking industry and Wall Street - the greedy bastards who got us into this economic meltdown in the first place) start whining about "entitlement reform". You need to wake up, Mr. President! This is a ruse and we need you to put these people in their place once and for all and tell them there will be no reduction in Social Security benefits on your watch.

Stephen Views the News February 18, 2009

Stephen from Elkins Park, PA — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:19:05 EST

Stephen Views the News February 18, 2009

http://stephenviewsthenews.blogspot.com/

* “Unsafe sex” ~ getting screwed by conservatives – The heavy petting began with Ronald Regan’s Reaganomics – cut taxes for the wealthy, build up deficits but hide some of the deficits by stealing from Social Security (SS) surpluses. I call it stealing because it was dressed in the alluring lingerie of borrowing that was never paid back – about $200 billion per year. “Each time the government dipped into the Social Security trust fund this way, it issued a legal obligation to pay back the money with interest whenever Social Security needed it to pay benefits… That moment of reckoning is approaching. Uncle Sam owes these trillions to Social Security retirees and has to pay it back or look like just another deadbeat. That risk is the only "crisis" facing Social Security.” The Congressional Budget Office says SS is not broke. It can sustain its obligations for another forty years if nothing changes. Conservatives call SS an “entitlement program.” I suggest that each reader look at their SS statements to see what they have actually paid in to this program. Taking into consideration how much this money would have earned if kept in a private account, it is not likely we each will be paid out what we paid in.

I bring this to readers’ attention because there is a backroom move afoot. Being characterized as fiscal reform some conservative think tanks and influential wealthy interests are pushing for what amounts to the misappropriation of trillions of SS dollars. I urge anyone who will be eligible to receive SS to read this article in The Nation by William Greider, author of the book Come Home, America. We all should be alert to any suggestion to reduce SS benefits and the deceit and lies that accompany such suggestions. It is a Ponzi scheme that dwarfs Bernie “The Goniff” Madoff and directly affects all of us.

* The Fairness Doctrine – This was a federal regulation abandoned in 1987 that required broadcasters to present opposing views on public issues. “More and more Democrats in Congress are calling for action (to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine) that Republicans warn could muzzle right-wing talk radio.” I have mixed feelings about renewing such a law. As much as I abhor the hate, divisiveness and prejudice of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and like savages the principle of freedom of speech calls for free speech. I do not think open-mindedness can be legislated. Those who achieve tumescence from hateful talk radio have the same rights as people who want to watch porn or listen to the progressive views of Rachel Maddow. Porn and liberal broadcasters may be less harmful to one’s well being but in a free society it is not our place to restrict viewpoints. And although the majority of radio stations are owned by conservative interests the internet is providing balancing points of view that were not available when the regulation was in effect. There are many situations where government involvement is necessary. I do not think that this is one of them.

* The Unfairness Doctrine – I will leave it to others to determine how disingenuous ideologues reach the pinnacle of mainstream media voices. They are given positions in major newspapers or seats on major television news broadcasts. Much of America relies on their punditocracy in spite of their being either ill-informed or intentionally misleading or in some cases both. Case in point is long-time Washington Post columnist George Will. In his Op-Ed column on February 15, 2009 Will attempted to demonstrate that concern about global warming is misplaced. Supporting his argument Will made the following reference; “According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center (ACRC), global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”

Hours after the column appeared ACRC posted the following response on its website: “We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined… It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.”

Thanks to TPMMuckraker for bringing this to our attention and for providing greater detail about errors in Will’s column. I would suggest that the greatest value of this Washington Post piece is that it can be used to wrap mercury-laden fish that probably smell better than Will’s “journalistic” effort.

* Generational Theft – This is the new Republican buzz slogan prognosticating the effect of the stimulus bill. It speculates that the enormity of the U.S. deficit will burden future generations with untold consequences. We did not hear this swan song when Reagan started the deficit ball rolling. In 2001 Dick Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." And from 2002 to 2007 few if any of these same Republicans decried the deficit spending they voted for, doubling the deficit from $5 to $10 trillion. Now that they are in the minority, deficits matter. Like many citizens I share concern about deficit effects on subsequent generations so I found an article by economist Ann Pettifor at the Huffington Post of particular interest. At some length Ms. Pettifor describes that this stimulus bill will pay for itself and “not cripple us long-term… when the government invests the bulk of $789 billion in real, productive economic activity - it always gets its money back - plus some.” Since mainstream and cable media are not providing a balanced look at the effects of the stimulus package a read of this article may prove enlightening.

* Get serious Sirius - One of the least talented “entertainers” on the planet is foul-mouth and teenage-horny Howard Stern. He certainly is not to be blamed that Sirius satellite radio offered him a 5-year $500 million contract. Nor is he to be blamed that Sirius is about to file for bankruptcy. Who would not take the windfall? At the same time it is not surprising that financial problems beset a business model that included paying a half a billion dollars for a questionable asset. It reminds one of the many “leading” banks and financial institutions in America and around the world desperately seeking bail (hand) outs from governments.

* Pomp and a great deal of Circumstance – Wes Yoder’s company Ambassador Agency is a publicist for the fundamentalist preacher, author and anti-gay activist Reverend Rick Warren. Just added to the covey of Yoder’s clients is Nadya Suleman. She is the single mother of six that showed America how a stimulus package works when her fertility doctor powered her up to give birth to octuplets. Said doctor can probably use a publicist as his proficiency sans ethics is stimulating the call for regulations and oversight of gynecologic breeding farmers.

* What’s It All about Alfie? – It seemed strange enough when the 13-year old British boy Alfie Patten made the news for fathering a child with his 15-year old friend Chantelle Steadman. British observers described the schoolboy as another symbol of “broken Britain.” Alfie will have to be a part-time dad since he cannot move into the Steadman household until he is 16. In the mean time he has helped change the baby’s diapers before immersing himself in video games.

The saga gets stranger as two other teenagers, one 14 and one 16, claim they may have fathered the child. Generally, when a girl gets pregnant, potential inseminators experience paternus interruptus. Those Brits know how to maintain a stiff upper lip, among other appendages. Alfie’s dad Dennis, no stranger to fathering children, has advised that his son submit to a DNA test. Dennis is the father of eight but two years ago split with Alfie’s mom when he was caught having an affair with a 19-year old. There was no mention in related articles whether the Patten family is philosophically opposed to rubbers, incapable of comprehending the concept(ion) of sex education, or are forming a new cult that will eventually seek to revise inbreeding made infamous by British aristocracy in days of yore. I expect Alfie and Chantelle will headline a new reality show, “The Young and Defiant… and Stupid.” In the first episode the young couple will get home from school and share milk and cookies with their infant and then take turns burping each other. Alfie may have been quoted as saying that when he grows up he wants to be a freshman.

* "My husband and I have decided to start a family while my parents are still young enough to look after them."
Rita Rudner (born 1953) American comedienne, writer and actress

Barak's putting Social Security in the negotiations for CUTS!

Beau from Seattle, WA — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:21:13 EST

There are many many people - THE ELDERLY, THE MOST ILL, THE MOST VULNERABLE and literally helpless people in our society who would literally DIE without these programs. And as "spendy" as certain people try to make them out to be - they are the cost of a free-market society that has no other government mechanism to care for the elderly, sick and vulnerable. THIS IS ONE OF THE POWERFUL WAYS TO SHOW THE HUMANITY AND COMPASSION of a wealthy country!. WHY IS IT ALWAYS OK to discuss cutting these two programs - BUT POLITICAL SUICIDE TO DISCUSS HIGHER TAXES FOR THE WEALTHY? I want to see CHANGE bad enough to sacrifice. But if I don't eat or have a place to live - what do I have that can be sacrificed? NOTHING! THESE PROGRAMS SHOULD NEVER _ NOT ONCE _ EVER be allowed to "be on the table" - EVER - until those who vastly benefit from this free-market society are willing to foot the bill of those who cant because THEIR share prices go up by increasing the cost of medical and pharmecueticals - which we the people have to pay. Anyone on SS now, knows how tightly these programs are regulated already(!)- even to get ON the programs - and then when you are SO grateful to get the help - It is NOT EVEN ENOUGH TO BARELY SCRAPE BY ON in the economies of some cities. DON'T LET SPECIAL INTERESTS and REPUBLICAN WEALTHY CONGRESS seats EVEN SUGGEST TOUCHING Social Security. HOW DARE THEY! And what a horrible first "mis-step" to day to have said this, Barak - and said it so concretely and casually - today at the press conference. ANYONE SUGGESTING TO DO THIS, IS ONLY SHOWING a) They do not understand the profound need for these programs and b) they are playing old school politics and c) DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT WHILE WE MAY NOT HAVE OTHER TYPES OF POWER OR WEALTH - WE CAN SPEAK AND WRITE LETTERS AND BE A CRAZY NUISANCE IF THIS TRIES TO HAPPEN. IT IS NO PICNIC being on these programs - and I'd give anything not to have to be so, but currently I have no choice. So the AGED OLD ARGUEMENT that people want to free-load and that's why the program should be chopped up, is purely politicing. That's like saying someone purposefully breaks their arm for attention. Sure - maybe a 1% crazy demographic. But NOT the vast majority - it's TOO PAINFUL! Even if there ARE SOME "freeloaders" - NO PROGRAM IS PERFECT - and those people should not be allowed to ruin it for he rest of the 95% of us! PLEASE BARAK - BE BIGGER THAN THIS! DO NOT EVEN SERIOUSLY CONSIDER cutting back the funding for the programs. Tighten the restriction - or add mmore frequent monitoring - THEN SEE if money is left over that can be cut! ANYTHING BUT CUT!

ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS? SEND A MESSAGE SOMEWHERE SOMEHOW TO President-Elect Obama.

Thank you for listening.

Rock/Seattle, WA

Picking on Mister Rogers

Kenneth — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 02:19:47 EST

Our working class is dominated by an apparently singular mythos. One that seems to have found it's genesis in heroic literature and in the American west where individual effort resulted in, presumably, heroic consequences. We salute as a body the individual via his efforts. Even Mister Rogers said that we are each special and unique and that we each have a special and unique place in the world, essentially recapitulating the idea that God creates each of us in order to affect some necessary function within the world as we know it. He was by the way an immensely charming man, Mr. Rogers that is, obviously extremely well intended and is well remembered by me and probably all of my peers. Nonetheless this myth is, I think, an antecedent of the deconstruction of the American working class family.

The industrial age at it's inception with its focus on group endeavor made no dent in this powerful myth or communal self description but did add a principle, a sotto voce contractual principle, in which the individual, with uniqueness of function in hand, even if his or her function was only that of a cog for the betterment of society at large, deserved and got substantial support from that society upon retirement.

This addition to our pre-existing working class mythos has no bearing on the way that other, wealthier, classes perceive a working individual or the working class as a whole. And that, in fact, more wealthy classes seem to see this support of the individual worker as a sort of corporate welfare in which their expenses, read wages, are externalized through the exploitation of taxpayer burden, thereby placing the burden of the care of any individual directly on the working class as a body rather than on that individual.

A laudable system actually, one that not only has provided for millions of Americans upon retirement but circuitously, if unintentionally, engaged an interior myth of the working class while solving the problem in a much more rational, less illusioned fashion. It is both elegant and a textbook Klein bottle effect.

But is this not a societal paradigm that begs a question? Does not the assertion that we are each special and unique end in proving that the great mass of the working class is nothing but an exploitable resource?

I spoke to an elderly man in in Berkeley a couple of years ago. We were preparing his house for sale by replacing windows, doors, sheetrock and cabinets. He said that he had to move because it had become too expensive to live there anymore. He said that in the sixties a working guy would sell his home, if he had to move, to another working guy for a price that was fair and that the other guy could afford. He said that in the early seventies the sale of working class homes became an "Investment Opportunity" for working people. He said that this had never happened before and that before that workers stuck together. In addition he suggested that the self exploitation of workers was increasing and very dangerous calling investors in both real estate and the market sheep in wolves clothing that were compromising the only power that the working class have, unity for personal gain and at the same time creating an environment that could no longer support the very people it was created for.
I heard him.

Seemingly the last man standing in this socioeconomic spray of imaginary heroics is the one that writes the paycheck for it is he who appears to benefit from the social security system. This may be true but not for the small business owner. Here enters the amazing web of confusing red tape and presumed cost sharing that is the burden of the small business employer. The impenetrable thicket and skyrocketing costs of insurances in combination with a truly amazing body of law is in effect a Lilliputian effort at restraining what could be the only hope of the working class since these employers emerge from the same class as their employees. Essentially strapping the small business owner to debatable civic responsibilities at the expense of the well being of his employees and ultimately himself thereby, perhaps coincidentally, creating a versus relationship therein. As a result of this quagmire of law and insurances the small business owner simply cannot afford to pay his employees what they need to actually support themselves throughout their lives.

The political sphere resonates with domination and power mongering. What was to be a merely organizational effort i.e., government, has blossomed, triumphed. Corporations via the dollar rule with an iron fist the ground they share with citizens. And idealism at best a quaint spark fades and is overshadowed by a realism necessitated by bullies, the creators and maintainers of wealth. Swords are sharpened in wait for the next spending spree; humanism hasn't a shred of hope in the wake of the almighty faceless economic juggernaut that is self interest as expressed by the corporation.

There is a passage in Richard Jefferies' book The Story of my Heart in which he writes "Is there any theory, philosophy, or creed," he says, "is there any system of culture, any formulated method, able to meet
and satisfy each separate item of this agitated pool of human life? By which they may be guided, by which they may hope, by which look forward? Not a mere illusion of the craving heart--something real, as real as the solid walls of fact against which, like seaweed, they are dashed; something to give each separate personality sunshine and a flower in its own existence now; something to shape this million-handed labor to an end and outcome that will leave more sunshine and more flowers to those who must succeed? Something real now, and not in the spirit-land; in this hour now, as I stand and the sun burns. . . . Full well aware that all has failed, yet, side by side with the sadness of that knowledge, there lives on in me an unquenchable belief, thought burning like the sun, that there is yet something to be found.... It must be dragged forth by the might of thought from the immense forces of the universe."

Jeffries casts himself as a romantic dreamer whiling away the day while standing before a beauteous terrain lost in thought with his hands in his pockets. But on closer inspection this passage makes a very interesting point and asks an interesting question. What can the working class point itself toward that will aid them in their efforts and keep them trudging foreword in their labors?

I guess the point I was trying to make before I lost my way here was that economically it has been the tack of administrations and the political sphere in general to solve the post industrial working class problem by setting us one against another economically. But that like the old man in Berkeley I believe that unity is the only way out.

During a conversation I had with Taj Mahal several months ago I asked what he thought would become of the working class after the deconstruction of the support systems attendant upon it and the obvious end of the industrial age here in America. His answer was that we as a class should become creative producers in the world arena. He said that creativity could and should be learned and taught in schools. He said that as a body the working class could, utilizing creativity, raise itself from the desperate straits it now faces.

This seemed idealistic to me initially. As I gave it some thought though I realized that I had internalized a presumptive and perhaps arrogant element of our world view that states that creativity and the efforts that it fosters are a realm available to a few.

He may be on to something. I don't know.

I do know that something has to happen though. The burgeoning working class is far too large to fit in the service industries and the service industries cannot pay their employees enough to ever buy a house or send even one kid to college.

Anybody got any ideas?

It’s Not Such A Wonderful Life...

SSD Coalition — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 01:11:55 EST

Here’s a little dose of reality for you as we enter the holiday season. Many of you have seen, or will see Frank Capra’s 1947 classic “It’s A Wonderful Life” in the days to come. It’s the story of a despondent businessman who is going to commit suicide, and an angel comes to show him what life would be like if he had never existed. With the government bailing out big businesses on a daily basis, and letting the little guy suffer, the timing of this movie could not be more appropriate even if it was not the holiday season. But without giving away the ending, I am here to tell you that in reality this movie is such pure fantasy that I cannot even bear to watch it a second time.

You see I know from personal experience that things often don’t end the way they do in the movies. I did everything right, went to college, worked for over thirty years, had good credit, paid my bills on time etc. Unfortunately I got sick in America. After a freak accident, I almost died, had to have brain surgery, and now have several incurable autoimmune diseases. That was hard enough to deal with, but when I filed a claim to get a government insurance policy (Social Security Disability Insurance) that I paid for every week out of my wages, just like many of you do, my life was permanently destroyed with the stroke of a pen, by a government worker to whom I was just an SS number, and who did not do their job properly. I lost all my life savings, and pension money while fighting for my benefits, and will never be able to recover from the emotional, physical and financial devastation that had on my life.

Unlike Frank Capra’s character George Bailey, there are no bailouts for me, or others like me. While family and friends have good intentions, they are not much better off either, so they really can’t help like they might want to, and I don’t qualify for Social Service programs. I don’t know how I am going to survive without some miracle like winning the lottery. I am now doomed to spend what’s left of my days here on earth, living in poverty, in addition to all my medical concerns. I will never be able to own a home, or get another car. My current vehicle which is on death’s door, is the only method of transportation I have for survival. Then there is always the struggle of deciding whether I should buy food, or get medicine, that much needed medical test, or see the doctor instead. When things break down now, I cannot fix them and have to do without. This totally unbearable, continuing source of stress and frustration, is killing me. I tell you this not for pity but to warn you that anyone of you reading this could end up just like me, and have your life changed forever by an unfortunate illness, accident, vicious act, service to our country or natural disaster. Remember that disease and tragedy do not discriminate on the basis of age, sex or race, and if you think this could not happen to you – you could be dead wrong, just like over 16,000 Americans in the last two years who did not survive the wait to get their Social Security Disability benefits.

Since most of our elected officials will probably never experience this scenario personally, because they usually have a nice financial cushion to fall back on, I don’t see any hope for change in regards to this problem, no matter who is in office. Let’s be brutally honest here. The first thing to get cut in local, state and federal budgets is always the money to fund programs that help the people who need it most. This problem has festered for decades and nobody is going to convince me that they don’t want us to give up or die. They continually talk about helping the upper class and the middle class. What about the millions of Americans that do not fit either of those categories? Thanks to their neglect of our situations, they continue to prove that they have no class. The only thing that ever trickles down to us is too nasty a word to mention, and the only light at the end of the tunnel is a freight train! Buildings are not built from the top down, and a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link. You can judge a country by how it treats it’s most vulnerable citizens, and we have been left to die in the streets, and on hospital waiting room floors. Based on what I have seen, heard, and personally experienced, America should hang its head in shame! Unfortunately for myself, and others like me it’s not such a wonderful life. There is no possibility of the American dream, only the reality of the American nightmare. My only hope is that it never happens to you.

Dear Barack,

If you ever read these things, and I highly doubt that you will ever see this, we really need to talk!

The rest of my horror story can be found on my website “A Bump On The Head” at:

http://www.frontiernet.net/~lindaf1/bump.html

LJ Fullerton - Social Security Disability Coalition

Bailout Social Security?

Bruce777 — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:33:15 EST

Well ... In spite of all the blog not to Bailout, we have bailed out. Now, the car companies want billions. Seems we've opened our wallets and everyone wants a hand out! Stop the Bailout! Make those free-enterprisers pay for their own mistakes and lack of planning. Wells Fargo Bank (not in trouble) was forced to take 25 billion they didn't even need! Let the car companies go into bankruptcy, just like the airlines ... except use a little more common sense on the number of hours an employee has to work (Flight Attendants work 14 to 18 hour days!). The UAW needs to look at the non-union auto makers and lower the $28/hour they demand down to non-union pay. A large majority of the $70 per hour cost that auto companies incur goes to retired auto workers. Let's pay back all the monies we've stolen from Social Security and pay the retired auto workers their due portion from there. Social Security (of course) is not enough to retire on. The 1937-Act was passed to supplement Social Security. Fund and beef up 1937-Act Funds to supplement Social Security. In the meantime, Bankruptcy should force the auto makers to move to making reasonably priced green autos, only. Toyota's Prius is a prime example (just make them good-looking). This Bailout is forcing our government into the Private Sector. Yes, because of Man's greed, government needs regulate. However, with the exception of California's Governor Arnold Swartzenegger, I would guess not many of our legislators have made most of their fortune outside of government.

Two Ideas for the Obama Administration

Taynuilt — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:22:43 EST

I have two suggestions, one a motto for the Inaguration Speech and the other an easily understood and doable action that can be taken to effect a middle class tax cut without a lot of juggling of the tax code.

1.MOTTO: Liberal in Thought, Conservative in Action

For too long Republicans have fostered, and Democrats have allowed, the term "Liberal" to be a dirty word equivalent to communist or socialist and raising taxes and giving welfare to people who are too lazy to work. and rather take and even cheat to get a government handout.

Liberal should mean caring for and consideration of the plight of our fellow human beings.

From the perspective of "Liberals" , "Conservative" is a dirty word that means narrow-minded people who think that only their views have validity and those who talk about small government while enriching themselves with tax breaks and avoiding regulation.. It no longer means "conservation" - to keep what is good and to protect our natural environment and resources. It no longer means to act only after a careful deliberation.

This motto (Liberal in Thought - Concervative in Action) which I conceived and adopted as my personal motto, represents the majority of those who supported Obams's candidacy and a significant number of "liberal or progressive or moderate" people who supported Senator McCain. This motto combines both liberal and conservative without making them deogaotry terms. I can be accepted by both groups because it doesn't make either one give up their identities "Liberal or Conservative." Instead, it combines the best of the two views in a way that can satisfy both without negating the other. It embodies the "liberal" in us who have elemental feelings of compassion for those with less, for the underdog, and would like to see a just and peaceful world. It is what makes Americans the most generous giver when there is a natural disaster anywhere in the world. At the same time it shares the "conservative" in all of us, that would like to have an efficient government that isn't wasteful or corrupt and makes decisions with "deliberate haste", with an emphasis on "deliberate."

To govern all of us President Obama will have to these good motives, both liberal and conservative. He can't afford to ignore these terms but must redefine them. That is what Candidate Obama said were his intention. That is what President Bush said he would do but he did the opposite (he failed to be compassionate and decided to be a nation builder outside our borders). I also believed Candidate McCain in 2000 but then for the next 8 years he bent his principals to gain the support of those non-compassionate conservatives who supported President Bush. I think a large portion of the McCain voters wouldn't have support a significant number of the other potential Republican candidates and they selected McCain as the only Republic who had any chance of winning against all odds. Now the Obama administration must convince as many of those who voted for McCain by using words (Motto) and deeds (Action) to show that he is the President for all Americans. He can start with a motto like the one I have suggested.

2. ACTIONS. Working Americans may not realize that net income upon which their tax rate is calculated, doesn't exclude (deduct) their Social Security and Medicare taxes. That is, the income that is deducted for Social Security and Medicare is taxed.

A. The taxes on the middle class could be lowered by deducting part or all of their social security taxes from their gross taxable income.

B. An alternative would be to make the Social Security and Medicare taxes Progressive, i.e., deduct from the top of the income and work down until it covers the amount needed for the present and future.

C. Combinatoin of A and B.

Who are the "middle class"? They are workers who pay social security and medicare taxes on their income. They also retirees who pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. In that sense, they are taxed three times (twice when they are working via paying taxes on their income that is pre-social security deduction, second via the SS deduction, and third when they retire and receive the SS benefit. Two of these taxes shouldn't be taxes at all. If SS and Medicare were exempt or partially exempt from taxes, then the tax rate on the income for which they were taxed could be raised to partially cover the difference lost income tax and at the same time the tax rate could be raised for those who have very high incomes, whose primary income comes from stocks, bonds, bonuses, golden parachutes, stock options, inheritance and also the corporations. These latter groups, can afford a tax attorney to help them avoid paying taxes and are represented by lobbyist who make the tax laws benefit them by contributing to election campaigns. These are the individuals who earn over $250,000. If their income is from working i.e., they have a payroll withholding or estimated tax, then this deduction will be fairly innoxuous. Most of the high income category aren't paying SS tax or it is a small part of their income. After all, SS deductions is based on the lower end of the income (regressive). Another approach would be to deduct Social Security from the top of the earned income and lower the level until there is enough to cover the cost. In either case there would have to be a modification for civilian government employees who are exempt from Social Security. Perhaps they should be part of the SS system?

These actions won't reward or injure those who aren't working because those individuals aren't paying SS taxes.

It will only target those who are working, i.e., who pay SS taxes and it would favor those with lower incomes. It would by definition increase taxes on "Unearned" income i.e., income that didn't come from "working".

If the data were available to me I could determine the cost of this approach by seeing to what level one would have to raise the social security deduction (on the paycheck) to offset the lost taxes on the Social Security deduction (on the income tax return) or conversely, for alternative B, where we would have to stop before not deducting for Social Security? Perhaps it would end at $60,000, i.e. no Social Security Deduction or Medicare Deducation if you earned less than $60,000? This would be coupled with an increase in the progressive general tax rate on those in the upper income bracket.

Martin MacIntyre, taxpayer, social security recipient, more than $100,000 in income, and one who supports your ideas.

Ok, we won and now what?

Tom Roome — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:44:17 EST

First congratulations to everyone!

Now, the hard works starts in clearing up this mess. How can I work with the disability team some? I could not move to DC to work with the team, but I could over the Internet.

The first thing that must be done is to look at the SSA Rules for SSDI and how people with disabilities can make money without bring punished. I cannot make over $940.00 and as a teacher assistant for my University I am making a little over $1000.00 a month. The SSA have over paid me for 07 to the $6000.00, and they want the money back. Working for a University as a TA should not count against me as substantial work!

If I was blind I could make $1,570 before I was cut off. It does not make since to have two different numbers and rules for different groups. Since I am on Texas Medicaid also, I cannot have over $2000.00 in my bank account, so I don't have the money to pay back without doing payment plan.

Either raised the amount people with all disabilities to a high same amount that they can make on a job like $2000.00 a month! or college students that are working for the University should not be held to the same standards.

How can I save any money if the SSA and state medicaid count any types of the usual way of saving money as income?

Before we can put people with disabilities to work that really mean something, these rules must be straighten out and may fair for all!

Thanks,

Tom Roome

Why I'm Voting for Barack Obama

Lynne from Miami, FL — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:54:57 EDT

A while back I received an anonymous email from a McCain supporter, in which he questioned why anyone would vote for Obama. This was my reply.
...................................................

Hi XXX,

My name is Lynne, and I can tell you why I'm voting for Barack Obama. Enumerating each of the many reasons is the difficult part.

First and foremost, I am voting for Barack Obama because I have children and grandchildren, and I love my planet dearly. We are members of the global community, and my intention is to protect my family, my brethren throughout the world, all inhabitants of our magnificent earth, and this majesty with which we've been blessed.

I am ready for a president who is smarter than me. I am ready for a leader who not only respects the constitution, but understands it, cherishes it, models his behavior on its very tenets, and can recite every passage, as he has many times in his twelve years of teaching constitutional law.

I am adamant about electing a calm, level headed, deep thinking, individual who is a master of negotiation and has the sensibility to win over enemies with his gift of diplomacy.

I need a leader who is committed to alternative energies and regards the planet, as well as the facts when he makes policy. I will choose a candidate who will bring balance to the Supreme Court, rather than secure it as a bastion of right wing extremists for generations to come. I trust a man who refuses lobbyist influence as opposed to one whose campaign and prospective cabinet wreaks of Washington's most high profile lobbyists, yet who claims to be a maverick and reformer.

My candidate will do everything possible to protect the social security in which I've invested my whole adult life, and will not ask me to risk the loss of everything with privatization. My president will not ask my loved ones to dodge bullets and bombs in preemptive wars, and will not invade Iran as a first option rather than the last. If and when war becomes the only choice, his advisors will not be paid lobbyists for the government we choose to protect (i.e. Georgia).

Final Appeal

Geoffrey from Lees Summit, MO — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:56:01 EDT

What follows is my final appeal to Lee's Summit residents on behalf of Senator Obama. This letter was preceded by a very well-written letter addressing the role of government. Mr. Lewis made a compelling case for limited government, but did not acknowledge the unique situation we are currently faced with. As I mentioned before, my letters get pretty long. I will put the first paragraph here, and the rest after the jump.

William Lewis wrote an excellent letter about the nature of freedom and government in America. Although candidates often say this, we are at a unique point in history. Our country has faced many of the current challenges before, but never all at once. We are faced with a war on two fronts, an economic crisis, an energy crisis, and an environmental crisis. I am a big believer in the power of the free market, but the free market is just not enough to get the job done before it is too late.

Letter to Obama. What I would do

Davis from East Wenatchee, WA — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:40:06 EDT

Letter to Mr. Obama
Dear Mr. Obama, Here is my take on current problems and some solutions:
> Terrorists… Bring back the MAD strategy ( Mutually Assured Destruction ) Since we know who they are and where they are from tell the home countries of the terrorists that they will be held accountable for their people … If a Iranian terrorist bombs something like the world trade center that we will take a week or two to verify the origin of the perpetrators and then we will destroy one of their cities doing 10 times the damage they did …this will put the policing of the terrorists on their shoulders not ours .
> Bring home all National Guard units… The National Guard is only to be used in case of a world war type of situation when we have been attacked or we are in an all out declared war. It was never to be used like a regular standing army… If we need to increase the size of out regular standing army than that is what we need to do. Better yet keep it small and quit trying to be the world’s policeman. Afghanistan broke the USSR what were we thinking to go there with supply lines that reach around the world?
I would have no problem with having our people in a UN armed forces unit as “peace keepers” They should be a mixed country units maybe something along the lines of the French foreign legion? The force should include. Armed forces & police, to keep the peace, Teachers , Engineers and workers to teach the local people to build and the repair the infrastructure to keep people healthy , hospitals, clean water supply , sanitation , power , food, farming , schools , etc…If the UN goes into a country that is having problems; floods, civil war, famine or whatever .. It should be able to solve them or at least give the people a start towards solving their own problems.
> Social Security--- The system was set up as a pay as you go with taxes high enough to pay the bills for the current retires every year. Looking ahead and realizing that the baby boomers generation had fewer children than their parents, pay as you go wouldn’t work anymore. We followed the recommendations of the Greenspan Commision so starting in “93” we have been paying more in than the system needed to build up a “reserve” for the baby boomers retirement, although this extra money isn‘t in a “lockbox” waiting it was rolled into the general fund to hide true size of the deficit. Baby boomers have paid for their SS benefits so we can’t be screwing them out of benefits they have paid for and are counting on. And don’t be complaining we have a low savings rate. SS deductions have doubled since we started working. We boomers could have taken that money and put it into our own investments or saving instead of trusting the governments SS insurance program … In view of the problems in the stock market I still wouldn’t invest SS money there. My take is the big boys are looking for a new source of money so to prop up prices so they can pull their money out and leave someone else holding the bag when it all melts down …And finally think about the 30 million plus people that were aborted since “72” and how they would have changed the payer/recipient ratio for the SS system for the better. Can we cut benefits for the people who killed their children who would be supporting them in their retirement? Just a observation … If we quit exporting good paying manufacturing jobs and replacing them with minimum wage jobs people would be paying in more to the SS system and it wouldn’t be having the problems it is now.
> Credit ---Want to help the middle income people let them deduct the interest they pay on their credit cards again …maybe make them apply any tax savings from this automatically to pay down the balance on a credit card , auto or home loan. The less money people owe the more money is freed up and that will keep interest rates down … I also would like to see a cap on interest rates of say 18 or 20% MAX the 33+% penalty rates they want to charge people is nothing but usury designed to force them into bankrupts or moving debt to seconds on their homes so the banks can more easily repossess peoples houses if they have problems. Never mind the profit from all the fees they charge for new loans. Also something must be done to limit the card issuers from raising peoples rates just because they feel like it, when you talk to them they don’t even give people a specific reason just a vague “a report from xyz “. They should have to provide a specific reason in writing - IE you were late on a payment on this date. Or if based on a report from xyz agency be required to send you a hard copy of the report when notify you of a rate increase. That way people have a chance to challenge it if it’s based on wrong information. Currently it’s a huge hassle to get credit reports from all 3 major reporting agencies figure out what they are saying then figure out what it was that triggered the increase in interest rates than make them correct it and get interest rates rolled back. The current system puts the burden on the consumer to prove they are not guilty of screwing up not on the company to prove they are. If they can afford to send out all the junk mail and other offers they send out it shouldn’t be to much to of a problem to sent out information they have in hand on why they are increasing rates. ( THE PLAN --<a> give them cheep credit, <b> raise their rates, <c> get them to move their debt to their houses, <d> outsource their good paying jobs and close down the company they work for, <e> when they can’t make their house payments on the low pay service industry job take their house. <f> sell the house to someone else and repeat.)
> Identity theft --- We never had a problem until banks started using peoples SS number for a identification number so use our names and birth date and place that should be more than enough to track people…
> I would like to ban on ALL automated telephone dialers. I can think of more irritating than running to answer the phone and then having a recording spewing crap in your ear during dinner or wakening me up in the middle of the day when I am sleeping because I work swing shift or grave yard … they force you to listen to them until finally most of them have a press X to be removed from the list … or the ones from someone looking for someone that doesn’t live at your number “ this is a important call for Mr. xxxxx please return this call at xxx-xxx-xxxx when you call them it is just a recording that wants you to leave a message and they will get back to you so you are playing phone tag with them for months ( I still can’t get them to stop calling AAAaaaaaaa (primal scream of total frustration)
> Guns we all should be allowed to have any gun we want including military automatic weapons … the reason for the second amendment is to have a armed citizen population to defend your home and family and the country in case of invasion and to keep OUR government in check as well as hunting and recreational shooting
> Bailing out home loan mess … let borrowers that are in trouble borrow against their SS accounts if someone works for 10 years and makes 40,000 a year they would contribute 7% or $28,000.oo matched by the employers contribution would be 56,000.oo let them borrow their own SS money up to what ever they have contributed at prime plus the rate of inflation so they will have to pay back what they borrow in constant dollars plus a little. (Like borrowing against a 401K? This line of credit could only be used for makeing payments on peoples house ..To insure repayment make it an automatic paycheck deduction And no way to bankrupt out of repaying it. ) This will give people a chance to build up equity in a house even if they have hard times and miss a payment or 10 or let them make smaller payments or skip some payments because of unemployment or bad health. It is their own money and if they don’t pay it back eventually it will only reduce their future SS income. If they want to retire they first will have to take out a conventional loan and refinance what ever they still owe on their house SS loan to collect full SS payments or reduce their SS income by what ever the loan payment amount is to make the payments. If they die before repaying the loan, than their SS loan account still holds the papers on their house and will have to be paid back or a new loan taken out for a survivor based on the survivors SS account. We can’t be turning out the wife if she survives the husband.
> I think the CEOs and all the upper management of the failed banks should be held responsible for the problems they let happen on their watch. They should be fired and stripped of ALL their personal assets to help pay back what they lost. They should be forbidden from ever holding a job in the finance or banking industry or any management position where they could manage money for life. Then they would have to work for living digging ditches, working at McDonalds or Wal-Mart or wherever they can find a job. They have no honor they need to be made an example of that will be remembered in the future. I would even vote for the death penalty for them because of all the damage they have done to this country… They have cost us more than the 9-11 terrorists.
> Rebuilding flooded areas beach front property etc. if a federally insured or backed loan or flood insurance we need to have a stop loss thing if a property is in a flood zone and has been destroyed and replaced twice than buy out the property and NEVER waste taxpayer money building on that property again. Help the owner get a loan to build somewhere else and make the property a flood zone green space… if they can come up with private insurance fine but if the property is a loss again, the private insurance company must cover it, no federal bail out… I would limit the number or % of such coverage private insurance companies can issue so a big loss won’t take them down or result in higher rates for their other customer. This will result in very high insurance rates for some properties but how many times should someone else have to bail people out before they have to pay for their own stupidly. If it means abandon a whole city because of flooding so be it. It has happened many times through out history we wouldn’t be the first or the last.
> Oil--- Keep ours in the ground it is like money in the bank use up all the other countries oil first and ours will be worth all that much more.
> what about a speed limit on interstates go as fast as you want as long as you get better than 25 MPG or you are limited to 55 MPH this should be a good incentive for people to move to smaller or more efficient cars .It would be easy to add a small computer that would measure gas milage, keep a log for verification and display a green light on the back of the car if people were getting more than 25mpg.
> Trade --- if a country doesn’t have environmental standards as tough as ours impose a environmental penalty on goods manufactured in a “dirty” factory .This will provide incentive for them to clean up and level the playing field for our manufactures and remove incentives to outsource dirty industry to avoid pollution laws.

> Health Care --We spend more money on health care any way you want to measure it than any country in the world as a % of GDP we spend 13.9, Germany 10.8, Switzerland 10.9 .
Some good measures of a health care system are:
Life expectance at birth………….We are 44th.
Probability of reaching 65 …….. We are 32nd.
Hospital beds per 1000 …….……We are 27th.
It seems to me we can do better. I am Union Millwright we are part of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. We negotiate a wage and benefit package with our employers. We are paid an hourly wage and benefits; Health insurance, Retirement and training that are taken out of our pay… Our pay package is $33 and change an hour 1.00 goes to our apprentice and journeyman training, 2 dollars to retirement and 4.30 to pay for health insurance. I spend over 12% of my pay package on health insurance, if I add the 1.45 % Medicare deduction and the employers matching 1.45% that amounts to over 15% of what I earn going to health care !!! For that I should have 100 % coverage 100% of the time… Instead I get coverage that covers 80% of “reasonable and normal” a catch phrase for what the cheapest doctor in the country charges for a procedure not what the local doctor will charge… After paying the annual deductible I get reimbursed 80% of that and have to pay the rest out of pocket … when construction work is slow I often run out of hours in my insurance “bank” and have no health insurance… to be fair we do have a annual “stop loss’ so after paying 2000.00 out of pocket they are suppose to pay the rest .. The sad part is that because I have insurance I get charged more for the same thing than people who don’t have insurance or who are on welfare or Medicare. So I pay for my insurance, than pay extra if I am sick to help cover the people who have no insurance and I pay taxes to cover the people who are on welfare…or Medicare … What a Fu--ed Up system !!!
I would take the 2.9 we pay combined medicare tax and take another 10% of my check that’s 12.9 % of what I am paid. If that isn’t enough money add a tax on every share of stock that is sold just a nominal amount like 1 or 2 cents per share right off the top of any stock share selling for say over 5 dollars a share . I’m talking about fixed tax per share not a % of stock price. Lets hit the big players who move thousands of shares not the mom and pop small investors don’t move enough stocks often enough to notice a 1dollar per 100 shares tax the big boys that move tens of thousands of shares a day have all the money and can afford to pay more in taxes … this also has the advantage of taxing foreign investors for our health care ..We pay for theirs already since it is part of the price of the goods we import since all the major industrial countries already have a nationalized health care system…

THE BUSH BASKET
When Bush took office $100.oo would fill a normal sized shopping basket at the grocery store. Now, after 7 years of Bush’s economic warfare on the American people my $100.oo will only fill one of the new small shopping baskets .I call them… BUSH BASKETS J they are the epitome of the Bush administration..
Have a good day, Kevin Davis

SOURCE CIA World Fact book, 14 June, 2007
DEFINITION
“The average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year, if mortality at each age remains constant in the future. Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.”
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_lif_exp_at_bir_mal-health-life-expectancy-birth-male
Health Statistics > Life expectancy at birth > Total population (most recent) by country

Rank

Countries

Amount (top to bottom)

Andorra:

83.52 years

Macau:

82.27 years

Japan:

82.02 years

San Marino:

81.8 years

Singapore:

81.8 years

Hong Kong:

81.68 years

Sweden:

80.63 years

Australia:

80.62 years

Switzerland:

80.62 years

#10

France:

80.59 years

#11

Guernsey:

80.53 years

#12

Iceland:

80.43 years

#13

Canada:

80.34 years

#14

Cayman Islands:

80.2 years

#15

Italy:

79.94 years

#16

Gibraltar:

79.93 years

#17

Monaco:

79.82 years

#18

Liechtenstein:

79.81 years

#19

Spain:

79.78 years

#20

Norway:

79.67 years

#21

Israel:

79.59 years

#22

Jersey:

79.51 years

#23

Faroe Islands:

79.49 years

#24

Greece:

79.38 years

#25

Austria:

79.21 years

#26

Virgin Islands:

79.2 years

#27

Malta:

79.15 years

#28

Netherlands:

79.11 years

#29

Luxembourg:

79.03 years

#30

Montserrat:

79 years

#31

New Zealand:

78.96 years

#32

Germany:

78.95 years

#33

Belgium:

78.92 years

#34

Saint Pierre and Miquelon:

78.76 years

#35

Guam:

78.76 years

#36

United Kingdom:

78.7 years

#37

Finland:

78.66 years

#38

Man, Isle of:

78.64 years

#39

Jordan:

78.55 years

#40

Puerto Rico:

78.54 years

#41

Bosnia and Herzegovina:

78.17 years

#42

Bermuda:

78.13 years

#43

Saint Helena:

78.09 years

#44

United States:

78 years

#45

Cyprus:

77.98 years

#46

Denmark:

77.96 years

#47

Ireland:

77.9 years

#48

Portugal:

77.87 years

#49

Albania:

77.6 years

#50

Taiwan:

77.56 years

Total expenditure as % of GDP by country

Rank

Countries

Amount (top to bottom)

United States:

13.9 % of GDP

Switzerland:

10.9 % of GDP

Germany:

10.8 % of GDP

Canada:

9.4 % of GDP

France:

9.4 % of GDP

Greece:

9.4 % of GDP

Portugal:

9.3 % of GDP

Iceland:

9.2 % of GDP

Australia:

9.1 % of GDP

#10

Belgium:

9 % of GDP

#11

Sweden:

8.8 % of GDP

#12

Denmark:

8.6 % of GDP

#13

Netherlands:

8.5 % of GDP

#14

Italy:

8.3 % of GDP

#15

Norway:

8.1 % of GDP

#16

New Zealand:

8 % of GDP

#17

Japan:

7.8 % of GDP

#18

Austria:

7.6 % of GDP

#19

Spain:

7.5 % of GDP

#20

United Kingdom:

7.5 % of GDP

#21

Hungary:

7.4 % of GDP

#22

Czech Republic:

7.3 % of GDP

#23

Finland:

7 % of GDP

#24

Ireland:

6.9 % of GDP

#25

Poland:

6 % of GDP

#26

Mexico:

6 % of GDP

#27

Luxembourg:

5.9 % of GDP

#28

Slovakia:

5.6 % of GDP

Weighted average:

8.3 % of GDP

Public spending as % of total by country

Rank

Countries

Amount (top to bottom)

Czech Republic:

91.4%

Slovakia:

89.1%

Luxembourg:

85.4%

Norway:

85.3%

Sweden:

85.3%

Iceland:

84%

United Kingdom:

83.4%

Denmark:

83.1%

Germany:

78.5%

#10

New Zealand:

77.9%

#11

France:

76%

#12

Finland:

75.7%

#13

Italy:

75.6%

#14

Ireland:

75.2%

#15

Poland:

72.4%

#16

Spain:

71.4%

#17

Belgium:

71.2%

#18

Portugal:

70.5%

#19

Hungary:

70.2%

#20

Austria:

69.9%

#21

Canada:

69.9%

#22

Switzerland:

57.9%

#23

Greece:

52.9%

#24

Mexico:

44.9%

#25

United States:

44.9%

Weighted average:

73.7

Hospital beds by country

Rank

Countries

Amount (top to bottom)

Switzerland:

18.3 per 1,000 people

Japan:

16.4 per 1,000 people

Norway:

14.4 per 1,000 people

Netherlands:

11.1 per 1,000 people

Ireland:

9.7 per 1,000 people

Germany:

9.2 per 1,000 people

Austria:

8.8 per 1,000 people

Czech Republic:

8.7 per 1,000 people

France:

8.4 per 1,000 people

#10

Hungary:

8.3 per 1,000 people

#11

Slovakia:

8.1 per 1,000 people

#12

Luxembourg:

8 per 1,000 people

#13

Australia:

7.9 per 1,000 people

#14

Finland:

7.6 per 1,000 people

#15

Belgium:

7.3 per 1,000 people

#16

New Zealand:

6.2 per 1,000 people

#17

Korea, South:

5.5 per 1,000 people

#18

Poland:

5.1 per 1,000 people

#19

Italy:

4.9 per 1,000 people

#20

Greece:

4.9 per 1,000 people

#21

Denmark:

4.5 per 1,000 people

#22

United Kingdom:

4.1 per 1,000 people

#23

Spain:

4.1 per 1,000 people

#24

Portugal:

4 per 1,000 people

#25

Canada:

3.9 per 1,000 people

#26

Sweden:

3.7 per 1,000 people

#27

United States:

3.6 per 1,000 people

#28

Turkey:

2.6 per 1,000 people

#29

Mexico:

1.1 per 1,000 people

Weighted average:

7.3 per 1,000 people

Probability of reaching 65 > Male by country

Rank

Countries

Amount (top to bottom)

Israel:

85.1%

Sweden:

84.8%

Iceland:

84.4%

Malta:

84.2%

Japan:

84%

Cyprus:

83.2%

Australia:

83.1%

Netherlands:

82.7%

Canada:

82.3%

#10

Switzerland:

82.2%

#11

Norway:

82.2%

#12

Greece:

81.6%

#13

Italy:

81.6%

#14

United Kingdom:

81.5%

#15

New Zealand:

80.9%

#16

Belgium:

80.7%

#17

Kuwait:

80.7%

#18

Barbados:

80.6%

#19

Costa Rica:

80.1%

#20

Luxembourg:

80.1%

#21

Ireland:

80%

#22

Spain:

79.8%

#23

Austria:

79.7%

#24

Singapore:

79.6%

#25

Germany:

79.2%

#26

Albania:

78.6%

#27

Denmark:

78.3%

#28

Cuba:

78.1%

#29

France:

78%

#30

Finland:

77.9%

#31

Jamaica:

77.5%

#32

United States:

77.4%

jobs, taxes, jobs, social security, jobs, baby boomers, jobs, pork, middle class, jobs, working peole, jobs, special interests, jobs,

Robert from Absecon, NJ — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:52:37 EDT

The rampant corruption - yes, corruption, let's call it what it is - in Washington must end, and it must end now. The corporate plunderers and their puppet politicians have, literally, bled this great nation dry. Our nation's capital has been nothing less than a porkfest picnic ground for many years, and through a number of administrations (of both major parties). We're not just talking about "earmarks", or even "corporate welfare". These are both parts of the big picture, but let's not forget government an defense cotracts, or the actual legislative acts that pander to "special interests". Government has become a "for profit" business.....for private, not public, profit. This must stop, and it must stop now, or the America we grew up in, the America we love, will be just a memory.

We choose to believe, and pray, that Barak will be different, will stay true. He claims to represent the majority of the people, not the majority of the wealth. God, please let it be so. The American majority cannot wait another four years for change. This is the truth that we, the people, know all too well, as our ability to make (the most essential) ends meet has all but disappeared, into the pockets of the "porkers".

But, there remains the question of just how deeply Barak understands our middle class plight. He promises tax breaks, but let's be honest. Most of us would happily pay more taxes, when it would mean that we are earning more. Senator Obama, the people's plight is not about taxes, it's about our incomes. A 15% tax break, for most families, is worth two weeks of medical insurance, maybe. And, at the rate that medical costs are rising, it will be worth two days insurance by the time your tax break is legislated. Because our incomes are in decline, savings are down (or gone), while costs (of essentials) are skyrocketing, and debt (incurred to pay the skyrocketing cost of essentials) is staggering.

We, the working majority of Americans, need jobs. Good, stable jobs that provide living wages. Most of the employment growth has been in the "service sector". While we're being "real", let's also be realistic. The only significant job creation in this country has been in poverty level jobs. Yes, these jobs are necessary.....for kids who need money for their Friday night dates. But, staying "real", these jobs can't begin to support a family, even a two parent family with both parents working two full time jobs. It just ain't gonna happen. Not here, not now.

We need jobs, real jobs. And, we need to fill them with real people. The working people of today's America. The displaced, the downsized, the disenfranchised. These are the people who must be trained for "new" jobs.

Barak, if you could take a survey of all the "baby boomers" who are nearing "retirement" age, you'll find a very, very large percentage have been herein described. They/we are desperate, with falling incomes or unemployment, no savings, and massive indebtedness. Retirement isn't/won't be an option, unless/until forced by failing health.

For them/us, social security looks simultaneously like a supplimental income and a curse. The current laws assume that they/we will have adequate savings when we begin collecting. But they/we don't. And, the pittance allowed (before benefits are penalized) won't be enough.

I am a 59 year old married man. I have a grown son, but I also have a baby daughter who will soon be 2. She will graduate high school (and begin college) when I am 75. I am now earning the same amount (in actual dollars) as I was in the 1970's. My health is failing (which I can't afford because I'm earning 1970's money). I have no savings (because I'm earning 1970's money). I have far too much debt (because I'm earning 1970's money). A tax credit of 15%, or even 100%, isn't going to fix the problem, because I'm earning 1970's money.

I, and the working people of America, of whom I'm sadly representative, are not earning wages that meet the needs of the 21st century. This, Senator Barak Obama, is the problem that must be immediately addressed. We pray you understand, and put our faith in you.

Seniors Roundtable in Fort Collins

Greg Hauenstein — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:30:54 EDT

With all the turmoil in the economy over the last month, there is no clearer time to highlight the need to protect Social Security and not leave it to the whims of Wall Street. This was a major topic of conversation at the Fort Collins Senior Center on Friday morning.

State Senator Bob Bacon joined a packed room of seniors to discuss Senator Obama's plan to protect Social Security, reform our health care system to make insurance affordable, and reform our tax policy so people on fixed income aren't overburdened by taxes.

"There are enormous problems every four to eight years. Some are of our own making, some we have no control over. We need someone who will tell us the truth because fixing these problems won't be easy."

Betty lives in The Worthington Independent Living in Fort Collins and volunteers at the Campaign for Change office every week. She laughed as she talked about her volunteer experience.

"I've been working every Tuesday from 1:00 to 4:00. I've been so pleased with the number of young people coming in. It's so important that they take an interest. They need to save their country."

Senator Bacon took questions from the audience afterwards. Topics discussed ranged from Social Security and Medicare to Iraq and college affordability. You can find where Barack stands on all these issues by visiting our issues page.

Let's stop taxing social security

Craig from Irving, TX — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:41:38 EDT

Retirement savings have really been hit hard this year. Let's stop the taxation of social security benefits or we will totally bankrupt retired folks.

We're old, and we vote

Jacqueline — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 09:38:27 EDT

Let me see if I've got this right: the U.S. economy is imploding because huge financial institutions were deregulated and allowed to create multiple layers of indebtedness that nobody could understand, let alone control. Billions of taxpayer dollars are shoring up the biggest and most rapacious of those institutions (the others collapsed), by buying their bad debt. Millions of Americans who don't understand how it works have been living beyond their means for years, buying houses and hardware they can't afford, and now the government is asking them to spend more money they haven't got to buy more stuff they can't afford. To make more debt possible, the Feds have cut interest rates yet again so people who can't afford things can borrow money they can't pay back to buy more stuff. Meanwhile, the executives at all these companies (not to mention the government officials who are making these policies) are getting (not earning, mind you) six- and seven-figure salaries to put their pants on one leg at a time. One of the biggest demographic groups in the country, people over 55 who are nearing retirement or already retired, are seeing their (our) nest-eggs shrink as the value of our stock plummets, so that by the time we are, oh, say 75 or 80 we will have no money left to live on. As for Social Security, even if it continues to function the way it does now, it is not enough to live on, not even in low-rent rural areas. And if we get sick, we're doomed, since this is the only industrialized, developed country in the world that has no universal healthcare program. Most of us can't even find a primary care physician, because doctors are leaving primary care in droves as a result of the measly payments they receive and the pressures of the paperwork they are required to do for the for-profit insurance companies. If we actually have a doctor, Medicare will not pay for the annual check-up that often finds problems early and treats them before they become worse and more expensive to deal with.

So, please, Sen. Obama, listen up: Creating more debt to save an economy based on reckless indebtedness is not the solution. Cutting interest rates to starve the elderly who depend on fixed-income investment and Social Security for the rock-bottom basics like food and shelter is not the solution. Mandating private insurance to cover routine medical care is not the solution. "The economy" does not need to "grow" on paper at the expense of the American people. What this country needs is careful governance and Federal regulation to curb debt, provide food and shelter and basic healthcare for everyone, and income tax reform to make said income tax redistributive once again. Go back to your history books and look at what the New Deal was all about. Then do it again.

JOHN MCCAIN'S DISASTEROUS PLAN TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY

Juli Norwood — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:52:02 EDT

Wake up and smell the coffee my friends before it is too late. Never has it been more important for voters to become well informed about the political issues and candidates in this 2008 presidential election. Don't simply vote based on party lines or based on other biases.

Take the time to learn about the politicians voting records.

John McCain Voting Record -

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270

Barack Obama Voting Record -

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Cut through all of the BS that is being falsely promoted by both parties by visiting and boning up on the presidential candidates at FactCheck.org - It is a real eye opener!

http://www.factcheck.org/

And if you have never voted before there has never been a better time for you to take advantage of your precious right to vote!

John McCain has voted 90 percent of the time with George W. Bush on issues!

McCain Voted FOR Bush’s 2006 Social Security Privatization Plan. However in June 2008 at a pre-screened Town Hall Meeting he blatantly lies to those present stating...

Quote

"But I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be."

Unquote

His own political records and statements including his voting records PROVE he was and still is in favor of Privatizing Social Security.

McCain Quotes...

"Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits." [C-Span Road to the White House, 11/18/2004]

“As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it — along the lines that President Bush proposed.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/3/2008]

We’ve got a ticking time bomb out there. And it’s called the Social Security Trust Fund. And starting in 2014 there’ll be more money going out than in. There’s a $5 trillion unfunded liability out there in the form of the Social Security Trust Fund. If we can put the money in quick, then we will be able to allow people to invest their payroll taxes into investments of their choosing and make a huge amount of difference in the solvency of their retirement fund.
Source: GOP Debate in Manchester NH Jan 26, 2000

McCain today called for allowing workers for the first time to invest a portion of their Social Security in private accounts.McCain called for “bold, genuine reform that allows workers to invest some of their Social Security savings, privately, in higher yielding accounts.” “Promoting investment in America by every American worker would give lower-income Americans the ownership they deserve in the country we share, as well as grow their Social Security more rapidly,” said McCain.

Can you imagine how much worse things would be for Americans had President Bush's plan to Privatize Social Security passed. Can you imagine anyone in their right mind promoting the Privatization of Social Security during a severe time of economic crisis (Ex:Wallstreet Crisis, Mortgage Crisis, Un-regulated Speculation Abuse).

McCain in 2008 denies that he is in favor of Privatization of Social Security - BUT still talks in favor of private accounts for young workers. Ahem this is the hallmark of Privatization of Social Security! Apparently he thinks the American citizens are fools and can get away with this.

His horrible voting record AGAINST Social Security speaks volumes about the future of Social Security for you and I. It looks bleak and YOU should be MORE THAN CONCERNED! McCain is thinking of raising the age of retirement to 68!

McCain is also thinking of reducing the cost of living adjustments in Social Security!

1998 McCain voted twice to replace Social Security’s guaranteed benefits with income from risk-based private investments.

In 2000 McCain Wanted to Divert Social Security Money to Private Accounts.

2001 McCain opposed reducing tax cuts for the wealthy to create a strategic reserve for Social Security.

2001 McCain voted against a proposal to create “lockboxes” to protect Social Security and Medicare.

2003 McCain voted to use Social Security funds to pay off federal debt

2005 McCain voted against prioritizing Social Security solvency over tax cuts for the wealthy.

His Medicare record is TERRIBLE!

NEWSFLASH!!! John McCain wants to slash Medicare by 1.3 trillion dollars! This is simply outrageous! It is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!

2005 McCain voted for the budget reconciliation bill that reduced spending on Medicare by $6.4 billion.

2005 McCain voted against protecting seniors from steep increases in their Medicare Part B premiums.

1997 McCain voted to support provisions that would increase the age for Medicare eligibility from age 65 to age 67.

2007 McCain missed a vote to amend Medicare Part D - so Medicare could negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs same as the Department of Veterans Affairs does. Prices for prescription drugs under Medicare Part D are 50 percent higher than those for veterans.

Yes John McCain is a Maverick... While the majority of Republicans are scrambling to distance themselves from George W. Bush, McCain is being a Maverick by embracing the Bush Administrations policies. And one of those adopted Bush policies is to Privatize Social Security! Maverick Smaverick sounds like the same ole same ole to me!

Our Country CAN'T take another 4 years of George W. Bush! McCain aka McBush is clearly just a mini-me of George W. Bush!

Barack Obama's Social Security Plan is to...

Protect Social Security - by working with members of Congress from both parties to strengthen Social Security and prevent privatization while protecting middle class families from tax increases or benefit cuts. A bipartisan plan would be implemented which would be phased in over many years, where he would ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound. (range of 2 to 4 percent more in total, combined employer and employee).

Reform Corporate Bankruptcy Laws to Protect Workers and Retirees

Require Full Disclosure of Company Pension Investments

Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less Than $50,000

Create Automatic Workplace Pensions

Expand Retirement Savings Incentives for Working Families

Prevent Age Discrimination

Provide Cheaper Prescription Drugs

Protect and Strengthen Medicare

Provide Transparency to Medicare Prescription Drug Plans

Strengthen Long-Term Care Options

Ensure Heating Assistance

Support Senior Volunteer Efforts

To Learn MORE about Barack Obama's Social Security Plan please click link below...

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/

Juli Norwood

Obama is Right on Healthcare!

ShaVonne — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:58:46 EDT

Every day, hundreds of thousands of Americans struggle to make ends meet. Some working two jobs at a time others who cannot even find work. It is unacceptable for McCain to determine that it is a responsibility and not a right to have healthcare. The vast majority of those who do not have coverage is due to the fact that they simply cannot afford it and the premium may be a choice between paying for rent, heat or food. Their daily struggles show their commitment to their responsibilities. Healthcare is a right that every American should have.

McCain plans to cut Medicare

Jim — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:16:59 EDT

McBush has come out and clearly stated that he will cut Medicare and Medicade to pay for his taxable healthcare plan.

If you think about McCain and his sponsorship of Privatizing Social Security it is clear where he stands and what he will do if elected.

McCain will continue the effort started by Ronlad Reagan to undo every social reform ever enacted by FDR. They've already repealed every regulatory safe guard and caused this economic crisis in the world.

McCain will say he has no choice but to cut Social Security benefits to pay for the Bail Out and use what's left of the entire Social Secuity fund to get us out of the economic crisis.

We can't afford to let the McBush and the Repulican Party stay in power. We need Barack Obama and the Democratic Party to get this country back on course and save Social Security.

Republicans Recycle Smear to Change Subject of Failing Economy

Amy Corron Power - Delegate Capt. — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:54:52 EDT

Republicans are sending around another "scare" e-mail that starts out like this....:

"Fw: Fw: Social Security Changes--IMPORTANT

S OCIAL SECURITY CHANGES
It does not matter if you personally like or dislike Bush. You need to sign
this petition and flood his e-mail box=2 0with e-mails that tell him that,
even if the House passes this bill, he needs to veto it. It is already
impossible to live on Social Security alone. If the government gives
benefits to 'illegal' aliens who have never contributed, where does that
leave those of us who have paid into Social Security all our working lives?"

They're sending this out to pull the discussion in American away from the failed policies of Geroge W. Bush and John McCain. They are asking people to sign a "petition." to send to George W. Bush.

If you get one of these e-mails I would suggest a "reply all" with something along the lines of this response:

Social Security Changes and the Keating 5

Don't fall for this partisan trick to keep you from talking about the economy in shambles after 8 years of Republican rule!

Do we have a House or Senate Bill number for this story?

I don't see one here:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_2.htm

Because it's the BS distraction and FALSE STORY that was debunked in 2006.

http://www.factcheck.org/article447.html

The Republicans don't want anyone talking about the ECONOMY. They will say anything to distract from the fact that the economy is tanking under the Republican policy that has pushed deregulation for the banking industry. McCain's push for deregulation is what has CAUSED the Savings & Loan meltdown of the 1990s now repeating with the current financial crisis:

http://www.keatingeconomics.com/

The only issue regarding Social Security that should be concern to all Americans is John McCain's promotion of the idea that we should PRIVATIZE Social Security, and allow the FREE MARKET to take care of it. Jack Cafferty on CNN asked of McCain last month: Is privatizing Social Security really a good idea?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/18/cafferty-mocks-mccain-is-privatizing-social-security-really-a-good-idea/

Here are some other analyses of John McCain's plan to privatize Social Security

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain_retirement.cfm

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/17/mccain-social-security/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-26-mccain-huckabee_N.htm

Privitization of financial markets and the housing industry seems to be working quite well, doesn't it.

If you must talk about John McCain and "illegal aliens" why not read an analysis of his past voting records:

Supporting mass amnesty. The May 29, 2003, Tucson Citizen quoted Mr. McCain as stating that "Amnesty has to be an important part of" any immigration solution. He was part of the bipartisan coalition that tried to pass amnesty legislation in 2006 and 2007. In 2006 he voted in favor of S. 2611, legislation that would reward between 10 and 11 million illegals with amnesty if they apply for legal status and pay a $2,000 fine.

Supporting in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Mr. McCain was a cosponsor of S. 774, the Dream Act, providing in-state tuition for illegal aliens. The legislation would have enabled illegal aliens who entered the United States before age 16 to obtain a green card and then use their newly acquired status to obtain green cards for the millions of parents who illegally brought their children with them into the United States. Mr. McCain missed a Senate vote on the issue in October. He said that he would have opposed it on the Senate floor had he been there to vote.

Voted to kill border fence. In 2006, Mr. McCain voted for an amendment to S. 2611 offered by Sen. Arlen Specter to require consultation with the Mexican government concerning the construction of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. According to Numbers USA, an organization that lobbies against illegal immigration, this amendment would have effectively guaranteed that the border fence was never built.

Voted against permanently barring gang members and terrorists from the United States. Last year, Mr. McCain voted against an amendment (Senate Amendment 1184) introduced by Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, that would have permanently barred gang members, terrorists, sex offenders, alien absconders, aliens convicted of domestic violence and aliens convicted of at least three DUIs from the United States. The Cornyn Amendment was rejected on a 51-46 vote.

Voted in favor of Social Security benefits to illegal aliens who commit identity fraud. In 2006. Mr. McCain joined with Mr. Kennedy in working to defeat an amendment by Sen. John Ensign, Nevada Republican, that would have barred Social Security credits for work being done prior to their receiving amnesty — in other words, while working under a false Social Security number. The Ensign Amendment, (Senate Amendment 3985) was defeated on a 50-49 vote.

Don't fall for this partisan trick to keep you from talking about the economy!

Read about Barack Obama's plan here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/mollyclaflinblog/gGxVyf

Brain Freeze

Midnight Graffiti — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:26:40 EDT

McCain spoke a couple of days ago in Missouri, one of the few states not tending blue at the moment, proposing a spending freeze for his first year in office in order to help stabilize our economy and pay for the recent "rescue" bill. Freeze spending, McCain proposes, except on defense, vets, and certain necessary programs.

What necessary programs would those be? He failed to enumerate them. Can we guess what will go out the window, should a McCain/Palin administration have the opportunity to follow through on their promise?

Let's look at some spending McCain has been attacking in recent weeks:

Freeze Medicare payments. Why should the government pay to take care of old people? A huge drain on the budget, sucking up money we could be using to attack Iran. Sorry, Mom and Dad, McCain says we should let nature take its course.

Suspend Social Security. Or at least privatize it, or let the goverment move some of that money to the stock market, as McCain and Bush have frequently suggested. At least there, we could count on growing our money for retirement, right? (Hmmmmmm. Maybe not.)

How about education, Senator McCain? It's a HUGE expense. Let the market take care of it! Why the heck should goverment spend all that money educating kids? Let their parents pay for it. McCain could issue every child in America a voucher and an invoice. You can choose where to go to school and hope that Mom and Dad can find second or third jobs to pay for it. Or don't. Let parents choose whether they want to spend money educating their kids or not -- it's the American way.

Hey, Senator McCain? There's at least one place we could cut 10 billion a month from the budget, without affecting any of the necessary and important programs funded by the U.S.: End the war in Iraq.

Only 30 more days of the madness. Vote Obama.

Commercialized Financial Industry, Healthcare, Social Security, and News Media

M Lucas, PhD — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:29:42 EDT

While opportunities, competition, and rewards of hard work can be advantages of a commercialized culture, some aspects of life are too crucial to commercialize. Currently we are seeing the negative effects of commercialized banking and lending industries, healthcare insurance and services, news media, and even politics.

Our banking and lending industry is collapsing, in large part to deregulation policies that have allowed the financial industry (banks, mortgage lenders, and credit card companies) to prey upon individuals who don't have the financial expertise or advisement to fully understand the risks involved in accepting these loans they could not afford. Hopefully the public will begin to recognize that this industry's intention is to make money, not to provide homes that we want and can afford.

Similarly, the healthcare industry primarily consists of commercialized, for-profit companies that seek to minimize costs and maximize profits. Their primary goal is making money, not seeking to provide quality healthcare that supports medical research and bridges research and practice.

We also are seeing the effects of a commercialized television, which seeks less to impart accurate information and more to entertain us through sensationalized and distorted opinions.

Senator McCain has defended deregulation, even as the financial industry was in crisis. Last month he said he would also deregulate the healthcare industry. He also wants to privatize (commercialize) social security and leave individuals who are the least knowledgable of investments vulnerable to a financial industry that has profits as its primary goal, not the "security" of each individual's retirement.

Senator McCain lives an opulent lifestyle that is out of touch with America. His policies and plans are developed with an intention to benefit those like himself- wealthy investors and businessmen. He does not personally understand the implications of risking our financial security and health through deregulation. Most Americans do not have other homes, cars, and portfolios to fall back on in these times of crisis.

On the other hand, Senator Obama supports policies which protect those aspects of our lives that should not be vulnerable to commercialization without proper accountability and oversight. His plan will reform the regulatory structure that made the current crisis possible.

Why take a chance on McCain?

Jeanine — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:25:54 EDT

John McCain has been on alternate sides on so many important issues that it is easy to refute any interpretation of his positions.

At times, for example, McCain has supported stem cell research. But he also has been against it. Moreover, his selection of Sarah Palin, a staunch opponent of stem cell research who also questions the threat of climate change, cannot be ignored.

John McCain called Social Security “a disgrace,” referring to the basic mechanism of workers paying for benefits of retirees. He has called for personal retirement accounts, the approach championed by the Bush administration. It appears that McCain's words on this issue contradict the position that appears on his Web site.

McCain's speeches now mention alternative energy. However, he has not troubled to vote for important legislation on renewable energy. Instead of proposing funds for research, he is the one chanting, “drill, drill, drill.” The McCain plan includes a $300 million prize for an improved car battery, and his ads blame Barack Obama (who has put forth a comprehensive new energy plan) for high gas prices.

You can take a chance on McCain/Palin, believing that McCain was okay on an issue at some point and hoping he has the needed wisdom, skills, and executive ability (something not supported by his impulsive behavior) OR you can back Obama/Biden, the team with the consistent history, judgment, and composure to lead our country.

Dem. VP Nominee Joe Biden Vows To End Iraq War

Erin from New York, NY — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:20:05 EDT

September 26, 2008 by Erin Medlicott

Greensburg, PA: Speaking to a packed house in the Greensburg Salem High School gym Thursday, Democratic VP nominee Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) criticized the Bush Administration on its handling of U.S. military involvement in Iraq, shouting, “we will end this war.”

Introduced by NFL Hall of Famer and Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney, and Norma Margonari, a local activist who comes from a large family of coal miners, Biden opened his remarks by thanking Pittsburgh for pitching in to help his family. He choked up and somberly spoke about how after his wife and daughter were killed in an automobile accident, Rocky Bleier, one of the Steelers, came to his sons’ hospital room to give them footballs to cheer them up, at the request of Dan Rooney’s dad.

Biden calmed fears when he said the Obama-Biden team would guarantee to keep Social Security intact. He answered questions on health care benefits and fixing the economy - but his most crowd-rousing comments were given about the Iraq War.

His statement, “Imagine a country where we only go to war when it is absolutely necessary” brought a big round of applause.

Biden continued, “and when we do….. we go with the support of the rest of the world.” More big applause. And then, ” Ladies and gentlemen, we will end this war.” Standing ovation.

Senator Biden’s got a personal interest in six-year long war, since his family learned their oldest son, Beau, currently Delaware’s Attorney General, and a captain in the National Guard, will be deployed to Iraq next month. But he’s been blasting the Bush Administration for several years for their lack of commitment to benefits for vets returning home, including making it extremely hard to be considered “eligible” for education and health benefits once their tours of duty are over.

Last year, the senator’s bill to provide funding for MRAPs, mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, paved the way for construction and distribution of these V-shaped hull tanks, directly leading to a dramatic drop in the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who were hit by roadside bombs. The bill was passed by a vote of 75-24. The one remaining vote was Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was absent in the Senate that day.

Pittsburgh has a higher than average number of residents in the U.S. military. Speaking to the veterans and their families in the crowd, Biden continued, “The only people sacrificing right now are those who have children or husbands or wives who are serving, and the families that are left behind. And we don’t mention it often enough, but we have thousands of people who have died. We have over 30,000 who have been wounded.”

He continued, “Ladies and gentlemen, we owe them. We owe them more than we can ever repay them.”

The senator stayed to answer questions (unlike his counterpart, Gov. Sarah Palin, so far…) and left to a standing ovation.

Barack's ads

Len — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:40:52 EDT

I'm very disappointed that the Obama campaign has resorted to the blatant lying in TV ads and speeches that the McCain campaign has been so publicly ridiculed for in recent weeks. Can't we stay above that? We can still run a hard-hitting, and negative, if necessary, campaign without telling outright lies or doing heavy misleading.

I'm talking first and foremost about Barack's comments about privatizing social security. His, and virtually all Democrat's public statements about it are wildly exaggerated and used as scare tactics. I understand his Spanish ad tying Rush Limbaugh to McCain is also quite misleading.

Details are at factcheck.org and in this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092101207.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Let's not let McCain off the hook for his campaign's ethical lapses with equally inaccurate ads!

McCain's memory fog envelopes campaign ...

Martin Edwin "Mick" from Churchton, MD — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:09:51 EDT

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

McCain: "I'm Not For Privatization Of
Social Security" ...

McCain 2004: "Without Privatization, I Don't See How You Can Possibly Over Time Make Sure Young Americans Are Able To Receive Social Security Benefits"... Watch The Video

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

McCain social security whopper @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Martin Edwin "Mick" from Churchton, MD — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:58:29 EDT

McCain: I'm Not For Privatization Of
Social Security McCain 2004: "Without Privatization, I Don't See How You Can Possibly Over Time Make Sure Young Americans Are Able To Receive Social Security Benefits"... Watch The Video

It's all about trust

Cynthia A. Casby — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:50:12 EDT

Having trouble turning McCain supporters our way? Try this: After 8 years of lies and deceit from the Bush administration, please consider that if you can't trust John McCain to tell the truth in his political ads, how can we trust him to run the country? Many, many general media outlets are reporting the outrageous lies in McCain's recent ads (such as Sen. Obama voting for sex education for kindergarteners.)

And what about money? How do we trust John McCain with the national credit card when he voted with GWB so much of the time, has no hesitation to go to war first and ask questions later, wants to privatize social security, and wants to dismantle the health insurance system and replace it with tax credits for individual health policies? For more confirmation see Ronald Brownstein's column today in the National Journal, at http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php

Shifting the risk of our health and retirement onto individuals and away from employers has always been a goal of the Republican Party, but has never been in the interests of most Americans.

Sarah Palin cannot be trusted with the American Credit Card, either. See the LA Times story today, "Road to Nowhere." She used $8 million of the $223 million she got for the Bridge to Nowhere (instead of the $398 million she asked for) to build a Road to Nowhere (leading to the now-cancelled bridge) that locals don't want and think is wasteful. Ketchikan (the other side of Nowhere) Mayor Bob Weinstein is quoted today saying, "If Sarah Palin is not being truthful on an issue like the bridge project, what else is she not being truthful about?" Doesn't that say it all.

Tell your friends and family: We can't trust McCain-Palin. No way, no how.

KEATING FIVE sound familiar?

Karen in St. Joseph, Missouri — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:37:02 EDT

Savings and Loan... crisis... McCain one of the Keating Five.

Obama ad hits McCain on social security

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV9GZUtCgPc

Socialized Risk, Privatized Social Security?

signsSansSignifieds — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:27:14 EDT

Well whaddaya know... Twenty eight years after Ronald Reagan used a false “gubmint bad, people good, regulations bad, free markets good” dichotomy to get elected, and less than 8 years after Dubya started to enact all the disparate pieces of the long-term right-wing agenda, the wheels are finally coming off our financial system. Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and now AIG have all collapsed. No one knows who’s next.

As I’m sure you all know, the Fed has moved in to bail out Freddie & Fanny, Bear Stearns & AIG, while leaving Lehman Brothers to die. This has prompted many economists to remark on the irony that our government supports the privatization of profits but the socialization of risk. For, apart from those rescues arranged by private entities, it’s we the taxpayers who are, in essence, on the hook for the bailouts already mentioned. And there’s no way of knowing at this point just how much of the holdings of the various dying firms is composed of worthless subprime mortgage debt.

McCain, Social Security, the meltdown and judgement

ML — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:32:17 EDT

Just read an essay on the Huffington Post by John Neffinge. He points out that if McCain had his way our social security would be tied directly into those investment houses.

Doesn't say much for his judgement.

This deserves IMMEDIATE attention -- yes, even Disabled Americans people!!!

James Middleton — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:24:38 EDT

John McCain said, recently, that he is "not in favor of privatizing Social Securty... I never have, and never will..."

But in 2004, he said that he believed that "I just can't see how we can avoid privatizing Social Security."

Don't believe me? Click on the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyBwMy27Aoc

This link was provided initially by a diarist at DailyKos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/15/225053/013/917/600132

Check it out. Use it in an OBama ad, if possible. Also, this might be a good candiate for "Fight the Smears." The video is just precious.

advertising

Tricia — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:03:24 EDT

Some advice to the Obama Campaign from a woman over fifty:

For the life of me I can't imagine why the campaign thinks the slogan "More of the Same" will work. It is boring. And more of it is more of the same. Boring.

The basic sentiment behind it is good, but if your focus groups are telling you this is working, you need new focus groups. Why not say something like "They gummed it up for 8 years, now they want 4 more to reform it. We say no, it is time to change it, from top to bottom, and from bottom to top." You need better slogans. If you think voters are going to be drawn solely to the issues, think again. You have (mostly) good issue positions and it is easy to find out what they are. Also, it is good to claim you are always talking about issues, but it is a mistake to think that will do it, alone. Claim you are talking about issues even while you confront the lies of the personalities on the other side. Lying IS an issue.

Also, the pundits seem to have entirely missed two important points. First, that Letterman, essentially a comedy show, was the PERFECT place to put an end to the lipstick crapola. For the rest of us, the more we focus on Palin, the more powerful she is. Let it go. Let the campaign deal with it (and hope they do a better job of it).

Obama did it with wit and charm on Letterman. Let's have more of this.

In another forum, he was also charming and brilliant. Obama in the national service forum recognized that being a government worker is a form of service. More women are drawn to government work than are men. Not everyone needs to be a warrior or a volunteer. One in six Americans works for government, if you count teachers in public shools, and young people will not be drawn to it if people like Palin (tonight on ABC) constantly drag it down and bash "bureaucrats" and act like the only legitimate way to serve the nation is to take up a gun. This is a back route to us women.

Obama's message on this is much more hopeful and complete. Why did the pundits walk away saying he and McCain had said the same thing in the forum? Hello? "Government is the problem" is not the same as "government service is national service and it is honorable service." Even David Gregory missed the boat entirely on this. Where are the people to point this out? Navel gazing about what to do about George-Bush-in-a-beehive, that is where. Sheesh.

One more point: Why on earth are Obamites referring to McCain and Palin by name all the time? Shouldn't they be referred to incessantly as "my (esteemed) Republican opponents", or "George Bush's would be successors", or "the long time Senator", and the like? Don't let people forget they are Republicans, a brand in serious trouble. Palin's brand is rising. Wrap her in the Republican flag. McCain too. Stick him with his 26 years of "experience" and screw ups. They are not mavericks. They are Republicans. (And where are the ads about the OTHER banking crisis--the McCain Savings and Loan Disaster? Some of us are old enough to remember it, if only we had a reminder or two. Integrity? Come on. His role was a disgrace! How much did that cost the taxpayers? THAT is an ISSUE, not a personal attack.

Last point--there are NO commercials for Obama running here in FL where I live, during prime time. Meanwhile, McCain is claiming not to be a hero on all the stations, all the time, (just before he tells you what a hero he is for the millionth time), and says nothing whatever about what he will do. Only how "dangerous" (i.e. black) Obama is. Doublespeak. Tell these seniors the truth about McCain and the rest of these Republicans--that they will privatize Social Security the minute it is possible to do so. It will scare the pants off of them, as it should. Envision them investing their privatized social security in one of these failing banks, and then what? This is taking candy from a baby. What is the holdup? What a missed opportunity, while Obama goes down the tubes here in Florida.

Let Obama be Obama, but a little briefer (not like me, lol). Fight for these seniors. Get out there and charm and use some fresh, clear, brief language. "More of the same" is deadly dull, even if it is true. Don't let it apply to THIS campaign too.

Barack Speaks At AARP

Standing Up for Change — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:22:03 EDT

Did anyone see this webcast of BO at the AARP convention. This is a must see video. He got a standing ovation and they will not let him go ! Please, watch it and share your comments.

AARP LINKl

It's not about "believin"..."watcha gonna DO, man?"

Penny from Emeryville, CA — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:10:57 EDT

Barack needs to talk to the people!!!If the masses in this country are going to vote for Barack they need to see that he has some REAL ideas about things that will affect them directly. Social Security, for instance. Or potholes in their roads. Better care of our Vets; their damaged kids. Or how to keep people from losing their homes. Educating our kids so there's someone else who can run for president in 20 years. He needs to talk to the people.

He needs to do more than point out the problem. He needs to propose some ideas...making it clear that he can't do them without Congress's cooperation...but he certainly can't do it without being elected.

McCain has NO ideas. But no one expects him to. Barack has lots, I assume. But Barack is too intelligent for the masses to understand him. He talks above them. In metaphors. "What's that, man?"

I have a REAL idea for fixing Social Security going forward, but I don't know how to get it to him. Does anyone know how to communicate with him or his key people to pose a serious suggestion?

One of the millions that we are working for

J M Herrmann — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:36:32 EDT

Dear Obama Campaign, I am one of the volunteers helping out at your office in Luray Virginia. I've been proud to see the excitement this campaign has brought here, and the ability it's bestowed upon myself and others like me to really communicate within the community.

When I do phone banking, I always ask "What concerns can our movement address for you?" Before I ask who they're supporting. A few people have had some things they'd like to see change in this country, and I've been able to tell them how Senator Obama will get that done. But more than just bringing Obama's ideas to the people, I want to be able to share a particular story I heard with the campaign, to help remind everyone from the Senator on down why we have to win this November.

This story is from a 70 year old woman in my town. She has not yet decided who to vote for yet, because she's trying to decide whether to pay for her supplemental medical costs, or for food. This is what she told me:

This woman, H. for now, was widowed in 1982, a year before I was born. Her husband worked until the day he died, and put away a little bit of money. She was able to sustain herself on his savings until she could claim retirement years later. She says that medicare can't pay for all the prescriptions she needs, but she has supplemental insurance that has to come out of her social security funds.

The costs for that this year were around 350 dollars, up from under three hundred last year. Her social security payments are scarcely increasing even as she watches prices for food and medicine sky rocket. But through describing all of that, the trips to the store and putting something back to the cart to afford a prescription, through all of that she never sounded afraid, until she mentioned her children. "I want to leave my children with something other than debt." She said.

It was the future generations that worried her, like her grandson who is a marine stationed abroad, who she had nightmares about while he was in Iraq. She and her departed husband worked and built up America, he worked his entire life for a better country for their children. And now that's all threatened. Not only might she pass away without her medication if prices continue to rise, but she would leave her children not under better circumstances than she had found (her goal as a parent and grandparent) but leave them with debt and wondering if the same thing awaits them in the twilight years of their lives.

I hope that this story can be distributed among the campaign and its staffers, and I'm sure this is just one of many that we've all heard, and that Obama carries in his great heart, which spurs him to fight for people like H.

Obama is the right man to help our seniors, and he has a plan to do it. Eliminating taxes on seniors making under 50000 a year, allowing medicare to negotiate lower payments for drugs, importing cheep medicines from abroad, and ensuring that social security will remain solvent and meet the needs of our senior citizens.

The real difference between Republicans & Dems

Joyce from Port Charlotte, FL — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:34:19 EDT

Republicans look down on the poor and middle class. They believe it is not their responsibility to help lift people up and make the country a better place for all. They think they are entitled to control the money and hand it out in a pittance to the people as they see fit. They think that distributing wealth more evenly is a communist or socialist action and will brand you as such if you suggest there should be more equality. They would rather give millions to foreign charities then to pay another couple of thousand in taxes that might help the people of this country. Not all but many.

We are losing our homes because the rich scheme ways to take money from the poor and give it to themselves. The mortgage companies encouraged their employees to scam the poor, to pray on their hopes and dreams. They don't care about education because if you keep the people uneducated they are more likely to believe your lies. They encourage you to invest in the stock market and then manipulate it until they scare you out. Then they pounce and buy in and take your money.

McCain will cut all social programs to get more money for his wars and to keep business taxes low.

Democrats have always cared for "the people" They are not perfect but they are a hell of a lot better. They want to give us health care and keep our social programs. mcCain's $5000 tax rebate for health care is laughable. As the cost of health care rises we will still be in the exact same position. Obama's people must bring this out. The people need details, not generalizations.

As a senior on a low fixed income, the thought that he is in favor of destroying social security as we know it is downright scary.

Tell everyone you know who they really are with as much detail as possible.

Change is in the Air for Disabled Friends of Obama!

evstevie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:15:47 EDT

Greetings to Everyone visiting this blog.

I am a 55 year old citizen of the United States that for the past 8 years has been made to feel invisible, disregarded, and sent out to pasture to die. From my youth I dedicated my life to God, family, and service. However, in May of 2002, my entire world was changed when I had to retire from my job due to a Chronic illiness, Systemic Lupus Erythmitosis (Lupus). I had to apply for Social Security Insurance Benefits (SSDI) to survive. I wasn't comfortable with being labeled "disabled"...I have two degrees (BS in Behavioral Science, and an AS in Business Administration). This may not seem like a great deal to some, but being the first in my family to attend and graduate from two universities made me feel quite proud. But now, I am legally blind with Advanced Glaucoma and a myriad of other ailments that causes me to have to take over 16 different kinds of medications a day. Each time I heard that President Bush was going to tweak with SSDI my heart would sink, wondering and praying to God that the meager benefit that I receive would not be taken away. I became increasingly depressed, and considered taking my life on several occasions. BUT THEN CAME HOPE! Barack Obama has provided hope for me and others who, through no fault of their own, had just about given up. His messages are so inspirational and encouraging. The platform that he has presented, and the hope given to senior citizens, who are strapped with ridiculously high medical bills, medication, and nursing home cost - as well as those like me, who are forced-at this age- to learn a new skill or trade in order to earn enough money to live.

I encourage you to join me in this grassroot endeavor to help elect a man, who HAS THE AUDACITY OF HOPE to be our next Commander and Chief. Remember, little becomes much when we place (our hope, dreams, and efforts) behind a man who is willing to sacrifice and heed the call of hurting people in the UNITED States of America.

John McCain: Piratizing, Er, Privatizing Veterans Health Care

Stephen from Missoula, MT — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:55:53 EDT

John McCain says that the current Veterans Administration health care system is a "burden" and should be privatized, but to be more accurate, he should use the word, "piratize," instead of privatize.

Help build families

Aaron Edgell — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:18:11 EDT

My name is Aaron Edgell. As a 38 year old man with a nueromuscular disease, I have seen great strides made in our country in relation to disability issues. I started my first year of school in 1975 and in that year, laws were passed to allow disabled kids to attend public school as a choice. This allowed me to become part of the mainsteam population and not be "hidden away" as many kids unfortunately were in private educational institutions. My parents made every effort to ensure that my life would be normal despite my disability.

My school years were difficult to say the very least. While most kids were concerned with normal school activities, I was worried about how far apart classes were, where was the closest bathroom, and how was I going to carry all my books. I eventually made it through high school, albeit a year late but I never allowed myself to quit and eventually finished.

In 1990, disabled people across the country were finally awarded the protection of the law that until then had been elusive. It was then that we collectively had a voice that would allow us to stand on equal ground with our fellow Americans. We as a group have benefited greatly from the ADA laws.

It was during this time that I had just begun college. Although there was a disability services office in my school, I was often too proud to ask for the help it would take for me to perform well in school and that was my fault. I spent many years in school until I finally swallowed my pride and went into the vocational rehabilitation office at my university and asked for help. It was the best decision I ever made. After 17 years of a "never say die" attitude, I finally graduated from Arizona State University in 2006.

Now to my real point. I had recieved Supplemental Security Income, from the government, as a way to support myself. This form of Social Security is actually a form of welfare handed out by the government.

Late in 2002, I met the woman that I would marry in August 2003. Before I could marry her though, I had to decide whether I wanted the very limited financial security that my check brought or did I want the love and affection of an outstanding woman. Not only was I gaining a wife, but also two beautiful daughters as well. I was forced to make this decision because the government has decided that once an individual marries, they are no longer the burden of the government, but the burden of their spouse. As if a single mother with two kids didn't have enough to worry about, now she has a disabled dependent until which time, I have graduated and begun working.

My question is this, "Is it fair that a disabled person and the person they love are penalized by the government for wanting to do what most people take for granted?" Also, "Shouldn't the government want to strengthen families instead of standing in the way?" Had it not been for the love of an exceptional human being, I would never know the joy of loving a woman as my wife or being there to assist in the developement of two kids I love so dearly. I thank god every day for these three people in my life.

What I would like to see happen now is, eliminate the penalty for getting married if you recieve SSI. Allow disabled people to contribute financially as well as emotionally to the family unit. Many disabled people are not in a position to educate themselves and move away from government assistence. Does that mean they are also incapable of loving and being loved? The answer is, certainly not.

It has been said, "The true measure of a civilized society, is how well it cares for its disadvantaged". Can we as Americans say that we are truly civilized to that point? I hope so, but I think not!

Social Security Dilemma - To Tax or Not To Tax

Madera Strong - Team Co-ordinator For City of Madera — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 16:59:08 EDT

Americans want Social Security to remain a safety net - for those who worked but need help getting money to retire. Social Security should not be privitized because businesses come and go, but Social Security must remain forever. Many have to work into age 70s in order to qualify for Social Security - this is not right for persons who have hard jobs, especially laborers or persons with health problems.

Persons who get laid off anytime in their career, lose all past benefits, so must go back to square one in building a retirement fund. None of us want to support financially people who squander their money and make repeated bad choices. But, for those who live beyond age 65, they need an income and basic health care.

People do not want to pay more in taxes to fix Social Security, but do not want to cut retiree benefits. Social Security will collapse in about 2017. Where do we want the Social Security System to stand. If no one wants to fund Social Security through taxes, we will lose Social Security.

For young Americans, do they want any part of Social Security?No, but can they trust their money to private retirement investment funds? We hear lots of stories everyday where seniors are cheated out of their retirement savings by businesses and scoundrels. What then? They need government support, which we now call Social Security.

Do Your Friends Want to Privatize Social Security?

Dave Nelson — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:11:47 EDT

Have you ever conversed with a young person who things Social Security won't be around for him, or a selfish older person who resents those Social Security taxes being taken out of his paycheck? Ruth and I have enjoyed a recent exchange of letters to the editor on that subject with a guy who wants to manage his own Social Security portfolio. The exchange appeared in the Bryan-College Station (TX) Eagle

Barak Obama stresss importance of Social Security and rejects McCain’s privatization efforts.

The Senior Vote Team — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:06:57 EDT

Last week Social Security celebrated its 73rd birthday. That’s right, Social Security has been running smoothly for almost three quarters of a century and is currently running a huge annual surplus. John McCain may think it’s a ”disgrace,” but Social Security has kept millions of seniors out of poverty and is beloved by American seniors. Click on this article to check out Senator Barack Obama’s thoughts on Social Security and view his recent published letter in the Union Leader.

The Elephant in the Room (and it's not John McCain) Part 1

Marty — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:20:16 EDT

There is a big hungry elephant in the room that everyone knows is there, but no one will acknowledge. It’s as if everyone hopes that if we just ignore it, it will go away. But, it’s not going to go away. It’s just going to continue getting bigger and bigger, devouring everything in sight until there is nothing left. And the longer we wait to deal with it, the harder it will be to get rid of it.

A TAX POLICY TEAM OBAMA NEEDS TO PROMOTE

DONALD S METZ — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:07:15 EDT

When we have a huge national debt, it devalues the dollar and creates a hidden tax on us all. So, a balanced budget and paying off the national debt is critically important.

Social Security and Medicare is a regressive tax. It should apply to everyone and all income levels, but instead of just removing or revising the tax cap, lower the tax to 3% and apply it to all income. In doing so you could give a HUGE tax break to both businesses and most people. Wealthier people will not be hit with a huge tax increase if the rate is lower, and the additional revenue will bring solvency to social security and make it much more fair.

An additional social responsibility tax of 5% should apply to all those with incomes above $1 million a year. On average most Americans pay 46% of their gross income in total taxes. The very wealthy, on average, pay only 23% of their gross income in total taxes. The tax code needs to be revised so that middle America is NOT shouldering the bulk of the tax burden.

What few Americans realize is that republicans have passed the largets tax increases in history - but they use so-called user fees, gas taxes, and social security taxes to apply those tax increases unfairly to the poor and middle class. John McCain is aopposed to raising or removing the social security income tax cap, but does plan to raise the tax rate on those Americans subject to the tax. It's hardly fair.

Republicans are also responsible for the explsoive growth of goevernment. While the Republican growth in government does little to serve peopel, it does make for plum positions ofr the sons daughtersand wives of major contributors. So called provatization is also a Republican shame, where government has issued no-bid contracts to incompetnt subcontractors like Halliburton for 10 times what the work should cost to perform.

Picture Post: Klobuchar, Ellison Launch Seniors Talking to Seniors

Xavier Lopez-Ayala — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:45:27 EDT

On Friday morning, as part of the celebration of the 73rd anniversary of the creation of Social Security, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar lead a group of Seniors for Obama volunteers to the Seal Hi Rise in St. Paul to address residents and talk about issues important to seniors.

In the afternoon, Congressman Keith Ellison spoke to volunteers at the Campaign for Change office in Minneapolis before heading over to Richfield Health to discuss the concerns of residents there.

Here are some pictures from the events:

To see more photos from the two events, click here.

Celebration of Social Security’s 73rd Birthday

Zach in Helena — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:08:18 EDT

Today, Obama's Campaign for Change delivered birthday cakes to Senior Centers around Montana celebrating the 73rd anniversary of the signing of the Social Security Act by President Franklin Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. Yesterday, former Sen. John Melcher praised Sen. Barack Obama’s plan to strengthen Social Security, a program that has provided economic security and peace of mind for generations of Montana families.

"Sen. Obama knows that people across Montana and the entire United States count on Social Security to be there for their families when they retire or if they become disabled, and in the last eight years we have seen the erosion of many gains it took nearly a lifetime to achieve," said Melcher, a champion of Social Security during his time in Congress. "We need a president committed to protecting and strengthening Social Security, and all John McCain is offering is four more years of Bush’s plans to undermine the program through privatization."

Vice President Walter Mondale in St. Paul

Xavier Lopez-Ayala — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:38:12 EDT

Around 70 seniors and members of the community came out to the Obama Campaign for Change headquarters in St. Paul this morning to hear former Vice President Walter Mondale speak about the importance of seniors reaching out to their friends and neighbors in this election.

Vice President Mondale also talked about the issues important to seniors:

Senator Obama has comprehensive plans to protect Social Security, strengthen retirement savings, make affordable health care available to every American, and to protect and honor our seniors. With the ‘Seniors Talking to Seniors’ program, we will be launching a sustained effort to grow Senator Obama’s broad support among this important group of voters.

After his remarks and some Q&A, senior volunteers hit the phones and started talking with other seniors about Barack's strong record on the issues they care about.

After Mondale’s remarks, senior volunteers hit the phones to talk with other seniors about Barack Obama’s strong record of fighting for issues important to them.

Here are some photos from today's event:

Are you a Minnesota Senior for Obama? Click here to sign up to recieve special campaign updates and event information.

On the 73rd Anniversary of Social Security (UPDATED)

Xavier Lopez-Ayala — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:36:40 EDT

In just about 30 minutes, former Vice President Walter Mondale will be kicking off Minnesota's "Seniors Talking to Seniors" program at the Campaign for Change HQ in St. Paul.

You can still make it down, the address to the is 777 Raymond Ave, right off of University Avenue on Raymond.

UPDATE (9:47 AM): Vice-President Mondale has arrived.

UPDATE (10:18 AM): Here's a quick (we'll have a picture post up this afernoon with plenty more).

Vice President Mondale arrives at the St. Paul Campaign for Change HQ.

Here's Sen. Obama's statement on the 73rd Anniversary of Social Security.

On this anniversary of Social Security, let’s reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that Social Security remains a safety net that seniors can count on today, tomorrow, and always. It is impossible to fully measure Social Security’s value for its recipients, as well as for those who look after and love them. Nearly 13 million seniors depend on it each month to keep from falling into poverty, and millions more depend on survivor and disability benefits to protect their retirement.

As President, I will protect Social Security for today’s seniors and future generations. That means strengthening Social Security’s solvency while protecting middle class families from benefit cuts, tax increases or increases in the retirement age. It means treating Social Security not as a political football or describing it as an “absolute disgrace,” but instead honoring it as the cornerstone of the social compact in this country. And it means opposing efforts to privatize Social Security, as I did when President Bush proposed risky private accounts a few years ago. Privatization is wrong and tears at the fabric of Social Security – the very idea of mutual responsibility – by subjecting a secure, earned retirement to the whims of the market. The Bush privatization plan that Senator McCain now embraces would tell millions of elderly Americans that they’re on their own, putting them at risk of falling into poverty. That’s not what this country is about.

It’s time to reclaim the idea that in this country, we’re all in it together. That is America’s very promise – and Social Security’s very guarantee. And it requires a President who will change the ways of Washington, protect the people’s interests, and bring Americans together to meet the great challenges of our time. That is exactly the sort of leadership I intend to offer.

Thursday: Walter Mondale in St. Paul to Launch Seniors Talking to Seniors

Xavier Lopez-Ayala — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:10:48 EDT

The Minnesota Campaign for Change invites you to join former Vice President Walter Mondale as we kick off our "Seniors Talking to Seniors" Thursdays.

Come hear former Vice President Mondale talk about Barack Obama's plan to protect retirement security, strengthen seniors' health care coverage, provide an economic safety net for low-income seniors, and treat them with a respect that dignifies their many contributions to our country.

Here are the details:

"Seniors Talking to Seniors" Kick-Off with former Vice President Walter Mondale
Minnesota Campaign for Change Headquarters
777 Raymond Avenue
St. Paul, MN
Thursday, August 14th
10:00 a.m.

RSVP for the event online at: http://mn.barackobama.com/MNseniors

Hope to see you there!

Dammit, TELL ME THE TRUTH!!!

Tanya — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:51:17 EDT

Ummmm..Mr McCain?…are ya sitting down? Here’s a few of your own words that lead all of us to distrust you overwhelmingly, every day! You’re an embarrassment to yourself, McSame! This is the age of the “Internet(s)” and “the” Youtube using Bushian malaprops. We’ve got you on record, McFlip/Flop! Facts are just silly things that get in your way…ehhh, McSame?

Many, many, many thanks to one of my true media heroes and ever-present mentor..Keith Olbermann!

Letter to John McCain 08/03/08

Wain — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:57:32 EDT

August 3, 2008

Dear John McCain:

The campaign is not about how we conduct our campaign. The campaign is about:

1!. How do we restore our previous prosperity I recall before the current administration took power.

2!. How do we return to our previous state of calm.

3!. How do we redistribute federal income to wage earners, particularly those unemployed or employed below their skill level.

4!. How do we lower gas prices at the pump within 10 days.

5!. How do we keep those gas prices lowering.

6!. Property rights need to be re-examined. Foreclosures of this high number shows a lack of interest by the Banking Oversight Committees. I repeat, Property rights need to be re-examined. FDIC Home Loan Insurance.

7!. The Elderly and Disabled supported by our Federal Government are due for a substantial raise. No one shall receive less than 250% of their monthly housing expenses.

8!. Job created in the private sector.

9!. Jobs created in the public sector.

10!. Honorably converting the conduct of our independent diplomacy with Iraq and Afganistan from a Defense Department Series to a State Department Series.

McCain and Abel

♫Parodee♫ — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 08:05:17 EDT

First draft of our Platform Statement

Rae — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:18:02 EDT

Hello all,

If you click on Read more at the bottom of this post, you will see the full text of my first draft of our Platform statement. For those of you who were at our meeting, I didn't try to reconstruct our conversation. Instead I tried to synthesize the different issues, perspectives, and discussions into language that would be appropriate for a political platform. So, if I misrepresented or left out something you feel passionately about, this is your chance to get it back in.

Please, be critical and be constructive. Use the comments feature to suggest changes or offer critique, but please try to be as specific as possible. If you're displeased with the wording of something, suggest an alternate wording and explain why you prefer it, or at least be very specific with why you don't like the present wording. If you want to see something added, draft your addition and post it. Don't forget to read and reply to others' comments as well.

You'll have until Sunday night at 7:00 pm to post your comments. Then I'll gather them all up and submit our recommendation to the committee. Please feel free to forward the link to this post to as many people as you think would be interested. Critique is healthy and strengthens the quality of our ideas.

Why isn't the media informing senior citizens about McCain's view on Social Security?

Vegas — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:05:50 EDT

http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=14923

Negative ad about Obama can be silenced with the right approach. Should it be done by a tv ad or in a statement? Is it time to get tough?

Vegas — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 03:27:52 EDT

This was an interesting article and even more interesting responses. I must say that I favor a few comments from the link. I will post them here. What do you think? And how do you feel? Why don't we see more mistakes McCain makes on television? Why are they not reporting his flaws?

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/obama_campaign_hits_mccain_ira.php

Some of my favorite comments from the above link...

A press release won't do. Voters aren't reporters. They need a response ad.

Here's my suggestion:

1. "John McCain thinks he can mislead you with dishonorable attacks while Barack Obama is away meeting with America's allies."
2. "What John McCain isn't telling you is that he has repeatedly voted against funding for our soldiers and veterans. He even voted against the new GI Bill that would help our brave men and women train for new jobs."
3. "And while Obama was attending full committee hearings on the war in Afghanistan, John McCain skipped every single one of his hearings to campaign for president."
4. "After eight years of dishonesty, it's time for some real straight talk. Barack Obama has a plan to work together with our commanders on the ground to get our troops home by 2010. He's leading the way forward on Afghanistan, believing we need to end the distractions and take the fight to Al Qaeda's own backyard."
5. "John McCain only wants to continue with the policies of George W. Bush. Is it any wonder why he doesn't want to tell it straight?"
[cue footage of McCain and Bush hugging]

The corresponding points:
1) McCain is dishonorable, a mis-leader, maybe even cowardly.
2) McCain is a hypocrite, doesn't care about veterans and he doesn't think about the economy they're returning to.
3) McCain is a hypocrite and blindly ambitious, while Obama is responsible and engaged.
4) Obama is the real straight-talker, he's got plans and wants to kick bin Laden's ass.
5) McCain isn't honest, he wants to be just like Bush, he doesn't talk straight, he might even be a little fruity for him.

If I had his job, I'd do a point-by-point takedown of the ad.
1. Barack Obama has attended multiple Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Afganistan, while John McCain was absent for every single one.
2. He was in Iraq 2 years ago.
3. John McCain also voted against funding when it was attached to a timetable for withdrawal.
4. Obama's consistent, unflinching position: "1-2 brigades per month, 16 months."
5. John McCain voted against funding our veterans medical care. He also opposed the new GI bill and failed to even show up to vote on it.

Can't wait for the Obama attack ads which will use "social security is a disgrace" and America is a "nation of whiners" and we are in a "mental recession".

I actually don't think that that McCain attack ad is that good. It definitely could have been far worse. I actually think that it is a little wimpy.

Social Security and National Debt

Curtiss from Phoenix, AZ — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:59:01 EDT

I've heard a lot about the war, the economy and health care but what I would truly like to know is what about our national debt. In 2005 the Social Security Fund was again raided and complete emptied out to pay the interest on the national debt. We are required to pay our debts, Credit Cards etc. and yet Social Security is in trouble because we are not paying down our national debt. Would that not make a more stable economy and Social Security? We keep hearing about S.S. being broke, this country is broke. Are you Obama going to continue in this path? Are we in the US going continue to believe the lie that Social Security can't be fixed? It can be if we stop raiding it and the way to raid it is to pay our national debt. China has 1.5 trillion dollars in funds put away and we're borrowing and paying them the interest from out Social Security. Anybody want to agree?

Curtiss

McCain's Social Security Bamboozle

Mikeystyle — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:54:12 EDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zTN7a9O3KM&NR=1

McCain wants to privatize Social Security

Mikeystyle — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:09:37 EDT

He may claim otherwise—but here he is in own words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5UcL2IC7eg

Your Money: McCain vs. Obama

Gwen Alexander — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:09:58 EDT

• The candidates and your money
• Issue #1: America's Money
A detailed guide to the economic issues that matter most to voters in the 2008 presidential election.

Compare where Barack Obama and John McCain stand on key campaign issues, including: · Gas Prices              · Driving                 · Mortgage Fraud        · Personal Taxes

· Health Care              Free Trade           · Wall Street               · Energy Security

· Housing                  · Social Security      · Business Taxes         · Savings

· Jobs                       · Small Business     · Taxing Wealth

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/news/0806/gallery.election_issues/index.html

Middle or Side? Drive Safely, just go for a ride!

Nick Danger — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:02:44 EDT

We've heard and seen so many creative nomenclatures from left leaning bloggers for the right wing presumptive nominee, who claims he's really independent though he usually votes conservative, and as late has all toes at the party line, Republican John McCain i.e. McLame, McDisdane, Mcshame, Mcflame, Mcsnooze, Mcboosh, just plain McBush etc. to name a few and well, that's just the tip of the iceberg. We're talkin' about an ice flow with more power than a major league pitchers' flaming fastball. That's all well and good for those who hold the blue banner dear to their hearts but what about the issues. How does the blue team talk some of those folks that are quite so bloody red into moving into rainbow territory and pullin' the big blue lever in November? What are the differences. Is there a great divide? So many questions, so little answers, so much hearsay and so many fractions of the facts to be de-slimed. That's mainly the red machine throwing it all at the man in blue so he's constantly attempting a deflection strategy rather than stepping up to tout his own plans for putting this country back to work, keeping us safe and repairing the damage done by an administration that has more in common with the Kremlin than the American people. Recently the mainstream media has been touting Obama's move to the middle as an effort to appease those on the fence and McCain's saber rattling that he's already the man in the middle so we should take notice of him. Mainstream media has been dancing around the issues, giving us little or no facts, telling us the two men have similar views...I don't think so, but don't take it from me, go to both candidates websites and read about their positions and then read some more. Problem is folks want to be told, they don't want to dig and discover unless it's about entertainment and juicy gossip. We're teaching those bad habits to our young via the big square box in your living room. However that's a separate subject in and of itself, deserving of space in another blog at another time. You're not like that anyhow cause you've taken the time to read this far. You're a comparison shopper and you want the facts. Now I see some distinct differences in the two men. Let's take the issue of Social Security for example. Last week McCain showcased his ideas for the economy. When asked by a young woman at a Denver town hall meeting early last week how to make Social Security viable for her generation, McCain said she could not rely on the system "unless we fix it". Fair enough but he followed that with the following; "We are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today, and that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed." His comments seemed to suggest he favored a funding mechanism for Social Security benefits, such as private accounts. Later on CNN, as reported in the L.A. Times, McCain seemed to fully embrace the idea of private accounts. "I want young workers to be able to, if they choose, to take part of their own money, which is their taxes, and put it in an account which has their name on it" he said. Participation would be a "voluntary thing," and "would not affect any present-day retirees or the system as necessary." Now we've got a real problem because the system since it's creation in the 1930s relies heavily on payroll taxes from current workers to fund benefits for current retirees. Seems that will leave the retirees without any money for Social Security. His timing was odd as well endorsing a new reliance on the stock market the week that the Jones industrial average dipped to its lowest point in two years. With the George W Bush Social Security privatization debacle fresh in the minds of many Americans, especially Seniors, it appears this just might give certain blue groups an opportunity to flank the opposition. If that's not enough try comparing the two men on women's issues.

The Week That Should Have Ended McCain

Nia "Hussein" J. — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:02:14 EDT

By Max Bergmann at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-bergmann/the-week-that-should-have_b_111983.html

This is the week that should have effectively ended John McCain's efforts to become the next president of the United States. But you wouldn't know it if you watched any of the mainstream media outlets or followed political reporting in the major newspapers.

During this past week: McCain called the most important entitlement program in the U.S. a disgrace, his top economic adviser called the American people whiners, McCain released an economic plan that no one thought was serious, he flip flopped on Iraq, joked about the deaths of Iranian citizens, and denied making comments that he clearly made -- TWICE. All this and it is not even Friday! Yet watching and reading the mainstream press you would think McCain was having a pretty decent political week, I mean at least Jesse Jackson didn't say anything about him.

But let's unpack McCain's week in a little more detail.

1. McCain unambiguously called Social Security "an absolute disgrace." This is not a quote taken out of context. John McCain called one of the most successful and popular government programs, which uses the tax revenues of current workers to support retirement benefits for the elderly "an absolute disgrace." This is shocking - and if uttered from Obama's mouth would dominate the news coverage and the Sunday shows, as pundits would speculate about the massive damage the statement would cause him among retirees in Florida. 2. McCain's top economic policy adviser calls Americans a bunch of "whiners" for being worried about the slumping economy. Words cannot fully explain how devastating this statement should be from Phil Gramm. You would think it would be enough to sink McCain's campaign. Of course McCain only thinks that the economic problems are psychological.

3. Iraqi leaders call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, McCain gets caught in a bizarre denial and flip flop. The Iraqis now want us to begin planning our withdrawal - McCain however wants to stay foooorrreeevvveerrrr. So what does McCain say - First, he refuses to accept Maliki's statement as being true. Then he concedes that it was an accurate statement, but was probably just a political ploy to curry favor with his own people and WOULD NOT influence his determination to keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely. Yet, McCain in 2004 at the Council on Foreign Relations said that if the Iraqis asked us to leave, we would have to go. No matter what. But that was apparently a younger and less experienced John McCain.

But let's just look at his comment that Maliki's statement is "just politics." If that is true, then it must also be true that the American military presence in Iraq is so unpopular with Iraqis that the government is forced to push for a timetable in order to survive at the ballot box. That's a reason to stay for 100 years.

4. McCain's economic plan to cut the deficit has no details and is simply not believable. There are so many things here. McCain pledges he would eliminate the deficit by the end of his first term (the campaign latter flip flop flipped about whether it was four years or eight years), but does not provide any details about how he would do it. Economists on both sides of the political aisle said that this was simply not believable, especially given McCain's other proposals to a) cut individual and corporate taxes even further, b) extend the Bush tax cuts and c) massively increase defense spending on manpower (200,000 more troops) and d) maintain a long-term sizable military presence in Iraq.

5. McCain's deficit plan includes bringing the troops home represents a major Iraq flip-flop. Speaking of the long-term military presence - a story that has gotten absolutely no attention is that McCain now believes the war will be over soon. The economic forecasts made by his crack team of economists predict that there will be significant savings during McCain's first term because we will have achieved "victory" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The savings from victory (ie the savings from not having our troops there) will then be used to pay down the deficit. The only way this could have any impact on the deficit in McCain's first time is if troop withdrawals start very soon. So McCain believes victory is in our grasps and we can begin withdraw troops from Iraq pretty much right away -- doesn't sound that different from Obama's plan does it. Someone should at least ask McCain HOW HE DEFINES VICTORY - and why he thinks we will achieve it in the next couple of years.

6. McCain campaign misled about economists support. In the major press release the McCain campaign issued to tout its Jobs for America economic plan that would balance the budget in 4 years, it included the signatures of more than 300 economists who the campaign claimed to support the plan. Only problem is that the economists were actually asked to sign up to SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Um, hello?

7. McCain makes a joke about killing Iranians. Haha... that's just McCain being McCain. I am sure that is exactly how it is being reported in Tehran. This guy is running for President not to become a talk radio pundit. Yet according to the AP this was just a humanizing moment between candidate and spouse - I am not sure when joking about the deaths of civilians became humanizing.

8. McCain denies, flatly, that he ever said that he is not an expert in economics. Are you kidding?

9). McCain distorts his record on veterans benefits in response to a question from Vietnam Veteran, who then proceeds to call McCain out on it.
10.) McCain demonstrates he knows nothing about Afghanistan and Pakistan. McCain said "I think if there is some good news, I think that there is a glimmer of improving relationship between Karzai and the Pakistanis." Pat Barry notes how crazy this comment is..."Just what "glimmer" is McCain talking about?? Maybe he's referring to President Karzai's remarks last month, which threatened military action in Pakistan if cross-border attacks persisted? Or maybe McCain is talking about Afghanistan's allegations that Pakistan's ISI was involved in a recent assassination attempt on Karzai? Maybe in McCain's world you could call that a silver-lining, but in reality-land I'd call it something else."

Any one of these incidents and comments would dominate the news cycle if they came from the Obama campaign. Yet McCain barely gets a mention. The press like to see themselves as political referees - neutral observers that call them like they see em'. But they want this to be a horse race and so all the calls right now are going one way. How else can you explain the furor last week over the Obama "refine" comment - which represented zero change in Obama's position on Iraq - and the "swift boat" mania over Wesley Clark's uncontroversial comments (psss... by the way McCain exploits his POW experience in just about every ad - yet he says he doesn't like to talk about it).

This Sunday expect the ten incidents above to get short shrift from pundit after pundit, because after all Jesse Jackson said he wanted to cut Obama's nuts off.

Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security?

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:12:42 EDT

If McCain is hoping to reach the senior voting block...he REALLY needs to address this.

From PA.net

Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security?
By Joel Wendland

7-12-08, 10:10 am

John McCain is being dishonest about his plans for Social Security. Surprised? Well, no. In 2004, while campaigning for George W. Bush in New Hampshire, McCain said, “Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.”

Early in 2008, McCain answered a participant’s question at a town hall event in New Hampshire, saying, “I’m not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.”

And again this past week McCain spoke up on Social Security basically calling the program an “absolute disgrace.” He said that it was disgraceful that younger workers pay into the system to finance benefits for retirees.

Of course that is how the system was designed.

McCain’s comment suggests that despite close to 30 years in Washington, he didn’t realize that’s how the system works, and now that he does he wants to get rid of it altogether.

McCain’s systematic effort to hide his real feelings on Social Security with contradictory statements is dishonest. It is a weak cover for a policy of privatization, slashing benefits for retirees and other Social Security beneficiaries (like dependents), and raising the retirement ages so working people working longer for fewer benefits.

McCain’s most recent comment prompted a sharp response from Alliance for Retired Americans Executive Director Edward F. Coyle who described it as “one of the most insensitive, anti-senior comments I have ever heard from a public official.”

Former Congresswoman Barbara B. Kennelly, who heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare also noted, “Since its inception, Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go system. That’s not new and it’s certainly not a disgrace.”

“To suggest that Social Security is fundamentally ‘broken’ because of this fact, shows a lack of understanding of the program, its traditional role and the need to preserve and strengthen it for the future,” she added.

Economic Policy Institute head Jared Bernstein remarked on McCain’s apparent stunning lack of understanding how Social Security works. “That is truly an amazing quote,” Bernstein said. “It’s like he’s saying, ‘I just found out that taxes come from people…that’s a disgrace.’ It betrays a really quite scary lack of knowledge about basic government.”

“Multimillionaires like John McCain and George W. Bush don’t have to worry about making ends meet, and they could care less about a program that has proven its worth for generations of Americans,” Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, wrote on the Huffington Post blog.

In fact, after spending so much time trying to separate himself from Bush, McCain’s Social Security cut and privatize plan is exactly the same policy George W. Bush tried and failed to pass in Congress with large Republican majorities in both houses.

By contrast to McCain’s proposals, Democratic nominee Barack Obama has called for strengthening the financial position of Social Security by increasing the payroll tax that funds the program, but only for the very wealthiest Americans. He has consistently opposed raising the retirement age and cutting benefits.

Both independent and federal government authored assessments of Social Security believe the program is financially solvent for decades to come.

Who's the Flip-Flopper?

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:15:05 EDT

I don't think McCain's a flip-flopper...I think he's a bald faced LIAR. But maybe that's just me.

From Think Progress

McCain denies his record of supporting Social Security privatization.»

During his town hall event in New Hampshire yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) got into a verbal back and forth with a voter over his support for Social Security privatization. McCain told the man, “I’m not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.” Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zirdAn59iE

But McCain’s record begs to differ:

- “Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.” [C-Span Road to the White House, 11/18/2004]

- “As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it — along the lines that President Bush proposed.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/3/2008]

Not only was McCain “a big booster” of Bush’s 2005 plan to privatize Social Security, but one of his top economic advisers, Carly Fiorina, recently told conservative radio host Bill Bennett that McCain “supports private accounts as one of the ways to reform the system” and that “he will continue to be supportive of those.”

Aging America Can We Afford It?

Health Care Consultant — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:58:05 EDT

In America, of course we can afford anything, if we all work and pay the escalting bills in spite of our other human needs and realistic expectations. Just like the cost of climate and energy let it go and then panic when we are out of money. But never fear the academics have come up with another catch all solution for the 77 million Baby Boomers hitting 60 - Aging in Place - where everyone basks in the safety of their own home. "Aging in Place," according to the intellectuals, means that the culture of the past is the home of the future. It is the $64 trillion dollar question. Who is going to pay for unhealthy Americans when one third of the work force retires and the providers and politicians waste one half the money on the pursuit of money? If Aging in Place is to have a chance at ever working, many changes must take place in the home and in our society: 1) Fitness and nutrition must be put in place and adhered to.2) Chronic disease needs to be prevented.3) Work life cannot end at 65.4) The home must be set up to accept some disabilities.5) Transportation for the disabled must be designed for ease of use.6) Health care insurance must pay for preventing disease and preserving health.7) The government needs to standardize what they are going to pay for and honor the commitment, regardless of the economics.8) Wasted resources must be removed from health care practices using technology, payment incentives and care planning.9) Politicians should not have the final call on allocation of resources.10) Performance must be the basis for payment, supported by evidence of what the payment is pursuing and attainment of a positive outcome. The idea that Aging in Place means every home must be a nursing home, an emergency room, a doctor's office and a place to die is not a feasible or rational solution. Here's why (see extended blog):

McCain and his pledge to Balance Budget By 2013

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:52:13 EDT

Snipped from AHN

The campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) sent an emailed response to McCain's proposal, saying, "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unified budget deficit will be $443 billion in 2013 assuming that expiring tax cuts are extended. To balance the budget in that year John McCain would have to pay for all of his campaign proposals plus cut another $443 billion of spending."
"To give a sense of why this pledge is not credible, cutting spending by $443 billion would require: cutting Medicare by 81 percent, or cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid by 33 percent or cutting non-defense discretionary spending - which pays for education, veterans, air traffic control and justice - by 79 percent.," the statement added.

Juxtaposition as Mind Control

Bigname Scientist — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:51:17 EDT

Individual Mind Control, aka Manchurian Candidate, is fiction. But Population Mind Control, aka psychological operations (psyops) and so called "Influence Science" does work. No individual can be forced to change their mind, but statistical sampling over time proves that some people do change their minds. Crowd psychology-based psycholinguistic and theatrical techniques can dramatically change the outcome of a poll or a vote. George Bush's popularity rating soared to 90% in September 2001.

Juxtaposition is more subtle, but here's how it works: Juxtapose a politician's picture next to an unrelated headline about a murder or a story about embezzlement, and watch their popularity ratings fall. Have authorities, who should have inside knowledge, like Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, and his "War Heads" shills repeately mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath, and polls will show that 70% of Americans came to believe Saddam was "behind" 9/11 (even though people previously believed the culprit was Bin Laden or other Islamic crazies, and Saddam was a secular dictator.)

Now McCain is running this picture ad all over the Internet. Not only does it misrepresent Obama's position on Diplomacy, but it juxtaposes Obama with the Reincarnation of Satan/Saddam, the unspellable Amadinajad!!! And the yes/no buttons don't even work!!

Well, it really sucks that this ad WILL be effective because of biologically-determined weaknesses in Human Psychology, that we subconsciously learn to associate spatial and temporal juxtapositions

Personally, I think Influence Science is an abuse of Psychology and should be banned. Until it is, I have taken the liberty of getting even with McCain's psyops team, with the following image juxtapositions:

My final image juxtaposition about McCain's campaign's use of his heroism so beyond the pale, that I can't preview it for polite company; please DON'T look!

Seniors Scrutinizing McCain!

J J Clark 93614 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:27:44 EDT

Senior voters, Conservative and Independent, are taking long looks at McCain.

Long looks at…his wavering position on privatization Social Security! In 2004 he stated, “without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits." Privatization is sure to drain already ravaged Senior retirement stock accounts.

Long looks at…his position on torture! McCain has stated (3/08) "it's a good thing that (the CIA can use) enhanced interrogation techniques that are not revealed in your newspaper.” Although opposed to the US Military torturing, it’s Ok for the CIA. Obviously it’s not a moral issue for him, nor Mr. Bush, just a continuation of “one of the most destructive human rights policies in American history.”

Long looks at…The last eight years! Can Seniors or any American family afford another Administration with such devastating effects on the World, Planet, our economy and standard of living? McCain voted for Bush legislation 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007!

Is it any wonder Seniors are looking to Barack Obama the same way they looked to John Kennedy, with hope for a more secure tomorrow?

McCain flip-flops on Social Security

Mikeystyle — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:33:06 EDT

http://www.youtube.com/user/DemRapidResponse

McCain and Social Security Privatization

signsSansSignifieds — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:03:35 EDT

This is a news item that you should pass on to everyone you know. It should go viral, nationwide. The Obama campaign as a whole should bang away on McCain's obvious continued support for Bush's position on Social Security and not let go until after election day.

This is not some artificial campaign position like a gas tax holiday. If the GOP finally succeeds in privatizing Social Security, being elderly will once again be synonymous with being poor, as it was all through American history until Social Security was created.

The implicit social darwinism underlying the various GOP privatization schemes was debunked in the sciences back in the 1920s and 30s, but has persisted in the GOP. Why is it still popular in certain circles? Just look at the income brackets of its most fervent adherents and their sponsors. Might self-interest have something to do with it? But there I go again, engaging in class warfare. (Why is it not class warfare for the GOP to pursue such policies when --according to the GOP-- it IS class warfare to point out the effects of such policies?)

Social Security

Ty — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:07:45 EDT

Obama Proposes Applying Social Security Tax to Higher Incomes

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ajJwEco3R5bM&refer=us

The one thing I have to give President Bush major credit for is his campaigning for real Social Security change in 2004. His change was flawed and so is Obama's in my mind, but both were improvements and I love it when a candidate runs against a sacred cow. Very few politicians like to talk about raising taxes, cutting benefits or delaying retirement age, but both Bush and Obama did in specific terms. I will take that over McCain's platitudes any day. His website says: "he will fight to save the future of Social Security while meeting our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes". McCain, I am retiree of the future and I know you will not be meeting current promises on my annual social security statement without raising taxes. The straight talk express is seriously delayed and has yet to leave the terminal on this one.

McCain's TRIPLE Flip-Flop on Privatizing Social Security

Jason — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:21:45 EDT

McCain's Flip-Flop Express: Privatizing Social Security

Via the Huffington Post and Other Sources:

2004: "Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits."

June 12, 2008: "But I'm not for 'privatizing Social Security', I never have been, I never will be."

June 13, 2008 (the very next day!): He proposes allowing americans to take their tax dollars and put it into a personal, private, non-government run account with their name on it.. aka Privatization

More Flip-Flops @ FlipFlopTracker.Blogspot.com

McNoChange on Healthcare and Social Securty

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:08:10 EDT

No Change on Health Care…

John McCain Does Not Have a Plan For the Uninsured. According to the Wall Street Journal, McCain's plan does not focus on "reducing the ranks of the uninsured," of which there are about 47 million, or one in seven Americans. [Wall Street Journal, 10/11/07]

McCain Opposed Reauthorizing SCHIP and Providing Insurance For Millions of Uninsured Children.McCain voted against reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program for five years, expanding the program by $35.2 billion. [Senate Vote #307, 8/2/07]

No Change on Social Security…

2008: McCain "Totally In Favor" of Bush Social Security Plan. "I'm totally in favor of personal savings accounts and I think they are an important opportunity for young workers. I campaigned in support of President Bush's proposal and I campaigned with him, and I did town hall meetings with him." [Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08]

2005: McCain Campaigned for Bush Social Security Plan. "McCain has been especially supportive of his onetime rival, appearing with Bush at three events over the past two days in trying to prod Democrats into negotiations to include private accounts in a plan to revamp Social Security." [Washington Post, 3/23/05]

After casting himself as a "Maverick" in 2000, the new John McCain is walking in lockstep with President Bush, pandering to the right wing of the Republican Party, and embracing the ideology he once denounced. On the campaign trail McCain has callously abandoned many of his previously held positions, even contradicted himself, in a blatant attempt to remake himself into a candidate Republicans can accept in 2008. So just who is the real John McCain? The Democratic National Committee will present a daily fact aimed at exposing the man behind the myth.

This Administration - Can We Afford Another Like It?

Nate Marvin — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:59:42 EDT

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we". George Bush - Washington, DC; August 5, 2004.

How true, George! You and your party have been very resourceful and successful in harming our country. I don't think we can afford to follow up with 4-8 years of a McCain administration.

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."

Yup, you guessed it....G.W. in St. Charles, MO; November 2, 2000

We elected America's brightest and best, I guess. :-)

Let's get out and change the embarassment to pride again!

Shucks!! This'll probably get me put on the 'no fly' list next to Cat Stevens. Oh well, can't afford a ticket these days anyway. Anyway, 'hi', y'all. Hope to meet you somewhere along the way.

Blue Zebra Blogging

Dee Dee from Somerville, TX — Fri, 23 May 2008 19:08:10 EDT

OK, there was a nice long post here, but this thing timed me out.

Sick people don't type fast.

Fix the healthcare system so that future cancer patients don't have to worry about living until voting day. And maybe fix Social Security so that those who need it the most don't get the least??

Thanks! (More later if this works.)

Obama Slams McCain, Social Security Privatization

Rich McGervey — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:31:03 EDT

Obama Slams Social Security Privatization
By Mike Glover
The Associated Press

Monday 19 May 2008

Gresham, Oregon - Hours before being greeted by the biggest crowd of his campaign, Democrat Barack Obama quietly told a small group of seniors Sunday that Republican John McCain would threaten the Social Security they depend on because he supports privatizing the program.

Fire officials estimated 65,000 packed into a riverside park for a spectacular afternoon rally at a sun-splashed scene on the banks of the Willamette River in Portland. They said an additional 15,000 were left outside and dozens of boaters could be seen floating in the river.

"Wow, wow, wow," Obama said as he surveyed the audience. "We have had a lot of rallies. This is the most spectacular setting, the most spectacular crowd we have had this entire campaign."

While more subdued, his appearance early in the day before about 130 people at an assisted living facility to talk Social Security was a significant attempt to tie the GOP's presidential nominee-in-waiting to an unpopular President Bush on a pocket book issue that motivates seniors _ and also concerns younger generations worried about their own future retirement.

"Let me be clear, privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it, it's a bad idea today," Obama said. "That's why I stood up against this plan in the Senate and that's why I won't stand for it as president."

Bush proposed a Social Security plan in 2005 that focused on creating private accounts for younger workers, but it never came up for a vote in Congress. Democrats strongly opposed the idea and few Republicans embraced it.

Obama said McCain would push to raise the retirement age for collecting Social Security benefits or trim annual cost-of-living increases. Obama has rejected both ideas as solutions to the funding crisis projected for Social Security in favor of making higher-income workers pay more into the system.

"We have to protect Social Security for future generations without pushing the burden onto seniors who have earned the right to retire in dignity," he said.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds accused Obama of making "misinformed partisan attacks."

"John McCain has been clear about his belief that we must fix Social Security for future generations and keep our promises to today's retirees, but raising taxes should not be the answer to every problem," Bound said.

It was a day of coastal campaigning for the two Democrats still competing for the party's presidential nomination.

Obama was in Oregon, where he is favored to win the state's presidential primary on Tuesday. Hillary Rodham Clinton spent a second straight day in Kentucky, where she is favored to win when its voters head to the polls the same day.

She attended worship services at a Methodist church in Bowling Green, and happily sang hymns and joined in Bible readings. But her smile faded when the pastor launched into a sermon about adultery, asking his congregants whether the devil had ever whispered over their shoulders in their marriages.

Her mood appeared to brighten by the time she arrived for a rally at Western Kentucky University.

"Now, my opponent said the other day he wasn't coming back, so I've got the whole state to myself," Clinton said, sounding happy not to be sharing the Kentucky spotlight. "What a treat."

Later Sunday, the Clinton campaign collected about $150,000 at a backyard fundraiser in Fort Mitchell, a northern Kentucky suburb of Cincinnati. Nathan Smith, the event's host, is vice chairman of the Kentucky Democratic Party and a superdelegate _ but he still has not committed to supporting Clinton.

Obama, the front-runner for the nomination, has begun casting himself as the inevitable nominee and using his time to distinguish himself from McCain as he pivots toward the fall campaign. He has scheduled appearances later this week in Iowa and Florida, two key swing states.

He underscored that speaking with reporters in the Portland suburb of Milwaukee, saying he'll use the Iowa visit as another way to focus on November.

"We thought it was a terrific way to kind of bring things full circle," said Obama. "We still have some contests left but if Kentucky and Oregon go as we hope, then we think we will have a majority of pledged delegates at that point and that's a pretty significant mark, that means that after contests in every state, or almost every state and the territories, that we have received a majority of the delegates that are assigned by voters."

He declined to declare victory.

"It doesn't mean we've declared victory because I won't be the nominee until we have a combination of both pledged delegates and super delegates to hit the mark," said Obama. "What it does mean is the voters have given us a majority of delegates. Obviously that's what this primary and caucus process is all about."

During the meeting with seniors, Obama was asked why McCain seems to have avoided the enormous press scrutiny the Democrats have gotten.

Obama said McCain has benefited from a Republican nomination process that ended early while the Democratic race continues. He said the attention both candidates receive will grow more intense as the race settles into an Obama-McCain contest.

"It's very understandable that the press has focused on myself and Senator Clinton because it's been a pretty exciting race," Obama said. "The fact is that the press will submit him to the same scrutiny they are giving to me."

"People will lift the hood and kick the tires with John McCain, just like they do with me," he said, who traveled Sunday with his wife, Michelle.

--------

Associated Press writers Julia Silverman in Portland, Ore., and Sara Kugler in Bowling Green, Ky., contributed to this report.

The Fixed Income Poor - Targets of the Republican Party

smffy — Sun, 18 May 2008 01:06:12 EDT

Bush wants to privatise Social Security, a plan that would cut funding and weaken the already shakey program. The surplus Clinton tagged to shore Social Security up was spent and the budget deficet skyrocketed into the trillions.

There are so many seniors and persons with disabilities who depend on Social Security for their very livelihood. Any measure that would cut their already meagure benefits would be appalling. As a disabled person, my benefits are little more than half of poverty level. Any reduction would threaten my ability to survive. Every time Bush wants to cut federal spending, he cuts funds for food stamps. And as food prices climb, food stamps go down.

uch is made of "entitlements." The Republicans have always condescended to the poor. Middle and upper class voters may not be aware of the full implications of the proposal. I urge you to protest any measure that would threaten the Social Security system and the food stamp program

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24670991/page/2/.

Federal Budgeting 101: Unfunded Liabilities

Robin Lee — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:49:32 EDT

When looking at the federal budget over the last 30 years it is obvious that the main evaluative criteria for whether the process “works” is the annual size of the budget deficit. Since 1985, the congress has attempted a series of legislative methods to discipline the budget system mainly by establishing spending and revenue targets aimed at a desired deficit amount. Given the apparently genuine desire to deliver a balanced budget it is startling to realize that the congress or administration has never managed to consciously deliver one.

We have already seen in previous posts that the number that the government and the media focus on is not an entirely accurate measure of the magnitude of the government’s fiscal problem. By focusing as they do on the net deficit Congress, administrations (of both parties) and the press ignore that by tapping into the social security surplus to pay for today’s operations we are creating a bigger budget problem for the future. But its worse than that. Today’s bill for future social security benefits is one of many so called unfunded liabilities that the federal government generates.

Unfunded liabilities are federal program which through their operation generate future bills which the government is required to pay. A big unfunded liability of the Department of Defense is the future cost to cleanup environmental damage caused by day-to-day military activities. Think of leaking underground fuel storage tanks, unexploded ordinance on training ranges, and asbestos abatement of old military buildings. The future cost of cleaning up all these problems so that military land can be turned over to civilian use is undoubtedly very large. Of course some might be more troubled by the fact that this figure is currently incalculable because no-one has a very good handle of how big the problem is.

Other unfunded liabilities are more predictable. Every year each American who has a Social Security Number and has made OASDI payments receives from the Social Security Administration a four page report describing his or her net contributions over time and what benefits they can expect to receive upon retirement. Even though the Government knows very well what Social Security will cost in the future it doesn’t know exactly how those benefits will be financed.

A big part of the problem with social security is that the current receipts are not equal to these projected future outlays. Take me for example. The amount that I pay in Social Security payroll taxes (which is matched by my employer) is theoretically accumulating interest in the social security trust fund so that when I begin drawing social security benefits when I’m 67, the amount I have ‘invested’ has grown sufficiently to cover the annual cost of my future benefits. But social security is a pay as you go operation that uses my premiums to pay for current retirees plus other government expenses. While the government may have kept track of what I have paid, and know what I’m entitled to when I retire, it hasn’t done anything to ensure that my premium grows so that it is big enough to cover the future payouts.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) tries to calculate the size of the government’s future unfunded liabilities. In their latest Citizen’s Guide to the 2007 Financial Report of the U.S. Government GAO estimates that the net present value of Social Security and Medicare benefits over the next 75 years at $45 trillion. According to GAO by 2080, the total cost of the government will be more than three times revenues, yielding a staggering deficit. Obviously something will have to happen before this crisis occurs, President Obama, and the Democrats running congress have to figure out a way out of this mess, and we have to help.

Federal Budgeting 101: On vs. Off Budget Figures

Robin Lee — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:32:19 EDT

Understanding the US federal budget turns out to be not so simple. On the surface it seems easy enough – estimate total revenues and subtract from that figure all the money the government will spend in a given year and generate a figure describing whether the budget yields a surplus or a deficit. Depending on economic conditions and recent trends, a budget deficit is a big or small problem, big if the pattern shows a trend towards larger deficits, smaller if the trend shows a path towards balance in the relatively near term.

When describing the budget balance it is important to distinguish between the net balance and the on-budget and off-budget figures. The net balance is a simple calculation of all federal revenues minus all expenditures. This is the number that is most often reported by the Administration and in media accounts. But the net balance is somewhat misleading because a large chunk of federal revenues and outlays (mostly for social security) are classified as “Off-Budget.” The government does this so it can keep track over time of how much more social security takes in annually than it pays out.

Many people think that the difference between social security outlays and receipts is supposedly kept in a kind of trust fund. The idea of a trust fund is that there is a promise that current OASDI receipts are being invested so that they will be available in the future when today’s wage earners begin drawing social security benefits. The ugly fact is that the surplus is used every year to pay other federal expenses. The off budget surplus is simply a memo record indicating an IOU to future beneficiaries.

Since 1985 off-budget activities have yielded a gross surplus of $2.2 trillion. In FY 2007 (the last complete fiscal year) the off-budget surplus was $181 billion. For the same period on-budget activities have produced a $5.7 trillion deficit. This means that all of the off-budget surpluses have been used to pay for current activities of the federal government. Every year the government spends the off-budget surplus. For example, in FY 2003 the administration reported a net deficit of $378 billion. What they did not point out was that the net deficit (which was still very large) was composed of an on-budget deficit of -$538 billion that was partially offset by the $161 billion off-budget surplus. By ignoring the on-budget deficit and instead focusing on the net figure the Administration and the media paint a generally misleading picture of how out of balance the federal budget is.

Robbed by the Government

One of Those Women — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:58:17 EDT

I don't know how many people are aware that we the people of the United States are being robbed by the government. Everyone pays taxes to support the country-ok. Everyone also pays into social security with the hopes that if they are disabled, die and leave children, or reach retirement age that all the funds that were taken from their income would be there for them to live off of or subsidize their income or non-income- THIS MONEY IS BEING STOLEN BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. Yes, we are being robbed by the government.

The Christian Senior Association (CSA) has sent forth an Act- Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to stop the government from pillaging our money. Thus far the government has stolen $2, 183 Trillion dollars from the Social Security Trust Fund and will take another $186 Billion this year.

This must stop and Barak can do this because he is not beholding to special interest groups and lobbyists. Politicians have been making promises to these people and using our money to keep their promises and that is not their right to steal from us to get gain. Here are examples of what our political leaders have stolen our money to pay for:

$50 Million to build an indoor rainforest in Ohio
$223 Million for a "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska from Ketchikan to Gravina Island population 50
$800, 000 for an outhouse

Be pro-active spread the word, write your congressmen, senators, delegates... flood the system. Also write the CSA, 139 C Street SE, Washington DC 20003 (202) 547-4400. Support the Act.

It's time we blow the whistle and hold them all accountable for Grand Larceny. If nothing else just stop them from being able to steal our money.

Federal Budgeting 101: How Surpluses Came About

Robin Lee — Tue, 13 May 2008 09:55:04 EDT

In 1998 the federal budget suddenly produced a surplus. Despite years of apparently intense effort which included the passage of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (popularly referred to as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in honor of the Act’s main congressional sponsors) and the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1990 (known more for what it did to then-President Bush’s re-election prospects than for what it did to balance the budget), the emergence of a balanced budget came as something of a surprise to most observers (even those politicians involved in the effort). This fact belies the notion that politicians were intensely interested in producing this result. The record shows that the surplus was a function of three factors, none of which was explicitly related to policy decisions to reduce the deficit.

First, the end of the Cold War in 1991 (when the Soviet Union finally collapsed) delivered a huge “Peace Dividend.” From the end of the first Gulf War in 1991 through FY 2000, defense spending fell by about 1/3 in constant dollars. This corresponds to the roughly 1/3 reduction in the size of the active duty forces over that span.

Second, the so-called Social Security “Trust Fund” (the amount that Old Age and Survivors Disability Insurance (OASDI) revenues exceed Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid expenditures) grew rapidly. This growth was attributable to the 1983 deal to ‘bail out’ Social Security by 1) raising the retirement age, 2) increasing the OASDI payroll tax, and 3) adopting a new method of calculating annual cost of living adjustments.

Finally, through the late 1990s federal income tax revenues grew rapidly as the economy experienced a historic period of rapid growth. Along with developments in globalization, labor productivity and U.S. consumer spending, the so-called "Dot.com" boom generated annual GDP growth of over 4% which in turn yielded rapidly growing tax revenues.

The big hole in Clinton’s “electability” argument.

Steven — Fri, 02 May 2008 12:00:29 EDT

Hillary Clinton’s one remaining argument for why superdelegates should hand her the nomination over the insuperable lead that Barack Obama has in pledged delegates (earned after months of hard campaigning in actual contests) is that she can win and he cannot.

She bases this argument on the “fact” that she has won the primaries in the “big” states—New York, California etc.--and the “battleground” states—Ohio, Pennsylvania—that will be necessary for a Democrat to win the White House. She has also argued that Obama’s inability to attract the support of white, blue-collar workers (Reagan Democrats) means he will be a weak candidate when facing McCain. Both of these arguments are completely disingenuous, for much the same reason—Obama lost those states and so far has not won over a majority of those working-class voters (nor of women or the elderly) not because of his inability to attract them so much as her continuing to have the strong support and loyalty of enough of those voters (to win in Ohio and Pennsylvania). But in a general election Obama will not be facing Hillary Clinton but rather John McCain.

Assuming Hillary Clinton has the deep loyalty to the Democratic Party that she professes, the first thing she will do when conceding to Obama will be, or at least should be, graciously to urge her supporters and all those people who voted for her to rally behind Obama now. At that point Obama’s own “electability” strengths as concerns the key African-American constituency, those with college education, the young and independents (i.e. the reason why Clinton has lost), will be complemented by Clinton’s own--not quite as strong-- “electability” strengths among women, the elderly and blue-collar workers. That is a winning combination for November (with the deciding margin provided by Obama’s cross-party appeal).

As far as winning “big” states goes, it is already crystal clear that many of the “big” states that Clinton won, such as California, New York and Massachusetts are going to vote Democratic whoever the nominee is, so there the “electability” argument is a complete non-starter. Even in the “battleground” states, it depends which states you are talking about. Obama won Wisconsin, handily, and Missouri and Colorado, and he also has the advantage that he has put in play certain states, such as Virginia, that simply would not be on the table if Clinton were running.

There is an apparently stronger argument for Clinton in other, more traditional “battleground” states that she has won, but even there the context in which polling is being conducted at present makes any such argument a stretch, and a bit fatuous. Some current polls, for instance, showing Clinton stronger against McCain in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania are simply a reflection of relative strengths in those states of the two candidates, including elements, I am sure, of gaming the system (so that, for instance, an Obama supporter might hypothetically claim to be for McCain when asked for a preference between Clinton and McCain, just to depress the numbers for Clinton—not that an Obama supporter would ever actually do such a thing, of course). Once the candidate is decided, one can expect the vast bulk of support for the losing candidate to shift over to the actual nominee. At that point Obama, who is in any case running fairly even with McCain also in the states that Clinton won recently (Ohio and Pennsylvania) should be able to take up much of Clinton’s advantage and pull ahead.

It could be, as they are currently claiming, that many Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, but I think that is just resentment at having lost. Once the nominating campaign is over, most of Clinton’s supporters will come over to supporting Obama, because he is so much closer to Clinton’s positions on virtually every score than McCain is. Clinton, not surprisingly, has enjoyed a huge advantage among middle-aged and older women. Many if not most of this constituency will be on the women’s rights side of most social issues, including abortion and gender equality. Are such women going to vote for McCain, a candidate who has promised to continue to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, to hack away at Roe v. Wade, or are they going to vote in droves for Obama, who is virtually identical with Clinton on such issues? Similarly, blue-collar workers and union members should want to vote for the one remaining candidate who backs extending union and workers’ rights; the elderly might want an old man like McCain in the presidential office, but if they care for their health benefits and preserving Social Security, then again, if they voted for Clinton, they would be somewhat irrational in not voting for Obama.

How much can disappointment at one’s candidate’s loss, assuming it is fair and square, go against one’s own interests and values when it comes to casting a vote?

One might add here that the operative words are “fair and square”, because I do not have the same confidence that the same rallying around would happen were the reverse to happen, and the superdelegates went against the pledged delegate tally and make Clinton the nominee. There would, in any case, be loud shouts of betrayal of the democratic (and Democratic) process, justifiably so in my opinion, and this would already cause a greater falling away of support for Clinton—possibly splitting the party. Even were this not the case, the fact is that the extra strengths that Obama brings are precisely the add-ons of a potentially dominant Democratic coalition. There is the African-American constituency, who will vote in large numbers, holding their noses, also for Clinton, but not in anywhere near the numbers that they would for Obama, and this could already be a crucial weakness for a Clinton campaign. Even more significant, though, is the fact that much of Obama’s success has come from energizing the young, at universities and in many other walks of life, as well as independents. The youth vote is notoriously fickle, and, with no Obama “movement” to keep them motivated, might well simply disappear from the electoral process come November; similarly Clinton is very weak among the sort of independent-minded voter for whom Obama’s “come together” theme has been so attractive. They also will not turn up in November in big numbers if Clinton is the candidate, or might well vote for the “straight talker” Mc Cain.

At the end of the day, the “electability” argument is a disingenuous argument, reeking of opportunistic exploitation of such distractions as the Wright spat. It distracts from the real question, the real choice, in this primary campaign: who is the best candidate, with the best policies, and with the best chance of uniting the country, enacting effective legislation, and becoming a president about whom all Americans can be proud? Clinton’s effort to muddy the waters about how superdelegates should vote does not change the fact that Obama will get the nomination because he has an insuperable lead among pledged delegates, and the superdelegates will, in a majority, realize they cannot buck the result of the actual primary campaigns. Once Obama is the nominee, support will coalesce around him, as it usually does in such contests. If he is given enough time to heal the rifts within the Party, and smooth the feathers of his opponent and her camp, he will then go on to the general election with a united party behind him, and most probably, given the parlous and perilous state of the country, go on to a landslide victory. It is not the “electability” at this point of the candidate that matters, but of the Democratic Party. In that sense, the earlier the Party can come together, end the drama of the polls and primaries, and reunite its forces on Obama and a platform for reform and change to benefit the People as opposed to the special interests and corporations who have for too long been running the show under Bush, the better off we all shall be. In a sentence: “End the drama; vote Obama!”

Stuff I learned from Listening to Television

Citizen — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:12:47 EDT

1. Wolfe B and Keith O and Glenn B and even the fat Republican radio guy RL, all were talking about how the "voters without a college education" "people with only high school educations" "our common folk without advanced degrees" are supporting Hellery and McCan't instead of Obama.

What this ignores is the flip side, EDUCATED PEOPLE SUPPORT OBAMA!

Hey folks, isn't this an endorsement? The people who have applied themselves to learning about the candidates are supporting and voting for Obama. The sheep who blindly follow a judas goat are being led unknowingly to their own slaughter.

When I need medical care, I don't seek out an uneducated person's opinion; I seek out an educated doctor.

When I need legal assistance, I don't seek out an uneducated person's opinion; I seek out an educated attorney.

If I need a bridge design, I don't hire someone with a Etch-a-Sketch; I seek out an educated engineer.

It seems to be that what these pundits are calling a handicap, is actually an endorsement.

2. So the fat radio guy with a prescription drug problem is encouraging Republicans to switch registration and vote for Hellery in the upcoming primaries. How can any Democrat fail to see this as a SCREAMING statement about Obama's electibility in November? Even the likes of Bill "I never check my facts before mis-stating them" O'Reilly acknowledge that they don't want McCan't facing Obama in November.

3. Why do the Republicans fear a McCan't verse Obama election in November. (Sorry for the upcoming shock) as a registered Republican myself, I hear a get a lot of destroyed trees in my mail box from the NRC and various other groups. I get enough emails from Republicans to clog the Internet. So, here is my take on this issue.

Obama vs McCan't is the same as

Heart vs Pacemaker

Openness vs Clogged Cerebral Arteries

Personal Energy vs Jump Start Cables

Okay, there are more, but you get the metaphors. Obama represents potential change with a heart. McCan't represents more "I need Rove or someome like him to put his hand up my back and make me look animated" McCan't or Hellery represent more government by self-interest and corporations.

Just like Bush The Lesser's all consuming interest in his Legacy, that's what America will from McCan't or Hellery.

Bush The Lesser, McCan't, Hellery; None of these three have proven themselves to have any interest in the fundamental rights of the people.

Bush The Lesser, McCan't, Hellery; None of these three have proven themselves to have any interest in America's infrastructure.

Bush The Lesser, McCan't, Hellery; None of these three have proven themselves to have any interest in America's Civil Defense.

Bush The Lesser, McCan't, Hellery; What have all three proven as paramount to them (behind the heft of their own purse or legacy)? Corporate wealth, Corporate protection, depressed workers to man the machines of the Corporate giants.

3. Things I would like to see Obama accomplish:

Re-instate the Bill of Rights

Develop a comprehensive Civil Defense Plan so we can respond locally and an nation to floods, earthquakes, fires, dirty bombs, "clean bombs", and other major disasters.

Rebuild America's infrastructure: bridges, levees, staffed medical clinics in small towns, etc.

Tariffs to counter state supported industries such as Chinese goods.

Support for America's medium size manufacturers. More creating and less retail.

Federal Support for Science and engineering in schools and colleges.

Abolish "No Child Left Behind" and create a "Let Our Cream Rise to the Top" program to encourge students and schools that want to excel. We need more geniuses and less support of the lowest common denominator.

Federal funding for enrichment programs and summer school preference for college prep course.

More school time. Extend the classroom year so our children (our future) have competitive hours of education. Young adults entering college in Japan and Europe have received far more classroom hours of instruction than our children. This puts our youth at a disadvantage.

Port security.

Mandated national use of Social Security Number check to obtain a Driver's License. Before the license can be issued by a state, it must be verified as a legitimate number that is issued to a person of legal driving age and has not been used in any other state.

Increase the legal immigration quotas for people with professional skills.

Fines to employers who hire illegal aliens.

I would love to see single-topic legislation. Eliminate the ability to add provisions to bills that do not relate directly to the topic of the bill. E.g. Social Security provisions added to a bill about Alvocados. (Okay, it was actually an agriculture bill, but alvocados makes it more odd or even)

Well, there are more. But, as Julie Andrews sang, these are some of my favorite things I would like Obama to accomplish as President. These are things he can accomplish and will never be addressed by McCan't or Hellery.

4. Vote Obama, Elect Change that comes with a Heart and Courage and a Brain.

fix social security

Gonzo from Hoboken, NJ — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:24:26 EDT

hi, i am hunter thompsons soul reborn and back on earth: here's how you fix social security....

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: <gonzoreborn@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Gotcha
To: barack obama <barackobama@barackobama.com/issues>
CC: barack obama <barackobama@my.barackobama.com>

<gonzoreborn@yahoo.com> wrote:
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: robert smith <gonzoreborn@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Gotcha
To: info@barackobama.com

hey david plouffe nevermind the nonsense, if PRESIDENT obama does not
already know this please pass this info along: NO cap on social security
taxes,and billionares CANNOT set up a charity to donate to, to escape paying
the social security tax THEY MUST PAY THE SOCIAL SECURITY TAX
PERIOD....NO WAY AROUND IT,NO OFFSHORE, NO NOTHING....also
anyone who makes over 8mil a year cannot receive soc security benefits
in retirement unless they have unusual circumstances and they are almost broke.....this way i can can tell some rich republican pig "thats
right buddy boy,you can't get your money back from social security
in retirement and YOU are paying for someone else's retirement
benefits"..try not to let anyone know this is coming but when he is president
just ram it thru the senate or whatever has to be done in the middle of
the night like the republicans did on some things to be sneaky.....just say in public "TAX SHELTER LAWYERS ARE GONNA HAVE TO FIND A NEW LINE OF WORK".social security
problem??? DONE........(and maybe a lock box on it like gore wanted)
guys, nobody wants to admit it but its MONEY THATS THE PROBLEM!!!
barack,poor and middle class people are trusting you, like that
redneck say's on the t.v commercial "get-her done"..........GONZO
"David Plouffe, BarackObama.com" <info@barackobama.com> wrote:
Obama for America gonzo -- Did you see the debate last night? If you did, you saw more gotcha politics and distractions than questions about the pressing issues affecting our country. In fact, it took more than 45 minutes before Barack was asked about the economy, health care, or foreign policy. Regrettably, Senator Clinton seemed all too comfortable with that type of debate. She's running a 100% negative campaign in Pennsylvania, taking every opportunity to make personal and discredited attacks against Senator Obama. You can send a message that politics doesn't have to be played this way. Make your first donation today, and someone who's already given will match whatever amount you decide to give. You can double your impact, and you'll even get to see the name and town of the fellow supporter matching your first online gift. Will you make a $25 donation now? https://donate.barackobama.com/match Senator Clinton's false, negative attacks are exactly the kind of say-anything, do-anything politics that the American people are tired of. That's why polls show that the majority of Americans think she's running the most negative campaign, and 58% of voters do not find her honest or trustworthy. Barack Obama wants to end the politics of division and distraction in Washington so we can bring about real change for ordinary Americans. The stakes are too high to play the same old games. More than 1.3 million supporters have responded to Barack's message of change, and with your help we can reach 1.5 million by May 6th. Make a donation of any amount today, and it will be matched by a previous donor who has pledged to double your impact: http://my.barackobama.com/match Thank you for your support, David David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Paid for by Obama for America This email was sent to: gonzoreborn@yahoo.com To unsubscribe, go to: http://my.barackobama.com/unsubscribe

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

Barack on RETIREMENT SECURITY

Jill 4 Obama — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:25:39 EDT

Plan to Strengthen Retirement Security

"We… have an obligation to protect Social Security and ensure that it's a safety net the American people can count on today, tomorrow and forever. Social Security is the cornerstone of the social compact in this country… Coming together to meet this challenge won't be easy… It will take restoring a sense of shared purpose in Washington and across this country. But if you put your trust in me — if you give me 'your hand and your heart' — then that's exactly what I intend to do as your next President."

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 27, 2007

At a Glance

Speak your mind and help set the policies that will guide this campaign and change the country.

Present your ideas

The Problem

Insecure Retirement Savings: Retirement savings are near a historic low and 75 million working Americans lack employer-based retirement plans. Too many companies have dumped their pension obligations, leaving workers in the cold.

Income Security: With skyrocketing health care, energy and housing costs, and the risk of being defrauded by insurance companies, too many seniors do not have the resources to live comfortably.

Barack Obama's Plan Protect Social Security

Obama is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. Obama will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And he does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.

Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.

Strengthen Retirement Savings

Reform Corporate Bankruptcy Laws to Protect Workers and Retirees: Current bankruptcy laws protect banks before workers. Obama will protect pensions by putting promises to workers higher on the list of debts that companies cannot shed; ensuring that the bankruptcy courts do not demand more sacrifice from workers than executives; telling companies that they cannot issue executive bonuses while cutting worker pensions; increasing the amount of unpaid wages and benefits workers can claim in court; and limiting the circumstances under which retiree benefits can be reduced.
Require Full Disclosure of Company Pension Investments: Obama will ensure that all employees who have company pensions receive detailed annual disclosures about their pension fund's investments. This will provide retirees important resources to make their pension fund more secure.
Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less Than $50,000: Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will provide an immediate tax cut averaging $1,400 to 7 million seniors and relieve millions from the burden of filing tax returns.
Create Automatic Workplace Pensions: Obama's retirement security plan will automatically enroll workers in a workplace pension plan. Under his plan, employers who do not currently offer a retirement plan, will be required to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit IRA account that is compatible to existing direct-deposit payroll systems. Employees may opt-out if they choose. Experts estimate that this program will increase the savings participation rate for low and middle-income workers from its current 15 percent level to around 80 percent.
Expand Retirement Savings Incentives for Working Families: Obama will ensure savings incentives are fair to all workers by creating a generous savings match for low and middle-income Americans. His plan will match 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn less than $75,000. The savings match will be automatically deposited into designated personal accounts. Over 80 percent of these savings incentives will go to new savers.
Prevent Age Discrimination: Obama will fight job discrimination for aging employees by strengthening the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and empowering the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to prevent all forms of discrimination.

Affordable Health Care

Provide Cheaper Prescription Drugs: Our seniors pay the highest prices in the world for brand-name drugs. To lower drug costs, Obama will allow the federal government to negotiate for lower drug prices for the Medicare program, just as it does to lower prices for our veterans. He also supports allowing seniors to import safe prescription drugs from overseas, and will prevent pharmaceutical companies from blocking cheap and safe generic drugs from the market.
Protect and Strengthen Medicare: Obama is committed to the long-term strength of the Medicare program. He will reduce waste in the Medicare system, including eliminating subsidies to the private insurance Medicare Advantage program, and tackle fundamental health care reform to improve the quality and efficiency of our healthcare system. Obama supports closing the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.
Provide Transparency to Medicare Prescription Drug Plans: Many seniors are enrolled in Medicare prescription drug plans that are actually more expensive for them than other available plans. Obama will require companies to send Medicare beneficiaries a full list of the drugs and fees they paid the previous year to help seniors determine which plans can better reduce their out-of-pocket costs and improve their health.
Strengthen Long-Term Care Options: As president, Obama will work to give seniors choices about their care, consistent with their needs, and not biased towards institutional care. He will work to reform the financing of long term care to protect seniors and families. He will work to improve the quality of elder care, including by training more nurses and health care workers.

Protect and Honor Seniors

Ensure Heating Assistance: Obama will increase funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) which helps low-income citizens — many of them seniors — pay their winter heating and summer cooling bills.
Support Senior Volunteer Efforts: Retired Americans have a wide range of skills and knowledge to contribute to local and national public service efforts. Obama will engage more interested seniors into public service opportunities by expanding and improving programs like Senior Corps to connect seniors with quality volunteer opportunities.

Barack Obama's Record

Social Security and Pensions: In the midst of the 2005 debate over Social Security privatization, Obama gave a major speech at the National Press Club forcefully arguing against privatization. He also repeatedly voted against Republican amendments that aimed to privatize Social Security or cut benefits. Obama has also voted to force companies to properly fund their pension plans so taxpayers don't end up footing the bill.
Medicare: Obama has supported a number efforts to strengthen Medicare, including voting for legislation to allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper prescription drug prices and to extend the enrollment period for low-income beneficiaries.
Protecting Seniors: After reports that lobbyists, but not the American people, received information about the most unsafe nursing homes in the country, Barack Obama demanded the Department of Health and Human Services release that information to the public. Following Obama's letter, the names of the four Iowa care facilities cited for unsafe care were released to the public. Obama's efforts follow his successful efforts in Illinois to make nursing home information public and strengthen elder abuse laws.

For More Information about Barack's Plan

Read the Speech

Autism in my life

Cheryl — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:57:58 EDT

My son will be fourteen on April 4th. He was diagnosed as severly Autistic when he was two years old. We have been on an adventurous path ever since. He is a gift, a joy and a challenge all rolled into one. On this day of "World Autism Awareness" I want to present an idea to the world that I have already begun to send out to my local and state government representatives. It is a dream that I hope see come true before it's too late. I plan to send this idea to our man of the decade (maybe the century), Barack Obama in the hope that he will take notice. Here is my idea, let me know what you think:

April 2, 2008

World Autism Awareness Day

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Cheryl Hunter and I live in southern California. I have a teenaged son with Autism who is currently in a special education classroom on a public high school campus. My son is going to need assistance for the remainder of his life. This is the reason for my letter and proposed solution to the problem that plagues millions of people all over the world. What will we do when our child needs care and we can no longer give it?

Please review the following brief overview and help kick start the discussion about what to do with the individuals who will not benefit from the “cure” and “cause” theories or funding, but who desperately need our assistance.

Funding for early intervention, education, prevention and therapy are important, but we need to also prepare for the inevitable future we face as a society when the current population of children with Autism turn into the population of adults and elderly with Autism.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Cheryl A. Hunter

Residential Community For Families and Individuals Living With Autism

“A Dream I Have For The Future”

INTRODUCTION

As the mother of a young man with Autism I have concerns about his future and how he will survive without me. Plain and simple. I am one of millions of parents around the globe with this same concern. I would like to keep my son home for the remainder of my life and know that when I am gone he will be able to remain in the same home with the care he needs for the remainder of his life.

This desire presents many obstacles, the most glaring being financial concerns. I, like most parents, will not be able to generate enough money in my lifetime to begin to cover my son’s future needs. Even life insurance will not cover the costs of his needs and the money he receives from insurance or a trust fund would undermine the public funds and medical coverage he is entitled to. I understand the general public’s stand on taxation and welfare as more taxes are not a popular option. However, the reality is that we will have an explosion of adults and elderly with Autism in the coming years and the next few generations will be dealing with the issue of where to house these individuals and how to help them lead productive lives. Extended families can only do so much, and society cannot assume that siblings and relatives will be able to continue with the expense and care of these individuals on their own.

When I consider the amount of money we are willing to allow in tax dollars for defense and other government expenses, or the tax breaks that we are willing to give to corporate giants and the rich I am baffled at why a small percentage of that same amount makes people bristle. The small percentage needed to supplement a school district’s budget for successful programs or a community’s budget for assisted living, or a state’s budget for quality residential care is infinitesimal compared to the funds which will be spent in law enforcement, court time, emergency services, hospital services, medical services, etc. if these individuals do not have proper care. It will be reminiscent of the thousands of mentally ill who were released in the last century from institutions because of budget cuts.

SOLUTION OVERVIEW

Growing up near San Bernardino, California I remember how intrigued I was with Norton Air Force Base. I thought that it was the perfect self-contained community, interestingly similar to commune living. Over the past few years that thought has continued to play in my head when agonizing over the future of my son’s living arrangements.

My dream of the perfect setting for a secure environment for people with disabilities and their families has blossomed into the vision of a fully planned community where every need is met and funding is shared between families, community, state, federal, private and charitable organizations.

Taking the military base concept and customizing it to fit the needs of families living with disabilities should not be a difficult task. There would be job opportunities for the residents both typically abled and differently abled. Private industry could certainly set up shop as the need for local business would be necessary. The community would include recreational facilities with pool, indoor sports and games, meeting areas, parks, etc. Housing would offer varied options including small single family, apartment, townhouse, etc. as well as dormitory style for single adults both assisted and independent.

The housing would be leased and funding would be available through a combination of individual family, private, government and charitable. For example, a retired couple would be able to lease a two bedroom home to share with their adult child with Autism until they are unable to continue care, at which time the adult child would be referred to one of the apartment or dormitory settings. This would allow the individual to remain in the community but adjust to a supported living situation while continuing with other normal routine.

FUNDING

Families would pay for their Autism community home just as they would for an outside home. The monthly lease would be used for maintenance of the home itself, community maintenance, and other associated costs as well as a small percentage which would be designated for a fund which helps pay for assisted living when a family can no longer care for the resident adult. In the case of a single adult with no family assistance, the disability or social security for that individual would go toward the living expenses.

The beauty of the commune setting is that jobs would be available for individuals within the community in many areas. Landscape, janitorial, office, car wash, recreational facilities, etc. would create need for regular employees. These jobs would offset the cost of community maintenance as well.

Private funding through charitable organizations would be utilized for general or specific needs and public funding would be shifted from more costly individual support to a community support program.

LIFESTYLE

As an individual with Autism reaches adulthood, they have the same social needs as typical individuals do. Social gatherings, interaction with peers and family, expression through music, dance, etc. should be part of their everyday life. The opportunities provided through the proposed community would enable individuals to live a full, rich life with all of the things that we sometimes take for granted. Jobs, clubs, activities, shopping, gardening, etc. would be available in a self-contained safe neighborhood, and available to the neighborhoods outside the community as well. Another plus would be the industry that might be attracted to the community. Any industry that addresses the needs of the differently abled person would benefit from a location in close proximity. This of course is a win-win for all concerned. Tax revenue for the city that the community is located in, clients or customers for the business, and services necessary for the everyday life of a person with special needs.

STAFFING

Behind the scenes would be the administrative staff, operational staff, etc. all paid through a variety of sources. An example of such a private organization might be the YMCA which is supported through a variety of sources including self supportive client based income. The supported living care team would be professionals dedicated to the health and welfare of each resident. This care team would include professionals in the medical, dental, therapy, recreational, transportation, occupational and associated fields. Again, creating new jobs within a city that is willing to open its arms to a community for adults with Autism and their families.

FACILITY PLANNING

Think green and plan the community to reflect the future while saving money on operating expenses. Parking should be on the outer perimeter of the community with walking, biking and small electric vehicle paths in the inner areas. Think vertical for living spaces and services and horizontal for open space and recreation. Use alternative energy sources from the ground up in building and operational planning. Vegetable and fruit gardens with all plant life non-toxic should be edible, purposeful and useful in herbal applications. Because of the unique sensitive diets that many of these individuals would be on, careful planning would be considered for the type of food businesses that lease space. Lots of fountains and water play as most individuals with Autism love water. The water process for the community should be interactive and recycled as much as possible with obvious sanitary considerations but with a mind toward conservation as well.

CONCLUSION

While I realize that this proposed community sounds like a commune or socialist society and that public funds would not normally be allowed to support such a venture, isn’t time we look outside the box? Are we so caught up in what is or is not the responsibility of society that we forget about our humanity? The reality is that these individuals are here and will be here for quite a while. They will grow older, they will need care and they do deserve to live their lives in the most comfort we would afford ourselves. Much like a retirement community, this type of community must be considered a unique exception in equal housing laws, with a balance of public and private funding and a labor force made up of communal shared responsibility it is a winning proposition for everyone concerned.

Cheryl Ann Hunter

Government Grants or Government Investment, Why Not?

Daniel from Hixson, TN — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:43:31 EDT

Hello,

Everyone is talking about the down turn that our economy is having, and because of the mismanagement of funds that seems to be occurring right under our nose. I have a suggestion that may kill two birds with one stone, bringing down the national debt and improving social security. I am an undecided voter and am curious what the candidates response is to this statement.

A few months ago I read an article on line about the decline of the solvency of Social Security, about how the federal government agencies are borrowing from social security (http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=847). I did a little research and found that this practice has been going on for decades. After listening to all the candidates, I have not heard of any of them recommending that laws being passed forcing various entities paying back what was borrowed.

Why is that? At one time, Social Security had a surplus of funding to help the disabled and the retired. It has been whittled down to the meager reserves that we have today. More over, it seems none of the borrowed is being payed back.

When I borrow money from a bank or credit card, and I do not pay the debt back, I have the misfortune of having to deal with debt collectors and the courts. Why should it be any different for government agencies. Should not the people in charge be held in the same accountability? Should not these people that make the decisions to not pay an intergovernmental debt be held legally accountable for decisions that would normally be considered illegal in the private sector?

How much of the National Debt is due to various aspects of the government owing each other money? According to the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3948&type=0), in 2003, $2.7 trillion is debt that government owes itself. Problem is, no candidate is talking about it. I do not know if that number includes debt that has been owed from decades past, or how much of that is owed to Social Security.

What I do know is that if the Federal Government was responsible with the surplus Social Security once had, and carefully invested it over the years, our Gross National Product, Poverty Level, and many other economic indicators would be looking a lot better right now. More over, we must remember, the standard of living for the least capable in our society reflects on the poverty level of our country over all. Social Security should have been looked at as a last resort funding source for government agency programs, instead of an open money belt for questionable spending practices.

This leads to another interesting question. Why is the federal government giving money to research products and services that become holdings for corporations. I always here about how this drug company is being sponsored by the government to find a cure for some disease, or our government is paying for research to improve the spacecraft technology.

Why do they not just say that the government is investing in a private company that is researching these technological developments? I think that if the government was looked on as an investor, then it would mean that it would expect a return. If a private company has private investors then the leadership would have to be responsible for the proper use of that funding, AND any profits would have to be dispersed accordingly.

Where as, if the government gives a grant to a company, then it does not expect a return. I feel the government should not give grants to “For Profit” companies, but give “investment capital” and expect a return for that investment.

Any profits made in this fashion can not only reduce the nation debt, but maybe even make the politicians more accountable for what is being spent as well.

And that is my opinion.

Thank You,

Danie Slack

A Social Security Primer

COL Mo — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:33:33 EDT

The Beginnings of Social Security

Social Security was enacted by the Franklin Roosevelt administration, in 1935, during the Great Depression. At that time 50% of the elderly were relying on family or friends for support, 16% relied on public charity (there being no governmental safety net) and the remaining 1/3 were self reliant in retirement. When payroll taxes began, in 1937, they were 2%. President Roosevelt rejected using general revenues from taxes to finance social security. Instead, money taken from the social security payroll taxes of workers was used to pay the benefits of those 65 and over. When Social Security began the life expectancy of a 65 year old was 12.5 years.

Do We Still Need Social Security Today?

My answer is a resounding, Yes. Overall, poor to wealthy, Social Security payments averaging $1,034 per month account for 39% of the retirement income of the elderly. Fifty-two percent of recipients are married and 48% are single, widowed or divorced. For 72% of the unmarried recipients (35% of the recipient population) their social security benefit is over 50% of their retirement income. For another 30% of the population (a third of which are married) social security payments are 90% of the money they live on in retirement. My own father's social security benefit was over 70% of his retirement income after working a Union job as a machinist in a paper mill for over 40 years.

Of the 165 Millon workers in the U.S. today, 52% have no private pension and 31% have no savings, as of a 2007 survey.

Given these facts and the trend in business toward defined contribution (your pension depends on how much you save and how your investments do) vs. traditional defined benefit (you get a set $ amt or % of salary for each year's work) the need for Social Security is abundantly clear.

What Are Social Security's Problems?

Social security has for many years taken in more money than it needs to pay benefits. The excess goes into a social security trust fund. The surplus continues today. In 2007, payroll taxes added $656 Billion to the fund, Taxes on the Social Security benefits of affluent Americans added $19Billion, and interest on the $2.2 Trillion surplus (which the government has borrowed for other programs) added another $110Billion. Benefits paid from the fund were $595Billion. For those who don't like math, in 2007, we added $190Billion to the Social Security Trust Fund.

Sounds good, we should have $2.39Trillion in the trust fund. The real problem is that the money is not in the trust fund. It has been borrowed and spent. What are in the Trust Fund filing cabinets are beautiful ly ornate government bonds (IOUs from our government.) Beginning in 2017 the benefits being paid out will exceed the money coming in and the government will need to redeem those bonds. But the federal budget already runs a large defecit, our government spends more money than it takes in. To redeem those bonds taxes will need to be increased and other federal programs reduced.

What Fixes Are Available? What are President Obama's choices?

Fortunately, compared to other federal financial problems, especially Medicare, Social Security is "relatively easy" to fix. As a long-time Democrat, I rule out cutting benefits as well as using tax revenues for any purpose other than redeeming bonds (in other words, paying workers back the money that was borrowed from them).

Various estimates project that an increase in payroll taxes of 1.7 to 2.2% would be needed to ensure Social Security solvency for another 75 years. I also, reject these payroll tax increases because they are disproportionately burdensome for those already in lower income groups. The solution I favor would be to remove the cap, Currently $102,000 on wages subject to social security taxes. Since the current tax covers 84% of wages raising it to cover 96% (4% of people working for state and local governments are not covered by social security) will raise an additional $89Billion annually for social security (the equivalent of a 1.68% hike in social security taxes. A further $26.45Billion a year can be raised by taxing all estates over $3.5Million at 45% and earmarking that for the social security trust fund (this is equivalent to a .5% raise in payroll taxes, according to the GAO). By these methods we eliminate the current need for increased social security payroll taxes, as together these amount to the equivalent of a 2.18 percent social security tax increase yet fall on those most able to pay.

I believe our fiscal position could be enhanced further through immigration. People entering the country, legally, from Latin America, the Middle East and Africa have birth rates much higher than the "native" American population. This could help redress the increasing ratio of Social Security beneficiaries to workers, in the longer run.

The other third rail - entitlements

Chip Roberson in Sonoma, CA — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:19:31 EDT

The democrats have a weakness, we seem not to want to address the problem that is looming out there over our entitlement programs, specifically Medicare and Social Security. The Trustee's of the two programs today each released their yearly analysis which reported that Medicare reserves will be depleted by 2019 and the Social Security "trust fund" will be depleted by 2041. However, there is more to it than that...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23796483/

Introduction

COL Mo — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:14:06 EDT

"It's the economy, Stupid," most of us can remember that mantra from the first Clinton campaign. Things have not changed much. After eight years of "W" our economy is in recession, working Americans have lost economic ground while the wealthy have prospered, and our national debt has risen dramatically. With the dollar steadily buying less and food commodity prices like milk, wheat and corn rising dramatically, households are being financially squeezed. Job losses, rising energy prices, and the collapse of housing and mutual fund prices are further strains on American families.

In future posts I will discuss some of the fiscal and economic issues and we would all like to hear your thoughts, research, feelings, counter arguments etc. Hopefully the best of our blogs and posts will help the Obama campaign work through its own fiscal and economic agenda in the critical transition period between the Bush and Obama administrations.

Specifics on saving Social Security

Ed Bannon — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 02:32:06 EST

From Obama's website: "Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century."

Obama is making a tough choice here. He's being very specific and very brave in proposing a plan that his opponents could use to label his as a typical tax-and-spend liberal But this is not a middle class tax increase. According to the 2006 American Community Survey done by the U.S. Census, 8.5% of American earn more than $100,000 a year. So, let's say the top 10% of wage earners would be affected by this tax. If you're in the upper 10% of wage earners, from an income perspective, congratulations, you in the upper class, my friend. Sidenote: Anyone with a better idea, please step forward.

Meanwhile, let's see how specific Hillary gets on this issue...

DO NOT let HRC define us in PA

Erick — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:23:10 EST

We MUST beat THE MOST SECRETIVE POLITICIAN IN AMERICA to the Social Security issue.

She will kill us in PA, if she uses the Rove-ian tactic of mischaracterizing Obama's Social Security stance!

----------------------------------------------------------
Here are some talking points from his platform -

We Have Followed, Now We Must Help Lead

Linda — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:37:11 EST

Little by little over the past sixteen months I have been evolving from the role of viewer to that of doer. In doing so I find that the role of doer is much more difficult than that of viewer! Oh how easy it was to sit back, letting someone else take care of business.

In regressing, I came to realize it had always been left to the trust of someone other than myself as to political decisions: to my parents (who were on opposite sides of the fence, by the way) as to the choice of political leaders. Later my husband became the influence, my still being part of that era deferring to him, for he was, after all "the man of the house". By the time of the Bill-Monica Whitehouse years my head was buried deeply in the sand: No newspaper, no TV, no media of any kind. Therefore I know very little about that time, but do remember being embarrased and humiliated by the shenanigans of OUR LEADER, as were most Americans! Now I ask why we allowed our president to get away with this.

Faith in the judgement of elected officials of our country has faltered. Many, many of us have been the viewers, letting someone else "do". It was so easy for me to refrain from watching the national news - What I saw only angered me, left me frustrated, and also left me doing nothing to make changes. For other Americans a concious decision was made not to participate in any election with the 'My vote would not make any difference anyway' attitude. Those in all likelyhood were the ones who did the most complaining. For others, votes were cast based not on what was known about the candidate through research, not on personal beliefs or situations, not on what was wanted and expected from their paid officials, but based on the candidate someone else was voting for. We all had our excuses, and how wrong we all were!

Paraphrasing a verse from the Bible, 'Where you lead I will follow' seems to have been the motto of much of the population for what seems like eons. And we have followed like innocent lambs being led to slaughter. Yes, we have followed without question, ever-trusting, and we have been led to slaughter, and to be slaughtered. We have been sacrificed in the name of greed. Our very souls line the pockets of politicians and lobbyists. We've been sacrificed to CEOs who make more money in ten minutes than the average American in one year - CEOs of companies now owned by foreigners, and of companies whose wealthy CEOs keep their own pockets fat at the expense of American workers whose jobs have been sent to China, and to countries where slave labor rules. Our souls line the pockets of the oil billionaires, and drug companies who gouge the pocketbooks of the poor and not-so-poor. Let them look into the faces of helpless children dieing of cancer, and the faces of their Moms and Dads who have hundreds of thousand of dollars in medical bills. Look into their faces, and tell them you really care. And we have set back and let it happen. We have been, and still are for the most part, viewers.

Our young men and women have fought and died, so many because there seemed to be no other choices in this greedy society we have created. Jobs for the average among us are becoming scarce, and it would be hard-pressed to find even a few that pay more than just above minimum wage. A higher education is out of the question for most, and even now the competition is so great that you'd better have a Masters. The idle promises are there to lure our young men and women to the battlefields: College paid for. Free Healthcare. The only requirement is you have to survive long enough to collect. Those poor souls who sit in the war zones eating dust for breakfast must now be wondering if the promised perks will ever come, and at what price, for it certainly isn't free. It is paid for with the lives and limbs of their fellow soldiers, if not of themselves.

The very glue that once held our country together has weakened, that glue being the strong belief of our fathers and grand-fathers, and their fathers and fathers before them, in a United States of America that we could trust:Of leaders whose interests were our own, and of their dreams - and ours - for the future. No longer will that glue hold us together. We must bond as a nation with elected officials in whom we can trust. And this, my fellow Americans, is why we must all become doers, not viewers.

Never in my entire life have I really been interested in politics, but a change has gradually come over me. It started before any presidential candidates were ever announced, quite subtlety. It came to me as I sat at my computer and wrote words of dispair and frustration in the form of songs and prose. It came to me as I began for the first time in over fifteen years to watch the national news. It came as I talked with a dear friend of horrendous things happening to our soldiers, and to our elderly, and to the possible demise of our country. It came as whispers in the wind, and I heard those whispers.

I began to pay attention to what was being said...I really listened when my 90 year old mother told me of struggling on her meager Social Security Check. I listened when I heard that babies of illegals in this country are American citizens, that workers with green cards who are not citizens can and will draw Social Security; I listened, hrrified, as I was told the amount of money we as tax payers pay for medical bills, schooling, etc. for illegals, and for the upkeep of illegals in prisons. I listened when I heard that American companies now are American in name only. Greed now is the motto. I listened as I heard of the increasing deaths of those sent to war to protect us from a phantom enemy. I listened when I heard the fantastic song written and sung by Taylor Pie, "So Little Has Changed", tagged a modern day protest song by many. I listened. I listened. And I cried. www.taylorpie.com

At age 62 I could let what possible might be my last chance of becoming involved pass me by, or I could become a doer, thus making a difference in the future of my country, helping assure a wonderful, secure country for my great nieces and nephews and their descendants. My steps have been small, beginning with studying the matrix of all the original hopefuls for presidency on the internet, eventually leading to a first in my lifetime: I am actively supporting a presidential campaign! Do you want to know something? It is exciting, it's thrilling to actually be a part of what appears to be taking place in America now, the change that started in me many months ago. Do you want to know something else? Your voice can be heard, you can make a difference. It is a conscious decision to become a doer.

My faith has now been renewed by the powerful strength of Senator Obama. My belief is that if anyone can lead us out of the hands of those who no longer have a conscience as Taylor sings, it is Senator Obama, powered by the strength of Americans from the Shores of Maine, and from the streets of Harlem, gaining strength as powerful as the winds of the wide prairies, then blowing across Texas to its borders where the rules aren't clear as to who should be stopped from enetering or how. Strength will come from the coal mines, and the ghostly innards of the closed automobile factories, and those of the cotton mills in the South. It will sweep across the homes of presidents, and make the hearts of the cowboys swell as it crosses them on its way to reach the smog-filled valleys of California. The peoples of the cities of America, and of the little towns, the farmers of the cornfields, the owners of the few remaining Mom and Pop businesses who struggle daily, the poor Grandad who doesn't know how to read, but wants an education for his grandchildren, the 90 year old mothers whose hearts break for her children because there is never enough for them and their taxes eat up their spirit...from these there will be a strength, and a hope of renewal for America and her people.

I urge you, be part of this. Become a doer. Don't give up hope, for when all hope is gone so is the United States of America

Death by Documentation

Bobby Woodburn — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:19:55 EST

I found this MSNBC story absolutely shocking, but was not shocked at ALL by the fact that errors are made in determination and data input into the Social Security system on a daily basis. The REALLY shocking part of it is something we already know: Our government, even when our presence on a telephone or in person proves we are not dead, gives no recourse to ITS determination, and thereby causes our Death by Documentation.

The Government of the United States and the Obama Campaign Headquarters staff seem to have a common problem: Neither seems to want to listen to anyone once they've got what they want from them. Both need to recognize that those who contribute to the systems they support do not die until they're dead, and it is those who attempt to communicate with them who FIRST deserve their ear, and all-too-often, most FREQUENTLY NEED their ear!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23378093/