It's now or never for Obama and the future of the Democratic Party.

Let's roll.

Amen.

"you have an all out prize fight, you wait until the fight is over, one guy is left standing. And that's how you know who won." -- Robert DeNiro as Al Capone in "The Untouchables"

Unfortunately for Obama--the rest of the country is dodging SS as well.


Murphy

Hey Corky,

Take your cry baby BS to someone who cares.

What a pussy!!!!

Corky I'm afraid she is going to give us a ton of kind, humane misery if she wins.

Spud caught "This Weak with George Stephan-
usedtoworkfortheclinton-
opolis" and golly gee willickers if this topic didn't just happen to come up. Again, Camp Clinton (aka Weak George) tried to spin Barack's fearless approach to politics as being politically naive. Wotta schnook thought Spud.

There are very few true conservatives or liberals left in American politics.

The script as it's been written at present has Hillary the Neo-Lib squaring off against Rudy the Neo-Con. In both cases The forces of untrammelled globalism win and America and the world lose.

Obama is America's last best chance to reverse some disturbing and dangerous trends in American and world politics.

Obama '08.

Be Well.

Clinton dodges and double speaks a lot of questions. Billy Boy couldn't dodge that blue dress though....."I did NOT have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky....." Lewinsky would have just been part of Hillary's "right wing conspiracy" if not for the stain and Hillary would still be out and about calling Lewinsky a liar.

But then Lewinsky was a Mossad agent....:>)

Dethspud: while I support Obama, I don't buy into any of this "last best chance" rhetoric for a moment. Most of the leading Democratic nominees would do an excellent job if elected.

Then the Clinton's are even dumber than previously thought. Aren't they Bani!

Yes Moder8, you are certainly correct....vote for Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. You stupid FUCK!

Yes Moder8, you are certainly correct....vote for Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. You stupid FUCK!

Posted by ride_on

Nasty, Nasty tonite are we?:>)

RideOn is obviously off his meds again. Could somebody look in on him? I'm a little worried...

...voting Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton would constitute someone being off of their meds.......

Can't comment on the content can ya? You are satisfied with more of the same!

Yes, equating Bill or Hillary Clinton to Bush regime does constitute being off your meds. Bill Clinton was arguably the best president of the last 75 years. GWB is aruably the worst president in American history.

Ok, you want Bush/Clinton/Bush/
Clinton....got it!!!!

What a pussy!!!!

Posted by leonland


I would say the vaginal prize goes to the one who is afraid to use their usual handle, eh?

Hey Corky, I always use the same handle. You are a PUSSY! Hehe.

How 'bout you keep your sexual fantasies about me to yourself, Rode Hard and Put Up Ugly.

Better for everyone all around.

But, ya can't deny what ya are...roflmao. Everyone on the DR knows it too Corky....it's because of your incessant whine.

We need Obama.

We may get Clinton

It could be worse

But why not go for better than Clinton?

Why not go for Change?

Why be so scared after what we've been through?

Why be so intimidated by the Democratic Party machine?

For heaven's or whatever's sake, can't the American people stand up and say enough of this crap?

Probably not.

We are an incredibly dumb people.

We don't know the power we have.

And we should.


OBAMA IN 2008!

My guess as to why she is dodging the question is because she realizes that privatizing is the only practical answer, an answer that Bush and the Republicans suggested. A suggestion that was impuned and scorned by the Democrats. I believe if the Democrats gain control of the White House, they will suggest the same thing. Why did the Democrats scorn the Republicans for wanting to fix Social Security? Because, by all means, the Democrats must not let the Republicans receive any credit for creating solutions, especially when the solution pertains to Social Security, one of their biggest campaign issues.

"to revert to the typical traditional second place strategy of negatively attacking his opponent."

Corky

Your usual servile defense of Hillary .
Like those nasty little bits of crap msm slavishly publishes about Obama aren't from her camp. She did the same thing in NY senate races ( she made that little whimp Lazio look like a nasty man brute ).
After all she is a lady and a real gentleman wouldn't attack a lady .
Talking about issues and criticizing your opponents position is not a mean attack . Wuss!

-Like those nasty little bits of crap msm slavishly publishes about Obama aren't from her camp

I keep forgetting about the Clinton run media conspiracy against Obama, lmao!

He couldn't be doing anything wrong himself, so that must be it!

Perhaps it is watching that gossipy ol' wet hen Chris Matthews dissing her every chance he gets that clouds my memory, eh?

BTW -People who expect me to take the Obama position around here just because it is the popular PC thing to do are in for a disappointment.

I have said I prefer Dennis the K's policies and Obama's charm, but I don't want to see another GOPher in the WH for 8 more years.


I do wish America was ready for Obama, and that Obama was ready for the job, which he has yet to prove, because I would like nothing better than for the world to see a US President with a Muslim name at this time.

But while Colin Powell, a well-known, popular war hero and Republican might have had a shot at the Presidency, if he lived that long, a lefty Dem with a Muslim sounding name at this time is an unlikely candidate in this country.

Truly sorry about that.

"privatizing is the only practical answer, an answer that Bush and the Republicans suggested. A suggestion that was impuned and scorned by the Democrats."
Posted by Republican4ever

Well, there's some revisionist history for you. It was impuned and scorned by everybody, from the Dems to the public to Bush's fellow Republicans. Bush couldn't get a single respected economist to sign on to his suggestions of no new taxes, no reduced benefits, and no later retirement dates, all during a birthrate decline. And he never even attempted to explain where we'd get the $2 Trillion to pay for it all.

But it's the use of the word answer that's the most egregious: For all Bush's bluster and the year of loyalty-oath-crowd speeches, Bush finally admitted his suggestion of privatization wouldn't even address the problems.

But it's easier just to blame Bush's failures on the Democrats...right?

Bowa- You didnt sell that book of quotes at your last Garage sale?

............Edwards and Webb........thats the ticket...

Corky... Hillary will just have to up the bid. I'm still waiting for that new car....eco friendly of course.

But it's the use of the word answer that's the most egregious: For all Bush's bluster and the year of loyalty-oath-crowd speeches, Bush finally admitted his suggestion of privatization wouldn't even address the problems.

But it's easier just to blame Bush's failures on the Democrats...right?

Posted by Danforth at 2007-10-29 09:46 AM

Privatization is the answer. My personal investment accounts far outweigh anything the government is offering in Social Security. Yes, you are correct that many Republicans were against the privatization plan, but I believe their reasons for opposing the President were purely political, a fear of political retribution. However, none of the Democrats wanted to privatize the accounts, and maybe for the same reason. At any rate, if Bush's plan was incomplete, I'll accept that criticism. But, privatization is what is needed, and many people would agree with me. It really is the only rational solution. If the Democrats want to propose a similar plan, I'm all ears. I don't care who gets the credit.

"We've all heard proposals for "privatizing" the Social Security system. The best private solution, of course, is simply to allow the American people to keep more of their paychecks and invest for retirement as they see fit. But putting Social Security funds into government-approved investments could have dangerous consequences. Private companies would become a partner of sorts with the government. Individuals still would not truly own their invested Social Security funds. Payroll taxes likely would be raised to cover payments to current beneficiaries, as the President alluded to when warning us that fixing Social Security would be "costly."

Furthermore, who would decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles deserve government approval? Which politicians would you trust to build an investment portfolio with billions of your Social Security dollars? The federal government has proven itself incapable of good money management, and permitting politicians and bureaucrats to make investment decisions would result in unscrupulous lobbying for venture capital. Large campaign contributors and private interests of every conceivable type would seek to have their favored investments approved by the government. In a free market, an underperforming or troubled company suffers a decrease in its stock price, forcing it either to improve or lose value. Wary investors hesitate to buy its stock after the price falls. If a company successfully lobbied Congress, however, it would enjoy a large investment of your tax dollars. This investment would cause an artificial increase in its stock price, deceiving private investors and unfairly harming the company's honest competition. Government-managed investment of tax dollars in the private market is a recipe for corruption and fiscal irresponsibility.

The Social Security crisis is a spending crisis. The program could be saved tomorrow if Congress simply would stop spending so much money, apply even 10% of the bloated federal budget to a real trust fund, and begin saving your contributions to earn simple interest. That this simple approach seems impossible speaks volumes about the inability of Congress to cut spending no matter what the circumstances." - Ron Paul

"Yes, you are correct that many Republicans were against the privatization plan, but I believe their reasons for opposing the President were purely political, a fear of political retribution."

And part of it was no one, no one could explain it fully. Anyone here want to take a crack at explaining the "payback" aspect, if your personal investments did much, MUCH better than average?

"At any rate, if Bush's plan was incomplete, I'll accept that criticism."

No, I'm not saying it was incomplete. I'm saying it wasn't there at all. Nothing Bush proposed would have addressed the problems of underfunding; on the contrary, they would have exacerbated it. (You don't think those bankers are going to manage those accounts without fees, do you?) The most telling stat is the more folks knew and heard, the further the support dropped.

And there's another problem untouched: Transitioning to private accounts would cost $2 Trillion. Whoever gets the bill will be forced to finance two retirements, theirs and their parent's. Are you volunteering?

Bush's "plan" which was never a real plan, because he wanted something handed to him that he could pick and choose from, was at the start a concept from the neo-cons to dismantle Social Security.