I can't remember a campaign where the Dem's didn't lie about Social Security. What's new?

First, kill all the lawyers.

-Wlm Shakespear

Before we go getting all ga-ga about this site's objectivity because they actually got one right for our team, we must remember that the Annenburg Foundation which owns it is also the same one that gave $49 million dollars to William Ayers to fund the "Chicago Annenburg Challenge" (CAC), with the goal of reforming Chicago's schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annenberg_Foundation

Ayer's and his wife were founders of the notorious Weather Underground, probably the most radical and violent anti-Viet Nam war group, which was avowedly communistic. She lovingly praised the Manson family slaughter of a pregnant Sharon Tate, among others, thusly:

"Dig it! First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in their bellies. Wild!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn

Now this lovely piece of work was employed at a small leftwing law firm in Chicago in the early 1990's, where there was also a young, inexperienced junior associate named Barrack Obama. Ayers then personally picked Obama to head the CAC, a very controversial choice, since he passed over two former university presidents on the group's board to appoint this young lawyer.

Thus the legend of The One was born. 

This group under Obama and Ayers managed to p*ss away $110 million dollars, much of it to cronies of Ayers, before the CAC was declared an utter failure, with absolutely no positive impact on the Chicago schools.

Does anyone really know that Annenburg FactCheck.org is unbiased?  I think that until we know for sure, we always make sure to call it "Annenburg FactCheck", just in case we find out differently, especially since this now seems to be a favorite "source" for the media.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But a few big obvious sops to the right is also a great cover for potentially a lot of disingenuous concerning the left.

 
Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half.

And I fail to see how those half AREN'T living in poverty WITH Social Security!!!

Now, I'm not retired, but my mom is. Were it not for fastidious (sp?) savings, her pension AND social security add up to a whopping $1500 per month. That's reasonable for her, as her savings allowed her to buy her car outright, her house is paid for, and she's essentially debt free. She's got great health insurance from my late father's employer, too.

Take a 'typical old person' though, and you'd see that $1100 eaten half-up by rent. Now, I don't think it's the government's job to provide for the old, other than the fact that they've made it their job, and promised the aid. As such, many elderly have let their savings slide, assuming they ever had any. 

PS. My mom still works part time. She's got this killer addiction to quilting, so works one day a week at a quilt store to pay for fabric. I can't complain, I'm the recipient of three of her quilts *grin*

Obama is a kneejerk reactionary. The market rebounded big-time at the end of the week, finishing only 40 points down from the previous week. That could hardly be interpreted as 'wiping out' investors accounts.

Do we really want somebody in the White House who is consistently wrong, who reacts before having all of the facts?

This just confirms the fact that Dems rely on empty emotional appeals for votes.  There is no basis to Obama's claim whatsoever, but I'm sure it plays well to an elderly audience.  The Dems are, unfortunately, masters at manipulating specific groups for their own political cause.

Bush's plan provided for citizens an OPTION to invest only a portion of their SS funds in private accounts.  Dems like to look at the world as if there is no history and no tomorrow (at least when it suits their interests).  So the stock market has been shaky lately; it's still up since 2001 and will undoubtedly provide a better return over the long haul than the 2% given by SS (assuming it doesn't go broke).  This manipulation is why I became turned off with Democrats decades ago.  Obama's strategy is nothing new.

 I think Newsweek is beginning to think twice about The Messiah. This snake has finally shed his first skin and we are seeing the real Obama. As an Illinois citizen, I've witnessed his political shenanagins over the years and am not the least bit surprised. I wonder if the Newsweek folks have suddenly seen "some" light after reading about the actions taken by the Obamassaih against WGN and Milt Rosenberg? Perhaps they see the eroding of free speech under Premier and Party Chairman Nikita Obama coming down the pike? Maybe they realize that their own fortunes will be at risk with this newcommer. Perhaps they have come to realize that his elevation to the Presodency is the equalivant to promoting the copy person to editor-in-chief after only six months on the job!

Obama is still sticking with his characterization of McCain's plan: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/22/social.security.candidates/index.html?iref=topnews This goes to prove Democrats are the Party of the Status Quo not the Party of Change.  The truth be told, Democrats are terrified of real change such as what McCain advocates.  These are the same people who said nothing was wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when reform was advocated by W and McCain back in 2003 and 2004.  Listen to the Dems again and we will be playing crisis management all over again come 2017, less than 9 years, tick, tick, tick.  Time is running out and this should have been done years ago when Bush brought it up, every year we wait the worse the situation will get.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.