[magprob]

OK! Now we are getting somewhere! I have not warmed up to any of the presidential candidates. I just don't like any of them. Well except Ron Paul of course. But, I think John Wayne McCain just changed all that for me. John Wayne McCain can slip up, while running his mouth and tell the truth while the others are just too good at lying. That's OK with me. I'll take the truth any where I can get it. I'll bet Papa Bush cringed at this one!


McCain clarifies remark on oil, Iraq - John McCain News - MSNBC.com

[magprob]

Ha Ha Ha!

[George_1950]

Maybe he will awaken and realize that politics is more than just getting along; it is a civil way of changing our government, as opposed to a violent way. He will have to toughen up to win; its not reasonable to expect Oba'llary to fumble McCain's way into the White House, though either is quite capable of doing so.

[tomder55]

Never underestimate the ability of Republicans to lose elections. Honestly for McCain to win this there will be a lot of other people carrying his water. I'm concerned that he is the next Bob Dole ;a man who should've easily won.

[BABRAM]

McCain's political campaign handler's are going to have to keep tighter reigns on the old man or tape his mouth shut between now and November.

[Galveston1]

Now I hear that he is reopnening his "comprehensive immigration reform" push. I am wondering if the sheer horror of a Clinton or Obama presidency will be enough to get me to the polls in Nov. or not. I'm pretty old, maybe I won't vote, maybe a lot of conservatives won't. (Not sure myself) Then we could watch the Dems fly this whole country into the ground! If McCain wants to get to the White House, he better wake up as to who his best allies could (or not), be. I doubt the Hispanics will vote for him en mass regardless of what he does.

[BABRAM]

Then we could watch the Dems fly this whole country into the ground! If McCain wants to get to the White House, he better wake up as to who his best allies could (or not), be. I doubt the Hispanics will vote for him en mass regardless of what he does.

McCain's on the same side of amnesty as the Democrats, so that's a wash. However your remark: "Dems fly this whole country into the ground," has me wondering what rock you've been hiding under for the last seven and half years. It will take at least two terms just to get us of the rut Bush bogged us down in. Even McCain at his age recently recognized this and that's why he changed his tune from needing to run for one term, to two.

[tomder55]

Galveston ;even worse ,he is planning on attending and making a speech at the La Raza convention .

[NeedKarma]

Senility is a sad thing.

[tomder55]

Senility is not the issue. He is trying to create his own base of support and ignoring the conservative base. The fool had it out with the North Carolina Republican party a week before the primaries. Although he is the nominee and the race is over ,he still had 25% of the Republicans voting against him.

He is making a mistake. Obama is beatable but not without mobilizing the conservatives.This La Raza speech is just pandering to a support base that he probably can't win anyway. While doing it he has gone from committing to border security ;building the wall first, back to this "comprehensive" approach which will mean another amnesty with no border enforcement.

I will vote for him but I am more convinced than ever that we will have a President Obama next year.

[NeedKarma]

senility is not the issue.

It might be:
mccain senile - Google Search

[tomder55]

You should just hope you have his facility when you are his age.

[NeedKarma]

Actually I don't. My father is older than he and seems to be in much better shape physically and mentally.

[tomder55]

McCain jokes to play down age as issue - John McCain News - MSNBC.com

[Galveston1]

If McCain were really honest, he would be running as a Democrat.

[George_1950]

If McCain were really honest, he would be running as a Democrat.

I feel the same way about George W. Bush (and his daddy).

[shatteredsoul]

[QUOTE=Galveston1]Now I hear that he is reopnening his "comprehensive immigration reform" push. I am wondering if the sheer horror of a Clinton or Obama presidency will be enough to get me to the polls in Nov. or not. I'm pretty old, maybe I won't vote, maybe a lot of conservatives won't. (Not sure myself) Then we could watch the Dems fly this whole country into the ground! If McCain wants to get to the White House, he better wake up as to who his best allies could (or not), be. I doubt the Hispanics will vote for him en mass regardless of what he does

I am really curious what the Democrats could do to fly this whole country into the ground, that hasn't already been done by this current administration. What is your take on McCain's direct involvement with the Lincoln Savings & Loan Scandal? I am sure it would interest you how much he advocated to protect those who were directly responsible for the downfall.. that affected THIS WHOLE NATION.

It is interesting to me that someone couldn't view the last eight years as a complete failure.. In regards to our economy (which was in a surplus before the current conservative right came into power) The issue of health care and social security hasn't been addressed but is now a situation of detrimental concern. The environmental laws of this country have been turned back 20 years, even though there is a world wide interest and effort to take on issues of alternative energy, protecting water, and creating solutions for global warming. IN FACT this administration has dragged its feet in even admitting there is global warming (NO matter why it is happening, its happening) Moreover, the energy companies, big oil, tobacco and alcohol are behind this administration and thus, they have a had to pay back by protecting them, rather than the WORKING CLASS citizen who makes up the population in this country.

So, I guess you see it as an opportunity to blast what a democrat will do, but I can tell you that NOTHING THIS CURRENT ADMINISTRATiON has done has been for the benefit of the working class people of this country. In addition to putting us in debt with other countries, as well as our own, they have done nothing to create international alliances with other countries and created a war with a country that is nothing but a smoke screen for the real agenda, MONEY AND POWER.. that is what they are motivated by and what they are protecting. NOT our rights, NOT our freedom, NOT our health, NOT our job opportunities, NOT our education. So before you attack the democrats of this country, take a good look of the state of affairs we are in now, do to the Conservative Administration who looks out for BIG BUSINESS, before the average AMERICAN citizen.
DISHONESTY occurs in every administration, but not every administration has blood on their hands because of it.
Outsourcing jobs, creating loopholes for big business while the small business man can't survive, Serving the corporations and the Board of Trustees interests, instead of the everyday taxpayer. Continuing a war with NO FUNDING or strategy to support it, as well as giving all the bidding contracts to their own people... these are all catastrophic things that have effected our state of affairs, our economy and our stronghold as a nation.
The dollar is weaker, the banks, due to illegal practices that were supported, are foreclosing homes at an astronomical rate. More than half of Americans have no health insurance, and the Educational Reforms that were modeled after Bush's reign in Texas as governor, have all but failed.
I cringe to think of ANOTHER Conservative Republican serving the interests of BIG BUSINESS and THEIR OWN GREED, having control over this nation for another four years, I don't think we could be any more flat on our face than we are now, but to really run us into the ground, would be to elect another puppet of those in power..

I would give anyone a chance if they weren't run and controlled by the most powerful, wealthy and elite. I don't trust them. We didn't trust them when we came to America and that is why we created a separation of powers, a Constitution, a Bill of Rights and allowed citizens to VOTE.. THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY DESERVE BETTER.. THey deserve the right to be protected, to be heard and to be given the same opportunities as those in power. I Don't see how that could happen under another candidate, who will do more of the same...
At least historically, the Democratic party has defended and supported the interests of the working class, or the MIDDLE CLASS, which as all but evaporated.
HEALTH CARE
EDUCATION
ENVIRONMENT
SOCIAL SECURITY
OHH and DEFENSE which is usually the biggest expenditure for Republicans historically, was DRASTICALLY cut in this administration.
These issues I would rather have addressed by ANYONE other than a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN...
AM I saying we have the best candidates? NO, I am saying it will be better than MORE OF THE SAME.. because with MCCAIN, it will BE MORE OF THE SAME..

[Galveston1]

Wow! Hi, Shattered. You point out things that have been going on for far more years than 8.
Healthcare? Ours is good enough that people come here from all over the world to get it. Education was ruined many years ago when Federal Aid to Education started.
If environmental nutcases would get out of the way, we would likely be energy independent by now. What Pres was it that wanted energy independence? Oh, yeah. That was GWB. Bill Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWAR in 1992. We could have been getting the equivalent of what we purchase from Saudi Arabia from Alaska by now.
Don't tell me you really think we have any way to control the average temperature of our planet. Do you? The idea that we are responsible for global warming is a hoax designed to enrich Al Gore & crew.
We know that Social Security is about broke. Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat congress STOLE the SS trust fund and spent it on the failed effort to eliminate poverty in this country.
What Pres wanted to fix SS by allowing some private investment by taxpayers in their retirement? Who got in the way?
The economy was going down when Clinton left office. Borrowing curreny into circulation goes back a long time and is primarily responsible for the shrinking of the dollar.
Having said all this, McCain is the best Democrat in the race.

[BABRAM]

Wow! Hi, Shattered. You point out things that have been going on for far more years than 8.
Healthcare? Ours is good enough that people come here from all over the world to get it. Education was ruined many years ago when Federal Aid to Education started.
If environmental nutcases would get out of the way, we would likely be energy independent by now. What Pres was it that wanted energy independence? Oh, yeah. That was GWB. Bill Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWAR in 1992. We could have been getting the equivalent of what we purchase from Saudi Arabia from Alaska by now.
Don't tell me you really think we have any way to control the average temperature of our planet. Do you? The idea that we are responsible for global warming is a hoax designed to enrich Al Gore & crew.
We know that Social Security is about broke. Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat congress STOLE the SS trust fund and spent it on the failed effort to eliminate poverty in this country.
What Pres wanted to fix SS by allowing some private investment by taxpayers in their retirement? Who got in the way?
The economy was going down when Clinton left office. Borrowing curreny into circulation goes back a long time and is primarily responsible for the shrinking of the dollar.
Having said all this, McCain is the best Democrat in the race.

snopes.com: Social Security Changes

FactCheck.org: Lies in the E-mail, Part 2

Lies in the E-mail, Part 2
April 14, 2004
By Brooks Jackson


"Since my first article on lying e-mails, I've gotten dozens of inquiries about a snarky little message blaming Democrats alone for all sorts of bad changes to Social Security. I'm calling it "Lying E-mail #2" because it is so full of laughably inaccurate claims.



Lying E-mail #2

SOCIAL SECURITY:

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the
Democratic-controlled House and
Senate.
Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.
Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.
Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country and at 65 got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.
Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security.
And the worst part about it is, people believe it!
Pass it on please!
2004 Election Issue
This must be an issue in "04." Please! Keep it going.

Who Taxed Benefits?

The most glaring falsehood in this one is a claim that it was "the Democratic party" that "put a tax on Social Security."

Oh yeah?

Here's a link to a picture of that tax being signed into law. The year was 1983, and the president who signed it was Ronald Reagan.

Note Republican Sens. Bob Dole and Howard Baker -- both of whom had a hand in passing the law through the Republican -controlled Senate -- are looking on approvingly, along with a number of Democrats.

The tax, in fact, was part of a bipartisan measure to address Social Security's shaky finances. And it was recommended by a bipartisan commission headed by another Republican -- Alan Greenspan -- who had been appointed by Reagan. You can read about the Greenspan Commission (and see a picture of a much younger Greenspan) here, at a site the Social Security Administration maintains to document the history of the program. There is a full history of how benefits came to be taxed here .

And by the way, the tax only applied to a relatively small percentage of retirees -- those whose income totaled over $32,000 for a married couple. And the tax fell on only 50 percent of their Social Security benefits.

Who Gave SSI To Immigrants?

The next biggest whopper in this e-mail is a claim that it was "the Democratic party" that "decided to give money to immigrants" through the SSI program, "although they never paid a dime into it."

Actually it was Republican President Richard Nixon who both proposed and signed the legislation creating SSI -- the Supplemental Security Income program. When he signed it on Oct. 30, 1972, Nixon called it "landmark legislation." It was also bipartisan, approved by a Congress that was controlled by Democrats at the time.

Under Nixon's SSI law, immigrants were eligible for benefits from the start, as were all citizens, provided they were blind, disabled or elderly and destitute.

SSI is a federal welfare program funded out of general tax revenues, and is separate from the Social Security old-age pensions and disability insurance programs funded out of dedicated payroll taxes. While Social Security benefits are paid to those who have paid payroll taxes for a certain minimum period of time, SSI benefits were available to all -- citizens and resident aliens alike -- regardless of whether they had "paid a dime into it" or not.

The Social Security Administration published a history to mark the 20th anniversary of the SSI program, which you can read here.

It's true that Republicans did try to cut off SSI benefits for immigrants in 1996, but they quickly eased their stance amid a public outcry. The 1996 welfare-reform law cut off benefits for most immigrants. (Democratic President Bill Clinton protested, but signed the law anyway.) An outcry arose when the Social Security Administration notified more than 660,000 aged, blind and disabled immigrants that their benefits would be cut off at the end of 1997 and newspapers carried reports of some who had committed suicide after being notified. Congress then restored benefits to those immigrants who were getting them before the welfare-reform law was signed. The measure that permanently restored benefits to pre-1996 immigrants (Public Law 105-306) passed the Republican House by voice vote and the Republican Senate by unanimous consent.

Tough restrictions remain for newer immigrants, which you can read here. But you can credit a Republican president for creating SSI and a Republican Congress for giving SSI benefits back to hundreds of thousands of aged, blind and disabled immigrants.

Who Spent Trust Fund Money?

The e-mail gets history wrong again when it blames Democrats alone for spending Social Security tax revenues for other purposes. It is true that Democratic President Lyndon Johnson was the first to lump the accounting for Social Security (and many other federal trust funds) into the "unified" federal budget. He announced this in 1968 in his State of the Union address:

LBJ: This budget, therefore, for the first time accurately covers all Federal expenditures and all Federal receipts, including for the first time in one budget $47 billion from the social security, Medicare, highway, and other trust funds.

But the same accounting practice has been followed by every president and Congress since, Democrat or Republican. It's as bipartisan as can be.

And anyway, it's not the unified-budget accounting that's at fault for allowing Congress to divert Social Security taxes to other purposes. Indeed, not long after Johnson first put them into the budget the trust funds were soon running large deficits. For seven years, from 1975 through 1981, the money was flowing out, not in, and there was no extra Social Security tax money for Congress to spend. You can see how the trust funds ebbed and flowed here .

It's true that large Social Security surpluses have in more recent years been used for other purposes -- by Democratic and Republican presidents alike, with Democrats in control of Congress, or with Republicans. What created those tempting surpluses was the 1983 law (mentioned above) signed by Reagan, which raised Social Security taxes in an attempt to repair the system's finances. There's plenty of bipartisan blame to go around on this one, too.

One Thing Right

The one item this e-mail gets right is that Democrats were behind an increase in taxes on Social Security benefits. That happened in 1993, as part of Bill Clinton's huge package of spending cuts and tax increases. No Republican voted for that and Vice President Al Gore did cast a tie-breaking vote in the U.S. Senate. That increased tax goes to help pay for Medicare and is paid only by those making $44,000 a year or more for a married couple. But as we've said before, neither party has made a serious move to repeal that tax since it was enacted. President Bush didn't propose repeal in either of his tax-cut bills for individuals in 2001 or 2003."

[tomder55]

Senility is a sad thing.

When Obama says he has visited 57 states and still has 2 more to go ;is that a sign of senility ?