Comments on: Obama Ratchets Up Criticism of Clinton

Barack Says Hillary Is 'Ducking' Social Security Issue

Add a Comment See all 74 Comments
by usaprophet October 30, 2007 12:56 AM EDT
I agree with Dr. Paul on the Social Security issue. Our nation''s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits to pay for militarization. Today, the Social Security system is both broke and broken. Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible military spending. The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals. Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, Dr. Paul introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors'' income and raise their standard of living. Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and he introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is ONLY used for Social Security. Also, it is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190), which Ron Paul supported, ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor. We must also address the widespread desire of younger workers to save for retirement on their own.
Reply to this comment
by prinzowhales October 30, 2007 12:25 AM EDT
Obama and Clinton have the support of the Israel-firsters and many of the Merchants of Death. If you want the war to continue, then vote for them...If you don''t, then vote for an anti-war candidate-- Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel.

Americans chose between two pro-war Israel firsters in 2000...they chose between two pro-war Israel firsters in 2004...are they going to commit the same error in 2008? If you don''t vote against the War Pig candidates, you are going to get more war!
Reply to this comment
by tibu987 October 29, 2007 11:22 PM EDT
Let me ask this question. Does Hillary have enough experience to be president?
Hillary keeps talking about how much experience she has.
I fail to see how her position as the First Lady during the Clinton years in the White House translates into the great amount of political experience she would like to have people believe.
I doubt that she sat in on Cabinet meetings, meetings with the military leaders, international leaders, debriefings by the FBI, the CIA, the SEC, NSA, and many other important meetings and issues.

Let''''s not be swayed by what Hillary and her backers would have you believe about her experience.
What it amounted to was a social experience and a brief term as a New York Senator from a relatively unimportant area.
Being Bubba''''s wife does not entitle Hillary to bash any of the other candidates for their lack of experience.

"Who is the more foolish...........the fool or the fool that follows him?.
(From Star Wars)

Reply to this comment
by tibu987 October 29, 2007 11:20 PM EDT
As an independent voter, male, old timer, veteran, someone who follows all the candidates records as much as possible, I worry about how the 2008 election may turn out.
Many women will be voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman.
Liberal and Blacks will vote for Obama simply because he is black and eloquent.
Southerners and some women will vote for Edwards
simply because he is a good ''''ol boy from the south and nice looking.
Celebrity mongers would vote for Thompson simply because they recognize him from the Law and Order TV show.
And so on.
The average American voter does not read much, is uninterested in following politics, watches too much TV and movies and/or, if they vote, may vote a straight ticket. This bodes ill for the literate, intelligent voters out there who are in the minority.
Cynic that I am, I do not look forward to what the 2008 election will bring us.
Reply to this comment
by usaprophet October 29, 2007 10:01 PM EDT
You get the sense that the country is desperate for someone to show us the way. Not the old way. Not the same way, but a NEW WAY. Think about this for a minute. What if we pulled all of our troops out of South Korea? They''ve been there for 50 years. Tens of thousands of them. What if we quit worring about Iran, and instead, realized that its having a nuclear weapon will not mean the end of the world? What if we pulled all of our troops out of Iraq, and brought them all home? What if we realistically addressed the National Debt, and paid attention to the huge burden we are placing on generations to come? These are the ideas Republican Presidential candidate, Dr. Ron Paul. He''s a ten term Congressman and a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies. Ron Paul has been married to the same woman for more than 50 years, which means he doesn''t come to the race with the sort of baggage some of the other candidates for the White House do. Paul is given to mulling things over morally. He once was a pious Lutheran, but he now attends a Baptist church. He never travels alone with women, and once even dressed down an aide for using the expression "red-light district" in front of a female colleague. I support the 2008 candidacy of Congressman, Ron Paul for President of The United States. Candidates with the high level of personal integrity and track record of adherance to principles Dr. Paul demonstrates only come around once in a lifetime, if we''re lucky. Ron Paul has my vote.
Reply to this comment
by gunownerdan October 29, 2007 7:50 PM EDT
You dirty democrats and rotten republicans are destroying America! STOP IT!!
Reply to this comment
by simonsez40 October 29, 2007 5:48 PM EDT
Bill Clinton had the highest ratings of any president in modern history. The economy was humming along, unemployment was at record lows, and our national debt was actually being paid off. I''''d take 20 more years of a Clinton White House, but not one more second of a GOP led White House. I don''''t care which one you''''re talking about - Nixon (the criminal), Ford (the criminal pardoner), Reagan (the American worker hater), Bush I (the incompetent), or Bush II (too much to list).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by hungry1968

HEAR HEAR........you stated the obvious most Repugs seem to ignore. I sure was a lot better off under Clinton rule - now we have $3.00/gallon gas, higher everything..........
Reply to this comment
by usaprophet October 29, 2007 4:40 PM EDT
I want to report a major fire, friends. CBS isn''t reporting it. Our Constitution is currently on fire. And it''s being burned in Congress. See H.R. 1955, a.k.a., Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. I couldn''t believe it. Apparently, activists with Web sites are really begining to anger the elite insofar as they are publically holding officials accountable for their evil. The bill passed the house on Oct 23, in spite of Congressman, Ron Paul''s opposition. The right to free speech on the Internet is gone, my friends. Look it up for yourself, and weep for your country as I have that our rights have eroded this far. Here''s a short excerpt from the bill''s DEFINITIONS statement: "The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism." Here''s another excerpt from the bill''s FINDINGS statement: "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens." And guess who get''s to decide what is "terrorist-related propaganda" is? You got it! The Department of Homeland Insecurity, an agency that''s answerable ONLY to The President. Unless Ron Paul is elected, our country is doomed!
Reply to this comment
by thgdriver October 29, 2007 3:23 PM EDT
I think it''s very important for Obama to run as an independent if he does not get the demoncrapic nomination.

As far as Hillary goes, well, I figure "if'' she wins, in less then a year I wont be able to find any body that voted for her. LMAO!
Reply to this comment
by usayesterday October 29, 2007 12:39 PM EDT
As I have said in an earlier post, Hillary is NOT the best choice for President because of her deep connections to special interests, (more than many other candidates).

But if there is a "silver lining" to her potential election... then it would be her husband (Bill) as a world diplomat and alliance maker. That could, perhaps, be the only positive thing to come from a President Hillary Administration, but for the safety and stability of the United States for the long term...

...more allies are always better than more enemies!
Reply to this comment
See all 74 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Author Thomas Friedman on Obama's Afghanistan plan and the war on terror. Watch Now

Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: