Whatever you want to call it.

Perhaps Barack Obama is reverting back to his old demons. Word has it that Obama's former cocaine use clouded his judgement, and despite his evident habits, we should all use caution when considering a radical fringe lunatic such as Obama for president anyway. Perhaps Obama is keeping his nose clean (figuratively and literally) and merely resorting to lying in order to revitalize his paltry campaign. Without a doubt, Obama's lunacy plays into the hands of his constituency of cut and paste bloggers. Case in point is Obama's hypothetical "hammering of McCain over Social Security" - what a joke. Obama's robots are relatively easy to program: offer a well crafted script, throw in some extra welfare benefit spending, lie like a well developed Harvard lawyer - and the voters will fall to their knees in virtual wedded bliss. Knowing full well that Democrat voters are subject to believing anything they hear from their Democratic messiah, Obama used his typical dumbed-down scare tactic approach in describing "millions of Americans would've had their social security tied up in the stock market this week" in reference to McCain's supposed Social Security plan. Now some may remember a president named Clinton that proposed voluntary stock market based social security privatization reform - a move that moderate Democrats loved at the time. The reason that Democrats loved this move was Clinton's notion that Social Security accounts would be allowed to mature in a stock market gambit in the hopes of a greater return, which could have distracted Americans long enough to use surpluses of remaining payroll "contributions" to throw into general tax revenue. Alan Greenspan frowned at various aspects of the plan (which was corrected by another president later) and Clinton was busy with various wars of distraction, jogging to McDonalds, and doing interns - and the plan was eventually scrapped. Despite the failure, Clinton enjoyed Social Security surpluses that were inevitably thrown into general revenues to fund more than a few Clinton administration projects and it seemed that everything was a win-win for Wild Bill. Although Clinton seemingly favored the notion of Social Security privitization, Obama and his flocks of voters reject privitization because any notion of privitization weakens the inherant powers of the federal government. The difference between Obama and Clinton is that Clinton did urge bipartisan cooperation in reforming Social Security. In 1999, Clinton stated "Our ears and minds must remain open to any good idea and to any person of good will." Clinton often urged bipartisan cooperation on a host of issues - particularly if he could seek undeserved glory from it (ummm..., such as Welfare Reform, a budget surplus, low unemployment rates). Clinton was corrupt, but he was certainly adept in the tactical skill of politics. Obama has no skill, short of reading a script, and there is no doubt that Obama seeks untold personal power and control - his paltry "Blueprint for Change" outlines a desperate power trip being sought by this dangerous big government Marxist. Oh, and before any discussion of a "President GWB: the big government Marxist" argument tries to take hold in an elementary level rebuttle, do your homework and understand that Bush tried to shape efforts to form voluntary privitization (in small percentages) of individual Social Security accounts. Bush responded to a seemingly bipartisan agreement that Social Security privitization is the only way to responsibly respond to the Social Security crisis. Obama's Democrats do not remember much history, ever, but more than a few who care to remember will bring back the words of Dick Gephardt arguing that "Individual accounts can be part of the answer... as a supplement, not a replacement to Social Security" - which is exactly what Bush and McCain have proposed. Interestingly, even the liberal stooge Tom Daschle supported government retirement investments in the stock market. The bad news for Americans is that the radical liberal equation in Congress bit Bush's hand when privitization proposals were constructed. The sad news for the suckered Obama Democrats is that Social Security privitization presents the only clear cut reform to restore true solvency to the system without dramatically increasing taxes or increasing retirement age. Bill Clinton argued that payroll taxes will not be able to fund Social Security by 2013, and further stated that the system will be completely crippled by 2032. Other representations claim that the system will be bankrupt beyond repair by 2018 under the current system. Privitization of accounts, as proposed by McCain (and those crazy Libertarian geniuses at the Cato institute) will guarantee retirees a rate of return by retirement age. Under the current system, the Social security trust fund, which holds no actual currency and just a massive barrel of IOU's, is a fraud to the American people and the money that you pay in now is actively paying the disbursements of current retired recipients. Under the plan that Obama loves so much right now, you have no guarantee, no certaintly, and no reasonable expectation that you will receive the benefits of Social Security (that you currently are forced to pay into) if you are still fairly young right now. In fact, the U.S. Congressional legislature could elect to suspend or completely eliminate Social Security and there wouldn't be a cotton picking thing you could do about it with the exception of threatening to never vote for your State Representative ever again - and how many times have you all done this? Obama's plan to curtail the Social Security problem is to increase taxes, exponentially, on the people who will benefit least from the tax increase. Is this American? Is this a representation of liberty? Obama also will be forced to increase the retirement age of recipients if he chooses to forgo individual account privitization options. An interesting little synopsis floated around the internet some time before Obama became the Democratic messiah, and the literature keyed in on the aspects of Social Security repayment to specific gender and race demographics upon future retirees. The message was rather simple: white women hold a life expectancy of around 78.8 or 78.9 years or so. Black men have the lowest life expectancy of any gender/race group of roughly 69.9 to 70.2 years (depending upon which study you believe) and all other demographics fall in somewhere between the two. Under the Democrat's Social Security retirement plan of increasing taxes and increasing benefit age, there is reason to believe that white grannies have a lot to gain in this plan and that black grandpas may never see a single dollar of return on a lifetime of investment. Considering that Obama will hold the vast majority of votes from black males, has Obama bothered to tell his presumed voters this? No, of course not. Instead, Obama will tell you that long-term managed stock and bond funds are somehow less safe than throwing all your eggs in one basket and handing your future to the will and compassion of the U.S. imperial government. Despite the fact that the stock market has historically given a much higher rate of return than treasury bills, Obama would rather you rely on an antiquated 1930's socialist edict to control your retirement plan versus a retirement structure that would greatly strengthen the stock market, dramatically increase the Gross Domestic Product (which would also dramatically increase job growth), and give a guarantee to future retirees - and you can take that one to the bank if McCain wins in November.

Oh, and who does Obama think he is pandering to? McCain is already projected to hold the Florida electorate.