Technosailor.com Readers! Donate today to assist the GlobalGiving Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund in their efforts.

2 February 2005 15 Comments

What Has Changed?

With only a few hours before President George W. Bush presents his State of the Union address, the media pundits are alive with debate over social security reform.

From the no-commentary-required file, let’s look at some soundbytes (or blogbytes) from history. All emphasis mine.

1998. President Bill clinton delivers his State of the Union address:

Now, if we balance the budget for next year, it is projected that we’ll then have a sizeable surplus in the years that immediately follow. What should we do with this projected surplus?

I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first.

Al Gore, in his 2000 Democratic Nomination Acceptance Speech:

“But I will not go along with any proposal to strip $1 out of every $6 from the Social Security trust fund and privatize the Social Security that you’re counting on. That’s Social Security minus. Our plan is Social Security plus. We will balance the budget every year and dedicate the budget surplus first to saving Social Security.

Now that Bush is proposing saving social security we have Harry Reid, Democratic Senate leader from Nevada quoted as saying (online source needed for link. My source is an evening news broadcast) :

Social Security is not in crisis. We are okay for the next 50 years

So, my fellow Americans, what has changed between the Democratic years of 1998 and 2000 and today? How is social security different? Or is this raw partisanship?

Pick up your copy of the WordPress Bible, a wildly popular resource for beginners and experts alike.

Written by Aaron Brazell on February 2, 2005

Popularity: 1% [?]

Tags:

15 Responses to “What Has Changed?”

  1. FireWolf 2 February 2005 at 9:00 pm #

    <a href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28193-2005Jan22.html
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A... />

    WaPo is a great source to dig up lefty views :)

  2. FireWolf 2 February 2005 at 8:00 pm #

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28193-2005Jan22.html

    WaPo is a great source to dig up lefty views :)

  3. FireWolf 2 February 2005 at 9:00 pm #

    <a href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28193-2005Jan22.html
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A... />

    WaPo is a great source to dig up lefty views :)

  4. Jody 2 February 2005 at 11:54 pm #

    Great post Aaron, to disagree with someone just because you don’t like what party they belong to or just to be disagreeable is petty and childish. I hope the Democrats get it together soon, but it just seems they’re going deeper and deeper into moonbat lake…

  5. Jody 2 February 2005 at 10:54 pm #

    Great post Aaron, to disagree with someone just because you don’t like what party they belong to or just to be disagreeable is petty and childish. I hope the Democrats get it together soon, but it just seems they’re going deeper and deeper into moonbat lake…

  6. Jody 2 February 2005 at 11:54 pm #

    Great post Aaron, to disagree with someone just because you don’t like what party they belong to or just to be disagreeable is petty and childish. I hope the Democrats get it together soon, but it just seems they’re going deeper and deeper into moonbat lake…

  7. PsychoPhil 3 February 2005 at 11:34 am #

    I’ve asked this same question on blogs criticizing Bush’s SS plan for the past month or so and have never gotten an answer.

    I’ve even posted the same question on my blog. Still no answer. Because there isn’t one. Its plain &amp; simple partisanship and nothing else.

    http://www.psychophil.com/weblog/?p=17

  8. PsychoPhil 3 February 2005 at 10:34 am #

    I’ve asked this same question on blogs criticizing Bush’s SS plan for the past month or so and have never gotten an answer.

    I’ve even posted the same question on my blog. Still no answer. Because there isn’t one. Its plain & simple partisanship and nothing else.

    http://www.psychophil.com/weblog/?p=17

  9. PsychoPhil 3 February 2005 at 11:34 am #

    I’ve asked this same question on blogs criticizing Bush’s SS plan for the past month or so and have never gotten an answer.

    I’ve even posted the same question on my blog. Still no answer. Because there isn’t one. Its plain &amp; simple partisanship and nothing else.

    http://www.psychophil.com/weblog/?p=17

  10. Aaron 3 February 2005 at 11:48 am #

    Hey Phil,

    I’ve heard it a few places over the past few weeks so it’s a thought that is “out there”. But the left seems to keep ignoring that elephant in the room and carry on with their rhetoric.

  11. Aaron 3 February 2005 at 10:48 am #

    Hey Phil,

    I’ve heard it a few places over the past few weeks so it’s a thought that is “out there”. But the left seems to keep ignoring that elephant in the room and carry on with their rhetoric.

  12. Aaron 3 February 2005 at 11:48 am #

    Hey Phil,

    I’ve heard it a few places over the past few weeks so it’s a thought that is “out there”. But the left seems to keep ignoring that elephant in the room and carry on with their rhetoric.

  13. Stephan Segraves 3 February 2005 at 6:34 pm #

    We are ok for the next 50 yrs? My 13 yr. old brother can do the math to figure out that in less than 25 years every person in the work force will be supporting a retiree, compared to the 3/1 ratio we have now. Sounds like a problem to me.

  14. Stephan Segraves 3 February 2005 at 5:34 pm #

    We are ok for the next 50 yrs? My 13 yr. old brother can do the math to figure out that in less than 25 years every person in the work force will be supporting a retiree, compared to the 3/1 ratio we have now. Sounds like a problem to me.

  15. Stephan Segraves 3 February 2005 at 6:34 pm #

    We are ok for the next 50 yrs? My 13 yr. old brother can do the math to figure out that in less than 25 years every person in the work force will be supporting a retiree, compared to the 3/1 ratio we have now. Sounds like a problem to me.