Skip to comments.Clinton said we must "SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY" [Some links]
Posted on 01/17/2005 11:11:39 AM PST by OXENinFLA
I found these durring a quick search. I'm sure there's more but I'll just toss these up to get the thread started....
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN SOCIAL SECURITY FORUM TOWN HALL MEETING
RADIO ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION
October 24, 1998 RADIO ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION
Why President Clinton's "Save Social Security First" Position Is Right for America October 30, 1998
November 4, 1998 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT BEFORE MEETING ON SOCIAL SECURITY
Ping for later
Der' Slickmeister PING!
I hope you washed your hands after all that dirty work.
BTW, I should care what he has to say because . . . ?
Well, all he and the party of obstruction and obfuscation have to do is get out the way and let the party of grown ups and doers get the job done. See, Slick, your wish is granted!
After the 1998 (?) State of the Union address, Clinton went to LaCrosse, Wisconsin, touting what he thought was the biggest applause line from SOTU: "We Must Save Social Security"
April 7 1998......oh yeah, that was my 21st Birthday.....
"Well, all he and the party of obstruction and obfuscation have to do is get out the way and let the party of grown ups and doers get the job done. See, Slick, your wish is granted!"
Well said, Still Thinking! :)
You musta missed Rush today.....
Thank you, thank you vurry much! </Elvis voice> ;-)
I'm sure his heart was in it. (eye roll)
He also said, "I want you to listen to me, I did not . . ."
Today Social Security is sound, but a demographic crisis looms if we fail to act.
Guess what, they never acted......
"...have sex with that lawwwkbawwwx, Social Security"?
I propose to keep Social Security strong for 55 years by committing 60 percent of the surplus for the next 15 years, and investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state pension would do.
Did he just say he put the SS money in the "PRIVATE SECTOR"?!?!?!?
he put = he'd put
President's Framework Keeps Social Security Solvent Through 2055. By transferring 62 percent of the projected surpluses for the next 15 years to Social Security and investing a portion of them in the market -- just like any private or state or local government pension does -- we will ensure that Social Security is on sound footing for 55 years -- until 2055.
Those EVIL Wall street people?!?!?
You're right. I'm home today, watching old movies and lurking on the main board.
Not that he didn't try.
But naturally he didn't do anything about it.
"I could of had Bin Laden, but..." blah, blah, blah...
"I could have saved Social Security, but....heh....then everyone wouldn't like me. Heh!"
Still waiting for a response.
Bump for later. Thanks for posting this info.
Good idea, Oxen. My head nearly came off when I heard Reid say recently that President Bush is creating a crisis where there is none.
I'm going to Thomas next and research what the dems were saying then too....
Funny, around the same time frame they were saying we needed to deal with Iraq also.
These days you have to specify which Clinton you are talking about in the thread title!
I'll second that. It's one thing when Slick speaks, another when QOD (Queen of the D.....) speaks. Nobody listens to him anymore. He is probably terminal, the way Pres. Bush is being so kind to him. But she is a gathering threat.
Here's Bill's "Blog" from last week. Just read and digest this backpedaling! Read the last paragraph, if you want to skip the rest. ROFLMAO! What a hoser. As if he figured this out himself! Clinton thinks Bush is creating this SS problem so he can solve it by putting money into the pockets of Corporate America. Good Lord! YOU wanted to "fix" SS a decade ago...and you didn't! But then, you wanted to do a lot of things and were great at giving lip service to them and then taking no action.
Monday, January 10, 2005
My good friend Kevin Spacey made a movie once called Swimming With Sharks. That's what politics is, dealing with the Bushes. I have second thoughts about joining the tsunami effort. I can't go back, but still.
Anyway, the reason I have doubts about my new role is George Bush's push to privatize Social Security. He wants young people to be able to create private accounts. This will obviously take money out of the SS system and cause the system to collapse in the near future. The people, which will be hit most are old people. Young people can always get a job, but what should the old and the sick do?
It's pretty obvious what George Bush is trying to do. He did the same with the current budget. George Bush proposes huge extra spending on the military and homeland security. No politician wants to be seen as weak, so everybody goes along with these increases. They cause a huge budget deficit. The government tells congress money needs to be saved, so they start slashing current spending. And it always involves taking away money from social programs.
In other words, George Bush is cutting spending on programs he dislikes by overspending on programs he can get away with.
I knew this even before 9-11. The huge tax breaks for the rich were not meant to kick start the economy or to put money in middle America's pockets. It was meant to create a huge budget deficit, which in turn had to lead to cuts on spending, cuts on social programs.
It's the same old Bush objective, dressed up in new clothes.
People always say, Bush is a spend it all "new" Republican. This is not true. Just look at what he's spending money on.
Now Social Security. Bush wants to cut it down or even get rid of it. He wants private pension plans to replace a national system in the future.
He will arrive at his private pension plan by taking money out of SS. This will cause SS to run huge deficits. Since they are unsustainable, SS will need to be changed. People might have to work till they're 70 years old or the amount of money retired Americans get may be cut.
What Bush is doing, what he has been doing since before 9-11 is create a problem, then solve it using his own methods, which always include money going out of government and into the pockets of big business.
It's insurance companies and banks which stand to reap huge profits if young people can put their money in private accounts. Nothing "new" Republican about that.
The reason I have my doubts about my new role in the tsunami relief effort, is the fact that I'm bound. I can't all of a sudden start criticizing the president about Social Security. Americans wouldn't understand and blame me. He played his hand well.
Posted by Bill Clinton at 9:31 AM
That is an incoherent, rambling mess.
"That is an incoherent, rambling mess."
That whole site is extremely pathetic. I'm trying to find out if he actually writes this stuff, or if it's just satire, or an Intern is doing the writing for him, or what.
He does sound nuts. Maybe Algore is Ghost Writing it for him? LOL!
OMG .. Clinton has a Blog??
Check out Post #30
Don't we think someone is really posting under his name?
As much as I dislike Clinton, he is owed credit on many things. He is a master of the english language and communication skills. I would be very surprised if that was actually written by him.
And didn't that cost the Dems the House? .. the first time in 40 years
Yes and no.
Clintons first budget raised the taxable portion of SS benefits.
Hillary Care, amongst several other far reaching, left wing attempts brought the republicans election victory in 1994.
Clinton, responding the next morning said "I'm still relevant."
yes we know .. but it is funny :0)
I wasn't sure; some days nothing the Clintons do would surprise me :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.