View Story | 179 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
(Cue crowd: BOO, BOOOOO)
Yes, Ronald Reagan, a True American, did want to preserve Social Security. But it's a different world today.
9/11 changed everything.
President Reagan was optimistic about the great promise of economic reform, and he acted to restore the reward and spirit of enterprise.
President Reagan understood there is a fundamental duty, for those of us who have been given the honor of serving the American people, to solve problems before they become acute, and not to pass them on to future Presidents and future generations.
I like the idea of encouraging more people to say, I own my own home, I own my own business, I own and manage my health accounts, and now I own a significant part of my retirement account. Promoting ownership in America makes sense to me to make sure people continue to have a vital stake in the future of our country.
President Reagan understood what an ownership society was all about.
In the spirit of President Reagan, we will strengthen and save Social Security for generations to come.
No?
by cscs on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 05:51:28 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Part of our problem is that we've been too quick to go "Oh, better not say that because..." We've got to start going on the offensive. Damn the torpedoes!
"A time comes when silence is betrayal." MLK ...... The Green Knight
by greenknight on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:12:30 PM PDT
No sense putting out something that doesn't work, no?
How many times over the campaign did they completely neutralize our offensive:
I would overanalyze everything the Dems potentially put out, figuring out as many angles as possible that the Repubs may counter with -- you know that's exactly what they do. You don't think THEY second guess before they put out an ad?
I bet they have a staff of ten or twenty second-guessers.
Just trying to be helpful...
by cscs on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:29:40 PM PDT
by greenknight on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 07:17:23 PM PDT
by cscs on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 04:41:59 AM PDT
But I don't think the most idiotic moron out there would buy a connection with a 70 yr old, totally domestic program.
9/11 didn't alter the population demographics, didn't change the tax structure.
If they try that, they're more desparate then they want to admit.
by mmacdDE on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 07:00:00 PM PDT
But, flipness aside, it is another example of framing, in this case framing to discredit and destroy the idea of the "commons," that which is held in common by all for the public good. If "legitimate" ownership can be limited to "mine" and there's no such thing as "ours," then how can we complain when "our" forests are razed and "our" rivers are polluted and "our" Social Security is funneled into Wall Street pockets? If people can be convinced that they only have a stake in "what's mine" then the pirates can make off with "what's ours" - no problem.
-8.38, -7.49
by papercut on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:51:01 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 179 comments