A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
MSM Coverage of Social Security Debate circa 1998:

• An effort "to craft a bipartisan bill to assure Social Security's solvency," says the Los Angeles Times.'
  
  "A bold move to put the future of the massive retirement program at the top of his agenda," says The Washington Post.
  
  "They still must resolve an emotional ideological debate over whether the government should continue to take money from the working-age generation and transfer it to retirees . . . or whether Social Security should be transformed so that individuals would have more freedom and responsibility to save for their own retirements," says the New York Times.

MSM Coverage of Social Security Debate circa 2005:

• "Oh, my God," one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. "The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board." Says the L.A. Times.
  
  But the president declined to take ownership of any of these politically risky changes, offering them instead as the ideas offered in the past by other politicians, all Democrats as it turned out, says The Washinton Post.
  
  His avoidance of specifics appeared deliberate. The Bush team well knows how critics of the Clinton administration's heavily detailed health care proposal - submitted to Congress as a pre-baked package - picked it apart and defeated it a decade ago, says The New York Times.

What's your problem with any of this?