Quotes cut both ways

Quotes cut both ways
As long as we're throwing quotes around, like the writer did in her Bush-bashing letter on Feb. 15, I thought I'd toss in a few other notable quotes. The first regarding Social Security: "For perhaps 30 years to come, funds will have to provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions," (but after that it would be necessary to move to) "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." And, "the federal government [would] assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." Sound familiar?
Those prophetic words are from a speech to Congress on January 17, 1935, delivered by none other than Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was savvy enough to understand the reality of the new Social Security program. He envisioned the need to revamp the program by 1965 -- 40 years ago. The Clinton administration secretly studied a plan to "fix Social Security" for 18 months and concluded that there were only three options to avoid a shortfall by 2016: 1) raise taxes, 2) cut benefits, or 3) find a way to receive a higher rate of return through private investment.
The writer further stated that there was a "surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund" when Bush took office in 2001." Huh? That is nonsense, since there is no "trust fund" and any "surplus" was merely projected on paper. There is no huge bank vault in Washington stacked with gazillions of dollars since it's a pay as you go system.
And while we're talking "quotes," here are a few pertaining to Iraq I find interesting and quite telling: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy, D- Mass., Sept. 27, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., Oct. 9, 2002.
Now the question is, were these "distinguished Democrats" lying then or are they lying now? Democrats have conveniently, and suspiciously, forgotten the timeline that brought us to this very point in history. When it was their president, Saddam and the national security threat he posed was of monumental urgency. When Bush finally resolved to take on that long ignored threat, he's a liar and conniver.
Perhaps Mr. Bush should study and review the "exit strategies" of Democrat Woodrow Wilson in W.W.I, or Democrat FDR in W.W.II, or Democrat Harry Truman in Korea, or Democrat Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, since their wars were planned to the smallest detail, right?
How easy it is now to criticize and second-guess the aggregate factors that led to the war in Iraq.
Justice denied in traffic death
Can anyone tell me why the sentence for littering in Youngstown seems to be the same as for a drunken driver who kills someone?
My grandmother was killed on Dec. 23, 2002, by a drunken driver. Grandma was a passenger in my aunt's car when a drunken driver drove through the intersection of 616 and McGuffey Road. She died instantly. They were on their way to deliver presents to my cousin's house.
The city of Youngstown gave the driver six months in jail and a small fine. Does this seem like justice? Can Youngstown officials change this law? Can the people of Youngstown do anything to change these laws?