DID SLICK WILLIE say anything about the y2k bug in his address, could not bare to watch it all

-- tom k harder (tkh@earthlink.net), January 20, 1999

Answers

Tom,

Here's what he said:

"We must strengthen our lead in technology. It was government investment that led to the creation of the internet. I propose a 28% increase in longterm computing resuch. We also must be ready for the 21st century from its very first moment by solving the so-called Y2K computer problem. Now...(laughter)...We had one member of congress stand up and applaud...(laughter) , and we may have about that ratio out there appluading at home in front of their television sets. But remember this is a big, big problem and we've been working hard on it. Already we've made sure that the Social Security checks will come on time. And I...(applause)...but I want all the folks at home listening to this to know that we need every state and local government and every business large and small to work with us to make sure that this y2k computer bug will be the last headache of the 20th century, not the first crisis of the 21st."

If you missed it, it was really quite a bizzare moment...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 20, 1999.

"Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool that follows the fool?" - Star Wars

Regarding the speech, I was surprised. I really got the impression that ol' Slick was really trying to make a point. This was the one point on which he was bold enough to go against the "grain" (polls) and tell folks that there was a real problem (Y2K). He actually emphasised a point, and didn't expect folks to agree!!!

It only lasted a moment, but he seemed genuinely concerned. Sadly, he is very good at that, and maybe I'm just being fooled...

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous.com), January 20, 1999.

Arc Angel I think you hit the nail on the head

-- tom k harder (tkh@earthlink.net), January 20, 1999.

Do you all think the president was serious? He mentioned Y2k because some voters are interested in it and he wanted to have something in his speech for everyone. He is going to secure social security using PART of the social security funds. There ain't no surplus. The deficit has increased by approximately $117 billion (see earlier post today on this site) during the last year, the politicians know it and they demigog it so that they can spend this money. Could a corporation ignore the cost of retirement contributions and add that money to the profits (surplus)? The government would jump all over this. But it is O K for the politicians to do this. Give me a break. Invest social security in the stock market at the top of a mania that is worse than 1929? This would be the height of folly. It would help prop up the market and delay the crash. The higher it goes, the further it falls. There is a guaranteed fall as the result of Y2k. The question is when. We need a truth squad when a politician gives a speech. That would be a riot (funny not angry citizens). We have a big surplus (yes but why did the deficit increase?) We will improve education (why didn't you improve it during the last 6 years when you were in power?) Y2k will be a minor bump in the road (why is the national guard planning exercises and a practice callup without using phones?) the banks are safe (why is there a blackout on bank compliance?) Why does the public believe the idiots and ignore the people who provide facts? Because they are the product of our sorry education system. It is almost like there is a concious effort to dumb down the population so that they will believe the B. S. and unfortunately they are succeeding. There will be BIG changes next year and some people will not have a clue until 1-3-2000. At least some of the people on this site are aware.

We can be thankful to Ed Yourdan, Paul Milne, Gary North, Ric Cowles etc. It is too bad that people of this calibur are not in the position to make and enforce the laws that would be appropriate. We can look forward to FEMA and its misdirected efforts to solve the problems in the typical government manner. Orders, directives and dumba_ _ ideas that the people will resist. Will there be a revolution in 2000 or 2001 because of all of these problems and the dead people? I hope not but some of the people who can see the future say that National governments will be history in 2001. It will not be pleasant.

-- Steve (notstupid@ voter.com), January 20, 1999.

"Now that I've got your confidence... about those plans for Martial Law... and of course none of this would have happened if it hadn't been for that pesky free enterprise thing... Socialism anyone?"

-- d (d@dgi.com), January 20, 1999.

Didn't see the speech (hear?), but I bet he mentioned Y2K in a strictly CYA capacity. I doubt there are enough heavy hitters talking about Y2K to him for it to be a grab for extra popularity. I think it was more along the lines of an advisor whispering "We'd better mention this computer thingy, just in case it IS a problem. We can show that we were at least trying to do something about it."

Funny, I have heard many, many reports on NPR & PRI about the speech, it's contents, and what it all means for America and our future, but until I read this post, I had NO idea that Y2K had even been mentioned. Why come nobody's talking about it? 'Minds me of the really teeny tiny small print at the bottom of a contract....

-- Arewyn (nordic@northnet.net), January 21, 1999.