Dems; “We can have it all”
The Washington Times reports that the Democrat Party is salivating that they can finally “have it all” in the current political climate in regards to entitlements. They’re eating their own when not everyone in their party agrees with them;
Christy Setzer, a Democratic consultant, said that “the safety net’s making a comeback.”
“Polls show that not only do Americans want to preserve Social Security, they want to see it expanded — not just in NYC, but in Colorado,” Ms. Setzer said. “That means that moving to the left is a viable position for Democrats in blue and red states alike.”
The internal bickering is similar to the squabbles that have played out on the Republican side of the aisle, where some of the darlings of the tea party and conservative movement have accused GOP leaders of habitually selling out basic conservative principles.
Mrs. Warren and Mr. de Blasio have energized the liberal base of the Democratic ranks, which has accused the Obama administration of not fighting hard enough for the issues that they care about most.
Mr. de Blasio won the New York mayoral race Nov. 5 with more than 73 percent of the vote after vowing to raise taxes on the city’s wealthier residents to cover the cost of expanded government programs — including universal pre-kindergarten — and to reduce inequality.
Speaking on the floor of the Senate two weeks later, Mrs. Warren said that if the nation wants a real middle class then Congress must get serious about the nation’s retirement system because more people than ever are on the edge of financial disaster once they retire.
“That is why we should be talking about expanding Social Security benefits, not cutting them,” she said.
It’s really too bad that they’re not this rabid over helping veterans just keep the benefits that they’ve earned. Healthcare costs are rising on retirees, they’re losing some of their benefits, Congress is perfectly happy to cut their pay, the Department of Defense raids our $770 million Tricare surplus and then doesn’t bat an eye when they push us off of Tricare Prime and raise our premiums and co-pays.
And here are the Democrats expanding their social programs. Before you think I’m talking about retirees on Social Security, I’m not. I’m talking about the people on SSI because they can’t find a job because they were busted for smoking pot on their last job (yes, I know one). I’m talking about people who game the system – that’s who the Democrats want to “expand” the program to include.
And then they tell us how the things we were promised are standing in the way of readiness.
Someone whose name would surprise you, asked me today about issues that affect the military. This is issue number one. The Department of Defense and Congress won’t keep their promises to veterans, but they’ll make new promises to the professionally indigent.
Category: Liberals suck, Veterans Issues
No, it shouldn’t really surprise you, Jonn. Democrats have always (at least in my lifetime) been more interested in creation of a permanent dependency class, and veterans are the antithesis of someone dependent upon another for their well-being and survival.
They will make all the promises they want. Cook the books any way they want. Until the money runs out. And then they will, too. Right out the door and gone, and leave us to deal with the mess.
Since neither Congress nor the courts have any battalions to back up the rule of law, the Dems can have whatever they want right now and there’s no one to keep the Executive Branch in check.
They don’t actually have it all. This is their blind spot. This conceit has them so absorbed in their own vanity that they aren’t looking at what is coming up in the rearview mirror.
Like spoiled children, they want what they want and they want it now. It doesn’t matter what anyone else needs or wants. Too bad that “it all” translates into demanding that we all furnish them and theirs with whatever their foolish, immature hearts desire.
It will continue until the adults make them stop their tantrums.
Expand all you want, just fund the expansion by taxing the unions.
Make teachers pay into the Social Security system as well as their state pension funds.
PH- they might already be doing that? Last time I checked, the only ones not doing so were cops, firefighters, and railroad employees, and perhaps not all of them were exempted. But, it has been a while since I checked, so teachers may have joined them.
@5 OWB “… matter what anyone else has earned through their service to the country…”
Otherwise spot on.
Nelson Mandela:
A hero to his country. One that has done a lot for freedoms of many of South Africans, and around the world. It was a time to change. Someone I have a great respect for. Five Stars:
Martin Luther King Jr. Someone that I watched on TV in the early 60’s (high school. He changed America) and I supported him: Five Stars.
Currant President: Well…Hmm..let me think about it! Oh yeah, isn’t’ he was that little small minded community activist that did nothing in Congress but to show up a couple times to vote on special feel good bills that he perused.
Check it out yourself. What a piece of… you know!
Socialism works great until you run out of other people’s money.
DaveO Says:
December 5th, 2013 at 5:56 pm
Since neither Congress nor the courts have any battalions to back up the rule of law, the Dems can have whatever they want right now and there’s no one to keep the Executive Branch in check.
______________________________________________________________
Actually, our oaths make all of us, current and former, duty bound to be those battalions.
Unfortunately, oaths mean squat all anymore.
@7 Ex-PH2
When I was a teacher I paid S.S. like anyplace else I ever worked but I didn’t have to contribute to my pension…of course that was nearly 20 years ago….some things have changed since then….
My wife is a teacher and does not pay social security. I’ve always thought it was kind of odd and don’t really agree with it to be honest. I’m definitely not the kind to seek “special treatment” from the gubbermint.
Tuy66- Nelson Mandela gets 0 stars. He was a socialist who would nationalize any program possible while singing praise about killing the “white man”. I’m not sure that deserves stars, but maybe I’m wrong.
@ #9 😉
Re: teachers and Social Security.
It must be different from one state to another. My brother’s wife was a K-12 teacher and assistant principal for 33 years and did not pay Social Security. She paid only into the state teachers’ pension fund, which is always broke.
On the other hand, Bill the Idiot (whom I dumped some time back) was a state welfare worker and did pay into both Social Security and the state pension fund, so his income is 50-50 from those two.
Oh, for the dumpstercrats – you still don’t have it all, nor will you ever get it, because it belongs to ME.
I don’t understand why they detest so much those people who work hard and build something that lasts and provides what they need. I have tried to understand this attitude, but it doesn’t make any sense. Why would anyone despise someone who works hard, makes a good living – maybe even becomes wealthy – and want to take it from him?
The only reasonable answer I can come up with is sheer, unadulterated jealousy from lazy fucks who want you to do everything for them. And yet, these are the very people who idolize trash like the Gagdashians, who did nothing to EARN their cash, but got it through divorce courts.
I taught in Michigan. At the time we also paid nothing for very generous benefits but I believe most teachers in Michigan do now pay a portion of their health insurance.
Correct me if I’m wrong but if she didn’t pay into SS she doesn’t get anything from SS either, correct?
@18, that’s correct, but if she worked in high school and college, and I think she did – she met my brother that way — then she has something coming from that.
@18 Yes, you’re generally correct. If she didn’t pay into SS she shouldn’t be getting it come retirement time. My wife’s HR administrator told her that she’ll only be eligible for the state pension plan that she’s paying into.
Why would anyone despise someone who works hard, makes a good living – maybe even becomes wealthy – and want to take it from him?
Why, envy, of course, it’s the motivating principle of all leftism. But more to the point lefties try to raise pathology to virtue and reduce virtue to pathology. They have been able to gain traction in doing so by appealing to compassion and sympathy in pointing to pathetic figures without also explaining that those individuals usually (almost invariably) arrived at their pathetic state through a series of terrible decisions while those who are more fortunate (and thus expected to subsidize the pathetic) made better choices. In short, the pathological have no moral agency, they are “victims” of forces beyond their control-which is nonsense, but their you are.
Anyone who points this out is is obviously motivated by “hate” and so their arguments can be disregarded. This essentially explains our politics for the past 80 years or so.