As he always is, but sometimes he says something that makes me HA! more than usual. I mean, full-on top-tier HAHAHA! HA!!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he will not allow changes in Social Security to be part of the negotiations to avoid a federal budget fiscal cliff, further narrowing the opportunities for savings that could be tapped to close the deficit.
Republicans have insisted that big entitlement programs such as Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid be part of the end-of-year negotiations to head off tax-rate increases and the $110 billion in automatic spending cuts.
But Mr. Reid said Democrats have already made changes to Medicare as part of President Obama’s health law, and said Social Security is solvent for the time being and shouldn’t be tapped to pay for other government needs.
“Social Security is not part of the problem, That’s one of the myths the Republicans have tried to create,” he said. “Social Security is sound for the next many years. But we want to make sure that in the outer years people are protected also, but it’s not going to be part of the budget talks, as far as I’m concerned.”
….AARP officials, which who represent the nation’s largest organization for the elderly, said their members want to keep promised benefits, and do not want those to be cut as part of a deficit deal.
Of course they don’t. Of course they don’t.
That’s fine. We’ll just wait for everything to be cut, by 100%, when my generation is old, after we spent our working lives funding your long retirement in this patriotic American Ponzi scheme. Wouldn’t want you to be inconvenienced now even a little bit, not even 1%, wouldn’t even want it to be ON THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION, if instead we can be inconvenienced a thousand times more severely 30 years from now. You’re getting back much more than you ever paid in, but I wouldn’t want to be a mean asshole and make that part of the budget talks.
You’re welcome. Really. Don’t mention it.
Programs have strayed from their original purpose. Take Social Security. Created to prevent destitution among the elderly, it now subsidizes the comfortable. The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story about a couple (he 66, she 70) touring the world. They’ve visited London, Paris, Florence and Buenos Aires. Their financial adviser sends them $6,000 a month from investments and proceeds from their home sale. They also receive Social Security. How much? They don’t say. My hunch: between $25,000 and $50,000 a year. (I emailed the couple for details but received no reply.)
Is this what Franklin Roosevelt intended? Should Social Security be tilted more toward the less affluent? Good questions, but politicians rarely ask them. Anyone who does risks being attacked as hard-hearted.
I’m so glad I don’t have kids. Really, I don’t know how you parents out there are staying sane these days. You do realize what hell lies ahead for your offspring, right? Frankly, hell lies ahead for my generation, and I’m 40. But the even younger ones…yikes. Teach them to hunt game, find water, and start fire with sticks and rocks. Good grief, it’s dire.