New Jersey Dumbocrat stands up for the retirement benefits of … 5 year olds?
Correct. Well actually Neil Cavuto catches New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell in an old Democrat talking point … “We won’t balance the budget on the backs of seniors”, wherein the Congressman had a little trouble walking it back. If it weren’t so sad,it would be funny. But alas, it’s a pathetic commentary on the state of politics in America.
The video is actually very entertaining, watching this Pascrell defend his position opposing the President’s Debt Commission recommendation to raise the retirement age for social security benefits from 65 to first, 68 in 2050, and 69 in 2075. In other words, the bill designed to extend benefits for another two generations would begin to affect children who are currently 4 and 5 years old.
Pascrell misses this right from the start because of a typical lefty knee jerk reaction whenever anyone mentions social security. “I hope it’s not Russian Roulette.”
As I mentioned above, this really speaks volume about the state of politics today. A statesman would understand that this is little sacrifice to extend the life of a program that people have come to depend on, instead of sucking it dry so that 5 year old can pay for us, but nothing left for him or her. It speaks volumes about the partisanship that has developed that even the deficit problem is not above the Dumbocrats sacred cow.
Social Security has begun cashing in it’s chits, the IOU’s left behind after Congress robbed the cash to pay for other programs. We now have to make good on those IOU’s, and in a couple decades, even the IOUs will not cover the benefits promised to too many people. But don’t worry my little mobsters, your children and grandchildren can deal with it.
“We won’t balance the budget on the backs of seniors”. Because they can (and do) vote, but they have zero qualms about hanging the yoke of their huge deficit spending on our children and grandchildren.
So much for the "defenders of the weak and helpless"…
You have confused me Dims (not hard to do). Are you saying not to raise the retirement age in order to "defend the weak and helpless", meaning the kiddies who cannot now vote on raising their own retirement age???? This would definitely be a step toward balancing the budget, by reducing the "cost" of social security and it does affect only those who currently can't vote.
Should we not work to separate, and keep seperate, social security from the general budget and therefore, the deficit?
Usually I get you right away and consider you a person of great insight. This time…I need clarification.