When A Program Doesn’t Work? Double It!

Most people have the sense to know that when there is something you try and it fails, you may give it a second try, but then if it still doesn’t work, you say, “Oops. That was a mistake. It’s not going to work like that”… and you either try to fix what is wrong with it, or you scrap trying it altogether. It’s like the old saying goes, “The definition of insanity is doing something over and over again, and expecting a different outcome”. Well, that seems to be the defining character of the Obama administration, and liberals everywhere.

The other day, Barack Obama gave a speech in Elkhart, Indiana, a town that was devastated by the Great Recession, and had up to a 20% unemployment rate. Why Elkhart? Well, because their unemployment rate is now down to about 4%, and Bobo thought it would be neat to go back there and do a victory lap. Only problem is, the people of Elkhart don’t think their major decline in the unemployment rate had anything to do with Obama. They think it had to do more with the Republican-led state government than the federal government. But that wasn’t the really interesting thing that was said in his speech.

Bobo Obama actually said that he felt we should EXPAND Social Security. That’s right. Not enough people are climbing on board this failing program that is scheduled to be bankrupt in 2040, so we need to speed up that process. And how much does Social Security eat of the total Federal Budget? Well, it depends on where you look, but the closest I could get of JUST Social Security (not adding Medicare into the mix) would be somewhere in the 24% range. That means that one of every four dollars the government spends on ANYTHING goes to Social Security. It’s slated to go bust, as I said in a mere 24 years, so why not expand the program that isn’t working already?

This is the same liberal mentality that believes that if you throw enough money at a problem, you’ll solve it. That becomes their only justification for having it. Rather than sending me back the money I’ve put in to Social Security over the years (I’m still probably 6 years away from claiming anything from them), they’d rather take more money from the top 1% and damn it…make THEM pay for a mistake that Washington should never have gotten into in the first place.

Let’s examine one thing here. Social Security was never intended to be an IRA or a pension. It was intended to help people that had outlived the actuarial tables and their money. The initial feel was the Social Security was only going to be claimed by about 7% of the population, so it would be easy to keep it profitable or at least solvent. The problem is, the Democrats raided the Social Security fund to pay for other government programs, and expanded it to include death benefits, disability payments, and payments to dependents whose parents had either gotten disabled or died. That’s stuff it was never intended to be used for. Once again proving, if you give a liberal the chance, they’ll always take something too far!

Let’s save Social Security by NOT expanding it, but by cutting back benefits to those it was never intended to serve in the first place. Let’s get it fiscally sound and THEN start talking about reconfiguring it.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!


One thought on “When A Program Doesn’t Work? Double It!

  1. Desert, Desert, Desert, I really love it when you blog about something you know next to nothing about and then contradict yourself on your ignorance. Truly amazing.

    Social Security is funded through a trust fund, which thanks to Alzheimer’s Ronnie and some ensuing presidents, is full of U.S. Treasury obligations or for the ill informed out there, IOUs. This is what you say will go broke in 2040. Then you say it is part of the Federal budget which is derived from taxes collected or in other words, you want it both ways. Not surprising for conservatives. Now I understand you will argue that Fica taxes are part of the budget, which is technically correct, but Social Security does not contribute to the deficit, which Obama has cut in half since taking office. How is that for Socialist out of control spending?

    You are correct that Social Security was never intended to be an IRA, which didn’t exist when the Act was passed. While it was expanded to cover death benefits (which have not changed since I don’t know when), the disabled ( which I benefited from), or survivors benefits, which the person leading the charge to cut benefits said how much his family was grateful for these benefits when his father died and I’m talking to you Eddie Munster. This program has helped so many families I cannot understand why we have to suck the pipe when defense spending is out of control. When will Halliburton refund that $4 billion they lost in Iraq………..crickets, crickets, crickets?

    For the life of me I cannot get my head around how you defend the 1% who has been sucking you dry your entire adult life through tax cuts. BTW, you get a SBA loan for that apartment building you bought in Ohio, how about that welfare you received from HUD for the mortgage via rents or the tax breaks you received both from business and personal returns? Was it Sub S corp., limited partnership, partnership? What was your tax liability on the capital gains when you sold, presuming you no longer own it? I don’t belittle you for being successful, just that you talk about THOSE PEOPLE and how they are takers yet your success was in partial from being a takers.

    Later this summer I want to wager on the election, my offer involves dinner at Lou Malnati’s for you and your wife. Finally real pizza in the valley!

Comments are closed.