Cognitive dissonance

Americans speak frugality with their lips but want more spending in their hearts. Poll after poll keeps showing the same thing: when it comes to actually receiving less from their beneficent government , Americans of both parties won’t have it. Of course, they will have it, when the money runs out in the long run, but in the long run we’ll all be dead, and it’s our kids who’ll be left with the tab. Lucky them.

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

14 responses to “Cognitive dissonance

  1. Demmerkrat Patriot

    Same here in Greenwich … “We want low taxes!” But when asked what services the citizens want to give up, that’s another story.

  2. For the life of me I can’t see why it’s not ok to raise retirement to 70 and do means testing… why should people living on $100,000 a year in retirement get government help? I don’t get it.

    • TheWizard

      Means testing, along with term limits, is something that hasn’t been seriously discussed by congress in almost twenty years.
      Many republicans were against it, feeling that if they paid in all their working career but weren’t eligible for the benefit, it was just another form of wealth redistribution.

    • Anonymous

      Mrs. Dollarbill?

    • hmmm

      we all pay into fica, if i’m not getting it why do i have to pay into it?

      i’m all for not receiving it but not when i am paying into it…

  3. Take my Sequestraion, Please

    Leave it to Twitchy to post the Saturday Sequestration Funny Tweets.

    Malia and Sasha will have to weed the WH garden #SequestrationThreat

    Menendez will have to settle for underaged hookers from Newark. #SequestrationThreat

    #SequestrationThreat. Secret Service will have to use Whistles.

    Fluke has to buy her own contraceptives. #SequestrationThreat

    Marco Rubio will have to switch to tap water. #SequestrationThreat

  4. Peg

    Personally, I think that the answer is that too many of our politicians can read polls and are not statesmen. They know if they take the high road and try to battle this, they’ll end up in the private sector, be a lobbyist, etc. (which frankly, I don’t really understand why it doesn’t appeal to more of ‘em!) Anyway – they don’t have the balls to do what is necessary to explain what ultimately has to happen with such a trajectory to us.

    So – they keep on passing all this crap because the illogical voters want it and it keeps ‘em fat and happy – FOR NOW – and keeps the pol in office.

    Yeah. Screw the coming generations. Are we the “Most Selfish Generation” or what?!?! :(

  5. D

    When social security started, it was indexed above the average age – should have stayed that way. Means testing is BS. If they want it as an extra tax they should call it that – as it stands, there’s an alleged trust fund and I get statements each year summarizing how much they’ve taken so far.

    • Peg

      D – if they were honest about it all, people would riot. Why the lies keep coming and coming and coming……. Much of our government has become the Energizer Bunny of Distortion and Fabrication.

    • When Bismark started all this old age pension stuff, he set the age it kicked in at 67, when the average age was something like 49, thus assuring solvency. By the way, notice how despite all the horrible chemicals introduced into modern lives since Bismark’s day, our life expectancy today is far higher than then – that’s a bug, not a feature, for global warmists but for the rest of us, perhaps something to appreciate and wonder at.

  6. stedenko

    The first national retirement system under German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck set 70 as the retirement age in 1889. German males’ life expectancy then was 72 so their initial benefit period averaged two years.

    http://www.governing.com/columns/…/fixing-social-security-medicare.htm...