Biden Surprised To Find GOP Agreement On Seniors

Biden Surprised To Find GOP Agreement On Seniors

Biden Surprised To Find GOP Agreement On Seniors

Whoever wrote the State of the Union speech for Joe Biden was fully intent on casting the Republicans as the bad guys – and that meant a preemptive strike on the GOP as the big meanies who were going to take Social Security and Medicare away from seniors.

Here is how Joe Biden planned on delivering the part of the speech meant to blame the GOP for trying to reduce benefits.

Some of my Republican friends want to take the economy hostage unless I agree to their economic plans. All of you at home should know what their plans are.”

Instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share, some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset every five years.”

That means if Congress doesn’t vote to keep them, those programs will go away.”

Other Republicans say if we don’t cut Social Security and Medicare, they’ll let America default on its debt for the first time in our history.”

I won’t let that happen.”

Social Security and Medicare are a lifeline for millions of seniors.”

Americans have been paying into them with every single paycheck since they started working.”

So tonight, let’s all agree to stand up for seniors. Stand up and show them we will not cut Social Security. We will not cut Medicare.”

Those benefits belong to the American people. They earned them.”

If anyone tries to cut Social Security, I will stop them. And if anyone tries to cut Medicare, I will stop them.”

I will not allow them to be taken away.”

Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever.”

Next month when I offer my fiscal plan, I ask my Republican friends to offer their plan.”

We can sit down together and discuss both plans together.”

My plan will lower the deficit by $2 trillion.”

I won’t cut a single Social Security or Medicare benefit.”

In fact, I will extend the Medicare Trust Fund by at least two decades.”

Well, the delivery didn’t match the speech as written, because the Republicans in the chamber were having NONE of that preemptive blame.

“I enjoy conversion”??? I think he meant “conversation,” but Joe has tapioca for brains now, so who knows what he meant. In the end, old Grandpa Joe was forced to improvise his speech on the fly, as the heckling was loud and the Republicans were having NONE of his crap.

I rather enjoyed seeing the Republicans do their own fact-check in real time, and taking the wind straight out of old Joe’s sails. Why did the speechwriters even include this? Did they not listen to Speaker McCarthy when he said that Medicare and Social Security – which do badly need reform, but there is no political will to do it – was not going to be touched?

We need more of this from Republicans, because Joe Biden had no problem lying straight to the camera about the intent of the Republicans in an attempt to make them the bad guys for whatever economic slowdown is in store for us. We might avoid an actual “recession,” but we are still stuck with high inflation and probable stagflation.

But even though the Republicans derailed the attempt by Biden to pin the blame on them for any potential reductions in benefits, he was more than happy to pin the blame for Paul Pelosi being beaten with a hammer by a crazy person on the GOP.

Nope, Paul Pelosi was not attacked by some right-wing Trump fan, no matter how much Joe Biden tries to pin it on the Republicans. But Grandpa Joe had to find SOMETHING to pin on the GOP, and he lost his Medicare and Social Security talking point in the middle of his speech. So much for THAT plank in his reelection campaign platform.

Featured image: original Victory Girls art by Darleen Click

Written by

  • Scott says:

    In that last pic, Kamala looks like she’s trying to decide “spit or swallow”…

    Damn glad I didn’t waste my time watching this shit-show.. But it’s nice to see that at least SOME Repubs were heckling him..

  • Cameron says:

    Those benefits belong to the American people. They earned them.

    And in all likelihood I won’t receive everything I put into the system. I could have saved more if I’d been allowed to keep my own money.

    • Plus the employer side, too, remember, so twice what you see on your pay stubs.

      Take into account actual purchasing power, and, no, you’ll never see even the principal amount back, much less any growth.

      Ponzi scheme from the very beginning. My grandparents made out like bandits – FAR more than they ever paid in. My mother (Dad died before he was old enough) just about broke even on what they had paid in.

      I looked very carefully at it last year, when I turned 62 – and started it right away. Various assumptions (my remaining life, current law holds, COLA compared to real likely inflation) – I’ll probably get somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of what I would have received if I had invested the same amounts into a mutual fund with a conservative 5% average return over the years.

      • Cameron says:

        When the program was created, it failed to take into account that people would live longer than 60. The folks that set this up were certain that they’d only pay for a short time. Stuff like that is why my default answer to the question “Do you think the government should-?” is always “No.”

    • mer says:

      There have been court cases, up to SCOTUS level on exactly what SS actually means. So far the answer has been (paraphrased) “…You are not entitled to anything, not even what you paid in”.
      Basically confirmation about it being a Ponzi scheme.

      I would have gladly given up collecting anything from the government in return for keeping my portion (6.2%) and having it to invest in retirement funds.
      Last I ran the numbers, based on what has been paid in on my behalf (me and employers) divided by the monthly amount I come up with about 8 to 10 years after retirement which mostly puts me at life expectency.

  • Kevin says:

    Have any of you actually read articles or looked at videos about retirement, savings levels, 401K and other deferred income plans? Do you know the AVERGE amount of retirements savings a 62 year old has accumulated? It’s even worse when you look at the MEDIAN?

    Here’s the core difference between republicans and democrats … republicans “if you can’t pull yourself up by your boot straps on your own, without any support/help/assistance, screw you” and democrats “here’s a helping hand if you need it.” That “helping hand” … a requirement by everyone to pay into a plan to help seniors in their latter years through a guaranteed income and medical care.

    You want to know why social security will be insolvent in 10+ years? “As a stop-gap measure, Congress passed legislation in 1981 to permit inter-fund borrowing among the three Trust Funds (the Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund; the Disability Trust Fund; and the Medicare Trust Fund).”

    “Before Social Security, in 1934, roughly one half of seniors were estimated to be poor. Most had to rely on family or friends, or go to the poor house.”

    Thank God for President Roosevelt. Most people (the median savings for a 62 year old is about $5,000!) are unable to save a penny for retirement. The republican plan … work as a door greeter at Walmart when you’re 70. I am not like most people and have saved the resources that I would need in retirement and would be fine without social security. Even though I would be fine, I still support the “social welfare” program signed by President Roosevelt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner