Hassebrook to your rescue

Chuck Hassebrook

Three relatively big issues to talk about today, so instead of jamming everything into one post, it will be broken into three separate posts. Please take a look at all three (at your leisure).

***

Yesterday Democrat Chuck Hassebrook announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. This was after Ben Nelson dropped out. And then Bob Kerrey dropped out. And then Steve Lathrop didn’t really have a taste for it anyway.

So Chuck is running. And what do we know about him? Well, generally that he is a “classic liberal”. We don’t mean that in the pejorative sense the way the word liberal gets thrown around today.

We mean that we think he really believes that government is the way to get things to succeed today. He stated he is for ObamaCare — but believes we can “make it better”. Oh really? You mean that thing that no one read, but got passed anyway and we are constantly finding new absurd problems with?

Anyway, one main point Hassebrook made, on which many are focusing, is that he is for “the little guy” and that:

Instead of protecting tax cuts for the wealthy, he said, government should protect the retirement security of families who rely on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Now first of all, any time you see some Democrat — particularly a liberal Democrat like Hassebrook — talking about “the wealthy”, just assume he means Y-O-U. You have some comforts in life? Go on a vacation? Have one of those iPods?  You’re Wealthy! What about the people who can’t go to Des Moines with their fancy iPods! How about you share a little iPoding with them, huh? It’s only FAIR.

And we are only kidding a little — especially when you consider how many small businesses get lumped in with “wealthy individuals” that they want to soak.

But let’s hit that other point: he wants to “protect the retirement security of families who rely on Social Security.”

Now of course Social Security and Medicare are code words for “old people who vote”. That’s really all that means.

Unfortunately, someone like Hassebrook also believes that people SHOULD be able to “rely” on Social Security. As in, screw saving your whole life and putting money away! Uncle Sucker will take care of you in your Golden Years with this awesome parachute called Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.

Well guess what, younger generation? The Baby Boomers are going to eat through that parachute in a few years like so many locusts in a wheat field. And if YOU don’t make some other plans and start saving now and support programs that will help you to make some cash NOW that you can put away, you will be screwed.

And by screwed, we mean sitting by the mailbox waiting for your check.

Look, we know and understand that some people need SS and Medicare and Medicaid. Yes, those things are vital to some people. But liberals, particularly in Congress and those sitting out in mud and rats at Occupyapalooza, just figure it is Big Government’s job to take care of you through the later years in life.

And that’s a crock.

It’s YOUR job. So that means instead of getting the latest upgrade on your iPad, you sock some cash way in your Orange Fund. Instead of waiting for the Boomers to balance the budget, figure out a way to make some more cash on top of your current job. Would that be easier if there were fewer regulations to make it easier to be an entrepreneur? Damn straight.

Here’s some news: You aren’t hitting the lottery, Health Care isn’t free and expecting someone else to take care of you means that you will barely scratch by. And that’s no way to live.

We like that there are Chuck Hassebrooks in the world — if only to keep us honest. But if you think more government is going to enrich and fix and save your life, you are going to wake up one day sadly cheated.

***

And onto the more political side of things, Superman-ager Paul Johnson will NOT be managing Hassebrook’s campaign.

Gee, wonder if Johnson would have taken the gig if he thought Hassebrook could win. Can we get a little more background on that? Are we to understand that Hassebrook did not want his services? What gives?

***

And Joe Jordan also asked Hassebrook if he would want the President campaigning for him in Nebraska.

Hassebrook said, “No.”

Realllllllllllllllllllllllly???????

You got that Democrats? Your candidate is ALREADY running from your hopey changey savior who was the one you were all waiting for and would lower the tides!

And again, this is all a giant ruse. Because a Senator Hassebrook (yeah, try that on for size) would support a President Obama 90% of the time (or more). Yet, he is trying to tell you, now, that he wants nothing to do with him.

How many years have Nebraskans bought into that with the Democrats? We are guessing it is not going to fly this time.

7 comments

  1. Macdaddy says:

    Well, you’ve got to give him points for sticking to his guns. Of course, I do wonder why he doesn’t want Obama to come campaign for him. I sure hope it isn’t because he’s a racist.

  2. DEM DEMS says:

    “How many years have Nebraskans bought into that with the Democrats?”

    Welp, Nebraska has had at least 1 Democrat in the U.S. Senate since 1976.

    So, uhm, that’s how long. Read a book some time.

  3. These “books” you speak of. Can I download them to my iPad, or do you have to go to the book rental place downtown?

    Listen smart-guy, I’ll handle the bitterness and snark around here. And I’m also not familiar enough with Zorinsky’s record to know that’s what he was selling. He did vote for Reagan’s tax upheaval, though.

  4. DEM DEMS says:

    Gotta love Republicans.

    Have they realized that Reagan was losing his mind during his final 4 years in office?

    This is a documented mental decline and very, very sad. If you’ve ever known anyone close to you with Alzheimer’s, whether you’re Republican or not, I think it’s time to stop touting Reagan. The poor guy was batty during much of his presidency.

  5. Paul Johnson says:

    We all realize I’m not just going to sit at home and do nothing, right?

    We also all realize Big Ben still has plenty of money left over, right?

  6. Some Thoughts says:

    “Unfortunately, someone like Hassebrook also believes that people SHOULD be able to “rely” on Social Security. As in, screw saving your whole life and putting money away!”

    Yes, most conservatives DO believe that people should be able to rely on Social Security as a safety net. Last I checked, conservative was not the same as libertarian. The difference is, conservatives believe it should be a safety net and nothing more. There’s still a huge incentive to save your whole life for retirement, because you’re going to have a terrible standard of living if you think relying on SS is the way to go. Do you know anyone who has taken that route and has any spare money to burn in old age? I certainly don’t. The only comfortable retirees I know are those who stored up investments or worked at a job offering a good pension plan. (Don’t get me started about the ridiculous largesse of public pension plans, though… that’s a separate problem.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.