If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Are we falling down on the job of collecting?
"oly" wrote in message ... On Feb 7, 10:42 am, "Bruce Remick" wrote: snips If you've gotten back far more than your contributions and any possible earnings over the years, call your current checks what you may. And yes, you are being intellectually dishonest - the money has to come from somebody else (even if it is only from those in your pension system that died prematurely - before recieving their monies back in full). ____________ When I signed up, the possibility of getting back more than I put in was trumped at the time by some private companies where employees didn't have to contribute at all to their retirement or health care. It still was meant as an incentive to encourage federal employees to stay on, unlike today where few people will ever stay their career with the same employer. All money we receive basically comes from somebody else, like the GM employees' generous retirement which comes from the inflated price GM charges us taxpayers for its cars. ____________ As for negativity (or pessimism), let us remember what Voltaire said: "Optimism is the mania for declaring that all is well, when all is going very badly". Being fortunate, Voltaire managed to live under many of the best years of the Ancien Regime and still got "checked out" well before the Revolution. ___________ You're burying yourself in those scholarly books again. Look out the window occasionally. oly |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Are we falling down on the job of collecting?
On Feb 7, 11:15*am, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"oly" wrote in message ... On Feb 7, 10:42 am, "Bruce Remick" wrote: snips If you've gotten back far more than your contributions and any possible earnings over the years, call your current checks what you may. *And yes, you are being intellectually dishonest - the money has to come from somebody else (even if it is only from those in your pension system that died prematurely - before recieving their monies back in full). ____________ When I signed up, the possibility of getting back more than I put in was trumped at the time by some private companies where employees didn't have to contribute at all to their retirement or health care. *It still was meant as an incentive to encourage federal employees to stay on, unlike today where few people will ever stay their career with the same employer. All money we receive basically comes from somebody else, like the GM employees' generous retirement which comes from the inflated price GM charges us taxpayers for its cars. ____________ As for negativity (or pessimism), let us remember what Voltaire said: "Optimism is the mania for declaring that all is well, when all is going very badly". Being fortunate, Voltaire managed to live under many of the best years of the Ancien Regime and still got "checked out" well before the Revolution. ___________ You're burying yourself in those scholarly books again. *Look out the window occasionally. oly I've spent more than one full work day out of the last five driving across east central Illinois. I read tons of course, but I see a lot of what's "out the window" too. oly |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Are we falling down on the job of collecting?
"oly" wrote in message ... On Feb 7, 11:15 am, "Bruce Remick" wrote: "oly" wrote in message ... On Feb 7, 10:42 am, "Bruce Remick" wrote: snips If you've gotten back far more than your contributions and any possible earnings over the years, call your current checks what you may. And yes, you are being intellectually dishonest - the money has to come from somebody else (even if it is only from those in your pension system that died prematurely - before recieving their monies back in full). ____________ When I signed up, the possibility of getting back more than I put in was trumped at the time by some private companies where employees didn't have to contribute at all to their retirement or health care. It still was meant as an incentive to encourage federal employees to stay on, unlike today where few people will ever stay their career with the same employer. All money we receive basically comes from somebody else, like the GM employees' generous retirement which comes from the inflated price GM charges us taxpayers for its cars. ____________ As for negativity (or pessimism), let us remember what Voltaire said: "Optimism is the mania for declaring that all is well, when all is going very badly". Being fortunate, Voltaire managed to live under many of the best years of the Ancien Regime and still got "checked out" well before the Revolution. ___________ You're burying yourself in those scholarly books again. Look out the window occasionally. oly I've spent more than one full work day out of the last five driving across east central Illinois. I read tons of course, but I see a lot of what's "out the window" too. ______________ You know it helps to stop the car once in a while and get out. I've never been able to make it all the way across southern Illinois in one day from here in VA enroute to Colorado using Rte 64. I usually end up staying in Mt. Vernon about an hour out of St. Louis. I'll admit to reading very little or the type of stuff that theoretically would make me economically smarter. I do always favor non-fiction, though. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Are we falling down on the job of collecting?
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message ... oly wrote: .... Might I remind you that all the pensions related to the government (including Social Security) are actuarially unsound, and that after you have recieved the pension just a very few years, that you have recieved MORE than your contributions and any earnings could have possibly amounted to? At that point, your pension just becomes part of the debt being left to future taxpayers and that indeed you are adding to the burden of present and future generations. Maybe you are just recieving what you were promised, but it was all a lie from the get-go. Senior Welfare. If you don't see that, you are intellectually dishonest. I don't think it was a lie "from the get-go". Initially, benefits levels were very low and of limited eligibility. Life expectancies were such that upon retiring at 60, on average you would collect only a few years before the Grim Reaper cut you out of the betting pool. SS probably was on a decent actuarial footing at first. It was only in later years that mission creep from the politicians (see James' remarks) kept expanding the SS pie. Even with that, the Ponzi scheme worked very well because the bubble kept expanding. It still is working - we're looking well into the future before it will really blow up in our faces. If we made the necessary changes for continued viability just by reducing benfits and not raising FICA, we still could be receiving benefits well above the original levels. You can criticize the basic unsoundness of a "Ponzi scheme," but much of economic theory implicity or explicitly assumes, and relies on, continued growth of economic activity and systems. The difference between SS and typical unsustainable bubbles is that we have the opportunity now to make corrections that will keep it going under well-managed conditions. You can look back on other bubbles, say like housing, and say "Gee, if we had just known the limits of sustainable expansion and done something to keep the system from exceeding them, we'd have stimulated home building and generated some nice increases in home equity values without driving the car over a cliff." The problem for SS is the political "third rail" of telling all those current and about-to-be retirees that in order for SS to be around for them, they're going to have to accept a lowering of the pay-outs to them. Given the history of human nature in responding to future threats, I think we're going to have to start falling over the SS cliff before anything meaningful is done. As with threats like global warming, it then becomes a question of whether the sysytem still can be rescued at that point. Speaking again only for myself, yes, I was aware of all of this, and have, in fact, now drawn out more than I put in. But oly, you're blaming Bruce (and, by proxy, me, which is why I am jumping in here) for being part of the problem. These pension plans were not our idea. They were forced upon us by law. Your beef, then, is with the government, not with Bruce or me. Write your Congressmen. Make sure you pick Congressmen who are not in line for pensions or lifetime health benefits themselves. Ditto for ex-Flatlander Governors. The expression "Senior Welfare" is a thinly-veiled phrase of contempt. You may be hale and hearty now, but what will be your station if that should abruptly change? Is it time to decide that seniors are expendable? "Let 'em die, and if in agony and poverty, all the better" has already been used, I believe back in the 30th century B.C.E. At least that's as far back as I was able to trace it. We stilll have time to save SS by putting in motion the old SF plot of killing everyone when they reach 30. Ten years of that and FICA will become a profit center for Uncle Sam. Either that, or in a variation on the ancient tribal practice, at 60 you get transported to Antarctica with nothing but a swimming suit and a pair of sunglasses. Dagnabbit, oly, you'd better be nice to us, because Bruce, Jud, and I were thinking of inviting you to join us on that park bench. I'd even let you use my binoculars (they're image-stabilizing, in case you shake a bit) from time to time and share part of my liquid allotment. James the Burden But in a few years the young joggers and nannies pushing baby trams are all going to be replaced by old farts shuffling along with walkers and medical care workers pushing wheelchairs. Where's the fun in ogling them? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Are we falling down on the job of collecting?
On Feb 7, 5:33*pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message ... oly wrote: ... Might I remind you that all the pensions related to the government (including Social Security) are actuarially unsound, and that after you have recieved the pension just a very few years, that you have recieved MORE than your contributions and any earnings could have possibly amounted to? *At that point, your pension just becomes part of the debt being left to future taxpayers and that indeed you are adding to the burden of present and future generations. Maybe you are just recieving what you were promised, but it was all a lie from the get-go. *Senior Welfare. *If you don't see that, you are intellectually dishonest. I don't think it was a lie "from the get-go". *Initially, benefits levels were very low and of limited eligibility. *Life expectancies were such that upon retiring at 60, on average you would collect only a few years before the Grim Reaper cut you out of the betting pool. SS probably was on a decent actuarial footing at first. *It was only in later years that mission creep from the politicians (see James' remarks) kept expanding the SS pie. Even with that, the Ponzi scheme worked very well because the bubble kept expanding. *It still is working - we're looking well into the future before it will really blow up in our faces. *If we made the necessary changes for continued viability just by reducing benfits and not raising FICA, we still could be receiving benefits well above the original levels. You can criticize the basic unsoundness of a "Ponzi scheme," but much of economic theory implicity or explicitly assumes, and relies on, continued growth of economic activity and systems. *The difference between SS and typical unsustainable bubbles is that we have the opportunity now to make corrections that will keep it going under well-managed conditions. *You can look back on other bubbles, say like housing, and say "Gee, if we had just known the limits of sustainable expansion and done something to keep the system from exceeding them, we'd have stimulated home building and generated some nice increases in home equity values without driving the car over a cliff." * The problem for SS is the political "third rail" of telling all those current and about-to-be retirees that in order for SS to be around for them, they're going to have to accept a lowering of the pay-outs to them. *Given the history of human nature in responding to future threats, I think we're going to have to start falling over the SS cliff before anything meaningful is done. *As with threats like global warming, it then becomes a question of whether the sysytem still can be rescued at that point. Speaking again only for myself, yes, I was aware of all of this, and have, in fact, now drawn out more than I put in. But oly, you're blaming Bruce (and, by proxy, me, which is why I am jumping in here) for being part of the problem. *These pension plans were not our idea. *They were forced upon us by law. *Your beef, then, is with the government, not with Bruce or me. *Write your Congressmen. Make sure you pick Congressmen who are not in line for pensions or lifetime health benefits themselves. *Ditto for ex-Flatlander Governors. The expression "Senior Welfare" is a thinly-veiled phrase of contempt. *You may be hale and hearty now, but what will be your station if that should abruptly change? *Is it time to decide that seniors are expendable? *"Let 'em die, and if in agony and poverty, all the better" has already been used, I believe back in the 30th century B.C.E. *At least that's as far back as I was able to trace it. We stilll have time to save SS by putting in motion the old SF plot of killing everyone when they reach 30. *Ten years of that and FICA will become a profit center for Uncle Sam. Either that, or in a variation on the ancient tribal practice, at 60 you get transported to Antarctica with nothing but a swimming suit and a pair of sunglasses. Dagnabbit, oly, you'd better be nice to us, because Bruce, Jud, and I were thinking of inviting you to join us on that park bench. *I'd even let you use my binoculars (they're image-stabilizing, in case you shake a bit) from time to time and share part of my liquid allotment. James the Burden But in a few years the young joggers and nannies pushing baby trams are all going to be replaced by old farts shuffling along with walkers and medical care workers pushing wheelchairs. *Where's the fun in ogling them?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I am in basic agreement with your line(s) of thought, but Social Security was very unsound from the "get go". FDR was politically scared to death of Huey Long and Dr. Townsend. He had to co-opt their ideas about old-age pensions. Many of the first recipients made zero contributions. Even my own grandpa, a farmer, only paid in two or three years before starting to draw "Social Security" (most farmers wren't finally forced to make a decision to get in or permanently stay out until the mid 1960s!!!). The future of Social Security may not ever have to be addressed given the financial crisis we now are in the early stages of... oly |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Are we falling down on the job of collecting?
"mazorj" wrote in message ... "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message ... oly wrote: ... Might I remind you that all the pensions related to the government (including Social Security) are actuarially unsound, and that after you have recieved the pension just a very few years, that you have recieved MORE than your contributions and any earnings could have possibly amounted to? At that point, your pension just becomes part of the debt being left to future taxpayers and that indeed you are adding to the burden of present and future generations. Maybe you are just recieving what you were promised, but it was all a lie from the get-go. Senior Welfare. If you don't see that, you are intellectually dishonest. I don't think it was a lie "from the get-go". Initially, benefits levels were very low and of limited eligibility. Life expectancies were such that upon retiring at 60, on average you would collect only a few years before the Grim Reaper cut you out of the betting pool. SS probably was on a decent actuarial footing at first. It was only in later years that mission creep from the politicians (see James' remarks) kept expanding the SS pie. Even with that, the Ponzi scheme worked very well because the bubble kept expanding. It still is working - we're looking well into the future before it will really blow up in our faces. If we made the necessary changes for continued viability just by reducing benfits and not raising FICA, we still could be receiving benefits well above the original levels. You can criticize the basic unsoundness of a "Ponzi scheme," but much of economic theory implicity or explicitly assumes, and relies on, continued growth of economic activity and systems. The difference between SS and typical unsustainable bubbles is that we have the opportunity now to make corrections that will keep it going under well-managed conditions. You can look back on other bubbles, say like housing, and say "Gee, if we had just known the limits of sustainable expansion and done something to keep the system from exceeding them, we'd have stimulated home building and generated some nice increases in home equity values without driving the car over a cliff." The problem for SS is the political "third rail" of telling all those current and about-to-be retirees that in order for SS to be around for them, they're going to have to accept a lowering of the pay-outs to them. Given the history of human nature in responding to future threats, I think we're going to have to start falling over the SS cliff before anything meaningful is done. As with threats like global warming, it then becomes a question of whether the sysytem still can be rescued at that point. Speaking again only for myself, yes, I was aware of all of this, and have, in fact, now drawn out more than I put in. But oly, you're blaming Bruce (and, by proxy, me, which is why I am jumping in here) for being part of the problem. These pension plans were not our idea. They were forced upon us by law. Your beef, then, is with the government, not with Bruce or me. Write your Congressmen. Make sure you pick Congressmen who are not in line for pensions or lifetime health benefits themselves. Ditto for ex-Flatlander Governors. The expression "Senior Welfare" is a thinly-veiled phrase of contempt. You may be hale and hearty now, but what will be your station if that should abruptly change? Is it time to decide that seniors are expendable? "Let 'em die, and if in agony and poverty, all the better" has already been used, I believe back in the 30th century B.C.E. At least that's as far back as I was able to trace it. We stilll have time to save SS by putting in motion the old SF plot of killing everyone when they reach 30. Ten years of that and FICA will become a profit center for Uncle Sam. Either that, or in a variation on the ancient tribal practice, at 60 you get transported to Antarctica with nothing but a swimming suit and a pair of sunglasses. Don't forget to think outside the box here. For the younger worker, that soon may amount to a free vacation, according to Al Gore. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Are we falling down on the job of collecting?
On Feb 7, 6:54*pm, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"mazorj" wrote in message ... "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message ... oly wrote: ... Might I remind you that all the pensions related to the government (including Social Security) are actuarially unsound, and that after you have recieved the pension just a very few years, that you have recieved MORE than your contributions and any earnings could have possibly amounted to? *At that point, your pension just becomes part of the debt being left to future taxpayers and that indeed you are adding to the burden of present and future generations. Maybe you are just recieving what you were promised, but it was all a lie from the get-go. *Senior Welfare. *If you don't see that, you are intellectually dishonest. I don't think it was a lie "from the get-go". *Initially, benefits levels were very low and of limited eligibility. *Life expectancies were such that upon retiring at 60, on average you would collect only a few years before the Grim Reaper cut you out of the betting pool. SS probably was on a decent actuarial footing at first. *It was only in later years that mission creep from the politicians (see James' remarks) kept expanding the SS pie. Even with that, the Ponzi scheme worked very well because the bubble kept expanding. *It still is working - we're looking well into the future before it will really blow up in our faces. *If we made the necessary changes for continued viability just by reducing benfits and not raising FICA, we still could be receiving benefits well above the original levels. You can criticize the basic unsoundness of a "Ponzi scheme," but much of economic theory implicity or explicitly assumes, and relies on, continued growth of economic activity and systems. *The difference between SS and typical unsustainable bubbles is that we have the opportunity now to make corrections that will keep it going under well-managed conditions. *You can look back on other bubbles, say like housing, and say "Gee, if we had just known the limits of sustainable expansion and done something to keep the system from exceeding them, we'd have stimulated home building and generated some nice increases in home equity values without driving the car over a cliff." * The problem for SS is the political "third rail" of telling all those current and about-to-be retirees that in order for SS to be around for them, they're going to have to accept a lowering of the pay-outs to them. *Given the history of human nature in responding to future threats, I think we're going to have to start falling over the SS cliff before anything meaningful is done. *As with threats like global warming, it then becomes a question of whether the sysytem still can be rescued at that point. Speaking again only for myself, yes, I was aware of all of this, and have, in fact, now drawn out more than I put in. But oly, you're blaming Bruce (and, by proxy, me, which is why I am jumping in here) for being part of the problem. *These pension plans were not our idea. *They were forced upon us by law. *Your beef, then, is with the government, not with Bruce or me. *Write your Congressmen. Make sure you pick Congressmen who are not in line for pensions or lifetime health benefits themselves. *Ditto for ex-Flatlander Governors. The expression "Senior Welfare" is a thinly-veiled phrase of contempt. You may be hale and hearty now, but what will be your station if that should abruptly change? *Is it time to decide that seniors are expendable? *"Let 'em die, and if in agony and poverty, all the better" has already been used, I believe back in the 30th century B.C.E. *At least that's as far back as I was able to trace it. We stilll have time to save SS by putting in motion the old SF plot of killing everyone when they reach 30. *Ten years of that and FICA will become a profit center for Uncle Sam. Either that, or in a variation on the ancient tribal practice, at 60 you get transported to Antarctica with nothing but a swimming suit and a pair of sunglasses. Don't forget to think outside the box here. *For the younger worker, that soon may amount to a free vacation, according to Al Gore.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, free vacation is happening already. State workers in California are being forced to take every other Friday off, without pay. Free vacation!!! oly +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Al Gore is a f***tard. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Are we falling down on the job of collecting?
"oly" wrote in message ... On Feb 7, 6:54 pm, "Bruce Remick" wrote: "mazorj" wrote in message ... "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message ... oly wrote: ... Might I remind you that all the pensions related to the government (including Social Security) are actuarially unsound, and that after you have recieved the pension just a very few years, that you have recieved MORE than your contributions and any earnings could have possibly amounted to? At that point, your pension just becomes part of the debt being left to future taxpayers and that indeed you are adding to the burden of present and future generations. Maybe you are just recieving what you were promised, but it was all a lie from the get-go. Senior Welfare. If you don't see that, you are intellectually dishonest. I don't think it was a lie "from the get-go". Initially, benefits levels were very low and of limited eligibility. Life expectancies were such that upon retiring at 60, on average you would collect only a few years before the Grim Reaper cut you out of the betting pool. SS probably was on a decent actuarial footing at first. It was only in later years that mission creep from the politicians (see James' remarks) kept expanding the SS pie. Even with that, the Ponzi scheme worked very well because the bubble kept expanding. It still is working - we're looking well into the future before it will really blow up in our faces. If we made the necessary changes for continued viability just by reducing benfits and not raising FICA, we still could be receiving benefits well above the original levels. You can criticize the basic unsoundness of a "Ponzi scheme," but much of economic theory implicity or explicitly assumes, and relies on, continued growth of economic activity and systems. The difference between SS and typical unsustainable bubbles is that we have the opportunity now to make corrections that will keep it going under well-managed conditions. You can look back on other bubbles, say like housing, and say "Gee, if we had just known the limits of sustainable expansion and done something to keep the system from exceeding them, we'd have stimulated home building and generated some nice increases in home equity values without driving the car over a cliff." The problem for SS is the political "third rail" of telling all those current and about-to-be retirees that in order for SS to be around for them, they're going to have to accept a lowering of the pay-outs to them. Given the history of human nature in responding to future threats, I think we're going to have to start falling over the SS cliff before anything meaningful is done. As with threats like global warming, it then becomes a question of whether the sysytem still can be rescued at that point. Speaking again only for myself, yes, I was aware of all of this, and have, in fact, now drawn out more than I put in. But oly, you're blaming Bruce (and, by proxy, me, which is why I am jumping in here) for being part of the problem. These pension plans were not our idea. They were forced upon us by law. Your beef, then, is with the government, not with Bruce or me. Write your Congressmen. Make sure you pick Congressmen who are not in line for pensions or lifetime health benefits themselves. Ditto for ex-Flatlander Governors. The expression "Senior Welfare" is a thinly-veiled phrase of contempt. You may be hale and hearty now, but what will be your station if that should abruptly change? Is it time to decide that seniors are expendable? "Let 'em die, and if in agony and poverty, all the better" has already been used, I believe back in the 30th century B.C.E. At least that's as far back as I was able to trace it. We stilll have time to save SS by putting in motion the old SF plot of killing everyone when they reach 30. Ten years of that and FICA will become a profit center for Uncle Sam. Either that, or in a variation on the ancient tribal practice, at 60 you get transported to Antarctica with nothing but a swimming suit and a pair of sunglasses. Don't forget to think outside the box here. For the younger worker, that soon may amount to a free vacation, according to Al Gore.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, free vacation is happening already. State workers in California are being forced to take every other Friday off, without pay. Free vacation!!! oly +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Al Gore is a f***tard. Hey! We agree on something! I think. And if mail delivery drops to five days a week to save money, a unionized postal worker currently making $1200 a week will effectively get a 20% raise. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Are we falling down on the job of collecting?
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message ... "oly" wrote in message ... On Feb 7, 10:42 am, "Bruce Remick" wrote: snips If you've gotten back far more than your contributions and any possible earnings over the years, call your current checks what you may. And yes, you are being intellectually dishonest - the money has to come from somebody else (even if it is only from those in your pension system that died prematurely - before recieving their monies back in full). ____________ When I signed up, the possibility of getting back more than I put in was trumped at the time by some private companies where employees didn't have to contribute at all to their retirement or health care. It still was meant as an incentive to encourage federal employees to stay on, unlike today where few people will ever stay their career with the same employer. All money we receive basically comes from somebody else, like the GM employees' generous retirement which comes from the inflated price GM charges us taxpayers for its cars. Worker health care and pensions have to come from somewhere. Here we've done it by collective bargaining for those benefits, so the cost is passed directly to the buyer. Many foreign governments subsidize the manufacturing cost of their cars and other goods by providing universal pensions and health care paid for by all their taxpayers. As the old motor oil commercial once put it, "You pays me now, or you pays me later." Neither method is inherently good or evil, it's a question of which works best in a given economy and culture. The only way to not pay sooner or later is to eliminate the pensions and health care. Is that what we really want? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Are we falling down on the job of collecting?
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message news "mazorj" wrote in message ... "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message ... oly wrote: ... Might I remind you that all the pensions related to the government (including Social Security) are actuarially unsound, and that after you have recieved the pension just a very few years, that you have recieved MORE than your contributions and any earnings could have possibly amounted to? At that point, your pension just becomes part of the debt being left to future taxpayers and that indeed you are adding to the burden of present and future generations. Maybe you are just recieving what you were promised, but it was all a lie from the get-go. Senior Welfare. If you don't see that, you are intellectually dishonest. I don't think it was a lie "from the get-go". Initially, benefits levels were very low and of limited eligibility. Life expectancies were such that upon retiring at 60, on average you would collect only a few years before the Grim Reaper cut you out of the betting pool. SS probably was on a decent actuarial footing at first. It was only in later years that mission creep from the politicians (see James' remarks) kept expanding the SS pie. Even with that, the Ponzi scheme worked very well because the bubble kept expanding. It still is working - we're looking well into the future before it will really blow up in our faces. If we made the necessary changes for continued viability just by reducing benfits and not raising FICA, we still could be receiving benefits well above the original levels. You can criticize the basic unsoundness of a "Ponzi scheme," but much of economic theory implicity or explicitly assumes, and relies on, continued growth of economic activity and systems. The difference between SS and typical unsustainable bubbles is that we have the opportunity now to make corrections that will keep it going under well-managed conditions. You can look back on other bubbles, say like housing, and say "Gee, if we had just known the limits of sustainable expansion and done something to keep the system from exceeding them, we'd have stimulated home building and generated some nice increases in home equity values without driving the car over a cliff." The problem for SS is the political "third rail" of telling all those current and about-to-be retirees that in order for SS to be around for them, they're going to have to accept a lowering of the pay-outs to them. Given the history of human nature in responding to future threats, I think we're going to have to start falling over the SS cliff before anything meaningful is done. As with threats like global warming, it then becomes a question of whether the sysytem still can be rescued at that point. Speaking again only for myself, yes, I was aware of all of this, and have, in fact, now drawn out more than I put in. But oly, you're blaming Bruce (and, by proxy, me, which is why I am jumping in here) for being part of the problem. These pension plans were not our idea. They were forced upon us by law. Your beef, then, is with the government, not with Bruce or me. Write your Congressmen. Make sure you pick Congressmen who are not in line for pensions or lifetime health benefits themselves. Ditto for ex-Flatlander Governors. The expression "Senior Welfare" is a thinly-veiled phrase of contempt. You may be hale and hearty now, but what will be your station if that should abruptly change? Is it time to decide that seniors are expendable? "Let 'em die, and if in agony and poverty, all the better" has already been used, I believe back in the 30th century B.C.E. At least that's as far back as I was able to trace it. We stilll have time to save SS by putting in motion the old SF plot of killing everyone when they reach 30. "Logan's Run" for those not familiar with that dystopian novel and movie. Ten years of that and FICA will become a profit center for Uncle Sam. Either that, or in a variation on the ancient tribal practice, at 60 you get transported to Antarctica with nothing but a swimming suit and a pair of sunglasses. Don't forget to think outside the box here. For the younger worker, that soon may amount to a free vacation, according to Al Gore. Doh! Okay, then we have to go with the "Logan's Run" scenario. We'll have to revise the old Sixties slogan, though: "You can't trust anyone over 30 - they're all dead now." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Are we falling down on the job of collecting? | oly | Coins | 2 | February 9th 09 09:24 PM |
Are we falling down on the job of collecting? | Mr. Jaggers | Coins | 1 | February 6th 09 09:40 PM |
rec.collecting.phonecards, rec.collecting.pins, rec.collecting.postal-history, rec.collecting.villages, rec.collecting.vinyl | YourTrafficBoost.com | Paper Money | 0 | August 26th 06 05:00 AM |
97% and still falling. | note.boy | Paper Money | 0 | May 25th 05 02:58 PM |