Posted on 12/07/2004 8:28:41 AM PST by CHARLITE
When all of us boomers are dead and gone, who does AARP think they will represent?
The actual boomers have been in policy-making positions for about 15 years. We can tell that all boomers are the same because Bush and Clinton are basically the same guy, right? Same values, same lack of morality... damn them all. On every thread. By being a clueless idiot. |
Pvt. Ryan (of Saving Private Ryan would probably vote for Adolf Hitler in order to "save" his Social Security and Medicare.
You will pay one way or the other. Will you be willing to support and care for your parents, whom I presume are baby-boomers, or would you prefer they care for themselves as long as they can on SS (they have paid for their life-time) or do you intend to kill them off so the government can pay for your child care or so you can get the top paying job you resent them continuing to hold--even though you want them to work til death. This thread is as selfish as you all claim the elderly are. Maybe you will have to use your family leave to take care of your relatives. That would be good and I am sure you will figure out how you can take any money they may have for yourselves before putting them in a nursing home.
I needed that rant!
We'll just see who blinks first.
I think that killing in the form of both voluntary and euthanasia will ameliorate the problem. I don't think that involuntary euthanasia will be legal (religious sensibilities are too strong) but it will be widely, albeit discreetly practiced.
"June 1, 2004 - One billion dollars was spent by organizations lobbying the federal government in the last half of 2003 and the AARP led the way in setting this new record, according to records released today by PoliticalMoneyLine.com.
"The biggest jump was caused by AARP that reported spending $16.38 million, up from $4.5 million spent in the first half of 2003. AARP was lobbying heavily on the prescription drug plan. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (Freddie MAC) reported spending $9.96 million, up from $5.92 million spent in the first half of 2003. Freddie Mac was lobbying on further regulation and structure of itself and its industry."
AARP doesn't care about seniors. They just want to keep their membership increasing, suckering in witless seniors into thinking that if young people start putting money into private investment accounts, it will dry up the SS coffers. What they don't realize is that there is no coffer left....just IOU's. What the AARP should be sponsoring is the "Keep Your Dirty Hands Out of the Social Security Trust Fund" Amendment, and get Congress to pay back to that fund all that it has stolen from it INCLUDING INTEREST.
I will be willing to support and care for my parents, unlike most boomers, who ignore their parents because 'they have social security and medicaid' or worse, pack off their parents to homes the first chance they get. SO climb back off that high horse, gramps. There is nothing selfish about wanting to spend my own money to take care of my parents, not YOUR money or anyone else's. You boomers who would take my money and the money of their kids to spend on themselves, sucking the country dry on their way to death, are the selfish bastards who want to keep the scam going. And you have the gall to call me some sort of thief?!?! Screw you, old man, and your Ponzi scheme huckstering, too! Rant right back at you, you pickpocketing old coot!
If your skills and talent aren't up to snuff, you won't get a job, regardless. Don't blame somebody who stays in a job they're qualified for, and are darned good at, because suddenly the requirement that they retire is itself retired.
Think about it: Here is one more big government intrusion into our lives, mandatory retirement, that would fade away. I thought Libertarians believed in the concept of getting government out of our lives. Guess not, huh?
BTW, you're not in Gen X or Gen Y. You're in Gen I, because that's all I hear from you guys - I, I, I, I, I. Your "generation" has a large bunch of myopic, self-serving losers, IMO.
Also, the people in the top slots you refer to are more likely to have set aside a retirement nestegg, and would be less likely to continue working voluntarily than seniors in the lower brackets, so your complaint doesn't hold water.
By allowing seniors this option, we would be putting far less of a drain on the SS system, because it would be paying out far less in monthly checks, so you Gen I people would likely see a smaler increase in the amount that is taken out of your paychecks. That would be a good thing, but because you're a myopic, self-serving Gen I'er, you can't see that.
"Oh, so Libertarians are only out for Number One, and the heck with anybody else? We always suspected that, but now we have one right here on FR saying that directly. Amazing."
Looky, a straw man! I don't recall saying I'm out for number one and the heck with anyone else, but golly gee, you just go ahead and put the words in my mouth. And while you're at it, thanks for appointing me personal representative of all Libertarians. When you speak of "We," must be you and the stick up your butt to which you refer.
"If your skills and talent aren't up to snuff, you won't get a job, regardless. Don't blame somebody who stays in a job they're qualified for, and are darned good at, because suddenly the requirement that they retire is itself retired."
Who cares if the REQUIREMENT is removed that you RETIRE. You can work as long as you want! But this proposal means now boomers don't retire, and don't get TAXED, and Gen X and Gen Y still DO! Call it what you want, but the point is that with your cute little proposal, boomers will not be retiring AND not getting taxed, and employers will be on that quick since they won't have to pay you old coots as much to stick around. You act like we'd be saving Gen X money, but no proposal like this would pass without your AARP pals guaranteeing Medicaid and senior welfare, er, "social security," keep flowing.
You just want to join the pool of double-dippers yourself. You don't want to fade government intrusion into anyone's lives but YOURS, so spare me the self-righteous 'Gen X is selfish and Gen I" b.s. I refuse to smile and cheer while you propose one MORE way for the Boomers to rape this country's coffers.
Currently, the only choice for many of those reaching retirement age is to retire. This means they stop paying into the SS system, and start draining money out of the system.
My proposal would simply stop them from being a drain. There would be no change to the fact that they will no longer be paying into the system; they would no longer be draining it.
BTW, I didn't have to put words in your mouth. You're the one who posted:
I guarantee you one thing. If my generation is taking a hit because of those greedy bastards, I'm making sure they go down with me. Your solution does nothing but help them and hurt Gen X and Y. F that.
You ARE self-serving, by your own words, Libertarian.
"There would be no change to the fact that they will no longer be paying into the system; they would no longer be draining it."
Yes, but the people that would be REPLACING them won't be paying into it because they WON'T BE REPLACING THEM. And that the seniors stay in those positions without paying any tax is simply a payoff for them. It's a net loser for the government and means that, as usual, boomers stick the succeeding generations. You don't see it because you're drooling so hard at the notion of getting that free money you gotta watch the floor to keep from slipping in it.
"I guarantee you one thing. If my generation is taking a hit because of those greedy bastards, I'm making sure they go down with me. Your solution does nothing but help them and hurt Gen X and Y. F that.
You ARE self-serving, by your own words, Libertarian."
That doesn't mean I'm just out for myself--I'm not Gen Y, or Z, and I'm not about to let you rape THEM, either, idget.
It's not a zero sum game. If you make yourself valuable, with skill and talent, you will find a job that will reward your skill and talent. Your place in the workforce doesn't depend on somebody retiring. If that were the case, the system would've broken in the 60s, when the boomers entered the workforce. They far outnumbered the retirees then, and if they had to depend on people retiring in sufficient numbers, they'd have been unemployed for years.
And that the seniors stay in those positions without paying any tax is simply a payoff for them. It's a net loser for the government and means that, as usual, boomers stick the succeeding generations.
I'm missing your logic here. If they retired, they wouldn't be paying SS & MC taxes, and would be drawing SS checks. Under this proposal, they wouldn't be paying the SS & MC taxes, but wouldn't be drawing SS checks. How is that a net loser for the government? You're not making any sense.
Several problems with this plan. First, it does not guarantee to address the structural problems with funding shortfalls for SS/MC. The plan has an implicit "if you keep working, you don't get SS/MC benefit payouts" piece to it. That would have the effect of raising the payout date, for those who take advantage of the plan.
However, for many people, retirement is a lifestyle decision as much as an economic/financial one. There is no law that prohibits seniors from working past retirement age. Your plan posits that the retirement age population, who right now are rejecting the option to take a job in sufficient numbers to jeopardize SS/MC solvency, will dramatically shift their decision matrix when that job will top off another 15% (from their perspective) in the payroll check. Put another way, people turning down the opportunity for a $50,000 job are not going to change their minds when that turns into a $57,500 job.
A 15% differential in the calculus might not appreciably affect the retirement decision for many individuals. Many might still opt to retire and draw benefits. We simply don't have the probabilities on what people might decide when presented with this plan. The cost/benefit of your proposed plan revolves around a central question: will the benefit of uncertain solvency outweigh the cost of creating a privileged class? As your plan stands, there is no guarantee of solvency because the opt-in rate to the plan is not enforced.
The next problem with the plan is it creates a privileged class. While a 15% differential might not induce our current retirement age population to postpone retirement, it will definitely induce employers to select the cheaper employee. I know; I am an employer, and I'd pick the 15% cheaper employee in a heartbeat, all other factors being equal, every single time. This creates a grossly inequitable law in a nation where all citizens are supposed to be treated equally under the eyes of the law.
The third problem with the plan is that it doesn't really put 15% in the pockets of the seniors that opt for the plan. It might look that way from the seniors' perspective, but market forces will tend to immediately recognize and capitalize upon the differential. Employers like me will start negotiating lower wages because we know there are 15 points to play with. Perversely, there is a possibility the plan will reduce economic activity during a transition period as the economy adjusts to the new workforce (if that workforce even appears, that is), and put a deflationary bias to the economy.
No doubt.
I don't have much faith in the boomers on the issue either. But who knows...
As for the "privatizing of Social Security accounts", this is merely an attempt to invest funds just like the federal and postal employees can do, in the "Thrift Savings Plan". It's a 401-K for the feds, and it works. It's a portion of the money that a federal employee sets aside for retirement. Why NOT extend this option to the private sector?
I will be willing to support and care for my parents, unlike most boomers, who ignore their parents because 'they have social security and medicaid' or worse, pack off their parents to homes the first chance they get.
You believe that parents are ignored BECAUSE they have SS. What a concept!
There is nothing selfish about wanting to spend my own money to take care of my parents, not YOUR money or anyone else's. You boomers who would take my money and the money of their kids to spend on themselves, sucking the country dry on their way to death, are the selfish bastards who want to keep the scam going. And you have the gall to call me some sort of thief?!?!
People on SS are not spending YOUR money. They are spending what they contributed. It is the rules that have been changed to accomodate the drugs, alcohol, disabilities, etc. that have robbed this fund. Get a clue.
Who will take care of you IF your investments do not pay off. I assure you society will not let you live in the streets. Furthermore, there is no plan that will give the working person a living in their old age unless they frugally save and sacrifice when they are young. You either have a life-sytle you like when you are young knowing that you will have little when you are old or you will have a decent income because you have lived frugally. Don't kid yourself--you won't be traveling all over in your old age--not if you are an average American working for someone else.
And the stock market--when the boomers start drawing on it what do you think will happen to it? Also, the money people run the market and they don't want you to make money.
Ideology sounds good but ask the people about the S and L bailout and a few of the other government scams that people believed they would get rich on? Your 401K is another example of boosting the market--but will it really pay off? The government wants the average worker to boost the economy when needed but solely for themselves and the rich and if a FEW average along the way are in the right place at the right time and make money that's is o.k. but if everyone made money you would find the rules would change.
Good Luck to you and your retirement. Hope you have to work til death.
This is only true in the most abstract, hand-waving sense. In the real world, people on social security are spending the money being put in by current workers. Social Security is classified as a mature, pay-as-you-go system.
Who will take care of you IF your investments do not pay off.
Family? Friends? Private charitable organizations, whether or not affiliated with a religion? Any private citizen or privately organized group of citizens? Anyone but government? I think we've given the redistribution with government oversight plan plenty of time to prove itself. It has only proven one thing. It is spectacularly inept. It's time to try something else. Like letting people take care of themselves, and look after each other.
If you are saying that people cannot be trusted to look after each other, you are advocating totalitarian governance of one form or another. You are either for freedom, or against it. No middle ground. Either trust freedom, and the freedom of people to look after themselves and each other, or reject liberty's premise and promises.
And the stock market--when the boomers start drawing on it what do you think will happen to it?
Equities are not the only way to build a retirement net egg. Never have been, never will be the only place for investment cash. When boomers start rotating out, that cash will go somewhere. Some places in the economy will be especially attractive to that cash. Those places will be new areas of investment opportunity.
Looks like a good article.
If actuaries are correct and if I am not mistaken SS is based on actuaries not many will draw it for 30 years.
I still believe you are in a dream world if you believe a different government program (which allows "you" the decision about your money) will realize a different result.
At first glance this article mentions reduced birth rates. I have not read the article but I will as it looks interesting. Thanks. Wasn't it the government that pushed reduced rates of population to avoid a population explosion? Seems this does not come back to the people that are reliant on the RESULT of government's policies that are ever changing but rather the problem IS the government. Good luck getting them out of your pocket. If they are out of your pocket how have they got you tied to them for their political fodder. I am referring to the majority of the population that works for someone and not the business owner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
I see once again that the Boomers are getting credit for the "Greatest Generation's" deeds. This time we have an organization where, except for the occasional mistake, one must be 55 or older to join. The over-55 group is referred to by our clueless idiots as "boomers." The oldest boomers are about 57 now. The vast majority of the AARP crowd is the so-called "Silent Generation," whose major accomplishment seems to have been Beatniks.