http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/opinion/02brooks.html An Sample: The odd thing is that when you turn to political life, we are living in an age of reverse-generativity. Far from serving the young, the old are now taking from them. First, they are taking money. According to Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution, the federal government now spends $7 on the elderly for each $1 it spends on... [more]
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/opinion/02brooks.html
An Sample:
The odd thing is that when you turn to political life, we are living in an age of reverse-generativity. Far from serving the young, the old are now taking from them. First, they are taking money. According to Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution, the federal government now spends $7 on the elderly for each $1 it spends on children.
Second, they are taking freedom. In 2009, for the first time in American history, every single penny of federal tax revenue went to pay for mandatory spending programs, according to Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute. As more money goes to pay off promises made mostly to the old, the young have less control.
Third, they are taking opportunity. For decades, federal spending has hovered around 20 percent of G.D.P. By 2019, it is forecast to be at 25 percent and rising. The higher tax rates implied by that spending will mean less growth and fewer opportunities. Already, pension costs in many states are squeezing education spending.
In the private sphere, in other words, seniors provide wonderful gifts to their grandchildren, loving attention that will linger in young minds, providing support for decades to come. In the public sphere, they take it away.
And in clear letter to the editor today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opinion/l05brooks.html?hpw
We seniors are probably the last generation that will enjoy generous, assured pensions as well as unlimited access to medical procedures and treatments.
Any society that spends seven times as much on its elders as on its young has its priorities backward and eventually risks a backlash from the frustrated young. Mr. Brooks rightly points out that because seniors hold far greater political power than the young, only seniors can create the political climate in which fairness can be brought about.
We seniors have a moral obligation to see that the young are as well cared for as ourselves and must give our members of Congress permission to make the hard choices necessary to balance the nation’s resources fairly among the generations.
Talk about a minority report!
The only thing that we still make in the country better then anywhere else is OLD PEOPLE! What a deal they cut for themselves. Screw you kids and their future...we're taling it all...FU!
I'm surprised their not eating all the endangered species before they miss their chance to taste them. So the same folks who polluted the planet and warmed it up are going to help themselves to every last resource before exiting the door. Sure, that little old cute lady, the one with the blue hair is bending us over and driving us home.
I, for one, have had enough!
[less]
Response by notadmin
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
well... well... i'm all for mean testing both social security and medicare for current and future beneficiaries, but i'm sensing a tough line on seniors across the board.
many of them have no clue at all what a fiscal burden each of them represent and have been lied consistently by politicians about how sustainable the system was till ... 2075. it's true that there's an implicit "if you tell me the truth i'll not vote for you" arrangement between the old and the politicians, so not hearing the truth from politicians is not that good of an excuse (is sth that should always be taken for granted, just like acting).
anyway, i can name you 5 seniors that had been against burdening the young for quite a while. unfortunately, this is my best argument for not putting everybody in the same bag and none of them belong to my family.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by somewhereelse
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 7435
Member since: Oct 2009
Logan's Run, anyone?!?!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
if that's your take somewhereelse, but i'd like you to keep those 5 i mentioned alived
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
alive
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by alanhart
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 12397
Member since: Feb 2007
Aren't old people cute?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
yes, just like hairy moles.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by ab_11218
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 2017
Member since: May 2009
the system failed when people started collecting social security in the late 40's/early 50's. people who worked for a year or so, ended collecting dozens of years of benefits that they never paid for. any actuary with 1/2 a brain could have told that to the gov't at that point, but i'm guessing they did not bother asking or hiring actuaries when they came up with social security.
by the time the 30 somethings are ready to collect, they'll have to wait till they hit 80 so that the system can stay "alive".
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by alanhart
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 12397
Member since: Feb 2007
And given that 30-somethings start working when they're older than their 1930s counterparts (due to mass implementation of higher education), and live to be much older, 80 might be appropriate. As long as *I* can retire with extraordinary govt- & employer-provided benefits when I'm still of a certain age.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
i'm pretty sure that those in their 30s and younger should delay their entrance to the labor force as long as possible. many ivy-league graduates are doing that successfully. travel, volunteer abroad, peace corps, go and see the world.
their "reversed retirement" might be the only retirement they get to have. after that, work till you drop. it has tons of benefits for them. for once, starting to work soon will not change the "work till you drop" issue. having free time when young and energetic is better than when on a wheel chair.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by alanhart
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 12397
Member since: Feb 2007
Or they can emigrate.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
i read that many in their 20s are sticking to places they thought would be temporary (most in asia and central america). they are very entrepreneurial and have it easier there than here to start their own business.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10023
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 7614
Member since: Nov 2008
Yeah, it's been the topic du jour now for 20+ years. Tock tock time bomb.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by switel
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 303
Member since: Jan 2007
"Old People are stealing from you! "
Really?
What about all the bankers that still continue to receive their big fat bonuses??for what???
Let the old people rest a bit, it's the same generation that endured WW1,WW2,Vietnam etc...give them a break.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by truthskr10
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 4088
Member since: Jul 2009
Hey I almost dropped when I got my lifetime contribution statement to social security.
(over 2 mil!)
But what are ya gonna do? Toss 'em in the street?
Considering healthcare is a broken system, maybe we should it fix it first, before giving EVERYONE health care so A) we can THEN give EVERYONE health care and b)reduce a dominating cost factor to our elderly which is healthcare.
or does that make just waaay too much sense.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
"Let the old people rest a bit, it's the same generation that endured WW1,WW2,Vietnam etc...give them a break."
i totally agree with you, they deserve respect. but don't confuse respect with giving them the right to bankrupt their own children and grandchildren, while being the wealthiest generation in USA at the same time. they are very different things.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by ab_11218
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 2017
Member since: May 2009
and give them all your and your kids money....
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by switel
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 303
Member since: Jan 2007
notadmin -
The system is stealing from us, not the old people. The fact that after a cetain level of income the % of contribution to social security is the same is what making it wrong.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by bob420
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 581
Member since: Apr 2009
2 mil? How is that possible?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
> The system is stealing from us, not the old people.
i cannot agree with you more. it's an unsustainable ponzi and i'll be happy if it falls as soon as possible. other countries anticipated it and did reasonable reforms to their system. old americans should have done the same thing but chose to hope for the best believing that it will ONLY affect their kids and grandkids. i hope they get disappointed. reforms are needed but if the system doesn't collapse they are going to be postponed.
as i see it, current beneficiaries that don't need the benefits prefer to risk the future old people from their kids generation or younger than risking any benefit they promised themselves to receive. teh system is there to protect the old against poverty. the elderly are the richest generation, right now they are transfering poverty to the kids and being ok with it.
i have a hard time listening to the old when they shout "no more entitlements!" when talking about health care for poor kids that would cost way much less than 1 trillion (which is such a good investment as supposed to health care for a 90 year old)... but at the same time these same old guys have absolute no problem with part D. a totally unfunded benefit that would cost 8 trillions. it is our obligation to shout in their faces how much they suck... who is going to do it? the kids? the unborn? but as the coward that i am, i have yet to do it. i know i should.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by somewhereelse
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 7435
Member since: Oct 2009
If we keep going this way, the Democrats will bankrupt the US, giving it all to the old people and the unions (mainly their old people, of course old in union terms is 41).
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NWT
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 6643
Member since: Sep 2008
My favorite is the motorized chair, at several thousand bucks a pop.
The TV ads, targeted to fat old people, say "If Medicare won't pay for it, it's on us!"
Different story, of course, if I were to want one. No problem with the rest of you coughing up for it then.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
"Different story, of course, if I were to want one. No problem with the rest of you coughing up for it then."
that's the worse part! i think i don't tell it like it is to the old in my family as much as i should cause i am as self-serving as their are. i'm not a coward, it's just not convenient for me to be singled out as the crazy lunatic irrespectful youngster that doesn't understand the pay as you go system. i do tell it like it is to them, but only when they bring the subject. i should do it much more often (like every single time they criticize the young for being "entitled").
also on a family gathering a cousin of mine brought up the topic and i remained silent so the old overwhelmed her. men, i regret that. not next time though. that was coward of mine.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by falcogold1
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 4159
Member since: Sep 2008
When medicare was enacted old people promised to die at 72. They have gone back on the bargin.
OK...
Medicare until 72. After that pay your own way. The public option is Hospice.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by somewhereelse
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 7435
Member since: Oct 2009
Logan's Run, I tell you, Logan's Run.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10023
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 7614
Member since: Nov 2008
I think of all the countries with good SS-like systems, Norway (due to oil bonanza) and Japan have the least Ponzi-like schemes. Canada also in the crapper.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NYCMatt
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 7523
Member since: May 2009
"i'm pretty sure that those in their 30s and younger should delay their entrance to the labor force as long as possible. many ivy-league graduates are doing that successfully. travel, volunteer abroad, peace corps, go and see the world."
So who is paying for the living expenses of the "mid-30s and younger crowd"?
well... well... i'm all for mean testing both social security and medicare for current and future beneficiaries, but i'm sensing a tough line on seniors across the board.
many of them have no clue at all what a fiscal burden each of them represent and have been lied consistently by politicians about how sustainable the system was till ... 2075. it's true that there's an implicit "if you tell me the truth i'll not vote for you" arrangement between the old and the politicians, so not hearing the truth from politicians is not that good of an excuse (is sth that should always be taken for granted, just like acting).
anyway, i can name you 5 seniors that had been against burdening the young for quite a while. unfortunately, this is my best argument for not putting everybody in the same bag and none of them belong to my family.
Logan's Run, anyone?!?!
if that's your take somewhereelse, but i'd like you to keep those 5 i mentioned alived
alive
Aren't old people cute?
yes, just like hairy moles.
the system failed when people started collecting social security in the late 40's/early 50's. people who worked for a year or so, ended collecting dozens of years of benefits that they never paid for. any actuary with 1/2 a brain could have told that to the gov't at that point, but i'm guessing they did not bother asking or hiring actuaries when they came up with social security.
by the time the 30 somethings are ready to collect, they'll have to wait till they hit 80 so that the system can stay "alive".
And given that 30-somethings start working when they're older than their 1930s counterparts (due to mass implementation of higher education), and live to be much older, 80 might be appropriate. As long as *I* can retire with extraordinary govt- & employer-provided benefits when I'm still of a certain age.
i'm pretty sure that those in their 30s and younger should delay their entrance to the labor force as long as possible. many ivy-league graduates are doing that successfully. travel, volunteer abroad, peace corps, go and see the world.
their "reversed retirement" might be the only retirement they get to have. after that, work till you drop. it has tons of benefits for them. for once, starting to work soon will not change the "work till you drop" issue. having free time when young and energetic is better than when on a wheel chair.
Or they can emigrate.
i read that many in their 20s are sticking to places they thought would be temporary (most in asia and central america). they are very entrepreneurial and have it easier there than here to start their own business.
Yeah, it's been the topic du jour now for 20+ years. Tock tock time bomb.
"Old People are stealing from you! "
Really?
What about all the bankers that still continue to receive their big fat bonuses??for what???
Let the old people rest a bit, it's the same generation that endured WW1,WW2,Vietnam etc...give them a break.
Hey I almost dropped when I got my lifetime contribution statement to social security.
(over 2 mil!)
But what are ya gonna do? Toss 'em in the street?
Considering healthcare is a broken system, maybe we should it fix it first, before giving EVERYONE health care so A) we can THEN give EVERYONE health care and b)reduce a dominating cost factor to our elderly which is healthcare.
or does that make just waaay too much sense.
"Let the old people rest a bit, it's the same generation that endured WW1,WW2,Vietnam etc...give them a break."
i totally agree with you, they deserve respect. but don't confuse respect with giving them the right to bankrupt their own children and grandchildren, while being the wealthiest generation in USA at the same time. they are very different things.
and give them all your and your kids money....
notadmin -
The system is stealing from us, not the old people. The fact that after a cetain level of income the % of contribution to social security is the same is what making it wrong.
2 mil? How is that possible?
> The system is stealing from us, not the old people.
i cannot agree with you more. it's an unsustainable ponzi and i'll be happy if it falls as soon as possible. other countries anticipated it and did reasonable reforms to their system. old americans should have done the same thing but chose to hope for the best believing that it will ONLY affect their kids and grandkids. i hope they get disappointed. reforms are needed but if the system doesn't collapse they are going to be postponed.
as i see it, current beneficiaries that don't need the benefits prefer to risk the future old people from their kids generation or younger than risking any benefit they promised themselves to receive. teh system is there to protect the old against poverty. the elderly are the richest generation, right now they are transfering poverty to the kids and being ok with it.
i have a hard time listening to the old when they shout "no more entitlements!" when talking about health care for poor kids that would cost way much less than 1 trillion (which is such a good investment as supposed to health care for a 90 year old)... but at the same time these same old guys have absolute no problem with part D. a totally unfunded benefit that would cost 8 trillions. it is our obligation to shout in their faces how much they suck... who is going to do it? the kids? the unborn? but as the coward that i am, i have yet to do it. i know i should.
If we keep going this way, the Democrats will bankrupt the US, giving it all to the old people and the unions (mainly their old people, of course old in union terms is 41).
My favorite is the motorized chair, at several thousand bucks a pop.
The TV ads, targeted to fat old people, say "If Medicare won't pay for it, it's on us!"
Different story, of course, if I were to want one. No problem with the rest of you coughing up for it then.
"Different story, of course, if I were to want one. No problem with the rest of you coughing up for it then."
that's the worse part! i think i don't tell it like it is to the old in my family as much as i should cause i am as self-serving as their are. i'm not a coward, it's just not convenient for me to be singled out as the crazy lunatic irrespectful youngster that doesn't understand the pay as you go system. i do tell it like it is to them, but only when they bring the subject. i should do it much more often (like every single time they criticize the young for being "entitled").
also on a family gathering a cousin of mine brought up the topic and i remained silent so the old overwhelmed her. men, i regret that. not next time though. that was coward of mine.
When medicare was enacted old people promised to die at 72. They have gone back on the bargin.
OK...
Medicare until 72. After that pay your own way. The public option is Hospice.
Logan's Run, I tell you, Logan's Run.
I think of all the countries with good SS-like systems, Norway (due to oil bonanza) and Japan have the least Ponzi-like schemes. Canada also in the crapper.
"i'm pretty sure that those in their 30s and younger should delay their entrance to the labor force as long as possible. many ivy-league graduates are doing that successfully. travel, volunteer abroad, peace corps, go and see the world."
So who is paying for the living expenses of the "mid-30s and younger crowd"?