Didnt anyone watch Michelle Obama? Did anyone care?

[PatentGuy]

Renterclint says:

“Today’s WSJ said by 2010, the outlays will exceed the tax revenue generated. What is your answer to this issue? The privatization angle doesn’t help the elderly who may currently live mostly on SS.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70. People live a lot longer than they used to. We also have a culture in the U.S. that old folks live on their own through death. Back in the day, they lived with their kids, and extended families shared to make do.

The real change needs to be in people’s expectation that a comfortable old age should be paid for by the government by taxing the current workers and/or wealthy. IMO “social security” should be, at most, a safety net that is needs-based; not supplemental golf money.

Rather than save for retirement, people spend it all (plus take on ridiculous debt) to live it up while they are working; retirement planning to most people means “if/when I get old enough, the government will pay for everything I need/want.”

Baby boomers (of which I am one) are a self-centered bunch with no regard for their legacy to their children and grandchildren. Lip service is given to “global warming” or “sustainability” or whatever feel-good crapola of the month. But, ask a baby boomer to pass on uneeded govermnment hand-outs in order to make their country a better place for the future?? No freakin way. Their entitled to have it all. FU kids.

How’s that for my answer?

[renterclint]

[quote=PatentGuy]Renterclint says:

“Today’s WSJ said by 2010, the outlays will exceed the tax revenue generated. What is your answer to this issue? The privatization angle doesn’t help the elderly who may currently live mostly on SS.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70.[/quote]

PatentGuy,
You started to give me your answer above, and then you went into a opinionated rant about how things should be in your eyes.

What is it about politics? Why can’t people debate political issues without sermons & name calling? I’m just as guilty as the next.

So is there more to your solution or is it simply raise the min age to 70? How will that help a 68 yr old who counts on their SS check to live each month? And out of all of the SS expenditures, I wonder what percentage goes to person 65 – 69 years old. There are a lot of old farts out there in their 70’s & 80’s. I wonder if raising the min to 70 would be enough for the program to sustain itself on a cashflow basis.

[renterclint]

[quote=PatentGuy]Renterclint says:

“Today’s WSJ said by 2010, the outlays will exceed the tax revenue generated. What is your answer to this issue? The privatization angle doesn’t help the elderly who may currently live mostly on SS.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70.[/quote]

PatentGuy,
You started to give me your answer above, and then you went into a opinionated rant about how things should be in your eyes.

What is it about politics? Why can’t people debate political issues without sermons & name calling? I’m just as guilty as the next.

So is there more to your solution or is it simply raise the min age to 70? How will that help a 68 yr old who counts on their SS check to live each month? And out of all of the SS expenditures, I wonder what percentage goes to person 65 – 69 years old. There are a lot of old farts out there in their 70’s & 80’s. I wonder if raising the min to 70 would be enough for the program to sustain itself on a cashflow basis.

[renterclint]

[quote=PatentGuy]Renterclint says:

“Today’s WSJ said by 2010, the outlays will exceed the tax revenue generated. What is your answer to this issue? The privatization angle doesn’t help the elderly who may currently live mostly on SS.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70.[/quote]

PatentGuy,
You started to give me your answer above, and then you went into a opinionated rant about how things should be in your eyes.

What is it about politics? Why can’t people debate political issues without sermons & name calling? I’m just as guilty as the next.

So is there more to your solution or is it simply raise the min age to 70? How will that help a 68 yr old who counts on their SS check to live each month? And out of all of the SS expenditures, I wonder what percentage goes to person 65 – 69 years old. There are a lot of old farts out there in their 70’s & 80’s. I wonder if raising the min to 70 would be enough for the program to sustain itself on a cashflow basis.

[renterclint]

[quote=PatentGuy]Renterclint says:

“Today’s WSJ said by 2010, the outlays will exceed the tax revenue generated. What is your answer to this issue? The privatization angle doesn’t help the elderly who may currently live mostly on SS.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70.[/quote]

PatentGuy,
You started to give me your answer above, and then you went into a opinionated rant about how things should be in your eyes.

What is it about politics? Why can’t people debate political issues without sermons & name calling? I’m just as guilty as the next.

So is there more to your solution or is it simply raise the min age to 70? How will that help a 68 yr old who counts on their SS check to live each month? And out of all of the SS expenditures, I wonder what percentage goes to person 65 – 69 years old. There are a lot of old farts out there in their 70’s & 80’s. I wonder if raising the min to 70 would be enough for the program to sustain itself on a cashflow basis.

[renterclint]

[quote=PatentGuy]Renterclint says:

“Today’s WSJ said by 2010, the outlays will exceed the tax revenue generated. What is your answer to this issue? The privatization angle doesn’t help the elderly who may currently live mostly on SS.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70.[/quote]

PatentGuy,
You started to give me your answer above, and then you went into a opinionated rant about how things should be in your eyes.

What is it about politics? Why can’t people debate political issues without sermons & name calling? I’m just as guilty as the next.

So is there more to your solution or is it simply raise the min age to 70? How will that help a 68 yr old who counts on their SS check to live each month? And out of all of the SS expenditures, I wonder what percentage goes to person 65 – 69 years old. There are a lot of old farts out there in their 70’s & 80’s. I wonder if raising the min to 70 would be enough for the program to sustain itself on a cashflow basis.

[PatentGuy]

My “opinionated rant” was continuing my answer.

I will try to be more concise:

1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.

Better?

[PatentGuy]

My “opinionated rant” was continuing my answer.

I will try to be more concise:

1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.

Better?

[PatentGuy]

My “opinionated rant” was continuing my answer.

I will try to be more concise:

1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.

Better?

[PatentGuy]

My “opinionated rant” was continuing my answer.

I will try to be more concise:

1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.

Better?

[PatentGuy]

My “opinionated rant” was continuing my answer.

I will try to be more concise:

1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.

Better?

[Coronita]

[quote]I will try to be more concise:

1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.[/quote]

Lol. I don’t know any generation X or Y that is financial savy that is is counting on social security or medicare to exist for us. We’ll all be bleeding paying for the huge baby boomer population that will be retiring.

[Coronita]

[quote]I will try to be more concise:

1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.[/quote]

Lol. I don’t know any generation X or Y that is financial savy that is is counting on social security or medicare to exist for us. We’ll all be bleeding paying for the huge baby boomer population that will be retiring.

[Coronita]

[quote]I will try to be more concise:

1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.[/quote]

Lol. I don’t know any generation X or Y that is financial savy that is is counting on social security or medicare to exist for us. We’ll all be bleeding paying for the huge baby boomer population that will be retiring.

[Coronita]

[quote]I will try to be more concise:

1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.[/quote]

Lol. I don’t know any generation X or Y that is financial savy that is is counting on social security or medicare to exist for us. We’ll all be bleeding paying for the huge baby boomer population that will be retiring.

[Author]

Posts