PDA

View Full Version : Re: AARP_Membership


baron48
July 7th 03, 08:24 PM
Victor Smith > wrote in message >...
> On 28 Jun 2003 00:44:55 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
>
> >Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
>
> >
> >> My suffering is almost over.
> >
> >Maybe not. Your selfishness and pettiness may land you somewhere
> >you don't expect.
> >
> So those who expect to collect SS are condemned to hell?
> Whoa.

No one is condemned to hell, but it make take divine intervention
to fund SS.

-Tom

baron48
July 7th 03, 08:57 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On 28 Jun 2003 00:44:55 -0700
> (baron48) wrote:
>
> > Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> > >...
> <snip>
> > > Please explain how my generation financially cripples the
> > > government. By coincidentally being born with a bunch of other
> > > people? By growing old? By paying more into social security than
> > > any generation in history? By not forfeiting what we paid for?
> >
> > Obviously many people are taking out more than they put in.
>
> I have no doubt that some are. But isn't that the nature of insurance?

Insurance companies go under when there are more claims than can be paid.

> And just as with traditional insurance, many who paid in never draw
> anything out, e.g. those who die before retirement.

True, but unless a lot of people suddenly start dying before retirement age,
there will be a lot more paid out than paid in.

>
> > Most of your generation in fact.
>
> Actually, no one from my generation is old enough to draw retirement
> benefits yet. And I seriously doubt that "most" are on disability.
>
> > The whole thing would already
> > be underwater if they hadn't raised up the taxes back in the 80's.
>
> That's been done several times in the past.

Which proves my point about future generations having to pay more
than their fair share.

>
> > The current working generations will pay much more than you and
> > they may never see a dime in return. Thanks. You are quite the
> > role model for us.
>
> I still don't understand why you are blaming me for the mess.

It's people with your attitude who contributed to this mess. Remember
the whole "entitlement mentality" discussion? You think you are owed
something because you foolishly paid money into something that was
doomed to fail. Now that the failure is obvious, you are going to
ride it into the ground and take the country and economy with it.

> When
> younger I said the thing regarding my parents generation. I am a single
> voter and I voted for those who promised to fix it.

Every politician claims they are going to "fix it." It should be
obvious to you now that they mean they are going to push out the day
of reckoning to when they are no longer in office.

> I assume that with
> your judgemental attitude you are now doing what you believe that I
> should have done. What are you doing to fix it?

I don't expect to collect a single penny from SS or Medicare. I pay
the taxes, but realize where it is actually going. I don't vote for
either of the major political parties. I don't partake in the bull****
from politicians that you seem to relish. I prepare myself for
retirement. What else would you ask me to do?

>
> >
> > >
> > > > I hope you are proud of yourself.
> > >
> > > No you aren't.
> > > However, I ate everything I wanted, and nothing ate me. So, yeah, I
> > > did alright.
> >
> > I hope your kids and grandkids can say the same thing. You obviously
> > could care less about them.
>
> You know nothing about my kids and grandkids, nor how much I care about
> them or they care about me.

The economic future of the US is likely to be important to them. You
certainly don't seem to give a rat's ass about future generations with
your comments. Maybe it is just other peoples' kids you don't care about.

>
> >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > I'm not a libertarian, so it makes you look foolish to say that I
> > > > am. The elderly should understand self-preservation. Who would
> > > > suffer more in the economic chaos of the US Government defaulting
> > > > on its debts?
> > >
> > > The ones who have the longest yet to live.
> >
> > I would say not. Those who depend on the government will suffer
> > the most.
> >
> > > My suffering is almost over.
> >
> > Maybe not. Your selfishness and pettiness may land you somewhere
> > you don't expect.
>
> Have you nothing to offer but insults?

Best learn to distinguish advice from insults.

-Tom

baron48
July 7th 03, 08:57 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On 28 Jun 2003 00:44:55 -0700
> (baron48) wrote:
>
> > Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> > >...
> <snip>
> > > Please explain how my generation financially cripples the
> > > government. By coincidentally being born with a bunch of other
> > > people? By growing old? By paying more into social security than
> > > any generation in history? By not forfeiting what we paid for?
> >
> > Obviously many people are taking out more than they put in.
>
> I have no doubt that some are. But isn't that the nature of insurance?

Insurance companies go under when there are more claims than can be paid.

> And just as with traditional insurance, many who paid in never draw
> anything out, e.g. those who die before retirement.

True, but unless a lot of people suddenly start dying before retirement age,
there will be a lot more paid out than paid in.

>
> > Most of your generation in fact.
>
> Actually, no one from my generation is old enough to draw retirement
> benefits yet. And I seriously doubt that "most" are on disability.
>
> > The whole thing would already
> > be underwater if they hadn't raised up the taxes back in the 80's.
>
> That's been done several times in the past.

Which proves my point about future generations having to pay more
than their fair share.

>
> > The current working generations will pay much more than you and
> > they may never see a dime in return. Thanks. You are quite the
> > role model for us.
>
> I still don't understand why you are blaming me for the mess.

It's people with your attitude who contributed to this mess. Remember
the whole "entitlement mentality" discussion? You think you are owed
something because you foolishly paid money into something that was
doomed to fail. Now that the failure is obvious, you are going to
ride it into the ground and take the country and economy with it.

> When
> younger I said the thing regarding my parents generation. I am a single
> voter and I voted for those who promised to fix it.

Every politician claims they are going to "fix it." It should be
obvious to you now that they mean they are going to push out the day
of reckoning to when they are no longer in office.

> I assume that with
> your judgemental attitude you are now doing what you believe that I
> should have done. What are you doing to fix it?

I don't expect to collect a single penny from SS or Medicare. I pay
the taxes, but realize where it is actually going. I don't vote for
either of the major political parties. I don't partake in the bull****
from politicians that you seem to relish. I prepare myself for
retirement. What else would you ask me to do?

>
> >
> > >
> > > > I hope you are proud of yourself.
> > >
> > > No you aren't.
> > > However, I ate everything I wanted, and nothing ate me. So, yeah, I
> > > did alright.
> >
> > I hope your kids and grandkids can say the same thing. You obviously
> > could care less about them.
>
> You know nothing about my kids and grandkids, nor how much I care about
> them or they care about me.

The economic future of the US is likely to be important to them. You
certainly don't seem to give a rat's ass about future generations with
your comments. Maybe it is just other peoples' kids you don't care about.

>
> >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > I'm not a libertarian, so it makes you look foolish to say that I
> > > > am. The elderly should understand self-preservation. Who would
> > > > suffer more in the economic chaos of the US Government defaulting
> > > > on its debts?
> > >
> > > The ones who have the longest yet to live.
> >
> > I would say not. Those who depend on the government will suffer
> > the most.
> >
> > > My suffering is almost over.
> >
> > Maybe not. Your selfishness and pettiness may land you somewhere
> > you don't expect.
>
> Have you nothing to offer but insults?

Best learn to distinguish advice from insults.

-Tom

baron48
July 7th 03, 08:59 PM
"Elizabeth" > wrote in message >...
> > >> My suffering is almost over.
> > >
> > >Maybe not. Your selfishness and pettiness may land you somewhere
> > >you don't expect.
> > >
> > So those who expect to collect SS are condemned to hell?
> > Whoa.
> >
>
> Oh My God! I'm eligible for SS in 10 months. What a choice - going to hell
> or not having money for food/property taxes/utilities.

You could try preparing for your own retirement and not believing
in government fairy tales.

-Tom

baron48
July 7th 03, 08:59 PM
"Elizabeth" > wrote in message >...
> > >> My suffering is almost over.
> > >
> > >Maybe not. Your selfishness and pettiness may land you somewhere
> > >you don't expect.
> > >
> > So those who expect to collect SS are condemned to hell?
> > Whoa.
> >
>
> Oh My God! I'm eligible for SS in 10 months. What a choice - going to hell
> or not having money for food/property taxes/utilities.

You could try preparing for your own retirement and not believing
in government fairy tales.

-Tom

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 01:56 PM
On 8 Jul 2003 10:17:59 -0700
(baron48) wrote:
<snip>
> Anyone who tells you they can guarantee some specific payout
> in the future is someone you should avoid doing business with if
> possible.

Your age is showing. I worked for pension actuaries for ten years.
Twenty years ago defined benefit plans were common. Now defined
contribution plans are more common. In a defined benefit plan the
benefit was specified up front and the burden of compensating for
fluctuations was on the employer. The benefit was guaranteed by law.
Google: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 01:56 PM
On 8 Jul 2003 10:17:59 -0700
(baron48) wrote:
<snip>
> Anyone who tells you they can guarantee some specific payout
> in the future is someone you should avoid doing business with if
> possible.

Your age is showing. I worked for pension actuaries for ten years.
Twenty years ago defined benefit plans were common. Now defined
contribution plans are more common. In a defined benefit plan the
benefit was specified up front and the burden of compensating for
fluctuations was on the employer. The benefit was guaranteed by law.
Google: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)

Dennis
July 8th 03, 05:34 PM
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:36:02 GMT, Victor Smith
> wrote:

>On 7 Jul 2003 11:59:46 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
>>You could try preparing for your own retirement and not believing
>>in government fairy tales.
>
>If you trust Wall Street, banks and company pension funds more than
>your own gov, wherein you have some sayso, more power to you.

Got this one exactly ass-backwards. I get to choose precisely which
stocks, banks and companies I want to invest my retirement in (or
not). As an individual, I don't have much say at all in what my
government does -- I'm stuck with the rest of the herd.

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Dennis
July 8th 03, 05:34 PM
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:36:02 GMT, Victor Smith
> wrote:

>On 7 Jul 2003 11:59:46 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
>>You could try preparing for your own retirement and not believing
>>in government fairy tales.
>
>If you trust Wall Street, banks and company pension funds more than
>your own gov, wherein you have some sayso, more power to you.

Got this one exactly ass-backwards. I get to choose precisely which
stocks, banks and companies I want to invest my retirement in (or
not). As an individual, I don't have much say at all in what my
government does -- I'm stuck with the rest of the herd.

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

baron48
July 8th 03, 07:17 PM
Victor Smith > wrote in message >...
> On 7 Jul 2003 11:59:46 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
>
> >"Elizabeth" > wrote in message >...
> >> > >> My suffering is almost over.
> >> > >
> >> > >Maybe not. Your selfishness and pettiness may land you somewhere
> >> > >you don't expect.
> >> > >
> >> > So those who expect to collect SS are condemned to hell?
> >> > Whoa.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Oh My God! I'm eligible for SS in 10 months. What a choice - going to hell
> >> or not having money for food/property taxes/utilities.
> >
> >You could try preparing for your own retirement and not believing
> >in government fairy tales.
>
> If you trust Wall Street, banks and company pension funds more than
> your own gov, wherein you have some sayso, more power to you.
> History doesn't support your ideas.
> Maybe you're hoarding gold and diamonds? Stocks in offshore
> companies? Anything not backed by the greenback?
> Hey, to each his own.

What have you been smoking? The stock market has an excellent
return on investment over any period of more than 20 years.
Never had money in a bank, S&L, or Credit Union that had any
financial problems. Company penson funds make me nervous,
but they are the same crap that the government is peddling with
SS. Anyone who tells you they can guarantee some specific payout
in the future is someone you should avoid doing business with if
possible.

Think portfolio diversity when you plan for retirement. I
would never depend on any one source of retirement income.
SS, I would consider high risk for anyone under 45.

-Tom

baron48
July 8th 03, 07:17 PM
Victor Smith > wrote in message >...
> On 7 Jul 2003 11:59:46 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
>
> >"Elizabeth" > wrote in message >...
> >> > >> My suffering is almost over.
> >> > >
> >> > >Maybe not. Your selfishness and pettiness may land you somewhere
> >> > >you don't expect.
> >> > >
> >> > So those who expect to collect SS are condemned to hell?
> >> > Whoa.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Oh My God! I'm eligible for SS in 10 months. What a choice - going to hell
> >> or not having money for food/property taxes/utilities.
> >
> >You could try preparing for your own retirement and not believing
> >in government fairy tales.
>
> If you trust Wall Street, banks and company pension funds more than
> your own gov, wherein you have some sayso, more power to you.
> History doesn't support your ideas.
> Maybe you're hoarding gold and diamonds? Stocks in offshore
> companies? Anything not backed by the greenback?
> Hey, to each his own.

What have you been smoking? The stock market has an excellent
return on investment over any period of more than 20 years.
Never had money in a bank, S&L, or Credit Union that had any
financial problems. Company penson funds make me nervous,
but they are the same crap that the government is peddling with
SS. Anyone who tells you they can guarantee some specific payout
in the future is someone you should avoid doing business with if
possible.

Think portfolio diversity when you plan for retirement. I
would never depend on any one source of retirement income.
SS, I would consider high risk for anyone under 45.

-Tom

Elizabeth
July 8th 03, 07:44 PM
>
> Think portfolio diversity when you plan for retirement. I
> would never depend on any one source of retirement income.
> SS, I would consider high risk for anyone under 45.
>

When I got married almost 40 years ago my husband and I and our friends
talked about how Social Security would not be around when we were of
retirement age. Well, here we are at retirement age and SS is still around.

EBBY

Elizabeth
July 8th 03, 07:44 PM
>
> Think portfolio diversity when you plan for retirement. I
> would never depend on any one source of retirement income.
> SS, I would consider high risk for anyone under 45.
>

When I got married almost 40 years ago my husband and I and our friends
talked about how Social Security would not be around when we were of
retirement age. Well, here we are at retirement age and SS is still around.

EBBY

Dennis
July 8th 03, 08:03 PM
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:44:15 -0500, "Elizabeth" >
wrote:

>>
>> Think portfolio diversity when you plan for retirement. I
>> would never depend on any one source of retirement income.
>> SS, I would consider high risk for anyone under 45.
>>
>
>When I got married almost 40 years ago my husband and I and our friends
>talked about how Social Security would not be around when we were of
>retirement age. Well, here we are at retirement age and SS is still around.

I guess you haven't been following along. Yes, it's still hanging on,
mostly because FICA taxes were raised a few years ago. All the money
that you paid in is long gone. The SS money you collect is coming out
of my paycheck. Now, where do you suppose my SS money will come from
when I retire?

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

Dennis
July 8th 03, 08:03 PM
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:44:15 -0500, "Elizabeth" >
wrote:

>>
>> Think portfolio diversity when you plan for retirement. I
>> would never depend on any one source of retirement income.
>> SS, I would consider high risk for anyone under 45.
>>
>
>When I got married almost 40 years ago my husband and I and our friends
>talked about how Social Security would not be around when we were of
>retirement age. Well, here we are at retirement age and SS is still around.

I guess you haven't been following along. Yes, it's still hanging on,
mostly because FICA taxes were raised a few years ago. All the money
that you paid in is long gone. The SS money you collect is coming out
of my paycheck. Now, where do you suppose my SS money will come from
when I retire?

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 08:11 PM
On 8 Jul 2003 15:04:53 -0700
(baron48) wrote:

> Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> >...
> > On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:03:39 -0700
> > Dennis > wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > The SS money you collect is coming out
> > > of my paycheck. Now, where do you suppose my SS money will come
> > > from when I retire?
> >
> > From my children and grandchildren. Same as always.
>
> I hope they become the "capitalists" that you despise so
> much. They are going to have a rather large tax bill to
> pay.

LOL. What a jerk.

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 08:11 PM
On 8 Jul 2003 15:04:53 -0700
(baron48) wrote:

> Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> >...
> > On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:03:39 -0700
> > Dennis > wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > The SS money you collect is coming out
> > > of my paycheck. Now, where do you suppose my SS money will come
> > > from when I retire?
> >
> > From my children and grandchildren. Same as always.
>
> I hope they become the "capitalists" that you despise so
> much. They are going to have a rather large tax bill to
> pay.

LOL. What a jerk.

Dennis
July 8th 03, 09:57 PM
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:13:09 -0500, Albert Wagner >
wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:03:39 -0700
>Dennis > wrote:
><snip>
>> The SS money you collect is coming out
>> of my paycheck. Now, where do you suppose my SS money will come from
>> when I retire?
>
>From my children and grandchildren. Same as always.

And you don't see a problem with that, given that there are fewer of
them (vs. us Baby Boomers) and that the price of maintaining seniors
is escalating the way it is?

Ever hear of a "Ponzi Scheme" ?

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Dennis
July 8th 03, 09:57 PM
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:13:09 -0500, Albert Wagner >
wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:03:39 -0700
>Dennis > wrote:
><snip>
>> The SS money you collect is coming out
>> of my paycheck. Now, where do you suppose my SS money will come from
>> when I retire?
>
>From my children and grandchildren. Same as always.

And you don't see a problem with that, given that there are fewer of
them (vs. us Baby Boomers) and that the price of maintaining seniors
is escalating the way it is?

Ever hear of a "Ponzi Scheme" ?

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

baron48
July 8th 03, 11:54 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On 8 Jul 2003 10:17:59 -0700
> (baron48) wrote:
> <snip>
> > Anyone who tells you they can guarantee some specific payout
> > in the future is someone you should avoid doing business with if
> > possible.
>
> Your age is showing. I worked for pension actuaries for ten years.
> Twenty years ago defined benefit plans were common. Now defined
> contribution plans are more common. In a defined benefit plan the
> benefit was specified up front and the burden of compensating for
> fluctuations was on the employer. The benefit was guaranteed by law.
> Google: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)

Tell that to the workers at Bethelehem Steel. You can't squeeze
blood from a turnip, so it's only guaranteed up to the company's
ability to pay it. It's also a bad deal for people who change
companies. No thanks. I'll take a 401k anyday.

-Tom

baron48
July 8th 03, 11:54 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On 8 Jul 2003 10:17:59 -0700
> (baron48) wrote:
> <snip>
> > Anyone who tells you they can guarantee some specific payout
> > in the future is someone you should avoid doing business with if
> > possible.
>
> Your age is showing. I worked for pension actuaries for ten years.
> Twenty years ago defined benefit plans were common. Now defined
> contribution plans are more common. In a defined benefit plan the
> benefit was specified up front and the burden of compensating for
> fluctuations was on the employer. The benefit was guaranteed by law.
> Google: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)

Tell that to the workers at Bethelehem Steel. You can't squeeze
blood from a turnip, so it's only guaranteed up to the company's
ability to pay it. It's also a bad deal for people who change
companies. No thanks. I'll take a 401k anyday.

-Tom

baron48
July 9th 03, 12:04 AM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:03:39 -0700
> Dennis > wrote:
> <snip>
> > The SS money you collect is coming out
> > of my paycheck. Now, where do you suppose my SS money will come from
> > when I retire?
>
> From my children and grandchildren. Same as always.

I hope they become the "capitalists" that you despise so
much. They are going to have a rather large tax bill to
pay.

-Tom

baron48
July 9th 03, 12:04 AM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:03:39 -0700
> Dennis > wrote:
> <snip>
> > The SS money you collect is coming out
> > of my paycheck. Now, where do you suppose my SS money will come from
> > when I retire?
>
> From my children and grandchildren. Same as always.

I hope they become the "capitalists" that you despise so
much. They are going to have a rather large tax bill to
pay.

-Tom

Victor Smith
July 9th 03, 12:08 AM
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 08:34:08 -0700, Dennis > wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:36:02 GMT, Victor Smith
> wrote:
>
>>On 7 Jul 2003 11:59:46 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
>>>You could try preparing for your own retirement and not believing
>>>in government fairy tales.
>>
>>If you trust Wall Street, banks and company pension funds more than
>>your own gov, wherein you have some sayso, more power to you.
>
>Got this one exactly ass-backwards. I get to choose precisely which
>stocks, banks and companies I want to invest my retirement in (or
>not). As an individual, I don't have much say at all in what my
>government does -- I'm stuck with the rest of the herd.
>
>the Dennis formerly known as (evil)

Beg to differ. Despite the multitude of choices (and I personally
believe in making choices beyond SS), they could all turn out sour.
Choice is not surety.
There is nothing as secure as SS, meager as it is, because you have a
direct vote in its solvency. No company has as many shareholders.
I invite you to name one other "investment" that has paid as much to
so many. There is a reason they called it "Social Security"
It ain't going away. Not without substitutes that you'd probably find
more unpalatable than SS itself.

--Vic

Victor Smith
July 9th 03, 12:08 AM
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 08:34:08 -0700, Dennis > wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:36:02 GMT, Victor Smith
> wrote:
>
>>On 7 Jul 2003 11:59:46 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
>>>You could try preparing for your own retirement and not believing
>>>in government fairy tales.
>>
>>If you trust Wall Street, banks and company pension funds more than
>>your own gov, wherein you have some sayso, more power to you.
>
>Got this one exactly ass-backwards. I get to choose precisely which
>stocks, banks and companies I want to invest my retirement in (or
>not). As an individual, I don't have much say at all in what my
>government does -- I'm stuck with the rest of the herd.
>
>the Dennis formerly known as (evil)

Beg to differ. Despite the multitude of choices (and I personally
believe in making choices beyond SS), they could all turn out sour.
Choice is not surety.
There is nothing as secure as SS, meager as it is, because you have a
direct vote in its solvency. No company has as many shareholders.
I invite you to name one other "investment" that has paid as much to
so many. There is a reason they called it "Social Security"
It ain't going away. Not without substitutes that you'd probably find
more unpalatable than SS itself.

--Vic

Victor Smith
July 9th 03, 12:10 AM
On 8 Jul 2003 10:17:59 -0700, (baron48) wrote:

>Victor Smith > wrote in message >...
>> On 7 Jul 2003 11:59:46 -0700, (baron48) wrote:

>> If you trust Wall Street, banks and company pension funds more than
>> your own gov, wherein you have some sayso, more power to you.
>> History doesn't support your ideas.
>> Maybe you're hoarding gold and diamonds? Stocks in offshore
>> companies? Anything not backed by the greenback?
>> Hey, to each his own.
>
>What have you been smoking? The stock market has an excellent
>return on investment over any period of more than 20 years.

Or so the Wall Street industry would have you believe.
But what about the next 20 years?
Anyway, go for it. Why are you worried about not getting SS?
Sure, you have to keep paying into SS so that old people aren't
walking the streets begging for food, and getting in your way.
But hell, you're gonna be rich anyway, so don't begrudge the old folks
a blanket and a bite to eat, ok?

>Never had money in a bank, S&L, or Credit Union that had any
>financial problems.

Doesn't mean you ain't paying for S&L financial problems.
http://www.synge.com/scandals/greedscandals/greedscandals_s&lscandal.html

"From about 1980 to 1986, Keating and other S&L owners defrauded
customers by selling them millions of dollars in worthless bonds. As a
result, dozens of major Savings and Loan institutions collapsed, and
thousands of people worldwide would have lost their life savings had
not the American government (i.e., the taxpayers) bailed out the S&Ls
at the eventual estimated cost of a mind-boggling $1.4 trillion.
Keating was released from prison in 1996 after serving just half his
sentence."

Whether you were working then or not, you're *still* paying for that.
Maybe half a trillion of that came out of the SS "fund." Who knows?
Point is, the gov you becry for providing a SS program is the same one
that provides a good measure of *business security* (BS?) in this
country, whether by regulation or outright dipping into taxpayers'
pockets.
You've got to see things with broader vision.

> Company penson funds make me nervous,
>but they are the same crap that the government is peddling with
>SS. Anyone who tells you they can guarantee some specific payout
>in the future is someone you should avoid doing business with if
>possible.
>
Sorry. The U.S. gov has been doing just that for more than half a
century. They call it Social Security.

>Think portfolio diversity when you plan for retirement. I
>would never depend on any one source of retirement income.
>SS, I would consider high risk for anyone under 45.
>
You go right ahead with portfolio development.
Joe factory worker, who will never have a portfolio, or Jill computer
professional, whose portfolio goes bust after her job is off-shored,
will be counting on that SS.
And you will be so rich by the time you retire, that SS won't even
cross your mind anymore.

--Vic

Victor Smith
July 9th 03, 12:10 AM
On 8 Jul 2003 10:17:59 -0700, (baron48) wrote:

>Victor Smith > wrote in message >...
>> On 7 Jul 2003 11:59:46 -0700, (baron48) wrote:

>> If you trust Wall Street, banks and company pension funds more than
>> your own gov, wherein you have some sayso, more power to you.
>> History doesn't support your ideas.
>> Maybe you're hoarding gold and diamonds? Stocks in offshore
>> companies? Anything not backed by the greenback?
>> Hey, to each his own.
>
>What have you been smoking? The stock market has an excellent
>return on investment over any period of more than 20 years.

Or so the Wall Street industry would have you believe.
But what about the next 20 years?
Anyway, go for it. Why are you worried about not getting SS?
Sure, you have to keep paying into SS so that old people aren't
walking the streets begging for food, and getting in your way.
But hell, you're gonna be rich anyway, so don't begrudge the old folks
a blanket and a bite to eat, ok?

>Never had money in a bank, S&L, or Credit Union that had any
>financial problems.

Doesn't mean you ain't paying for S&L financial problems.
http://www.synge.com/scandals/greedscandals/greedscandals_s&lscandal.html

"From about 1980 to 1986, Keating and other S&L owners defrauded
customers by selling them millions of dollars in worthless bonds. As a
result, dozens of major Savings and Loan institutions collapsed, and
thousands of people worldwide would have lost their life savings had
not the American government (i.e., the taxpayers) bailed out the S&Ls
at the eventual estimated cost of a mind-boggling $1.4 trillion.
Keating was released from prison in 1996 after serving just half his
sentence."

Whether you were working then or not, you're *still* paying for that.
Maybe half a trillion of that came out of the SS "fund." Who knows?
Point is, the gov you becry for providing a SS program is the same one
that provides a good measure of *business security* (BS?) in this
country, whether by regulation or outright dipping into taxpayers'
pockets.
You've got to see things with broader vision.

> Company penson funds make me nervous,
>but they are the same crap that the government is peddling with
>SS. Anyone who tells you they can guarantee some specific payout
>in the future is someone you should avoid doing business with if
>possible.
>
Sorry. The U.S. gov has been doing just that for more than half a
century. They call it Social Security.

>Think portfolio diversity when you plan for retirement. I
>would never depend on any one source of retirement income.
>SS, I would consider high risk for anyone under 45.
>
You go right ahead with portfolio development.
Joe factory worker, who will never have a portfolio, or Jill computer
professional, whose portfolio goes bust after her job is off-shored,
will be counting on that SS.
And you will be so rich by the time you retire, that SS won't even
cross your mind anymore.

--Vic

Albert Wagner
July 9th 03, 11:46 AM
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:38:41 -0700
Dennis > wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:49:06 -0500, Albert Wagner >
> wrote:
<snip>
> >Of course I see a problem. But the solution is not to spew vitriol
> >at every elderly person you encounter.
>
> There ya go again... Albert, Albert -- I don't make fun of every
> addle-pated old geezer I come across -- only you.

Thank you. Mocking is the tactic of one who cannot compose a reasoned
and rational response. I am flattered when you are so flustered that
your replies degenerate into silliness.

Albert Wagner
July 9th 03, 11:46 AM
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:38:41 -0700
Dennis > wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:49:06 -0500, Albert Wagner >
> wrote:
<snip>
> >Of course I see a problem. But the solution is not to spew vitriol
> >at every elderly person you encounter.
>
> There ya go again... Albert, Albert -- I don't make fun of every
> addle-pated old geezer I come across -- only you.

Thank you. Mocking is the tactic of one who cannot compose a reasoned
and rational response. I am flattered when you are so flustered that
your replies degenerate into silliness.

Albert Wagner
July 9th 03, 01:28 PM
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 10:24:08 -0700
Dennis > wrote:
<snip>
> The choice is not between what I can and cannot do, but rather what I
> find more entertaining.
>
> As many have pointed out, no one will change anyone else's opinion
> with what they post on UseNet. So why not enjoy myself and play with
> an pompous blowhard when one virtually begs to be toyed with?
>
> the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
> --
> "There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Thank you.

Albert Wagner
July 9th 03, 01:28 PM
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 10:24:08 -0700
Dennis > wrote:
<snip>
> The choice is not between what I can and cannot do, but rather what I
> find more entertaining.
>
> As many have pointed out, no one will change anyone else's opinion
> with what they post on UseNet. So why not enjoy myself and play with
> an pompous blowhard when one virtually begs to be toyed with?
>
> the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
> --
> "There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Thank you.

baron48
July 9th 03, 05:42 PM
Victor Smith > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:03:39 -0700, Dennis > wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:44:15 -0500, "Elizabeth" >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> Think portfolio diversity when you plan for retirement. I
> >>> would never depend on any one source of retirement income.
> >>> SS, I would consider high risk for anyone under 45.
> >>>
> >>
> >>When I got married almost 40 years ago my husband and I and our friends
> >>talked about how Social Security would not be around when we were of
> >>retirement age. Well, here we are at retirement age and SS is still around.
> >
> >I guess you haven't been following along. Yes, it's still hanging on,
> >mostly because FICA taxes were raised a few years ago. All the money
> >that you paid in is long gone. The SS money you collect is coming out
> >of my paycheck. Now, where do you suppose my SS money will come from
> >when I retire?
> >
>
> Last I saw SS won't be underfunded until 2038.
> That gives you 35 years to work out an alternative.

That's only if the IOU's the government has already taken against
it are actually paid back to it. Fat chance. Now let us discuss
Medicare.

-Tom

baron48
July 9th 03, 05:42 PM
Victor Smith > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:03:39 -0700, Dennis > wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:44:15 -0500, "Elizabeth" >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> Think portfolio diversity when you plan for retirement. I
> >>> would never depend on any one source of retirement income.
> >>> SS, I would consider high risk for anyone under 45.
> >>>
> >>
> >>When I got married almost 40 years ago my husband and I and our friends
> >>talked about how Social Security would not be around when we were of
> >>retirement age. Well, here we are at retirement age and SS is still around.
> >
> >I guess you haven't been following along. Yes, it's still hanging on,
> >mostly because FICA taxes were raised a few years ago. All the money
> >that you paid in is long gone. The SS money you collect is coming out
> >of my paycheck. Now, where do you suppose my SS money will come from
> >when I retire?
> >
>
> Last I saw SS won't be underfunded until 2038.
> That gives you 35 years to work out an alternative.

That's only if the IOU's the government has already taken against
it are actually paid back to it. Fat chance. Now let us discuss
Medicare.

-Tom

baron48
July 9th 03, 05:53 PM
Victor Smith > wrote in message >...
> On 8 Jul 2003 10:17:59 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
>
> >Victor Smith > wrote in message >...
> >> On 7 Jul 2003 11:59:46 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
>
> >> If you trust Wall Street, banks and company pension funds more than
> >> your own gov, wherein you have some sayso, more power to you.
> >> History doesn't support your ideas.
> >> Maybe you're hoarding gold and diamonds? Stocks in offshore
> >> companies? Anything not backed by the greenback?
> >> Hey, to each his own.
> >
> >What have you been smoking? The stock market has an excellent
> >return on investment over any period of more than 20 years.
>
> Or so the Wall Street industry would have you believe.

You can look up the numbers yourself.

> But what about the next 20 years?

I don't know. Who can predict the future completely? I will
go with the best odds.

> Anyway, go for it. Why are you worried about not getting SS?
> Sure, you have to keep paying into SS so that old people aren't
> walking the streets begging for food, and getting in your way.
> But hell, you're gonna be rich anyway, so don't begrudge the old folks
> a blanket and a bite to eat, ok?

I'm worried about it because the government going insolvent is a
bad thing for everyone. You are just postponing having old people
walking to street begging for food and creating a situation where
even more people will have to do that. The pain could be reduced
by reforming the system now, but no one even wants to discuss it.
I will probably do ok, but the people you so much want to protect
will suffer the most.

>
> >Never had money in a bank, S&L, or Credit Union that had any
> >financial problems.
>
> Doesn't mean you ain't paying for S&L financial problems.
> http://www.synge.com/scandals/greedscandals/greedscandals_s&lscandal.html
>
> "From about 1980 to 1986, Keating and other S&L owners defrauded
> customers by selling them millions of dollars in worthless bonds. As a
> result, dozens of major Savings and Loan institutions collapsed, and
> thousands of people worldwide would have lost their life savings had
> not the American government (i.e., the taxpayers) bailed out the S&Ls
> at the eventual estimated cost of a mind-boggling $1.4 trillion.
> Keating was released from prison in 1996 after serving just half his
> sentence."
>
> Whether you were working then or not, you're *still* paying for that.
> Maybe half a trillion of that came out of the SS "fund." Who knows?
> Point is, the gov you becry for providing a SS program is the same one
> that provides a good measure of *business security* (BS?) in this
> country, whether by regulation or outright dipping into taxpayers'
> pockets.
> You've got to see things with broader vision.

I wasn't in favor of the S&L bailout and don't like paying for it.
Still, it's small change compared to SS and Medicare. Perspective
is important also.

>
> > Company penson funds make me nervous,
> >but they are the same crap that the government is peddling with
> >SS. Anyone who tells you they can guarantee some specific payout
> >in the future is someone you should avoid doing business with if
> >possible.
> >
> Sorry. The U.S. gov has been doing just that for more than half a
> century. They call it Social Security.

And you see where it is leading.

>
> >Think portfolio diversity when you plan for retirement. I
> >would never depend on any one source of retirement income.
> >SS, I would consider high risk for anyone under 45.
> >
> You go right ahead with portfolio development.
> Joe factory worker, who will never have a portfolio, or Jill computer
> professional, whose portfolio goes bust after her job is off-shored,
> will be counting on that SS.
> And you will be so rich by the time you retire, that SS won't even
> cross your mind anymore.

You should show more concern for Joe and Jill. They will suffer
far more when the federal government is being sold at auction
than anything they have suffered so far.

-Tom

baron48
July 9th 03, 05:53 PM
Victor Smith > wrote in message >...
> On 8 Jul 2003 10:17:59 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
>
> >Victor Smith > wrote in message >...
> >> On 7 Jul 2003 11:59:46 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
>
> >> If you trust Wall Street, banks and company pension funds more than
> >> your own gov, wherein you have some sayso, more power to you.
> >> History doesn't support your ideas.
> >> Maybe you're hoarding gold and diamonds? Stocks in offshore
> >> companies? Anything not backed by the greenback?
> >> Hey, to each his own.
> >
> >What have you been smoking? The stock market has an excellent
> >return on investment over any period of more than 20 years.
>
> Or so the Wall Street industry would have you believe.

You can look up the numbers yourself.

> But what about the next 20 years?

I don't know. Who can predict the future completely? I will
go with the best odds.

> Anyway, go for it. Why are you worried about not getting SS?
> Sure, you have to keep paying into SS so that old people aren't
> walking the streets begging for food, and getting in your way.
> But hell, you're gonna be rich anyway, so don't begrudge the old folks
> a blanket and a bite to eat, ok?

I'm worried about it because the government going insolvent is a
bad thing for everyone. You are just postponing having old people
walking to street begging for food and creating a situation where
even more people will have to do that. The pain could be reduced
by reforming the system now, but no one even wants to discuss it.
I will probably do ok, but the people you so much want to protect
will suffer the most.

>
> >Never had money in a bank, S&L, or Credit Union that had any
> >financial problems.
>
> Doesn't mean you ain't paying for S&L financial problems.
> http://www.synge.com/scandals/greedscandals/greedscandals_s&lscandal.html
>
> "From about 1980 to 1986, Keating and other S&L owners defrauded
> customers by selling them millions of dollars in worthless bonds. As a
> result, dozens of major Savings and Loan institutions collapsed, and
> thousands of people worldwide would have lost their life savings had
> not the American government (i.e., the taxpayers) bailed out the S&Ls
> at the eventual estimated cost of a mind-boggling $1.4 trillion.
> Keating was released from prison in 1996 after serving just half his
> sentence."
>
> Whether you were working then or not, you're *still* paying for that.
> Maybe half a trillion of that came out of the SS "fund." Who knows?
> Point is, the gov you becry for providing a SS program is the same one
> that provides a good measure of *business security* (BS?) in this
> country, whether by regulation or outright dipping into taxpayers'
> pockets.
> You've got to see things with broader vision.

I wasn't in favor of the S&L bailout and don't like paying for it.
Still, it's small change compared to SS and Medicare. Perspective
is important also.

>
> > Company penson funds make me nervous,
> >but they are the same crap that the government is peddling with
> >SS. Anyone who tells you they can guarantee some specific payout
> >in the future is someone you should avoid doing business with if
> >possible.
> >
> Sorry. The U.S. gov has been doing just that for more than half a
> century. They call it Social Security.

And you see where it is leading.

>
> >Think portfolio diversity when you plan for retirement. I
> >would never depend on any one source of retirement income.
> >SS, I would consider high risk for anyone under 45.
> >
> You go right ahead with portfolio development.
> Joe factory worker, who will never have a portfolio, or Jill computer
> professional, whose portfolio goes bust after her job is off-shored,
> will be counting on that SS.
> And you will be so rich by the time you retire, that SS won't even
> cross your mind anymore.

You should show more concern for Joe and Jill. They will suffer
far more when the federal government is being sold at auction
than anything they have suffered so far.

-Tom

baron48
July 9th 03, 06:59 PM
Victor Smith > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 08:34:08 -0700, Dennis > wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:36:02 GMT, Victor Smith
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On 7 Jul 2003 11:59:46 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
> >>>You could try preparing for your own retirement and not believing
> >>>in government fairy tales.
> >>
> >>If you trust Wall Street, banks and company pension funds more than
> >>your own gov, wherein you have some sayso, more power to you.
> >
> >Got this one exactly ass-backwards. I get to choose precisely which
> >stocks, banks and companies I want to invest my retirement in (or
> >not). As an individual, I don't have much say at all in what my
> >government does -- I'm stuck with the rest of the herd.
> >
> >the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
>
> Beg to differ. Despite the multitude of choices (and I personally
> believe in making choices beyond SS), they could all turn out sour.
> Choice is not surety.
> There is nothing as secure as SS, meager as it is, because you have a
> direct vote in its solvency.

Everyone has a vote in it whether they contribute $1 or $1,000,000.
That is the a large part of the problem.

> No company has as many shareholders.

You are not a "shareholder" in SS. There is no relationship between
how much you "invest" in SS and much control you have over it.

> I invite you to name one other "investment" that has paid as much to
> so many.

The stock market has been a far better investment. Most people paying
in now will get less from SS than they put in even if it actually pays
out what it promises. A guaranteed loss is a ****-poor investment in
case you haven't heard. And then there is the fact that it is $6 trillion
in the hole and growing worse by the day.

> There is a reason they called it "Social Security"
> It ain't going away.

It's going to change. Just a question of who gets screwed the most.

> Not without substitutes that you'd probably find
> more unpalatable than SS itself.

There are already plenty of good substitutes as already discussed.
Stuff the money in your mattress and get a better return.

-Tom

baron48
July 9th 03, 06:59 PM
Victor Smith > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 08:34:08 -0700, Dennis > wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:36:02 GMT, Victor Smith
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On 7 Jul 2003 11:59:46 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
> >>>You could try preparing for your own retirement and not believing
> >>>in government fairy tales.
> >>
> >>If you trust Wall Street, banks and company pension funds more than
> >>your own gov, wherein you have some sayso, more power to you.
> >
> >Got this one exactly ass-backwards. I get to choose precisely which
> >stocks, banks and companies I want to invest my retirement in (or
> >not). As an individual, I don't have much say at all in what my
> >government does -- I'm stuck with the rest of the herd.
> >
> >the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
>
> Beg to differ. Despite the multitude of choices (and I personally
> believe in making choices beyond SS), they could all turn out sour.
> Choice is not surety.
> There is nothing as secure as SS, meager as it is, because you have a
> direct vote in its solvency.

Everyone has a vote in it whether they contribute $1 or $1,000,000.
That is the a large part of the problem.

> No company has as many shareholders.

You are not a "shareholder" in SS. There is no relationship between
how much you "invest" in SS and much control you have over it.

> I invite you to name one other "investment" that has paid as much to
> so many.

The stock market has been a far better investment. Most people paying
in now will get less from SS than they put in even if it actually pays
out what it promises. A guaranteed loss is a ****-poor investment in
case you haven't heard. And then there is the fact that it is $6 trillion
in the hole and growing worse by the day.

> There is a reason they called it "Social Security"
> It ain't going away.

It's going to change. Just a question of who gets screwed the most.

> Not without substitutes that you'd probably find
> more unpalatable than SS itself.

There are already plenty of good substitutes as already discussed.
Stuff the money in your mattress and get a better return.

-Tom

Dennis
July 9th 03, 07:24 PM
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 04:46:18 -0500, Albert Wagner >
wrote:

>On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:38:41 -0700
>Dennis > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:49:06 -0500, Albert Wagner >
>> wrote:
><snip>
>> >Of course I see a problem. But the solution is not to spew vitriol
>> >at every elderly person you encounter.
>>
>> There ya go again... Albert, Albert -- I don't make fun of every
>> addle-pated old geezer I come across -- only you.
>
>Thank you. Mocking is the tactic of one who cannot compose a reasoned
>and rational response. I am flattered when you are so flustered that
>your replies degenerate into silliness.

The choice is not between what I can and cannot do, but rather what I
find more entertaining.

As many have pointed out, no one will change anyone else's opinion
with what they post on UseNet. So why not enjoy myself and play with
an pompous blowhard when one virtually begs to be toyed with?

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Dennis
July 9th 03, 07:24 PM
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 04:46:18 -0500, Albert Wagner >
wrote:

>On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:38:41 -0700
>Dennis > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:49:06 -0500, Albert Wagner >
>> wrote:
><snip>
>> >Of course I see a problem. But the solution is not to spew vitriol
>> >at every elderly person you encounter.
>>
>> There ya go again... Albert, Albert -- I don't make fun of every
>> addle-pated old geezer I come across -- only you.
>
>Thank you. Mocking is the tactic of one who cannot compose a reasoned
>and rational response. I am flattered when you are so flustered that
>your replies degenerate into silliness.

The choice is not between what I can and cannot do, but rather what I
find more entertaining.

As many have pointed out, no one will change anyone else's opinion
with what they post on UseNet. So why not enjoy myself and play with
an pompous blowhard when one virtually begs to be toyed with?

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Dennis
July 9th 03, 09:49 PM
On 09 Jul 2003 18:19:27 GMT, (JoelnCaryn)
wrote:

>>As many have pointed out, no one will change anyone else's opinion
>>with what they post on UseNet.
>
>You know, I don't think that's true.
>
>I change my mind *all the time* based on good arguments. Should I ever run
>across one on Usenet, the medium wouldn't prevent my considering it with an
>open mind.

Agreed, if that ever happened I would reconsider. But I'm not holding
my breath. :-)

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Dennis
July 9th 03, 09:49 PM
On 09 Jul 2003 18:19:27 GMT, (JoelnCaryn)
wrote:

>>As many have pointed out, no one will change anyone else's opinion
>>with what they post on UseNet.
>
>You know, I don't think that's true.
>
>I change my mind *all the time* based on good arguments. Should I ever run
>across one on Usenet, the medium wouldn't prevent my considering it with an
>open mind.

Agreed, if that ever happened I would reconsider. But I'm not holding
my breath. :-)

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Elizabeth
July 9th 03, 10:27 PM
> >> >> The SS money you collect is coming out
> >> >> of my paycheck. Now, where do you suppose my SS money will come
> >> >from> when I retire?
> >> >
> >> From my children and grandchildren. Same as always.
> >>
> >> And you don't see a problem with that, given that there are fewer of
> >> them (vs. us Baby Boomers) and that the price of maintaining seniors
> >> is escalating the way it is?

Seniors are generally not involved in crime and illegal drugs. They are not
having out-of-wedlock babies/crack babies and are not receiving WIC, food
stamps, AFDC, free school breakfasts and lunches. When they were raising
their families they didn't get a deduction for child care or a child credit.

EBBY

Elizabeth
July 9th 03, 10:27 PM
> >> >> The SS money you collect is coming out
> >> >> of my paycheck. Now, where do you suppose my SS money will come
> >> >from> when I retire?
> >> >
> >> From my children and grandchildren. Same as always.
> >>
> >> And you don't see a problem with that, given that there are fewer of
> >> them (vs. us Baby Boomers) and that the price of maintaining seniors
> >> is escalating the way it is?

Seniors are generally not involved in crime and illegal drugs. They are not
having out-of-wedlock babies/crack babies and are not receiving WIC, food
stamps, AFDC, free school breakfasts and lunches. When they were raising
their families they didn't get a deduction for child care or a child credit.

EBBY

Dennis
July 9th 03, 11:05 PM
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:27:52 -0500, "Elizabeth" >
wrote:

>> >> >> The SS money you collect is coming out
>> >> >> of my paycheck. Now, where do you suppose my SS money will come
>> >> >from> when I retire?
>> >> >
>> >> From my children and grandchildren. Same as always.
>> >>
>> >> And you don't see a problem with that, given that there are fewer of
>> >> them (vs. us Baby Boomers) and that the price of maintaining seniors
>> >> is escalating the way it is?
>
>Seniors are generally not involved in crime and illegal drugs. They are not
>having out-of-wedlock babies/crack babies and are not receiving WIC, food
>stamps, AFDC, free school breakfasts and lunches. When they were raising
>their families they didn't get a deduction for child care or a child credit.

All very interesting, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with the
current discussion.

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Dennis
July 9th 03, 11:05 PM
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:27:52 -0500, "Elizabeth" >
wrote:

>> >> >> The SS money you collect is coming out
>> >> >> of my paycheck. Now, where do you suppose my SS money will come
>> >> >from> when I retire?
>> >> >
>> >> From my children and grandchildren. Same as always.
>> >>
>> >> And you don't see a problem with that, given that there are fewer of
>> >> them (vs. us Baby Boomers) and that the price of maintaining seniors
>> >> is escalating the way it is?
>
>Seniors are generally not involved in crime and illegal drugs. They are not
>having out-of-wedlock babies/crack babies and are not receiving WIC, food
>stamps, AFDC, free school breakfasts and lunches. When they were raising
>their families they didn't get a deduction for child care or a child credit.

All very interesting, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with the
current discussion.

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

baron48
July 10th 03, 12:15 AM
Dennis > wrote in message >...
>
> As many have pointed out, no one will change anyone else's opinion
> with what they post on UseNet.

I'm sure that peoples' opinions of other people change based
on what they post on UseNet. Disagreement with some people on
a very narrow and specific political issues appears to be enough
for them to consider you an eternal enemy.

-Tom

baron48
July 10th 03, 12:15 AM
Dennis > wrote in message >...
>
> As many have pointed out, no one will change anyone else's opinion
> with what they post on UseNet.

I'm sure that peoples' opinions of other people change based
on what they post on UseNet. Disagreement with some people on
a very narrow and specific political issues appears to be enough
for them to consider you an eternal enemy.

-Tom

Precept
July 14th 03, 03:05 AM
Bob G. > wrote:

> I Do belong to AARP but their Auto Insurance quotes I have received in
> the past are completely out of line with my current or former insurers
> ..(Progressive ,AIG now Metlife auto).. Hartford was more then twice
> the amount then any of those three for the last 3 years at least...

And for me AARP was hundreds LESS than those same companies you mention.
Ah, the mysteries of underwriting!

P.

--
I'm reading a murder mystery where they bury the guy in corn starch. I
just got to the part where the plot thickens. (David Reihmer)

Precept
July 14th 03, 03:05 AM
Bob G. > wrote:

> I Do belong to AARP but their Auto Insurance quotes I have received in
> the past are completely out of line with my current or former insurers
> ..(Progressive ,AIG now Metlife auto).. Hartford was more then twice
> the amount then any of those three for the last 3 years at least...

And for me AARP was hundreds LESS than those same companies you mention.
Ah, the mysteries of underwriting!

P.

--
I'm reading a murder mystery where they bury the guy in corn starch. I
just got to the part where the plot thickens. (David Reihmer)

Bill Heyman
July 14th 03, 05:56 AM
"Precept" > wrote in message
.org...
| Bob G. > wrote:

-stuff snipped-

| I'm reading a murder mystery where they bury the guy in corn starch. I
| just got to the part where the plot thickens. (David Reihmer)

Ah, since corn starch thickens at 212 degrees, you must be reading a
"pot-boiler."

Bill "ducking and running" Heyman

Bill Heyman
July 14th 03, 05:56 AM
"Precept" > wrote in message
.org...
| Bob G. > wrote:

-stuff snipped-

| I'm reading a murder mystery where they bury the guy in corn starch. I
| just got to the part where the plot thickens. (David Reihmer)

Ah, since corn starch thickens at 212 degrees, you must be reading a
"pot-boiler."

Bill "ducking and running" Heyman

Google