OT - So Michael...

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> Joe wrote:
>>
>> Thanks to the current administration (had to get that jab in there),
>> fiscal America is sinking like a stone.
>
> You do know that all this sub-prime mess got rolling under Clinton?

>cough< republican congress

)

"dwight" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Dwight, do you really think 20,000,000 Mexicans earning minimum wage are
>> going to make a dent in the tab the boomers are going to rack up? We
>> need 20,000,000 phDs earning $250k per year just pay for the Geritol
>> supply.
>
> Michael, I fully expect to die one day.
>
> It could be today, it could be another forty years, but one day I am going
> to die. I never thought I'd see 80, but if I make it to 72, I'll consider
> myself on Bonus Time.
>
> And I never expected the Gov'mint to take care of me, either. Frankly,
> being solidly middle class, I think it's up to me to do that. Gov'mint
> assistance is for those who need it.

And yet most "PRO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE" folks don't seem the least bit
bothered by those bloated systems totally inefficient operations, or the
fact that many of the people consuming those resources DO NOT NEED it...
Why is that Dwight?


>
> And somewhere around my 45th birthday, I came to the realization that
> there would be no Social Security benefits there for me when I retired. I
> don't believe in fiscal shell games. My official retirement age was bumped
> to 67, and I expect it'll be bumped again (70?). But by the time I get
> there, I'll find out that I don't qualify (Catch 22).
>
> Social Security was a great idea in its day, but it's a program that
> really shouldn't exist, especially on the grand scale it has become. Hell,
> given today's life expectancies, benefits shouldn't even kick in until we
> reach the age of 75 now. The single biggest reason that the system is
> bankrupt (aside from the fact that all of the money was stolen) is that we
> still pretend that retirement age should be 65 (or 62 for those of us who
> can).
>
> dwight
>
>

dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Thanks to the current administration (had to get that jab in there),
>>> fiscal America is sinking like a stone.
>> You do know that all this sub-prime mess got rolling under Clinton?
>
>> cough< republican congress

Who was it that said "The buck stops here"?

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
news:wgKqj.9952$bs4.5930@trndny01...
>
> "dwight" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Dwight, do you really think 20,000,000 Mexicans earning minimum wage are
>>> going to make a dent in the tab the boomers are going to rack up? We
>>> need 20,000,000 phDs earning $250k per year just pay for the Geritol
>>> supply.
>>
>> Michael, I fully expect to die one day.
>>
>> It could be today, it could be another forty years, but one day I am
>> going to die. I never thought I'd see 80, but if I make it to 72, I'll
>> consider myself on Bonus Time.
>>
>> And I never expected the Gov'mint to take care of me, either. Frankly,
>> being solidly middle class, I think it's up to me to do that. Gov'mint
>> assistance is for those who need it.
>
> And yet most "PRO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE" folks don't seem the least bit
> bothered by those bloated systems totally inefficient operations, or the
> fact that many of the people consuming those resources DO NOT NEED it...
> Why is that Dwight?

It's the Theory of What's Owed.

To me, Social Security was a temporary measure to help the country withstand
the Depression. There was no such thing before. Problem is, I've been
donating into the fund all of my working life, with the expectation of
getting my just reward when I retire. Therefore, I expect Social Security to
still be in existence in 14 years.

When SS was begun, retirement age was set at 65, based upon the actuarial
table of the day. Odds were, if you reached 65 you were doing pretty damn
good. It's been set at 65 ever since, even though our life expectancy has
increased since.

So:

1) Retirees have been collecting far more in benefits than was ever
envisioned;
2) The fund was raped and put into the general population, and was spent a
long, long time ago;
3) The time to start weaning the country off of SS was just after World War
II, when the economy was booming.

But now, in the 21st century, we've all still bought into the idea that the
federal government is going to subsidize our retirement. Personally, I fully
expect to be cheated, at least to some percentage. I feel sorry for the
20-somethings just starting out, who are paying into a system that will not
be there for them.

Still, I've been paying into SS for over 30 years now. In all of that time,
I've been told to expect a payout when I retire. In fact, the SS
Administration takes pains to REMIND me of this fact every year, sending me
a statement of my anticipated benefits. This has become a contract between
me and the federal government, where - I don't believe - it was never
intended to be such. Is there any wonder that I (and I use the empirical
"I") have come to expect those benefits, to plan my personal finances around
it?

The more I make, the more my benefits will be. Does this make sense? Sure,
from a strictly quid pro quo basis, I SHOULD get higher benefits than
someone who makes less. I pay in more, I should take out more.

But what's the purpose of Social Security?

No, really - what was it for?

I'm asking. I don't know.

Every year, politicians court the senior voters in this country, promising
that Social Security will be strengthened or changed in some way to
guarantee continued benefits. To come out and promote the end of this public
welfare system would be suicide for any politician. But, seriously, how can
it continue? There's no money now, much more will be needed in the near
future, and the system, by all accounts, cannot sustain itself. In order to
keep the "promise" of Social Security, that funding is going to have to come
from somewhere else. (And that somewhere else could very well be something
we need a heck of a lot more than Social Security.)

I say, turn the thing around.

First, increase the retirement age (for benefits) to 72, immediately.

Second, admit the truth. Let the 20-somethings and 30-somethings immediately
divert what they would pay for Social Security into another retirement fund,
whether a 401(k) (and don't get me started about those!) or some other
personal account. Be very clear that this generation HAS to save for
retirement and get a marketing firm to reinforce the positives of actually
SAVING. Train them to prepare for their own retirement, just as we've
trained whole generations to expect to feed from the public trough.

Third, guarantee benefits to all those within 10 years of retirement, and
keep the promise made to those people (i.e.: they get to retire at 67). For
those now between the ages of 47 and 57, admit that they will not be
receiving their full benefits and that their retirement age has been upped.
Between 37 and 47, you'll be getting even less in benefits. 27 to 37 have
already paid into the system, and should get some sort of payback. If you're
under 27 today, forget it. Thanks for whatever you've already paid in. We
appreciate it.

Next, increase the minimum payout for those who haven't earned a healthy
wage during their lives, so that they can at least afford Friskies for their
meals in their cardboard boxes. And, I'm sorry, but DEcrease the benefits
for those who have earned a given amount during the final 10 years before
retirement. Set it at some nice figure, like $250,000, but this is a clear
need for robbing from the rich to support the poor.

This would be my starting point. Now, obviously, many of those who really
don't need the benefits will complain long and loud about being "cheated."
Nobody wants money taken from them.

But, again, we've trained our citizens to expect retirement welfare, we can
untrain them. Given another 70 years or so, I'm sure they'll get over it.

Basically, I'm just sick and tired of the fraud and the lies about Social
Security every four years. It's really not there now, and (fiscally) we
cannot pretend it will be there very much longer. The money that came out of
the paycheck I got yesterday was sent out in benefits long before it came
out of my pocket.

What started out as a good idea has been raped, pillaged, and brutalized by
generations of Congressmen, to the point that it died long ago. Yet they
continue the myth that it's still salvageable, still viable, just so they
can get those senior votes.

A pox on all their houses.

dwight

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> dwight wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> Thanks to the current administration (had to get that jab in there),
>>>> fiscal America is sinking like a stone.
>>> You do know that all this sub-prime mess got rolling under Clinton?
>>
>>> cough< republican congress
>
> Who was it that said "The buck stops here"?

Wasn't ME.

I'm the ATM for my family. I'm Buck Teflon. I take out $20 and hand it over
that night.

I always tell 'em, "I know where to get more," but, jeez, it'd be nice to
have some currency in my wallet for more than 24 hours.

dwight

dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>> Thanks to the current administration (had to get that jab in there),
>>>>> fiscal America is sinking like a stone.
>>>> You do know that all this sub-prime mess got rolling under Clinton?
>>>> cough< republican congress
>> Who was it that said "The buck stops here"?
>
> Wasn't ME.
>
> I'm the ATM for my family. I'm Buck Teflon. I take out $20 and hand it over
> that night.
>
> I always tell 'em, "I know where to get more," but, jeez, it'd be nice to
> have some currency in my wallet for more than 24 hours.

You first mistake was telling them you know where to get more. Just
tell them the money tree died and the new one won't mature and bare
fruit for several years.

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> dwight wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> dwight wrote:
>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks to the current administration (had to get that jab in there),
>>>>>> fiscal America is sinking like a stone.
>>>>> You do know that all this sub-prime mess got rolling under Clinton?
>>>>> cough< republican congress
>>> Who was it that said "The buck stops here"?
>>
>> Wasn't ME.
>>
>> I'm the ATM for my family. I'm Buck Teflon. I take out $20 and hand it
>> over that night.
>>
>> I always tell 'em, "I know where to get more," but, jeez, it'd be nice to
>> have some currency in my wallet for more than 24 hours.
>
> You first mistake was telling them you know where to get more. Just tell
> them the money tree died and the new one won't mature and bare fruit for
> several years.

Fine, but half the tree belongs to my wife.

The problem I have with HER is that she's actually the one that will go to
an ATM and withdraw $20. That's ridiculous. I understand frugality, but I
also deal well with reality, and taking out $20 doesn't save you money, it
just makes you go back to the ATM more often.

Me, I take out $100. Doesn't mean I spend it faster, just means that I don't
have to go back the next day.

Actually... my wife doesn't have to go back the next day either. She's got
me. So it all evens out.

dwight

To heck with all this nonsense.

I've got the Canon Rebel XT, and now I'm reading about the new Rebel XSi.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...er/PMA2008.jsp

Do I want one?

)

dwight wrote:
> To heck with all this nonsense.
>
> I've got the Canon Rebel XT, and now I'm reading about the new Rebel XSi.
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...er/PMA2008.jsp
>
> Do I want one?

I find it interesting that the Rebel now has the mega pixel density of
their top of the line camera of just a couple of years ago. I haven't
read up much on this camera and am somewhat surprised Canon released it
so soon after the XTi. I still have the original Rebel and think ehat
when I upgrade it will be the 40D. I like its size better for starters.

dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks to the current administration (had to get that jab in there),
>>>>>>> fiscal America is sinking like a stone.
>>>>>> You do know that all this sub-prime mess got rolling under Clinton?
>>>>>> cough< republican congress
>>>> Who was it that said "The buck stops here"?
>>> Wasn't ME.
>>>
>>> I'm the ATM for my family. I'm Buck Teflon. I take out $20 and hand it
>>> over that night.
>>>
>>> I always tell 'em, "I know where to get more," but, jeez, it'd be nice to
>>> have some currency in my wallet for more than 24 hours.
>> You first mistake was telling them you know where to get more. Just tell
>> them the money tree died and the new one won't mature and bare fruit for
>> several years.
>
> Fine, but half the tree belongs to my wife.
>
> The problem I have with HER is that she's actually the one that will go to
> an ATM and withdraw $20. That's ridiculous. I understand frugality, but I
> also deal well with reality, and taking out $20 doesn't save you money, it
> just makes you go back to the ATM more often.
>
> Me, I take out $100. Doesn't mean I spend it faster, just means that I don't
> have to go back the next day.

Since I work from home, I could easily live for a month on $100 cash.

> Actually... my wife doesn't have to go back the next day either. She's got
> me. So it all evens out.