boycott united forever

Mike Rapoport wrote:
It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company remaining
in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund the pension
plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds are
professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to
pay the promised benefits.

One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be just that:
"professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to
pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.

The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of their
own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves manage.
When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at your own risk.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
remaining in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund
the pension plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds
are professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be
enough to pay the promised benefits.

One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be
just that:
"professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
to
pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.

The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of
their
own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves
manage.
When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at
your own risk.


I agree with most of what you say.

Social Security was a well thought out, adequately funded program when it
was inplemented in 1935. The problem came when people started looking at it
as a retirement program. In 1935, life expectancy was 63. Social Security
was envisioned as insurance against being injured or killed on the job and
also it would provide income if you lived past 65 an age where you would be
uncompetitive in the workforce. It was a reasonable approach that got
derailed when the underlying assumptions started to change (life expectancy)
and the program didn't change with it.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
. net...

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
remaining in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund
the pension plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds
are professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be
enough to pay the promised benefits.

One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be
just that:
"professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
to
pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.

The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of
their
own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves
manage.
When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at
your own risk.


I agree with most of what you say.

Social Security was a well thought out, adequately funded program when it
was inplemented in 1935.

Well thought out? You're kidding!!!

The problem came when people started looking at it
as a retirement program. In 1935, life expectancy was 63.

And just 5 years earlier it was 49. Now, if it was so "well thought
out"...ah, forget it. Several economists predicted it was going to be a
boondoggle before the ink was dry of FDR's signiture.

The only thinking involved was those grabbing for power.

Social Security
was envisioned as insurance against being injured or killed on the job and
also it would provide income if you lived past 65 an age where you would
be
uncompetitive in the workforce.

It ws, and it's name defined, that it was SUPPLEMENTAL.

It was also VOLUNTARY.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...n/1005355.html



It was a reasonable approach that got

Gee, the same system failed every where else...how reasonable is that?


derailed when the underlying assumptions started to change (life
expectancy)
and the program didn't change with it.

Lord Acton and James Madison come to mind.

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:26:11 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

Social Security was a well thought out, adequately funded program when it
was inplemented in 1935.

It was a Ponzi scheme, whereby the people bailing out first were
repaid by the entry fees of those who joined later. It worked as long
as the labor force grew faster than the retirement community.

Then somebody discovered the link between cigarettes and lung cancer,
and bingo! One of my pals is celebrating his 90th birthday in the
Bahamas next February. He got remarried last year. He no longer sails
to the Bahamas every fall, but he sails a small boat every day when
he's down there.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:26:11 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

In 1935, life expectancy was 63.

Probably it was a bit higher than that, but your premise is sound.
Ever wonder why the magic figure of 65 as the retirement age?

Because when Germany instituted the first old-age pension in the 19th
century, Otto von Bismark (whose idea it was) asked an economist to
tell him at what age most workers were already dead. The answer: 65.
So you got the old-age pension only if you beat the odds.

Today that would kick in at, what, 77?



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
remaining
in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund the
pension
plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds are
professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
to
pay the promised benefits.

One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be
just that:
"professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
to
pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.

The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of
their
own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves
manage.
When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at
your own risk.


The term is "beholden".

When you demand the taxpayers bail you out of your stupid and adolescent
decisions, the term is "parasite".