NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:43:49 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Jose" wrote in message
t...

Well, if your employer didn't have to double it, your salary might well be
higher by that amount.


And you'd be free to invest it in a better plan than social security.


But the nation wouldn't be guaranteed that you wouldn't become a
bourdon in your years of retirement, if your choice of retirement plan
turned out the way it did for Enron employees.

Larry Dighera wrote:


But the nation wouldn't be guaranteed that you wouldn't become a
bourdon in your years of retirement, if your choice of retirement plan
turned out the way it did for Enron employees.


They are only a burden (on taxpayers) because politicians have
made it a policy to hand out money to everybody.

Social Security is a huge problem Larry, it is not a good program.
It hasn't worked... its a pyramid scheme full of fraud and destined
for failure withouth continual bailouts from hard working Americans.

If it were a private business it would have gone broke years ago
and far fewer people would be hurt in the long run.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:57:10 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:


But the nation wouldn't be guaranteed that you wouldn't become a
bourdon in your years of retirement, if your choice of retirement plan
turned out the way it did for Enron employees.


They are only a burden (on taxpayers) because politicians have
made it a policy to hand out money to everybody.


Wouldn't you characterize streets awash in homeless retirees a burden
on society?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:57:10 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :


They are only a burden (on taxpayers) because politicians have
made it a policy to hand out money to everybody.


Wouldn't you characterize streets awash in homeless retirees a burden
on society?


Many companies today allow there workers to opt out of health care, and
receive the dollars saved, by furnishing some type of certification of
insurance elsewhere. Usually a working spouse with family benefits.

I see no reason why anyone that can supply adiquate investment information
on their tax return, should not be allowed to receive a refund of all SS and
FICA monies, or simply avoid the deduction to begin with. Yes, these
investments would have to "insured or qualified" by the FDIC or some such
entity, but it's very workable. There would be dozens, if not hundreds of
investment opportunities tailored to suit with in weeks.

But the problem is, the fed has let the SS system get well behind the curve.
If they don't "tax us today", the system supposedly funded by today's
receipents long ago, would colapse. So in reality, money invested by today's
receipents long ago, has been spent by the fed, the people that were
supposed to be insuring their furture. And the only way they can keep their
promise, is to tax us today.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:18:11 -0500, "Maxwell"
wrote in :

But the problem is, the fed has let the SS system get well behind the curve.
If they don't "tax us today", the system supposedly funded by today's
receipents long ago, would colapse. So in reality, money invested by today's
receipents long ago, has been spent by the fed, the people that were
supposed to be insuring their furture.

The way I understand it, Congress has used the money generated by SSI
payments to fund other federal spending. And now government is faced
with the issue of a shortfall in funding SSI recipients as a result of
the "baby-boom" bulge in the retirement aged population.

The way I understand it, Congress has used the money generated by SSI
payments to fund other federal spending. And now government is faced
with the issue of a shortfall in funding SSI recipients as a result of
the "baby-boom" bulge in the retirement aged population.

Also, when SSI started, there were a huge number of wage earners who
were being tapped to pay for the retirements of a small number of
workers. This spread the burden around very thinly. The pyramid has
inverted.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
et...
The way I understand it, Congress has used the money generated by SSI
payments to fund other federal spending. And now government is faced
with the issue of a shortfall in funding SSI recipients as a result of
the "baby-boom" bulge in the retirement aged population.

Also, when SSI started, there were a huge number of wage earners who were
being tapped to pay for the retirements of a small number of workers.
This spread the burden around very thinly. The pyramid has inverted.

Jose

Agreed. I think people living longer for a number of reasons has added to
the list as well.

My point is, the government TAKES our money to fund our retirement because
we all realize far too many people cannot be trusted to fund their own
retirement. But the government themselves have proven they can't be trusted
with the money as either.

That's why it ticks me that I can't opt out and do my own thing. We all know
there are much better deals to be had. And many of us would manage our own
fund much better than the fed has.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

The way I understand it, Congress has used the money generated by SSI
payments to fund other federal spending. And now government is faced
with the issue of a shortfall in funding SSI recipients as a result of
the "baby-boom" bulge in the retirement aged population.

That's not the only cause of the shortfall.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

But the nation wouldn't be guaranteed that you wouldn't become a
bourdon in your years of retirement, if your choice of retirement plan
turned out the way it did for Enron employees.

They are only a burden (on taxpayers) because politicians have
made it a policy to hand out money to everybody.

Wouldn't you characterize streets awash in homeless retirees a burden
on society?

it's not an either-or situation...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:38:04 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:


Wouldn't you characterize streets awash in homeless retirees a burden
on society?

it's not an either-or situation...

What is your rationale for that statement? That's not the way FDR saw
it.