NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

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?

The Federal government is not the only possible provider for senior
citizens (notice I didn't say the Feds were a solution).

Do you (Larry) really think that only Social Security prevents the streets
from being awash in homeless retirees?

Maybe families should care for each other. nah, that couldn't possibly work.



That's not the way FDR saw it.

so what?

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

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:30:29 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

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?

The Federal government is not the only possible provider for senior
citizens (notice I didn't say the Feds were a solution).

The federal government is the only entity that is not subject to
Enronization of workers retirement funds. Or do you know of others?

Do you (Larry) really think that only Social Security prevents the streets
from being awash in homeless retirees?

I believe that most workers are too shortsighted to provide for their
old age themselves. I have no source to support that, but I have
lived long enough to understand human behavior a bit.

Maybe families should care for each other. nah, that couldn't possibly work.


And what do you propose for those without families, or whose families
are unable to afford supporting older workers?



That's not the way FDR saw it.

so what?

So better minds than ours have hashed this issue out long ago, and
come to the conclusion that SSI was a beneficial plan in the '30s, and
I don't see how the situation has fundamentally changed from that
time.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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


FDR was wrong.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:06:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et:

FDR was wrong.

Oh, that completely explains it then.

Thanks to your comment, I understand the issue much more fully now.
How silly of me to respect the judgment of only U.S. president to have
been elected to more than two terms by our nation's people, guided our
nation through recovery from the Great Depression, and through World
War II. Your opinion clearly trumps FDR's. I forgot how omnipotent
ATC controllers are. Sorry. :-(

Larry Dighera wrote:



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


Again Larry, if you were to be intellectually honest you would find
that 'homeless' people are largely that way because of decisions
they have (or have not) made. It is not my responsibility to comphensate
others for their failure to be responsible. For some reason you
do... and so does socialistic governments. THIS is where we differ.

For example, if I, as a respinsible parent were confronted by my
child wanting to quit school, I would let them do it only if they
signed a legal document that stated they could make no claim
against me for future benefits. They voluntarily decided to
SQUANDER a free education for themsleves and I do not feel
responsible for the consequences of their actions.

This is never required of welfare recipients in this country...
but it should. Most of the ones I see drive a car (albeit an old
gas guzzler [which we subsidize]) and have a cell phone and several
children, more than likely cable or satellite TV etc. etc. They
are NOT poor.

People who live on the street CHOOSE that life Larry. How can you
argue that they can not find work when ILLEGALS who can't even speak
english risk their lives to cross a border to come here work?

I'm sorry, but your bleeding heart liberal-socialist ideas do NOT
work and do NOT hold water. They are not rationally justifiable.

-----
"In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as
possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other."

-Voltaire (1764)

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:06:52 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:



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


Again Larry, if you were to be intellectually honest you would find
that 'homeless' people are largely that way because of decisions
they have (or have not) made.

Apparently I'm not nearly as familiar with what the homeless do as you
must be to make that statement, but those homeless that I have seen,
appear to be _innately_ unemployable to me.

It is not my responsibility to comphensate [sic] others for their failure
to be responsible.

That seems like a reasonable statement. But it isn't humane to just
let them freeze to death in the streets. Surly our great nation is
better than that, isn't it?

For some reason you do... and so does socialistic governments.

I don't think it is our _responsibility_, but I do think caring for
the unemployable and/or cripples is desirable if not beneficial to
society by reducing crime, making the streets safer and more pleasant,
if not down right ennobling for our nation. And I believe that paying
ahead for the inevitable is prudent.

THIS is where we differ.

For example, if I, as a respinsible parent were confronted by my
child wanting to quit school, I would let them do it only if they
signed a legal document that stated they could make no claim
against me for future benefits. They voluntarily decided to
SQUANDER a free education for themsleves and I do not feel
responsible for the consequences of their actions.

While I might not agree with that, I can understand your reasoning in
arriving at that decision.

This is never required of welfare recipients in this country...
but it should.

Even if it were, they'd just not honor such a document, and we'd be
faced with a lot of frozen corpuses and streets that would be even
less safe to walk than we are currently. The problem of what to do
with cripples isn't going to go away by getting them to sign a
contract.

Most of the ones I see drive a car (albeit an old
gas guzzler [which we subsidize]) and have a cell phone and several
children, more than likely cable or satellite TV etc. etc. They
are NOT poor.

Welfare is a difficult issue. I don't pretend to have a solution to
the welfare issue.


People who live on the street CHOOSE that life Larry.

Some may. Some may also be so mentally unstable as to be forced into
homelessness. It's probably not fair to intimate that ALL street
people are capable of joining the majority of society.

How can you
argue that they can not find work when ILLEGALS who can't even speak
english risk their lives to cross a border to come here work?

If they are crazy, would you employ them?

I'm sorry, but your bleeding heart liberal-socialist ideas do NOT
work and do NOT hold water. They are not rationally justifiable.


Our opinions differ.

-----
"In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as
possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other."

-Voltaire (1764)



The true Axis Of Evil in America is our genius at marketing
coupled with the stupidity of our people. -- Bill Maher

Remember the prepends?

But it isn't humane to just
let them freeze to death in the streets.

Then give =your= money to them. Don't take =my= money from me for
=your= social programs. I have social programs of my own that I want my
money for, and that you are not contributing to.

I don't think it is our _responsibility_,

Then don't make it a law.

but I do think caring for the unemployable and/or
cripples is desirable if not beneficial to
society by reducing crime....

A feeding trough is an "attractive nuisance". It causes people to
depend on it. This makes our country weaker. If you can figure out how
to care for the truly needy without creating more needy, I'm listening.
I don't think it can be done by government.

How can you
argue that they can not find work when ILLEGALS who can't even speak
english risk their lives to cross a border to come here work?
If they are crazy, would you employ them?

How do you figure they are crazy?

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

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:49:51 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :

bourdon == burden

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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.


The nation does not need that guarantee.