NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

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.

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.

The population distribution has changed, and the number of entitled
people has changed.

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

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

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?

1) Your faith in the federal government is not justified. There is nothing that
absolutely guarentees that the Feds won't stop social security (after all,
social security is not a constitutional requirement of the federal government).

2) Protection from "Enronization" is a requirement? what would constitute
such protection?




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.

You didn't answer the question. Do you believe that ONLY social security
prevent the streets from being awash in homeless retirees?




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?

Charities (which are NOT subject to the bureaucratic nonsense of DC).
I, for one, would have more money to give to charities, if my tax burden was
lower.

Neighbors (haven't you ever seen people helping people?)



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,

hmmm, "beneficial" to who?

Are you seriously suggesting that everything decided 70 years ago
can't be reevaluated in the context of today's needs and abilities?


and
I don't see how the situation has fundamentally changed from that
time.

"I don't see how the situation..." no kidding that you don't see it.

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

Bob Noel wrote:


and
I don't see how the situation has fundamentally changed from that
time.


"I don't see how the situation..." no kidding that you don't see it.


The definition of irrational is not being able to accept or even
see things as they really are.

Larry Dighera wrote:
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?
Your right, if people make stupid choices in their selections of
retirement funds they can get hurt. Putting all your money into a
single company is a bad idea but it's your choice as opposed to SS where
your still putting your money into a single company ( US GOV ) but you
have to hope it's going to be ok. From what I know, none of the Enron
employees lost their retirement money if it was not in Enron stock.

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
...

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


The federal government is just as subject to "Enronization" of workers
retirement funds as Enron.