"dwight" <tfrog93@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:GKWdncKBurFTZDfanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Michael Johnson" <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:tOSdnXLHwvxf4jfanZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> 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
>
>
|
