Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that is admirable and I mean that sincerely. Yes, there are older people who are "shelter insecure" despite Social Security and Medicare. But there are also older people who make it work despite reduced circumstances. They find supplemental programs, they double up in housing, or even triple up, and share expenses. But I realize that's not always ideal, either.
Ideal is pensions, investments and SS. Three legged stool while not as prevalent is still in play. That is one of the reasons why those of us with the stool need to vote when we can for those who support
If not our representative we can still make campaign contributions to others elsewhere who support propping up the backstops.
Threads like this our good as they can highlight for folks the risk with their pensions and how they need to consider candidates positions on propping up. Gotta drum up support from the H—l yes community
you're correct, living under a bridge isn't exactly the streets.
now in the interest of full disclosure and to repeat your title. NO way in HELL!! would I accept my lifestyle being decimated through no fault of my own to an existence on social security. Now I recognize that many folks currently live in low cost of living areas and can survive on 24K a year.
Here in Philly it is not a life that anyone wants to have for their golden years. AND please remember they did not squander their money, etc etc. they did nothing but go to work for years, pay into their pension plans and do the right thing.
Oh yeah, by all means, yeah let's let them survive on social security.
not to mention the fact that many folks believe (not me) that social security will have to get it's act together. so all these people you are forcing to eke out an existence on social security what happens when that start to have cuts etc?
lol, talk about a case of "hey not my problem, let them starve".
Again, when we stop wasting money on the other stupidity and we start allowing our elected officials live off of social security and medicare, then come to me and say we NOW have a problem.
lastly you make it sound like these retirees are not tax paying citizens? so they are now probably getting doubly screwed.
You'd be surprised how many people do live in on Social Security, combined with supplemental programs. Many don't like to admit it, though.
I don't disagree with you, btw. My question is, should taxpayer bail out these the fat cats in the corporate sector? Here I say no. It's just plain lazy to say "sure, we always do, so why not?" I guess it's the path of least resistance. We have got to make the banks and Wall Street pay. Out the wazoo, if necessary. But there seems to be some taboo about that, and I can't understand why. My sister has a theory that many of the people getting screwed by these entities and their executives don't want to penalize them in the hopes that maybe some day, they might actually be in the same position and want the privileges available to them, too. That's a fantasy, of course.
Ideal is pensions, investments and SS. Three legged stool while not as prevalent is still in play. That is one of the reasons why those of us with the stool need to vote when we can for those who support
If not our representative we can still make campaign contributions to others elsewhere who support propping up the backstops.
Threads like this our good as they can highlight for folks the risk with their pensions and how they need to consider candidates positions on propping up. Gotta drum up support from the H—l yes community
Yes, that is the three legged stool. But you do realize that doing away with Glass-Steagall (a bi-partisan screwing if there ever was one) knocked out the "investments" leg for many and harmed the savers, right?
You'd be surprised how many people do live in on Social Security, combined with supplemental programs. Many don't like to admit it, though.
I don't disagree with you, btw. My question is, should taxpayer bail out these the fat cats in the corporate sector? Here I say no. It's just plain lazy to say "sure, we always do, so why not?" I guess it's the path of least resistance. We have got to make the banks and Wall Street pay. Out the wazoo, if necessary. But there seems to be some taboo about that, and I can't understand why. My sister has a theory that many of the people getting screwed by these entities and their executives don't want to penalize them in the hopes that maybe some day, they might actually be in the same position and want the privileges available to them, too. That's a fantasy, of course.
In theory, I agree with you. I don’t know why you get so much flak here. I’m saying that even though I have a corporate pension, it was underfunded for years, but now it’s ok due to the smart CEO. But I never counted on my pension, it was pure luck that I got it somehow.
But when is it going to stop, we’re on the hooks for everything now, we as taxpayers. We need to shore up SS and Medicare, and I think that’s fair. These programs were social promises years ago and should be continued. Same with Medicaid and SSDI.
In theory, I agree with you. I don’t know why you get so much flak here. I’m saying that even though I have a corporate pension, it was underfunded for years, but now it’s ok due to the smart CEO. But I never counted on my pension, it was pure luck that I got it somehow.
But when is it going to stop, we’re on the hooks for everything now, we as taxpayers. We need to shore up SS and Medicare, and I think that’s fair. These programs were social promises years ago and should be continued. Same with Medicaid and SSDI.
I don't know, either. You'd think I'd posted in favor of throwing all retired folks into the streets to fend for themselves.
I think it is misunderstanding. My sister likes to tell the story of a friend of hers who was fairly high up in the management of a certain division of GE. They were driving around one day and he saw some postal worker doing his rounds, delivering the mail. He practically turned purple and started raving about how he shouldn't have to subsidize the guy's retirement. When the troubles started with GE, he decided to take early retirement and get what pension he could. The shoe is on the other foot now.
Speaking of GE, I suspect that's the main reason we're hearing about this issue now. There's practically nothing left of it, and I believe the pensions are in trouble. So while it is far from the only company dealing with the issue, it's probably the most high-profile.
Yes, that is the three legged stool. But you do realize that doing away with Glass-Steagall (a bi-partisan screwing if there ever was one) knocked out the "investments" leg for many and harmed the savers, right?
Yes, that is the three legged stool. But you do realize that doing away with Glass-Steagall (a bi-partisan screwing if there ever was one) knocked out the "investments" leg for many and harmed the savers, right?
I thought that was Bill Clinton that did away with Glass-Steagall, he signed it.
I have learned this concept of three legged stool from the company that I’m receiving my pension from. Before that I was only counting my retirement account.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
