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.
We should not farm solutions to personal problems (how to care for aging parents) out to the government.
Most people raised children at some point. You could leave a young child (or school-aged child during sumer vacation) home alone no easier than an elderly person.
How do people care for children in modern society?
The majority of technical jobs for people with advanced degrees allow for working from home, or flexible schedules. Such jobs are not hard to find.
I am not saying this is easy to do, I am saying it is not the government's responsibility to take care of us in our retirement. It is not something the government has the right to do, and it is also not something the government can afford to do. In an ideal society government would take care of us, but the government is paying off of a maxed-out credit card right now. When you max out your credit card, you don't open a new one, you buckle your belt tighter and eat nothing but pasta until you pay off the balance. Does that make sense?
First you say it's not the government's responsibility to help us care for aging parents, then you say in an ideal situation the government would take care of us.
You think Americans would be able to care for parents because they have children at home, anyway? That doesn't compute. My children were out of the house (and living hundreds and even thousands of miles away) long before my then-spouse's parents were becoming infirm. (My parents died long ago.)
Then you are mixing traditional family roles with our current financial situation.
I would suggest your views would be clearer if you compared apples to apples.
End Social Security and Medicare immediately, they are Socialist Programs and """Real Americans"""don't need them. Give back whatever the person has paid in minus what they have recieved
There you go. A True America speaking like a non-parasite true American
I'd ask you, but you're not quite 75, and obviously never worked very hard to do anything but talk a lot.
On the other hand, I could ask my own father, who is 74. But he's too busy working and doing all the stuff he still likes to do. He never intended to have the government provide his retirement for him, so his SS Checks don't play much of a part in his life.
Point 2: The utter selfishness of he who is sucking at the government teat knows no bounds.
Not to mention the utter (or should I say "udder") selfishiness of the ruling elite's who set up such schemes merely to enhance their power control over the people by getting them addicted to Government largess and less reliant upon themselves.
Shame to all parties involved (except those not drawing from system).
First you say it's not the government's responsibility to help us care for aging parents, then you say in an ideal situation the government would take care of us.
You think Americans would be able to care for parents because they have children at home, anyway? That doesn't compute. My children were out of the house (and living hundreds and even thousands of miles away) long before my then-spouse's parents were becoming infirm. (My parents died long ago.)
Then you are mixing traditional family roles with our current financial situation.
I would suggest your views would be clearer if you compared apples to apples.
Do you understand that money has to come from somewhere? Do you understand that the US government owes over $110,000 for every US Citizen in national debt? And you want to add to that?
I am saying it isn't the governments job. I am saying in this current economic climate it is nothing short of irresponsible to do anything but cut programs. Does THAT make sense? Please respond to the financial points I have made.
You asked how a family could take care of an infirm parent, and I am asking you how that is different from taking care of a child. In both situations the individual is caring for someone who cannot take care of themselves.
Let me ask you this - would you, today, buy a new TV and send the bill to your kids, thinking "well, they SHOULD be able to figure out how to pay for it". That is what the government is doing to us. How can you in good conscience allow the debt which is generated by social security to be passed to the next generation? Do you care that little about you children?
"""Real Americans """ (i.e., radical fringe libertarian nut cases) need (and want) everyone else to march double file off piers and into the sea. That is the basic summary of the moral code of "Real Americans" as they represent themselves in discussion forums.
"Real Americans" don't need public schools, they can teach their own children calculus and physics and economics and philosophy and pre-med and engineering. "Real Americans" don't need roads, they can drive their 4x4 SUVs anywhere. "Real Americans' don't need police, they are armed and just kill everybody who breaks "their" laws. "Real Americans" don't need municipal ordinances and statutes, they live like the Unabomber. And think like the Unabomber. They just lack the moral and ethical integrity of the Unabomber.
Is there an adult there somewhere??? I can't believe anyone but a rebellious teenager with a crack habit could write such drivel.
[quote=semperarmati;13961690]Not to mention the utter (or should I say "udder" selfishiness of the ruling elite's who set up such schemes merely to enhance their power control over the people by getting them addicted to Government largess and less reliant upon themselves.Shame to all parties involved (except those not drawing from system)........................................... .................................................. .........You know, people like you are a real puzzle to me. You talk about "ruling elites". You suggest that social security was nothing but a plan for the "ruling elite" to get control over ordinary people.Exactly, what country do you live in ? I live in the United States of America. Every two years we have a congressional election where I choose some of the people who make laws like the social security law. Other Americans vote and choose the rest of the representatives who make these laws. Every four years, we have an election where we select a President who can sign or veto the laws passed by Congress. This isn't a dictatorship, Sir. Social security is a popular program that enjoys the support of the broad majority of Americans.Good luck trying to repeal social security. Its going to take more than a few people in the Crackpot Party to make it happen. And, if you are going to throw words around like "socialism" to describe every piece of legislation you don't like at least have the courtesy of providing a definition. Somehow I don't think you are talking about the police and fire department which also run by that "ruling elite" you are so worked up about.
Most Americans don't live on farms any more, where someone would be at home 24/7 to care for infirm parents.
More people have advanced education (no thanks to getting the basics in public education) and work away from home in increasingly technical jobs.
How then would you factor in the changing, evolving nature of our culture?
I didn't say infirm parents, although, of course, some of them are. Most retires are able bodied, and live without anyone to care for them.
Why does it now take two adults working full time to maintain a home that used to be covered by one man working full time? What was wrong with the economy a century ago, that enabled one working man to support a large family?
If the jobs are increasingly "technical", why does it take an increasing number of people to do them? Is the value of technology that it increases the amount of work that needs to be done? What will happen when we are so technical that every person working 24/7 still can't get all the work done?
You create your own worth. I know 50 year olds in my company who are are invaluable to the business because of the work they do. The company practically forces them to not retire and keep working. I also know 50 year olds who keep their head down, do what they are told and wouldn't be missed (or could easily be replaced!) if they were laid off.
Capitalism isn't a failure, people are failures. People always need to make sure the company has a reason to want them to work.
Social security protects those who are too lazy to protect their own careers.
I wish I could have the money I pay into SS for my own investments.
And I know people who are two years from retirement that got forced into part time to get out of paying for their benefits, the vacation time earned and effected their pensions that they payed into. Because that is how capitalism works, the bottom line. Which is why we don't want to elect people who keep thinking government should be run as a private institution. The effect that this has created where I am at is the lack of services rendered to others and an overstretched required supervision of those ordered so. Further, there is a a lack of knowledge that is not being passed down. See, there is always a diehard in there who thinks that the game is to McDonaldize everything.
There are a vast amount of people who "invested" through their retirement, not knowing a damn thing about stocks, and relying on financial advisors. They have lost everything. Nobody is supposed to use Social Security as "the retirement plan", however, that is what they have wound up with. Its like collective amnesia. People go ahead and invest through the pensions or retirement plans, often without a choice, the economy does a landslide and a bunch of people walk with money while everyobody else loses and then a couple of shmucks commit suicide while the rest of everyone else is screwed.
Then some clown comes through and says, downsizing. We will have to get rid of those who make the most salaries and have the most acquired vacation time and etc. And they do so based on several myths that have repeatedly been blown out of the water.
One myth is that it is the older generation that will be absent sick more. In fact, older workers are more punctual and take less time off sick.
Now, this is where I think it should be looked at. Why is it that we have stay at home parents that do not contribute and yet qualify? This is an outdated "lifestyle" that we are supporting here.
And I don't buy that once upon a time people took care of their elderly. Yeah, well, at some point they may require 24 hour care that you will have to stop working (stop paying taxes) in order to care for them. In fact, this became a really hot topic 20 years ago as people were losing everything in trying to care for their parents.
So, the big question is, why is it necessary to lose everything in order to care for them? Why does it cost 80K to get a pacemaker?
Yes, there are some lazy people in the world. However, that is a flimsy excuse used to detract from the capitalist BS. Reminds me of that movie line, and if you work real hard then someday you can own your own McDonalds, too.
Again, it serves a purpose.
As an aside, you do realize that there are people who are divorcing their spouses of x amount of years just in order for them to receive care. They have to qualify to get the care that they need.
Social Security was badly structured from the beginning. But then it was really not instituted to help the people. It was modeled after a socialist model, but was put into a fiat system where inflation insured its failure. There was also no security measures put in place to keep the politicians from stealing the money. So now what you have is a bankrupt program with 35 trillion dollars in unfunded liability. Of course the people to whom that 35 trillion is owed will be cheated out of all but a few pennies on the dollar. I guess that is what they deserve for having their heads in the sand their whole life instead of being involved with their own government, as was their civic responsibility.
Of course the people to whom that 35 trillion is owed will be cheated out of all but a few pennies on the dollar.
$35-trillion comes out to about $100,000 per person, man woman and child, in the USA. I'm really sorry I'm going to be cheated out of that. I was looking forward to the check arriving in the mail as soon as the Republicans balance the budget and pay back the debt. Or does that mean that the richest 10% are owed a million each, and the rest of us nothing?
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.
selfishiness of the ruling elite's who set up such schemes merely to enhance their power control over the people by getting them addicted to Government largess and less reliant upon themselves.Shame to all parties involved (except those not drawing from system)........................................... .................................................. .........You know, people like you are a real puzzle to me. You talk about "ruling elites". You suggest that social security was nothing but a plan for the "ruling elite" to get control over ordinary people.Exactly, what country do you live in ? I live in the United States of America. Every two years we have a congressional election where I choose some of the people who make laws like the social security law. Other Americans vote and choose the rest of the representatives who make these laws. Every four years, we have an election where we select a President who can sign or veto the laws passed by Congress. This isn't a dictatorship, Sir. Social security is a popular program that enjoys the support of the broad majority of Americans.Good luck trying to repeal social security. Its going to take more than a few people in the Crackpot Party to make it happen. And, if you are going to throw words around like "socialism" to describe every piece of legislation you don't like at least have the courtesy of providing a definition. Somehow I don't think you are talking about the police and fire department which also run by that "ruling elite" you are so worked up about.
I wish I could have the money I pay into SS for my own investments.
