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.
Not all of us Democrats want open borders. That's what a lot of people don't understand. I would prefer tight border security, strong consumer/environmental protections, strong safety nets, and above all...universal healthcare that covers everyone.
You seem reasonable so I will try for a straight answer. why on earth should productive people be responsible to provide unlimited medical care for those who refuse to take an ou ce of responsibility for themselves.
Socialism and communism throw you away the day you are born.
If you manage to survive the preferred abortion they make you suffer till death. So there is that.
Nope, absolutely wrong.
Pensions were GUARANTEED for everyone in the USSR, no exception.
Women - at age 55, men - at 60.
I didn't read this whole thread, but there is no debating the fact that American workers are in more dire straits than we were 25-30 years ago. When I gave birth to my son in 1988, everything was covered by my HMO. No copayments, no deductibles. Those can add up, especially when you're working for low wages.
I'm going to receive a very small pension from a company I worked at for eight years back in the 80s. The bulk of my retirement is going to be funded with my 401(k). I'm not sure how high the retirement age can be raised for taking full social security benefits. For me, full SS benefits kick in at 68 years old, but I may work until I'm 70, because those extra two years make a huge difference. I know people who really shouldn't work past 65 or 70, due to various health issues (shaky hands, etc.).
Some people failed to plan, yes. They just went wherever life took them without thinking about retirement. However, there are others who did everything right, and like the people described in this article, find themselves in a very bad place. We're going to see a lot of senior homeless people in the next 20-25 years. It's going to be bad. The worst part is that they'll be blamed for their misfortune, even though it certainly wasn't their fault.
How many of us have the resources to cope with a medical disaster? Let's say you have a cancer that can be cured, but only with expensive and time-consuming chemo, radiation, and/or surgery. What would you do? All of us are only buying more time, but how do you make that decision? Is this the kind of country we want to live in? "Oh, if it's going to cost $30,000 to cure this disease, forget it. I don't want to be in debt, so just let me die."
Sadly, it can only take one illness that can result in unemployment and medical bills that will hurl you into the streets. There is a reason why the homeless camps in cities like SF and LA are growing by leaps and bounds.
Interest rates have been artificially low for one reason. To prop up Wall Street.
The national debt in 1983 was 1.38 trillion. More relevant is that it was a healthy 37% of GDP. Interest rates were in the teens. What if we somehow lose control of inflation / interest rates again with a 21 trillion dollar debt. The poo poo will hit the fan.
You seem reasonable so I will try for a straight answer. why on earth should productive people be responsible to provide unlimited medical care for those who refuse to take an ou ce of responsibility for themselves.
You seem reasonable so I will ask. Why the vast generalizations? There are many hard working individuals that work very hard that do not have health care.
I notice a number of posts even here on CD where people are talking about retirement at 68 or 70.
It's a political topic in this sense. Obviously the people in control of the peons (anyone with less than about 5 million) have decided that they are for a single purpose - to be used up and then cast away.
70? The average US Male now dies at 76. Many people have painful conditions starting in their early 60's and lasting through death. So if you play the game, go to school, work your entire life, etc - maybe you get 6 years of pain and sitting in the BarcoLounger as a reward?
So the New GOP Deal is simple.....work, then die as soon as you are incapable of adding to the GDP. I guess, in a sense, this is pure capitalism. Throw them out the door when they become a liability.
It's even worse than it seems because these people generally need other family members to help them in various ways....therefore making the lives of other tougher.
People here sometimes ask WHEN were the good old days? Well, it started with a couple things....
1. Only one parent needed to work.
2. A Pension was part of the future - often granted after 25-30 years (worker is 50-55).
3. Health care was included.
BIG difference today. For anyone who wants to know why we are becoming a 2nd world country quickly - look at stats like this.
Pure capitalism, as defined by Adam Smith can have pensions. He actually talked in favor of pensions.
However, you are falling for pension myths.
-At the height of pensions only 38% of people had one and most of that was in the top half of income earners, whereas 61% today have a 401K
-Pensions had more rigid vesting rules, often times 15 years back in its heyday
-Companies that went out of business often meant that one lost their pension
-401K money is more portable and can under certain situations be rolled over into an IRA or annuity
-Many pensions are set up in a manner that makes them hard to sustain payments without draining the company of resources, look at Detroit - the pension system was run by people who were voted into place by the union, you win by promising bigger payouts with less input and then we are shocked when it needs to get bailed out three times in my lifetime...
-At one point at the peak of the recession Ford was paying $2,000 of every new car that they sold to retired workers sitting at home, because their pension was underfunded...meanwhile, Toyota with 401Ks was paying $0 of every new car sold to retired workers. Toyota then had far more money for research and development per car sold. Guess what, liberals I know were driving Toyota, because of better quality, because of more research and development money...and the pension vs 401K is a driver of that.
-401Ks have less fees than pensions do, pensions charge much higher fees that you never see
-Sure there was a time when only 1 parent needed to work in the 1950s, but they didn't "need" a TV cable subscription, internet, a cell phone with a data plan for every family member above the age of 12, McMansions with jet spas, $120 designer jeans coming complete with pre-existing holes in the knees, they didn't eat out as often, college tuition has far exceeded inflation since the 1950s - as colleges waste money on 70 person hot tub etc...
To compare the shopping habits of today versus the 1950s is an apples to oranges comparison.
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.
The worst part is that they'll be blamed for their misfortune, even though it certainly wasn't their fault.