Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Another reason for underrepresentation is that seniors have gamed the system...looting the current workforce to support Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. They bought their houses when real estate was cheap and property taxes were low, paid off the debt, and enjoy the appreciation despite the down turn in the economy.

Thanks to AARP and other geezer lobbyists, Gen X and Y have been screwed over by the “Greatest Generation” and the spoiled Baby Boomers that followed.

Remember that when Social Security was started, it wasn’t designed to pay out until 2 years after the average life expectancy of an American at that time, i.e. a safety net in case you lived longer than average. Today, seniors milk it for 10-15+ years beyond that...and current workers subsidize it.

Not just knocking seniors. The welfare state subsidizes “the children” with mismanaged public schools and freebie healthcare, illegals and their kids, and a bunch of other nonsense (see the Detroit 3 bailout that’s coming).

But to claim seniors are a frugal bunch is a load of b.s. Maybe those in their 90s. Those in 60s and 70s are typically conspicuous consumers who are looting the next generations’ wealth. There are exceptions but the majority are second-handers living off a system gamed to screw the rest of us.


5 posted on 12/06/2008 10:31:47 PM PST by peyton randolph (Give Obama the same respect the Dims gave Bush and watch the howling begin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: peyton randolph

“They bought their houses when real estate was cheap and property taxes were low, paid off the debt, and enjoy the appreciation despite the down turn in the economy.”

Following that through, I’m assuming that most of them left their real property to their kids, thereby enriching “our” generation?


13 posted on 12/06/2008 10:43:52 PM PST by Marie2 (Everything the left does has the effect and intent of destroying the traditional family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: peyton randolph
"But to claim seniors are a frugal bunch is a load of b.s. Maybe those in their 90s. Those in 60s and 70s are typically conspicuous consumers who are looting the next generations’ wealth. There are exceptions but the majority are second-handers living off a system gamed to screw the rest of us."

Agreed.


21 posted on 12/06/2008 11:32:46 PM PST by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt), NG, '89-'96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote, http://falconparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: peyton randolph

i appreciate your rant, but i kinda feel like i’m listening to some radical lefty professor who’s classes i loved to walk out of

you forget, ‘seniors’ have paid into social security all their natural lives, (as well as supporting social services programs with taxdollars) and have survived and built a robust rebublic in between wars that demanded sacrifice from them and that helped form the republic as we now know it. More children have attended college under both generations than in the history of the world, usually at their parents’ expense. Thanks to the medical and technological advances of both the ‘greatest generation’ as well as the boomer generation, “conspiciuous consumption” has created millions upon millions of jobs that couldn’t have even been dreamed of 50 years ago and provided the funding to preserve literally billions of lives against hunger, disease and infant mortality and has opened up the stars and space to exploration by your generation.

Consumption (created by the wages of innovation), being the driver of any economy, we invite the X and Y and IPOD generations to step up to the plate, and accomplish some medical and technological innovations of their own, other than the cloaked suggestion of some simplistic stalinistic philosopy of punishing the elderly for actuallly getting old i.e., forced euthenasia of the elderly as a solution to the republic’s problems. In a robust, healthy, innovative society such as has been left to Generations X Y and IPOD, the cost of taking care of their own elderly (or disabled or indigent), should be viewed as a moral obligation and a duty, not a burden to begrudge and bemoan.

The falicy in the arguement for ageism is, you cannot carry it out equally once you start.

best regards, blu


23 posted on 12/06/2008 11:34:42 PM PST by blueplum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: peyton randolph
We seniors paid into the Social Security system during our entire working life only to have the politicians steal from the Social Security Trust Fund, replace the money with worthless IOUs to pay for welfare mothers that popped out babies at an alarming rate so as to collect more welfare.

If a Democratic president had left his hands off of the Social Security Trust Fund, today, we would have more than enough funds in the SS Trust fund to pay the Social Security benefits and have more than enough to pay for your benefits when you retire.

Thank Lyndon Johnson for the mess that Social Security is today.

26 posted on 12/06/2008 11:59:52 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: peyton randolph

I would hardly call those in their 60’s senior citizens. (although I believe social security states one can collect when they turn 65)

But, This article is discussing those who lived through the depression which would be those probably be those born in the 20’s,30’s or before if they are still alive.

Most of the seniors who are living off of Medicare discussed in this article are the ones who fully invested in it, to make it sound like seniors are ‘milking the system’ just sounds wrong.


28 posted on 12/07/2008 12:40:24 AM PST by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: peyton randolph

Hello, from one of the exceptions.


61 posted on 12/07/2008 6:23:09 AM PST by LucyJo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: peyton randolph
Wow. You sure sound bitter. My husband and I just started receiving the Social Security you claim we do not deserve. We worked for a combined 60 yrs. paying into the program. During those years we struggled to pay house payments, utilities, car payments (1 car). Life would have been a lot easier if we had the money that was deducted from our salaries to support the other "geezers."

During those years my husband thought he was rich because he made $100 a week and I made $60 a week for 60 hours of work. We really struggled. There were no fast food restaurants, no Visa, MasterCard, etc. If you didn't have the money, you couldn't spend it. We didn't worry about going to the gym, we were too tired and there was too much to do.

We sacrificed plenty, and never once thought about how much we gave in Social Security. When one of our parents died, we grieved, and were happy when the parent left had Social Security so that they could be as independent as possible. If they didn't have the money, we would have gladly supported them.

During our younger days we raised three children, supported them with their competitive sports (not sports paid for by the town), financed their private college education (3 in college at once), paid for their weddings, and were the hand out when they have been in need as well as the baby sitters when our grandchildren needed us.

And, would do it all over again.

Once a week I visit a senior center at the Salvation Army where I (pay) for oil painting instruction. There are a lot of takers at the Salvation Army, not many are senior. The seniors, for the most part, are the givers.

63 posted on 12/07/2008 6:33:11 AM PST by mia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: peyton randolph

You sound very upset with older people. Did your parents cut you out of their will?


66 posted on 12/07/2008 7:51:33 AM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: peyton randolph

Absolute bullshit....not that you’ll ever change your little mind.


76 posted on 12/07/2008 9:45:39 AM PST by ErnBatavia ("Zero"..STILL using that stupid "Office of President Elect" podium....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: peyton randolph
Today, seniors milk it for 10-15+ years beyond that...and current workers subsidize it.

Define 'milk it'

As I interpret it, and I'm too young to be on SS, they qualify for it, and do so without having to misrepresent themselves or their situation in any way.

77 posted on 12/07/2008 10:01:37 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (OVERPRODUCTION......... one of the top five worries for American farmers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: peyton randolph

Further thought on the SS question I asked upthread, asking you to define the phrase ‘milk it’ as it pertains to older Americans recieving SS.

Rush often mentions how his grandfather, who didn’t need, or want, his SS check went and to great lengths to stop the SS Administration from sending him the monthly check.

Would you also accuse Rush’s grandfather of ‘milking’ the SS system because he still got those checks?

If yes, why, if no, why not?

How is Rushs grandfather different from my grandfather whom (I presume) also got his checks until he died?


78 posted on 12/07/2008 10:08:37 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (OVERPRODUCTION......... one of the top five worries for American farmers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: peyton randolph

Also under the war generation and the Boomers SS was expanded to cover children, and the disabled. Instead of paying up front they looted the system and SSDi is one of the greatest scams today.


85 posted on 12/07/2008 3:36:35 PM PST by Chickensoup (we owe HUSSEIN & Democrats the exact kind respect & loyalty that they showed us, Bush & Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson