Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (60096)	6/29/2002 10:49:36 AM
From: Gottfried	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Lizzie, I hope it doesn't surprise that people who have worked 40+ years are in general better off than those who have worked just five years. >elderly retirees are the wealthiest group in the nation. Certainly more well-off than most 20-somethings.< Gottfried

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (60096)	6/29/2002 2:26:08 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Respond to of 77400

<<And if your parents are needy then by all means they should be supported. Unfortunately many demographic surveys show that the elderly retirees are the wealthiest group in the nation.>> Many are house rich and cash poor. But in several years we'll be seeing more and more of the no-pension retirees, and then it should get even more interesting. You seem to imply that you'd like to see SS become yet another welfare program, with everyone required to pay but only the 'poor' getting anything back. But sorry, SS payments are not supposed to be a 'tax.' <<In fact, it is children under the age of 10 who are least likely to have health insurance in this country. Do you hide your head in your pillow for them?>> No, i waved a packet of condoms at their incompetent breeders. <<.. yes SS is needed, for those who need it. And therein lies the rub. Right now its a reverse robin hood entitlement program out of control. >> I know people in their late 30s and 40s who make good money, and spend all of it on exclusive vacations and new european cars every two years and the big mortgages on their new 800k houses. But me and my family are happier with less expensive vacations and the same modest house we've had for a while, and we save a lot in our IRAs and my 401k. So when they are older and broke, as I know they will be in 25 years, they should get SS and I should not? <<At least the republicans seem to have a tinge of fiscal responsibility when it comes to the seniors, so they are the better of the two evils I guess.>> I agree. And when the repubs try to reduce the rate of growth of big govt programs, they get attacked by the Dems for "cutting" programs. It's a very effective media ploy with people who don't pay enough attention to what goes on in Wash DC.