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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (759697)	12/27/2013 1:21:02 AM
From: koan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575465

Well, I have you a bit more figured out now. You are misunderstanding reality. I don't know why? For example, I am a life long dem and was in politics for 30 years. We simply do not think like you think we think e.g. your comments below. I swear to god, we do not think that at all! That is crazy talk (sorry, but it is). We are not resisting any change. We just want the change to make sense and help people in the best way possible. The emphasis is on help. The poor need help. The rich don't need any help. You don't even see the poor do you? << By resisting any change necessary to deal with that trend, you are essentially owning the growth in dependents. And that suits you just fine because the more dependents you create, the more votes you can lock in.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (759697)	12/27/2013 2:16:13 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575465

"By resisting any change necessary to deal with that trend, you are essentially owning the growth in dependents." Nonsense Ten. Everyone I know wants to jack up, if not totally remove, the SS income cap. We want you to pay into SS all 12 months of the year! All problems solved!

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (759697)	12/28/2013 10:49:10 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575465

>SS and Medicare creates more dependents because they ignore the impact of rising life expectancies and an aging population. Come again? How does that CREATE more dependents? Seems to me that age and infirmity create more dependents, not Social Security and Medicare. Social Security and Medicare are two factors that increase life expectancy, which means they're operating as they're supposed to. I take it you'd rather have those people die? Their savings aren't going to help them; the average person between the age of 55-65 in the US has 30K in his/her 401k. That's, what, 50 million people? Without SS and Medicare, those people would be on the street or dead in ten years. That's third world stuff. Besides, in the US, life expectancy among the poor is actually dropping, not increasing. In the meantime, growth in health care costs is leveling off. We have Obama and the Dems to thank for that. >By resisting any change necessary to deal with that trend, you are essentially owning the growth in dependents. And that suits you just fine because the more dependents you create, the more votes you can lock in. Last thing I checked, no one's voting for me. You REALLY think that I support keeping Social Security and Medicare around because I want to see Hillary Clinton elected in 2016 or something? Really? You don't think for just one damned second that the lives of hundreds of millions of people don't have a thing to do with why I support Social Security and Medicare? I support them because they work. -Z