Conference back40::soapbox

    
    Which elderly Brandon?
    
    The ones specifically brought in for the photo-op.. or America's
    elderly in general?
    
    I'm still not convinced that this isn't a Clinton spin...
    
    I just can't believe folks of any age would object to saving something
    from going bankrupt in a few years by cutting an INCREASE IN SPENDING
    in half...
    

    
    
    Actually the figures I have seen for the seniors are 50-50, that being
    505% po'd and 50% understand that it needs to be done and don't mind
    paying more because they'd rather do that then leave their children and
    grandchildren to hold the bag.  For the 50% who are po'd, I'd suggest
    that they give some thought to how selfish they're being.
    
    
    Mike

    
    One reason I suspect the 50% are po'd id the misinformation being
    scattered by the Dems, and being brodcast unquestioned by the 
    media.  The Dems are playing the class card for all it's worth.
    
    Just last night on the Leher News hr, they were out there saying 
    the cuts were to fund the tax breaks for the rich.  When countered 
    that 90% of the tax break dollars go to families with incomes less 
    than 100K, they changed the subject.
    
    It's pretty clear the Dems are philosphically bankrupt at this time
    and all they can do is try to scare people.
    
    al
    
    
    
    

RE: 573.2 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "RIP Amos, you will be missed"

> 505% po'd

That's Really Mad.

    
    > For the 50% who are po'd, I'd suggest
    > that they give some thought to how selfish they're being.

    Unfortunately Mike, that's not the way they see it.  Politicians
    promised them pie in the sky.  They believed them, and went along with
    what the politicians wanted.  Now that it time for them to be paid off,
    someone is changing the deal on them.

    I believe that they were foolish to believe the lies that the
    government told them, but that doesn't matter.  They were counting on
    this, and now they want it.  This is a good object lesson for the
    younger generations NOT TO TRUST THE GOVERNMENT!  I hope it isn't
    wasted..... :-P

    
    
    Yup fill, it's the new math.  You're not supposed to tell me it's
    wrong, your just supposed to marvel at my creativity. :')  or my lack
    of typing skills, one or the other......
    
    Mike

    .2
    Mike, I don't think the elderly are "po'd", they're scared.
    Why are they scared?  Because they live on a fixed income.
    You can't dismiss that by telling them that they're selfish.
    
    Do you have elderly parents?  And are they on a fixed income?
    I do and mine are.  They're not selfish, they're scared.
    
    It's very easy to spout political nonsense about a sector of
    society that you're not a member of...yet.

    
    
    Bonnie...
    
     What are the scared of? The rhetoric coming out of the White House? Or
    the truth? 
    
     What is the truth? The increase will be halved.... What's so hard to
    understand about that? 
    

    What's more scary, a little less now or nothing in a few years?

    
    
    
    I do know folks in that situation.  Thing is, look at most working
    people.  Medical expenses have gone up quite a bit.  The lies
    perpetuated by the dims is working, they are scaring the elderly, and
    they talk about repubs being mean spirited.  Fact is, medicare is STILL
    going up by 6% a year, twice the rate of inflation.  The facts need to
    be explained to these people.  SOme are scared, these folks, after
    learning the facts are usually okay with what's going on.  Selfish was
    too strong a term for the folks who are scared, but applies to the
    folks who say they don't care about the future.
    
    
    Mike

 .8

>What are the scared of? The rhetoric coming out of the White House? Or
    the truth?

Andy, that's the problem, isn't it?  To be quite frank, I really don't 
know who to trust for the truth anymore.  But I know it's not your 
dyed-in-the-wool Democrat; and it's not your dyed-in-the-wool Republican
either.  If you want to trust one or the other, go ahead...but it's all
rhetoric on _both_ sides are far as I can see.

And when the smoke clears, I just hope that people like my parents don't
get nailed.

.10

>but applies to the
>folks who say they don't care about the future.

I've not heard anyone speak in that way.

    
    My parents live on a so-called fixed income. My father receives
    a pension from the musician's union and from the banks he
    worked for when he changed professions. He also has a decent
    retirement nest-egg of his own savings.

    Like me, he is far from rich. In fact, even though he held
    the title of VP at a major New England bank, his salary
    never approached six figures.

    Like me, he has zero sympathy for someone who cannot take
    care of themselves in old age due to a lifetime of financial
    ineptitude. If someone fails to save and plan, someone either
    rots or works until they drop dead. Tough nuggies.

    Like me, he wouldn't vote for the democrats and their big
    lie if you held a gun to his head.

    He leaves a lot to be desired in a few departments, but he has
    never held his hand out.

    -b

    Retirement will only be for the rich by the time I'm ready for it.

    I will be bagging groceries and asking the patrons:

    "Will that be plastic or magnetic force field?"

>In fact, even though he held
>    the title of VP at a major New England bank, his salary
>    never approached six figures.

oh, i see.  five figures, huh?  meaty nestegg.

my folks worked too, but geesh, only into the four figure
range.  one of them saved and planned, one of them didn't.
both are scared.  go figure.

    
    Well, you see, if we give up on the current generation of elderly
    who sucked in the democrat's big lie and clog up the highway
    with large cars with Kennedy bumper stickers (proving their
    irrevocable senility), tell them that like everyone else they
    can support _THEMSELVES_, balance the federal budget and in doing
    so, as several key economists have pointed out, spur unprecedented
    growth in the economy, then you could probably sock away the money
    you wouldn't be paying in taxes into _INTEREST BEARING_ accounts and
    live quite nicely when you retire.

    -b

    
    re: .11
    
    Bonnie...
    
     I agree with you there. I don't trust either side. I am loathe to
    support and/or trust ANY politician.
    
     But the fact remains that something must be done... At this point, the
    repubs are at least attempting to do something to save the system and
    the dems are playing the chicken little game...
    

    
    Are you really that math imparied Oph?
    
    -b

>math imparied?

brian, how do you mean?

    
    Yes, math impaired.
    
    What range of numbers is six figures? five? four?
    
    Your parents barely made it into the fours? $1000?
    
    OK...
    
    -b

    Are we talking about the "poor elderly" here?  The poor elderly who
    buy up $25,000 Grand Marquis cars, who sell their $10,000 houses for
    $250,000, who take frequent expensive overseas vacations and cruises,
    and so on?
    
    Fwah!  One of the best Big Lies in our society is that the elderly
    is generally poor.  There's poor people at every age level.  This
    generation of elderly, that is, people who are elderly in the late
    twentieth century, are by far the richest and most coddled elderly
    who have ever lived.  Their selfishness, endless demands, and crabby
    aggression border on the disgusting.
    
    Chris

yes, brian, i am.

    
    
    So, both of your folks made under $10,000/year, Bonnie?  That's rough,
    but they can live.  A person who owns their home needs very little to
    live comfortably. 
    
    
    Mike

    
    30 years ago, my parents purchased their home. It was modest
    at the time (a 3 bedroom ranch), and they paid something like
    $14,000 for it. My father's salary for a whole year was
    something like $5,000... that was "middle class"

    He retired 3 or 4 years ago... his salary was still very
    much "middle class." There are plumbers making more than
    my father made when he retired.

    My parents still live in the same modest house. They always
    drove a clean/respectable type car, but never opulent. The
    most expensive car my father has ever owned is his current
    one: a Buick Le Sabre.

    They knew some day they would be old. They planned. The saved.
    Now they're comfortable. They are not a burden on me, or
    anyone else.

    Chris was right on about the greed of the current generation
    of elderly.

    Sorry, but if the government is providing the lion's share
    of your retirement income at this point, you blew it. You
    get to work like anyone else until you drop dead; and while
    you're at it, pray that the Buddhists are right and that
    you won't be so stupid next time.

    -b

no, mike, they were both in the XX,000 range.  
(math is so hard!)  

>   they paid something like
>    $14,000 for it. My father's salary for a whole year was
>    something like $5,000... that was "middle class"...

matches my parents' financial beginnings right down to the 
$14,000...  

well, we shall see what happens.

    
    I think Chris' comment was right on ...
    
>    Sorry, but if the government is providing the lion's share
>    of your retirement income at this point, you blew it. You
    
    While I don't think many people should end up in this situation they
    are not the ones draining social security and medicare.  Chris hit it on
    the head.  Social security and medicare are considered entitlements and
    on average younger, poorer workers with less assets are subsidizing the
    the retirement and healthcare of the elderly.  On average the elderly
    are the best off folks in the US (or maybe second to those right before
    retirement). 
    
    Means-testing is an obvious way to go IMO but that gets folks
    like the AARP all up in arms.  I've never figured out why the elderly
    are treated like a special class.  If the feds are going to subsidize
    health care for some it should be the poorest x percent not just "poor out
    of work folks" and "all old folks".
    
    Greg
    
    PS - and for a big rathole I'd like to see means-testing (as well as
    financial aid applications) based on life-time earnings and not current
    assets.  If someone earned a lot and blew it we help them currently. 
    If someone earned little and saved we take it all away before helping. 
    Once again exactly backwards.
     
                                        

    
      Well, surprise !  Old Americans don't agree any more than any
     of us do.  I had the good fortune to join my widowed mother with
     some 70's/80's ladies the other day.  They bickered about Healthcare
     the whole time, running the gamut of opinion.
    
      I was a Republican until the odor of Nixon chased me into
     Independency, oops Unenrolledness in the PRM.  In the next election,
     I'll split my ticket as I have for years.  I'm inclined to support
     Democratic Congressman Markey again, unless the GOP does better
     there, but Markey is strange, supporting a balanced budget.  As to
     Senator Kerry, well, I'm lukewarm on him.  Mostly depends on if
     Patrician Bill runs, in which case I'm with Weld.
    
      I will write in Boris Yeltsin before I'd vote for Clinton, the crook.
    
      My last Democrat for Prex was Carter in 76.
    
      bb

The truth of the matter is that medicare recipients will still be able to go to
the same doctors for the same treatment after this bill becomes law.

Whats more, they'll be able to choose plans that cover more expenses than
does the current system and actually save money.

The "Millions of elderly will go uncovered" (and similar) statement(s) made
by the dems is a lie and the press should call them to the mat for it.

But the media is in it for the money too. Just keep the lies going until
after the smoke (bill) clears, then tell the truth and attack the liers.

What a sick system!

Doug.

 ZZ   I'm inclined to support
 ZZ        Democratic Congressman Markey again, unless the GOP does better
    
    Markey...isn't he the guy that made all our cable rates go up??

    
    RE: .26
    
    I get the feeling you read:
    
>    Sorry, but if the government is providing the lion's share
>    of your [person reading soapbox] retirement income at this point,
>    you blew it.
    
    instead of what I meant:
    
>    Sorry, but if the government is providing the lion's share
>    of your [generic retired person] retirement income at this point,
>    you blew it.
    
    -b

    
    
    I wasn't being flip wiht you bonnie, I get the digits mixed up as well. 
    Thing is, the fact remains that the Medicare funding is still going up
    at 6% a year.
    
    
    Mike

    Wow.  Some of us are really smart and didn't rely on the gov't
    for retirement.
    
    Be carefull with the stock market... 

         
    |    This generation of elderly, that is, people who are elderly in the late
    |    twentieth century, are by far the richest and most coddled elderly
    |    who have ever lived.  Their selfishness, endless demands, and
    |    crabby aggression border on the disgusting.
    
    don't overgeneralize.  the generation you are complaining about
    made sacrifices that today's youth and Xers can't even comprehend.
    most (admittedly not all) objections to reductions in entitlements
    are based on ignorance about the problem.  if you explain to older
    folks what the implications of deficit spending are on their own
    children and grandchildren, most listen.
    
    

    
    Simple truth is the entire social security and medicare system is a 
    giant pyramid scheme.
    
    as long as more and more people keep joining (increasing population) and 
    paying the pyramid works.  however if the population ever levels off or
    goes down, the scheme fails.
    
    Heard a funny on 1030 AM at Lunch - Congress Critter David Bonnier(?)
    was trying to scare folks again.  This time he siad it would be 
    "curtains" for the American farmer if the cuts in the farm subsidies 
    go through.  Sounded like something James Cagney or Edward G. Robinson 
    would say.
    
    al 
    

 re .34


 Exactly.

    
    Not the curtains, Bugs - not the curtains!  Not the...
    
    
    ...oh, they're beautiful!
    
    

    Here is one (soon to be) elderly person who is PO'd at the way the
    politicians are playing hockey with Social Security.  I am worried
    that neither side is trying to fix the problems.  They are both fighting
    the next election at the expense of the older American public.  
    
    The Dems are trying hard to make changes but not at the risk of 
    looking like the 'publicans. Because, heaven forfend that if the other
    side thought of it then it has to be bad and stamped out at once--and
    both sides are very good at that kind of thinking. 
    
    On the other hand, the 'publicans are gutting the budget to give tax 
    brakes to their friends, and people with children.  Forgetting that 
    you can choose to have children but have little choice on getting old.  
    Although, their friends in the tobacco lobby are doing their best to
    help out on that one.
    
    The most sorry part of it is, our only other alternative might be (and I
    say might as I will be most suprised if he goes through with it)
    the Ross himself and his third party.  Heaven help us all!  
    
    I wonder how much an island off the coast of Scotland costs.

    
    Clearly, there's no point in even attempting to set you
    straight if you've made it all the way to near-retirement
    age and can't even recognize the lie the democrats tell
    about "tax breaks for the rich."
    
    -b

    	Consider that some of the tax cuts (in particular capital gains
    	cuts) are a big benefit to the retired elderly who own that $250K
    	home which they bought for $20K.  My mother is retired.  My dad 
    	will retire in a year.  They are equity rich, but couldn't really
    	tap into that without losing a significant portion of it to taxes.
    	Many retired elderly are in this boat.
    
    	With a capital gains cut, they can now sell the big family house 
    	and move into a condo like they really want to do.  The increases
    	in medicare is pocket change compared to the thousands they'll 
    	save in taxes.

    .24
    
    <<Sorry, but if the government is providing the lion's share
        of your retirement income at this point, you blew it. You
        get to work like anyone else until you drop dead; and while
        you're at it, pray that the Buddhists are right and that
        you won't be so stupid next time.>>
    
    The elderly people of today did not complain about you when you were
    a child and say that you would have to be put "to work like anyone 
    else until you drop dead" when they were paying taxes to keep your 
    schools open, not to mention paying for youth programs, playgrounds, 
    school busses and crossing guards, etc.  Many of their children had 
    grown up and no longer needed schools, many had no children at all.  
    They still kept funding your education though, didn't they.  
    
    Many elderly have lost their pensions when their pension funds 
    disolved into thin air, before the Feds insured them, and at a time
    when they had little hope of replacing that money.  Woman have found
    themselves back in the workforce when their husbands left them for the
    Mark II wife.  Supporting families alone, and earning rock bottom
    wages, they had little opportunity to save, and few had access
    to company pension plans.  
    
    
    

    A lot of the elderly would also like to take the assets
    they have worked so long and hard to build up and pass them
    along to their families instead of handing them back to 
    the government for the privilege of obtaining sub-standard
    health care.  There's more than a little bitterness on
    that issue, according to my parents and their friends.
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    RE: .41
    
    YAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN....
    
    THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT THE
    GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE CARE OF ME. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG
    WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE
    CARE OF ME. I VOTE FOR TEDDY KENNEDY. EXTERMINATE!
    EXTERMINATE!
    
    -b

This is the ugliest string I've ever seen in the box.

Fortunately, I have a job and I have time to react to the change in the 
political landscape.

Unfortunately, that job makes it impossible to give adaquate time to 
respond to the crap spewed in here.

"The most selfish" generation indeed! These are the people who, for better 
or worse, bought into the vision of a society-as-family, with the 
government as the administrators of the family estate. They paid their 
taxes without a lot of complaint, voted for representatives who advocated 
such programs -- along with the taxes to support them - for the benefit of 
society as a whole. They bought into the concept that some redistribution 
of wealth was a sensible and humane premise for a civilized, modern 
society, and they gave willingly.

Along come the baby boomers and Generation X. "Screw you, ma. Up yours, 
pop. I coulda told you not to depend on friggin *government*! I'm sure as 
hell not goin' to pay for your mistakes, ya bozos!"

"But the government *we* elected said we'd be covered with major-medical 
type insurance," respond the greedy old geezers. "It's the government *you* 
elected who's telling us to forget it; either pay more or enjoy the fruits 
of 'managed care.'"

"Nob off, you wrinkled pathetic leach. We're in charge now!"

Yeah, the silver set is about as selfish as it gets... :'/

    I still wonder why managed care and lack of choice is bad for the
    population at large, but ok for the elderly?

    
    Tom,
    
    You've spun a crock of $#!+ in your day, but that one sure
    takes the cake. It will take us decades to clean up the
    garbage left from your party... so to speak.
    
    TAXES. GOVERNMENT. WELFARE. Of course it's the only solution
    to society's problems. If anyone lives, it has to be because
    the government gave them the money. Anyone who fights to
    change that is, of course, a monster who hates (insert your
    favorite here: babies, the elderly, the poor, the fish in
    the sea... whatever).
    
    It's nothing short of pathetic Tom.
    
    -b

    
    re: 573.44
    
    Sounds like another vote for Kennedy....
    
    I'm really getting sick and tired of being slammed as selfish, or
    extremist simply becuse I believe we should have a balanced budget.
    
    The more the dems and liberals make their case, the more foolish
    they appear.
    
    al
    

    re: .45
    
    Why should I be forced to pay for non-managed care and free choice for
    the elderly when I can't even afford that for my family?
    
    Bob

    re: .48
    
    Well, then why should my mom and dad pay taxes to put your kids
    through public school?  

    
    re:    <<< Note 573.49 by SMURF::MSCANLON
    
    >Well, then why should my mom and dad pay taxes to put your kids
    >through public school?
     
    
    Sounds like a good argument for privatization of education.
    
    
    

    re: .49
    
    They shouldn't if they can't afford to pay the taxes to send their own
    kids to public school.
    
    Bob

    
> "The most selfish" generation indeed! These are the people who, for better 
> or worse, bought into the vision of a society-as-family, with the 
> government as the administrators of the family estate. They paid their 
> taxes without a lot of complaint, voted for representatives who advocated 
> such programs -- along with the taxes to support them - for the benefit of 
> society as a whole. They bought into the concept that some redistribution 
> of wealth was a sensible and humane premise for a civilized, modern 
> society, and they gave willingly.
    
    And they were wrong.  Now we get stuck with the bill.  
    Yeah, that's reasonable.  Why didn't I see it that way before.
    

    re: .51
    
    I'm not sure I understand your point.  My parents "kid" (me)
    has been finished with school for some time now (and as a matter
    of fact, most of my education was in private school).
    
    My point is; our tax dollars go to a number of items that
    do not benefit us directly.  Should we migrate, as some
    suggest, to a more stricter accounting of tax usage, we may
    find that people who tend to demand less of the system 
    will wish to pay less taxes, and people who are 
    more of a burden on the system will wind up with a higher
    bill which may be more difficult to pay.  
    
    An example would be single people with no children versus a family
    with several children. The highest tax burden in our country falls
    on single people with no dependents, who also demand less services
    and use less resources.
    
    Mary-Michael

    Re .45

    Must I explain this to you again Meg?

    The difference between the Clinton health plan and the Republican
    plan for Medicare is that the first plan imposed rules on *private*
    plans. The other imposes rules on a plan paid for by the government.

    Do you see a difference here?
    
    			Ed
    
    

 >  I still wonder why managed care and lack of choice is bad for the
 >   population at large, but ok for the elderly?

   Why do you think that managed care is bad? And BTW: you have a choice of
   managed care programs or the "choose who you please" programs so why
   do you think there is no choice?

   Why wouldn't managed care be good for a (large) segment of the elderly?
   For those that managed care is not a reasonable choice, there is what
   they have always had so what's the problem?

   Or was this a sarcastic comment ???


   Doug.

    Re .49

    Because they themselves were schooled. This is fair.

    I would not have a problem contributing to the SS and Medicare systems
    if they would be around when I retire, and if I was getting the same
    rate of return as today's elderly are. However this is not
    the case. SS is scheduled to go bankrupt in the year 2029. Medicare
    is going broke much sooner. Further, the elderly put peanuts into
    these plans, and today two of three families pay more in FICA taxes
    than they do in federal income taxes. These systems are simply not fair.

    				That is the difference.

    					Ed





    

    re: .53
    
    It's real simple.  When I retire don't expect the government (i.e.
    taxpayers) to provide me with a better healthcare package than the
    taxpayers, who are paying for my healthcare, can afford for themselves.
    
    You seem to think they should.
    
    Bob

 >   re:    <<< Note 573.49 by SMURF::MSCANLON
 >   
 >   >Well, then why should my mom and dad pay taxes to put your kids
 >   >through public school?


  Children, unlike adults, can't make decisions for themselves and so
  society provides for the children. Why? Because a society of uneducated
  adults becomes a third world country. Whether you believe it or not,
  a guarantee of public education benifits everyone in this society.

  Also, who paid to put your mom and dad through school ...

           

    re: .56
    
    Ok, but you seem to be making an assumption that all
    schooling was equal.  The schooling my parents received
    was *not* equal in scope, subject matter or the availability
    of educational aids to the education you and I received,
    which is not equal to the education your children are 
    receiving now.  Education is more expensive now.  SS 
    was not expensive when it first started. They put in the
    amount the plan required.  It is not their fault it is
    more expensive now.  If you asked the elderly to pay 
    the same fixed tax amount for education that their
    parents paid to send them to school, I'm sure most would
    happily comply.
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    re: Note 573.59 by SMURF::MSCANLON 
    
    > Education is more expensive now. 
    
    Why does that HAVE to be true?  At the primary education level at least
    shouldn't cost increase rougly at the rate of inflation?  What is
    driving the costs so high?  
    
    al

    re: .57
    
    I believe we should do our best to provide them with what
    we promised they would have when they did their financial
    planning.  
    
    Health care was not a financial drainer 40 years ago unless
    you were critically ill.  The doctor came to the house,
    oftentimes bringing the medication with him.  Even when I was
    a child, the costs were nowhere near as staggering as they
    are now, and even given inflation there is no good reason they
    should be.  Tests, surgery and hospital stays are way out of
    whack.  You have to be practially immortal to get good 
    inexpensive health insurance, otherwise "pre-existing"
    conditions are not covered.  Even if you get what you 
    think is a good plan, covered items change from year to
    year, causing you to constantly re-evaluate your financial
    status.  If you have trouble keeping up, what do you think
    people on fixed incomes are doing?  
    
    Many countries respect and revere the elderly as keepers of
    wisdom.  We whine and complain that they cost too much money.
    There's something very wrong with that picture.
    
    Mary-Michael

.53>    An example would be single people with no children versus a family
>    with several children. The highest tax burden in our country falls
>    on single people with no dependents, who also demand less services
>    and use less resources.
    
    	The family with kids returns something to society that the
    	childless do not -- namely, the propagation of society.

    Gaskell,
    
    Thanks for pointing out what many seem to forget, (or perhaps they
    prefer to forget), i.e. there are many of us out here who have been
    paying into the system for years; have paid school taxes when childless,
    paid taxes while others were attending college, paid taxes, taxes,
    taxes.
    
    I would dearly love to have an IRA, 401K etc., but when it takes
    holding down 2 jobs to keep ones head above water while just getting
    by, putting money aside hasn't always been an option.  If I
    make it to age 65 I will have been paying into the system for 48
    years!! (Heck, if the Reese genes dominate I won't make it beyond my
    59th birthday, so maybe I'll balance out one or two or those old
    bloodsuckers).
    
    I resent being told I blew it if I will have to rely on the govern-
    ment for the lion's share of my retirement income or that I'm 
    stupid because I didn't plan better.  Most of my choices were taken
    away when I became wife #1.  I have never been out of full-time
    employment since age 17; I don't want "entitlements", I want a
    fair return (not lavish) on what I paid into the various systems.
    If there HAD to be an increase in taxes right now, I wouldn't mind
    paying more into Medicare.
    
    My lifestyle is modest by anyone's standards (no frills about sums
    it up).  IMHO if a person receives a benefit W/O paying into the
    system, then THAT's an entitlement.
    
    FWIW, I wonder how many of you who are paying the Digital LTD insurance
    rate to guarantee 100% of your salary (should you become disabled) are
    aware that the insurance company DOESN'T pay 100%.  If you're ever forced
    into LTD, a good portion of the "salary" you continue to receive will
    be coming out of Social Security. <-- This is one loophole I'd love
    to see plugged!!  (I know this is off topic, but it seems to fit
    somehow).
    
    You betcha I'll pray that the Buddhists are right and if I have to
    come back again, I pray I'll be smart enough to marry a Bill Gates next
    time around ;-}  No, change that to "pray I'll be smart enough to BE
    a Bill Gates next time around.
    
    

    re: .62
    
    With the world population standing where it is right now,
    propagation is hardly a very good argument.

    
      Somebody got respect in Revere ?
    
      bb

    
    More FUD. Now we're complaining the elderly cost too much money
    and we don't respect the wisdom. Well, quite frankly, I question
    the "wisdom" of anyone who believes it when the government tells
    them they'll take care of them.
    
    Yes, times have changed. Still, some people planned, and saved,
    knowing that those stinking jackyls in Washington were a bunch
    of liars, and now they can live just fine without the government
    teet. Those people, well, my respect is virtually boundless...
    
    -b

.59>    The schooling my parents received
>    was *not* equal in scope, subject matter or the availability
>    of educational aids to the education you and I received,
>    which is not equal to the education your children are 
>    receiving now.  Education is more expensive now. 
    
    	This is a rathole, but I feel compelled to comment on this.
    
    	In spite of all the advancements in education, the average
    	primary school graduate (8th grade, or pick any grade if
    	you want) was better educated in BASICS (reading writing
    	arithmetic history geography) for that level than his
    	equivalent counterpart today.

| <<< Note 573.65 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Frustrated Incorporated" >>>

| Somebody got respect in Revere ?

	bb, they musta had big hair!

    
    Oh, now Karen weighs in with more FUD. Crystal ball my
    derrier. That system you apparently want to perpetuate is
    stealing money from you that you could put into interest
    bearing accounts... and take care of YOURSELF. My oh my,
    what a concept.
    
    -b

    re: .58
    
    A society of poor and sick people also becomes a third world
    country, and within the next 20 years we will become
    a nation whose largest voting block consists of elderly people.  
    What do you think will happen then?
    
    

    re: .66 and .69
    
    Contrary to what you seem to believe, everyone in this
    country is not born with the same opportunities.  All people
    who are poor are not poor because they are lazy. All people
    who are rich are not rich because they were smart.  A
    compassionate country does it best to provide some cushion
    for those people who are less fortunate.  What you are
    adovating removing amounts to compassion.  When you remove
    compassion, IMO, you degrade society. This generation of
    elderly did without a lot in order to save.  Did without
    a lot that many today would argue are "necessities". The
    average American didn't "play the market", didn't have
    IRA's and CD's and 401K to help them along.  The average
    American had a passbook savings account and a little
    nest egg that perhaps was inherited from their parents.
    
    Now you sit there with your computer, you fax machine,
    your fancy stereo, your 3 tvs, your new car every 4 years,
    your benefits package and your stock options - more things
    than most older people ever even thought they'd have in
    their entire lives and say, "Well, hey, sorry, what you
    did wasn't good enough, we won't pay out."
    
    What a hypocrite.
    
    Mary-Michael  

    re: Ugliest string in the box, etc.
    
    Oh, boo-hoo.  I'll bring an extra box of Kleenex next time we
    hang out at the Elderly rec center building that I've paid for,
    so that the oldsters can drive up in their Crown Vics and Maxima's
    to line up for all the programs and goodies that they get handed to
    them *regardless of need*.
    
    Meanwhile, the infrastructure is barely hanging in there, the schools
    are falling apart, teachers are working without contracts, and so on.
    
    You want to help truly poor people, that's fine.  But to hand rich
    oldsters armfuls of goodies just because they've been converting
    oxygen to CO2 for an arbitrary number of calendar years is absurd.
    
    Sorry, but they can sing "Those Were The Days".  And they're gone.
    As for "screw you, Ma", etc., everyone should help take care of their
    own parents, if they indeed need any help.  Handing them off to Smiling
    Government to take care of is indeed the most callous form of "screw you,
    Ma".  But that's what the liberal mindset has led people to expect;
    when you don't feel like taking care of your kids or your parents
    anymore, run to Town Hall or the State House with your hands out and
    tears in your eyes.
    
    Chris

    re: .61
    
    >I believe we should do our best to provide them with what
    >we promised they would have when they did their financial
    >planning.  
    
    If that's how you feel, I submit that we have gone past that limit and
    to continue on is foolhardy.  When will you be satisfied?  When the
    total tax bite on an individual is 70%, 80%, 90%, 100%?  Just because
    we did something stupid in the past, doesn't mean we should continue it
    today.
    
    Just because costs have gone up doesn't mean I have to support others
    beyond my means.   My healthcare costs are going to double again next
    year.  Who is going to help me with that?
    
    Bob
    

    re: .73
    
    Are these all late model cars?  Most of elderly I've
    seen are driving about in Crown Vic and Continentals
    all right - vintage 70s Crown Vics and Continentals.
    
    Besides, who says their children didn't buy them
    the car?  And do you also realize than people 
    with walkers and mobility problems, *need* larger
    cars to be able to safely enter and exit on the
    passenger side?
    
    You're throwing up a useless straw man.  You have
    no clue what anyone's financial situation is unless
    they happen to tell you.  Visual clues are nearly
    meaningless.

    
    
    
    .59
    
    
    I read somewhere....something like
    
    "Don't limit your children to the education you had...they live
     in a different world than you did."
    
    

    re: .74
    
    THAT's the problem.  Not the people who are asking for
    the benefits - it's the COST.  The COST of health care,
    the COST of insurance, the COST of education even.
    We are letting companies spiral these things way our
    of alignment with inflation simply on the basis of greed.  
    That's what needs to be fixed - not the number of people 
    using the system.

As has been said, the problem hasn't to do with the elderly who are
in need of the assistance they get from federal entitlements. The
problem has to do with the administration of those entitlements in
such a fashion that it indescriminately provides assistance even in
those cases where it's not needed. In those cases where the elderly
have managed to provide for themselves, but are benefitting from
the entitlement anyway. In cases where the elderly could get along
just fine on what they have and what they've saved, but who are
still sitting there saying that they "expect" to get "their share"
from the government because "they deserve it" after what they
contributed to the system.

Well, I don't think that they all necessarily do "deserve" it. And
they certainly all don't "need" it. So maybe some bright individual
will put forth some effort to see that the way in which this stuff
is administered becomes a bit more equitable.

Oh - How do I know that these undeserving elderly actually exist?
Because my 79 year old mother and 81 year old father are part of
the problem. They don't "need" their SS check each month. And the fact
that they get it because they are "entitled" and think they "deserve"
it sucks.

    re: .78
    
    Some good points there.  However, I think that since SS
    is deducted from your pay every week, even if it is
    determined that you do not *need* it you should be able
    to redeem at least the full amount you put into it (and
    this will vary).  Perhaps that is where the "I deserve it"
    idea comes in (even though many take away far more than
    they put in).

    .31  
    
    Mike, I know you weren't being flip.  I made an incredibly
    large math error that brian caught back there somewhere...
    i guess my heart outranks my head on the subjeck of medicare..:-)

    RE .44 (and others)

    Do you understand the following facts?

    .The elderly did not pay taxes at the same rate we are. 
     In fact they paid *much* less than we do.

    .The elderly (those over 65) control most of the wealth in the country

    .Those over 65 have a lower level of poverty than any other group

    .99.9% of those receiving Social Security are receiving more than
     they contributed to the system (after accounting for inflation)

    .According to the CBO the average Medicare recipient will receive
     over $100K more from the system than they put into it.

    .Over $70 Billion a year is given in government benefits to households
     with an income of over $50K.


    This has nothing to do with beating up on the elderly. It has to
    do with that word the Democrats love to use: Fairness. 

    The Democrats are the ultimate hypocrites here. They say they want
    to protect the poor and weak, yet the elderly are the rich and the
    powerful. They say they want fairness yet are unwilling to change
    a truly unfair system. If a private company tried to run a plan
    like Medicare or SS, the owners would be put in jail for fraud.


    						Ed

    

    re: .77
    
    I see you can't answer my question, or are you unwilling?
    
    >That's what needs to be fixed - not the number of people 
    >using the system.
    
    Excuse me, but I seemed to have missed the part in the health care
    bills where people will be kicked out of the health care system.  Or
    were you saying that someone in here is advocating this?
    
    bob
    

watch out for flying objects if you sit near Brian!

    > What a hypocrite.
    
    I happen to have no benefits package or stock options. I
    do belong to an HMO which I pay for 100% out of my
    pocket. I also pay 100% for my life insurance and disability.
    And contract liability insurance. And worker's compensation.
    I also pay, through FICA contributions, for you to sit well
    into old age and whine what a cruel-evyl republican I am...
    
    You make me toss.
                                       
    -b

  >  re: .58
  >  
  >  A society of poor and sick people also becomes a third world
  >  country, 

   First, no one is saying that the elderly should not have medical coverage.
   Second, no one is saying that the poor should not receive SS or other
   support moneys.

   What they are saying is that the medicare recipient should assume more
   responsibility than they have today, and have more choices in excersizing
   that responsibility than they have today. (If a medicare recipient wants 
   to join an HMO today, he can't, and is forced to pay outrageous Rx bills). 
   What they are saying is that the medical community needs to do more to 
   control costs. What they are saying is to move medicare closer to the 
   private sector were efficiency and fraud are handled far better than by
   the feds.

   >  and within the next 20 years we will become
   >  a nation whose largest voting block consists of elderly people.  
   >  What do you think will happen then?
  
    I hope they have the sense to vote responsibly instead of for who will
    give them the biggest teet!

    Doug.

    <<< Note 573.63 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    I resent being told I blew it if I will have to rely on the govern-
>    ment for the lion's share of my retirement income or that I'm 
>    stupid because I didn't plan better.  
    
    	There are time that I resent the truth too.
    
>           -< Some of us  weren't born with built in crystal balls >-
    
    
    	You don't need a crystal ball.  You just need to be willing to
    	understand that the programs as they are designed now have no
    	mathematical chance of continuing as they are.  
    
    	That is the truth.
    
    	That is your crystal ball.  If you are willing to look through
    	the crystal at that truth, you have a chance to address what
    	you resent in your statement above.  Without doing so, you are 
    	setting yourself up for even more resentment when you hit 65.
    	Ignoring the truth because you resent is not a very smart
    	thing to do.

   <<< Note 573.71 by SMURF::MSCANLON "alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether" >>>

>    and within the next 20 years we will become
>    a nation whose largest voting block consists of elderly people.  
    
    	Not if we have more families contributing more kids!  Now you 
    	see part of the problem with your dismissal of .62 in .64.

    Go ahead and get your jollies folks; you might be singing a different
    tune if the circumstances that allowed you to make choices for your
    future weren't available to you.  Wanting to plan for one's retire-
    ment and having the resources to do so are not always "do-able" for
    everyone.  But I'm sure some of you have the answer; I should have
    worked 3 jobs, right?
    
    I'm all for streamlining the system wherever we can; I pointed out
    just one area where I think SS is being abused.  I pay for LTD
    insurance; silly me I thought it would be handled like my other 
    insurance....it would be there if/when I needed it.  When it looked
    like I was facing a stint on LTD corporate health services mails
    me forms to fill out for the SS portion???  I was rip___t!!  As far
    as I'm concerned no matter how valid the health need for LTD, no
    monies should be paid out of SS unless the individual is in fact 65
    years old.  It's called LTD *insurance*; why isn't it treated as a
    full insurance claim?  Why is SS even a factor?  No one at corp
    health services or The Travelers could explain it to me; basically
    told "this is how it's always been done".  Crap like this needs to
    change.  LTD for 100% of salary isn't cheap today, but I'd be more
    than willing to pay for an increase in the LTD rate rather than have
    any money come out of SS to balance out 100% of my salary.
    
    When some of you have walked a few miles in my shoes then perhaps
    I'll be willing to listen to some of your pompous pronouncements as
    to how I should have planned better for my retirement.
                  
    I wasn't looking for sympathy from anyone; so whoever mentioned it
    can shove the Kleenex.
                     

    Markey,
    
    I don't want to perpetuate the system AS IS.  I'd be more than
    happy to opt-out and take exactly what I paid into it, no more but
    definitely no less; then I'd be thrilled to be able to put it into
    interest bearing accounts so I could take care of MYSELF!!  My oh my,
    would you go for my concept?
    
    I say no less because I've had no say about what has been taken out
    of my paychecks for the last 34 years, have you?  Neither of my
    parents lived long enough to collect SS or utilize Medicare, so 
    you'll have to excuse me if I refuse to consider any member of the
    Reese family as having "leeched" off the futures of younger gener-
    ations.
    
    

    	You shouldn't be awed, Karen, and it's not a matter of perfection,
    	for I'm far from putting aside enough for my own retirement at 
    	this time.  
    
    	And I'll spare you and everyone else the challenge of playing 
    	dueling violins with competing sob stories.  They do not change
    	the reality of the issue.
    
    	The fact is that we can't count on the government or anyone
    	else to ensure our comfort at retirement.  The house of cards
    	that has been built will no longer sustain what exists now.
    
    	NEither anger at the messenger (me) nor wallowing in circumstances
    	will make a difference.  The point is that you know NOW what
    	faces you tomorrow, and you'd be prudent to address that.
    	Start by putting your entire next raise into 401K (which DEC
    	will match) and maintain the standard of living you have today.  

    Gee Joe, do you know something I don't?  I've just watched a co-
    worker work their butt off to make it to the next technical level;
    I'll be sure to tell them not to spend the entire 1.6% increase
    they got all in one place.
    
    My next increase, heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh............
    
    You're right, I don't want your advice and I was just fibbing about
    being in awe ;-}
    
    
    

    	So you poo-poo a 1.6% increase.
    
    	It's better than nothing.  Putting that aside, with DEC's 50%
    	match (is that what it is?) means that the person will have
    	2.4% as a start.  Even without the match it's still more than
    	nothing.
    
    	The only other option you've presented here is bitterness and
    	resentment, which still won't change the reality of what is
    	in store for retirement.
    
    	> Gee Joe, do you know something I don't?  
    
    	No, Karen, I suspect that you know what I know.  The difference
    	seems to be our reaction to it.

    
    Joe is right.  I seldom agree with the man, and almost never
    as whole-heartedly as we agree on this, but the man is right!
    Karen, and some others, insist on taking this to heart and are in
    shoot the messenger mode. If I seem a little disinterested
    in the sob story - well, I am. My life's not peaches and cream
    either and I work several jobs too.
    
    I have more "earning years" ahead of me, so that may effect
    my position here, but I'd just as soon chuck all the money
    I've spent so far on this foolish damn system and see the
    budget balanced. I can live with the money the government
    stole already, just don't steal anymore for this pie-in-the-
    sky stuff.
    
    To the "collective" you:
    
    Sorry, but there's just no excuse for living at the end of
    your means unless you truly have no means... in which case
    social services is what you need. You can be pissed at me
    over this if you want to (doesn't matter a hill o' beans
    to me anyway), but when the system collapses (which it will
    do) you're gonna get screwed major -- like be out on the
    street, possibly begging for food. Bite the bullet now, or
    that's your future... think about it!!
    
    -b

re: .79, Mary-Michael

>    determined that you do not *need* it you should be able
>    to redeem at least the full amount you put into it (and
>    this will vary).  Perhaps that is where the "I deserve it"
>    idea comes in

I can't, from a rational standpoint, claim that one shouldn't be able to
take out what they put in, but from a practical standpoint, if they don't
need it, what's the point in recouping it?

Sure - they could "spend" it. But whatever they spend it on, they could spend
their own funds on just as readily.

A guarantee of being able to take out what you put in is a great thing for
those who need it. It's a silly thing for those who don't need it.

Hence the need for beter administration.

	This whole topic is a wonderful example of modern day
	politics; class warfare.

	While the status quo continues in Washington, we're
	left arguing among ourselves about who deserves the
	crumbs returned to us by an incredibly inefficient
	out-of-control government!

	Tom was right about one thing...
	"the vision of a society-as-family, with the
	government as the administrators of the family estate."

	This was and is the liberal mantra! 
	And one only need look at the present fiscal and moral mess we're
	in to see just how badly this bankrupt philosophy has failed.

	Ed, in note 573.81 entered some interesting facts.
	They should not be dismissed lightly.

							Hank

    Anyone that drives a Crown Royal for any length of time most likely need
    to plan for their liver's retirment before making any long term plans.  
    
    

    This note is probably a very good example of what is happening
    to us as a nation - we are getting a very bad case of tunnel
    vision.  What I seen to be hearing over and over in this string
    is the phrase, "I've done it, so you should be able to do it."
    Unfortunately, that isn't true.  Some people don't get the 
    breaks, don't get the jobs, don't get the raises.  Some people
    get sick, their loved ones get sick, they get divorced, they
    make bad financial decisions and may wind up in foreclosure
    and/or bankruptcy.  It happens.  Yes, some people don't store 
    nuts away for the winter.  Other people don't even have trees.  
    
    We made a promise.  And I think we have an ethical and moral
    obligation to keep that promise.  The administration of funds
    has problems.  We need to make sure that people who need help
    get help, people who don't need help don't get help, and finally
    that the system is flexible enough to ensure that people who just
    need a little help don't get more than they require.  A lot 
    of you seem to grumble about paying taxes to fund welfare and
    social security.  Do you tithe?  Is it the giving of the money
    that bothers you or how it is distributed?  If you are fortunate
    enough to have money enough to adequately care for your family,
    why do you begrudge helping someone else?
    
    When you start to grumble you release a hornet's nest. People
    don't want hand-outs for the poor and elderly.  The elderly
    don't want to pay for education.  Single people don't want to
    help carry deductions for families.  People start complaining
    people have more children than is necessary or they can afford.
    And I don't think it's the money that's the problem, I think
    it's that we cannot see the good things our money does. It gets
    tied up in red tape, passed on through endless bureaucrats and
    finally dribbles out to the people in need at the other end.
    
    If we are angry about the red tape, let's get rid of it. If
    we hate the distribution medium, let's fix it.  Let's not
    lose sight of the fact that this government belongs to *us*,
    and if there is a problem, we own the responsibility of fixing
    it.  
    
    Saying, "I did it, why can't you?"  is selfish, self-centered,
    and remarkably short sighted.  Pushing people down instead of
    helping to lift them forward is divisive, derisive, and destructive.
    It will only promote class warfare in the end, and I think
    that is something we would all like to avoid.
    
    Mary-Michael

Quick responses:

o What's wrong with managed care?

	Finding out a lot. I wasn't too happy several years ago when _my_ very
	HMO (near Fenway Park) was the one which mis-diagnosed the case of AIDS
	a woman contracted. Told her she had a cold. She got cold alright.

	And on one (increasingly rare) occassion while listening to David
	Brudnoy, in between his rantings on multiculturalism, he had a spot
	on HMO's and their effectiveness. Real horror-show. Cost containment
	is the bottom line, not your health. Women are getting hustled out
	of hospitals in lickety-split time after giving birth, 'cause HMO/
	Insurance wants to keep money. What's new?


o Ye Olde Welfare-mentality.

	As usual, heads are all focused in one direction. Meanwhile politico's
	insure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Dole and Archer
	Midland Daniels (or whatever that 'supermarket to the world' company
	is called). Newt and Rupert. Hey, but it's all our imagination, the
	media is brainwashing us...Yeah, right.

    re: .83
    
    Too late, I read the first one, which is why I didn't answer
    you last night :-)
    
    If we cannot keep our word we are not worth the earth we
    walk on.  We set up a program and told people it would
    be there.  We can fix the problems in the system and 
    modify the distribution of funds, but if we said it would
    be there to help them, we owe them that.  If you want it
    to go away fine, tell people it's going away in 50 years.
    That should give the generation coming up enough time to
    make other plans.
    
    I would hate to have to watch an elderly person go through
    what I do in my HMO to get a test or a referral.  They don't
    have the energy.  HMO's need to go a long way before I could
    recommend them in good conscience as a sole means of treating
    elderly people.  Shoving people under the carpet and out of
    the way because they are older is not a moral answer.  Denying
    them services because you don't think they worked hard enough or
    saved enough is not an ethical one.
    
    The system is broken.  For example, do you know how difficult
    it is to get *some* medical assistance for elderly who are
    mobile and want to continue living at home?  It's nearly
    impossible!  Nearly nursing home or nothing.  This is ridiculous.
    People cost less and stay healthier and more mobile if they 
    are comfortable in their surroundings.  You need to be a
    red tape wizard to figure out what services are available
    in any given area, and a paperword genius to get them. This
    is foolish, and this is what wastes money.
    
    Mary-Michael

Why not correct some of the abuses of Medicare, like doctors over-charging for
services/prescribing unnecessary/ephemeral surgery and such?

Bet that burdens the system a heap.

    
    They're trying Brandon, but it requires a massive effort of time and
    recources...
    
    
      I know... I know.... better that than another B-1 bomber ;)
    

    
      I've been in Tufts HMO for years, with dependents.
    
      You couldn't pay me to switch back to the DMP.
    
      bb

    
    I agree, I have Tufts and have liked it very much.
    
    A lot has to do with your primary care physican.  
    
    al
    

    
    RE: .97

    Mary-Michael

    Look, you got spanked once already, and clearly unable to control
    yourself, you rely on the old soapbox BS of talking past people
    with the collective you. You know who you're talking to and
    I know who you're talking to, so why not show a little backbone
    and at least address me by name.

    To wit:

    > Saying, "I did it, why can't you?"  is selfish, self-centered,
    > and remarkably short sighted.  Pushing people down instead of
    > helping to lift them forward is divisive, derisive, and destructive.
    > It will only promote class warfare in the end, and I think
    > that is something we would all like to avoid.

    Tough nuggies. If that's the way you want to interpret what I'm
    saying, then you're not into clear thinking anyway and I'm wasting
    my time on you. Yes you, Mary-Michael Scanlon. Not the collective
    box, cowardly throw $#!+ at people and hide you, but YOU. Mary-
    Michael Scanlon. 

    I did not create the federal deficit and I'm not fond of any of
    the politicians who did (of either stripe). The federal deficit
    may very well cause a world-wide economic collapse. One of the
    major contributors (in fact, THE major contributor) to the
    problem is so-called "entitlements". Minor tweaks to the system
    are not going to fix it. What will fix it is an end to the
    socialist state.

    You (yes you, Mary-Michael Scanlon) want to ignore the problem,
    but if you (yes you, Mary-Michael Scanlon) can trash a few people
    with accusations of unfairness and selfishness while you're at
    it, hey, you're a liberal so you of course have an unblemished
    record of human service to wave around from atop your high horse.

    My solution to the problem is to end the federal program with
    a complete phase-out of contributions over 10 years for all people
    under 55 years of age. Those over 55 (including those currently
    receiving retirement benefits) will continue to do so until
    their death... so your sacred promise is kept. Further, as the
    FICA contribution decreases for each person, the difference is
    taxed at 100% _IF_ the money is not put into an interest-bearing
    account of some kind. In other words, if your annual FICA
    contribution is $3000, at the end of the 10 year phase-out
    period, if you do not put $3000 per annum into an interest
    bearing account, $3000 of your money is taxed at 100% by
    the federal government and set aside for you. You are already
    taxed 100%, the only difference is that in my plan, you would
    get to manage your own money and to make interest on it. At
    retirement age, you collect the money the government withheld,
    with a guaranteed "minimum" monthly income (same as now), except
    that the money your receive is based upon the money saved in
    other retirement programs and in your assets (home, real estate,
    car, etc.)

    -b

re:.101

Well Andy, they should take an example from my users.

To them, nothing's impossible.

>Not the collective
>box, cowardly throw $#!+ at people and hide you, but YOU.

Hoho.

If I had a dime for all the aspersions I've seen cast by the upright MM in this
here 'box, I could take care of MYSELF. What a concept.

    
    Are you addressing me Brandon? If so, please expand on MM.
    
    I may have my share of unkind things to say, but I generally
    make it clear who I'm talking to and/or about. You'll be
    happy to know that I place no requirement on you to either
    approve of, or like, me... :-) :-)
                                      
    Also, in the interest of economy:
    
    Mary-Michael:
    
    I read (what was it, note .100?) after your .97 after posting
    my previous response... you seem to be making a little more
    sense... that's a start! :-) 50 years though? The government's
    going to be bankrupt in 10, how you planning on paying for
    the remaining 40 years?
    
    -b

Re: .104 & .107

Brian,

Good thing I read .107 first. :-)  I modified my posting slightly....

You first problem is saying, "I did not create federal deficit."
You did. I did.  Everyone did.  We ignored government and let it get too
big.  We thought we could turn the government loose and it would 
do the right thing.  We were wrong.  We all get the blame.  You,
Brian Markey, and me, Mary-Michael Scanlon.  Like that better?
You're welcome.  We all own the responsibility for fixing it.

I do not believe you can separate ethics from government. I
know I'm not a conservative, but I do not consider myself a
hard-core liberal either.  A good society owes the less fortunate
some help.  Period.  That isn't socialist, that's ethical and
moral.  If you don't like it, hey, it's my world view anyway,
I don't care.  I think it is unfair and selfish to ignore destitute
people.  Sorry. 

Finally, after all this arguing, I actually don't mind your solution except
I think 10 years is too short.  Make it 25 years and we agree.
Unfortunately, if the legislature changes their minds again, this 
plan goes out the window too?  How do you propose keeping Congress'
paws off it?

Mary-Michael

    re: .71
    
    
    >What do you think will happen then?
    
    Bankruptcy, if current polls on the elderly mindset are accurate and
    such remains a constant over the next 20 years.
    
    Personally, I don't think we'll make it that long, unless REAL change
    is made in the way the government is run/spends money.
                                                        
    
    -steve

    re: .106
    
    Well, I've been called a "flake", a "socialist", a "liberal" and
    a "murderer" in this conference, but if you are indeed addressing
    me, "upright" may well be a first......
    
    

To Mr. Brian MPGS::MARKEY:

Yes, I'm talking to you Brian. I'm addressing your observation that someone
is being disingenuous when they are expressing an opinion about *an opinion*.
There's nothing cowardly about that. You disagree with it, fine, point out
where you think the perception is skewed. But don't accuse someone of something
until you ascertain it is there. I detected nothing personal about .97.

And if you think 'selfish, self-centered' is throwing offal then you need to
hang out in this 'box a little more and tally what passes for normal discourse. 

    
    	I thought MM meant "moral majority".
    
    	But I've been wrong before.
    

    re: .112
    
    Good Heavens!  I hope not.  People call me "MM"
    all the time.  I'd hate to think it was some sort
    of horrible joke...... :-)
    
    Mary-Michael
    

>o What's wrong with managed care?
>
>	Finding out a lot. I wasn't too happy several years ago when _my_ very
>	HMO (near Fenway Park) was the one which mis-diagnosed the case of AIDS
>	a woman contracted. Told her she had a cold. She got cold alright.

	Did the HMO do this or the doctor in the HMO?  Can you separate the two?


>	And on one (increasingly rare) occassion while listening to David
>	Brudnoy, in between his rantings on multiculturalism, he had a spot
>	on HMO's and their effectiveness. Real horror-show. Cost containment
>	is the bottom line, not your health. Women are getting hustled out
>	of hospitals in lickety-split time after giving birth, 'cause HMO/
>	Insurance wants to keep money. What's new?

	This is BS. Yes there are horror shows in and outside of HMOs and
	yes, HMO's try to avoid unnecessary spending, but I suspect very few
	HMOs put money before proper health care. Now, a doctor making poor
	medical decisions because it benifits his wallet is another matter. 

	I could tell you my many horror stories before joining a level headed
	common sense HMO. It's amazing how many independant doctors (specialists
	no less) and much money was spent trying to identify a problem for 
	over 3 years (they all failed after spending a small fortune) that one 
        doctor in an HMO fixed for short pennies and in one visit and no 
	expensive tests.

	Many doctors, in an enviroment where they can transfer money from
	your insurance to thier pockets via exams and tests, will put you
	through these tests when they are not needed. This is what drives
	up the cost of health care in the name of "but we must rule out
	all possibilities, no matter how remote".

	HMOs that give doctors money for not using expensive tests when they
	are clearly warranted should be sued into extinction. 

	Doug.

re:.110/113

I never use initials, Ms. Scanlon.

Abbreviations are another matter.

    
    Mary-Michael

    Now we're getting somewhere, YAHOO!!! :-)

    First, I agree that society has an obligation to the less-
    fortunate. I disagree that government and society are
    inextricably linked, and that government is the only
    solution. Government should be, and I believe always will
    be, a factor in the solution, but that the goal should
    always be to minimize their involvement. I feel that is
    the fundamental distinction between what I consider
    to be "true" democrats and "true" republicans. Both
    desire to solve problems, including, one would hope,
    to help the less fortunate. The republican's goal is
    to minimize the government's role and the democrat's
    goal is to maximize it. [As an aside, the reason why
    I feel so strongly negative with regard to a lot of
    democrat politicians -- especially those of the Kennedy
    ilk -- is that they equate the words "less government"
    with "hate", "selfishness", "tax breaks for the rich"...
    oddly enough, they end up being the only group I truly
    hate... :-) ]

    Anyway, now that we've taken this down a notch or two,
    I still think you're being unrealistic about the time
    frame.

    I also agree that it really doesn't matter, because expecting
    the people in Washington (on either side) to fix it is
    wildly unrealistic. With the AARP being such a huge influence,
    it's unlikely that any politician will show the courage
    to do what needs to be done. I think we're skeeeeerude.

    -b

                       <<< Note 573.114 by BRITE::FYFE >>>
               -< HMOs bring back common sense health care ... >-

That's the theory. Stay lucky. Stay reasonably healthy. You'll like HMOs. 
Get something more complicated, and you shall discover what HMO is in practice.

Re Brian M:

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear...

It is not the belief that social programs are doomed to failure or the 
desire to fix the problems with Medicare with Republicanesque measures that 
I found ugly. It is the spittle that glistened on your chin and the chins 
of a couple others here when referring to the generic elderly, and their 
supposed stupidity, gullibility, and greed. Not specific individual 
elderly, mind you, but the teaming "them" out there. It was the haughty 
arrogance of proclaiming a whole generation fools (with the rare exceptions 
of folks like your dad). It was the *attitude*, not the ideas, that was 
ugly. Reread some of the notes out loud, for effect.

What I criticized wasn't the logic that the system has to change or 
disappear, but the logic that condemns as gullible those who trusted in the 
$*^5$ government orifices who promised them one kind of support and but 
then had the $*^5$ government orifices *you* elected change the rules on 
them. 

HTH

Regards,
Tom

    
    
    Tom,
    
    
    Then you aren't listening to what the repubs are saying.  Newt has said
    that he wants the elderly to know what's going on, that medicare/aid is
    still being increased at twice the rate of inflation and that the dims
    are lying and using scare tactics.  If what he says is false, please
    point out where.  If you find the stuff you mentioned ugly, you ought
    to find the dims reprehensible.
    
    
    Mike

>$*^5$ government orifices who promised them one kind of support
    
    That, oh, by the way, put a huge burden on their children and
    grand-children and great-grand-children. Nice legacy, this immense
    debt. But I guess making promises with other people's money is no big
    deal- let the other people pay for them!

>               -< HMOs bring back common sense health care ... >-
>
>That's the theory. Stay lucky. Stay reasonably healthy. You'll like HMOs. 
>Get something more complicated, and you shall discover what HMO is in practice.

 HMOs still do transplants, they still do Kemo(sp)therapy, they still deliver
 babys (my wife was in for 6-7 days for each kid [c-sect] - no pushing her out 
 early), They still perform back surgery, they are still associated with 
 hospitals, they still provide emergency sevices outside their region,
 they still practice medicine, Doctors are still doctors, and often times
 all you need is a physicians assistant (which saves more money).

 They put the emphasis on preventive medicine (health club memberships, scheduled
 check-ups, and on and on ...) and they control costs by planning expenses (block
 rates at physical therapy shops and other planned associtations) and they refer
 you outside of the plan if they can't provide the correct service.

 If you have a primary care physician in an HMO that doesn't provide adequate
 care then write the HMO. They will respond (I've done this). You can always 
 choose a different doctor inside the same HMO immediately if you don't like 
 the one you have (I've done this as well).

 Joining an HMO does not translate into giving up quality healthcare of any type.
 The headaches they remove (no paperwook, no bills) are also a plus!

 Doug.  
 

    .97  Mary-Michael,
    
    I thought .97 was very well put with one exception that I believe
    is pertinent IMHO :-)
    
    >they make bad financial decisions and may wind up in foreclosure
    >and/or bankruptcy.
    
    I would have a problem using government programs to bail out folks
    who wound up in deep financial doo because of the above.  If families
    are "living beyond their means" (as my Dad used to put it), then IMO
    they should determine some other way to find their way out of the mess
    other than relying on the government.
    
    Obviously, I do agree that promises should be kept to those of us
    who have lived conservatively, played by the rules, paid our taxes,
    and did WHATEVER it took just to keep our noses above the water line.
    Should I reach retirement age, I don't expect to be living the high
    life as it appears some noters in this topic seem to think all re-
    tirees do.  I just want to be sure I'll be able to continue to pay
    the taxes on my house, pay the bills and continue to live in the
    modest manner I've maintained for all of my adult life.
    
    I firmly believe there are abuses and loopholes in the current system
    that must be ended, but  scrapping the entire system would be a betrayal
    of the worst kind to inflict on a portion of our population who had
    no choice but to contribute to the existing system.
    
    Karen 
    
    
    PS:  I hope you don't mind having a "sob" sister agree with you for
         a change :-)
    

    The generation that currently comprises the "elderly" has enjoyed,
    by virtue of being in the right place at the right time, the best
    prosperity and standard of living for a given income level that
    this country has ever enjoyed, and probably ever will.
    
    My parents, and my wife's parents, with moderate-at-best blue-collar
    incomes, had (and continue to have) nicer homes, nicer cars, lower
    medical costs, etc., than what we can do with a theoretically-higher
    income, substantially higher in fact.
    
    They have no reason to be complaining about *anything*.  They've
    had the best, they're continuing to *take* the best, and they'll
    gladly and selfishly leave their children and grandchildren holding
    the bag.
    
    See Ed's .81, it's a great note.  All of my personal observations
    over the years lead me to agree with every fact stated in there.
    
    You want to talk about generations that got "gypped"?  Look at
    the boomers and X'ers.  We were sold a bill of goods, namely that
    if we did all the "right" things, studied hard, went to college,
    carefully selected a good career field, worked hard, and so on,
    that we'd have the same or better standard of living that our
    parents enjoyed at this age.
    
    What a crock.  And part of the reason why we're not is because
    we're burdened with supporting an oppressive governmental system
    that the oldsters who fondly recall FDR's programs have burdened
    us with, back when *they* were filling Congress with libs in the
    60's.
    
    And it goes on... I know many elderly who cannot stand most of the
    liberal policies and personalities, and many of them are astonishing
    bigots who rant about civil rights, EEO, women's rights, and other
    such issues.  And yet, with stunning hypocrisy they'll pull the "D"
    lever every time, because they want to preserve "what's coming to them"
    and "what they deserve".  Beyond their beautiful houses and new cars,
    that is.
    
    You want to help truly *poor* elderly, fine.  But much of what's
    going on here is an attempt to extract sympathy for people not because
    they're poor, but because they're old.  Which is a very different thing.
    
    Chris

    re: .120
    
    As far I recall, the social programs which we are discussing
    (SS) have been around since the 30s(?), and our deficit problems
    didn't start surfacing until the 70s/80s.  I do not think
    anyone puts a program in place with the intention of foisting
    the cost off onto succeeding generations, that it happens that
    way is probably more an effect of shortsightedness than anything
    else.  Each generation probably has a least one $$$ problem to
    deal with that was partially caused by the shortsightedness of
    the generation before. I doubt our parents and grandparents
    were particularly thrilled with the Depression and its
    aftermath either.
    
    What I find disturbing today (I'm drifting off into a 
    generalization here, apologies to Mr. Markey, even though
    I'm not answering his note :-), is that with the "victim"
    culture still firmly entrenched in our society, people
    really want to "blame" and even "hate" the people behind
    the problem instead of using that energy to help solve
    the problem.  This appears to be a very angry and spiteful
    generation and this troubles me (and I'm not joking).
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    
    Well, my mother in law has already told us that we'd be taking care of
    them when they get older.  Lucky me, eh? ;')  
    
    I would do it, no problem.  They are family and I will take care of my
    family and do what I have to do.  
    
    
    Mike

    re: .122
    
    My reference to foreclosure and bankruptcy is with regards
    to the ability to save, not using a government program to 
    bail anyone out.  People who bought homes (and condos) during
    the late 80s are living with upside down mortgages, high interest
    rates, and no way to refinance without a substantial up-front
    investment.  This affects how much you can put away, especially
    when you add a child or two or a divorce into the picture.  People 
    who are doing their best to stay afloat should not be punished for 
    their efforts.
    
    re: .123
    
    I don't begrudge someone for being lucky (although my Dad still
    can't figure out why I can't do as well as he did on nearly
    3 times his peak income....:-).  If they've planned for a good
    retirement they should enjoy it.  I would like to see some of the
    $$$ from SS go to providing a core of services geared to the
    specific needs of the elderly;  meals on wheels, housekeeping,
    visiting nurse, pet therapy, movement and aerobics, education,
    programs geared to keeping the elderly mobile, interested in life and in
    their own homes for as long as possible.  Elderhostel is a 
    wonderful program for those who are able to travel.  Aid 
    doesn't consist of making someone comfortable until they die.
    Keeping people alert and interested will keep them healthier
    and happier and they will have fewer medical problems.  The
    distintigration and scattering of the family has created a 
    unique situation in which sons and daughters and grandchildren
    are not nearby to help make meals, clean house, mow the lawn,
    etc. I don't know what the solution is for this.
    
    Mary-Michael
      

    RE: Mary-Michael, perhaps others -

    No one is suggesting that we punish poor seniors. What is being suggested
    is:

    1. Encourage seniors to enter managed care. This is exactly what's
    been happening in the private sector. We are asking no more of our
    seniors than we are of ourselves.

    2. Cut back payments to seniors who do not need it. Yes I understand
    that the govenment made a "promise". For those in need the government
    should keep that promise. However for others we'll have to break that
    promise. That promise never should have been made. It was made to
    win votes. 

    I find it amazing that liberals are against such changes. The current
    SS system is a huge transfer of money from the working poor to the
    rich. Please re-read my .81. The elderly are *rich* while the FICA
    tax is a huge drain on workers, especially those at the lower end
    of the pay scales. 

    You have been saying that those who are proposing changes in SS and
    Medicare are lacking compassion for the elderly. I will submit
    that those that refuse to change a system that takes 15% of a
    worker making minimum wage to pay green's fees for a rich retiree
    are the ones lacking compassion.

    						Ed

.39 
    
<<Clearly, there's no point in even attempting to set you
  straight if you've made it all the way to near-retirement
  age and can't even recognize the lie the democrats tell
  about "tax breaks for the rich.">>


You are probably too young to have yet learned that all politicians lie.  
Some lie more than others, some would lie even to their own reflections 
in the bathroom mirror and believe themselves.  It's part of the character
make up of the political animal.  The state of maturity is when you can
recognize who is lying the least and which way they will probably jump when the
gun goes off.

When a politician starts to point the finger at a section of the population 
and names them the "leaches of society", then look at that finger and follow 
it back to it's source.  There you will find the real source of the economic 
woes of the country.  And, as it's fashionable just now to turn to Hitler for 
an example:  Hitler did just that in the 1930s, he pointed at the Jews as the 
source of Germany's economic woes, and we all know what that eventually led to.

If the government were REALLY serious about balancing the budget they would 
institute real accounting measures in the military.  At the moment, they are 
so devoid of even the most common accounting practices that it's now impossible 
for auditors to audit.  At present, the Air Force does not know what or how 
much they own.  When a firm of civilian auditors tried to audit, they found, 
among other very expensive things, two huge satellite dish aerials stored in 
a civilian hanger, there was no record of the dishes being purchased, or of 
their being stored anywhere.  We are talking millions of dollars of equipment.  
When the army opens a packet of nails, nuts or bolts, and takes out one piece,
the rest end up in a bin which is then sold as scrap at a fraction of the 
purchase price.

Recently a fully equipped nuclear power plant was sold as scrap, even though 
it had never even been assembled, at a fraction of it's purchase price.
And, after the Gulf War, the equipment that was left behind in Saudia 
Arabia.......

The deliberate waste alone in the military is costing tax payers millions of 
dollars, count in the fraud and theft and you are talking Billions.  I don't 
see Pubs or Dems crying about our tax dollars being wasted here, or people
like you pointing fingers at the military and telling them to "get a job
and support yourself".  And while we are at it, they retire at a much
earlier age.

Like Hitler used the outcasts of German society, Washington is using the 
whole Welfare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid brouhaha is a smoke screen 
to cover up that neither party has any power to fix the economy. It's a 
global problem, and America no longer has the power to influence world 
economic events on a scale large enough make a difference.

While the 'publicans are into their feeding frenzy on the American working 
class, and the 'crats are into spin control crazes trying to look strong 
but trying not to look they're following the 'publicans lead, America 
is falling to pieces.  

Finally, as a working American YOU need to look more closely at the 
Republicans platform.  They are not working in your best interests.

- For the past 20 years, Washington has allowed jobs to leave the USA, and 
  left the tax payers to pick up the tab for the unemployed.    

- The Regan administration allowed open season on the S&L's and left the
  taxpayer, once again, to pick up the tab for the bailout.  

- The 'pubs are ripping the guts out of OSHA and making the workplace a more 
  dangerous place to be by making sure OSHA hasn't the resources to enforce 
  the present regulations, let alone new ones.  

- The 'pubs stomped all over the attempt to bring in a national health 
  service.  It's not the most perfect way of getting health care to the 
  masses, but it beats the heck out of nation wide epidemics which is what 
  we are at risk of now.  The food you eat every day has been probably been
  handled by someone who earns minimum wage, lives in unsanitary and overcrowded
  conditions, and has no health care--how do you feel about that?

- The 'pubs are trying to abolish the hourly wage law and put an end to 
  overtime pay, as a measure to save corporate dollars and "create jobs for 
  more people", and if you believe that one......., I don't see anyone trying 
  to regulate CEOs or VPs salary, even though many of them make Millions of 
  Dollars a year, plus perks.

- The 'pubs have ripped the guts out of the clean water act.  Your next glass 
  of water could well make you very sick and there will be nothing you can do 
  about it.  Even under the existing regulations, drinking water is making
  many people sick right now,  imagine what it will be like when the 
  regulations are weaker.

And I could go on.

I don't need MY eyes opened to the reality of the world.  However, I do
suggest that if you want to see what America would be like without Social
Security and Welfare, go to any third world country and look around.

>If the government were REALLY serious about balancing the budget they would 
>institute real accounting measures in the military.
    
     Bwahahaha! Too funny. Rosemary would do well to take a look at the
    budget numbers: we are talking roughly 20% of the total expenditures
    for the entire defense of this country. What about the other 80%,
    Rosemary? Why aren't you interested in addressing that? I don't suppose
    it could be due to the fact that far more money is spent on your
    beloved social programs, could it? No, of course not.
    
    

    .125
    
    
        Mike takes them around and introduces them to each ** old
        fart ** one by one and shakes their hand and tells the ** wrinkled
        old prune ** how lovely he/she looks. Oh yeah, and them republicans.
    
    I strongly object.  It is inappropriate and insulting to call anyone
    an Old Fart, or Wrinkled Old Prune.  Mods, please take note.
    
    As we get old, AND WE WILL ALL GET OLD, we become slow and wrinkled.
    This is a fact of life.

    
   | THAT's the problem.  Not the people who are asking for
   | the benefits - it's the COST.  The COST of health care,
   | the COST of insurance, the COST of education even.
    
    | We are letting companies spiral these things way our
    | of alignment with inflation simply on the basis of greed.
    | That's what needs to be fixed - not the number of people
    | using the system.
    
    mm - that is complete nonsense.  i recommend that you talk to
    some folks in the concord coalition or other non-partisan
    groups to get some basic facts straight.  in 1970 the ratio
    of working people to SS recepients was 17 to 1.  now it is
    about 4 to 1 and shortly will become 3 to 1.  when SS was
    conceived in the early thirties it was intended to be a
    suplimentary income.  at the time people, on average lived
    to be 66 or 67.  acutuarily speaking SS is out of whack.
    people are collecting all of their benifits including adjustments
    for inflation in about one and a half years.  typically folks
    live to collect five or six times what they gave to the 
    system in fica (again adjusted for inflation and interest).
    
    previously someone made the analogy of ss to a pyramid scheme.
    in many respects this is accurate.  two assumptions that ss
    was based on are no longer true:  one is that the the number
    of people contributing to fica relative to the number of people
    receiving ss will stay the same.  the other is that the length of
    time such benefits will be received will remain constant. 
    
    the problem has to do with demographics and the extended life 
    span of people.  the quicker people acknowledge this fact, the
    quicker we will all get beyond generational warfare and start
    addressing the structural shortcomings of our current system.
    
     
           

    
    > As far I recall, the social programs which we are discussing (SS)
    > have been around since the 30s(?), and our deficit problems didn't
    > start surfacing until the 70s/80s.  I do not think anyone puts a
    > program in place with the intention of foisting the cost off onto
    > succeeding generations, that it happens that way is probably more an
    > effect of shortsightedness than anything else. 
    
    Pyramid schemes have always been known to be fraudulent, that's why the
    postal service and the treasury prosecute them.  But SS has always paid
    today's claimants out of today's receipts.  As long as the economy was
    growing and more workers were coming online to keep funding ever-larger
    numbers of retirees, it worked.  But the demographics of the baby boom
    and the totally aberrant world economic preeminence of the US economy
    with its post-war boom growth decades have both ended.  Now the pyramid
    scheme is collapsing.  Shortsighted?  That is a very generous term to
    use, Mary-Michael, about the politicians who put us into this fix.
    
    DougO

    .132 >< .133 notes collision!
    
    DougO

    
    [Content changed by request; underlying sentiment intact
    and unmodified...]
    
    Tom,

    That spittle you see glistening on my chin results from
    some of the real things that Chris mentioned...

    Each year, the right honorable Mike Flynn, Sheriff of Woostah
    County, holds a big bash for the elderly at SAC park, just
    a few miles from where we sit. Now, this bash is (wink wink)
    paid for by you and I because its a "service" to the elderly.
    Those busses that go and pick them all up... tax payer money.
    That food they eat... tax payer money. That band (usually
    Butch and Maeve Moore)... tax money. The tent rentals. Tax
    payer. Same with the rental fee for SAC.

    Now old Mike (wink wink), see he's the ultimate dimocrat.
    Nepotism (wink wink). Cronyism (wink wink). Well our buddy
    Mike has all the local democrat politicians show up, and
    Mike takes them around and introduces them to each attendee
    one by one and shakes their hand and tells them how lovely
    he/she looks [being trained liars and all]. Oh yeah, and
    them republicans. Well, they don't think you should be eating
    the taxpayer's food and riding the taxpayer's busses and getting
    fed a load of democrat BS while you're at it... the NERVE of
    those blue meanies!!!!

    That cheeky devil Peter Blute (R) had the nerve to show up
    at the party on year. Imagine that. The NERVE of a republican
    showing up at Mike's taxpayer supported party. The NERVE!!!

    Sorry Tom, I've seen too many of the people who sell their
    homes and move into federally subsidized elderly housing so
    they have a nice safe place back here while they vacation in
    Florida. You think I'm FOS? I _know_ many of these people.
    The system is crap Tom. And it's YOUR PARTY that is primarily
    responsible for this system. Spittle on my chin indeed. That's
    blood! We've taken it on the chin too many times!!!!!!!

    -b

    Well, I'm looking forward to someday being called an old fart
    and a wrinkled old prune.  My reaction will be to laugh, but then
    I'm one of those "40+ and proud of it" types... I've earned every
    white hair (and lost hair, for that matter), wrinkle, and fart.
    
    While I'm in a ranting mood, let me also object to all of the
    senior citizen discounts for just about everything including
    department stores, travel/accommodations, restaurants, and so
    on, regardless of their actual financial need.  Most of the seniors
    that I see using these discounts have more money than I do.  And guess
    who subsidizes these discounts?
    
    
    re: disintegration and scattering of family
    
    Yes, that's a big part of the problem.  The "mobile American family"
    doesn't feel obligated to hang around and take care of old Gramps,
    precisely because rich Uncle Sam is there to take care of him at
    our expense.  Of course, Gramps misses the personal touch that his
    family could give him, but hey, that's life in Modern Liberal America.
    Get Gramps' money into a safe account, wheel him into Town Hall to
    fill out some government-assistance forms, and hit the road, they've
    got "their own lives to live".
    
    Chris

              
    | re: disintegration and scattering of family
    
    | Yes, that's a big part of the problem.  The "mobile American family"
    | doesn't feel obligated to hang around and take care of old Gramps,
    | precisely because rich Uncle Sam is there to take care of him at
    | our expense.  Of course, Gramps misses the personal touch that his
    | family could give him, but hey, that's life in Modern Liberal
    | America.
     
    | Get Gramps' money into a safe account, wheel him into Town Hall to
    | fill out some government-assistance forms, and hit the road,
    | they've got "their own lives to live".
    
    nice note.  the structural fixes for ss will include a longer
    period till retirement, lower cola increases based on a lower
    cpi, and most importantly a rebirth of the extended family.
    people will have to get used to doing bed-pans at night and
    teaching children to respect and take care of the elderly.
    in many respects it will be going back to the norm of family life
    as it existed before WWII and as it currently exists in most other
    parts of the world.
         

    .98  Brandon,
    
    The HMO incident you mentioned is stuff for nightmares.  I saw 
    similar incidents (not as extreme) with the first HMO offered in
    Atlanta.  I believed their "easy to get appointments, inexpensive treat-
    mant, and preventative baloney" hook, line and sinker.  I joined
    the first year, I changed back to DMP 2 the following year.  The
    replacement HMO (Kaiser) wasn't much of an improvement (from what I
    observed with co-workers).  Newer co-workers who transferred to ALF
    from the NE area confirmed what I suspected, our HMO was not pro-
    viding the quality of care that these folks had enjoyed with HMOs
    up north.  They also complained at the difficulty in getting
    appointments (had difficulty getting thru nurses screening calls).
    Thanks be to all the "yankees" who were vocal and instrumental IMO
    in getting Kaiser to clean up its act (although it still has a way
    to go yet). I still wonder about the folks who tend to have passive
    personalities and won't demand the care they're entitled to.
    
    I knew I wasn't going to be able to dodge the HMO bullet forever,
    but I was dreading the forced HMO march.  Thankfully, a second
    HMO (Aetna) is providing an Elect option for my geography. My main
    concern was losing the neurosurgeon and neurologist that I had 
    grown to trust implicitly; just got their brochure and was thrilled
    to see that a change won't be necessary.  I'll have the same hospital,
    pharmacies etc. avail to me that I've had under DMP2; only exception
    is finding a new primary care physician.....added bonus I'll be
    saving a few bucks a week :-)
    
    Unfortunately, all HMOs are not created equal; I just hope as we
    move more and more into managed care that we don't have to build 
    another massive federal bureaucracy to police them.  I still have
    a problem trusting in a health system where doctors get paid
    bonuses at year's end based on what tests/services they DIDN'T
    order for their patients.
    
    Your comments on Medicare are too true.  Few months ago there was
    a major sting/bust on some of the providers locally.  There were a few
    doctors involved, but the biggest offender was a company who pro-
    vided (or was supposed to be providing) ambulance transportation
    and other monitored transportion to get the sick/elderly to and from
    medical appointments.  I know arrests have been made; not sure it 
    has come to trial yet.  IMO, Medicare isn't the entire problem, the prob-
    lem is that even with the huge Medicare bureaucracy already in place,
    they fail to catch the abusers (or are taking payoffs to look the
    other way).  But then, I still find myself wondering if the same
    abuses won't occur if we move into a total managed care environment.
    
    I'm still trying to figure out whether some sort of "voucher" system
    paid directly to end users could/would be a more efficient, yet less
    expensive way to handle some of these services.
    

    Here's a retirement idea that hasn't been mentioned in this topic
    yet, as far as I know...

    Some banks and mortgage companies - in at least one state - are
    offering 'reverse mortgages' to senior citizens.

    In other words, the bank sends monthly checks to homeowners over a
    period of years/decades and slowly BUYS the home from the owner while
    the owner is still living in it.

    Obviously, the deal for the homeowner isn't as good a deal as the
    bank makes for itself when it lends money to PEOPLE who are buying
    homes, but it still means a monthly check to people who might have
    very little income otherwise.  This plan is pretty much geared to
    middle class people who have been able to afford to buy a home, even
    if their retirement planning didn't work out all that well.

    The advantage is that these senior citizens are not dependent on
    government - or offspring - handouts.  

    The disadvantage is that they have fewer assets to leave to their
    children when they die.

    If you had the chance to slowly sell off your house during your
    retirement years - while still living in it - would you do it?

    I think it sounds like a pretty good deal, even though the banks
    are obviously getting a slightly better deal out of it than the
    senior citizens.  It's still a way to get an income from your
    own assets rather than depending on government or offspring handouts.

    Any comments about this?

    By the way, you don't have to own your home 100% to get in on this
    deal.  You sell whatever equity you have in the home.

    Suzanne,
    
    The problem with "reverse mortgages" happens when people outlive the
    equity in their homes.  Say you are 70, and can get a reverse equity
    for, say 15 years.  What happens if you are one of the growing number
    of people who live well into their 90's?  You are now, not only out
    your equity, but also out the income to pay the equity back to the
    bank, at the same time your health costs are likely to start rising. 
    (Given the statistics from the CDC that say the last 6 weeks of most
    people's lives are their most expensive medically, what do you do with
    people who took this option, and through no fault of their own, but
    good genetics and a healthy lifestyle outlive their assets (and most
    likely their immediate offspring)?
    
    meg

    
    Meg,
    
    There's this thing called actuarial tables. It's based
    on statistics. Don't go worrying about the banks Meg.
    They know statistically how long that old f...,er person, :-)
    is going to be there and they make sure they're making
    money.
    
    -b

    RE .125 - Mary-Michael
    
>    As far I recall, the social programs which we are discussing
>    (SS) have been around since the 30s(?), and our deficit problems
>    didn't start surfacing until the 70s/80s.  

    Your recollection is correct, but not quite accurate. The big
    change in SS happened in the early 70's (I think) when cost-of-living
    increases were added to the system. It is these COLA's which have
    driven the SS problem. 

>    What I find disturbing today (I'm drifting off into a 
>    generalization here, apologies to Mr. Markey, even though
>    I'm not answering his note :-), is that with the "victim"
>    culture still firmly entrenched in our society, people
>    really want to "blame" and even "hate" the people behind
>    the problem instead of using that energy to help solve
>    the problem.  This appears to be a very angry and spiteful
>    generation and this troubles me (and I'm not joking).
    
    And which political party do you see proposing solutions, and
    which do you see trying to place "blame" and "hate"?

    If the Democrats (not all of them, just many of their "leaders")
    really believed what they say they, then it would be Medicaid they 
    should make a stink about. However most Medicaid recipients do not vote. 
    Instead they scream about changes in Medicare, a system that benefits the 
    group with the highest percentage of voter turnout. They make me sick.

    					Ed

    re: .142
    
    Political parties do not solve problems, they predicate them.
    I've yet to see any political party that did not use it's 
    platform and/or position to jockey for power.  I do not count
    on either party to solve this problem.  Yes, the dems are
    whining.  Up until a year ago, the repubs were whining.
    I don't see any real solutions popping up anywhere, but
    the quality of the "whine" in Washington, DC must be
    excellent.  The chief job of any political party is 
    insisting that everything that went wrong is the fault of
    the other party and their members should be held blameless
    and be elected, after which time the other party immediatly starts
    doing the same thing.  
    
    No, if these things get fixed at all, it will be by a third 
    or fourth party, not out of Washington, whose members believe
    that everything in Washington is crap.    
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    re:    <<< Note 573.142 by DECC::VOGEL >>>
    
    RE .125 - Mary-Michael
    
    >>    As far I recall, the social programs which we are discussing
    >>    (SS) have been around since the 30s(?), and our deficit problems
    >>    didn't start surfacing until the 70s/80s.
    
    >    Your recollection is correct, but not quite accurate. The big
    >    change in SS happened in the early 70's (I think) when
    >    cost-of-living increases were added to the system. It is these
    >    COLA's which have driven the SS problem.
    
    The real killer of SS was when LBJ and the democratic congress put
    SS funds "on busget" so they coul dpay for all those neat programs of
    his.  Had the money kept going into a trust fund (it was running a
    surplus back then) there be a lot more money available.  
    As I understand it SS is still in surplus,  but the funds are applied
    to the general funds. 
    
    al
    
  

re.114
>Did the HMO do this or the doctor in the HMO?  Can you separate the two?

Yes it was a doctor who no longer practices there. I can separate the two.

But when administrative practices such as that described by .137 (Karen)
<<I still have a problem trusting in a health system where doctors get paid
<<bonuses at year's end based on what tests/services they DIDN'T
<<order for their patients.
which was just one of the points I heard relative to .98 (I'm not sure if mine
operates this way, do you think they'll tell me if I ask?) are brought to light
can you expect me to be unconcerned? Talk about encouraging mediocrity.

Yes Karen, I'm still with the HMO but at this point seriously considering
switching to another branch. It's a headache to continue using the Fenway Park
area location, especially during Sox season.

re:Mike W

It's good for you. Builds character. I know (I'm up to 147 characters now).

    
    
    I'm always being told I'm quite the character.
    

    	re: reverse mortgages:
    
    	The ones I've heard about allow the owner to live out his/her
    	life in the home even if s/he outlives the length of the reverse
    	mortgage.
    
    	Considering that these things can be written for upwards of
    	30 years, not too many outlive the term.
    
    	When the owner dies, then the estate (or the owner, if he
    	moves out before the end of the term) gets the unpaid principal
    	of the sales price that was set at the beginning of the term.
    	This may turn out to be a paltry amount (just as $250K seems
    	like a fortune when compared to the purchase price of $20K
    	30 years ago, the $250K sales price may be a paltry amount
    	when compared to potential prices 30 years from now) but one
    	has to remember that not only has the owner been collecting
    	a reverse mortgage payment all these years, he has also been
    	living in the bank's house rent-free all that time.

    This sounds like a real good idea. Seems that both parties benefit.

RE. 130
    
Ah Mark, you know that I just live to put a smile on your face.

    
    <<Why aren't you interested in addressing that>>
    
    Sorry Mark, I'd love to but I don't have a stamp.
    
    
So! You want draconian Republican like measures that will 
hurt and destroy people (heaven forefend that we should be
warm and fuzzy like those drated Democrats):  

- Lets start by taxing people who have more children than they
  can prove they can support through to their 18th year.  IF 
  the parents can't put money into escrow to cover the cost
  of their children from 0 to 18, then they can't have any.  This 
  is in case the parents die and leave the children destitute, or the 
  children become involved in crime and are a cost to the community.
  Also, the cost of child support in the event of a divorce 
  is mute as it is just taken in weekly increments out of 
  escrow. 

- Then, let's tax all smokers to cover the health care costs of 
  people they damage with their second hand smoke.  

- Followed by, let's charge a wopping surcharge for people who 
  drive large cars and belch out fumes.  Specially people 
  who drive bright red sports cars that look like a slice of 
  tomato.

- Fine people who park on the street outside of churches 
  when the church parking lot is half full.  My favorite.

- Then surcharge people with out families who live in 4 bedroom 
  houses.  They are just pandering to their ego and don't need 
  all that space.

- And while we are at it, lets add a special tax for people who 
  earn over $50,000 just for the hell of it.

There are many creative ways to balance the budget if you 
only look for it.

No Mark, I am well aware that none of it will work but neither 
will what BOTH Dems and Reps are doing.  They aren't making the 
changes that are needed, only taking the quick and easy way out 
and messing with what exists, while trying to convince us that
they are making change.  The sad thing is that some of you 
believe them.

I have said this before in a note about Newt's diatribe against 
welfare recipients, a few weeks before the Oklahoma City 
bombings, I don't like to see people in power demonizing
a section of the community.  It's dangerous.  And as there 
are more of my generation than yours, and as we have 
experience in resisting government learned in the 60 and 
70s, I'm not worried.  Are you?    =:^)
                                     
    Who knows, I might even vote in the next election!

    	The question remains, though, whether the IRS treats the beginning
    	of the reverse mortgage as the sale date.  If so, then the owner
    	has to ante up for the cap gains tax that year.
    
    	Perhaps, though, the IRS treats the sale as occurring over the
    	course of the term, which would seem more equitable to me.  Then
    	the owner pays tax on the payments just like he would on monthly
    	income.

    >Perhaps, though, the IRS treats the sale as occurring over the
    >course of the term, which would seem more equitable to me.
    
    Then they probably wouldn't do it that way.

>But when administrative practices such as that described by .137 (Karen)
><<I still have a problem trusting in a health system where doctors get paid
><<bonuses at year's end based on what tests/services they DIDN'T
><<order for their patients.
>which was just one of the points I heard relative to .98 (I'm not sure if mine
>operates this way, do you think they'll tell me if I ask?) are brought to light
>can you expect me to be unconcerned? 

No, I expect folks to light a fire under these poor performing HMOs either by
leaving it for better coverage elsewhere (including non-HMO insurance) or
alerting the HMO to its failures, and last, persue legal recourse if damaged by
their administrative pratices, just like you would do with any doctor today, HMO
or not.

The whole purpose of the HMO is to provide good quality health care without
encouraging unnecessary actions, and therefor expense. This seems to work
particularly well in the HMO I'm in.


>Talk about encouraging mediocrity.

Not at all!

Doug.

>I have said this before in a note about Newt's diatribe against 
>welfare recipients, a few weeks before the Oklahoma City 
>bombings, I don't like to see people in power demonizing
>a section of the community.  It's dangerous.

I listen to Newt quite often. I catch as many of his remarks as possible.
I have NEVER EVER heard him demonize or otherwise talk bad about
welfare recipients. What he HAS said is the the current system actually
encourages many folks to get on and stay on welfare and that 
is what he wants to change.

Providing an environment where one is encouraged to achieve and become
as self sufficient as possible is not demonizing people.

You want to listen to some demonizing listen to the dems ... They are
king in this regard.

	Doug. 

    
    If you want real crap about welfare, check out Reader's Digest,
    the bastion of what I call "old lady politics." They routinely
    have articles which show the abuses of welfare (which even I,
    dread republican evyl huminbean that I is) believe are the
    minority... how many articles you think RD has about the elderly
    jet set that lives in federally subsidized housing?
    
    I'm tired of the notion that anything goes when you hit 65...
    if anything goes, I would have it be AARP, the largest lobbying
    organization in the world, and one which happens to be robbing us
    blind.
    
    -b

    Doug Fyfe,
    
    Having choices between HMOs is not always an option for certain
    parts of the US of A.
    
    The first HMO offering was introduced to Atlanta employees over
    10 years ago; however it wasn't until last year that employees
    here got the option of looking at a second HMO (Aetna).
    
    

    and some of us have watched our HMO options reduce.  
    
    Try the fun of having the Dr's you have used and trusted bumped off a
    plan in favor of a more limited set who don't know you from Eve, or
    care what your preferences are.
    
    I've been fortunate that the last time I had to change HMO's because of
    a falling out with digital, that my PCP was on a plan that was covered. 
    I wish I could say the same for reasonable OB's, that hasn't happened
    and the number of specialists drops every year.  
    
    meg
    meg

Meg,

There is always a flip side, but it's not necessarily the fault of the HMO.

For instance, before joining an HMO I often had to wait upwards of a week or
more for an appointment. That's too long to wait when you're sick. I generally 
get an appointment the same day I call or the next day in the HMO. No waiting.
Same goes for the wife and kids. 


I've been to many independant doctors who referred me to specialist after 
specialist (I'm sure this is a racket between the doctors) and still not 
gotten a clear diagnosis or solution.

For me, joining the HMO was a godsend (and I was skeptical!!!). A knee injury, 
originally attened by a highly respected independant sports doctor, was 
bothersome for 2.5 years after he treated it. One visit to the HMO to see a 
physicians assistant and I was on the road to complete recovery in under a 
month. After seeing many different independant doctors and going through 
thousands of $$$ of tests for a problem with my large intestine, one visit to 
the HMO, another physicians assistant, and I got the information I needed to 
address the issue and within 2 months, all symptoms and discomfort were gone. 
Twenty years of constant and often sever lower back pain seen by more doctors 
than I can remember, finally addressed by the HMO (referal) and after a lot 
of work, I was pain free for the first time.

None of these doctors were my regular doctor. They were all different, worked as
a team, and got results without spending a small fortune.

I KNOW HMOs can provide excellent health care and cut costs. That should be the
goal of all HMOs. 

There are a few doctors in this HMO I will not allow to treat me or my family
and I let the HMO know about them. (two no longer work there). I like the
fact that alternatives are available within the same organization. Can't say 
that for independant practices ...

Doug.

      I haven't read too much of this string, but its just my opinion
      that the revolution is already taking place.  
    
      The government is taking over.  I'm serious.
    
      Its getting real bad out there!

    .153
    
    I love the short memory some Repubs have.
    
    Newt. was creating an underclass of welfare monthers (and he used that
    term) and pointing to them as the cause of the country's problems.
    
    It was during one of this "spells" of bigmouthism he seems to suffer
    from when ever there's a full moon, or something.  After the bombing, 
    his OWN PARTY asked him to "cut it out". 
    
    He wasn't the only 'publican to engage in bashing, after OK City they
    did put the breaks on a bit, but now they can smell the electing coming, 
    my guess is there will be more bashing to come.  Though why I don't
    know.  When it comes to living off the public purse, politicians are
    right out in front with their bowls raised for second helpings.
    
    

    >Newt. was creating an underclass of welfare monthers
    
     Yeah, I'm sure he was personally prying their legs apart and replacing
    their birth control pills with placebos... Blaming the underclass of
    welfare mothers on Newt Gingrich is like blaming Bill Clinton for the
    national debt- only worse. Poor women have existed since long before
    Newt Gingrich came to power. So has the national debt existed before
    the Clinton presidency. Gingrich seeks to provide the opportunity for
    the underclass to improve their lot; your response is derision. What-
    do you not believe these women are _capable_ of doing more than cashing
    a check someone else earns? So what's your objection? That welfare
    mothers are going to be expected to limit their suckling at the public
    teat and made to work for a living like the rest of the populace? What
    makes them so special that they should have to produce nothing and give
    nothing to society? Society is telling them to get their excrement
    together. You'd prefer that they not do so?

>    .153
>    
>    I love the short memory some Repubs have.
>    
>    Newt. was creating an underclass of welfare monthers (and he used that
>    term) and pointing to them as the cause of the country's problems.

     No short memory problems here. Like I said, I have Never heard him
     speak in this manner, and I listen to him alot (Read: I watch most of his
     speaches on C-span, I've attended several of his speaches). 

     It is far more likely that you've heard either a democratic or media spin 
     on what he said (it's amazing what kinds of words they put in his mouth), 
     or that  you listened to his words and translated them into something 
     more fitting  to you preconceived notion of what newt or repubs are 
     all about.

     He has very strong beliefs of what has caused many of this countries 
     problems, most of them the result of 'the great society' gone haywire
     and creating the problem of "welfare monthers" (I've never heard this term),
     not the other way 'round.

     Doug.  

    You know, this country was OK once. We worked hard, and the mindset of
    a fair days work for a fair days pay was the norm. It wasn't until
    60s 70s and 80s when the "me" generation came into the workforce that 
    things went wrong.  As more of those "old ladies" and "old
    f..ops..people" started retiring and taking their work ethic with them, 
    the GNP started to drop off.
    
    Over the past 15 years, here at DEC, more and more I have seen younger 
    people extending coffee brakes to half an hour, and lunch brakes extended 
    to 2:00, day-after-day.  After a while, managers started seeking out older
    people when some work needed to be done, well and on time, as they were 
    always there and ready to work.  They didn't stand around and gossiping 
    about dates, fashion and boy/girl friend trouble.  Neither did they come 
    in on a Monday morning dead tired, sore and stiff because they had been 
    mountain biking or skiing that weekend.
    
    This country hasn't gone to the dogs because the oldies are taking out
    of the purse, it's because the youngsters aren't pulling their weight
    the way their parents did. 
    
    (Disclaimer:  This description does not apply to all young people, some
    of them work very hard and contribute 100%.  However, many do not.
    On the other hand, many old people keep working well into their 70s
    and could be fast asleep and still out-think and perform a few people 
    in this notes string.)
    
                                            

    re: .162
    
    This ranks as some of the most nonsensical blathering I've ever seen or
    heard.
    
    Bob

    Well, time for a coffee break and then lunch.

    
    And cowardly too. Like Gaskell has a clue about the work habits
    of people writing in this thread.
    
    Of course, some of us young'uns were also born with a brain. The
    result is that we can see liberalism for what it is _and_ we can
    also produce more given less time.
    
    -b

    
    	re .162
    
    	crap. You observe this behavior in some individuals and claim it to
    be the norm. Quite a leap...
    
    
    jim

      I just read recently that some company got fined a few hundred
      grand for using Federal Express.  Apparently, it is against
      the law to not use the mail system if what is being sent is not
      urgent.
    
      I'll tell ya...I read stuff like that and I could just PUKE.
    
      I would honestly be happier if the govt. disentegrated and we
      had total anarchy.
    
      I am amazed by how rampantly they are intruding on our lives
      and telling us what to and what not to do in areas where they 
      simply have no business.
    
      I wonder when they'll start to outlaw the militias?
    
    						Tony

    Oh good, it's almost lunchtime!

    >As more of those "old ladies" and "old
    >f..ops..people" started retiring and taking their work ethic with them, 
    >the GNP started to drop off.
     
     Perhaps this explains a bit of the reason that Rosemary's opinions
    seem a little out of kilter: her grasp of the facts is sorely lacking.
    GNP (now GDP is used) has roughly doubled every decade. We are on track
    to do that in the 90s. So please explain to us, Rosemary, how GNP has
    "dropped off."
    
    >Over the past 15 years, here at DEC, more and more I have seen younger 
    >people extending coffee brakes to half an hour, and lunch brakes extended 
    >to 2:00, day-after-day.
    
     What time are these youngsters coming in, and when are they leaving?
    Some of them have no one to go home to, and they are still here at 7:00
    pm or later. It comes down to whether they are getting their work done-
    if they are not then it's up to their managers to address that problem.
    If the managers are not meeting their responsibility... How many of
    your complaints are due to lifestyle differences? Maybe you put in your
    8 hours and bolt, whereas over the course of 12 hours they put in 10?
    
    >Neither did they come 
    >in on a Monday morning dead tired, sore and stiff because they had been 
    >mountain biking or skiing that weekend.            
    
     Hmm. Sounds like a lifestyle complaint.
    
    >This country hasn't gone to the dogs because the oldies are taking out
    >of the purse, it's because the youngsters aren't pulling their weight
    >the way their parents did. 
    
    Right. Used to be, a high school education was sufficient to land one a
    job that would pay enough to allow the purchase of a home. That is no
    longer guaranteed, even with college degrees in professional fields.
    Maybe the "youngsters" would find it easier to "pull their weight" with
    a burden of taxation similar to that of the 40s and 50s. But we've got
    medicare and social security for an awful lot of people who just happen
    to be living a lot longer these days, happen to require a lot more
    expensive medical care and in point of fact are taking out of the
    system many times more than what they put in, even accounting for
    interest and inflation. And it's only going to get worse, as the
    boomers exit the workforce. And who's going to be stuck with the legacy
    of debt that the oldsters ran up? The very youngsters upon whom you
    spit regarding their inability to "pull their own weight." You won't
    mind when they're pulling yours, no doubt. 
    

    
    
    See you in 3 hours.......

    No, I'm taking a long lunch today.

    Don't forget; if you're under 40 and you get back late from lunch, you
    have to leave for home early to make up for it.

    Well then, lunch and then straight home!

    
    Where of course, you will indulge in mountain-biking and
    skiing.
    
    -b

    No, I'm too sore from last weekend.

    
    	re: .177
    
    	Now that note just BEGS for a comment....:)
    
    

    
    BTW - Who sold us on this idea that we should retire at 65?
    Why 65 why not 75 or 85 or ever?  What's wrong with working until 
    you die?  I for one never intend to retire.  I love working,
    maybe not the work I'm doing right at any given moment, but 
    work in general.  "Retirement" to me would be working at what I
    love whether I get paid or not.  And if I'm gonna work anyway,
    why not get paid for it?  I'm powering the economy, buying things,
    proving employment for others.  Retire and collect SS.... I think not!
    IMNHO, YMMV...

    
       Ah, to be a mere youth like dk2 !
    
       bb

    indeed.

    
    | You know, this country was OK once. We worked hard, and the mindset
    | of a fair days work for a fair days pay was the norm. It wasn't until
    | 60s 70s and 80s when the "me" generation came into the workforce
    | that things went wrong.  As more of those "old ladies" and "old
    | f..ops..people" started retiring and taking their work ethic with
    | them, the GNP started to drop off.
    
    you are making a false correlation  presuming that the
    decline in living standards was a direct result of boomers entering
    the work force.  firstly,  most boomers were not even in the work
    force when the decline started (early 70's).  the decline over the
    past twenty years had to do with the globalization of the economy
    and the maturing of competitive nations that had been recovering
    from the devastation incurred during world war two.  
    
    secondly, you are not giving credit where credit is due.  boomers
    have had to make the transition from an economy where one 40 hour
    wage earner with a decent education could support a large family,
    to the situation where it requires two people working at least 60
    to 80 hours a week to pay the mortgage on a modest home.  when
    it comes to generational warfare, people scapegoat with
    generalizations.  the problem with the GDP decline was a 
    structural one, not due to a lack of work ethics.
          

    Well I'm 44 and I never plan on retiring. Retirement is early death. I
    love my work and I love my life. So, work until I drop is what I plan to
    do.

    If you're planning on retiring on pensions you won't be able to. If you
    can save a considerable amount of your income and invest it wisely,
    then you'll be able to retire.

    Glenn, back from lunch? 

    
    	Probably noting from his laptop at the bar.
    

    .184
    
    What's a considerable amount?
    

    Depends on your income.

    
    
    I'm still waiting for the stuff on GDP to be addressed by our "geezer"
    noter. ;')

    >the problem with the GDP decline was a 
    >structural one, not due to a lack of work ethics.
     
     What decline? GDP has been doubling every 10 years.                 
    

    Ahhh, welll, finally back from lunch. What time is it?

    It's time for breakfast!

    Oh good!  8^q

RE .169

>>What time are these youngsters coming in, and when are they leaving?
Some of them have no one to go home to, and they are still here at 7:00
pm or later. It comes down to whether they are getting their work done-
if they are not then it's up to their managers to address that problem.<<

    Until recently, I don't think I have worked in a department at Digital
    where this hasn't gone on.  And I know they weren't working till 7:00pm,
    I was there finishing up my work after filling in for them.

    How long did this go on?  Try, from the beginning of July to after 
    Labor Day (I saw them come in and saw them go out.  No terminals at 
    home, no work under their arms):

    Monday:  in at 10:00, lunch from 11:30 to 1:45, leave 3:30-4:00
    Tue -> Thur:  In at 9:30-9:45, lunch from 11:00 to 1:30, leave 3:30-4:00
    Friday:  in at 10:30 lunch from 11:30 to 1:30, leave 2:30

    I think many of us can name at least one person per department we have 
    worked with who could fill this description.  As to the management 
    structures that allowed it, there is nothing constructive I can say   
    My only comment, if you want to work the above schedule, be in your 20s 
    and wear a short skirt (I know, some of you will look a little odd,
    but you have to sacrifice to get ahead).  The work got done because 
    there were a handful of older women to pick up the slack.

>>The very youngsters upon whom you spit regarding their inability to 
  "pull their own weight." You won't mind when they're pulling yours, 
  no doubt.<<

    If I have to wait for this kind of youngster to "pull my weight" I'll
    be starving in the gutter in a week.  You assume, that because someone
    reaches the age of retirement they are incapable of taking care of
    themselves.  WRONG!  For years, we have not only been taking care of 
    ourselves and our families, but you lot as well.  

>>Right. Used to be, a high school education was sufficient to land one a
  job that would pay enough to allow the purchase of a home.<<

    It's not the degree that the employer needs, but the evidence that the 
    young person can turn up on time, and put in the effort to do the work. 
    A college degree shows that you have at least put in a certain amount 
    of effort. A high school degree can still earn a home, but you will need 
    a good few years in one job and show good performance year in year out, 
    to warrant an employer paying you enough to do that.  No one is going to 
    hand you a fat paycheck just for being there, you have to prove you are 
    worth it.

>>But we've got
  Medicare and social security for an awful lot of people who just happen
  to be living a lot longer these days, happen to require a lot more
  expensive medical care and in point of fact are taking out of the
  system many times more than what they put in, even accounting for
  interest and inflation.<<

    You are right on one point, we are living longer than our parents.  And
    when YOU reach your 60 and 70s, you will want to live even longer than 
    we do.  People are like that, they don't want to die and do their best 
    to live as long as they can.

    There is strong evidence to the contrary that old age means more medical 
    care. You will find that the majority of old people need very little 
    health care at all.  Most of the people who get sick from bad diet,
    smoking and drinking usually die before they reach 50-55.  Those who
    live longer are pretty tough and healthy.  In fact, the far biggest drain 
    on health care come from younger people.  At the moment, my generation 
    are paying for costs of 

     	AIDS, 
     	drug addiction, and related conditions
        Alcoholism and related conditions
        mental health treatment connected to drugs
     	injury from driving accidents and drunk driving
     	teen pregnancies, 
        and very soon, the problems of teen smoking

    These costs are not created by MY generation, but yours.  They cost through
    our taxes, our car insurance and health insurance, not to mention the
    cost to towns when they have to pull another half brained drunken idiot 
    with a broken spine, out of the nearest water logged quarry next summer.

    And let's remember who ran up the deficit more quickly than any one, 
    Ronnie-mind my chimp-Regan, that famous Republican.  Who got us in
    one of the all time money pits--the Gulf War, Bush.  War costs a lot of 
    money my sweet and it wasn't fought for our benefit but to benefit their
    Republican Campaign contributors, the Oil Companies.  Who gave our money 
    out like candy to cover up the fraud of their other Republican Campaign 
    contributors (rip off of the S&Ls), Regan and Bush again.  Who gives out
    agricultural subsidies to one of the richest industries in America--the
    tobacco growers--both sides but mostly they are protected by the 
    Republicans.  Smoking is killing millions of Americans and you sit there 
    and watch governments pay more to the tobacco growers than Medicare and 
    Medicaid cost, and all you can do is beat on the elderly.  Oh boy, no 
    wonder they call your generation the "X" generation.

    
    
    
    

I'm BACKKKK!  Bit pushed for time today.  Didn't get in till 9:45am  -- been 
bunjee jumping.  
                           
Anyone see TV last evening?  Seems like our friends in the Pentagon
were stopped before they gave 31 million dollars of OUR money away to 
Lockheed-Martin to pay off laid-off BODs and VPs after the merger.  And 
FYI, you won't find many Democrats in the Pentagon.  Where else have they 
been spending our hard earned tax dollars?  Nowhere where it will benefit
you and me I am sure.

Well, I guess that's 31 million they won't need to cut from Social 
Security -- but don't hold your breath my dears.

RE. .166

     >>You observe this behavior in some individuals and claim it 
       to be the norm. Quite a leap...
      
Quite a leap, I don't know, you tell me.  Isn't that just what you are     
    doing? You see a few elderly with health problems and project that 
    into a mass health care crisis.  You see some elderly with a house 
    and savings and think that all elderly are rich, no matter that it's 
    taken them a lifetime to save for those things.  

Re. 163

    >>re: .162

    This ranks as some of the most nonsensical blathering I've ever seen or
    heard.<<

Gee, I guess that makes me a natural for public office.  I'll call the
Republicans right away.
    
re. .165

It's not that young people lack intelligence, they want everything up front 
and now; they don't get it that they need work to get ahead.

Do you have parents or grandparents dear?  My guess is that if they
even look like they may become a charge on your finances you will be
the first to scream Social Security.  

    

    
    > 	AIDS, 
    > 	drug addiction, and related conditions
    >    Alcoholism and related conditions
    >    mental health treatment connected to drugs
    > 	injury from driving accidents and drunk driving
    > 	teen pregnancies, 
    >    and very soon, the problems of teen smoking
    
    
    	I'm sure glad MY generation won't have to pay for these things.
    
    	Whew!!
    

    re: .195
    
>Gee, I guess that makes me a natural for public office.  I'll call the
>Republicans right away.
    
    Please do, they always enjoy a good laugh.  Now if you are serious
    about it, try the democrats, they would take you seriously.
    
    HTH,
    
    Bob
    

    re: Joe's comment a while back about two incomes not being needed
    today.
    
    Your comment made me curious, so I did the following analysis:
    
    	Assumptions:
    
    		I'm still married to my ex.
    		We still live in our previous home.
    		My ex does not work outside the home.
    		Both our cars are owned outright.
    		Nicole is our only child.
    
    As it turns out, our house cost just a few thousand dollars more than
    3x my net income, as you suggested was the norm many years ago.
    
    So, I took my net pay and started deducting expenses:
    	House payment
    	Car insurance
    	Life insurance for myself
    	Disability insurance for myself
    	Life insurance for my wife
    	Utilities
    	Gas for cars
    	Food
    	Required medications
    
    If there are no unexpected expenses, we just about make it.  Note that
    there is nothing listed for entertainment, the oldest car is >7 years
    old and starting to need more and more repairs.  There is no room in
    the budget for any car payment, new or used.
    
    But wait, Digital is doubling my health care premiums next year. 
    Effective January 11, 1996, my cash flow goes negative.
    
    I'm sorry Joe, but using your guidelines, one income doesn't cut it
    here in Dallas.
    
    Bob

    Well, time for a coffee.

    
    	Shouldn't you wait until AFTER you get back from lunch to go
    	for coffee?
    
    	Don't want to overdo it, you know.  Might get an ulcer and
    	not be able to work after you're 45.
    

| <<< Note 573.199 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "CPU Cycler" >>>

| Well, time for a coffee.

	Glenn, don't make Bob jealous. 

    	re .198
    
    	Hey, I didn't see anything about tithing to your church in there.

  .202  afterlife insurance?

re:.198
>Note that there is nothing listed for entertainment,

This here's your entertainment!

Now get back to planning your retirement!

    Moth and rust free treasure fund.

    
	RE .194

>    There is strong evidence to the contrary that old age means more medical 
>    care. You will find that the majority of old people need very little 
>    health care at all.  Most of the people who get sick from bad diet,
>    smoking and drinking usually die before they reach 50-55.  Those who
>    live longer are pretty tough and healthy.  In fact, the far biggest drain 
>    on health care come from younger people.  

	An interesting claim? Would you point us at the source of these
	facts?

>   Who got us in
>   one of the all time money pits--the Gulf War, Bush.  War costs a lot of 
>   money my 

	Another interesting claim? What was to cost to the taxpayer of
	the Gulf War? How much of this cost was paid for by our allies?
	What percentage of the budget was the Gulf War? What percentage
	of the budget is spent on those over 65?

	
>    and watch governments pay more to the tobacco growers than Medicare and 
>    Medicaid cost, and all you can do is beat on the elderly.  Oh boy, no 
>    wonder they call your generation the "X" generation.

	Are you actually claiming that the amount of money the government
	spends on tobacco subsidies is greater than that spent on Medicare
	and Medicaid? Please clarify.

					Thank you,

					Ed

>afterlife insurance?

And wait'll y'see the forms to collect on _that_!

  > re. .165

  > It's not that young people lack intelligence, they want everything up front 
  > and now; they don't get it that they need work to get ahead.

    Oh boy. This broad brushed, extremely well-thought-out little
    piece of babble comes to you from a liberal democrat. Can you
    imagine that, ladies and gentelman ?!?!? Isn't that a SHOCK,
    that someone who adheres to THE PARTY can be so bigoted and
    close-minded? While the Ronald Raegan FUD flies (said in a
    monotone darlek-like voice: Ronald Raegan made the deficit;
    the democrats in congress are guilt free; Ronald Raegan made
    the deficit... EXTERMINATE... EXTERMINATE...)
    
    Rosemary, I think you could be out-thought by a ham sandwich.
    I'm clearly wasting my time with you...
    
  > Do you have parents or grandparents dear?  My guess is that if they
  > eve look like they may become a charge on your finances you will be
  > the first to scream Social Security.  
    
    Yes, of course I have grandparents. I'm not a genetic experiment!
    My grandparents are stone dead. Great people when they were alive
    though. My paternal grandfather was a registered democrat because
    it was the only way to keep his job (he was a letter carrier; what
    we more commonly know as a "mailman".) Smart man though. Never
    voted for a democrat in his entire life. Not once.
    
    -b

>   Isn't that just what you are     
>    doing? You see a few elderly with health problems and project that 
>    into a mass health care crisis.  You see some elderly with a house 
>    and savings and think that all elderly are rich, no matter that it's 
>    taken them a lifetime to save for those things. 

   Two points: 

   First, Medicare primarily covers the elderly, the expense of which has 
   been growing at double digit rates each year for over a decade. The rate 
   of increase is the largest contributor to the current debt we now owe.
   the problem isn't sick elderly, it is the cost of their medical services
   through this government program. This problem has to be fix. By planning 
   a double digit increase in spending each year, you assure that the medical
   community will meet (or exceed) that increase in an environment that does
   not encourage spending discipline.

   Second, There are more wealthy elderly today with the best benefits ever 
   offered, than anytime in our history.

   One more thing, it was your generation that hoisted this system on your
   progeny so none of this is the current generations fault.

   So please, stop your bellyaching about how this generation would like to
   toss the elderly overboard and try to contribute something constructive 
   that actually addresses the current problem.

   You spew your opinions of what others peoples assumptions are when you 
   have nary a clue yourself. 

   There is actually some very good points in some of your entries but they are
   so buried in your bitter finger pointing superiority that they get lost in
   fallout.  

   I realize that your generation did not have any alcoholics, drug addicts, 
   drunk drivers, pregnant teens, or mental defectives, but to blame the costs 
   of these things on the X generation is ridiculous!
 
   Continue in your bitter little world if you choose ... and remember,  Dems
   are good, repubs are bad, dems wear white hats, repubs wear black hats,
   repub presidents cause deficits, dem presidents are the savior of the country,
   dem congress is not responsible for over spending, repub congress responsible
   for throwing little old ladies off of trains.


   Dodge.

	There is a song that Supertramp did in the 70's that describes the life
of a Republican. It's called the Logical Song. 



Glen

    
    Dick,

    You assume my feelings about the Democrats mean that I
    love any and all Republicans... a pretty glaring
    logical error for one so "Spock-like"... :-)

    I think our _government_ sucks. My feelings for the
    Democratic party stem from the fact that they molded the
    current government. Not the Republicans. The Republicans
    have been little more than a resistance movement, where
    some of us found it temporarily convenient to hang our
    hats on way to much more profound political change...

    And we will prevail. We will toss the federal government
    on its ear, Democrat and Republican be damned!!!!

    -b

    .208
    
    Markey,
    
    You don't listen do you.  
    
    1.  I am not a Democrat, neither am I a Republican.  I think both 
        parties are full of crooks.  Neither am I some kind of verbal storm
        trooper so full of hate that I want to disenfranchise a generation 
        that not only supported me as a child, but fought to keep my country 
        free.  The reason you are neither speaking Japanese, Russian, Chinese 
        or German lie with the very people you are beating on.
    
    2.  I have been out thinking "ham sandwiches" since before you
        were born.  And if I was ever in need of instruction, I wouldn't
        look for it from you. 
    
    3.  I saw the first Dr. Who ever shown on Television and I know how
        a Darlak should sound, even if I can't spell their name.
    
    4.  You are free to waste your time as you wish.  I would prefer 
        that you used it for something more productive than venting
        your anger and hatred of old people.  Just remember, much as
        you might want to forget it, you will be 51 yourself one day.
        I hope you keep a copy of your notes in this conference and 
        re-read them on your 50th birthday and recognize the ranting
        of the callow emptyness of youth. 
    
    5.  I'm sorry your grandparents are dead.  However, ask your self,
        what do you think they would think about how you have described
        in this conference, the people of their generation.
   
    6.  You need to come to terms that there are people who have different
        views than yours, and that they are entitled to voice them without
        being subjected to vitriolic insults.

Darlek...... nnttm

    Well, coffee break is over time to go home. better enjoy it while I'm
    still under 40.

    
    Rosemary, I listen just fine.

    50 years old is a lot closer than you think... I'm 37.

    My parents are the WWII generation... my Grandfather fought
    in WWI!

    My parents, who are retired, say pretty much the same thing
    I do. But you won't address it, and therein lies the hopelessness
    of talking to you. There are many more elderly people than there
    are welfare recipients... there are many who are truly poor
    and need aid. There are also many who have "means" and yet
    live in taxpayer housing... the abuse of the system is far
    more rampant among the elderly than among so-called "welfare
    mothers". The system is running out of money, and these people
    are using the largest and most powerful lobbying organization
    in the country to see to it that there is NOTHING LEFT when
    they're dead and gone.

    You take a minority that is poor and use it to give me a
    crock of $#!+ because I want to change the system. I even
    put forth a reasonable proposal in this string, but all
    you want to do is talk about what a lazy-good-for-nothing-
    unappreciative-back-stabber I am... and you've never met
    me, until now have no idea how old I am, have no idea what
    my parents and grandparents think of my politics, or anything
    else. I'm glad I'm here so that you can pretend to have
    something to contribute to this conversation...

    -b

    Well, time to get off the couch, crack open a beer and kick up my feet
    and read soapbox. Did I miss anything?
    
    {ssspop ssssss}

no

    re: Note 573.162 by TOOK::GASKELL
    
    } You know, this country was OK once. We worked hard, and the mindset 
    
    Your partially right.  We could "afford" the "New Deal".  
    We couldn't afford the "Great Society", Vietnam, world policeman,
    etc, etc, etc...
    
    Good intentions pave the way to hell you know.
    
    You bitch about todays generation.  Compare Ward/Beaver/Wally to
    "Roseanne" or any of those other stupid sitcoms...
    Mom prolly works.  Dad works too, if he's around.  Kid(s) parked
    in daycare.  work work work.... 
    
    The American family is loosing the rat race.
    Congress makes it profitable to send our good jobs overseas.
    Congress make it profitable to market foreign goods here, while
    our goods get penalized.  They buy into GATT/NAFTA, etc... then
    squeel like a stuck pig about what's happening in Canada.
    They tax the piss outta the average person.  They penalize
    saving money but being in debt is rewarded. They control the
    education (propaganda) system. 
    
    The system is so forked up and bassackwards I have no hope of it
    getting fixed.  By fixed I mean "back to basics".  To do that
    would require balls.  Nobody will make that call.  I don't buy
    that "but the world changed... global economy...." garbage for a
    minute.  If run properly, I'll bet our economy could survive
    just fine even if Canada or Germany went down the crapper financially.
    And while we WOULDN'T want to see that happen, we shouldn't be so
    tied into someone elses business.  Say for example, if we quit 
    allowing all that chinese plastic crap to be imported, and lived with
    not selling a couple hundred copies of american software (that get's 
    pirated bigtime) do you think we'd give a hoot if China bitched about
    a "trade problem"?  Trade Problem?  I don't see no trade problem.
      
    I still keep trying, but I prepare for the worst.  If it makes you
    feel better, I don't blame the dems, or the repubs.  I BLAME THEM ALL.
    
    Have a nice day.
    MadMike  
      

    re: Note 573.169 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    
    ...and the GNP deal.  Nightline had a deal on this recently and
    many of us can see it.
    
    It stands to reason if the GNP measures "output" and
    daddy works 2 jobs and mommy works too, that a lot of folks are
    making "output" while the homelife goes down the dumper.
    
    This probably explains "why we all feel so bad even though the numbers
    look good".
    
    Sure you might make 80K.  But your kids hate you and rebel, get
    edukated in the PC camps, all your gov't bennies went *poof* and
    your job making widgets just got sent to Nigeria.  And you drop
    dead of a heart attack at 45.
    
    I say screw the GNP.  Screw my job if it'll hurt my family.  I believe
    in giving digital an honest days pay (well, hell, it's 10:15PM and
    I'm farting around still) but if my family is hurt, I'm hurt, and if
    I'm hurt I can't function, so that's a bad deal all around.
    
    I'm still in the process of slowing down.  I'm crazy like a fox though.
    
    Regards,
    MadMike

    .212
    
    > You assume my feelings about the Democrats mean that I
    > love any and all Republicans...
    
    Not at all.  I simply remarked that because of what I have seen four
    Republican administrations do to the country over the past 27 years,
    there is just about no way I would vote for ANY Republican.
    
    I don't think much of the Dims, either, but the political system in
    this country has deteriorated into one wherein the only sane vote is
    for the lesser of two evils, and I happen to think that the Dims fit
    that description.
    
    When there is a third-party candidate that has even a shred of
    credibility, I usually vote for that candidate, aware that it's a
    hopless cause in the short term but in the everlasting hope that, in
    the end, a third party will arise that does have the strength to cast
    out the vipers who hold us by the national jugular vein.

    >Until recently, I don't think I have worked in a department at Digital
    >where this hasn't gone on.  And I know they weren't working till 7:00pm,
    >I was there finishing up my work after filling in for them.
    
     Oh, so we're not talking about engineers. We're talking about
    secretaries. That explains a lot.
    
    >My only comment, if you want to work the above schedule, be in your 20s 
    >and wear a short skirt 
    
     The former doesn't apply, and I look like hell in a skirt. Of course,
    I'm not a secretary, either. Such a schedule doesn't work well for an
    engineer- at least not over time.
    
    >(I know, some of you will look a little odd,
    >but you have to sacrifice to get ahead).  
    
     Great line! :-) Genuinely funny, and it was even intentional!
    
    >If I have to wait for this kind of youngster to "pull my weight" I'll
    >be starving in the gutter in a week.
    
     You are talking about a tiny minority of youngsters, one whose ability
    to remain employed while not doing anything you find particularly
    disturbing. I don't blame you for being aggravated by such people; it's
    natural to resent those that get away with not working while you have
    to work harder to make up for it. Your management should be taken to
    task for its failure to address the situation; doubtless it was a
    matter of keeping "eye candy" around- probably a good argument for
    getting more women into management.
    
    >You assume, that because someone
    >reaches the age of retirement they are incapable of taking care of
    >themselves.  
    
     I assume nothing of the kind. My grandparents, who happen to be in
    their 80s, not only "take care of themselves," they drive up from FL to
    NH every summer by themselves (my grandfather does it all because my
    grandmother is blind.) Don't tell me what my assumptions are. You
    clearly are ignorant on the subject (which is consistent, if nothing
    else.)
    
>A high school degree can still earn a home, 
    
    This is true in a tiny minority of cases, whereas it was true in the
    majority of cases in your generation.
    
    >No one is going to hand you a fat paycheck just for being there, you 
    >have to prove you are worth it.
    
     No kidding.
    
    >You are right on one point, we are living longer than our parents.
    
     Yep. And the amount of money you take out of the system in social
    security will be far more than what you put in + interest- many times
    more, in fact. Social security is a pyramid scheme- only we are not
    willing participants, we are forced, and we youngsters who are the
    targets of your vitriol not only won't ever be able to get anything out
    of social security ourselves despite having paid thousands in for
    decades, we'll still have to pay for YOUR benefits. Nice legacy, that.
    
    >There is strong evidence to the contrary that old age means more medical 
    >care. 
    
     Not according to the AARP and CBO. Where do you get your figures? Are
    you even using figures? Don't tell me; they're PFA.
    
>At the moment, my generation  are paying for costs of                   
    
     My generation is paying for all of those costs as well, not to mention
    the costs you neglected to put in there like heart disease, etc which
    are costs created by your generation. Not to mention the fact that
    smoking costs and alcoholism costs and driving accident costs are
    extremely high in your generation- who do you think taught my
    generation to smoke? My generation smokes less than yours does- at
    least we are learning.
    
    

      Hi Rosemary,
    
        My inputs...
    
        1) As a Christian, I believe that if you want to talk about
    	   people with problems, the right tack is to concern yourself
           with your own.  After all, the person you can most change
    	   is yourself.
    	   The single thing that most shapes what makes children the
    	   kind of adults they end up being is their parents.  If your 
    	   children or grandchildren are screwed up, perhaps a lot
    	   of the problem was their upbringing.  We are very much the
    	   product of how we were brought up.
    	   Certainly TV probably doesn't help.  Who let the kids and
    	   grandkids watch the TV?  Who made the shows?
    
        2) Entitlements and welfare, according to my understanding is
    	   unconstitutional (at least at the federal level).  I believe
    	   theft is wrong and thus it is inherently unethical for anyone
    	   to take money from anyone for the express purpose of giving 
    	   it to anyone else.
    	   Our culture has undergone a tremendous shift from a sort of
    	   'rugged individualism' to socialism.  I heard one person 
    	   succinctly describe the cause of such a shift.  He described
    	   his father who emigrated from Europe in, I believe, the 1920's.
           This man spoke little to no english and was unemployed.  He
    	   realized something rather quickly, "Learn to speak english
    	   and get a job OR DIE."  The man went on to say that people
    	   usually rise to meet the standard that is placed upon them.
           Now, I don't want to suggest that people shouldn't be helped,
    	   but I do believe it is the private sector that should do the
    	   helping.
           What do you think of the collective mindset of our country 
    	   when it had the previous standard?  We were STRONG.  What do
    	   you think it is now when any 'Joe' can emigrate and immediately
    	   be on govt. assistance.  We are WEAK.
    	   A quandary I see in your position is that the very thing you
    	   endorse is the very thing that wove itself into the fabric
    	   of our culture that helped make us so weak.  Socialism!  You
    	   want the govt. to be our 'guardians' and yet it is this 
           'guardianship' itself which weakened the standard and thus
    	   weakened us.
    
    	   You seem to be silent on the two main problems as I see it.
    	   You have made no mention of the effect of parenting on how
           it impacts how children become the people they become and
    	   you advocate socialism all the while it is the single greatest
    	   external factor that has made us so much weaker than we once
      	   were.
    
    	   By God's grace, I hope to point the plank square in my own
           eye and ask each day, "How do I fail my children?"  And I also
     	   hope to be some kind of voice at least letting others know that
    	   our govt. is so pathetically out of control and needs to be
       	   (essentially) dismantled.
    
    							Tony
                       

    
    
    about 20 notes back mark challenged the decline of the gdp.
    in the late fifties and sixties we enjoyed a 6 to 7
    percent gnp growth.  historically over the past two hundred
    years most generations including those alive today are experience
    growth of between 2 and 4 percent. (gnp became gdp around 1991
    when it was changed to better measure true domestic production.) 
    
    also as mad mike pointed out the gdp is an antiquated mechanism
    for understanding what is really going on in the economy.  the
    amount of hours that a family has to devote to work has helped
    compensate the decline of living standards in terms of gross
    income, but it hasn't helped our communtities or the job of raising
    our children.
    

    >also as mad mike pointed out the gdp is an antiquated mechanism
    >for understanding what is really going on in the economy.  the
    >amount of hours that a family has to devote to work has helped
    >compensate the decline of living standards in terms of gross
    >income, but it hasn't helped our communtities or the job of raising
    >our children.
    
     If you want to talk about the sociological effects of longer hours,
    etc, be my guest. But there's no sense in talking about a declining
    GNP/GDP, when it continues to climb year after year. Make your points
    using the existing facts, not using friday facts (such as declining
    GNP). If your arguments are sound, they'll still work, and not be as
    trivial to undermine.

.222
    
Mark,

Quickly, as I don't want to waste my extended coffee brake, 

FYI, it wasn't secretaries I was referring to.  They weren't 
engineers either, but I have seen engineers who have taken 
advantage of the easy attitude on time keeping in the company.

I would have to see your legs to judge whether you are 
accurate about looking like "hell" in a short skirt.

High Tech isn't the only industry in this state, and Digital
isn't the only company.  If you had worked in retail and had 
tried to hire young people you would know what I am talking 
about.  In the majority they are lazy and resentful.  They 
expect their paycheck on time, but don't have that attitude 
to their job.  

I apologize for making assumptions on your behalf.  It was 
foolish of me to once again take your words as an indication 
of your values and beliefs.

My information on health costs of the elderly come from the 
AMA and the CDC.  You will have to take my word for it as I 
don't have the flash reports anymore--it was about a year 
ago and it was reported in some newspapers I believe.

And, up to this point, I have taken nothing out of the 
system.  In fact, by the time I retire there won't be 
any "system" to take it out of.  Welfare and Social 
Security may not be perfect, but if you can turn off your 
"let them eat cake and pull themselves up by their bootstraps"
mentality for a moment and think about the alternatives, I 
would be interested to hear how you would handle the grim 
problems that will exists in your welfareless world.

I would rather my tax dollars were spent supporting and
helping other people of every age than on the space program,
subsidies for tobacco growers, lavish health care for 
senators, and freebie junkets to exotic places for 
politicans.  
    
And as for humor, I could never match the quality of your so very black
    humor, satire and wit.
    
Opps, lunch time.  Will have to go.

RE: Gaskell

>If you had worked in retail and had 
>tried to hire young people you would know what I am talking 
>about.  In the majority they are lazy and resentful.  They 
>expect their paycheck on time, but don't have that attitude 
>to their job.  

My wife will back this statement up.  She feels more like a babysitter for
teenagers (who want to do little more than punch in and punch out), than 
she does a shift leader.  Managements response to this kind of work
ethic is "We can't dicipline them, we don't know what kinds of problems
these kids have in their lives, and this job may be their only stability ..."
BS. 

I don't remember seeing any of this when I was a working teen.

    
    .227,
    
    I think this depends almost entirely upon the style and quality 
    of management.  I've never encountered unmotivated or unwilling 
    or unqualified staff at any GAP store I've been in, yet I ALWAYS
    encounter them at the Canadian Tire.
    

 I encountered a few of them recently during a couple visits to my local
 Dunkin' Donuts.  They appeared to be rather disturbed at the fact that 
 a customer was interrupting their conversations.




 Jim

>If you had worked in retail and had 
>tried to hire young people you would know what I am talking 
>about.  In the majority they are lazy and resentful.
    
     No argument there.
    
>I would be interested to hear how you would handle the grim 
>problems that will exists in your welfareless world.
    
     That's not going to happen, so there's no point in playing "what if?"
    We need to expend the energy to reverse the trend of profligate
    spending that has caused our crushing national debt. What this requires
    is the setting aside of sacred cows and the grim task of justifying
    every expenditure and ensuring that we have the revenue required to pay
    for it. This is what you refuse to do- you scream and cry about waste
    in the tens of millions when the problem is on the order of hundreds of
    billions, all to justify a hands off approach towards the worst
    offenders (which just so happen to be your cherished programs.)
    
>I would rather my tax dollars were spent supporting and
>helping other people of every age than on the space program,
>subsidies for tobacco growers, lavish health care for 
>senators, and freebie junkets to exotic places for 
>politicans.
    
     Everybody has their own spending priorities. No two are exactly the
    same.
    
>Opps, lunch time.  Will have to go.
    
     You won't be eating at your desk?!! Well, that's some kind of
    dedication...

    
    | If you want to talk about the sociological effects of longer
    | hours, etc, be my guest. But there's no sense in talking about a declining
    | GNP/GDP, when it continues to climb year after year. Make your
    | points using the existing facts, not using friday facts (such as declining
    | GNP). 
    
    the context of the discussion was comparing current gdp to the
    gnp enjoyed before the 70's and a discussion of the the reasons
    for the difference.  it's not making up a fact to assert that the
    gdp of today is substantially less than it was in the 50's and 60's.
    in that sense it is certainly a decline.  
    
      

    >it's not making up a fact to assert that the
    >gdp of today is substantially less than it was in the 50's and 60's.
    
     Would you PLEASE look in a fact book like the World Book Atlas or
    something similar. GDP is NOT NOT NOT now less than it was in the 50s
    and 60s. Look at the numbers- it is very clear our GDP is much, much
    larger now than it was in the 50s and 60s. Claiming it is not is making
    up a fact. please stop doing this if you wish to be taken seriously.

    
      Rosemary is sage.  The kidzuv gawn to the dawgz.
    
      bb

Perhaps she means that the rate of GDP increase is less (not that it
changes the argument any ...)


Perhaps I  should go ask the ham sandwich ...

    
    mea culpa.  the rate of growth of gdp was what i meant to be talking about, 
    not the absolute rates of production.
    

    .232
    
    Ah, but our population is larger than it was in the 50s and 60s.  And
    by the way, I ate half of my lunch the run in my car and the other half
    at my desk.  Does that mean that I'm only half dedicated?

OK,

Now given the current size of GDP, and the size of GDP in the fifties,
is 4% of today's GDP larger than 7% of the GDP of yesteryear?

Now factor in the fact that all the countries we were rebuilding (part of 
the GDP) are now our competition in the global market.

SO, how we doin' these days  :-)

    >mea culpa.  the rate of growth of gdp was what i meant to be talking about, 
    >not the absolute rates of production.
    
     So the rate of growth of GDP is less- what is it that you wish to
    infer from that? The world economy is vastly different than it was
    following world war II. At the time, we had very little global
    competition. There was no even quasi-united effort by european
    countries to have a common market. 
    
     And the fact of the matter is that GDP is growing at a healthy clip-
    not really all that much different from the 50s and 60s. Perhaps you
    wish to couch your argument in different terms?

      I'm curious...is GDP a value normalized on a per capita basis?
      If it is not, its not an accurate barometer of the economic
      health of our country.
    
      Correct me if I am wrong, but if one country was a quarter the
      population of another and had half the GDP, does this mean that
      the average person had twice the standard of living?
    
      So which country is really better off?
    
      Rosemary,
    
      I'm curious as to your thoughts of my response to you.
    
    							Tony

.216

Ahhh.  37, a dangerous age.  

- At 17 you think you know it all.

- At 30 you know you didn't know it all then, but you feel confident that you 
  do now.

- At 65 you realize that "all" is subjective and one person's "all" is 
  another persons "nothing", and anyway the only thing that really matters 
  is waking up each morning and finding yourself still breathing.  Anything 
  else don't amount to a hill of beans.

Markey, you used to be able to opt out of Social Security.  If you still can, 
and if you don't like the present Social Security System, then leave and 
go solo.  Or, go live in a country that has no welfare system. 

I still don't think you have got it yet.   We are ALL being screwed by the 
system.  The difference is that you are still young enough to make up the 
difference, I and my contempories are not.

From your past notes, it doesn't sound to me as if changing the system is
you main motivation, I think you just want to punish old people for being old. 
We have paid into this system for years.  When the S&Ls were defrauded, the 
government managed to find BILLIONS to bail them out, they didn't use that 
money to cut the deficit, or create jobs.  They used it to cover up corruption 
and theft.  If they can do that for their friends they can do it for the 
people of America.

If you really are interested in change, gutting Social Security isn't the way
to do it.  Hit at the real core of the cancer.  Both parties are only
interested in getting elected.  Instead of running the country they are
engaged in cutting down what ever the other party achieved while in office,
no matter if it were good or bad, and uncovering the other parties mistakes and 
mistresses.  The Electoral College makes sure that our vote counts for little 
and the lobbies make sure that only their voice and dollar count in government.
This is what you should be fighting against, not making fun of the elderly.  

The political system has very convenient myopia.  While shouting from the 
roof tops that Social Security is sinking this country and burdening the
young with debt, they turn a blind eye to the chronic under funding of 
company pension plans.  This has been public knowledge for at least 10 years 
and the government keeps allowing business and industry get away with skimming
pension plans down to the minimum the law allows and pocketing the cream.  
It's YOU, US, the tax payer who are underwriting those plans and when they 
default it's our money that will go to bail them out.  That little 
catastrophe will make the S&L bailout look like pocket change.  There is 
time to fix this, but neither side is going to do anything to upset their 
campaign contributors this close to an election, so poor old Joe and Jane 
America can go twiddle their fingers for all either party cares.

The SS and Welfare are the Republican's whipping boy.  They are not the
real problem, but if they can convince enough people they are, then those
people will vote Republican and not Democrat for fear that their future
will be stolen by the oldies.  It's just another ploy to grab power.
If you really knew how much the government wastes each year, and has
done so for decades, you would be speechless.  Kick backs to people like
Noreaga, university grants for research on South American prostitutes,
$10,000 sofas for an admirals ward room.  Taken one at a time they don't 
amount to much (if you don't consider half a million much), but put them 
all together they are robbing us blind.

>>The system is running out of money, and these people
    are using the largest and most powerful lobbying organization>>

Like the tobacco industry isn't!  And they kill people.  Old people don't.
The system was running out of money when Regan was in power, but you never
heard a peep from the Republicans then.  After all, Regan didn't have to
worry about funding his retirement did he.

My FATHER fought in WW1.  His philosophy was, never volunteer for anything; if 
they say it's your duty then you wont get paid, if they wave the word 
patriotism around you'll probably get killed; if they say do it for God and 
Country then they'll put you in the firing line and withdraw to the mess.  
Beware when a politician speaks, look behind the smoke and waving flags for 
the real objective.


                                                            

    Sorry Tony, your notes got kind of lost in the shuffle.
    I have to get home to cook a ham (Yes, I really do have
    to cook a ham) for supper tonight.  I'll re-read your notes
    tomorrow lunch time and reply.  

    You mean your lunchtime is over already? What a workaholic!

    
    re:.240
    
> I still don't think you have got it yet.   We are ALL being screwed by the 
> system.  The difference is that you are still young enough to make up the 
> difference, I and my contempories are not.

    Sounds like victim-itis to me

> From your past notes, it doesn't sound to me as if changing the system is
> you main motivation, I think you just want to punish old people for being old. 
> We have paid into this system for years.  

    more victim-itis?

> If you really are interested in change, gutting Social Security isn't the way
> to do it.  Hit at the real core of the cancer.  ....
> 
> The Electoral College makes sure that our vote counts for little 
> and the lobbies make sure that only their voice and dollar count in government.
> This is what you should be fighting against, not making fun of the elderly.  

    Oh yeah, that'll fix the deficit.  Why didn't I think of it?

> The SS and Welfare are the Republican's whipping boy.  They are not the
> real problem, but if they can convince enough people they are, then those
> people will vote Republican and not Democrat for fear that their future
> will be stolen by the oldies.  It's just another ploy to grab power.

    I see, so where exactly do you think all the money is going?

> If you really knew how much the government wastes each year, and has
> done so for decades, you would be speechless.  

    'scuse me, who's been running the show for the last 40 years?

> Kick backs to people like
> Noreaga, university grants for research on South American prostitutes,
> $10,000 sofas for an admirals ward room.  Taken one at a time they don't 
> amount to much (if you don't consider half a million much), but put them 
> all together they are robbing us blind.

    So cut that too.

> >>The system is running out of money, and these people
>     are using the largest and most powerful lobbying organization>>
> 
> Like the tobacco industry isn't!  And they kill people.  Old people don't.

    'scuse me, last time I checked, there is only one "LARGEST" anything.

> The system was running out of money when Regan was in power, but you never
> heard a peep from the Republicans then.  After all, Regan didn't have to
> worry about funding his retirement did he.

    Cheap slam, and truely pathetic.  It was the Dems that made the deficit
    a campaign issue, now that it's no longer useful to them, they say it
    isn't important.

> Beware when a politician speaks, look behind the smoke and waving flags for 
> the real objective.

    This is one of the few things you've said that I believe is correct.

    
    RE: retail stores

    Crappy pay, no challenge, deal all day with grumpy people...
    Sounds like the kind of job that will attract the top-notch
    performers! Is it a surprise that jobs with moron pay and
    moron requirements attract morons? Age has nothing to do
    with this. Retail stores used to be small operations that
    were run by something known as "entrepreneurs"; you remember
    them right? The guy with the broom was most likely the guy
    who owned the joint... you want your Walmart-Price-Slasher-
    Give-Me-Japanese-Appliances-Up-The-Rectum-Super-Store?
    Well, you got 'em. Stop bitching because all you can find
    is morons. It took another set of morons to make sure things
    were that way... know what I mean?

    RE: Rosemary

    There's nothing more to be said, so you can put your
    violins away now...

    -b

RE: Gaskell

>We have paid into this system for years.  When the S&Ls were defrauded, the 
>government managed to find BILLIONS to bail them out, they didn't use that 
>money to cut the deficit, or create jobs.  They used it to cover up corruption 
>and theft.  If they can do that for their friends they can do it for the 
>people of America.


What a joke. Where do you suppose the money came from for the S&L bailout, a 
federally guaranteed program, came from? We borrowed it, it's now part of 
the federal debt! At least this was a one shot deal. Medicare and Medicaid
are an anual debt maker at this point. 

Do you know what percentage of the federal budget goes towards these benefits?
How would you propose to solve the ever persistant problem of double digit
increases in these benefits cost? 

Given that the SS surplus is nothing more than a bunch of IOUs how do you
propose to put the federal budget in a direction that would allow for
controlled spending, paying off our debt, putting the money back into
SS, and having enough money to make everyone happy with the Medicare
budget?

Doug.

     <<< Note 573.238 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Compilation terminated with errors." >>>
                     -< what point are you really trying to make? >-
    
      
    
    |    So the rate of growth of GDP is less- what is it that you wish to
    |    infer from that? The world economy is vastly different than it was
    |    following world war II. At the time, we had very little global
    |    competition. There was no even quasi-united effort by european
    |    countries to have a common market.
    
    i was orignally responding to gaskell's claim that the decline
    in the growth of the GDP was due to some sort of decline of
    work ethics.  go back a few notes ago, do a global substitution
    of "gnp" for "rate of growth of gnp" and you'll see that we are
    in agreement on the points you made above. my claim was that the
    decline in growth was structural and a result of japan, germany,
    and third world nations maturing their ecomomies and becoming
    globally competitive. (as an aside, i confess to being nomenclature
    impaired.  if there is a concept to word generator in the brain, 
    mine definitely has bugs.) 
    
    | And the fact of the matter is that GDP is growing at a healthy clip-
    | not really all that much different from the 50s and 60s. Perhaps
    | you wish to couch your argument in different terms?
    
    as a measurement of the economy the gdp is coming under heavy
    critisism.  it was originally devised during wwii to help the 
    country determine where factory production was not being fully
    utilized.  however because it is such a gross measurement, it
    does not factor out things that are truly unproductive.  (e.g.
    waste dumps, hurricanes, floods, the now famous billions of
    hours of income tax preparation all contribute to the gdp, but
    are clearly counter-productive to the countries well being.)
    
    

.223

Tony,

I have read and reread your note.  I am not sure what point you are trying 
to make.  We all have problems.  The trick to survival is to recognize that 
and move on.  It is the fate of mankind to repeat the mistakes of our 
fathers, as life changes little from century to century, it's only 
our toys that become more sophisticated.  TV is a great teaching tool, if 
parents take the time to use it.  My daughter recognized the objective of
the Saturday morning cartoons at an early age.  She understood that they
were designed to make kids pest their parents to buy the products the
advertisers where pushing.  She enjoyed the programs and learned to make up 
her own mind about the toys.  

If your objective is to punish everyone who is not yourself then your opinion 
on entitlements and welfare would be understandable.  If you are content to 
see people dying in the gutter rather than give money to the government to 
give to welfare recipients, then you have the answer.  However, I do not mind 
paying taxes, local and federal, to help people make it in this world.  None 
of us are strong all of the time, we all have periods when we need a helping 
hand, woman more than most as they are usually left holding the baby, 
literally.  Even my cats show compassion for each other when sick, hurt or 
needy, I would expect no less of human beings. 

The welfare system has to be impartial.  Private sector can ordain when and 
to whom they give money, incorporating a whole spectrum of bias and 
discrimination in the process.

I have no desire for government to be a guardian, neither do I have a need 
of one. However, it would be unconscionable and embarrassing for a nation to 
throw its children into the streets and its citizens onto the breadlines.  
There are aspects of the welfare system that need fixing, and they can be 
fixed.  And if the political system were REALLY interested in reform, that is 
what they would be doing, not pandering to the frightened masses and imposing 
restrictions that seem all to often pitched against women and children.

The topic was, once, about welfare and social security, not parenting.  But, 
as you bring it up, it would be better if you asked yourself "How have I 
benefited my children today."  No one ever succeeds as a parent, we just do 
the best we can.  The best thing a parent can do is to love their children, 
talk to them and most importantly, listen to them.

The main problem with America is the lack of personal responsibility, whether 
it be industry and business, parental or governmental.  No one is ever 
responsible for mistakes, it's the other person, party, my parents, society 
is to blame.  But that's because we are human beings, not perfect.  The best 
of us just do the best we can without hurting anyone else, the rest do the 
best they can for themselves regardless of anyone else.  But that's the way 
it has always been.

Government has always been out of control.  They are better now than they 
have ever been.  We are better educated, we get instant news, and each of us 
has a vote.  Abuses and corruption are regularly uncovered.  And no matter 
how it may seem post OJ, justice does happen everyday in little courts around 
the country and when it doesn't we read about they next day.  For every bad 
parent there are thousands more who set boundaries and rules and bring up 
fine children.  For every bigot there are thousands more who are too busy 
just trying to survive to the next day to care about what color their 
neighbors skin is.

.244
    
>>There's nothing more to be said, so you can put your
    violins away now...<<

In your dreams sweetheart.  You aren't even close.  And I don't play a 
violin, I play a base bazooka (and, yes Mark, that's a funny and I did 
it on purpose).


Work ethic applies to morons as well.  We have rewarded the lack of work 
ethic and made it cool to be a rude, lazy, underachiever.

How come people who have been in business for decades suddenly become 
bad employers when this present generation of young people hit the 
job market.  And how come they suddenly become good employers again 
when they go back to employing older people.  I am lucky that our 
business does not have to hire anyone outside the family.  The owner, 
my daughter (27) has managed in retail for 10 years and has seen first 
hand the absence of work ethic of many of her generation.  She has never
had a problem in getting and keeping a job as she also believes it's 
a duty and not an option to do a good days work for your pay.


.245

>>What a joke. Where do you suppose the money came from for the 
S&L bailout, a federally guaranteed program, came from? We borrowed it,<<

And I didn't hear any yells of outrage from the younger generation about
that, and I can't find any lengthy "Notes" about it either.  Only when 
they saw the prospect of having to face up to their responsibilities 
toward the people who kept them safe through a world war and several
police actions did you all start squirming.  

And, may I ask, where are they going to get the money for the bail out of 
private pension plans?  The government will borrow that as well, and you 
can whistle in the wind for a balanced budget for all they will care, as 
long as their corporate sponsors are covered and happy.

.240

As Victim-itis isn't a real word, I take it you mean that I think myself
a victim when I am not.

      The definition of Victim:

      "A living being slain and offered as a 
       sacrifice to a deity. "  

     		Right on, we are being thrown to the 
     		younger generation like Christians to the lions.

     "One who is harmed or killed, as by accident."

     		No accident, it's being done to an orchestrated
     		plan.

     "A person who is tricked, swindled, or injured."

     		This is the kicker, it's so true it hurts.

The older generation ARE victims.  We have fought to keep this country 
safe, we have made sacrifices to educate our children and we have 
contributed to a system that has been so badly mismanaged that it won't 
be there to pay out when we retire.  The majority of your rights, civil 
and employment, are there because we stood up and fought for them while 
you were still in the cradle.  And the only way you can show your gratitude 
is to blindly follow the divisionary tactics of a bunch of power hungry 
nobodys, and disfranchise us now we are close to retirement and at our most 
vulnerable.

>>scuse me, who's been running the show for the last 40 years?<<

You mean you don't know, you haven't noticed!!!:  Republicans, Democrats, 
the Pentagon, the lobbies and special interests.  I doubt if we would 
have been any worse off if the Russians had invaded and ran the country.

>and, yes Mark, that's a funny 
    
    Well, I'm sure it was supposed to be.
    
>Work ethic applies to morons as well.  We have rewarded the lack of work 
>ethic and made it cool to be a rude, lazy, underachiever.
    
     And hey, if even that's tyoo much for you, we have a generous welfare
    system so you don't have to do nuthin' more than cash the check stolen
    from those who actually do work.
    
>I am lucky that our 
>business does not have to hire anyone outside the family.  The owner, 
>my daughter (27) has managed in retail for 10 years and has seen first 
>hand the absence of work ethic of many of her generation.  
    
     How is it possible that your daughter can have a work ethic? At 27
    years old, she's even younger than me! I thought the work ethic became
    extinct after you made your grand entrance into the world, at least,
    that's the impression you give in your notes. Must be her superior
    genetics that allowed her to retain a work ethic...
    
>And I didn't hear any yells of outrage from the younger generation about
>that, 
    
     Must not have been tuned in. The S&L debacle was hardly ignored in
    soapbox. You must have been too busy saving the economy single handedly
    to hear the din.
    
>and I can't find any lengthy "Notes" about it either.
    
     It's no longer topical; the deed is done. Had you looked when it was
    happening, I'm sure even you would have had no difficulty identifying
    the relevent strings.
    
>Only when 
>they saw the prospect of having to face up to their responsibilities 
>toward the people who kept them safe through a world war and several
>police actions did you all start squirming.  
    
     How come you find responsibility is such a one way street? Your
    generation has feathered its nest while building up a staggering
    national debt, and you think we should not only accept the
    responsibility of paying the bills you didn't see fit to pay for
    yourself, but also heap more bills on top of it? What a quaint and
    self-serving definition of responsibility.
    
>The older generation ARE victims.  
    
    Not to the extent of the younger generation, that's for sure. They've
    got theirs, and we've got the bills. And they want even more. Why do I
    have to pay for two retirements, and you have to pay for none? Riddle
    me that.
    
>We have fought to keep this country 
>safe, we have made sacrifices to educate our children and we have 
>contributed to a system that has been so badly mismanaged that it won't 
>be there to pay out when we retire.  
    
     And WHO mismanaged the system, huh? YOUR GENERATION. How many of the
    lazy kids upon whom you rely to finance your retirement have been in
    congress making promises and running up bills without the means to pay
    for them? Hmmm? You want to talk about responsibility, but it seems
    that to you responsibility is something that's better to give than to
    receive.  You're saying "well, my contemporaries promised this to me
    even though they had no hope of paying for it, so you youngsters will
    have to guarantee that I get what they promised me." Way to saddle
    those you hate with the responsibility for your financial security!
    What a neat trick.
    
>And the only way you can show your gratitude 
>is to blindly follow the divisionary tactics of a bunch of power hungry 
>nobodys, and disfranchise us now we are close to retirement and at our most 
>vulnerable.                    
    
     Our gratitude at being left with such a huge national debt that it's
    going to take generations to pay off? Gee, thanks. I'd say thanks for
    nothing, but nothing would be so much better than what you left us with
    it's not even funny.
    
    
    

re: Note 573.247   

  
>    However, I do not mind 
>paying taxes, local and federal, to help people make it in this world.  

    You encourage government to be a guardian of sorts for the poor, then.
    
>I have no desire for government to be a guardian,  ...
    
    This contradicts your above statement.  You can't have it both ways.
     
>However, it would be unconscionable and embarrassing for a nation to 
>throw its children into the streets and its citizens onto the breadlines.  

    Again, you show your desire to have government as a guardian.
    
    Which is is?  Do you want a paternalistic federal government or not?
    
    
    -steve

    
    two questions, if you dare:
    
    mr. gaskell, when you talk about the "younger" generation, who
    the heck are you talking about.  you sound like your older than
    a boomer, so it seems like you are pointing your finger at boomers,
    xer's, and yer's.  i'd like to know why my kids age's 8 and 10
    are personally responsible for paying for the current benificiaries
    of SS.  
    

    
    re:.248

> As Victim-itis isn't a real word, I take it you mean that I think myself
> a victim when I am not.

    Congratulations, you figured it out.  

    You seem to need to blame ANYONE but YOURSELF for your problems.  "Oh
    woe is me!  Someone has done this to me!"  Let me explain something to
    you, you have done it to YOURSELF!  I was taught by my parents and
    grand parents that the only people you could count on was yourself, and
    maybe your family.

    You are only a victim because you chose to be.  It's easier to be a
    victim.  You still (hopefully) have a lot of years ahead of you.  Stop
    whining, and do something for yourself.  

> The older generation ARE victims.  We have fought to ....
>     .          .          .         .        .
> ..... us now we are close to retirement and at our most 
> vulnerable.

    That is truly pathetic.  My parents did the same things, fought the
    same battles and also got the shaft MANY times but they don't whine and 
    complain about how terribly they've been treated.  They decided to DO
    SOMETHING FOR THEIR BENEFIT!  And it wasn't complain to the government!
    A couple of quotes for you:

    "Life sucks, get a helmet."

    and

    "Lift your feet, play your part, and DRIVE, DRIVE, DRIVE!"

> >>scuse me, who's been running the show for the last 40 years?<<
> 
> You mean you don't know, you haven't noticed!!!:  Republicans, Democrats, 
> the Pentagon, the lobbies and special interests.  

    I have, but apparently you haven't.  Quick, tell me what party has
    controlled the House and Senate for the majority of the last forty
    years.  OBTW, in case you didn't realize it, neither the Pentagon, the
    lobbies, nor the special interest groups pass laws.  This responsibility
    lies solely with the congress.  Who controlled congress?  Find them,
    and you will discover who was in control of this disaster.

> I doubt if we would 
> have been any worse off if the Russians had invaded and ran the country.

    This statement troubles me.  Would you care to explain your rational
    behind it?

      Hi Rosemary,
    
        Thanks for responding to my reply to you.
    
        My main point didn't come accross (but then again, I have been
        told I tend to not be clear!
    
        My point is that people, on the average, are basically the same.
        Your generation would have behaved exactly as my generation behaves
        if your generation had exactly the same environment.  Your
        generation would have behaved exactly like my parent's generation
        if it had exactly the same environment my parent's generation had.
    
        I actually agree with you that *on average*, we are a less resource-
        ful generation than yours was.  The problem I have with your view
        is that you see the other generations as being worse intrinsically
        or something.
    
        What did your generation perceive on the average?
    
        My guess is...
    
        1) Much less affluence overall.  Where there is less economic
           adversity, people (everything else being the same) probably
    	   tend to become a little more soft.
    
        2) In other areas much less sense of any real hope.  I have talked
    	   with people I know who have survived slums.  Some are amazed
    	   they are alive.  One person said out of 20 or so friends, only
    	   he and one other person survived, i.e. is not dead, in prison,
           or rotting somewhere on drugs.  Do you really think they became
    	   the way they did because they are inherently inferior or some-
           thing or that it was some weird craproll and the dice randomly
    	   came out snake eyes?  YOUR GENERATION WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME
    	   THING.  You didn't because your environment was different.
    
        3) Upbringing.
    	   What kind of parents were the generation that were your parents?
    	   Were they identical to other generation's parents?
    
        4) School Systems.
    	   My personal view.  Hording tons of kids in a single building 
    	   was a social experiment.  It doesn't work.
    
        5) Socialism.	
           We were a much hardier people without it!
    
      Rosemary, be a little philosophical for a second.  What could
      possibly make an entire generation much different than another 
      generation?  I offer three possibilities.
    
        1) The generations had different environments, i.e they beheld,
    	   throughout life, radically different things.
    
    	2) Something ordered took place that changed one generation and
    	   that something was not #1.  For example, perhaps someone 
    	   poisoned the water supply or we all suffered from nuclear fallout 
           and got 'weird', whatever.
    
        3) Just a weird random chance-like thing took place.  In other 
    	   words, 1 and 2 did not happen and (somehow) several million
       	   people decided to be weaker or something.
    
      I reject 2.  I reject 3 on the basis that it is statistically so
      unrealistic.  1 is the only possibility.  The only way an entire 
      generation could have become significantly different in behaviors
      than another generation is that their environments were significantly
      different.  They beheld different things and by beholding we become
      changed.
    
      Thus, you're no better than we are (your generation).  You are just
      more fortunate.  You had the privelage of an environment that would
      produce a hardier people (on the average).
    
      The only other things I want to say is that when it is understood
      that what we behold is the big thing that dictates what we are 
      likely to become, we must incorporate the idea that our parenting
      is one of the chiefest things that produces the kind of people we
      are.  Or to put another way...
    
      When you lambast a generation, you are indirectly LAMBASTING
      YOURSELF.   YOU PRODUCED US.  YOU RAISED US.  You were the primary
      thing your children beheld which made them the way they are and which
      in turn impacted how they (to a large degree) molded us to be who 
      we are.
    
      Its a simple concept.  Most wife abusers had father's who are wife
      abusers.  Do you think there is a correlation?
    
      Last point.  Socialism.  To be against socialism does not imply not
      caring.  You cannot know how caring I am.  If the private sector
      did the helping, how do you know they wouldn't help?  Wouldn't you
      help?
    
      Socialism is bad.  It is gutting our country morally, financially,
      and in many other ways.
    
      With the above in mind, I just hope that while you describe how
      pathetic you feel we are as a generation, you do so realizing you are
      partially responsible for how we became the way we are.
    
      And I mean 'you' generic (your generation).
    
      As Martin Luther once said, "We are all made of the same dough."
    
    							Tony
    

    
    | Thus, you're no better than we are (your generation).  You are just
    | more fortunate.  You had the privelage of an environment that
    | would produce a hardier people (on the average).
           
    it's interesting that growing up during the depression and 
    living through wwii should be cast as a "privilege".  seems to
    me that it was a hardship.  using the same logic we all should
    wish to have lived in stalingrad in the early fourties since
    that would have been an even greater "privilege".
    
    the basic problem with your assessment is that you depict people
    (and generations of people) as purely being passive beings entirely
    formulated by the environment with no control over their own 
    destinies.  i think each generation does have control over its
    own destiny once it get's to adolescence, and i believe each generation
    has its own faults that help shape its legacy.  
    
    the biggest failure of "boomers"
    is to have stupidly dismissed the dangers of drugs and to allow it
    to become part of our social landscape.  the biggest failure of
    the wwii generation was to trust that the fdr model of government
    would not grow out of control at the expense of their grandchildren.
    
    
    

	
    
     You can go on and on asking and reasking questions, it won't alter 
     a single fact.  Personal attack on people like me can't hide that
     you and your generation are being used.

     The Republicans see the anger of the voters and have harnessed it for 
     THEIR own ends.  The people need a sacrifice and instead of that 
     sacrifice being the lobbys, Corporate America, the fat cats--they 
     have made a sacrifice out of retirees and welfare recipients.  

     The younger generation are angry (rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter
     at this moment) and they demand a blood sacrifice.  The Republicans
     are tossing them a carcass to gnaw on.  The only thing is, that
     carcass is your parents, grandparents and your friends.  It could
     even be you if circumstances do not go in your favor.  There are
     many executives who once pulled in 6 figure salaries, who found 
     themselves shopping at the food bank after they were laid off.  
     Few of us are so strong or wealthy that we can scoff at welfare and 
     dismiss it as unnecessary.  Rugged individualism is all very well on 
     paper, but it's a cold world in reality, and one that none of you 
     would be too happy to find yourself in.  You have lived in the cozy 
     wealth of America for too long.  It would do you good to travel and 
     live in less fortunate countries and get a dose of reality.

     At no time I have I been favor of living on borrowed money.  We wouldn't
     be in the trouble we are today if it anyone had been "minding the store" 
     But, as long as people like Regan where eating jelly beans and sleeping 
     on the job, or like Bush more intent on foreign policy than the domestic 
     infrastructure, then it was bound to fall apart sooner or later.  No 
     matter which political party has been in power in which section of
     government, it has been obvious that SS has been heading for the rocks 
     for years, but it's only now that your generation have started to sit
     up and howl in protest like Pavlov's dogs at the sight of a bone.  

     I stand by my opinion that you are a lot of selfish, ungrateful little 
     oinks, with little compassion and even less vision or foresight.

     The last word in the dictionary is Zygote and an apt word to end 
     this discussion.  It describes so many of you perfectly.
     
     Now, ladies and gentlemen, I suggest you take off and use the
     week end to get a life.
    
     At least one good thing happened this week:  Newt was nipped in
     the face by a Cougar cub,  way to go kitty!!!!

    
    >  Now, ladies and gentlemen, I suggest you take off and use the
    >  week end to get a life.
    
    No, I'll be working... But at least I'll have an entire weekend
    free from your lame BS.
    
    -b

    
    This *has* to be a windup.  
    
    I simply can't rationalize it any other way!
    
    W.
    

    Just catching the last few replies - take a look at "The end of work"
    by Jeremy Rifkin.  I'd be very interested on what the box community
    thinks.
    
    Axel

    > You can go on and on asking and reasking questions, it won't alter 
    > a single fact.  
    
     Yup- you certainly won't answer, because you've built your argument on
    a pile of feces. On such a tenuous base, your arguments cannot
    withstand even the most superficial scrutiny, hence you have no choice
    but to avoid questions and any commentary that attacks your position by
    questioning your use of friday facts.
    
>Personal attack on people like me can't hide that you and your generation 
    >are being used.
    
     Yeah, we're being used by your generation.
    
    > The younger generation are angry (rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter
    > at this moment) 
    
     Of course it's rightly- you cannot dispute this so you toss in this
    throwaway line because you know you can't dispute this. Actually, this
    is surprising, because you are usually willing to dispute the
    indisputable anyway. Must be a slow week.
    
    > I stand by my opinion that you are a lot of selfish, ungrateful little 
    > oinks, with little compassion and even less vision or foresight.
    
     Look in the mirror, Rosemary, and you will see selfish, you will see
    ignorance, and most of all, you will see bitterness.

    
     |   This *has* to be a windup.
     |   I simply can't rationalize it any other way!
     |   W.
    
     i don't think it was a windup.   
          

    
    re:.255

    > The Republicans see the anger of the voters and have harnessed it for 
    > THEIR own ends.  

    Gee, this sounds more like what the dems have been doing for years...

    > The people need a sacrifice and instead of that 
    > sacrifice being the lobbys, Corporate America, the fat cats--they 
    > have made a sacrifice out of retirees and welfare recipients.  

    emotional rubbish!  THE CHILDREN WILL STARVE!  THE OLD WILL BE DYING IN
    THE STREETS!  If you expect to be taken seriously, I suggest you drop it.

    > The younger generation are angry (rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter
    > .          .          .          .          .          .          .
    > themselves shopping at the food bank after they were laid off.  

    more emotional rubbish... see above.

    > Few of us are so strong or wealthy that we can scoff at welfare and 
    > dismiss it as unnecessary.  Rugged individualism is all very well on 
    > paper, but it's a cold world in reality, and one that none of you 
    > would be too happy to find yourself in.  You have lived in the cozy 
    > wealth of America for too long.  It would do you good to travel and 
    > live in less fortunate countries and get a dose of reality.

    Speak for yourself my dear!  Been there.  Done that.  And for your
    information, you don't have to go to a less fortunate country.  A lot
    of really crappy things can happen right here in Moscowchusetts.

    > At no time I have I been favor of living on borrowed money.  

    Your responses disagree with this statement.

    > We wouldn't be in the trouble we are today if it anyone had 
    > .          .          .          .          .          .          .
    > .          .          .          .          .          .          .
    > up and howl in protest like Pavlov's dogs at the sight of a bone.  

    GEEEZZ you have to blame everything on the republicans don't you.  FACE
    FACTS, the democrats controlled congress.  CONGRESS is the ONLY place
    money can get authorized.  You are so brainwashed, you seem to have
    forgotten how the American government works!

    > I stand by my opinion that you are a lot of selfish, ungrateful little 
    > oinks, with little compassion and even less vision or foresight.

    That's right, if you can't persuade someone through logic, call them
    names.  This behavior seems somehow inconsistent with a mature adult.

    > The last word in the dictionary is Zygote and an apt word to end 
    > this discussion.  It describes so many of you perfectly.
    
    See previous statement.

    > Now, ladies and gentlemen, I suggest you take off and use the
    > week end to get a life.
    
    See previous statement.

    > At least one good thing happened this week:  Newt was nipped in
    > the face by a Cougar cub,  way to go kitty!!!!

    See previous statement.

    
 >    You can go on and on asking and reasking questions, it won't alter 
 >    a single fact
  
      But you haven't been addressing the facts ...

  >  The people need a sacrifice and instead of that 
  >  sacrifice being the lobbys, Corporate America, the fat cats--they 
  >  have made a sacrifice out of retirees and welfare recipients.  

      This is just their first year. And is they can't get even these small
      changes through then this country is going to be in an even greater
      world of hurt.

  >   The younger generation are angry (rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter
  >   at this moment) and they demand a blood sacrifice.  The Republicans
  >   are tossing them a carcass to gnaw on.

      The angry are not just young, but all ages. The repubs have been trying
      to address these issues for 15 years but the dems let the problems grow
      to current levels. There are a lot of old republicans that support the
      current congress. And yes, the repubs are addressing corporate welfare
      too, but that doesn't make for good opposition material so you hear
      very little about it.

  >    But, as long as people like Regan where eating jelly beans and sleeping 
  >   on the job, or like Bush more intent on foreign policy than the domestic 
  >   infrastructure, then it was bound to fall apart sooner or later.

      It would appear that you have been the one who has been asleep for 
      the last 15 years. Or perhaps it is just a bad case of tunnel vision.

  >   I stand by my opinion that you are a lot of selfish, ungrateful little 
  >   oinks, with little compassion and even less vision or foresight.

      A free clue. Without a balanced budget and an effort to pay down the
      debt, there will be no money for ANY programs for ANYBODY in the near 
      future. But go ahead an be the dem loyalist and stick your head back 
      the sand.

      You're not related to RU are you ?

      Doug.

      re: .254
    
      Hi,
    
        You raised two solid points, one of which I anticipated (the
        part about assuming that generations are passive) and one which
        I didn't anticipate (the part about my logic implying that terrible
        hardship is actually a good thing).
    
        You've got a solid point about the hardship part and I don't
        know how to respond to that!
    
        As far as the second part...
    
        My take is that while we all have free will and some individuals
        will rise above whatever messy environment may have been theirs,
        it seems that there is a pattern that from a collective standpoint,
        generations will behave and be molded in accordance with their
        environment.
    
        A case in point is Rome falling from within because of its higher
        standard of living and getting soft.
    
        I hear what you're saying about my reply suggesting that generations
        are disallowed a free will and are passive, but I think the data
        does correlate well with the observation I made.
    
        I suppose while some individuals may make better choices regardless
        of the environment, collectively, generations will end up in accor-
        dance with their environment - all the while free choice is not
        denied them.
    
        What other reason can there be?  Its either nature (some intrinsic
        change takes place on a whole generation), nurture (differing
        environments), or freak randomness (a zillion to 1 longshot crap
        roll).
    
        I'm open to other possibilities, but I really think that covers all
        the bases.
    
        I find your reply lacking in that you failed to offer any basis as
        to WHY any entire generation made the choices they did.  You
        disagreed with my suggestion, but offered none yourself.
    
        I'm all ears!  (Not as to WHAT bad choice was made), but as to
        UNDERLYING BASIS (why a certain choice was made).
    
    							Tony

      Hi Rosemary,
    
        Well, from a heart-perspective, it seemed like you could find
        no fault with yourself and (on that basis) discussing from such
        a perspective (a heart one) is something I find fruitless with
        one of such a posture.
    
        The only other thing I have to say is that I continue to disagree
        vehemently with your assertion that socialism is a good thing.  At
        the federal level, it is unConstitutional so at least you can 
        consider yourself anti-Constitution.
    
        Finally, being against the idea that the govt. should be the
        'benefactor' does not necessarily imply that such a believer is
        against the idea of helping others.  He may simply believe the
        helper should be someone else.
    
    							Tony

    <--- Hi Tony, how's Paula doin'?

    i thought you were boycotting paulas.

    Oh, was I? It's so hard to keep track. 8^/

    re: .265
    
    I let her go, but she insisted on keeping my name!  Quite the
    effect I had on her!
    
    						Tony

    
    	If she decides to sue you for something later on down the road,
    	it'll be easier to prove you're related.
    

    
    
|        My take is that while we all have free will and some individuals
|        will rise above whatever messy environment may have been theirs,
|        it seems that there is a pattern that from a collective standpoint,
|        generations will behave and be molded in accordance with their
|        environment.
    
         Oh oh.  Phylosophy alert.

    
|        What other reason can there be?  Its either nature (some intrinsic
|        change takes place on a whole generation), nurture (differing
|        environments), or freak randomness (a zillion to 1 longshot crap
|        roll).

         I think your model is a little too simplistic because it
         lumps an entire generation of folks into a cookie-cutter mold
         with little or no allowance for the enormous diversity that
         exists amongst individuals.  That becomes a real wild card
         that is not very predictable and throws a monkey wrench into
         patterns of history.  Also unpredicatable is the impact of
         lessons of history on each generation.  Generations need not
         be slaves to history as long as they are sufficiently educated
         about it.  

      And being sufficiently educated about anything is part and parcel
      of revelation which is my entire point.  By beholding we become
      changed.  Education is a subset of the sum total of that which 
      is beheld.
    
      Thus, part of your basis for disagreement is actually support for
      what I have said.
    
      I also stated that I believe individuals would sometimes make
      different choices.
    
      Yes, I suppose this is philosophical which I often tend to be!
    
    							Tony

    Phylosophy??

    
    The love of pastry.
    

    PhylloSophie   -- A greek lady who makes a mean Baklava
    
    PhylliSchlafly -- The American rightwing nutter who writes like she has
                      a steel bar rammed up her backside
    
    PhiloSophistry -- a character defect that is held in common across all
                      'Boxers
    
    |-{:-)
    

   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   ph
ilosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philoso
phy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy  
 philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   phil
osophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosoph
y   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy   philosophy
       

    Well well well!  At last I have gotten through to Markey
    
        Read note 576.48
    
    
        THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!!!!

    
    Neither one of us is perfect Rosemary. At least one of us
    will even admit it.
    
    -b

    
      |    THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!!!!
      
    
    you have hardly been an advocate of mutual understanding.
    
    

The elections this week were a warning.

	You mean how the dims won a lot of seats?

They didn't win a lot of seats yet.

But several states did not carry the momentum of 1994.

	And in 1994 did not carry the momentum from 1992. But I think the
repubs would be much better off if they did not let this new majority power go
to their heads. :-)

    	Warning?  It seems to me that most tax measures were defeated...

But off-course.

The dynasty-minded however, predicted an uninterrupted and copious (co-pious)
reign.

    	You are welcome to see what you want in it.  Off-year elections
    	are rarely tell-tale.
    
    	Let's see what 1996 brings.  You may very well get to gloat then.

	Who's gloating? A few seats is nice, but the dims are still in the
minority.



Glen

    
    congressional dems are playing short term politics laced with fear 
    and loathing.
    
    clinton is playing a transparent game of good cop-bad cop, in which
    he posture's himself in the role of the good cop, fighting off those
    meanie republicans who dare to try to restructure the federal
    government.  of course clinton will be the first to crow about
    the decline in the deficit and interest rates should the repubs be
    successful.  they take the heat and make the hard choices, he gets
    to play mr. ifeelyourpain.  a spineless opportunist.  the worst 
    since nixon. 
        

    
    RE .287 - Correct.
    
    I give Clinton even more credit. Everyone says that Clinton is
    shutting down the goverment to "prove he's strong". I think it's
    more than that. This is exactly the kind of thing that will get
    Perot into the race. And Perot running as a third party will be
    a huge advantage for Clinton.
    
    It's too bad Clinton does not care as much about the country
    as he does about his next term.
    
    					Ed
    
    

                       <<< Note 573.288 by CXXC::VOGEL >>>
                           -< Clinton's no dummy!! >-

>   I give Clinton even more credit. Everyone says that Clinton is
>   shutting down the goverment to "prove he's strong". I think it's
>   more than that. This is exactly the kind of thing that will get
>   Perot into the race. And Perot running as a third party will be
>   a huge advantage for Clinton.

Yes!  I'm glad someone else is thinking along those lines.
If the White House can derail or stall, they can push the GOP schedule back.
By making the shutdown as painful as possible, the side benefit for the 
White House is to get Perot to announce and create a repeat of the 1992 
election.

    
    it will be harder for perot to make the same case that he did in
    '92, given that the criteria for negotiations layed down by gingrich
    and dole yesterday is that clinton agree in principle to balance
    the budget in seven years.  not that he won't try.
    

>Let's see what 1996 brings.  You may very well get to gloat then.

(In my best Walter Brennan/Guns of Will Sonnet voice)


No brag...just fack.