Remember the Speedy Gonzales cartoons? We all laughed because the stupid humans kept baiting the mouse traps, but Speedy ALWAYS grabbed the bait and escaped unharmed. Apparently, *I'M* the stupid human because the mouse in my kitchen can lick clean peanut butter or remove a piece of lunch meat from any trap without setting it off. But if I barely touch the trap, it triggers. All hail Speedy of my Kitchen. He's a better mouse than I am.That being said ...
I'd really like to smack a few senior citizens who claim to be conservatives. Let me tell you why. They all think that government health care is wrong and socialistic. They all think that people who LIVE ON government handouts via welfare and medicaid are irresponsible. But they have no problem collecting social security ("Oh! I didn't get a cost of living increase for two years!") or using medicare ("Oh! I have to drive 45 minutes to find a doctor!") You know, cry me a freaking river! Social security IS welfare that THEY live on. When it was set up in 1935, in order to collect you had to be 65. Here's the rub, the average life expectancy was 61 years and 7 months (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html). In other words, you had to outlive the average life expectancy by 3 years and 5 months in order to collect. Let's be blunt about it, the government expected AT LEAST HALF of the people who paid into it to die before collecting a single dime. That was the intention of social security when it was put into play.
The problem is that the government has failed to keep up with the actuary table for social security. If they had, we wouldn't be having a problem with it right now. Why? because people would have to work longer, pay in more, and still at least 50% of the people would die before collecting. The money would be there.
The problem with social security is that the average life expectancy in 2005 was 77 years and 8 months. This means that in order to keep up with how it was set up to begin with NO ONE SHOULD COLLECT UNTIL THE AGE OF 81 years and 1 month. Why? Because THAT was the TRUE intent of the program to begin, everyone pays in, but less than 50% collect. And guess what, those who did live long enough to collect didn't live to collect it very long. It simply was not intended to pay people for 2 decades. Currently, starting social security at 65 has a person collecting a full 16 years before they should truly be eligible. And to prove further the idiocy of this program, people can now start collecting early at 62, 19 years before they're suppose to.
They decry big government and big government spending, but have no problem with being a part of the largest government program in the country. From Wikipedia, the facts are:
By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure in the federal budget, with 20.8% for social security, compared to 20.5% for discretionary defense and 20.1% for Medicare/Medicaid. Social Security is currently the largest social insurance program in the U.S., constituting 37% of government expenditure and 7% of the gross domestic product and is currently estimated to keep roughly 40% of all Americans age 65 or older out of poverty.
They scream to cut government spending, but THE LARGEST single spending in this country is social security ... 37%!!! ... and merely mentioning the need to fix it sets them off in a defensive tirade telling us we have to keep the promise made. Okay, let's keep that promise, but I expect them to go by the rules as they were set up. When they outlive the average life expectancy by nearly 3 1/2 years, I'll happily pay their social security. Truth is that they did not earn what they are getting. For the 16 years they collect before outliving the average life expectancy, they are on a government dole plain and simple. They are receiving way more than they ever put into it.
So now that we have ascertained that seniors are collecting for 16 years longer than they are suppose to, what right do they have to complain about the lack of cost of living increase? How many families WITH CHILDREN not only didn't get an increase, but worse, are making LESS than they did two years ago?!
I have an idea, how about cutting expenses? That's what everyone else is doing. And no, I won't see it differently when it's my turn to collect ... because it won't be there. Ca piece?
One last thing regarding "conservative" seniors and their sacred cow, who ever said there was a RIGHT to retire and have the government pay their expenses? Especially those who espouse the Bible all the time?
Even while we were with you, we gave you this rule: "Whoever does not work should not eat." -- 2 Thes 3:10
As for Medicare? If you're 82 and get cancer, you'll get chemo and radiation courtesy of the government (that would be me). But if a 26-year-old mother of three gets the same thing, they'll make her loose everything she's worked for, beg money, and eventually, let her drop dead. Again, cry me a damn river about the troubles with medicare! They whine and whine and go on forever about the medical care they get for next to nothing, but what about their own children and grandchildren who can't get medical care at all for varying reasons?
I hate to sound heartless, please remember my Daddy died of cancer, but the truth of it is if one life should be chosen to save, whose should it really be? I'm not saying that the life of a senior is less valuable than the life of those younger. I'm simply saying that children needs their parents and a person in their 20's, 30's or 40's are much more likely to recover than a person in their 80's. Consider this, a few months ago a 93 year old woman who was in a coma and received a pacemaker (friend works at a hospital). Seriously! Wasn't that a waste of money? According to the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee website, a pacemaker surgery costs between $35,000 and $45,000. The woman was 93 years old and in a coma for heaven's sake!
On to welfare. Look, some people work very hard and still can't make it. I have no problem helping them. Unless of course ... they continue to spit out baby after baby just to collect more. OH! And continue to purchase alcohol and cigarettes. And we shouldn't forget the pet food and vet bills so many welfare recipients find money for. No new tattoos. They aren't free. I know welfare people who think nothing of dropping $75+ for a new tattoo and then using food stamps to purchase food on their way home from the tattoo parlor.
As far as I'm concerned, everyone should have to show ID for at least alcohol and tobacco. When a family receives food stamps, their license should have a sticker on it that restricts them from purchasing such items. One family, personally known to me, goes through 2 cartons a week. That's over $40/week and $2,000/yr. If they have it to smoke, they have it for food.
I'm not cruel. I like to help people. However, there does come a point to which a person is being enabled instead of helped, and to tell the truth, I'm tired of it.
~*~*~Krystal~*~*~
6 comments:
Well said.
I couldn't have ranted and raved about those mooching geezers any better, Krystal.
I'm not including any SS payments into my retirement calculations, either, and I'm 55 1/2! My own mother is almost 82, and she has been collecting social security checks since 1992. And she whines about no increases. She has never worked a day in her life, and other than my dad's contributions (which were paltry), she's never paid so much as a dime into the system!
And her social security allows her to live alone in a shabby apartment and be as crabby and mean as she wants, without having to worry about who thinks she's got an attitude.
Way back when, as a geezer you still had to curb your tongue on occasion, since you lived in your daughter's house and ate your daughter and son-in-law's food.
Not anymore. No siree. She's got the government paying her bills, and it allows her act like a complete jerk, without consequence.
Not sure if that was sarcasm or a rant there, Fredd.
I do know seniors who complain about not getting enough, yet keep animals that get monthly groomings, special diet pet foods, medication, etc. I realize that pets are companions, but I don't think SS was meant to provide pet food.
Krystal:
It was a rant. That, and my mom has a cat ('Sweetie Pie') as well.
I'm on SS, and I HATE it!
I lost my job to the economy, and my life savings as well. I am actively looking for work and will be grateful the day I can report thereto.
If one has physical limitations, there are only certain kinds of work one can do.
I agree, however, that the widespread use of SS for retirement is, and has been, abused to the extreme.
The feds took money from me from the very first day I ever went to work. I do so wish they had invested it wisely so as not to place a drain on government coffers.
The food stamp thing is a real sore spot with me. The abuse is rampant and inexcusable.
Fred, my mother has a dog that gets groomed every three weeks.
Joe, hey, I'm totally with you. Helping people is one thing. Enabling is another. Good luck with the job search. I'll add it to my prayer list.
Post a Comment