The Geezers’ Crusade

[Warph]

I never really cared for David Brooks and his opinions but, sometimes he get things about half right.  For every senior who is presently privileged or well off financially there must be dozens who, through blind circumstance, vagaries of the free market or their own inattention, failed to provide a secure retirement for themselves.  Personally, I do not see a mass movement by seniors to give up entitlements so that youth can flourish.  In fact, I think the economic fears that are palpable amongst the vanguard of the boomer generation will cause them (or should I say, us) to ask for even more, because without it, many seniors will be finished, without proper nutrition, health care or even a place to live when their ability to work comes to an end.  For many of them, this predicament was a lifetime in the making, for others it was precipitated within just the last few years of bursting bubbles and crashing markets caused by the greed of wall street and greedy politicans.  No, Mr. Brooks, there will be no let up in the competition between statistical cohorts for public resources.

.....Warph


The Geezers' Crusade
by David Brooks
NYTimes[/b]

We like to think that in days gone by, the young venerated the elderly. But that wasn't always so. In "As You Like It," Shakespeare's morose character, Jaques, calls old age "second childishness and mere oblivion." Walt Whitman hoped that the tedium and pettiness of his senior years would not infect his poetry.
Developmental psychologists, when they treated old age at all, often regarded it as a period of withdrawal. The elderly slowly separate themselves from the world. They cannot be expected to achieve new transformations. "About the age of fifty," Freud wrote, "the elasticity of the mental processes on which treatment depends is, as a rule, lacking. Old people are no longer educable."

Well, that was wrong. Over the past few years, researchers have found that the brain is capable of creating new connections and even new neurons all through life. While some mental processes — like working memory and the ability to quickly solve math problems — clearly deteriorate, others do not. Older people retain their ability to remember emotionally nuanced events. They are able to integrate memories from their left and right hemispheres. Their brains reorganize to help compensate for the effects of aging.

A series of longitudinal studies, begun decades ago, are producing a rosier portrait of life after retirement. These studies don't portray old age as surrender or even serenity. They portray it as a period of development — and they're not even talking about über-oldsters jumping out of airplanes.

People are most unhappy in middle age and report being happier as they get older. This could be because as people age they pay less attention to negative emotional stimuli, according to a study by the psychologists Mara Mather, Turhan Canli and others.

Gender roles begin to merge. Many women get more assertive while many men get more emotionally attuned. Personalities often become more vivid as people become more of what they already are. Norma Haan of the University of California, Berkeley, and others conducted a 50-year follow-up of people who had been studied while young and concluded that the subjects had become more outgoing, self-confident and warm with age.

The research paints a comforting picture. And the nicest part is that virtue is rewarded. One of the keys to healthy aging is what George Vaillant of Harvard calls "generativity" — providing for future generations. Seniors who perform service for the young have more positive lives and better marriages than those who don't. As Vaillant writes in his book "Aging Well," "Biology flows downhill." We are naturally inclined to serve those who come after and thrive when performing that role.

The odd thing is that when you turn to political life, we are living in an age of reverse-generativity. Far from serving the young, the old are now taking from them. First, they are taking money. According to Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution, the federal government now spends $7 on the elderly for each $1 it spends on children.

Second, they are taking freedom. In 2009, for the first time in American history, every single penny of federal tax revenue went to pay for mandatory spending programs, according to Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute. As more money goes to pay off promises made mostly to the old, the young have less control.

Third, they are taking opportunity. For decades, federal spending has hovered around 20 percent of G.D.P. By 2019, it is forecast to be at 25 percent and rising. The higher tax rates implied by that spending will mean less growth and fewer opportunities. Already, pension costs in many states are squeezing education spending.

In the private sphere, in other words, seniors provide wonderful gifts to their grandchildren, loving attention that will linger in young minds, providing support for decades to come. In the public sphere, they take it away.

I used to think that political leaders could avert fiscal suicide. But it's now clear change will not be led from Washington. On the other hand, over the past couple of years we've seen the power of spontaneous social movements: first the movement that formed behind Barack Obama, and now, equally large, the Tea Party movement.

Spontaneous social movements can make the unthinkable thinkable, and they can do it quickly. It now seems clear that the only way the U.S. is going to avoid an economic crisis is if the oldsters take it upon themselves to arise and force change. The young lack the political power. Only the old can lead a generativity revolution — millions of people demanding changes in health care spending and the retirement age to make life better for their grandchildren.

It may seem unrealistic — to expect a generation to organize around the cause of nonselfishness. But in the private sphere, you see it every day. Old people now have the time, the energy and, with the Internet, the tools to organize.

The elderly. They are our future.

[Varmit]

What a crock of shit!!  The "elderly" are the ones that got us in this situation in the first place, now they're just trying to back peddle and cover their ass.

[Warph]

What a crock of shit!!  The "elderly" are the ones that got us in this situation in the first place, now they're just trying to back peddle and cover their ass.

Hmmmmm......... Okay Varmit, prove it.... prove it is the elderlys fault!  But before you try, check out this little piece of history:

Believe me, It's the Democrats who actually ruined Social Security

For those of you out there that are uninformed or should I say, mis-informed, it is the "holier-than-thou" Democrats that ruined Social Security for America.

Take a few minutes to review history if you don't believe me.


Lesson One:

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary.

It's NO longer Voluntary

Lesson Two:

That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program.

Now 7.65% on the first $90,000

Lesson Three:

That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.

It's NO longer tax deductible

Lesson Four:

That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.

Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and is now being SPENT for anything the Democrats can get passed, regulated or initiated.

Lesson Five:

That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

After paying into FICA for years and now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' — you may be interested in the following:

Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

Answer: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.


Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

Answer: The Democratic Party.


Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

Answer: The Democratic Party, with non other than Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate.


Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

Answer: That's right!  Ol' Smiling Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.  As a result: Immigrants who have moved into this country, and having never paid a dime (or very little) into the system, at age 65 can now receive Social Security benefits.

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!  What a FARCE!  And the worst part is, "MOST Americans never study history."  They have no idea that their beloved Democrats, the progressive liberals to the planet, the busy-bodies of the world, the Globalists, Utopians or whatever else you want to call them.. HAVE TOTALLY RUINED SOCIAL SECURITY.

So... the next time a Democrat tells you the Republicans are going to take away your Social Security, simply look them in the eye and throw-up all over their brand new Ipad (which they probably financed on their credit card at generous 39% interest rate.)


Introduction: Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes.  Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed  (***See Below).  The Social Security Card is much sought after for illegal and/or identity-theft reasons.  Many illegals and dead-beat citizens in this country have Social Security cards that they don't deserve.  They get them, of course, illegally or by lying on the application.  Many have "multiple" Social Security Cards.  They use them to BILK $Billions of dollars out of the system.

***Anyone can ASK for your SS number, but what most people don't know is that you DO NOT HAVE TO GIVE IT!  There are only a few things that require it, but most things there is no law requiring you to give it.  In fact, anyone that does ask for it is suppose to provide you with a privacy form and also state in writing if giving your SS number is voluntary or required by law!

For example, people buy a car and they ASK for your SS number, but there is NO law that requires it just to buy a car.  Of course if you are going to apply for financing then in that case you would have to give it so the lender can run your credit, but if you obtain your own loan, or pay cash, you do not have to give a SS number.

A lot of businesses just got into a habit of making it their policy as a form of ID but they can not require it by law and they can actually be fined for doing so!

Disclosure of Social Security Number Section 7 of Pub. L. 93-579 provided that: "(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number. "(2) the [The] provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to– "(A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or "(B) the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an
individual. "(b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it."

[Varmit]

Warph, it is the folks that are "elderly" NOW, that were in charge THEN, and allowed this crap to begin in the first place. 

[Diane Amberg]

I'm not happy that Medicare still uses the social security number with an A or a B after it. I finally made a copy that I carry that has the last four digits blacked out.The girl who checked me in for my colonoscopy wasn't happy. I told her I would tell it to her so she could write it down and she grumbled but did it. The girl who checked me in for my mammogram had no problem with my telling it to her. I know I could just take the real card for Dr.s appointments, but I'm not sure I'm that organized anymore.