We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, December 26. 2017
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
A cure for cancer won't solve anything. The problems that we face are related to human overpopulation. Anything that extends human life will only make matters worse.
What we need is a cure for narcissism. There are millions of old people who think nothing of becoming a burden, and bankrupting young people. Imagine 50 million retirees, all drawing benefits, while taxes on the young climb higher and higher. This scenario doesn't seem to bother the elderly at all.
A real advance for humanity would be a system that compassionately deals with the tidal wave of elderly people; and allows them to leave this world with peace and dignity.
I'm somewhat reluctant to respond to what is clearly sarcasm or an attempt at a joke/troll. But...
You didn't specify SS but the inference is obvious. The federal government siphoned off trillions from the SS trust fund. The money is there and the people who put money into the system deserve to have the contract they made with the government honored. Since it's creation the SS system has been expanded by politicians to include many people who did not contribute or contributed very little. It is not uncommon that immigrants to the U.S. who have never worked collect SS. In addition the payout is not based on general accounting principles as common sense would mandate but again on the whim of politicians who generally use government revenues as a source of free stuff to hand out to voters in return for their vote.
I am an elderly person and I hope to leave this world with peace and dignity but until that day I fully expect to spend my money including my SS income as I please. If yoou want to fix the SS system simply demand that politicians keep their hands off and return it to a system that pays out only to contributers to the system and only in an amount commensurate with their deposits and following general accounting principles and simple math it would never run out of money.
Anything that extends human life will only make matters worse.
No need for antibiotics, vaccines, water purification, etc. .... pfft.
Maybe Ron is starting a new "back to Africa" movement. It "feels" about right.
"The problems that we face are related to human overpopulation."
The problems we face in funding support programmes for the elderly are the result of human underpopulation: with fewer babies being born, there are going to be fewer future taxpayers to keep the system rolling along.
That's the demographic problem for the West. Not too many children but too few of them. Take a look at Japan where this is already manifesting itself.
And by the way, the young people whose tax burden you're so solicitous about have not shown they want government spending to be reduced; far from it, they seem to want more spending on social programmes of all kinds.
I have yet to see a single mass protest anywhere by twenty- and thirtysomething "activists" holding placards that read: "STOP CREATING DEFICITS!" "REDUCE SOCIAL WELFARE SPENDING!" "NO FREE UNIVERSITY TUITION!" "END MEDICARE!" "REDUCE OUR TAXES!" "NO MORE GOVERNMENT FREEBIES!"
My comments are not intended as a joke. I can assure you that politicians will never willingly reduce S.S. and Medicare payments to the elderly. That's how they stay in office.
This mountain of debt, along with government pensions, is going to bankrupt the country. The only real solution is to limit the amount of benefit money and medical care that is available.
As an example, I would make euthanasia an end-of-life option for each person; starting at around age 65. The problem isn't just financial, it's also demographic; we don't want to become a nation of old people. The average age of the American people should never be higher than 30.
On a final note: I never promised old people anything. Taking money out of my paycheck and giving it to a complete stranger (and often a rich stranger in our non-means-tested system) is theft; pure and simple.
The only real final solution is to limit the amount of benefit money and medical care that is available.
Jews first, hey Ron?
Tell me Ron, when you gaze into your mirror do you say to yourself "boy, there is a selfish non compassionate son of a bitch"? If you have or choose to reproduce offspring I want you to willingly take the red pill to end your life when they face you at age 65 and see if you are willing to do what you suggest for the rest of us.
Everybody on this blog seems to think that euthanasia is wrong, but nobody offers an alternative solution. You know why? There isn't one. The elderly will consume all of our tax money, and then beg for more. That simply can't be allowed to happen, it's unfair to young people, and those who have not yet been born.
The homeless, the incorrigible, and the elderly should be put to sleep for their own good; and I am not joking. The process would be fairly easy; if a person is identified as a euthanasia candidate, then a five day process begins. Counseling, spiritual guidance, and then 50cc of insulin; followed by cremation.
The entire economy needs to be restructured so that young people feel confident about getting married and starting a family; without the onerous taxes or the heavy burden of caring for sick parents. We need a young, clean, optimistic country.
This is the most compassionate solution, if we consider the feelings and circumstances of young people.
I have little consideration for the feelings and circumstances of the moldylocks and trigglypuff generation. You think too little and feel to much. Zero population growth ( ZPG ) is an old dream of the 60's "feelers" that went by the wayside when they decided they needed cheap labor to maintain their lifestyle. Cheap labor and ZPG don't mix but the "feelers" have never been able to do simple math...that should be obvious from the last presidential debt accumulation.
Would it not be theft if it were means tested???
For better or worse SS is self funding. Sure the politicians are trying to increase the costs to the point where it will collapse but right now and for the near future it is self funding and not paid for out of income taxes.
Welfare on the other hand is a huge drag on our economy sucking up $1.2 trillion or more of federal revenues and a similar matching amount of state and local revenues. Almost all of it is wasted. That is most of the recipients could and should be working. But instead they spend their life making sure that they have nothing so that they can pass the "means test" and continue to collect welfare from cradle to grave.
''The average age of the American people should never be higher than 30.''
Why & How does that work? Thanks in advance.
The guy is joking. The "Logans Run" reference is a give away.
Good one Ron!
And his statement "The homeless, the incorrigible, and the elderly should be put to sleep for their own good" means I need never waste another second reading his postings ever again.
Everyone wants to predict "gloom and doom" if we try to find a solution to the explosion in entitlements. These wealth transfers will wipe out almost all other government activities within a few years.
Simply reducing payments will not help, because so many sick and elderly people have no other source of income. And we can't simply throw them into the street. Th only solution is to reduce the number of dependents through euthanasia.
I would start by euthanizing most of the people in nursing homes. Then I would round-up the homeless, and sort them into two groups: Group A - who can be rehabilitated. And Group B - who cannot. Group B would be compassionately euthanized on a bus, and then sent to a mass grave.
As for criminals, I would set a limit. After a certain number of arrests, it's the death penalty. After all, it costs $30,000 a year to keep people in prison.
You mention "deplorables" as if to say that there is no moral method for determining who should be euthanized. But there is a moral method: it's called human judgement. I would also euthanize the retarded, the insane, and those with congenital defects such as down's syndrome; and I don't think that makes me a bad person.
If we don't do this, the economy will collapse.
Actually we could make a few extra bucks also.Reduce our national debt.
When do we start?