If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Rich Wall Street CEO to old people: "Get back to work, you"   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 203
    More: Dumbass, Wall Street, Scott Pelley, Lloyd Blankfein  
•       •       •

11895 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Nov 2012 at 7:56 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



203 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-20 10:40:22 PM  

MemeSlave: No, the problem is that old people need to die, and poor people need to stop farking. We've had enormous technological improvements, but are still breeding like rabbits and living too long. Things were great in the halcyon 50s and 60s because old people died and left their assets to the next generation, and there weren't so many stupid white trash breeding like rabbits. Then came the Great Society, and the game where nobody loses (sort of the 4th Edition D&D of the Real World) and now we're all saddled with their stupid choices.


Well, except that you are wrong on a couple major points. The U.S., unlike the rest of the first world, does in fact have a population that is growing, but it's mostly because of immigration. Caucasian population, including white trash, is pretty much stable (although poorer people do tend to have more children, so if your point is that poor people are breeding too much, you might at least demographically be near the point.) The next point you miss is that that same demographic, the poor, doesn't tend to leave much to the next generation, on account of, well, not having much. Quality of life has improved along with life expectancy, so many more older people are healthy enough to still work.

And of course you seem to be all mixed up on the effects of population growth. There are some pretty good ecological reasons for trying to slow population growth (and in fact, world birth rates are now more or less stable- the population is still growing because of life expectancy gains- it looks like we'll level off at about 10 billion people). That is very different than population growth's effect on the economy. There is a reason China will pass the U.S. in economic power- it's because they have more people. People are good for an economy. An even age distribution is particularly important. Our baby boomers are a demographic nightmare. If they'd had more kids we'd have a larger population base to pay to support them as they get older. It's only immigration that is saving us from much worse demographic skewing, like that facing, say, Japan.

A better long term policy would be to spend more money on education. Educated people make more, so they pay more in taxes (tax shelters aside). We should also encourage more immigration, particularly of young, educated people.
 
2012-11-20 10:40:33 PM  

Testiclaw: Because only a handful of years should be spent enjoying the world without slaving away at a job.


Hey, if you can afford to go without working and not be a burden on the rest of us go for it.
 
2012-11-20 10:56:27 PM  

Surpheon: Personally, I'm good with means testing for SS benefits. Change it from a pension plan to an anti-poverty insurance plan


And it instantly goes from being a universal program to just another form of welfare.

And we all know how even the democrats want to "end welfare as we know it".

Bad idea, Zippy. Baaaaaaaaad idea!
 
2012-11-20 11:00:36 PM  

TV's Vinnie: And it instantly goes from being a universal program to just another form of welfare.


Bullshiat. Everyone pays in, everyone gets the same level of poverty insurance. Insurance is a product with value even if you don't use it. Sure it's not simple to work out the means testing and things like home exemptions will make it squishy, but it is a perfectly reasonable move. If a millionaire loses all his money on a bad business bet, or even marrying a gold digger who absconds with all his money, SS will be there to make sure he's not blocking sidewalks with his cardboard box.
 
2012-11-20 11:03:36 PM  

HoratioGates: Our baby boomers are a demographic nightmare.


Heh, they're nothing compared to the old fart boom that China is looking at - the fruit of their one-child policy.

Population control is easy. Empower women, urbanize the population, provide an adequate welfare and retirement program that people aren't reliable on their children when they get old and you're done. Every first wold country is now at or below replacement birth rates (France and the US are the ones who are closest to hitting right on stable).
 
2012-11-20 11:04:42 PM  

LiberalEastCoastElitist: Surpheon: Only if you're very stupid. Cut SS benefits by 25% and it is stable for the forseeable future (we're talking over 50 years). That's math as obvious as 2+2=4.

Are you aware of the fact that some people's benefits are in the neighborhood of $600, 700, 800 per month? A 25% cut would drive them into dumpster diving for dog food. That is, unless you're talking about cuts for people with bigger benefits.


I am not sure about my facts so, let me start by calling you stupid. Maybe you will do the due diligence I should have.
 
2012-11-20 11:04:46 PM  

unyon: He's right. The 65 year retirement age was implemented when average life expectancy was... 69. It seems reasonable that the age move up, in a methodical way, allowing approaching retirees to adjust to the new reality.


Sigh. The average life expectancy from birth went up because less children die from preventable childhood diseases and fewer adults die in accidents, bot because old people are dying that much later.

I for one am really bothered that people can't wrap their heads around simple demographics. And that social security is completely solvent and all Lloyd Blankfein cares about is diverting working peoples social security taxes into his pocket.
 
2012-11-20 11:05:00 PM  

Surpheon: Insurance is a product with valueprofitable racket even if you don't use it.


Let's call a spade a spade. Insurance companies can't succeed unless they take in more than they pay out. So they will do everything in their power to not pay up when the time comes, or minimize the payments. There's no product. It's just OPM.
 
2012-11-20 11:05:44 PM  

Surpheon: Bullshiat.


Again, neither you or anyone you love is on Social Security Retirement or Disability. I've had to help a relative struggle for years to get the SSI that he so overwhelmingly needed. I probably know more about how things work in the program than the gum-popping imbeciles who work at the Soc. Sec, offices.
 
2012-11-20 11:13:36 PM  

jso2897: This guy doesn't appreciate the problem. I have no complaint about my retirement. I'm getting a little change from SS, I have accumulated some property, I'm fine. And I AM bored, and piddling around doing handyman jobs and shiat isn't essential - and I'd be happy to re-enter the workplace. But who in their right mind would hire me? Sure, I know my shiat and can do the job - for the 3 years I'll be working. Why the f**k would anybody bother to integrate me into their framework for that brief reward? And anyway - aren't there like a million kids that just got out of college who NEED F**KING JOBS?
Screw you, ass-face poopy-head man.


Assuming you're serious about being bored, why don't you start a small business? There are lots of things you could do with just a little start up money. Even if you only break even or make a little extra, you won't be bored /shrug
 
2012-11-20 11:16:55 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Again, neither you or anyone you love is on Social Security Retirement or Disability.


Uh, 3 family members rely on survivor SS benefits. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Are you seriously arguing you believe SS is unsustainable and should be abolished? Because that is the position you're supporting by refuting my simple point. Do you or anyone you love have basic reading comprehension skills?
 
2012-11-20 11:22:55 PM  

doglover: Let's call a spade a spade.


Our we could look at the last 40 years of reality (over a century in some countries)... You have to be pretty stupid to look at our government's deficit record and say they're in it for the profit.

It's not complicated: ensuring a minimum level of sustenance for the elderly helps stabilize societies. People are more willing to risk capital to invent or develop businesses. People don't have to have kids to ensure someone will feed them if they fall on hard times when they're too frail to work. Homeless folks tend to skew more towards the mentally ill than the merely old and unemployable. Societies are willing to pay for these benefits in the form of a tax on workers to support the elderly.
 
2012-11-20 11:23:53 PM  
These farking people will not stop until they're placed in a guillotine.

They really can't stop. It's worse than addiction.
 
2012-11-20 11:33:24 PM  
img853.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-20 11:46:45 PM  
The retirement age needs to be raised simply because people are living longer.

You cant have a expected 10 year payout turn into an 18 year payout and not
raise contributions, delay the payout, or go broke.

The SS retirement age simply needs to be US life expectency minus 10 years. No congressional third rail vote is needed.


Medicare tax also needs to be increased. If people are getting more benefits than before, then they need to be paying more money into it.
 
2012-11-20 11:51:40 PM  

Surpheon: TV's Vinnie: Again, neither you or anyone you love is on Social Security Retirement or Disability.

Uh, 3 family members rely on survivor SS benefits. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Are you seriously arguing you believe SS is unsustainable and should be abolished? Because that is the position you're supporting by refuting my simple point. Do you or anyone you love have basic reading comprehension skills?


No. I am refuting your comment that it should be means tested. The Soc. Sec. haters would LOVE for that to happen.
 
2012-11-20 11:51:51 PM  

Paktu: Diogenes: Lionel Mandrake: Diogenes: BLANKFEIN: You can look at history of these things, and Social Security wasn't devised to be a system that supported you for a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career

I'm retiring in 5 years and no one told me?

Apparently the average American goes to work at 40 and lives to be 95.

who knew?

I'm all for privatization of Social Security. One two conditions:

1) I get all my contributions to date refunded, with interest.

2) I get to chose with whom I invest that money (no "government-approved funds only" bullshiat).

I think that's only fair, and is truly privatized.

So when you put all your money in the next Enron or AIG, what happens then? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you'll whine and scream and expect the government to pay for your retirement anyway.

Unless we as a society are willing to let old people starve to death because they made bad investments, your idea will never work.


thats why you let the whiners invest in t-bills and the S&P 500. You can let people be more selective with their investments after they have fully invested in the tbill accounts and S&P500.

Everyones happy. Retards cant really lose all their money, only the well off guys can, and even then, they only lose 50%.. which is still enough for a minimal retirement that is 4x what social security pays out.

and if you die when you are 61, you kids dont get totally whored, like today.
 
2012-11-20 11:54:42 PM  

Silly Jesus: This is now the libtard relationship with the evil rich....


www.hollywoodrepublican.net
 
2012-11-20 11:56:48 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: The retirement age needs to be raised simply because people are living longer.

You cant have a expected 10 year payout turn into an 18 year payout and not
raise contributions, delay the payout, or go broke.

The SS retirement age simply needs to be US life expectency minus 10 years. No congressional third rail vote is needed.


Medicare tax also needs to be increased. If people are getting more benefits than before, then they need to be paying more money into it.


You are posting in the wrong place. Fark isn't here for reasonable debate and logic.
 
2012-11-21 12:18:24 AM  

Director_Mr: Nutsac_Jim: The retirement age needs to be raised simply because people are living longer.

You cant have a expected 10 year payout turn into an 18 year payout and not
raise contributions, delay the payout, or go broke.

The SS retirement age simply needs to be US life expectency minus 10 years. No congressional third rail vote is needed.


Medicare tax also needs to be increased. If people are getting more benefits than before, then they need to be paying more money into it.

You are posting in the wrong place. Fark isn't here for reasonable debate and logic.


Makes sense to me, too, and it doesn't make sense why we have census data on such things if we don't simply use the data, automatically, like this.

Such as now: by 2020, the retirement age will be increased to 67. Makes sense; if we went with this system, retirement age would currently be 68. Considering how many people in their latter 60s are still in the workforce (well, mainly because those people don't have near enough savings, through tragic or stupid circumstances) it's not that big of a deal imho.
 
2012-11-21 12:28:06 AM  

jgk3: Actually the average life expectancy when SS was implemented with an effective age of 65 was 61.7 years


And in Germany (where the idea originated), it was 65 in 1910 (when the average life expectancy was 51.8).
 
2012-11-21 12:39:30 AM  
What is confusing to me is how people deal with discussions about this. They automatically label any response as "Liberal" or "Conservative" and then go on to mock the ideology they assume is behind any particular proposed solution. The problem is clearly that Social Security is costing more money than it is taking in. There are two ways to solve that. Take in more money, or put less money out. Then you have to decide how to do that.
 
2012-11-21 12:43:35 AM  

Director_Mr: What is confusing to me is how people deal with discussions about this. They automatically label any response as "Liberal" or "Conservative" and then go on to mock the ideology they assume is behind any particular proposed solution. The problem is clearly that Social Security is costing more money than it is taking in. There are two ways to solve that. Take in more money, or put less money out. Then you have to decide how to do that.


Right, that's perfectly clear. It's all just a matter of comparing credits and debits. Clear and simple problem. Clear and simple solution.
 
2012-11-21 12:56:50 AM  

Director_Mr: What is confusing to me is how people deal with discussions about this. They automatically label any response as "Liberal" or "Conservative" and then go on to mock the ideology they assume is behind any particular proposed solution. The problem is clearly that Social Security is costing more money than it is taking in. There are two ways to solve that. Take in more money, or put less money out. Then you have to decide how to do that.


AliceBToklasLives: Director_Mr: What is confusing to me is how people deal with discussions about this. They automatically label any response as "Liberal" or "Conservative" and then go on to mock the ideology they assume is behind any particular proposed solution. The problem is clearly that Social Security is costing more money than it is taking in. There are two ways to solve that. Take in more money, or put less money out. Then you have to decide how to do that.

Right, that's perfectly clear. It's all just a matter of comparing credits and debits. Clear and simple problem. Clear and simple solution.


You both make too much sense. Whatyoudoinonfark?
 
2012-11-21 01:03:40 AM  

Director_Mr: What is confusing to me is how people deal with discussions about this. They automatically label any response as "Liberal" or "Conservative" and then go on to mock the ideology they assume is behind any particular proposed solution. The problem is clearly that Social Security is costing more money than it is taking in. There are two ways to solve that. Take in more money, or put less money out. Then you have to decide how to do that.


Social security has bee4n taking in more than it pays out since St Reagan and St Greenspan raised the FICA taxes in the eighties. Put it this way in 40 years due to demographics the percent of GDP devoted to Social Security is expected to rise from 4% of GDP to 5%. One percent of GDP. This is a problem how?
 
2012-11-21 01:12:13 AM  
IMHO, if you have been spending your whole life working away at your "career" with a goal of being able to afford to live until you die, you have failed. Good luck to you.

/Fark retirement.
 
2012-11-21 01:19:29 AM  

gibbon1: Director_Mr: What is confusing to me is how people deal with discussions about this. They automatically label any response as "Liberal" or "Conservative" and then go on to mock the ideology they assume is behind any particular proposed solution. The problem is clearly that Social Security is costing more money than it is taking in. There are two ways to solve that. Take in more money, or put less money out. Then you have to decide how to do that.

Social security has bee4n taking in more than it pays out since St Reagan and St Greenspan raised the FICA taxes in the eighties. Put it this way in 40 years due to demographics the percent of GDP devoted to Social Security is expected to rise from 4% of GDP to 5%. One percent of GDP. This is a problem how?


The problem is not that before it was taking in more than it was paying out. The problem is that now that is no longer the case (http://www.ssa.gov/budget/2013PTF.pdf), and with more people scheduled to be able to receive benefits and less people able to pay into the system as time goes by, that problem will get steadily worse. Also, if there is a surplus in social security, where is it? Any thing you look at that says there is money sitting around to pay for social security benefits is based on phone accounting numbers. In real life there is no Social Security Trust fund sitting around.
 
2012-11-21 02:09:26 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: My dad died four months after retiring. After having to extend put off retirement six months because of the formula on determining when you get you benefits.


I'm truly sorry to hear that. But we both know that that's not the demographic trend vis retirement age and life expectancy.

You know what would have sucked even more? Running out of money 6 months before he died.
 
2012-11-21 02:14:06 AM  

Diogenes: I'm all for privatization of Social Security. One two conditions:

1) I get all my contributions to date refunded, with interest.

2) I get to chose with whom I invest that money (no "government-approved funds only" bullshiat).

I think that's only fair, and is truly privatized.


The problem with self-investment is that while it sounds really good, the reality is that all but the best/luckiest investors are going to screw up sometime in a lifetime as there are so many industries, companies, economies that cycle through dramatic booms and busts. that it becomes increasingly unlikely to get it right through the entire period. You're kidding yourself if you believe you'll get it right decade after decade -- even fund managers with long streaks often lose their mojo eventually.

To put it another way, it is entirely unreasonable to expect everyone to be experts in investment.in order to secure retirement. And as mentioned by others above, self-directed systems doubly screw the least capable in our society (they accumulate less money in the first place and then are most likely to lose it all).

Retirement safety net (i.e. the entitlement part people are complaining about) needs to be more of a savings rather than investment.
 
2012-11-21 02:23:55 AM  

TV's Vinnie: d23: Back To Work, Grandma
[thinkprogress.org image 235x198]
I need that 3rd yacht!

The more I see that nasty little face of his face, the harder it is not to want to punch his lights out. The "man" is like a walking stereotype of all the Nazi propaganda about the "Eternal Jew".

[ts4.mm.bing.net image 289x300]


Way to class up the discussion.
He's an asshole.
So are bigots like you.
 
2012-11-21 02:46:55 AM  
The 1%. I say we burned the lot of them. Goldman Sachs are pump and dump scam artists.
 
2012-11-21 03:31:42 AM  

Isildur: Way to class up the discussion.
He's an asshole.
So are bigots like you.


Welcome to Fark.
 
2012-11-21 03:34:48 AM  
PS:

I don't know where you get off calling me a bigot. Who says that every Jewish person is a positive role model? It's that kind of "hands off" mentality that has been draining our Treasury of several billion dollars a year to prop up Israel (which causes the rest of the region to hate our guts), and allows scumbags like Lloyd BALD FIEND & Sheldon Adelson to get away with their shenanigans.
 
2012-11-21 03:38:24 AM  

gibbon1: unyon: He's right. The 65 year retirement age was implemented when average life expectancy was... 69. It seems reasonable that the age move up, in a methodical way, allowing approaching retirees to adjust to the new reality.

Sigh. The average life expectancy from birth went up because less children die from preventable childhood diseases and fewer adults die in accidents, bot because old people are dying that much later.

I for one am really bothered that people can't wrap their heads around simple demographics. And that social security is completely solvent and all Lloyd Blankfein cares about is diverting working peoples social security taxes into his pocket.


Point taken, but I have a *sigh* here of my own. Taking the Blankfein argument out of this- I'm not ascribing motive here- people are living longer. The average 65 year old in 1970 could expect to live to 81. By 2010, that number is 86 (these are stats for us here in Canada, but generally comparable to the US).

And there are also more of them who are living longer. Part of that is temporary- the demographic rabbit in the snake's belly that is the boomers. But part of it is systemic, as a result of medical advances that keep people alive longer, and in far better shape.

These are very real impacts on the cost of services. You either delay services, claw back services, or put the burden of the services on the existing workforce. It's not unreasonable to spread that burden across, provided that it's done in a way that gives people plenty of lead time to adjust to that reality, including contributing more to their retirement earlier in life so that they can retire at their choosing.

That said, in the US, you might be saved the demographic problem by the obesity problem. What modern science giveth, diabeetus taketh away.
 
2012-11-21 03:48:21 AM  

L.D. Ablo: I started working at Burger King when I was 15. I'm 40 now and will probably work until I'm 65


I also started at 15 (pizza). And I've been paying into this shiat for the last 23 years. I don't believe I have the liver or sanity to withstand working past 65, unless it's something I enjoy and can do with my head - not my body. Fark this guy.
 
2012-11-21 04:30:22 AM  
I wonder if he has any clue how his statements sound to the average pleb.
 
2012-11-21 04:48:34 AM  
Fark me to death. I know it's deep in the thread and nobody will see this, but I have to rant anyway.
THE SOCIAL SECURITY CRISIS IS A FILTHY LIE.

a) Life expectancy of 18 year olds has not risen by much more than 5 years since SS started.
b) The retirement age has already risen to 67 for anyone under 53
c) The SS trust fund is not "full of IOU's". It is is fully invested in the #1 safe investment vehicle in the world: T-bills. This practice keeps the money safe, as well as keeps the percentage of foreign debt holders down.
d) SS only has an income cap because it has a maximum payout. Upper-middle class folks get the same SS benefit as Oprah. If you want to argue that Oprah doesn't need SS, that's your right, but don't act like she's fleecing the system.
e) SS has already had its demographic problem fixed in the 1980's. Our current problem is that real wages have gone down the crapper, and unemployment is too high.
f) If you want to fix SS, there are two simple solutions. Pick one, or both.
1. Allow more immigrants to work legally and pay taxes
2. Raise wages
 
2012-11-21 07:07:58 AM  

Diogenes: BLANKFEIN: You can look at history of these things, and Social Security wasn't devised to be a system that supported you for a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career

I'm retiring in 5 years and no one told me?


It's more like a twenty year retirement after a forty year career but whatever..
 
2012-11-21 08:02:10 AM  
FTFA: You can look at history of these things, and Social Security wasn't devised to be a system that supported you for a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career.

Working Adult Age: 18
Retirement Age: 67 (currently)
Average Working Career: 67 - 18 = 49 working years

Retirement age: 67
Average Life Expectancy in US: 78.2 (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy)
Post Retirement Years on Social Security: 78.2 - 67 = 11.2 years

For a Wall Street CEO, this guy completely sucks at math.
 
2012-11-21 09:37:23 AM  

L.D. Ablo: Fark you, Blankfein.

It's not like I'm asking for something I haven't already paid for.

I started working at Burger King when I was 15. I'm 40 now and will probably work until I'm 65.

That will be paying into the system for 50 years. If I make it to the average age of 81 or 82, I'll have put a lot more in than I'll get out.

Again, fark you, Blankfein.


Same here, except I started up the street at Wendy's.

Mmmmmm hot redheads.
 
2012-11-21 10:25:03 AM  

MemeSlave: No, the problem is that old people need to die, and poor people need to stop farking. We've had enormous technological improvements, but are still breeding like rabbits and living too long. Things were great in the halcyon 50s and 60s because old people died and left their assets to the next generation, and there weren't so many stupid white trash breeding like rabbits. Then came the Great Society, and the game where nobody loses (sort of the 4th Edition D&D of the Real World) and now we're all saddled with their stupid choices.


This overpopulation/idiocracy bullshiat needs to stop. US birth rate has been at or below replacement level since 1972. Immigration is why our population keeps growing. Life expectancy has gone from 69 in 1960 to 78 in 2012. Old people aren't living that much longer, and actually, less educated populations are living shorter lives than they were a few decades ago.

The real problem compared to the 50s and 60s is that nobody has any wealth to leave to their children - it's all been hoarded by the 1%ers. When your granddad died in 1960, he'd been living on a company pension or social security or both since the troops came back from the war, so he didn't need to reverse mortgage his house or spend down his assets to qualify for Medicaid. People used to be able to live off of Social Security in their old age back in the day, so they didn't need to spend their kids' inheritance on nursing homes and prescription drugs. Medical costs for heart attacks, especially, are insane - $18K on average per hospitalization for geriatric patients, and the more drugs/nurses/procedures necessary, the more the cost goes up. And why are heart conditions so expensive and prevalent? Because of the obesity epidemic triggered by high fructose corn syrup subsidies, which began in the 70s. Your hypothetical dead grandad in1960 never drank Pepsi or ate sald dressing with HFCS - which is why he didn't get fat and have a bypass in his 60s.

If you want to know why old people are working longer and not leaving assets to their children, it's simple. The rich bastards on Wall Street looted their pensions, elected Republicans who don't care about the social safety net, and have jacked up healthcare costs beyond belief. Now they're demanding that old people continue to bow to their corporate masters - work until you're too broken down to live on your own, go directly to a nursing home/hospital, and waste all your money on costs that flow directly to the 1%. If we want to make social security work better than it already does then we need to lower the retirement age, not increase it. We need to raise the cap for donations or remove it entirely, get a national healthcare plan that takes the burden of insurance off of employers, and cut out insurance middlemen who do nothing but take money from the poor and funnel it to the rich. Pay doctors, not actuaries, when you need healthcare, and pay researchers, not patent attorneys, when you need drug innovation. Reverse some of the wealth inequality between the looters and the makers and you'll see a return to the halcyon days of the '50s and 60s you're so enamored of.
 
2012-11-21 12:22:42 PM  

phyrkrakr: MemeSlave: No, the problem is that old people need to die, and poor people need to stop farking. We've had enormous technological improvements, but are still breeding like rabbits and living too long. Things were great in the halcyon 50s and 60s because old people died and left their assets to the next generation, and there weren't so many stupid white trash breeding like rabbits. Then came the Great Society, and the game where nobody loses (sort of the 4th Edition D&D of the Real World) and now we're all saddled with their stupid choices.

This overpopulation/idiocracy bullshiat needs to stop. US birth rate has been at or below replacement level since 1972. Immigration is why our population keeps growing. Life expectancy has gone from 69 in 1960 to 78 in 2012. Old people aren't living that much longer, and actually, less educated populations are living shorter lives than they were a few decades ago.

The real problem compared to the 50s and 60s is that nobody has any wealth to leave to their children - it's all been hoarded by the 1%ers. When your granddad died in 1960, he'd been living on a company pension or social security or both since the troops came back from the war, so he didn't need to reverse mortgage his house or spend down his assets to qualify for Medicaid. People used to be able to live off of Social Security in their old age back in the day, so they didn't need to spend their kids' inheritance on nursing homes and prescription drugs. Medical costs for heart attacks, especially, are insane - $18K on average per hospitalization for geriatric patients, and the more drugs/nurses/procedures necessary, the more the cost goes up. And why are heart conditions so expensive and prevalent? Because of the obesity epidemic triggered by high fructose corn syrup subsidies, which began in the 70s. Your hypothetical dead grandad in1960 never drank Pepsi or ate sald dressing with HFCS - which is why he didn't get fat and have a bypass in his 60s.

If y ...


Hey, you should write one of them there newsletter thingies.
 
2012-11-21 12:55:40 PM  

TV's Vinnie: PS:

I don't know where you get off calling me a bigot. Who says that every Jewish person is a positive role model?


Nobody.
Who approvingly posted actual Nazi propaganda while explaining how ethnic facial features make him want to commit violence? You.


TV's Vinnie: It's that kind of "hands off" mentality that has been draining our Treasury of several billion dollars a year to prop up Israel (which causes the rest of the region to hate our guts), and allows scumbags like Lloyd BALD FIEND & Sheldon Adelson to get away with their shenanigans.



Lol, going on to rant even more about teh J00Z in a post that was supposed to defend against allegation of such an obsession. You sure showed me.

Heh, "BALD FIEND". How level-headed, and not at all a weird outburst indicative of a need to see someone in demonic terms.

By all means, please, keep digging -- this gets better and better.
 
2012-11-21 01:04:59 PM  

Isildur: TV's Vinnie: PS:

I don't know where you get off calling me a bigot. Who says that every Jewish person is a positive role model?

Nobody.
Who approvingly posted actual Nazi propaganda while explaining how ethnic facial features make him want to commit violence? You.


TV's Vinnie: It's that kind of "hands off" mentality that has been draining our Treasury of several billion dollars a year to prop up Israel (which causes the rest of the region to hate our guts), and allows scumbags like Lloyd BALD FIEND & Sheldon Adelson to get away with their shenanigans.


Lol, going on to rant even more about teh J00Z in a post that was supposed to defend against allegation of such an obsession. You sure showed me.

Heh, "BALD FIEND". How level-headed, and not at all a weird outburst indicative of a need to see someone in demonic terms.

By all means, please, keep digging -- this gets better and better.


So, do you always defend the evil rich, or is this a new job for you?
 
2012-11-21 01:38:36 PM  

TV's Vinnie: By all means, please, keep digging -- this gets better and better.

So, do you always defend the evil rich, or is this a new job for you?



...Aaand ignoring my points to try to switch tacks.
Contrary to your conception, "Jews" is not the same as "evil rich", no matter how much you try to conflate the designations. One can attack the positions and actions of a person without bringing ethnic hatred into it.


To repost my original:

Isildur: Way to class up the discussion.
He's an asshole.
So are bigots like you.

 
2012-11-21 02:20:16 PM  

Isildur: ...Aaand ignoring my points to try to switch tacks.


No. They just were retarded and not worth commenting on. That's all.

But, do go on defending the likes of Moneybags McCueball there. Useful idiots are gonna be useful, I guess.
 
2012-11-21 03:06:23 PM  
Yep - If it goes on long enough, every Internet 'debate' end in Nazis.

/it's like the Wikipedia 'Hitler game'
 
2012-11-21 03:30:45 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Isildur: ...Aaand ignoring my points to try to switch tacks.

No. They just were retarded and not worth commenting on. That's all.



Hah, riiiiight. Instead, it apparently is worth commenting on things I didn't post....


TV's Vinnie: But, do go on defending the likes of Moneybags McCueball there. Useful idiots are gonna be useful, I guess.



...like any sort of arguing on behalf of Blankfein.

Replying to an imaginary argument? Brilliant!
Calling someone bigoted for promoting actual, literal Nazi propaganda? "Retarded"!
Heh, ok, got it.
 
2012-11-21 03:36:21 PM  

Isildur: TV's Vinnie: Isildur: ...Aaand ignoring my points to try to switch tacks.

No. They just were retarded and not worth commenting on. That's all.


Hah, riiiiight. Instead, it apparently is worth commenting on things I didn't post....


TV's Vinnie: But, do go on defending the likes of Moneybags McCueball there. Useful idiots are gonna be useful, I guess.


...like any sort of arguing on behalf of Blankfein.

Replying to an imaginary argument? Brilliant!
Calling someone bigoted for promoting actual, literal Nazi propaganda? "Retarded"!
Heh, ok, got it.


Keep on fighting those someones being wrong on the internet! We're counting on you.
 
2012-11-21 04:52:14 PM  

Macular Degenerate: For a Wall Street CEO, this guy completely sucks at math.


No he thinks other people suck as math.

Life expectancy at 65 is 17.19 years. At 70 it is 13.73 years. By raising the retirement age from 65 to 70 you cut payouts by 20%, which leaves enough money left over for the Federal government to continue borrowing from social security in order to preserve Reagan's tax cuts for people like Lloyd Blankfein. Otherwise we might have to do something drastic like eliminate the carried interest tax break*.

*The carried Interest scam allows money managers to pay capital gains tax rates on their income instead of earned income tax rates.
 
Displayed 50 of 203 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report