Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

11900 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
 
2012-11-20 04:57:59 PM  
On one hand, this guy's a total prick; on the other hand,I don't think adjusting the retirement age is such a bad idea.

But listening to an arrogant bajillionaire complain is always grating.
 
2012-11-20 05:00:19 PM  
So there will be things that, you know, the retirement age has to be changed, maybe some of the benefits have to be affected, maybe some of the inflation adjustments have to be revised. But in general, entitlements have to be slowed down and contained.

PELLEY: Because we can't afford them going forward?

BLANKFEIN: Because we can't afford them.


obviously, this man is in desperate need of a tax cut.
 
2012-11-20 05:01:35 PM  
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.

Nothing is stopping anyone from putting away bank and retiring whenever you want. For many people, not being able to work past 65 is what will condemn them to a retirement of poverty.
 
2012-11-20 05:03:59 PM  
Maybe we should lower the minimum work age to 5. That coal isn't going to mine itself.
 
2012-11-20 05:04:14 PM  
He looks young and spritely.

We'll eat him first.
 
2012-11-20 05:12:12 PM  

Ambivalence: He looks young and spritely.

We'll eat him first.


Does he have a nice butt?

sharetv.org
 
2012-11-20 05:12:30 PM  
Are there no prisons? And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation?
 
2012-11-20 05:19:41 PM  
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?
 
2012-11-20 05:25:00 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.

Nothing is stopping anyone from putting away bank and retiring whenever you want. For many people, not being able to work past 65 is what will condemn them to a retirement of poverty.


He's an idiot. we already have that in place.
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.
 
2012-11-20 05:27:22 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.


Except that's simply not true for those who most need social security benefits:

"The latest estimate shows life expectancy for white women without a high school diploma was 73.5 years, compared with 83.9 years for white women with a college degree or more. For white men, the gap was even bigger: 67.5 years for the least educated white men compared with 80.4 for those with a college degree or better. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/us/life-expectancy-for-less-educate d -whites-in-us-is-shrinking.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If you're uneducated and therefore highly unlikely to be able to save for retirement, you're basically ensuring that you'll have to work until the minute you die in the harness, which I think is one of those things SS was trying to remedy in the first place.
 
2012-11-20 05:28:44 PM  
Full disclosure from Subby - I was thinking of this when I submitted the headline.

i1120.photobucket.com

Sorry it's such a small image, I couldn't find a bigger one, and attempts to blow this one up went... poorly. Anyway, up there in the left corner it says Our Motto: Get back to work, you. So yes, I more or less stole the joke from Matt Groening.

Whew, is my conscience clear now.
 
2012-11-20 05:29:02 PM  

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?
 
2012-11-20 05:39:39 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-20 05:43:06 PM  
Where's Smithers?
 
2012-11-20 06:08:39 PM  
Wonder what would happen if we let people retire whenever they wish and limit Social Security to X years.
 
2012-11-20 06:09:42 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Wonder what would happen if we let people retire whenever they wish and limit Social Security to X years.


Destitute octogenarians.
 
2012-11-20 06:10:31 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Wonder what would happen if we let people retire whenever they wish and limit Social Security to X years.


A lot more suicides
 
2012-11-20 06:28:55 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: On one hand, this guy's a total prick; on the other hand,I don't think adjusting the retirement age is such a bad idea.

But listening to an arrogant bajillionaire complain is always grating.


And, we're all done here.
 
2012-11-20 06:30:39 PM  
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. ...

Math like that explains the problems at Goldman Sachs.
 
2012-11-20 06:48:35 PM  

Mentat: Maybe we should lower the minimum work age to 5. That coal isn't going to mine itself.


Newt Gingrich likes this comment
 
2012-11-20 06:51:56 PM  
So he's saying business will stop trying to unload older workers, not to mention hire them?
 
2012-11-20 07:00:34 PM  

timujin: 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. ...

Math like that explains the problems at Goldman Sachs.


Very much this. What the hell is he smoking?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-20 07:07:14 PM  
I don't think the idea is so much "get back to work", I think it's more fark off and DIAF..
 
2012-11-20 07:38:54 PM  

Weaver95: So there will be things that, you know, the retirement age has to be changed, maybe some of the benefits have to be affected, maybe some of the inflation adjustments have to be revised. But in general, entitlements have to be slowed down and contained.

PELLEY: Because we can't afford them going forward?

BLANKFEIN: Because we can't afford them.

obviously, this man is in desperate need of a tax cut.


blankfein actually has argued that the rich should pay higher taxes in order to avoid the fiscal cliff. i don't think he was being a prick here, just giving an honest answer to a tough question.
 
2012-11-20 07:51:20 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-20 07:59:17 PM  
So life expectancy is up to 95 now?
 
2012-11-20 08:03:46 PM  

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.



What happens when you make a bad bet and lose most of it? Will you expect to be put out in the cold to freeze to death once you're unable to work and out of money? This used to be common practice among northern natives...

Do you expect everyone else to go along with this? 401k's are a bad enough plague on the general population's retirement, privatizing SS is even more nuts.
 
2012-11-20 08:05:53 PM  
unyon

Smartest
Funniest
2012-11-20 05:01:35 PM
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.

Nothing is stopping anyone from putting away bank and retiring whenever you want. For many people, not being able to work past 65 is what will condemn them to a retirement of poverty.


Actually the average life expectancy when SS was implemented with an effective age of 65 was 61.7 years. In other words, Roosevelt's plan was for most workers to pay into the program and die before they collected anything--that's what made it actuarially sound. The equivalent today would be for the retirement age and SS effective age of about 82. Since that's simply not practical for most jobs, the program will need considerable subsidies by the time most of us on FARK retire.
 
2012-11-20 08:08:35 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.

Nothing is stopping anyone from putting away bank and retiring whenever you want. For many people, not being able to work past 65 is what will condemn them to a retirement of poverty.


Life expectancy doesn't work that way.
 
2012-11-20 08:08:46 PM  
I hate to say it, but I agree with Aerosmith on something.

Link
 
2012-11-20 08:09:09 PM  
He's doing it wrong. Entitlements are for Conservative voting Seniors.
 
2012-11-20 08:09:24 PM  
mgsonline.blogs.com
 
2012-11-20 08:09:40 PM  
Some of what he says is probably true but I still hope Blankfein contracts cancer of the cock.

/ should be in prison
 
2012-11-20 08:09:59 PM  
"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. ... So there will be things that, you know, the retirement age has to be changed, maybe some of the benefits have to be affected, maybe some of the inflation adjustments have to be revised. But in general, entitlements have to be slowed down and contained."

Oh, he's talking about leeches like Postal employees and government ditch diggers. I have no problem there
 
2012-11-20 08:10:31 PM  
 
2012-11-20 08:10:54 PM  
This is now the libtard relationship with the evil rich....

static.someecards.com

Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.
 
2012-11-20 08:13:21 PM  
ITT: Farkers take a break from complaining about how baby boomers is leeching off everyone else and defend their right to retire at an age where many are still healthy and productive members of society.

Needless to say, we take a wide stance on the issue: it depends on who's making the statement.
 
2012-11-20 08:15:48 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-20 08:16:13 PM  

edmo: hire them


They will unload them and then rehire them at 1/3 their previous salary.
 
2012-11-20 08:16:40 PM  
Oh, hey, look a rich asshole who doesn't have to worry about paying for things who's complaining about people who do.

This shiat can go fark himself.
 
2012-11-20 08:17:12 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-20 08:18:27 PM  

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

who knew?


That system might work in Greece, but it sure doesn't work in America.
 
2012-11-20 08:20:33 PM  

trotsky: Oh, hey, look a rich asshole who doesn't have to worry about paying for things who's complaining about people who do.

This shiat can go fark himself.


It's like you're trying to not get the point.
 
2012-11-20 08:22:53 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: On one hand, this guy's a total prick; on the other hand,I don't think adjusting the retirement age is such a bad idea.

But listening to an arrogant bajillionaire complain is always grating.


When is the last time the maximum income contribution level was indexed for inflation?

There's no rational reason to increase the retirement age of SS before adjusting the maximum contributing income level relative to inflation.
 
2012-11-20 08:23:49 PM  
fark this asshole. The retirement age WAS raised, back in the 80s, because it ain't like people just noticed the baby boomers.Stop raiding SS and Medicare, fark, LOWER it. Get old people out of the workforce, get new ones in.
 
2012-11-20 08:24:54 PM  

ghare: fark this asshole. The retirement age WAS raised, back in the 80s, because it ain't like people just noticed the baby boomers.Stop raiding SS and Medicare, fark, LOWER it. Get old people out of the workforce, get new ones in.


I'm ok with this.

Now...get the fark off my lawn
 
Ehh
2012-11-20 08:25:02 PM  
Spoken like a man who needs to be re-educated. In a camp.
 
2012-11-20 08:25:26 PM  
Choose a career that you love and you don't have to think about retiring.

/spending one's life obsessed with retirement would be a shiatty life
 
2012-11-20 08:25:42 PM  

ghare: fark this asshole. The retirement age WAS raised, back in the 80s, because it ain't like people just noticed the baby boomers.Stop raiding SS and Medicare, fark, LOWER it. Get old people out of the workforce, get new ones in.


Then you'd have people complaining about how grandpa lost his job, and how the company was evil for replacing him with some young hire who cost half as much.

Now you just have another burden on society.
 
2012-11-20 08:26:18 PM  

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

[static.someecards.com image 420x294]

Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.


Says the Internet Rich Guy. Listen, Rafalca still isn't going to sleep with you.
 
2012-11-20 08:26:58 PM  

super_grass: Now you just have another burden on society


I've been doing my best to be a burden on society even while gainfully employed the last 3 1/2 decades
 
2012-11-20 08:27:54 PM  

super_grass: ghare: fark this asshole. The retirement age WAS raised, back in the 80s, because it ain't like people just noticed the baby boomers.Stop raiding SS and Medicare, fark, LOWER it. Get old people out of the workforce, get new ones in.

Then you'd have people complaining about how grandpa lost his job, and how the company was evil for replacing him with some young hire who cost half as much.

Now you just have another burden on society.


How is letting Grandpa take retirement early making him lose his job?
 
2012-11-20 08:28:54 PM  
"Social Security wasn't devised to be a system that supported you for a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career."
as someone who's looking at another 41 years until retirement I'd like to know where this number came from?
 
2012-11-20 08:30:23 PM  
Let's see: All the old people enter the labor market (calculating new unemployment numbers). HOLY shiat!

/Because Obama asshole rich guy.
 
2012-11-20 08:30:51 PM  
Whenever I hear of someone raising the retirement age, I always got to wonder, will they make a distinction between types of jobs? Jobs that involve brutal, backbreaking labor (coal mining, oil drilling) are going to take a bigger toll on the body than the job of your average cubicle jockey.
 
2012-11-20 08:31:03 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-20 08:33:07 PM  
Eat the rich..
 
2012-11-20 08:34:07 PM  
Means testing. Nothing. Else. Will. Save. It.
 
2012-11-20 08:34:34 PM  
Because only a handful of years should be spent enjoying the world without slaving away at a job.
 
2012-11-20 08:35:14 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Means testing. Nothing. Else. Will. Save. It.


BZZZZZT! Wrong...Try Again!
 
2012-11-20 08:40:16 PM  

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?


Yeah... I don't think math is his strong point.
 
2012-11-20 08:41:34 PM  

ghare: super_grass: ghare: fark this asshole. The retirement age WAS raised, back in the 80s, because it ain't like people just noticed the baby boomers.Stop raiding SS and Medicare, fark, LOWER it. Get old people out of the workforce, get new ones in.

Then you'd have people complaining about how grandpa lost his job, and how the company was evil for replacing him with some young hire who cost half as much.

Now you just have another burden on society.

How is letting Grandpa take retirement early making him lose his job?


Because grandpa might still want or need it a bit longer so he can save up more money for his retirement? You use the word "let", but in reality it can be "make".
 
2012-11-20 08:43:18 PM  

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

Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.


Yeah, you're a troll, and a waste of one, at that. "Poors"? Wow, big daddy Warbucks, I bet you impress everyone in the Internet these days.

Something tells me that you're still in your 20's, driving an old 'n busted '82 Celica, hanging out with a couple of friends at the gas station each weekend and talking about how you're each going to get out of the shiattown that you live in now, but 0bama is holding you down...

But please, go on about the poors.....
 
2012-11-20 08:43:37 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Means testing. Nothing. Else. Will. Save. It.


Means testing will save very little money - there aren't that many rich people and SS already has a low maximum benefit. Means testing will also make SS more demonizable since not everyone will receive benefits.
 
2012-11-20 08:46:09 PM  

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

Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.

Yeah, you're a troll, and a waste of one, at that. "Poors"? Wow, big daddy Warbucks, I bet you impress everyone in the Internet these days.

Something tells me that you're still in your 20's, driving an old 'n busted '82 Celica, hanging out with a couple of friends at the gas station each weekend and talking about how you're each going to get out of the shiattown that you live in now, but 0bama is holding you down...

But please, go on about the poors.....


You sound like one of the poors.
 
2012-11-20 08:47:58 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.


I think there may be a place you would love to live...
www.travelchinaguide.com
 
2012-11-20 08:48:15 PM  

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

Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.

Yeah, you're a troll, and a waste of one, at that. "Poors"? Wow, big daddy Warbucks, I bet you impress everyone in the Internet these days.

Something tells me that you're still in your 20's, driving an old 'n busted '82 Celica, hanging out with a couple of friends at the gas station each weekend and talking about how you're each going to get out of the shiattown that you live in now, but 0bama is holding you down...

But please, go on about the poors.....

You sound like one of the poors.


You sound like you're having trouble starting your Celica this week.
 
2012-11-20 08:50:58 PM  

ghare: super_grass: ghare: fark this asshole. The retirement age WAS raised, back in the 80s, because it ain't like people just noticed the baby boomers.Stop raiding SS and Medicare, fark, LOWER it. Get old people out of the workforce, get new ones in.

Then you'd have people complaining about how grandpa lost his job, and how the company was evil for replacing him with some young hire who cost half as much.

Now you just have another burden on society.

How is letting Grandpa take retirement early making him lose his job?


Because they don't retire you... they fire you or lay you off... no benefits. That's how the bean counters save money.
 
2012-11-20 08:51:16 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: 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?

Yeah... I don't think math is his strong point.


Waitadamnminutehere...........I was supposed to retire 10 years ago?

/Talk about missing the memo.........
 
2012-11-20 08:52:48 PM  

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

Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.

Yeah, you're a troll, and a waste of one, at that. "Poors"? Wow, big daddy Warbucks, I bet you impress everyone in the Internet these days.

Something tells me that you're still in your 20's, driving an old 'n busted '82 Celica, hanging out with a couple of friends at the gas station each weekend and talking about how you're each going to get out of the shiattown that you live in now, but 0bama is holding you down...

But please, go on about the poors.....


He is the one on the left...
cdn.nhl.com
 
2012-11-20 08:53:45 PM  

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

Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.

Yeah, you're a troll, and a waste of one, at that. "Poors"? Wow, big daddy Warbucks, I bet you impress everyone in the Internet these days.

Something tells me that you're still in your 20's, driving an old 'n busted '82 Celica, hanging out with a couple of friends at the gas station each weekend and talking about how you're each going to get out of the shiattown that you live in now, but 0bama is holding you down...

But please, go on about the poors.....

You sound like one of the poors.

You sound like you're having trouble starting your Celica this week.


You sound like a middle schooler.
 
2012-11-20 08:53:52 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.

Nothing is stopping anyone from putting away bank and retiring whenever you want. For many people, not being able to work past 65 is what will condemn them to a retirement of poverty.


The age has to go up. It's irresponsible of anyone to deny that demographic changes are affecting SS that need to be adjusted for. Life expectancy is higher, and the ratio of working age people/retirees has shrunk and will continue to shrink as the population ages.
 
2012-11-20 08:55:06 PM  

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?


To be fair, the young people who are graduating today may be 40 before they are able to find a job and move out of their parents' house.
 
2012-11-20 08:56:56 PM  

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

Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.

Yeah, you're a troll, and a waste of one, at that. "Poors"? Wow, big daddy Warbucks, I bet you impress everyone in the Internet these days.

Something tells me that you're still in your 20's, driving an old 'n busted '82 Celica, hanging out with a couple of friends at the gas station each weekend and talking about how you're each going to get out of the shiattown that you live in now, but 0bama is holding you down...

But please, go on about the poors.....

You sound like one of the poors.


You sound like you are reminding me why I have you farkied as "Confirmed Troll: Disingenuous Moron who hates the poor"

Always reassuring when the trolls go to their old standby acts.
 
2012-11-20 08:57:11 PM  
The retirement age will need to be increased or else Social Security will go away. It's pretty obvious. Sure, it's not fair, it's caused by factors we have no personal control over. Wah.

I'm planning on not getting one red cent, myself. Anyone under the age of 40 should probably assume retirement will be impossible or delayed well into their 80s.
 
2012-11-20 09:00:08 PM  
People like this guy make me glad that Man is a mortal creature. Because that means sooner later, Lloyd BALD FIEND will one day become worm food.

And on that day, he better pray that he gets buried under tons of concrete and rubble a la Pullman.
 
2012-11-20 09:00:23 PM  

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

Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.

Yeah, you're a troll, and a waste of one, at that. "Poors"? Wow, big daddy Warbucks, I bet you impress everyone in the Internet these days.

Something tells me that you're still in your 20's, driving an old 'n busted '82 Celica, hanging out with a couple of friends at the gas station each weekend and talking about how you're each going to get out of the shiattown that you live in now, but 0bama is holding you down...

But please, go on about the poors.....

You sound like one of the poors.

You sound like you are reminding me why I have you farkied as "Confirmed Troll: Disingenuous Moron who hates the poor"

Always reassuring when the trolls go to their old standby acts.


Your face is like a butt.
 
kab
2012-11-20 09:01:14 PM  
What's your retirement package look like, Blankfein?

That's what I thought. Choke yourself.
 
2012-11-20 09:01:25 PM  

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


That's college, right?

Just what we need. A finite number of jobs, being fought over by even more people. Companies are reluctant to hire ages 55 and up now, how will they handle 70 year olds applying? Will technology advancement slow, because 68 year olds aren't as familiar with tech - the savvy, computer literate 68 year old is few and far between, and they probably had a grasp of computers since their 40s (i.e. they know more than Facebook for their grandkids' pictures). What will this do for the younger generations.

Maybe we should restructure work expectations. For instance, work physical labor until 40, then desk jobs from 41-retirement.

Wonder what the world will look like when parts of your work force have active dementia, or Alzheimer's.

/my retirement age is 73 - I'll probably die at my desk
 
2012-11-20 09:02:23 PM  

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.


And then we get to watch the people in large age cohorts all wonder why their investments are tanking just when they need to draw then out. It's almost like selling to get your cash out forces prices down.
 
2012-11-20 09:02:56 PM  

MemeSlave: but are still breeding like rabbits


Cute line, but it is not true if you're talking about the US (the scope of a discussion on US Social Security). The US birth rate dropped below replacement level about half a decade ago. There is the phenomenon of population momentum (basically life expectancy increases continue to increase population for a while), but the home born US population is on a shrinking trajectory.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2010/apr/10040802
 
2012-11-20 09:03:20 PM  

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

Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.

Yeah, you're a troll, and a waste of one, at that. "Poors"? Wow, big daddy Warbucks, I bet you impress everyone in the Internet these days.

Something tells me that you're still in your 20's, driving an old 'n busted '82 Celica, hanging out with a couple of friends at the gas station each weekend and talking about how you're each going to get out of the shiattown that you live in now, but 0bama is holding you down...

But please, go on about the poors.....

You sound like one of the poors.

You sound like you are reminding me why I have you farkied as "Confirmed Troll: Disingenuous Moron who hates the poor"

Always reassuring when the trolls go to their old standby acts.

Your face is like a butt.


Wait....who's the middle schooler, again?
 
2012-11-20 09:04:23 PM  

squeedle: The retirement age will need to be increased or else Social Security will go away. It's pretty obvious.


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.
 
2012-11-20 09:04:49 PM  
Why is it that after I read articles like this I get the urge to play a FPS as a sniper?

/impotent first world rage.
 
2012-11-20 09:06:49 PM  

Duck_of_Doom: A finite number of jobs, being fought over by even more people.


Or, you know, people could work less - more leisure time, share the jobs, enjoy life. Isn't it odd how a world where 99% of the shiat work is done by robots is seen as a horrific hell hole rather than the reality of being closer to utopia? Of course, it's blasphemy to suggest that everyone benefit from the incredible wealth produced in such a world rather than literally just a few dozen lucky sods who own the robots.
 
2012-11-20 09:08:02 PM  

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

Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.

Yeah, you're a troll, and a waste of one, at that. "Poors"? Wow, big daddy Warbucks, I bet you impress everyone in the Internet these days.

Something tells me that you're still in your 20's, driving an old 'n busted '82 Celica, hanging out with a couple of friends at the gas station each weekend and talking about how you're each going to get out of the shiattown that you live in now, but 0bama is holding you down...

But please, go on about the poors.....

You sound like one of the poors.

You sound like you are reminding me why I have you farkied as "Confirmed Troll: Disingenuous Moron who hates the poor"

Always reassuring when the trolls go to their old standby acts.

Your face is like a butt.

Wait....who's the middle schooler, again?


www.anthonyjrapino.com

Me?
 
2012-11-20 09:08:58 PM  
I dunno, is he that wrong? It's not evil to succeed in America and the math seems relatively sound, ya know?

I plan to retire around 55ish, depending on how our retirement savings go and what we feel like doing. About 11 years to go, hopefully. That feels like a fark of a long time but on the other hand, if I had to work another 20 or 25 years from now I'd probably put a bullet in my head. And I really like my job!
 
2012-11-20 09:09:52 PM  
He's right.
 
2012-11-20 09:10:55 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: He's right

out of his gourd.

/FTFY
 
2012-11-20 09:13:59 PM  
Just print the farking money. Yeah, yeah scary hyper inflation blah blah. Probably not going to happen unless there is a sudden scarcity in supply, which social security payments wouldn't create anywhere near enough demand to do.
 
2012-11-20 09:15:25 PM  

Surpheon: Duck_of_Doom: A finite number of jobs, being fought over by even more people.

Or, you know, people could work less - more leisure time, share the jobs, enjoy life. Isn't it odd how a world where 99% of the shiat work is done by robots is seen as a horrific hell hole rather than the reality of being closer to utopia? Of course, it's blasphemy to suggest that everyone benefit from the incredible wealth produced in such a world rather than literally just a few dozen lucky sods who own the robots.


4 4 40

Four hours a day/four days a week/40 weeks a year.

Fark being alive on this planet and spending the entire time punching the clock for some arbitrary occupation.
 
2012-11-20 09:15:35 PM  
Not everybody has your retirement plan, Lloyd.

dailybail.com
 
2012-11-20 09:16:37 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: He's right. a kleptocrat


Do you know why there's 2.5 trillion dollars worth of IOUs in the SS Trust Fund?

Because 35 years of tax cuts left gaping holes in budgets that could only be paid by borrowing from SS

I have this comment for Blankfein...
farking pay me back you assholes.
 
2012-11-20 09:17:24 PM  

jgk3: unyon

Smartest
Funniest
2012-11-20 05:01:35 PM
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.

Nothing is stopping anyone from putting away bank and retiring whenever you want. For many people, not being able to work past 65 is what will condemn them to a retirement of poverty.

Actually the average life expectancy when SS was implemented with an effective age of 65 was 61.7 years. In other words, Roosevelt's plan was for most workers to pay into the program and die before they collected anything--that's what made it actuarially sound. The equivalent today would be for the retirement age and SS effective age of about 82. Since that's simply not practical for most jobs, the program will need considerable subsidies by the time most of us on FARK retire.


Actually, if you read that Salon article that was linked above, you'll see that 62 year life expectancy includes a ton of deaths from childhood illnesses - people who neither pay into nor collect from SS and so are irrelevant. Reducing childhood deaths is the source of most of our life expectancy gains.
 
2012-11-20 09:17:36 PM  

Surpheon: Or, you know, people could work less - more leisure time, share the jobs, enjoy life. Isn't it odd how a world where 99% of the shiat work is done by robots is seen as a horrific hell hole rather than the reality of being closer to utopia?


A wonderful, if fanciful notion. Cutting work hours, for an hourly worker, means cutting wages. I'm forseeing a future where everyone in lower tax brackets works multiple part-time jobs. No need for a company to offer benefits, as the workforce is part-time. You can go from one job right to the next, and you would end up working more than 40 hours a week. The added psychological benefit is what you said - the illusion of working less. Why become something white collar, with the horrible hours?

Of course, it's blasphemy to suggest that everyone benefit from the incredible wealth produced in such a world rather than literally just a few dozen lucky sods who own the robots.

You sound like a social person, if you know what I mean.

/agree with you
 
2012-11-20 09:18:55 PM  

X-boxershorts: Debeo Summa Credo: He's right. a kleptocrat

Do you know why there's 2.5 trillion dollars worth of IOUs in the SS Trust Fund?

Because 35 years of tax cuts left gaping holes in budgets that could only be paid by borrowing from SS

I have this comment for Blankfein...
farking pay me back you assholes.


Isn't it funny how when people say SS is not stable, or not funded properly, or this that or the other thing, the conveniently forget about those IOUs ?

/Fiscal responsibility... how does it work?
 
2012-11-20 09:19:09 PM  
Nothing like an article without citations to get farkers started.
 
2012-11-20 09:20:27 PM  

theenez: Nothing like an article without citations to get farkers started.


Welcome to Fark?
 
2012-11-20 09:24:46 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-20 09:26:06 PM  

Surpheon: squeedle: The retirement age will need to be increased or else Social Security will go away. It's pretty obvious.

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.


Or, remove the cap on contributions, raising it to $1M per year. To pricks like Blankfein that's little more than highway robbery but fark him.
 
2012-11-20 09:30:47 PM  
What the hell is "Social Security?" Oh right, the mandatory retirement program from which I'll never get to benefit. Hey, does anyone know where that "opt out" thing is that ol' Dubya was talking about? Cylindrical filing cabinet you say? Ah...
 
2012-11-20 09:32:05 PM  

ajgeek: What the hell is "Social Security?" Oh right, the mandatory retirement program from which I'll never get to benefit. Hey, does anyone know where that "opt out" thing is that ol' Dubya was talking about? Cylindrical filing cabinet you say? Ah...


You should instead demand hat the 1% pay the god damned 2.5 trillion in IOUs
 
2012-11-20 09:33:14 PM  

Silly Jesus: Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.


While in principle he's right and we need to either reduce benefits, raise the retirement age, or both... he actually failed on the basic math part of the problem.
 
2012-11-20 09:33:43 PM  

X-boxershorts: ajgeek: What the hell is "Social Security?" Oh right, the mandatory retirement program from which I'll never get to benefit. Hey, does anyone know where that "opt out" thing is that ol' Dubya was talking about? Cylindrical filing cabinet you say? Ah...

You should instead demand hat the 1% pay the god damned 2.5 trillion in IOUs


Good luck with that one. I'm 36 and I probably won't get to retire unless I just off myself at 65 or 70.
 
2012-11-20 09:34:04 PM  

Godscrack: [mgsonline.blogs.com image 500x375]


Are you really this dumb or just trolling? You understand that it's a jew saying this, right?
 
2012-11-20 09:35:02 PM  
Has anyone considered cutting 'defense' spending?
 
2012-11-20 09:35:36 PM  
We need workers to retire to make room for new workers. Not thrilled with 72 y/o nuclear power plant workers and no one on deck to take their place. Extrapolate into all areas of technical expertise. We dont HAVE to have a sophisticated society thats always on the brink of disaster.

Dumbass! 

/ Just a thought. What if moving forward we discover that there will always be more people than jobs. Maybe a new economic model would be in order. One that would have no room Multi Billionaire CEO's that add no value to... well anything.
 
2012-11-20 09:35:37 PM  

the_geek: Silly Jesus: Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.

While in principle he's right and we need to either reduce benefits, raise the retirement age, or both... he actually failed on the basic math part of the problem.


Maybe if people stopped trying to live to 100, we'd be okay. Better to live a good life and kick it at 55 or 60 than to live to live to 90 after a boring one.
 
2012-11-20 09:36:03 PM  

Silly Jesus: Your face is like a butt.


You are now favourited as "face like a butt". Take this as a compliment, I guess.
 
2012-11-20 09:36:24 PM  

unyon:

Nothing is stopping anyone from putting away bank and retiring whenever you want.


True..but, working a job for 36 grand a year with a house/rent payment and bills and a family with a car and gas and needing clothes and food and stuff and then getting to payday with only $11 left and then saving only $2 is going to slow this process down a bit.

/an excuse is just a sh*tty reason.
 
2012-11-20 09:37:37 PM  

pxlboy: X-boxershorts: ajgeek: What the hell is "Social Security?" Oh right, the mandatory retirement program from which I'll never get to benefit. Hey, does anyone know where that "opt out" thing is that ol' Dubya was talking about? Cylindrical filing cabinet you say? Ah...

You should instead demand hat the 1% pay the god damned 2.5 trillion in IOUs

Good luck with that one. I'm 36 and I probably won't get to retire unless I just off myself at 65 or 70.


How do ya think I feel. 53 and been contributing for as long as you've been alive.

I'm at "that age" that the cutoff for means testing and retirement age increases will effectively screw me out of 50-70 thousand dollars.

DEMAND THEY PAY THE GOD DAMNED IOUs

Oh, and index the max cap on contributing income to inflation for the first time since 86
 
2012-11-20 09:38:17 PM  
www.elespectador.com
Oh Mr Blankfein, are you married?
 
2012-11-20 09:38:26 PM  
At least he is a genuine bootstrapper, rather than a silver spooner.

Blankfein was born in the Bronx borough of New York City to a Jewish family and reared in the Linden Houses, a New York City Housing Authority project in the East New York section of Brooklyn. His father was a clerk with the U.S. Postal Service branch in the Manhattan borough of New York City and his mother was a receptionist. As a boy, he worked as a concession vendor at Yankee Stadium. He received primary and secondary education in the public schools of the New York City Department of Education, and was the valedictorian at Thomas Jefferson High School in 1971. He attended Harvard College, where he lived in Winthrop House, and earned his A.B. in 1975. In 1978, Blankfein received a J.D. degree from Harvard Law School.
 
2012-11-20 09:38:29 PM  

busy chillin': unyon:

Nothing is stopping anyone from putting away bank and retiring whenever you want.

True..but, working a job for 36 grand a year with a house/rent payment and bills and a family with a car and gas and needing clothes and food and stuff and then getting to payday with only $11 left and then saving only $2 is going to slow this process down a bit.

/an excuse is just a sh*tty reason.


And paying people just enough to live, but not enough to live *and* put money away seems to be common practice. If you don't make enough to save any extra, hope you die early.
 
2012-11-20 09:40:55 PM  
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein needs to get a real job. Something that involves a bucket and a mop.
 
2012-11-20 09:41:01 PM  

elchip: At least he is a genuine bootstrapper, rather than a silver spooner.

Blankfein was born in the Bronx borough of New York City to a Jewish family and reared in the Linden Houses, a New York City Housing Authority project in the East New York section of Brooklyn. His father was a clerk with the U.S. Postal Service branch in the Manhattan borough of New York City and his mother was a receptionist. As a boy, he worked as a concession vendor at Yankee Stadium. He received primary and secondary education in the public schools of the New York City Department of Education, and was the valedictorian at Thomas Jefferson High School in 1971. He attended Harvard College, where he lived in Winthrop House, and earned his A.B. in 1975. In 1978, Blankfein received a J.D. degree from Harvard Law School.


It doesn't make him any less of an asshole. It's someone who has forgotten his working-class roots demanding that blue collar and white people have the same retirement age, regardless of the nature of the work. Someone working in an air-conditioned office all day has a lot of nerve to say that people who actually work for a living have to suck it up until they're in their 70s.
 
2012-11-20 09:41:11 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Means testing. Nothing. Else. Will. Save. It.


Raising the cap would help a lot.
 
2012-11-20 09:41:18 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: On one hand, this guy's a total prick; on the other hand,I don't think adjusting the retirement age is such a bad idea.

But listening to an arrogant bajillionaire complain is always grating.


given I've given so much to war on folks, I'll be working until I'm dead anyway so who cares about the retirement age. When the Old Timers sets it's hooks I'll just wander off . . .
 
2012-11-20 09:42:15 PM  

jgk3: Since that's simply not practical for most jobs


That's an incredibly important point. Science has done one hell of a job over past several decades getting people TO old age, but has so far had little success in dealing with the physical and mental frailties that come with old age.

Back when the life expectancy was 60, those who died around 60 or beforehand died from things like untreated cancer and heart attacks and communicable disease, things that take a few months at most to transfer you from being able to work to the grave. But now that so many people are getting beyond those things to an age where things Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and Dementia and arthritis and osteoporosis and just general physical and mental decline take over, you can easily spend many years in a living but unable to work state, especially those jobs that are stressful on the mind or body.

I think around 70 is a good place for SS.. If you're much higher, you start getting on the right end of a Laffer Curve because so many people would just transfer to Disability SS because of natural decline and it would be unfair to the healthy and the low stress job people to have to keep working while all their counterparts in high stress situations or in normal decline get to retire.

If we ever make serious medical progress in keeping the vast majority of old people in a state fit to work, this whole post would obviously change.

And all we have to is raise the cap for a little while to get the boomers out of here and SS will be just fine.
 
2012-11-20 09:42:19 PM  
We could save at least $3 x 10^9/annum simply by ending support for the Zionists.
 
2012-11-20 09:46:52 PM  
Live fast, die young, and leave a nice looking corpse. It's the Corporatist way!

/ Unless your daddy leaves you a buttload of money. Then Fark You. Got mine!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-11-20 09:47:35 PM  

Back To Work, Grandma

thinkprogress.org

I need that 3rd yacht!
 
2012-11-20 09:48:31 PM  
I worked 20 year commercial sheet metal (Local 66) before doing something different. My knees are shot as are my wrists, but I got out in time compared to some of the crumpled old timers I used to work with... not everybody sits at a desk.

Blankfein needs to be hit in the face with a well-thrown rivet hammer
 
2012-11-20 09:49:43 PM  
Canada just raised the retirement age to 67.
Except for federal politicians.
 
2012-11-20 09:49:48 PM  

Surpheon: Cut SS benefits by 25% and it is stable for the forseeable future


Want to know how I know you or anyone you love isn't on Social Security retirement/disability?

There are people out there who are skipping meals in order to afford their rent or their medicine. For them, it is a daily Living Hell that reminds them during every waking moment of how barely tolerable their lives are.

And then some dirty evil little bald man, crashes the economy, blackmails the Government to pay up because he's "too big to fail", gives himself a HUGE bonus, and says that Grandma needs to live off of one quarter slice of bread each day instead of half a slice, the extravagant hag!

What is -25% below starvation, Surpheon?
 
2012-11-20 09:51:29 PM  
We could end (commie-ass) farm subsidies and save $1.5 x 10^11/annum.
 
2012-11-20 09:52:29 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.

Nothing is stopping anyone from putting away bank and retiring whenever you want. For many people, not being able to work past 65 is what will condemn them to a retirement of poverty.


bingo
 
2012-11-20 09:52:56 PM  

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

Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.

Yeah, you're a troll, and a waste of one, at that. "Poors"? Wow, big daddy Warbucks, I bet you impress everyone in the Internet these days.

Something tells me that you're still in your 20's, driving an old 'n busted '82 Celica, hanging out with a couple of friends at the gas station each weekend and talking about how you're each going to get out of the shiattown that you live in now, but 0bama is holding you down...

But please, go on about the poors.....

You sound like one of the poors.

You sound like you are reminding me why I have you farkied as "Confirmed Troll: Disingenuous Moron who hates the poor"

Always reassuring when the trolls go to their old standby acts.


What scares me is that at some point in time, he said something I agreed with, causing me to favorite him (i didn't put a note as to what) Ever since then, everything I see him say is utter garbage...

/i must've been buzzed, or maybe just liked the handle because of family guy
 
2012-11-20 09:56:00 PM  
It's amazing that a man who should be serving a life sentence for economy-crashing fraud is able to have a real input on government policy.

Were the bailouts necessary? Maybe. But there's no excuse for the lack of trials and jail time. We're letting the crooks keep running the economy after they already blew the thing up.
 
2012-11-20 09:56:10 PM  

d23: Back To Work, Grandma
thinkprogress.org
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
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-11-20 09:56:25 PM  

signaljammer: We could end (commie-ass) farm subsidies and save $1.5 x 10^11/annum.


We can open a black hole to a parallel universe and pull 2.14x10^231231231231541 dollars from a parallel universe as long as their dollars don't have George Takai on them.
 
2012-11-20 09:58:19 PM  

birdboy2000: It's amazing that a man who should be serving a life sentence for economy-crashing fraud is able to have a real input on government policy.

Were the bailouts necessary? Maybe. But there's no excuse for the lack of trials and jail time. We're letting the crooks keep running the economy after they already blew the thing up.


Doesn't that just burn your ass? Knowing that the crooks are running the prison while they have the warden by the balls?

And we have is impotent rage knowing that all those assholes committed fraud on a titanic scale and were subsequently rewarded with sums greater than most people will ever see in a lifetime?

The French had it right. I think a few heads will have to roll to get this country back on track.
 
2012-11-20 09:58:27 PM  
Closing up the DEA would free up $2.5 billion/annum.
 
2012-11-20 09:59:40 PM  

signaljammer: Closing up the DEA would free up $2.5 billion/annum.


Don't forget the TSA. The DHS seems to encompass a lot of redundancy.
 
2012-11-20 10:02:55 PM  

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

[static.someecards.com image 420x294]

Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.


Yes because the basic math and obvious facts he pointed out was that people work for 25 years and then retire for 30. That's some sound math, and you're a really smart person with a good argument.

The problem with Republicans is that they can't do math, or even argue effectively. Every Republican argument I've heard in the last four years boils down this simple playground chant, "I'm rubber, you're glue whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks on you."
 
2012-11-20 10:06:52 PM  
retire older, start working younger, how many more people will need to be employed per year?

We have what is probably a Permanate unemployed class, unable to find jobs, so much so that people are migrating south of the border to find jobs.

a guy who makes millions a year thinks us unmillionairs should work more hours for less pay, and get less from our work.
 
2012-11-20 10:09:26 PM  

X-boxershorts: pxlboy: X-boxershorts: ajgeek: What the hell is "Social Security?" Oh right, the mandatory retirement program from which I'll never get to benefit. Hey, does anyone know where that "opt out" thing is that ol' Dubya was talking about? Cylindrical filing cabinet you say? Ah...

You should instead demand hat the 1% pay the god damned 2.5 trillion in IOUs

Good luck with that one. I'm 36 and I probably won't get to retire unless I just off myself at 65 or 70.

How do ya think I feel. 53 and been contributing for as long as you've been alive.

I'm at "that age" that the cutoff for means testing and retirement age increases will effectively screw me out of 50-70 thousand dollars.

DEMAND THEY PAY THE GOD DAMNED IOUs

Oh, and index the max cap on contributing income to inflation for the first time since 86


Yeah, imagine being younger and expecting to see zero of that SS. That is a farkload more than 50-70 thousand.
 
2012-11-20 10:10:47 PM  

super_grass: ITT: Farkers take a break from complaining about how baby boomers is leeching off everyone else and defend their right to retire at an age where many are still healthy and productive members of society.

Needless to say, we take a wide stance on the issue: it depends on who's making the statement.


Farkers complain about Grandma setting up a system that tells kids to go to college then to DIAF once they get out and are broke with no jobs, while Grandma waves on her way to her own job in a Hummer.

Farkers also think Grandma, despite being an ass, not only has the right to retire, but the people saying that we can't afford it are lying\idiots.

The two are not mutually exclusive. It's called 'not demonizing people'.
 
2012-11-20 10:10:56 PM  
Meanwhile, dicks like this guy get paid hundreds of millions of dollars. Where the fark do you think that money comes from people?? It comes out of our pockets in fees and interest, any way a bank can fark with you.

Billions of dollars are siphoned from the economy by these people.
 
2012-11-20 10:11:46 PM  
BLANKFEIN: You're going to have to undoubtedly do something to lower people's expectations - the entitlements and what people think that they're going to get, because it's not going to - they're not going to get it.

/Don't worry,we already know that yourself and people like you who have millions of dollars and a golden umbrella are trying their best to fark the little guy out of a peaceful retirement. Why not..it would make you more money, because god knows, being a multi-millionare isn't enough.
 
2012-11-20 10:13:44 PM  
He's right. Entitlements do need to be harnessed.
 
2012-11-20 10:14:43 PM  

pxlboy: the_geek: Silly Jesus: Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.

While in principle he's right and we need to either reduce benefits, raise the retirement age, or both... he actually failed on the basic math part of the problem.

Maybe if people stopped trying to live to 100, we'd be okay. Better to live a good life and kick it at 55 or 60 than to live to live to 90 after a boring one.


This is my plan. Fark getting old and decrepit. I'm only 38 and i have arthritis and fibromyalgia, I don't want to extend the misery, and i'd rather enjoy myself and kill my pain.
 
2012-11-20 10:15:20 PM  
Ok honest question to those defending the rich. I already know I'll have to work till I drop dead, I'll be that barely alive Walmart greeter probably, so why should I care if there's an honest to god "class war" that consumes the rich and wrecks the economy? Just means I'll be eating cat food sooner rather than later.
 
2012-11-20 10:16:37 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: On one hand, this guy's a total prick; on the other hand,I don't think adjusting the retirement age is such a bad idea.

But listening to an arrogant bajillionaire complain is always grating.


Regardless of anything else, I want to see him scrub toilets for $8 an hour, then go home and hear his kids say they're hungry. Then turn on the TV and hear some smug rich prick call him lazy.

And keep doing that for 20 years.
 
2012-11-20 10:18:40 PM  

Surpheon: Duck_of_Doom: A finite number of jobs, being fought over by even more people.

Or, you know, people could work less - more leisure time, share the jobs, enjoy life. Isn't it odd how a world where 99% of the shiat work is done by robots is seen as a horrific hell hole rather than the reality of being closer to utopia? Of course, it's blasphemy to suggest that everyone benefit from the incredible wealth produced in such a world rather than literally just a few dozen lucky sods who own the robots.


This, this, and this. The US Senate passed a 30-hour-workweek bill. EIGHTY YEARS AGO (it stalled in the House). Nixon campaigned on the 30-hour week back in the 50s. Whatever became of progress?

As for Blankfein's suggestion, the problem is that NOBODY WANTS TO HIRE 65+ YEAR OLDS. Over 50% of people who turn 62 this year (born in 1950) will take early Social Security benefits the day they turn 62, despite getting diminished payouts, because they don't have work. The magical age is 59. If you lose a job at 59, you have a 50/50 chance of ever working another full-time day again. Older than that, it's worse.

And guess what? Any company who tried to hire 60-somethings out of a sense of civic duty?? The 23-year-old cocaine-junkie analysts at Goldman Sachs, Blankfein's people, would say "short the motherfarkers, they could be more efficient if they fire the old farts". Talks out of both sides of his mouth on that one.
 
2012-11-20 10:20:21 PM  

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

[static.someecards.com image 420x294]

Even when they point out basic math and obvious facts, they are evil.

Cry moar, poors.


"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."
Show me some of that basic math.
 
2012-11-20 10:21:13 PM  

Fail in Human Form: I'll be that barely alive Walmart greeter probably,


Nope. Done been eliminated already.
 
2012-11-20 10:23:09 PM  

Lawnchair: Fail in Human Form: I'll be that barely alive Walmart greeter probably,

Nope. Done been eliminated already.


Hum....

/Guess I better hope for the SHTF sooner rather than later then
 
2012-11-20 10:28:23 PM  
I read that headline as Rich Wall, Street CEO and was wondering just who the hell Rich Wall was, and what a Street CEO did.
 
2012-11-20 10:31:35 PM  

TV's Vinnie: What is -25% below starvation, Surpheon?


Someone missed my point. I'm not for cutting benefits by 25%, I am simply pointing out that anyone insisting SS is doomed is a math impaired idiot.

Personally, I'm good with means testing for SS benefits. Change it from a pension plan to an anti-poverty insurance plan. I don't think Mitt Romney (now out of work and of retirement age) will miss being able to pull his SS check.

Raising the cap also makes sense, but removing it entirely doesn't make sense to me. Just raise tax rates and keep it above aboard rather than sneaking it through under the auspices of SS.

/Have 3 loved ones on SS; glad they have it so I can spend my money taking them to Disneyland and spending time over the holidays with them.
 
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.
 
2012-11-21 07:31:35 PM  

Surpheon: 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).


I wonder what the demographics of Fark are. Are we breeding at replacement rate?
 
2012-11-21 09:32:33 PM  

gibbon1: 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.


While it is technically true that we "borrow" from Social Security, it is irrelevant. The government will issue a set number of bonds, let's say $100 for the hell of it.
Scenario A: Social Security has $50 extra this year. It can't just hold a warehouse full of cash, and it's too much money to drop in a bank. So, they invest it in the most secure financial vehicle on the gorram planet. End result: SS buys $50 worth of bonds. Joe Xin buys the other $50. Net money borrowed by the government: $100.
Scenario B: Social Security has no extra money this year. It buys $0 worth of T-bills. End result: Joe Xin buys $50 worth of bonds. Muhammed Smith buys $50 worth of bonds. Net money borrowed: $100.
 
2012-11-21 11:13:01 PM  

TopoGigo: While it is technically true that we "borrow" from Social Security, it is irrelevant.


The way I now look at taxes is, taxes reduce consumption. Expenditures increase consumption. So what happens with social security is, we tax working stiff's earned income. We then turn around and pay money to old farts, which allows them to consume more. Basically this is okay, since everyone gets a turn in the barrel and out of the barrel.

When the government collects more social security taxes than it spends, working stiffs have to consume less than they would have. The government then 'borrows' that money and spends it on stuff. Key thing is, they didn't offset that by reducing consumption elsewhere, via a tax. The main beneficiaries of this are very wealthy people. Meaning your consumption is suppressed via taxation so that Lloyd Blankfein can consume more. Essentially the government is using it's tax laws to tip economic balance in Lloyd's favor. This subsidy, typically 100 billion a year, Lloyd and co are loath to give up. So they lie and they lie, and they pay people in the media to lie. And they fund politicians to lie.
 
Displayed 203 of 203 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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