Since the days of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the advent of his Social Security program in 1935 Americans have been addicted to the false sense of security that the program provides. Social Security has given Americans the false perception that they and their families are insured against the economic woes inherent of things such as old age or disability. They have been duped into the belief that each month they make contributions to a trust that will one day be paid back to them or their families.
The reality of Social Security is far different than the one perceived by many Americans. Social Security was first passed into law in 1935. The federal government began collecting taxes to fund social security in 1937. They also paid out one lump sum payment in the same year. Regular monthly Social Security payments began in January of 1940. There is only a three year gap between the time they began collecting taxes for Social Security and the time that they began making regular monthly payments. This short time period made it impossible for the amount of money being paid out to those collecting Social Security to have been properly backed by the money that the same individuals paid in. As a result, the money that one generation pays in is immediately paid out to the older generation that is collecting Social Security, and on other government expenditures. An interest baring IOU is put into a “fund” in place of the money that the younger generation is paying in. The debt and interest from these IOU’s continually accumulate, and given that most if not all funds paid into social security is immediately spent, the debt and interest is never paid. This debt has ballooned, and like all pyramid schemes it will eventually come crashing down; which will be a disaster for this country. The US federal government has mislead many unwitting American’s into believing that they are putting away their own money for the future; but this is simply not true. If something is not done, the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security will cause another and far more damaging economic meltdown in this country.
The major problem with weaning the country off of Social Security is that no one wants to give up the money that they have paid into the system over the course of their careers. Many Americans have this sentiment: “I’m collecting Social Security when I retire, I’ve been paying into all this time. I want my money back.” This attitude is more than reasonable. Who can blame them? Who would want to give up money they have been saving all of their lives?
So lets try looking at Social Security in a different light. Obviously, any money that you paid into social security was paid out to someone else. So, essentially you have been stolen from all of your life. Also, any money that you draw from social security will be money paid in by someone else. So, essentially you are taking someone else’s money against his will.
Now, maybe drawing social security seems justified to you because you have been stolen from all of your life, and now it is your turn to be paid back. Sounds reasonable doesn’t it? But is it really? Well, imagine that you are a bank owner, and everyday that your bank is open for business masked gunmen come in and rob it. They don’t steal all of your money though. They just take a little bit everyday. One day you decide to get out of the banking business, and you want to get back all of the money that was stolen from you. Is it then justifiable for you to go and rob other banks in order to get your money back?
I would hope that you answered no. In that same vain. It is not justifiable for any man to steal from younger generations even if he has been stolen from by older generations. Theft cannot be justified in any capacity. The time has come for us to accept our duty to preserve liberty and prosperity for future generations. We must not leave debt to be paid by our children and grandchildren. American’s must make the difficult decisions now, so that future generations will have the same opportunities that we did. This is the duty of every generation.
“The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1816
Cross Posted From: libertyandpride.com
As an old geezer approaching retirement age, I’d like see if they are going to do away with Social Security. If so, how about a class action suit to get back what they bled from my and all others paychecks week after week for decades. Then they can close up shop and go home.
Thanks Sean, your article illustrates an important economic situation that is going to explode or implode as the people in my generation approach the ‘Legal Retirement Age’ in the next few months. It is important for this large segment of the population to realize that there is almost no way possible for Our Mighty Whimpering Finger Pointer can provide a solution, especially since he chooses to ignore the situation.
Perhaps he see this as another covert move for Wealth Redistribution, the main platform of every International Socialist.
As most of us are conservative that frequent Flopping Aces . . . this is sort of like preaching to the choir. I do not willingly chose to take from Peter to pay Paul. Who with a lick of sense would? So I will answer that question, those that have been afflicted with “A Fate Worse Than Death”. Abandoned, left alone, struggling to find food, pay the bills and keep warm . . . the elderly retired person . . . and by a large majority females. Why is this the case? Again I will attempt to answer. For they have been told bluntly to their faces by their families. . . “You will have to take care of yourself” The family that surrounds the elderly have pretty much abandoned them, left them as quickly as they would a rattlesnake, ostracised them from their lives . . . and then punish them if they attempt to come back . . . via isolation and purposefully ignoring their requests for only the a few minutes of “visitation”. What in the world would make an old and worn out person think they deserve anything . . ..
Skookum wrote of the cultural deterioration in the following, read it and you will see the a disease of the worst order.
http://www.floppingaces.net/author/skookum/
Speaking only for myself, as one who is among those who will be the last of the baby boomer generation, I never expected to get any of the money back that I have paid into Social Security. It’s gone. So, I say, shut the whole thing down now and let me keep those funds normally taken out of my paycheck and invest it or spend it as I see fit.
Just say’n
@Mer: I concur, I could do a lot more with the money than the government ever could. Especially sense the money they take has a way of disappearing
a person who has spend a life working and paying into a government plan to be redeem at his retirement comes is deserving to take that money with no shame but he can allowe himself to prowdly spend it to have a nice peace of mind for his elderly time to live he has earned it and should not be embarassed to take it,
Obamacare is a fix for the Social Security problem, more specifically the Universal Coverage, single payer system is the fix. That and increasing the age of collection for Social Security to what it once was; beyond the point 90% of the elderly would live.
By having health care under the control of the government there is a two fold reason to ration health care to older people. First there will only be so many doctors and funds available for health care so the “death panels” will determine that people are ineligible for various treatments, ensuring earlier deaths. Earlier deaths means a savings on Social Security.
Of course the Obamatons can’t be truthful about their aim. Can you imagine Obama getting on the news and telling the American people… “this will reduce the deficit by reducing the cost of Social Security”
We’d be much better off if we just put into a private trust (don’t let the gov control it), $50,000 for every new born child in the country and told them that from this and the interest earned on it, they would have to fund all of their expenses currently covered under the various entitlement programs. It would take about 80 years and cost 200 billion a year with current birth rates but eventually we’d have government out of the business of medicare, medicaid, social security, etc, etc….
to ilovebeeswarzone — I and many others have paid tens of thousands of dollars into Social Security. The problem is not whether we “deserve” to get our monthly payments when we retire. The problem is that there will not be any money left to pay us. Already Social Security is paying out more money than they receive in taxes. They are dipping into the Social Security trust fund to make monthly payments.
The problem is that the SS trust fund contains Social Security Bonds that have no retail value and can only be redeemed by the Federal government. The Federal government must sell US Treasury Bonds or raise taxes to redeem the SS trust fund bonds. The money you and I “invested” in Social Security has already been spent.
I read a commentator a few years back who said that the SS trust fund is just like any other investment. But it is not. If I invest in a company I expect that company to produce and sell products and to have profits. The value of the bonds is based on the profitability of the company. But the Federal government is not a company and it does not produce anything. The only way the Feds can pay back bonds with interest is either though raising taxes or going into debt.
The amount of money owed to future SS recipients cannot be paid back. We invested our money (with no choice) into the Social Security Trust Fund and that was not a good investment choice. The SS Fund is no more that a ponzi scheme where money has been paid out to current recipients and IOUs have been left for the suckers.
The idea that one generation shouldn’t be stealing from another is all well and good idealistically. However, there are 10’s of millions of people that are depending on the government to come through with their social security payments or they will quite literally be living on the streets and eating at soup kitchens. These payments must be made. Future generations need to be exempted from having this burden placed on them also.
How is the question; while still paying those that have paid into the current system.
THE GOVERNMENT has a priority to put that money back in the social security fund before any others priority because that money belong to the people who had invest not to be rob bye anyone but for their retirement so it is the government to find a way to replenish the pot ,they spend so far more on anything else,if i owe money i must pay it back same for any government or anybody,
I am 48 years old. I do not expect to see a dime out of Social Security. I am a libertarian that believes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are socialist programs that never should have been started. But here we are. What if we could sunset these programs? Pick an age, maybe people 45 years old and younger and have them not contribute to these programs anymore and phase them out. Has anyone run the numbers on what the liability cost would be to continue these benefits for people over 45 ? I may be dreaming, but this may be a graceful way to bow out of these programs.
It’s “paid,” not “payed.”
The first place they should look for funds to pay Social Security benefits is the retirement pension fund of Congressmen, they are the ones who mismanaged the program; yet there seems to be no shortage of funds for their lucrative retirement packages. Loot that fund until it is broke and only pay SS to people who need it, I can do without it and so can many others!
Skook: and you can take that to the bank my friends!
Here Here!, Skook! Someone should wrest the keys to the “lockbox” from their sticky palms. And if we get a few dollars to put back in the “fund”, all the better.
@Julian W. Jones… I’m sure Sean thanks you for the spelling lesson. Is that all the constructive commentary you can add?
Personally, I don’t see the generational shifting of wealth by way of social insurance systems as “theft”. To me the underlying concept seems perfectly sound: The young keep those who can no longer work out of poverty, understanding that they will inevitably reach that stage themselves. The trick is how to continue the cycle in perpetuity. When you’re playing a shell game with the money to hide skyrocketing general budgetary deficits, you have crossed the line into a Ponzi scheme.
The difference between an annuity program and and insurance program is that with the later, you’re not really investing. You’re paying premiums to insure yourself against a risk–in this case, the risk of poverty due to lost earning capacity. Where we make our mistake with Social Security is selling the idea by guaranteeing a return, even if the loss never occurs. Some people arrive at old age and can cease working without risk of poverty. I’m not entirely sure they should expect a full return of their Social Security premiums, any more than someone should expect health insurance premiums to be recovered if they never happen to encounter serious accident or illness.
Maybe Social Security should involve a means test. (We’ve been going the other way on that.) Certainly we shouldn’t be using FICA coming in to hide general budgetary imbalances. Doing so is nothing more than a duplicitious numbers game that only encourages irresponsible spending.
Dumping social insurance concepts altogether would have terribly grim consequences for millions on an ungoing basis. The truth is that there will always be millions who work hard throughout their lives, but for whatever reason just never make much headway. What are we going to do? Put them out on iceflows?
Now, let me deal with Sean… guest author of this FA post here.
Sean, obviously, you’re young or you wouldn’t be so willing to tell those that are just a few years shy to bite the bullet and accept being the victim of theft for the good of the nation.
Let me say this as kindly as I can. Screw you.
Do you think that Congress will revamp the national ponzi scheme? Absolutely not. It’s a piggy bank they have robbed for years… thank you. But those of us who have paid in should just swallow the loss for the good of the young?
Don’t think so…. Nor is it feasible based on the fact we are the baby boomer generation, who have paid into this nanny welfare ponzi scheme on the largest levels for the duration of our lives.
Why don’t you say to the Bernie Madoff victims… “just eat it”? Do you know what the difference is? They can sue Bernie, and anyone associated with him who has money, for the loss. What do we have?
Give me my money back. Period. I didn’t like it when I was young. I don’t like it now. At some point… just as Bush suggested years ago… people need to take responsibility for their own retirement and stop robbing the nation in a ponzi scheme. The changeover aged generation is going to eat it big time. But at least you may find a compromise somewhere in life to lessen the impact.
Other than that, I find your whole post written purely from the perspective of the future theft victim, and not that of the long term victim. Understandable… but as far as I’m concerned, you target all the wrong people… those of us who are mandated to turn over the cash for nanny welfare programs that benefit your generations. Because, I assure you, as an old citizen, we get little back for what we have contributed.
We should have an English Major on every thread to keep us loose living, amateur journalist Conservatives from writing like the professional witless wits on the Progressive Socialist Blogs.
Good Grief! Keep writing guys, I love to read your ideas!
@Greg… Bernie’s in jail, or I’d suggest you “invest” with him.
duh
@Greg:
That’s precisely how Clinton jumbled the numbers on his final budgets to convince the less astute that there were “surpluses”. He just moved the money around from one pocket to another calling that process revenue generation.
What’s really scary about this is that Social Security is about to begin cashing in those IOUs:
***************************
Funny you should ask that. I found this photo of Mata in my files:
>>>>Ducks and runs>>>>
GREG it’s easyer to say than do ,many elder do not wat to live with their children because they know they will be abused and on the other side again the young adult many do not want to have their elder if they are without money income to help them so where thoses will go ,many end up on the street thinking it is better to be free than with abusives family bye
I think you classified yourself and your political leanings in a nutshell right there, Greg.
buh bye…. socialist-at-heart
i am on the wrong post and my previous comment belong in AMERICA’ADDICTION TO…..
@Aye Chihuahua: Where DID you find such a flattering photo of me????
LOL
When you play ball with Mata, don’t expect those sissy pitches like the Zero throws, they will be coming hard and fast, shame on you if you don’t want to play hard ball.
There are an people who want to continue to work past 65, they should be rewarded: the will be drawing retirement funds for a shorter time. If someone has a retirement income below $50,000 (an arbitrary figure) they should be entitled to a retirement pension. Even corrupt Unions can do that for their members. Say you have an income of 55,000 perhaps you are entitled to 50% until you reach a certain point and it is no longer a necessity for you to have a SS benefit. At a certain point you will just be using it to buy a sports car to impress young girls. Hmmm?
Hopefully, that would take the pressure off the system by relieving it of the top 20% of retirement income recipients. Corrupt and Irresponsible Congressmen up to the present knew we would reach this point of critical mass and refused to quit raping the SS fund for their pet corruption projects. I in no way suggest that we tell people who based their lives on the system to put their heads in the oven or to ride the ice flow, get serious.
We knew this situation was developing and we were told by responsible members of Congress that the situation was festering, but now our Progressive Socialist Administration ignores the situation to cripple the economy with a health care plan that will insure those who were too lazy to work while compromising the retirement of those who have worked their whole lives.
I think it would be a big mistake to cheat my brothers and sisters out of the retirement they paid into for 50 years! I suggest that you forget that idea, there are some things that the public is not going to stand for and you are fast approaching the real point of Critical Mass.
socialist-at-heart
Nope. Just somebody who thinks any modern, complex society probably requires some socialist components. I believe in a blended, two-tier approach to a lot of things. The base requires a very sound, collectively funded social safety net. I figure that can be worked out so that highly motivated achievers can still do some spectacular high-wire acts. It’s all about achieving a reasonable and sustainable balance of opposing forces and ideologies.
@MataHarley: I humbly submit. I do see your point. My intentions were not necessarily that individuals should not be compensated for the money they pay in, but rather that the ponzi scheme in its current form needs to stop. I think stopping social security payments and figuring out something else for individuals to recover their payments, is the first step, but I never intended to imply that you should “bite the bullet.” I’m certainly no expert on the matter, but if we continue on the current path, and each successive generation has the same attitude that where do we end up? It’s got to end somewhere. Perhaps weaning off of the system where each generation pays less and less.
God Bless and have a Great Night!
Oh yes, and I am aware its paid not payed (stupid mistake on my part)!
MATA you are on an very small piece of ice in there bye i thought i was switch there with you on the wrong post bye
I have probably had more experience on ice than most of the FA crew, albeit river ice, not sea ice; therefore, I can say with a certain authority, unless you want a shorter rather than a longer trip on the ice, pick a larger piece and center your wheel chair; otherwise, the ice will flip much sooner and ruin a perfectly good day.
AYE CHIHUAHUA is that what MATA is sitting on where the river in OHIO?
Might I submit that photo as proof positive that global warming is a dire menace not only to polar bears, but to the nation’s senior citizens?
Bees your humor is enough to give me a hernia, I don’t know whether it is intentional or not, but I love it!
Uh, Greg. Parden me, but when you say “I believe in a blended, two-tier approach to a lot of things. The base requires a very sound, collectively funded social safety net” are you forgetting that THAT IS WHAT SOCIAL SECURITY was supposed to be? Are you kidding me? The problem is the Government can’t be trusted to keep their greedy hands off the “collection”. The “lock box” is full of worthless paper with I.O.U. written on it. The feds would rather steal from the kitty, than live within it’s means. Just keep kicking that same ole can down the road… Your type of thinking has had its chance and BLEW IT.
If we want to use that picture of “Mata” as a representation of Obama’s healthplan, we should also combine it with his energy proposals as well.
Give up the blankee, ya old fart. We need to make a sail.
-We’ll use windpower to save you.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with “my type of thinking”. The problems result not from social insurance theory, but from the irresponsible administration of programs by politicians who haven’t been held accountable.
It’s kind of similar to what irresponsible people nearly did to the nation’s entire financial system recently. I don’t hold that out as evidence that capitalism or the free market system don’t work. The problem was with the behavior of untrustworthy people, who weren’t watched closely enough and who felt personally immune from consequences We’re still not holding them sufficiently accountable.
I agree, Greg, they are not being held accountable. Yes, there are untrustworthy people managing these programs. Powerful people don’t think the rules apply to them. That’s why the safety net should not be one massive program, but smaller, more local programs that could be more easily monitored by the people, us, who fund them. A massive federal bureaucracy was not what the Constitutional framers had in mind.
Greg has a point about SS.
It was on it’s surface a good idea. Initially it supported only the oldest 1%. And ya had to be a woman.
It expanded (obviously) throughout the 40’s and 50’s, and then Eisenhower expanded the crap out of it, and removed the “lock”. Johnson folded it up into the General Fund, and it’s been a moneypot ever since. There is no money, and the “bonds” are technically worthless as of this month. Bush tried, and the Repubs had some very doable ideas, but hey…we all know what was said by the Dems at the time. (In all honesty, the Dems think it’s their money.)
So had we left SS as was in 1955, made gradual life-expectancy adjustments, and truly had a Do Not Touch constitutional amendment to protect it with, it might have worked out.
But NOOOOOOOOoooooooooOOOOOOOOo.
Social Security, as it exists today and from its inception, is generational theft. Younger workers do not have a duty to fund the retirement of the older generation. The older generation must fund their own retirement during their working years. The problem is that we (I am 52 years old) have been forced to pay into a bad investment — Social Security. There is no easy way out of the fact that any “pay as you go” system breaks down as the the number of recipients (retirees) grow in numbers. This is the failing of any ponzi scheme. I personally do not expect to get any money from Social Security when I retire. I have saved as much money as I can for my own retirement when that time comes. I do not support any government-run retirement program because government is not capable of successfully running such a program. Yes, I and many others will be cheated out of our money. That is just a fact that we have to live with.
Nephew PV, I love it when you are reduced to writing with your Shakespearean muse:
Give up the blankee, ya old fart.
We need to make a sail.
-We’ll use windpower to save you.
They sit in silence,
and in silence there is shame.
Keep plugging away, we will make an English major of you! They march funny and halt with a certain flourish; but they have been excellent allies, at least until Obama came along.
@Sean, the not as well thought out perspective “mea culpa” is graciously accepted. As I said, often people form perspectives from their particular angle. Thus I suspected you were not a “Bernie Madoff/govt” victim.
I can’t say as we don’t agree on the ponzi scheme. Frankly, had Bush suggested his private investment accounts alternatives *before* I had passed the deadline, I’d be all for it. Give me the money that the government has absconded, and I could be the better caretaker. But to suggest that taking all my cash, and without having a chance to correct? Totally unfair. Thus the “changeover period” quandary. There is a segment of generations that is going to take a bath for the piss poor ponzi decision to begin with.
@Greg says:
I repeat…. socialist-at-heart. I might add, “enabler”. I am not heartless. On the contrary. I feel there is room for social safety nets. I just happen to think they are community and charity based… not government mandates that people come to depend on and demand.
Looked at Greece lately? It would behoove you to do so and see what that “blended” approach, that morphs into a larger safety net, becomes. You do nothing but nurture those that demand to be fed by the government.
On the flip side, your comment about endangering senior citizens make me roar! LOL
Speaking of… what’s with all these “cameos” of me in leisure times??? I feel persecuted… sniff… /sarc :0)
@ilovebeeswarzone, mon ami… it seems I perpetually live on “thin ice”. I will be Al Gore’s next global warming poster child, after he can’t find any polar bears.
Sean,
Some of us can’t afford NOT to take SS. How do you figure I am robbing people by taking money that was meant for my retirement. I wasn’t given a choice how much to pay in, or where the money would be kept, or how much I would get back. The politicians decided all of that. If a person can afford not to take SS, that is fine. But you seem to be suggesting we ALL should refuse to take it.
When SS was started some people could buy into the program. They would pay a certain amount and then be able to collect SS later on for the rest of their life.
My father-in-law told how is brother was well off financially, but paid a certain amount and got SS until his death at an old age.
SS should go into the INDIVIDUAL’S name and stay there. States should do the same. That way neither one has to worry about paying out ANY money to retirees because it will be the RETIREE’S money, not the government’s.
Galveston county TX opted out of SS when it started and has their own retirement program that goes into the employee’s account. Some of the employees who have been there long enough are retiring with more money coming in than when they were working, and it doesn’t cost the county anything.
Let’s not forget the EXTRA ways our politicians decided to spend THEIR SS money (they feel it is their money since it is a Federal program). How many children and adults below retirement age are getting YOUR SS money because they are disabled?
In regards to post 37, cf. the poster Potvann’s observation that President Lyndon Johnson “folded it (FICA withholding revenue streams from America’s collective paychecks) up into the General Fund, and it’s been a moneypot ever since,” came about because of an obscure Supreme Court ruling called “Flemming v. Nestor” (Google it). Now, I may be incorrect on the particulars, e.g. spelling of ‘Flemming’ or ‘Fleming,’ etc., but I am not wrong on the final ruling. In short, one of the characters in this case, either Flemming or Nestor, I forget which one, was a devout Marxist of the Stalinist-type strain. Well, this fellow argued through the Federal Appeals Court system that, because he wished to defect, renounce his U.S. citizenship and move and live in the Soviet Union, he should be re-imbursed his FICA withholding payments to the Social Security Administration, which he further argued, were “voluntary” contributions, and take the U.S. dollars he had contributed to the system with himself when he left for the Soviet Union.
Fast forward to 1960, and the Supreme Court, having this case before them in the docket, finally ruled that – No! – in fact, Social Security FICA payments were the property of the Federal Government, not the property of the people who earned the money and had it withheld from their paychecks in the first place! (shades of Kelo v. New Haven, Connecticut, anyone?) Aside from the sheer illegality and violation of property rights that this ruling enabled, it also allowed our Congress from that point forward to take FICA funds via an accounting ledger gimmick/diversion and roll them over to the general discretionary part of the Federal budget and spend it on current operations, leaving the Social Security Administration with the U.S. Treasury bonds, the so-called IOUs, that the MSM are only now referencing, and which we on this thread all know is simply future debt. Once Flemming v. Nestor became the law of the land, the Congress has been able to raid the FICA payments ever since. This is the “why” of Potvann’s observation of how President Johnson was able use these FICA sources as a “moneypot.”
I consider this insidious, although obscure, ruling, in some ways, even worse than Roe v. Wade, in that it opened the floodgates of the Federal welfare state, cf. Johnson’s so-called “Great Society,” and will eventually, when the bill comes really due in about 2020-30 or so, completely bankrupt our nation and impoverish us all. Indeed, this is also the main reason why the Social Security Administration now has a total unfunded liability of approximately 11 trillion US dollars. You might find it of interest, too, that many local municipal employees, e.g. teachers, are exempt from Social Security withholding FICA taxes (I was when I was at Franklin High School here in Massachusetts). So, the insolvency of the system is exacerbated by the fact that there are millions of Americans who don’t even contribute payments to the Social Security Administration. I guess some workers are more equal than others.
Lastly, I came across the Flemming v. Nestor case in the pages of “Policy Review” in a late 1990-22000 issue. I hope that this post provides some enlightenment.
it is too bad that Americans have lost their trust in the Government to protect their interest because realy the government is suppose to be serving the Americans not be their MASTER and CONTROLER if they would do so than they would gain more and the Americans knows who is on their side would not be so angry at their WHITEHOUSE employeds,
Americans have not just “lost their trust”. Americans’ trust has been betrayed.
Nice material you’ve provided there Tim-O.
Now please stop calling me “Potvann” It’s “Patvann. Think Irish…kinda like your name. 🙂
Patvann:
My apologies. I had a flareup of my partial “lysdexia.”
Tim O
@Tim
LOL!! LOL!!!
any one know that song from AL JOLSON ..when i am ready to leave this world..i’ll give the sun… and the moon…?
The census is missing a question: Do you believe in progressive socialist programs?
1. Those that answer yes,. regardless of age should have to continue to pay into Social Security with no payout to them in the future.
2.Those that answer no and are under the age of 30 should be allowed to invest their Social Secuirty payroll deductions, and employer contribution privately for their own future old age and current disability insurance premiums.
3. Those that answer no and are over the age of 30 should be allowed to recieve a lump sum payment of all the money they have paid in. Any future social security payroll deductions and employer contributions they are free to invest in privately held investments for their future old age and current diability insurance premiums.
This would make all the progressive socialists feel good, payment without reimbursements, they can be the noble individuals that will fall on their sword for the common good. How’s that for a blended two tier system?
why do you people hate the greatest generation? why do you want old people homeless and living in the street ?
John Ryan – You’ve got to be a spammer. Nobody can be that clueless.