Got let go from work

[mikegideon]

Perhaps. But it can't not go away (or at least continue to exist substantially as it is currently). So that leaves us in an interesting place.

 

Unless there's a wide-scale collapse, I strongly suspect that the taxpayer of the future is likely to turn around and say "Enough. We're not paying you any more. You should have solved this problem before you came to rely on it. This is your problem, not ours" and you'll see a lot of people in their retirement years in an awful lot of trouble.

 

I know that promises, and even contracts don't mean anything these days. I will most likely be bringing in income until I'm forced to eat baby food. But don't tell me something for nearly 50 years, and then say it was all a lie to get my money. I know it can't be sustained in it's current state. But i have a statement of what I have paid in. Just give me my money, and I will go away. If somebody loans you money, and you tell them "sorry, I squandered it", you can get all kinds of reactions. Sell Mt. Rushmore, and give me my money.

[Omega]

I personally don't care whose money I am drawing from, I paid into it and therefore going to draw from it; period.  If it happens that I am the generation that gets screwed, well then so be it.  I am too damn old (49) to be worrying about what happened in 37' and am far too sure that this "tax" will never go away whether they give some back or not.  And I don't see myself or anyone that that has paid into it as a leech, a leech is one that draws from it but has not paid into it.  While standing in line to get a copy of my SS card I seen so many young people complaining to the clerks about why their SS benefits have been stopped or reduced and I think WTF, they are not old enough to have paid into it for long, and they seem able bodied enough to work so why are they here??  How is a drug addict drawing benefits?  What classifies some of these people as disabled?  It goes on and on, THOSE I would classify as leeches!

[Oh Shoot]

......

 

Strange place we find ourselves in.  Empires are hard. 

 

All points valid, but the government will never run out of money. It's just that at some point, it'll likely become Weimer Republic bucks, a nation of hungry billionaires.

 

- OS

[mikegideon]

All points valid, but the government will never run out of money. It's just that at some point, it'll likely become Weimer Republic bucks, a nation of hungry billionaires.

 

- OS

 

Well... if they are just gonna up and default on a contract, they need to do it to the Chinese, not us. And BTW... if I was only 5-10 grand into this thing, I would be happy to chalk it up.

[Chucktshoes]

Well... if they are just gonna up and default on a contract, they need to do it to the Chinese, not us. And BTW... if I was only 5-10 grand into this thing, I would be happy to chalk it up.

The government needs the Chinese to keep buying its debt more than it needs the pensioners sucking at the tit.

Also, the set instruments bought by the Chinese represent and actual contract. No such contract exists between you and the government regarding SS. Edited October 17, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[MacGyver]

At 40, I'd happily sign up today to let them keep what they've squandered so far and to let me out of the deal.

 

But, that's the very problem.  They simply cannot even consider letting anyone out, because then they pyramid that they've got resting on our heads tips over.

 

Mac, it's certainly not relevant here, but your Weimer Republic comment brought this to mind:

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k[/media]

[tnguy]

I know that promises, and even contracts don't mean anything these days.

 

But who made those promises? Certainly not the politicians in power today and not the politicians in power in 4, 12 or 20 years time.

 

The principle of parliamentary sovereignty (The principle that the government can't be held to decisions made by it in the past in its future legislation) doesn't appear to apply to the US, probably mostly due to the constituion but you can bet that something not too dissimilar applies to general legislation.

[Oh Shoot]

At 40, I'd happily sign up today to let them keep what they've squandered so far and to let me out of the deal.

 

But, that's the very problem.  They simply cannot even consider letting anyone out, because then they pyramid that they've got resting on our heads tips over.

 

Mac, it's certainly not relevant here, but your Weimer Republic comment brought this to mind:

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k[/media]

 

Had seen that in the past, watched it again, and even half way through the sequel,  until just like the characters in it, my head feels like exploding. Whole 'nother discussion so I'll just leave it at that in this one.

 

- OS

[MacGyver]

But who made those promises? Certainly not the politicians in power today and not the politicians in power in 4, 12 or 20 years time.

 

The principle of parliamentary sovereignty (The principle that the government can't be held to decisions made by it in the past in its future legislation) doesn't appear to apply to the US, probably mostly due to the constituion but you can bet that something not too dissimilar applies to general legislation.

We don't use the same term to describe it, but in fact our courts have long held that one Congress cannot "bind" the hands of a future Congress.  It's actually making its way through the courts again right now, as the ACA contains language that tries to do exactly that in a couple of places. Section 3403 of the bill stipulates that, "it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

 

The more I think about it, though.  This disparity really sums up pretty well what is wrong with our political class.  Any single Congress could make a decision to move towards solvency (so long as they also have a President on board or a reliable two-thirds consensus).  The vast majority of the folks who get elected are smart enough to know that they system is fundamentally insolvent.  Yet, they make the decision to strive towards a goal where they have to know going in that they're not really going to do anything about it.  In fact, they're going to participate in the charade. 

 

I don't know how any of them sleep at night.

[GlockSpock]

We don't use the same term to describe it, but in fact our courts have long held that one Congress cannot "bind" the hands of a future Congress.  It's actually making its way through the courts again right now, as the ACA contains language that tries to do exactly that in a couple of places. Section 3403 of the bill stipulates that, "it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

 

The more I think about it, though.  This disparity really sums up pretty well what is wrong with our political class.  Any single Congress could make a decision to move towards solvency (so long as they also have a President on board or a reliable two-thirds consensus).  The vast majority of the folks who get elected are smart enough to know that they system is fundamentally insolvent.  Yet, they make the decision to strive towards a goal where they have to know going in that they're not really going to do anything about it.  In fact, they're going to participate in the charade. 

 

I don't know how any of them sleep at night.

 

They same way any of us sleep at night; They pretend that the "system" isn't as bad as it seems and will all be ok.

[Chucktshoes]

They same way any of us sleep at night; They pretend that the "system" isn't as bad as it seems and will all be ok.

Not all of us pretend that. Of course then we get called loony for proposing that the "system" can't be reformed at all because the "system" is the problem. Edited October 17, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[GlockSpock]

Not all of us pretend that. Of course then we get called loony for proposing that the "system" can't be reformed at all because the "system" is the problem.

 

But does thou sleepeth at night?

[Chucktshoes]

But does thou sleepeth at night?

Yes. I do not let that which I cannot control worry me.

[GlockSpock]

Yes. I do not let that which I cannot control worry me.

 

Good:)

[btq96r]

I wasn't even a sperm cell in '37. Doesn't matter. Even Paul Ryan doesn't want to shut it down. It won't go away WITHOUT the votes. Call me a leach if you want

 

As long as the chart of percentages for voting by ages is skewed left, with those drawing and getting close to drawing Social Security, we will never be able to quit cold turkey.  To put it in perspective, look at this chart.

 

 

When it comes to Social Security, only two things are certain: 

1. Math.  At some point, a large portion of the population is going to get screwed.  You can try to push it off, but a day of reckoning is coming.
2. All main-party politicians - Republican or Democrat will do anything possible to avoid having to be the responsible voice in the room.  They'll hold hands and sing campfire songs before they admit that we'd send people to jail in any private sector business for doing what they've done with Social Security.

 

Strange place we find ourselves in.  Empires are hard. 

 

Spot on.  We created a problem we have no interest politically to solve until it collapses on itself.

Edited October 17, 2014 by btq96r

[btq96r]

At 40, I'd happily sign up today to let them keep what they've squandered so far and to let me out of the deal.

 

But, that's the very problem.  They simply cannot even consider letting anyone out, because then they pyramid that they've got resting on our heads tips over.

 

Hell, I'd let them keep what they have, keep taxing me and I never get to draw Social Security at retirement just to wind down the scheme.  It would suck, but at some point, we have to pick a year of birth, make that the cutoff and force them to keep paying into Social Security while they get no benefits or a reduced rate of benefits.

 

1-2 generations will get screwed, or everybody will.  Might as well get it over with now while I still have the time to save for a retirement on my own.

[RC3]

Turns out my "old boss" is hell bent on sprint never hiring me again at least in the middle tn area. Going to fall back option two. And how would one handle something like this? I mean, I want to punch his lights out, but thats not civilized and can he even do that? As in when someone calls him, say a bunch of complete bullshit so I wont get hired?

[TMF]

Turns out my "old boss" is hell bent on sprint never hiring me again at least in the middle tn area. Going to fall back option two. And how would one handle something like this? I mean, I want to punch his lights out, but thats not civilized and can he even do that? As in when someone calls him, say a bunch of complete bull#### so I wont get hired?

Try not to piss off old bosses and leave under hostile conditions. That is the best way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[peejman]

Turns out my "old boss" is hell bent on sprint never hiring me again at least in the middle tn area. Going to fall back option two. And how would one handle something like this? I mean, I want to punch his lights out, but thats not civilized and can he even do that? As in when someone calls him, say a bunch of complete bull#### so I wont get hired?

 

 

So... your left your prior job with Sprint on less than nice terms and expected to immediately get rehired at another Sprint location nearby? 

 

If you've listed the prior job on an application, it's perfectly reasonable (and probably a requirement) for the prospective hiring manager to call your old boss and ask about you.  And then, shockingly, the old boss gives the potential new boss a less than glowing review of your performance.  Can't imagine why....

 

What was that about burning bridges again?  Yeah.... don't.  Now you know why. 

[RC3]

So... your left your prior job with Sprint on less than nice terms and expected to immediately get rehired at another Sprint location nearby? 

 

If you've listed the prior job on an application, it's perfectly reasonable (and probably a requirement) for the prospective hiring manager to call your old boss and ask about you.  And then, shockingly, the old boss gives the potential new boss a less than glowing review of your performance.  Can't imagine why....

 

What was that about burning bridges again?  Yeah.... don't.  Now you know why. 

I never burned any bridges. My manager gave me a stellar backing. But the so called president found out about it and called them back.  HE is the one who has in it for me. Because I stoop up to him and told him what was wrong with the company, and how one can only get shoved under the door for so long.  Oh well, different field it is. 

[TMF]

I never burned any bridges. My manager gave me a stellar backing. But the so called president found out about it and called them back. HE is the one who has in it for me. Because I stoop up to him and told him what was wrong with the company, and how one can only get shoved under the door for so long. Oh well, different field it is.

Life lesson:

1. Actions have consequences.

2. Life isn't fair.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, you made choices and those choices affected your ability to achieve other goals. Own the negative ramifications of your choices, learn from it, sack up and drive on.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[peejman]

I never burned any bridges. My manager gave me a stellar backing. But the so called president found out about it and called them back.  HE is the one who has in it for me. Because I stoop up to him and told him what was wrong with the company, and how one can only get shoved under the door for so long.  Oh well, different field it is. 

 

Ok, so it wasn't your immediate boss but someone further up the chain with the title "President".  Based on your vast experience running similar operations, you told him he doesn't know what he's doing.  Can't imagine why he doesn't like you....  

 

Anyway...  as you've said, that ship has sailed.  Time to sack up* and move on. 

 

 

 

*sack up... I must lead a sheltered life because I've never heard that before.  That's awesome!  :rofl:

[tnguy]

TMF's #2 is probably the most important thing anyone can ever internalize.

[TMF]

TMF's #2 is probably the most important thing anyone can ever internalize.

My mom used to say it a lot while I was growing up. Didn't make sense until I became an adult. Accepting that life isn't fair is one of the first steps people can take toward not being a victim, grabbing life by her big ol' fun bags and doing something constructive with one's life.

I find it hard to sympathize with folks who play a role in their misfortune. I know a few folks who have cancer way before their time. Those people are true victims that had no part in their misfortune. Most of us are the architects of our own universe, good or bad. Very few people are true victims.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrickyNicky]

Accepting that life isn't fair is one of the first steps people can take toward not being a victim, grabbing life by her big ol' fun bags and doing something constructive with one's life.


Most of us are the architects of our own universe, good or bad.

Dude, your spitting out some good old fashioned truth there buddy. Wish I could like this 10,000 times. :up: