What's the purpose of a country? In fact, what is a country?Dawguard said:They owe each other nothing. Both owe the country. We should not focus on the symptoms of a sickness, but the root cause of the problems. What we need is respect for our country, religions and families. When we have that then the other problems will disappear because we all work together for a greater good.
The purpose of a country is to protect its citizens. No more and no less. a country is a collection of people who agree to abide by a civil law confined by a geographical region. That's my explanation: don't know what the dictionary says.BobG said:What's the purpose of a country? In fact, what is a country?
From the overall post, I kind of get the impression that you're saying its important to have an organized framework that makes individual effort mesh more efficiently with the group effort in order to improve the lot of all (there's probably a more inspirational way to say that). I wouldn't want to say the tool used is more important than the desired goal, though.
Focusing on the importance of the "tool" is what clouds the goals. Politicians work so hard to get elected and then reelected that they often lose site of the fact that their job is not campaigning and playing the game for reelection but actually helping people and their community.Dawguard said:If you concentrate on the tool then the goal will fall into place with little effort.
The difference is the tool, so comparing the two tools is not compatable. It's like mixing apples and oranges. Consider the fact that election is the tool to power. TPolitician's goal is not good, it is to suck power and money from the people: they can't loose sight of what they never saw. They focus on the tool, election, and they get their goal. However when the goal changes the tool used to get it must change. Don't you think that if we used the tool I mentioned that people wouldn't help but work for each other? Respect is the height of selflessness and it is the only way to make people care about each other and not themselves. As I said, you can't do it through laws, ecenomics or politics. You have to strike people in their heart, because that is what governs their actions.TheStatutoryApe said:Focusing on the importance of the "tool" is what clouds the goals. Politicians work so hard to get elected and then reelected that they often lose site of the fact that their job is not campaigning and playing the game for reelection but actually helping people and their community.
We ourselves (I am in my mid-50's) have been paying into that fund all our working lives (myself, since the age of 13 or so, since I mowed, clipped, dug, etc, at the local cemetary and was paid from town funds until I was old enough to get better-paying construction work, etc, to buy my way into college). Many years, I have paid the maximum amount payable, and I won't get that much back in benefits. If you want fairness, you should insist that our politicians keep the system solvent, and pay your fair share so we can keep this safety net operating. If you want, you can insist on means-testing so that well-off people get reduced benefits or none at all, but remember, the well-off have had to pay in just like the rest of us and they have a lot more clout than the generation X-ers, who have not worked to create their own political base. In the 60's, we young people were mobilized by the Vietnam war, and ended up with some political clout as a result. We forced the age of majority down to 18 in most states (draft age), saying that if you're old enough to be drafted and sent to get shot at, you're old enough to vote in elections and you're old enough to buy a beer at the local bar. The beer part has been ratched back up in most states, but at least here in Maine, we've got some 18-year-olds running for City Council positions, etc and showing some promise.gravenewworld said:we should not be obligated to pay for social security for baby boomers.
Or you could mature to the level of being an 18 year old and start saving some money for these things you know will cost a lot of money.Integral said:I think the youth of today owe me a nice comfortable retirement. Now when are they going to get off their bu.. and let me take a well deserved break?
what is fair though? Paying for your own personal retirement sounds fair to me. But social security doesn't work that way, it is pay as you go. you have been paying into the fund for the old geezers of today. the only funds available when you retire will be the money that our generation puts in, which by that time the retiree to worker ratio will plummet to around 1:1 -1:3 (originally the ratio was something like 1:20). SS will fail unless benefits are severely reduced for my and your generation. SS is a vicious cycle and it has to end somewhere. Why not start with my generation? SS should be made optional. I'd much rather save and invest all my SS tax dollars than give it to the government.turbo-1 said:We ourselves (I am in my mid-50's) have been paying into that fund all our working lives (myself, since the age of 13 or so, since I mowed, clipped, dug, etc, at the local cemetary and was paid from town funds until I was old enough to get better-paying construction work, etc, to buy my way into college). Many years, I have paid the maximum amount payable, and I won't get that much back in benefits. If you want fairness, you should insist that our politicians keep the system solvent, and pay your fair share so we can keep this safety net operating. If you want, you can insist on means-testing so that well-off people get reduced benefits or none at all, but remember, the well-off have had to pay in just like the rest of us and they have a lot more clout than the generation X-ers, who have not worked to create their own political base. In the 60's, we young people were mobilized by the Vietnam war, and ended up with some political clout as a result. We forced the age of majority down to 18 in most states (draft age), saying that if you're old enough to be drafted and sent to get shot at, you're old enough to vote in elections and you're old enough to buy a beer at the local bar. The beer part has been ratched back up in most states, but at least here in Maine, we've got some 18-year-olds running for City Council positions, etc and showing some promise.
The Republicans will tell you that you are paying these outrageous taxes to fund "entitlement programs". Right now, we are paying taxes to support the biggest tax reduction for the wealthy that has ever been conceived, and the largest military spending of any country in the world anywhere, any time.Leah said:I'm just dang well sick of taxes. I can't save because I'm saving everyone else!
This privatization scheme is a lie dreamed up by the investment bankers and pushed by the Bush administration. SS is not insolvent, and will not be for many decades, with just the tiniest bit of tweaking. Since the Reagan administration allowed the raiding of "overfunded" pension plans by corporations, there has been a move afoot to put all the risk on the individual, instead of on the companies they work for, resulting in zillions of 401K plans, in which the company sometimes contributes a littl bit, but you are locked into the investment funds chosen by the administrators of the plan. I currently have 2 such funds active, and one self-directed plan, and one traditional retirement plan. You had better hope that future presidential administrations are not so free with their powers, or you may end up with nothing. It only takes one good crash to reduce your personally-directed investments to crap, and it could happen just about the time you want to retire. Want to be a greeter at Wal Mart? You'd better be good, cause the competition will be stiff.gravenewworld said:what is fair though? Paying for your own personal retirement sounds fair to me. But social security doesn't work that way, it is pay as you go. you have been paying into the fund for the old geezers of today. the only funds available when you retire will be the money that our generation puts in, which by that time the retiree to worker ratio will plummet to around 1:1 -1:3 (originally the ratio was something like 1:20). SS will fail unless benefits are severely reduced for my and your generation. SS is a vicious cycle and it has to end somewhere. Why not start with my generation? SS should be made optional. I'd much rather save and invest all my SS tax dollars than give it to the government.
The generational divide between baby boomers (those born between 1946-1964) and younger generations (born after 1980) refers to the cultural, social, and economic differences between these two groups.
The main reasons for the generational divide include differences in values, beliefs, and experiences. Baby boomers grew up during a time of economic prosperity and social change, while younger generations have faced challenges such as economic instability and technological advancements.
Baby boomers and younger generations owe each other mutual respect, understanding, and support. Each generation has unique experiences and perspectives that can benefit the other, and it is important to bridge the generational gap for a stronger society.
Intergenerational support can include things like grandparents helping to care for their grandchildren, younger generations providing technology assistance to older generations, and all generations advocating for policies that benefit everyone, regardless of age.
We can promote intergenerational understanding and collaboration by engaging in open and respectful communication, actively listening to each other's perspectives, and participating in activities or initiatives that bring different generations together. Additionally, recognizing and valuing the contributions of each generation can also help bridge the divide.