Brexit

[bmags]

What I find particularly interesting is that I think you're generally right with the "scare the crap out of anyone" part, but your answer for the why is "more important to mock your opponents" and I think that's 100% as much being in denial as what you try to condemn. I think this is a complete failure to acknowledge the major driving force - actual economic grievances. The provinces that voted strongly for this, away from the financial center in London that has grown rapidly, are people who have had 5 years of 2 recessions followed by the Austerity program. They've had health benefits and jobs cut as the Conservative government cut its budget, and the only place that was growing at that time was a financial center/industry.

 

I don't know, I'm not sure I agree. The more they poll the anti immigration furor doesn't even overlap with "economic anxiety". Many people are very anti-immigration. And I don't even think it's a "they are taking our jobs" as much as thread of changing of values.

 

 

[ptatc]

I don't know, I'm not sure I agree. The more they poll the anti immigration furor doesn't even overlap with "economic anxiety". Many people are very anti-immigration. And I don't even think it's a "they are taking our jobs" as much as thread of changing of values.

I'm sure there is some of both. We have this type of discussion in the clinic all the time. The factory/warehouse workers will bring up the "they are taking my job" stance. The farmers will state "I can't find anyone other than the immigrants to do the field work. I used to hire all high school and college kids but they won't do it now." For some immigration reform is very economically driven, on both sides.

[greg775]

For the political novice, why did England do this? And why is it so bad aside from people fearing isolationist rise of somebody like Hitler?

Can you explain Brexit For Dummies?

[Chisoxfn]

It is really too bad that the big picture is getting missed here. Both with Trump and Brexit, there are a lot of people fed up with the system and the way things are going in their respective countries. They feel like they don't have a voice, and with 21st century politics having turned into it being more important to mock your opponents than to actually learn something from them, these are the ways that people see they can even the score and stick it to the man. It would be nice if we could look at things in gray's anymore instead of black and white. Fixing a flawed system doesn't have to be a victory or a loss. But when the alternatives that get set up are extremes of one side or the other, people can't be surprised when the flow is to the opposite extreme of what we have been doing.

 

Brexit should scare the crap out of anyone here in the United States because that same undercurrent of anger, resentment, and frustration exists right here in the US, and has already given us Donald Trump. More important than what the guy actually stands for is why people are actually gravitating towards people like him, and even Bernie Sanders to a large extent. Hopefully people starting paying attention the "why" before it is too late here.

The message should be on everyone sitting in government office today. The answer is the status quo and the bickering and the stagnation are not acceptable and that people need to work with the other party to actually drive progress. The standstill that has occurred in government (along with the stagnant economy) are what is driving all these people to be absurd and those pushed and frustrated, either lean more left to a near socialist candidate or more right to a lunatic. Either way, both sides are revolting and they have given those indications, now hopefully the politicians wise up and realize change has to happen (and things don't get too crazy where everything goes to hell).

[caulfield12]

Greg, I would advise reading Krugman and Thomas Friedman of the NY Times on this...

 

It might open up your perspective.

 

 

[caulfield12]

Let's be honest.

 

There are only a few solutions here that are realistic ones...but that are the political 3rd rail.

 

1) Older/retired workers agreeing to cut backs in their benefits (SS) or pensions in order to redistribute some of that money to their children/grandchildren's generation.

 

OR, raising taxes on the wealthier older people across the world who have enjoyed the protection (freedom) of their governments from 1945 until today.

 

2) More immigrants in the areas of high tech/green energy, etc. POLITICALLY unpopular, except in Silicon Valley.

 

3) All of the governments of the world, but especially the Americans and now the Chinese...cutting back by 25-50% on defense spending and redistributing that money into more productive areas of the economy.

 

 

OF COURSE, can you win an election based on a 1930's style Chamberlain Isolationism...sticking our heads and neck into the sand and HOPING against hope that NOTHING happens with global terrorism and/or there aren't any international conflicts. The same people who want isolationism from the world tend to hate the United Nations, so what's the solution here...if we don't control things (meaning the US, militarily), Americans get resentful of American soldiers/troops serving under Brussels.

 

So what country is going to safeguard the world from terrorism and step into the breach in times of international conflict?

 

Germany? No way. France? Nope. Brazil. Country is falling part at the seams. China? Nobody trusts the Chinese, especially in Asia. Russia? Good luck.

 

That leaves America and India, basically. Indonesia has the issue with Islam (as far as the rest of the world perceives them). Japan and South Korea are increasingly becoming more and more pacifist/isolationist, w the exception of the North/S.Korea conflict.

 

 

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%...amp;h=mAQFg_zaQ

Think it was already mentioned...most Brits who voted don't even know what the EU is and what benefits it confers.

Edited June 25, 2016 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

England is dumb.

Edited June 25, 2016 by caulfield12

[ptatc]

Let's be honest.

 

There are only a few solutions here that are realistic ones...but that are the political 3rd rail.

 

1) Older/retired workers agreeing to cut backs in their benefits (SS) or pensions in order to redistribute some of that money to their children/grandchildren's generation.

 

OR, raising taxes on the wealthier older people across the world who have enjoyed the protection (freedom) of their governments from 1945 until today.

 

2) More immigrants in the areas of high tech/green energy, etc. POLITICALLY unpopular, except in Silicon Valley.

 

3) All of the governments of the world, but especially the Americans and now the Chinese...cutting back by 25-50% on defense spending and redistributing that money into more productive areas of the economy.

 

 

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%...amp;h=mAQFg_zaQ

Think it was already mentioned...most Brits who voted don't even know what the EU is and what benefits it confers.

Why do the old people need to give money to the young people in all of these scenarios? If the old people started out broke and worked their way up to making more money, why can't young people do the same?

[Jake]

Why do the old people need to give money to the young people in all of these scenarios? If the old people started out broke and worked their way up to making more money, why can't young people do the same?

 

More importantly, Social Security is not the problem with the budget and the benefits are so meager that there's simply no cutting them back without making many beneficiaries destitute and hurting the economy in the process. If you want to stimulate the economy, spend more on SS; people who have little money and not many years to live tend to put their money right back into the economy.

 

And let's not forget that one of the most oft-repeated campaign promises of the Brexit side was that leaving would somehow open up more money to spend on their national healthcare system. This was a lie, of course, but it shows you the average person voting Leave wants these government benefits to stay.

[caulfield12]

Why do the old people need to give money to the young people in all of these scenarios? If the old people started out broke and worked their way up to making more money, why can't young people do the same?

 

 

I would hardly call all of the benefits that went to soldiers coming back from World War II such as the GI Bill and affordable housing loans financed by the government...typically, were there lots of "broke" people in the 1940's and 1950's?

 

Were the college/university costs nearly as high back at that time, in comparison to the average entry-level salary?

 

One way or the other, if the generation of 18-30 year olds (and under) doesn't succeed, will it really have been all their fault when more than half the people growing up in the past could still make a "good living" in blue collar factory jobs and have enough money to raise a couple of children and, in many situations, for their wives to stay at home with the kids?

 

When people are working longer and harder...and their incomes are not compensating them for their efforts...and they're not only not geting ahead but unable to save money and both parents have to work because that's the only way to survive financially (in order to give the kids that they never see a theoretically better future life/education)...something is inherently wrong with the system.

 

 

Or we could just enact about half of the perfectly common sense reforms Michael Moore suggests in his latest documentary, things like improving the quality of school lunch food or prison reform (that idea came from Norway...or simply doing away with the self-perpetuating drug crime/for profit prison system, which is clearly broken).

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/movies/r...ocumentary.html

 

 

[caulfield12]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/...span-abc-region

Tony Blair: Brexit's Stunning Coup (and the collapse of the Center)

 

 

Brexit and Europe's Bitter Old Men

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/opinion/...span-abc-region

Edited June 25, 2016 by caulfield12

[ptatc]

I would hardly call all of the benefits that went to soldiers coming back from World War II such as the GI Bill and affordable housing loans financed by the government...typically, were there lots of "broke" people in the 1940's and 1950's?

 

Were the college/university costs nearly as high back at that time, in comparison to the average entry-level salary?

 

One way or the other, if the generation of 18-30 year olds (and under) doesn't succeed, will it really have been all their fault when more than half the people growing up in the past could still make a "good living" in blue collar factory jobs and have enough money to raise a couple of children and, in many situations, for their wives to stay at home with the kids?

 

When people are working longer and harder...and their incomes are not compensating them for their efforts...and they're not only not geting ahead but unable to save money and both parents have to work because that's the only way to survive financially (in order to give the kids that they never see a theoretically better future life/education)...something is inherently wrong with the system.

 

 

Or we could just enact about half of the perfectly common sense reforms Michael Moore suggests in his latest documentary, things like improving the quality of school lunch food or prison reform (that idea came from Norway...or simply doing away with the self-perpetuating drug crime/for profit prison system, which is clearly broken).

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/movies/r...ocumentary.html

Now I see the issue. Every generation claims the same things.

 

If you are looking to the WWII vets to save money, I hate to tell you hut there aren't enough left to make a big difference and if you think they are making enough money to make a difference you are mistaken. Besides I was referring to the current group of people who graduated from college in the 70s who are retiring not going that far back to a generation where there a4e so few left.

 

College costs have always gone up and graduates always claim the same burden. In my profession, the starting salary has douhled while the cost of school has gone up 50% in the last 30 years.

 

Studies have shown that many retirees have to get part time jobs just to afford to live. Taking money from the old who can't affird it just to make the young people lives more affordable is not a way to help the economy. They need to work their way up the food chain just like every generation.

Edited June 25, 2016 by ptatc

[caulfield12]

Imagine you're a baby...do you really deserve to have a $19 trillion deficit hanging over your head that you had nothing to do with creating?

 

Obviously, there's no easy or fair way to do this. One area I would recommend (and Warren Buffett agrees) is with the returning the estate tax to where it was in the late 90's (adjusted for inflation over the last 15-20 years) and having the rich pay a higher tax than the current 20% on capital gains.

 

Simplifying the tax code, making it easier on not only individuals but small businesses.

 

Prison reform...too much money is being wasted on ineffective policy with a high recidivism rate. Revisiting the harsh punishment system for drug crimes.

 

Addressing the two core issues (fear of immigrants/Islam/terrorism) and fear of change (globalization/free trade/crippling of unions/outsourcing/loss of blue collar jobs), those are driving movements around the world on the right as well as the left. But two sides of the same coin, just different drivers/motivations/fears. Economics is always going to be a part of it, but culture is just as important, when we start going into the areas of religion and tolerance for other religions (as well as the growing numbers of people not oriented around any religious belief at all).

 

Whether it's the Occupy Wall Street/1% vs. 99%/Us against Wall Street Bankers/Venture Capitalists or the Tea Party, unless the political middle/moderates can come up with solutions that can be universally-agreed upon by both sides, then it will be difficult to make progress and things will continue to be polarized with the status quo (essentially represented by Hillary Clinton) prevailing.

 

[ptatc]

Imagine you're a baby...do you really deserve to have a $19 trillion deficit hanging over your head that you had nothing to do with creating?

 

Obviously, there's no easy or fair way to do this. One area I would recommend (and Warren Buffett agrees) is with the returning the estate tax to where it was in the late 90's (adjusted for inflation over the last 15-20 years) and having the rich pay a higher tax than the current 20% on capital gains.

 

Simplifying the tax code, making it easier on not only individuals but small businesses.

 

Prison reform...too much money is being wasted on ineffective policy with a high recidivism rate. Revisiting the harsh punishment system for drug crimes.

 

Addressing the two core issues (fear of immigrants/Islam/terrorism) and fear of change (globalization/free trade/crippling of unions/outsourcing/loss of blue collar jobs), those are driving movements around the world on the right as well as the left. But two sides of the same coin, just different drivers/motivations/fears. Economics is always going to be a part of it, but culture is just as important, when we start going into the areas of religion and tolerance for other religions (as well as the growing numbers of people not oriented around any religious belief at all).

 

Whether it's the Occupy Wall Street/1% vs. 99%/Us against Wall Street Bankers/Venture Capitalists or the Tea Party, unless the political middle/moderates can come up with solutions that can be universally-agreed upon by both sides, then it will be difficult to make progress and things will continue to be polarized with the status quo (essentially represented by Hillary Clinton) prevailing.

And what did the "old" people do to create the 19 trillion dollar deficit?

 

All of the issues you bring up have absolutely nothing to do with your original statement of taking money from the old people who have worked 30-40 years to earn that money and give it to the young people who haven't earned their money.

Edited June 25, 2016 by ptatc

[caulfield12]

Well, you plan on holding all the members of Congress and presidents personally responsible for paying off those debts?

 

Well, fortunately, something like $13-14 trillion is owed by America to its own citizens, so the situation is not as dire as it would at first seem.

 

 

That said, what issues do you possibly see the potential for compromise...? Anyone?

 

Whenever a Republican even goes close to the electric fence of immigration reform or raising taxes, he gets burned by the flames.

 

Likewise with Dems who are open to some form of entitlement reforms. If it's not SS, then it has to come from Medicare/Medicaid, and that's going to be nearly impossible to find bipartisan support for as well.

 

 

The idea of those who have worked 30-40 years to earn that money...not owing anything...well, therein lies the problem with the entire system. Everyone who is under 30 years old in America believes that the money they're now paying in for the Baby Boom generation won't be there for them. And they might be right, in the sense benefits might be either cut back or payroll taxes will have to be increased to balance things out. Nobody desires either option.

 

If those from age 40-80 don't feel somewhat responsible for "passing off a worse country than what they found it," then I'm not sure what to say. The American Dream was always about the next generation having a better life, more opportunities, higher educational attainment, than the generation immediately preceding it. That's no longer the case. It's just like fixing the Chicago White Sox. There are so many directions you can choose to go in, but you get paralyzed by analysis and so you don't even take one step because the task seems so overwhelming.

 

In Hollywood, there'd be a movie like "Dave" where an everyday accountant/CPA would just go through the federal budget line item by line item and eliminate wasteful/frivolous spending, but the Congressmen who receive those pork barrel monies as a result of horse trading for votes won't even give up a single dollar for their districts/states.

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

Even with that in mind, the European Central Bank is limited in what it can do because these fundamental problems like the stagnation of real incomes don't have easy solutions, Alan Greenspan told CNBC.

 

"There's a certain amount that monetary policy can do, but our problem is fundamentally fiscal," he said, adding that this is true in the United States as well as "every major country in Europe."

 

Part of the problem is that the "developed countries are all aging very rapidly," which is leading to a higher ratio of government spending in the form of entitlements, Greenspan said.

[Brian]

How final is the vote? Can it be negated or re-voted upon?

 

Love all the voters who said they didn't think their vote would matter.

[Balta1701]

How final is the vote? Can it be negated or re-voted upon?

 

Love all the voters who said they didn't think their vote would matter.

It's a non-binding referendum, so it matters as much as the PM wants it to matter. The PM has pledged to follow the results of the vote and the PM apparently has the authority on his own to submit the "Article 50" declaration to the EU that starts the process of removing the country. From that perspective, it's final in that the PM pledged to follow the results.

 

However, Parliament is still sovereign. They in theory could pass legislation somehow barring the PM from following the results of this vote. There are a number of proposals out there so far for how Parliament might do this and that's the current limit of my knowledge of their system.

[Balta1701]

The message should be on everyone sitting in government office today. The answer is the status quo and the bickering and the stagnation are not acceptable and that people need to work with the other party to actually drive progress. The standstill that has occurred in government (along with the stagnant economy) are what is driving all these people to be absurd and those pushed and frustrated, either lean more left to a near socialist candidate or more right to a lunatic. Either way, both sides are revolting and they have given those indications, now hopefully the politicians wise up and realize change has to happen (and things don't get too crazy where everything goes to hell).

Just so I say this.

 

Hypothetically, if one party decided it was no longer willing to govern, that it was willing to shut down the ability of the nation to govern itself unless it got 100% its own way, and that decision was key to leading to the "standstill"...

 

If that were the case that this one party had done that, and people blamed "everyone sitting in government office today" for not solving stagnation, then anyone blaming "everyone in office" would be proving that the strategy of breaking government was smart and successful.

 

That hypothetical party would have: broken government and gotten people to blame the full government for it, rather than blaming the party that made that decision.

[Y2HH]

Well, you plan on holding all the members of Congress and presidents personally responsible for paying off those debts?

 

Well, fortunately, something like $13-14 trillion is owed by America to its own citizens, so the situation is not as dire as it would at first seem.

 

Agree.

 

That said, what issues do you possibly see the potential for compromise...? Anyone?

 

Whenever a Republican even goes close to the electric fence of immigration reform or raising taxes, he gets burned by the flames.

 

Likewise with Dems who are open to some form of entitlement reforms. If it's not SS, then it has to come from Medicare/Medicaid, and that's going to be nearly impossible to find bipartisan support for as well.

 

Agree.

 

The idea of those who have worked 30-40 years to earn that money...not owing anything...well, therein lies the problem with the entire system. Everyone who is under 30 years old in America believes that the money they're now paying in for the Baby Boom generation won't be there for them. And they might be right, in the sense benefits might be either cut back or payroll taxes will have to be increased to balance things out. Nobody desires either option.

 

Disagree. The idea they don't owe anything? Absurd. They worked 30-40 years to earn that money AND paid taxes upon making it, spending it, or giving it away in various ways, such as property tax, sales tax, charitable contributions, etc. To pretend all of that money was just given to them and they "gave nothing back" is purely false. They already paid what they owed...it's not their fault the government squandered it on defense spending or whatever pork projects they had in mind when they got elected.

 

If those from age 40-80 don't feel somewhat responsible for "passing off a worse country than what they found it," then I'm not sure what to say. The American Dream was always about the next generation having a better life, more opportunities, higher educational attainment, than the generation immediately preceding it. That's no longer the case. It's just like fixing the Chicago White Sox. There are so many directions you can choose to go in, but you get paralyzed by analysis and so you don't even take one step because the task seems so overwhelming.

 

Disagree. Speaking as a 40 year old, no, I don't feel responsible to "passing off a worse country than how we found it", because it's not actually worse. I see more opportunity around today than ever before. People just aren't seizing on it because they want to play the role of starving artist like most young dreamers. It's time we started waking up to the reality that is the world, instead. I wanted to go to an out of state university like most of my friends at the time did...when I visited them I was like, "YES! This is what I want!" The truth is, however, I had no idea what I was talking about at the time, of course, I was just a kid...and "life experiences" were more important to me than setting the stage for my future.

 

Fortunately, (yes, fortunately) I couldn't afford it...and I wasn't about to take out a bunch of student loans because I was taught debt is dumb growing up...so I went to an in state school that was WAY cheaper. Instead of chasing dreams via liberal arts courses and graduating with a worthless degree and tens of thousands of student loan debt, I decided it was time to grow up a bit and be the adult I wanted people to treat me like. I went to DeVry full time while working nights AND weekends and I learned a trade that would be useful to the world. Was my life one huge party back then? No. If I wasn't at school, I was taking the train to work, and if I wasn't at work, I was likely at school or sleeping.

 

In Hollywood, there'd be a movie like "Dave" where an everyday accountant/CPA would just go through the federal budget line item by line item and eliminate wasteful/frivolous spending, but the Congressmen who receive those pork barrel monies as a result of horse trading for votes won't even give up a single dollar for their districts/states.

 

Again agree...I'm not fond of the way our government runs. I'm not a fan of our insane defense spending, nor am I a fan of subsidies and corporate welfare. I wish they'd take that money and use it for better purposes, such as research, staffing national parks, and perhaps trade programs as a alternative choice to overpriced college degrees which are often useless.

 

But to blame the older generation as if "we" caused this mess is absurd. I really don't consider myself old yet, by the way. This money, be it in the form of real estate, savings, 401k's or pensions...wasn't handed too us for free. We earned it and paid our taxes/dues along the way. The way I look at money these days is they print enough of it...so it's out there for the taking, and if you look in the right places it's not all that hard to get.

 

Of my immediate friends, I'm the only one with a college education (if you want to call DeVry a true college education)...the others have high school diplomas and both make over 90k a year. How is that possible? They learned a skill the world cares about. Oh, and one of them grew up on welfare to boot, so let's not play the privilege card, either. The three of us grew up in blue collar Bridgeport, and not one of us has a "connected" city job...we all work white collar computer jobs.

 

Oh and as for Social Security, I also treat it as something I'll never receive...I trust our government as far as I can throw it with my future. If I receive a dollar a month when I retire from SS I'll consider it a win. In the mean time, I'm investing for retirement on my own...I don't plan on needing them.

[greg775]

I just read that Texas and California want to follow Britain and have a Texit from the U.S. These states don't know what they are doing. Once they secede they are going to lose about 1/2 the population just by people who don't want to renounce their US citizenship. Then they are going to be left with a state full of crazies who are their own country. They will need their own armies and nuclear weapons.

 

Talk about morale killers. All these states want to secede now to follow Britain's lead. We do have a lot of problems as a nation at this time, though. They are thinking their economies will be better if they split from the USA. There will be all sorts of problems, however. I can't imagine the hordes of people who have moved to Dallas and Houston mainly for work would stay there if Texas secedes.

 

 

p.s. This is another crazy offshoot of our political system. The Democratic candidate as we stand now is a lock to win every Presidency thanks to the system set up (media bias, etc) and some people are fed up with the blah outlook under Hillary the next 8 years. It's interesting but also embarrassing. Obama's tenure ends in states talking about bailing on the Union. Great stuff Obama.

Edited June 25, 2016 by greg775

[Quin]

I just read that Texas and California want to follow Britain and have a Texit from the U.S. These states don't know what they are doing. Once they secede they are going to lose about 1/2 the population just by people who don't want to renounce their US citizenship. They they are going to be left with a state full of crazies who are their own country. They will need their own armies and nuclear weapons.

 

Talk about morale killers. All these states want to secede now to follow Britain's lead. We do have a lot of problems as a nation at this time, though. They are thinking their economies will be better if they split from the USA. There will be all sorts of problems, however. I can't imagine the hordes of people who have moved to Dallas and Houston mainly for work would stay there if Texas secedes.

 

Those are just crazy people Greg, don't worry.

[Chicago White Sox]

I can't believe some posters actually believe Greg isn't a troll.

[caulfield12]

Agree.

 

 

 

Agree.

 

 

 

Disagree. The idea they don't owe anything? Absurd. They worked 30-40 years to earn that money AND paid taxes upon making it, spending it, or giving it away in various ways, such as property tax, sales tax, charitable contributions, etc. To pretend all of that money was just given to them and they "gave nothing back" is purely false. They already paid what they owed...it's not their fault the government squandered it on defense spending or whatever pork projects they had in mind when they got elected.

 

 

 

Disagree. Speaking as a 40 year old, no, I don't feel responsible to "passing off a worse country than how we found it", because it's not actually worse. I see more opportunity around today than ever before. People just aren't seizing on it because they want to play the role of starving artist like most young dreamers. It's time we started waking up to the reality that is the world, instead. I wanted to go to an out of state university like most of my friends at the time did...when I visited them I was like, "YES! This is what I want!" The truth is, however, I had no idea what I was talking about at the time, of course, I was just a kid...and "life experiences" were more important to me than setting the stage for my future.

 

Fortunately, (yes, fortunately) I couldn't afford it...and I wasn't about to take out a bunch of student loans because I was taught debt is dumb growing up...so I went to an in state school that was WAY cheaper. Instead of chasing dreams via liberal arts courses and graduating with a worthless degree and tens of thousands of student loan debt, I decided it was time to grow up a bit and be the adult I wanted people to treat me like. I went to DeVry full time while working nights AND weekends and I learned a trade that would be useful to the world. Was my life one huge party back then? No. If I wasn't at school, I was taking the train to work, and if I wasn't at work, I was likely at school or sleeping.

 

 

 

Again agree...I'm not fond of the way our government runs. I'm not a fan of our insane defense spending, nor am I a fan of subsidies and corporate welfare. I wish they'd take that money and use it for better purposes, such as research, staffing national parks, and perhaps trade programs as a alternative choice to overpriced college degrees which are often useless.

 

But to blame the older generation as if "we" caused this mess is absurd. I really don't consider myself old yet, by the way. This money, be it in the form of real estate, savings, 401k's or pensions...wasn't handed too us for free. We earned it and paid our taxes/dues along the way. The way I look at money these days is they print enough of it...so it's out there for the taking, and if you look in the right places it's not all that hard to get.

 

Of my immediate friends, I'm the only one with a college education (if you want to call DeVry a true college education)...the others have high school diplomas and both make over 90k a year. How is that possible? They learned a skill the world cares about. Oh, and one of them grew up on welfare to boot, so let's not play the privilege card, either. The three of us grew up in blue collar Bridgeport, and not one of us has a "connected" city job...we all work white collar computer jobs.

 

Oh and as for Social Security, I also treat it as something I'll never receive...I trust our government as far as I can throw it with my future. If I receive a dollar a month when I retire from SS I'll consider it a win. In the mean time, I'm investing for retirement on my own...I don't plan on needing them.

 

 

I'm actually kind of playing devil's advocate here.

 

My father was born in 1936 and my mother in 1929 and they both experienced the Great Depression and WWII, especially my mom. She's 87 now and would have a tiny government pension (she worked 20 years) if not for getting 60% of my father's. The most he ever made was $44,000 in one year as a GS tech writer at Rock Island Arsenal.

 

Yet somehow he was able to save quite a bit (I didn't realize how much until he passed away and I had to help my mom with investments) and that was with my mom not working except part-time at Hardee's and Bishop's Buffet (just for fun and to socialize with people). He always paid for EVERYTHING in cash, didn't believe in debt of any kind (except mortgage, which was paid back early)...and he also pushed me to study econ and started a retirement fund for me (Nicholas Funds out of Milwaukee) when I was in my early 20's.

 

I majored in English and minored in history and political science but didn't go to law school. My two best friends went to Northwestern, and I felt a bit disappointed but didn't push going there or Notre Dame because I felt it would be a waste of money, since Iowa's English program was one of the best and I also wanted to stay close to my g/f at the time.

 

Now that I understand how the world works and what my father was trying to teach me. I don't regret not going to one of those fancier schools because my whole life, I've worked as a teacher, non profit program director, for the Pittsburgh Pirates' minor league team in the SALLY League and for an NFL football player's charitable foundation. I've never made more than $50,000 one year in my life, but I've still been able to save money (despite traveling to 40 countries and living/working in six)...enough to get married twice, have a 16 month old baby at age 46 and have a pretty fulfilling life, all things considered. (Well, except for the White Sox, haha, minus 2005).

 

But yeah, I never took out a student loan in my life, and that was for my first wife from Russia to help her with her schooling (co-signer). And that was 50% about having a good credit history as much as really needing to take out a loan. I think I must have spent the same amount on 9 years of university (two Master's degrees and certification in American Humanics, which is non profit management) as my Chinese international prep school students spend for ONE year of education in high school, $15-17,500 USD.

 

 

[caulfield12]

I can't believe some posters actually believe Greg isn't a troll.

 

 

Because of his Bachelor Party stories...those are too vivid, lol.

And his taste in cheesy movies, as well, nobody could easily fake either of those.

 

Finally, his propensity for being on the wrong side of every sports bet.

 

And being easily influenced by talk radio/media/news. Being afraid of a bogeyman around every corner.

I do hope Greg watches the "pseudo-documentary" movie COLLAPSE someday, that will really cause him to go on a posting tear.

Edited June 25, 2016 by caulfield12