Dear Mr. Samuelson,
Poor financial choices, addictions, spending and subadult logic and ambition is NOT the middle class. These people that are self destructive seem to get the attention. For you information the middle class is quite capable of rational decisions and responsibility. They are capable of "becoming" wealthy if given the opportunity.
Be careful of arrogance concerning these rich people being self-made. Most people with excess money
received this, not thru hard work, but by inheritance.
Also, the remaining people with wealth received this thru govenment hand-outs and the ability to manipulate the "system" to their advantage.
It's commendable for a person to be financially successful, but most are "hand me downs".
- 1
- 2
Desperately Seeking Stimulus
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
SPONSORED BY
Second, we should increase the earliest age that workers can qualify for Social Security from 62 to 64. This change (again) should be phased in over four years. When people retire early, they take a cut in their Social Security benefits to reflect the fact that they'll receive benefits longer. At 62, benefits now average about 75 percent of benefits at the normal retirement age (today, 66 years). Many retirees later regret that, by starting benefits so early, they crimp their monthly payments.
Raising the minimum eligibility age wouldn't save the government much, if any, money on the assumption that the monthly payments at 64 would be higher. Although people would work longer, their retirement would ultimately be made easier by higher monthly benefit checks and by delaying by two years the need to rely on savings. This change would also indicate Congress's willingness to tackle the larger problems of Social Security and Medicare.
Finally, Congress should explicitly authorize offshore drilling for oil and natural gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico. Last month, Congress let lapse the long-standing bans against this drilling. But Congress might try to reimpose some type of ban, citing lower prices. This would be a mistake. Exploration and production can be environmentally safe. At best, it will take years before new projects begin producing and thereby limit dependence on insecure foreign oil. Why wait? America's huge foreign oil bill weakens our economy but also destabilizes the world economy. Oil producers don't spend all they earn, dampening worldwide demand.
I am not naive. These are all controversial ideas. The odds against their enactment are perhaps 100 to 1. But wouldn't it be refreshing if politicians disproved the conventional wisdom that they will do only (a) what's popular or (b) what crises compel them to do? Wouldn't it be a pleasant surprise if the president-elect—whoever he is—could work with the present Congress to produce a package that addressed both the present and future? Now that would be real change. Heck, it might even improve confidence.
© 2008
- 1
- 2
Discuss