March 8, 2010
To The Editor,
Re: Adjusting to Reality (Op-Ed March 8, 2010)
Munnell”and Biggs’ opinion based “reality” fails the real world litmus test of daily existence for those living the “social security dream.” Their statement recipients “are relatively unaffected by the financial crisis” underscores this point. Many seniors lost forty percent of their savings and left the market forever; many live in states most greatly impacted by the real estate decline, losing forty percent of their home values. The combined events represent an unprecedented destruction of wealth.
Citing the Consumer Price Index is a tragicomic contrivance beset by jet lag as prices escalate precipitously. From Dec 31 2009 to April 1, 2010 supplemental health care and prescription costs increased 39% and 36% respectively, these increases not reflecting additional $100 deductibles and higher co-pays. While borrowing rates are 18% or higher, rates on CD’s, the mandatory senior safe investment, are .002%.
Rather than launching an assault on seniors who paid taxes all their lives, many whom are veterans, the country should honor promises made.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Economic Crisis
March 26, 2010
To the Editor:
Re: The Return of History, David Brooks (March 26, 2010)
The immediate fallacy future economic archaeologists will uncover when excavating the recent “economic crisis” is the vulgar malapropism of its very description. Besmirching the word economics by assigning it the central role in what was one of history’s most blatant and vindictive conspiracies of greed and fraud degrades the science of economics and surely alarms etymologists.
While economics played a supporting role, its sister social sciences history and criminology were the more likely stars of this shameful Wall Street drama. The dismembering of Depression era regulations and the prostitution of the credit infrastructure by both political parties allowed morally and ethically bankrupt financial firms to unscrupulously plunder the country’s and Main Street’s future.
More distressing is that nothing has changed as Wall Street’s evil gnomes continue to concoct nuclear grade financial I.E.D.’s to enrich themselves regardless of the damage to the country and its citizens.
To the Editor:
Re: The Return of History, David Brooks (March 26, 2010)
The immediate fallacy future economic archaeologists will uncover when excavating the recent “economic crisis” is the vulgar malapropism of its very description. Besmirching the word economics by assigning it the central role in what was one of history’s most blatant and vindictive conspiracies of greed and fraud degrades the science of economics and surely alarms etymologists.
While economics played a supporting role, its sister social sciences history and criminology were the more likely stars of this shameful Wall Street drama. The dismembering of Depression era regulations and the prostitution of the credit infrastructure by both political parties allowed morally and ethically bankrupt financial firms to unscrupulously plunder the country’s and Main Street’s future.
More distressing is that nothing has changed as Wall Street’s evil gnomes continue to concoct nuclear grade financial I.E.D.’s to enrich themselves regardless of the damage to the country and its citizens.
Age Discrimination
To the Editor,
New York Times
Re: Age Discrimination (July 7, 2009)
For those of us who have long ago lost count of the number of times we have experienced age discrimination, our response to the recent Supreme Court ruling is an exasperated “What’s new?”
Trying to prove “age discrimination” is tantamount to trying to prove the existence of God at an atheist’s convention. The average citizen would like to think that the “supreme” legal minds of the Court would understand that simple but painful reality.
Question: How many hundreds of thousands of highly qualified workers and job applicants holding advanced degrees, high performance records, and on the job experience have been rejected strictly because of age? Answer: All of them.
The economic cost of rejecting a more qualified worker is lower job performance which translates to lesser competitiveness. Any companies connecting the dots?
New York Times
Re: Age Discrimination (July 7, 2009)
For those of us who have long ago lost count of the number of times we have experienced age discrimination, our response to the recent Supreme Court ruling is an exasperated “What’s new?”
Trying to prove “age discrimination” is tantamount to trying to prove the existence of God at an atheist’s convention. The average citizen would like to think that the “supreme” legal minds of the Court would understand that simple but painful reality.
Question: How many hundreds of thousands of highly qualified workers and job applicants holding advanced degrees, high performance records, and on the job experience have been rejected strictly because of age? Answer: All of them.
The economic cost of rejecting a more qualified worker is lower job performance which translates to lesser competitiveness. Any companies connecting the dots?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
