If GameStop changed their member benefits, young people would get outraged.

This just seems like another thing that will widen the generation gap.

...who bitched and moaned at us "old folks" for being rich...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2903792
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2904237
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2905018

With his stance either, but according to him, he's almost old enough to be getting senior discounts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2903502

Looks like he's an older guy who has a problem with discounts (for whatever tripped out reason).

I also took two years off from pursuing things in my life to take care of my father 24/7 after a major stroke. Mind you I'm not complaining about that cause I know one day I will be old or maybe disabled myself. But relying on my dad's social security to get by with me and him and the little time I could get work I learned alot about how that program is underfunded and rigged to screw it's recipients into the poor house by not giving enough for basic living.

The bigger issue is driving wages down to nothing so you cannot save for retirement. Now, people are stuck trying live off of SS in a way it was never intended for.

Every other civilized nation provides for the retirement of their seniors so they don't wind up in the poor house. It's time America catches up I'd be much happier with my taxes going to help the country and the people who live in it. Than spending a majority of our budget on a bloated military to continue this notion we are somehow better and more powerful than the rest of the world

I agree we should fix the wealth inequalities so people can save more. But relying completely on capitalism and the markets to help people save and have money to retire isn't the answer.

There was a promise made to Americans. I'm "only" 54...but it appears that if the wealthy Republicans get their way, the system into which I've paid my entire life -- the PROMISE made to me by our government -- is just going to be written off. Sssssssorry. We changed our minds. NOT because the country can't afford to keep its promises, rather, because the obscenely rich now have theirs, and don't want to pay any more. Despite having made the nation the richest on earth even with a 90% marginal tax rate, NOW they don't want to pay anything. Because they got theirs. The rest of America can go fuck themselves.

I have a private pension fund (or IRA). I'm not sitting fat, but I'm better off than many. But it won't last me long. SS was promised to me...if I saved money for retirement, the money taken from my paycheck every week would augment what I saved. But now Boehner and Cantor and Ryan are saying, "Well...you see...we don't really want to pay you that money. We want tax breaks for ourselves instead. Oh, yes, we're already obscenely wealthy, but, you see...we want to keep all of it. Oh, yes, you paid into SS your whole life, but...y'know...fuck you."

My father lost his small savings when the economy down turned so when he had his stroke and was forced into an earlier retirement all he had to fall back on was his social security. That's why I think the program needs to be expanded the payments need to reflect the current world. The Republicans want to destroy social security is disgusting. Sadly there's people like my grandmother who still votes for them even while collecting social security.

back in the old 1970s, my parents "did without" some things in order to save for college education for their kids.

Of course, when you do that you are punished by being unable to get "need based" financial aid.

But the concept of "doing without" seems to have been lost, and the new concept is "having it all"

This notion of let's just keep sacrificing at what point is enough enough. With the rich pulling in more in a month than most see in a year I'm done with the idea that we need to keep sacrificing.

because I am pretty sure I don't, although I may see some in passing.

Do you define "rich" as "making more than $600,000 a year" as you just mentioned? I think of those people as "super rich" and such people will always be with us, as they always have.

My point is that, if anybody went without say something that would cost them $30 a month, then they could save $30 a month for their retirement. The fact that they don't then, is not that they CANNOT, but they CHOOSE to spend that $30 a month on something they want instead of saving for their retirement.

I think it is just hyperbolic to say that there are a whole bunch of Americans living on the edge of poverty. Many are living paycheck to paycheck, but that is, I would say, largely because of the spending choices they make.

There is a whole segment of our population that is truly living on the edge, if they have not already fallen over the edge.

However, there is also a large segment of the population that could easily save for retirement, but don't and will be on the edge when they are 60. I work in a tax department at a large company and make good money (low six figures). I drive an old car with no hubcaps and live in a 50 year old house. I got my first cell phone a little over a year ago (I am 36). We finally decided to get digital cable a few years ago. We bought our first television 5 years ago (all we had were hand me down tube televisions).

However, during those years, my wife and I managed to stock pile about $400,000 (including investments, gains and company matches into retirement accounts). We did this by dollar cost averaging into the market. At first, it was just $100 a month, but as we got raises, we increased it. Now, we are putting over $25,000 a year into retirement accounts and education accounts for our kids. When I got out of college, I set my 401(k) at 15% and my wife set hers at 20%, because we were already use to living off of nothing.

I look at my coworkers who could be in the same boat. Instead, many (I would guess well over half) are just a few paychecks from being broke. Sure, they have nice toys, a nice house, expensive cars and take great vacations. I will admit it does frustrate me to know these people will wake up tomorrow, be 60 and tell me I need to fund their retirement.

I don't know what the answer is, but we definately cannot turn seniors away to live on the street.

We had no tv, didn't go out to eat, and at times didn't have enough for a roof over our heads and stayed in shelters or food I've been in plenty of soup kitchen lines. It wasn't until my dad married my step mom and her father gave him a job working at his law firm that he was making any money and I was already 16 by that time. What would you have suggested we sacrifice during that time. Furthermore what idyllic world did you grow up in where you never experienced people living on the edge of poverty cause it's very common here in america

I am not frivilous I shop for clothing and pretty much any household item "furniture" etc. from thrift stores. The only thing new is my underwear and shoes. I work a forty hour week. I do not have anything left after paying expenses to be frivilous.

not that people are gonna necessarily talk about it anyway.

Plus, when you live in a nicer neighborhood, then most of the people in your grade school are from the same nice neighborhood and later in the junior high and high school, my friends came from band - that is the kids of families who could afford musical instruments.

But to the point, 50% of the population is above the median income. I don't see why most of them would need to scrape - being richer than 50% of the rest of us.

As I said, granted there are some people at some times who can't save, but there are perhaps many others who can, but do not.

and that can fall true with just about every group in so many situations. Some may complain over the price of season tickets over other issues. Kids may complain over the cost of their athletic sneakers but not what it cost it heat the average home. Kids have always been a little less concerned about things that do not directly involve them but many adults can be just as guilty. They listen to what may get slashed in this constant cutting budget but until it cuts something they have they don't always get that shook.
We need to stress that we are all connected. If kids can't find jobs they can't move from home. If adults can't find jobs everyone may have to move from home. Someone may complain about SNAP until they are hungry. We are all in the same boat. It's just that some can see what we are up against better then others.

The most coherent response so far! Instead of the goofy bullshit that I'm somehow blaming GameStop for the SS/Medicare mess. Glad to see there are still intelligent DUers out there.

Video games are bad news

Think of all the STD's they prevent

Apples VS Oranges.

Where does it end

Gaming is now "responsible" for SS and Medicare.

indeed. Sheesh.

But this rant is totally off base and incredibly offensive. All my friends my age care about social security. It's not like we have some blinders that prevent us from realizing we'll be 65 some day, too. I actively fight the lie (which many my age believe) that SS and Medicare are doomed and were unsustainable from their inception, so it's useless to fight for them, as we'll never collect them.

Stereotyping our generation as slackers and using derogatory language like "punk" isn't going to make young people listen.

You want to piss off us gamers all you have to do is mention three words: digital rights management.

No excuses.

Elderly chip in for young families.

Young chip in for elderly.

We all chip in for disaster sufferers and poor.

We're a society and we are responsible. If one doesn't wish to be all in, then they might want to consider getting the fuck out.