It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wouldnt it be good for the government if we all died at 64.5

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I was just thinking that it would be good for the government if we all die at 64.5 or at a very minimum right on the day we retired. What is in it for them if we live to be 100?

After we retire, we just become an expense to the government. No longer paying more into the system than we take out.

Just think how great it would be for the government if we all died the moment we retire. No more paying Social Security to us, no more subsidizing our Medicare, no longer subsidising our prescription drug habits.

I wonder if it is possible for them to create a virus that targets people over a certain age? That is kind of scary.




posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Sounds like the movie " Logans Run"



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I dont think theyll need one. My generation is the first generation that probably wont outlive their parents because of our lifestyle. Most of us will drop dead from a heart attack at 54. Lifestyle is enough to kill us all before were 64.5 and it mostly will.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by VintageEnvy
 


Hmmmmmm.

Did you ever think maybe they planned it that way. They gave you good TV full of kid shows 24/7. Video games. Made you look like idiots wearing a helmet and knee pads just to ride a bike.

Maybe they wanted you all to not exercise and eat McDonalds until you are morbidly obese at age 7.

Then they get a good 10 or 20 years of your social security and medicare payments and then your headed toward Elizabeth because you are having the big one!



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Chicken_Bone
 


Maybe, I actually think it had more to do with a market that hadnt been tapped yet where the convenience of cheap fast food was readily available to even those with modest income.

I also believe in personal responsibility when it comes to people purchasing fast food and the like.

There's a turn around happening now though where people are actually starting to pay attention to their health and want to live longer so we'll see what happens in the next coming decades.

Also, speak for yourself in regards to the helmet and knee pads, I look jammin in my helmet and knee pads...



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
When they started Social Security, the average life expectancy was less than 65 years - that's why they picked that age. If most people died before they were the age of retirement, then there was supposed to be enough money in the system for those who didn't die. Over time, our life expectancy has gone up significantly, but we haven't adjusted the law so that the retirement age went up accordingly. You can blame the AARP or just the simple fact that older people vote in droves and younger people don't, and everyone is pretty ready for retirement by the time they are 65.

[edit on 4/20/2010 by LifeInDeath]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Well, 64 is a little too close for comfort, personally speaking, but if I had my druthers, I'd rather kick off at around age 80 than age 100, say.

80 years of this "consciousness" stuff is more than any sentient being should be asked to handle. And as for 100 years, I consider that cruel and unusual punishment indeed.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Well maybe if our grandparents circulated around the family sharing their wisdom with us, instead of being forced to live alone or in a retirement home - this discussion would be even more stupid.

But it would be good money-wise.

But since when has the monetary system been the wisest mode of deciding virtually anything to do with our life on this planet.

That being said, if you need to be hooked up to a machine to live, its probably your time to die.

That being said, if we all weren't so stupid and poisoned - we could probably live to be 120 easy, without being a vegetable or riddled with Alzheimers.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
Well, 64 is a little too close for comfort, personally speaking, but if I had my druthers, I'd rather kick off at around age 80 than age 100, say.

80 years of this "consciousness" stuff is more than any sentient being should be asked to handle. And as for 100 years, I consider that cruel and unusual punishment indeed.


Meh. Maybe.

Speak for yourself though. I personally wouldn't mind living 100+. I don't have a problem with the 'consciousness stuff' per se. I'm having fun kicking around here. It's this physical, nasty, degrading, slide into mortality that's driving me off my rails. I have had to face the reality that I don't bounce so good no more. I don't like getting creaky. Not one bit.

I would much rather just stop the ol' biological clock at 22 or so, and then just drop dead when it's my time.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join