Former Bill Ryan Neufeld's wife pleads for help for him

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Not at all a surprising development, if it is true.  Throw enough cash and benefits at your current voting membership, and figuratively put the retirees on an ice floe in the Arctic, especially the ones who only had a few marginally successful years.  I have had thirty year veterans of a past workplace complain that their pension was inadequate.  When I reminded them that as young workers they were advised to look after future pension considerations, those younger versions of themselves often opted for wage enhancements.  “Screw the old guys!”  We all eventually become that ‘old guy’.

 

...certainly understand what you are saying....at the same time, the pioneers of NFL football left their regular jobs, showed up to play football, and even had a post game beer and butt at their locker. ......and finally returning back home.....CTE, inferior player protection equipment, becoming physically incapacitated, pain killer addiction, etc never crossed their minds.....

[Buffalo_Stampede]

14 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Not at all a surprising development, if it is true.  Throw enough cash and benefits at your current voting membership, and figuratively put the retirees on an ice floe in the Arctic, especially the ones who only had a few marginally successful years.  I have had thirty year veterans of a past workplace complain that their pension was inadequate.  When I reminded them that as young workers they were advised to look after future pension considerations, those younger versions of themselves often opted for wage enhancements.  “Screw the old guys!”  We all eventually become that ‘old guy’.

A lot of us compare pro sports CBA to our regular workers CBA. 

 

Eli Manning of all players has earned the most in NFL history, over $200 million. The CBA also gives him the most when he retires, over $100,000 per year.  

[SoTier]

8 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

The NFL pension plan is one of the dumbest things I've seen. The rich get richer. If you've made a certain amount from the NFL you shouldn't receive a pension. Leave that money for players that need it why does someone like Tom Brady need a 6 figure pension plan? 

 

I'm sure it's like this in all pro sports but it makes zero sense to pay the wealthiest athletes a larger pension.

 

This is exactly how all pension plans work, whether private industry or government.   Retirement benefits, primarily pensions, are based on earnings.  The highest paid employees get biggest pensions while the lowest paid get the smallest pensions.  Company executives who make tens of millions of salary annually retire with huge pensions and/or retirement benefits while other employees of the same company may end up with pensions worth only a few hundred dollars a month -- and many companies no longer offer pensions at all or even offer to contribute matching funds to 401k plans.

[Cripple Creek]

 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

13 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

This is exactly how all pension plans work, whether private industry or government.   Retirement benefits, primarily pensions, are based on earnings.  The highest paid employees get biggest pensions while the lowest paid get the smallest pensions.  Company executives who make tens of millions of salary annually retire with huge pensions and/or retirement benefits while other employees of the same company may end up with pensions worth only a few hundred dollars a month -- and many companies no longer offer pensions at all or even offer to contribute matching funds to 401k plans.

I feel pro sports should be different especially the NFL. I believe the NFL pension is based on years played. 

[SoTier]

31 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Not at all a surprising development, if it is true.  Throw enough cash and benefits at your current voting membership, and figuratively put the retirees on an ice floe in the Arctic, especially the ones who only had a few marginally successful years.  I have had thirty year veterans of a past workplace complain that their pension was inadequate.  When I reminded them that as young workers they were advised to look after future pension considerations, those younger versions of themselves often opted for wage enhancements.  “Screw the old guys!”  We all eventually become that ‘old guy’.

 

When my father retired in 1982, his pension from his employer of more than 20 years was all of $95 a month  My stepmother's pension from the same employer was $105 a month.  When my dad died, my stepmother's SS dropped and she lost that $95 a month, so her income dropped quite substantially.  Luckily, the house was paid for and they had had savings.   If both were alive today (dad would be 103 and stepmom would be 95) their combined pensions would still be $200 a month, no "inflation protection". 

 

Many, many older retirees with these kinds of outdated small pensions could not survive without Social Security and Medicare.  Younger people who are always whining about social security should make it their business to demand that their Congressmen and Senators protect Social Security and Medicare by seeing that both programs are adequately funded to insure secure income and decent medical care for current retirees and future ones -- which will be themselves at some point in the future, especially as medical/health advances continue to increase the average life span.   Contrary to popular myth and political ideology, these are two government programs that work and shouldn't be sacrificed for short-sighted immediate gains.

[CLTbills]

1 hour ago, Chandler#81 said:

 

Shirley you jest. They were hideous! I hope they never consider it.

Not only were they hideous, but our team was nothing but awful while wearing them. Seeing those uniforms reminds me how much of a joke the Buffalo Bills were for such a long time.

[PromoTheRobot]

32 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

When my father retired in 1982, his pension from his employer of more than 20 years was all of $95 a month  My stepmother's pension from the same employer was $105 a month.  When my dad died, my stepmother's SS dropped and she lost that $95 a month, so her income dropped quite substantially.  Luckily, the house was paid for and they had had savings.   If both were alive today (dad would be 103 and stepmom would be 95) their combined pensions would still be $200 a month, no "inflation protection". 

 

Many, many older retirees with these kinds of outdated small pensions could not survive without Social Security and Medicare.  Younger people who are always whining about social security should make it their business to demand that their Congressmen and Senators protect Social Security and Medicare by seeing that both programs are adequately funded to insure secure income and decent medical care for current retirees and future ones -- which will be themselves at some point in the future, especially as medical/health advances continue to increase the average life span.   Contrary to popular myth and political ideology, these are two government programs that work and shouldn't be sacrificed for short-sighted immediate gains.

 

Most people don't realize that SS withholding ends at $110K. SS would be solvent if they raised the cap.

[BringBackOrton]

48 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I feel pro sports should be different especially the NFL. I believe the NFL pension is based on years played. 

So what’s the argument that Karlos Williams should get the same or higher pension than Fred Jackson?

[Don Otreply]

10 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

The NFL pension plan is one of the dumbest things I've seen. The rich get richer. If you've made a certain amount from the NFL you shouldn't receive a pension. Leave that money for players that need it why does someone like Tom Brady need a 6 figure pension plan? 

 

I'm sure it's like this in all pro sports but it makes zero sense to pay the wealthiest athletes a larger pension.

Greed begets greed... that is why capitalism needs to be regulated. 

 

[GG]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Most people don't realize that SS withholding ends at $110K. SS would be solvent if they raised the cap.

 

No it wouldn't be.

[Beast]

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

That's not the point. 

 

Not YOUR point.

[BuffaloBillies]

Someone start a gofundme. We all put $8.88 in there.

[KD in CA]

2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Most people don't realize that SS withholding ends at $110K. SS would be solvent if they raised the cap.

 

Because Congress wouldn't just take that extra money and use it to enrich themselves and fund other pet project bs?

 

That problem aside, SS is capped because the benefits are capped.  Seems reasonable.  Also, the cap increases significantly every year.  This year it's $138k.

[Reed83HOF]

 

[Victory Formation]

Oh man... Hate to hear this, it makes me sad.

[Troll Toll]

8 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

When my father retired in 1982, his pension from his employer of more than 20 years was all of $95 a month  My stepmother's pension from the same employer was $105 a month.  When my dad died, my stepmother's SS dropped and she lost that $95 a month, so her income dropped quite substantially.  Luckily, the house was paid for and they had had savings.   If both were alive today (dad would be 103 and stepmom would be 95) their combined pensions would still be $200 a month, no "inflation protection". 

 

Many, many older retirees with these kinds of outdated small pensions could not survive without Social Security and Medicare.  Younger people who are always whining about social security should make it their business to demand that their Congressmen and Senators protect Social Security and Medicare by seeing that both programs are adequately funded to insure secure income and decent medical care for current retirees and future ones -- which will be themselves at some point in the future, especially as medical/health advances continue to increase the average life span.   Contrary to popular myth and political ideology, these are two government programs that work and shouldn't be sacrificed for short-sighted immediate gains.

I’m 32 and fall on the conservative side of the spectrum, but I agree that Social Security is an absolutely essential program. If we had that money in our paychecks, businesses would just inflate their prices and we essentially wouldn’t get anything (only the illusion of having more money). It is money nobody can touch which is the ultimate counterweight to unchecked capitalism.

[KD in CA]

1 hour ago, Troll Toll said:

I’m 32 and fall on the conservative side of the spectrum, but I agree that Social Security is an absolutely essential program. If we had that money in our paychecks, businesses would just inflate their prices and we essentially wouldn’t get anything (only the illusion of having more money). It is money nobody can touch which is the ultimate counterweight to unchecked capitalism.

 

I don't think there are very many people who think we should eliminate SS.

 

I think there are a lot of people who think we shouldn't allow present day politicians to spend that money and give vague promises about how it'll all work out later.

[SoTier]

25 minutes ago, Troll Toll said:

I’m 32 and fall on the conservative side of the spectrum, but I agree that Social Security is an absolutely essential program. If we had that money in our paychecks, businesses would just inflate their prices and we essentially wouldn’t get anything (only the illusion of having more money). It is money nobody can touch which is the ultimate counterweight to unchecked capitalism.

 

It's not that prices would rise -- it's that most people -- especially those that are most likely to have the most need of SS in the future --  would simply fritter away that money away on immediate wants rather than saving it.  Moreover most people lack the financial discipline that's necessary to save for their retirement starting in their twenties with their first full time jobs, and too many people who do start saving early lack the financial knowledge and fortitude to invest wisely over the long term -- too many seem either unwilling to invest stocks or too willing to buy into "get rich quick" schemes.   A great many younger people prefer to buy a nicer house or a new car or take a pricey vacation rather than contribute to their 401ks, sometimes even when their employers offer matches.

[SoTier]

14 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

I don't think there are very many people who think we should eliminate SS.

 

I think there are a lot of people who think we shouldn't allow present day politicians to spend that money and give vague promises about how it'll all work out later.

 

I think those who want to eliminate SS are extreme right wing ideologues, only a few in politics but more found in academia and among political commentators.

 

I think that a lot of younger people (I'm 70, so lots of people are 'younger') seem to believe that SS is irrelevant to their futures because they're convinced that it won't be there for them when they retire.   I've even gotten this kind of passive, defeatist view from people in their early fifties.  Because they believe this, they don't make it clear to politicians that raiding the SS trust fund is NOT acceptable to them.  The people who do hold current politicians accountable for keeping SS fiscally sound are older voters.   Older voters vote regularly, and politicians, knowing that, are wary of upsetting us.  Younger voters can't bother to vote regularly, and politicians act accordingly.