It's included to show what a difference good choices and responsible living makes. It prolongs your ability to be independent, and thus have no need of support from your children until you're very incapacitated. I'm sure you know of examples of older people who made bad choices (with their health and their money) and didn't end up in a good place at retirement.
Nonsense with no basis in fact. I specifically stated that typically the cause of a child turning out badly is not even identifiable. One does one's best as a parent, but sometimes what works well for one child doesn't for another, and one would have to be psychic to know that ahead of time. Millions of parents who take your sort of nonsense to heart are baffled as to why one of their children turned out badly when the others turned out well. It's nothing they did. The genetic dice just came up snake-eyes. It happens.
This and many more problems, if not all, would be solvable if we in fact had a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". Why don't we go for that?
You also answered me with an identical post here: Obesity rates have been going up. So, regarding this government you want, How are we going to get it? What issue(s?) are you hoping for? If you felt the need to talk to me in two places, then I think you want to say something. Why don't we skip going 'round about the bush and just get right to your point?
Peer -reviewed research has determined that in the USA, when there is a conflict between policy that the majority want and policy the rich want, the rich get the policy they want almost 100% of the time.
For starters, take 1% of the money the US military spends "defending democracy" in other countries and use it to defend democracy in the USA by publicly funding political campaigns.
Why are you hostile? The first thing would be for people like you to see the importance and value of it, and then vote for candidates to bring it about. Are you onboard?
I didn't mean to sound hostile, just neutral. I wanted to see if you had a specific plan in mind for getting a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." Because it doesn't appear that you have a plan and policies in mind. You're providing a platitude rather than a real plan (I'm not being hostile by the way, I'm just looking for specifics.)
If I presented a plan, that would be a proposal for "government of Kode, by Kode, for Kode". Right? I mean the whole concept of democracy or government of, by, and for the people, is that THE PEOPLE decide, ... not me. So the question is "are you onboard for government of, by, and for the people?"
The country is split down the middle on just being democrats or republicans. We (the people) are never going to agree on policy for all.
You are resisting any opportunity to say you're all for the people. Both parties have people who are all in for government OBF the people. And both parties have people who are against it because of wanting corporations to be in charge, or Republicans only in charge, or whites only in charge, or the church only to be in charge, or any number of other excuses to betray the people in general for advantages for their own group. Hence your argument in favor of division is not relevant. Are you in favor of government of, by, and for the people or not?
More platitudes. I'm not going to blindly join anything until it's spelled out in words and also that I agree with it. I think you have an agenda and those words have a special meeting to you and only you, and sorry but I don't have a dictionary or thesaurus defining your exclusive words.
Oh, and as for government listening to us, I must say, I'm a Democrat and I had a very good time reaching out to the Democrats when they were in power, like Obama when he was in office. I don't agree with all the policy decisions but I always felt that I was being heard by my government.
The elderly have had a lifetime to save and plan for their old age. Both financially, and in terms of their family support networks.
<sigh> "Go out and get a job, save up some money, and buy some slaves of your own. Problem solved!" I've spent enough time in partisan political trenches to know how silly such exhortations are.
Sure thing, if that's the way you want to do it. Not sure you'll want to be buying slaves though, since slavery is illegal. You may be better off using the people power of voluntary mutual benefit ... buyers/sellers, etc.
So, when it was legal, it was not problematic, just the way some people wanted to do it? Like the voluntary mutual benefit to the buyer and seller of a slave. Check.
It's not "platitudes". If you're not willing to say you prefer government that is actually of the people, by the people, and for the people, you are not only saying you stand against the Abe Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but that you actually feel more "safe" and in favor of the alternative. This question is much too easy to answer without equivocation unless you are ashamed of your real sentiments about it.