US Deaths Expected To Outpace Births Within the Decade (thehill.com) 163
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: The number of deaths in the U.S. is expected to exceed the number of births by 2033, according to the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) annual 30-year projection of the U.S. population released on Monday. That estimation comes seven years earlier than what the CBO estimated in its 30-year population outlook released last year. At that time, in January 2024, the CBO projected deaths to outpace births by 2040. The CBO's 2025 report projected lower population growth over the next three decades than it did in its 2024 demographic outlook.
The CBO's population estimate for 2025 is 350 million, a slight increase from the 346 million it predicted for 2025 last year. But its projection for 2054 -- 372 million people -- has decreased since last year, when the CBO projected the population would be 383 million in 2054. The rate of growth projected over the next three decades -- 0.2 percent -- is significantly slower than the rate seen in the prior five decades, from 1975 to 2024, when the population grew at 0.9 percent. The growth rate over the next three decades is also expected to slow. From 2025 to 2035, the population is expected to grow an average of 0.4 percent a year. From 2036 to 2055, however, the growth rate is projected to be 0.1 percent. The CBO attributes this projected slow rate of growth to a variety of factors, including lower fertility, an aging population and lower immigration.
The CBO's population estimate for 2025 is 350 million, a slight increase from the 346 million it predicted for 2025 last year. But its projection for 2054 -- 372 million people -- has decreased since last year, when the CBO projected the population would be 383 million in 2054. The rate of growth projected over the next three decades -- 0.2 percent -- is significantly slower than the rate seen in the prior five decades, from 1975 to 2024, when the population grew at 0.9 percent. The growth rate over the next three decades is also expected to slow. From 2025 to 2035, the population is expected to grow an average of 0.4 percent a year. From 2036 to 2055, however, the growth rate is projected to be 0.1 percent. The CBO attributes this projected slow rate of growth to a variety of factors, including lower fertility, an aging population and lower immigration.
In the long term, good (Score:4, Insightful)
In the long term, this is good for the Earth, reducing the resources needed.
In the slightly shorter term, there will be some disruption to the economy as the population of working age becomes a lower fraction of the total population.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To your first point, not just good for the Earth, good for the individual. The Earth is finite, and with fewer of us each has a chance at a larger share of it.
To your second point... you are vastly underestimating what's coming.
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine having over double the number of deaths vs births each year [visualcapitalist.com]. Their goose is cooked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The apex of worker to nonworker ratio is a few years after the transition from high fertility to low fertility - at that point, you have a lot of young workers, but they are not in turn spending money on raising children - just consuming it. China has been moving through that apex the last couple decades and is now leaving it behind.
Re:In the long term, good (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't remember where I read it, but "Infinite expansion in a world if finite resources is an impossibility, and attempting it is a recipe for disaster."
If you want to "keep buying stuff to keep growing" forever you need to expand into outer space, where resources are effectively infinite.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's not necessarily bad. Some people freak out at that, they treat the economy as the ultimate priority. Except that by insisting and greater and greater growth it runs the risk of catastrophic declines (population collapse), rather than a gradual decline where mankind learns to adapt. We don't need to keep buying newer iphones each year to have a happy life either. Having more wealth doesn't mean people are happier. Also consider looking at places other than the rich countries, and the largest di
Straight out of the anti-aborition playbook (Score:5, Interesting)
Or the next person to be born could have been the one to solve climate change. If the assumption is that more people is always bad, then no wonder it's declining.
Ah, yes - by aborting this foetus, you would have aborted Beethoven (the Great Beethoven fallacy [rationalwiki.org]).
Equally, the next person to be born could be the one to stop climate change research and sack all atmospheric physicists and environmentalists.
Re: (Score:3)
> Equally, the next person to be born could be the one to stop climate change research
Excellent point, not that it would matter in that example. ALso the next person to be born could be the next Hitler, or the idiot who releases a deadly genetically enginered virus by not following the correct procedures when they got distracted.
Or even intentionally releasing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus that "rational" wiki seems to have been written by someone who is off their ADHD meds. The entire point could have been made so much more elegantly and succinctly - as you did than whoever wrote that wiki entry.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How many children have you adopted?
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, easiest way to lower the abortion rate is to reduce the need for it. Adoption, better access to birth control, better access to sex education, better resources for the poor, etc. Instead many anti abortion people are also very strongly opposed to birth control, access to birth control in schools, want an abstinence only sex ed, etc.
Had a very conservative and devout aunt who as a obstetric nurse. Her view was that birth control in schools were a good thing. This horrified her other relatives. But s
Re:Straight out of the anti-aborition playbook (Score:5, Funny)
Wow - wikipedia has really turned into a cesspit.
You think that's bad. You should check out Slashdot. There are people who confuse the concept of a wiki with wikipedia itself and then declare the latter a cesspit.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people I've talked to assume more people is always good, certainly the people in power think so and loudly say it. Why they think 8 billion isn't enough already I don't know.
Re: In the long term, good (Score:2)
Because fiat currency and entitlement programs are ponzi schemes.
Re: (Score:2)
> Or the next person to be born could have been the one to solve climate change
Thats a BS statement:
1. You cant stop climate change. Or solve it. You need to adapt.
2. That sort of thing rarely happens as humans tend to think like each other. Very few things can be attributed to an individual, such as Alan Turning with the fundementals on how computers can work, Einstein with the fundementals of space time. As long as you have the fundementals most humans can continue the work. The wheel and axle bei
Re: (Score:2)
Everything can be solved. The right renewable energy or carbon capture breakthrough will effectively solve climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1.5C is now in the rear view mirror. That's extremely concerning because 1.5C is established as the lower limit where a whole lot of extremely bad things (AMOC collapse, Thwaites collapse, clathrate blowouts) start entering the realm of possibility, with the odds an increasing function of further increase. At this point it is getting clearer and clearer that the Perpetual Growth Delusion is suicidal insanity that must be halted. Instead every y
Slow it to a stop [Re:In the long term, good] (Score:3)
Yes and no. The Carbondioxide from today's emissions will still be in the atmosphere and cause it to move to a new thermal equilibrium. ...
Turning to 100% Renewables will slow down the process of Global Warming, but it won't stop it for the next centuries.
I think you are using different definitions of the phrase "stop global warming."
Turning to 100% renewables, thus stopping our putting anthropogenic greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, will stop the increase of temperature due to the greenhouse effect.
It won't reverse the warming we already have. The question of removing the greenhouse gasses that we have already put into the atmosphere is a different thing.
It buys time nonetheless, and thus it's a goal worthwile to pursuit.
I agree with you on the "worthwhile goal" part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats a BS statement:
1. You cant stop climate change. Or solve it. You need to adapt.
You can adapt. For a while. But ultimately, we will have to solve the problem.
Yes, we can adapt to 1.5 C. And to the following rise of another 1.5 C. And plausibly to the next 1.5 C rise after that. But the problem with climate change is that if we keep putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, the temperature will continue to rise.
We need to adapt and also solve the problem.
To support your point: The Ultimate Resource (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"The Ultimate Resource is a 1981 book written by Julian Lincoln Simon challenging the notion that humanity was running out of natural resources. It was updated in 1996 as The Ultimate Resource 2. The overarching thesis on why there is no resource crisis is that as a particular resource becomes more scarce, its price rises. This price rise creates an incentive for people to discover more of the resource, ration and recycle it, and eventually, develop substitutes. The "ultimat
Re: (Score:3)
In the long term, all is good.
"But in the long term, we're all dead".
Re: (Score:2)
In the long term, all is good.
"But in the long term, we're all dead".
Can't avoid death and taxes -- though some try ...
Re: (Score:3)
I will beg to disagree.
The first part is completely wrong, avoiding paying taxes appears to be very easy for some. [archive.ph]
Amazingly, it is the very same group who is actively trying to prolong their lives, like that former AC/DC singer [wikipedia.org], not the Australian, but the Swede.
I have doubts that if they succeed, they'll share how cheaply with those of us who are not so sociopathic.
Re: In the long term, good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but YOLO.
Re: (Score:2)
No, when society collapses and most humans are gone, the humans left will toss away the ideas of career before childbirth and having one mate etc and they'll resume breeding like rabbits.
70,000 years ago there were only a few thousand humans on the entire planet, we survived that, even if they all were close relations making babies.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a sure thing that in the US wherever you see a pool of free money, you also see a financial lobby and its government extension that tries to wet its beak from the pool on behalf of the lobby.
But what does the failure of your government have to do with our Cro-Magnon forefathers breeding babies?
Re: In the long term, good (Score:2)
Nah, go watch some of the videos on the poor of India producing kids. 1/4th of their population is under 14, thatâ(TM)s about the size of the entire population of US. That is why they are talking about mass imports of Indians. India has a culture that lets the poor live, at a ramshackle level, while US will label them homeless and convict them if they lived in the same huts. When Indians take over the US this will be reversed, as will population decline, but the whole thing is pretty pointless.
Re: In the long term, good (Score:5, Informative)
Re: In the long term, good (Score:2)
Sounds like red herring to me. First, very healthy population growth:
https://www.macrotrends.net/gl... [macrotrends.net]
Then backing up first claim:
https://www.statista.com/topic... [statista.com]
In a very short term picture, the fertility rate may have plunged from pushing against absolute population limits, but with 300 million kids, they are poised for outward growth into shrinking areas.
Re: In the long term, good (Score:5, Informative)
Re: In the long term, good (Score:2)
How do you abort children? Like a school shooting?
Re: (Score:2)
No wonder you post AC, with opinions that stupid.
Re: In the long term, good (Score:4, Informative)
Did you even *look* at the chart you just posted? It shows India's growth rate steadily falling, and extrapolates that the population will start *shrinking* by 2065.
Re: (Score:2)
"That is why they are talking about mass imports of Indians."
Who is "they"? No one in the US is talking about that, except to incite fear. And they are suggesting "mass imports of Indians" because ¼ of the Indian population is under 14? Do you hear yourself?
"India has a culture that lets the poor live..."
LOL how terrible! We should fix that, right?
"When Indians take over the US this will be reversed, as will population decline, but the whole thing is pretty pointless."
Pointless because it doesn't e
Re: In the long term, good (Score:2)
Did you stop for even 2 seconds to think about the difference in climate between India and the United States?
Indians can "live in a shed" because the Thar Desert and Himalayas protect a large portion of the country from katabatic winds from the Tibetan Plateau.
In the US there is none of that. It's mostly freezing cold from November to April, which would kill all those people.
Or are you suggesting the US is going to build mass cheap housing??? Omg yeah I've heard ALL the talk about doing THAT.
Come back when
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, this is good. Though it comes too late.
In the slightly shorter term, there will be some disruption to the economy as the population of working age becomes a lower fraction of the total population.
Well, some already far too rich assholes will probably have to be dealt with and greed will need to be curbed. Some countries will manage and to well. Others, not so much. This is not a problem of productivity, but one of wealth distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
It's already becoming a major problem. It's also one of the reasons why some people want to take away your ability to control your fertility.
Re: (Score:2)
The population of USA is still expected to grow (345 to 421 millions) until 2100. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] If you want to see numbers going down, check China halving its population in the same period. The world still increases 8 to 10 billion with a large contribution from Africa.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. Holding to a birthrate of 2.1 ad infinitum would be the best possible outcome, especially considering how much effort and technology could be committed in the future towards making more-efficient use of land and resources. Earth could sustain much more biomass than what it sustains now, and we could render larger swathes of Earth habitable.
The last thing you want are your young to dwindle and fade away. Young people could (and should) be the drivers of innovation and expansion. Having less of them
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This planet isn't the only place in the neighborhood with resources. Without extra people, we won't be able to get them.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know why this would be modded troll, but it's spot on. It's a basic fact of demographics, putting all other issues to the side. We had a baby boom, and you hear lots of people bitching about them (bitching from all political sides). Now the baby boom curve is marching along to the end of the graph, therefore it's more likely than not that most deaths are in the baby boom demographics. More births than deaths is the normal thing for the last couple of centuries, but the baby boom is changing that.
Bu
Practical economic experiment time! (Score:2, Insightful)
Watch what happens when you have all your support systems dependent on each new generation being larger than the previous one, and you demonize immigrants, evict the current ones and then close the doors to new ones.
Oh, and at the same time you gut your youthful labor force, you raise prices on all goods by slapping tariffs on all that foreign manufacturing that's been keeping costs down and making your billionaires richer.
Don't worry, the billionaires will be just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry, the robots and the AI will take care of us all. I don't know how, but with Elona, Zuck and Sam giving the instructions, I'm sure it will be a beautiful new world.
Re: (Score:2)
Her AI only groks suffering, not playing games.
Re: (Score:3)
They solve this problem by banning abortion and birth control. You do understand that one of the pillars of white nationalism is winning the offspring battle, right? That is explicitly stated, that whites need to out reproduce the browns. Gotta brush up on the racism, particularly on the christian racism which was founded on out birthing the competition.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Watch what happens when you have all your support systems dependent on each new generation being larger than the previous one, and you demonize immigrants, evict the current ones and then close the doors to new ones. Oh, and at the same time you gut your youthful labor force, you raise prices on all goods by slapping tariffs on all that foreign manufacturing that's been keeping costs down and making your billionaires richer. Don't worry, the billionaires will be just fine.
Adding to the things the billionaire class and broligarchs don't care about, but effect the rest of us...
(a) Undocumented workers often pay taxes that help fund programs like Social Security — even if they (usually*) can't collect from them in the future and (b) lower wages means lower taxes paid -- income and into the social security fund.
* Under what circumstances may a non-citizen be eligible for SSI? [ssa.gov]
Side note: Eliminating taxes on tips would reduce money individual workers pay into SSI and c
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, broligarch is nice, I'm stealing it shamelessly.
Re:Practical economic experiment time! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When I was (much) younger....I worked in tipped positions in the restaurant industry.
I started as a bus boy....later as a waiter and bartender
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Practical economic experiment time! (Score:4, Insightful)
Only the illegal ones....the ones that broke the law crossing in illegally.
You might want to quit conflating the two....
With legal migrants, we can pick and choose the best ones that fit in the US and fill our needs.
We welcome those...especially the ones that come here specifically to become citizens, learn English, etc....
Re: (Score:3)
Conservatives act like the law is some natural moral code that is inherent to the fabric of reality, and not something they created themselves.
Making irregular border crossings illegal is a choice. Reducing the number of ways to legally cross is a choice. You engineered this situation by making legal immigration impossible for a lot of people.
So be honest. You decided who you don't want here. Tell us why you made it impossible for them to do legally, instead of hiding behind the law you made.
You reap what you sow (Score:4, Insightful)
When your economy has become so expensive that most folks are barely getting by,
then it should come as no surprise that adding kiddos into this equation is a recipie for
misery.
Folks like Musk are shocked that people aren't having more kids but they're completely
out of touch with the reality that the average persion simply doesn't have millions or
billions of dollars at their disposal.
Won't even go into the dismal American Education system, the insane costs of a college
degree and even the dismal prospects of future employment in the age of importing offshore
labor and, potentially, Artificial Intelligence.
Why would anyone want to raise a kiddo in American Society in this day and age ?
Re: (Score:3)
When my wife and I were starting out we could hardly afford food and rent. The idea of a child would have crippled our ability to build our careers and provide stability to the family. We would have been destitute forever. Then in our 30's we started having financial success. Our careers are building and having a child means backtracking on that success as one of us would need to give up a promising career. Now in our 40's we have enough money do accomplish anything we want. Our retirements are fully funded
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, exactly the same scenario here.
I am finally in a place where I would be able, financially, to have a child. But I am now in my upper 40's and set in my ways. Not to mention the unfairness to the child of having geriatric parents who will probably expire well before they are financially independent.
I do *sort of* regret not having children. But, I don't have to look very hard to see what a burden and a gamble they are.
My wife and I have made peace with it and will enjoy our retirement with all the resou
Re: (Score:2)
Also on workplace pregnant women an women that take maternity leave are in a growing number of cases subject to mobbing, and this
Re: (Score:2)
Housing Prices? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No. That is due to price gouging and computer algorithms maximizing market value without thought for the people it leaves with zero options. Just ask how people who work on Cape Cod are trying to find housing that allows them to get there in the first place. They don't. It's a serious problem for all the well off people who live there and depend on them.
When the private sector fails like this, government has to step up. We'd need to invest in state-subsidized, low-cost housing projects, and then legislate r
They can do better (Score:5, Funny)
A decade? If Robert F Kennedy Jr is the next US health secretary I think you can achieve that milestone within 4 years.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming a brain parasite can't keep our bodies moving long after we would be declared medically braindead. I don't know why you make that assumption, RFK Jr already showed it is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They can do better (Score:4, Funny)
A man suffering from gender dysphoria has been a US Secretary of Health for the last few years.
Yeah but an Anonymous Coward on Slashdot can't even tell the difference between US Secretary of Health and the Assistant to that role. With that basic mistake it seems counter intuitive to explain to you why suffering from gender dysphoria does not mean you are mentally incapable of thinking. I mean we can eventually do this, but I think we should start with something more on your level, like how to tie your own shoelaces.
Great (Score:2)
Nice to see.
This will especially be important for those that come after most of the aged have died off as in a world of A.I taking work most humans will have no work or income.
Fewer numbers equals more chance of a UBI scheme actually working.
Maybe (Score:2)
so what? (Score:2)
Total population does not matter as much as per capita productivity. The bigger problem is that the population is being replenished by low-skill low-productivity immigrants, legal and illegal, and the narrative pushed by this article is that we need even more of them.
Good (Score:2)
I hate to go all Thanos on you, but the planet has a population/resource usage problem, and US residents are massive, wasteful contributors to that. The primary contributors to our demise, in fact. Fewer people in the US means fewer privileged and thoughtless people producing carbon willy nilly, squandering resources, exporting out-of-control garbage to the less fortunate, and buying enormous trucks (which create all of the above) for no reason other than status.
As long as it's not firing squads, the world
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you being a "rightwing nutjob" have no reasons to complain. You won, you'll fix it. Right?
Re: Not good. Sign of pessimism (Score:2)
If we're looking at past policies and behavior, one party was literally fighting a war for the right to buy and sell people. They "moderated" at the point of a gun to merely demanding the right to keep those people as legally codified second-class citizens.
Three guesses which party that was. And the first two don't count.
Or we could refrain from ascribing the worst excesses of their ancestors to the actual people living today and try to have a serious conversation about today irl, not last season on handmai
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Three guesses which party that was. And the first two don't count."
It was the modern Republican Party that fought for slavery, and they still do. The name was different then, but that only fools idiots like you.
"Or we could refrain from ascribing the worst excesses of their ancestors to the actual people living today and try to have a serious conversation about today irl, not last season on handmaid's tale."
But why would we when they so loudly brag about their own bigotry? This is literally who you are,
Re: (Score:2)
RightWingNutJob is trying to make the point that, historically it was the Democrats who supported slavery, and it was the Republicans under Lincoln who abolished it.
That ignores the fact that the Democrats and the Republicans switched places ideologically in the 20th century [studentsofhistory.com] starting around the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. He is trying to create the fantasy, that, of course, his side are the good ones and, of course, it is all the fault of the other side.
Doing that, he is very much part of the problem and will not contribute to any solution. A divided society does not have a bright future and he is trying to make the division worse, whether he understands that or (probably) not.
Re: (Score:3)
The Donald Trump presidency is a distraction from the real problem, although one that the country and the world may not survive.
Nevertheless, the real threat is the corruption of the Republican Party behind the scenes, something that has been happening for decades. The primary goal has been the corruption of the judiciary, something that was partially achieved some time ago but solidified during the first Trump term.
Now that Trump has been reelected, it is the intention of the party to solidify corruption
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Do not forget that the same party ran candidates in this election cycle that openly advocated for a return to slavery, one of them even black!
Re: (Score:2)
Most modern archaeologists are pretty sure that the pyramids were not primarily built with slave labor, but by free (for a value of free, that may not be equivalent to modern notions of freedom, of course), paid workers. Similarly, slaves were not primarily used to build the great wall. There was a mix of labor that did include some compelled labor such as soldiers and convicts. The peasants working on the wall may also not have technically had a lot of choice (for example, many of them may have been workin
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they are currently officially a step away from the mineshaft shelter theory of Dr. Merkwurdickliebe, unofficially and IRL it is of course "grab them by the pussy, they'll let you do anything".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a few fixes to suggest, though they don't involve any "going back" to the bad old days. Rather, moving forward by applying our more culturally enlightened values more fully.
For starters, the laws and norms around marriage need to be updated. A lot remains that was cooked up back when "women were property" as you mentioned. Now that marriage is truly a union of equals, it needs to legally fit such equality. And, in particular, it needs to be a much safer thing to do than it is now, financially.
As
Re: (Score:3)
We need to remove the contribution cap on social security as well as the 5 year limit on AFDC (Thanks Clinton you rapey DINO fuck) before we eliminate spousal support and child support.
There are a lot of frankly sexist items written into the law which favor women in ways which are outdated, though. AFAICT they exist for the benefit of the state. Men have higher earning potential so keep them out working instead of caring for children, because they produce more tax revenue.
My big problem with marriage is ali
Re: (Score:2)
I generally agree with you.
I should point out that much of this is the case in some areas. I'm in Ontario, Canada and boy was I relieved that the default custody was 50/50. I also purposefully chose a working woman as a wife. Not because I wanted her money. It was more so that in the case of divorce (which happened), there isn't a huge financial hit.
About the only addition I would make is that when couples separate the children must stay in the area of the marital home. That wasn't a problem in my case. How
Re: (Score:2)
"They don't state it like that..."
Oh yes they do. And don't forget child labor.
It's a bit old at this point, but that famous "liberal" Jordan Peterson openly advocated "forced monogamy", where women would be forced to marry men not of their own choosing. JP's claim is that modern society's problem is that women choose their own mates, thus victimizing men. The solution obviously must be that men force women into relationships they don't want in order to bear children for incels. A literal Jordan Peterso
Re: (Score:3)
"People have kids when they're optimistic about the future."
True.
"People not having kids is a vote of no confidence in society and its structures and institutions."
False.
"Want people to have kids? Refrain from giving them ample reason to doubt the sanity and good judgment of the self-proclaimed adults in the room."
False. Make them poor. Poor people have higher birthrates, developing nations have higher birthrates. Wealthy nations have lower birth rates. Enslave the population and make them poor, then de
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"This is why the Biden administration just let a bunch of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers across the border."
Oh, they just did? When was that? Why did the Trump administration let a bunch of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers across the border? That's what we all want to know. Please tell us, since you clearly have inside information.
"You can forget social security, it's a giant ponzi scheme and without more people willing to pay into the system, social security is cooked."
SS is not a "giant po
Re:because.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The SS system would be just fine if they would reform the payments into it to be based on ALL income and not just the first $!80K or so from an employer. Of course the right wingniks will whine, but they whine about everything; it gets tiring but they never seem to lack things to whine about.
SS is what keeps Grandma and Grandpa Kettle from moving in with you. Medicare pays their health expenses, at least up to a point. If you cannot support your old agers, what kind of society do you have? Ans: a Christian Society where it is a sin to be poor. "Say, why are you living in the street? Don't you know that is illegal? Quick, fetch me my Taser, I'll learn'im".
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing we have to do to fix Social Security for the foreseeable future is remove the contribution cap, which is a handout to those among us who least need one.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you forget your meds again this morning?