I'd rather have the rich give 1.3% which would be MILLIONS of dollars than the poor give 3.2% which is only thousands.

Well yeah...they spent their retirement in their 20's and 30's and quite literally mortgaged their future for the here and now.  This is not news to anybody intelligent.

You want to know why coffee went up so much?  Because even broke unemployed citizens start their day with a cup of joe.

So Yahoo pulled someone in from a strictly observed religious high holy day into a bar serving alcohol and attempted to fire him on the spot in a highly public place to avoid a contractual obligation?  I can't honestly think of a single defensive argument for what happened.

social security was never ment to be a 'retirement plan' but insurance that when you're feeble you won't end up on the street in the middle of Feb.  People who think it's a 'retirement plan' are in for a rude awakening.

If you saved for retirement then let them spend their money as they please.  If you spent yourself into the poor house then you deserve nothing but that...the poor house.  I'm not paying for your retirement because you failed to plan and save and opted to spend like a drunken sailor.

So what's the benefit of saving for retirement if, when we get there, uncle sam taxes us into poverty?  Might as well spend it all now while we can.

It's sad that a truly NON-PARTISAN news agency doesn't exist anymore.

It's called an aggressive takeover.  When you hold 51% of the stock, you effectively own the company.  He has the drive and the $$ to do it if he wants.