there's an old hypothetical question that tends to show up in college level "ethics" classes:

Imagine you are at the switch of a railroad track, able to divert an oncoming train in one of two directions. The train is out of control and can't be stopped. Both sections of track run through congested areas with pedestrians on the track. No matter which direction you divert the train, people will die. However, the number of deaths is smaller in one direction than the other. What do you do? Most people opt to accept the smaller disaster in order to avoid the large one.


Social security is a train running out of control, and people are definitely going to get hurt. In my opinion the Terry Schiavo case set the stage for solving the social security mess. The court ruled that institutions get to decide when quality of life is diminished sufficiently to terminate life.


The next step will be a cleverly named "Compassionate Conclusions" or "Death with Dignity" law that makes assisted suicide and mercy killing not only legal but socially encouraged as being "the right thing to do"


That way the people who are left will be spared the oncoming train, and the huge wave of boomers who are about to suck up all the money in retirement benefits can be quietly disposed of. And the people doing it will feel GOOD about it!

Problem solved.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ey71h8ep047758h/AAC12jNM0Hz9Q8zsh5iDeqNHa?dl=0