Why were the 70s such a tacky decade?

[ChiTownScion]

Exceeded only by his commanding officer at the Siege of the Anacostia Flats.

I wasn't even considering Dugout Doug, but he was a pompous gasbag with more show than go... although his father Arthur was a legitimate hero at Missionary Ridge.

No. 1 in my book for overrated American generals would have to be Thomas Jonathan Jackson.

One of my most passionate convictions concerning the Late Unpleasantness is not the North vs. South argument, but that of East vs. West. The history of the Confederacy after the war from the view of the former Confederates was largely recorded through the efforts of the Southern Historical Society, influenced mainly by Jubal Early and other Army of Northern Virginia veterans. They laid the foundation for later Lost Cause historians such as Douglas Southall Freeman, and the result was the deification of the trinity of Lee, Jackson, and Stuart. Not to dismiss the effectiveness and formidability of the ANV, but my opinion is that the greatest asset of that army was its middle level commanders- the regimental majors, lt. colonels, and colonels--- not the top brass.

Lost in all of this were the Confederate armies of the west. They had to fight a lot harder, with far less logistical support, over a far greater area, over a far more difficult terrain, with far less maintained interior lines, than Jackson ever experienced in the Shenandoah Valley in 1862. It galls me to no end that a truly stellar division commander like Patrick Ronayne Cleburne was never given the support and recognition that he deserved from his own government in Richmond, but his lack of recognition in most history texts is even more shameful.

I suppose that the moral of all of this is that how we perceive history is largely determined by those we rely upon as its recorders. And that applies to the Era as much as what transpired in the United States 1861-1865.

 

[sheeplady]

My sweet wife began collecting her Social Security at age 62, not by choice but because she can not find a full time job. She currently is working as a freelance writer for 4 magazines and a weekly newspaper and is putting in more hours a week than she would at a full time job, but she is viewed as a contractor and is making far below the amount that would cut her Social Security payments. It is a band aid, but one that is keeping us afloat. We have cut as many expenses as we can, and I am still working full time just to have insurance. I fear that if I can, I will keep working full time until I can no longer work and start collecting my Social Security at age 67 (just about 4 1/2 years from now). Most of my working career I paid the maximum into the Social Security fund and I know that I will never get back what I put in. I can take comfort though that my wife is getting her share out. No matter what the laws say about not viewing age as a factor in hiring, 60+ year old workers cannot get the jobs for we are qualified to do.

I wasn't sure if you were aware of this or not; not many people are. But when you start collecting your social security, your wife will qualify to collect either her "earned" social security or an amount equal to half of yours, whichever is greater. In other words, you will receive an amount equal to 100% of what you qualify for and she will receive an additional 50%; so the two of you will receive 150%. She will get this as long as you had been legally married for at least 10 years before you start collecting, even in the case of divorce before you begin collecting. She will still qualify to collect the 50% after your death.


This is why it is a good idea to stay in a marriage (if safe and agreeable) for a few more months if it means that you can collect each other's social security when you get older. I know a couple who decided to get divorced after 9 years of marriage, but since the wife had taken 7 years off to raise their 3 children, a lawyer advised them to wait until they had been married for 10 years so that the woman would not be punished for taking those years off. Since it was a very courteous divorce, they stayed legally married for the extra year.

 

[stevew443]

I wasn't sure if you were aware of this or not; not many people are. But when you start collecting your social security, your wife will qualify to collect either her "earned" social security or an amount equal to half of yours, whichever is greater. In other words, you will receive an amount equal to 100% of what you qualify for and she will receive an additional 50%; so the two of you will receive 150%. She will get this as long as you had been legally married for at least 10 years before you start collecting, even in the case of divorce before you begin collecting. She will still qualify to collect the 50% after your death.


This is why it is a good idea to stay in a marriage (if safe and agreeable) for a few more months if it means that you can collect each other's social security when you get older. I know a couple who decided to get divorced after 9 years of marriage, but since the wife had taken 7 years off to raise their 3 children, a lawyer advised them to wait until they had been married for 10 years so that the woman would not be punished for taking those years off. Since it was a very courteous divorce, they stayed legally married for the extra year.

I was somewhat aware of that, and it may be a big help once I begin collecting in 2019. We will have no problem with the marriage part since we celebrate our 41st anniversary this May 10. I cannot believe that anyone could put up with me for that long.

 

[LizzieMaine]

After watching what my mother's gone thru over the last fifteen years or so, I'm going to hold out to collect mine till I'm 70, if I live and can hold a job that long. She started drawing hers at 62 out of necessity, because her job didn't pay enough, and now that she's been forced by health to retire, she's essentially broke. She's got just enough money to keep paying what she owes on the house, and feed herself, but that's it. All that's keeping her going now is tenacity.

My own situation isn't helped by the fact that I spent the entire year of 1985 working for a radio station owned by a man who turned out to be an embezzler. He withheld my Social Security payments for that entire year but never sent them in or documented me as an employee -- so when I get my annual summary of SS earnings, 1985 shows as a big fat zero. I never knew about this until that summary started showing up in my mail years later, and by then he'd been dead for a long time. Which is good, I guess, because I would have killed him myself if I could have.

 

[sheeplady]

After watching what my mother's gone thru over the last fifteen years or so, I'm going to hold out to collect mine till I'm 70, if I live and can hold a job that long. She started drawing hers at 62 out of necessity, because her job didn't pay enough, and now that she's been forced by health to retire, she's essentially broke. She's got just enough money to keep paying what she owes on the house, and feed herself, but that's it. All that's keeping her going now is tenacity.

My own situation isn't helped by the fact that I spent the entire year of 1985 working for a radio station owned by a man who turned out to be an embezzler. He withheld my Social Security payments for that entire year but never sent them in or documented me as an employee -- so when I get my annual summary of SS earnings, 1985 shows as a big fat zero. I never knew about this until that summary started showing up in my mail years later, and by then he'd been dead for a long time. Which is good, I guess, because I would have killed him myself if I could have.

You can actually have several "freebie" zeros on your social security account, which is supposed to account for education, child raising, and job loss. You need to work at least 30 paying-in years, but what I am reading now is it should be 35. It has been a long time since my Basics to Gerontology course, so my memory is a bit fuzzy.

But I get where the situation hurts, as that was an earning year, and likely a good one to enter into those 35 years.

I am effectively screwed by having worked full time as a university student; students on graduate scholarship do not pay into SS. (I tried, and failed, to get the university to pay in SS; but it was made a law in the 1980s that full time students on a graduate assistantship do not pay SS taxes. I got told that there was absolutely no way for me to do it.) Thankfully I will hopefully have enough earning years ahead of me to make up for it. I am more concerned about leaving my children a death benefit than anything else- at this point they don't qualify for anything because I have 8 years of zeros, despite working a full teaching load each of those years and being willing to pay into SS.

Turns out that the government doesn't always want your money when you offer it.

 

[HudsonHawk]

It also depends somewhat on where you live in the U.S.. Receiving $830-$1,000 a month is better that a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but it's far from being enough to live on if you live in one of the more expensive cost-of-living states like California where it wouldn't even cover the rent or most mortgages, not to mention whatever other common monthly payments a person might have to make. Yes, it will buy enough food to sustain a person month-to-month, but they'll likely be eating that food in their split-level cardboard shack under the freeway overpass.

It's not supposed to be enough to live on. It's a supplement to keep folks from falling through the cracks.

 

[SGTROCK]

I would be happy just to get back what I put in to SSI at this point

 

[HudsonHawk]

I would be happy just to get back what I put in to SSI at this point

Without significant changes to the system, if you're currently under the age of 60, you won't. If you're under the age of 50, it's likely you won't get any of it back.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I would be happy just to get back what I put in to SSI at this point

I once did the math and discovered that one would have to live to the age of 237 to get back everything they'd ever put into Social Security.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I once did the math and discovered that one would have to live to the age of 237 to get back everything they'd ever put into Social Security.

Right now, if you contributed the maximum for 40 years, and collected $800/month, you'd collect everything you contributed in about 20 years.

 

[jamespowers]

Right now, if you contributed the maximum for 40 years, and collected $800/month, you'd collect everything you contributed in about 20 years.

Lets not be Polly Annish about this. If you were to take the same amount of money you forcibly "contribute" and invest in conservative investments, not only will you make more money monthly but you will also still have the principle in case you need it in an emergency. That 20 year stuff doesn't account for the greatest thing in all of America---compound interest. Even taking a small part of the equation such as Medicare Hospitalization---
The average income earner now pays about $1,000 annual Medicare payroll tax. Investment of that small annual sum--compounded over 40 years at 7%--would produce an individual capital accumulation of $200,000. For someone in the 15% income-tax bracket, that accumulation----leaving the capital intact---would produce an after tax retirement income four times as much as the average Medicare per capita hospitalization expenditure of $3,000-----and you would still have the $200,000 principle.
Extrapolate what they nail you for every year in payroll tax and do the calculations for even 35 years. The annual investment of 15.3% of earnings over a working life would produce a nation of 100 million millionaires-----who would be making FAR more than they do on social security. That is nearly one third of the population being FAR better off than they are today.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Lets not be Polly Annish about this. If you were to take the same amount of money you forcibly "contribute" and invest in conservative investments, not only will you make more money monthly but you will also still have the principle in case you need it in an emergency. ]

I'm not arguing Social Security is a good investment.

Furthermore, the vast majority of people would not invest one dime of that money.

 

[jamespowers]

I'm not arguing Social Security is a good investment.

Furthermore, the vast majority of people would not invest one dime of that money.

I am glad you have such faith in your fellow man. lol lol lol

 

[sheeplady]

Lets not be Polly Annish about this. If you were to take the same amount of money you forcibly "contribute" and invest in conservative investments, not only will you make more money monthly but you will also still have the principle in case you need it in an emergency. That 20 year stuff doesn't account for the greatest thing in all of America---compound interest. Even taking a small part of the equation such as Medicare Hospitalization---
The average income earner now pays about $1,000 annual Medicare payroll tax. Investment of that small annual sum--compounded over 40 years at 7%--would produce an individual capital accumulation of $200,000. For someone in the 15% income-tax bracket, that accumulation----leaving the capital intact---would produce an after tax retirement income four times as much as the average Medicare per capita hospitalization expenditure of $3,000-----and you would still have the $200,000 principle.
Extrapolate what they nail you for every year in payroll tax and do the calculations for even 35 years. The annual investment of 15.3% of earnings over a working life would produce a nation of 100 million millionaires-----who would be making FAR more than they do on social security. That is nearly one third of the population being FAR better off than they are today.

Yeah, and those figures work really well until you get a disease like cancer; the treatment of which is far from $3,000. If you lose the cancer lottery, you win if you paid for insurance or Medicare.

 

[jamespowers]

Yeah, and those figures work really well until you get a disease like cancer; the treatment of which is far from $3,000. If you lose the cancer lottery, you win if you paid for insurance or Medicare.

That is an extraordinry situation---one which separate insurance would take care of and still preserve your principle.
Let's also remember that there are people out there who don't qualify for Medicare or die before they get old enough to get one thin dime---as was the case with my parents. Neither of them worked for private industry long enough to get either social security or medicare. They got ripped off for working for nearly ten years each without getting a single thing from either program.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I love both All in the Family and Barney Miller. I like the fact that they seem realistic compared to many of the "flawless" shows on TV prior.
Archie and Edith's home wasn't perfect; there was mismatched furniture, outdated items in the house, etc. It didn't come off as a show that was lying to you.

That said, there were some exceptionally great movies in the seventies if you can look beyond the fashions. "Network" is one of my top five favorite pictures, and there were plenty of others of similar high quality. And I'd rather watch "All In The Family" or "Barney Miller" than just about any TV show out of the sixties. (And I also loved the Third Doctor, capes and ruffles nonwithstanding.)

I only skimmed this thread, but I think a lot of the tacky of the seventies was just so many fashions coming to extreme ends of the pendulum swing at once. Everything becoming an exaggeration of itself.

 

[jamespowers]

I love both All in the Family and Barney Miller. I like the fact that they seem realistic compared to many of the "flawless" shows on TV prior.
Archie and Edith's home wasn't perfect; there was mismatched furniture, outdated items in the house, etc. It didn't come off as a show that was lying to you.



I only skimmed this thread, but I think a lot of the tacky of the seventies was just so many fashions coming to extreme ends of the pendulum swing at once. Everything becoming an exaggeration of itself.

More like The Pit and the Pendulum. Fortunately it ended but the memories of the torture still linger.....

 

[Dennis Young]

I mean in literally every area, the '70s were hideous. Clothes, hairstyles, morals, the mainstream pop was horrid.
What was up with that decade?

Lol! Well...yeah. Course we didn't think it as tacky at the time. But yeah, I look back at my own picture of the era and think "get a haircut ya hippie!".

 

[Stearmen]

Several great things about the 70s. We had three maybe four channels on the TV, no computers, no internet, no cell phones and guess what, we were happy! What happened?

 

[Zombie_61]

Several great things about the 70s. We had three maybe four channels on the TV, no computers, no internet, no cell phones and guess what, we were happy! What happened?

Well, for starters we got cable TV, computers, Internet, and cell phones. lol