The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Some Boomer Is Finally Going to Get a Chance Now That Judge Weinstein, 98, Is Retiring
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A recurrent theme here at iSteve lately is how us poor Baby Boomers are being denied our chances in life by pre-Boomers refusing to do the right thing and have fatal heart attacks at 66 like they used to. So, we are seeing 89 year old Clint Eastwood direct movies (pretty well, but still…) and the like. For example, from the New York Times:

A Legal Lion Lays Down His Gavel With a Ruling of ‘Love, Not Hate’

After 53 years as a federal judge in Brooklyn, Jack B. Weinstein is retiring. He still has a stubborn belief in the American future.

By Alan Feuer
Feb. 17, 2020, 12:15 p.m. ET

For more than half a century, Judge Jack B. Weinstein was the quintessential activist jurist, using his longtime perch on the federal bench in Brooklyn to champion causes like gun control and school desegregation. In his career — one of the longest in American legal history — he carved out a niche as both a liberal hero and, not surprisingly, a bane for conservatives.

Last week, at age 98, Judge Weinstein announced his retirement, saying he no longer had the stamina to perform his daily duties.

Okay, age 98 … This being the New York Times, they left that astounding number out of the headline, the subhead, and the first paragraph, presumably on the grounds that it is too interesting. New York Times subscribers do not subscribe to read interesting news.

… So what will you do now?

I would like to take a master’s degree in history. I’m particularly interested in Jim Crowism — how African-Americans earned equality and then had it taken from them. I have a son who is a physician who just retired and he and I are going to be studying that together. How did this great victory that was won in the Civil War get snatched away by a combination of southern slave owners and northerners who bought cheap cotton? The artifacts of which are still present to a large degree in places like New York where, even after Brown v. Board of Education, there remains essentially a segregated school system.

 
Hide 66 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Weinstein. For a moment there I was hoping Ginsburg.

    African-Americans earned equality

    Right? Remember that part?

  2. CCZ says:

    I guess that Judge Weinstein and son will be voting for Mike.

    Statement From Mike Bloomberg on Black History Month:

    “As we begin Black History Month this year, we must confront an uncomfortable truth that we have avoided for far too long: For hundreds of years, Black Americans were systematically robbed, exploited, and excluded from economic opportunity — not only through slavery, but through segregation, Jim Crow, and redlining. That legacy is still with us, and we can see it in a disturbing statistic: the typical Black family owns only one-tenth the wealth of a typical white family.”

    “Black history is American history, and we have much to celebrate this month, but we also have many wrongs to right. During this year’s holiday weekend celebrating Dr. King, I went to Tulsa, Oklahoma, to announce a comprehensive and ambitious plan for tackling economic inequality head on. We call it the Greenwood Initiative, in honor of the prosperous Black community in Tulsa that was destroyed by a racist white mob in 1921. Our Greenwood plan will help one million Black families buy a home, double the number of Black-owned businesses, and help Black families triple their wealth over the next decade.”

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
  3. Anytime the media calls someone a “lion” it means he’s a hack for liberals.

    I’m particularly interested in Jim Crowism — how African-Americans earned equality and then had it taken from them.

    The only chance we have is to end forced integration/assimilation. America as a White majority country is dead meat. Whites have to be allowed to have their own spaces or we go the way of ancient India after the White conquerers there got subsumed by the mass Brown population. You see the results.

  4. Anon[189] • Disclaimer says:

    Guarantee you Jack Weinstien’s children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren go to private schools.

    Competition: ruining the other guy’s kid’s education, so your kids have an advantage.

    • Agree: Moses
  5. It was one of the themes in Lionel Shriver’s near-future-science-fiction/prepper novel The Mandibles that the Boomers were the generation of people that were in denial about getting old. They would go out for wilderness expeditions in their ’70s and ’80s and want to be called by their first names rather than Grandpa and Grandma.

    I’m glad that this judge found something else to do. I wish he’d found something else to do 50 years ago!

    • Agree: Kronos
    • Replies: @Kronos
  6. songbird says:

    Brooklyn is being gentrified. They should both take a few African-American boarders into their apartments and cut them a deal on rent.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  7. …to champion causes like gun control…

    …the opposite of civil rights. The great gaping hole in leftist thought. Because they know exactly what their people are like.

    I’m particularly interested in Jim Crowism…

    You’ve certainly lived through most of it.

    How did this great victory that was won in the Civil War get snatched away by a combination of southern slave owners and northerners who bought cheap cotton?

    Don’t leave out the gun control judges! You deserve credit, too!

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  8. @songbird

    Isn’t that just it, though? Each and every one of these world-class virtue-signalers has a golden opportunity each and every day to actually put his money where his mouth is, and somehow not a one of them ever does.

  9. black sea says:

    Somehow I don’t think that New York’s segregated schools have much to do with the pursuit of cheap cotton.

  10. Ed says:

    So Trump gets another appointee to the federal courts, this time replacing a longtime activist liberal in NY, great news.

  11. A recurrent theme here at iSteve lately is how us poor Baby Boomers are being denied our chances in life by pre-Boomers refusing to do the right thing and have fatal heart attacks at 66 like they used to.

    Ask GenX how we feel about the logjam.

    Oh wait, we don’t exist. Never have, never will.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
  12. bomag says:

    I would like to take a master’s degree in history.

    So he is still motivated by titles and approval; kind-of unserious for a ninety-eight year old.

    How did this great victory that was won in the Civil War get snatched away…

    He has a lot to learn.

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
  13. the typical Black family owns only one-tenth the wealth of a typical white family.”

    Wow. That means they only have about one-hundredth of the wealth of the typical jewish family. What a travesty!

    • LOL: Laurence Whelk
    • Replies: @International Jew
  14. I would like to take a master’s degree in history.

    The education should have occurred before the 53 years of misjudging. But there’s no point in learning what the eyes are unwilling to see and the ears are unwilling to hear.

  15. Some Boomer Is Finally Going to Get a Chance Now That Judge Weinstein, 98, Is Retiring

    My guess is they’ll skip down to a Gen X’er – you want someone who can keep the seat warm for another half century.

    I do wish more people 60+ would just retire for godsake. Boomers are already past due. If you got passed over, live with it gracefully. Step aside, this hanging on is unseemly.

  16. Does Judge Weinstein understand that the Democratic party has always been the party of slavery and Jim Crow?

  17. black sea says:
    @Laurence Whelk

    I do wish more people 60+ would just retire for godsake.

    The Swiss have a system of phased retirement that the US would do well to consider. I don’t know the details, but I did chat with a Swiss banker who, having reached his mid-50s, was released from work every Friday afternoon. Soon, it would be every Friday, and then progress stage-by-stage to the point of full retirement.

    I don’t know how widespread this system is in Switzerland, but it offers a lot of advantages, and does clear space for younger talent and energy, since one is unlikely to hold a key position while working three days a week.

  18. J.Ross says:

    Is this the ultimate Kafkaesque Jewish father cruelty? “I’m going to take your class with you, you moron.”

  19. eee says:

    And younger tennis players cannot unseat the three old tennis gods who should have worn out by now.

    • LOL: Twodees Partain
  20. Thomas says:

    Some Boomer Is Finally Going to Get a Chance Now That Judge Weinstein, 98, Is Retiring

    No, the Boomers are going to be passed over. A President wants young judges for lifetime appointments if he wants to leave his mark on the courts, and the median age of Trump’s judicial picks is 49. It’s like they said about the Communists in China in the 1980s: “the 80-year-olds are calling meetings of 70-year-olds to decide which 60-year-olds should retire.”

  21. @RichardTaylor

    Anytime the media calls someone a “lion” it means he’s a hack for liberals.

    And then there’s Tom Wolfe’s “lion of Dunning Sponget & Leach”.

  22. @Hypnotoad666

    These calculations never account for the actuarial value of government pensions. A private sector employee retiring at 65 with a $1 million nest egg is poorer than a policeman retiring with zero savings but a pension equal to 90% his last paycheck (as is standard in California).

    • Replies: @Laurence Whelk
  23. Exactly, leaving out pensions makes net worth calculations extremely misleading, at best, for the bottom 98%.

  24. “…how African-Americans earned equality and then had it taken from them.”

    This guy somehow manages to be breathtakingly wrong three different times, in three different ways, in a single sentence.

    And he was a judge for over fifty years.

    Ladies and gentlemen, may I present: the “Jewish Century.”

    • Agree: Twodees Partain
    • Thanks: Bill Jones
  25. @CCZ

    “….triple their wealth over the next decade.”
    By selling out to White Gentrifiers, but hey, Mike can’t remember every little detail.

  26. @The Wild Geese Howard

    Like the SNL skit says, “we just sit back and watch it all burn.”

  27. @International Jew

    A private sector employee retiring at 65 with a $1 million nest egg is poorer than a policeman retiring with zero savings but a pension equal to 90% his last paycheck (as is standard in California).

    I get what you’re saying, I think. I’m a US military retiree in my mid 50s and my military retirement pay alone is roughly equivalent to an interest payout on a couple million dollars nest egg. Only I didn’t have to save the nest egg, it’s Uncle Sam’s egg. I just had to go where they told me to go for 27 years and be a threat to those they wanted threatened. I’m only hoping The Empire manages to hold it together long enough for the promise they made to me and my family to be kept. I made other modest investments, and I’m fortunately in a position where I don’t have to be a career obstacle in some Millennial or Gen-Zer’s path. I’m a happily retired Gen-X-er.

    • Replies: @gary
  28. 98 years old and still thinks he lives in the ghetto like his grandfather did? I get the idea you don’t learn much past 25-30, but still.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  29. … he no longer had the stamina to perform his daily duties.

    How much stamina does it take to gum an anti-American legal opinion written by one’s clerks and swing a gavel to stifle any further debate? Even RBG has a harder job because she has to play nicely with the team and can’t unilaterally legislate from the bench.

  30. This guy will go to his grave as clueless as he has been his entire life. It’s not the matter of stupidity, or immorality. Many people are just sincerely delusional about life. There is no more to it.

    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
  31. @Redneck farmer

    “you don’t learn much past 25-30”

    I was a lefty liberal til 40. The Tony Blair administration converted me (and probably having young children too).

    Cognitive dissonance is real. I was a lefty liberal, but I still knew damn well I wasn’t going to raise kids in London.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Desiderius
  32. Anonymous[204] • Disclaimer says:

    Daily Mail would have included his age, and the value of his house too.

  33. Actually, the way it works is that the spot opened up years ago when Weinstein went on senior status. He was replaced by John Gleeson, who was appointed by Clinton.

  34. @Laurence Whelk

    “Step aside, this hanging on is unseemly.”

    “I’ll give up my Senate seat when you can pry my cold dead ass off of it.”
    – John McCain

  35. gary says:
    @Laurence Whelk

    Cut the smug self-fellatio out. As Nutty-Yahoo aka Israeli prime minister says when we’re

    done with America, it will blow away in the wind. Note desperate actions of the Fed in printing

    trillions of dollars trying to the USS Titanic from sinking. Enjoy what little time you have to

    enjoy your “fat pension.”

    • Agree: BB753
  36. @Laurence Whelk

    I do wish more people 60+ would just retire for godsake. Boomers are already past due.

    Well, if I take a more sympathetic perspective, I imagine there are significant numbers of people in that cohort who believe they simply can’t afford to retire.

    In those cases, hanging on to pay the bills is they best thing they can do for themselves.

    • Replies: @International Jew
  37. @Laurence Whelk

    Larry, There are (roughly) 2 groups of 60+ people working in the US. On the one hand, you have the vast majority who cannot really afford to be without the income or employer provided subsidy for health “insurance”. These folks would leave off work in a minute, but cannot really afford to. When they do stop, it will mean a fast step down in lifestyle as meager savings are exhausted. The lucky ones have some kids still talking to them. The others (thru a few divorces, perhaps) will be quietly desperate. They will work until they break down.

    The second group is the crew that does not need the money, and arenot at all physically taxed by the demands of their occupation. They mostly manage and analyze, and (mostly) can fire people who don’t support them, they are the Boss, so to speak, or (one way or another) tenure protected. I read about a guy GM auto employee (UAW) near 80 yo who is working on about 55 years. He bumped all the way up to some skate “trainer” position a long, long way from vehicle assembly. Why would he quit? He does not work hard, makes great money, has all the vacation and sick time he wants. He gets to see friends at work each day, and he really does not have to DO anything very taxing or important. The old Big Three are not where you find tens of thousands of these folks, but the example is good. Except for having to be in a place for a few hours each day, what’s not to like?? They will work until they are carried out.

    The real dispute in the place (not really a nation any more) is going to take place between the 40- 60 somethings and the real oldsters who will never volunteer to leave, throwing in the cushy civil servants vs taxpayers as a side match. We will also find more than a little overlap in those crews, especially as the young civil service retirees double dip their way (they hope) to the top of the proletariat heap.

    Interesting times.

  38. @Mr McKenna

    That the Ginzbuzzard hasn’t retired makes me think that she died last year and nobody has figured a way to ease that fact into an MSM production.

  39. @The Alarmist

    How much stamina does it take to gum an anti-American legal opinion written by one’s clerks and swing a gavel to stifle any further debate? Even RBG has a harder job because she has to play nicely with the team and can’t unilaterally legislate from the bench.

    Well, at the United States District Court level he’s probably still required to try wage and hour cases and diversity jurisdiction cases and a whole host of other stuff that crosses the docket of a Federal Court.

    The cases with some room for policy making are few and far between, especially in a State like New York that is far to the left in its politics and laws in any event since he can’t really impose the supremacy clause on New York if its laws are already to his liking.

    So one supposes that torturing individual party litigants from disfavored classes with his leftism isn’t much worth the squeeze at his advanced age – hence the retirement.

    • Replies: @John Foster
  40. GU says:

    “A recurrent theme here at iSteve lately is how us poor Baby Boomers are being denied our chances in life by pre-Boomers refusing to do the right thing and have fatal heart attacks at 66 like they used to.”

    This has to be a joke right? As in intentional satire? If there is any group in history that has refused to retire and make room for younger generations, it is precisely the Baby Boomers.

  41. @RichardTaylor

    Clive wasn’t ancient, you doofus.

    Just because you can’t get laid, don’t think that all whites are having that problem. If the Israelis can outbreed the Arabs, core Americans can outbreed our competition too.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    , @ATBOTL
  42. @YetAnotherAnon

    The post-progtard cavalry is on the way.

  43. Kronos says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It’s a good book. They were called “Boomer Downers” right?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  44. @Kronos

    Going by memory, I think it was “boomerpoops”, Kronos. The book had some silly stuff in it.

    For a comprehensive set of review posts (hell, probably 1/4 the length of the book!) see Peak Stupidity‘s review: Intro, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Conclusion.

    Well, you’ve read it, but you could write in some comments there. I will say that if anyone reading likes theorizing about economics in a Ron Paul / Zerohedge fashion and is anything of a prepper, he should get this book and somehow get through the first 10-15 pages of silliness in the beginning, and he will enjoy it very much.

  45. The headline editor wrote, “Legal Lion,” but thought to itself, “Liberal Lion,” just like with Ted “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy.

  46. @Autochthon

    White conqueror.

    You want to call the Mughals or Aryans or Indo-Europeans or some other wave of conquerors White whatever.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  47. @Reg Cæsar

    328 F. 3d 567 – Silveira v. Lockyer

    7

    KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc:

    8

    Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or … the press” also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases — or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc), rev’d sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.

    9

    It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.

    10

    The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 586-587; see also Brannon P. Denning & Glenn H. Reynolds, Telling Miller’s Tale: A Reply to David Yassky, 65 Law & Contemp. Probs. 113, 117-18 (2002). The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller’s weapon — a sawed-off shotgun — was reasonably susceptible to militia use. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. 816. We are bound not only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller’s claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller’s test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.

    11

    The majority falls prey to the delusion — popular in some circles — that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks’ homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they went”). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

    (More in link)

    https://openjurist.org/328/f3d/567/silveira-v-lockyer

  48. @Bardon Kaldian

    I say he’s evil. He’s loyal to racist, black cut-throats. His being loyal to evil people makes him evil, too.

  49. If I had run into him before reading this, I’d have said, “Jack Weinstein? I thought you was dead.”

  50. ATBOTL says:
    @Desiderius

    What a ridiculous idea. We don’t want a billion people living here. The solution is remigration. It will happen and any white man saying it won’t is the problem.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  51. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    No, actually. Weinstein has been on senior status for over 20 years. Which meant that he could pretty much control his docket. If he didn’t want to hear Social Security cases, he didn’t have to.

  52. @Desiderius

    “Clive” now means “white conqueror?”

    Is it derogatory in this context? Like “Chad,” “Becky,” and “Karen?”

    I’d thought it merely a common proper name (as in “Clive Davis”). So I’d checked to see “Clive who…?” but your interlocutor did not mention anyone named Clive….

    I simply cannot keep up with the evolving argot, I suppose.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  53. Jewish day schools and summer camps in New York need desegregating.

    The illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank need desegregating too because they’re not diverse at all.

  54. travis says:

    But you know, nowadays
    It’s the old man
    He’s got all the money
    And a young man ain’t got nothin’ in the world these days

  55. The jewish federal judges on the Detroit bench are all America and Christian haters. But that barely raises an eyebrow because it is so expected.

    Weinstein, though, is famous. Probably the biggest leftest activist on any Federal trial bench.

  56. @Bill Jones

    Thank you for the simple, civil answer, which Desiderius could not be bothered to provide, to my simple and reasonable question.

  57. @Autochthon

    Perhaps you’re familiar with these new-fangled search engines? They’re just the thing to patch up holes in one’s edjumacation.

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Clive

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  58. Moses says:

    Weinstein was good for the Jews. That’s all that matters.

  59. @ATBOTL

    We don’t have a say in anything but how many high quality souls we bring into this world. You go on ahead and control your own population. More beer for me and mine. As far imagining that we’re the problem, you can go right on ahead and kiss my posterity.

  60. @Desiderius

    Yeah, see, if you’d written something like “I refer to Robert Clive’s exploits in India” or even just “Robert Clive” you’d know how to communicate.

    As it is, you used a kind of meaningless shorthand slightly more effective than grunting and pointing, and lazier than either. Like the people who invent their own acronyms and initialisms, ad hoc, providing no explanation, then expect readers to understand them as readily as one might be expected to understand “U.S.S.R.”

    Search engines are nothing to do with it, since “Clive” could refer to Clive Owen; Clive Barker; Clive, Iowa; or even Garfield the Cat’s invisible friend. (And, no, the context your use of the word did not clarify its referent.)

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  61. SFG says:

    He’s actually not a pre-Boomer (Silent Generation), but a pre-pre-Boomer (GI Generation).

    Wow, that dude’s old.

  62. @Autochthon

    Just to make sure the horse doesn’t rise again and eat what’s left of our brains, if the name Clive doesn’t come to mind when someone mentions whites conquering India that’s on you, not me.

    Nonetheless it doesn’t take much GoogleFu (although I use other engines post-Damore) to search for India Clive and fill that gap right on up. I’ll admit to leaving some allusions vaguer than was once standard for exactly that didactic purpose, learning being fun.

    But not in this case.

  63. Ive known for at least a decade I’ll never get to retire. Ill have to work until i die…. like most people who have ever lived had to do. Perhaps alot of it owes to poor life decisions, but i do not exist in a vacuum. There are alot like me who dont realize how ugly things will get as the empire shrivels.

  64. @The Wild Geese Howard

    Apart from people who hold great power and prestige (ie people whose jobs are actually fun), most everyone retires as soon as they can afford to do so. Unfortunately, few people can afford it before they qualify for Social Security (or some other pension if they’re lucky) because few people have enough savings to live off for six months let alone six years.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS