Quote:

QUOTE:
Read your own original post:

but there are nearly 35 million American women who never worked one day of their lives but collect an average of $72,000 from the US government. How you say?
Their husbands worked while they stayed home.
The husbands died off leaving her his Social Security and all the health benefits.
What's the problem you ask? They will cost more as they age and they demand and get more and more benefits.
**Whatever we've spent on "Welfare" pales to insignificance compared to the "Welfare" we will dish out starting about 2015.

Quote:

You infer

I did not "infer", I stipulated.

Quote:

that it is a "problem" that these women receive SS benefits that they never contributed to... There is NO other way to read this.

So? And why are you so anal about this? Rereading the statement tells you the "problem" is they will and have lived a long time and have been and will be a drain on resources: i.e.:
they are an "unfunded mandate" as the Right likes to b|tch about.
That is what was "inferred".

Quote:

And as such, Paul and my conclusions that they are not entitled seem to hit the nail squarely on the head.

Where, in that opening stanza, do I "infer" they are not "entitled"? Certainly their entitlement is "inferred" when you (you) read that they collect their husband's benefits, HUSBAND being the operative word?

Quote:

If you always say exactly what you mean, then I assume you mean that they are not entitled.

Your (your-you) problem is I write reading; you seem not to be able to read (or comprehend) writing.

Quote:

And re: you saying they were not supposed to work:

Next, the American workforce had few industrial jobs for women before WW2, which further hampered their being employed.
Worse, the jobs that were available were usually unskilled, low-paying "women's" work. But you knew that too.
Even worse for women, the American workforce before WW1 and subsequent, was a mostly (white) male workforce, with little room for women or people of color.

Quote:

Basically, you said that the economy was not structured to accomodate female workers.

I stipulated the workforce, not the "economy" was not structured for women or Blacks; and it was not.
So why are you whining?

Quote:

That pretty much means they were not supposed to work...

Bullshit. If you were to infer anything from what I wrote (above), you could say they were unable to find work or unable to work because there were few jobs for women and Blacks.

As I noted, you cannot read (or comprehend) what someone writes.
You managed (and always do) to distort evidence which is slapping you in the face.
My quote immediately above does not contain phrasing which would or should lead one to wrongly infer or conclude, as you did:
"...not supposed to work" out of the contextural content of the quote;
but then yours is so often a "Wolkenkukusheim" when it comes to words and their meaning.