Skip to comments.My generation: hatin’ on the boomers
Posted on 05/05/2013 6:12:39 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets
I couldnt help but notice the amount of boomer-directed venom expressed in the comments section of yesterdays thread.
Ive noticed it many times before. Actually, Ive noticed it almost every time I write aboutwell, about my generation. And here I think we need a musical interlude:
Note, of course, the verse:
People try to put us d-down (Talkin bout my generation)
Just because we get around (Talkin bout my generation)
Things they do look awful c-c-cold (Talkin bout my generation)
I hope I die before I get old (Talkin bout my generation)
(Excerpt) Read more at neoneocon.com ...
What is there to add? Other than that "may or may not" is an unnecessary equivocation, but equivocation is the hallmark of boomers.
Because, staying with the tactic of gross oversimplification and intellectual dishonesty, it must be because all blog pimps are full of sh#t.
This isn’t anything but one group wanting another group to pay for their expected benefits under a socialist program.
Casting it as anything but that is a red herring.
The "Greatest Generation" should be called the Statist Generation because they gave us the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society. Their legacy is the modern welfare state run by an omnipotent federal government.
The devil has all the haters right where he wants them.
Boomers ain’t gonna like this!
Sometimes they find a nugget!
Boomers were born at the moment where the values, structure, traditions, and strength of the nation had made it the most power country in history. They then indulged in a subculture in the 60s whose whole mission was to bring down all of those things. In the 80s they sorta got their crap together because they now had families to take care of, and all of that left-wing crap they still held to in the 70s didn’t pay the bills. Come the 90s, and the older kids were moving out (Gen X which was somewhat more conservative), they went back to the BS, and hit the PC button until it broke, just in time to warp the heads of Gen Y so that by 2008, we had an army of complete dumbass voters whose #1 issues were their genitals, and getting a check from the government.
I’m a boomer, my parents are still better off than my wife and I, but we are catching up. My children are not so well off as my wife and I. Why? Well the simple answer is that I’m younger than my parents and I’m older than my children.
My parents have had a longer time on this earth to accumulate “things” and they still know more than I and have more experience than I do. My children on the other hand are just starting out on their road through adulthood and have “finally” realized that if they want to get ahead they need to work and do it themselves.
Having it handed to them makes it worthless. It’s only when they have worked and sweated blood to earn what they hold that they know the true worth of those “things”. Before it was an abstract concept, now it is a concrete concept.
So in conclusion, Generation X/Y/Z whatever. Quit being envious and start working for yourselves, the government can only steal so much from us boomers before there isn’t anything left to give to you for your votes.
Most of the “Greatest Generation” were kids at that time. The average age of a solider in WW2 was below the age to vote (21).
Those were the people from WW1 and the chaos of the years following it, as well as the people that were influenced by the reds in Europe in the 20s that got us that stuff.
The “Statist Generation”—very fitting!
And in truth each subsequent generation has taken it further still.
Good catch, Van
A full generation ahead of the spoiled brats, who grew up enjoying the fruits of the sacrifices of the 2 generations before them, I drew a bit of satisfaction in knowing that ‘one day, these morons are going to be ‘over 30’ too - and also get to live with all the destruction they're creating in this great country.
I love to see them ‘stewing in their own juices’ - I just wish the rest of us weren't impacted too.
AT my age, I say whatever pops up in my head - and do not suffer the insufferable quietly anymore - but when I tell them off, I do so with indisputable facts and a smile. drives ‘em wild. (Of course, I also voice my thoughts in my column, which makes for some lively tete a tete’s with readers. I use my column like a hat pin.)
Use your head. Individual Boomers are as different as every other age group ever was or will be. The big differences come in geographical regions, ideologies, education and income, sex, race, and down the scale age. I bet as teenagers, Boomers and Gen-X, Y and Z have more in common than their year-time-line-group supposedly has as a whole. And to imply group whatever had the power to change America is commie crap. The power is always where the money is: NYC being #1. Whatever group you are in, you are at the mercy of TPTB. Kill all the Boomers and nothing will change politically or financially; TPTB who are probably 30-70 years old will still have the money and power to change whatever they want.
“Sometimes they find a nugget!”
Well, the baby boomer generation is too large and diverse to characterize as one demographic. At a minimum it should be parsed into two groups, the liberal counter culture left and the traditional conservative right. Of course, it can be sliced and diced as one cares to mess with it.
Social Security was never actuarially sound. Anyone who wants to depend on it is out of his or her mind.
Well, just to add some perspective, I would guess that a large minority, if not an actual majority, of Freepers are boomers.
Obviously, you haven’t mastered the art of equivocation.
That could be.
What are your facts that Social security was never actually sound? Millions of people have had SS as their only income. The government is corrupt and anyone who wants to depend on it is out of his or her mind.
A) Change benefit promises to match realityThe electorate has overwhelmingly and repeatedly chosen D.
B) Subsidize Social Security from "the general fund", i.e., other taxes
C) Some of both A & B
D) Await collapse
Each new generation seems to reflect a new downhill slide. I think “boomers” get a lot of (in many ways, deserved) flack because they appeared to be the first generation that was so obnoxiously self-absorbed, and always touting the moral and cultural superiority of everything about themselves, from their music to thier politics. Previous gnerations just didn’t have that kind of theretofore unseemly, self-reverential mindset.
Music changed because of money. Club owners had the choice of paying for big bands with 20 people being paid musician union wages or four kids getting a set amount of money. The guitar groups added in horns and strings after they were successful and could afford it.
Only we didn't have access to the type of information that young 'uns have now.
We had 3 major TV channels (4 if you include NBC), a local newspaper and local radio.
True, we (and out parents) voted for the miscreants that brought us to where we are today but we are on our way out. We are closer to the end of our lives than the beginning.
I don't blame today's generation for throwing stones at us, but they'd better start putting more energy into trying to fix what's coming down the pike than trying to make us feel guilty about it.
We have much to apologize for, and for what it's worth, I apologize on behalf of Boomers for what we've allowed to happen under our watch.
Now help us correct those mistakes.
How should elderly be taken care of?
The family and Churches traditionally took care of the elderly but the new world order of Global Elite decided to destroy the family and the Churches. There were also “Poor Farms” where those that could work a little worked the land and took care that could not take care of themselves. Us Baby boomers took care of our parents with social security and now we have been robbed by the crooks in government and our our following generation are too selfish to do anything to help others out.
Big bands were always economically problematic. Part of the problem was an FDR wartime “nightclub tax” which contributed to the demise of the big bands. Hollywood and the recording industry could provide the economies of scale to justify big bands, but popular tastes changed to smaller ensembles. I bet the Stones got more per performance than any of the big bands ever did.
I can only answer in the negative: not with Ponzi schemes and wishful thinking.
I am not a socialist but subsidize the poor with taxes seems to be the only civilized solution. The alternative is death panels and assignation.
There is not an easy answer.
WHO FREAKIN CARES what this stupid, whinny idiot has to say? Even if I agreed with her 100% (as an aside, if I did, I’d check myself into a mental institution), I wouldn’t care what she had to say. She isn’t worth listening to.
And being a fellow boomer (1952 in Rochester, NY), I can equivocation-ally agree with you with the caveat that it isn't a 100% deal.
True. There is no “right” to social security nor it is an insurance plan with accrued rights. It is nothing but a payroll tax on one side and welfare for the recipient.
Many people believe that Social Security is an earned right. That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as contributions, as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.
Nestor sued, claiming that because he had paid Social Security taxes, he had a right to Social Security benefits.
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of accrued property rights would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands. The Court went on to say, It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.
In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.
In other words, Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington.
Thank you for your insightful and informative comment.
You are making the other half of the argument: Neither actuarially sound, nor a legally binding commitment. I thought the second part was too obvious to mention. But, Hell, it kept the Democrats in Power for four generations, so it’s served its purpose.
Just because they're the generation who got the bill for FDR's and the 1960s progressives' forced Ponzi schemes, along with all of the big GuvCo pain and none of its promises kept, and all of that will be screwing up the rest of their lives and their kids lives?
Why would they be hatin' on the boomahs?
What's the big deal if we spend their inheritance and a little bit more to live the lives we deserve? Why would they need 'death panels' to take care of us in our old age, after all we've done "for the children", after all we've given them?
The electorate has overwhelmingly and repeatedly chosen D.
A more articulate Freeper than I put it very well a few weeks ago:
"Everyone should enjoy the government checks while they got em. You wont get em forever. When they stop, nobody will care whether you worked for it or whether you are entitled or whether someone else should have been cut first."
It has S.S. has been used as a vote buying slush fund, under the propaganda as an “earned right”, “trust fund”, et al. During election time it becomes a propaganda tool for the politicians in “G-d’s Waiting Room”, aka Florida, and many of the residents are as ignorant about this as the low info voters who blindly follow the demorats.
Low information voters know who is promising to keep the checks coming. When 47% of the electorate are freeloaders, democracy must fail.
And same for S.S. recipients. They are on the dole also and know whose back they must scratch to keep the checks coming.
Same applies to the younger generation too, fwiw. Boomers are especially quick to paint us as Obamaphiles.
Medical Savings Accounts (privatizing health care rather than socializing it)
Expanded Individual Retirement Accounts (allow citizens to invest whatever it is they've contributed to Socialist Security in exchange for dropping out as a recipient)
Repeal Davis-Bacon laws (allow local municipalities to pay going rates for non-union labor instead of artifically inflated rates)
Repeal Daylight Savings (I hate Daylight Savings)
And on a personal scale: Take your kids out of public education
Stand by for more ideas as the coffee kicks in (or beer as the case may be).
Amen. Well said sir.
“following generation are too selfish to do anything to help others out.”
Why should we young’uns pay good money in our earnings to support those wealthier and better off than we’ll ever be?
I’m 62 and a half. I will file when I am 66, even if I am working. I could retire tomorrow with about $80,000/year without SS, mostly because I have lived frugally and saved. I could and do support reforms to SS, my only caveat is that I oppose “means tested” reforms because that causes perverse incentives. People of my age and earning history who blew through money with expensive vacations, new cars and big houses shouldn’t be rewarded with fatter Social Security checks.
Good ideas sir. Especially letting SS be voluntary. There’s a reason it’s compulsory. Someone has to break the chain. Might as well be us.
I prefer "my good man", though. "Sir" sounds so stuffy.
Thanks just the same. Carry on.
To play Devil's Advocate, couldn't that be countered with, if everyone saved like you, instead of spending on goods and vacations and what not, the economy would crash? Because that's basically how our consumer-based economy is set up, the government hates savers, they want people to consume now.