Baby boomers are what’s wrong with America’s economy

Washington Post ^ | 11/05/2015 | Jim Tankersley

[MadIsh32]

If anyone deserves to pay more to shore up the federal safety net, either through higher taxes or lower benefits, it’s boomers — the generation that was born into some of the strongest job growth in the history of America, gobbled up the best parts, and left its children and grandchildren with some bones to pick through and a big bill to pay. Politicians shouldn’t be talking about holding that generation harmless. They should be asking how future workers can claw back some of the spoils that the “Me Generation” hoarded for itself.

[flaglady47]

I prefer Bob over you, thank you. I’m on to you now.

[flaglady47]

Thanks for the heads up. You confirm what I have been thinking myself.

[notdownwidems]

I haven’t gotten any checks nor are my hands dirty. Other people created that mess, just leaving it to me and my children and grandchildren to fix; however, I don’t see the slightest inclination of the federal government to reduce the amount of debt they are accumulating, so you can raise SS taxes 21% or whatever arbitrary amount you like, and it won’t do a bit of good until spending is brought under control...and it won’t be, until there is a thorough political revolution in this once-great nation!

[bmwcyle]

Yes, boomer women voters.

[justlurking]

I haven’t gotten any checks nor are my hands dirty. Other people created that mess, just leaving it to me and my children and grandchildren to fix; however, I don’t see the slightest inclination of the federal government to reduce the amount of debt they are accumulating, so you can raise SS taxes 21% or whatever arbitrary amount you like, and it won’t do a bit of good until spending is brought under control...and it won’t be, until there is a thorough political revolution in this once-great nation!

If you offered to accept a 16% decrease in your benefits (once you start receiving Social Security), I would have applauded you. But, I notice you didn't make that offer.

The other problems with federal government spending are an entirely different discussion. I agree with you, but it's separately financed via other taxes, which can be mitigated various ways.

However, the Social Security payroll tax starts from the first dollar, and for about half the taxpayers -- it's the only federal tax they pay (other than gasoline and Medicare taxes). And, I'm not personally willing to take the cavalier attitude of "go ahead and raise taxes on my children".

[justlurking]

I prefer Bob over you, thank you. I’m on to you now.

LOL, I always love it when people say that. It helps me identify the people who are the real problem with Social Security.

Since you can't face the truth, you have sided with the liar.

I hope you figure it out before it's too late. Have a nice day.

[notdownwidems]

If you offered to accept a 16% decrease in your benefits (once you start receiving Social Security), I would have applauded you. But, I notice you didn't make that offer.

You did read the part where I said I was not receiving social security benefits, didn't you? To answer your question, I would be lad to accept a 16% or whatever other arbitrary percentage decrease you can name if and when I ever get any benefits, because x dollars - 16%is much better than $0, which is what we are going to get if these irresponsible thieves keep on as they are doing.

[oh8eleven]

Boomers were told/sold on the idea that wealth would go on growing forever.
Not quite. We were told/sold on the idea that we could do better financially than our parent's generation which had been the goal, and the rule, for generations of Americans.
And for most Boomers it turned out true. However, did you ever see a rich hippie? That's why there's so much hatred for the "rich" today - capitalism works - socialism sucks.

[Cementjungle]

Pretty soon they’re going to call for extermination of anyone over 60 since they sucked up the jobs for the past several decades, own homes and have all the wealth “hoarded” for their retirements. It’s totally unfair the the younger ones who prefer to pursue their artistic interests instead of actually working.

[justlurking]

Bob, I really wanted to give you a chance. You were better informed than most. But, you disappointed me.

Again I’ll ask- where’s the proof the government only spent the money on what they were supposed to?

No, the burden is on you. You are making the claim of misappropriation of funds. Let's see it. I'm not interested in someone else's opinion: I want to see the hard proof in official government documents.

You can look up the Social Security Trustee reports all the way back to 1941:

https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/trust/trustreports.html

It's all accounted there. If you find an error, I'd love to hear about it.

But, instead you have diverted into tin-foil hat territory, and thrown up irrelevant information in an attempt to confuse the issue and avoid the truth. And now, you are outright lying to people that don't know any better.

I understand your concern about how the Trust Fund is accounted in the deficit and aational debt. You aren't the first person to notice that it's not. For that matter, neither is the Civil Service Trust fund, or any number of others. You can search for "US government unfunded liability" and learn a great deal.

However, as long as the federal government pays back the surplus payroll tax deposited in the Social Security Trust Fund, plus a market dividend rate, they will meet their obligations. They started doing so in 2010, and if nothing is changed, it will be completed in about 19 years. At that point, it WILL be part of the national debt, having been converted into US Treasury Bonds held by investors and banks.

But, while we can honestly disagree about how the Trust Fund should have been invested, or whether it should be included in the national debt (actually, I don't think we would), what I'm really trying to explain to you and everyone else:

There has been no "theft". There's no missing money out there to be "put back". You and so many other people insist on focusing on that, because they don't want to admit where the "missing" money really went: to their parents, grandparents, and themselves.

[Note: in the next paragraph, I use "we" in the collective, not individual. You or anyone else reading this may have personally opposed it. But individually, we are, or will be, reaping the benefits]

Yes, Congress mismanaged Social Security. But, they did it because we wanted them to do so. When they voted to raise benefits drastically and add a COLA, we cheered them on without regard for the consequences. And we voted against anyone that suggested it might be unsustainable.

The Reagan administration tried to fix it in the 80's. But, the assumptions were far too optimistic. Long ago, I had an article that pointed out how optimistic they were, in comparison to history. But, no one wanted to talk about it and since then, we've been steadily losing ground.

Since then, the real "mismanagement" has been the refusal of Congress to address the problem. Again, that's our fault for not holding their feet to the fire and/or threatening the ones that dared suggest doing so.

And that's why I'm so disappointed in you and everyone else that flames me for telling the truth. There's no secret accounting that ruined Social Security. There's no shadowy group of people that "got more than they deserved". It's all out there in the open, if you just paid attention.

The problem with Social Security is that every Social Security recipient in the past 40 years and in the future (if no changes are made) has been or is getting more than Social Security can afford.

And I believe that's the reason I see so much resistance from you and so many others: they don't want to admit the responsibility is (collectively) theirs, and that ultimately they must make personal sacrifices to fix the problem.

The only alternative is to put an ever-increasing burden on your children. Maybe that's OK with you, but it's not OK with me.

[justlurking]

You did read the part where I said I was not receiving social security benefits, didn't you?

Yes, I did. Did you notice my parenthetical expression acknowledging it?

To answer your question, I would be lad to accept a 16% or whatever other arbitrary percentage decrease you can name if and when I ever get any benefits, because x dollars - 16%is much better than $0, which is what we are going to get if these irresponsible thieves keep on as they are doing.

Actually, if nothing is changed -- you'll get more than $0.

Contrary to a lot of doomsayers: Once the Trust Fund is exhausted, Social Security must only reduce benefits to the level that can be sustained by the payroll taxes.

Currently, that is estimated to occur about 2034, and at that point benefits would have to be reduced 21%. The 16% reduction only if it were to be immediately applied to all current and future beneficiaries.

But, I will withdraw my previous comment: I applaud you for making that offer. You may be the first person that has done so, and I also salute you for it.

[notdownwidems]

Yes, I did. Did you notice my parenthetical expression acknowledging it?

I did notice it, after I had posted my rant; my apologies. Actually I would much prefer an out to the system altogether; if they would just stop deducting payroll taxes they can have all my previous contributions; just let me live in peace and prepare for my own retirement; don't need big brother to help me with that, thanks!

[Polyxene]

Don’t you dare judge me because I was born during the “Baby Boom” years. My husband and I were not liberal “red diaper doper babies”. We voted Republican/conservative in every election. Our families did not pay for our college educations — WE did by working several jobs. BTW — my husband started working at age 10, delivering papers, until he reached the age where he could get a “paying” job. I started working a “paying” job at age 16, before that, babysitting. After college and marriage, we worked hard and saved to buy a modest house. If we couldn’t afford to pay cash, we didn’t buy. We didn’t take lavish vacations. We taught our daughter the value of money, hard work and responsibility. She worked while going to college, and we helped as much as we could. My husband died two years after retiring and receiving SS, so after working 50 years, he only received the benefits for two. My brother died before reaching retirement age, so he never did collect SS, and he paid into SS for over 40 years. Do I feel guilty about collecting SS? NO! Among my husband, brother and I, our accumulated pay-in was around 150 years, and I am the only one left to collect. We were told our whole working lives that SS was being put in an account with our name on it. LIE! If given a choice, my husband and I would have invested that money on our own. BUT, we weren’t given that choice. It is not my fault the RAT-Lib-Socialist-controlled Congress (that I didn’t vote for) squandered that money and ran up the national debt.

[mrsmith]

Well, my two cents is they’re talking of two very different things:
JL of the financing of SS and Bob of the financing of the whole federal budget.
They’re both right IMO despite their vehement disputation.

Great that someone quotes Hollings. The man was viciously attacked and ridiculed for his timely warning that “There’s too much consumin’ going on.”
Oh how the media (who profit solely from ‘consumin’’) evicerated him for that.
A prophet in his own land...

[MadIsh32]

And there in lies a problem with boomers not understanding the 21st century economy. It matters not when I work, or where I work, or how long I work, it matters if I bring in results. When I am working Sunday night at 11 PM, my company does not compensate me extra for doing work on “my time.” My personal time and company time are not mutually exclusive.

I am evaluated on revenue, along with P&L for my group. My superiors don’t care if I work 5 hours a week or 100 hours a week, so long as I meet the expected results we discuss at the start of the year and mid year. We evaluate the results on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis.

If I miss 2 straight months, I am out. However, since the team I lead is at 177% of our yearly goal, and its only November 6th, my superiors won’t blink an eye if I disappear for a week.

On the other hand, boomers were in a working world where “time” and “being on the clock” mattered more then results. Its why they introduced “participation trophies” and “effort awards” to their children. As opposed to teaching their children that results matter far more then effort, they gave out trophies for “trying.”

It is why someone like myself is so valued and well compensated by my employer. I bring results, even if I have multiple tabs open on my desktop on a Friday.

[Bob434]

[[But, while we can honestly disagree about how the Trust Fund should have been invested,]]

There’s nothgin to disagree about here- the money was NOT invested ass it was intended to be- that’s a fact- it’s not up for debate as it either was invested the way it should have been IN WHOLE, or it wasn’t

[[There has been no “theft”. There’s no missing money out there to be “put back”.]]

Actually there is missing money- first, it’s missing from the Trust- there is nothing in there- just paper iou’s second, there is the missing investment gains

[[Yes, Congress mismanaged Social Security.]]

Hmmm- in past posts to me you called me a liar for even suggesting it (and it’s getting al ittle old you constantly calling me a liar- Grow up!) Now you’re admitting that they did-

[[because they don’t want to admit where the “missing” money really went: to their parents, grandparents, and themselves.]]

No sir, borrowed money went to them- Borrowed money that had interest rates attached to it- and where did the funds come to pay the interest rates on the borrowed money? So we get screwed twice- once by not having the money to begin with, so it can be invested properly, then again when we ‘get it back’ via borrowed money, which has interest rates attached to it

[Bob434]

[[Since you can’t face the truth, you have sided with the liar.]]

The only one that would be lying here is the one changing his position after the facts are posted- and brother it aint me! Like I said- it’s getting very old hearing you issue playground taunts of liar liar-

[[But, they did it because we wanted them to do so.]]

So now it’s our fault? Lol- what a line! Yep- we all begged congress to drastically increase our taxes, and we all were well informed about it all as it was happening as congress made sure to let us all in on what they were doing BEFORE they did it- Cripes- Whatever- We all know people just love having more of their paychecks confiscated- infact it’s an election campaign bonanza to suggest that more money be taken from us- that’s why they do it in the debates all the time /s

[Bob434]

[[JL of the financing of SS and Bob of the financing of the whole federal budget.]]

Well, I’m talking about SS being tapped to fund the federal budget/general fund in part- Almost everyone acknowledges that had the money been kept in SS, not spent, and invested the way it was supposed to be, we would be fine for a couple of decades- and the baby boomers would be covered- and most agree that money was taken from SS to finance things in the general budget.

[[They’re both right IMO despite their vehement disputation.]]

Yeah well I’ve asked him to keep it civil many times in the previous thread about this issue, and it’s very clear he has no desire to do so

[[Great that someone quotes Hollings. The man was viciously attacked]]

He was nearly disemboweled- He dared say what everyone knew but was afraid to say for the reasons we’ve seen in this thread really- There are government shills who are poised and at the ready to attack anyone who might dare question the ‘great experiment’- much the way those who defend ‘man-caused’ global climate change do- By ignoring the facts, and issuing personal attacks- Many a great scientist suffered the wrath of these unethical shills- and people like Hollings ran smack dab into the very same kind of shills- Sadly people chose to ignore his warnings and revelations

[Pelham]

“I prefer Bob over you, thank you. I’m on to you now.”

You shouldn’t because justlurking is accurately describing SS. I can’t tell if he’s pro or con SS, but he is describing how it’s designed.

There never was a lockbox and there never could be one. Money that piles up in segregated accounts would constantly reduce the money supply and lower the GNP. It would be a deflationary drag on the economy.

SS money has to be given to SS recipients. Or returned to the people it was taken from. Or, the favorite choice of big government politicians of both parties, loaned to the rest of the government. But it can’t sit idle in a “lockbox” without doing real harm to the economy.

[Bob434]

[[I can’t tell if he’s pro or con SS, but he is describing how it’s designed.]]

We’re NOT talking about how ‘it’s designed’ We’re talking about how it’s playing out, and how it’s playing out does NOT resembled how it was designed-

[[There never was a lockbox and there never could be one.]]

The issue about the ‘lock box’ wasn’t about locking up the money so no one could use it- it was simply a metaphor to describe that it wouldn’t be used In the wrong manner- We know there’s no actual lock box, and that the money DOES need to be invested- but the fact is that it has been ‘invested’ In the wrong ways, in ways that it was not meant to be-

[[SS money has to be given to SS recipients. Or returned to the people it was taken from. Or, the favorite choice of big government politicians of both parties, loaned to the rest of the government. But it can’t sit idle in a “lockbox” without doing real harm to the economy.]]

Yes, both flaglady and myself and everyone else In the thread understand that- that is not what is at issue I n the discussion- the issue again is that the money was not supposed to be invested and simply just left alone- the issue is that it wasn’t invested properly- and had it been, we would be fine today-