FReepers are exempt.
Please Support Free Republic Today!
It's vitally important to Keep FR Alive.
ALL Contributions are for "THIS" Quarter's Expenses!
Posted on 05/05/2013 6:12:39 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets
I couldn’t help but notice the amount of boomer-directed venom expressed in the comments section of yesterday’s thread.
I’ve noticed it many times before. Actually, I’ve noticed it almost every time I write about—well, about my generation. And here I think we need a musical interlude:
< snip>
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 ...
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.
Exactly.
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 won’t 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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.