Instead, boomers take credit for "ending an unjust war" that saw more more people killed after it was over. BTW, my father served two tours of duty in Vietnam (1966,1968) and was at Khe Sahn (26th Marines). I'm fourth generation military myself.
Pretty obvious that a generation of Dan Rather style propaganda has sunk deeply into you and you have nothing but Hollywood images of what your parents generation was about. A few thousand Boomers went to Canada. More than 5 million served in the US military like your dad. I don't even know of one Boomer who "protested" the war. For every maggot infested commie hippie on the streets, there were thousands who supported their country. For every leftist media hyped Jane Fonda, there were hundreds of nameless Boomers who hated her guts and who put Ronald Reagan in office and then turned a half century of leftist congressional rule into what looks to be a permanent Conservative majority. That was only possible because of Boomers. It wasn't the "Greatest Generation" that did it. I know those people very well. They were my parents generation and they worshiped at the temple of FDR and the Democrat Party and a great many of them have never done anything other than pull the straight Democrat lever.
As to Social Security, if you are capable of simple addition, you will understand that not even one Boomer is eligible for it now, and none will be for another few years. It's the so-called Greatest Generation who were loyal to the Democrat party who demanded all the increased benefits. It's been the Boomers who have paid for those increased benefits for their entire careers and who realized long ago that Social Security was a Ponzi Scheme that would never take care of them. Those of us who had the means have planned for our own retirement and again, I don't know any who are counting on Social Security. (I'd advise you not to count on it either, privatized or not --- save and invest all you can, and then some more.)
Some more advice. Don't look to Hollywood for history.
Oh, I have got to comment on this as well.
Right now, we live in a world where the price of oil continues to rise, further strangling economic growth, in part because the Boomers refused to accept nuclear power. They feared what they did not understand.
I spent to first 20 years of my career in the nuclear power industry and support it 100%. But please Dr. Einstein, tell the class how building more nuclear plants will do anything to decrease oil demand in this country.
Again, you go off on simplistic rants with little or no knowledge. But then again, you are young, and pretty much clueless.
SImplistic? I doubt it. I hold a degree in history and run a multi-billion dollar data processing complex for a Fortune 100 firm.
I served on two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in my 8 years (full-time and reserve) in the Navy. Both ships had reactors about the size of double-decker bus, and were capable of creating enough electricty to light Chicago for 25 years. There was no need to burn oil, there was no need to deal with greenhouse gasses or noxious fumes. Not much in the way of equipment needed to be lubricated as compared to an older diesel-fired plant.
The Navy, incidentally, has been handling nuclear reactors for five decades now, with an exemplary safety record. Much better than Exxon's or BP's I might add.
As for propaganda, according to Dan and his bunch, the war was a crime against humanity and the United Sates was evil-evil-evil for even being involved. My take: we needed to be there, but we needed to win. The troops on the ground were not allowed to win, and much of it had to do with the situation at home. Any increase in US force or use of force brought the rioters out. You may not know one protester, but I would wager that's more along the lines of soomeone hiding their irresponsibility and stupidity from you. Were it was once fashionable to protest, it is now looked upon a bad form for having been a protester. I doubt very highly that you have never in your life ever made an acquaintance who held anti-Vietnam sympathies.
And please, do not take credit for the Reagan Revolution. The people who voted for Reagan were very much of your parents generation as much as they were yours.
As fo rthe hubub over social security, when the present recipients die, the problem is half solved: most fo the resistance ot reform has come from those raised during the Depression and they have an emotional attachment to FDR and his programs. The other half of the solution will happen when all those born before 1965 realize they shouldn't be so selfish as to believe they should get something for nothing, like their parents did in their later years.
As for simple addition, if you were born in 1946, you would now be 59 years old, and eleigible under certain circumstances for early retirement (under the 75/25 rule), and begin collecting social security within a few years, at least prior to 67. The rest of us would have to retire at 67 before we began to collect anything.