Is it all the Boomers' fault?

[Goldstein1984]

I've seen a few posts that attempt to place the blame for current problems on "Boomers." I'm not that the Boomers became the bastion of liberal thought that they appeared they might be in the 60s. And I'm not going to argue that Boomers didn't have a hand in electing Neocons like Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. But 28 years of a steady drift of the U.S. population, and the Democratic Party with it, toward neoconservative political and economic values and militarism cannot be put solely in the lap of the generation that was labeled "commie pinkos" back in the day.

But how responsible are the Boomers for getting us where we are now? And do the subsequent generations that freely joined in "Reaganomics," the Gulf War, the DotCom Bust, the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and the housing bubble have room to criticize?

I don't blame the Boomers for Reagan, but he couldn't have been elected without a lot of Boomer votes. I was one of those naive kids who thought the space station in "2001: A Space Odyssey" would actually exist by 2001. I often wonder if many in my generation didn't sell out once the Vietnam War was over and the draft was ended and race was no longer the barrier to voting it had been. Did too many of them go neocon and materialistic and chase the American Dream instead of American ideals?

It was the Boomer generation that marched en mass for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts. It was the Boomers that caused so much civil disruption in opposition to the Vietnam War that the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommending against sending more troops to Vietnam after the Tet Offensive specifically because they were concerned that there would be too few left in the U.S. to control growing civil unrest; when I got out of the Marine Corps and attended college in the 80s, the "Young Republicans" and "College Republicans" either didn't exist or were so rare that we never noticed them. With this in mind, the attack on Boomers came as a shock to me.

Economics seem to be a major driver in this issue. The Boomers are coming to retirement age. As they retire, they're going to become a significant burden; if they don't retire, they'll be holding onto jobs that could be going to younger citizens. I understand the job argument very well. I was born just after the peak of the Boomer curve, and throughout my life it's been like following in the wake of a swarm of locusts. I didn't help myself by spending 4.5 years in the military and letting even more Boomers get into the college and job scene ahead of me. So, from that perspective, I can at least empathize with post-Boomer generations.

This issue has the potential to be very divisive if played well by the divide and conquer folks (We each have our own perception of who "they" are). Thus, I'm tossing it out for discussion.

[leftstreet]

1. ...

:popcorn:

[SoCalDem]

5. May I join you? I brought extra popcorn..

[Mari333]

19. woot! I brought TEQUILA

this is going to be good....:)

[leftstreet]

21. That's not nearly enough

:hi:

[Writer]

2. I didn't post this one - I SWEAR!

:popcorn:

[AngryAmish]

3. Yes.

[Joanne98]

4. NO! That's divide and conquer .......

[Goldstein1984]

16. That was the concern I was trying to express

And why this issue needs to be addressed with discussion, not the accusations piling up.

[hlthe2b]

6. Bored and ready for another flamewar?

[Goldstein1984]

45. I was hoping their was some potential for a serious discussion

of a potentially divisive issue.

Isn't going to happen.

Skipped the discussion and jumped straight into divisive.

Anger and short-sightedness seem to be the rule.

Very disappointing.

:shrug:

[hlthe2b]

60. Serious discussion lumping persons born over an 18 year period

and blaming them for every bad thing that has occurred in the time since they were born?

POTENTIALLY divisive? Really?

And yet it is others and not you who are "short-sighted and angry?" Really? :shrug:

[Goldstein1984]

81. Believe me, I'm not angry.

Short-sighted, maybe. I certainly wasn't expecting what this OP generated.

Step back and up one level, the meta-level, and consider the possibility that it might be possible to discuss a potentially divisive issue in an objective manner. Rather than jumping in with emotion, DU could have discussed the divisiveness of the issue, and the potential for the issue to be used against them.

Rather than a discussion, the response was a demonstration.

If you have ever looked at any of my posts, you might see disappointment, or frustration, but you won't find any anger.

ASIDE: My son deployed to Iraq two days ago. We're pretending to withdraw by August; yet we continue with 12-month deployments that will have soldiers in Iraq much longer. That has me angry. By comparison, nothing in this OP, and nothing in the thread that resulted, is anything more than academic and trivial. I am disappointed in the response to this OP; that's it, and that's all.

[hlthe2b]

84. How, though can you not expect the reaction?

Or perhaps a better question would be, what did you think a discussion on whether "Boomers are to blame" for certain problems/incidents over the past decades would accomplish?

[Goldstein1984]

86. I'm told all the time that I'm too much of a scientist.

I routinely underestimate the emotional responses to issues or questions that I consider merely academic. With this OP, I was hoping to generate an objective discussion of an issue that could (quite seriously if this thread is an indicator), be used to create a divide among progressive voters (or just Democratic Party voters). I've been seeing an increasing number of cases of this argument out on the web; one of them in a DU thread just this morning. I was hoping the OP would generate 1) discussion, and 2) awareness.

Rather than a discussion, I got a study of how the division would work.

To me, this was simply a topic to be discussed, an opportunity to increase awareness, and an opportunity for me to broaden my perspective by reading the opinions of others. I didn't expect the hissyfit.

On the bright side, this thread is really interesting linguistically. I'm working hard to answer replies while still keeping a fairly recent version of the thread copied to a Word document for study. Eventually, someone is going to write something with the potential to get the thread locked down, and I want as much of it as I can get before that happens.

[omega minimo]

124. the previous reply was enough, with revelation of deployment, to forestall your arrogant ignorance

:evilfrown: you had nothing further to say, just to be more divisive yourself. fucking waste. have some respect.

[ChiciB1]

135. Sooooooooooooo... Let Me Just Say THIS! I'm A BOOMER... Never One Who

supported Ronnie RAY-GUNS, have maintained my LIBERAL penchant, but not so vociferously that my feet are stuck in concrete. Only that I realize that throughout many generations things will "change" regarding each NEW generation!

I can't tell you how many years I've been talking about ONE MAIN issue! It is this. For some reason, AND I suspect it BEGAN with Ray-Guns, we became a "throw away" society. When I began hearing things like, "I never keep "pennies" because they're "just pennies, I began looking to the ground when I went out shopping etc., and you wouldn't believe the "pennies" I would find! I've never spent ONE of them and have jars & jars & jars of them. I've found many pennies from as far back as 1901, and variations in between.

Then it was fast food, ALL THE TIME! An argument could be made that it was because many women decided to work simply because they wanted all the bells & whistles! Don't mistake that comment as an aside, MANY, MANY women were FORCED to work because our divorce rate increased exponentially! But, because credit cards were offered to virtually anyone who wanted one, the game was on.

I NEVER got ONE credit card until I was 31, and only did so because when I wanted to go see the Atlanta Braves once, I called from here in Florida and couldn't pay by check because it was a last minute decision! So I got ONE!

We ARE ALL guilty here and we have become an APATHETIC SOCIETY! People NOW are MAD, FED UP and see NO RECOURSE!

And who is benefiting? That answer should be a evident as the nose on our faces. While we snicker about Cheney, The Tea (Baggers) Party... WHERE is the activism of the LEFT?? Or if you will, simply Progressives??

As LONG as we sit by and WATCH this stuff, it won't change! There are many times when I look at the UP HILL trek, it makes me feel morose and almost destitute! I wonder if we can every recover in this country.

I find myself thinking ROME so much of the time... Robber Barrons, whatever! But THIS BOOMER can't say this ENOUGH! It's ENOUGH, ALREADY... IT'S ENOUGH!

Tea Baggers have surpassed us and seem to be "on the move!" I WILL give them that much at least! Will they prevail??? I wonder because I hear so many Repukes et al saying "no way" but tell me, WHO are YOU hearing about all the time??

I could go on, but enough for this Friday morning... have errands to run. But I'm one BOOMER who doesn't even fit in with my local Democratic Party here. And yes, many ARE Boomers that have SOLD OUT, and I'm a Howard Zinn type to them. But then I do live in one of the REDDEST Counties in Florida and I think it's been that way for over 40 years. Don't know that for a fact, but it seems so. Wasn't here then, but it's been that way ever since I moved here!

DONE, sorry for the rant... but I can go nuclear at times!

:nuke: :grr:

[Goldstein1984]

142. That "throw-away society" has a root cause...

We're nothing but production and consumer units. Everything is built to fall apart and require replacement--planned obsolescence. Fashion and technology are examples. I'm on my third laptop, but not one of previous two of them broke down--they just got left behind. The fully loaded iPod I use in my office at work will stay there until it fails because it's no longer compatible with operating systems, and it isn't "supported." My wifes perfectly good Mac G5 is no longer supported, which means the next time it requires service it will be less expensive to buy a new one than to try to fix the one she has.

But the worst part is that people are throw-away. This isn't new. It was like this throughout human history. Slavery aside (and that is a huge aside), this nation gave regular people some hope of having value. That lasted until the Civil War, after which the robber barons took over the economy and government. By the time of the Great Depression, people were throw-away items. That was all reversed with the New Deal and the Great Society. But the ruling elite couldn't let that stand. Reagan was just the opening shot shot in a war being waged by the ruling class to make people, once again, their property--throw-away items.

We're right back where we were in the 1930s--disposable.

So, all of you afraid of anything that sounds like challenging the status quo, where do we go from here? And don't say the ballot box. That didn't work before, and it won't work now.

[Oregone]

7. Sure.

You gotta blame someone for mankind's incessant pattern of fucking up every so often.

[Romulox]

8. Boomers cannot be the only generation not to share in the suffering. I'm sorry.

You're going to have to share in the diminished expectations of America that, if you were being honest, you'd have to admit that you helped create.

[Warpy]

17. Liberals went out of power in 1969

and we older boomers had our hands full trying to feed and clothe your ungrateful asses. Nobody consulted us on the direction the country was going to take. Forget about the election in 1980, Reagan was swept in by the "greatest generation" aided by the second cohort of boomers and Generation Suck, the ones who were just a little too old for the 60s and resented the hell out of missing the party.

Actually, I think the reason we older boomers have borne the brunt of all the economic horrors of the last 40 years was because we did try to change things for the better and we succeeded in a few of them. The PTB have never forgiven us for that and never will.

Blaming the people who suffered most of the injury of the last 40 years for causing it is disingenuous at best, and ignorantly cruel at worst.

[Romulox]

23. I'm not talking about "blame", just reality. The pie is smaller now. I'm sorry.

If our elders aren't to blame, then young people surely aren't! But things aren't going to go as you planned. The pie is smaller; each slice will by necessity have to be smaller. Our lifespans are actually getting shorter. Poverty, homelessness and inequality are all increasing. The return on value for education is rapidly shrinking.

We are a country in decline. We cannot afford the promises you made to yourselves. Again, sorry. :shrug:

[Warpy]

25. The pie is the same damn size it always was

40 years of idiotic conservative economic dogma in practice has divvied up the pie among a very few, very rich old men. We're fighting over the crumbs.

[Romulox]

29. No, the part that is shared by regular people is much, much smaller. nt

[Warpy]

40. RTDP

This is what has happened to the economic pie in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

The pie is the same size. Too much has been grabbed by too few and that is a direct result of conservative economics policies. We boomers weren't consulted. We were only harmed.

You're being harmed, too. Better learn what is happening and why.

[Romulox]

47. You're making a "should" sort of argument. I'm not arguing what "should" have happened to SS

or the staggering inequality that has developed here in the US in your lifetime. None of that "should" have happened. But it's happened.

How can we go forward with Social Security as envisioned when the economic projections (i.e. ever increasing markets and an ever increasing labor force) it was based on have now been falsified? The answer is we cannot.

"You're being harmed, too."

I'm being harmed if Social Security is paid off to the Boomers at 100%, too, though. And my own retirement still is bankrupt even after that bill is paid in full. So I understand my own role in this.

All that said, I would be happy to honor the Boomers' promises to themselves at 100% if we just reformed SS to make it progressive. Let's lift the cap and not let this issue divide us, eh? :shrug:

[Warpy]

82. RTDP

I didn't mention social security.

[Romulox]

95. This thread is about Social Security. I won't apologize for mentioning it in my post.

:hi:

[mbperrin]

119. Boomers had the withholding for SS doubled in 1981. There is currently

a nearly $3 TRILLION surplus in SS, more than enough to pay 100% full benefits with no changes of any kind until 2041, the year I turn 89. If we would simply remove the cap on SS withholding, it would be solvent indefinitely.

The problem is that the elected fuckers have "borrowed" the surplus, issuing bonds in their stead. Now, everyone laughed about the "lockbox", but if that had been done, there would be no problem at all.

Boomers forsaw the problem, paid the taxes well in advance. Further, people like me, who paid 29 years into SS and then began teaching, will receive no SS benefit at all, because our Teacher Retirement is supposed to be enough. "You're double-dipping," they say. I double paid, but I will only single benefit.

Perhaps if we would stop killing strangers overseas for corporate profits and would adopt single payer, all problems would be over. The budget could be balanced immediately.

[Romulox]

134. The money is gone. How many times can it be said? It's gone.

This needs to be about what we are going to do about it.

[mbperrin]

140. It's not gone. It's US Treasury Bonds, and if ours are gone, so are the

Chinese, Japanese, congressional funds as well.

If they're actually gone, then the thieves who stole them should be hunted down and killed. I'm serious. There should be an impromptu death penalty for killing a country.

[Romulox]

154. A US Treasury bond is evidence of a DEBT--it's not money.

"Chinese, Japanese, congressional funds as well."

No, this is incorrect.

"If they're actually gone, then the thieves who stole them should be hunted down and killed."

You're confusing a debt with an asset.

[mbperrin]

155. A debt IS an asset to the lender. I worked 20 years in banks.

You?

The debt is a liability to the debtor, offset by the cash received by the lender.

The debt is an asset to the lender, offset by the note.

Notes are money. Look on any currency, and you will see that word.

Hit the books.

[Romulox]

156. The lender is the US taxpayer. The debtor is the US taxpayer.

Your lecture did not mention the debtor. The US taxpayer is the debtor. There is no third party debtor. One cannot get rich by writing IOUs to one's self.

"Hit the books."

Ummm, Physician? :silly:

[mbperrin]

160. The US Government is the debtor. The owners of the bonds are the lenders.

The government is not limited to taxpayers. The lenders are certainly not limited to taxpayers. Wrong sets.


Your statement would be true given the following:

Banks are part of the US. Automakers are part of the US. Auto buyers are part of the US. Since these are all the same, that is, part of the US, it is impossible to make money building, selling, or financing cars. Yet, there seems to have been some money made doing those things over the last century.

Details.

[Romulox]

164. The US government's only source of income is the US taxpayer. Yours is a fairy-tale economics

Well, that and borrowing.

:hi:

[mbperrin]

165. Here's the actual facts. BTW, borrowing is not income.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

What you'll find is that corporations have been getting a great ride, and that current taxation is below the historic norms of the past 50 years.

Now this is my last post on this, because you need very much to take Accounting 101 to learn the base concepts of accounting and terms.

Just so you know, my economics degree is from Texas A&M in the mid-70s. Not really a fairy tale kind of place.

yours?

[Romulox]

167. And debt isn't money, which brings us neatly back to the beginning.

"What you'll find is that corporations have been getting a great ride, and that current taxation is below the historic norms of the past 50 years."

Understood and agreed.

"Now this is my last post on this, because you need very much to take Accounting 101 to learn the base concepts of accounting and terms."

Repeated ad homs betray insecurity.

But what you still have to come to grips with is that US Treasury bonds must be paid back by US taxpayers. Pointing out that the tax structure in this country is unjust doesn't resolve the issue.

"Just so you know, my economics degree is from Texas A&M in the mid-70s."

Appeals to credentials aren't the same thing as cogent arguments. Just take a moment to explain to me just who (specifically) will be the source of the so-called "repayment" of the trust fund. The answer is the same as it was when I made my first reply to this thread: the US taxpayer. :hi:

[mbperrin]

169. Repeated ad homs betray insecurity.

Then why would you use an ad hominem argument about my "fairy tale" economics? I just wanted to clarify that I have professional training in the subject matter, teach it as a course as I have for 14 years, and so have some familiarity. But the sound bite "fairy tale" negates all that, and somehow makes me the person who knows nothing.

Specifically, we found that current taxes are well below the historic norms for the US, and that an immediate 20% hike across the board would bring it up to that average. In addition, we find that doubling or a little better the taxes on business would restore them to their position as a % of taxes. Overall, this would result in at least another trillion in tax collections. That's close to balancing the current budget. Increase some excise taxes, import duties, and you have a case of accumulating no new debt. That's the first step in actually paying debt down.

No use arguing that higher business taxes will be passed along as higher prices to consumers, either. They can't be. If companies could charge more, they would already, and the mere fact that costs are higher does not mean people will be willing to pay higher prices. There would be no incentive to cost control if all costs could be marked up and passed down the line. Only in cost plus defense contracting, which brings us to the last piece of the puzzle. Reduce military budgets by stopping the wars and closing most overseas bases; this would give you an additional $400 billion or so per year to actually start paying down the debt.

Those who are nervous about our ability to repay would get a strong signal from actual repayments; the extra interest we pay now for the uncertainty would be eliminated as more investors find Treasuries more attractive and secure than before, bringing interest rates down, further helping to reduce debt, and as a side effect, lower interest rates across the board, making it more possible for businesses to borrow for needs and for consumers to buy goods at a more reasonable repayment rate, taking pressure off foreclosures and defaults and trending upwards toward more employment.

The losers in this? The folks who now rake huge "bonuses" from their companies and pocket them, rather than investing in their companies or providing shareholder dividends. That's a plus for me, but I've got a mean streak toward greedy jackasses. :)

I hope this explains my position more clearly. The "taxpayer" is not a homogeneous blob, but is composed of identifiable elements which can be singled out to redress current imbalances and return to a more normal system.

[Romulox]

171. I STRONGLY support higher taxes on the rich. But debt still isn't money (or wealth)

You can claim that Social Security wouldn't be a problem if corporations and the wealthy were to pay their fair share. And if there was some mechanism to prevent the government from using any "surpluses" accrued in the future in the same way they've used them in the past (namely, to shore up budget shortfalls and to claim bogus "surpluses" there,) then perhaps we could make some progress.

But that's isn't reality on the ground today. We live in a country with a so-called "Socialist" President who has given his blessing to the transfer of trillions in taxpayer monies to international bankers. And who has repeatedly stymied attempts to recapture the bonuses paid out of same. So an argument based on a radical transformation of the tax code must be taken in this context.

And debt still isn't money.

[mbperrin]

172. Actually, money IS debt.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-7-money-creation


Here we will explore the process by which money is created. In order to appreciate the implications of our massive levels of debt, you have to understand how the debt came into being.

John Kenneth Galbraith once famously said, “The process by which money is created is so simple that the mind is repelled.” We’re about to discuss that very thing. Money creation is a bizarre thing to ponder. It is actually a very simple process, but it’s really difficult to accept.

Money is loaned into existence. Conversely, when loans are paid back, money ‘disappears.’


Much much more at link.

[Goldstein1984]

91. I understand the economic, social and political situation very well

My OP was intended only to generate discussion about a divisive issue. The tactic and its potential was the subject; I wasn't making a case or taking a stand, just tossing in my perspective in hopes others would do the same.

We're on a very solid economic recovery plan that can best be summed up as: Survival Mode--Take all you can, save it, and give as little away as possible; the economy is going to have to bounce back without our help. We're buying nothing but essentials and a cup of good coffee as an occasional treat. Our saving are not in stocks, not in real estate, not in U.S. government bonds, and not entirely in U.S currency. Soon, they won't even be entirely in this country.

I'm fortunate to have a steady and well-paying job, but the retirement savings are gone nonetheless. Two years ago I was going to be able to retire at 55--one more year. We wouldn't be wealthy, but we would be fine. Retirement age is now pushed back at least until 65. Family members have been hurt badly by the recession, and we are assisting them, so it could be 70. There are multiple scenarios, but this is the most likely. At the recommendation of a friend, we're researching work and retirement in Thailand. I have professional and language skills that would lend themselves to consulting international business there, and I could probably get by working half-time. At this point, it's all up in the air.

[laughingliberal]

109. Correct again. You're good, you! nt

[JDPriestly]

79. You pay for your parents one way or the other.

You can either pay Social Security and Medicare or have your parents move in to live with you. Take your pick. Which do you prefer? Because, yes, you can be made legally responsible for your aging parents. If the government doesn't take your taxes and pay them out to the seniors in society, then children will be responsible for their parents.

In agrarian societies, generations live together in one household -- parents and grandparents with the small children of their children. That's the natural way. As I said, take your pick. Your parents had to share their households and lives with you for about 20 years. You will be reciprocating that favor whether you like it or not.

[Romulox]

96. No, you can't be legally made responsible for your parents. Not in the USA.

Children? Yes. And of course your parent's estate is responsible for its bills before you get any inheritance. But nobody is legally responsible for their aging parents unless they voluntarily agree to be.

All of which is an aside. I'm not against caring for my parents and their generation. However, the idea that retirees are the only segment of our society that's not going to share in our steadily declining standard of living isn't really realistic without major changes in government that just aren't realistic under either Dems or Repubs (e.g. meaningful cuts in military spending.)

I feel like I'm the bad guy for owning a calculator. :shrug:

[omega minimo]

125. No you're a "bad guy" for claiming to see clearly while looking through the pocket protector

:hi:

[ChiciB1]

136. As One Who Just Spent TEN YEARS Caring For My Mother-In-Law

who had "very, very, little" we took her into our home and cared for her. My husband felt a need to retire early because of this. We DON'T regret the care we gave her, we don't regret that we were there for her either.

But, there WAS NO inheritance at the end. We are now "paying" for the bills for the up-keep of her home, as it would take a great deal of money to get her place fixed up! Plus, selling homes here in Florida SUCK!

Do I think the Social Security system/Medicare system needs re-vamping, I'm split on this because had it NOT been for her Medicare. WE could not have survived her care. We wanted her to be among her "family" as she sank further into her Alzheimer's, but a Social Worked came a told us after ten years that we needed to find alternative care. She couldn't talk, couldn't walk, didn't know anyone (that we could discern) and needed COMPLETE care! Hospice did take her in, but finally had to transfer to a Nursing Home. The she lost her Medicare and went on Medicaid and we now pay the bills for her place.

While we have dipped into our savings to keep this up, we had thought we were going to have a different "retirement" since we aren't OLD yet! I'm not complaining, we did the right thing... but dreams have faded and we resign ourselves and have adapted to not living like we had anticipated! Having NEVER been rich, it's not all that bad, but as time goes by our savings dwindle... but we are not alone in the spot. Financially, we ARE holding on, but cut backs come every day! Honestly, I think we may see MORE of what that guy did yesterday when he flew that plane into the IRS building because he simply "broke!"

Our country is splintering in so many ways and while I don't want to say the sky is falling, I personally think there are many reasons that I look up there on wonder when it will!

Glass half full today!! There are times, when even at my age I think we will have to start some sort of small business to keep our boat floating! Nose back to the grindstone, but we've done it before!

[yellerpup]

102. Right on, sister!

"The PTB have never forgiven us for that and never will."

[laughingliberal]

107. +1000 nt

[Goldstein1984]

9. THIS ISN'T FOR A FLAME WAR

This issue is turning up in other DU threads, and anti-boomer propaganda is showing up on the web.

This really needs to be discussed.

It will only be a flame war if we lack the intelligence and wisdom to discuss a real issue constructively.

[virgogal]

10. Yes, I'm older than the Boomers and saw them go from activism to materialism

in the blink of an eye. (With a few exceptions,of course)

[Goldstein1984]

58. A friend of mine, also older than the boomers...

actually argues that the activism was nothing but the same self-interest that became apparent in later materialism. He believes that the Boomers' true colors were shown as soon as the threat of war and the draft was behind them.

I disagree with this for one reason: I was only 12 when Tet happened, but I remember marching alongside a lot of women who had no worries about the draft or dying in Vietnam. They were clearly there out of principle or concern for others.

I was really hoping that DU was capable of a more objective and constructive debate than is being demonstrated.

[mochajava666]

90. I think your friend has a point

Born in 1961, I'm a little younger than you, but remember my older brother's friends, and remember the news at the time. It seemed to me that the biggest problem the boomers had with Vietnam was the draft. Once college couldn't get you out of the draft, all hell broke loose. I think you could make a good argument that, in principle, people didn't want to die for imperialism, but didn't actually protest until your their own personal lives were on the line. Just like if there was a draft now, you would see a huge problem with the wars coming from the colleges. That protest would make today's college student look leftist, but it's just that imperialism isn't worth dieing for.

Boomers have been and always will be the elephant in the room when talking about US politics and culture ever since they got the vote. When they were young, America had a youth movement, where you "hoped to die before you grew old" or "didn't trust anyone over 30". As they got older, all of a sudden models could be over 30 and rock musicians could be over 60. I suppose we will enter a respect for your elders era, where that generation will be looked upon for their wisdom. Yikes.

Anyway, I think that the Vietnam war protest had a lot of self-interest in it that just later expressed itself as materialism. IMHO, the biggest problem I see with the boomers is the sense of entitlement that permeates their narcissistic world view. Of course, this whole discussion is based on generalizations, so I'm probably talking out of my ass.

[Goldstein1984]

97. I think the Boomer generation is like any other

they are a product of their environment.

Speaking generally is okay, as long as the limitations of painting with a broad brush are accepted.

The Boomer generation gave us both Dusty Springfield and George W. Bush--how much generalization does that contrast allow?

[mochajava666]

104. Dusty and W. are good examples of the extremes.

When I think of the extremes of that generation, I think of Abby Hoffman and Jerry Rubin of the Chicago 7. In the 80's, Rubin turned into a materialistic yuppie and debated Abby Hoffman on a tour through college campuses in the 90's.

As for the Boomers being a product of their environment, I think that they were so big that they also created their own environment. Kind of like Everest creating it's own weather. I think that's what causes the narcissistic world view I see in so many of that generation. They have always been in the spotlight and always will be, until some giant demographic shift the size of the boomers appears again, or they die out.

[Goldstein1984]

106. That's a good assessment...

there were both creator and created.

I think it would be better for the planet if another consumer cohort like the Boomers never exists.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

168. +1000

[ChiciB1]

137. Oh, HOW I Agree With You... I Lived At Ft. Hood, Texas when Things Were

in FULL SWING! There was a place there called the Oleo Strut that soldiers from the post started as their defiance against the war!! Jane Fonda came there and WAS greeted with CHEERS! Hard to believe I know, but I WAS there!

I was very young too, but I as a woman decided to get married right out of high school because I was afraid my husband was going to get drafted! We are still together today, remarkable considering the circumstance, but I remember that ACTIVISM and there is NO REASON we should be sitting back and watching this country "slip, sliding away!" Simon & Garfunkel for those who don't know the phrase!!

Our music and Hollywood activists could be counted on to send a resounding hue and cry! Sure, there was great upheaval and anarchy, but we SENT THE MESSAGE!!! Now, those activist are filled with FEAR or something because it just AIN'T happening! Washington D.C. and all those involved are covered in a sea of GREEN, and we can't seem to penetrate this GREEN wall that thickens each and every day!!

[Goldstein1984]

143. I think I understand the fear, I just believe we have to act in defiance of it

I posted a call for an economic boycott on my Facebook page, and asked my Facebook "friends" to spread that request. In that request, I stated clearly that the purpose of the boycott was to send an economic message that would frighten those with a stake in a corrupt system by negatively impacting the economy. One of my friends, an attorney and former congressional consultant, contacted me immediately and told me that my post could easily be interpreted legally to be an attempt to organize group for purposes on "economic terrorism." To my knowledge, there is no legal definition describing "economic terrorism," but my friend is far more familiar with the law than I am.

I chose to leave the post in place, but sent notes to each person who had access to it to let them know what my attorney friend had said.

The bottom line is, we are at a point where citizens fear their government more than their government fears them, which Thomas Jefferson warned is the turning point between liberty and tyranny.

If we fear out government, that alone is reason enough to act.

[ChiciB1]

147. Your Last Statement Is One That I Agree With... I Have MORE To Say...

but need to go to get "more groceries" at an inflated price! I will return with my thoughts about "economic terrorism" and what it means to me!

L8R
:thumbsup:

[Blue-Jay]

11. Yes.

I blame


and

[NoNothing]

12. What Boomers did

Was to forget about the long-term. Whether it was as corporate CEO's, union leaders, or politicians, they did whatever benefited them the most AT THE TIME, with apparently no thought whatsoever about the next generations.

[leftofcool]

13. How is my retirement a burden to you?

I will be drawing social security I paid in, retirement I also paid in and paying out the nose for my own health care, groceries, property taxes, income tax on retirement, utilitiy bills, car insurance, clothes etc...

[Romulox]

20. All benefits are paid out of current workers payroll deduction.

Any money that you "paid in" was spent a long time ago.

[leftofcool]

22. Does not matter, I still paid

And still have the right to have it back and not be considered a burden

[Romulox]

27. At some point, reality has to be a factor. The money is gone. New taxes are the only source

of new funds. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

30. The reality is, the feds owe that worker. Their bad management

doesn't mitigate the debt.

[Romulox]

33. "the feds" get their money from US taxpayers. There is no third party from which to collect.

Shortfalls in SS will be bridged by either cutting benefits, raising taxes or kiting more debt (or, more likely, some combination of the three.)

[EFerrari]

43. Because cutting a bloated Pentagon budget that we don't need

is never even considered. And yeah, our tax structure sucks, too.

[Romulox]

50. Listen, I would cut there first too, if I had my way. No lie. nt

[EFerrari]

88. If we weren't so busy trying to keep body and soul together,

we'd go after the members of the two Pentagon budget committees. Which ones are they? Is it Senate Armed Services?

[laughingliberal]

111. Payroll taxes were raised to cover the shortfall in income taxes caused by tax cuts for the wealthy

and they have been 'borrowing' the SS funds with a 'promise' to pay them back since the tax cutting binge started in the eighties. Us working class stiffs have been carrying the burden for 30 years while the wealthy skated. We need to roll the tax cuts back, way back. And not just the Bush tax cuts, either.

[Romulox]

132. I'd love to raise taxes on the wealthy. How do we convince an admin

that has handed over trillions to the wealthy (in the name of the "free market", no less!) to raise taxes on the wealthy? It's not even in our President's vocabulary to propose such a thing.

[laughingliberal]

149. I don't know how we convince our elected officials of anything

A good 1st step is to raise holy hell when they float the idea of extending the Bush tax cuts. That is the first thing that needs to go. Looks as if Harry Reid yanked the Baucus job's bill because one of the provisions in there was to extend the Bush tax cuts. A good thing to do would be thank him for killing that corporatist bill and getting back on track with job's creation efforts. There is a lot of speculation that this is what, specifically, pissed Evan Bayh off enough to decide not to run again. Anything that pisses off Evan Bayh is probably good for us peasants. So, we let Harry and other Senators know of our support for his actions in this regard and we let others know when we are against their corporate fellating policies. Beyond that I know of nothing else until the American people see the truth and are ready to rise up in genuine unrest against it. What will not be helpful is participating in the age old divide and conquer tactics which have been working against the peasant class these past 30 years. Black against white, men against women, gay against straight, young against old, middle class against poor-it is all part of the strategy which seeks to keep us, the powerless, fighting each other so we never rise up against the real culprits.

[Goldstein1984]

39. Absolutely true

I have 14 years in a state pension, and while I was paying into that plan I wasn't paying into social security. My social security will be reduced accordingly, but the state hasn't fully funded the pension. State residents are now arguing that retired and retiring state employees should get reduced benefits, rather that "taxpayers" (this is Alaska, no individual pays state income tax) having to meet their obligation.

The pension was delayed compensation; I earned it; it isn't negotiable.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping DU was capable of discussing without emotion turning it into an unrec festival.

The point of my post was to generate discussion, not a flame war.

Very disappointing. My college debate coach would give DU and F.

[EFerrari]

44. I went into the job market after pensions had become a nice idea.

All I will have is Social Security. But happily, since I have no health care, the Feds will probably make money on that deal. I've just accepted it.

Stealing what a worker has already earned seems despicable to me. That it's routinely floated as an option is appalling. American workers are treated like trash.

[leftofcool]

51. They always have been

[EFerrari]

72. Yep. That fight is never over. n/t

[Goldstein1984]

American workers are treated like what they are...

disposable.

There is a strange duality when it comes to "public employees." The working class seems to view them in much the same way they complain that the robber barons treat the working class. Private sector employees who would scream "murder" if their wages or pensions were threatened often think nothing of demanding the same thing from "their employees."

My pension will be tiny. Our retirement savings have pretty much been wiped out by multiple events and the need to assist others in worse shape than we are in.

We're scouting Thailand this December as an affordable place to retire.

[EFerrari]

71. Yes, you're right about public employees. It's very odd. n/t

[Romulox]

54. My mother's husband's co. went into BK, it's PARENT co. bought the assets of the company

shed all the liabilities and left behind the pensions of the workers for the Federal Pension Guarantee board (to be paid off at 60% or something, of course.) The plant never slowed down. Even for a day! All the debt was gone, the parent company purchased the assets of its own subsidiary, and 40% of my mother's income was wiped out.

Mom's husband earned his pension too--had a contractual right to it, even.

[Goldstein1984]

98. That scenario is happening everywhere with private pensions

I have a small pension that matures in 2011. If it still even exists then, I have the option of cashing it out. Rather than gamble with the long-term health of the pension, I plan to grab all I can as soon as I can and just deal with the tax disadvantages.

[leftofcool]

48. New funds could be created from what the Pentagon gets

[Romulox]

49. Cool. Let's do it!

:shrug:

[leftofcool]

52. I'm game!

[JDPriestly]

80. We paid for our parents. You have to pay for yours.

That is the way of nature. Social Security was actually invented to relieve kids of the burden of caring for aging parents all by themselves.

How do you think things worked before Social Security was introduced? I can tell you. Old people lived with their children. That's how it worked. That's how it works in countries that don't have Social Security. What do you prefer? Living with your parents until the day they die or paying a small part of your paycheck into Social Security?

[Romulox]

94. You're wrong. Nobody "has to", and it's a question of "can we?" at this point.

The demographics and economics have changed dramatically since you were young.

[omega minimo]

127. Boomers paid TWICE for past and future in the 80's

[SammyWinstonJack]

139. How come NO ONE will acknowledge that little fact?

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

157. Because they don't know they've been brainwashed by Reagonites and Limbot

[Goldstein1984]

26. I wasn't arguing that it was a burden for me...

I said that such a claim is being made, and it has some basis in reality. The social security trust reserve was all spent to pay for tax cuts. It is basically a pay-as-you-go system now. Those collecting social security will be a burden on future taxpayers. But not as big a burden as the debt that's accumulating for future generation to pay.

AGAIN: I'm tossing this issue out because it is becoming an issue "out there" and because it has the serious potential to divide and conquer. I was hoping for a less emotional discussion, but that clearly isn't going to happen.

[leftofcool]

46. DU a non emotional discussion? Naw!

I realize you were not saying it was a burden for you specifically.

[Goldstein1984]

100. I recognize the folly of my plan now

On the bright side, the thread contains a lot of linguistically interesting replies that will keep me busy analyzing from months.

Given the axiom that form follows function, and visa versa, DU posts are never as simple as the vocabulary alone suggests.


Based on form/function, it's amazing how much the subject lines of DU posts and the protest signs of the Tea Party Movement have in common.

[laughingliberal]

112. I'm so sick of the divide and conquer tactics of the ruling class

and doubly sick because they are so effective at keeping us divided.

[wryter2000]

32. And, I might add

That we've been paying extra FICA over and above what was needed to pay benefits to people older than us SPECIFICALLY because our numbers were going to be a burden on the system. It isn't our fault Bushco ran up such horrific deficits that the money is now gone.

[leftofcool]

53. Good point

[laughingliberal]

113. Don't forget the increased payroll taxes started under Reagan and were how they financed tax cuts

for the wealthy.

[DURHAM D]

14. It is the Greatest Generation's fault. nt

[Demobrat]

15. It's not the boomer's fault there are so many of them.

Let's talk about the "greatest generation", shall we? You know, the ones who thought it would be a good idea to have 3-5 kids each so they could compete with one another for spots in college, good jobs and housing throughout their lives. They're doing just fine, collecting their social security and medicare confident tit will always be there for them, while the boomers are vilified for getting older and expecting to collect the benefits they were promised and have paid for their entire lives. Greatest generation my tuchus. The only thing they were great at was overpopulating the planet - and blaming their children for being born.

[Jennicut]

34. Yes, you guys had to practice birth control didn't you? We Gen Xers barely make a dent.

Just kidding.
Generation Z is heading everyone's way soon. That would be Gen X's kids born in the 2000's. Mine are 4 and 5. Maybe they have better answers then the rest of adults do.

[DURHAM D]

64. Yep -

Example - my Dad paid into Medicare for 16 years (it started in 1966) before he retired. He received benefits for 29 years. Each year on Christmas eve he gathered the family (children, grandchildren and then g-grandchildren) together and gave us handouts showing the running totals of how much he and my mother had received in SS funds and medicare benefits that they had received over and above their own contribution.

Then he and my mother thanked and toasted us kids for our contribution to their well-being. They referred to these payments as "your money". My Dad was a WWII vet and he called the the SS payment schedule and the medicare plan as "The longest and most expensive Thank You note in the history of the world". He was upset by what he thought was punishment on the pre boomers and boomers because the "greatest generation" (he hated that term) was selfish - not because they needed the money but because they refused to recognize that it was their kids and grandkids that were funding it.

I remember one Christmas eve we had gathered in a restaurant, instead of at home. Their toast to us was always followed by toasts returned to our parents and a whole lot of jokes and funny stories. We apparently became a little boisterous. That year the annual toast was heard by other families in the restaurant. It apparently started several generational arguments. Eventually the manager came out and asked us to knock it off because others were upset - so we changed the subject.

As we were leaving several people (boomers) came up and talked to us and thanked my parents for their honesty. What they expressed was not that they resented what their parents were receiving but the lack of recognition of their kids contribution while simultaneously berating their children for not doing better with their money - like not saving enough or having to take out student loans when the grandkids went to college, etc.

I miss my parents - they were generous and smart members of their generation.

[Demobrat]

87. You really lucked out.

Most members of your parent's generation make no connection between the financial security they enjoy and the struggles of their children.

[old mark]

18. I rec'd this, but it's still unrec'd. As a boomer who retired early to claim more than

my fair share of the wages of the young workers, I say fuck 'em.

The only reason the next generations haven't made the number of mistakes we have is because they haven't lived long enough yet.


mark

[leftofcool]

24. +1

[Goldstein1984]

31. I was hoping for a civil discussion of a legitimate and...

potentially divisive issue. I was obviously asking for too much.

There are a lot of people on DU who can't see past their anger. It poisons every thread that isn't pablum.

[Romulox]

35. Chillingly honest, this post will undoubtedly be played off as a "joke" if pressed...

"claim more than my fair share of the wages of the young workers, I say fuck 'em."

Your generation, huh? :eyes:

[Goldstein1984]

70. As I wrote, I'm just over the peak of the Boomers

I was born in 1956, which was just over the tip of the birth rate peak. So, I am a Boomer, although at the back of the pack.

As I noted in another post in this thread, I was hoping that DU would be capable of objectively discussing an issue that seems to have serious divide-and-conquer potential. Instead of a discussion, I got a demonstration of how effective the tactic will be if used.

If there are any of those "Freepers" watching this thread, they are probably taking notes.

[EFerrari]

28. Yes. We didn't buy the media. We screwed up. n/t

[wryter2000]

36. Sorry

It isn't any generation's fault. It's the fault of people who turned conservatism into racism, greed and a total lack of concern for the well-being of the citizens of this country. Honestly, it began with George Wallace. Nixon picked up the first glimmers of how to pull it off with his southern strategy. It was picked up by some very unChristian people who've claimed Jesus for their own perverted purposes. It was put on steroids by Ronald Reagan and taken to its pinnacle by George W. Bush.

They're the ones who robbed the treasury, not the people who now need retirement benefits.

[Romulox]

38. I'd go so far to say that "fault" is a red herring at this point.

It's not about "fault"--it's about what we are going to do about it, going forward.

Seeing as how we are not willing to cut corporate subsidies or our war budget, we have to deal with the reality of a Social Security shortfall. Painful decisions will be made, with or without our input!

[wryter2000]

92. Excuse me, but no

Not only have I been playing by the rules, but I've been paying extra over and above what it costs to support the folks before me for just the reason that my cohort is so large. No way does anyone turn around and tell me after that that I have to adjust to "reality."

Change the damned reality.

[Romulox]

93. Reality time: there is no trust fund. A decision will have to be made or there won't be any checks

at some point!

I don't know how much plainer I can be? :shrug: Regardless of what you think that decision should be, a decision has to be made. What you've paid has been spent.

"Change the damned reality."

Ummmm...it's in the past. We can only make plans for the future. :shrug:

[wryter2000]

105. Get rid of the cap

Problem solved. There are all kinds of things that can be done. "You have to accept reduced benefits" is not acceptable.

[Romulox]

131. I agree with removing the cap. But not many Dems in power seem to...

"'You have to accept reduced benefits' is not acceptable."

"You have to accept a reduced standard of living" isn't "acceptable", either. But it's real. :shrug:

[juajen]

129. Well said, pal, well said! NT

[laughingliberal]

115. +1000 nt

[SidDithers]

37. Are Boomers the same as Duck and Cover kids?...

I get so confused sometimes.

Sid

[Goldstein1984]

42. They would be the same

I wasn't one of the popular kids, so I never got to be the one who cranked the lead curtains shut.

[Blue_In_AK]

41. It's the job of young people

to put the blame for all the world's ills on their parents. We did it ourselves. Remember "Don't trust anyone over 30"?

I take all this with a grain of salt.

[leftofcool]

57. We are the people our parents warned us about?

[Mari333]

59. HEY I HAVENT TRUSTED MYSELF SINCE I WAS 30

AND THATS 30 YRS AGO

:P

[leftofcool]

61. You too?

[Mari333]

63. yes, it is time to write my obit

according to most of the 20 yr olds I meet. but than, I remember when I was 20 and how I was pretty sure I would NEVER be this old.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[leftofcool]

65. 64 seemed old when I was 20. Now, I feel like a spring chicken

and wouldn't go back to 20 for nuthin'

[Mari333]

68. no kidding! me either. 20's were, as my son calls them "a clusterfck"

I prefer being old. I can scratch and belch with a delicious sense of ease and impropriety.

[Blue_In_AK]

76. Me either.

I'm really happier at 63 than I've ever been, and since the psychics all tell me I'm going to live into my 90s, I still have a third of my life to go. :)

[ChiciB1]

138. I LOVE THAT! And I RESEMBLE THAT!! My Daughter Got All Ga-Ga

about the movie "Across The Universe" because of what she saw about our activism as she was growing up. I told her it wasn't true reality, but held some nostalgia for me. We took a trip to San Francisco (it was a freebie) and she couldn't wait to got to Haight! I HAD to keep telling here, that regardless of it's LIBERAL aspects... it became a commercial paradise that had the ambiance, but is WASN'T Haigt! We went to Berkley and talked with many students and some professors and the DIVIDE was very evident.

We still LOVED the trip, and I think of it often... but you know... YOU HAD TO BE THERE to really understand!

[Goldstein1984]

62. Personally, I also take it with a grain of salt...

and whatever reality sits behind the issue is just that--reality--we have to deal with it. I am disappointed in "my generation," mostly for what they started and failed to finish.

My concern, and the reason I thought this issue was worthy of discussion, is the potential the issue has for division within democratic and progressive ranks.

I meant for a discussion of the potential to divide and conquer. What I got was a demonstration of how it's going to be done.

I expected more from DU. Disappointing.

[Blue_In_AK]

74. This issue comes up here all the time,

I'm not sure why, but I understand what you're saying about what we failed to finish. I think it all boils down to the fact that we never did have the real power to follow through with our ideals. We have always been marginalized by the moneyed interests...I'm not sure we could have ever overcome that. Even after the election of 2008, the message of "hope and change" has been buried under corporate money and interests.

[Goldstein1984]

77. I'm afraid the last time citizens demanded that moneyed

interests cease to marginalize them, their position was explained in a document called "The Declaration of Independence."

I don't see the moneyed interests letting go for anything less than that kind of action.

Since I don't believe the American people have that in them any longer, at least not on a national level, I see a future that looks a lot like the present, or maybe a little worse.

Remember Joe Vogler? He used to say that the military bases in Alaska were not here to protect the state, but to occupy and secure it. Do you ever wonder whether Vogler might have been right about at least a couple of things? His idea of keeping his wealth in gold makes a lot of sense today. I wonder what else he got right?

[laughingliberal]

116. I think the assassination of our leaders took a lot of the wind out of our sails

Still, we made some gains for women in the 70's. Once Reaganomics came in, though, it was, for me, taking all the running I could do just to survive. As wages have stagnated and declined over these past 30 years, I think the time and energy for activism was eaten up. And I don't think that's an accident.

[Goldstein1984]

130. Well characterized

"The time and energy for activism was eaten up" by design. I can't prove it, but it seems self evident. I agree with those who say that the last three or four decades have been a conscious counterattack against the gains made by the working class.

What frustrates me the most is the way the people allow themselves to me manipulated, to be divided. I just sent a PM to someone who was pretty badly savaged for posting an OP than ran contrary to the narrative of the Popular Kids on DU. My point here is that we are facilitating our own oppression be narrowing our views to a degree that only one thing is capable of creating and maintaining a majority--dogma and enforcement of that dogma--assaulting anyone who dissents or questions the party line. I wrote:

This is bunch badly in need of therapy, or a good spanking.

It's a shame that so many on DU don't recognize that they are what they claim to despise.

They're so angry, they've become their enemy. And their enemies are multiplied by their inability to engage anybody who isn't like themselves constructively.

They don't even engage each other constructively, they've just agreed to agree, and to mob anyone who disagrees with them.

They are, literally, the teabaggers of the Democratic Party. They aren't attacking the Democratic government because being in power has become the most important thing, regardless of how the power is being used, but they attack the dissenters among them.

They betray the democratic principles they believe they embody with their pseudointellectual brutalizing and suppression of dissent. They use unrecs the way primitive cultures use stones to punish the unorthodox.

[laughingliberal]

145. Not one thing there I can disagree with

It is frustrating to see those in our own party engaged in the behaviors for which we ridiculed the right wing voters. To me, the most obvious are 1) demanding loyalty to an elected official who is acting against their own interests, and 2) participating in the divide and conquer tactics of which you speak so well.

Whereas, I am happier to see a Democrat in the White House rather that a Republican, it is still inherent on me to point out when said Democrat is acting against the interests of the working class.

Is it not our responsibility as citizens to petition our elected officials regarding our concerns? And does this responsibility end when the elected official is of our own party? You said it far better than I ever could but loyalty needs to be to principle and not just the idea of retaining power for one group or another.

[Goldstein1984]

150. I think it all boils down to people and principles first

Principles, rather than party loyalty and political "necessity," should be the basis for all action.
People, not parties or platforms or systems, should be the first priority.

And "people" cannot be "us" versus them. The life of a child killed by a remotely operated drone strike in Pakistan must have the same value as the life of a child killed in an aircraft she thought was taking her to Disneyland but took her instead to the World Trade Center. We call our own children "victims of terrorism," and call the children of others "collateral damage."

Americans have to realize that we have more in common with peasants--the working class--everywhere on the planet than we have with our own ruling class.

My post above was rather harsh, I admit. I think a lot of the DUers that I criticized are acting more out of fear and anger than on bad intentions. In fact, I think their intentions are probably good.

I'm also happy to see any Democrat in the White House. But not enough to give them the keys to my children's and grandchildren's future and walk away.

[laughingliberal]

153. Perfectly stated. We have more in common with peasants everywhere than with our own ruling class. nt

[reformist2]

55. IIRC, Boomers were the only group NOT to vote for Reagan in 1980.

[DURHAM D]

66. Thank you. nt

[Goldstein1984]

67. I don't have any statistics but...

that has always been my assumption. But in another thread I clearly read the statement, "The Boomers gave us Reagan."

I don't think facts have anything to do with this issue unless they are forced in. I was hoping this OP would be better received and generate more meaningful discussion.

As I noted in a different post in this thread, I was hoping for a discussion of how this issue might be used to divide and conquer, but I got a demonstration, instead.

[JDPriestly]

85. In December, I earned precisely one dollar on a small retirement

account in which I had over $13,000. When we worked and saved our money for retirement, we were assured that our money would earn money and we would be OK in retirement.

I am 66, well educated, hard-working and healthy. In a normal economy, I would be able to get a job -- easily, even at my age.

Reliance on foreign energy, outsourcing and lack of trade restrictions have cost American jobs and ruined our economy. I have always argued and voted against those policies to the extent that I could. What are you doing about energy independence? Do you buy imports from China when you don't really have to? What are you doing to help strengthen our economy here in America?

One way or the other, you will pay for the senior years of your parents. So, you need to think about what America needs to return to a better economic state. That's the question we all need to discuss.

Baby boomers set aside a lot for retirement -- but outsourcing, etc. ate it up. And baby boomers could work longer because they are in general healthier than their parents were, but there are no jobs. You are beating a dead horse, Goldstein 1984.

[Goldstein1984]

89. As I said, I'm a Boomer, too, just on the tail end

I'm 54, but saw my retirement, except for a very small state pension (barely enough to cover utilities), disappear along with everyone else's. The company I was working for went bankrupt, but I saw that coming, and moved from Nebraska back to Alaska one week before they filed. My son's job was literally shipped to China (While he and hundreds of other employees were laid off, the company relocated all of the machinery to China and resumed production there), so he's been underemployed and all of our disposable income has been used to help him. I don't expect to retire before 70, and we're pinning our hopes on a friend who believes I could consult in my field in Thailand.

I'm fortunate to be in a field where there are still jobs, but barely. I'm also fortunately to be educated and trained in five interrelated fields (biology, environmental science, engineering, safety, and training), so an employer can hire me instead of two or three people (My current situation, where I put in about 70 hours per week as Corporate Director of EHST, a purely management position, and also as field safety and training.) Further, I possess many of the skills that a company with a small staff would typically contract out to consultants, so a limited budget has me putting in a lot of hours at home developing management systems. I do what's necessary to stay employed.

In my field, we would refer to a lot of the factors you listed as "causal factors," but we would still be seeking the "root causes" common to those factors. I believe the root cause of all of the challenges we face (concentration of wealth, consequences of free trade, corporatization of the government and loss of democracy) is simple greed--avarice--one of the seven deadly sins.

My best to you.

[laughingliberal]

118. I believe I saw a reply here that said the boomer gave us Reagan. It's not how I remember it

I appreciate your efforts to foster serious discussion. As long as the masses are kept fighting each other, we're doomed. I believe, to the bottom of my heart, if we find ourselves blaming or fighting any group of people who don't belong to the corporate ruling class we are being distracted. Period. This is a class war and we are losing. One of the reasons we are losing is we continue fighting those of our own class. I have been appalled to find, on a Democratic website, support for union bashing, demonization of the poor, bigotry against everyone from the obese to the people who 'bought more house than they could afford.' How much longer will we do this to ourselves before we organize to fight the people who are destroying us?

[Goldstein1984]

144. This is a class war and we are losing.

And that's it in a nutshell.

I don't remember Boomer support for Reagan, either. At least not among the Boomers I hung out with. Obviously, there was enough Boomer support to get him elected, but I don't think that's an indictment of an entire "generation."

Regarding the bigotry against those who "bought more house than they could afford." My wife and I consciously made a frugal decision to consider our house a home, and not an investment, so we bought small when our bank and realtor where trying to sell us big. It was completely possible to not be a willing participant in what was obviously an investment scheme based on the facility of unlimited growth potential. That said, I don't fault any person for buying into the myth of an American Dream that has been so effectively marketed. It was part of the culture, and we tend to get swept up into culture, which is really nothing but group behavior.

The division among us is a bigger enemy, I think, than the Ruling Class. It prevents us from even recognizing the true enemy, and we bicker among ourselves rather than organizing to fight the class war. This is by design. I think the political structure and the mass media are part of a system that has institutionalized this bickering. The two-party system that was originally designed to create a state of dynamic equilibrium has become corrupted to the point that it's become a system that keeps us all fiddling while the democracy burns.

[Waiting For Everyman]

162. The "October Surprise" got Reagan elected, not the Boomers.

The typical Repub election manipulation stuff (Reagan/Bush colluded with Iran to delay releasing the hostages, so that Carter wouldn't get credit for it and get a vote-surge in the election). It was just like the 2000/2004 elections. Election-stealing isn't new at all. And it was going on long BEFORE Watergate too.

Watergate only exposed the "tip of the iceberg" of the "dirty tricks" that were being done, so most of it continued unchecked and got Reagan elected. And of course nothing has stopped it since then either.

Just like "the iceberg" of crimes we have now. We all know about the national-level collusion that's going on. Except that now, we're not even investigating or prosecuting it at all. Zip, zero. So we won't even get a partial cleanup of the system out of this disaster, as we did with Watergate.

Nobody wants to "spend the political capital" anymore, to do it.

[dana_b]

170. so the boomers parents did it.

thanks grandma and grandpa!! :sarcasm:

[jkirch]

56. Don't be silly. Of course not. nt

[Goldstein1984]

73. Tell me why you think that, please.

The purpose of my OP was to generate discussion of a potential divide-and-conquer issue.

A demonstration of divide-and-conquer wasn't my intent.

[Zen Democrat]

69. The Watergate Generation was fairly liberal. The Reagan Generation swung to the right.

The current teens and 20's have a new enlightened liberalism, much richer and deeper than did we Boomers. The pendulum swings, and swings hard.

This is not a "scientific" opinion, but a broad generalization determined from observing and listening to college students for quite a few years. According to what I see from our younger voters, the country is on the right track to eventually stamp out racism, sexism, and homophobia. The very open-minded and courageous young people are rocking my world these days.

In my opinion, the madness of the teabaggers is like a last gasp of reactionary insanity before the world evolves out of their control, into an America that puts an emphasis on logic, sanity, selflessness and scientific awareness. Boo-hoo poor teabaggers.

[laughingliberal]

120. I hope, for the sake of our country, that you are correct about today's young people

and about the teabaggers being the last gasp of the reactionaries. I have been up against them since I was 12. The names of the groups change, over time, but they are the same fascists I have tried to fight against and warn people about my whole life.

[county worker]

75. Seems a lot of people need to scape goat someone for their life's problems.

Be it Boomers, Hispanics, Blacks, White men, it's all part of the same sickness. An inability to understand reality and a failure to take responsibility for those things they have control over but screwed up.

[JDPriestly]

78. If you think that the anti-war movement and racial equality are bad,

then you should blame the baby boomers. No, the baby boomers are not at fault any more than the post-baby boomers are.

[Goldstein1984]

83. Did I say they were bad?

I said I participated in the anti-war movement at 12. Yes, it was primarily so I could tag along with an older, blonde and beautiful cousin, but I attended a bunch of them, and I carried signs and yelled like everyone else.

I agree that there is plenty of fault to go around. If only because we aren't born in distinct cohorts called "generations." The overlap between generations overcomes any distinctions. "Generations" are artificial. I think I said as much in my OP.

The purpose of the OP was to generate discussion about a divisive issue. As I wrote in other posts in this thread, I got a demonstration of how the issue will be used to divide, instead.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

99. As a boomer in good standing, let me share some perspective with you

1. Despite the stereotype, not all boomers were hippies or even close. Nixon had lots of boomer fans, even in 1968. You can't talk about boomers rejecting their leftist principles when the majority never had any leftist principles.

2. Did boomers elect Reagan? In 1980, the boomers were between 35 and 16 years old. I don't know what the age breakout of Reagan's supporters was, but he appealed a lot to older people, who remembered him as a movie star. You may as well accuse Generation X types of electing Bush Jr.

3. Not all boomers turned into yuppies. Some of us stayed kind of nonconformist all our lives.

4. If you go to an anti-war demonstration, you'll find that there are lots of people with gray or graying hair (i.e. boomers) and lots of high school and college students. Generation Xers? Not so much.

[Hannah Bell]

101. The boomers were the age group *least* likely to vote for reagan in 1980.

a minority of them voted for him.

[Greyhound]

152. I think it's that stereotype causing the misconception.

Few of them were ever really "Hippies" (Socialists, IMO), but it was cool and nobody wanted to be drafted anyway. Once the draft was gone, they went back to their privilege.
:shrug:

[Pithlet]

158. Nice swipe at Gen X. Do you know what we're also called?

The baby bust. There simply aren't that many of us. We were followed by another smaller baby boom, who are in their twenties now. So that might account for your little observation, there. Yes, we're the invisible generation sandwiched between the old farts and the whipper snappers.

[damntexdem]

103. Yes, yes, it's true! We Boomers did it. And it WAS all a secret plot, too!

Only we Boomers were in on it. And we succeeded in screwing everything up, too. And we'd do it again! In fact, we WILL do it again! Just wait till we start signing up for Medicare! Bwahahahaha

[anonymous171]

108. Boomers did their time and got things changed. Gen X did not. I blame Gen X. nt

[Romulox]

133. Ummm, Boomers are the wealthiest generation of Americans evert to have lived

They currently control every branch of American government and most all of its industry.

[anonymous171]

151. Yes, but as I said before, they "did their time."

[slipslidingaway]

110. The boomers are partially responsible ...

many went ahead and voted for the candidate chosen by their party, the lesser of two evils.

:(

[TexasObserver]

114. Generalizations about "generations" are usually fig newtons of the imagination.

I've looked at clouds from both sides now ....

The mind's eye of humans sees an endless stream of connected things that don't necessarily connect. Most citizens of the world live trapped inside a mental paradigm they call their religion, like an animal trained while young to fear a shock or other stimulus.

We see in clouds and life what we expect to see, what we want to see, or what we fear to see. We take bits and pieces, draw lines between them, and draw conclusions that are often irrational. In that sense, we're all variations on the excess portrayed in A Beautiful Mind.

The Boomers have little to label them in a common fashion. People born in 1950 grew up very differently than those born in 1960. Whether one was enamored of RFK or Reagan in their first presidential election depends partly on when in the boomer years a person was born.

There's simply no reason to consider people born in the 1940s as having generational commonalities with those born in the 1960s. Generation talk is almost always misplaced and merely fulfilling one's own beliefs, rational or not.

[Swamp Rat]

123. Well said

:applause:

[Lilith Velkor]

117. They can't help it, they're frakkin Cylons.

[Swamp Rat]

121. dupe

[Swamp Rat]

122. If one baby boomer is to blame for anything it's

[omega minimo]

126. The Boomers are at fault for not guarding with due diligence the MEDIA CONSOLIDATION & CIVIL RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS.




:boring:

[BamaGirl]

128. Just a few?

I've been hanging out around here (and not posting much admittedly) since I wanna say 04. There's been a gazillion Boomers are evil posts. I'm an Xer. I don't think Boomers are evil. Heck, my mom is a Boomer! My dad prefers to be identified as a war baby. He doesn't really self identify as a Boomer. He says he's too old. Anyway, I think this idea of opposing and even warring generations is so not new. I haven't looked at any statistics lately but I'm pretty sure my generation votes a bit more conservatively than Boomers or the WWII generation. And the generation after mine seems to be much more liberal. Now I'm forming that opinion based on what I see in my own children and their schools. If these kids I know are anything to judge and they keep resisting pressure to conform from their parents and their churches, the deep red conservative South is gonna be in for a major shock in about 10 years lol. I can't wait to see it lol. ;)

So about Boomers and everyone else. I am only speaking about my perception, my experiences, my take, okay? Not trying to speak for anyone else or my generation as whole or a region or whatever. I remember as a kid, and certainly as a teenager, the attitude from the adults I was most around was that. Well. Gen X sucked. We were cynical and apathetic and just not as smart, darnit. Keep in mind, most of my teachers were Boomers. My mom. Aunts and uncles. A majority of the adults I had the most contact with. Most of them made it very clear that as a generation we just weren't gonna amount to much. I'm 38 now. I make good money in a field where most ppl make no money. I write fiction. I love my mother dearly, don't get me wrong, but she has the hardest time wrapping her head around this. That I could take something I love and make a living from it. She always expected me to make a living, she would just never take the risk herself to go outside the system to it. It's my risk taking she has issue with. My husband took a lot of risks too. He was born in the US but raised in Ireland (by his Irish mother). He came back to the states when he was 19, worked as a mechanic making good money for a few years, and threw it all away to join the Army. On the surface, at the time, I'm sure it looked like a really stupid choice to a lot of people. But almost 20 years later it's clear it was the right choice for the path he wanted to follow.

I look at my husband and myself and some really risky choices we made even after we had kids, and I know, there is no way either of my parents would have done what we did. My dad is a great photographer. My mom is a really gifted painter. Dad gets it, why I do what I do, but my mom seems to think art is something you do when everything else is good. She can live without it which just amazes me. I can't do it.

Contrast all that with my kids. If I recall correctly from my readings, my kids' generation is at least as big as the Boomer generation unlike mine which is much smaller. My kids...I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, I think you become your mother. In many ways, I've become my mother lol. On the other hand, I think you do the opposite of your mother. My mom is a big hot shot lawyer who works for a former governor. Me? I write smutty (though best selling lol) romance, go to work in my sweats, and drink too much beer lol. She believes in changing the rules if you don't like them and I say, fuck it, break the rules because you'll never be able to change them. My girls though (my teenagers, I also have an 8yo son) are much more like my mother. Not nearly as wild as I was, and definitely no where near as cynical. Their attitude and their friends' seems to be, we can fix it! While mine's was, this party is gonna end let's milk it for all it's worth!

And all of that to say, we can bash the Boomers all day long. Heck, I'm up for it lol. But I really think it's more about class than generation. It's easy to blame a generation, easy to point a finger at something so general, and the people with the power, well, they know that too.

[earth mom]

141. No-it's not the boomers fault. It's the medias fault for brainwashing people for decades.

AND

It's the fault of corrupt and greedy politicians and an even greedier Corporate America and Wall St.


I'm a boomer and I've had to scratch and claw to get anywhere in life and I just resent the hell out of bullshit OP's like this.

There is little critical thinking in this OP and a lot of immature finger pointing. :thumbsdown:

[Bluebear]

146. "As they retire, they're going to become a significant burden" - well, isn't that lovely.

Push us all out onto ice floes for wild birds to peck at, k? :)

[Mari333]

148. hahahahahaha

[KonaKane]

159. John Bolton is a Boomer

and emblematic of many "soured" 60s gen liberals who decided that neoconism was a far preferrable world view.

[upi402]

161. I don't know one lib turning neocon

Many are corporatist-lite and DCCC Clinton-Republicans. But not a fan of BushCo, P-NAC, or a neocon. Good question and wish there was data on it.

[KonaKane]

163. You might want to check this out, then....

See what four heavy hitters in the American political scene analysis say about neocons and where they came from. Rich Lowry (editor: National Review), Paul Weyrich, (chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation), Paul Gigot, (editor: The Wall Street Journal's editorial page), and George Will (syndicated columnist). Yes, they are conservatives and I picked them because they have the least reason to try to align themselves today with liberals.

ALL FOUR of them say that neocons came from "ex"-liberals.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_196286.html">Check it out...

[AsahinaKimi]

dupe

[AsahinaKimi]

166. I have always blamed Boomer Esiason

oops, sorry, wrong thread... :P