If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Baby Boomers, who refused to save for retirement, ran up the national debt and bankrupted Social Security, have told their kids "The only 'inheritance' you'll get is the bill for all the debt we've run up"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 323
    More: Obvious, social security, MetLife, economic value, baby boomers  
•       •       •

15469 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2012 at 4:58 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



323 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-22 07:20:07 PM  

OlderGuy: Sim Tree: OlderGuy: IMO, Barack is growing the Government at an alarming rate, which we don't need and cannot afford,

I merely want to insert this in here:
Obama is the first administration in 40 YEARS to actually shrink the size of the federal government.

That's the lib version, right?


No, that would be the "Not crazy right-wingnut bullshiat"

Or do you still believe Obama is Kenyan? Muslim? Atheist?
 
2012-01-22 07:20:25 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Every time this discussion comes up the Boomers come out of the woodwork en masse to tell us how wrong we are, it's not their fault for anything and how if we would just man up, stop being lazy and get jobs everything would be great, ignoring the fact that their generation is responsible for the current situation and we could all get those allegedly awesome jobs if they would retire like their parents did before them.

So, Boomers, it's not your fault you're farking your children and grandchildren. We exonerate you of any responsibility, and we forgive you for your inability to start any sentence without the word "I". Just continue to live in total comfort until you die, we'll do the heavy lifting for you once you're gone.


They bred like crazy and won't retire. So we better get jobs, and if we don't we're just lazy. Oh, and even some book stores - which are slowly going the way of the Boom-... er, dinosaur - won't hire you unless you at least have a 2-year Associates degree.

Also, even though they refuse to retire, they also refuse to keep up with the times and take a college course or enlist in seminars to keep their knowledge current and relevant to their employment positions, so they drag everyone else down because of they ignorant ineptitude and proclivity to pull seniority rank instead of actually being right.
 
2012-01-22 07:20:48 PM  

Babwa Wawa: I don't disagree with their sentiments wrt obligations to their children, but that generation really is responsible for the farking mess we're in right now with SS and Medicare, and thus the national debt. So fark them in the ear anyway.


Sorry, but it's not SS and Medicare that farked us despite what the Republicans would have you believe.

LemSkroob: The wife and I have about 70k right now, and we just hit 30. No way in hell are we risking anything in the future.

We bank about 1k a month (plus our 401ks at 8% each), while our friends in the same income bracket are living paycheck to paycheck because they overbought a home and *must* drive BMWs (on lease of course). Yeah, good luck with that.


Exactly. It's almost always a spending problem, not an income problem. We continually can't figure out what the people we know are managing to do with their money, they have enough income but they're always short on money.

stiletto_the_wise: Reasons old codgers are clinging on to their jobs:
* They can retire comfortably but simply want more (greed)


Or they enjoy it. My wife likes her job and I do not believe she will ever voluntarily retire and I don't believe retirement will be good for her, either.

Great Janitor: Stopped reading when it mentioned parents needing to pay for their children's education. That is bullshiat. There is nothing wrong at all for making their children pay for the college education.


I do think parents should pay if they can reasonably do so.

Further more, what is wrong with parents not paying for their children's financial emergencies. All families should have saved up 3 to 6 months worth of their annual income saved up for when there are financial emergencies. And an emergency is not "Oooh, 3D Television, I must have that." No, it's for stuff like a new roof when it's needed or car repairs for when they come up.

Other than for things that happen during/just after college I agree.

1) A life insurance policy, term, for your family that is completely outside of work.

Assuming you have dependents. I've never owned life insurance and never will--no dependents to need it for.

4) Pay off your debts. Arrange them smallest to largest, make minimum payments on everything but the smallest debt and throw everything you can at it. After that's done, take the money you paid on that debt and the minimum payment on the next smallest debt and pay that off faster. Repeat until debt free.

This makes it feel like you're accomplishing more but you'll actually do it fastest if you pay them off by interest rate rather than size. The best option isn't to incur them in the first place, though.
 
2012-01-22 07:23:18 PM  

Great Janitor: s2b2b2: Great Janitor: ghare: Great Janitor: fantasy-based gibberish


What, exactly, was wrong with what I said? How fast did you get out of debt and retired?

Your suggestion that a financial adviser can earn 12.5 percent a year for 30 years is absurd, even if the adviser works for free. Because the adviser will take a cut in good years and in bad, the actual earnings would need to be more like 15 percent. Only the very best financial people are in that neighborhood, and the chance that an average investor will be able to identify one of them and hire her or him is basically zero. Lots of pension funds are assuming returns of 10-11 percent, and they actually can hire those pros, and nobody thinks they're going to make those returns. If they aren't, you aren't, either. A more reasonable rate to assume is 6 percent or so.

When I sit down with my clients, I show them a program that has a 12.5% rate of return. That's their money and not "The account is at X amount, and I get Y and the rest is yours."


Showing someone a program that has a 12.5 percent of return is meaningless. If you have clients who are earning that much after paying you and have been doing so for at least a decade, I tip my cap in your general direction. ($100,000 earning 12.5 percent for 30 years would yield $3 million, so why would you need to save?) But I don't think you do. Also, I'm not wearing a cap so it would be more of a metaphorical gesture.
 
2012-01-22 07:23:52 PM  
 
2012-01-22 07:25:06 PM  
Only mention of Canada is by Gaslight? I think we need a FarkCanada site.
 
2012-01-22 07:31:08 PM  
One generation lived high off the hog for 30, 40 years, let infrastructure decay and crumble, worshiped the corporate god and reduced the corporate tax from 27.3% of federal income to just 8.9% of federal income from 1955 to 2010, then said "fark you guys, it's YOUR fault, you're just LAZY." when this generation came of age and found the best job is flipping burgers.

When YOU came of age, you cocky farking baby boomers, you got a job in a factory making real money. You could support a family on one income. That's literally not possible anymore, unless you happen to be one of the few making over 150k/year.

Go to school, they said! That's why you can't find work! You can do whatever job you WANT! Except that's a bald-faced lie. People who went to school for a job they want are still going "Well wtf, where's the farking jobs?" and are still flipping burgers or slinging coffee at Starbucks.

You farked us, boomers, and you're lucky we're less violent than you or we'd commit age-based genocide to fix the problems you created.
 
2012-01-22 07:32:22 PM  

Loren: Or they enjoy it. My wife likes her job and I do not believe she will ever voluntarily retire and I don't believe retirement will be good for her, either.


That's fine, but then the Boomers (as a generation) have no right to complain that their kids (as a generation) still live with them and serve coffee at Starbucks because there's currently no room for them in the professional work force.

And when they're 80 and on dialysis, the Boomers can't expect their 40-year-old kids (who are just starting their entry-level jobs) to foot the bill for their long term care.
 
2012-01-22 07:32:39 PM  
Three claims:

1) Baby Boomers (1947-1964) didn't save for retirement;
2) Ran up the national debt
3) Bankrupted social security.

Got evidence?

1. Didn't save. American savings rates have been low for decades, starting before the Baby Boomers made it through college. The Baby Boomers were not great savers, however, they did put a lot of money into housing and into investments, they also support their parents and their children and their grandchildren to this day.

CONCLUSION: Bull-shiat. They invested rather than saved. They did well when everybody invested and they did poorly when everybody stopped. That's high finance and the stock markets for you.

2. Ran up the National Debt. The National Debt was higher after World War II than at any other time. It was paid down rapidly, however, thanks to high taxes and rapid economic growth during the period when the Baby Boomers were kids. By 1968, when Richard M. Nixon (not a baby boomer) was elected, the Baby Boomers were beginning to leave college. Their educations and other social benefits such as old age pensions, retirement homes, welfare, new schools, new hospitals, new old folks homes, etc., were paid for by previous generations until they started working (the earliest Boomers were in their early twenties still in 1968). It was Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Pater who ran up the National Debt from less than one trillion in 1980 to four times that when the first Baby Boomer became President in 1992. The Baby Boomer Presidents, Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama certainly didn't do a lot to halt the growth of the National Debt, although Clinton balanced the budget and left a notional surplus. The Great Recession began in 2007 and ended (notionally) in 2009. So basically it was two Presidents Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. who are responsible for any debt since Ronald Reagan's presidency ended in 1988, four years before the first Baby Boomer President was elected.

CONCLUSION: Bull shiat. The Baby Boomers were cleaned out by the Dot Com Bust, the Recession, the Great Recession, and the Housing Bust. They had plenty of money but it was a delusion created by Free Market Enterprisers, aka Financial Pirates. It vanished, leaving them with underwater mortgages, over-valued houses, parents to support, and kids and grandkids to support. The Boomers at the end of the Boom have been called the Second Lost Generation. Nobody cares or thinks about their plight but they share the blame for booms in which they never participated and busts they never caused. Obama is in this generation.

2. They bankrupted Social Security. Social Security is not bank rupt. In Canada the system is sound, it should be in the black for the next 75 years. In the USA, it is not yet in the red--the money coming in may be less than the money going out, but a deficit in cash-flow is not bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is when you can no longer meet your obligations. This was scheduled to occur in the early 2040s before the current crisis began. The passage from incoming to outgoing cash flow was scheduled for 2014. I don't know whether it has been pushed ahead by as much as two years, but even if it had, you can hardly blame the Boomers for a system they did not create (in the 1930s and 1940s, before they were born), did not expand (in the 1960s and 1970s, when they were in school) or exploit to the hilt (in the 1980s and 1990s when their parents were retiring and enjoying the good life in the Sunny South).

Conclusion: Bull-shiat.

Bull-shiat, bull-shiat, bull-shiat. And it's all propagand fed to you by the generations which the Baby Boomers fought for your civil rights, political freedoms, prosperity and social welfare today. So many things you take for granted that previous generations did not have--like starting housekeeping with all the goods and services that my parents and grandparents only had in middle age or in their declining years.

Everything that the Obama administration has done to keep the US economy and government from collapsing has been whinged about and obstructed by the very sort of people who benefited from the great stock market and housing cons, the great health insurance con, and the great political con which is con-servatism. But the bulk of the evil was done before Obama's presidential run was a gleam in his eye. And learn to count. If you can't understand economics (and who does?) you can at least look at Wikipedia and figure out what year the culprits who really did this long con were born in, and what political party and factions they belong to.

The facts are biased towards liberalism, real liberalism, economic and political and social. If the con-servative movement aryans didn't have lies, they'd have nothing. Obama's critics are the very people whose asses were saved by him, just like FDR saved their asses in the 1930s and 1940s. Obama's critics are the people who ought to be do their con-serving serving time in prison with the rest of the cons.
 
2012-01-22 07:33:33 PM  

OlderGuy: Outrageous Muff: EnviroDude: Harry Truman - the buck stops here

Barack Hussein Obama - 2006 - The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure," he said. "It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. ... Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

Barack Hussein Obama - 2011 - pass the buck

Right, because Barack Obama caused a generation of Americas to think the good times would never end and they didn't have to plan policy for the future. The only thing worse than Baby Boomers are people like you who think this is solely a one=party problem.

IMO, Barack is growing the Government at an alarming rate, which we don't need and cannot afford, and getting more people on the government teat, which we also cannot afford.. And our aforementioned Government is busily enacting more restrictions on small businesses, which are the only entities that can save the country and help it recover.. And the entire Government seems to think that their prime responsibility is to grab as much as they can. This is a one party problem.. One party is the whole damn government, the other party is the american people.. and we, the american people, are getting farked. The person who is sucking on that teat will vote to keep the milk running.. and Obama is the Grand Teatmaster.. and his minions will support him.. and that is bad for the country.. and if you can't see that, the teat is blocking your vision
not a rant.. just reality... wish that integrity and honor was present in our government... it's not.....


And you are also probably just retarded enough to think that Romney or Gingrich or Santorum or Paul can fix it. STFU old man and suck a tailpipe. You are wasting good oxygen over there.
 
2012-01-22 07:36:22 PM  
 
2012-01-22 07:37:20 PM  
If wages hadn't been stagnant for 30 years, we wouldn't really have this problem. And until you get solid income growth in the long term, the problem isn't going to go away.
 
2012-01-22 07:38:28 PM  

superdude72: From the article:
Only one-third of baby boomers received help with college from their parents, compared with 46 percent of Gen-Xers, but about three-quarters of boomers said they had supported their own children through college.

Boomers didn't *need* help with college from their parents, because tuition at the state universities was virtually free for their generation.


Yea no shiat. I hear all the time about how people in my parents Boomer generation paid $500-800 a year for school. We pay $10-20,000 per year. If I only had to pay $500 a year for school including books, I'd have 6 farking PhD's by now.
 
2012-01-22 07:41:08 PM  
I don't need to collect SS - just give me all my money I've put into the system for the last 35 years, with modest interest. I'll take it from here.
 
2012-01-22 07:41:15 PM  
Give them ONLY WHAT THEY PAID INTO SS AND MEDICARE.

Let the tears flow
 
2012-01-22 07:43:11 PM  
this thread needs a little George Carlin...

Philosophy for Old Age (new window)
 
2012-01-22 07:43:15 PM  

brantgoose: Bull-shiat, bull-shiat, bull-shiat. And it's all propagand fed to you by the generations which the Baby Boomers fought for your civil rights, political freedoms, prosperity and social welfare today. So many things you take for granted that previous generations did not have--like starting housekeeping with all the goods and services that my parents and grandparents only had in middle age or in their declining years.


Horseshiat. The interest from the Baby Boomers in bucking the system came from self-preservation, and as soon as the draft was over they stopped bucking the system and embraced it. As it is not one thing the Baby Boomers did stopped the war. This self-aggrandizing nonsense is what we're talking about. Labor: your grandparents did the legwork. Civil rights: your parents did the legwork. Social welfare: I had no idea LBJ was a Boomer. Economic prosperity? Thank your grandfathers, that was a direct result of victory in World War II. You had nothing to do with any of it, unless you want to take credit for the nickel-and-dime strikes that drove jobs overseas.

You claim undeserved credit for everything, when all you've done is embraced the system and farked it over repeatedly while claiming to be outside of it the whole time. Now the bill is coming due and you claim that you paid your dues? Nonsense, you rode coattails the whole time.
 
2012-01-22 07:43:21 PM  

brantgoose: Three claims:

1) Baby Boomers (1947-1964) didn't save for retirement;
2) Ran up the national debt
3) Bankrupted social security.

Got evidence?

1. Didn't save. American savings rates have been low for decades, starting before the Baby Boomers made it through college. The Baby Boomers were not great savers, however, they did put a lot of money into housing and into investments, they also support their parents and their children and their grandchildren to this day.

CONCLUSION: Bull-shiat. They invested rather than saved. They did well when everybody invested and they did poorly when everybody stopped. That's high finance and the stock markets for you..


Wow, you're an idiot.

"You didn't save!"

"Yes we did, we invested"

"THAT'S NOT SAVING, YOU RETARD. MAKING RISKY INVESTMENTS AND CASHING IN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IN THE SHORT TERM IS NOT SAVING."
 
2012-01-22 07:44:11 PM  
It's funny to see so much concern about social security - the problems with it and the potential pain involved in solving them are orders of magnitude less than other things like medicare/medicaid.

Social Security can be boiled down to a relatively simple mathematical equation with a bunch of inputs, such as the SS tax rate, age of retirement, payouts, etc.. One or a few of those can be tweaked slightly to make it solvent again, some examples being:

- Raising the retirement age.
- Raising the social security tax rate.
- Raising the income cap.
- Means testing payouts.
- Slightly reducing payouts.

Certainly, none of those are very pleasant and each have their own unfortunate side-effects, but none of them are grievously painful either. It is certainly much, much easier to solve than our ballooning health care costs, long-term energy issues, or the consequences of globalization that we're facing.

I guess the worrying thing to me is this - if our political system and the society it responds to cannot solve a relatively simple problem like social security, how can we ever hope to tackle the more substantial issues we are going to be facing over the next few decades?
 
2012-01-22 07:45:27 PM  
Unfortunately, lots of peeps are going to be dying impoverished of preventable illnesses in rented rooms.
 
2012-01-22 07:46:24 PM  
...standing by...
 
2012-01-22 07:48:19 PM  
Sorry, this ain't my fault. Never inherited a dime, worked my way through college, worked continuously for the last 50 years, put my kid through college, and can now retire. Even though it's not a very comfortable retirement thanks to the morons who think we can fight endless wars and provide tax cuts for the wealthy at the same time. And thanks to the new robber barons who made a major chunk of my retirement savings vanish.

You dumbasses complain about my Social Security and Medicare and call them entitlement programs while I've been paying into those programs for years and stand very little chance of getting back anything close to what I put in.

Now get off my lawn and GFY.
 
2012-01-22 07:48:36 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Tillmaster: we did, and our savings cratered because each of us had to manage our own pension funds, rather than pool the funds and allow a professional to do so.

.

are you kidding me? you needed a professional?

any idiot knew to put their money in mutual funds with balanced risk based on their age.

It isn't as if that was some secret strategy that only the professional know and that etrade, or any of those online services could have helped you.

every 401k statement I ever got also said the same farking thing.

if you were too stupid to manage your own money based on everything that was out there, maybe you don't deserve to have money.


5/10 Try harder.
 
2012-01-22 07:49:57 PM  
Boomer leadership in the white house and congress has been the most inept and incompetent in the history of any declining empire.
 
2012-01-22 07:51:12 PM  

relaxitsjustme: How is it baby boomers fault? Look at the chart hemphead posted. It started to get out of control during the Reagan/Bush I years, Clinton was getting a handle on things towards the end of his second term and then Bush II got the job. Blame boomers if it makes you feel better but it's Republicans fault.


So GWB took the debt for 6T to 9T in 8 years....BO has taken us from 9T to 15T in 3 years, but yeah, it's the republicans. I'm sure that mentality will help drive the debt down in the future.
 
2012-01-22 07:52:50 PM  

GORDON: Outrageous Muff: EnviroDude: Harry Truman - the buck stops here

Barack Hussein Obama - 2006 - The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure," he said. "It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. ... Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

Barack Hussein Obama - 2011 - pass the buck

Right, because Barack Obama caused a generation of Americas to think the good times would never end and they didn't have to plan policy for the future. The only thing worse than Baby Boomers are people like you who think this is solely a one=party problem.

He is in charge today, and the problem of today are his. Get off your worshipping knees and hold him accountable.


We DO hold Obama accountable for his part, but when are you old farkers going to hold Reagan, Bush I and Bush II accountable for theirs? farking old conservative asshole.
 
2012-01-22 07:52:59 PM  

ChuDogg: krackpipe:

Sure he signed NAFTA after it was accomplished by Bush I. He didn't fight Bush I's prior signature upon it or its ratification. He nearly eliminated the national deficit, if you consider deficit to be a problem. Some people might argue that the small recession which occurred soon after the Bush takeover was due to Clinton. Again, that's arguable. But no reasonable person would argue that the subsequent damage Bush brought with two wars on credit and immense national security expenditures, also on credit, were anything close to that small recession. Bush administration (w/R congress) destruction and mismanagement more than doubled the national debt and created a situation which will take at least a lifetime to rectify, if it's at all possible. And Americans re-elected him. The problem is our voters.

Once again, the politics are really an illusion in my perspective. The wars, you can probably directly attribute to Bush. And has bad as they were financially, they probably represent about 10% or less of the total debt problem we are going to face in the next 10-20 years. The other Bush spending was really a continuance of fiscally irresponsible measures of the past 30 years. The blip in all of this was mid 90s tech bubble, which drastically increased government revenues over the norm. True, the top tax bracket was slightly higher by a few points, but nowhere near where we needed to be to have a solvent economic policy. Much of what you can consider a Democratic recovery can really just be attributed to blind luck. The peace divided from the coldwar + a technological miracle that most other countries in the world couldn't perform = billions and trillions of dollars in economic activity centered around the U.S.

Something like that occurring again is simply not possible in today's global economy. Any technological advances can easily be performed in developing companies and most of the world will be on par with U.S. and EU countries in a few years. So now we have to address our fiscally insolvent policy measures, and stop point the finger back n forth at one another. While this is a very complex subject, it mainly boils down to more taxes + reduced benefits. Right now we are continuing to spend with our fingers crossed that the economy was miraculously recover on 1990s levels to dig our way out, and we'll blame Bush or Wars on debt reduction. I find that to be a very unlikely scenario.


We can find common ground on "more taxes and reduced benefits" front. Restructuring is forward-thinking. The costs however are more than double your 10% number, that is security costs have run about 1.28T. That's a conservative number of current expenditures not including disability and so forth ahead. 1.28/5.67T = .225. Taxes should have been raised beginning in 2002, and this was well-understood, albeit it might have detracted from the apparent war agenda. Clinton can't be included in any of that. However, moving forward, "more taxes, reduced benefits". It didn't have to be that way.
 
2012-01-22 07:54:09 PM  

Eponymous: BO has taken us from 9T to 15T in 3 years,


Thank Bank of America, Goldman Sachs etc for that. If they didn't willfully screw over the financial markets, there'd have been no bailouts, the economy doesn't hit the skids etc.
 
2012-01-22 07:54:17 PM  
 
2012-01-22 07:56:58 PM  

krackpipe: reduced benefits"


That is not acceptable, period. And if you want to fix things, you have to reverse 30 years of stagnant wages.
 
2012-01-22 07:58:08 PM  

Outrageous Muff: The problem is in Congress, and unless Obama truly is the dictator you teabaggers think he is, then he can't do a damn thing about it. Know how your own government works, and not how Fox News/Rush tells you it does.


So exactly what role did the Congress have in QE1/QE2, which basically devalued our currency to the tune of $3T. Last time I checked that was cooked up by Turbo Tax Timmy and his friends at the Fed as an executive branch directed program that was outside the auspices of Congress. Why don't you unlock your lips from Ed Shultz's bunghole and learn a little bit about government yourself.
 
2012-01-22 07:59:34 PM  

Eponymous: So exactly what role did the Congress have in QE1/QE2, which basically devalued our currency to the tune of $3T.


It's funny how you insist on everything is the government's fault.
 
2012-01-22 08:00:33 PM  

LavenderWolf: One generation lived high off the hog for 30, 40 years, let infrastructure decay and crumble, worshiped the corporate god and reduced the corporate tax from 27.3% of federal income to just 8.9% of federal income from 1955 to 2010, then said "fark you guys, it's YOUR fault, you're just LAZY." when this generation came of age and found the best job is flipping burgers.

When YOU came of age, you cocky farking baby boomers, you got a job in a factory making real money. You could support a family on one income. That's literally not possible anymore, unless you happen to be one of the few making over 150k/year.

Go to school, they said! That's why you can't find work! You can do whatever job you WANT! Except that's a bald-faced lie. People who went to school for a job they want are still going "Well wtf, where's the farking jobs?" and are still flipping burgers or slinging coffee at Starbucks.

You farked us, boomers, and you're lucky we're less violent than you or we'd commit age-based genocide to fix the problems you created.


Strong words. Sorry your parents didn't work harder. Mine did, and do. I don't see much my Baby Boomer parents could have done differently either. But you're the expert on what they did, so they must be the source of all your problems.
 
2012-01-22 08:01:02 PM  
My parents are boomers. They would never been called wealthy at any point in their lives. They just invested for retirement and didn't spend money they didn't have.

I can say in all fairness, with this trouble economy and stagnant wages, I would never be a home owner without their help. I never in my wildest dreams imagined they would be able to more than match my down payment on a house. I owe them a debt I doubt I'll ever be able to repay. In New Jersey that still meant a fixer upper. But I've never been afraid to get dirty.

My wife's parents are typical boomers. Horribly in debt on top of a mortgage and they are 65. They once asked to move in with us and then boat a boat in the same week. I wish I was kidding.
 
2012-01-22 08:01:20 PM  

WhyteRaven74: krackpipe: reduced benefits"

That is not acceptable, period. And if you want to fix things, you have to reverse 30 years of stagnant wages.


I'm listening.
 
2012-01-22 08:01:47 PM  

kiwimoogle84: SuperTramp: kiwimoogle84
There's nothing wrong with people doing things their own damn selves. My children will earn everything they have.

See you on Jerry Springer!

*lobs a chair in your direction*

Glad we had this chat.

/I'm gonna go be hot somewhere else
//this isn't the thread for it


Looking at your pics, you're not gonna be hot in any thread sister.
 
2012-01-22 08:02:57 PM  
hmmmm..I see the governments plan is working brilliantly. The 'ol in and out .....conquer and divide.........

Who is gonna get the last bisquit at the table of fools?????


Want jobs?, money, food......a real life.......????

The solution is easy, the implementation is painful...........

Get rid of your government....all of them .....for good.........

But not gonna happen so suck it up slurp boys
 
2012-01-22 08:03:34 PM  

SingletonFactory: I guess the worrying thing to me is this - if our political system and the society it responds to cannot solve a relatively simple problem like social security, how can we ever hope to tackle the more substantial issues we are going to be facing over the next few decades?


Politics isn't about solving problems, it's about power through popularity. This seems to matter to people, so they'll make it their business for it to be a problem. Did you care enough about it to vote? No? How about this other hot button issue? No? What would get you riled up? Ok, we'll bicker over that to get your vote. It's not a system for problem solving, it's a system for distraction and low-consequence public involvement. Our system is designed to thwart revolutions by splitting our attention.
 
2012-01-22 08:03:40 PM  

krackpipe: don't see much my Baby Boomer parents could have done differently either.


It may not be your parents, but it does fall on baby boomers for what's changed. They've been in charge of lots of stuff for 30 plus years now. The lack of job growth, the lack of income growth, education costs etc does fall on them because they've been the ones in charge of a lot to this day and aren't seemingly too concerned with making things better on the whole.
 
2012-01-22 08:04:30 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Eponymous: So exactly what role did the Congress have in QE1/QE2, which basically devalued our currency to the tune of $3T.

It's funny how you insist on everything is the government's fault.


The less government there is, the less people/entities there are in your life that corporations can buy off. Regulators who regulate an industry, then go and work for the survivors who benefit from it. See most recently; FCC chairman who approves NBC/Comcast merger, then goes to work for NBC immediately after.
 
2012-01-22 08:06:28 PM  

Babwa Wawa: If they got farked by the downturn, it's because they didn't diversify when they were in their 50s. If they didn't diversify in their 50s it's because they wanted to take more risky investments. If they wanted risky investments at their age, it's because they didn't save enough early on.


yup
all these dumbasses planning on retiring early, with all their investments still in stock
bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha
 
2012-01-22 08:07:05 PM  

krackpipe: I'm listening.


The problems we're having are largely due to 30 years of stagnant wages. Thing is, reversing that means dealing with people directly, you can't really legislate income growth. As it is, we have tons of enterprises run by people who are completely unsuited to the task and don't care about anyone but themselves. Changing that, isn't exactly an easy task but it can be done.

SweetDickens: But not gonna happen so suck it up slurp boys


And another ethically bankrupt intellectual coward joins the fray.
 
2012-01-22 08:09:27 PM  

brantgoose: It was Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Pater who ran up the National Debt from less than one trillion in 1980 to four times that when the first Baby Boomer became President in 1992. The Baby Boomer Presidents, Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama certainly didn't do a lot to halt the growth of the National Debt, although Clinton balanced the budget and left a notional surplus. The Great Recession began in 2007 and ended (notionally) in 2009. So basically it was two Presidents Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. who are responsible for any debt since Ronald Reagan's presidency ended in 1988, four years before the first Baby Boomer President was elected.


The deficits and natinonal debt became unsustainable under Reagan, and grew under each president thereafter, including Clinton. Yes. Clinton. As we already went over, the government was increasing the national debt while declaring a budgetary "surplus"

While Clinton was the first "Babyboomer", it's pretty easy to see how most people view the Reagan revolution when the babyboomers entered the workforce, bought properties, and became the new middle class, while forming a voting block that gave themselves tax cuts (which the wealthy were happy to oblige) and voted in their own prosperity.

brantgoose: They bankrupted Social Security. Social Security is not bank rupt. In Canada the system is sound, it should be in the black for the next 75 years. In the USA, it is not yet in the red--the money coming in may be less than the money going out, but a deficit in cash-flow is not bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is when you can no longer meet your obligations. This was scheduled to occur in the early 2040s before the current crisis began. The passage from incoming to outgoing cash flow was scheduled for 2014.


You should go back and read the correspodance between me and shaggy upthread. Essentially, few, if anybody actually knows how the social security system works. While the social security administration may be sound, according to the logic you posted, the fiances are invested in government treasury bills. So the SSA will begin selling off these T-Bills back to the federal government to maintain current payments. The general government will be faced with two options 1)raise taxes and cut spending to pay of the SSA, or 2) issue more public debt.

The latter is especially problematic, as a system of forced debt will wreak havoc on our interest rates and monetary policy when that begins to happen. It's anyone's guess how that will play out as soon the U.S. government is going to run out of lenders for there spending spree. But likely there will be some combination of the two and the SS will have to be overhauled as well, with more FICA revenue and less benefits. If that's confusing, here it basically boils down to:

1984: $1 payroll tax collected in 1984
1984: $1 lent by Social Security to the federal government
1984: Federal government increases spending on government programs by $1
2020: Federal government raises taxes by $1 plus interest to repay the loan to Social Security
2020: $1 plus interest transferred from Federal Government to Social Security.

So yes, Social Security is perfectly solvent, but our national treasury isn't. As we already have to maintain trillion dollar deficits to keep the economy afloat and are issuing new debt at record levels. The SS is already paying out more than it takes in (you're 2014 projection is a few years out of date) so right now it is staying afloat on the interest which is "supposed" to last until 2022. As these set backs get closer and closer, I highly doubt that 2022 projection is accurate, considering your 2014 figure is already out of date. Also add on the payroll tax holiday, while a great benefit for lower income workers, will only accelerate that mark.

So pretty soon we will be faced with this decision. A few years ago, I would say the babyboomers were going to die off before this whole mess. But with the rate things are going at, it will likely be before you die. It could even be on the horizon as soon as the 2016 elections.
 
2012-01-22 08:09:28 PM  

WhyteRaven74: krackpipe: don't see much my Baby Boomer parents could have done differently either.

It may not be your parents, but it does fall on baby boomers for what's changed. They've been in charge of lots of stuff for 30 plus years now. The lack of job growth, the lack of income growth, education costs etc does fall on them because they've been the ones in charge of a lot to this day and aren't seemingly too concerned with making things better on the whole.


I know I'm not devoting my life to politics to change this farked-up system. I'll just keep doing the best I can and voting every two years. That's what most people do. What do you expect everyone to change about our daily lives?
 
2012-01-22 08:09:42 PM  

jayphat: The less government there is, the less people/entities there are in your life that corporations can buy off.


Thing is, with too little government you end up with Love Canal and other things that ought have never happened. As for regulators, it's a matter of culture. We treat working for government, or at least certain agencies as a matter of resume padding and not a matter of a career in public service. You don't see the same thing happening in other countries because people view working for the finance ministry, labor department or what have you as a matter of public service. It's where they'll spend their careers.
 
2012-01-22 08:09:58 PM  
The only inheritance the Baby Boom Brats will get is the largest stock of housing that America has ever seen. Oh, and the stocks, bonds, gold, and other portable wealth that the Baby Boomers, their parents and their grandparents have stockpiled to unprecidented heights. A standard of living that is still among the highest, with the exception of social democracies and very clever, industrious and well-invested small states such as Switerland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

When I was a kid, Americans couldn't even buy gold. It was illegal. Once the price falls back to "normal" levels, it will still be worth a literal king's ransom--a thousand kings' ransom in fact.

All of this stuff will be worth a lot less than the Boomers paid for it, but a lot more than you deserve.

Because what have you done to deserve any inheritance? What have you done? Are you taking care of your parents and your grandparents? Are you mowing their lawns every weekend, taking them to the doctor, making sure they eat, get the right prescriptions, don't fall and break their hips?

My parents tut-tut about the young people nowadays--how they expect to have everything from the get-go, how they know nothing of thrift or responsability, how they get, get, get and never say thank-you or give anything of their own. They're little royalty who expect you to give, give, give as their birth right. And woe to you if it is not better than the next little prince or princess has.

Well, my aunts and uncles stopped giving me and my siblings presents (even cheap ones) when I was ten--I still give my nieces and nephew presents and the oldest of them is over thirty, the youngest on her way to college. Only one of them ever gives anything to me and I expect his wife has more to do with that than anything. She's the one who gives. She comes from a much poorer family than ours. He says thank you to those who feed him and provide him with the necessities but he runs at a massive net loss. There's an inkling of gratitude, but not enough to go around to everybody who has sacrificed for him and coddled him from birth.

Say you meet one of these old women who went to work when they were 17 because their family wouldn't support them any more once they were "grown up and able to support themselves" and who worked above the call of duty for nearly fifty years while being the main economic support of parents, children, grandchildren, community charities, etc. What can you say to convince them that you have worked, really worked, uncomplaining, for a year of your life at 30 or 35? What can you show them in the way of sacrifice, hard work, unselfishness, responsibility, and generosity towards your family and friends and communities and strangers?

You can't even spell frugality, let alone understand what it means. The word is unknown to you, just something that is not to be found in the urbandictionary.com list of known words. You expect an inheritance as well as a rich, comfortable life free of real obligation and sacrifice and work? Ha! You don't deserve either.

Hell, I haven't done much to repay what my parents and grandparents have sacrificed for me to be healthy, grown-up, responsible and comfortable, but I have not been asleep for the last half century. I know not only what the generations before me went through, but the generations before them, and the generations before those. Each of them made things better for the future generations, and so far there is only a couple of generations who seem to have no sense of real conservatism, which is paying this debt to the past forward to the future, liberally if possible, but as largely as possible in any case.

Oh, grow up, generational trolls. The Baby Boomers were just like you when they were your age (assuming you are under twenty). But they followed in the footsteps of the secular chain of generations before them when it came time to care for their families and their communities. They grew up and became elder care-givers and not just infant care-receivers.

You're just like your parents when it comes to expecting things to be handed on to you without gratitude or compensation, but you've yet to prove you are capable of growing up like they did, which means handing things on in better shape than you received them. And they have, despite the worst that the business cycle of creation and destruction has done thus far. And the worst that conservatives have managed to do with their long and their short cons.

I blame your rotten reactionary grandparents. They never did learn anything much. They still think of entitlements as white entitlements, rich people entitlements, the entitlements of power, wealth and office, family, old age and those who take.
 
2012-01-22 08:12:37 PM  

WhyteRaven74: krackpipe: I'm listening.

The problems we're having are largely due to 30 years of stagnant wages. Thing is, reversing that means dealing with people directly, you can't really legislate income growth. As it is, we have tons of enterprises run by people who are completely unsuited to the task and don't care about anyone but themselves. Changing that, isn't exactly an easy task but it can be done.


Noted. Suppose the 30 years of stagnant wages are a symptom however. Either way, what are you suggesting we change, our education system so that people are "suited" for their tasks? What are you trying to say?
 
2012-01-22 08:13:05 PM  
FTA: "My personal feeling is that subsidizing grown children sends a destructive message: "You can't do it on your own."

My personal feeling is that subsidizing parents who make stupid choices is similarly destructive. If I'm expected to have my shiat together, then I should be able to expect my parent to have his/her shiat together to a greater degree.
 
2012-01-22 08:13:07 PM  
There is no reason for people in my generation to plan on retiring in this country. Anyone with the means and talents that are appreciated abroad will emigrate to a country with a saner policy toward its own citizens and the general welfare. Retiring in the US in a few decades will be indistinguishable from a suicide attempt.
 
2012-01-22 08:13:10 PM  

krackpipe: I know I'm not devoting my life to politics to change this farked-up system.


The problem isn't in politics. The fixes for the problems aren't in politics. It wasn't politics that created the problems, it's not politics that will solve them. They are fundamentally problems of culture.
 
Displayed 50 of 323 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report