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.

(USA Today)   Baby Boomer Jonah Goldberg complains that the Greatest Generation is coddled and selfish, and the cost of providing their unsustainable entitlements will bankrupt their descendants   (usatoday.com) divider line 337
    More: Ironic, Jonah Goldberg, ageism, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Civilian Conservation Corps, entitlements, G.I. Bill, legacy costs, bankruptcy  
•       •       •

8912 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Mar 2013 at 9:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-11 11:22:10 AM
The sooner the damn boomers die off the better. Bunch of leeches.
 
2013-03-11 11:22:40 AM

Saiga410: GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: The answer to your question lies in the question:
Who benefits from average household credit debt?

That has little to do with whether or not people are spending money they don't have.

dready zim: If you think that then your understanding of the graph is dillusional.

What does an income/productivity graph tell us about people's spending habits?

(hint: nothing whatsoever)

I do not understand peoples drooling level of outrage over the productivity to income gap.  Why yes me opperating an excavator does the work of 30+ guys with shovels... but that does not entitle me to 30X minimum wage earnings.  Or a codemonkey replacing/obsoleting the majority of an accounting staff.



I don't think you understand what it represents then. Productivity gains represent more work squeezed from each worker. What that really means is more wealth.


Those productivity gains used to fairly well match the rises in income across all income groups, but since the business community was able to buy our government out from under us (in particular one party worse than the other) they've been able to get the laws they need to protect them from having to share that wealth with anyone who worked for it.

So in the past when you got a better excavator and were able to do more work then the your company would make more money and everyone who worked for them would share in those gains over the years. This is normal, and supposed to be how our economy operates.

NOW, however, instead of getting a new excavator in many cases employers are just making us work more hours, or simply pushing us to work more to make up for others that may have been laid off or not hired in the first place, and then taking that extra cash and hanging it out in giant duffel bags to the very few at the top... largely for being born in to the upper class families that afford them the degree and contacts which allow them to perpetuate the social classes.

Those folks at the top aren't the ones needing to work harder, but they have been able to buy changes to the law that make them have to worry, much, much less about taking care of their employees. Taking care of your employees and making sure they are well-compensated used to be a civic duty... now it's seen as weakness. The incentives and pressure are on businesses to soak their vulnerable middle and lower income workers more and more every year. And the workers have no power to resist any more... Private sector unions have been decimated across the country by that bought government and the laws and taxes have become gradually more and more tilted against the poor and middle class.

There is just no one actually fighting for the poor and middle class, and there's instead a whole cadre of who Marx would have called "useful idiots" who have been tricked in to fighting against their own interests like some society-wide Stockholm Syndrome.
 
2013-03-11 11:24:40 AM
Workplace productivity has increased about 23% since 2000 but wages have only increased 0.4%
And
If you worked for the lowest wages in 2011, you earned less than the workers in the same percentile in 1979
And
People who became unemployed between 2007 and 2009 but found new, full-time jobs took an average wage cut of 10.5 percent

/i47.tinypic.com
//Just sayin
 
2013-03-11 11:24:49 AM

The Why Not Guy: I don't mean to belittle or demean the heroic efforts and sacrifices of those who served in World War II. But the idea that a whole generation deserves credit for what only some did is little more than an attempt to buy glory on the cheap.

During World War II, approximately 16,000,000 Americans served in the military. There were over 300,000 Americans killed. Those at home worked in factories converted to wartime production, or went without necessities because supplies were routed to troops. The entire nation came together and worked to defeat an enemy.

Meanwhile, today people slap a yellow magnet on their bumper and think they're "supporting the troops".

Jonah Goldberg is beneath contempt.


Those were the old days when we actually declared war, the government raised taxes to pay for it, resources were rationed and there was a draft. You couldn't avoid being affected by the war even if you tried. We were also coming out of the depression so people were happy to have any kind of work, even if it meant enlisting.

Fast-forward 60 years..undeclared wars, government cuts taxes, no draft, no rationing, and the economy was doing just fine. You could get on with your life and never know that there were wars being fought.
 
2013-03-11 11:25:13 AM

Brainsick: /Who is John Galt?


3.bp.blogspot.com
"Of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and Ayn Rand characters, the one with the least basis in reality."
 
2013-03-11 11:25:16 AM
Has anyone established what Goldberg's Fark handle is?
 
2013-03-11 11:26:28 AM

Saiga410: ...for only a small part of their careers


doggies.com
 
2013-03-11 11:26:44 AM

Girion47: it isn't easy to adjust your circumstances when you have very little maneuver room. Without a cash buffer small mistakes can completely sink someone who is poor, whereas the rich person doesn't have to worry about making rent, paying to register the car, paying for car insurance, having health insurance without deductibles to cover that unexpected broken limb, having enough vacation time to recover from that broken limb or childcare situation that called them away from work.


I'm sure I can make allowances for "shiat happens" stuff like medical emergencies (hence why I support single-payer).  But if you're asking me to bet against the idea that your average American is stupid and impulsive with money, I'm afraid I can't take that bet.
 
2013-03-11 11:29:43 AM

Dr Dreidel: Kind of weird that the same motivation is behind both the attacks on pensions and SS - you'd think somewhere in there would be "the motivation to not see mass poverty among the 60+ set", but that's...not profitable enough?

They push you into 401(k)s, which they'll tell you are under attack from Democrats (yeah, 'cause any day the Dems'll pass that horror - right after making your 9mm illegal, giving UN the power to unilaterally amend our Constitution, and making it a GTMO-level felony to attach two sticks perpendicularly), but are actually under attack from the very pedestrian "fee'd to death" banker set.

But still, "save your money, people - between the crushing taxes, stagnating wages, and hyper-inflation, you're bound to need it".


But that's the point - 60+ people simply aren't productive anymore. They just kind of exist, taking up space and resources. Never mind the fact that's what most of us want to be doing at 60+, so the best way to make that happen is to treat the current generation the way we want to be treated.

This also demonstrated the hatred for the young - privatization of schools, huge student loan debt, increasing college costs - they simply aren't productive NOW so there is no point on spending money on them, and burdening them with large amounts of debt is the sure way to make sure they stay productive and are willing to take ANY job for cheaper pay.
 
2013-03-11 11:30:35 AM

Girion47: When SS was formed, it was meant to provide about 3 years of support, the average lifespan was 68 back then, it's gone up by 6 years since and the retirement age hasn't been adjusted.  Want to fix SS?  Raise the retirement age.


This isn't true of the people who actually NEED Social Security. People who work with their hands don't live any longer than they ever did; the average life span has gone up because most jobs involve less danger and physical trauma than they did back in the day. So your comfy fat cat who uses his SS check as vacation money lives longer, but your working stiff who would be sleeping in a cardboard box without it doesn't. That dude doesn't need to wait until he's 70 to retire; he'll be dead by then.

Corporations and wealthy individuals are sitting on unprecedented amounts of cash right now, which is why unemployment is going down so slowly. Tax their asses and spend it, and 90 percent of the country's fiscal problems go away.
 
2013-03-11 11:31:24 AM

GoldSpider: Girion47: it isn't easy to adjust your circumstances when you have very little maneuver room. Without a cash buffer small mistakes can completely sink someone who is poor, whereas the rich person doesn't have to worry about making rent, paying to register the car, paying for car insurance, having health insurance without deductibles to cover that unexpected broken limb, having enough vacation time to recover from that broken limb or childcare situation that called them away from work.

I'm sure I can make allowances for "shiat happens" stuff like medical emergencies (hence why I support single-payer).  But if you're asking me to bet against the idea that your average American is stupid and impulsive with money, I'm afraid I can't take that bet.


I won't argue they're stupid and impulsive, we don't teach fiscal responsibility in school.  But what I am arguing is that the wage stagnation/decrease has caused the poorer stupid/impulsive to have less resiliency to their mistakes.
 
2013-03-11 11:31:57 AM

mongbiohazard: and then taking that extra cash and hanging it out in giant duffel bags to the very few at the top... largely for being born in to the upper class families . . ..


Largely for being part of or influenced by the "greatest generation" and feeling entitled to the money.
 
2013-03-11 11:33:02 AM

More_Like_A_Stain: Saiga410: ...for only a small part of their careers

[doggies.com image 233x350]


Maybe it is driven from my parents being early boomers.  They both had worked for 15-20 years before the change in the SS tax rate.  But I did misspeak, the end boomers would have only been in the working age for about a year at the time of change.
 
2013-03-11 11:33:24 AM

Brainsick: People who became unemployed between 2007 and 2009 but found new, full-time jobs took an average wage cut of 10.5 percent


CSB: I found myself unemployed 2 years ago yesterday, and when I finally found full-time employment to replace it (360 days ago), I ended up with a 10% pay cut relative to my previous salary.

// but I got an extra week of vacation out of the deal
// and my new boss isn't a sociopath - well, not THAT kind of sociopath
// plus I'm getting a raise for my anniversary
 
2013-03-11 11:34:40 AM

GoldSpider: That was among plenty of reasons why I didn't vote for the asshat.


It's not just that asshat. Many people look at what they have, and realize they could have worked harder but they chose to raise a family, or didn't want the responsibility of their own business. They cannot acknowledge any amount of luck in getting a good job or finding the right house at the right time or meeting the right person. All they have, they deserve, so therefore the people that have more than them must have worked harder for it, so therefore they deserve everything they have, too. The people that have less than them must be good-for-nothing moochers who want handouts and should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Whether you believe in luck or not, the fact is that the pie is only so big. The more you take for yourself, no matter how much you feel you deserve it, the less there is for everyone else.
 
2013-03-11 11:35:21 AM

cosmiquemuffin: And one more thing.  How did today's GOP become the party of saying that these guys:[media.npr.org image 850x658]
Are leeches on society, not to mention these folks -- EMT, firefighters, police, teachers:
[www.totalmortgage.com image 258x258][www.slate.com image 568x346]

WTF???


They seem to be perceived as leaches because they expect some long-term compensation for their efforts and sacrifice when their pay check should have been "good enough". It 's a variation of the "what have you done for me lately?" and the "peace dividend" mentality.
 
2013-03-11 11:35:45 AM

Girion47: How about this?

1. Uncap Social Security
2. Cap compensation in companies to where there cannot be one person that makes more than 10 times what anyone else in the company makes.


In order for uncapping the SS salary cap to have an effect you also have to cap entitlements. But if you do that then SS becomes a welfare program instead of a social insurance program. Thay would be the beginning of the end for SS.
 
2013-03-11 11:35:47 AM

ox45tallboy: I'm not able to wrap my head around what you're getting at. Can you be more specific as to your proposed course of action? I mean, other than removing minimum wage.


I own a business and employ 30 skilled workers.  I invest in a machine that replaces those 30 skilled workers for one unskilled worker.  I increase my profit a great deal, and those 30 skilled workers suffer a severe reduction in wages.  The proper response should not be to force me to hire those workers, or increase the amount I pay my new worker, but to tax me and distribute that wealth to ensure everyone has a basic standard of living.  And borrowing money to support those thirty workers is also not good.
 
2013-03-11 11:35:53 AM

Girion47: I won't argue they're stupid and impulsive, we don't teach fiscal responsibility in school. But what I am arguing is that the wage stagnation/decrease has caused the poorer stupid/impulsive to have less resiliency to their mistakes.


Can't much disagree with that.
 
2013-03-11 11:36:31 AM

GoldSpider: I'm sure I can make allowances for "shiat happens" stuff like medical emergencies (hence why I support single-payer). But if you're asking me to bet against the idea that your average American is stupid and impulsive with money, I'm afraid I can't take that bet.


F*ck you so very much. I'm married, 35, and a U.S. Navy Veteran not receiving assistance; my wife and I both work, I attend a vocational college part time and we make 180% of the poverty line. Know how much that was, last year? $47000. Combined. You rich-fellators make me sick. Physically, disgustingly, ill.
 
2013-03-11 11:37:26 AM

mongbiohazard: There is just no one actually fighting for the poor and middle class, and there's instead a whole cadre of who Marx would have called "useful idiots" who have been tricked in to fighting against their own interests like some society-wide Stockholm Syndrome


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-11 11:37:36 AM

ox45tallboy: Whether you believe in luck or not, the fact is that the pie is only so big. The more you take for yourself, no matter how much you feel you deserve it, the less there is for everyone else.


Under the right economic conditions, the pie keeps getting bigger.  The problem is that it's not growing very quickly, and the rich are getting a bigger and bigger slice.
 
2013-03-11 11:38:08 AM

BMulligan: Pick: The government "borrowed" money from that fund and never payed it back.

BarrRepublican: It is quite annoying to be told that I have to "work harder" because the generation before mine couldn't be bothered to pay back all those loans they took out of FICA.

Social Security funds held in trust are invested in government securities, as required by law. In that sense, I suppose, the general fund "borrows" that money. But if this state of affairs outrages you, what would you propose be done with those funds instead? Bury them in the world's largest coffee can under the White House lawn? Invest it all in pets.com? What? What other investment caries so little risk?


The issue of the government borrowing money is that the worst of the theft came under Reagan. He cut tax rates and increased federal spending and then to cover up part of the massive deficits he was running he looted SS.
The generation that voted for him, twice and hated on Carter for being a pragmatist and a real downer (aka the boomers) should be the ones to have to dig into their pockets to right the ship again.
 
2013-03-11 11:39:17 AM

Delay: Parthenogenetic: There is no contractual right to receive Social Security benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

Now get back to work, citizen.

That's not the issue. Social Security is fully solvent for the future as benefits are paid from the SS Trust Fund. Goldberg is discussing that set of accounts owned by the Trusts of which Social Security participants are the beneficiaries. Republicans do not want to settle those accounts by increasing taxes.

In other words, the GOP wants the Federal Government to renege on the SS Trust Fund. In that capacity, we might need to use Article III: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Because Congress and the Executive branch can't get it together to honor those accounts.


I'm not sure we want Scalia to decide the fate of SS. He thinks giving us the ability to vote is too generous.
 
2013-03-11 11:39:18 AM
WOW!...I think this is the first time I've ever seen someone go UP the generational ladder in terms of those exact accusations!

Leave it to him to break new ground in derp.
 
2013-03-11 11:39:56 AM
How is the money removed from a worker's paycheck each week an "entitlement" to get it back?
 
2013-03-11 11:40:58 AM

Brainsick: You rich-fellators make me sick. Physically, disgustingly, ill.


I get it, anyone who doesn't blame the rich for everything under the sun might as well be orally pleasuring them.  I'll be sure to adjust my expectations of future posts from you accordingly.
 
2013-03-11 11:40:59 AM

Brainsick: GoldSpider: I'm sure I can make allowances for "shiat happens" stuff like medical emergencies (hence why I support single-payer). But if you're asking me to bet against the idea that your average American is stupid and impulsive with money, I'm afraid I can't take that bet.

F*ck you so very much. I'm married,

irrelevant 35,irrelevant  and a U.S. Navy Veteranirrelevant  not receiving assistance; my wife and I both work, I attend a vocational college part time irrelevant  and we make 180% of the poverty line. Know how much that was, last year? $47000. Combined. You rich-fellators make me sick. Physically, disgustingly, ill.
 
2013-03-11 11:42:41 AM
Well, yes, it is the "Greatest Generation's" fault---for cursing us with the baby boomers. I'll let historians and child psychologists figure out where the hell they went wrong.

At any rate, those of the Greatest who are still with us are approaching the end of their lives. They're no longer their grandchildren's and great-grandchildren's biggest problem. A far bigger predicament is the Boomers. As soon as they started obtaining political power in any great numbers the boomers started mooting legalizing euthanasia for dear old Mom and Dad. Death with dignity my ass. All the boomers wanted was their inheritance before it all went to the doctor. Now they're screaming bloody murder about

My "dear old Mom and Dad," unrepentant boomers, spent every penny they ever made and then some on themselves. They neglected their own parents till they died, and turned up at the funerals for their payday. (My father's mother had the good sense to leave him nothing. My mother's inheritance, proceeds from the sale of the old family home, went to pay off outstanding debts.) Needless to say, they refused to pay a cent for the university education of any of their children.

The last straw was when my mother openly opposed my marriage to Mrs. Fuccon, accusing her to my face of being a golddigging slut. All my fiancee had done, of course, was get in the way of my mother's own plans to cut the old man loose when he could no longer work and was forced to retire on God alone knows what, he's so far in the hole even now, and come up to Canada to go on Canadian medicare (which she considers a far better scam than US Medicare) and spend the last 25 years of her life having her "perfect son" wait on her hand and foot and help herself to every penny he'dmake over his working life and then some. Dear old Mom thought her "perfect" (read: forever alone) son was rich, and had no intention of letting someone else go near her payday.

Not bad for a kid whose mother was convinced he was mentally ill (I was a loner, liked books and hated sport) and would never amount to anything, and who only had him at all because she was too dumb to use contraceptives and (thanks to a Catholic upbringing) didn't have the wits or guts to go to Planned Parenthood to get rid of it---and admitted as much to him without shame. Put plainly, she'd have strangled me in the cradle if she'd been bright enough to figure out how to make it look like cot death. Her attitude turned on a dime once I had something she could use.

As for the slut part---Phil, if you're reading this, if my mother's the best you could do in the bored housewife department you can't have been trying that hard.

If it were left to the children of the baby boomers, whose inheritance was mortgaged several times over to pay for the boomers' indulgences, to pay out of pocket for their parents' "golden years," the risk is very real for all too many of them that the children would consider what the old buggers really deserved, and refuse to pay for any "medical care" that didn't involve a needle containing a massive overdose of sodium thiopenthal. As it is, the taxes that would be necessary to keep the boomers in the style they're expecting would force the children and grandchildren between dooming their own children to permanent poverty or wholesale tax revolt---whether it's by severe cuts or radical reform to entitlements, sovereign default or hyperinflation, or emigration.

Sorry, Mom and Dad. We can't pay, we shouldn't pay, and no matter how much you scream and shout and curse and swear at your "ungrateful" and "heartless" children and babble about "death panels" and the "seekrit muslin" fiddling you out of "your" Medicare, we won't pay. And you can't make us pay.

All we have to do is outlive you---and figure out whatever your parents did wrong, so our own children don't have to turn out like you.

/Fark you, mom and dad.
//No really. Fark you.
 
2013-03-11 11:44:24 AM

Eapoe6: How is the money removed from a worker's paycheck each week an "entitlement" to get it back?


It is an entitlement if that money was spent on something else.  Government takes money out of my paycheck.  Government spends that money on the military.  Do I deserve to still get that money back?
 
2013-03-11 11:48:31 AM

Saiga410: GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: The answer to your question lies in the question:
Who benefits from average household credit debt?

That has little to do with whether or not people are spending money they don't have.

dready zim: If you think that then your understanding of the graph is dillusional.

What does an income/productivity graph tell us about people's spending habits?

(hint: nothing whatsoever)

I do not understand peoples drooling level of outrage over the productivity to income gap.  Why yes me opperating an excavator does the work of 30+ guys with shovels... but that does not entitle me to 30X minimum wage earnings.  Or a codemonkey replacing/obsoleting the majority of an accounting staff.


Then why the obscene increase in executive pay?
 
2013-03-11 11:49:11 AM

Ned Stark: "Trickle down" did exactly what it was supposed to do.



True.  But what it did was not what they said it would do.
 
2013-03-11 11:51:09 AM

MikeyFuccon: Well, yes, it is the "Greatest Generation's" fault---for cursing us with the baby boomers. I'll let historians and child psychologists figure out where the hell they went wrong.

At any rate, those of the Greatest who are still with us are approaching the end of their lives. They're no longer their grandchildren's and great-grandchildren's biggest problem. A far bigger predicament is the Boomers. As soon as they started obtaining political power in any great numbers the boomers started mooting legalizing euthanasia for dear old Mom and Dad. Death with dignity my ass. All the boomers wanted was their inheritance before it all went to the doctor. Now they're screaming bloody murder about

My "dear old Mom and Dad," unrepentant boomers, spent every penny they ever made and then some on themselves. They neglected their own parents till they died, and turned up at the funerals for their payday. (My father's mother had the good sense to leave him nothing. My mother's inheritance, proceeds from the sale of the old family home, went to pay off outstanding debts.) Needless to say, they refused to pay a cent for the university education of any of their children.

The last straw was when my mother openly opposed my marriage to Mrs. Fuccon, accusing her to my face of being a golddigging slut. All my fiancee had done, of course, was get in the way of my mother's own plans to cut the old man loose when he could no longer work and was forced to retire on God alone knows what, he's so far in the hole even now, and come up to Canada to go on Canadian medicare (which she considers a far better scam than US Medicare) and spend the last 25 years of her life having her "perfect son" wait on her hand and foot and help herself to every penny he'dmake over his working life and then some. Dear old Mom thought her "perfect" (read: forever alone) son was rich, and had no intention of letting someone else go near her payday.

Not bad for a kid whose mother was convinced he was mentally ill (I ...


My mother-in-law is currently managing her 94 year old's mother care.  Using the grandmother's money.  My MiL's two sisters will not help at all, we were on vacation, the grandmother fell, and the two sisters couldn't be bothered to go help her, and can only accuse my MiL for doing this in order to get the inheritance which is quickly dwindling thanks to health complications.

its farking sickening.   What is even more sickening is my MiL is trying to fark up our marriage so my wife can find a man that will convince her to have children and she's using her grandmother as a warning to why you would want children...someone to take care of you in your old age.
 
2013-03-11 11:51:48 AM
dready zim:

It`s not a dem/rep thing it`s a rich assholes and you thing.

^          ^          ^          ^          ^

Let's repeat this again.

It`s not a dem/rep thing it`s a rich assholes and you thing.
 
2013-03-11 11:51:48 AM

GAT_00: This isn't all that stupid.  How often have we seen members of the Greediest Generation screaming about how we need to stop socialism but don't you dare touch their Social Security or Medicare?  What better proof of that is there than Paul Ryan trying to "reform" Medicare by utterly destroying it for people under 55, but keeping it for the old because he didn't want to dare offend them.  We had to see Medicare totally destroyed, but they got to keep the existing system without changes.


...not to put a too fine point on it, but most of the "git yer gubmint hands off my Medicare" yellers are Boomers.  Most of the GG is either dead or could not give two shiats about what the ebil gubmint does, as long as they get their checks on time.
 
2013-03-11 11:53:06 AM
Boomers were raised by "The Greatest Generation".  Suck it haters.
 
2013-03-11 11:58:53 AM
One aspect of the boomers which sticks out to me, is how all the boomer authors write about their generation being a failure. I think everyone from Vonnegut to King has covered that point.

But this was the generation that believed marijuana and rock music would make wars stop.
 
2013-03-11 12:01:18 PM

Girion47: When SS was formed, it was meant to provide about 3 years of support, the average lifespan was 68 back then, it's gone up by 6 years since and the retirement age hasn't been adjusted.  Want to fix SS?  Raise the retirement age.


WRONG

Life span is about the same as it always was.  There were centenarians in past centuries.  Incredibly rare, but they were there.

Life EXPECTANCY is what has changed in the 20th Century.  We're doing a great job now of getting people TO old age.  Your 68 number includes all the babies that died of smallpox and other communicable diseases and all the middle age heart attacks and untreated cancers and every other type of death amongst the not old that has been reduced by leaps and bounds over the past 100 years.

We are not doing much at the present to the life span, and we are also doing very little to address the physical and mental degradations of old age that in total effect large chunks of the elderly population like dementia and Alzheimer and Parkinsons and arthritis and knees and hips that need replacing etc.

At the moment, raising the age much beyond where it is now is only going to shift this large population of unable to work old people from old age SS to disability SS and will be unfair to those who are unusually healthy or work an unusually low stress job.

/This post subject to change if something like this http://www.fark.com/comments/7635887/Scientists-think-that-within-fiv e -years-drugs-will-enable-a-human-to-live-to-150-years-old-So-much-for- early-retirement comes to fruition
 
2013-03-11 12:03:08 PM

GoldSpider: ox45tallboy: Whether you believe in luck or not, the fact is that the pie is only so big. The more you take for yourself, no matter how much you feel you deserve it, the less there is for everyone else.

Under the right economic conditions, the pie keeps getting bigger.  The problem is that it's not growing very quickly, and the rich are getting a bigger and bigger slice.


No. The US is not going to get any bigger anymore. There simply is not enough land for everyone, or even just the people that want it, to have an estate the size of John Shnatter's.
 
2013-03-11 12:03:41 PM

verbaltoxin: One aspect of the boomers which sticks out to me, is how all the boomer authors write about their generation being a failure. I think everyone from Vonnegut to King has covered that point.

But this was the generation that believed marijuana and rock music would make wars stop.


You may have a point on the authors of the boomer gen but Vonnegut is GG.  You know serving in WW2 and watching the firebombing of Dreden as a POW... the impetitus of Slaugherhouse 5.
 
2013-03-11 12:05:07 PM

ox45tallboy: No. The US is not going to get any bigger anymore. There simply is not enough land for everyone, or even just the people that want it, to have an estate the size of John Shnatter's.


I'll give you the "Poe's Law" benefit of the doubt on that one.
 
2013-03-11 12:05:43 PM
Lots of mommy issues in this thread.
 
2013-03-11 12:07:17 PM

cefm: Well pretty much by definition they ain't the "Greatest Generation".  What the fark were they so great at?  They were the ones who were in positions of power and influence when this country went straight into the shiatter - stripping away all the hard earned gains of social economic and political justice and equality.

The "Greatest Generation" is the ones who allowed the U.S. to turn into a fraud-factory that strips money away from the least able to defend themselves and heaps it in golden piles on the wealthiest.  They oversaw this descent from greatness - I'd call them the "Lost it all at the craps table generation".


No, that was the Baby Boomers (i.e. Mr. Goldberg's generation).  The Greatest Generation, and their predecessors The Lost Generation, were the ones who put all that in place.  Hence the "ironic" tag.
 
2013-03-11 12:07:20 PM

ox45tallboy: GoldSpider: Yes, the rich (and the policies that support them) are to blame for enough of our fiscal/economic problems. People's willingness to adjust to their own financial circumstances is not one of them.

You're right. Poor people should just buy more money.

Here's an actual quote:

[www.mediaite.com image 396x259]
"Don't you love this country? What a home this is, what grounds these are, the pool, the golf course... a Democrat would say no one should live like this...Republicans come here and say everyone should live like this."

See, so many people actually believe that the pie is unlimited in size, and EVERYONE could have a resort home like John Shnatter's. (CEO of Papa John's whose home Romney was at when he made those remarks). But it's physically impossible. There is simply not enough land out there for every single person to have a huge estate like that. And who would work there? Who would mow the yard and clean the house?

Some people really do believe that if people just worked harder then EVERYONE could live as well as they wanted to.


And the funny thing is they make fun of the strawman "liberals" that give gold stars to all children for trying, participation awards and all that sort of thing despite claiming that is how the real world could work if only everyone would just try harder.
 
2013-03-11 12:09:29 PM

ox45tallboy: GoldSpider: ox45tallboy: Whether you believe in luck or not, the fact is that the pie is only so big. The more you take for yourself, no matter how much you feel you deserve it, the less there is for everyone else.

Under the right economic conditions, the pie keeps getting bigger.  The problem is that it's not growing very quickly, and the rich are getting a bigger and bigger slice.

No. The US is not going to get any bigger anymore. There simply is not enough land for everyone, or even just the people that want it, to have an estate the size of John Shnatter's.


=================

We all can't have an estate like John Shnatter's because dozens of people ware needed to clean and maintain such an estate.   Without a socio-political-economic system that supplies large numbers of "menials" no such estates can exist.
 
2013-03-11 12:12:11 PM
We as a society need to stop being such massive pricks to two groups: people with kids, and the elderly. The latter, because "respecting your elders" is a time tested tradition. We'll all be there some day. And the former because those kids will be the ones taking care of your own wrinkly arse in a few years. It's all about karma.
 
2013-03-11 12:15:34 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: And the former because those kids will be the ones taking care of your own wrinkly arse in a few years. It's all about karma.


It's more about teaching kids a little perspective, about how good most of them have it compared to other places in the world.  Perhaps we can expect to be treated better in our old age if we stopped teaching our kids that the world revolves around them.
 
2013-03-11 12:18:47 PM

GoldSpider: Girion47: it isn't easy to adjust your circumstances when you have very little maneuver room. Without a cash buffer small mistakes can completely sink someone who is poor, whereas the rich person doesn't have to worry about making rent, paying to register the car, paying for car insurance, having health insurance without deductibles to cover that unexpected broken limb, having enough vacation time to recover from that broken limb or childcare situation that called them away from work.

I'm sure I can make allowances for "shiat happens" stuff like medical emergencies (hence why I support single-payer). But if you're asking me to bet against the idea that your average American is stupid and impulsive with money, I'm afraid I can't take that bet.



That's not a rational explanation for the metrics we see. What you just repeated there is simply a comforting fiction created to help you feel superior to - and thus dehumanize - "those people". It's a method being used to divide us so wealthy, organized, interests can continue violating us wholesale.

The truth is that the cost of living has been rising steadily over the years, inflation has been trodding along - and wages have been FLAT. That means the vast majority of people, whether they realize it or not, are poorer and poorer every year for DECADES now.

It's not that the "your average American is stupid and impulsive with money" - it's that the average American has had less and less money every year since the late 70's. We simply can't afford the same kind of financial resposibility we used to have. The resources are simply not there. Essentially what you're doing is looking at people whose wealth has been systematically stolen from them year after year and saying, "Why can't you just keep saving that money you don't have any more?"

This is a very bad trend - for business as well as people. Our economy is based on consumption. Who's going to buy the products necessary for a functioning free market economy when we keep impoverishing the vast majority of Americans? It's a bad long-term trend for business, and it makes our economy less able to recover from economic downturns. Eventually it will cripple our economy entirely.
 
2013-03-11 12:18:55 PM
Goldberg is right.

Remember it's baby boomers who populate the majority of seats in Congress. Of course they voted to pay themselves while bankrupting you.
 
2013-03-11 12:20:07 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: We as a society need to stop being such massive pricks to two groups: people with kids, and the elderly. The latter, because "respecting your elders" is a time tested tradition. We'll all be there some day. And the former because those kids will be the ones taking care of your own wrinkly arse in a few years. It's all about karma.


Once the people with kids quit trying to shame me into joining their misery I'll quit being a dick to them.
 
Displayed 50 of 337 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 »






Report