Baby boomers screwed the country...then want a reward

You have a valid point.

 

No, if I sounded 18 I would be looking for a handout, like you.

 

make the rich pay the same % ss tax for every dollar they earn as 90% of America has too and problem solved

the rich should not be rewarded tax cuts for making lots of dollars, the making of lots of dollars WAS the reward

what I have found is it's usually those born with a silver spoon that do the most complaining about people getting social security and such.....

.

 

Spoken like a true socialist. As a boomer, I despise these programs and pray that collapse soon.

 

I'm stunned at the ignorance of the people of this country. These programs are proven failures as time goes on. They have continued to increase taxes and postpone benefits. Clearly, they will have to keep doing this to stay afloat.

Is this really what you consider a viable retirement plan? Seriously, what is wrong with you people? The funds have been used as a slush fund for wasteful government spending. Private money managers would be jailed for doing this.

I want a vote from the idiots who would invest their money in SS if it were a private company. I'm ashamed of this country for allowing these abominations to continue.

 

I am a boomer and we are not all selfish , every generation has some that are , painting with a broad brush is just wrong.
I do agree Boomers should of paid more as whole as we are the biggest takers but we also put more kids through school and let them live with as longer that any other generation, I am a supervisor and I have found that there a bit of everything in every generation represented.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=126804
Baby Boomers Supporting Kids and Parents

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/most-baby-boomers-help-pay-their-adult-childrens-expenses/
Most Baby Boomers Help Pay Their Adult Children’s Expenses

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702491.html
Boomers: The Real Greatest Generation

 

Yeah. If a person has a massive amount of wealth built up in investments and huge bank accounts or still has a steady stream of income (other than part time mcjobs, such as a business that continues to run in their absences, or investments that keep being traded etc.) there is absolutely no reason why a person should draw ss, some of these people have their own IRAs worth several hundred thousand or even millions. Social security should guarantee the average working adult can retire at old age without being financially destitute. It also makes no sense that a lifetime cap exists at all.

 

Both parties have considered that. Neither wants to be the one blamed by the voters for proposing it.




​

 

The only boomers that screwed this nation are the ones who changed our economic model to favor only the interest of the rich elites. So stop trying to propagandize. It's not becoming. Or serious. Or honest.

 

Writing off my generation and moving on? Look, I'll be the first to admit that my Generation is particularly apolitical. I'll even be the first to admit that their Liberal college arts has failed them miserably, as their lack of political knowledge exceeds even public standards. But within this sadsack of Americans, there are the unsung, political geniuses(such as myself, not bragging but just being honest).

You won't hear of those of us from 89-95. We're coming into political age(I'm a '92 birth). We recognize the need to get rid of the past institutions that have failed us miserably. That's why a good deal of those(I was 16 at the time, so I couldn't but I did verbally support Obama) participated in the Liberal Revolution. Growing numbers also participated in the Libertarian Revolution as well.

Obama's cronyism and eventual downfall however, led many changes for me personally. I now believe in the State, there needs to be stability for any revolution to have long-term success. Liberalism's hubris is that it's revolution for revolution's sake, and such empty revolutions almost always concentrate power in the hands of the few, as evidenced by Napoleon's rise.

I went from Liberalism, to the Third Position. And the Third Position, coincides with my thoughts on individualism, pluralism and yet the collective responsibility that we share to each other. It's hard to mix all of these competing ideologies into one humane ideology for the sake of the planet, and yet I feel the Third Position did this tremendously well.

The world regressed significantly when the leaders of Third Position thought were not able to co-exist with Liberal Democracy, and we still suffer to this day when the Third Position is analyzed as though it is a mainly Democratic or Republican train of thought, when it was originated as a counter-revolution to these forces.

Of course, saying I'm a Third Positionist in America is a lot like saying I'm a meat eater in a vegetarian neighborhood. I'm politically orthodox and therefore, it's not necessarily fitting(at least not yet) to speak in the Third Position for US Politics.

So, how to identify? I find that I'm economically Liberal(as far as the idea that the economy should be flexible, moving and open) and yet I want to centralize key components to ensure the dam doesn't break(Just as the case was in 2008 with Fannie and Freddie). This also means I'm Socially Conservative. Which has a different meaning for me, than it does for a political partisan.

I wanted to find a way to include rights for gays, without necessarily precluding the traditional view of marriage. I find Abortion morally abhorrent, but if I can strengthen Abortion's morality, I can live with it. Measures for example to include the would-be father in discussions about the child's future, had not gone well over this forum but I believe there's a wider consensus for them among Americans who recognize this abhorrent ideology of taking a person's life, just because it's inconvenient to us.

Abortion should be a last resort, not an open-ended policy. Of course, it will remain legal. But I see the rates continuing to decline, the rates should decline until we create socio-economic conditions that will render it mute. There's also economic theory that I hold to be true and yet untested: The last economic boom coincidentally coincided with the largest birth boom in America.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? I believe it was the chicken(people). People wanted to procreate, the procreation enabled more eggs and to feed those eggs, economic activity EXPLODED. In this way, pertaining to US Births : It's imperative for future generations of Americans to continue to give birth and to participate.

We don't want jobs going to INTL. Labor, we want it going to Americans. We not only want it going to Americans, we want it preserved for future generations of American children. Bias'd? Yes. Self-preservative? Yes, as is the natural response of all creatures and beings. America is economically weak, because our generosity has led us to be vulnerable. Only a self-preservative economy can last for the long run.

 

Excuse me, I'm right around the baby boom generation, how did I screw future generations? Yes, I paid into it and I should get it but I have never said screw this generation. Yes, right now I am probably getting more than what my employer and I paid in. With people living longer I hope you do to. Yes, you may have to work a year or two longer because S.S. is running low. But it might have been enough of our lawmakers hadn't kept robbing from it, but that isn't my fault. Are you a spoiled generation? That could be. You have more stuff than I ever dreamed of having growing up and still complaining of wanting more. Expecting government to pay more and more services for you, that I never dreamed of them paying for me, but I didn't care. People need to quit complaining about everything.

 

We wouldn't have to raise social security retirement collection age if we didn't fund 2 wars with our surplus. How is it no one ever bring sthat up? We didn't have enough money for the Iraq war or the afghanistan war...it came from social security.

Jeeze, why is everyone from planet mars here?

 

Exactly! Social security is evil because it's redistributive and aids poor recipients at the expense of well-to-do ones.

That said, the current taxpaying base who are paying for this ponzi scheme of a redistribution program will also get a myriad of redistributive benefits themselves. So it's not like they're innocent in all of this. They thieve from others just as much through student aid, youth allowance, food stamps, but especially the minimum wage and fascist union-state-corporate collusion.

 

fascism is corporatism saying that whether poor people live or die should be a decision made up by the corporate elite is almost the exact definition of fascism, if you going to protest facism you might want to look up the definiton before hand

 

every generation since SS was created (when life expectancy was 59 years old) has lived longer than the previous one and it hasn't collapsed yet, also this is the first generation of people who are living shorter lives than the previous generations, thanks to policies like your beloved trickle down economics our average life expectancy is shortening

leave it to republicans to describe an increase in life expectancy for the average person a bad thing, sometimes I swear you guys get your ideas from the devil himself

I have no problem with little adjustments to SS here and there as long as the decisions aren't being made by the low information voter, right wing, conspiracy theorist, fox news watching crowd, who protest that SS should be abolished. Generally, people who want too abolish something aren't the best at preserving it. wouldn't you agree?

Are you one of those who protest that "the government should keep their hands of their medicare"? lol

 

Some people here think that full SS is still paid out at 65 and we should just raise that to 70. It is already 70. You can now retire at 62 but the benefit will increase every year you wait. You will supposedly get your full benefit at age 65 but the benefit continues to increase every year you delay applying for SS up to age 70, which makes 70 the new retirement age for people who will be entirely dependent on SS in their old age.

 

Nothing like blaming progressive ideology on the people that it was foisted upon.