PDA

View Full Version : Economics The REAL Blame for our Deficit and Debt Issues


Mr. Kotter
08-02-2011, 08:17 AM
Absolutely, without a doubt--baby boomers need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

My own generation is the biggest group of self-absorbed, whiney, sniveling, and irresponsible bunch of hypocrites in the modern history of our country. Their sense of entitlement and utter disregard for the future of own children and grand children is completely astonishing.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/29/baby.boomers/index.html?iref=allsearch

Are baby boomers to blame for debt crisis?

Washington (CNN) -- Baby boomers -- those born between 1946 and 1964 -- have been described as "the pig in the python" and the "sandwich generation."

They lived well, grew up in relative abundance and, some say, expected their Social Security, health care and government support to be there as they grew old.

Now, as the future of the country's economy is up in the air, is this group of 80 million aging Americans -- many of whom are sprinting toward retirement age -- the ones to blame for the nation's shaky economic system?

The answer is not so simple.

Baby boomers grew up during relative prosperity, from the economic boom of the post-World War II '50s to the "Me" generation of the '60s through the lucrative uptick in the Reagan '80s. And then there were the budget surpluses they enjoyed during the Clinton '90s.

As a result, many were able to buy second homes, take out loans at low interest rates, buy cheap gas and pump money back into the economy.

Life was good, many say, until September 2008.

In the last days of the Bush administration, the economy went belly-up, forcing Washington to bail out Wall Street in order to prevent another Great Depression.

"Keep in mind that our parents who lived through the depression understand what adversity looks like. I'm not sure baby boomers know what that looks like," said David Cork, a demographer and baby boomer himself. "So maybe we got a bit of a taste for it two years ago."

Cork, a Canadian businessman and author of the book "The Pig and the Python," said the American economy has been thriving especially in boomers' formative years, "so they're not used to adversity."

"It's not because the boomers are a nasty generation. It's just that there's a lot of us, and we have a tendency of wanting to get it our own way," he added. "I think we've been very successful at that. We've created great wealth, but we are looking at it at a time when you have to pay the piper."

An analysis of data from the past three censuses shows that because of baby boomers' "aging in place," the population of those age 45 and over grew 18 times as fast as the population under age 45 between 2000 and 2010, said William Frey, a demographer and senior fellow in the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institute.

Frey's report also found that the baby boomers (or "pre-seniors," as he called them) are "growing rapidly in all areas of the country," including college towns like Austin, Texas, Raleigh, North Carolina, and Madison, Wisconsin.

Regions experiencing the fastest senior -- age 65 and older -- growth are in the Sun Belt, which stretches from Western states such as California and Arizona east to Florida, according to the report.

Frey, also a boomer, said that although his generation is not necessarily taking the entitlement programs that their parents are, they can see what's coming down the road.

"They're not trying to skim off money from everybody else," he said. "It's just that these are issues that are now front and center for them where they weren't before."

Still, as a generation, they will have paid less into the Social Security system than they are expected to take out. According to a report from the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees, the Social Security system is expected to be solvent until about 2037 -- largely because of the surplus in the Trust Fund -- even though the payroll taxes flowing in stop being enough to cover the expenses flowing out in 2017.

Thomas Firey, a senior editor at the conservative Cato Institute and member of generation X, said it's unclear as to what's going to happen to Social Security.

"Under current law, what's supposed to happen is once the trust fund runs dry, the benefits are to be cut by roughly 25% to bring it back into balance. Each year's income will equalize the outflow," said Frey, who wrote a 2001 column titled "Boomers Fleece Generation X with Social Security. "But no one expects that to happen. (So) are we going to raise taxes on current workers? Are we going to get rid of the tax?"

But criticizing baby boomers is not necessarily a politically wise thing to do, especially when it comes to their voting behavior. Older voters consistently turn out in elections and are a key demographic for politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Jerry Shereshewsky, the self-described "chief grown-up" at the firm GrownUpMarketing, is a baby boomer. The 65-year-old said it's not his generation group to blame, it's Congress'.

"It was not a secret that this largest cohort in American history was going to get older every year," he said. "The fact that Congress has not done a very good job of keeping up with what is really happening in the world: life expectancy, better medical care. You give people a lot of cake and ice cream, they're going to eat it."

Frey added that any good demographer would have told you 20 years ago that "we would be hitting the wall around now. But it hasn't seemed to sink in for folks on Capitol Hill or anywhere else."

Shereshewsky also issued a stern warning to those in Congress who may blame boomers for today's economic problems.

"If you want to look through the telescope and say who should be getting beaten up here a little bit, I would say every member of the legislative branch for the last 30 years should be taken outside and spanked, because they did really stupid things," he said. "Why did they increase these benefits? They get votes. Why don't they raise taxes? They're afraid someone's not going to vote for them."

David Certner, legislative policy director for the AARP, said the country got into its debt mess not because of older Americans but because of Washington's out-of-control spending.

"The problem we're in today was caused by things we've done in the last two years, in particular engaging in two wars that haven't been paid for in any way, shape or form -- as well as the fact that we've had a significant drop in revenues partly as a result of our changes in the tax laws," he said.

Certner added that it's the rising health care costs that should worry all Americans.

"Health care costs are burdening people right now who are trying to pay for it. ... We need to get the whole health care cost problem under control, because it really does put a crimp on the rest of the economy," he said. "People who are working now are probably seeing their wages go up slower because more of their money is going to health care costs."

And that's something 23-year-old Jordan Balkin is finding out, at least when it comes to how much comes out of her paycheck for entitlement programs.

"It's a little less than 1%. But when you add it up, it's about $100, which would be nice to use towards other things, especially not knowing if I will get a chance to see that money in the future," said Balkin, who works in social media in Washington.

As for whether she's worried about her own retirement, Balkin -- part of what's described as generation Y -- said she can only hope that some of the money will be returned. For now, it's all about the present.

"I just keep thinking about saving for the near future when I want to have a family, buy a house," she said. "I mean, there is that offhand dream that I'll win the lottery -- hey, someone's got to be a winner."

mlyonsd
08-02-2011, 08:45 AM
Absolutely, without a doubt--baby boomers need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

My own generation is the biggest group of self-absorbed, whiney, sniveling, and irresponsible bunch of hypocrites in the modern history of our country. Their sense of entitlement and utter disregard for the future of own children and grand children is completely astonishing.


Unfortunately for you your ignorant comments don't reflect the OP you posted.

LOCOChief
08-02-2011, 08:59 AM
Their sense of entitlement and utter disregard for the future of own children and grand children is completely astonishing.




Whose sense of entitlement?

This speaks volumes to those would would raise the credit card limit and not reduce household spending.

It should be obvious to all what actions need to be taken to right this ship.

i.e. ship = country not you individually.

Mr. Kotter
08-02-2011, 09:12 AM
Unfortunately for you your ignorant comments don't reflect the OP you posted.

I posted an article that asked a question; I answered that question based on my opinion and interpretation of facts and history, as I see them. Your disagreement with my opinion, is nothing more than your own opinion.

In my opinion, your opinion is the ignorant one. Guess that takes us back to point A.

Mr. Kotter
08-02-2011, 09:15 AM
Whose sense of entitlement?

This speaks volumes to those would would raise the credit card limit and not reduce household spending.

It should be obvious to all what actions need to be taken to right this ship.

i.e. ship = country not you individually.

Agreed, to a point. The point you are neglecting is that, since boomers refuse to scale back their demands of government....they must find ways to produce more revenue. It ain't rocket-science. As you imply, we can't keep spending what we don't have--yet we can't balance the books by pretending the problem is ONLY on one side of the ledger. It's high time we boomers give up some of that unearned prosperity and high life we've been handed....and get a second job, if we want to keep the boat and weekends in Aspen.

LOCOChief
08-02-2011, 09:19 AM
I posted an article that asked a question; I answered that question based on my opinion and interpretation of facts and history, as I see them. Your disagreement with my opinion, is nothing more than your own opinion.

In my opinion, your opinion is the ignorant one. Guess that takes us back to point A.

Aren't you putting this on the back of the working man?

LOCOChief
08-02-2011, 09:33 AM
Agreed, to a point. The point you are neglecting is that, since boomers refuse to scale back their demands of government....they must find ways to produce more revenue. It ain't rocket-science. As you imply, we can't keep spending what we don't have--yet we can't balance the books by pretending the problem is ONLY on one side of the ledger. It's high time we boomers give up some of that unearned prosperity and high life we've been handed....and get a second job, if we want to keep the boat and weekends in Aspen.


I agree that we can't look at just "one side of the ledger" But if you think increasing tax revenue on whomever is going to have any impact at all on that "other side" I think that you're mistaken.
Simplify the tax code and close the loopholes for sure
But just raising taxes on people making $250M +per year without any reform to the current tax code breeds inequality.

Baby boomer is a huge demographic and far too broad a brush to paint that with imo.

RaiderH8r
08-02-2011, 09:37 AM
The baby boomer generation has single handedly f'd this country harder, and longer than any before or for a considerable amount of time after. They just suck. They have done little to nothing to improve the country for the good of future generations and are going to be a tremendous drain on the economic viability of this nation and it is up to my generation and the ones that follow to sacrifice our Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs (which is fine) while ensuring that these old, entitled, pricks get their "piece of the pie" because they're "entitled to it". F them. They can rot in a poor house for all I care. But no, I'll lean in, take one for the team. They'll get their entitlements and I'll pay for them too and then I want it to end. Done. No. More. Entitlements. I've contributed to the charity of entitlements and it is near time to be done with it. Period.

durtyrute
08-02-2011, 09:39 AM
How can the debt be blamed on social security? Sure it's a part of it but damn.

"Those greedy old fuckers who can't even walk should out there working, they could sit down and be greeters at Wal-Mart. Fuckers."

The same people who think it is a good idea to ship your parents and grandparents off to old folks homes are probably the ones that support this line of thinking.

Guru
08-02-2011, 09:47 AM
Actually, the article makes some sense. Which generation controls congress right now? Hmmmmm

Of course, term limits would fix a lot of this. But that makes too much sense.

RaiderH8r
08-02-2011, 09:48 AM
How can the debt be blamed on social security? Sure it's a part of it but damn.

"Those greedy old ****ers who can't even walk should out there working, they could sit down and be greeters at Wal-Mart. ****ers."

The same people who think it is a good idea to ship your parents and grandparents off to old folks homes are probably the ones that support this line of thinking.

I don't blame a nickel of the debt on social security. It is a Ponzi Scheme that is set to come crashing down. If any private citizen ***cough cough***Madoff***cough cough*** they'd get sent to federal pound me in the ass prison.

Old people should damn well work longer. They're living longer. And I'm looking squarely at the baby boomers, not their predecessors. That generation did their work for the nation and have earned their retirement and care. My hat is off to them. But these baby boomers should, at the very least, be means tested for both Social Security and Medicare. We need to phase out both and replace them with viable alternatives but as long as old people believe they'll be left out in the cold that will never happen. It will be self perpetuating until some generation stands up and says, "Enough. I will not rob from the young to feed my need for government goodies".

I see the long term economic stability and viability of this country as my generation's standing contribution to this nation's glory. For prior generations it was WWII, Reconstruction, Civil War, forming the nation. I have yet to be convinced the baby boomers have accomplished a long standing benefit to the nation so congrats to them for collectively sucking the penis.

durtyrute
08-02-2011, 09:51 AM
I don't blame a nickel of the debt on social security. It is a Ponzi Scheme that is set to come crashing down. If any private citizen ***cough cough***Madoff***cough cough*** they'd get sent to federal pound me in the ass prison.

Old people should damn well work longer. They're living longer. And I'm looking squarely at the baby boomers, not their predecessors. That generation did their work for the nation and have earned their retirement and care. My hat is off to them. But these baby boomers should, at the very least, be means tested for both Social Security and Medicare. We need to phase out both and replace them with viable alternatives but as long as old people believe they'll be left out in the cold that will never happen. It will be self perpetuating until some generation stands up and says, "Enough. I will not rob from the young to feed my need for government goodies".

I see the long term economic stability and viability of this country as my generation's standing contribution to this nation's glory. For prior generations it was WWII, Reconstruction, Civil War, forming the nation. I have yet to be convinced the baby boomers have accomplished a long standing benefit to the nation so congrats to them for collectively sucking the penis.

It wasn't directed towards you, it was just an rhetorical question in regards to pieces of the article

Guru
08-02-2011, 09:52 AM
Currently, in the House of Representatives, there are 261 Democrats (including five Delegates and the Resident Commissioner) and 180 Republicans. The Senate has 57 Democrats; two Independents, who caucus with the Democrats, and 41 Republicans.

The average age of members of both houses of Congress at the beginning of the 111th Congress was 58.2 years; of members of the House, 57.2 years; and of Senators, 63.1 years. The overwhelming majority of members have a college education. The dominant professions of members are public service/politics, business, and law. Protestants collectively constitute the majority religious affiliation of members. Roman Catholics account for the largest single religious denomination, and numerous other affiliations are represented.

The average length of service for Representatives at the beginning of the 111th Congress was 10.3 years (5.15 terms); for Senators 13.4 years ( 2.2 terms). A record number of 93 women serve in the 111th Congress: 76 in the House, 17 in the Senate. There are 41 African American members of the House and one in the Senate. This number includes two Delegates. There are 29 Hispanic or Latino members serving: 28 in the House, including the Resident Commissioner, and one in the Senate. Thirteen members (nine Representatives, two Delegates, and two Senators) are Asian or Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander. The only American Indian (Native American) serves in the House.

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL)PL%3B%3D%0A

RaiderH8r
08-02-2011, 09:53 AM
It wasn't directed towards you, it was just an rhetorical question in regards to pieces of the article

I know and I just popped it off at the first opportunity. But Social Security does need to go.

durtyrute
08-02-2011, 09:55 AM
I know and I just popped it off at the first opportunity. But Social Security does need to go.

With the current system in place, I agree.

Mr. Kotter
08-02-2011, 10:17 AM
I agree that we can't look at just "one side of the ledger" But if you think increasing tax revenue on whomever is going to have any impact at all on that "other side" I think that you're mistaken.
Simplify the tax code and close the loopholes for sure
But just raising taxes on people making $250M +per year without any reform to the current tax code breeds inequality.

Baby boomer is a huge demographic and far too broad a brush to paint that with imo.

If the "working man" includes most Boomers who seem to feel entitled to around 20 years of a retirement funded by taxpayers.....when the current system was designed for less than half that, yeah I guess I'm putting this on "their" back. Since we are the ones benefiting most from that....isn't it fair we pay the bill for it? Seriously? I mean, if a car dealer mis-marks an $20K dollar used car at $10K....what reasonable and honorable person would DEMAND that the car be sold for the mis-marked price?

I agree the tax code needs revisited; that those who pay nothing in fed income tax now, need to pay too. That won't fix this problem though. Yes, "loopholes" need to be closed....along with the free ride and tax "incentive" programs that disproportionately benefit many large corporations. However, the current reality of the top bracket paying less in TOTAL taxes at any time in contemporary American history (since the late 60s-early 70s) needs to be addressed too. For the record, I'm not talking about Draconian cuts--just something more in line with what it was 20-25 years ago....before their free ride became entrenched.

Mr. Kotter
08-02-2011, 10:19 AM
I don't blame a nickel of the debt on social security. It is a Ponzi Scheme that is set to come crashing down. If any private citizen ***cough cough***Madoff***cough cough*** they'd get sent to federal pound me in the ass prison.

Old people should damn well work longer. They're living longer. And I'm looking squarely at the baby boomers, not their predecessors. That generation did their work for the nation and have earned their retirement and care. My hat is off to them. But these baby boomers should, at the very least, be means tested for both Social Security and Medicare. We need to phase out both and replace them with viable alternatives but as long as old people believe they'll be left out in the cold that will never happen. It will be self perpetuating until some generation stands up and says, "Enough. I will not rob from the young to feed my need for government goodies".

I see the long term economic stability and viability of this country as my generation's standing contribution to this nation's glory. For prior generations it was WWII, Reconstruction, Civil War, forming the nation. I have yet to be convinced the baby boomers have accomplished a long standing benefit to the nation so congrats to them for collectively sucking the penis.

Amen, brother. :thumb:

Earthling
08-02-2011, 10:27 AM
But these baby boomers should, at the very least, be means tested for both Social Security and Medicare.

I think this should be done for the population as a whole...not just the boomers.

mlyonsd
08-02-2011, 10:37 AM
I posted an article that asked a question; I answered that question based on my opinion and interpretation of facts and history, as I see them. Your disagreement with my opinion, is nothing more than your own opinion.

In my opinion, your opinion is the ignorant one. Guess that takes us back to point A.Says the one that liked and pushed the idea of Obamacare, another entitlement, then chose to post a thread about baby boomers being arrogant because they feel entitled to money, their own money, they deposited over 40-50 years with the understanding they'd get it back.

Seriously, your hypocritical logic defies explanation.

patteeu
08-02-2011, 10:58 AM
Some baby boomers deserve blame and others do not. A better answer is that liberals (mostly democrats) deserve most of the blame. They are the ones who promised voters more than could be delivered (from SS to Medicare/Medicaid to Obamacare). They are the ones who demagogued conservatives when conservatives tried to resist the ever expanding welfare state. Even in the case of GWBush's prescription drug entitlement (where Republicans deserve at least a share of the blame), democrats wanted an even more expansive program. If it hadn't been for democrats drumming up an electoral appetite for a solution to the "prescription drug crisis", Bush wouldn't have even proposed one.

patteeu
08-02-2011, 11:00 AM
Says the one that liked and pushed the idea of Obamacare, another entitlement, then chose to post a thread about baby boomers being arrogant because they feel entitled to money, their own money, they deposited over 40-50 years with the understanding they'd get it back.

Seriously, your hypocritical logic defies explanation.

Yeah, voters like Kotter who seem to constantly want to dip into other people's pockets share the blame with liberals.

Mr. Kotter
08-02-2011, 02:58 PM
Says the one that liked and pushed the idea of Obamacare, another entitlement, then chose to post a thread about baby boomers being arrogant because they feel entitled to money, their own money, they deposited over 40-50 years with the understanding they'd get it back.

Seriously, your hypocritical logic defies explanation.

Demagoguing a long-overdue overhaul of the nation's runaway healthcare system as "Obamacare," and simply exposes the biases upon which your weak opinion is based.

Further demagoguery, ignoring the STONE COLD FACT that the average baby boomer will withdraw 2-3 times as much as they have ever put "into" the system over their lifetime (including contributions with compounded interest)...further exposes that are you are blinded by lies and misinformation, or dogmatic ideology--probably a bit of both.

Based on the above, your complete misunderstanding of "logic" is what defies explanation.

Mr. Kotter
08-02-2011, 03:05 PM
Some baby boomers deserve blame and others do not. A better answer is that liberals (mostly democrats) deserve most of the blame. They are the ones who promised voters more than could be delivered (from SS to Medicare/Medicaid to Obamacare). They are the ones who demagogued conservatives when conservatives tried to resist the ever expanding welfare state. Even in the case of GWBush's prescription drug entitlement (where Republicans deserve at least a share of the blame), democrats wanted an even more expansive program. If it hadn't been for democrats drumming up an electoral appetite for a solution to the "prescription drug crisis", Bush wouldn't have even proposed one.

Liberal demagogues resisting reasonable reforms and limits on social spending are definitely a large part of the problem; but Conservative demagogues who refuse to acknowledge public insistence on responsible social spending, are equally to blame.

Meanwhile, both sides need to put their money where their mouth is...and support tax reform that would is reasonable and equitable to all Americans--not just special interest groups lobbying for their loopholes, "incentives," and deductions.

Cannibal
08-02-2011, 03:32 PM
The baby boomer generation has single handedly f'd this country harder, and longer than any before or for a considerable amount of time after. They just suck. They have done little to nothing to improve the country for the good of future generations and are going to be a tremendous drain on the economic viability of this nation and it is up to my generation and the ones that follow to sacrifice our Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs (which is fine) while ensuring that these old, entitled, pricks get their "piece of the pie" because they're "entitled to it". F them. They can rot in a poor house for all I care. But no, I'll lean in, take one for the team. They'll get their entitlements and I'll pay for them too and then I want it to end. Done. No. More. Entitlements. I've contributed to the charity of entitlements and it is near time to be done with it. Period.

I could not agree more. Well stated and I happen to agree with you on entitlements now too. I just wish we could end the entitlements now.

The funny thing is, many of them complain about "too much government" and parrot Glenn Beck, while at the same time, they take every government program you can possibly think of including disability assistance. My in-laws are perfect examples.

Guru
08-02-2011, 03:36 PM
I could not agree more. Well stated and I happen to agree with you on entitlements now too. I just wish we could end the entitlements now.

The funny thing is, many of them complain about "too much government" and parrot Glenn Beck, while at the same time, they take every government program you can possibly think of including disability assistance. My in-laws are perfect examples.

Yeah, I know a guy that considers himself a conservative but then takes advantage of all these entitlement programs.

Brainiac
08-02-2011, 03:37 PM
Absolutely, without a doubt--liberal Democrats need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

My party is the biggest group of self-absorbed, whiney, sniveling, and irresponsible bunch of hypocrites in the modern history of our country. Their sense of entitlement and utter disregard for the future of own children and grand children is completely astonishing.



FYP

Cannibal
08-02-2011, 03:39 PM
Yeah, I know a guy that considers himself a conservative but then takes advantage of all these entitlement programs.

Hell, my mother in-law is a Glen Beck quote machine, while at the same time she was double dipping unemployment and disability.

I have to go visit her this September. :banghead:

Guru
08-02-2011, 05:06 PM
Hell, my mother in-law is a Glen Beck quote machine, while at the same time she was double dipping unemployment and disability.

I have to go visit her this September. :banghead:

I'm a fan of Beck but it drives me nuts when people call themselves a conservative but abuse the programs at the same time.

mlyonsd
08-02-2011, 05:59 PM
Demagoguing a long-overdue overhaul of the nation's runaway healthcare system as "Obamacare," and simply exposes the biases upon which your weak opinion is based.

Further demagoguery, ignoring the STONE COLD FACT that the average baby boomer will withdraw 2-3 times as much as they have ever put "into" the system over their lifetime (including contributions with compounded interest)...further exposes that are you are blinded by lies and misinformation, or dogmatic ideology--probably a bit of both.

Based on the above, your complete misunderstanding of "logic" is what defies explanation.You really can't see your own hypocrisy can you?

Backwards Masking
08-02-2011, 06:21 PM
My grandparents (on both sides) champion the fact that all their Grandkids and Great Grandchildren are in debt up to their noses (all 25-40 of us) and will have to work their asses off forever just to stay fed clothes and sheltered. Yet they've been retired 10 years with who knows how many more to go and sometimes even complain when they're not bragging about how much free time they have. They seem to have the attitude of "We worked all our lives so you could be here, now you have to work too!"

I still love them, I just am jealous I suppose.

Mr. Kotter
08-02-2011, 06:33 PM
My grandparents (on both sides) champion the fact that all their Grandkids and Great Grandchildren are in debt up to their noses (all 25-40 of us) and will have to work their asses off forever just to stay fed clothes and sheltered. Yet they've been retired 10 years with who knows how many more to go and sometimes even complain when they're not bragging about how much free time they have. They seem to have the attitude of "We worked all our lives so you could be here, now you have to work too!"

I still love them, I just am jealous I suppose.

But, but....mylonsd, and other worthy baby boomers have EARNED this prosperity and easy life!!! Ask 'em.

BucEyedPea
08-02-2011, 06:35 PM
But, but....mylonsd, and other worthy baby boomers have EARNED this prosperity and easy life!!! Ask 'em.

I find it hard to believe anyone can blame boomers for this whole situation, especially when they paid into SS.

Mr. Kotter
08-02-2011, 06:36 PM
I find it hard to believe anyone can blame boomers for this whole situation, especially when they paid into SS.

They have paid in less than half...closer to one-third, what the average receipient will pry from the system (compounded interest, included.)

Do the homework yourself; it's true.

Backwards Masking
08-02-2011, 06:39 PM
One of my Grandpas a couple months ago kept talking about the national debt non stop. "We're never gonna pay off China, they're gonna have to start taking a lot more out of your check to pay that off. Yes siree Bob."

Thanks Grandpa.

BucEyedPea
08-02-2011, 06:40 PM
They have paid in less than half...closer to one-third, what the average receipient will pry from the system (compounded interest, included.)

Do the homework yourself; it's true.

So has the previous generations. Do you homework, that's how it was set up....and before any boomers were born. There's more to blame than one generation.

Mr. Kotter
08-02-2011, 07:02 PM
So has the previous generations. Do you homework, that's how it was set up....and before any boomers were born. There's more to blame than one generation.

The Boomers are the only ones, clearly, cryin' "Pay me, what you promised me! NOT what I've earned!"

[Even though we were STUPID to believe the political promises!]

That is embarrassing; and the major reason we are in this situation. Period.

BigChiefFan
08-02-2011, 07:07 PM
The Boomers are the only ones, clearly, cryin' "Pay me, what you promised me! NOT what I've earned!"

That is embarrassing; and the major reason we are in this situation. Period.You're out of your mind. Look at the defense budget. That is where the majority of the money is spent and squandered. WE ALL PAID and now that's it's time to pay back, you and the other government teet feeders cry foul. Bullshit. PAID in FULL.

Mr. Kotter
08-02-2011, 07:17 PM
You're out of your mind. Look at the defense budget. That is where the majority of the money is spent and squandered. WE ALL PAID and now that's it's time to pay back, you and the other government teet feeders cry foul. Bullshit. PAID in FULL.

Republicans can't simultaneously DEMAND huge defense/security "investment," while continuing to insist on LOWEST ever total tax rates....and, yet, in a politically convenient way defer to lowest common denominator for social spending. THAT is what leads to deficits.

It's NOT one factor; it's a combination of several factors. Of course, that makes things complicated; and "hard" to understand. Thus, most just defer to their favorite demagogues to speak on their behalf...even if they are dead wrong.

Jenson71
08-02-2011, 07:19 PM
They have paid in less than half...closer to one-third, what the average receipient will pry from the system (compounded interest, included.)

Do the homework yourself; it's true.

So what should they do? Give 2/3 of each SS check back to the government each month?

alanm
08-02-2011, 07:24 PM
Some baby boomers deserve blame and others do not. A better answer is that liberals (mostly democrats) deserve most of the blame. They are the ones who promised voters more than could be delivered (from SS to Medicare/Medicaid to Obamacare). They are the ones who demagogued conservatives when conservatives tried to resist the ever expanding welfare state. Even in the case of GWBush's prescription drug entitlement (where Republicans deserve at least a share of the blame), democrats wanted an even more expansive program. If it hadn't been for democrats drumming up an electoral appetite for a solution to the "prescription drug crisis", Bush wouldn't have even proposed one.Don't forget gov't unions and their ridiculous compensation packages. We all know who's got their tentacles into those people.

Mr. Kotter
08-02-2011, 07:27 PM
So what should they do? Give 2/3 of each SS check back to the government each month?

No. How about expect to WORK and continue to contribute to the system....for the SAME percentage of pay-out, as previous generations?

OR, alternatively, NOT expect government benefits to be 2-3 times what they have been for previous generations....by funding their OWN retirements beyond "payback (with interest, of course.)"

mlyonsd
08-02-2011, 07:28 PM
So what should they do? Give 2/3 of each SS check back to the government each month?Evidently we're supposed to start putting in twice as much and work till we're dead.

Mr. Kotter
08-02-2011, 07:42 PM
Evidently we're supposed to start putting in twice as much and work till we're dead.

No at ALL. I'd NEVER advocate that.

But, how about pay in....what you will, statistically speaking, TAKE out. That would be a good start.

:thumb:

patteeu
08-02-2011, 07:58 PM
Demagoguing a long-overdue overhaul of the nation's runaway healthcare system as "Obamacare," and simply exposes the biases upon which your weak opinion is based.

That's not an example of demagoguery.

Further demagoguery, ignoring the STONE COLD FACT that the average baby boomer will withdraw 2-3 times as much as they have ever put "into" the system over their lifetime (including contributions with compounded interest)...further exposes that are you are blinded by lies and misinformation, or dogmatic ideology--probably a bit of both.

Based on the above, your complete misunderstanding of "logic" is what defies explanation.

Further demagoguery, huh? You should consult a dictionary.

Ace Gunner
08-02-2011, 08:00 PM
cut foreign aid

patteeu
08-02-2011, 08:02 PM
Liberal demagogues resisting reasonable reforms and limits on social spending are definitely a large part of the problem; but Conservative demagogues who refuse to acknowledge public insistence on responsible social spending, are equally to blame.

Meanwhile, both sides need to put their money where their mouth is...and support tax reform that would is reasonable and equitable to all Americans--not just special interest groups lobbying for their loopholes, "incentives," and deductions.

No, one side pushed to spend, spend, spend and the other resisted. There never has been any "public insistence on responsible social spending". There have been snake oil liberals selling utopia and dopes like you who lap it up.

patteeu
08-02-2011, 08:06 PM
I could not agree more. Well stated and I happen to agree with you on entitlements now too. I just wish we could end the entitlements now.

The funny thing is, many of them complain about "too much government" and parrot Glenn Beck, while at the same time, they take every government program you can possibly think of including disability assistance. My in-laws are perfect examples.

As long as those are the rules of the game why shouldn't they? You claim all the deductions you're eligible for and file for a refund when you're owed one on your income taxes, don't you?

patteeu
08-02-2011, 08:08 PM
Yeah, I know a guy that considers himself a conservative but then takes advantage of all these entitlement programs.

Do people who consider themselves liberal continue to pay taxes at the rates in place before Reagan took office or did they accept the dramatic rate cuts made in the 80s?

patteeu
08-02-2011, 08:10 PM
You're out of your mind. Look at the defense budget. That is where the majority of the money is spent and squandered. WE ALL PAID and now that's it's time to pay back, you and the other government teet feeders cry foul. Bullshit. PAID in FULL.

:facepalm: Not even close to true.

Cannibal
08-02-2011, 08:13 PM
As long as those are the rules of the game why shouldn't they? You claim all the deductions you're eligible for and file for a refund when you're owed one on your income taxes, don't you?

Don't take government disability and unemployment and then quote me rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. That's all I'm saying.

BigChiefFan
08-02-2011, 08:18 PM
Republicans can't simultaneously DEMAND huge defense/security "investment," while continuing to insist on LOWEST ever total tax rates....and, yet, in a politically convenient way defer to lowest common denominator for social spending. THAT is what leads to deficits.

It's NOT one factor; it's a combination of several factors. Of course, that makes things complicated; and "hard" to understand. Thus, most just defer to their favorite demagogues to speak on their behalf...even if they are dead wrong.I would say you need to replace the word Republicans with politicians. Other than that, I agree with alot of your post. It's the other stuff you mentioned in prior posts, that I take issue with.

BigChiefFan
08-02-2011, 08:21 PM
:facepalm: Not even close to true.

Pat,
Yes or no, is the majority of tax payers money spent on the defense budget? Once you answer yes, hopefully you'll see my point. It doesn't take over a trillion dollars a year to keep Americans safe. Not even close. They are pillaging and you're asking for more.

patteeu
08-02-2011, 08:22 PM
Don't take government disability and unemployment and then quote me rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. That's all I'm saying.

I know what you're saying, but I don't understand why you're saying it. It makes no sense.

If I argue for a change in the law that would require cars to drive on the left side of the road instead of the right, am I a no good hypocrite if I don't start driving on the left immediately?

mlyonsd
08-02-2011, 08:23 PM
No at ALL. I'd NEVER advocate that.

But, how about pay in....what you will, statistically speaking, TAKE out. That would be a good start.

:thumb:Where did I ever say I was against raising my taxes?

You're the one that made a blatant general statement about an entire generation.

patteeu
08-02-2011, 08:27 PM
Pat,
Yes or no, is the majority of tax payers money spent on the defense budget? Once you answer yes, hopefully you'll see my point. It doesn't take over a trillion dollars a year to keep Americans safe. Not even close. They are pillaging and you're asking for more.

The answer to that is NO. What you're trying to do is say that defense comes straight out of tax proceeds and then we borrow for everything else, which isn't the case. Defense makes up less than 1/4th of the overall federal budget.

According to this chart, in FY2009, the DoD budget was 16.85% of the entire federal budget (the slice in orange). The GWoT budget was another 4.75% (in blue):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png

I'm not asking for more. I'm asking for defense budgets to continue to be driven by the threat, not by fiscal problems created by entitlements, out-of-control non-defense discretionary spending, and a low growth economy.

Cannibal
08-02-2011, 08:29 PM
I know what you're saying, but I don't understand why you're saying it. It makes no sense.

If I argue for a change in the law that would require cars to drive on the left side of the road instead of the right, am I a no good hypocrite if I don't start driving on the left immediately?

No, but you'd be a hypocrite if you made the choice to accept government money at tax payer expense and not get a job (or even two jobs if necessary) while espousing "conservative" anti-government believes.

BigChiefFan
08-02-2011, 08:30 PM
The answer to that is NO. What you're trying to do is say that defense comes straight out of tax proceeds and then we borrow for everything else, which isn't the case. Defense makes up less than 1/4th of the overall federal budget.

According to this chart, in FY2009, the DoD budget was 16.85% of the entire federal budget (the slice in orange):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png

I'm not asking for more. I'm asking for defense budgets to continue to be driven by the threat, not by fiscal problems created by entitlements, out-of-control non-defense discretionary spending, and a low growth economy.

...and I'm asking them to curb their spending on defense, when it isn't necessary to the common welfare of our citizenry. I'm not a war-mongering, Neo-con. I think war is a LAST RESORT and can't support spending tax dollars on killing others, unless provoked.

patteeu
08-02-2011, 08:32 PM
No, but you'd be a hypocrite if you made the choice to accept government money at tax payer expense and not get a job (or even two jobs if necessary) while espousing "conservative" anti-government believes.

Why? As long as they're eligible under the current rules of the system, I don't see why that would be hypocritical. Do you make the choice to take all your deductions on your tax form?

Cannibal
08-02-2011, 08:33 PM
Why? As long as they're eligible under the current rules of the system, I don't see why that would be hypocritical. Do you make the choice to take all your deductions on your tax form?

It is quite hypocritical.

patteeu
08-02-2011, 08:34 PM
...and I'm asking them to curb their spending on defense, when it isn't necessary to the common welfare of our citizenry. I'm not a war-mongering, Neo-con. I think war is a LAST RESORT and can't support spending tax dollars on killing others, unless provoked.

You were saying that the majority of federal money is spent on defense. The chart shows that that's not even close to true. In fact, we spend less than 25% of our federal budget on defense. It's the other 75% that creates the problem.

A weak defense will bring war to you.

patteeu
08-02-2011, 08:35 PM
It is quite hypocritical.

Ok, don't bother trying to explain. Do you take all your deductions?

Cannibal
08-02-2011, 08:38 PM
Do you take all your deductions?

We use the standard deduction. We have no children.

I'm not on welfare like all these other aholes getting 6 grand on the child tax credit. Another form of welfare that should be ended BTW. **** these dipshits and there fat assed loser broods.

BigChiefFan
08-02-2011, 08:44 PM
You were saying that the majority of federal money is spent on defense. The chart shows that that's not even close to true. In fact, we spend less than 25% of our federal budget on defense. It's the other 75% that creates the problem.

A weak defense will bring war to you.

This is what I'm basing it. Defense is clearly the majority of expenditures, as I stated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/

Also, we are hardly weak on defense and tightening the belts some, is hardly cause for alarm.

Backwards Masking
08-02-2011, 08:53 PM
cut foreign aid

can't. our corporations setting up shop overseas make too money. for themselves, not us.

Cannibal
08-02-2011, 08:57 PM
can't. our corporations setting up shop overseas make too money. for themselves, not us.

Plus I think that would be more sybolic than anything. I do not believe our foreign aid amounts to much in terms a percentage of the budget. I could be wrong about that. I know we give a ton of dough and military aid to Israel.

petegz28
08-02-2011, 09:02 PM
Plus I think that would be more sybolic than anything. I do not believe our foreign aid amounts to much in terms a percentage of the budget. I could be wrong about that. I know we give a ton of dough and military aid to Israel.

When you're broke, a $1 here and a $1 there is a $1 you can't afford.

Cannibal
08-02-2011, 09:08 PM
When you're broke, a $1 here and a $1 there is a $1 you can't afford.

I agree. Just sayin I hear people always act like cutting off foreign aid will solve the problem. It won't even come close.

Would you cut off aid to Israel?

petegz28
08-02-2011, 09:10 PM
I agree. Just sayin I hear people always act like cutting off foreign aid will solve the problem. It won't even come close.

Would you cut off aid to Israel?

I would reduce aid to Israel. They are our only ally in that part of the world so there has to be some sort of deal there. Although, national security is the #1 job of the Fed Gov.

Cannibal
08-02-2011, 09:11 PM
I would reduce aid to Israel. They are our only ally in that part of the world so there has to be some sort of deal there. Although, national security is the #1 job of the Fed Gov.

No offense. But I thought that might be your answer.

petegz28
08-02-2011, 09:14 PM
No offense. But I thought that might be your answer.

We can't just cut off Israel. If we had more allies in that part of the world them perhaps we could. But when they are surrounded by countries full of people wanting to harm us I have to say it's in our national interests security wise to work with them.

Backwards Masking
08-02-2011, 09:14 PM
Plus I think that would be more sybolic than anything. I do not believe our foreign aid amounts to much in terms a percentage of the budget. I could be wrong about that. I know we give a ton of dough and military aid to Israel.


We have to give some foreign aid for symbolic purposes most definitely, politics and everything. But one has to wonder how much of it actually gets to the foreigners and how much of goes to "rebuilding", whether its a country we've invaded or not.

What bucket does the money paying our troops in Iraq come out of? Defense Or Foreign Aid? Or something else?

Cannibal
08-02-2011, 09:17 PM
We can't just cut off Israel.

I think we can and should.

Israel can protect themselves.

petegz28
08-02-2011, 09:18 PM
We have to give some foreign aid for symbolic purposes most definitely, politics and everything. But one has to wonder how much of it actually gets to the foreigners and how much of goes to "rebuilding", whether its a country we've invaded or not.

What bucket does the money paying our troops in Iraq come out of? Defense Or Foreign Aid? Or something else?

Regardless it's not who pays for the war but how we fight them that costs us money. Instead of spending all this money to transform parts of the world we need to just make it plain that if they ever **** with us we will wipe their entire country off the face of the ****ing earth so fast we'll be back home in time for corn flakes. **** all the "nation building" and funding of corrupt governments.

petegz28
08-02-2011, 09:19 PM
I think we can and should.

Israel can protect themselves.

I think we could reduce our aid to them sure. Scale it back more to giving them good prices on our used military goods and all.

Ace Gunner
08-02-2011, 09:19 PM
Let's see. You're forced to pay into the system and told you'll get some back later. Then later comes and your plans are trashed because the deal turned into a scam. No. That's a ripoff.

As for the boomer generation fucking this country to death? Yup, yup yuppie!!...

petegz28
08-02-2011, 09:20 PM
Let's see. You're forced to pay into the system and told you'll get some back later. Then later comes and your plans are trashed because the deal turned into a scam. No. That's a ripoff.

As for the boomer generation ****ing this country to death? Yup, yup yuppie!!...

More like hip, hip, hippie!

Cannibal
08-02-2011, 09:20 PM
We have to give some foreign aid for symbolic purposes most definitely, politics and everything. But one has to wonder how much of it actually gets to the foreigners and how much of goes to "rebuilding", whether its a country we've invaded or not.

What bucket does the money paying our troops in Iraq come out of? Defense Or Foreign Aid? Or something else?

Defense I believe.

Let me say I agree that we should currently end all foreign aid. I was just saying I don't think it's a very large portion of our budget.

petegz28
08-02-2011, 09:22 PM
Defense I believe.

Let me say I agree that we should currently end all foreign aid. I was just saying I don't think it's a very large portion of our budget.

It isn't but as I said, it starts there. There are tons of government grants and the like, both foreign and domestic we could do without. The problem is on the surface the politicos do a good job of singling them out then saying "oh come on, that $1 million we spent to study why people smile at hockey games isn't breaking us"

Ace Gunner
08-02-2011, 09:25 PM
More like hip, hip, hippie!

we are so fukd

Backwards Masking
08-02-2011, 09:43 PM
Defense I believe.

Let me say I agree that we should currently end all foreign aid. I was just saying I don't think it's a very large portion of our budget.

I didn't think it was either, I figured it came out of defense but I wasn't sure.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-02-2011, 11:28 PM
Printing up new currency as we speak, it will look a little like this

http://www.caseyresearch.com/sites/default/files/image23.jpg

and it should score you one of these

http://th248.photobucket.com/albums/gg195/ThePhantomMan/th_bigmac.jpg

fries are extra.

patteeu
08-02-2011, 11:44 PM
This is what I'm basing it. Defense is clearly the majority of expenditures, as I stated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/

Also, we are hardly weak on defense and tightening the belts some, is hardly cause for alarm.

Your chart says that defense is $895B out of a $3.83T budget. That's just 23%. Not even close to a majority, as *I* stated.

We aren't weak on defense now, but you're talking about weakening us. What do you think we should cut first, armor for Humvees?

patteeu
08-02-2011, 11:49 PM
We have to give some foreign aid for symbolic purposes most definitely, politics and everything. But one has to wonder how much of it actually gets to the foreigners and how much of goes to "rebuilding", whether its a country we've invaded or not.

What bucket does the money paying our troops in Iraq come out of? Defense Or Foreign Aid? Or something else?

On that pie chart I posted earlier in the thread, it comes out of the Global War on Terror slice (which I would consider a part of defense). Foreign aid is most likely a tiny part of the small sliver of (State Department) orange (1.25%).

BigChiefFan
08-02-2011, 11:53 PM
Your chart says that defense is $895B out of a $3.83T budget. That's just 23%. Not even close to a majority, as *I* stated.

We aren't weak on defense now, but you're talking about weakening us. What do you think we should cut first, armor for Humvees?You can't be serious? The chart I refer to gives actual NUMBERS, not percentages.

You're adding up the remaining 77%, as if, it's one entity. It isn't.

$895 Billion is greater than the next highest department's spending, which is $730 billion.

So, yes the biggest expenditure per department is the defense budget.

In other words, the defense department spends the most out of any the departments, which has been my contention all along.

Nice try, though.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 12:00 AM
You can't be serious? The chart I refer to gives actual NUMBERS, not percentages.

You're adding up the remaining 77%, as if, it's one entity. It isn't.

$895 Billion is greater than the next highest department's spending, which is $730 billion.

So, yes the biggest expenditure per department is the defense budget.

In other words, the defense department spends the most out of any the departments, which has been my contention all along.

Nice try, though.

Do you know what the word "majority" means?

The way the person who put together that chart groups expenditures isn't the one and only way they can be grouped. If you put SS, Medicare, and Medicaid together as "entitlements", which would be a completely reasonable thing to do, that expenditure would total $1518B or nearly twice that of defense. In other words, even if you had used the right word to describe what you were thinking, the point you made is only an artifact of the arbitrary groupings selected by the chart maker.

BigChiefFan
08-03-2011, 12:11 AM
Do you know what the word "majority" means?

The way the person who put together that chart groups expenditures isn't the one and only way they can be grouped. If you put SS, Medicare, and Medicaid together as "entitlements", which would be a completely reasonable thing to do, that expenditure would total $1518B or nearly twice that of defense. In other words, even if you had used the right word to describe what you were thinking, the point you made is only an artifact of the arbitrary groupings selected by the chart maker.

In other words, in THEORY, not reality. Again, the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HAS THE BIGGEST BUDGET out of all departments. Again, you are adding SEPARATE departments, like they are one and again, they aren't.

THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HAS THE BIGGEST BUDGET out of all departments-there's no way around that point, bud.

You can't run from the truth.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 12:39 AM
In other words, in THEORY, not reality. Again, the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HAS THE BIGGEST BUDGET out of all departments. Again, you are adding SEPARATE departments, like they are one and again, they aren't.

THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HAS THE BIGGEST BUDGET out of all departments-there's no way around that point, bud.

You can't run from the truth.

It doesn't matter to me that DoD has the biggest budget of all the departments. It's the most important department. I have no reason to run from it.

I see that you're running from your "majority" comment though. Good idea. A better idea would be to admit that you made a mistake instead of acting like you've been saying this from the beginning.

The important things to remember are:
1. The defense budget has been roughly steady as a share of GDP for the past half century.
2. The defense budget has been shrinking as a share of the overall budget for decades.
3. The defense budget is less than 25% of the overall federal budget now.
4. The cost of entitlements, the part of the budget that's been growing dramatically over the past few decades, dwarfs that of defense.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-03-2011, 12:40 AM
It doesn't matter to me that DoD has the biggest budget of all the departments. It's the most important department. I have no reason to run from it.

I see that you're running from your "majority" comment though. Good idea. A better idea would be to admit that you made a mistake instead of acting like you've been saying this from the beginning.

The important things to remember are:
1. The defense budget has been roughly steady as a share of GDP for the past half century.
2. The defense budget has been shrinking as a share of the overall budget for decades.
3. The defense budget is less than 25% of the overall federal budget now.
4. The cost of entitlements, the part of the budget that's been growing dramatically over the past few decades, dwarfs that of defense.

Do you consider Social Security an Entitlement?

patteeu
08-03-2011, 12:42 AM
Do you consider Social Security an Entitlement?

Yes.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-03-2011, 12:45 AM
Yes.

It's our money, and is overfunded. You get what you give so how can that be an entitlement? Even the Tea party disagrees with you.

Garcia Bronco
08-03-2011, 02:15 AM
How the Greatest Generation gave birth to one of the worst is ironic.

Garcia Bronco
08-03-2011, 02:17 AM
In other words, in THEORY, not reality. Again, the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HAS THE BIGGEST BUDGET out of all departments. Again, you are adding SEPARATE departments, like they are one and again, they aren't.

THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HAS THE BIGGEST BUDGET out of all departments-there's no way around that point, bud.

You can't run from the truth.

Heath and Human services is the biggest drain on our economy. It's in crisis and will only get worse.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 04:31 AM
How the Greatest Generation gave birth to one of the worst is ironic.

Perhaps because they weren't the Greatest Generation afterall. For one, they never questioned their government or authority. For two, their retirement was funded by their own boomers and they can be considered, and are by some conservatives, as the most corrupt because they retired as the richest elderly generation. I prefer to call them "FDR's Babies."

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 04:35 AM
patteeu doesn't seem to understand that there is a lot of off budget money for defense.
That and the CIA being funded by drug money. Remember the Taliban got rid of the poppy trade and it flourished and prospered again after our invasion.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 04:38 AM
No. How about expect to WORK and continue to contribute to the system....for the SAME percentage of pay-out, as previous generations?

OR, alternatively, NOT expect government benefits to be 2-3 times what they have been for previous generations....by funding their OWN retirements beyond "payback (with interest, of course.)"


In order for this to happen, govt would have to drop fiat paper money. It's not fair when govt prints money making the same previous amount worthless or not buying what it once did. You can't go by the mere numbers and say they're getting more than they put in because our system is an inflationary one. Otherwise, I'd agree with you.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 07:21 AM
patteeu doesn't seem to understand that there is a lot of off budget money for defense.

Like what? The funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which used to be off-budget, are now on-budget.

That and the CIA being funded by drug money. Remember the Taliban got rid of the poppy trade and it flourished and prospered again after our invasion.

I'll give that a 4 on the kookiness scale. At least it's plausible, unlike so many of the wild tales that people around here believe.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 07:23 AM
Perhaps because they weren't the Greatest Generation afterall. For one, they never questioned their government or authority. For two, their retirement was funded by their own boomers and they can be considered, and are by some conservatives, as the most corrupt because they retired as the richest elderly generation. I prefer to call them "FDR's Babies."

This is a good point. The "greatest generation" gave birth to the entitlement state and had the brilliant idea to set up SS in a form that required constant population growth to remain solvent. I guess the baby boomers just didn't do their part by having enough babies.

mlyonsd
08-03-2011, 07:34 AM
This is a good point. The "greatest generation" gave birth to the entitlement state and had the brilliant idea to set up SS in a form that required constant population growth to remain solvent. I guess the baby boomers just didn't do their part by having enough babies.Kotter has it figured out. Boomers will work till they're 80. He doesn't think through very well though what our unemployment rate would look like in his utopia .

patteeu
08-03-2011, 07:45 AM
Kotter has it figured out. Boomers will work till they're 80. He doesn't think through very well though what our unemployment rate would look like in his utopia .

Yep. I wonder if he has a hangover this morning.

HonestChieffan
08-03-2011, 07:46 AM
Kotter has it figured out. Boomers will work till they're 80. He doesn't think through very well though what our unemployment rate would look like in his utopia .

Considering that teachers pay like 3% of their retirement, the rest of the workers picking up the tab for his 80%+ retirement till he kicks off takes a lot of effort from full time workers.

In the meantime, its all good fun to point at someone else for fiscal problems.

Ace Gunner
08-03-2011, 07:52 AM
patteeu doesn't seem to understand that there is a lot of off budget money for defense.
That and the CIA being funded by drug money. Remember the Taliban got rid of the poppy trade and it flourished and prospered again after our invasion.

either he doesn't see our demise or he suffers normalcy bias like others in this country.

BigChiefFan
08-03-2011, 07:56 AM
It doesn't matter to me that DoD has the biggest budget of all the departments. It's the most important department. I have no reason to run from it.

I see that you're running from your "majority" comment though. Good idea. A better idea would be to admit that you made a mistake instead of acting like you've been saying this from the beginning.

The important things to remember are:
1. The defense budget has been roughly steady as a share of GDP for the past half century.
2. The defense budget has been shrinking as a share of the overall budget for decades.
3. The defense budget is less than 25% of the overall federal budget now.
4. The cost of entitlements, the part of the budget that's been growing dramatically over the past few decades, dwarfs that of defense.

I stand by what I said. I'm not going to go round and round with you. If you can't accept that the defense department spends MORE MONEY THAN ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITY, than it is you, that is refusing to acknowledge the truth. The entire point was they need to curb their spending, because they spend more than any other department. THAT IS A FACT! It is you that refuses to ackowledge that.

That "less than 25%" is still the biggest percentage of ALL the departments. It's quite simple but you'd rather chase your own tail, rather than admit they have a problem with the amount they are spending. Spin it however you want, my point still stands.

Mr. Kotter
08-03-2011, 08:08 AM
In order for this to happen, govt would have to drop fiat paper money. It's not fair when govt prints money making the same previous amount worthless or not buying what it once did. You can't go by the mere numbers and say they're getting more than they put in because our system is an inflationary one. Otherwise, I'd agree with you.

Any effect of fiat is offset by adjustments for inflation, and reasonable interest....which I'd include. Boomers STILL will take, on average, 2-3 times (or more) anything they put in--even with those adjustments.

Mr. Kotter
08-03-2011, 08:10 AM
Yep. I wonder if he has a hangover this morning.

Hangovers are the result of alcohol consumption. I save that for the weekends, usually. Wrong again. Next ad hominem? :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
08-03-2011, 08:13 AM
Kotter has it figured out. Boomers will work till they're 80. He doesn't think through very well though what our unemployment rate would look like in his utopia .

Not at ALL. I'd NEVER advocate that.

Given the labor SHORTAGES we will be facing as boomers retire, your view seems to be the one out-of-whack, here.

All I'm sayin' is: how about we pay in....what we will, statistically speaking, will TAKE out. That would be a good start.

:thumb:

patteeu
08-03-2011, 08:36 AM
I stand by what I said. I'm not going to go round and round with you. If you can't accept that the defense department spends MORE MONEY THAN ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITY, than it is you, that is refusing to acknowledge the truth. The entire point was they need to curb their spending, because they spend more than any other department. THAT IS A FACT! It is you that refuses to ackowledge that.

That "less than 25%" is still the biggest percentage of ALL the departments. It's quite simple but you'd rather chase your own tail, rather than admit they have a problem with the amount they are spending. Spin it however you want, my point still stands.

Actually, entitlements account for about 50% of expenditures which is a far larger chunk than defense. Defense is not the spending problem and weakening our defense is not the solution.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 08:37 AM
Hangovers are the result of alcohol consumption. I save that for the weekends, usually. Wrong again. Next ad hominem? :rolleyes:

The non-denial denial. LOL

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 09:01 AM
Any effect of fiat is offset by adjustments for inflation, and reasonable interest....which I'd include. Boomers STILL will take, on average, 2-3 times (or more) anything they put in--even with those adjustments.

Unless I see numbers correlated to the true worth of the dollar I'll have hold off on making a firm opinion. This means using an independent measuring stick such as the Austrian School instead of the CPI index that politicians constantly re-adjust for what it will measure in their mythical basket of goods, particularly when it makes them look bad. On the other hand, I've been known to say people are getting more out SS than they paid, but this applies to the Greatest Generation as well—probably even more so as the dollar has since been more corroded. Not so great 'eh?

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 09:03 AM
I'll give that a 4 on the kookiness scale. At least it's plausible, unlike so many of the wild tales that people around here believe.
Thank you for admitting you got nuthin' —AGAIN. There's been plenty written in books and even msm about this as well as other things the CIA does such as planting false reports on newswires and mockingbirds in the media. It operates as a clandestine arm of the presidency at times. This is why intel needs to be put under the army.

go bowe
08-03-2011, 05:53 PM
Thank you for admitting you got nuthin' —AGAIN. There's been plenty written in books and even msm about this as well as other things the CIA does such as planting false reports on newswires and mockingbirds in the media. It operates as a clandestine arm of the presidency at times. This is why intel needs to be put under the army.

no shit, that's why they call them spies...

stevieray
08-03-2011, 06:02 PM
.

to the "Me" generation of the '60s through the lucrative uptick in the Reagan '80s.
...notice this just gets a blip?..know why? because those two decades created a buttload of dysfunction and the breakdown of family....

boomers didn't create this mess..the culture they embraced did.....

Jenson71
08-03-2011, 06:34 PM
Perhaps because they weren't the Greatest Generation afterall. For one, they never questioned their government or authority. For two, their retirement was funded by their own boomers and they can be considered, and are by some conservatives, as the most corrupt because they retired as the richest elderly generation. I prefer to call them "FDR's Babies."

How do you know they didn't question their government? Because they fought in WWII? And they are corrupt because they retired wealthy? How does that make sense?

ROYC75
08-03-2011, 06:45 PM
...notice this just gets a blip?..know why? because those two decades created a buttload of dysfunction and the breakdown of family....

boomers didn't create this mess..the culture they embraced did.....

Good point.:thumb:

Jenson71
08-03-2011, 07:48 PM
...notice this just gets a blip?..know why? because those two decades created a buttload of dysfunction and the breakdown of family....

boomers didn't create this mess..the culture they embraced did.....

The boomers really created that culture.

stevieray
08-03-2011, 08:07 PM
The boomers really created that culture.

I've been saying that for years.

Mr. Kotter
08-03-2011, 08:22 PM
I've been saying that for years.

And on this point, you are 100% correct. We created it....even if the mistake of the greatest generation was they allowed us to create it--they wanted us to do better, so much so they became the boomer's enablers. Textbook codependency, even.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 08:48 PM
So if the Boomers created it, and I happen to disagree because it was their parents that did, then are we going to blame those who wanted Obamcare down the road? I hope so because it will be true as well. As far as I can see, it's the same crime. It's not the generation—it's the mentality.

Mr. Kotter
08-03-2011, 09:12 PM
So if the Boomers created it, and I happen to disagree because it was their parents that did, then are we going to blame those who wanted Obamcare down the road? I hope so because it will be true as well. As far as I can see, it's the same crime. It's not the generation—it's the mentality.

Reform of national healthcare is, pure and simple, a result of runaway greed in the healthcare industry--left unchecked for decades. Government intervention to correct runaway greed was necessary to correct the excesses of the Gilded Age and the 1920s--and it was necessary this time too.

It's not the best first choice, but given the power of special interest groups to preserve their cash cow...it's sometimes the only option--and a last resort. It's unfortunate that it came to that point. While healthcare is not a birth rite, it should NOT bankrupt working families--and it had reached that point.

That's not a "mentality," that is good government--government that works as it is suppose to work: to protect the public, and promote the common good.

Jenson71
08-03-2011, 09:18 PM
This is a good point. The "greatest generation" gave birth to the entitlement state and had the brilliant idea to set up SS in a form that required constant population growth to remain solvent. I guess the baby boomers just didn't do their part by having enough babies.

No they didn't. They were kids and teenagers when FDR began the New Deal.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 11:25 PM
No they didn't. They were kids and teenagers when FDR began the New Deal.

OK, then the greatest generation's sin is that they didn't repeal it.

Mr. Kotter
08-03-2011, 11:44 PM
OK, then the greatest generation's sin is that they didn't repeal it.

Nope. That TOO would be the baby-boomer's sin. Of course they were too stoned and care-free....between civil rights and anti-war protests (with legitimacy, of course) but with no house payments or children yet, to really give a shit though. Besides, REFORM rather than repeal would have made much more sense; but because we didn't reform it then, clowns like you can demagogue repealing it....now.

"Peace, love, and understanding" of the 60s became, "me-myself-and-I" by the 80s, it's REALLY hard to reverse that stuff. Heh.

Baby Lee
08-04-2011, 06:25 AM
Nope. That TOO would be the baby-boomer's sin. Of course they were too stoned and care-free....between civil rights and anti-war protests (with legitimacy, of course) but with no house payments or children yet, to really give a shit though. Besides, REFORM rather than repeal would have made much more sense; but because we didn't reform it then, clowns like you can demagogue repealing it....now.

"Peace, love, and understanding" of the 60s became, "me-myself-and-I" by the 80s, it's REALLY hard to reverse that stuff. Heh.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iliLnQmaEOA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>