Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boomers have paid their dues to society
Sydney Morning Herald ^ | 5/18/05 | Jan Murray

Posted on 05/18/2005 10:06:08 AM PDT by qam1

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-180 last
To: Ditto

Okay, let's demolish your argument one point at a time...

56,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and that was tragedy, yes. Of course, they wouldn't have died in vain if their colleagues hadn't been rioting in the streets and rooting for the other side. Then again, perhaps if the boomers had had any sense whatsoever, they would have made a concious effort to get Kennedy and Johnson to end the damn thing as soon as possible, with victory.

Instead, boomers take credit for "ending an unjust war" that saw more more people killed after it was over. BTW, my father served two tours of duty in Vietnam (1966,1968) and was at Khe Sahn (26th Marines). I'm fourth generation military myself.

Boomers are so proud that they fought "the establishment", until, of course they became the establishment themselves and forgot all about the summer of love. Once they grew up they realized that money was, of course, a vital necessity. Amazing what happens when you are forced to face reality.

As for a rising stock market, considering that between 1945 and about 1970, this was the only industrial country that had not been bombed flat, or under direct threat of invasion by the meancing Red Hoardes, the US was in the unusual position of supplying virtually all manufactured goods for the other 4/5th of the globe. We also produced a significant proportion of our own energy and raw materials at that time. By the way, I've worked on Wall Street for the last 20 years and the stock market is a load of crap. Your average stock broker is little more than a licensed bookie in an expensive suit and numbers can always be made to lie (just ask the Federal Gub'mint or Enron --- both run by boomers, no less).

The "rising" stock market has occured during a time in which real wages have sunk, people work longer hours for less return, we've had inflated prices and returns in speculative "bubbles" (tech, biotech, and now real estate), and the introduction of the 401(k) (which by the way, was invented by someone from the WWII generation). In the meantime, every attempt to restore some semblance of reality to economics has been thwarted by baby boomers. We do not live in a free market society anymore, unless you deal in pornography, prostitution or illicit narcotics. Our grandparents won WWII, but Nazi-style economics and government-run industry survived.

Right now, we live in a world where the price of oil continues to rise, further strangling economic growth, in part because the Boomers refused to accept nuclear power. They feared what they did not understand. The same people went ahead and made various areas of uninhabtable land safe for caribou and spotted owls and such, while untapped energy lies just underground. Right now, the United States Military turns out hundred ofqualified nuclear engineers who could be working ater their service, running small, clean and powerful plants that will keep boomers from dying in the summer heat, like elderly folks do in France. The self-same boomers made welfare a self-perpetuating prophecy, creating a new plantation in the heart of American cities, while marching for civil rights to salve their souls. The same boomers removed the societal stigmas attached to out-of-wedlock births, unwed mothers, homosexuality, drug use, etc, etc, etc, until we now live in a country where practically every day, someone sues someone for the right to marry his daschund.

Your generation is full of such sophomoric contradictions: claiming credit for a "robust" ecomony that creates nothing other than cigarettes and Doritos (check Wal-Mart, everything else comes from Chima), having the "courage to speak truth to power" about Vietnam and Civil Rights when you did nothing of the sort. The worst boomer excess has to be the argument that says that simply because you will live to be twice the age of your grandparents generation that you must be paid simply for being alive.

Listen, I don't begrudge anyone anything they're entitled to by rights. I do have a probem, however, with people taking advantage of a system that would get any Italian slapped with a RICO statute -- the Ponzi scheme of Social Security.

So here's what I would propose -- you can have whatever you paid into the system, in cash, with a modicum of interest, in a lump sum. however, you cannot do anything with that money except put it into some retirement account or some concrete investment. The onus to save for your reclining years will now be squarely on you. We then exempt you and your employer from having to pay SS taxes on your behalf, and the rest of us whippersnappers won't have to support you in your golden years of chasing blue plate specials and playing the nickle slots in Atlantic City. We then give my generation at least half of what we've paid in and get rid of the SS tax, unless people still want to opt in. I know more about how to invest it than the government or my "investment specialist" does.

Then Social Secrity dies the death that all socialist-inspired schemes deserve to, you get to build that nest eggg that will fund your respirator and cemetary plot, and for which your children will be more than happy to fight over when you've shuffled off this mortal coil. That, of course, assumes they don't decide to pull the plug for you. I, of course, get to keep more of what I rightfully earned and your grubby hands are out of my pockets.


151 posted on 05/24/2005 5:23:48 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl

I was born in 1967, so my parents are the boomers. I'm too late to be a boomer and to early to be Gen X'er. So, I'm surrounded on side by a whining group of greedy bastards who believe they accomplished something in the 60's on one side, and on the other, the next geeneration of over-indulged idiots who couldn't find their own behinds with both hands and a road map.

One sucks the lifeblood from me and the other will be running things when I'm on the far side of the hill. Considering the possibilities, tell me why I shouldn't be concerned for my future?


152 posted on 05/24/2005 5:27:53 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl

BTW, my parents squandered whatever they had. I'm not worried about being in anyone's will because I've always looked out for myself and worked for myself. Perhaps if more people had that kind of idea we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.


153 posted on 05/24/2005 5:29:57 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Syco
This generation did more damage to society than the three or four generations before them...

Horsecrap.

We didn't invent the income tax.
We didn't invent socialist security.
We didn't invent the "Great Society".
We didn't start wars in Korea and Viet Nam - and in the latter piss away 50,000 lives for NOTHING.
Walter Cronkite and his other socialistic pimp cronies aren't from our generation.

If you're an X'er born in 1965, you're FORTY now. Exactly what have you done to right wrongs in America ?

Meanwhile Boomers have paid taxes out the rear end to support welfare parasites (fostered by the "Greatest Generation") and the other socialist schemes passed by the Greatest Generation.

Beating up on the Boomers may make you feel good, but it's ignorant.

154 posted on 05/24/2005 5:40:27 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
56,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and that was tragedy, yes. Of course, they wouldn't have died in vain if their colleagues hadn't been rioting in the streets and rooting for the other side. Then again, perhaps if the boomers had had any sense whatsoever, they would have made a concious effort to get Kennedy and Johnson to end the damn thing as soon as possible, with victory.

Instead, boomers take credit for "ending an unjust war" that saw more more people killed after it was over. BTW, my father served two tours of duty in Vietnam (1966,1968) and was at Khe Sahn (26th Marines). I'm fourth generation military myself.

Pretty obvious that a generation of Dan Rather style propaganda has sunk deeply into you and you have nothing but Hollywood images of what your parents generation was about. A few thousand Boomers went to Canada. More than 5 million served in the US military like your dad. I don't even know of one Boomer who "protested" the war. For every maggot infested commie hippie on the streets, there were thousands who supported their country. For every leftist media hyped Jane Fonda, there were hundreds of nameless Boomers who hated her guts and who put Ronald Reagan in office and then turned a half century of leftist congressional rule into what looks to be a permanent Conservative majority. That was only possible because of Boomers. It wasn't the "Greatest Generation" that did it. I know those people very well. They were my parents generation and they worshiped at the temple of FDR and the Democrat Party and a great many of them have never done anything other than pull the straight Democrat lever.

As to Social Security, if you are capable of simple addition, you will understand that not even one Boomer is eligible for it now, and none will be for another few years. It's the so-called Greatest Generation who were loyal to the Democrat party who demanded all the increased benefits. It's been the Boomers who have paid for those increased benefits for their entire careers and who realized long ago that Social Security was a Ponzi Scheme that would never take care of them. Those of us who had the means have planned for our own retirement and again, I don't know any who are counting on Social Security. (I'd advise you not to count on it either, privatized or not --- save and invest all you can, and then some more.)

Some more advice. Don't look to Hollywood for history.

Oh, I have got to comment on this as well.

Right now, we live in a world where the price of oil continues to rise, further strangling economic growth, in part because the Boomers refused to accept nuclear power. They feared what they did not understand.

I spent to first 20 years of my career in the nuclear power industry and support it 100%. But please Dr. Einstein, tell the class how building more nuclear plants will do anything to decrease oil demand in this country.

Again, you go off on simplistic rants with little or no knowledge. But then again, you are young, and pretty much clueless.

155 posted on 05/24/2005 7:16:14 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine

They're not done yet. They will give us the most extreme types of fetal tissue research, organ harvesting, cloning and advanced cryogenics. Death rightly terrifies them.


156 posted on 05/24/2005 7:58:20 AM PDT by Dionysius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

SImplistic? I doubt it. I hold a degree in history and run a multi-billion dollar data processing complex for a Fortune 100 firm.

I served on two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in my 8 years (full-time and reserve) in the Navy. Both ships had reactors about the size of double-decker bus, and were capable of creating enough electricty to light Chicago for 25 years. There was no need to burn oil, there was no need to deal with greenhouse gasses or noxious fumes. Not much in the way of equipment needed to be lubricated as compared to an older diesel-fired plant.

The Navy, incidentally, has been handling nuclear reactors for five decades now, with an exemplary safety record. Much better than Exxon's or BP's I might add.

As for propaganda, according to Dan and his bunch, the war was a crime against humanity and the United Sates was evil-evil-evil for even being involved. My take: we needed to be there, but we needed to win. The troops on the ground were not allowed to win, and much of it had to do with the situation at home. Any increase in US force or use of force brought the rioters out. You may not know one protester, but I would wager that's more along the lines of soomeone hiding their irresponsibility and stupidity from you. Were it was once fashionable to protest, it is now looked upon a bad form for having been a protester. I doubt very highly that you have never in your life ever made an acquaintance who held anti-Vietnam sympathies.

And please, do not take credit for the Reagan Revolution. The people who voted for Reagan were very much of your parents generation as much as they were yours.

As fo rthe hubub over social security, when the present recipients die, the problem is half solved: most fo the resistance ot reform has come from those raised during the Depression and they have an emotional attachment to FDR and his programs. The other half of the solution will happen when all those born before 1965 realize they shouldn't be so selfish as to believe they should get something for nothing, like their parents did in their later years.

As for simple addition, if you were born in 1946, you would now be 59 years old, and eleigible under certain circumstances for early retirement (under the 75/25 rule), and begin collecting social security within a few years, at least prior to 67. The rest of us would have to retire at 67 before we began to collect anything.


157 posted on 05/24/2005 8:01:17 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Both ships had reactors about the size of double-decker bus, and were capable of creating enough electricty to light Chicago for 25 years.

Bulls**t bub. A Navy reactor couldn't light Chicago for 25 seconds.

And answer the damn question. How would more reactors decrease our demand for oil?

158 posted on 05/24/2005 8:06:25 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

Algore's a boomer; he invented everything.


159 posted on 05/24/2005 8:06:28 AM PDT by DLfromthedesert (Texas Cowboy...you da man!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
The other half of the solution will happen when all those born before 1965 realize they shouldn't be so selfish as to believe they should get something for nothing, like their parents did in their later years.

15% of every paycheck for the last 35 years is hardly "nothing", but as I sid, I have planned for nearly that long on not ever seeing any of it.

160 posted on 05/24/2005 8:08:55 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Dude, the Enterprise had eight reactors aboard, which did not require refueling for 20 years. The Eisenhower had six, more compact reactors, that operated along the same lines.

In the space between launch and initial refueling, both ships have steamed around the world multiple times and produced God knows how many billions of tons of compressed steam. They heated the water that provided for showers, cooking and maintenance of 5,600 people a day, not to mention launching aircraft 24/7, and all that machinery, 365 days a year for a couple of decades. Those reactors drive a vessel that displaces almost 100,000 tons of water (and several tens of millions of tons in actual weight) across the oceans at speed of 40+ mph. And they've both been refueled only ONCE.

Imagine if those vessels were powered by diesel oil, or compressed natural gas? How much oil or gas do you think that would require? How many cars could be kept on the road or homes heated with the energy created by all that oil that didn't get used?

For someone who claims to be in the nuclear power industry, you seem to be a) very down on your own business. I'd find a new line of work, if you feel that way, and b)incapable of discerning the difference between the energy created by 1 gram of matter (the size of 4 aspirins) and a 5,000 ton trailer truck of gasoline. There is no contest.

For every nuclear plant out there, I'd wager we could close two or three coal-fired or oil burning plants, minimum. We would automatically assume, of course (for the purposes of this argument), that any new plants would be more efficient and have better safeguards than ones built in the 1970's. I would hope we had better trained folks to run them too. In this case, adding newer, more efficient plants that operate on less fuel (and not carbon based, at that!) makes more sense than anything else.

How many billions of barrels of oil would that equate to over the lifetime of the plant? If that ever happened did we reduce the demand for oil or not?


161 posted on 05/24/2005 8:24:38 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

P.S. As an aside - If you ask me, when it comes to the price of gas people have their priorities screwed up to begin with. How could anyone complain about paying $2-plus for a gallon gasoline and say nothing of paying $4.50 for a gallon of milk?


162 posted on 05/24/2005 8:29:52 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Dude. Buy a clue. A naval reactor weighs in at about 40MWt. The average commercial nuclear plant is 20 times larger.

BTW. The only reason for the Eisenhower to even exist is to be floating airfield. Now tell me, did you plug in real long extension cords into those jets? Or did each of those jets go through more fossil fuel in one flight than the average driver will use in a year? The fact is, an aircraft carrier (the aircraft is the operative term) uses more fossil fuel than any other ship in the fleet. And how about all your escort vessels in the carrier task force? What did they run on, spare protons from one of your 8 reactors?

As to Chicago, it in fact has been lit by nuclear power for more than 25 years, by those old 70s nuclear plants you don't care for like Dresden, Byron, Braidwood, LaSalle, and good old Zion which is now decommissioned. Just in the Chicago area, there is more nuclear generation capacity than every nuke power ship in the US Navy. But nuclear doesn't do a damn thing to move those cars around the Loop or get those jets off the ground at O'Hare.

We agree on the price of gas. At $2.50, it's cheaper in real dollars now than it was back when I started driving. And considering that demand has probably tripled since then, you should thank some greedy lazy, stupid, self-centered Boomer engineers who figured out how to find, drill, transport, refine and distribute all that oil at a fraction of the cost that it once took.

For someone who claims to be in the nuclear power industry, you seem to be a) very down on your own business. I'd find a new line of work, if you feel that way, and b)incapable of discerning the difference between the energy created by 1 gram of matter (the size of 4 aspirins) and a 5,000 ton trailer truck of gasoline. There is no contest.

I said I am in 100% support for more nukes, and you read that as being "down". Do you have comprehension problems? And again, what does the energy potential of nuclear fuel have to do with the demand for oil?

For every nuclear plant out there, I'd wager we could close two or three coal-fired or oil burning plants, minimum.

Virtually all the coal-fired plants built since the 1960s are approximately the same size as nuclear plants --- i.e. about 20 times more generation capacity as your aircraft carrier had. As to oil burnings plants, there ain't many. Only 3% of US electricity is generated from oil, and the vast majority of that is in locations where other generation options are not viable technically or economically. Utilities aren't stupid. They don't burn oil when they could make juice cheaper with other fuels.

So for you to spout that 1. your aircraft carrier could power Chicago for 25 years, and 2. that more nukes will cause a decrease in oil demand, shows me that the navy didn't teach you squat about the nation's energy supply.

More nukes would be a good thing because they are the cheapest way to make electricity, and cheep electricity is a good thing. But they do absolutely nothing to change oil use.

163 posted on 05/24/2005 9:27:17 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

“Exactly what benefits have Boomers demanded?”

As a whole, Boomers are demanding more money from Social Security system when they contributed – making it a huge welfare program. Members from both the Republican and Democrat parties have said that the current system will be bankrupt by the retiring baby boomers.

We need to cut benefits, rise the retirement age and/or increase taxes. Unfortunately the boomers don’t want to do any of these things, but they are more then willing to make the younger generation suffer.



“Through all 229 years, the total count far under 1 million KIA.”

Not if you count the loss of the KIA potential offspring. They will have no children or grandchildren – their family line ended.


America’s greatest generation built this country from the economic ruins of the 30’s and 40’s and their hard work has held the boomers heads above water. Now the boomers are demanding another generation give them the lap-of-luxury in their old age.


164 posted on 05/24/2005 10:03:03 AM PDT by JeffersonRepublic.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Okay, one more time. It's simple math, so I don't see how you're missing it.

If you have a plant that burns 100,000 barrels of oil a year (for example), that translates into 1.2 milion barrels per year, correct? How much power is produced for that 1.2 million barrels is irrelevant for the moment.

Now let's say the operational life of that plant, not counting modifications and maintenance made after initial construction, is 30 years.

1.2 million barels of oil x 30 years = 36,000,000 barrels of oil.

So far are you following me? Good.

Now, let's say there was nuclear power plant of approximate size and output. However, instead of burning oil, it "burns" little pellets of uranium, and has the same service life as the oil-fired plant.

That's 36,000,000 barrels of oil that are not requred for that one plant alone. Multiply that by 100 or 1,000 and it begins to add up. That's a lot of oil that is not being used to generate electricity. How's that for reducing demand?

Of course, that's only the industrial and power-generation side. Your counter-argument would be to dance around the word "demand". As in "reduce demand in one sector and it rises in another". I.E. once we stop using oil for electiricty, people will just drive more.

If you want to make the case that once electricity is generated cheaply, cleanly and oil free that people will now take advantage of falling oil prices to drive 24 hours a day, you're making the assumption that because something is more readily available that people will always take advantage of it. And perhaps they would here, until all that cheap power made alternate forms of transportation more palatable than sitting in traffic jams half the day.

The real demand problem is in the more rural areas of the country that do not have access to mass transit or which are a long way from anything. In those areas, demands for oil and gasoline will continue to increase until civilization makes the great leap forward into Webbedfoot, Idaho and Inbred City, Montana.

And I never said that airplanes were nuclear powered, did I? Please be serious. All I said was that thanks to the nuc plant, we did not have to burn oil or gas in order to make all those other things happen. It also meant we didn't have to have tankers sailing around to top us off. Yes, the aircraft are a different story, but the ship itself was incredibly energy efficient. And those reactoirs, btw, were cycled through. While two were in use, the rest were offline for maintenace, etc. if all six of them were fired up at once, there was more than enough power to go around for a very long time.


165 posted on 05/24/2005 10:05:37 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: qam1

This broad could talk me into supporting mandatory euthanasia.


166 posted on 05/24/2005 10:07:32 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

My eldest was born in 67. I was a WWII baby so just ahead of the boomers and I have been helped by that. Anything they do for themselves, and it is always alot, gets me too.

I think you need to get a mellow peaceful feeling about your status and try not to get mad. Things work out. BTW I don't see me as part of a whiny group of greedy bastards. Everyone I know is still working in their 60's to help out the kids who are being squeezed so bad. I feel for your generation,,yall are having harder times I think than we did. But at least yall don't have polio to worry about.


167 posted on 05/24/2005 10:21:14 AM PDT by cajungirl ({no})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: JeffersonRepublic.com
As a whole, Boomers are demanding more money from Social Security system when they contributed –

Please cite your source(s) for that charge. The AARP has always demanded more and more, but "as a whole", Boomers have been throwing the AARP letters they get on their 50th birthday in the trash. That's why you see AARP advertising on TV for more members touting their "discounts" which you can get anyway or their overpriced insurance policies. Boomers, "as a whole" are too smart for the old AARP con games. Their membership is dying off and it's already showing by how politicians no longer shake in their boots when AARP comes calling.

168 posted on 05/24/2005 10:57:45 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: JeffersonRepublic.com
Not if you count the loss of the KIA potential offspring. They will have no children or grandchildren – their family line ended.

Oh, brother. So by that "logic" the Black Death must have killed more than the earth's total population.

America’s greatest generation built this country from the economic ruins of the 30’s and 40’s and their hard work has held the boomers heads above water.

Oh come on. Economic ruins? New Deal screw-ups for sure but the nation was not in economic ruins. Their "hard work" as you call it was the generation where 50% belonged to corrupt labor unions, attempts to eliminate feather bed jobs like railroad "firemen" on diesel-electric locomotives lead to major strikes, where guys regularly bragged about how much they didn't do at work each day, where contracts called for 13 weeks paid vacation, and young guys like me who entered the labor force around those people were told in no uncertain terms to "slow down on the job if you know what's good for you" while in the White Collar world, the 3-martini lunch (fully tax deductible) and posh Country Club memberships (fully tax deductible) were the given in every corporate environment.

It took that "Greatest Generation" about 25 years after WWII to nearly kill major industries like steel and autos. (And it only lasted that long because America wasn't destroyed by WWII)

It took the Boomers, who were willing to put in long hours, and willing to tell the mafia union bosses to shove it, to turn this economy around from what it had degraded into by the 1970s. (Double digit inflation with double digit unemployment) I was there and I saw all of it. Hat's off to the guys who fought WWII, but the truth is the work ethic of the "Greatest Generation" sucked big time and they had (and continue to have) the most over rated sense of entitlement I have ever seen. You won't find much in the way of a libertarian streak in any of the older generation. They were the generation raised from the Depression through WWII and taught to rely on Big Brother for support and solutions. If the Boomers had followed their lead, this nation would have had a complete Euro-Socialism economy.

Now the boomers are demanding another generation give them the lap-of-luxury in their old age.

Just repeating something over and over does not make it so. Show me some documentation on what luxury or free ride Boomers are demanding. It's in your imagination. You watch way too many movies. You think every Boomer is somehow like those dope smoking Hippie punks from the 60s. I got news for you pal. No one hated those worthless freaks more than their contemporaries who were struggling to get started.

169 posted on 05/24/2005 11:43:21 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
go into some kind of govt work.....they get everything and retire early with practically full salaries and medical bennies....

any govt...police, firemen, teachers, etc....

don't stay in the private sector....

the govt is similar to the old Russia's ...as long as you play the game you get the riches......

170 posted on 05/24/2005 11:55:49 AM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
By your logic, I have no argument that even one nuclear plant could replace virtually every oil-fired generation plant in the nation over a 40 year period.

But what you have absolutely no concept of is how the electrical system works, nor the scale of energy use in this country.

You could build 100 new nuclear plants tomorrow, and it won't replace even 1 barrel of oil. Oil is used for generation only when and where other sources are not possible (think remote Alaskan villages, cycling or peaking plants positioned either away from gas sources or within metropolitan areas where even the most pro-nuclear person wouldn't suggest building a nuke, emergency diesel plants for hospitals of factories.) Understand this. The US does not rely on oil for power generation. To my knowledge, there is not a single base-load oil-fired plant in this nation. (Nukes, BTW, are all base-load.) The amount of oil used for power generation is infinitesimal compared to the amount used for transportation and petrochemical production. Build all the nukes you want and it will not change the amount of oil we import by a drop.

171 posted on 05/24/2005 12:00:12 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Hi Heels
We're the biggest voting block ever. Will continue to be for a long, long time. Our retirement is in danger. We'll vote accordingly.

You've now turned everybody younger then you into the new largest voting block ever. Don't think the boomers can steamroll the nation on this one. SS will change (likely become means tested) before it goes broke. This will affect you.

SS is a transfer program from the young and working to the old and rich now. Removing the rich old has got to be part of the solution. That means the rich old get nothing back, just like the young. Life ain't fair.

172 posted on 05/24/2005 12:00:49 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
To my knowledge, there is not a single base-load oil-fired plant in this nation.

Florida has some convertable combined cycles that run on oil when they get their gas use forcasts wrong (the pipelines are constrained, fuel needs to be scheduled days ahead, number of days depends on how far south you are).

Hawaii also runs on mostly oil.

173 posted on 05/24/2005 12:03:20 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: JeffersonRepublic.com
"We need to cut benefits, rise the retirement age and/or increase taxes. Unfortunately the boomers don’t want to do any of these things, but they are more then willing to make the younger generation suffer. "

I now believe that SS most be indexed with those pensioners like the guy who is getting over $100,000 a yr and collecting Ss to be first in line....

infact, let's also have means testing for Medicare....

and we should raise the top category for workers from the current one up to say, at least $100,000 minimum....

I've come to these conclusions becaused the govt as a whole has not protected private pensions with a venegence...witness Unitied and my hubby's company.....but at the same time has made govt paper shovelers rich .......with their outrageous pensions and bennies....

give them whatever money they contributed into SS , then cut them off .....

this is the attitude one gets when the separation between the have's and have-nots widens without a blink of the eye....

we in this household NEED out SS benifits, unlike some....

I take the Dave Ramsey attitude about giving....get enough money saved and invested so you can give it away...to my kids.....that's what I hope to be able to do...and to do it when they're young enough to really need it.....

174 posted on 05/24/2005 12:06:20 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: qam1

I'll wait to hear what Shecky Green has to say about this before I form an opinion.


175 posted on 05/24/2005 12:07:10 PM PDT by Kokojmudd (Today's Liberal is Tomorrow's Prospective Flying Saucer Abductee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
It also meant we didn't have to have tankers sailing around to top us off. Yes, the aircraft are a different story, but the ship itself was incredibly energy efficient.

Without the aircraft, it's a cruise ship with a very large sun deck and very cramped cabins. ;~))

BTW. I'd have to kind of check this out, but I'd bet that the number of barrels of oil required to support a nuclear carrier task force today is far more than the amount required for old WWII vintage oil-fired boilers.

The value of nuclear power carriers is not based on fuel efficiency.

176 posted on 05/24/2005 12:11:41 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale
Florida has some convertable combined cycles that run on oil when they get their gas use forcasts wrong (the pipelines are constrained, fuel needs to be scheduled days ahead, number of days depends on how far south you are).

As I said, oil is only used when necessary.

Hawaii also runs on mostly oil.

Good point. I forgot about the island state. My former company regularly presented unsolicited proposals to Hawaiian Electric for a 600 MW nuke. Funny how the proposals were always personally delivered, in the winter, but several very senior, "Greatest Generation" executives accompanied by their spouses. (That BTW, is an absolutely true story. ;`))

177 posted on 05/24/2005 12:24:49 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale
Geriatric vampires.

Economic child rapists.

Grave diggers of Western Civilization.

8 posted on 05/18/2005 10:19:24 AM PDT by AdamSelene235

Boomers have perfected serial marriage, the break up of the family, and the distortion of

traditional religious values, though. I gotta give them credit for that. Thanks, guys.

16 posted on 05/18/2005 10:28:40 AM PDT by Gingersnap

Loved the angry replies from all the clueless dolts who just didn't get it.

36 posted on 05/18/2005 11:18:50 AM PDT by ozzymandus

My favorites…..

Fortunately for Gen X, the Baby Boomers are also the one's pushing for Euthanaisa,

Dutch style and maybe they won't be a burden for as long as people think.

44 posted on 05/18/2005 11:31:31 AM PDT by Tamar1973

Payback time.

The old fart boomers will just be "mercy killed."

Then they won't be a "drain" on society.

All for the common welfare, you know - the collective good.

Give peace a chance.

47 posted on 05/18/2005 11:46:56 AM PDT by XR7

To: qam1

The boomers are going to start paying for their irresponsibility...or we'll kill them.

70 posted on 05/18/2005 4:39:43 PM PDT by Maelstrom

To: qam1

I think I may be pro-euthenasia/murder.

I'm still trying to decide.

71 posted on 05/18/2005 4:41:57 PM PDT by mabelkitty

After reading this crap, I’ve come to several conclusions:

1. My sympathy for future generations is misplaced. How stupid of me to seek resolution to a problem when, in fact, it's probably not MY problem. You see, I get SSI AND my pension.

2. I need more ammunition.

3. Let's take the money now.

178 posted on 05/24/2005 1:16:15 PM PDT by Hi Heels (Guns kill and cause crime? Dang, mine must be malfunctioning....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Hi Heels; Wombat101

LOL

I like number #2.

You just may need it if SS bankrupts the U.S. treasury. What is your political solution for the future of SS. I think that we will have to do one or more of the following:

1. Raise taxes
2. Cut benefits
3. Raise the retirement age

Unfortunately, we will probably do all three and it will still go bust. I find it very frustrating that I pay such a high SS tax while at the same time Nancy Pelosi is telling me that I’ll be lucky to get 60-70% back. Not only that but people on this board are saying that it’s not their problem, but if we try to adjust their S.S. welfare, they will get their guns or even worse – VOTE THEMSELVES MORE MONEY.

Alexander Tytler warned in the eighteenth century, "a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by dictatorship."

It’s already happening with the minority population; the democrats are offering them access to the public treasury for votes. Now the boomers are going to pound the final nail in the coffin and vote themselves more money or as the baby boomers say "It's just what society owes us".

Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com


179 posted on 05/24/2005 1:49:59 PM PDT by JeffersonRepublic.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: JeffersonRepublic.com
I think we can calculate a program that's beneficial, works, and is fair to all. Kinda don't wanna work on it, though, when euthanasia is mentioned oh so many times. Kinda takes all the spirit out. Kinda makes ya wanna just collect your check. Buy ammo. Vote them to death. Perhaps if it was YOU they were going to kill you'd find it a bit less funny......

Point I'm trying so desperately, so desperately to make is that the verdict does not lie at "waaahhhh whose fault is this... It's the boomers, it's Gen X, it's the Great Generation". That is patently the stupidest argument I have ever read on this otherwise brilliant board. The stupidest. Ignorant. Non Productive. That WON'T work.

I believe that we can go to publicly authored options. I have no problem with raising the retirement age. I have no problem with limiting the amount of benefit you receive if you are a kabillionmillionaire. I mean, come on, Spielberg. I do, however, have a problem after a lifetime of work and dedication to my party being beotch-slapped in the face by some punk jerk-off poster who's disrespecting and broad brushing an entire group of people as leftwing liberal world destroyers and threatening, even in a joking manner, to put me out of my mercy at a predestined age. He'd better come early, pack his lunch and be well armed. Better watch out for the dogs. And I ain't voting him a retirement neither.

I'm plan on being one mean old granny. And I don't think I'm going to be lonely.

180 posted on 05/24/2005 5:27:06 PM PDT by Hi Heels (Guns kill and cause crime? Dang, mine must be malfunctioning....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-180 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson