Skip to comments.Entitled Selfishness (Boomer Generation Is in a State of Denial)
Posted on 01/10/2007 1:53:55 AM PST by MinorityRepublican
As someone born in late 1945, I say this to the 76 million or so subsequent baby boomers and particularly to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, our generation's leading politicians: Shame on us. We are trying to rob our children and grandchildren, putting the country's future at risk in the process. On one of the great issues of our time, the social and economic costs of our retirement, we have adopted a policy of selfish silence.
As Congress reconvenes, pledges of "fiscal responsibility" abound. Let me boldly predict: On retirement spending, this Congress will do nothing, just as previous Congresses have done nothing. Nancy Pelosi promises to "build a better future for all of America's children." If she were serious, she would back cuts in Social Security and Medicare. President Bush calls "entitlement spending" the central budget problem. If he were serious, he, too, would propose cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
They are not serious, because few Americans -- particularly prospective baby-boom retirees -- want them to be. There is a consensus against candor, because there is no constituency for candor. It's no secret that the 65-and-over population will double by 2030 (to almost 72 million, or 20 percent of the total population), but hardly anyone wants to face the implications:
By comparison, other budget issues, including the notorious earmarks, are trivial. In 2005, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (the main programs for the elderly) cost $1.034 trillion, twice the amount of defense spending and more than two-fifths of the total federal budget. These programs are projected to equal about three-quarters of the budget by 2030, if it remains constant as a share of national income.
Preserving present retirement benefits automatically imposes huge costs on the young -- costs that are economically unsound and socially unjust.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I forget - - what did this guy Robert J. Samuelson have to say about George Bush's attempt to introduce a bona fide fix for siocial security wherein people get to invest their social security "contribution" so they could take control of it and watch it grow? You know - - the proposal the scumbag Democrats demogogued into oblivion?
Did Robert J. Samuelson have any opinion about that?
Sorry to disagree with this guy, but IMHO, it's the present day "seniors" (aka AARP members and the like) that are preventing a "fix" to the problem.
The politicians are afraid of denying or cutting back benefits because they'll lose the elderly vote.
Most boomers I talk to don't expect to collect SS, and many are planning on working past their 65th birthday, not necessarily because of necessity.
Maybe this is why the administration is ao all-fired anxious to get Mexicans in the door - to shoulder the social burden of our retiring baby boomers(?)
"There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
"They proclaim that every man is entitled to exist without labor and, the laws of reality to the contrary notwithstanding, is entitled to receive his "minimum sustenance" his food, his clothes, his shelter, with no effort on his part, as his due and his birthright.
To receive it, from whom? "
Gosh, RIGHT ON TARGET Lancey Howard...Right On Target.
I'd know any specifics, but Samuelson has been pretty solid. He tends to be a straight shooter, he's definitely not a mouthpiece for the DNC.
(Boomer Generation Is in a State of Denial)
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
Did Robert J. Samuelson have any opinion about that?
I believe this is the same man whose writings were once boldly quoted by some young Freeper who wanted to put me in my place when I disagreed with his assertion that "there has been virtually no inflation in this country since 1982". It would be funny if it weren't so tragic to think that someone actually believed that.
People may say what they choose about her but in my book she hit more nails squarely on the head than most carpenters and I say that as the son, grandson and nephew of carpenters and with all due respect to carpenters.
Why take more away from the people who paid into it? If the money paid into it had been invested and allowed to grow at the prevailing market rates, instead of being plundered and squandered, there would be enough. This is the single largest CRIME in this country. Only instead of indicting the criminals, they just quietly take more away from those who invested in it.
I agree with you, Rip.
Well, not all boomers are liberals, which is what this article is saying.
It will solve itself one way or another. At some point the workers will be so heavily taxed that they will either openly revolt or quit working. If they revolt, there will be blood in the streets and the survivors will go back to some sort of a "pay your own way, work or starve" system. Alternately, they may just quit working. If the latter, the govt. will go the totalitarian route, force them to work, and the country will do the socialist spiral down to where everybody is standing in line hoping to get their turnip ration. Too bad, but if people were smarter, outcomes would be better.
The X'rs seem to forget that the more mom and dad boomer die with,( $$ assets, property etc. ) the more their children stand to gain .
For those that were born in 1946 and later there already exist and passed where the full retirement has been extended to 66 3/4 yrs of age and are in increments of age until the age for full retirement is at age 70 yrs. I do not know where the cut offs are on the scale but this was put into effect in the 1980's or early 1990's don't remember exactly.
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.