Posted on 08/11/2013 2:30:46 PM PDT by pabianice
>>my the social security payroll deductions which
>>currently fund this lifestyle, now could it!
Awe, boo hoo. Poor wittle XBoxian. I’ve been paying SS taxes since before you were farted into the world and I don’t expect to ever see a dime of that returned. Big whoop, it is what it is.
Render unto Caesar what is his and get on with making something more out of your life than being a whining little man whose self-evident misery is everyone else’s fault except your own.
“Well, such is life up in the Ivory Tower your parents built for your generation.”
Let’s take a look at the most corrupt administration in American history.
“Ben Bernanke” - 1953, Chairman of the federal reserve.
“Eric Holder” - 1951, Attorney General of the United States.
“John Kerry” - 1943, Secretary of State
“Jack Lew” - 1955, Department of the Treasury
“Chuck Hagel” - 1946, Department of Defense
“Tom Vilsack” - 1950, Department of Agriculture.
“Sally Jewell” - 1956, Department of the Interior
“Penny Pritzker” - 1959 Department of Commerce
“Thomas Perez” - 1961, Department of Labor
“Kathy Sebelius” - 1948 Department of Heath
“Ernest Moniz” - 1944 Department of Energy
“Eric Shinseki” - 1941 Department of Veteran Affairs
“Janet Napolitano” - 1957 Department of Homeland Security
“Gina McCarthy” - 1956 Administrator of the EPA
“Michael Froman” - 1962, US Trade representative
“Karen Mills” - 1953, Small business administration.
That’s a pretty big swathe of this administration, including the president and vice president. 4/5ths of the most corrupt administration in American history are boomers.
“Your spiteful reflection of the family bidness speaks for itself.”
I’d advise against personal attacks on other FReeper’s families.
“Awe, boo hoo. Poor wittle XBoxian. I’ve been paying SS taxes since before you were farted into the world and I don’t expect to ever see a dime of that returned.”
So you’re saying you favor the elimination of SS Payroll taxes?
“Render unto Caesar”
Theft is ok when you’re the beneficiary apparently.
Boomers don’t like being called out for their hypocrisy. This thread isn’t titled, “why boomers suck”, btw. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the Gander.
It’s not my generation that’s screwing the pooch right now. It’s yours.
What disability are you referring to?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
>>the most corrupt administration
Elected by the generation of demoralized Useful Idiots they manufactured.
Facts are stubborn things. Once again, boomers blame others for their bad policies inflicted on everyone in America
4/5ths of the most corrupt administration in the history of America is boomers. That’s a helluva legacy!
Your advice is still as laughable as when you were whining about how those over 50 meanies wouldn’t give you a chance — and how your mommy got her college professor “job” with less edumacation than yours.
escuché! to your own pathetic whining:
http://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_qf&q=JCBreckenridge+Teacher+site:www.freerepublic.com
That’s what FAIL sounds like on the Internet, Junior. Get over it.
>>What disability are you referring to?
Your self-evident inability to take responsibility for your own future, of course.
You chose to be a history “teacher” and are evidently dissatisfied with the less than spectacular monetary consequences such a decision renders.
Boo hoo for you.
You cooked it, you eat it.
The economy was, indeed, pretty mediocre from ‘73 to ‘82, mostly caused by two things:
1. The US going off the last vestige of the gold standard, which caused the resulting inflation.
2. The shock of rapidly increased oil prices coming out of the ‘73 war in the middle east and Kissinger’s meddling in same, which didn’t help inflation one little bit.
That said, I lived through the period in question, and while it was tough, it wasn’t like what we’re now seeing. For example: Savings accounts still paid a minimum level of interest. If you had enough money to buy CD’s or Treasury bonds, you actually came out of that era quite well. People who bought bonds that were paying double-digit yields back in the early 80’s looked like investing geniuses for the next two decades.
Today, even if you’re working hard and saving a lot of money, you’re being rewarded for your efforts with negative real interest rates. The Fed is deliberately punishing savers right now. Savings accounts, bonds, etc - all are paying jack. The Fed wants to force people into the equities and commodities markets by crushing lower-risk rates of return.
Another assumption that was viable back then was that if you did have a job and you were paying into a pension or Social Security, the numbers panned out and it would be there for you.
Today, anyone who believes that most any pension or social security will be there in 30 years is a witless dupe. We now see that the numbers aren’t going to pan out - even for fat, cushy pensions like public sector employees. The people currently drawing on pensions and social security are making sure these retirement plans will not be there in the future.
Another assumption that still worked in the 70’s was that if you got a college degree, you had a huge boost in your earnings in your lifetime and it was almost always worth the cost to go to college, even if you had to go into debt to do it. Today, college kids are finding out the hard way that this is now an invalid assumption for a great many degrees. If you’re a STEM major with a good, marketable focus, you can pencil out the cost of college. For kids who want a general ed degree? No, it is no longer worth it in a great many cases.
There’s a very different environment in the US economy that has been developing for the last 10 years, and it isn’t good.
The Boomers did, indeed, have a very stable economic environment compared to prior generations. If we look at cyclic patterns, there should have been a pretty hefty shock to the markets by 2000, and the Fed stalled it with huge infusions of cash into the banking system with low interest rates and easy lending policies, which got us the housing crisis. Now they’ve levered up the Fed’s balance sheet to well over 50:1, which is unheard of in central banking. We’re way, way out into uncharted waters now... and anyone who says that economic models based on the the data from ‘47 to 2007 can be used to predict where we’re going is quite frankly full of crap.
What the article seems to be implying, though I’m not sure that’s what the NYT wanted to imply, is that in order for women to stay home and raise the kids without unduly hurting themselves, there has to be firm legal support for marriage within the society, i.e., getting rid of no-fault-divorce laws and re-criminalizing adultery, so that there is a safer environment for stay-at-home spouses.
With our current, maritally-unstable society, is it any wonder that so many formerly-successful women end up alone and in the gutter, after choosing to be stay-at-home moms?
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
With our current, maritally-unstable society, is it any wonder that so many formerly-successful women end up alone and in the gutter, after choosing to be stay-at-home moms?
You nailed it. Twice.
What is missing in the couples described is a religious commitment to their God, their marriage and their children. Their god seems to be success in the world, or lack thereof. Pretty empty, either way.
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.
