I am sick and tired of the baby boomers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Adjustments need to be made so that the system can help the most who actually need the help in the future. That's why I support means testing and raising the age when people start to receive benefits. The rich do not need this income. My friend's wealthy father, a pre-boomer, actually looked into sending the checks back once he started receiving them, but then found out he'd be taxed on the income even if he refused it, and gave up.

Anyone who is sane supports means testing and raising the SS retirement age. If you want to retire early, great - just save up. And if you were fortunate hand have significant retirement assets, don't expect the federal government to kick in an extra $20,000 per year. How is this remotely controversial?

Actually I think means testing is a mistake and this is why. Once you start means testing benefits, that is - they are no longer universal - then the public gets weary of them and they get reduced even for the people who really need them. That's why in the US Social Security has so many supporters but TANF is always under attack while universal benefits to parents regardless of income in European nations has widespread political support. I'm not afraid of sacrifice. As an upper-middle class professional who has prepared adequately for retirement I know that I could handle a cut in benefits. But my brother, who struggled through health problems, and lives paycheck to paycheck even though he works hard as a nurse, would be hurt by it. But what worries me on a broader level is that if people like me get reduced benefits, those benefits will lose political support.

So yeah people are self-interested and they want what they think "is coming to them." And once it isn't"coming to them" they begrudge those benefits to others. I think our society needs these benefits so let's raise the retirement age but I'm skeptical about whether means-testing is a good idea at this point in time.

First off a nurse shouldn't be struggling, they have the education and job demand to at live a decent lifestyle. He is doing something wrong.

Second everyone always brings up the minor cases of "we can't get rid of SS because of the poor sick children who's parent were killed while they were volunteering their time to other poor people" needs it. There are plenty of religous and charitable organizations that would help the miniority cases of real need. The goverment's job is security, defense and defending the laws nothing more. Even if the government still provided disability to the readl needs it would be much smaller than the current SS.

Ever notice that people magically have health problems and draw SS? A good example of the abuse of disability can be seen in Montgomery county where 40% of firefighters retire disabled even though they aren't.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/disability-claims-soar-montgomery-county

[Anonymous]

Trust me, the baby boomers are sick and tired of you too.

Signed,
Born in 1962, bought house for a song in 1994, in great shape, and not planning on leaving my law firm partnership any time soon. HAHAHAHAHAH!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trust me, the baby boomers are sick and tired of you too.

Signed,
Born in 1962, bought house for a song in 1994, in great shape, and not planning on leaving my law firm partnership any time soon. HAHAHAHAHAH!!!

And some posters wonder why we hate you?

I really dislike the AARP commercial, "I'm the AARP and I vote." Like it's a threat. I'm GenX and I vote, but there simply aren't enough of us to do anything about the Boomers who continually make changes to the system they have benefited from -- changes that only affect those younger than they are. Selfish assholes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Adjustments need to be made so that the system can help the most who actually need the help in the future. That's why I support means testing and raising the age when people start to receive benefits. The rich do not need this income. My friend's wealthy father, a pre-boomer, actually looked into sending the checks back once he started receiving them, but then found out he'd be taxed on the income even if he refused it, and gave up.

Anyone who is sane supports means testing and raising the SS retirement age. If you want to retire early, great - just save up. And if you were fortunate hand have significant retirement assets, don't expect the federal government to kick in an extra $20,000 per year. How is this remotely controversial?

Actually I think means testing is a mistake and this is why. Once you start means testing benefits, that is - they are no longer universal - then the public gets weary of them and they get reduced even for the people who really need them. That's why in the US Social Security has so many supporters but TANF is always under attack while universal benefits to parents regardless of income in European nations has widespread political support. I'm not afraid of sacrifice. As an upper-middle class professional who has prepared adequately for retirement I know that I could handle a cut in benefits. But my brother, who struggled through health problems, and lives paycheck to paycheck even though he works hard as a nurse, would be hurt by it. But what worries me on a broader level is that if people like me get reduced benefits, those benefits will lose political support.

So yeah people are self-interested and they want what they think "is coming to them." And once it isn't"coming to them" they begrudge those benefits to others. I think our society needs these benefits so let's raise the retirement age but I'm skeptical about whether means-testing is a good idea at this point in time.

First off a nurse shouldn't be struggling, they have the education and job demand to at live a decent lifestyle. He is doing something wrong.

Second everyone always brings up the minor cases of "we can't get rid of SS because of the poor sick children who's parent were killed while they were volunteering their time to other poor people" needs it. There are plenty of religous and charitable organizations that would help the miniority cases of real need. The goverment's job is security, defense and defending the laws nothing more. Even if the government still provided disability to the readl needs it would be much smaller than the current SS.

Ever notice that people magically have health problems and draw SS? A good example of the abuse of disability can be seen in Montgomery county where 40% of firefighters retire disabled even though they aren't.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/disability-claims-soar-montgomery-county

1) You've completely missed my point about the importance of political support for a benefit that is good for society and how that diminishes once you means test it. If you want to get rid of social security and medicare completely, fine. But if you want to keep it only for some and not for others, there will be less and less political support for it over time. It's not a good idea.
2) My brother only became a nurse five years ago. Before that he was a mechanic. He is not doing well financially because he had massive health problems which kept him from working. What he did wrong was to get sick. Okay, if you want to punish people for getting sick, go ahead.

My point was that means testing is not ultimately a good way of reducing costs. My argument was aimed at people who support the idea of social security generally. You obviously do not - so please don't bother to waste your punitive moralistic crap by totally failing to grasp my point.

[Anonymous]

For starters, why don't you parents of young children think of the legacy you are leaving for your children?
Why don't you stop competing with each other and work together to make some positive changes for your families?
Why don't you work together to make your public schools better so you don't have to pay crazy prices for ..... Preschool, etc.?
Why don't you stop pitting your kids against each other and teach them how to get along in the world?
Why don't you loose your victim mentality and work on changing things you are all bitching about?
It seems like the only thing baby boomers are guilty of is raising a bunch of selfish idiots!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Adjustments need to be made so that the system can help the most who actually need the help in the future. That's why I support means testing and raising the age when people start to receive benefits. The rich do not need this income. My friend's wealthy father, a pre-boomer, actually looked into sending the checks back once he started receiving them, but then found out he'd be taxed on the income even if he refused it, and gave up.

Anyone who is sane supports means testing and raising the SS retirement age. If you want to retire early, great - just save up. And if you were fortunate hand have significant retirement assets, don't expect the federal government to kick in an extra $20,000 per year. How is this remotely controversial?

Actually I think means testing is a mistake and this is why. Once you start means testing benefits, that is - they are no longer universal - then the public gets weary of them and they get reduced even for the people who really need them. That's why in the US Social Security has so many supporters but TANF is always under attack while universal benefits to parents regardless of income in European nations has widespread political support. I'm not afraid of sacrifice. As an upper-middle class professional who has prepared adequately for retirement I know that I could handle a cut in benefits. But my brother, who struggled through health problems, and lives paycheck to paycheck even though he works hard as a nurse, would be hurt by it. But what worries me on a broader level is that if people like me get reduced benefits, those benefits will lose political support.

So yeah people are self-interested and they want what they think "is coming to them." And once it isn't"coming to them" they begrudge those benefits to others. I think our society needs these benefits so let's raise the retirement age but I'm skeptical about whether means-testing is a good idea at this point in time.

First off a nurse shouldn't be struggling, they have the education and job demand to at live a decent lifestyle. He is doing something wrong.

Second everyone always brings up the minor cases of "we can't get rid of SS because of the poor sick children who's parent were killed while they were volunteering their time to other poor people" needs it. There are plenty of religous and charitable organizations that would help the miniority cases of real need. The goverment's job is security, defense and defending the laws nothing more. Even if the government still provided disability to the readl needs it would be much smaller than the current SS.

Ever notice that people magically have health problems and draw SS? A good example of the abuse of disability can be seen in Montgomery county where 40% of firefighters retire disabled even though they aren't.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/disability-claims-soar-montgomery-county

1) You've completely missed my point about the importance of political support for a benefit that is good for society and how that diminishes once you means test it. If you want to get rid of social security and medicare completely, fine. But if you want to keep it only for some and not for others, there will be less and less political support for it over time. It's not a good idea.
2) My brother only became a nurse five years ago. Before that he was a mechanic. He is not doing well financially because he had massive health problems which kept him from working. What he did wrong was to get sick. Okay, if you want to punish people for getting sick, go ahead.

My point was that means testing is not ultimately a good way of reducing costs. My argument was aimed at people who support the idea of social security generally. You obviously do not - so please don't bother to waste your punitive moralistic crap by totally failing to grasp my point.

i guess your boomer selfishness didn't bother helping your brother out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trust me, the baby boomers are sick and tired of you too.

Signed,
Born in 1962, bought house for a song in 1994, in great shape, and not planning on leaving my law firm partnership any time soon. HAHAHAHAHAH!!!

hahahhahahha can't wait till you die and we pull the plug on your old wrinkled ass

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Adjustments need to be made so that the system can help the most who actually need the help in the future. That's why I support means testing and raising the age when people start to receive benefits. The rich do not need this income. My friend's wealthy father, a pre-boomer, actually looked into sending the checks back once he started receiving them, but then found out he'd be taxed on the income even if he refused it, and gave up.

Anyone who is sane supports means testing and raising the SS retirement age. If you want to retire early, great - just save up. And if you were fortunate hand have significant retirement assets, don't expect the federal government to kick in an extra $20,000 per year. How is this remotely controversial?

Actually I think means testing is a mistake and this is why. Once you start means testing benefits, that is - they are no longer universal - then the public gets weary of them and they get reduced even for the people who really need them. That's why in the US Social Security has so many supporters but TANF is always under attack while universal benefits to parents regardless of income in European nations has widespread political support. I'm not afraid of sacrifice. As an upper-middle class professional who has prepared adequately for retirement I know that I could handle a cut in benefits. But my brother, who struggled through health problems, and lives paycheck to paycheck even though he works hard as a nurse, would be hurt by it. But what worries me on a broader level is that if people like me get reduced benefits, those benefits will lose political support.

So yeah people are self-interested and they want what they think "is coming to them." And once it isn't"coming to them" they begrudge those benefits to others. I think our society needs these benefits so let's raise the retirement age but I'm skeptical about whether means-testing is a good idea at this point in time.

First off a nurse shouldn't be struggling, they have the education and job demand to at live a decent lifestyle. He is doing something wrong.

Second everyone always brings up the minor cases of "we can't get rid of SS because of the poor sick children who's parent were killed while they were volunteering their time to other poor people" needs it. There are plenty of religous and charitable organizations that would help the miniority cases of real need. The goverment's job is security, defense and defending the laws nothing more. Even if the government still provided disability to the readl needs it would be much smaller than the current SS.

Ever notice that people magically have health problems and draw SS? A good example of the abuse of disability can be seen in Montgomery county where 40% of firefighters retire disabled even though they aren't.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/disability-claims-soar-montgomery-county

1) You've completely missed my point about the importance of political support for a benefit that is good for society and how that diminishes once you means test it. If you want to get rid of social security and medicare completely, fine. But if you want to keep it only for some and not for others, there will be less and less political support for it over time. It's not a good idea.
2) My brother only became a nurse five years ago. Before that he was a mechanic. He is not doing well financially because he had massive health problems which kept him from working. What he did wrong was to get sick. Okay, if you want to punish people for getting sick, go ahead.

My point was that means testing is not ultimately a good way of reducing costs. My argument was aimed at people who support the idea of social security generally. You obviously do not - so please don't bother to waste your punitive moralistic crap by totally failing to grasp my point.

if anything there would be more public support for a system that is only for people of real need not a stupid retirement benefit that no one can live off of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
if anything there would be more public support for a system that is only for people of real need not a stupid retirement benefit that no one can live off of.

Ha ha, don't you pay attention to how much support TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) gets? Yeah, people are just falling over themselves calling Congress to tell them how much they love welfare....not! You are completely wrong. And if you start means testing Social Security it will go the same way. Now, if you're completely opposed to Social Security, fine! You don't have to worry.

[Anonymous]

http://rantventrant.wordpress.com/why-baby-boomers-suck/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Adjustments need to be made so that the system can help the most who actually need the help in the future. That's why I support means testing and raising the age when people start to receive benefits. The rich do not need this income. My friend's wealthy father, a pre-boomer, actually looked into sending the checks back once he started receiving them, but then found out he'd be taxed on the income even if he refused it, and gave up.

Anyone who is sane supports means testing and raising the SS retirement age. If you want to retire early, great - just save up. And if you were fortunate hand have significant retirement assets, don't expect the federal government to kick in an extra $20,000 per year. How is this remotely controversial?

Then stop taking my 4.2% in FICA taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also the Boomers are cutting other Boomers' benefits, and lower benefits mean they will spend down their savings and not enjoy their retirement as much. I mean, the simplistic and sometimes flawed reasoning here makes me wonder about the quality of education in the U.S.! And don't you dare accuse me of not thinking of my children! Them's fighting words!

Retirement is a myth and and the concept began less than 100 year a go. My dad worked up until a month before he died at age 73. I don't plan on retiring either. Oh and our HHI before he died was 250k / year 10 years a go my current gen x is 250k/ year now. So what I am getting at is stop being lazy and dump the crack pipe dream of retirement.

Nope. I've been saving for retirement since I was 22. I sure as heck will retire, at 65 or even earlier. Then again, I can afford to retire because I bought less house than I could afford, drive beaters, take one vacation a year, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

i guess your boomer selfishness didn't bother helping your brother out

Ha ha, now I know you are a troll! First, telling me my brother is a lazy good for nothing boomer because he shouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck. Now, once I've told you he had health problems, you tell me I obviously didn't care about him and didn't help him. All designed to get a reaction out of me. Hmmmm, what else is next?

You must lead a boring life, pp, since you spend your days making inflammatory statements designed to get a reaction so that you can sit sniggering in front of your computer having a good laugh on all of us. Really a shame that you don't make better use of your time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trust me, the baby boomers are sick and tired of you too.

Signed,
Born in 1962, bought house for a song in 1994, in great shape, and not planning on leaving my law firm partnership any time soon. HAHAHAHAHAH!!!

And some posters wonder why we hate you?

I really dislike the AARP commercial, "I'm the AARP and I vote." Like it's a threat. I'm GenX and I vote, but there simply aren't enough of us to do anything about the Boomers who continually make changes to the system they have benefited from -- changes that only affect those younger than they are. Selfish assholes.

Bolded Falsehoods in this post:
A. The boomers only started to retire a few years ago.
B. There are more Gen X'ers than Boomers.

What is it with you people and your pity party. I'm an X'er but you guys make me sick with your aura of complete and utter helplessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Precisely, PP. Social Security was never designed to serve as greens fees for healthy 67-year-olds with hundreds of thousands in retirement accounts. Bring on the means testing! I don't care how much you've paid into it, boomers.


+1

My grandparents sold the house in Walnut Creek, CA that they bought in 1972 for $41k in 2005 for $850k, moved to Vegas and bought a house for $150k and are living large. Grandpa gambles his SS checks every single month. The ENTIRE check. It is disgusting. We pay taxes for him to play Keno.

Your bitterness and sense of entitlement are amazing. This attitude is the result of a generation of children who expected goody bags at every party, a trophy for every sport and every wish granted immediately so that their "self-esteem" wouldn't be damaged. It would never dawn on me to resent someone the way that you resent your grandparents. Heaven forbid someone plays a round of golf when you could use that money for a new iphone, ipad, fill-in-the blank. Self-centered much? Grandpa should cut you out of is will.

. Yeah, their baby boomer parents raised them.

If you're a BB or a Gen Xer, you're an idiot for writing that line. Hopefully, you're a self-absorbed Millenial.