Baby boomers ruined America

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the generations? What comes after a boomer?

X

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen Xer here. I don't hate the Boomers. But I do think that with the invariable cuts to come, they are going to need to share the pain. You can't just raise the retirement age, Medicare age, etc for younger generations. Boomers will need to suck it up with the rest of us.

Younger Boomers did lose a lot in the downturn, and I'm sure some of their retirements are delayed as a result. But the costs are higher for GenX and Y now than when the Boomers were younger - housing, college, gas, childcare, not to mention the coming costs for caring for elderly Boomer parents. The Boomers need to have some empathy for this - the average middle class X or Y-er can't save or build wealth the same way they did. We may never be able to.

I really think you do hate the boomers.

You are suggesting that a 70 year old woman/man who worked all their life, mind you without the additional benefit of IRAs and 457s, take a cut in their retirement benefits. These people put their money into a system with a promise of a certain payment upon retirement. They relied on that information and most planned accordingly. Now here you come along with all your youth and years of productivity in front of you suggesting that we should take from the elderly to make your life richer. Gag.

I'm not the PP you are responding to, but your post sounds far more hateful than his/hers. She says they need to "share the pain." that in no way means "we should take from the elderly to make [her] life richer."

If you're the same Boomer who keeps posting, you are the one with the hate. And you are exactly the type of Boomer that makes people hate Boomers.
There was never a promise of "a certain payment" upon retirement. In fact, when Social Security was created, it wasn't expected that it would have to pay out for as many years as most retirees are getting payments these days. The life expectancy has increased, but Social Security hasn't been adjusted to reflect that. The result is that actually, there are plenty of people, both Boomers and the generation before them, who are going to receive far more in SS benefits than they ever paid in and far more than Social Security, in its creation, was expected to pay out.

That's partly because Social Security was never supposed to replace a defined benefit pension. I would add, that it's the wealthy Boomers and their parents who have eliminated pensions in the private sector (and are not calling for elimination of pensions in the public sector). I would add that a 70 year old (in your example) likely had/has a pension. And if it's a woman, she's probably getting her husband's pension.

We can continue to squabble and have generation wars. But instead we should deal with reality and try to go forward. There has to be a better way.

[Anonymous]

should read "are now calling for elimination of pensions in the public sector"... sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen Xer here. I don't hate the Boomers. But I do think that with the invariable cuts to come, they are going to need to share the pain. You can't just raise the retirement age, Medicare age, etc for younger generations. Boomers will need to suck it up with the rest of us.

Younger Boomers did lose a lot in the downturn, and I'm sure some of their retirements are delayed as a result. But the costs are higher for GenX and Y now than when the Boomers were younger - housing, college, gas, childcare, not to mention the coming costs for caring for elderly Boomer parents. The Boomers need to have some empathy for this - the average middle class X or Y-er can't save or build wealth the same way they did. We may never be able to.

I really think you do hate the boomers.

You are suggesting that a 70 year old woman/man who worked all their life, mind you without the additional benefit of IRAs and 457s, take a cut in their retirement benefits. These people put their money into a system with a promise of a certain payment upon retirement. They relied on that information and most planned accordingly. Now here you come along with all your youth and years of productivity in front of you suggesting that we should take from the elderly to make your life richer. Gag.

I'm not the PP you are responding to, but your post sounds far more hateful than his/hers. She says they need to "share the pain." that in no way means "we should take from the elderly to make [her] life richer."

If you're the same Boomer who keeps posting, you are the one with the hate. And you are exactly the type of Boomer that makes people hate Boomers.
There was never a promise of "a certain payment" upon retirement. In fact, when Social Security was created, it wasn't expected that it would have to pay out for as many years as most retirees are getting payments these days. The life expectancy has increased, but Social Security hasn't been adjusted to reflect that. The result is that actually, there are plenty of people, both Boomers and the generation before them, who are going to receive far more in SS benefits than they ever paid in and far more than Social Security, in its creation, was expected to pay out.

That's partly because Social Security was never supposed to replace a defined benefit pension. I would add, that it's the wealthy Boomers and their parents who have eliminated pensions in the private sector (and are not calling for elimination of pensions in the public sector). I would add that a 70 year old (in your example) likely had/has a pension. And if it's a woman, she's probably getting her husband's pension.

We can continue to squabble and have generation wars. But instead we should deal with reality and try to go forward. There has to be a better way.

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen Xer here. I don't hate the Boomers. But I do think that with the invariable cuts to come, they are going to need to share the pain. You can't just raise the retirement age, Medicare age, etc for younger generations. Boomers will need to suck it up with the rest of us.

Younger Boomers did lose a lot in the downturn, and I'm sure some of their retirements are delayed as a result. But the costs are higher for GenX and Y now than when the Boomers were younger - housing, college, gas, childcare, not to mention the coming costs for caring for elderly Boomer parents. The Boomers need to have some empathy for this - the average middle class X or Y-er can't save or build wealth the same way they did. We may never be able to.

I really think you do hate the boomers.

You are suggesting that a 70 year old woman/man who worked all their life, mind you without the additional benefit of IRAs and 457s, take a cut in their retirement benefits. These people put their money into a system with a promise of a certain payment upon retirement. They relied on that information and most planned accordingly. Now here you come along with all your youth and years of productivity in front of you suggesting that we should take from the elderly to make your life richer. Gag.

I'm not the PP you are responding to, but your post sounds far more hateful than his/hers. She says they need to "share the pain." that in no way means "we should take from the elderly to make [her] life richer."

If you're the same Boomer who keeps posting, you are the one with the hate. And you are exactly the type of Boomer that makes people hate Boomers.
There was never a promise of "a certain payment" upon retirement. In fact, when Social Security was created, it wasn't expected that it would have to pay out for as many years as most retirees are getting payments these days. The life expectancy has increased, but Social Security hasn't been adjusted to reflect that. The result is that actually, there are plenty of people, both Boomers and the generation before them, who are going to receive far more in SS benefits than they ever paid in and far more than Social Security, in its creation, was expected to pay out.

That's partly because Social Security was never supposed to replace a defined benefit pension. I would add, that it's the wealthy Boomers and their parents who have eliminated pensions in the private sector (and are not calling for elimination of pensions in the public sector). I would add that a 70 year old (in your example) likely had/has a pension. And if it's a woman, she's probably getting her husband's pension.

We can continue to squabble and have generation wars. But instead we should deal with reality and try to go forward. There has to be a better way.

Really, you want to "move forward" but first you want to play one last round of the blame game first.

Also, the idea that a 70 year old likely had/has a pension is incorrect. At the age of his retirement, only 20 million people were participating in a defined benefit plan, ie a pension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen Xer here. I don't hate the Boomers. But I do think that with the invariable cuts to come, they are going to need to share the pain. You can't just raise the retirement age, Medicare age, etc for younger generations. Boomers will need to suck it up with the rest of us.

Younger Boomers did lose a lot in the downturn, and I'm sure some of their retirements are delayed as a result. But the costs are higher for GenX and Y now than when the Boomers were younger - housing, college, gas, childcare, not to mention the coming costs for caring for elderly Boomer parents. The Boomers need to have some empathy for this - the average middle class X or Y-er can't save or build wealth the same way they did. We may never be able to.

I really think you do hate the boomers.

You are suggesting that a 70 year old woman/man who worked all their life, mind you without the additional benefit of IRAs and 457s, take a cut in their retirement benefits. These people put their money into a system with a promise of a certain payment upon retirement. They relied on that information and most planned accordingly. Now here you come along with all your youth and years of productivity in front of you suggesting that we should take from the elderly to make your life richer. Gag.

I'm not the PP you are responding to, but your post sounds far more hateful than his/hers. She says they need to "share the pain." that in no way means "we should take from the elderly to make [her] life richer."

If you're the same Boomer who keeps posting, you are the one with the hate. And you are exactly the type of Boomer that makes people hate Boomers.
There was never a promise of "a certain payment" upon retirement. In fact, when Social Security was created, it wasn't expected that it would have to pay out for as many years as most retirees are getting payments these days. The life expectancy has increased, but Social Security hasn't been adjusted to reflect that. The result is that actually, there are plenty of people, both Boomers and the generation before them, who are going to receive far more in SS benefits than they ever paid in and far more than Social Security, in its creation, was expected to pay out.

That's partly because Social Security was never supposed to replace a defined benefit pension. I would add, that it's the wealthy Boomers and their parents who have eliminated pensions in the private sector (and are not calling for elimination of pensions in the public sector). I would add that a 70 year old (in your example) likely had/has a pension. And if it's a woman, she's probably getting her husband's pension.

We can continue to squabble and have generation wars. But instead we should deal with reality and try to go forward. There has to be a better way.

I am the PP s/he was responding to. Gag away. I am currently supporting my 70 year old mother financially, so I'm giving rather than taking, at least on a personal level, and it is making me poorer - significantly so. Anecdotes aside, I am talking at a national level. The Boomer generation is very large. Gen X is much smaller, Millenials a bit bigger, thankfully. That doesn't change the fact that supporting the Boomers and dealing with the national debt will be crushing. We may have longer lifespans, we may not. US life expectancy fell in most counties recently. Yes, we could work longer - if we can find anyone that will hire us or keep us employed at 60 and beyond. Ask any 60 year old Boomer how easy it is to find a job and pay for health insurance if they are laid off. What makes you think it would be any different for subsequent generations? So yes, on a national level, Boomers will need to share the pain, at least those that can afford to do so. There are ways to do it, scale it towards rich retirees contributing more perhaps, or receiving less in payouts. There was never a guarantee of a payment that maintains a certain lifestyle. Social Security was created to prevent the elderly from living in abject poverty. I think Medicare/health reform is more crucial, because no elderly person should become impoverished by their medical bills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gen Xer here. I don't hate the Boomers. But I do think that with the invariable cuts to come, they are going to need to share the pain. You can't just raise the retirement age, Medicare age, etc for younger generations. Boomers will need to suck it up with the rest of us.

Younger Boomers did lose a lot in the downturn, and I'm sure some of their retirements are delayed as a result. But the costs are higher for GenX and Y now than when the Boomers were younger - housing, college, gas, childcare, not to mention the coming costs for caring for elderly Boomer parents. The Boomers need to have some empathy for this - the average middle class X or Y-er can't save or build wealth the same way they did. We may never be able to.

Boomer here. By the time I retire, the full Social Security retirement age will be 66, not 65. And I'm in the middle of the baby boom (1947 - 1964) so there are a lot of people coming after me some of whom won't get full Social Security till they're 67. I don't have a problem with that. I don't mind waiting till later. I know there are a lot of us and that we are living much longer than originally expected when this system was first set up. But it's not like we're all going to get what we were originally promised either. We are sharing the pain.

Then again, I spend my time worrying about my kid (not a boomer) and I used to worry about my parents and in-laws before they passed (also not boomers). I'm very concerned about the prospects for multiple generations, not just my own. I think that's in the best interest of our country.


http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/retirechart.htm

Age To Receive Full Social Security Benefits
(Called "full retirement age" or "normal retirement age.")
Year of Birth* Full Retirement Age
1937 or earlier 65
1938 65 and 2 months
1939 65 and 4 months
1940 65 and 6 months
1941 65 and 8 months
1942 65 and 10 months
1943--1954 66
1955 66 and 2 months
1956 66 and 4 months
1957 66 and 6 months
1958 66 and 8 months
1959 66 and 10 months
1960 and later 67

[Anonymous]

Folks, does everyone realize that a 70-year-old woman is NOT a baby boomer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's partly because Social Security was never supposed to replace a defined benefit pension. I would add, that it's the wealthy Boomers and their parents who have eliminated pensions in the private sector (and are not calling for elimination of pensions in the public sector). I would add that a 70 year old (in your example) likely had/has a pension. And if it's a woman, she's probably getting her husband's pension.

We can continue to squabble and have generation wars. But instead we should deal with reality and try to go forward. There has to be a better way.

Again with the description of the situation as if we all elected someone in our generation to make decisions about pensions and therefore we are culpable, based on our age alone. If I had voted for Bush and supported his invasion of Iraq, well, then maybe you could blame me for the thousands of Iraqi war dead. At least you could say I had a very small hand in it. But I've got news for you, pp, I didn't elect the people who screwed up our economy and eliminated pensions. I didn't get the phone call from the financial specialists who created the credit default swaps asking me for my opinion on it or wondering how I felt about pushing subprime mortgages on people.

Some really bizarre thinking going on on this thread with folks trying to make this a generational issue when the real problem is corporate capitalism. It was a problem for my grandparents' and parents' generation. And if we all keep fighting about specious generational differences, it will continue to be a problem for my daughter's generation. And that's what worries me the most. Economic inequality is increasing and I worry for the younger generation. But it appears that the model on DCUM is to whine about it and blame the older generation rather than do anything constructive. Thanks, but I'm not going to pin it on my grandparents and parents. I'd rather do something about it myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's partly because Social Security was never supposed to replace a defined benefit pension. I would add, that it's the wealthy Boomers and their parents who have eliminated pensions in the private sector (and are not calling for elimination of pensions in the public sector). I would add that a 70 year old (in your example) likely had/has a pension. And if it's a woman, she's probably getting her husband's pension.

We can continue to squabble and have generation wars. But instead we should deal with reality and try to go forward. There has to be a better way.

Again with the description of the situation as if we all elected someone in our generation to make decisions about pensions and therefore we are culpable, based on our age alone. If I had voted for Bush and supported his invasion of Iraq, well, then maybe you could blame me for the thousands of Iraqi war dead. At least you could say I had a very small hand in it. But I've got news for you, pp, I didn't elect the people who screwed up our economy and eliminated pensions. I didn't get the phone call from the financial specialists who created the credit default swaps asking me for my opinion on it or wondering how I felt about pushing subprime mortgages on people.

Some really bizarre thinking going on on this thread with folks trying to make this a generational issue when the real problem is corporate capitalism. It was a problem for my grandparents' and parents' generation. And if we all keep fighting about specious generational differences, it will continue to be a problem for my daughter's generation. And that's what worries me the most. Economic inequality is increasing and I worry for the younger generation. But it appears that the model on DCUM is to whine about it and blame the older generation rather than do anything constructive. Thanks, but I'm not going to pin it on my grandparents and parents. I'd rather do something about it myself.

I ended the post by suggesting we move forward instead of having generational wars. And the whole point of "wealthy Boomers" was to separate them out from other Boomers. By "wealth Boomers," I didn't mean that all Boomers are wealthy; I meant the corporate capitalists of the Boomer generation.

Instead of getting all self-righteous and indignant, ask for clarification

And by the way, people vent all of the time on DCUM, but why are you so sure they're not also doing something about it?

[Anonymous]

Incorrect. Social Security was just supposed to supplement and help in retirement—never was everyone to have a pension. Never in US history did everyone (or even most people) have pensions. That thinking was a 20th century union development. Much of America was agrarian. Farmers did not have pensions. There were lots of small shop owners, etc.
However, somehow, SS became a “pension” in people’s minds. Perhaps, mostly in the 60’s with LBJ and the birth of Medicare. FDR created the nanny state, but LBJ injected the growth hormones. Obamacare has taken it to a whole new level along with food stamps and disabililty growth that ensures we cannot afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Incorrect. Social Security was just supposed to supplement and help in retirement—never was everyone to have a pension. Never in US history did everyone (or even most people) have pensions. That thinking was a 20th century union development. Much of America was agrarian. Farmers did not have pensions. There were lots of small shop owners, etc.
However, somehow, SS became a “pension” in people’s minds. Perhaps, mostly in the 60’s with LBJ and the birth of Medicare. FDR created the nanny state, but LBJ injected the growth hormones. Obamacare has taken it to a whole new level along with food stamps and disabililty growth that ensures we cannot afford it.

I just read the original legislation and what you said about Social Security is not true.

[Anonymous]

I think Medicare/health reform is more crucial, because no elderly person should become impoverished by their medical bills.

+1000 I know people who might have been able to retire earlier, but they cannot afford health insurance. And they have health problems. I know one who is barely making it from the car to the building every day. I am sure she WANTS to retire, but she cannot due to the cost of health insurance. She is 60 years old. And God bless her because she is doing good work and she doesn't want to live on the public disability dime. I don't think she "ruined America".

[Anonymous]

Boomers have had zero hardship in their extended lives compared to any generation of the human race. Therefore they have no character , wisdom or value.

You need to go visit a certain wall in DC. You need to read about Ohio State. You need to watch some video footage from 1968. You need to ask some minority boomers about the zero hardship they have faced in their "extended lives". Yeah, those boomers had it much easier when they were your age.

Which candidate are you voting for since they are all boomers (including Sanders)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"First off, they inherited a world where US had around 50% of the global GDP. We are half that today. "

Very curious how it is the Baby Boomers' fault that the rest of the world is developing faster, or how that's a bad thing?

i know the ignorance is astounding.

Real per capita Gdp has been going up. That means the young are starting off on a better position from gdp not worse.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA