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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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