- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: My theory on why baby boomers are criticized
Posted on 5/27/26 at 2:44 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
Posted on 5/27/26 at 2:44 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
You still aren’t getting his point. Someone has to eat the shite sandwich. If SS is shut down today you eat the shite sandwich. But you don’t want to eat the shite sandwich, inevitably leaving your kids to eat the shite sandwich. That’s what scruffy is getting at. You make your kids eat the shite sandwich because you’re selfish. No one is saying it wouldn’t be inconvenient or unfair to you to have the social security. Done away with. Just that because you have the “it’s mine dammit and I’ll get what I’m owed!” Attitude you’re screwing over your own descendants.
Most of this country is broke and desperate, and your solution is to take away the nominal protection they have for retirement
1
Posted on 5/27/26 at 3:16 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Are you saying people who paid into it for 40 years shouldn't get some back?
At some point, some generation (or large portion of a generation) is going to pay into it for a long time and not get anything back.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 3:22 pm to Midtiger farm
There are scumbags, sorry POS in every generation that’s for sure.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 3:23 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
Most of this country is broke and desperate, and your solution is to take away the nominal protection they have for retirement
I would propose means testing the program for current retirees to limit the go-forward expenditures and completely eliminating future benefits for those under 40. Stop the bleeding and phase down contributions for younger folks who won’t receive distributions as retirees die off. No one under 22 ever contributes a dime moving forward.
I am in my mid 30s and would be “hosed” in this scenario, but the only way to stop this ponzi scheme is for some generation to absorb the blow for their kids. I’d much prefer my kids be able to contribute to their own 401k in their 20s rather than paying into some government slush fund with a shite “return.” I’ll absorb the personal hit for them to have that advantage.
This post was edited on 5/27/26 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 5/27/26 at 3:38 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
I am in my mid 30s and would be “hosed” in this scenario, but the only way to stop this ponzi scheme is for some generation to absorb the blow for their kids. I’d much prefer my kids be able to contribute to their own 401k in their 20s rather than paying into some government slush fund with a shite “return.” I’ll absorb the personal hit for them to have that advantage.
The difference between the boomers any everyone else. They would rather the world burn and steal from their kids and grandkids than give up a penny. I hope my generation can do everything possible to shield my kids and grandkids from this mess the boomers created, even if it sucks for me.
Boomers love the quote “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.” They are the weak men that created hard times.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 3:54 pm to WavinWilly
quote:
The "Great Wealth Transfer" is the historic, ongoing hand-off of an estimated \(\$84\) trillion in assets from Baby Boomers to younger generations over the next two decades. As the oldest Boomers turn 80, this shift is accelerating, with Millennials poised to inherit the lion's share and Gen X acting as the primary first-wave recipients.
Here's your shot.
Source: AI/Google
This post was edited on 5/27/26 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 5/27/26 at 3:59 pm to WavinWilly
quote:
The difference between the boomers any everyone else. They would rather the world burn and steal from their kids and grandkids than give up a penny. I hope my generation can do everything possible to shield my kids and grandkids from this mess the boomers created, even if it sucks for me. Boomers love the quote “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.” They are the weak men that created hard times.
Oh look, An original thought that hasn't been presented 10 times almost verbatim in this thread.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:07 pm to Ramblin Wreck
My theory:
They are perceived to be the last generation to experience the American dream. At the same time they were the first generation to spend their entire life with television, leading to brain wash and brain rot. These two factors led to this generation and others sleep walking while Goverment and technology companies have taken over our American rights and luxuries.
They are perceived to be the last generation to experience the American dream. At the same time they were the first generation to spend their entire life with television, leading to brain wash and brain rot. These two factors led to this generation and others sleep walking while Goverment and technology companies have taken over our American rights and luxuries.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:09 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:These arguments all miss the point. It is critical when addressing Social security that folks understand what SS is, and what it is not.
You still aren’t getting his point. Someone has to eat the shite sandwich. If SS is shut down today you eat the shite sandwich. But you don’t want to eat the shite sandwich, inevitably leaving your kids to eat the shite sandwich. That’s what scruffy is getting at. You make your kids eat the shite sandwich because you’re selfish. No one is saying it wouldn’t be inconvenient or unfair to you to have the social security. Done away with. Just that because you have the “it’s mine dammit and I’ll get what I’m owed!” Attitude you’re screwing over your own descendants.
SS is a Federal borrowing instrument. It is not a retirement benefit, though it has been successfully marketed that way since its inception. (see addendum below)
SS is uniquely structured among Federal Programs as a US debt obligation. As such, the program could be wound down over time. It could be transitioned/privatized as W proposed. But payouts to current and near future retirees cannot be shutdown, regardless as to who "wants to eat the shite sandwich."
SS is structured so that every 1¢ contributed is immediately converted to a US debt obligation. A federal IOU is generated, and the money is spent on whatever the government wants to spend it on. Repayment obligation is no different than would be the case if the same workers held a treasuries fund over the same time (except the SS ROI is worse).
Regarding that obligation, the 14th Amendment holds that United States debt shall not be questioned. Congress can cut/eliminate nearly any program, even "entitlement" programs. But insofar as SS "benefits" are debt repayment rather than entitlement delivery, nonpayment for long-term contributors is simply not a Constitutional option.
-----------------
Addendum:
Lincoln famously quipped, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." FDR proved him wrong with Social Security by selling the premise that loan repayments are a retirement benefit.
Social Security was conceived at the outset of FDR's second term. FDR needed funding sources for his ongoing "New Deal." In the midst of the Depression, national and institutional lenders were stressed and scarce. FDR realized there was a way to force US employers/employees to lend him the money he needed .... and to thank him for it!
His program would extract money from the entire workforce (50:50 employee:employer). For four years in start up, no one would be eligible for repayment. Then in 1940, new retirees who had contributed, would be eligible for prorated payments. The first "full benefit" recipients would not appear until the early 1970's.
From inception, SS contributions were converted to US debt instruments, just as they are today. Those notes were IOU's issued to the SSTF. Meanwhile, the money was spent on "New Deal" programs. The fledgling SS funded 30% of FDR's 2nd term "New Deal" programs, then sizably aided with WWII expenses.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:32 pm to AUIH1
quote:
Trust me, I would be a whole lot wealthier if it weren’t for the Government robbing me for over 30 years by paying into SS.
What would be the fate of a Financial fiduciary if a 22 y/o walked into his office with plans to contribute 12.4% of every paycheck for his entire work career to a retirement fund, and the advisor directed all those contributions into a ST Treasury Fund?
Worse yet, what would happen if the Financial fiduciary took that poor sot's money for 45yrs, made several million in the S&P (10% ROI), spent it, then paid the poor sot back as if his ROI was 3%?
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:33 pm to NC_Tigah
So SSI was 30 years old before the first Boomer could've even voted to shut it down in 1964.
(For those that can't do math)
And, of course, every 18yo is thinking about his retirement plans.
But "Boomer" is a fun word, and easy to spell, so let's blame them.
(For those that can't do math)
And, of course, every 18yo is thinking about his retirement plans.
But "Boomer" is a fun word, and easy to spell, so let's blame them.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:44 pm to Ramblin Wreck
Dear Millennium Kids,
If I buy my kid a house and gift her more cash than she will EVER pay into SS with all the fruits of my career as a boomer grifter* does that make me a good boomer or a bad boomer?
*fwiw - that so called boomer grift was really just me working my arse off for for 53 years.
PS - Yes, I agree 100% that my kid is growing up in a completely different world that we did. Oh well. As soon as someone points out to me who I didnt vote for that would have fixed this, let me know because i dont ever remember anything other than 2 shits choices that could actually win an election.
If I buy my kid a house and gift her more cash than she will EVER pay into SS with all the fruits of my career as a boomer grifter* does that make me a good boomer or a bad boomer?
*fwiw - that so called boomer grift was really just me working my arse off for for 53 years.
PS - Yes, I agree 100% that my kid is growing up in a completely different world that we did. Oh well. As soon as someone points out to me who I didnt vote for that would have fixed this, let me know because i dont ever remember anything other than 2 shits choices that could actually win an election.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:50 pm to Ramblin Wreck
That is a very interesting and accurate description of a definite
Issue.
Good post!
Issue.
Good post!
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:51 pm to N2cars
quote:Boomers were the dominant voteforce in the early 2000's when W proposed to transition SS to privatized/non-US debt obligation accounts. The left half of voters at that point buried the W attempt, undoubtedly many many "boomers" amongst them.
So SSI was 30 years old before the first Boomer could've even voted to shut it down in 1964.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:55 pm to NC_Tigah
No doubt.
But the fact that he brought it up was at least recognition of the problem.
How did it come up for vote?
I didn't think it ever made it out of House?
But the fact that he brought it up was at least recognition of the problem.
How did it come up for vote?
I didn't think it ever made it out of House?
Posted on 5/27/26 at 5:04 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Toward the end of a first term dominated by international terrorism, President Bush renewed this call in his 2004 State of the Union address: “Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.” He mentioned the issue repeatedly during the 2004 campaign and was able to argue that his reelection represented a mandate to move forward on what he called personal accounts (and his adversaries called partial privatization).
Sounds like Boomers elected him knowing that he was going to try and implement this plan.
Source: Brookings Institute
Posted on 5/27/26 at 5:07 pm to N2cars
quote:
Within days after the election, President Bush made it clear that he did not intend to play it safe on Social Security reform and other controversial issues. In a post-election press conference, he asserted, “I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” He was as good as his word. By mid-January of 2005, the White House had launched a huge initiative, directed by Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman, to mobilize public opinion and build public support for Social Security reform and other key presidential proposals.
The President followed up two weeks later, placing a lengthy discussion of Social Security at the heart of his 2005 State of the Union address. After citing the fiscal and demographic pressures moving the system toward eventual bankruptcy, he listed some basic principles and then reached the nub of the matter: “As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts.” This approach, the President argued, would offer younger workers a “better deal”: The rate of return would be higher than in the traditional system; the accumulation could be passed on to children and grandchildren; and “best of all, the money in this account is yours, and the government can never take it away.”
Having invested so much political capital in this issue, President Bush embarked on the first of what proved to be a long series of tours crammed with events at which he pitched his plan to the people. It soon became apparent that it would be a tough sell. Within weeks, observers noticed that the more the President talked about Social Security, the more support for his plan declined. According to the Gallup organization, public disapproval of President Bush’s handling of Social Security rose by 16 points from 48 to 64 percent–between his State of the Union address and June.
By early summer the initiative was on life support, with congressional Democrats uniformly opposed and Republicans in disarray.After Hurricane Katrina inundated what remained of the President’s support, congressional leaders quietly pulled the plug. By October, even the President had to acknowledge that his effort had failed.
Pretty good summary.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 5:12 pm to N2cars
quote:That's fair.
Sounds like Boomers elected him knowing that he was going to try and implement this plan.
It would have been a great plan ...
Posted on 5/27/26 at 5:14 pm to Ramblin Wreck
The OP’s post is a classic boomer post. It’s a long rant defending his Boomer generation. And it’s far too long of a rant for me to bother reading.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 5:26 pm to UFFan
quote:
classic boomer
quote:Oh my.
far too long of a rant for me to bother reading
PLEASE do whatever generation you identify with a tremendous solid.
DO NOT OUT IT.
Page 30 of 36
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News