Economist: The Next Crisis: Sponging Boomers

[FuzzyLumpkins]

More worrying is that this generation seems to be able to leverage its size into favourable policy. Governments slashed tax rates in the 1980s to revitalise lagging economies, just as boomers approached their prime earning years. The average federal tax rate for a median American household, including income and payroll taxes, dropped from more than 18% in 1981 to just over 11% in 2011. Yet sensible tax reforms left less revenue for the generous benefits boomers have continued to vote themselves, such as a prescription-drug benefit paired with inadequate premiums. Deficits exploded. Erick Eschker, an economist at Humboldt State University, reckons that each American born in 1945 can expect nearly $2.2m in lifetime net transfers from the state—more than any previous cohort.

More at http://www.economist.com/node/21563725

I know many of you --mostly Boomers-- think I malign the Boomers too much. As time goes by I think you will see I am simply ahead of the curve.

[CosmicCowboy]

No, we just think you are an idiot.

[Winehole23]

More at http://www.economist.com/node/21563725

I know many of you --mostly Boomers-- think I malign the Boomers too much. As time goes by I think you will see I am simply ahead of the curve.#Patting Yourself on the Back for Predicting a Long Predicted Demographic Trend


Don't sprain your wrist!

[CosmicCowboy]

We sure are lucky that our politicians put all that money we paid into SS and Medicare in the lockbox so it will be there when we need it!

[Winehole23]

lockbox was a good idea. completely untenable politically, but rationally sound.

[boutons_deux]

Call people spongers because they live a bit longer? GFY

and this is VRWC/conservative policy strategy, resulting in the large, totally unavoidable deficits:

"The average federal tax rate for a median American household, including income and payroll taxes, dropped from more than 18% in 1981 to just over 11% in 2011"

[Drachen]

LOL "a bit longer"

[CosmicCowboy]

lockbox was a good idea. completely untenable politically, but rationally sound.

Yeah, too bad they never did it.

[Drachen]

Sure they did, unfortunately they gave everyone a copy of the key.

[DarrinS]

Forced redistribution of weath.

Sucks, huh?

[Latarian Milton]

shit's only getting worse when the boomers stop working and start living on pensions.

[Homeland Security]

The Boomers will live just long enough to see the collapse. They won't live much longer than that, since survival for most will be tough when the transfer payments stop and they're too old and feeble to fend off the hordes.

There was something in the news about a 70-year-old farmer in Oregon whose dentures and a few body parts were found in his hog pen after the hogs had their fill of him. It will be kind of like that.

[boutons_deux]

yes, and poor people are living 4 years shorter, says report of the last few days.

life expectancy is up 10% since 1960, 70 to 77. When SS was enacted 1935, expectancy was about 60.

The problem is not SS being insufficient but the unjustified, exorbitant, costs of healthcare, outstripping inflation by 10s of % for decades, paid for by medicare/medicaid worsened by a huge percentage of bad-living, bad-eating, no-exercising seniors living on multilple, over-priced prescription BigPharma drugs.

My guess is that while the govt won't default on bonds held the 1% and foreigners, it will find a way to sorta default on the bonds held by SS for the 99%.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The Boomers will live just long enough to see the collapse. They won't live much longer than that, since survival for most will be tough when the transfer payments stop and they're too old and feeble to fend off the hordes.

There was something in the news about a 70-year-old farmer in Oregon whose dentures and a few body parts were found in his hog pen after the hogs had their fill of him. It will be kind of like that.
:lmao

[Homeland Security]

Poor Hispanics live longer than affluent Anglos. This is because mestizos are less likely to get Anglo genetic diseases caused by recessive genes.

Anglos on average live longer than affluent blacks. This is because blacks have higher infant mortality for reasons not well understood.

Whites lacking high-school diplomas have unusually short lifespans. In Louisiana, genetic disorders caused by inbreeding were found to a significant factor in the reduced lifespan; it's a common cause with the lack of education because the inbreeding leads to low IQ's. In Kentucky and West Virginia, I doubt it's different.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Forced redistribution of weath.

Sucks, huh?

Too bad it's not like that.

Building up debt for generations that were not even alive for the most part and certainly not having wealth to be redistributed is not redistribution of wealth. That's just leaving a legacy of shit.

What's sad is irresponsible pukes like CC just pulling the "golly gee, seargent" Gomer Pyle routine.

[Clipper Nation]

This is why I laugh whenever Boomers have the absolute nerve to rant about how "selfish, lazy, and entitled" anyone younger than them supposedly is..... gee, Grandpa, we're gonna be paying down all the debt you ran up due to your generation's selfish entitlement mentality, shouldn't you be thanking us?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lockbox was a good idea. completely untenable politically, but rationally sound.

I was meaning ahead of the curve around here and perhaps to popular culture. When I first started talking about it here years ago I was chastised as being a petulant, unappreciative child. Now I just get weak excuses and deflections of accountability as the writing on the wall is too significant to ignore. The generational hit pieces from Boomers about how Gen X/Yers were irresponsible and lacking merit were a steady stream and now do not get a whiff of publication.

And the only reason why it is 'politically untenable' is because of the Boomers. The Silent/Greatest generations ran up humongous debts in the 1940s and managed to act responsibly with vision. In contrast, when looking at the Boomers rise to dominance in the 1980s you see systematic fiat of entitlements to an individual class of people, Boomers, and cuts to taxes and entitlements to every other class.

Unfunded wars and the Contract with America have been travesties of hypocrisy from the champions of the Tea Party.

[LnGrrrR]

Forced redistribution of weath.

Sucks, huh?

Not really, since that's pretty much what every civilized society has. I guess if you didn't want forced redistribution of wealth, you could go to a country that only has a barter system.

[Winehole23]

I was meaning ahead of the curve around here and perhaps to popular culture.that you can suck your own dick is really cool, but doing so in public shows poor judgment.

[Winehole23]

In contrast, when looking at the Boomers rise to dominance in the 1980s you see systematic fiat of entitlements to an individual class of people, Boomers, and cuts to taxes and entitlements to every other class.prove it

[FuzzyLumpkins]

that you can suck your own dick is really cool, but doing so in public shows poor judgment.

Is this supposed to be that charm that you have been talking about? Backtracking off your statement of being behind the curve to this petulance is most certainly charming.

Really though, it's not typical of me to glorify myself about past statements that have been proven correct. You should understand that by now. It's just after all the deriding I took a couple of years ago I do feel a measure of vindication.

If that offends you then so be it. Everything offends you it seems so there is only so much one can do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

prove it

:lol Really?

Click the link and get reading.

You having a bad day? You seem PMS-y.

[Winehole23]

the OP does not sustain your claim that "all other classes" had their entitlements cut

[Winehole23]

that part you just made up

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the OP does not sustain your claim that "all other classes" had their entitlements cut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Who do you think that individual mandate puts the onus on.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Frankly when Tea Party and GOP conservatives drone on about entitlements what do you think they are talking about?

It's obviously not about Medicare coverage the Boomer gravy train. It's about everything else. They cut federal entitlements not named Medicare significantly in the 90s. You remember that?

[Winehole23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_AmericaIf you're talking about Clinton era welfare reform, that's an across the board cut, including for Boomers. Citing the Contract with America is basically a canard, though. Almost none of that stuff was passed into law. Was a wish list and little more, tbh.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Who do you think that individual mandate puts the onus on.there's something to that, but how is that an entitlement cut?

[Wild Cobra]

More at http://www.economist.com/node/21563725

I know many of you --mostly Boomers-- think I malign the Boomers too much. As time goes by I think you will see I am simply ahead of the curve.
No you aren't.

If their contributions were placed in an interest bearing account, how much would they have with compounding interest?

[boutons_deux]

How Social Security Trust Funds earn interest
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/404/~/how-social-security-trust-funds-earn-interest

[boutons_deux]

More VRWC propaganda to destroy SS, Medicare/Medicaid, esp to get citizens to gamble their SS into for-profit, fee-sucking financial sector.

Bill Black: Robert J. Samuelson tries to create a moral panic ab (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/10/bill-black-robert-j-samuelson-tries-to-create-a-moral-panic-about-deficits.html)out deficits (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/10/bill-black-robert-j-samuelson-tries-to-create-a-moral-panic-about-deficits.html)The Washington Post leads the pack when it comes to generating what scientists term a “moral panic” about budget deficits. As part of that effort they generated the series of myths that Paul Ryan was “serious,” “courageous,” and “expert” about “solving” the “deficit crisis.” The newspaper’s theme is that anyone who doesn’t fall for their effort to create a moral panic is not “serious” and should be ignored. The paper runs a column by Robert J. Samuelson that is devoted to generating a moral panic about the deficit. Like Ryan, his central targets are imposing austerity and cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Samuelson’s latest column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-truth-deficit-from-obama-and-romney/2012/09/30/262c4602-09a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_story.html?hpid=z7) claims that President Obama and Governor Romney are lying to the nation because they have not sufficiently embraced the moral panic as the transcendent campaign issue that will determine America’s future. Samuelson demands the candidates implore the American people to urgently adopt austerity and attack Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

We have known for over 75 years that the key to recovering from a recession is to follow a counter-cyclical fiscal policy that will reduce unemployment. We have long exhibited the wisdom to adopt automatic stabilizers that increase government services and decrease taxes when a recession strikes.

What would have happened if Obama had adopted austerity as Berlin imposed austerity on the European periphery? It would have prevented any recovery, throwing the U.S. into an even more severe recession. Berlin’s austerity demands have thrown the Eurozone back into a gratuitous recession, increasing the budget deficit in many nations and plunging Greece and Spain into depressions. Europe has followed Samuelson’s and Ryan’s policy advice and the results have been disastrous. Samuelson’s and Ryan’s austerity policies violate economic theory, economic history, and a natural experiment in Europe with austerity that has proved catastrophic. Samuelson, however, makes bizarre odes to Irish austerity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/28/AR2010112802910.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions), emphasizing the necessity of “persuading ordinary citizens to tolerate austerity (higher unemployment, lower social benefits, [and] heavier taxes) without resorting to paralyzing street protests or ineffectual parliamentary coalitions.”

Samuelson shares Berlin’s belief in the redemptive power of suffering – by others. He doesn’t even feel a need to explain why any rational government would adopt a policy in response to a severe recession which it knew would cause “higher unemployment, lower social benefits, [and] heavier taxes.” He admits that Berlin (and Dublin) knew that austerity would make the recession far more severe. He doesn’t think that adopting austerity programs known to be self-destructive requires justification or even explanation. Insanity is normal in Samuelson’s world.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/10/bill-black-robert-j-samuelson-tries-to-create-a-moral-panic-about-deficits.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[Wild Cobra]

How Social Security Trust Funds earn interest
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/404/~/how-social-security-trust-funds-earn-interest
That must be Hillary's lock box.

I wasn't speaking of paying bond rates. An S&P 500 account average or DOW account would so, and no, it cannot be done for all SS assets. My point is that the government spend it, borrows from future tax payers, and gives the recipients less than if they had invested individually.

[Wild Cobra]

there's something to that, but how is that an entitlement cut?
50 years from now, people will be asking the same about Obamacare.

[DarrinS]

Building up debt for generations that were not even alive for the most part and certainly not having wealth to be redistributed is not redistribution of wealth. That's just leaving a legacy of shit.




For more of the same, vote Obama.


The other party actually wants to reform entitlements.

[CosmicCowboy]

How Social Security Trust Funds earn interest
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/404/~/how-social-security-trust-funds-earn-interest

:lmao

Oh...the Social Security IOU's....:lol

The took the money, dumped it into the general fund and spent it. That money is long gone.

When it's time to actually pay those benefits (pay the IOU's) they will have to get it from new revenue. I think it's kind of funny all you liberal young blue teamers will get that bill.

[CosmicCowboy]

How Social Security Trust Funds earn interest
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/404/~/how-social-security-trust-funds-earn-interest

:lmao

Oh...the Social Security IOU's....:lol

The took the money, dumped it into the general fund and spent it. That money is long gone.

When it's time to actually pay those benefits (pay the IOU's) they will have to get it from new revenue. I think it's kind of funny all you liberal young blue teamers will get that bill.

[boutons_deux]

:lmao

Oh...the Social Security IOU's....:lol

The took the money, dumped it into the general fund and spent it. That money is long gone.

When it's time to actually pay those benefits (pay the IOU's) they will have to get it from new revenue. I think it's kind of funny all you liberal young blue teamers will get that bill.

so you're saying the Feds will default on the bonds held by the SS administration?

[Wild Cobra]

so you're saying the Feds will default on the bonds held by the SS administration?
They might in the future...

[CosmicCowboy]

so you're saying the Feds will default on the bonds held by the SS administration?

meh...they will probably just print more and more money and continue to debase the dollar until it has parity with the peso. Actually since Mexico's debt is only 35% of GDP it could go below the peso.

[boutons_deux]

They might in the future...

US defaulting on its SS debts. yep, might be in the future, but it wouldn't dare default on debts to the 1%ers and foreigners holding US bonds.

[Winehole23]

For more of the same, vote Obama.


The other party actually wants to reform entitlements.the "other party" shows much lip service but little appetite for cutting entitlements. has even engaged in Mediscare tactics against Obama, calling proposed elimination of Medicare Plus overpayments Medicare cuts.

but, we already knew you were a kool aid drinker. you only accept it from Republicans, and you do so uncritically. your belief in the noise coming out of only one side of the GOP's mouth underscores that.

[Winehole23]

which party recently passed the biggest increase in social entitlements since the Great Society? I'll give you a hint, Darrin: it wasn't the Dems.

[Drachen]

which party recently passed the biggest increase in social entitlements since the Great Society? I'll give you a hint, Darrin: it wasn't the Dems.

See! They re-formed social entitlements into something bigger.

[boutons_deux]

The other party actually wants to reform entitlements.

dubya/Repugs created Medicare Advantage which costs about 12% MORE to run than non-Advantage. There was also $50B subsidy to for-profit companies to induce them to compete with cheaper govt Medicare.

dubya/Repugs, famed regulation HATERS, MADE A REGULATION to forbid govt from negotiating drug prices with BigPharma, AND forbid reimportation of BigPharma drugs from Canada.

Both of these Repug fuckups put Medicare/Medicaid unnecessarily further in the hole by many $100Bs, going to $Ts if not cancelled.

[Winehole23]

See! They re-formed social entitlements into something bigger.oh but they've reformed. they're all real conservatives now, never mind the debt/deficit tango they've been doing for the last 30 years with the Dems.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

For more of the same, vote Obama.


The other party actually wants to reform entitlements.

The GOP brought the debt level to what it was a Obama took over and has played as much a part since 1980 to get us where we are. You act like there is an appreciable difference but that does not change a thing.

The GOP mantra is trickle down as tax cuts as if that is going to change a thing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No you aren't.

If their contributions were placed in an interest bearing account, how much would they have with compounding interest?

If you actually had a notion of how stupid you are how much would you posture as you do?

Hypotheticals are worthless especially when they come from your wishful thinking.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you're talking about Clinton era welfare reform, that's an across the board cut, including for Boomers. Citing the Contract with America is basically a canard, though. Almost none of that stuff was passed into law. Was a wish list and little more, tbh.

there's something to that, but how is that an entitlement cut?

So as Boomers were entering retirement age, cuts to AFDC, WIC, unemployment etc were applicable to them? You should note that the Contract with America didn't do shit in regards to SS and Medicare the two Boomer gravy trains.

As for the ACA i suppose it's not an entitlement cut but it does put the burden on everyone not a boomer as they are retiring from the workforce to pay for their health care. It's the opposite of an entitlement. For all intents and purposes it's a tax. Even SCOTUS agrees with me on that.

I am legally required to contribute to their retirement while they leave me with higher tax rates for the rest of my life if I want to be anything resembling responsible.

[boutons_deux]

why do Boomers get blamed for SS deficit? They didn't create SS.

you'll pay for SS whether the boomers live to 106 or 66.

lotsa fucking stupid assholes here.

SS is easy to fix

[FuzzyLumpkins]

why do Boomers get blamed for SS deficit? They didn't create SS.

you'll pay for SS whether the boomers live to 106 or 66.

lotsa fucking stupid assholes here.

SS is easy to fix

sure thing, mr. RSS.

who manipulated the funding of SS over the past 30 years?

your vrwc keeps getting reelected by whom exactly.

Who came into their majority in 1985?

And of course we will pay for SS but the point is how much we will have to pay. Boomers kept on underfunding it and now they are going to be ~40% of the population drawing on it and not contributing shit. It's like someone running up a bar tab before you get to the bar and then putting it on you after you get there and continuing to buy them and their buddies drinks on what is now your tab..

Essentially we are going to have to pay for the boomers shit from 1980 up until they are dead and buried while they haven't paid a goddamn thing from the time they hit their adulthood.

who has made up about a third of the electorate since 1980 although that has waned as of late?

The only stupidity I see is you and your tin hat version of politics.

[Winehole23]

So as Boomers were entering retirement age, cuts to AFDC, WIC, unemployment etc were applicable to them?Yes. One needn't be of retirement age to be eligible for AFDC, WIC and unemployment. Nor is being of retirement age a disqualification that I know of.


You should note that the Contract with America didn't do shit in regards to SS and Medicare the two Boomer gravy trains.I did. Thanks for noticing. You cited the Contract for America as bolstering your point; clearly, as you now admit, it doesn't.


As for the ACA i suppose it's not an entitlement cut but it does put the burden on everyone not a boomer as they are retiring from the workforce to pay for their health care. It's the opposite of an entitlement. For all intents and purposes it's a tax. Even SCOTUS agrees with me on that.It isn't. Glad you agree you misspoke. Carelessly overselling one's point seldom reflects well on credibility.


I am legally required to contribute to their retirement while they leave me with higher tax rates for the rest of my life if I want to be anything resembling responsible.Yep. Sounds like you don't though. And that's not an entitlement cut, either. Resentful, much?

[Winehole23]

Yeah, too bad they never did it.Republicans had six years to get responsible, but they didn't. Ran up the tab instead. Grew the debt, the deficit and entitlements. Sent brave young men and women to die and be maimed for life, for essentially nothing. Probably to the national detriment, even.

[Winehole23]

Not that any of that prevents you from being a kneejerk red teamer. Show no weakness, right?

[Solid D]

Soooo...."just die" and "go kill yourself" aren't just expressions of your generation, Fuzzy? They are actually intended to be the solution?

[Winehole23]

wishful thinking. he shares that in common with Homeland Security.

[Winehole23]

except, Homeland Security openly lobbies for the pogrom.

[Winehole23]

that at least is honest. sadly, can't say the same about FuzzyLamebrains.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes. One needn't be of retirement age to be eligible for AFDC, WIC and unemployment. Nor is being of retirement age a disqualification that I know of.

I did. Thanks for noticing. You cited the Contract for America as bolstering your point; clearly, as you now admit, it doesn't.

It isn't. Glad you agree you misspoke. Carelessly overselling one's point seldom reflects well on credibility.

Yep. Sounds like you don't though. And that's not an entitlement cut, either. Resentful, much?


People that are entering retirement do not generally have dependent children. Most people's children are over 18 by the time they are 55 and thus will not get benefit from AFDC and WIC. when you are retired you are not working thus no unemployment.

My point about SS and medicare was that those are the entitlements that benefit them. They were not touched. Are you drinking or something? This is not hard to figure out.

ACA just points to another policy that harms everyone but Boomer's. As qualifiers for Medicare they will be precluded from the mandate whereas the rest of us have to deal with it.

And sounds like i don't what? Want to be responsible or pay for their retirement? last time i checked my taxes go towards SS and whatnot and as a responsible individual I support an increase in taxes including on myself. i am resentful that I have to do so but doing what I feel is right is doing what I feel is right.

The mantra of the boomers has always been 'when you get older you give up your ideals.' Well I do not do that. i do not forsake what i believe to be right out of greed and convenience and am willing to pay the price to do so. Always will be.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Soooo...."just die" and "go kill yourself" aren't just expressions of your generation, Fuzzy? They are actually intended to be the solution?

Huh? i am not advocating killing Boomers. For all of wine's characterizations that is just not the case. i am not a sociopath that is willing to kill for the sake of convenience.

What i am saying is that the rest of the electorate needs to be aware of the boomer agenda and take active steps to thwart it.

i like the idea of a wealth tax for example to get back some of that $2.2m per capita windfall they fiated themselves to actually pay in what should have been paid in over the past 30+ years.

I just want to operate within the political framework such as to get by until the boomers are no longer burdening us. that does not mean killing anyone but rather stopping majoritarianism gone amok.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

that at least is honest. sadly, can't say the same about FuzzyLamebrains.

It's entertaining the level of butthurtedness I have engendered in you. Drink on, pumpkin.

[Winehole23]

entertained by your own dizziness?

[Winehole23]

if there's a silver lining to premature senility, you just found it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are behaving like WC with your blindly lashing out with nonsequitor insults. It's interesting watching your behavior deteriorate as the day goes on. You start doing this multipost thing and semicoherence.

Don't be a WC.

[Winehole23]

uh huh. I'll cede to your expertise on aping WC and semi-coherence.

[Solid D]

i like the idea of a wealth tax for example to get back some of that $2.2m per capita windfall they fiated themselves to actually pay in what should have been paid in over the past 30+ years.
Hmmm, so that wealth tax collected would all be deposited into the SS coffers instead of helping to pay the interest note with China?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hmmm, so that wealth tax collected would all be deposited into the SS coffers instead of helping to pay the interest note with China?

Debt is debt. We owe the money to China because of the tax cuts starting with the Reagan administration. SS, pay off debt, infrastructure, Medicare, etc.

The point is the ethic of this country needs to go back to responsibility rather than wrack up debt now and let someone else worry about it tomorrow. I do not exclude myself from this. I am willing to pay more in taxes but I just do not like the notion that an entire generation can run up debt for the entirety of their earning years and just ride off into the sunset without any accountability.

If you are still poor or of moderate wealth that is one thing but that $2.2m per capita went somewhere and it needs to come back. It's just wrong that it has been allowed and something needs to be done.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

uh huh. I'll cede to your expertise on aping WC and semi-coherence.

Look drunkard, if you are going to go tossing out ad hominem at least make them sequitor to something.

You calling me senile is no different than him calling me a liar. It's just petulantly throwing shit out there hoping I will take it personally. You want to call me an adversarial dick then I agree with you. I am not nice and do not try to be. You want to make other commentary that is germane to things that i actually say/do then you will actually say something that I will find meaningful. We both know nobody else gives a shit about our diatribe.

When you just toss shit out there like that it is reminiscent of behavior you see from adolescents in secondary school. This is not just a mindless dig either. That is literally the type of behavior you see from 12 year old boys.

It reflects poorly on you and you can do better.

[Wild Cobra]

You are behaving like WC with your blindly lashing out with nonsequitor insults. It's interesting watching your behavior deteriorate as the day goes on. You start doing this multipost thing and semicoherence.

Don't be a WC.
Maybe nobody likes you.

Ever think of that?

[Winehole23]

lol "sequitor to something"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Maybe nobody likes you.

Ever think of that?

What difference does that make?

Nonsequitor ad hominem is nonsequitor ad hominem. It's worse than petty, it's base.

Everyone thinks you're a moron and that has been demonstrated. I would rather lose the popularity contest than be mocked as the village idiot. The best you can expect is pity.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol "sequitor to something"

to, from oh well. Now you are resorting to grammar smack. You are lacking charm and wit at this point, pumpkin. Failing at virtues you espouse is fail.

[Wild Cobra]

to, from oh well. Now you are resorting to grammar smack. You are lacking charm and wit at this point, pumpkin. Failing at virtues you espouse is fail.
This...

From someone who lacks any understanding at all of someone elses point, and makes things up about them?

WH is 10 time smarter or more than you. You shouldn't try to razz him.

[Wild Cobra]

Everyone thinks you're a moron and that has been demonstrated. I would rather lose the popularity contest than be mocked as the village idiot. The best you can expect is pity.
No, only those incapable of understanding someone elses view actually thinks I'm not smart. Most the shit I get is because people don't like me. They will make fun of me in many ways, but it's because they are pitiful bullies like you. Not because they are smarter.

[Wild Cobra]

[/RANT]

The Fuzzy Troll isn't worth ruining another thread over.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, only those incapable of understanding someone elses view actually thinks I'm not smart. Most the shit I get is because people don't like me. They will make fun of me in many ways, but it's because they are pitiful bullies like you. Not because they are smarter.

No, most people think you are stupid. Don't you recall the half dozen times i have asked the forum for anyone who contradicts this notion? You have yet to get a single advocate. This includes people that share your side of the political spectrum.

Sure we have had people come in and take shots at me but they never once have chosen to say that you are even of average intelligence. Quite the contrary. We have had several people come in and confirm that you are indeed dumb.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps that it's not that people do not understand you? That perhaps it's you that do not understand what you are talking about?

Think about it. You admit that you have a learning disability. It's not outlandish whatsoever to think that everyone else is not wrong and your intellect has hampered your ability to understand things.

I know that you have said nothing that I have not felt that I had a firm grasp as to where you are coming from. I have discussed your methodology with you for quite some time at this point. Your motives and thought processes are very easy to see in my view. It's quite simple.

I realize that saying this is incisive and cruel but if you are going to post your stupid shit and then tell me that nobody likes me i think it's only fair that i point out how nobody respects your opinion and why. If nothing else wine will think I'm more of an asshole and talk shit to me while doing absolutely nothing to defend you.

[Wild Cobra]

[/RANT]

The Fuzzy Troll isn't worth ruining another thread over.

[DarrinS]

We should tune in to the Romney and Ryan show
The myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9513687/We-should-tune-in-to-the-Romney-and-Ryan-show.html




Whatever the outcome of the American presidential election, one thing is certain: the fighting of it will be the most significant political event of the decade. Last week’s Republican national convention sharpened what had been until then only a vague, inchoate theme: this campaign is going to consist of the debate that all Western democratic countries should be engaging in, but which only the United States has the nerve to undertake. The question that will demand an answer lies at the heart of the economic crisis from which the West seems unable to recover. It is so profoundly threatening to the governing consensus of Britain and Europe as to be virtually unutterable here, so we shall have to rely on the robustness of the US political class to make the running.

What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust. The crash of 2008 exposed a devastating truth that went much deeper than the discovery of a generation of delinquent bankers, or a transitory property bubble. It has become apparent to anyone with a grip on economic reality that free markets simply cannot produce enough wealth to support the sort of universal entitlement programmes which the populations of democratic countries have been led to expect. The fantasy may be sustained for a while by the relentless production of phoney money to fund benefits and job-creation projects, until the economy is turned into a meaningless internal recycling mechanism in the style of the old Soviet Union.

Or else democratically elected governments can be replaced by puppet austerity regimes which are free to ignore the protests of the populace when they are deprived of their promised entitlements. You can, in other words, decide to debauch the currency which underwrites the market economy, or you can dispense with democracy. Both of these possible solutions are currently being tried in the European Union, whose leaders are reduced to talking sinister gibberish in order to evade the obvious conclusion: the myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished. This is the defining political problem of the early 21st century.

Mitt Romney had been hinting, in an oblique, undeveloped way, at this line of argument as he moved tentatively toward finding a real message. Then he took the startling step of appointing Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate, and the earth moved. If Romney was the embodiment of the spirit of a free market, Ryan was its prophet. His speech at the convention was so dangerous to the Obama Democrats, with their aspirations toward European-style democratic socialism, that they unleashed their “fact checkers” to find mistakes (“lies”) in it. (Remember the old Yes Minister joke: “You can always accuse them of errors of detail, sir. There are always some errors of detail”.) When Romney and Ryan offer their arguments to the American people, they are, of course, at an advantage over almost any British or European politician. Contrary to what many know-nothing British observers seem to think, the message coming out of Tampa was not Tea Party extremism. It was just a reassertion of the basic values of American political culture: self-determination, individual aspiration and genuine community, as opposed to belief in the state as the fount of all social virtue. Romney caught this rather nicely in his acceptance speech, with the comment that the US was built on the idea of “a system that is dedicated to creating tomorrow’s prosperity rather than trying to redistribute today’s.” Or as Marco Rubio put it in his speech, Obama is “trying ideas that people came to America to get away from”.

So it would be deeply misleading to imply that this campaign will be a contest between what Britain likes to call “progressive” politics and some atavistic longing for a return to frontier America where everybody made a success of his own life with no help from anybody but his kith and kin. In the midst of the impassioned and often nasty debate about the future of health care, in which Ryan was depicted as a granny-killer, there has been some serious Republican thinking about the universal provision of medical care for pensioners (or “seniors” as they are called in the US). Because, you see, the debate over there has gone way beyond welfare reform: the need to restrict benefit dependency among the underclass is an argument that has been won. What is at issue now is much more politically contentious: universal entitlements such as comprehensive Medicare and social security are known to be unaffordable in their present form. Ryan, the radical economic thinker, suggests a solution for Medicare in the form of a voucher system. Patients could choose from competing health providers, with a ceiling on the cost of procedures and treatments, instead of simply being given blanket no-choice care. Thus, the government would get better value for money, and individuals would have more say in their own treatment. Now why doesn’t anybody here think of applying that mechanism to the NHS? Oh, yes, some people have – but nobody in power will listen to them.

So how effective will all this turn out to be? Can Romney and Ryan reawaken the self-belief in American independence and real community solidarity? Quite possibly, but the odds are always in favour of the incumbent in US presidential elections. There is, however, a wild card in this game. I suspect that in 2008 a great many voters of good conscience would have felt the moral force of voting for the first black president, in order to exorcise the nation’s hideous racial history. But having proved that America is no longer a land of bigots, they will not feel it necessary to make that point again. Now they will be able to judge Mr Obama as they would any other political leader, and the US will truly have arrived at post-racial politics.

But in the course of this campaign, however it concludes, we are all going to get an education in what it might be possible to say if economic reality was actually confronted. Mr Ryan wound up his acceptance speech for the vice-presidential nomination with the chorus, “Our nation needs this debate. We want this debate. We will win this debate.” Some of us would like to have that debate here. We even think we might have a chance of winning it.

[boutons_deux]

"Can Romney and Ryan reawaken the self-belief in American independence and real community solidarity? Quite possibly,"

The VRWC/Repug strategy has been destruction of civility for 25 years, starting with Noot Grinch in early 1990s, even before with Willie Horton shit. Division, polarization, inflammatory lies and slander, non-stop. "community solidarity"? GMAFB

[DarrinS]

Division, polarization, inflammatory lies and slander, non-stop.


Mastered by Obama, tbh.

[boutons_deux]

Mastered by Obama, tbh.

You Lie, but you're a blindly ideological right-winger, so no surprise.

[Clipper Nation]

Anyone who actually thinks Willard would cut Boomer handouts is kidding themselves....

BTW this illustrates the fundamental flaw of the left's wet dream of mob-rule democracy... eventually people realize they can vote themselves future generations' money and it all collapses tbh.....

[Winehole23]

to, from oh well. Now you are resorting to grammar smack.you're hilariously pretentious, profe. in English we say "follow something." also, you misspelled sequitur.


You are lacking charm and wit at this point, pumpkin.and you're a horrible bore. get bent! :toast

[RandomGuy]

prove it

Read the article. It talks about the actuarial aspects of the demographic waves, and how the large boomer cohort has done just that.

[RandomGuy]

Anyone who actually thinks Willard would cut Boomer handouts is kidding themselves....

BTW this illustrates the fundamental flaw of the left's wet dream of mob-rule democracy... eventually people realize they can vote themselves future generations' money and it all collapses tbh.....

This illustrates a fundamental flaw in taking for granted that people can't act with the future in mind. I am not so sure.

[Winehole23]

Read the article. It talks about the actuarial aspects of the demographic waves, and how the large boomer cohort has done just that.Fuzzy claims entitlements to all other cohorts have declined. That may be true, but the OP does not support it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you're hilariously pretentious, profe. in English we say "follow something." also, you misspelled sequitur.

and you're a horrible bore. get bent! :toast

It's called pedantic and for all of my pretentiousness which of us is doing grammar smack?

I don't really care if you think me boring. I do not go around talking up charm and being unpretentious only to then act base and pretentious.

You are a sad little man. You espouse virtues and criticize others for lacking them only to behave in the manner opposite of your notion of said virtue. That's hypocrisy certainly but something far more like self loathing than that. Perhaps that's why you drink most nights. Cannot wait for another evening of multiposts and semi-coherent ranting.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy claims entitlements to all other cohorts have declined. That may be true, but the OP does not support it.

We already discussed this.

Contract with America did the following while leaving the three entitlement elephants in the room Medicare, Medicaid and SS:


Provisions:

Reducing Illegitimacy

The bill is designed to diminish the number of teenage pregnancies and illegitimate births. It prohibits AFDC payments and housing benefits to mothers under age 18 who give birth to out-of-wedlock children. The state has the option of extending this prohibition to mothers ages 18, 19, and 20. The savings generated from this provision to deny AFDC to minor mothers (and to mothers age 18 to 20 if the state elects that option) is returned to the states in the form of block grants to provide services -- but not cash payments -- to help these young mothers with illegitimate children. The state will use the funds for programs to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies, to promote adoption, to establish and operate orphanages, to establish and operate residential group homes for unwed mothers, or for any purpose the state deems appropriate. None of the funds may be used for abortion services or abortion counseling.

The bill also includes a number of other provisions to reduce illegitimacy. While AFDC is prohibited to mothers ages 17 and younger who have children out of wedlock, mothers age 18 who give birth to illegitimate children must live at home in order to receive aid -- unless the mother marries the biological father or marries an individual who legally adopts the child. Mothers already receiving AFDC will not receive an increase in benefits if additional children are born out of wedlock.

Finally, the bill requires mothers to establish paternity as a condition for receiving AFDC. Exceptions are provided for cases of rape and incest and if the state determines that efforts to establish paternity would result in physical danger to the mother. The bill requires states to establish paternity in 90 percent of their cases. Also, states are encouraged to develop procedures in public hospitals and clinics to determine paternity and establish legal procedures that help pinpoint paternity in a reasonable time period.

Requiring Work

States are allowed to establish their own work training and education programs to help recipients move from the welfare program to paid employment as soon as possible. The training programs require recipients to work for an average of 35 hours a week or 30 hours per week plus five hours engaged in job search activities. One parent in a two-parent family is required to work 32 hours a week plus eight hours of job searching. States may not provide the work programs for more than two years to any individual or family which receives welfare benefits. States have the option of ending AFDC to families that have been on the welfare rolls for two years, if at least one year was spent in a work program. All states must terminate AFDC payments to families who have received a total of five years of welfare benefits -- regardless of whether or not the AFDC recipient has participated in a jobs program.

As long as states meet the participation requirements, the federal government will not advise other parts of the program. States will design their own work programs and determine who will be required to participate in them. Part of the participation requirement is requiring a certain number of recipients to participate in the job program. Starting in 1996, 100,000 AFDC recipients will be required to work; in 1997, 200,000 recipients will be required; in 1998, 400,000 will be required; in 1999, 600,000 recipients will be required; in 2000, 900,000 will be required; and by 2001, 1.5 million recipients will be required to work.

Identified non-parents, usually men, who receive food stamp benefits are required to work -- eight hours per week for those benefits.

Capping the Growth of Welfare Spending

The bill caps the spending growth of AFDC, SSI and numerous public housing programs, and the mandatory work program established under the bill. The cap equals the amount spent the preceding year for these programs with an adjustment for inflation plus growth in poverty population. The entitlement status of these programs is ended.

The bill also consolidates a number of nutrition programs into a block grant to states, funded in the first year at 95 percent of the aggregate amount of the individual programs. Programs consolidated into the block grant include food stamps, the supplemental feeding program for women, infants, and children (WIC), and the school lunch and breakfast programs, among others. Under the block grant, states will distribute food assistance to economically disadvantaged individuals more freely.

To further reduce welfare spending, welfare assistance (AFDC, SSI, food stamps, housing and host of other public assistance) is denied to non-citizens, except refugees over 75 years of age, those lawfully admitted to the U.S., or those who have resided in the U.S. for at least five years. Emergency medical assistance will continue to be provided to non-citizens.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/cwa/welfare_reform.html

What it boiled down to was a voucher system for welfare to states and cuts to direct assistance to individuals.

it included cuts to food stamps, AFDC, WIC, school lunch, work programs, etc. All the while the entitlement programs for those that netted $2.2m in net I/O per capita were left alone.

Now let's look at the most recent proposal by the party of the older white male:


Cut Government Spending to Pre-Stimulus, Pre-Bailout Levels: With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to begin paying down the debt, balancing the budget, and ending the spending spree in Washington that threatens our children’s future.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20100922_REPUBS.pdf

That largest expansion of entitlements since the great society what was that? Oh yeah an expansion of government funded medical aid to boomers.

About the only thing that the nonBoomer has gotten has been the extension of unemployment benefits these last couple of years. The rest of the 'stimulus' has gone to industrialists.

[boutons_deux]

" the extension of unemployment benefits these last couple of years."

no, the House Repug sociopaths cut that. more than 50% of unemployed have been unemployed for more than 1 year.

[boutons_deux]

and you're pretty fucked to think SS and medicare to seniors is the next crisis.

The next crisis will always be from the financial sector.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am well aware that they ended it but that was after they had extended the benefits from the CWA limits. But you are right the Boomers have done their best to cut all entitlements but their own.

You channelling your Dick Cheney and saying that deficits don't matter.

And Medicare/SS are ~40% of the budget. Boomer's take up 26% of the total population. They didn't pay shit in before but now they will pay nothing yet still soak up ~40% of the budget. If nothing else that is a huge opportunity cost. Thanks for the legacy!

Perhaps you think a giant leech is not a drag on something but i will have to disagree. This world is not a vacuum. I do not disagree that the financial sector is a mess waiting to happen but risks come in all shapes and forms.

[TeyshaBlue]

I guess I'm on the edge of boomer town. I've been paying into Social Security and medicare since I was bagging groceries at 16. Although, since I was born in 1960, I guess I meet the classical definition of a boommer.

[johnsmith]

Lol.....fuzzy wrecked shop in this thread. Wine hole, you da man and I enjoy your posts but you're coming off a lot like....well....me in this one and you're better than that.


Good news though is that wild cobra looks dumb....which is about right.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I guess I'm on the edge of boomer town. I've been paying into Social Security and medicare since I was bagging groceries at 16. Although, since I was born in 1960, I guess I meet the classical definition of a boommer.

TB, looking back on the past thirty or so years can you honestly say that the political choices of your contemporaries has been righteous?

I see guys like CC come in here saying stuff along the lines of "well we got ours, you jelly?" and I cannot help but be resentful. There are legions of guys just like him. I am not saying youre like that --I certainly don't think that-- but in Texas it does seem to be a cultural phenomenon.

It's one thing to do your best and just fuck up but I am sick and tired of seeing a crowd knowing full well they are fucking over their descendants and not even trying to make right by it.

What do I see instead? Self righteous horseshit like the Tea Party trying to ram their gravy train up our asses. No new taxes but let's keep that 40% coming our way and defense spending rolling right in.

I see a banking bailout that amongst other things made sure those 401k's didn't take a shit. Sorry but all that political will for $700b bailout didn't just come from Citicorp.

I see cultural hitpieces characterizing my contemporaries as introverted, entitled, lazy, flippant, weak. How many times have you read about a generation supposedly weak because of a fucking Little League rule?

I'm sure that Darrin and/or CC are going to characterize this as a childish rant but I do not think I am out of line in saying that it's wrong and something should be done to correct it. That $2.2m per capita went somewhere.

[Winehole23]

Lol.....fuzzy wrecked shop in this thread. Wine hole, you da man and I enjoy your posts but you're coming off a lot like....well....me in this one and you're better than that.
can't hit a home run every time. Babe Ruth struck out, what, 1,330 times or something like that?

[TeyshaBlue]

TB, looking back on the past thirty or so years can you honestly say that the political choices of your contemporaries has been righteous?

I see guys like CC come in here saying stuff along the lines of "well we got ours, you jelly?" and I cannot help but be resentful. There are legions of guys just like him. I am not saying youre like that --I certainly don't think that-- but in Texas it does seem to be a cultural phenomenon.

It's one thing to do your best and just fuck up but I am sick and tired of seeing a crowd knowing full well they are fucking over their descendants and not even trying to make right by it.

What do I see instead? Self righteous horseshit like the Tea Party trying to ram their gravy train up our asses. No new taxes but let's keep that 40% coming our way and defense spending rolling right in.

I see a banking bailout that amongst other things made sure those 401k's didn't take a shit. Sorry but all that political will for $700b bailout didn't just come from Citicorp.

I see cultural hitpieces characterizing my contemporaries as introverted, entitled, lazy, flippant, weak. How many times have you read about a generation supposedly weak because of a fucking Little League rule?

I'm sure that Darrin and/or CC are going to characterize this as a childish rant but I do not think I am out of line in saying that it's wrong and something should be done to correct it. That $2.2m per capita went somewhere.

I absolutely would say that the majority of political choices have been poor ones.
I steer clear of making generational generalizations (+10 for alliterative content). I don't think you can measure the individual by the tribe. There's a different dynamic to group behavior that can't completely be attributed to individual behavior. That being said, I think it's reasonably clear that the Boomer generation has shown traits of incredible self-involvement. Ascribing motives to that trait is a little sketchy, imo.