The Generational Blind Spot-BOOM! - Page 4

You can rest whatever you want. The Census Bureau collects more than just population data. The very front page will share that it gathers all manner of data. The source cites the Census Bureau. You declare they couldn't have had the data and provide no proof for this claim.

You have misread the article and declare (wrongly) that the article assigns the total number of households to boomer households. It does not do this. Instead it states the following...

The priorities of our Boomer-led society are clearly born out in the above figures.

Boomer led... not boomer exclusive. So again, the entire spamming (for the third time after being posted twice and deleted once and reposted again) rant about the article getting the number of households wrong. Turns out it is right.

So please do get some rest. I think you need it.

That was your intial post. Frank noted the article didn't have the word boomer.

Artman called it a good rant.

Addabox claimed you can't really define a generation and that it was just prejudice.

Then you and Art had a side conversation about Boomers and dumb versus smart Boomers and if the tail end is really boomers.

Etc...etc...

Eventually you settled into some strange bit or reasoning that I am trying to really take the last 8 years and blame it on a generation. There wasn't any proof of this and again none of my links mention Bush, try to justify his presidency, discuss the election, etc. You just toss out stuff like this as a "counter-argument."


The argument is that "I don't get it." No links, no facts, no points, nothing.

From the first link.....


The link is from Time doesn't even mention Bush. It mentions the incredibly huge amount of spending waiting for the Obama pen and notes how we are going to pay for it. It notes, as is typical for Boomers every time they touch something, that it appears contrary to what is right. As is always the case with them though, it doesn't count for them. The kids won't be hurt by the divorce because it will be quality time instead of quantity time. Let's "save" an extra trillion for retirement via Social Security, spend it and leave promise notes in the bank, and then promise ourselves $50 trillion in benefits because that is what is good and right! The stock market can go up forever because of the internet baby! Housing never loses value, just refinance those granite counter-tops into the mortgage. Now we have, printing money doesn't cause inflation, it fights it!

In the end, we will have massive inflation. That is what printing money does and Bush being elected nor Obama being elected, nor anyone in particular being elected will change that fact. The only fact that we can hope to change is the belief Boomers have that they are above the rules. They have spent their entire lives thinking that because they have good social intentions, that the financial rules will change for them. They don't.

I say this as someone who had to wrestle personally with such a thing within my own generation. My wife and I are both college educated, professionals who earn a fair dime between my salary and investments and earn way too much when she choose to work as well. According to all the "old rules" our kids were set and would have every opportunity they cared to exploit.

Only living in So Cal, I could see there is a rule that is deeper there that is being ignored or people think certain things allow it to be ignored. The rule is demography is destiny. Those having the kids will make the rules about the future. I could scream that this is America, that it only ought to be about English. My kids shouldn't have to bend to people breaking the law, whatever. They will have enough opportunities to get by and ought to just with English, etc.

In reality though, demography is destiny and my belief is you ignore it at your peril. Education, money, being profoundly advanced or proficient in the one language that is dominant at the time, none of those matter when compared to that rule. Will it be the blind spot of my generation remains to be seen. My kids in the meantime are learning Spanish and come January, so am I (again).

Can't you find a real counter-argument. Bush won't have saddled us with a $50 trillion dollar obligation to your generation. The second link notes all the factors playing out and a good deal of them involve time frames where Bush wasn't even in office including governor.

Can you actually address the second article instead of talking about how "my world" would be different if I didn't have a delusion about Bush.

Thanks for proving my point. You probably did just like I did. You went through the whole first page of the post and realized, not a damn one of you made a real point. You still haven't. $50 trillion in boomer entitlements don't have a thing to do with Bush. Reforming those entitlements in the future won't have a thing to do with Bush. The current lack of savings by boomers, the fact they own less of their house and are in worse health than previous generations has nothing to do with George Bush.

Yeah I ignored it by noting he added a trillion and a half to the national debt.

Of course some people declaring that it must be all about Bush appear to think that because he added a trillion and a half, in seven years, no one has the credibility to question a trillion in one year. No one should dare suggest that we can't spend $50 trillion because, hay cheezeburger guys, Bush ran up a trillion and a half, maybe more.

In fact none of the last twenty and next twenty years will matter because Bush was in power for 8 years. We dont have to address any of it. Bush, bush, bush, the cause of all problem and elimination of him is the solution to all problems.

What are you going to do Artman when Bush is gone and the problems still exist or grow worse? What are you going to do when Obama is running deficits in the first two years that are more than Bush did in 8 years, when they are printing money out the other side, when he and the Democratic Congress do nothing about entitlements and the $50 trillion dollar bill begins coming due? What will you do when we have to fix the problem instead of assigning blame?

Spin baby, spin.


It will depend if it is real improvement or fake improvement. You can always improve something short term with a ton of printed money.


Cute and snarky, however I suspect that claiming Reagan didn't address the boomer spending all the equity out of their home, never starting or fully funding their 401ks, and just living like asses for decades after he was out of power won't be a very compelling argument.

I am the generational blind spot. Hear me roar!


BTW, happy, pain-free solutions tend to poll very well.

AP

We have an insolvency problem. Printing money can fix it and you can't get better terms on broke. Even Mr. HOPE and CHANGE Obama will not be able to reconcile spending record amounts while cutting taxes and also somehow saving money. Even messiahs have their limits.

They didn't follow it quite right so I guess that justifies whatever whenever. I heard the Republican police were a little gruff when cuffing a suspect so the Democratic police are fully justified in just blowing the guy away with a gunshot between the eyes. A trillion dollar deficit over six years fully justifies a trillion dollars every year.


We have a Democratic house and 2009's spending will have been put in place already by Bush AND THE DEMOCRATS (never forget that part) Obama could still demand legislative action one way or another. He appears just fine with the status quo of trillion dollar deficits and instead has said get used to them and expect more of the same.


Well when the Republicans are remaking their brand, so to speak, they will be able to say that Bush is gone, they only ran $200 billion dollar deficits and that they can return to that and try to aim for truly being fiscally conservative and getting back to balance.

The reality though is that as a generational thing, the boomers are going to screw us by running the printing press. The surprise for me is that they are more desperate and getting their faster than even I thought.

WSJ

The Wall Street Journal has managed to perfectly capture and question the reasoning out there that embodies what I will call "The Jimmac Principle." It notes what I had mentioned but does a better job. (It's almost like they are professionals or something.)


As it notes, the deficit is that high and then Obama and the Dems will want to add stimulus on top of the already huge deficit. They can't blame it on Bush when they have a choice of trying to lower it but instead choose to add to it by another $800b-$1t this year.

Like I also mentioned, PAYGO was what they used to win and criticize and it is long gone.

Running on budget reform and against corruption is great for getting elected. However when what you really bring to office is record deficits, sex and pay to play scandals galore, the tables can turn quickly. Pointing that out isn't delusional but smart.

Spitzer, Mahoney, Blago, Rangel, Richardson and more showing up and we can say they don't matter, but something will cause a tipping point. The war, corruption and spending didn't matter for Repubilcans, until it did. The difference there was it took several years whereas these guys are blowing the doors off within two years.

Worse still you can see the organizations that help support them are hollowing out and are broke as well. Bailoutonomics allows us to question advertising, political contributions and perk for anyone taking that cash. UAW anyone, all those banks, hedge funds, and groups grabbing that government cash, it is open season on questioning what they do and why they do it.

GIVE ME THE POWER!!!


That is a cute joke!


I would assign a lot more than that. The real problem with RINO's and one of the reason the party shouldn't tolerate them anymore is they keep trying to "fix" Democrat creations and then get the blame when you can't make a shit sandwich taste good. Those investment banks blew up due to their investment in FRE/FNM/FHA. Sure they were over-leveraged, but they were invested in what was considers and rates safe as bonds. That would be like complaining tomorrow that someone went belly up for investing in government saving bonds.

GSE's were started during the Great Depression. The Republicans were not in control longer than Democrats have held control in the modern era. Do some reading.


Do a search of my posts. I've certainly said what we ought to do enough over the years.

You can look up for yourself how many of those years since 1980 the Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses. It is much smaller than you might imagine. For example in the last eight years, the Republicans controlled the White House for 8 years, the House for 6 and the Senate for 4 years.

More and more people out there are waking up to the Boomer reality. Of course they being paid to write and think about such things, they came up with a better title. Michelle Malkin is being credited with calling the Stimulus the "The Generational Theft Act of 2009." It doesn't really matter what boomer do, they are done. the only question left is how much they can steal from or harm future generations.

I'm glad this idea is gaining ground.

Can we make up our mind? Jimmac swears it is 8 and you swear it is 25.


Feeling a little misogynistic?


Congress controls the spending. The story there is much clearer. We just watched the Congress go back and add anoher $410 billion to this fiscal year after passing a continuing resolution to get past Bush. You are welcome to explain how Bush controlled that.


Boomers are not at all prepared. It seems like the boomer remorse is growing and starting to show up in more and more places.

We are staring at unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security in the tens of trillions of dollars. Where's that money going to come from? We have to either raise taxes or cut benefits. There are no other options.

The baby boomers are starting to retire and will consume an ever larger share of these entitlement programs. They will also age in sufficient numbers to drive the political agenda for the foreseeable future. Think they're going to want less Social Security and less Medicare? Think again.

The generation coming along behind them that will be asked to pay for all this can't. There are not enough good jobs left in this country to pay those kinds of bills.

At the end of the day, we are going to have to settle for less. Less money, smaller houses, smaller cars and smaller dreams.

This is not your father's country anymore. And we had better all start getting used to it.

They won't get used to it. They have and will run it into the ground with their dishonesty and attempts to act as they have their entire lives. I mean how do you fix broke by going trillions more into debt? How do you run on hope, change and paygo and then claim a depression to institute trillions in payoffs to political allies.

The breadth and depth of the lies and spending is what is historic now. It is amazing.