The Generational Blind Spot-BOOM! - Page 6

Originally Posted by e1618978

You didn't pay for my college or cars.

Originally Posted by franksargent

You didn't pay for my retirement or health care.

Originally Posted by franksargent

You didn't pay for my retirement or health care.

Originally Posted by e1618978

Yes, I did. The money I paid in will be used up by people like you, and I will never see it. And jimmac - no debt, no mortgage, and credit cards paid off every month, although I don't see what that has to do with SS.

And jimmac - no debt, no mortgage, and credit cards paid off every month,

Originally Posted by e1618978

Yes, I did.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Good for you. Have you always been that way? And since you're in such great shape why are you worrying anyway?

Originally Posted by e1618978

I'm not worried about it - I'm 42 and once my stocks recover in a year or two I could retire if I wanted. I'm not counting on SS - I'm just arguing with you and franksagent because the two of you seem to be in denial about this whole thing. The main thing that could hurt me out of this situation is the expansion of payroll tax (remove the cap, subject other types of income, etc) - there aren't that many gen-Xers around compared to the number of retiring boomers, and payroll taxes could jump very high. My generation would be carrying you all on our backs - you could turn out to be a huge burden to us.

In any case, no new information has surfaced in the last couple pages - it is just "is so"/"is not"/"is so"/etc.

there aren't that many gen-Xers around compared to the number of retiring boomers

In any case, no new information has surfaced in the last couple pages - it is just "is so"/"is not"/"is so"/etc.

Originally Posted by trumptman

The correct answer would be "no he has not yet but will double when he does."

The greatest illusion created by Social Security is that it is some sort of investment rather than a direct wealth transfer program. This is part of why certain reforms like means testing wont' fly because they would destroy the perception that it is some sort of investment you are getting back a return on instead of merely wealth transfer.

The 1986 Welfare Reform was supposed to "fix" the Boomer bubble a bit and create a cushion. Instead though the "surplus" was spent and IOU's were generated that one section of the government now owes to the other.

So the correct answer is that we aren't paying for Frank's retirement yet but, presuming that he, like Jimmac is probably a boomer in his 50's, when he does retire and draw Social Security, you will begin paying for it twice. This is because the "excess" Social Security tax being collected now will disappear between 2012-2014 and will instead begin drawing on the IOU's that act as assets in the Social Security Trust Fund. So you will pay Social Security Tax to pay the Social Security benefits that are promised and also more taxes to pay for the redemption of the bonds that must be paid to make up the shortfall in income Social Security Taxes.

We could get into the interest on the debt, the lack of services, additional debt or additional taxes needed to make up that loss of $200 billion or so that the "excess" Social Security taxes generate now, but I don't want anyone putting a gun in their mouth out of depression.

BTW, I remembered that I have a very good link to support all of this, a book I own called "The Coming Generational Storm" by Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns. It was written back in 2004 but that can't be right because this is all just a ruse to deflect blame from Republicans.

BTW, I normally don't do this, but I feel compelled to type a section from it real quick. Although I may not post with foot and endnotes. I assure you the book has plenty of them. This section describes the "tip" that can happen when a generation who has never had a thought about the dollar being anything other than the world reserve currency manages to finally destroy it and the results from it....

A dollar doesn't buy much these days. It will buy still less in the future.
How can we say this when the recent worry was deflation, when the price of goods appears to be declining?

Simple. We say this because the United States is doing all the things that mark an economy soon to be wracked by inflation and a weak currency:

We're running a large federal deficit, however it is calculated (This is 2004)
We're cutting taxes so the deficit will be larger for a longer period of time.
We're running a record trade deficit. It continues to increase in spite of a weak economy.
We're no longer a creditor nation (there is a generational change there no matter what someone wants to claim and deny) We owe billions around the world.
Our government doesn't seem to care. (They didn't care about deficits in 2004 and care even less now)
We have implicit liabilities out the gazoo.

I don't even always agree with Laurence Kotlikoff either, but the point is, there are people out there, people who aren't supposedly Republicans making up stuff, economists who are not Paul Krugman (Kotikoff is a professor of economics at Boston University) and still see the problem.

Notice how all those deflections are ad-homs about intent or appeals to authority, both logical fallacies.

Originally Posted by jimmac

So we're guilty by our numbers?
You have a warped sense of this whole thing!
I'm still waiting for your information on how we're the sole cause of anything.

Originally Posted by trumptman

The correct answer would be "no he has not yet but will double when he does."

The greatest illusion created by Social Security is that it is some sort of investment rather than a direct wealth transfer program. This is part of why certain reforms like means testing wont' fly because they would destroy the perception that it is some sort of investment you are getting back a return on instead of merely wealth transfer.

The 1986 Welfare Reform was supposed to "fix" the Boomer bubble a bit and create a cushion. Instead though the "surplus" was spent and IOU's were generated that one section of the government now owes to the other.

So the correct answer is that we aren't paying for Frank's retirement yet but, presuming that he, like Jimmac is probably a boomer in his 50's, when he does retire and draw Social Security, you will begin paying for it twice. This is because the "excess" Social Security tax being collected now will disappear between 2012-2014 and will instead begin drawing on the IOU's that act as assets in the Social Security Trust Fund. So you will pay Social Security Tax to pay the Social Security benefits that are promised and also more taxes to pay for the redemption of the bonds that must be paid to make up the shortfall in income Social Security Taxes.

We could get into the interest on the debt, the lack of services, additional debt or additional taxes needed to make up that loss of $200 billion or so that the "excess" Social Security taxes generate now, but I don't want anyone putting a gun in their mouth out of depression.

BTW, I remembered that I have a very good link to support all of this, a book I own called "The Coming Generational Storm" by Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns. It was written back in 2004 but that can't be right because this is all just a ruse to deflect blame from Republicans.

BTW, I normally don't do this, but I feel compelled to type a section from it real quick. Although I may not post with foot and endnotes. I assure you the book has plenty of them. This section describes the "tip" that can happen when a generation who has never had a thought about the dollar being anything other than the world reserve currency manages to finally destroy it and the results from it....

A dollar doesn't buy much these days. It will buy still less in the future.
How can we say this when the recent worry was deflation, when the price of goods appears to be declining?

Simple. We say this because the United States is doing all the things that mark an economy soon to be wracked by inflation and a weak currency:

We're running a large federal deficit, however it is calculated (This is 2004)
We're cutting taxes so the deficit will be larger for a longer period of time.
We're running a record trade deficit. It continues to increase in spite of a weak economy.
We're no longer a creditor nation (there is a generational change there no matter what someone wants to claim and deny) We owe billions around the world.
Our government doesn't seem to care. (They didn't care about deficits in 2004 and care even less now)
We have implicit liabilities out the gazoo.

I don't even always agree with Laurence Kotlikoff either, but the point is, there are people out there, people who aren't supposedly Republicans making up stuff, economists who are not Paul Krugman (Kotikoff is a professor of economics at Boston University) and still see the problem.

Notice how all those deflections are ad-homs about intent or appeals to authority, both logical fallacies.

Originally Posted by e1618978

formula: (A huge number of boomers * (the amount of money boomers put into SS - amount they will take out)) / (Not so many gen Xers).

The problem is because you didn't pay your fair share of taxes, and because you will live too long, and because your medical expenses will be higher than previous generations. The problem is not because of your numbers, the huge number of boomers and the small number of genXers just magnifies an existing problem into a much bigger problem.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Still waiting.

Originally Posted by e1618978

Explain why we have a social security surplus now, and why that will soon be gone. Ive explained things as simply as I can, some times you just can't get your point across, and I have reached that point.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Well you know it's just so funny. Out of all the places on the internet this is the only place I'm reading about this dumb ass theory.

Funny isn't it?

Originally Posted by vinea

What's funny is simply googling boomers and social security yields a lot of text on this dumb ass theory from USA Today, MS NBC, CNBC, etc.

The fact that there are more boomers than genXers is a given.

The fact that when the boomers all retire, there will be significant strain on Social Security is well understood. If no later than 1996 when it was described in gory detail at the Senate Special Committee on Aging (a dumb assed bunch of folks, I'm sure).

But some how that because a "dumb ass theory" because some folks you don't like bring it up.

It's one thing to disagree that that Social Security is a ponzi scheme doomed to eventual failure. It's another to suggest that no one besides two folks on AI has ever suggested it before. Or that the Boomers aren't going to be the generation that makes or breaks Social Security.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

I think a major part of this dialogue appears to be blaming the boomers for it all, as if the boomers bare significant blame. A more rational approach would be to see that later generations too have terrible savings rates, gen x is just marginally higher than the boomers, mostly though due to fears revolving around the current recession. The fact remains that gen x is not on target to meet there own needs for retirement. Therefore if gen x pays higher payroll taxes for the boomers, it's likely gen y will pay higher payroll taxes for the gen x's. It should be noted too that savings rates for most western developed nations are low and national debts huge.

Originally Posted by vinea

What's funny is simply googling boomers and social security yields a lot of text on this dumb ass theory from USA Today, MS NBC, CNBC, etc.

The fact that there are more boomers than genXers is a given.

The fact that when the boomers all retire, there will be significant strain on Social Security is well understood. If no later than 1996 when it was described in gory detail at the Senate Special Committee on Aging (a dumb assed bunch of folks, I'm sure).

But some how that because a "dumb ass theory" because some folks you don't like bring it up.

It's one thing to disagree that that Social Security is a ponzi scheme doomed to eventual failure. It's another to suggest that no one besides two folks on AI has ever suggested it before. Or that the Boomers aren't going to be the generation that makes or breaks Social Security.

Originally Posted by e1618978

Generation Y (born 75-85) is called "the little baby boom" - they will have fewer problems because they also outnumber gen Xers, and some of the baby boomers will have died off. Also, SS will probably be partially dismantled due to the strain put on it by the baby boomers.

Originally Posted by vinea

What's funny is simply googling boomers and social security yields a lot of text on this dumb ass theory from USA Today, MS NBC, CNBC, etc.

The fact that there are more boomers than genXers is a given.

The fact that when the boomers all retire, there will be significant strain on Social Security is well understood. If no later than 1996 when it was described in gory detail at the Senate Special Committee on Aging (a dumb assed bunch of folks, I'm sure).

But some how that because a "dumb ass theory" because some folks you don't like bring it up.

It's one thing to disagree that that Social Security is a ponzi scheme doomed to eventual failure. It's another to suggest that no one besides two folks on AI has ever suggested it before. Or that the Boomers aren't going to be the generation that makes or breaks Social Security.

Originally Posted by trumptman

WRONG

That is the caricature created by you to dismiss the point of the thread.

I'll quote it for you to refresh your memory.

So now the bar is so low that we print away the debt for the debtors and crush the savers all in hopes of doing this all again, being able to say we are wealthy without generating any real wealth. I mean what else can you expect from them. They couldn't get the house refied for another 30 years now that they are 60 years old. They could slow down, spend less, try to save and work off their bad lifestyle of drinking, drugs, obesity, smoking and an overall worse state of health coming into retirement than the prior generation. They could finally grow up, pay their own way and stop making up new lies. Instead it is down to the ultimate lie. The currency itself will be manipulated to cover up their lifetime of nonsense.

They are down to the proverbial last straw. They have stolen all they can from the future so now it is time to change the rules of the game. The new rule is there are no rules and we are a bunch of thieves. We don't just bread up the meat and water down the drinks. We already tried that. Now it is simply time to stick you up and take all you have.

I hope you have some inflation hedges (and I don't mean TIPS) so you can enjoy the ride. Try to keep the filling in your teeth as we watch the boomers scramble like mad before having to deal with reality.

Also I can't send a PM to some parties but they shouldn't post while drunk.

You cannot get better terms on broke. We do not have a liquidity crisis, we have an insolvency crisis. The U.S. consumer is broke. The nation is bankrupt. The government is thinking about running trillion dollar a year deficits all to try to make the bubbles come back.

So the generational reckoning is here and the solution is to lie, cheat and steal. As the article notes there isn't another side to this equation. As people of all political stripes have noted over the years with the boomer generation it doesn't matter the values. They all have abandoned them in this generation. The bar is lower. It isn't whether you cheated on your wife. It is if you cheated on her while she was recovering or dying from cancer.

Ok but when this started the implication was

Also I can't send a PM to some parties but they shouldn't post while drunk

Originally Posted by franksargent

The dumb* assed* "theory" isn't even a theory, it's an all too apparent long held "opinion" about those who are not yours.

There is a link early on in this thread on the root causes of this generationally biased ageism "opinion".

The flawed premise is something along the lines that the Boomers think they are "special" and that it was these very same Boomers who are the sole source of yesterday's, today's, and tomorrow's economic and social conditions.

That those that came before and after said Boomers had nothing to do with our past, current, and future economic and social situations.

That in fact, the Boomers conspired to do all these things, from before birth even.

The unborn Boomers conspired to create WWI, the Great Depression, and WWII, in order to procreate themselves in large numbers, specifically, explicitly, and solely for the purposes of causing all forms of social and economic upheavals, past, present, and future.

You can call this crackpot* "theory" the Boomer Conspiracy Theory or BCT.

As to SS and what all, even in 1986, people knew that they were just prolonging the long term systemic problems inherent within SS given the already well known aging demographic.

The problems inherent in SS should not be misconstrued with said BCT crackpottery*.

NOTE: crackpot* and crackpottery* refer solely to said BCT as a dumb* assed* "theory" in and of itself. Likewise, the use of the words dumb* and assed* refer solely to said "theory". Likewise, "theory" does not refer to any actual established theory of any kind, the meaning of the quoted word "theory" should be interpreted in the same exact definitional manner as the quoted word "opinion" as used in the body of the text appearing above. Likewise, "opinion" does not refer to one individual person's opinion, but refers to an "opinion" held by a much larger group of individuals that is not limited to the much smaller subset (of said much larger group) of individuals that participate directly within the PO forums that hold said "opinion.".

The unborn Boomers conspired to create WWI, the Great Depression, and WWII, in order to procreate themselves in large numbers, specifically, explicitly, and solely for the purposes of causing all forms of social and economic upheavals, past, present, and future.

Originally Posted by jimmac

It sounds kind of like a plot you'd see on the Xfiles!

Children Of The Damned!

They're Everywhere!

Originally Posted by franksargent

I prefer Chris Carter's working title for the next film in the series to be released on December 21, 2012;

Damned Children: Get Off My Front Lawn Of A Planet

The Truth Is Out There

Trust No One

I Want to Believe

Originally Posted by trumptman

Jimmac, last I checked, you weren't a certifying body or board. You know what is insulting, people like you trying to spin this away from reality. Several people in the thread have hit you over the head with the reality that boomers and their problems are not just some partisan point being made to deflect criticism about the Bush years. We've posted links to books, searches, noted past legislation, etc. and you just ignore the very proof you asked for now claiming that even though it was provided, now the real issue is that I'm not an "expert."

It is desperate and insulting on your part.

I've posted experts that support my views, especially about inflating away problems via printing currency. They aren't even hard to find. I linked to an entire book. The theory isn't just mine alone, it is called generational accounting and I linked to the professor of economics that has put it forward and also linked to his book. This bit if nonsense about "it's always been this way shows it hasn't when you look at generational accounting. Kotlikoff has written dozens of papers and again, books on this subject. I linked to his website with the papers. You've ignored it all.

Get a new tactic. This one is tired. Address some point rather than just ignoring it and attacking the poster by claiming lack of expertise, lack of proof, lack of whatever you've ignored while you and Frank spam the thread with references to bad 70's movies.

Of course if I really wanted proof of how the boomers fail to address reality, their problems and to engage the issues, I think the replies in this thread by boomers are proof positive. How sad is it that the 20-40 year olds are begging their elders to stop posting sentence fragments and dismissals and look at the links, articles books and conclusions drawn from them and think about the ramifications.

I think the replies in this thread by boomers are proof positive. How sad is it that the 20-40 year olds are begging their elders to stop posting sentence fragments and dismissals and look at the links, articles books and conclusions drawn from them and think about the ramifications.

look at the links, articles books and conclusions drawn from them

Originally Posted by trumptman

Can you explain how Kotlikoff, a professor of Economics at Boston University doesn't meet your definition of expert?

Did you somehow forget the links to "The Coming Generational Storm" and his website that I placed in this thread?

There are a couple possibilities, one your ignored them, two you've dismissed them for reasons you don't care to discuss, or three, it is a lot more fun to try to spam the thread by claiming it should be focused on me instead of my expert.

BTW, as I noted, I've posted him but I would never say I'm right just because an expert endorses my view, that is a logical fallacy. You can find experts of all persuasions. We've mentioned Krugman, Kotlikoff and Schiff in this thread alone, all experts, all with different views on these matters.

Did you somehow forget the links to "The Coming Generational Storm" and his website that I placed in this thread?

BTW, as I noted, I've posted him but I would never say I'm right just because an expert endorses my view, that is a logical fallacy

You can find experts of all persuasions

Originally Posted by trumptman

On these matters, yes he does. We are in disagreement on some of the solutions. However since the point for you is even admitting there is a problem (instead of an attempt to make Bush disappear) he is good enough for that.



Yes he does.



Clearly you and your friend were just the seed for explaining away the Bush years decades before he ever ran for office.

Lots of people are saying the same thing I am for root causes. They may or may not use the words boomer. They might say words like "structural causes that have roots in the 60's" or "failure to address the move away from Bretton-Woods" etc.

We seldom have direct causation, rather we have correlation. If a country goes from the biggest creditor to debtor, you look at the households and leaders at that timeframe. When it is boomers, I call it boomers. Is it 100% boomers? No of course not because nothing is that clear cut. That would be the time when whatever accumulating behaviors and attitudes TIPPED though.

My personal thoughts on this are what I call big lies versus little lies. People do tell little lies all the time. Does that dress make you fat? How was your day? Especially with boomer reasoning though they have been very focused on lack of perfectionism, hypocrisy and the ability to dismiss moral authority because of that.

This is essentually your entire argument about the Bush years. I'm not personally attacking you but you personify the boomer-blindspot. Was Bush perfect? No, far from it, but his spending does not justify trillions of dollars of deficits any more than you having lunch with a female co-worker justifies the wife screwing the neighbor. Would a perfect husband not have lunch with a female co-worker? Probably. On some deeper level down in your heart was there some bit of flattery, flirting, some possible need that was met by that lunch? The honest answer is a yes for most.

But that doesn't and wouldn't justify bigger lies, bigger more harmful actions, destroying institutions instead of reforming them, etc.

You claim Republicans for example have no moral authority because they governed imperfectly. However where was the perfect government programs, perfect national state, perfect anything from Democrats? It doesn't and hasn't existed. We have Democratic corruption, Democratic wars, Democratic military actions and Democratic waste in government spending. Changing the label doesn't change the actions. Guys like me who have memories can recall that regime change in Iraq was a Clinton initiative for example.

We all understand one of your central dismissive claims in this thread, that people have to play the cards they are dealt. Bush didn't want planes crashing into buildings on his watch. I'm sure Obama didn't want to be handed a trillion dollar deficit. However your argument becomes being dealt cards means that one side can't even play the game, and thus the other player gets to grab the pot with no questioning. That isn't true either. By no bit of logical reasoning do you address speculation and bubbles with more debt, speculation and bubbles. Maybe Dad couldn't see Mom leaving but the moral answer is never, "Now I can justify stealing the neighbor's wife."

Dad can scream that Mom was a whore, but it will NEVER justify his own bad actions. If Mom comes back and notes he is destroying another household her conclusion is correct not because she is an expert, or because she is an adulterer but because that is in fact what Dad is doing. Likewise the conclusion does not become wrong because she is an adulterer as an example. Wrong is wrong. More wrong is more wrong.

The boomer blindspot, I can find an institutional injustice, a civil or racial injustice, a gender injustice and instead of correcting it, it gives me the right to do whatever I want.

That is wrong and it is what a generation has statistically been doing for their entire lives.

Yes he does

The boomer blindspot, I can find an institutional injustice, a civil or racial injustice, a gender injustice and instead of correcting it, it gives me the right to do whatever I want.

Originally Posted by jimmac

All of the same stuff you're stating and implying?

Ok show me where.

"I am not a Baby Boomer," I snapped. "I am so tired of hearing about the goddamn Baby Boomers! I've spent my whole life swimming behind that garbage barge of a generation. They ruined everything they've passed through and left me in their wake."

Broder shook his head and walked away.

But the garbage barge just chugs on. As they enter late middle age, the Boomers still can't grow up. Guys who once dropped acid are now downing Viagra; women who once eschewed lipstick are now getting liposuction. At the risk of feeding their narcissism, I believe it's time someone stated the simple truth: The Baby Boomers are the most self-centered, self-seeking, self-interested, self-absorbed, self-indulgent, self-aggrandizing generation in American history.

I hate the Boomers.

So while the Boomers can claim they had the good taste to listen to gifted pre-Boomers, when it came their turn to make music, the truest expression of their generation, what did they give us?

Disco.

The generation that came before the Boomers gave them Dylan. The Boomers gave us KC and the Sunshine Band. Thanks a lot.

As for the upcoming boomer retirement. That could be several threads unto itself. My belief is that the U.S. government will magically unlink benefits and inflation calculations and run the printing presses. Boomers who have run record national debt levels all while saving nothing will be given the option of moving to someplace like Mexico to get by (they can send us workers, we can send them retirees) or they can enjoy the true silver bullet solution, a literal bullet.

If boomers could walk away from their bad decisions and just have no retirement, that would be one thing. They will keep the house, and make their kids pay for the bad mortgage. They will vote in numbers and confiscate the earnings of their children and grandchildren.

I have a quote somewhere on here where I said the silver bullet solution to the boomer's problems is a literal silver bullet.

You have to realize that the word bust only applies to how the Boomers are screwed. For everyone else it is cheap stocks, cheap housing and ample opportunities. Even if the inflation train comes running through, everyone else gets to run on the treadmill while the boomers are the ones who have to get off and watch their purchasing power diminish.

In short, boomers lose, everyone else wins and boomers are not America.

Boomers are going to be broke. Boomers are going to be wondering who is going to pay their Social Security and take care of their debts they have run up. The fact that they won't be able to get $500k for their homes and instead have to accept $250k won't hurt their children. It will hurt them. When their children inflate away those debt and destroy the purchasing power of their 401k's and pensions, it won't hurt their children, it will hurt them.

There are plenty of people to replace the Boomers. The matter is simply whether we want to let them in or not. Demography is destiny. Those who have the babies make the future and even the stupid selfish boomers cannot change that.

Anyone who has has to read posts on here for a while has had to listen to my dire prediction that the baby boomer generation will find a silver bullet solution to their retirement problems by literally applying a bullet, silver or any other material, as part of their solution.

This is most true when we consider that most changes in our national health level have occurred because we have the boomer generation getting ready to go into those needy retirement years in worse health than the previous generation.

You tell me which you think will do more harm. Our problem is believing the terrorists in any country are going to cause us harm when it is grandma and grandpa boomer instead who will cause the real mass destruction.

The boomer and above generation is generally well-employed and happy. The younger children of these boomers, the children of wasted wealth via broken homes and divorce and also the immigrants that are expected to replace the euro boomers are largely unemployed until their early 30's. They spend a fair amount of time living in ethnic enclaves, or with their boomer parents and spend their days binge drinking, burning cars and stabbing each other.

The Republicans of 94 started us on a good path, but like so many in the boomer generation, they don't practice what they preach. They give up and give in. They are and always have been a soft generation that I believe will be the end of us.

The boomers will have spent the federal government into 10 trillion dollars plus of debt. They aren't saving for retirement and in fact will likely walk into retirement with more personal debt than any generation.

They will then stick their hands out, squat on their bottoms and demand to receive more entitlements than any previous generation in history.

It will be the next generation's way of flushing the boomers and all their crap out of the system.

The Boomers have to be the only generation in history to steal from both their parents, their children and their grandchildren.

The boomers were too selfish to have enough children to maintain the population. Their now letting in immigrants in some desperate hope that they will fund the future obligations. Only million dollar home grandpa wants his Social Security funded by the lawn man, and we all know what he pays the lawn man.

Originally Posted by vinea

Are you sure you want this to be the standard for discussion here on AI? Because, that's a war that Frank and I can win and you destined to forever fail. Even Nick will make you cry like a little girl in a citation war and he's nowhere as anal as frank and I.

I've never read the generational storm but I have read Scott Burn's articles on the subject and nick is on pretty solid ground in stating that the boomer generation is the cause for SS issues simply because they happen to be a cohort that lives longer than previous cohorts that is also much larger than those that follow.

Now, I doubt that he blames the boomers for nefarious dealings explicitly in his book but it is known that the cohort believes itself special from the very virtue of being the largest demographic. Marketing has put your cohort on a pedestal since it came of age.

One person that does agree with Nick is Paul Begala who wrote this in 2000.



http://www.esquire.com/features/worst-generation-0400

Oh...money quote:



You know. You guys just suck. That, I guess, makes at least four of us that think so (nick, e, me and Paul).

It was used by Clinton advisor Paul Begala in the 2008 presidential campaign to describe Senator Barack Obama's supporters when he said, "Obama can't win with just the eggheads and African-Americans."[2]

Originally Posted by vinea

Are you sure you want this to be the standard for discussion here on AI? Because, that's a war that Frank and I can win and you destined to forever fail. Even Nick will make you cry like a little girl in a citation war and he's nowhere as anal as frank and I.

I've never read the generational storm but I have read Scott Burn's articles on the subject and nick is on pretty solid ground in stating that the boomer generation is the cause for SS issues simply because they happen to be a cohort that lives longer than previous cohorts that is also much larger than those that follow.

Now, I doubt that he blames the boomers for nefarious dealings explicitly in his book but it is known that the cohort believes itself special from the very virtue of being the largest demographic. Marketing has put your cohort on a pedestal since it came of age.

One person that does agree with Nick is Paul Begala who wrote this in 2000.



http://www.esquire.com/features/worst-generation-0400

Oh...money quote:



You know. You guys just suck. That, I guess, makes at least four of us that think so (nick, e, me and Paul).

Are you sure you want this to be the standard for discussion here on AI? Because, that's a war that Frank and I can win and you destined to forever fail. Even Nick will make you cry like a little girl in a citation war and he's nowhere as anal as frank and I.

Marketing has put your cohort on a pedestal since it came of age

I've never read the generational storm but I have read Scott Burn's articles on the subject and nick is on pretty solid ground in stating that the boomer generation is the cause for SS issues simply because they happen to be a cohort that lives longer than previous cohorts that is also much larger than those that follow.