Originally Posted by jimmac
Yes but does he draw the exact same conclusions you do?
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.
Does he blame us for all the things you have implied?
Yes he does.
We all know there's a bottle neck because of the numbers of Boomers ( hell my friend Jeff and I used to talk about this when we were kids in our 20's back in 1973 so this part's a no brainer ) and most haven't saved like they should have but that doesn't validate everything you've been saying.
Yes. Find us one that's saying the same thing you are and I'll give your theory some more attention.
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.