# How the baby boomers destroyed everything **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878 "2017-02-26T21:30:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Skypist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skypist/32/169_2.png) [@Skypist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skypist)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/61 "2017-03-04T04:06:30Z")
Well, there probably won’t be any SS or Medicare for Gen X. We are next in line to retire (NOT Millenials), and if the current administration gets its way, it will be cancelled before we get there. Apparently no one will make a fuss about it either because Gen X doesn’t matter. For the Boomers, it’s considered _horrible_ to talk about taking anything away from the elderly, but it’s just fine and hunky dory to take it from the middle aged. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/62 "2017-03-04T04:28:59Z")
Keep in mind, boomers actually vote, in large enough numbers to exert influence. Gen X and millenials, not so much really. If you want anything to change, that’s gotta be the first thing! You have to get out the vote! ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/63 "2017-03-04T05:07:41Z")
> [@Skypist](#): > > Well, there probably won’t be any SS or Medicare for Gen X. We are next in line to retire (NOT Millenials), and if the current administration gets its way, it will be cancelled before we get there. Apparently no one will make a fuss about it either because Gen X doesn’t matter. :rolleyes: This same sort of fact-free croaking has been going on for literally decades. Remember the “Third Millennium” PR campaign from nearly 25 years ago that [more young people believe in UFOs than believe that Social Security will exist when they retire](http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19940926&slug=1932799)? Those “young people” (i.e., us GenXers, aged 18-35 in 1994) are all over 40 now, some nearly 60, and there’s still no indication at all that SS is going away before our retirement. Sure, if idiot conservatives/libertarians deliberately dismantle the Social Security system, that will have a negative effect. But remember that similar idiots tried that by way of “privatization” in the George W. Bush administration, and strong negative reaction from voters shut it down. The Trumpistas are a lot less trusted by voters in general than the Bushistas were, so it seems likely that pushback against similar measures on their part would be at least as strong. The thing to remember about the perennial Chicken-Littling about Social Security is that **if the public can be made sufficiently distrustful about SS’s future to tolerate attempts to privatize it, the privatizers stand to make a _metric shit-ton_ of money**. As [this 1996 article remarked](http://prospect.org/article/biggest-deal-lobbying-take-social-security-private), > [@](#): > > Not long ago, the Wall Street Journal called privatizing Social Security “the biggest bonanza in the history of the mutual fund industry.” No wonder: By diverting 2 percent of payroll from Social Security into private accounts, the government could shunt $60 billion a year into the coffers of investment firms, banks, and insurance companies. (The “Third Millennium” organization that talked up the “UFO survey”, btw, claimed to be a grassroots movement of “Generation X” but in fact was significantly funded by financial-industry players favoring privatization. I infer from your despondent attitude that some of their propaganda apparently stuck, though.) ---
**Author:** ![Skypist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skypist/32/169_2.png) [@Skypist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skypist)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/64 "2017-03-04T17:43:01Z")
My attitude does not come from the organizers of some UFO/SS study that I never heard of. It comes from the current administration. All three branches are run by Pubbies. The checks-and-balances brakes are (mostly) off. The head honcho cannot be trusted to keep his original promise that he didn’t want to mess with SS/Medicare benefits. Ryan has a hard-on for dismantling everything and creating a voucher system so the budget will balance and government will be smaller, which I guess means there will be a voucher for my cardboard box when the time comes. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/65 "2017-03-04T18:09:05Z")
> [@Skypist](#): > > Boy, it’s like Generation X doesn’t even exist! “Boomers did this so now Millenials are suffering!” Uh…there’s a generation in between those two!!! :mad: As a late X-er, I can tell you, we are also suffering. ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/66 "2017-03-07T12:39:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Acsenray > How the baby boomers destroyed everything > > “Medicare and Social Security wasn’t the result of “greed.” It was a response to the pervasive problem of elder poverty.” Noble perhaps. But slowly but surely we are being infantalized by our governments. What better control can a citizen have than self-control? Yet Drug War rages on, despite the dominoes falling State to State on Uncle Sam’s War on Marijuana, which President Trump has promised to escalate. The premise of Social Security is that we can’t attend to our own affairs, and thus our government must step in at the point of a gun, and inflict mandatory participation on us. These are not examples of the way Thomas Jefferson imagined it. > [@](#): > > “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.” Thomas Jefferson ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/67 "2017-03-07T14:30:49Z")
> [@sear](#): > > Noble perhaps. > > But slowly but surely we are being infantalized by our governments. > What better control can a citizen have than self-control? > Yet Drug War rages on, despite the dominoes falling State to State on Uncle Sam’s War on Marijuana, which President Trump has promised to escalate. > > The premise of Social Security is that we can’t attend to our own affairs, and thus our government must step in at the point of a gun, and inflict mandatory participation on us. > > These are not examples of the way Thomas Jefferson imagined it. The premise of Social Security is that we decided to all pitch in a portion of our earnings to alleviate the elderly from dying in poverty. Now maybe everyone didn’t or doesn’t go along with that “noble” goal but I’m not going to second guess what has turned out to be an effective system for its intentions and I suggest that you don’t either. Risk aversion is not the bad medicine some claim it can be and it can even be argued that a single payer health care system would stimulate entrepreneurism. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/68 "2017-03-07T15:43:08Z")
> [@sear](#): > > But slowly but surely we are being infantalized by our governments. Horseshit. A universal insurance plan against illness, disability and old age isn’t “infantilizing” those who participate in it, any more than it’s “infantilizing” to have a national military and natural disaster management agency instead of just letting everybody cope with attacks and catastrophes individually. On the contrary: **it’s a sign of _maturity_ when citizens realize that everyone’s better off when they all chip in to minimize the harmful impacts of statistically predictable misfortunes.** It’s the libertarian “ant and grasshopper” ideal of letting devastation proceed unchecked as some kind of moral punishment for improvidence that’s the infantile fantasy. [QUOTE=sear] The premise of Social Security is that we can’t attend to our own affairs, and thus our government must step in at the point of a gun, and inflict mandatory participation on us. [/quote] This melodramatic libertarian blather conveniently ignores the fact that the vast majority of US voters strongly **support** Social Security. Even decades of very similar-sounding propaganda (ultimately sponsored by the financial industry) in favor of privatizing SS (which would of course be extremely profitable for the financial industry) has not succeeded in dissuading voters from their sensible support of this sensible social insurance system. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/69 "2017-03-07T18:11:07Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > We were so successful from 1945-1960s because we didn’t have much competition. Post-WWII America was an anomaly. anyone promising to return us to that is selling you a bill of goods. And we were victims of that success in the 1970s/1980s, in that the high wages and corresponding high prices of US manufactured goods drove us right out of the marketplace when significant competition arose. One of two things happened- automation or moving labor-intensive processes elsewhere. That said, I thought the article linked in the OP was peculiar, to say the least. The main contention is that as a group boomers are uniquely sociopathic, and that’s the reason for today’s problems. I don’t see it that way; you could just as easily pin a lot of this stuff on the “Greatest Generation” who eroded the public trust via Watergate, Vietnam, etc… Who set in motion non-discretionary spending programs such as SS and Medicare/Medicaid that compose roughly half of the entire Federal budget (ever wonder where all that NASA and infrastructure money used to come from?) Who engaged in a lot of Cold War brinksmanship that put the entire world on edge? Boomers did a lot of good too; during Vietnam, they were typically either serving the nation in the armed forces, or protesting the war- both of which are noble in their own ways. They managed to end the Cold War eventually, they presided over an astounding technological expansion with home computing and the rise of the WWW, etc… Today’s problems can hardly be pinned on the Baby Boomers alone. I’m sure they have some responsibility, but they share it with the other generations as well. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/70 "2017-03-07T18:34:08Z")
> [@sear](#): > > The premise of Social Security is that we can’t attend to our own affairs The premise of Social Security is that eventually you get _old_. And as you get up in years, you lose the ability to fully attend to your own affairs. Old people lose the stamina to work, the edge comes off their mental acuity and they’re more easily scammed, and so forth. It’s one thing to ask an adult of sound mind and body to take responsibility for him/herself, but past a certain age (which obviously varies from one person to another), it makes no sense to ask that of someone of advanced age. The next argument is, “well, they should have saved when they were younger.” But the reality of human existence has always been that _most people have enough difficulty meeting the challenge of each day, let alone saving for the future._ If your paychecks barely get you to the end of each month as it is, you’re not going to be stashing much in your 401(k). Guess we should tell those people that once they get too decrepit to work anymore, they’d better get ready to die, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/71 "2017-03-07T20:28:11Z")
> [@SeniorCitizen007](#): > > One has to look at what happened during March 1999 to understand why the world is where it’s at today. Yeah, I was pissed when _Shakespeare in Love_ won Best Picture too. But I don’t think we can blame all our problems on Harvey Weinstein. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/72 "2017-03-08T17:34:50Z")
FWIW, Gibney is on today’s WBUR show “Here and Now” on NPR. ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/73 "2017-03-08T20:17:09Z")
> [@](#): > > “we decided” RW #67 - piffle - I was offered ABSOLUTELY no choice in the matter WHATSOEVER !!! Social Security is inflicted at gunpoint, PERIOD!! > [@](#): > > “what has turned out to be an effective system” It’s a pyramid scam, a ponzi scheme. It’s not a question of whether this and other government entitlement scams will go bankrupt or not. It’s simply a question of when, or how drastically they’ll have to be slashed back, to save the government scam at the expense of the tax payer / citizen that “earned” them. > [@](#): > > “isn’t “infantilizing” those who participate” K #68 It is if it’s compulsory. Adults make their own choices. Infants have their world dictated to them. > [@](#): > > " it’s a sign of maturity when citizens realize that everyone’s better off when they all chip in " K #68 Even if true, irrelevant. Neither realization nor maturation plays any role in it. It’s compulsory. And it’s quite possible to do better without the martially imposed “benefit”. > [@](#): > > " the vast majority of US voters strongly support Social Security. " Truth is neither determined nor verified by majority opinion. Even if it’s popular doesn’t make it right. President Trump won the election. Does that make him right? His very first discriminatory immigration restriction plan has already been shot down by the courts. Trump isn’t fully two months into office, and he’s already on version #2 of discriminating against Muslim refugees. Trump’s poll numbers among Republicans are wildly high. Does that mean Trump is right? > [@](#): > > “Guess we should tell those people that once they get too decrepit to work anymore, they’d better get ready to die, huh?” RF #70 Tell them any lie you like. But your attempt at ridicule here has succeeded. The problem is, it is YOUR position you ridicule. You imply my position is that instead of a compulsory government pyramid scam inflicted at gunpoint, the alternate I advocate is death. That was never my position. Instead, my position is; offer our countrymen a choice. If they want the government scam, FINE !! BUT !! Being forced into the government scam when superior options are available is exploitative. And the proof that it is so is that these revenues by law belong in a “lock box” but instead are dumped into the general treasury, in part to impart an economic fig leaf to MOC for our astronomical deficits. [http://www.brillig.com/debt\_clock/](http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) Here’s a news flash for you boys & girls: If we are ever to have a right to succeed, then we must also have a corresponding right to fail. The failure-averse are more than welcome to arrange whatever level of assurance and or insurance is necessary to allay their anxiety. What the %$#@ does that have to do with me ?! ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/74 "2017-03-08T20:27:31Z")
> [@sinjin](#): > > Can we just stop it with the boomers being a 20 year Phenom??? Originally the Boomers were just after WWII babies. 1945-1950ish. Late boomers like me had it sucky. All the early boomers had all the jobs, the schooling etc. Born in the late fifties/early 60’s we were screwed. Soooo many kids, so few jobs. > > All of my late boomer friends are liberal. We are the ones who lived thru duck and cover drills in grammar school. We are the ones who experienced integrated schools and our parents angst. We are the ones who lived thru Viet Nam. The 40’s-early 50’s boomers are the ones who had pearls to clutch. There were no pearls for us going to high school in the 70’s. So true, and rarely gets mentioned. I’ll add: By the time we were born (late 50’s), people were SICK of kids! We were just “in the way”. We weren’t coddled like later generations, or even respected. My wife has said that we were hated as kids, have been hated ever since, and now are still hated! And those of us whose parents grew up during the Depression had Frugality drilled into us, and stuff was really expensive when we were trying to establish the home/family thing in the early 80’s. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/75 "2017-03-08T20:39:54Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Even leaving side the questionable premise of your post, who specifically is stopping you from sending the government money? Oh my. Even **Bricker** doesn’t fall for that nonsense. Ask him about the “Monopoly Free Parking Paradox.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/76 "2017-03-08T22:12:20Z")
> [@sear](#): > > - piffle - > I was offered ABSOLUTELY no choice in the matter WHATSOEVER !!! > > Social Security is inflicted at gunpoint, PERIOD!! Oooh! We got oursel’es a gen-u-wine LIBERTARIAN extremist. > [@sear](#): > > It’s a pyramid scam, a ponzi scheme. No, it is not and such a claim demonstrates a serious ignorance of how it was designed. People who make this claim tend to try to promote it as only a government pension program, demonstrating serious ignorance of its design. > [@sear](#): > > It’s not a question of whether this and other government entitlement scams will go bankrupt or not. It’s simply a question of when, or how drastically they’ll have to be slashed back, to save the government scam at the expense of the tax payer / citizen that “earned” them. Actually, there are a number of ways to keep the system solvent without resorting to drastic cuts. Get the Feds to pay back the funds they have “borrowed” to finance expeditions into Iraq, for example, and not capping withholding so that the richest people barely pay into the system. > [@sear](#): > > It is if it’s compulsory. > Adults make their own choices. > Infants have their world dictated to them. This being a democratic republic, “we” did choose it, (unless one is a libertarian/anarcho/syndicalist extremist who actually believes that a society could survive on purely voluntary contributions to infrastructure and similar efforts with no government to organize efforts and outlays. = = = = [\*\* Moderating\*\*] > [@sear](#): > > Tell them any lie you like. Do not accuse (or imply) that other posters are lying in this forum. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/77 "2017-03-09T06:50:05Z")
> [@](#): > > “Oooh! We got oursel’es a gen-u-wine LIBERTARIAN extremist.” > > “Do not accuse (or imply) that other posters are lying in this forum.” td #76 So an unflattering label is permissible, but exposing a falsehood is not? > [@](#): > > “It’s a pyramid scam, a ponzi scheme.” s > > “No, it is not” td So you can expose a falsehood, but I can’t? Very well. YOU post a definition of: - pyramid scheme, or - Ponzi scam Post any definition you like. THEN check whether Social Security meets the criteria of the definition. > [@](#): > > Ponzi scheme (pòn´zê skêm) noun > An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones. > > [After Charles Ponzi (1882?-1949), Italian-born speculator who organized such a scheme (1919-1920).] > > Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved. FYI Current Social Security benefits $recipients aren’t receiving the $dollars they’ve been paying into the system for decades. Those $dollars are all long gone. CURRENT benefits recipients are receiving $dollars from current victims; trapped in compulsory compliance, paying into the system, ostensibly for their own future benefit. THE PROBLEM ?! As Bernie Madoff proved; such scams can appear to be working, as long as the ratio of contributors outpaces benefits recipients. That trend has held since inception. BUT !! Economists and government bean counters have acknowledged; such trends can’t continue. It’s not a question of whether the system will crash. It’s a question of when. > [@](#): > > “… everyone’s for big government. The American People say we hate big government, but we like our social security and medicare. That’s 38% of government right there. The biggest components of government are the most popular components of government.” > > “What’s pernicious about deficits for conservatives is this. It makes big government cheap. What we’re doing, we’re turning to the country, the “conservative” administration turns to the country and says: We’re going to give you a dollar’s worth of government, we’re going to charge you seventy five cents for it. And we’re going to let your kids pay the other quarter.” George Will Nov 30, 2003 Addressing this directly: > [@](#): > > “It’s a pyramid scam, a ponzi scheme.” s > > “No, it is not” td Your squabble is not with me sir or m’am. Your squabble is with the consensus of authorities that have investigated the details, including: > [@](#): > > Social Security Insolvency: When And What To Do - Forbes > > [www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2016/06/09/social-securi](http://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2016/06/09/social-securi)… Proxy Highlight > > Jun 9, 2016 … When is Social Security going under? Before you can collect? Bad news: The system is already bust. More money is going out in benefits and … > Social Security: $39 Billion Deficit in 2014, Insolvent by 2035 | The … > > [www.heritage.org/social-security/report/social-securi](http://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/social-securi)… Proxy Highlight > > The Social Security OASI program is projected to reach insolvency in 2035. This means that the program is expected to have only enough revenue from payroll … > Social Security insolvency is now one year closer - MarketWatch > > [www.marketwatch.com/story/social-security-insolvency-](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/social-security-insolvency-)… Proxy Highlight > > Jul 11, 2016 … The 2016 Social Security Trustees report showed a continuation of the current trend toward insolvency of both of its trust funds. The Trustees … > Setting the record straight on Social Security ‘insolvency’ - Oct. 28 … > > [money.cnn.com/2015/10/28/news/economy/social-security](http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/28/news/economy/social-security)… Proxy Highlight > > Oct 28, 2015 … Republican candidate says Social Security faces ‘insolvency’ in 7 or 8 years. But the numbers don’t back that up. > Trustees Report Summary - Social Security > > [Trustees Report Summary](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/) Proxy Highlight > > Earlier action allows more generations to share the economic cost of maintaining program solvency, and would provide more opportunity to ameliorate adverse … > The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program > > [Research: The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program](https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html) Proxy Highlight > > The concepts of solvency, sustainability, and budget impact are common in discussions of Social Security, but are not well understood. Currently, the Social … > Trends in the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income … > > [https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability](https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability)… Proxy Highlight > > The root cause of future insolvency in the DI program, as in the retirement program, is the increasing number of beneficiaries relative to the number of workers … > Proposals Affecting Trust Fund Solvency - Social Security > > [Proposals to Change Social Security](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/) Proxy Highlight > > The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security’s Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund reserves would become … > Social Security, Medicare Face Insolvency Over 20 Years, Trustees … > > [www.wsj.com/articles/social-security-medicare-trust-f](http://www.wsj.com/articles/social-security-medicare-trust-f)… Proxy Highlight > > Jun 22, 2016 … WASHINGTON—Medicare and Social Security will begin to spend more than they earn by the end of this decade, new projections showed … > Social Security’s looming $32 trillion shortfall - [CNBC.com](http://CNBC.com) > > [www.cnbc.com/2016/08/08/social-securitys-looming-32-t](http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/08/social-securitys-looming-32-t)… Proxy Highlight > > Aug 8, 2016 … Under the infinite horizon, Social Security will have $32.1 trillion in … Stronger economic growth may delay Social Security’s insolvency, but it … It’s like shooting pickles out of a barrel. ---
**Author:** ![ckalli1998](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a3d4f5/32.png) [@ckalli1998](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ckalli1998)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/78 "2017-03-09T06:55:13Z")
The baby boomers didn’t destroy “everything”. It was their archliberal idol, Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton, with his big-government expanding, wife-cheating, deceptive lying self. Bill Clinton could’ve been a great president. Instead, he abandoned his promise to be a moderate “New Democrat”, and for the most part governed as an ultra-liberal beholden to the most left-wing elements of his party. The only good things he did were the welfare reform bill, the Balanced Budget Act, and his cutting of the capital gains tax, and even then, principled, conservative Republicans were the ones who had to push him to do it. For eight years, Bill Clinton coasted through prosperity (which for the most part, wasn’t thanks to him). The path of least resistance is always downhill. But America’s way is the rising road, and Clinton was too blind to see it. Mr. Clinton embodied the potential of a generation. So many talents, so much charm, such great skill. But in the end, to what end? So much promise, to not great purpose. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/79 "2017-03-09T11:00:44Z")
> [@ckalli1998](#): > > The baby boomers didn’t destroy “everything”. > > It was their archliberal idol, Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton, with his big-government expanding, wife-cheating, deceptive lying self. > > … The only good things he did were … the Balanced Budget Act, … and even then, principled, conservative Republicans were the ones who had to push him to do it. Let me point out just one misconception here. As you will see by examining any chart or graph of budget numbers, it was not the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 but rather the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 which had by far the bigger effect on moving the budget toward balance. How many votes did the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 get from House Republicans, whether principled or not? _ **ZERO.** _ How many votes did the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 get from Senate Republicans, whether principled or not? _ **ZERO.** _ ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878/80 "2017-03-10T11:42:12Z")
> [@sear](#): > > So an unflattering label is permissible, but exposing a falsehood is not? > > So you can expose a falsehood, but I can’t? If you have evidence that a statement is incorrect, you are encouraged to post it. What you are not permitted to do is claim that another poster is lying. From the rules to this forum posted at the top of the forum page: > [@](#): > > Accusations of lying - It is against the rules to accuse another poster of lying or being a liar in the Great Debates or Elections fora. Questioning or disputing the accuracy of another poster’s statements–“I don’t think that’s right”, “That’s incorrect”, “You are mistaken”, or even “That’s not true”-- is what Great Debates is all about. However, questioning the intent of another poster in making an arguably false statement–e.g., “You are a liar”, “You are lying”, “That is a lie”, “That’s not true and you darned well know it isn’t true”–is crossing the line into attacking the other poster rather than attacking the other poster’s arguments, and will be considered a violation of the rules of the forum. In general, to be considered an accusation of lying a post must contain the following two elements: 1) deliberately saying something that the person knows is untrue, and 2) doing so with the intent to deceive. > [@sear](#): > > THEN check whether Social Security meets the criteria of the definition. Since the system was designed, from day one, to be a method to collect revenue from the general population to be used to provide supplemental income to limited numbers of the population with no claim by the authors that the funds were being held to be returned to the donors, there is no Ponzi scheme involved. Op Ed pieces predicting doom that are based on the notion that there will be no changes to the methods of collection or distribution are simply polemics designed to have the system torn down or handed over to the private sector. We have already modified both the systems of collection and distribution, extending the forecast doomsday, and a rather modest change to the regressive tax limit in the cap along with means testing on payouts would push the doomsday scenario back for the foreseeable system. One may certainly argue for a different system (or no system) of providing assistance to the elderly and those who have various impediments to obtaining financial support. Attacking the current system based on misunderstandings of its intentions and design are not helpful to that argument. > [@sear](#): > > Current Social Security benefits $recipients aren’t receiving the $dollars they’ve been paying into the system for decades. Those $dollars are all long gone. This has been true since the system was created. The first people collecting from the earliest payouts had contributed little to none of the payout funds. That was not the intention of the service and attempts to claim that it was are, at best, misguided. > [@sear](#): > > It’s like shooting pickles out of a barrel. Your facts and logic, like your similes, are broken. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/780878.md?page=5)