Social security. The “third rail” os American politics.
But yeah, the Defense industry is a very poor choice of targets for a politician.
Except Medicare, Social Security etc have their own taxes and pay for themselves.
Agreed, but good luck getting all but a very small number of politicians to agree to raising federal corporate tax and eliminating loopholes. Biden proposed raising the tax last year from 21% to 28% and that went over like an audible fart at a Victorian tea lunch. Really, the larger need for immigration is a ‘touch labor’ base to take care of all of those old people in ways that automation is not really equipped to do. Immigrants have been filling in the role of child and elder care (including, in many ways, uncertified home health aids and other quasi-health care roles) and although politicians prefer to ignore this reality it really has been the only way that the economics of the elder care industry can function for middle and lower income people who do not have substantial retirement savings.
Stranger
Not to pick nits, but I prefer to define baby boomer generation ended with anyone old enough to have been drafted for Viet Nam. Say born around 1955.
Those of us born after the draft also were kids during the epochal 60’s. We went to high school in the late 70’s and had disco. Culturally, little in common with the post WW2 and Viet Nam draft generation.
IMHO
FWIW the accepted generations seem to be:
- The Greatest Generation (GI Generation): Born 1901–1924.
- The Silent Generation: Born 1928–1945.
- Baby Boom Generation: Born 1946–1964.
- Generation X: Born 1965–1980.
- Millennial Generation or Generation Y: Born 1981–1996.
- Generation Z or iGen: Born 1997–2010.
Culturally, yes, late Baby Boomers are somewhat different from the earlier part of that cohort (and are sometimes referred to as “Generation Jones,” a term that I’d not been familiar with until I learned it here on the SDMB).
But, for purposes of this discussion, the typical 1946-64 definition does fit with the substantially higher birth rates (and, thus, larger number of current and soon-to-be retirees on Social Security).
I’m not familiar with that one either. It appears something is happening here, but I don’t know what it is.
Not this veteran. After years of having pay raises cut by both parties, I had to go with the party that shares my beliefs. Starting with Reagan in 1983, military raises languished, dropping lower and lower, really hitting rock bottom under Obama. This coming year is supposed to be 4.6% (largest in 20 years), but I’ll believe it when I see it.
I mean, any definition of “generations” is ultimately going to be handwavy, and fuzzy around the edges. The first time I (born 1977) ever heard of the term “millennial” for a generation was in an email from my sister (born 1974), proclaiming that that was what we were.
Of course, nowadays, that same sister constantly complains about what “those millennials” are doing.
So close…
Well, this recently happened:
I’ve got a Modest Proposal for that…
too tough and stringy. Infants are much more tender.
OK, I’ll stop with the cannibalism jokes. Not exactly in good taste anyway (oops - sorry 'bout that. Really was unintentional as I started writing it. )
I don’t have a proposal (modest or otherwise) for that. I understand and agree with what you’re saying - OVERALL, it would save our society money. However, it would mean less payments by businesses (do you really think all the big-money interests are going to allow a payroll tax?); more by…? Someone’s got to set up that single payer (takes time and money); someone has to run that single payer. If the Federal Government does that, they’ll have to raise taxes, and as soon as you say “raise taxes”, you lose 2/3 of the population. See GHWBush.
By the usual definitions, since I was born in 1966, I’m early in the GenX crowd but my brother, born in 1964, would be a boomer. That doesn’t seem right to me.
Just because propaganda makes it easy to convince uneducated people that they’re better off paying $10 to a company instead of $5 to the government doesn’t make it true, and shouldn’t mean we govern our country that way
There has to be a cutoff somewhere. If I have a farm on the equator, do hemispheres not make sense because my cows are grazing in the northern hemisphere while they are milked in the southern hemisphere.
You may define it that way based upon cultural identity but from a demographic standpoint the 1945 or 1946 to 1964 is definitely a specific cohort not seen before the Great Depression, and occurring during the most broadly prosperous time in US economic history:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Birth_Rates.svg#/media/File:US_Birth_Rates.svg
Stranger
In this particular case I would find hemispheres to be udderly confusing.
I’m not trying to change the definition, but am pointing out the cultural differences that are really huge. May not seem that way to a Zoomer but there ya go
Again, not denying this, but cultural differences between older and younger Boomers aren’t particularly relevant in this conversation, which is about the sheer size of the Baby Boom cohort, and its impact on government spending for Social Security and Medicare.