Beware young people, the Boomers want your BLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Woodsman]

Re: Beware young people, the Boomers want your BLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have been part of itulip community for 4 years. I have never read such a divisive posting among so many well educated intelligent and generous people.

Travel to Europe Brazil Saudi Arabia or parts of Northern Africa and then tell me how repressed we are as a nation and people or how the boomers are screwing everyone.

I found the best way to stop feeling sorry for myself is serve and give to those who are much less fortunate regardless of age, religion, political affiliation. And you can start in your neighborhood as we have one of the most diverse populations here in the US.

I am turning 58 and almost at one time a few years ago bought into this rhetoric of its the boomers fault. Accountability starts with you and end there too no matter what age.

Fifty-eight puts you square in boomer territory, JP. I mean, practically smack dab in the cohort's median.

[Prazak]

Re: Beware young people, the Boomers want your BLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will also note that younger people tend to be the most progressive and thus are supporting the very kinds of government interventions that implemented these unworkable social programs...and in fact tend to support implementing even more stupid and drastic collectivist solutions like imposing "carbon taxes" or international "wealth taxes" and sending the money to Africa. They disproportionately voted for Obama and Pelosi and Reid...hard to feel too sorry for them when they get bit by the kind of government programs they want. Apparently they only want programs where they get paid other people's money...not the ones where they are expected to pay for other people like the retired.

Mn_Mark, I'm a "technical boomer" myself (1963), and a small business owner to boot, so I can sympathize completely with the feelings you express about shouldering far more than your fair share of the burden. Federal, state, county, international withholding, various national VATs, corporate, partnership, personal, you name a tax I probably pay it (although I'm not dead yet, as they say on Monty Python).

But must we make every issue into a left-wing, right-wing issue? Wasn't it The Decider who put Medicare Part D and two wars of choice onto the national credit card while vastly underestimating the cost, at the same time passing tax cuts to send us all shopping, and all the while whistling past the future graveyards of MBS, CDS, and other financial weapons of mass destruction? Didn't we spend the 90s whittling down the deficits bequeathed by the voodoo economics during the Morning in America? Can the folks on the so-called right in this country look at any issue without pronouncing it the fault of big gubmint liberals, or at least acknowledging their own complicity in the past 30 or so years of political, economic, and social abdication?

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Beware young people, the Boomers want your BLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But must we make every issue into a left-wing, right-wing issue? Wasn't it The Decider who put Medicare Part D and two wars of choice onto the national credit card while vastly underestimating the cost, at the same time passing tax cuts to send us all shopping, and all the while whistling past the future graveyards of MBS, CDS, and other financial weapons of mass destruction? Didn't we spend the 90s whittling down the deficits bequeathed by the voodoo economics during the Morning in America? Can the folks on the so-called right in this country look at any issue without pronouncing it the fault of big gubmint liberals, or at least acknowledging their own complicity in the past 30 or so years of political, economic, and social abdication?

When Bush pushed big-government policies like Medicare Part D or No Child Left Behind or nation-building in the Middle East, that didn't make those policies "conservative" or "right-wing". And when Clinton agreed to welfare reform or free trade, that didn't make those policies progressive or left-wing. So I don't think you can criticize conservatives for what Bush did in those respects or give progressivism credit for the boom during the Clinton years (which I think was much more about a one-time productivity explosion from the internet and not from any particular policies being implemented by either party).

Yes, the Republican party has been complicit in many of the expansions of the big government state in the last thirty years. Egalitarianism/progressivism, has become the status quo over the last 30 to 80 years, depending on how you define it. Just note how now you get fired from your job simply for expressing the idea that people ought to have the right to express unpopular, unprogressive ideas in the privacy of your own home. So the Republicans, desiring to stay politically relevant, have moved to the left and are now basically just the more fiscally restrained progressive party.

But if we're going to understand why the world is as it is (and thus make accurate predictions about where it's going) we have to diagnose the cause of the current situation. And the current situation, I think, can be fairly explained as being the result of decades of growth in the power and intrusiveness of government. The left likes to say that the problems were caused by deregulation, but it was big government guarantees like the "Greenspan Put" and the bailouts and TARPs, etc, that allowed big business to run rampant and become irresponsible, while sticking taxpayers and savers with the bill. That was not the result of conservative policies...it was the result of a worldview which said wise and well-intentioned government overlords could manage the economy better than the free market could. And the result was the government growing bigger and being coopted by the big business interests who like having their gambles underwritten by public guarantees.

So yes I understand you get tired of hearing people like me criticize progressives and big government but I think those are at the root of the problem whether it's a nominal "conservative" like Bush or a full-fledged leftie like Obama or Pelosi implementing it. It's still the progressive religion in action.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Beware young people, the Boomers want your BLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can the folks on the so-called right in this country look at any issue without pronouncing it the fault of big gubmint liberals, or at least acknowledging their own complicity in the past 30 or so years of political, economic, and social abdication?

The right has always been selectively non-interventionist (and here I'm not tunneling in on the realm of USA Foreign Policy) and against Central Planning and probably increasingly so. Look at Greenspan, he was a disciple of Rand, but Mark appears to think that his actions as Fed Chairman were guided by a 'Hidden Hand' of the "Disease of Progressivism." Maybe this need to intervene in the lives of others has more to do with human nature itself than the so-called "right" would like to admit, hence we have Mark pathologizing, blaming the actions of conservatives on the "disease of progressivism".

Mark has mentioned several times his desire to control immigration. Is Mark in favor of price controls too? Where does it stop? How to reconcile this with a profession of love (not meant mockingly) for free markets? Again, it must the dreaded "disease of progressivism" at work.

This is the problem with focusing on strict definitions of forms and concepts, the lines become muddied, repeatedly, the left becomes the right, the Muslims become the Jews, the West becomes the East, Eastasia united with Eurasia, etc. We think we understand what's going on and we apply these labels that reinforce the 'understanding'.

[lektrode]

Re: Beware young people, the Boomers want your BLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

....
This is the problem with focusing on strict definitions of forms and concepts, the lines become muddied, repeatedly, the left becomes the right, the Muslims become the Jews, the West becomes the East, Eastasia united with Eurasia, etc. We think we understand what's going on and we apply these labels that reinforce the 'understanding'.

interesting angle here, Slim - altho some accepted/acceptable definition of terms has to be arrived at, or what happens is what we see in the media (and the province of the 'liberal' .edu industrial complex) - with their penchant for the use of politically-correct, 'non-judgemental' euphemisms to redefine what used-to be everyday terminologies (or labels)

dcarrigg got into this awhile back, and i dont have the time at the moment to go looking for the thread

but suffice it to say - that the definition of the term 'liberal' (if not 'progressive') - in my mind - would be those who think they can fix problems in areas such as the financial services 'arena' (using this term to highlight what the beltway has become) - by replacing a 30page document, that worked pretty well for The Rest of US for appx 70years - with whats amounting
to 30 THOUSAND PAGES of incomprehensible-legal-gobbledeegoop -

brought to us by The Party of The Banksters/Lawyers (and... ummmm.... like... uhhh.. along with the 'crafters' of the 'affordable' care act)

and calling it a 'legislative achievement' ? (and just never mind that it 'fixed' non-existent problems like '1year zero-interest promotional terms' on stuff like homedepot charge accts with min pmts and if ya miss em, now you get $35 late fees)

all the while their cheerleaders in the lamestream media focus blame on the 'conservatives' for all the bad stuff, while they ignore anything/everything unflattering to The Agenda

[vt]

Re: Beware young people, the Boomers want your BLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+1

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Beware young people, the Boomers want your BLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but suffice it to say - that the definition of the term 'liberal' (if not 'progressive') - in my mind - would be those who think they can fix problems in areas such as the financial services 'arena' (using this term to highlight what the beltway has become) - by replacing a 30page document, that worked pretty well for The Rest of US for appx 70years - with whats amounting
to 30 THOUSAND PAGES of incomprehensible-legal-gobbledeegoop -

It's a real shame that the term "Progressive" has been corrupted to be associated with the worst aspects of the Democrat party. I had always thought of a Progressive in terms of what Theodore Roosevelt was: a trustbuster and enemy of government corruption.

brought to us by The Party of The Banksters/Lawyers (and... ummmm.... like... uhhh.. along with the 'crafters' of the 'affordable' care act)

I've just finished reading a book that I've been meaning to read for a long time, Martin Mayer's A Nightmare on Wall Street and the book makes it obvious that the Republicans were the original party of the banksters. It wasn't until Bill Clinton's presidency that the Democrats got on-board big-time to become stooges of the banksters so as to get political contributions to help them get elected. Both parties are currently the party of the banksters.

[lektrode]

Re: Beware young people, the Boomers want your BLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thanks for the comeback Mr K

It's a real shame that the term "Progressive" has been corrupted to be associated with the worst aspects of the Democrat party. I had always thought of a Progressive in terms of what Theodore Roosevelt was: a trustbuster and enemy of government corruption.

me too. - apologies - inadvertently mis-applied the historical definition (by throwing it in there) in that sentence

but i guess it was easier in Teddy's day to have a vision/message that resonated with the citizenry in the days before 'mass media' (read: newspapers staffed by REAL journalists) 'evolved' into the main/lame-stream media (aka: the boobtube) that morphed into today's partisan propaganda machine - with elections decided by a generation that gets its 'news' from twittsville, faceboob and the 'comedy' channel - that have put into office and then re-elected The Most Unqualified, Inexperienced and DIVISIVE chief executive (BS artist) in US history.

then having the same lamestream media framing the recent legislative machinations as 'progress'

gets easy to get confused these daze, eh Mr K?

I've just finished reading a book that I've been meaning to read for a long time, Martin Mayer's A Nightmare on Wall Street and the book makes it obvious that the Republicans were the original party of the banksters.

i'd offer that's not surprising - seeing as we know the Big R's are The Party of Big Biz (like 'big oil')
altho seems to me the events in 1913 might suggest otherwise?

i mean, just like in 2009-10, with them in control then of all 3 branches, we got a century of 'unintended consequences'
like the value of the dollar having been trashed, some of the biggest economic wipeouts, lowest labor participation rates - all things the stated intent of the 'big bank' was supposed to prevent - even if all this was caused by CONgress FAILURE - on BOTH SIDES - to come up with honest budgets, esp since 07 - after queen nancy and prince harry took over and started 'passing so they could read' all the stuff that BIG Insurance, BIG Pharma, BIG law/tortbar stuffed into just another BIG .gov nightmare - and called this abortion an 'achievement' (never mind progress) ?

and all of it done without a single Big R vote?

can hardly wait to see (and likely suffer) the unintended consequences of all that

It wasn't until Bill Clinton's presidency that the Democrats got on-board big-time to become stooges of the banksters so as to get political contributions to help them get elected. Both parties are currently the party of the banksters.

wont argue there, Mr K - and am certainly NOT defending the Big R's, but tend to view the Big D's as the more corrupted of the 2, by The BIG Money

would also observe that near everything - and near all of it BAD - thats happened since - can be traced DIRECTLY back to those days of infamy and the denial over the source of a stain on a certain little blue dress.

i also find it quite interesting that its wearer is now back in the limelight - and am guessing that we're now 'supposed to be/feel empathetic' about the people and events of them daZe?

its even more interesting how (most of) the lamestream media flatly refuses to connect the dots on any of it...

and like i've mentioned before - if it was 'big oil' - and the poster child for the Big R's corruption (with apologies to oil guys) that had been the cause of the economy to crater - not once, but TWICE IN 10 YEARS or so ?

we'd have been seeing non-stop
HEADLINES ABOUT IT SINCE 2008

but for some reason, most of em seem to think the only thing that matters is 'critical social/gender-equity issues'
that we see EVERY DAY, IN NEARLY EVERY ('liberal') MEDIA OUTLET - that are being used as a distraction from whats really going on

and thats my beef - sorry for draggin Teddy and The Progressives into it