Quote:

---

This. The correct answer is that ALL prior generations are responsible.

---

I agree.

The "greatest" generation lived through a frustratingly long period of austerity with the Great Depression and World War 2. So afterwards, when the USA had a supercharged economy due to manufacturing stuff to rebuild the rest of the developed world, they spent money like drunken sailors. (No offense intended to my Grandpa who served in the Navy.) Both in terms of consumer goods, and in government programs.

And then the Boomers grew up thinking that this was normal.

My greatest generation Dad did not use his SS on himself or my mother or his kids. He had a pension and my mom had a pension. They didn't need SS. They weren't wealthy. They were practical and didn't waste money. Lived within their means.

They invested those funds and those funds went to their grandkids in equal shares upon my mother's death.

My dad told me to not plan on having SS when I was younger. I planned my retirement accordingly. My wife and I will do the same with our SS as my parents did and pass it on to our grandchildren.

I'll add that the politicians in charge for the past 50 years have not been boomers for the most part. Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell and that generation were in charge. They aren't boomers.

Does that absolve the boomers? No, but it illustrates that generalizations rarely produce truth.

Quote:

---

I'll add that the politicians in charge for the past 50 years have not been boomers for the most part. Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell and that generation were in charge. They aren't boomers.

---

Presidents Bill Clinton (born 1946), George W. Bush (also 1946), Barack Obama (1961), and Donald Trump (1946) are Boomers, and will have held office for a combined 32 years at the end of the current term. (Biden, along with Pelosi and McConnell, are from the preceding Silent Generation.)

Which is where the perception that "the Boomers are in charge" comes from.

Boomers who were teenage hippies and then became liberal democrats who supported all the "Great Society" giveaways absolutely deserve scorn. Don't forget constructive boomers created enormous wealth via the computer revolution. Broad generalizations are not correct. I grew up poor, working since my early teens, and retiring rich.

TRD-Ferguson said:

---

My greatest generation Dad did not use his SS on himself or my mother or his kids. He had a pension and my mom had a pension. They didn't need SS. They weren't wealthy. They were practical and didn't waste money. Lived within their means.

They invested those funds and those funds went to their grandkids in equal shares upon my mother's death.

My dad told me to not plan on having SS when I was younger. I planned my retirement accordingly. My wife and I will do the same with our SS as my parents did and pass it on to our grandchildren.

I'll add that the politicians in charge for the past 50 years have not been boomers for the most part. Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell and that generation were in charge. They aren't boomers.

Does that absolve the boomers? No, but it illustrates that generalizations rarely produce truth.

---

First of all, mad respect at how your dad used his SS to help future generations. My grandparents did the same for their kids.

And like I would say to them if they were still alive, is that, at the end of the day, they still took it, didn't return/refuse it, and still used it to benefit themselves via their family.

Now, are we, the beneficiaries of their decisions, upset at what they did? Of course not, but it's not like they told the government, "No, here, take it back, we'll do without and see where things end up."

Tucker often uses too much hyperbole to articulate his points. Painting ALL boomers as "horrible people" is pretty stupid. Many boomers agree wtih his points.

dmart90 said:

---

Gen Xer here. I was not offered a new Mustang when I turned 16. "Wanna car?" asked my dad. "Get a job,"

I don't remember a single new car in the HS parking lot in 1984, tbh.

We gave my kids used cars when they turned 16 (still no new Mustang). But there sure were a lot of new cars in their HS lot.

---

Preach on it.

Rural Illinois, on an AFB, in the mid-80s, same same.

Senior year back home in SATx, still pretty much the same, with some new cars. 88-89.

Those darned boomers again……..



In 2016 Boomers were just 1/3 of the voting population, and fading fast…..
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/04/03/millennials-approach-baby-boomers-as-largest-generation-in-u-s-electorate/

Yeah. The generational division thing is stupid and destructive. There are conservative constitutionalists among all generations and they need to unite and push this whole enchilada right . Feds need to be cut back to the bone. What good does blaming a generation do for anyone?

If you look back at some of the worst moves ever made tho it wasn't on the boomers watch. Social security, Medicare /Medicaid, welfare state for example all started by pre boomers . I'm not saying the boomer politicians didn't support and grow them tho.

Biggest mistake of all is manufacturing leaving this country. Unions increased labor costs and nutso hippies piled ludicrous "environmental" constraints on industries (very few helped: lead abatement, asbestos abatement, disposal of refuse materials, et al) .

MaroonStain said:

---

Biggest mistake of all is manufacturing leaving this country. Unions increased labor costs and nutso hippies piled ludicrous "environmental" constraints on industries (very few helped: lead abatement, asbestos abatement, disposal of refuse materials, et al) .

---

First hand knowledge here….this was driven by democratic leftist Ivy League consultants ie:McKinsey…reduce headcount, if it's not a core competency of the company outsourced it, find offshore suppliers to reduce costs….over and over again. They were on a mission to destroy the manufacturing backbone of the USA.

This is not a boomer issue, this is a human nature issue.

To be devil's advocate, when Gen X is on the raisin ranch, or about to be on the raisin ranch, do you think they're going to say, "Wow you know what? All these high value assets I've acquired over my life? Let's sell them. Turn that capital into cash that won't appreciate and give that appreciating capital to younger generations just to help them out."

Hell no, they will not do that. Neither will millennials or Gen Z after them. Every generation will come up with some grievance against younger people and also justify their hoarding with trials and tribulations their generations went through.

Think really hard, do you think that when you are older that you will make sacrifices to younger people who you believe didn't go through as tough of "hardships" that your generation went through?

I guess I'd argue otherwise . They were on a mission to gain as much money , power , and influence as possible and this was the mechanism they pushed to do so. I agree that functionally they did gut the nation's
Manufacturing capabilities but I don't necessarily think it was a grand anti-American plan for most of them.

Today's leftists are truly Anti-American imo. There were some hyper radicals back then but they mostly weren't working as business consultants. I feel like most that were pushing offshoring were just numbers focused and selfish rather than Anti-American. Jmo.

Understand what you're saying. My experience is they were BIG democrat donors and lived in blue states/cities while jetting to their clients out in the fly over states. Most likely they were not on a mission to gut US mfg. infrastructure but that was the result. Many great vertically integrated companies never recovered from their manipulation to increase shareholder value in the near term.

rgag12 said:

---

Think really hard, do you think that when you are older that you will make sacrifices to younger people who you believe didn't go through as tough of "hardships" that your generation went through?

---

I agree with your point, and it raises another question... "why should they sell their assets while they're living just to help younger people?"

They worked a lifetime to produce it and have every right to enjoy or "hoard" it as you say, as they wish. For many of them, it brings some comfort that they won't outlive their assets and end up poor and destitute like other elderly people they observed in life.

They will die, just like every human, and that wealth will be passed on to younger generations, just like the same story that's played out over the centuries. They can't take it to their grave with them. All of these statements in the media about how the boomers will benefit from estate tax changes are missing the mark... it's the boomers' descendents who will benefit, not the boomer who's six feet under.

And to the point about not sacrificing for younger people... where does that come from? My parents and theirs before them made huge sacrifices for their kids, just as I have for mine and they will for theirs. That's all done from an abundance of love however, not to satisfy some sense of entitlement from younger people.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'll add that the politicians in charge for the past 50 years have not been boomers for the most part. Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell and that generation were in charge. They aren't boomers.

---

Presidents Bill Clinton (born 1946), George W. Bush (also 1946), Barack Obama (1961), and Donald Trump (1946) are Boomers, and will have held office for a combined 32 years at the end of the current term. (Biden, along with Pelosi and McConnell, are from the preceding Silent Generation.)

Which is where the perception that "the Boomers are in charge" comes from.

---

It amazes me how little people understand about comparing groups.

Comparing apples to oranges:

If you look at X, Y, Z == each group has a15 year span.
Boomers == 20 year span. So, yes, boomers will have a dispropotionate impact. If you divide the baby boom years into a 15 year section, 32 years is no longer close.

Ignoring correlates:

Technology is the multiplier for human impact. The technolgical advances at the during the "great generatation" set the stage for the increased impact of boomers.

Just astechnology in the forms of AI, genetics, and the like will enable X-ers to have a greater impact - both good and bad. For instance, under X-ers we could see AI changing the world by gutting employment, Info-centric police states, and unbridled genetcially enabled plagues. Not to mention the complete destroyal of many first-world nations due to their the refusals of Y/Z to procreate.

BTW, not trying to say boomers are all good, just that the next generations are likely to be as bad or worse.
:-)

It doesn't make any sense. This younger generation is lazy, entitled and just as selfish as anyone else. What exactly did the "Boomers" do that was so bad? Refuse to give you their money? Sell their home at a big loss to be nice? And yall call yourselves conservatives? So effing stupid. There was a lot of terrible policy making from that generation at a government level, but to blame individual people for acting within their best interests and refusing to give all of you food delivery app and fast food financing losers their wealth is about the most ridiculously misplaced anger I've ever seen.

dmart90 said:

---

Gen Xer here. I was not offered a new Mustang when I turned 16. "Wanna car?" asked my dad. "Get a job,"

I don't remember a single new car in the HS parking lot in 1984, tbh.

We gave my kids used cars when they turned 16 (still no new Mustang). But there sure were a lot of new cars in their HS lot.

---

I was talking to a friend of mine today. He says that he knows of a man and woman from India, on H1B visas. Around 30 years old married couple. Both in tech jobs on the East Coast. Husband loved living large, he bought a fancy Tesla car for 80k and another car for 80k. Maxed out credit cards. He was also sending money to his folks in India. Then he lost his job, got angry at the world, fought with his wife. He left to Texas to stay with friends, and then ended up committing suicide by jumping into a river in Texas.

So many people want the high level and spend a lot to show others, post on instagram, flaunt expensive vacations. When sheet hits the ceiling, they take the easy way out.

Over_ed said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'll add that the politicians in charge for the past 50 years have not been boomers for the most part. Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell and that generation were in charge. They aren't boomers.

---

Presidents Bill Clinton (born 1946), George W. Bush (also 1946), Barack Obama (1961), and Donald Trump (1946) are Boomers, and will have held office for a combined 32 years at the end of the current term. (Biden, along with Pelosi and McConnell, are from the preceding Silent Generation.)

Which is where the perception that "the Boomers are in charge" comes from.

---

BTW, not trying to say boomers are all good, just that the next generations are likely to be as bad or worse.
:-)

---

It's a different pattern. The good/bad are in alternate generations. Since the Boomers were so terrible, the next generation Gen X were more responsible since they bore the brunt of bad parenting and did not want to be like their parents. They were stricter and more watchful parents. The next generation (Millennials) did not like the more stricter parenting and vowed to be "friends" with their kids. They are and will be bad parents, more like their grandparents.

Juan Lee Pettimore said:

---

It doesn't make any sense. This younger generation is lazy, entitled and just as selfish as anyone else. What exactly did the "Boomers" do that was so bad? Refuse to give you their money? Sell their home at a big loss to be nice? And yall call yourselves conservatives? So effing stupid. There was a lot of terrible policy making from that generation at a government level, but to blame individual people for acting within their best interests and refusing to give all of you food delivery app and fast food financing losers their wealth is about the most ridiculously misplaced anger I've ever seen.

---

They indulged in short term thinking and sold out the country to make a few bucks. To run a country well, the leaders need to think strategically, something Boomers are incapable of.

They sold out our manufacturing capability from the 70s onward.
They sold out our tech capabilities from the 90s onward and the process is still on.

And to top it off, they have the gall to say "we don't have Americans with the skill-set we need, Americans are lazy and entitled".

On another thread a few days ago you agreed that the generational divisiveness is counterproductive. Short term memory issues?

Helicopter Ben said:

---

TRD-Ferguson said:

---

This is how you divide a nation. Create divides within the populace based on anything and everything. Just create the divide. Destroy unity.

Pretty soon too many people see the "enemy" as their neighbor, their coworkers, their classmates rather than the real enemy who is stoking the divisions. Mission accomplished.

It's sad to see so many of you fall into the trap.

---

This. The correct answer is that ALL prior generations are responsible. Everyone wants the govt to do their bidding and nobody wants to take a haircut. My dad (boomer) said it when he laughs that I'm screwed and will never get SS…but when asked if he would end it he says, no he's paid into it his whole life. So he admits it's screwing over his children and his grandchildren but in his mind he's owed by people who weren't even alive when those decisions were made. Somebody is going to have to pay for the decades of can-kicking. Whenever we catch up to the can, whichever generation is in control at the time just gives it another kick.

At some point this game will end by economic reality. What scares me most is that this scenario could be the perfect opportunity for radical left wing ideas. I read that something like 65% of ages 18-29 have a favorable or better view of socialism. An economic crisis with the new demographic changes and their ideological proclivities all but assures that we'll give socialism a try. I sure hope I'm wrong…

---

Charlie Kirk mentions this in the podcast with Tucker. It's a difficult economic situation for 18-35 year olds. People in their 20's coming out of college with student loans and no job prospects, inflated prices, first time home buyers average out to be 39 years old, people are using BNPL for everyday purchases, etc. I have three 20 something children and they all talk about how hard it is to buy a house, afford basic necessities (car, insurance, etc), get a "real" job, or are concerned their major they picked with be replaced with AI. My oldest lived at home for 4 years after graduation to save money and he just bought a house. This is something I didn't have to do or think about (stay at home after graduation out of economic necessity, etc).

All it would take is a charasitmatic Socialist to capture this angst to become elected by people under 40 (and eventually under 50) and subscribe to "we need a wealth tax, 90% income tax rate, and asset forfeiture from the rich" - which we all know rich can mean you make more than $150K. Don't think the socialists wouldn't seize your retirement either. We need to address the economic issues Millennials and Gen Z are facing. If you have children I'm sure you have thought about it. It's also about the current children in school. It's time to say college may not be what is best for you. It's no longer a class dividing line like it was pre 2000. Time to put trade centers in high schools, etc.

If you have time to listen to the entire podcast it's a good conversation.

Excellent point. We shouldn't ignore the economic hardships of younger adults but the stats do indicate they are doing as well or better than previous generations. I'm not saying there aren't issues aplenty tho. First step… get the feds out of our lives. Cut it to the bone. The benefits will take care of the economic woes and then some.

The socialist solution you fear will become popular , and rightfully so, will do the opposite. More government … more misery.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

All of these statements in the media about how the boomers will benefit from estate tax changes are missing the mark... it's the boomers' descendents who will benefit, not the boomer who's six feet under.

---

It has to be a pretty small percentage of folks with boomer parents that need to worry about estate taxes - at least as currently on the books. There is no federal estate tax until you get to $14 million estate. That's for an individual. If you planned properly, a married couple you can exclude $28 million. Boomers may have a fair amount of wealth, but very few are that wealthy.

State taxes may be a different story, but typically a much smaller tax rate. And a few states also have an inheritance tax.

Holy crap…12 minutes of whining and complaining. Yawn.

Nothing lowers the IQ of this board more than generational blamestorming.

It's more Marxism. Divide and conquer. If they can drive a wedge by class, they do it. If they can drive a wedge by race, they do it. Now they've been able to drive a wedge by arbitrary generational categories.

The average baby boomer lived in the society they were given and had little to no control over policy.

Don't broad brush too many people. Also, respect your elders.

Aggie Spirit said:

---

Nothing lowers the IQ of this board more than generational blamestorming.

---

Amen. And the best place to end it, imo.

infinity ag said:

---

Juan Lee Pettimore said:

---

It doesn't make any sense. This younger generation is lazy, entitled and just as selfish as anyone else. What exactly did the "Boomers" do that was so bad? Refuse to give you their money? Sell their home at a big loss to be nice? And yall call yourselves conservatives? So effing stupid. There was a lot of terrible policy making from that generation at a government level, but to blame individual people for acting within their best interests and refusing to give all of you food delivery app and fast food financing losers their wealth is about the most ridiculously misplaced anger I've ever seen.

---

They indulged in short term thinking and sold out the country to make a few bucks. To run a country well, the leaders need to think strategically, something Boomers are incapable of.

They sold out our manufacturing capability from the 70s onward.
They sold out our tech capabilities from the 90s onward and the process is still on.

And to top it off, they have the gall to say "we don't have Americans with the skill-set we need, Americans are lazy and entitled".

---

Also, the early Boomers led the sexual revolution that convinced the country that "children are a burden", which caused long-term distortion to the age demographics of the country. Creating the situation where the now-elderly Boomers have given themselves a huge advantage in terms of population and wealth, which is what causes the generational resentment among still-working people.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Think really hard, do you think that when you are older that you will make sacrifices to younger people who you believe didn't go through as tough of "hardships" that your generation went through?

---

I agree with your point, and it raises another question... "why should they sell their assets while they're living just to help younger people?"

They worked a lifetime to produce it and have every right to enjoy or "hoard" it as you say, as they wish. For many of them, it brings some comfort that they won't outlive their assets and end up poor and destitute like other elderly people they observed in life.

They will die, just like every human, and that wealth will be passed on to younger generations, just like the same story that's played out over the centuries. They can't take it to their grave with them. All of these statements in the media about how the boomers will benefit from estate tax changes are missing the mark... it's the boomers' descendents who will benefit, not the boomer who's six feet under.

And to the point about not sacrificing for younger people... where does that come from? My parents and theirs before them made huge sacrifices for their kids, just as I have for mine and they will for theirs. That's all done from an abundance of love however, not to satisfy some sense of entitlement from younger people.

---

Not arguing the merits of what you're saying here - many did work very hard to achieve what they have - but it's also true that people born into the silent and boomer generations rode the wave of post-WWII economic prosperity to greater heights than has been possible for generations since.

The divergence in real wages and inflated values in assets over the last 40 years has largely been to the benefit of Silent and Boomers, and to the detriment of X'ers and Millennials.

Fitch said:

---

Not arguing the merits of what you're saying here - many did work very hard to achieve what they have - but it's also true that people born into the silent and boomer generations rode the wave of post-WWII economic prosperity to greater heights than has been possible for generations since.

The divergence in real wages and inflated values in assets over the last 40 years has largely been to the benefit of Silent and Boomers, and to the detriment of X'ers and Millennials.

---

That is a very deep and broad discussion that can't be condensed into a sound bite. There are absolutely things that have benefited the older generations, as well as things that give the younger folks an advantage.

Example: 401ks and Roth IRAs -- the younger generation has a much bigger opportunity to accumulate wealth in tax-advantaged investments than the older folks, who either didn't have access to it at all or only a portion of the income-producing years.

Another example would be technology. There are so many incredible benefits of the huge leaps we've seen in technology in the last 25 years -- and what's still to come -- that it will benefit the younger generation more than the older ones.

Yet another one is medical advancements. Younger people today will have more options to avoid or manage health issues than their elders, including much better chances at defeating cancer and other serious diseases.

We could go down a long list , and we would find many things that benefitted generations differently.

It just seems like such a stupid and non-productive exercise. Those who focus on how they're getting screwed while somebody else got a "lucky" benefit are probably going to retain a victim mentality throughout. life.

Juan Lee Pettimore said:

---

It doesn't make any sense. This younger generation is lazy, entitled and just as selfish as anyone else. What exactly did the "Boomers" do that was so bad? Refuse to give you their money? Sell their home at a big loss to be nice? And yall call yourselves conservatives? So effing stupid. There was a lot of terrible policy making from that generation at a government level, but to blame individual people for acting within their best interests and refusing to give all of you food delivery app and fast food financing losers their wealth is about the most ridiculously misplaced anger I've ever seen.

---

The younger generation is mad that the older generation supported themselves and won't give the younger generation any of their money.

Boomers and Millennials are both self-centered crybaby snowflake btchs. We're surrounded on all sides.

-Gen X

Fitch said:

---

The divergence in real wages and inflated values in assets over the last 40 years has largely been to the benefit of Silent and Boomers, and to the detriment of X'ers and Millennials.

---

One more thing... those inflated assets will pass on to the younger generation when the old folks die. They can't take it to their grave. Having a house that's worth a bunch of money doesn't do much for you from a cash perspective. You can't eat it, and it won't pay your bills for you. In fact, it can force you out of your house if you can't swing the property tax and insurance bills which increase as asset values increase. Not everything that appears to be greener on the other side of the fence is what it seems.