The Irresponsible Generation

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>A person has a savings account for their retirement.

Not relevant in this case, since we aren't talking about IRAs.

>They "borrow" from the savings.

Who?

You and I don't have the option to borrow from social security.

Actually, if you want to push this analogy of social security to a
retirement savings account, the correct analysis is that you saved the
money, and the bank lent the money out in bad loans that weren't
repaid (kinda like the savings and loan crisis of the Reagan years, or
the current subprime mortgage problem). The difference is that the
"bank" in this case has no choice under the law EXCEPT to make bad
loans, and you don't have the option to move your account.

Of course social security wasn't ever a savings account. A whole life
insurance policy would be closer.

>Later, they had no money to retire on...whose fault is it...their kids?

The people who made the laws - social security was created the way it
is back in the 1930s, long before the Boomers were born. And then
social security benefits were massively expanded (without sufficient
change on the income side of the balance sheet) at the instigation of
one Richard Milhous Nixon, while I was still in college (I actually
was barely old enough to vote by then, but >I< certainly didn't vote
for Nixon.

Now one could argue that we've had more than 30 years to fix the
problem, but in point of fact, Congress and the President have been
from the generation *before* the baby boom, until the current turkey.
And large as it is, the Baby Boom has never been and will never be a
majority of the electorate, so it isn't even legit to blame any single
generation for not doing something about social security. Even today,
the main reason social security isn't getting reformed is that the
pre-boomers who are close to retirement or actually retired have too
much voting power to allow us to elect people willing to cut benefits
as part of the solution.

Of course, brats like you who like to blame others rather than taking
your own share of the responsibility are also partly to blame. You are
as responsible for fixing social security as I am, and you should be
more concerned, since given most projections, I would have to survive
until age 90 before social security runs out of money.

You wanna claim someone is irresponsible. "Let he who is without sin
cast the first stone".

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Feminazi Cuntkins <jaezaebael.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:39:32 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
><lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>> And more babies does not in fact lead to
>>evolutionary success. If it did, then the Quebecois French Catholics
>>would be running Canada today.
>
>I don't entirely agree with your example, but it's relevant to the
>point in a slightly related manner. A couple of generations ago the
>Quebecois were the most religious and socially conservative population
>on the continent, living in relative social and cultural isolation
>with plenty plenty opportunity to marry, live and raise large families
>within their group, which they did.
>
>They are now the least socially conservative and religious cultural
>group on the continent, with one of the lowest birth rates.

I defer to your expertise %^)

Of course, I've been primarily studying the family patterns of the
French Catholic Quebecois in the period up until the failed revolution
of 1837, and to a lesser extent up until around 1900 by which time
most of my relatives' ancestors had hied off to the US. I don't claim
to know much about how things changed after that point, but I remain
quite impressed with my aunt's ancestor's cousin who had 27 kids by 3
wives in the late 1700s and early 1800s, thereby ensuring that his
surname wouldn't disappear too quickly.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 28, 10:41 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote:
>> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I recall Hillary touting abortion as a means to control the
>> >"population explosion"
>>
>> Cite please.
>>
>> >and liberals saying we are having too many kids.
>>
>> We are.
>>
>> >Did they change their minds, now that they need more tax payers?
>>
>> We don't.
>>
>> lojbab
>
>Are you really going to tell me that the phrase "population explosion"
>as a problem came from conservatives?

No. And how does anything I wrote above tell you anything like that?
Where did I even MENTION conservatives.

And where's the cite for your claim about Hillary?

And your answers to cary's questions?

Are you going to stop asking silly questions and maybe answer a few?

Or are you going to continue to make it easy for us to show you as the
fool that you are?

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

On Nov 29, 11:35 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj....DeleteThis@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >Later, they had no money to retire on...whose fault is it...their kids?
>
> The people who made the laws - social security was created the way it
> is back in the 1930s, long before the Boomers were born.

Ahhh, so none of the current Republicans can be to blame.

>
> Of course, brats like you who like to blame others rather than taking
> your own share of the responsibility are also partly to blame. You are
> as responsible for fixing social security as I am, and you should be
> more concerned, since given most projections, I would have to survive
> until age 90 before social security runs out of money.
>
> You wanna claim someone is irresponsible. "Let he who is without sin
> cast the first stone".
>
> lojbab

I thought you said it was the Baby Boomer's parents that were to
blame. Now, you add their children as well. You're right, Bob.
EVERYONE is to blame except YOUR generation who will be taxing their
kids to pay for their negligence.

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

On Nov 29, 1:03 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 28, 10:53 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
> >> >> That the tax rate needs to be higher in order to maintain the
> >> >> government services that "we the people" want is patently obvious to
> >> >> anyone but a "tax cut and spend" Republican. The irresponsibility is
> >> >> to cut taxes anyway. And the whole generation is not to be held
> >> >> responsible for the idiocy of people like YOU.
>
> >> >The Social Security system was known to be deficient before Reagan
> >> >came to power, but that is irrelevant, since I said BOTH parties of
> >> >this generation failed their kids and neither did anything to fix it.
> >> >Further, since they knew it was coming, why didn't the Irresponsible
> >> >Generation save money up in a saving account or investments for their
> >> >expenses.
>
> >> Why should they?
>
> >> >You can keep spinning this all you want, but..in the end...it used to
> >> >be that parents saved up an inheritance for their kids,
>
> >> Myth. SOME parents did, and some still do. But far more often than
> >> today, parents died before the kids reached adulthood, parents had so
> >> many kids that their inheritance was split so many ways that it wasn't
> >> worth much, and most of the time the savings lost ground against
> >> inflation because it wasn't invested in anything that would gain in
> >> value. And since there was no social security, when the parents lived
> >> into old age, they drained their savings down to zippo rapidly,
> >> whereupon the kids had to support them.
>
> >You DO understand that AVERAGE life span is an AVERAGE...right,
> >factoring in all the children and others that died from disease?
>
> Duh.
>
> You did see the word "SOME" that I used in that paragraph, and even
> capitalized, didn't you?

DUH. What's your point, then, considering that SOME individuals die
at any age of the lifespan?

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 28, 10:53 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote:
>> >> That the tax rate needs to be higher in order to maintain the
>> >> government services that "we the people" want is patently obvious to
>> >> anyone but a "tax cut and spend" Republican. The irresponsibility is
>> >> to cut taxes anyway. And the whole generation is not to be held
>> >> responsible for the idiocy of people like YOU.
>>
>> >The Social Security system was known to be deficient before Reagan
>> >came to power, but that is irrelevant, since I said BOTH parties of
>> >this generation failed their kids and neither did anything to fix it.
>> >Further, since they knew it was coming, why didn't the Irresponsible
>> >Generation save money up in a saving account or investments for their
>> >expenses.
>>
>> Why should they?
>>
>> >You can keep spinning this all you want, but..in the end...it used to
>> >be that parents saved up an inheritance for their kids,
>>
>> Myth. SOME parents did, and some still do. But far more often than
>> today, parents died before the kids reached adulthood, parents had so
>> many kids that their inheritance was split so many ways that it wasn't
>> worth much, and most of the time the savings lost ground against
>> inflation because it wasn't invested in anything that would gain in
>> value. And since there was no social security, when the parents lived
>> into old age, they drained their savings down to zippo rapidly,
>> whereupon the kids had to support them.
>
>You DO understand that AVERAGE life span is an AVERAGE...right,
>factoring in all the children and others that died from disease?

Duh.

You did see the word "SOME" that I used in that paragraph, and even
capitalized, didn't you?

>My Great-great-great-great grandfather, for example, lived to be 92. His
>son lived to 86. Both left an inheritance.

Is that why you are a good-for-nothing? Handed your life on a silver
platter, so you squander it in self-indulgence like attending
Brainwash University, and Internet-based vanity press publication?

Were they "fruitful and multiplied" like my grandfather who had 12
kids, most of whom grew up during the Depression?

http://www.newyorklife.com/cda/0,3254,13385,00.html
<This emerging picture is confirmed by an AARP study, "Baby Boomers
< Envision their Retirement, An AARP Segmentation Analysis," which
< found that, "Most boomers will receive a small inheritance, if they
< get anything at all. As of 2001, only about 17 percent of boomers had
< received any inheritance(updated material not available). Those that
< did receive money didn't get much, AARP says. The median inheritance
< was $47,909."

which is fine for the 17%, not that $48,000 will go very far these
days. The other 83% didn't get an inheritance.

And yet this is somewhat more than the prior generation (same source):
<Gokhale and Kotlikoff conclude their report by stating: Boomer parents
< in 1962 received bequests equal to 3 percent of their labor income,
< while boomers who inherited in 1997 got amounts equal to 3.7 percent
< of their pay.

For earlier generations of course, if they did get an inheritance it
was usually in the form of land, often land that they had been given
by the largesse of the government through the Homestead Act. And
people on the farm seldom retired - or they wouldn't have had a farm
to inherit. Many of the census forms I've analyzed for my
genealogical work show a few 80+ year olds, almost all of whom listed
themselves as "farmers" not "living on own income" which was the
phrase used for being retired in those days. The ones who weren't
working were almost invariably living with (off) younger relatives.

Indeed - that 92 year old who was responsible for inflicting you upon
us - did he retire? Or did he leave an inheritance only because his
kids supported him in his dotage?

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:14:09 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:

>Feminazi Cuntkins <jaezaebael DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A couple of generations ago the
>>Quebecois were the most religious and socially conservative population
>>on the continent,
>>
>>They are now the least socially conservative and religious cultural
>>group on the continent, with one of the lowest birth rates.
>
>I defer to your expertise %^)
>
>Of course, I've been primarily studying the family patterns of the
>French Catholic Quebecois in the period up until the failed revolution
>of 1837,

And I'm referring to the situation immediately before and after the
very successful revolution - the Quiet one of the 1960s.

FNC, tout tranquille
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

In article <pngsk35qo754itmrk8cfmf7019r2gdkf2j RemoveThis @4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab RemoveThis @lojban.org> writes:
> cary RemoveThis @afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> >But that's not the feeling I'm getting from the Usenet posts
> >and the articles I had in mind. In these there seems to be an underlying
> >feeling that it's just plain WRONG to choose not to have children,
> >or even to choose to have only one or two. There's rather a
> >lot of consternation out there arising from the fact that
> >the mirage of the 50s-style nuclear family is no longer
> >the automatic default option, and I suspect that this
> >might be related to that.
>
> And yet the Scandinavians seem to be happy.
>

Yeah, but they're <shudder> SOCIALISTS, so they're
already damned.


-- cary
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Bob LeChevalier <lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org>
> Newsgroups: alt.education,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.elections,alt.religion.christian
> Subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 31
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.192.234.183
> X-Complaints-To: admin.TakeThisOut@cox.net
> X-Trace: newsfe19.lga 1196360050 72.192.234.183 (Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:14:10 MST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:14:10 MST
> Organization: Cox
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:14:09 -0500
> Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.education:99289 alt.politics.usa.congress:97654 alt.politics.elections:84985 alt.religion.christian:535465
>
> Feminazi Cuntkins <jaezaebael.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:39:32 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
> ><lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
> >
> >> And more babies does not in fact lead to
> >>evolutionary success. If it did, then the Quebecois French Catholics
> >>would be running Canada today.
> >
> >I don't entirely agree with your example, but it's relevant to the
> >point in a slightly related manner. A couple of generations ago the
> >Quebecois were the most religious and socially conservative population
> >on the continent, living in relative social and cultural isolation
> >with plenty plenty opportunity to marry, live and raise large families
> >within their group, which they did.
> >
> >They are now the least socially conservative and religious cultural
> >group on the continent, with one of the lowest birth rates.
>
> I defer to your expertise %^)
>
> Of course, I've been primarily studying the family patterns of the
> French Catholic Quebecois in the period up until the failed revolution
> of 1837, and to a lesser extent up until around 1900 by which time
> most of my relatives' ancestors had hied off to the US. I don't claim
> to know much about how things changed after that point, but I remain
> quite impressed with my aunt's ancestor's cousin who had 27 kids by 3
> wives in the late 1700s and early 1800s, thereby ensuring that his
> surname wouldn't disappear too quickly.
>
> lojbab

Oh, dear, you're one of THEM? (no, ken, I/he/we could not make
stuff like this up). So, do you follow Quebec politics? It's
more entertaining than Louisiana.


-- cary
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 29, 11:35 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj....DeleteThis@lojban.org> wrote:
>> >Later, they had no money to retire on...whose fault is it...their kids?
>>
>> The people who made the laws - social security was created the way it
>> is back in the 1930s, long before the Boomers were born.
>
>Ahhh, so none of the current Republicans can be to blame.

For what?


The Reagan and Bush administrations are to blame for creating
monstrous deficits through "tax cut and spend", thereby not only
reducing the flexibility in solving problems. They are also to blame
for racheting up the level of rabid ideological partisanship to the
point where little cooperation is possible to get things done. That
this is causing some noted Republican leaders to decide that the game
is no longer any fun, now that they aren't on top, such as Trent Lott,
is surely justice.

>> You wanna claim someone is irresponsible. "Let he who is without sin
>> cast the first stone".
>
>I thought

No you didn't. You never think.

>you said it was the Baby Boomer's parents that were to blame.

Nope. Read the above:
"The people who made the laws - social security was created the way it
is back in the 1930s, long before the Boomers were born."

My parents, who were "parents of a Baby Boomer" had nothing to do with
creation of Social Security; They weren't yet a teenager. My
grandparents nominally had a vote, but in fact Social Security was not
a big issue in the elections of the time, and they probably did not
have sufficient education to understand the issue even if it had been
brought to the public. And *their* parents were neither citizens nor
alive at that point (hmm, maybe one of my great grandparents was still
alive, but barely - I'd have to check exact dates - and I don't know
if she ever was naturalized).

>Now, you add their children as well.

I don't "add anyone". I don't really care who is "to blame" for
problems. I care about the idiots who are making it difficult to
solve the problem.

>You're right, Bob.
>EVERYONE is to blame except YOUR generation who will be taxing their
>kids to pay for their negligence.

I won't be taxing anyone to pay for anything. Nor will "my
generation". Generally the US and state and local governments do the
taxing, and the word "generation" does not apply to governments.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> No I don't. Kids don't remain kids forever. And adolescence is a
>> period when many kids go to the opposite extreme and believe the exact
>> opposite of whatever their parents believe.
>
>So, we should not fear teaching religion to adolescent children, since
>they reject what adults tell them.

I don't "fear teaching religion" to anyone.

The constitution is opposed to involving the government in doing so.

I support the constitution.

I don't want YOU teaching *anything* to kids, and it has nothing to do
with religion. It has to do with you being a brainwashed idiot.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

In article <c4f162a2-031a-416c-9559-fe9a4275b511 DeleteThis @d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken DeleteThis @yahoo.com> writes:
> On Nov 29, 12:21 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
> > Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Nov 28, 10:41 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
> > >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> >I recall Hillary touting abortion as a means to control the
> > >> >"population explosion"
> >
> > >> Cite please.
> >
> > >> >and liberals saying we are having too many kids.
> >
> > >> We are.
> >
> > >> >Did they change their minds, now that they need more tax payers?
> >
> > >> We don't.
> >
> > >> lojbab
> >
> > >Are you really going to tell me that the phrase "population explosion"
> > >as a problem came from conservatives?
> >
> > No. And how does anything I wrote above tell you anything like that?
> > Where did I even MENTION conservatives.
> >
> > And where's the cite for your claim about Hillary?
>

> Ahh, so Hillary's not a liberal or doesn't hold to the population
> explosion idea? But, let's skip Hillary.


No, let's not skip Hillary. You made a claim regarding something
you remember Hillary having said (as you often make claims
about what various posters here are saying) so let's see you
provide some proof:














-- cary

LIBERALS said we needed
> abortion and birth control due to a population explosion problem.
> Now...when they need tax payers..it's suddenly a population decline?
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

cary RemoveThis @afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>> Of course, I've been primarily studying the family patterns of the
>> French Catholic Quebecois in the period up until the failed revolution
>> of 1837, and to a lesser extent up until around 1900 by which time
>> most of my relatives' ancestors had hied off to the US. I don't claim
>> to know much about how things changed after that point, but I remain
>> quite impressed with my aunt's ancestor's cousin who had 27 kids by 3
>> wives in the late 1700s and early 1800s, thereby ensuring that his
>> surname wouldn't disappear too quickly.
>
>Oh, dear, you're one of THEM?

Nope. I have several cousins who are descended from THEM, however -
one aunt, one great uncle, and the husband of one first cousin
strangely happen to have heavily intertwining family trees that go
back to the earliest days of Quebec (and none of them knew that they
were related to each other, I am sure).

>So, do you follow Quebec politics?

I'm clueless about Quebec politics. Too 21st century, when my mind is
generally stuck back in a certain village in 17th century Normandie
most of the time these days. Now those folks were MY ancestors, and
damned near everyone in the parish seems to have been a cousin, since
my ancestors lived in that one parish for at least 200 years.

(And I don't know much about French politics either, though I suspect
it is entertaining as well. I don't even understand the lingo without
Babelfish getting involved.)

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation