Probably true, but the boomers are a "numbers" force that is difficult to contend with. I might be off, but I remember 1948 as being the "mean" of the boomer populus...so 64 going on 65. It's also a heckuva lot of consumer-ism going the way of the dodo bird. Bullet Ben and QE can only take up the slack for so long.
From the point of view of a speck of dust cast off from a mouse turd, I'd say that's correct. Thanks for giving us your unique perspective. Now it's time to to change your Depends.
You still haven't addressed the many comments about you casting a vote to continue growing the entitlement society despite all these pretty words you've given us in this thread. Without an explanation, I find it difficult to take you seriously.
Arnie Registered: Feb 2003 Posts: 3778 11-07-08 09:27 AM Can a tax on "wealth" be far behind. After all, that's all the death tax is. Why let a little thing like being alive stand in the way of the government getting what is rightfully theirs?
the left would absolutely love it, thankfully republicans have enough power to block it for now. Will be revisited in about 10 years.
I don't feel that I voted to continue the growth of the entitlement society. Saying such things I believe is the mindless channelling of your right wing propaganda masters. I voted Obama because he was the better alternative. And I am in the majority on that viewpoint. I felt Romney would have been an unmitigated disaster for the country. One could better argue that your vote was a vote to return to the failed policies of the Bush years. After all, Romney wanted to double down on tax cuts, spoke nothing of entitlement reform, and sought to grow the defense budget even further AND double down on military intervention in the Middle east and Afghanistan. Only in his last debate did he read the cue card and state we can't kill our way out of everything. The republicans NEVER made a PEEP about the deficit until they lost the congress and the white house. When they have their greedy thumbs on the purse strings, debt and "deficits don't matter". So get the fuck off your high horse. But suppose I grant as valid your opinion that I am not earnest or to be taken seriously because you felt I voted the wrong way. What's your point? Is your purpose here just to speak to the choir or is it to try to convert others to your point of view? Or do you just want to spin wheels and have mindless spats with your imagined political enemies? Or is it to work out your existential crisis? Chop Chop!
Wow, I feel like I'm reading a Chris Matthews rant! You say Romney wanted to double down on tax cuts...I guess you're unaware that he was intent on closing loopholes and limiting deductions from the richest brackets, thereby raising their taxes in the progress. As for entitlements, he did speak of reform, though admittedly did not provide real specifics. Obama didn't even try to go down that route. As for the defense budget, he didn't want to cut it. But he was adamantly against big government. A vote for Obama was a vote for more of the same. You can justify it any way you want. As for the republicans, especially during the Bush years, they haven't been the stewards of fiscal sustainability at all - well, most of them. I am a Ron Paul man, but I had hoped Romney would have followed with a more comprehensive plan to solving the debt. Obama wasn't even pretending he was going to. But your words are wind here. They mean nothing in the scope of this thread. Say all the nice things about reducing entitlements, and vote against everything you say. You are not my imagined political enemy, sir. You are the political enemy. You and all who cast a vote for more of the same. What's worse in your case, however, is you pretend to be otherwise. And applauding yourself to be in the majority with the rest of the sheep isn't quite the accolade you think it is.