U.S. Politics: Who's Cohen Down?

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

I think many of the wrongs attributed to Boomers were more a result of volume than quality...ie, when they were kids we had the ‘cult of the child’ era, when they became adults kids were kicked to the side (almost literally) and we moved on to the ‘cult of the adult’ era, etc. And much of that largely happens however they behave, simply because societies are going to cater to that large of a demographic. 

That said, there are specific ways in which you can read pretty clear selfishness into the whole when you explore it in person to person generalitional treatment. Maybe it’s a result of being catered to so much, of having their values become THE values in ways no generation before or arguably since witnessed. But just in terms of things like time devoted to parenting, material support for child education, and other actual person-to-person choices made by individuals, the B.B. generally got the most and gave back the least. When you can say that as a general rule the Greatest Generation put far more time into the Baby Boomers than the Baby Boomers put into...is it X?...amyways, their children, I think we can safely call that trend selfishness.

Now, it isn’t in isolation. A lot of it is because of the explosion of divorce rates, the huge surge in working women, and therefore the massive decrease in time available for children, but it’s worth noting that progress isn’t isolated either, and things like the huge upsurge in divorce rates can be viewed as the result of, right or wrong, a generation much more aware of their own personal wants/needs than of those that came before them, and concurrently less concerned for the immediate effect on their children. Everything is double edged, and the B.B. arguably made decisions with the big picture in mind, ie even if my kids get less of me, they will grow up with greater freedom because of what i’m doing. And there is something to that.

But...there are troubling illustrations that it was often more banal and just ‘I got/want mine’. Funding for child related programs was statistically the most slashed at exactly the same time that children were being left on their own more. The educational tack in response to the HIV virus was a very low-cost (time and resource wise) top-down Sex Will Kill You! directive which directly conflicted with the BB’s own view on their own sexuality/identity when they were coming of age. The drug argument was equally streamlined for cost-effectiveness, and Just Say No often came accompanied with no broader examination or at best an economic ‘we dud it, thus know better’ captioned wisdom.

BB children were burdeneded with WAAAAY more educational debt than they themselves endured because BB’ers simultaneously uncut/underfunded education while as hirers demanding degrees at a much higher degree than had been asked of them. And while actually putting their kids on the horns of this dilemma they themselves created/never faced, pretty much all polling from the time shows that BBers rationalized all of this by labelling their children as lazy, unmotivated slackers. This generational negative stereotype ironically precedes the modern view of B.B.ers as selfish by several decades. And it’s also the generation that, w/e it’s roots, when sitting in the driver’s seat politically/financially went to the Church of Reagan/Thatcher Greed is Good/Tough Love. (I know they weren’t alone, but their shift was the significant one).

There’s a lot that smacks of ego-centricity and general lack of care for what followed. It might simply be that BBers were the ‘spoiled child’ generation. Their parents saw war and Holocaust and nuclear bombs and so both made and prioritized children to a previously unknown degree. Those children grew in a time of plenty, and were largely unburdened with debt, and so had/took the time to explore individualism and their own wants/rights/freedoms in ways that had never been done before, and ‘opened up’ society. But, in so doing they went to the opposite extreme with their children, and it could be argued that they took for granted that the advantages they had enjoyed would be equally enjoyed by their children without realizing that their differing priorities from their parents would lead to much different situations for their children. They could cut educational spending because, well, it hadn’t really been a problem for them. Etc. It’s not malicious, it’s just...spoiled. 

And so when faced with their children’s ‘pessimism’ re: their relative prospects...ie, the first generation in a long time who could expect to be less relatively affluent than the one before it...the BB’ers threw up their hands and said ‘slackers’, which from what I can tell is hippies without hope. With cause. 

Everything above is bs, including labeling Reagan as a boomer -- and boomers did not vote him in either.

With all the boomer families supporting three generations, to call them lazy and selfish is the most nasty, mean lie ever.  All those cuts to education got rolling with old school, previous generation Republicans, just to start with.  The Tea Party wasn't boomers.  The Silent Majority wasn't boomers either.

If one desires to talk about spoiled generations who have been catered to and helicoptered by their parents from conception, I think there are successive generations that got even more than that than boomers.  That is certainly judging by the kids and teens and parents with whom I've been in contact these last ten days.  Holy cow!  Dinner at friend's house, for one instance, was serially postponed as parents created three different meals for the kid, who what he requested was presented, didn't want it and wanted something else. While the boomers present, exchanged bewildered whispers about what their parents would have done to them if they'd behaved that way when 13.  So, just puleeeeeeeeeze, get over yourself.

 

[DMC]

23 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The Tea Party wasn't boomers.

The Tea Party most certainly were/are boomers.  In 2012, about half of Tea Partiers were from the ages 45 to 65, which tracks fairly closely to the boomer cohort.  The Tea Party is primarily older well-off white males, and while it is true older generations are disproportionately likely to be Tea Partiers, so too are boomers.

[Guy Kilmore]

52 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The Tea Party most certainly were/are boomers.  In 2012, about half of Tea Partiers were from the ages 45 to 65, which tracks fairly closely to the boomer cohort.  The Tea Party is primarily older well-off white males, and while it is true older generations are disproportionately likely to be Tea Partiers, so too are boomers.

Just a quick search on my phone, because if my memory is correct they also voted Regean

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

Just a quick search on my phone, because if my memory is correct they also voted Regean

Well, actually the only age demo not to vote solidly for Reagan the first time were those under 30 (albeit even then, it was about a 44-44 split, which isn't that great for young voters supporting the Democrat).  In fact, everyone over 30 voted remarkably similar in 1980.  In 1984, pretty much everybody voted for Reagan.  So, overall, no, blaming boomers for Reagan is silly, but they didn't use their considerable demo power to counteract his support either.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Everything above is bs, including labeling Reagan as a boomer -- and boomers did not vote him in either.

With all the boomer families supporting three generations, to call them lazy and selfish is the most nasty, mean lie ever.  All those cuts to education got rolling with old school, previous generation Republicans, just to start with.  The Tea Party wasn't boomers.  The Silent Majority wasn't boomers either.

If one desires to talk about spoiled generations who have been catered to and helicoptered by their parents from conception, I think there are successive generations that got even more than that than boomers.  That is certainly judging by the kids and teens and parents with whom I've been in contact these last ten days.  Holy cow!  Dinner at friend's house, for one instance, was serially postponed as parents created three different meals for the kid, who what he requested was presented, didn't want it and wanted something else. While the boomers present, exchanged bewildered whispers about what their parents would have done to them if they'd behaved that way when 13.  So, just puleeeeeeeeeze, get over yourself.

 

Wow, a field of straw men.

1) I did not say Reagan was a boomer. I specifically said that Boomers supported him, and that their left-right shift was significant for him. It’s been a while, but I think he was mid 50’s support from B.B. 

2) I did not call Boomers lazy. The only time I used the term lazy was with reference to Boomers’ labelling of the next generation as such. 

3) I don’t understand what you mean with regards to ‘supporting three generations’ as exceptional for the median generational norm, or as distinct from volume as cited. Certainly not as proportional.

4) The educational cuts may well have begun with the GG, I don’t know. I know that the BB’s cuts were far and away the greatest, and resulted in the largest disparity between funded/funding. Incidentally, at the same time as educational/children programs were being slashed, pensions and investments in the BB’s burdens/futures were getting historically inflated. But, not selfish, mean lie.

5) Not sure what the Tea Party has to do with my point, and i’m reluctant to go down this sideline, but i’m pretty sure they are very well represented by BB’s.

6) One May desire to have such a discussion, but I don’t think anecdotes makes for fruitful ground. The B.B. were in fact the last generation to see a rise in material support/wealth. Their children were ~ 15% less likely to own a home, saw a 100% increase in mortgage debt at the same age, and a staggering 10 times (!!!!) the student debt as their parents. 

7) I will try to get over myself. It does feel to me like you are the one who took/made this personal, though. Not actually even sure I have a dog in this fight. Do you?

[HoodedCrow]

I here do solemnly swear that I did not vote for Reagan,and was aghast that people would vote for someone suffering from obviouscognitive difficulties. I was aghast that people voted for a sleazy predator like Trump..I was looking for ward to the Hillary govt giving students debt relief, which doesn’t benefit me at all. Not as beneficent as free eduction, but, that doesn’t seem possible in the US. Instead we get Trump putting Betsy in as Education Secretary, whose family is connected with mercenary payments and collecting money from student debt. Locally,  I vote to fund things like extra school projects, which don’t benefit me. 

Im very proud of the Parkland kids, the me too’s and the new “wokes”. I thought the young ones in the US had just stopped participating.

Of course Republicans are after SS and any decent, cheaper single payer medical system. Why anyone would vote that way unless their capital gains level was out of sight...the ones that they couldn’t weasel away off shore, like Trump and Mitt Romney? Why would we build up huge deficit to give very wealthy people tax breaks? I was woke a long time before Bernie started talking. This country frustrates me to no end.

 

[kuenjato]

52 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Well, actually the only age demo not to vote solidly for Reagan the first time were those under 30 (albeit even then, it was about a 44-44 split, which isn't that great for young voters supporting the Democrat).  In fact, everyone over 30 voted remarkably similar in 1980.  In 1984, pretty much everybody voted for Reagan.  So, overall, no, blaming boomers for Reagan is silly, but they didn't use their considerable demo power to counteract his support either.

How is 58% "everyone"? 37 million people voted for Mondale. There were many, many boomers not happy with Reagan, and it is most reflected in the art and media of this period, which despite bipartisan attempts at censorship very-much flourished.

This is the same narrative that has mainstream Democrats pulling out their hair about how they "failed" in 2016, when HC won the popular vote and only her incompetence in the Rust Belt, potentially coupled with foreign propaganda, handled the election to Trump.

 

 

 

[Darth Richard II]

Those damn kids.

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, kuenjato said:

How is 58% "everyone"? 37 million people voted for Mondale.

The point was in 84 all age demos went solidly for Reagan, and all about the same - from 57 to 64%.  The narrative was simply Reagan beat Mondale by a lot, which is a fact.

[IamMe90]

38 minutes ago, kuenjato said:

How is 58% "everyone"? 37 million people voted for Mondale. There were many, many boomers not happy with Reagan, and it is most reflected in the art and media of this period, which despite bipartisan attempts at censorship very-much flourished.

This is the same narrative that has mainstream Democrats pulling out their hair about how they "failed" in 2016, when HC won the popular vote and only her incompetence in the Rust Belt, potentially coupled with foreign propaganda, handled the election to Trump.

 

 

 

He's using "everyone" to refer to all demographics collectively, not every individual person that makes up those demographics. 

And just stop it. The electoral college is a reality of presidential elections and will be for the foreseeable future, so yes, Democrats should be pulling there hair out about Rust Belt "incompetence," as you put it. It was bad strategy, full stop. 

[HoodedCrow]

Well, now the left and the leftcenter need better strategies, like pulling together, being discerning about smear jobs, put forward a vision, fighting for our fellows and not letting Republicans give us another snow job. For goodness sake, register to vote and make sure some Republican stooge hasn’t purged you off the roles. I don’t know what we do about the Russion trolls, fake news and electoral hacking. Make it a thing to ask people if they are registered and you can help.

[Fragile Bird]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

LIES! FAKE NEWS! Our generation is going to save the world. We're going to punch climate change in the face. We're going to save the whales AND the snails! Free Tibet!! Support our teachers!!! 

 

I forgot to mention - that chemist who created both leaded gasoline (‘stops engine knock!’) and CFCs eventually developed polio. But he was a driven person, he was a brilliant chemist, and created a set of pulleys and ropes so he could move his body, paralyzed by polio, and continue working. But his contraption failed him, and he got tangled up in it and strangled to death. Grimly ironic, considering what leaded gasoline and CFCs were doing to the environment.

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Bleak times, FB.

 

You know what I think is bleak news? All those science fiction tales about the planet being covered in cities, with food being grown in giant bats from strains of yeast, are nonsense, IMO. If you wipe out the environment you wipe out humanity.

The projections for population growth suggest there will be billions more people on the planet in the next half century. Considering how the current population has actively destroyed the planet, I suspect the only way human life is going to survive is not only by slowing that growth but reversing it. Wiping out a few billion people would really save the planet. Who will do the wiping out and who will be wiped out is the question. Wiping out North America and Europe would probably be best, because we consume most of the planet’s resources. The hatred of boomers is going to be nothing compared to the hatred for the generation that takes that step. What’s the movie? 12 Monkeys?

[kuenjato]

3 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

He's using "everyone" to refer to all demographics collectively, not every individual person that makes up those demographics. 

And just stop it. The electoral college is a reality of presidential elections and will be for the foreseeable future, so yes, Democrats should be pulling there hair out about Rust Belt "incompetence," as you put it. It was bad strategy, full stop. 

Oh, I get it. The electoral college was designed to keep people like Trump out of the oval office, as the elites didn't trust the commoners to elect proper, educated candidates. The ultimate irony of 2016 was that Trump won on a system designed to keep him out.

My point was the election was a fluke, combined with propaganda and a candidate that didn't seem to understand her own weaknesses or the ground-game going on in response to long-standing neoliberal policies. I voted for HC, but more because the alternative was, well, what we've been seeing played out. 

I doubt the Democrats have really learned their lesson, though, and will keep up with triangulation for the foreseeable future. The only real hope is that the right has swung so hard towards extremism and Trump is such an astonishing idiot that the Blue Wave will arise from public disgruntlement. And hopefully the freshman class coming into the House and Senate will be much more gimlet-eyed towards the Rethugs, given the mockery that's gone on of the legislative process these past few years (decades?). 

[felice]

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

You know what I think is bleak news? All those science fiction tales about the planet being covered in cities, with food being grown in giant bats from strains of yeast, are nonsense, IMO. If you wipe out the environment you wipe out humanity.

Best typo ever Presumably the giant bats are in control, the permanent night of a planet-spanning city with no outside suiting them perfectly, and humanity is enslaved by dependence on their milk.

I don't believe it's impossible for humanity to survive in an entirely artificial environment, but we really really should ensure we know how to do so successfully and long-term before destroying the natural world, rather than making it up as we go along. Or, y'know, we could try not destroying the environment at all. In theory.

[mormont]

[mod] Let's take the 'generations' talk to that thread, please. And avoid any more ageist remarks. It's not acceptable. [/mod]

[LongRider]

4 hours ago, felice said:

Best typo ever Presumably the giant bats are in control, the permanent night of a planet-spanning city with no outside suiting them perfectly, and humanity is enslaved by dependence on their milk.

Perdido Street Station made real!

[Martell Spy]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/19/house-republicans-fundraising-2018-midterms-493823

Some people just can’t be saved’

Dozens of House Republicans continue to trail Democratic opponents in fundraising, and party strategists warn they can’t expect a super PAC rescue in the fall.

Quote

A whopping 43 House Republicans raised less money than Democratic challengers in the first three months of 2018 — nearly the same number of stragglers the GOP had at the end of last year, according to POLITICO’s analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings. An overlapping group of 16 Republican incumbents already have less cash on hand than Democratic challengers, up from the end of 2017, despite hopes that tax reform would open more donor wallets.

 

[Ice Queen]

8 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I forgot to mention - that chemist who created both leaded gasoline (‘stops engine knock!’) and CFCs eventually developed polio. But he was a driven person, he was a brilliant chemist, and created a set of pulleys and ropes so he could move his body, paralyzed by polio, and continue working. But his contraption failed him, and he got tangled up in it and strangled to death. Grimly ironic, considering what leaded gasoline and CFCs were doing to the environment.

Thomas Midgeley. Lovely man. 

[Guy Kilmore]

12 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Well, actually the only age demo not to vote solidly for Reagan the first time were those under 30 (albeit even then, it was about a 44-44 split, which isn't that great for young voters supporting the Democrat).  In fact, everyone over 30 voted remarkably similar in 1980.  In 1984, pretty much everybody voted for Reagan.  So, overall, no, blaming boomers for Reagan is silly, but they didn't use their considerable demo power to counteract his support either.

I wasn't blaming them, just correcting a fact. I figure you'd have better data than I

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I forgot to mention - that chemist who created both leaded gasoline (‘stops engine knock!’) and CFCs eventually developed polio. But he was a driven person, he was a brilliant chemist, and created a set of pulleys and ropes so he could move his body, paralyzed by polio, and continue working. But his contraption failed him, and he got tangled up in it and strangled to death. Grimly ironic, considering what leaded gasoline and CFCs were doing to the environment.

You know what I think is bleak news? All those science fiction tales about the planet being covered in cities, with food being grown in giant bats from strains of yeast, are nonsense, IMO. If you wipe out the environment you wipe out humanity.

The projections for population growth suggest there will be billions more people on the planet in the next half century. Considering how the current population has actively destroyed the planet, I suspect the only way human life is going to survive is not only by slowing that growth but reversing it. Wiping out a few billion people would really save the planet. Who will do the wiping out and who will be wiped out is the question. Wiping out North America and Europe would probably be best, because we consume most of the planet’s resources. The hatred of boomers is going to be nothing compared to the hatred for the generation that takes that step. What’s the movie? 12 Monkeys?

Talk about a dark post FB. 

As far as population growth goes, IIRC, we’re expected to hit 10 billion people by 2050, with most of the future growth coming from Africa. This could develop into a real problem given the poverty and scarce resources of the continent.

As far as the wiping out is concerned, it will be done during the Global Corporate War of 2038, and the people that will be toast are the cheap unnecessary labor class and any and all that oppose their global domination.

It is known.