The heck with the boomers

[reformeddaytrader]

Famous Baby Boomers political leaders include:


Three Presidents of the United States
• Bill Clinton, born 1946, 1993-2001
• George W. Bush, born 1946, 2001-2008
• Barack Obama, born 1963, 2008-? , incumbent




Other Baby Boomers famous for political achievements:


• Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, New York US Senator and former First Lady, b. 1947
• Mike Huckabee, Former Governor of Arkansas, Presidential candidate 2008, b. 1955
• Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, b. 1947
• Samuel Alito, Supreme Court Justice, b. 1950
• John Edwards, former North Carolina senator, b. 1953
• Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, b. 1954
• Alberto Gonzalez, former Attorney General, b. 1955
• John Roberts, Chief Justice, U. S. Supreme Court, b. 1955
• Al Gore, former Vice President, b. 1948
• Karl Rove, former Deputy White House Chief of Staff, b. 1950
• Sarah Palin, youngest Governor of Alaska (2006-?), b. 1964
* Diverdown34, MSN Money Board Refugee Moderator Emeritus (2010-?), b. 1956



It is estimated that the boom generation will hold a plurality in Congress until 2015, the White House until 2021, and will have a majority in the Supreme Court from 2010 to 2030

[ugonow]

how did Raygun bankrupt the Soviet Union without raising taxes???

Reagan's dem congress not only forced him to raise SS raxes,but many many others as well.He either implemented or raised taxes in every year but one of his 8 years. He has the record of raising taxes the most of any peacetime president because of his lib congress.It is a blessing he was able to lower income tax rates.

[reformeddaytrader]

Sarah Palin, youngest Governor of Alaska (2006-?), b. 1964
* Diverdown34, MSN Money Board Refugee Moderator Emeritus (2010-?), b. 1956


Can some political expert and/or BabyBoomer pls explain why is DD34's name is just below Sarah Palin's on this Famous Boomer list and why isn't his name on top of her's.....just wondering ?? And what is with the esoteric * instead of a bullet???


Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=505&page=2#ixzz19VgfcT00

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Well, the Boomers are going to have to face facts: they will either put on their big boy pants and accept the fact that SS and Medicare require modest changes now, or they will have a diaper-baby fit over the slightest common sense proposals for reform and if they get their way (which they usually do-- so it's really up to them), the programs will collapse and they'll get NOTHING. It's going to be interesting to see if they can manage (just one time) to choose wisely.

[reformeddaytrader]

Absolutely there are going to be changes to Social Security but remember with the Deeeeeeee ms still in charge of the Senate and Barrack in the White House those changes may not take effect until 2012 or after the Presidential elections....As you know this is another Hot Potato or as Dan Quayle would say another Hot Pototoe and a terrible waste of minds...

[billisonboard]

Side note - I was surprised to see Palin's name on the baby boomer list. Research showed me that the Census Bureau does include 1964 births in that category. I think if she does end up making more of a mark historically than she has so far (say if she is the first woman nominated for president by a major party and definitely if she were to win the office), that history will record her as being the first major post-baby boomer politician in spite of the Census Bureau.

[floridayankee]

Dec 28, 2010 23:13:13 GMT -5 ungenteel said:

<<The biggest borrowing from Social Security was during the Clinton administration (nearly a Trillion dollars was borrowed by Clinton to trick idiots into believing he "balanced the budget")...this was before any wars were being waged.>>

HUH?? It started during the Vietnam War .....

HUH?? jkapp never said the borrowing started with Clinton.

[dancinmama]

Dec 29, 2010 9:23:51 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Well, the Boomers are going to have to face facts: they will either put on their big boy pants and accept the fact that SS and Medicare require modest changes now, or they will have a diaper-baby fit over the slightest common sense proposals for reform and if they get their way (which they usually do-- so it's really up to them), the programs will collapse and they'll get NOTHING. It's going to be interesting to see if they can manage (just one time) to choose wisely.

DH and I are 53 and have paid into SS with every penny we ever earned. In spite of that fact, we saw the writing on the wall over 20 years ago and have not included SS into our retirement planning.

Unfortunately this is not the case with most in our generation. We were told that retirement was like a three legged stool - pension, SS, and personal savings are supposed to be the three legs.

IF the baby boomers have to keep working because of cuts to SS or any other reason, that means fewer jobs for the younger generations to move into. IF the baby boomers get full SS benefits, that means higher payroll taxes for those to follow. Which would you prefer? Either way it's a lose/lose for the younger generations.

Personally, I don't think it is right, but it's the way it is.

[floridayankee]

Dec 29, 2010 16:12:43 GMT -5 dancinmama said:

DH and I are 53 and have paid into SS with every penny we ever earned. In spite of that fact, we saw the writing on the wall over 20 years ago and have not included SS into our retirement planning.

This is exactly what I mean about people standing up and saying enough is enough. All that money contributed to a government retirement plan called social security that provides so little security that people cannot even include it in their retirement planning.

[ungenteel]

<<This is exactly what I mean about people standing up and saying enough is enough. All that money contributed to a government retirement plan called social security that provides so little security that people cannot even include it in their retirement planning.>

Perhaps your recollection of what happened to the stock market in 2008 is inhibited? You dismiss what happened in the stock market in 2008 but seem to suggest, without substantive back up, that private investments are more secure?

[Deleted]

Perhaps your recollection of what happened to the stock market in 2008 is inhibited? You dismiss what happened in the stock market in 2008 but seem to suggest, without substantive back up, that private investments are more secure?

Hopefully no one in a private investment retirement who needed the money within 5 years would have been crazy enough to have their retirement in stocks and securities, now they may not have gained anything in bonds and money market accounts but they wouldn't have lost much either.

As for anyone else...I believe I heard that the market has recovered to pre-Lehman numbers now.

[dancinmama]

Dec 29, 2010 16:25:35 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Dec 29, 2010 16:12:43 GMT -5 dancinmama said:

DH and I are 53 and have paid into SS with every penny we ever earned. In spite of that fact, we saw the writing on the wall over 20 years ago and have not included SS into our retirement planning.

This is exactly what I mean about people standing up and saying enough is enough. All that money contributed to a government retirement plan called social security that provides so little security that people cannot even include it in their retirement planning.

We probably COULD include it, but we always err on the conservative side and they were talking about it having problems way back then so we decided it was better not to count on it and have extra $$$ in retirement than to count on it and not get it.

[dancinmama]

Dec 29, 2010 23:29:01 GMT -5 @saver74 said:

Perhaps your recollection of what happened to the stock market in 2008 is inhibited? You dismiss what happened in the stock market in 2008 but seem to suggest, without substantive back up, that private investments are more secure?

Hopefully no one in a private investment retirement who needed the money within 5 years would have been crazy enough to have their retirement in stocks and securities, now they may not have gained anything in bonds and money market accounts but they wouldn't have lost much either.

As for anyone else...I believe I heard that the market has recovered to pre-Lehman numbers now.

We didn't and I got flamed on MSN YM in EARLY 2008 for not having more in the market. DH was planning on an early 2012 retirement. We had a lot in bonds and made a tidy little sum on that.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 29, 2010 2:41:47 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

SS will be there..it may cost more, you may have to retire at a higher age if you want to collect full benefits...but you should live longer..and if your young now, invest properly, don't spend all your money on crap, and you should be ok..or then again ...less going out, rent more movies then seeing them on the big screen..when the concerts come to town, spend the money on the artices CD but don't see in person..to expensive..save your pennies , they turn into dollers

Be careful dez, it almost sounds like you are saying that investing in privatized accounts can add up through the years.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 29, 2010 23:20:31 GMT -5 ungenteel said:

<<This is exactly what I mean about people standing up and saying enough is enough. All that money contributed to a government retirement plan called social security that provides so little security that people cannot even include it in their retirement planning.>

Perhaps your recollection of what happened to the stock market in 2008 is inhibited? You dismiss what happened in the stock market in 2008 but seem to suggest, without substantive back up, that private investments are more secure?

Perhaps you are forgetting the other 30 years of the stock market, but that might fall into your line of thinking on the subject.

[ugonow]

All that money contributed to a government retirement plan called social security that provides so little security that people cannot even include it in their retirement planning.

Where on earth did you get the idea SS is another retirement plan? Government already gave us 401's.IRA's etc....SS is another unconstitutional,unwanted, mandated insurance policy like Obamacare and car insurance.

[ungenteel]

<<Reagan's dem congress not only forced him to raise SS raxes,but many many others as well.>>

And the mean ole dems also broke Raygun's fingers so he couldn't use his veto pen

[reformeddaytrader]

NEWS FLASH

1st of the BabyBoomers turns 65 today with thousands to follow over the next few years...

[reformeddaytrader]

Airdales are supposed to be experts at cleaning latrines according to the Movie "No Time For Sergeants" starring Andy Griffin..

BTW Ratchets pls notice that I have three more stars then you do but will not under any circumstances try to pull rank on an Airdale since everyone knows that is not necessary ...somebody PM'd me yesterday and tried to infer that I was rank enough for one message board.....

Whatever that means??? But probably not a good thing??

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

We didn't and I got flamed on MSN YM in EARLY 2008 for not having more in the market. DH was planning on an early 2012 retirement. We had a lot in bonds and made a tidy little sum on that.

The equities markets are up nearly 80% since the bottom. That said, being four years from retirement you should have moved a large percent of your investments to more stable vehicles.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 1, 2011 9:23:41 GMT -5 @reformeddaytrader said:

Airdales are supposed to be experts at cleaning latrines according to the Movie "No Time For Sergeants" starring Andy Griffin..

BTW Ratchets pls notice that I have three more stars then you do but will not under any circumstances try to pull rank on an Airdale since everyone knows that is not necessary ...somebody PM'd me yesterday and tried to infer that I was rank enough for one message board.....

Whatever that means??? But probably not a good thing??

RDT,

Why are you signing on as a "guest?"