A Response to Our Resident “Boomer-Hater” (Part 2)

| January 2, 2021

Longtime readers know we have a frequent commenter who seems to think that the “Baby Boom” generation are the source of all of America’s current problems.  A recent example of that attitude can be seen  in this comment to a recent article.  Another can be found here.

Well, as I noted in a previous article, hearing that kind of foolish tripe over and over again gets tiresome.  So I decided to do a bit of homework – then post what I’d found here.

BLUF:  yeah, he’s full of it.  Yet again.  Details follow.

. . .

The generally-accepted years during which the “Baby Boom” generation were born are 1946 to 1964.  That in turn means at the end of this year all living members of the “Baby Boom” generation will be between 56 and 74 years old.

During the past 100 years, the USA has instituted numerous programs that our commenter seems to feel have “disproportionately benefited” the Baby Boom generation.  Here’s a partial list of programs that come to mind, or which can arguably be held to “disproportionately benefit” older Americans.  (The facts that (1) members of the “Baby Boom” generation in general only fairly recently became eligible to use these programs, (2) that these programs had previously served members of prior generations, and (3) members of the “Baby Boom” generation began paying taxes starting nearly 60 years ago to support these programs are apparently irrelevant to our resident “boomer hater”.)  The first four are rather obvious.

Social Security


Medicare Part D

Supplemental Security Income

There are also a number of other Federal programs that I guess might be held to “disproportionately” benefit the “Baby Boom” generation because . . . well, I guess because they existed and were used by members of the “Baby Boom” generation – along, of course, with members of preceding and succeeding generations.  (The same is of course true of the country’s physical infrastructure.)  Those programs are:


Federally Guaranteed Student Loans

Pell Grants

Food Stamps/SNAP


Housing Assistance


OK, so those are the Federal programs I looked at.  There may be more Federal programs that could “qualify”; if you want to talk physical infrastructure, the US and Interstate Highway Systems come immediately to mind – though physical infrastructure benefits everyone pretty much equally IMO.  But for the purposes of this article I’ll cut off consideration here.

. . .

Now, let’s look at the dates each of these Federal programs were (1) initiated, and (2) expanded over the years.

Federal Program Year Initiated Year(s) Significantly Modified
Social Security 1935 1950s (disability added); 1983 (scheduled tax increases accelerated; future benefits reduced and made partially subject to income tax); 1993 (portion of future benefits subject to income tax raised dramatically)
Medicare 1965
Medicaid 1965
Medicare Part D 2006
Food Stamps/SNAP 1939 1960s (Great Society); 1970s (Carter Administration)
Federal Housing Assistance 1933 1934; 1940s (multiple times); 1965; 1968; 1974 (created Section 8 housing assistance); 1990; 1992; 1998
AFDC 1935 1961; 1962; 1968 (replaced by TANF in 1997)
TANF 1997
Federal Student Loan Guarantees 1965 1992
Pell Grants 1965 1972; 1978


OK, so that’s when these programs were started and modified significantly.  But that doesn’t answer the question:  who was responsible for creating/altering them?   Specifically, what generation(s) was/were responsible for “calling the shots” when those programs were created or modified substantially?  Because as I observed in a previous article:  it is utterly absurd to hold someone responsible for a situation they did not create and had little or no say in creating.

Let’s see.  But first, a side trip to look at “Boomer” demographics – and when members of that generation attained various ages.

. . .

Here’s a table describing the “Baby Boom” generation in some detail.   It was extracted from data contained here (the original site now defunct; link is to archived copy at the Internet Archive).

Year # Born Year Eligible to Vote* Year Eligible for House Year Eligible for Senate Age 40 Age 50
1946 3,411,000 1967 1971 1976 1986 1996
1947 3,817,000 1968 1972 1977 1987 1997
1948 3,637,000 1969 1973 1978 1988 1998
1949 3,649,000 1970 1974 1979 1989 1999
1950 3,632,000 1971 1975 1980 1990 2000
1951 3,823,000 1971 1976 1981 1991 2001
1952 3,913,000 1971 1977 1982 1992 2002
1953 3,965,000 1971 1978 1983 1993 2003
1954 4,078,000 1972 1979 1984 1994 2004
1955 4,097,000 1973 1980 1985 1995 2005
1956 4,218,000 1974 1981 1986 1996 2006
1957 4,300,000 1975 1982 1987 1997 2007
1958 4,255,000 1976 1983 1988 1998 2008
1959 4,245,000 1977 1984 1989 1999 2009
1960 4,258,000 1978 1985 1990 2000 2010
1961 4,268,000 1979 1986 1991 2001 2011
1962 4,167,000 1980 1987 1992 2002 2012
1963 4,098,000 1981 1988 1993 2003 2013
1964 4,027,000 1982 1989 1994 2004 2014
* – Prior to the 26th Amendment becoming effective in July 1971, only 4 states (Georgia, Kentucky, Alaska, and Hawaii) allowed those less than 21 years of age to vote in all elections.


According to the US Census Bureau, as of 2020 there were an estimated 73 million US residents in the “Baby Boom” generation.  This is net after accounting for both deaths and immigration.

As a group, with a negligible number of exceptions “Boomers” became eligible to vote incrementally between 1967 and the end of 1982.  They became eligible for election to Congress between 1971 and 1989 (House) and between 1976 and 1994 (Senate).

The “Baby Boom” generation turned 40 between 1986 and 2004, and turned 50 between 1996 and 2014.

Why discuss age?  Because as I’ll discuss below:  when it comes to political influence and making Federal law – which is necessary to create or change Federal programs – age matters.  Greatly.

. . .

Looking at the above table, a few things become quite obvious.

  1. None of the “Baby Boom” generation had been born when Social Security, Federal Housing Assistance, SSI, food assistance, and AFDC (or their direct ancestor programs) were first initiated by the Federal government.  The “Baby Boom” generation thus had absolutely no influence on the design, passage, or implementation of those programs; and in general members of the “Baby Boom” generation had at best only modest influence on their pre-1990s modifications.
  2. Virtually none of the “Baby Boom” generation was eligible to vote when Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, or Federal Student Loan Guarantees began (prior to the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution becoming effective in July 1971, only 4 states – Georgia, Kentucky, Alaska and Hawaii – permitted anyone less than 21 to vote). Members of the “Baby Boom” generation thus had essentially no influence on the design, passage, and implementation of these programs, and at best marginal influence on their pre-1990s modifications.
  3. Less than half (specifically, about 44.7+%) of the “Baby Boom” generation was eligible to vote when the EITC program was created in 1972. Only the first two years of the “Baby Boom” generation (e.g., those born in 1946 or 1947) were eligible to be elected to the US House of Representatives that year; none were eligible to be Senators.  Members of the “Boomer” generation thus had very little influence on the design, passage, or implementation of EITC.
  4. The entire “Boomer” generation was not yet eligible to vote when the Reagan-era “tax cuts” were passed in 1981 – though most of the generation could vote by then.
  5. Social Security, Federal housing assistance and Federal student loan guarantees are the only programs listed above that have been substantially modified since all members of the “Baby Boom” generation became eligible to vote. (The 1983 Social Security reforms reduced the amount of Social Security benefits to be paid to everyone born after 1937 vice those paid to those born earlier, as well as made Social Security benefits received partially subject to income taxes. The 1993 changes raised the fraction of Social Security benefits potentially subject to income taxation.)  Similarly, TANF and Medicare Part D are the only new programs listed above to be created since that point in time (and TANF replaced a previous Federal program with an arguably better and more fiscally sound one).
  6. It wasn’t until 1976 that the first “Boomer” was eligible for election to the US Senate. The last “Boomer” wasn’t eligible to be elected to the Senate until 1994.
  7. The first “Boomer” turned 40 in 1986; the last, in 2004. Members of Congress, particularly Senators, younger than 40 are fairly uncommon.
  8. The first “Boomer” turned 50 in 1996; the last, in 2014. Members of Congress in leadership positions having significant influence over the passage of legislation younger than 50 are fairly rare.  Congressional seniority heavily influences who gets these positions.

Bottom line:  except for Medicare Part D and (possibly) TANF, in general members of the “Baby Boom” generation weren’t the ones in charge – and with rare exceptions, generally were not in positions having significant influence over the passage of legislation – in DC when the Federal programs above were initiated or substantially modified by Congress.  Those programs were primarily designed, passed, and implemented by members of earlier generations – specifically, by members of the “Greatest Generation” (born between 1901 and 1927) and the “Silent Generation” (born between 1928 and 1945).  Or, in the case of programs like Social Security, SSI, and food assistance programs which originated in the 1930s, by members of the “Lost Generation” (1883-1900) or earlier.

Less obvious is the fact that the “Baby Boom” generation has never constituted a majority of the US population.  The maximum occurred in 1964, when the “Baby Boom” generation constituted nearly 40% of the US population – and that year, only a tiny handful of “boomers” living in 4 states were eligible to vote.  However, the inevitable deaths of members of the generation – along with births in three subsequent generations since – has reduced the “Baby Boom” generation’s share of the US population today to well below 22%.

. . .

I said above that I’d discuss why age matters.  OK – here’s why it matters.

In order even to minimally influence Federal legislation, someone must at a minimum be eligible to vote; otherwise, they’re essentially ignored.  However, in order to materially affect Federal legislation – say, legislation to create or modify an existing Federal program or tax – one really needs to be (or in some way strongly influence) a Member of Congress.

Reality is that in order for a generation to hold substantial political power, members of that generation typically need to be elected to both chambers of Congress in large numbers as well as hold key positions in both chambers of Congress.  In Congress, that combination typically doesn’t occur until the generation’s average age is 50 or thereabouts.  In fact, it wasn’t until 2011 that the first member of the “Baby Boom” generation served as Speaker of the House – and he was an “early Boomer” in his 60s by then.  (To date there still hasn’t been a “Boomer” Senate President Pro Tempore.)  The first “Baby Boom” generation POTUS was Bill “Cigarman” Clintoon (the misspelling is intentional).  And Clintoon was an outlier; he was the second-youngest individual ever to be elected, and the third-youngest to ever serve as, POTUS.

Other than in four states (Georgia, Kentucky, Alaska, and Hawaii), the oldest members of the “Baby Boom” generation weren’t eligible to vote until 1967.  So for Federal programs that began prior to 1967, “Boomers” had effectively no influence whatsoever on the design, passage, and implementation thereof.

It wasn’t until after the mid-term election in November 1982 that the entire “Baby Boom” generation could even vote. So until sometime around 1983, members of the “Boomer” generation had marginal to at best only modest influence on any Federal legislation.  (Historically, younger voters generally have lower turnout than older age groups – and the entire generation would have been 36 or younger on 31 December 1982.  Hence my characterization of “modest influence” above.)

However, even voting only provides a limited influence on legislation.  To have truly significant influence on Federal legislation, one has to be a Member of Congress or have significant influence over one.  And politics generally being a “climb the ladder/pay your dues first” game, today being elected to Congress usually requires attaining age 40, give or take a few years – and for the Senate, often substantially older.  (Yes, there are exceptions.  They’re still relatively rare.)

The first “Boomer” didn’t turn 40 until 1986; the last didn’t turn 50 until 2014.  That in turn means the ability of the “Baby Boom” generation to shape Federal legislation didn’t become truly significant until sometime between those two dates.  January 1999 was the first time that the majority of the US House was composed of members of the “Boomer” generation – though the “Baby Boom” generation doubtless had achieved substantial influence on the content Federal legislation a few years earlier with the election of Bill “Cigarman” Clintoon as POTUS. It wasn’t until 2008 that the majority of US Senators were from the “Boomer” generation.

This is consistent with past US history.  In contrast to war, US politics – including election to and service in the US Congress – has virtually always been an “old man’s game”.  The only thing that’s changed over the years is what constitutes “old”.

My point?  It’s both absurd and asinine to try and “blame” the “Baby Boom” generation for the existence of any of the above programs except perhaps TANF and Medicare Part D or for substantial modifications to those programs occurring prior to the 1990s.  And for what it’s worth:  IMO TANF (with the additional flexibility it provides to states to tailor the program to local needs) is one of the few good things to come out of the Clintoon Administration. (Medicare Part D is still fairly new – but IMO it’s already showing worrisome signs of being yet another “bottomless money pit” created by the Federal government.  The program is barely 14 years old and already accounts for roughly 20% of Medicare spending.)

Why is doing that absurd?  Because except for TANF and Medicare Pard D, most of the “Baby Boom” generation either weren’t “running the show” when those programs were initiated or weren’t even around.  (For all programs originating in the 1930s, the “Boomer” generation obviously had not yet been born – hell, they weren’t even the proverbial “twinkle in their daddy’s eye”.)  And for most of the substantial modifications, less than half of the “Baby Boom” generation could even vote at the time the programs were modified.  Those programs were designed, initiated, implemented, and (generally) substantially modified by Congress run by members of previous generations.  Blaming someone (or some group) for a Federal program about which they had no say in creating, or which was created before they were born?  In my book, doing that qualifies as both asinine and absurd.  Blaming them for modifications occurring before they were in positions of significant legislative influence is IMO similarly inane.

The same is true regarding blaming an individual or group for using – legitimately – any Federal program while following the rules in existence that govern the program.  A person or group using a Federal program as defined by Federal law, legitimately and in accordance with that program’s implementing regulations, isn’t to blame for that program’s bad outcomes or effects.  Rather, the blame for that bad outcome properly lies with those who created and/or modified that counterproductive program.

Further:  the programs noted above were not created in order to benefit any particular generation.  Rather, they were created in an ostensibly well-meaning effort to “promote the general welfare” over multiple generations.  (Whether these programs are good public policy is another question entirely.)  But IMO those programs simply weren’t well-though-out beforehand, particularly regarding long-term sustainability.  As a result, by most of them we’ve now been bitten right in the butt – hard – by the law of unintended consequences.

Oh, and the same applies to changes in tax laws, too.  So don’t “blame” the “Boomer” generation for the Reagan-era tax cuts, either – or for California’s Proposition 13, for which our resident “boomer hater” seems to have a major hadron (intentional misspelling).  “Boomers” weren’t the ones running Congress in 1981, and the entire generation couldn’t even vote in California in 1978 (and many if not most didn’t own their own homes or business properties).  In fact, only somewhere around half of the “Boomer” generation was even eligible to serve in Congress when those changes in tax law were passed.

. . .

Can the “Boomer” generation legitimately be criticized for not changing those programs?  After about the year 1996 or 2000, perhaps.  By then, enough “Boomers” might have been in positions of political authority (e.g., committee chairs and similar positions) to have a reasonable chance of engineering significant legislative changes to those programs – at least in theory.  And a few relatively minor changes were made; TANF replacing the old AFDC program with what is at least on paper a better program is an example.

But “Riddle me this, Batman”:  barring a stark and blatantly obvious pending catastrophe, is any Member of Congress or incumbent President with hopes of re-election going to propose something like that? Or vote in favor of same if the outcome is in doubt?  That is, are they going to propose or vote in favor of doing away with (or significantly reducing eligibility or benefits for) something like Pell Grants?  Or Student Loan Guarantees?  Or to make significant cutbacks to Social Security or Medicare or SNAP or Federal housing assistance?  Does a Federal elected official doing that pass the common-sense test? Or, alternatively, would they propose raising Federal taxes enough to really pay for everything the Federal government has signed up to do over the long term?

If you think either a majority of Congress or a President desiring reelection would do that absent a true and obvious major emergency – well, IMO that means you don’t know squat about either human nature or politics.  The answer is no; a Federal elected official doing either of those doesn’t pass the common-sense test.

Why? By doing that, an elected official would be essentially be telling their constituents, “Sorry.  Your parents and grandparents were ‘good enough’ to deserve that.  But you?  You’re not ‘good enough’.  No soup for you!  Oh, and by the way – if you want that, you’ll have to take what amounts to a huge pay cut.  Because your taxes will go through the roof to pay for it, starting now.”

A Federal elected official who did that would almost certainly be signing their own political death warrant; they’d out of office after the next election.  And they might well need to move far away from their home state – and remain incognito afterwards – to avoid retribution if the proposal actually passed.

Something like that has happened precisely once in the last 50 years: the 1983 Social Security modifications. Getting that through Congress took the proverbial stars to align: an immediate crisis – e.g., Social Security literally coming within a few months of financial insolvency – plus pain that wasn’t to be felt immediately. The changes (e.g., the resulting tax increases and reduced benefits for those born after 1937) were in general phased in over many years or weren’t shared by all.

The same is true regarding expecting someone to pass on a using a Federal assistance program (like Social Security or Medicare or Federally Guaranteed Student Loans or Pell Grants or . . . well, pretty much any program) for which they legitimately qualify.  Sure, a handful of people might forgo using them, either on principle or due to pride.  But if you suggest doing that, the vast majority of people will look at you like you just sprouted a third foot growing from the end of your nose.  And afterwards they’ll probably avoid you like you had a recent “close encounter of the skunk kind”.

Bottom line: the nation’s been living in financial “fantasy land” since at least the 1960s and arguably since the 1930s. We’ve been living well beyond our means, deferring the bills all along.

And it wasn’t the “Boomer” generation who set up the vast majority of those Federal programs – or ignored the fact that they weren’t long-term stable, financially, when implementing them.


Author’s Note:  As I’ve mentioned previously, I’m a member of the “Baby Boom” generation.  I had about as much control over when I was born as I do over whether or not it will rain tomorrow.

But also as I’ve mentioned before, that’s not why I wrote this article.  I simply hate seeing blatant misrepresentation of reality going unchallenged.  And that’s IMO precisely what our resident “boomer-hater” has been doing while waxing ignorant in commentary concerning this subject.

Category: Who knows

Comments (160)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Skippy says:

    Must be talking about comrade Lars

    BHWHAHAHAHA !!!!!!

  2. Sapper3307 says:

    BUTTTTT,,, can I have a new Obama phone?

  3. Doc Savage says:

    *Golf clapping*

    Well done, Hondo; well done indeed.

    Lars take note…..you see what a bit of reading and comprehension can get you?

  4. 26Limabeans says:

    I did not stick my hands out asking for nor did I play any part in
    creating the list of goodies above.
    I did however benefit from a lot of it and thank you very much.
    Seems to me though we boomers paid a hell of a price for it and
    if those behind us want their share then grab a rake and shovel,
    get down in that ditch and earn it.

  5. thebesig says:

    Criticizing the Baby Boomers is something I’ve seen from the younger members of the Millennial Generation, and Generation Z.

    Based on the commentary of the commenter mentioned in the above article, I’d say that this individual is Generation X. I’m Generation X. I receive a monthly paycheck from the federal government, and the federal government foots the bill for my medical treatment, services, and medication. Throw in the GI Bill usage, and the discounts I get with my retired military and VA cards… And multiply us that are in the same situation as above, who are Generation X, and that’s plenty of people… Wait till we receive paychecks from Social Security, in addition to paychecks from the military and from the VA.

    Keep in mind that there are members of Generation X in Congress. Are we going to hear, from the commenter that Hondo is talking about, plenty of accusations and blame for Generation X “leaching” from the system? And creating problems for the world?

    Here’s something else to consider. The younger Millennials, and Generation Z, have expanded the short term “Boomer” to include not just Baby Boomers, but those 30 and over who are “not in sync with the latest ‘fad'”.

    This seems to be a generational thing, to place blame squarely on the shoulders of the most commonly referenced older generation… As if the other generations, old and young, didn’t also play a role. The above mentioned commenter should be old enough to know better than to point to a single generation… And even see the fallacy of such assumptions.

    • Hondo says:

      Our resident “boomer hater” has posted info in comments indicating he’s indeed a member of GenX – from the first half of said generation.

      One quibble: payments from Social Security are not and never have been “paychecks” or “retirement pensions”. Rather, they’re simply government benefits – e.g., income transfer financed via taxes paid by working Americans. Social Security has always been thus.

      • thebesig says:

        I remember as well, he identified as Generation X on one of the threads I started; asking for the generation that people identified with. I’m part of that half of Gen X, the older half. I turned 50 during the early part of Eastertide last year.

        The commenter that you talked about is definitely a bit too old to complain up a storm about the Baby Boomers similar to how the younger generations complain about the older generations.


        I was using “pay” from the common understanding, as well as from the historical understanding of the term. Most folk here are not familiar with the technicalities regarding benefits/pays/pensions.

        Not everybody gets social security checks/pay. They have to meet certain qualifications before getting it. Once they meet the requirements for a social security check/payment, then they expect to receive that payment.

        The original term for pay was based on the idea of “pacifying”. The Spanish word for “to pay” is an echo of a Latin term used for “pacifying”. The most common was as we understood it today, pay for services rendered… Fail to pay someone for their work and that someone won’t be “pacified”.

        But it had other meanings as well… Like paying tribute to pacify an adversary. Reparations? Payments to “repair”, thus pacifying those who were “damaged”.

        A person, who had done what they needed to qualify for social security benefits, and are not otherwise disqualified, would not be “pacified” if they did not get their check. The reactions of those who are receiving Social Security to proposed Social Security changes indicate this. Bush 43 found this out when he proposed a change.

        I’m a history buff and am a bit biased towards historical meanings. :mrgreen:

      • rgr769 says:

        He was born in 1970 or 1971. When I remarked that he was wearing diapers when I was humping a rucksack in the RVN, he did not disagree.

        • timactual says:

          As I recall, I couldn’t even vote back then, when LBJ & the Dems started the $Great Society$. How much has that cost us? And let’s not forget LBJ et al were members of “The Greatest Generation”, which may also be “The Greatest Spenders”.

      • NHSparky says:

        One item he’s probably whining about is the fact that we (Gen X) will be the first to face the inevitable bankruptcy of Social Security, or at the very least we and those younger than us will not recoup anywhere near what we and those younger than us have put in–I harbor no illusion of that. Based on what I and my employers have contributed thus far, and assuming relatively stable income until my “full” retirement age (currently 67) and no substantial reduction in benefits (Ha!), I figured I’d have to live well into my 90s to recoup that money.
        Given current life expectancy and family history, that scenario is, we’ll, unlikely. I won’t get into how disproportionately it affects minority males. Suffice to say that many of the New Deal and Great Society programs were, through intent or by accident, racist.

        But we’ve known this for DECADES now, and anyone who failed to plan for such an eventuality is either foolish or criminally stupid if they think the government was ever going to do anything substantive to fix the problem they themselves created, aside from raising taxes on those “entitlements”, like Clinton did in 1994, which ironically hit boomers hardest in their prime earning years.

        The problem comes where people like Lars whine about “fairness”, when in reality that concept is HIGHLY subjective. One makes their own, and if life deals you a shit hand, as it often does, one either whines (Lars) or pulls up their big girl panties and improvises, overcomes, and adapts, to borrow the phrase.


  6. Mustang Major says:

    Ida Mae Fuller was’t a boomer; however Social Security treated her very well.


    • Mason says:

      Nearly a 1000% return on investment. Only the government could come up with that.

      • Only Army Mom says:

        At least Ida paid something into SS. Arguably, she was a productive member of society before that as well.

        By the 1980’s, (and still today) we had seniors who never worked a day in this country living in senior housing, receiving SS and Medicaid (and a host of State, local and NGO benefits), with constant demand for more and complaints they weren’t receiving enough. They were the parents and grandparents of children or grandchildren who legally emigrated, aka, chain migration. The majority of these folks, at least in my former city, were by the early 1990’s former Soviet bloc residents.

        They were, collectively, the most entitled and demanding people I’d ever had the misfortune of dealing with…until the Millennials came along. Almost as if they were brainwashed, their entitlement attitude stemmed from, “our former country was crap and broke because of the ideological war with the US. So you owe us”. The same kind of twisted logic displayed by the majority of illegal immigrants and Millennials we deal with today.

        My answer then was the same as it is now…
        You’re complaining about the results you didn’t get for the work you didn’t put in. That and some coin will get you a cup of coffee.

        • KoB says:

          Testify Little Sister! Nailed it! Too of those, like certain other “demographics” have listened to a certain political party and put down their shovel, sat on their ass, and lit up a Camel, here in the Promised Land.

          As for me, today, I got off my ass, stubbed out my Camel and worked up a batch of buttered milk flapjacks and a cast iron skillet of maple flavored link porked beast sausages. A line of pure homemade cane syrup drippled on the porked beast sausages and then said sausages rolled, tortilla style into said flapjacks. Then I proceeded to shovel said delicacies into my mouth with a gusto unknown since the engineers laid into the Class VI Supplies. I plan on working off the excess calories using my exercise program of chasing rumors, dodging responsibility, and running my mouth.

          Was it my Boomer White Privilege that “enabled” me to do all of that, or was it the fact that those provisions and the facilities to make them were worked for and paid for by my abilities? Asking for a friend. Give the pups a belly rub for me.

        • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

          You’re absolutely right! I remember my late grandmother telling me about a Vietnamese Woman who emigrated in her mid sixties and after hooking up with the right liberal moonbats KNEW just what “Benefits” she could get off of us taxpayers despite never having given a dime for it!

  7. STSC(SW/SS) says:

    To all of the GenXers we Boomers didn’t have a choice to participate in theses programs. Taxes were taken out of our paychecks whether we wanted or not.

    I’ve been paying into the system for about 48 years now and will be paying at least a few more years. I thought about retiring at 65 combining SS with my retirement I would be OK.

    Now I am not sure. With the massive debt and taxes that are sure to go up I think I will work until I am 69 or 70 because I am not comfortable depending entirely on the government for my living.

    My wife and I have some savings but I’m afraid inflation will wipe them out or be possibly be seized by the government for redistribution for free health care, tuition assistance or to pay off the debt you dumb asses acquired getting useless degrees.

    • thebesig says:

      I’m Generation X, many of us understand what you said, and most of us don’t blame the Baby Boomers for the world’s problems. We blame many characters, including those within both our generations, just as the Baby Boomers do. In fact, Generation X is slowly caucusing more with the Baby Boomers at the ballot box with each election cycle.

      The individual that Hondo talked about does not speak for the rest of us. When I saw the first post on this individual, I thought he was talking about someone I suspected was a younger Millennial… Until I saw this individual’s post. That was a head shaker for me. He’d old enough to know better.

  8. I don’t count since being of the silent majority generation born in 1945. Oh well.

    • Hondo says:

      Oh, Jeff, you count. And about half of your generation was hurt by the 1983 Social Security changes, too (everyone born after 1937 was). They just weren’t hurt as badly as those born about 25 years later and after.

      My whole point in writing the article is to point out that blaming one generation for the country’s ills is absurd.

      No single generation made the mess; making the mess was a cumulative effort taking most of a century and involving people born beginning not long after the Civil War through roughly 25-30 years ago. Gen Z is the only generation around today who probably can legitimately say they didn’t help make the mess. Even older Millennials have been eligible to vote for 20 years now (1981 is generally accepted as the start of the Millennial generation).

      Or, in simpler talk: “Don’t like the rules? Don’t blame the player – blame the game!”

      • thebesig says:

        The older members of Generation Z have already voted. This past election was the second presidential election they were able to participate in. In fact, we had Generation Z voters who not only voted in the past presidential election, but who also were born in the 21st Century (Began AD 2001). These voters spent their whole lives in the 21st Century.

        On a side note, many of those born in 2001 could claim to have “been conceived in the last century”.

        Generation Z, so far, has voted heavily Democratic just as the Millennial generation. Also, together with the Millennials, have formed the bulk of the manpower and woman power behind the riots last year.

        • Hondo says:

          While the oldest in Generation Z (generally considered to be those born 1997-2012) have voted, the entire generation won’t be eligible to vote for nearly a decade. So at present, in terms of voting they have about the same influence on national politics as the “Boomer” generation did in 1970 or so – e.g., somewhere between “very little” and “diddly squat”.

          • thebesig says:

            Where many of their generation are not eligible to vote, they make up elsewhere. Many of the manpower behind the BLM and Antifa riots were Generation Z and Millennials. They’re a big percent of the muscle power.

            Then we have their impact on the internet. The impact of their memes was such that Democrats in Congress tried to float arguments that, if put in bill form and passed, would curtail the ability to make memes.

            If you want to get something spread fast across the internet, just speak with a Gen Z or Millennial that is a part of the right “in crowd” on the Internet.

            They even pulled a fast one on Trump during one of his campaigns. The leftist among them, in multiple countries, launched a viral campaign on Tik Tok and on other platforms that resulted in President Trump speaking to an auditorium where empty seats were available when they otherwise wouldn’t be available.

            These young whipper snappers appear to have mastered, without knowing, some aspects of “Unrestricted Warfare” to get their way. We could “thank” them for things like “safe spaces”.

            • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

              But, according to are resident anti-social socialist, they’re not “organized”.

            • Ex-PH2 says:

              No, of course, they are NOT organized, Senior Chief. Obviously, we’re all much more organized than they could possibly be. Right? Right? Yeah, right….

              • thebesig says:

                Not organized in the same sense as we are. But, they organize over electronic/internet means. For example, The Donald Win was one of the websites where people were spreading the information and coordinating movement and activities.

                They also have their gamer websites where they could communicate with each other and organize. They have other tools as well. They’re pretty good at organizing, planing, etc., on the internet, from the comforts of their own homes. Once they roll out of their homes, that smart phone becomes an extension of their bodies.

                You’d be surprised at their ability to be connected to each other and get things done via electronic devices and Internet.

                • Poetrooper says:

                  “Not organized in the same sense as we are.”

                  Wanna bet? Read this account:


                  • Poetrooper says:

                    Here’s an excerpt:

                    SOME LESSONS LEARNED
                    So what are the lessons for patriots?

                    The protests are organized by a central organization.

                    They have trained and professional security teams.

                    They actively conduct counter-surveillance.
                    Park sufficiently far enough distance away to discourage anyone following, and walk in.

                    They are completely willing to use arms and force.

                    The presence of body armor indicates a willingness to use violence.

                    • thebesig says:

                      Re: The protests are organized by a central organization.

                      And this central organization is not mainly the younger Millennials and older Generation Z group that I was talking about above.

                      Re:They have trained and professional security teams.

                      These teams, supported by corporate, are not the loosely tied demographics that I was talking about.

                      Re: They actively conduct counter-surveillance…

                      A part of the corporate structure that I mentioned below. When you have a corporate command and control that consists of Boomers, Gen X, and older Millennials, controlling units below them who are trained to conduct survailance, security, cattle prodding, etc., you’re not talking about the demographics that I’m talking about.

                      There’s a big difference between a corporation (BLM/Antifa), and a segment of a specific demographic at large like what I was talking about.

                      There is a big difference between what I’m talking about, and what you think I’m talking about but I’m not.

                  • Ex-PH2 says:

                    Poetrooper, if they knew about this movie song, they’d probably use it for themselves, but without the armbands.

                  • thebesig says:

                    Poetrooper: Wanna bet? Read this account:

                    Would it hurt you to read my posts, as well as your link, with the intention of understanding what’s being said?

                    I still stand by my statement that they are not as organized as we are.

                    Why? Main reason…

                    Because both Antifa and BLM consists of more than the folks that I talked about so far on this thread. The younger Millennials and Generation Z, that formed the bulk of the BLM and Antifa riots, were the foot soldiers, with command and control being conducted on a national level… International on the part of Antifa.

                    The corporate leadership of both organizations consists of Generation X and Baby Boomers, in addition to older Millennials… not exactly the group that I was talking about.

                    They have the corporate infrastructure needed to move people and resources around… And they know exactly which mediums to use to get their foot Soldiers out.

                    I still stand by my argument above.

        • Thunderstixx says:

          Don’t forget that many millions of dead boomers voted in this election and many voted more than most of us boomers have voted in our lives…..
          One thing certain, the corruption of the boomer generation is complete and goes all the way up and down the entire food chain of government, corporate boards and wherever they can figure out a way to game the system.
          The corruption is complete in America now, I am truly concerned that something will happen to actually break the peace between the two warring factions now and that a real shooting civil war will develop out of what started as a disagreement on libturd giveaway programs that hide as “progressive policies” like progress for the citizenry must include graft and corruption beyond what any of us could imagine…..
          Gonna be a wild few years coming up….
          Orville Redenbacher, gourmet popping corn for the truly discerning spectators that demand the best !!!

  9. George V says:

    I think there’s been a number of Congresscritters, boomers and earlier, who have talked about not cutting but just slightly reducing the increase in the entitlement programs and were verbally flogged for doing so. Any talk of actually reducing total spending is never heard.

    Somewhat disingenuous to blame one generation for unsustainable entitlements when a majority of those with the power (Congress, specifically) won’t consider any reform other than mooorrrreeee taaaaxxxess!

  10. SFC D says:

    An awesome use of empirical data, Hondo! I have the popcorn popper warmed up and Irish coffee ready to be mixed. One of two things will now happen. Lars will swoop in, screeching about cults and orange man, followed by soiling himself as he attempts to refute your data. Or, he’ll stay tucked safely in his Bay Area hovel, quivering with impotent rage, hiding from the truth he doesn’t want to acknowledge. It’s fargin’ war!

    • thebesig says:

      He may have been humbled, temporarily, from the last time he argued with you guys.

      • Thunderstixx says:

        That arrogant little prick ???
        Don’t we wish. It has no conscience, no moral compass and thrives on the flotsam and jetsam of the policies that he supports as long as they hurt someone other than itself…..
        If you enjoy inflicting pain on others, as all libturds do, you only find pleasure observing that pain and have no feelings of displeasure no matter how badly it has been humiliated.
        As mentioned above, it has no moral compass, no overarching belief in the good of our life on Earth and see life itself as nothing but a delay of what it considers to be “just desserts” and will expend incredible amounts of energy attempting to override the positions of anyone it disagrees with…
        Fuck it, give it the twitter treatment…
        PLEASE !!!!!

  11. KoB says:

    Hondo, DaHell you doing trying to confuse the seagull with your facts, you know that his mind is made up? He’s a gonna show up right shortly with HIS Empirical Data to disprove everything you have researched. Haven’t you learned in all of these years of his posted drivel that he is not only entitled to his opinion, he is also entitled to his own facts? See also, Trophy, Participation, one (1) each, for everyone.

    “…absurd and asinine…” henceforth his acronymed name…SPAPOS…just for those who haven’t paid attention, or have an acronym OCD here it is; Sissy Punk Asinine Piece Of Sh^t SPAPOS!

    He’ll be here shortly, as soon as Mommy wakes him up, changes his nappy and feeds him his morning cream pie. I keep waiting on him to reply to penguinman’s challenge. Not holding my breath for that to happen, but would pay some hard earned Social Security and 401K money to see that.

  12. Mason says:

    Speaking for the Gen-Xers and Millenials, can we can the Reader’s Digest or Cliff’s Notes version? Too much reading. 😉

  13. Ret_25X says:

    If you want to know the real source of both our debt and downsized economic growth in general you only need to know two things:

    1. In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system

    2. The Federal Reserve was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act

    Both of these were brought about by the banking cartels who were creating panics and recessions to use as an issue to create a central bank.

    why are these important? Because not one of the programs that this post goes through could even exist without the income tax and federal reserve. Created by men born in the 1840s and 1850s.

    The income tax and federal reserve are the cause of and beneficiary of recessions, government debt creation, and welfare policy creation and enlargement.

    So, Comrade Dumbkopf, you are–as always–ignorant and wrong. Your cherished Maoist world of cultural enlightenment is one massive CAUSE of the financial woe that so many Americans live in. The other, frankly, is your racist ideology that says nonwhites are too stupid to succeed without you riding in to save the day.

    If you are a super hero you must be Diaper Man–ill fitting and full of shyte.

    • Hondo says:

      Actually, Ret 25X, the figures for Social Security and Medicare would argue against that. Last time I checked, between the two of them they now total around 1/2 of ALL Federal expenditures.

      If ANY Federal programs can be said to be bankrupting the US, it’s those two. But good luck in fixing either. They’re not called the “third rail” of US politics without good reason.

      The sad thing is we had the chance in 1983 to do exactly that by privatizing the system for new entrants and/or those under 30 at the time. (Chile adopted such a system about that time.) But we didn’t go there – and now we’re screwed, blued, and tattooed.

      • NHSparky says:

        Exactly. Imagine if I, just coming into the workforce, had been able to in fact salt away what would be MY account, earning a modest 3 percent or so interest, well below what the market returns have been for the same timeframe.

        It’s likely I’d be retired now.

  14. Hack Stone says:

    Has he ever opined on illegal aliens/undocumented immigrants sucking from the government teat for benefits that they have not contributed to?

    • Roh-Dog says:

      Land of (state-dole) Opportunity!

      • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

        Words heard in many an ER in the state of COmmiefornia from “non-documented workers”

        MEDI- MEDI!

        Medicare/Medical = both cover their ER visits on our dime.

        • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

          Should read MediCal…

        • SFC D says:

          Illegal aliens using emergency rooms for their medical care has bankrupted more than one Arizona hospital.

          • Fyrfighter says:

            And account for the bulk of the hospitals that are currently “overrun” with people sick with the Wuhan Lung Rot… Interesting that those hospitals all saw a surge in cases as soon as the virus hit Mexico…

  15. AW1Ed says:

    Damn you! Damn you Sir, and those annoying facts!


  16. Ex-PH2 says:

    You left out one thing that should really annoy the spapostolic spatterer, Hondo: 2034 is the year in which Social Security will have to cut benefits by 21% if lawmakers do nothing to cure the program’s long-term funding shortfall. That’s what the Social Security and Medicare trustees projected in their 2018 annual report released Tuesday.

    The Social Security fund is a “trust fund”, which is how it is labeled. As for Medicare? That was LBJ’s “gift” to the welfare crowd to get himself elected to President. And it has devolved from being a form
    of health care “insurance” into being welfare for anyone who demand benefits from it. Whereas Medicare Part A (now) was simply Medicare, it is divided into Medicare Part A (you don’t pay anything), Medicare Part B (you pay for whatever) and Medicare Part C and D. Medicare part C is called “Medicare Advantage” and gives you additional coverage. Part D gives you prescription drug coverage. So you still end up paying for health care, regardless.

    • Mason says:

      That sounds like a perfect issue for the 2032 presidential election cycle. I highly doubt it’ll be dealt with sooner than that. Even then, it probably won’t get dealt with. They’ll find a way to push it down the road 10 years or less and it’s a tomorrow people problem.

      • NHSparky says:

        Look for a HUGE SS/Medicare tax increase soon, especially if Dems win both seats in GA tomorrow.

        Like 100 percent, and no cap.

        My Spidey-sense is tingling about it, and not in a good way.

  17. OWB says:

    It kinda depends upon how one defines “disproportionate.” If it means outside the ratio of aggregate numbers of boomers as compared to the entire population, then any number above or below the percentage of the whole is “disproportionate.” I seriously doubt that the harpy has any idea what the numbers are or the actual definition of the word.

    And it really doesn’t matter anyway for all the reasons you articulate, Hondo.

  18. Graybeard says:

    Y’know, one of intelligence would think Lars would get tired of being wrong so much.

    But his blind faith in the leftist communist/socialist creed also blinds him to reality.

    Poor, ignorant fool.

  19. Commissar says:

    First, I never said Boomers were the source of “all our problems”.

    Second, saying boomers use social programs less that other generations is a bullshit counter claim that entirely misses the point.

    Previous generations invested in the future prosperity of our country and younger generations, the greatest generation, for instance, paid high marginal tax rates and invested trillions in infrastructure, research, and education funding for future generations.

    The result is boomers had access to extremely low cost and damn near free education.

    So of course they relied on student relief programs less than future generations. Their parents and grand parents were paying high taxes to fund higher education and thus tuition costs were exceeding low and damn near free. Could easily be paid for with a part time summer job.

    In inflation adjusted terms the average cost of a year tuition nationwide in 1970 was $1200. The average cost for tuition today? $23,000.

    In inflation adjusted terms.

    At minimum or near minimum wage current costs of attendance would require full time work for the entire year, not a summer job for a few weeks…

    So younger generations required more students aid. Which came mostly in the form of loans. Which is why we have a student debt crisis.

    Something the boomer generation never had to face because the taxpayer (older generations than you) invested in you and funded most of your educations.

    The same kind of pulling the rug out occurred in housing, when boomers were young adults and starting families the entire nation was building housing at a rate never seen in human history. The government was fixated an making housing affordable and accessible.

    Municipalities had no problem investing in the infrastructure necessary for entire neighborhoods to be built.

    The median inflation adjusted home price in 1970? $164,000.

    The median home price today? $278,000.

    Decades of “not in my back yard” policies has meant that it is difficult and expensive to build new housing in this country. And Boomer politicians and voters were unwilling to allow municipalities to make the same investments in infrastructure to allow more neighborhoods as their parents were willing to invest. So this shifted more infrastructure costs on real estate developers and thus onto future home buyers.

    Additionally, boomers sought property tax limits that shifted property tax burdens toward “future” homebuyers; younger generations,

    And because Boomers are such a huge generation they have been able to dominate politics and get what they want. For themselves.

    So the result is housing is essentially unaffordable for the vast majority of you families.

    And rent prices are equally insane.

    So of course the average younger family requires more aid than boomers.

    Let’s talk about wages. Hondo tried to pull a fast one a few years ago and argue that in inflation adjusted terms average household income has been stable. Yet he was full of shit. He neglected to mention that our economy has shifted to multiple earner households. So while household income has been “stable” the wage hours worked to make ends meet has gone up significantly.

    Let’s look at minimum wage…

    It was $1.60 in 1970. That is $12.06 today’s dollars.

    Minimum wage in the US today $7.25. That is $7.25 in today’s dollars.

    So a kid coming out of high school can choose to try to afford college despite the fact that the cost of education in inflation adjusted terms has gone up by 2000% while minimum wage is essentially 40% lower than it was.

    Or try to pay rent in an inflation adjusted housing market that has gone up by 70%.

    And you have the audacity to gloat about the fact that your generation needs less public assistance?

    And that does not even discuss the now $28,000,000,000,000 Boomers have enjoyed in deficit prosperity over the course of their entire lives that future generations will have to pay back through crushing tax burdens.

    All because boomers politician and voters obsessively demanded tax cuts their entire lives.

    And by spending obsessively while refusing to fund the spending through their taxes they STOLE trillions in future generation prosperity for themselves.

    All because they had the political power to do so.

    We know it is the boomers to blame because boomer politicians overwhelmingly still oppose tax increases. Despite massive debt spending,

    We know generations previous to boomers paid significant tax rates to fund the infrastructure, opportunity, and low cost education of their boomer children and grandchildren.

    In fact human civilization has tens of thousands of year of history of humanity investing in the future.

    Until the boomers came along.

    Then we saw the largest transfer of wealth from future generations to themselves than we have ever seen in human history or likely will ever see again in any society.

    Boomers were, and still are a massive generation, they have dominated national, state, and local politics since the 1980s.

    And they are refusing to let go of power. Clinging to office for decades and well into their 70s. And likely beyond that. Expect as long as their sclerotic still beat.

    The generational shifts in power our founders valued in our democracy stopped happening for damn near half a century.

    Oh, and then there is climate change. Boomers have attempted to and successfully been able to block nearly every single effort to slow, mitigate, prepare for, reverse, or stop climate change,

    Even blocking funding to RESEARCH climate change.

    Already cities are paying licensing fees for technologies to reduce the impact of climate change on infrastructure, Technologies developed by other countries because boomers refused to let the US invest in claim the change mitigation technology.

    And boomers are overwhelmingly doing doing purely as a partisan political preference.

    A luxury they have because they know damn well they will not be around to face the vast majority of the consequences of their insta silent, pig headed, myopic, self centered, science denying fucking stupidity,

    • SFC D says:

      I stopped reading after the first sentence. If you start with a lie, everything that follows is nothing but justification for that lie. Thank you for playing. Fraud. You’re a victim of your own bullshit.

      • Commissar says:

        I never said boomers were the source of all our problems, you pathetic snowflake.

        Your delusional victim complex just caused you to hear it that way.

        • KoB says:

          Always with the personal attacks…Always with the negative waves. Always being a s.p.a.p.o.s. ALWAYS!

          You hate us here, we are such a cult? Then why don’t you leave and never come back? You will never change your spapos ways, you will never change anyones mind. You will ALWAYS be a spapos.

          penguinman awaits you chickensh^t spapos. Or pretty much anyone else on this forum. Whatcha waiting…coward?

        • SFC D says:

          And what exactly am I a victim of? I am no victim. I claim no victim status. You blame each and every problem in your life on boomers, capitalism, economic inequity, everything but your own lack of effort and fortitude. You complain about your life and how you’re economically trapped in an area with out of control rent and cost of living. Contrary to what your Lord and Master Obama said, you did build that. You and your liberal/progressive compadres laid every brick in your prison. You’re welcome to it, I want no part of it.

    • Doc Savage says:

      “And they are refusing to let go of power. Clinging to office for decades and well into their 70s. ”

      Has the entire concept of the People electing them passed over you?

      No one stays in office that the people do not want in office….here is a hint: 26th Amendment.

      18 year old’s have had the right to vote since 1971….perhaps you should be speaking to our younger generation about it.

      The 18-24 age bracket has traditionally had the lowest voter turn out…..rather than shed tears over whom the voters place in office, you might address those that fail to make the effort to vote.

    • Claw says:

      Somebody’s Little Red Book needs updated:

      The minimum wage in California is $14.00 and $15.00 in New York./s

      • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

        He looks at the federal minimum wage, not the individual state minimum wage… cherry picking data as usual

    • OldManchu says:

      Dude… same some double space for the rest of us.

      • ChipNASA says:

        And I LARFED at this little hidden Gem!!
        It deserves recognition.

        • OldManchu says:

          If anything I post makes ChipNASA LARF then I am honored and humbled! Lol.

          We all have that one key on our keyboard that gets worn out early for some reason. I would imagine there is a Go Fund Me page out there for Lars to buy a new space bar for his computer keyboard.

    • Only Army Mom says:

      I know I’m going to regret playing chess with the pigeon, but I am a hopeful person at heart…

      There isn’t a factually accurate thing stated by you, rather it is twisting existing facts to mean somethin they don’t. Just one example –

      “Even blocking funding to RESEARCH climate change.

      Already cities are paying licensing fees for technologies to reduce the impact of climate change on infrastructure, Technologies developed by other countries because boomers refused to let the US invest in claim the change mitigation technology”

      No, the “research” (sorry, I’m neither a seagull or pigeon, I don’t screech) blocked is that which is predicated on the false assumption that human activity is the prime contributor to climate change. The “research” that is funded, and respected appropriately, is predicated on the complex action that is climate change as a consequence of a plethora of sources to include the millennia- and eons-long cycle of the Earth’s climate.

      Take it down a notch and seriously just consider this…

      It is incredible hubris to think we understand the cycles that are the eons of history of the planet to accurately assign cause and effect. I am not a climate change denier, it is real and happening all around us. Humans certainly contribute, but is human activity the prime cause, and inversely, can human activity act as a primary deterrent? Those are the questions valid research is and needs to be directed toward, not the impact of cow farts, the net-zero effect of solar- and wind-power or the (made-up) scourge of plastic straws in the environment.

      In your rabid hatred of Boomers, you gloss over a couple very important facts, such as…
      Which generation turned taking care of the planet into a personal and societal responsibility, i.e., planting trees, Earth Day, cessation of use of CFC’s, banning of public littering, adopting of local highways, banning clear-cutting forests, requiring replanting of trees by lumber interests, etc., etc.? Boomers did not begin all of these initiatives, but the Boomer generation made them part and parcel of our world experience.

      Using your kind of logic, Gen Z and Millennials are the ones responsible for the overproduction of waste in the world…prior to the invention of ubiquitous plastic packaging wrapping your toys, throw away plastic water bottles and cups, those things were made primarily of environmentally friendly and biodegradable paper products. No, your generation didn’t change manufacturing, packaging and consumer behavior, but your generation has benefited the most, therefore the blame is yours.

      Make sense? No? That’s the point. Now shut up and sit down. Wait, first tell us if you have reproduced. (I pray the answer is no)

      • Poetrooper says:

        Mom says: “There isn’t a factually accurate thing stated by you, rather it is twisting existing facts to mean somethin they don’t.”

        And by way of proving her right, Lars says: “In fact human civilization has tens of thousands of year (sic) of history of humanity investing in the future.”

        Comrade Lars obviously has never taken any anthropology courses, either physical or cultural, in that vaunted education of his or he would know that human “civilization” has far less than even a single ten-thousand year period of history.

        And rather than concern for future generations, survival of the current ones has been the primary driving force behind the majority of humanity throughout history. In many parts of the existing world, it remains so. This overweening concern for the well-being of future generations is largely a modern development.

        Talk about basing one’s argument on a false premise.

        It’s just another example of the uninformed hyperbole he constantly blows out his ass…

        • timactual says:

          “This overweening concern for the well-being of future generations is largely a modern development.”

          And mostly as am excuse to subjugate those of us who do not (by *their* definition) agree with their desires.

    • OWB says:

      Blah, blah, blah.

      Bladdy blah, blah, bleep.

      Would somebody please put out the screeching harpy?

    • Mustang Major says:

      Commissar, so you are saying the baby boomers created a Utopia for themselves, and as a result, you are forced to live in Dystopia?

      You insult your intelligence with your mindless ranting.

    • Hondo says:

      It [minimum wage] was $1.60 in 1970. That is $12.06 today’s dollars.

      Actually, this source says more like $10.73:


      Similarly, this source says $11.01 (January data for both years):


      Since both of those are in rather close agreement and are each more than $1.00 less than the figure you posted without attribution, I’d guess your figure is the one that’s wrong. Yet again.

      Seriously: do you intentionally post stuff you know to be wrong? Do you just MSU? Or are you really too foolish or lazy to double-check your posts against authoritative sources before hitting the “Post Comment” button?

      • OWB says:

        I had a minimum wage job in food service in 1967 that was $1.65 per hour. Don’t know what minimum wage was for everyone else, but it was lower for food service presuming that tips would make up the difference.

        So, y’all sayin’ that the liar is still a liar and y’all continue to read the lying drivel??

        • SFC D says:

          1977, minimum wage in my state was $3.35. I made $2.75 because I was a seasonal employee. After taxes etc, the paycheck was kinda thin. BUT, I was paying into the system. I’ll never get back what I “invested”.

      • AW1Ed says:

        MSU. Once again Hondo has spiked my acronym OCD. Which really should be CDO- alphabetical order, of course.

        • Hondo says:

          MSU? Why, I thought everybody knew that it stands for “Michigan State University”.

          However, it also stands for “Making S(tuff) Up” – as well at least one other very similar phrase. (smile)

          Hat tip to the guy I replaced in Afghanistan for that one. Hang in there, fella!

    • timactual says:

      “tuition costs were exceeding low and damn near free Could easily be paid for with a part time summer job.”

      Absolute and total horseshit. Of course the rest of your comment is also total horseshit, but this remark I have personal knowledge of.

    • just lurkin says:

      Having read the responses to Lars’ latest excretion I wonder if one key point hasn’t been overlooked. Lars consistently champions California politics but complains about about “lack of investment in infrastructure” and “housing policy”. And yet nowhere else in the nation are these policies so dysfunctional as they are in California, in large part due to decisions made by the Politicians Lars openly admires.

      Infrastructure spending, or I should probably say misspending, in California is characterized by the high speed rail initiative that no one really wanted and that has already cost probably $80 billion and isn’t anywhere close to completion. All for a rail line that will take longer to go from LA to SF than currently existing flights.

      Housing is also incredibly screwed up in California due to poor public policy. Listen to anyone who has experience in construction in California (Adam Carolla talks about this constantly) and it doesn’t take long to realize that the bureaucratic nightmare involved in building is contributing to the high housing costs.

      All this while the middle class is fleeing and the state struggles to meet its pension obligations due to extremely generous public employee pension promises and mismanagement of the state’s pension fund.

      Frankly if “boomers” have declined to support such foolishness I think they are to be congratulated. Lars is a statist nincompoop, his protestations otherwise notwithstanding, and he doesn’t know a way out of any of these problems other than to rob the taxpayer to pay for his preferences. California has serious problems that it can’t tax its way out of, and the sooner the public there realizes that the better off they will be.

  20. Commissar says:

    And the fact that Boomers were not in power and had nothing to do with any of the modern social programs in our country….

    Is not a counter argument to the claim that boomers took more for themselves and gave back less than any generation in history.

    In fact it is exactly in line with political preferences of a generation willing to steal the prosperity of entire future generations for themselves and fight tooth and nail against any policy that causes them to give anything back, invest in the future, or even pay their fair share of the tax burden for the deficit funded prosperity they enjoyed as a generation for their entire adult lives.

    • Mike Gunns says:

      You can pay more than your “legal” fair share of the tax burden, if you want to. There’s a little box on your tax form you can check off that says you’d like to “donate” more of your yearly salary to the Tax Man.

      Do you avail yourself of that option? If not, then sit down, shut up and go back to sucking your thumb.

      • rgr769 says:

        He doesn’t have a “yearly salary,” as that requires having a JOB. Unless, you want to call what he gets paid for posting ChiCom Party propaganda online a job. But for that, he is obviously paid by the word.

      • Mason says:

        Remember when Bernie was asked about why he took the extra money from the Trump tax cut? Hypocrites one and all.

        • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

          I wonder what Lars did with is Tax cut money? Also with the firs and second rounds of COVID stimulus money?

    • penguinman000 says:

      Assigning individual guilt to an entire class of people. How enlightened.

      You really need to read a history book or 2.

      Identify the problem and affix a solution. Don’t identify the problem and assign blame.

      • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

        I remember reading/hearing about someone in the 1930’s doing the same thing….

      • Hondo says:

        Assigning individual guilt to an entire class of people. How enlightened.

        Kinda reminds me of what the KKK did regarding people of color and those of Jewish heritage. But maybe that’s just me.

        • penguinman000 says:

          The examples in history books are legion. Pick any century/decade are there tons of examples for each.

          Jean-Jacques Dessalines
          The Holodomor

          There are four easy ones to start with.

          • Hondo says:

            The Soviets were famous for doing that throughout their history. In the USSR, “counterrevolutionaries” was the defined class that was used as a scapegoat for all of the Soviet Union’s ills. Anyone who didn’t conform to party dogma was deemed a counterrevolutionary (or a traitor to the revolution) and persecuted.

            The PRC under Mao did much the same. And Mao was particularly blase regarding deaths among his countrymen, once making remarks to the effect that he could care less if China lost 100M people in a nuclear war because China would replace them within a generation or two.

            • Penguinman000 says:

              Yep. And notice how he conveniently skips my reply.

              Intellectual and actual coward that he is.

        • Anonymous says:

          Yes, evil Capitalists (plus the running-dog lackeys) were behind everything bad in the worker’s paradise…

    • Skyjumper says:

      Dude, your lips must be Huge from flapping them all of the time with your senseless drivel.

      My advice to you is to never drive a motorcycle, cuz at 50 mph they’re going to fold up over your eyes so that you’re not going to see where you are going.

      On second thought……….

      • Hondo says:

        He wouldn’t want one. They’re not “green” enough, and Tesla doesn’t make one.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          I believe Harley-Davidson has jumped on the “juice scooter” concept.

          No word yet if they have been chopped, stretched, and equipped with “ape hangers”.

    • Hondo says:

      And the fact that Boomers were not in power and had nothing to do with any of the modern social programs in our country….

      So, you advocate holding an entire defined class of “others” responsible for things that they did not do and over which they had no control. In fact, you advocate holding them responsible solely because of the circumstances of their birth – and not because of their individual conduct.

      How . . . Klannish of you.

    • Ret_25X says:

      Dear Commissar Dumkopf,

      Your logic sounds very, well, fascistic.

      If the Boomer generation “took” more than your generation, then that makes one of two truths evident: first, it makes Gen X (the welfare generation) stupid, AND it makes Boomers smarter than you.

      Of course, the truth is that Gen X has been the welfare recipient generation up to now with the Millennials now taking over that role. It was not Boomers using welfare as a career choice, not was it Boomers whinging for cancellation of their student loan debts because it’s just not “fair” that their lesbian dance theory degree is worthless than the ink on the damn parchment.

      Every time you open your soylent hole you sound more and more like some spoiled brat angry that mommy and daddy are not still paying the bills for you.

      Don’t go away mad, just go away.

      BTW, BLS.gov is a good place to go for the ACTUAL data on these issues. The DATA puts your idiotic soylent mewings to the lie they are.

      But, you know you are a racist liar and thief who does not posses the actual balls to steal for yourself. No, you want better men and women to do it through “democratic soycialism”.

      What a lame jackwagon you are.

    • NHSparky says:

      As a non-boomer, allow me to opine once again:

      Dude, you’re so full of shit your eyes are brown.

  21. boiling mad CPO says:

    Where do you people find the time to research, argue, pontificate,etc. I, myself, am retired but have a whole bunch of stuff to keep my day filled.

    I attempted to follow both arguments as laid out in todays blog, but cannot side with Lars due to the fact that every program mentioned, my family paid into one way or another.

    I’ll bet the same goes for the rest of youse guyes.


    • SFC D says:

      Been paying into the system since I was 15.

      • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

        I wonder how many years Commissar Lars has paid into it… he’s openly stated in the past that he’s held jobs where he’s worked under the table.

        Like you, I’ve been paying into it since I was 15… over 40 years

        • rgr769 says:

          I paid into that system continuously for 52 years without one whit of benefit from it until I retired in 2015 at age 69.

        • Commissar says:

          I worked under the table for a time when I was under 18 and unable to work legally due to child labor laws.

          Because I was a runaway I could not get a work permit and thus had no choice but to work as an “illegal” employee.

          • Hondo says:

            And of course the tax benefits of doing so (no FICA or income tax withholding and no paper trail) had nothing to do with that decision . . . .

            Give me a break. I’ll go out on a limb and say that I’m reasonably certain that every jurisdiction in the US has a procedure for someone who is underage to petition the courts to become an “emancipated minor” and find work. I know someone personally who did so while still well under age 18 to escape an intolerable home situation. And they’re at least a decade older than you are.

            Did you even attempt that?

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              I was aiding someone to do emancipation at Christmas.

              Varies widely, but do-able.

              If someone un-assed a bad AO at 15, they certainly can as an adult. Easy? No. Do-able? Yes.

          • SFC D says:

            So I can assume from your writings that you will not take any money from the federal government on principle, because you don’t want to follow in the footsteps of us evil money-grubbing selfish Boomers? Or are you exempt from the blame because of your political leanings? You’re a fraud.

          • Mustang Major says:

            I call BS.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      My parents and grandparents paid into the system. I’ve paid into it, as has everyone else in my family, since Day One of the work world. Not getting back the money I put in, either.

      • UpNorth says:

        Same here, Ex. I worked for a PD that we contributed to our pension, and Social Security wasn’t withheld. All of my quarters were earned either prior to joining the PD or after I retired from the PD. Yet, SS withholds 1/2 of my payout from Social Security, under the WEP. Fair or not(I don’t think it’s fair), I don’t see that ever changing. Gotta fund bennies for the illegals, doncha know?

  22. NHSparky says:

    Quick hit comment, Hondo–with the exception if Medicare Part D, who was in the White House for the implementation of each of those programs you listed?

    • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

      Usually someone with a (D) by their name… and the one in the 60’s made it clear that those programs were to keep a certain group of people on the plantation and “keep them voting (D) for 200 years”

    • Hondo says:

      In general most of the programs I looked at were approved and initially implemented under Democratic Administrations. Ditto for most of the significant modifications. The major exceptions appear to be EITC (1972), the 1983 Social Security changes, a couple of mods to Federal housing assistance (1974, 1998), and Medicare Part D (2006). Those occurred under Republican Administrations – and the 1974 creation of Section 8 housing may well have been assisted greatly by Watergate backlash.

      Are you surprised? (smile)

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Hondo, this is not a criticism, but you included the Great Society.
        That was LBJ’s “gift” to the rest of us to get people out of poverty, which created a permanent society of welfare recipients, which has gone on since it was started by him in 1964. If anything has been a drain on taxpayers, that was it.
        If it had really worked, then cities like Chicago and WDC wouldn’t be flooded with welfare neighborhoods.
        And now: we have crews of carjackers going wherever they think they can get away with stealing someone’s car right out from under them, and an entire population of criminals and drug addicts in cities like San Fran and Portland and Seattle and Chicago who have raised the crime rates substantially in the last 15 years.

        • Poetrooper says:

          Blaming Boomers for the nation’s financial woes is like blaming the police for the excessive rate of black criminality…

          • Commissar says:

            I don’t blame them for all of them.

            But no living generation is more to blame for both the current problems and for hindering or blocking efforts to fix them than boomers.

            Boomers have dominated politics for decades.

            • Hondo says:

              If you’d bothered to read the article above for comprehension, you’d know the “Boomer” generation didn’t have a majority in both chambers of Congress until 2008.

              Kinda hard for a generation to “dominate” Federal politics when they don’t have a majority in Congress. Congress makes the laws concerning Federal programs and authorizes the money for them – remember?

              • Poetrooper says:

                Hondo, I fear Lars’ grasp of math approximates that of MSNBC genius, Brian Williams, who famously figured:

                “Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. The U.S. population is 327 million. He could have given each American $1 million and still have money left over, I feel like a $1 million check would be life-changing for people. Yet he wasted it all on ads and STILL LOST.”

                Can’t you just imagine Lars spouting something like that?

                • RGR 4-78 says:

                  I won’t give you my .02 opinion, instead I will give you my $1.53 well rounded (up) opinion that Mr. Williams should be on the hook personally for your 1 mil, Poe. But I wouldn’t hold my breath. 😉

  23. Commissar says:

    Oh, and let’s not forget the last major political act of the boomer generation;

    Boomers are the overwhelming majority of those that support throwing out the results of the last election and undemocratically installing a grasping despot who lost.

    So when boomers can’t get what they want democratically they are willing to throw out the democracy itself.

    All the while whining about them being the true victims and real patriots.

    And you all wonder why younger generations are tired of boomer bullshit.

    No generation takes more gives back less, and gives fewer fucks for the future than boomers.

    • Doc Savage says:

      ‘All the while whining about them being the true victims and real patriots.”

      Irony meter has just melted down….

      Lars, do you know what happens in the world when you display this degree of angst and butthurt?

      Not a blessed thing.

      Go outside and play with the adults; it’ll either open your mind or give you give you a case of the vapors.

    • Hondo says:

      And who, precisely, were the ones calling for ignoring the Constitutionally-valid results of the 2016 election because they didn’t like the outcome?

      No, I won’t point a finger at any generation – because it wasn’t any one generation. It was the US Political Left that was doing that, you duplicitous jackass.

      Idiocy cuts across all generations. Your comments here prove that.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      “No ideology takes more gives back less, and gives fewer fucks for the future than Progressivism, and the other various bastard stepchildren of Marx.”

      Fixed it for you.

      Gaze, thusly, into the Mirror of Responsibility.

    • Mason says:

      It’s funny how you think that Democrats and leftists protesting the results of an election is righteous, but when the Republicans do it “they are willing to throw out the democracy itself.”

      I wonder if Trump is opening federal criminal investigations into the Biden transition team. I have yet to hear any Republicans in Congress scream “Impeachment” like a number of Democrats did before Trump even took office.

      You apply your rules very one-sided, which is typical of those who like authoritarian government models like socialism.

    • Anonymous says:

      You mean pining for Joe “C’mon, Man!” Biden (who thought he was running for Senate)… but everything else you were right.

      Seriously, y’all, go watch The Big Chill and realize how it’s like Vanderpump Rules, Real Housewives of Jersey Shore, etc. and little else. Every generation has its issues, to be sure, though the Baby Boomers have an annoyingly large share of members who never got that pony they wanted when they were five and still have issues from it.

  24. Commissioner Wretched says:

    Hondo, that is some serious research there, my man. You rock!

    I think what amazes me the most about the Seagull/spapos/moron Lars is this … unless he’s doing some Academy-Award-nomination-worthy acting, he actually believes the bullshit he spews. Thank God he has no real power, and those like him have no real power. Or else we as a nation are fucked, sure.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      I hear in his sniveling his true complaint: no one is stupid enough to give -him- any real power or authority.

      • Hondo says:

        . . . . no one is stupid enough to give -him- any real power or authority.

        From your lips to God’s ears, 11B-Mailclerk.

        Why the Army saw fit to offer him a commission is beyond me. Best I can tell, he has a personality that could infuriate a lamppost. (Hat tip to an Army LTG I heard speak in the past for that last bit.)

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Remember when I posted that video of Snowden rattling on about his jumping the fence after dumping classified info into a public internet venue?

        Large & Bilious said he was working in Mil Intel at the same place and went weeping to his supervisors about it, and was subsequently sent to Civil Affairs. Remember that? If that story is true, it says everything about him.

  25. Bill R. says:

    With the exception of Medicare Part D, all those “good for you” programs were instituted by the WW2 generation. I don’t recall having a voice as to whether my wages would be stolen from me to give to someone else.

    • Hondo says:

      Actually, no. The ones running DC when Social Security and several other large and expensive Federal programs (food stamps, AFDC, and Federal housing assistance) were initiated were from the “Lost Generation” and before – e.g., those born prior to 1901 who came of age before/during/shortly after World War I. Specifically, we can thank FDR and his Socialist “Progressive” cronies for those financial disasters.

      You’re correct regarding LBJ’s “Great Society” programs, though – which include Medicare and rather dramatic expansion of most of the programs FDR instituted. The “GI Generation” (born 1901-1927) was fairly firmly in control of US politics during the 1960s and 1970s.

      • Bill R says:

        I knew that about Social Security but was under the impression housing assistance began under LBJ. I am wrong but he did expand it greatly. He also started Medicare and his Great Society programs ruined the nuclear family.

  26. Poetrooper says:

    Has anyone besides ol’ Poe considered that Lars’ deep-seated antipathy towards Boomers could be rooted in personal animosities? If he is approximately fifty, then his parents could very well be Boomers.

    Daddy and/or Mommy issues…hmm?

    • KoB says:

      Ol’ Poe, that one DOES have those issues. He, the spapos, has stated/posted on several occasions that the sperm donor was never around and his biological “Mother” was “…a cocktail waitress…” “…brought home many different men…” “Ran away from home at 16…” The list goes on. In addition to a masochistic spapos, he is a self centered blowhard that feels he can have his own facts in addition to his own opinion. He only drops in here because…(a) he gets off on the verbal abuse that his BS generates and (b) he has been banned from every other inherwebz forum out there.

      You and I both know that if he had of served back in the day “…on a hill, over yonder…” he’d of had a frag shoved so far up his azz, his tonsils would have taken most of the blast. And nobody would have seen a damn thing.

      • Poetrooper says:

        Guess I missed out on the true confessions but that information just reinforces my suspicion that a lot of his problem with Boomers is personal.

        It certainly isn’t based on “empirical evidence” as Hondo has thoroughly demonstrated.

        I had a rocky relationship with my own father but that was mostly due to my own rebellious genes, apparently inherited from my hard-drinking, skirt-chasing, paternal grandfather. Fortunately, my hell-raising didn’t kill me at a young age as his did.

        • Hondo says:

          “. . . . reinforces my suspicion that a lot of his problem with Boomers is personal.”

          I’m guessing his personal beef is with one or two particular “boomers”, PT – his mom being one of them. From his age, I’d guess it’s a damn good bet his mom was an early “boomer”. My guess is that he blames her for his apparently crappy childhood and adolescence. The same may well be true of his biological dad.

          However, it seems to me that he’s generalizing that blame to apply to everyone in the same generation. And he’s also using that generation as scapegoats to justify all of his difficulties in life since.

          He may have some justification to assess blame for a bad childhood to a small number of individuals from the “boomer” generation; Lord knows, a rather large number of my generation were truly knuckleheads when they were young (some still are, for that matter). But that’s not justification to blame an entire demographic group for all of his problems today vice the few individuals who are arguably directly responsible.

          And as SFC D says below: it’s also not justification to be an insufferable, arrogant prick. Or to have delusions of superiority when even adequacy may be beyond his reach.

          • Ret_25X says:

            I’m betting his mom and dad weren’t that bad, he was just an ass who was pissed they could not provide him a BMW in high school, therefore they were terrible and his childhood was “bad”.

            I’m also betting that running away at 16 had far to do with his early onset refusal to grow up than with anything anyone else ever did or did not do.

            Never accept the blame narrative of a narcissist at face value. In the end, they are always to blame for their problems.

            • Hondo says:

              You could be right. I’m willing to believe his story because IMO it explains his behavior quite well, but I could be wrong.

              Either way it doesn’t excuse being an arrogant, self-centered putz with undeserved delusions of grandeur.

    • Only Army Mom says:

      Poe –
      In other threads, there have been admissions of being a runaway. So yeah, issues. Diagnosable, pathological issues that may be justified by historical circumstances. Make of that what you will.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      If I am recalling his prior statements correctly, he did not have the storybook childhood.

      Neither did I. So? “Boy named Sue” is a thing. I survived some serious adult shit because I had my first knife fight at 8.

      Carrying a big chip on one’s shoulder just hurts oneself and screws up ones posture.

    • SFC D says:

      A shitty childhood is not a license to be an arrogant prick. Especially when the arrogance is backed up by willful ignorance.

    • gwdusn says:

      Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that’s vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

  27. Hate_me says:

    Way to not give him the power.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      “By the nonsense of Marxism…”


      “I said…”


      “Hey! I -said-…”



  28. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    Very thorough and well reasoned as always Hondo, you certainly deserve a prize for patience and decorum while penning all that…

    Those who seek to divide us into the random dates upon which we were born seem no better to me than those who seek to divide us against each other based on our income levels.

    Class warfare based on age, income, ethnicity, etc…is done precisely for one reason and one reason only, to change your focus from those subverting the government to their own designs onto people who have zero ability typically to alter anything about government beyond whom they vote for these days.