Evening Star Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 How are they enjoying YOUR money? Of course they paid their bills or bill collectors would have all of their money. I'm guessing that he's referring to government debt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted January 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 That is a chilling statistic. The CPP may be solvent, but end-of-life healthcare system for an avalanche of sick old people is not. Are you self sufficient enough to pay for your own health care needs, because you might very well have to, nobody else will have the cash? Well I see the picture is getting through ... lots more retired elders, lots fewer working age, lots of health care, pensions ... Of course nobody complained when they were making big profits from the big population of big consumer boomers ... and paying less and less in taxes thus failing to invest for future essential services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 It'll be a good day for the West when the last boomer is in the ground. I believe I heard somewhere the last of the boomeres were born around 1965 or 66. And with better medical treatments and using the odds in relation to the increased numbers involved I would make a strong guess that there will be numerous individuals that will live to be over 110 years old! This will bring us to the year of 2075-76 or so. Did you ever think of how old you would be by then? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted January 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 In fact, a lot of them intend to spend all their money and then move in with their kids. Eeww gross! No thanks. Seriously, we can fund our own retirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 ... a lot of them intend to spend all their money and then move in with their kids. Actually, there are a lot of adult kids moving in with their baby boomer parents. Adult Children Moving Back Home: Don't Let "Boomerang Kids" Derail Your Goals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 That is a chilling statistic. The CPP may be solvent, but end-of-life healthcare system for an avalanche of sick old people is not. If the CPP is solvent it is only because those who followed the boomers are having to pay higher fees for it. The boomers certainly weren't funding it. It's only recently the CPP deductions have risen. Compare what a retiring boomer now had to pay to CPP to what a person entering the work force in the last five years will have to pay during their lifetimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) How are they enjoying YOUR money? Of course they paid their bills or bill collectors would have all of their money. Wow. That may well be the most inane comment you've ever made. And give you set the standard for inane comments that's saying something. The boomers spent my money by living a very good life that they didn't pay the taxes to afford. They wanted nice pensions, but didn't want to contribute enough to pay for them. They wanted a really nice social safety net, but didn't want to pay for it. They wanted great government services, but low taxes. That's why we have a massive debt, all of which has been run up by the boomers. Their parents went through a depression and then six years of world war and left them a debt free nation. Look what the boomers left us... Edited January 21, 2012 by Scotty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Wow. That may well be the most inane comment you've ever made. And give you set the standard for inane comments that's saying something. That sounds like an insult to me, but considering the mentality of the source, I'll consider it a compliment. The boomers spent my money by living a very good life that they didn't pay the taxes to afford. Of course they paid taxes. You think they were somehow exempt? As for the lifestyle they enjoyed before retirement, that was the result of their employment. You do realize that they weren't "living a very good life" on tax dollars, right? And surely you don't think that government pensions provide for a life of luxury. Right? They wanted nice pensions, but didn't want to contribute enough to pay for them. They wanted a really nice social safety net, but didn't want to pay for it. They wanted great government services, but low taxes. That's why we have a massive debt, all of which has been run up by the boomers. But of course you want to pay high taxes, eh? Want more tax money paid into the fund? Have kids/more kids. The baby boomers did. Canada must now import people in order to build its population and pay into the tax base. You are having less kids and having them older as you whine about less money being paid into the government fund. But here's the thing - kids cost money. Save the money you all are not spending on raising kids/as many kids, and you, too, will be able to enjoy the oh-so-lavish lifestyle that those living off of government pensions enjoy. Their parents went through a depression and then six years of world war and left them a debt free nation. Look what the boomers left us... Baby boomers gave their kids a much better life than they had. I suggest you make the most of it rather than blaming others for your miserable lot in life - and whining because baby boomers are spending their kids' inheritance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) Baby boomers gave their kids a much better life than they had. I suggest you make the most of it rather than blaming others for your miserable lot in life - and whining because baby boomers are spending their kids' inheritance. You think the selfish boomers cared much about their kids? They cared less than any generation before them. Those previous generations made huge sacrifices on behalf of their children. What sacrifice did boomers make with their divorces, their fickle, narcisistic lifestyles, their ignoring their kids, their refusal to even pay for the schools so their kids didn't have to attend schools in cubicles... And the boomers financed their society on the back of their kids. They ran up hundreds of billions in debt and stuck their kids with it. Edited January 21, 2012 by Scotty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 They cared less than any generation before them. Those previous generations made huge sacrifices on behalf of their children. What sacrifice did boomers make with their divorces, their fickle, narcisistic lifestyles, their ignoring their kids, their refusal to even pay for the schools so their kids didn't have to attend schools in cubicles... And the boomers financed their society on the back of their kids. They ran up hundreds of billions in debt and stuck their kids with it. I could swear the societal descent you describe coincides with the arrival of PET. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 I could swear the societal descent you describe coincides with the arrival of PET. What's PET? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 What's PET? It's like an FDR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 You think the selfish boomers cared much about their kids? They cared less than any generation before them. Those previous generations made huge sacrifices on behalf of their children. What sacrifice did boomers make with their divorces, their fickle, narcisistic lifestyles, their ignoring their kids, their refusal to even pay for the schools so their kids didn't have to attend schools in cubicles... And the boomers financed their society on the back of their kids. They ran up hundreds of billions in debt and stuck their kids with it. I don't think you have a good concept of time and/or mathematics. Government debt in Canada started around the 1950's when only about .333% of the boomers were born. 0.666 of the boomers were still not even born yet let alone in any position of power to make any relevant decissions! By the mid 60's when the final boomer was born,national debt was well established and most voters(18+) were comfortable with the level of debt at that time.Keep in mind by this time only a small percentage of voters were actually boomers and absolutely no boomers were elected politicians with any actual say. I don't think it was until sometime well into the 80's or even the early 90's when the boomers had the majority say (voter power) and political status to actualy have the final say where the debt was going.And by this time The Canadian governments started to at least try to get it under control. So knowing these facts makes me wonder your intent behind your comments. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Government debt in Canada started around the 1950's when only about .333% of the boomers were born. 0.666 of the boomers were still not even born yet let alone in any position of power to make any relevant decissions! How do you suppose Canada paid for the Great Depression and World War Two? A secret cookie jar put away for a rainy day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 What's PET? Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Pierre Trudeau or Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was the 15th Prime Minister of Canada from April 20, 1968 to June 4, 1979, and again from March 3, 1980 to June 30, 1984.Trudeau began his political career campaigning for socialist ideals, but he eventually joined the Liberal Party of Canada when he entered federal politics in the 1960s. He was appointed as Lester Pearson's Parliamentary Secretary, and later became his Minister of Justice. From his base in Montreal, Trudeau took control of the Liberal Party and became a charismatic leader, inspiring "Trudeaumania". From the late 1960s until the mid-1980s, he dominated the Canadian political scene and aroused passionate reactions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 It's like an FDR. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau Thanks. I figured I should know, but it just wasn't clicking. I tried Googling PET, Canada, but that was no help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 I have noticed I made an error in my previous comment on this thread. I made the claim of .333% of the boomers bein born by the time our national debt started and .666% not being born yet. This should have read 33% and 66% respectively.0.333% is actualy one third of one percentage and 0.666% is two thirds of one percent. My apologies! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I don't think you have a good concept of time and/or mathematics. Government debt in Canada started around the 1950's when only about .333% of the boomers were born. 0.666 of the boomers were still not even born yet let alone in any position of power to make any relevant decissions! By the mid 60's when the final boomer was born,national debt was well established and most voters(18+) were comfortable with the level of debt at that time When PET took over the national debt, note, not the deficit but the entire national debt, was $17 billion. He doubled spending in his first term of office, doubled. Then he doubled spending again in his second term. He was very popular for introducing all kinds of programs that nobody had to pay for. Of course, that meant borrowing lots of money. He raised the national debt by something like 1200% in his term in office - and those years were mostly good economic years. .Keep in mind by this time only a small percentage of voters were actually boomers and absolutely no boomers were elected politicians with any actual say. Trudeau first took office in 1968. I acknowledge the term 'baby boomer' stretches all the way to the late fifties, but in reality, the bulk were born right after the war. So most were voters when Trudeau was elected. And he was exactly the kind of politician who would most appeal to younger voters, and did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 When PET took over the national debt, note, not the deficit but the entire national debt, was $17 billion. He doubled spending in his first term of office, doubled. Then he doubled spending again in his second term. He was very popular for introducing all kinds of programs that nobody had to pay for. Of course, that meant borrowing lots of money. He raised the national debt by something like 1200% in his term in office - and those years were mostly good economic years. Trudeau first took office in 1968. I acknowledge the term 'baby boomer' stretches all the way to the late fifties, but in reality, the bulk were born right after the war. So most were voters when Trudeau was elected. And he was exactly the kind of politician who would most appeal to younger voters, and did. Actually the baby boomers go all the way to 1965-66. PET himself and pretty much every MP,senator,MPP,premier,judge in the 60's,70's(mostly anyways) and into the 80's were not baby boomers.Aswell most of the voters not until the 80's were boomers.Actually the boomers didn't start taking control until the 80's.Who was the prime minister then? Even now Harper has bein racking up the deficit like theres no freekin tomorrow buddy!But according to you somehow it is still PET's fault.Anybody but the conservatives right? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) Actually the baby boomers go all the way to 1965-66. PET himself and pretty much every MP,senator,MPP,premier,judge in the 60's,70's(mostly anyways) and into the 80's were not baby boomers.Aswell most of the voters not until the 80's were boomers.Actually the boomers didn't start taking control until the 80's.Who was the prime minister then? Uh, PET was still PM until 1984, actually. I'd be interested to see the statistics as to the age breakdown of the voting public in that period. PET was definitely not a boomer himself, having been born in 1919, but it would be interesting to see whether his success was largely due to support from the baby boom cohort or from an earlier generation. (Encyclopaedia Britannica gives the birth years 1946-1964 for the baby boom; the Canadian Encyclopedia gives 1946-1965.) Even someone born in 1955 would have been able to vote by the 1974 election. It's also true today, though, that younger people tend not to exercise the right to vote as much as older people do. Was this different in the 60s and 70s? Edit: In any case, Mulroney did not do much to counter the debt. Edited January 22, 2012 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) I'd always thought of baby boomers as the generation that came of age in the mid- to late 60s but looking at it more critically, that does seem a little off, going by those definitions of the baby boom. A 20-year range seems rather broad if we're defining a generation, mind you. Edited January 22, 2012 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 PET was definitely not a boomer himself, having been born in 1919, And actually, a politician's age has nothing to do with with the demographics of the voters he/she is trying to court. So I think you would agree that PET not being a baby boomer is irrelevant to his politics, even though those politics appealed to baby boomers. but it would be interesting to see whether his success was largely due to support from the baby boom cohort or from an earlier generation. (Encyclopaedia Britannica gives the birth years 1946-1964 for the baby boom; the Canadian Encyclopedia gives 1946-1965.) I am a baby boomer born in 1946. From my vantage point and experience, I would say PET's political success received a large boost from those of my generation who voted as soon as they became eligible and continued to vote for the Liberals in the hopes that the goodies would keep coming their way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) And actually, a politician's age has nothing to do with with the demographics of the voters he/she is trying to court. So I think you would agree that PET not being a baby boomer is irrelevant to his politics, even though those politics appealed to baby boomers. Yeah, I definitely agree that PET's politics could have appealed to baby boomers even though he wasn't a boomer himself. (John Lennon and Bob Dylan were not themselves baby boomers either.) (And I'd imagined you to be younger than that, for some reason!) Edited January 22, 2012 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (And I'd imagined you to be younger than that, for some reason!) Thank you. Not all 65 year olds are cranky old geezers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) I am a baby boomer born in 1946. From my vantage point and experience, I would say PET's political success received a large boost from those of my generation who voted as soon as they became eligible and continued to vote for the Liberals in the hopes that the goodies would keep coming their way. As far as I can see, the younger generations don't feel differently. The younger posters here appear to be proud of Canadian's longevity and health care and social programs at the same rate baby boomers do. Why lack of money is being blamed on the baby boomers is beyond me, and the comment that the world will be a better place once the last baby boomer is buried is beyond-the-pale ugly. As I said, I wouldn't give a dime to any kid of mine who would have such a self-entitled attitude. Fortunately, I have two beautiful daughters who appreciate all that their parents have done for them - as do all of their friends. As I said, they were privy to experiences my parents couldn't give to their kids, and they have benefited from it - and they recognize that. I would say a couple of people here have a blame-someone-else-for-their-woes chip on their shoulder, and of course that attitude is just going to bring more of the same. The government programs were based on population growth continuing at the same rate as when the programs were initiated, but that hasn't happened - and that's part of the problem. Edited January 22, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.