Why the disdain for “rich” people ?

None of that addresses any of the points made in the video I provided.
And I'll take that as a hint that you have no intention of reading Sowell or any other economist and contrasting what they present to defend your YouTube social influencer's Marxist view of economics.

And clearly, you not only never read or watched the work and explanations of actual economists, it's equally clear that you weren't paying much attention throughout the video you referenced from that young social influencer/psychology student.

And supposedly, very few Boomers have any past experience in the exact same jobs working class Americans are working at today in 2025. Not a single one of them worked in the oil patch, in mining, in mills prior to the working class Americans working those jobs today?

Jobs in mining, lumber mills, steelmills, unionized city garbagemen, are physically far harder today than they were in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, etc, despite the advances in automation???

Not a single Boomer is STILL a working class (Marx LOVED putting people in classes for class warfare) American today - despite the Social Security they paid in to?

Apparently, history and economics began the day we first heard "Hey Boomer" (often from the kids back at home living off Mom and Dad after finishing their college degrees) and YouTube presenting us with social influencers to be the economists to explain why the Boomers are the reason for our woes.
 
No, it boils down to disparity and lack of opportunity.
Opportunity can be an elusive creature.

Tale of 2 Sisters:
Grew up in a working class family. Food on the table, but no extras. A good family upbringing. One sister got pregnant right our of High School and lived her entire adult life with 3 illegitimate kids and no husband. Sister #2 borrowed money and went to college, became a teacher and married an Engineer. Lived happily ever after.

BOTH had the SAME opportunity.

One generation later, one set of kids are on welfare and the other set own homes and have professional careers. Guess which set of kids belong to which sister....

Case Study #2:
Girl lives her formative years in a welfare house with mother's revolving boyfriends. Her opportunities are pathetic. But she watched TV and sees how some other people live. So, she studies hard and gets straight A's. Free college scholarship. More straight A's. Free Masters Degree. In her second University she meets a doctor and lived happily ever after.

Sometimes opportunities must be sought after. They all don't grow on trees.
 
This geriatric welfare state is destroying our country and has got to go.
Earmark identity politics entitlements and benefits are all addressed towards the geriatric class that are collecting that welfare because they can't get by on what they built, paid for, saved, invested, etc in all the years that they worked?

Not to primarily benefit the generations (and their votes) of those Americans born after 1964? Welfare directed towards the Illegal Alien welfare state?

I don't share the opinion that the geriatric Boomer class is where the economic failure lies.
 
No, it boils down to disparity and lack of opportunity.
That's exactly what Marx (and Engels) said!

Mike Rowe, on the other hand, pointed out how many of today's Evil Rich started out as working class people who today could claim to be handicapped by "disparity and lack of opportunity".

Rowe also said: Opportunity usually shows up in overalls and looking like dirty work.

Fun fact: Marx's own mother described him as a shiftless, freeloading bum.
 
This is exactly right, and reading back through the thread, I see a lot of people who wish to blame "jealousy" instead of disparity.
Jealousy has not culpability aside from the person who is jealous.
Disparity implies that the people who were the main voting block during the time when disparity became so disproportionate have at least some culpability.

Jealousy and disparity may be related, in that the former results from the latter, but are two separate issues. Against whom is this jealousy directed - the individual or the government which, through its ability to tax and influence society?

Capitalism, regardless of how it existed 150 years ago or as it is today, is based on accepting that people will do for themselves what they will not do for others. And that some people will do better than others. Capitalism accepts and takes advantage of human nature rather than working against it. Like it or not.

Re jealousy causing no damage beyond the individual, I suppose if kept within that's true. But if not, people who are discontent often act out - such as that fellow in Minnesota. Or poison their families. I don't think a blanket statement applies.

Jealousy is not limited to the "have nots vs the haves". Someone making $2M a year may be jealous or resentful against someone making $2.5M - or making $250K but married to a terrific looking younger woman. Dozens of other examples not limited to "poor vs rich".

I wonder if Patrick Mahones is jealous of Tom Brady? ;)
 
Terms like “rich” or “poor” are totally subjective, and used mainly to stoke the fires of envy and class warfare. We are all rich relative to some folks, and poor relative to some others.

I have no claim on anyone else’s money or property, and no one else should have any claim on mine. And it’s none of my business how much money someone else has, or how he got it, so long as he acquired it legally, without the use of force, fraud, or deception.
 
Just like many people on this thread knows nothing about being a working class American in 2025 yet have all sorts of opinions about people who are
The knife cuts both ways
I am NOT a Boomer, so don't call me one.

I am ME, and I the product of 2 families that married just before I was born.

OK, yeah right, I admit that I was born during the time period that people are classified as "Boomers". But the colloquial definition does not fit everyone.

My Dad's family were business owners that lost everything during the Depression. Grandpa ended up working as a handyman for a rich family and he and Grandma and my Dad lived in the bunkhouse. Mom's family were immigrants that emigrated without a penny to their name. Even today, with lots of family members working in factories, so don't say that some of us know nothing.

Just like being a Millennial, or a Z'er or X'er, the year you were born does not always put you in a classification.

We saved and prepared and now we are "comfortable". My kids need nothing either. When I have some spare cash (and have not found a S&W I "must" have), the extra money goes to St Jude, Shriner's, Tunnel to Towers or Wounded Warriors. Anybody else feel that way?
 
Earmark identity politics entitlements and benefits are all addressed towards the geriatric class that are collecting that welfare because they can't get by on what they built, paid for, saved, invested, etc in all the years that they worked?

Not to primarily benefit the generations (and their votes) of those Americans born after 1964? Welfare directed towards the Illegal Alien welfare state?

I don't share the opinion that the geriatric Boomer class is where the economic failure lies.
why am I having large amounts of money withdrawn from my paycheck under threat of force to pay income and health care for people, some of whom are in this very thread, who have the financial assets to pay for themselves?

Why are these people who confess to being millionares not liquidating their assets as required to pay their own needs?

Did you know that the average retiree withdraws the entirety of their social security contributions within seven years of retirement and thereafter is riding completely on the taxpayers dime, often for decades?

How is this not all Marxist?
In the capitalist society I desire, if you want to retire, you do so on your own hard work, ingenuity, and equity. Not mine.
 
Last edited:
Older people have been sold this delusion that they can produce nothing for literally decades while also owning large amounts of equity without having to liquidate any of it, while extracting equity from a working class that is financially on the rocks
Tell me how that isn't socialism, and how it makes economic sense
Tell us how it isn't straight out delusional Marxist socialism to demand that older people should feel obligated (or be forced by government) to liquidate their life's wealth?

All in order to "redistribute the wealth" (where did we hear THAT before) to the sub-set in the working class who are supposedly on the rocks and can't figure out how to improve their financial situation despite all the budget entitlements and identity politics spending thrown at them for doing nothing other than using oxygen.

A claim made on behalf of that sub-set who did absolutely nothing to earn a claim on any part of those older peoples' wealth after a lifetime of work, but believe they are entitled to a cut of that wealth nonetheless.

We should spend more time trying to convince those Marxists to get off their butts, put on work boots, and put as much effort into improving their financial state, versus holding their hand out and claiming to be victims of the Boomers.

If they did that, at the very least there would be a lot more money left over for those who truly cannot support themselves by dint of work and effort.

If you know any of those working class supposedly "on the rocks", Weyerhaueser is offering a $5,000 bonus to anybody willing to put on a set of work boots and start working in their local mills for $26/hr. to start.

Amtrack comes here, as do major highways... sometimes you have to move away from comfort and home to improve your life.
 
why am I having large amounts of money withdrawn from my paycheck under threat of force to pay income and health care for people, some of whom are in this very thread, who have the financial assets to pay for themselves?
Because those people who enrage you so much ALSO had large amounts of money withdrawn from THEIR paychecks under threat of force to pay for people who also had financial assets to pay for themselves.

No different than you right now. Same situation, no difference.

BUT NOW... they shouldn't ask for the return they're entitled to, in what they were told all those years was being taken to fund their retirement once they reached the age to qualify?

And all those years they also paid those payroll deductions to fund people who claimed to have insufficient assets as they lived their lives of being lazy welfare bums, unwilling to do the work to improve their financial situation.

These new generations are the most greedy, "it's all about me", self-entitled "victims" this country has ever seen.

We should be thankful the vast majority are doing exactly as those before them did: put their effort into working hard and smarter to improve their economic situation.
 
Because those people who enrage you so much ALSO had large amounts of money withdrawn from THEIR paychecks under threat of force to pay for people who also had financial assets to pay for themselves.
Nope. The cohort group paying now is significantly smaller paying for a significantly larger group of retirees. The Boomers were 80 million. Each generation after has been smaller due to anti-natalist policy, feminism, abortion, and economic hardship, perceived or otherwise. I am paying a significantly larger portion of my equity towards SS and Medicare than my father or grandfather ever did...and if you'd watched the video I provided, he goes over why.
No different than you right now. Same situation, no difference.
Big differences. Larger retiree population, smaller working population, much higher living expenses, much more regulatory obstacles to name a few.
BUT NOW... they shouldn't ask for the return they're entitled to, in what they were told all those years was being taken to fund their retirement once they reached the age to qualify?
not if they didnt actually contribute it. Like I said, the averager retiree withdraws the entirety of their contributions after the firat seven years because thats all that people were expected to live when the system was designed. Now people are living often decades longer, entirely extracting from an ever shrinking pool of producers.
That's Marxist.
And all those years they also paid those payroll deductions to fund people who claimed to have insufficient assets as they lived their lives of being lazy welfare bums, unwilling to do the work to improve their financial situation.
Yea. The system required a solid moral foundation, solid work ethics, the desire to be productive, and aconstant stream of replacement population at least equalling those leaving. Once this anti family, anti accountability, retired-for-decades culture started pervading the system, the system started breaking down.
These new generations are the most greedy, "it's all about me", self-entitled "victims" this country has ever seen.
There we have it. You think a way about them, they see that and know they wont get anywhere by being nice or trying to play the current system. You'll lose voting power and they will gain it, and unless this disparity is addressed, without any moral structure or foundation to guide them the result will eventually be socialism.
We should be thankful the vast majority are doing exactly as those before them did: put their effort into working hard and smarter to improve their economic situation.
Luckily genZ is moving towards more traditional values. GenX and Millenials are in trouble though

By the demographics, the biggest Marxists are Boomers though. They are the only demographic group that does not majority support the current president

Here's some food for thought. How many people here who are millionares were in favor of DOGE, but oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare, oppose raising the minimum age for benefits, or would oppose a system by which you only withdraw to the amount you contributed, adjusted for inflation?
 
Last edited:
why am I having large amounts of money withdrawn from my paycheck under threat of force to pay income and health care for people, some of whom are in this very thread, who have the financial assets to pay for themselves?

Why are these people who confess to being millionares not liquidating their assets as required to pay their own needs?

Did you know that the average retiree withdraws the entirety of their social security contributions within seven years of retirement and thereafter is riding completely on the taxpayers dime, often for decades?

How is this not all Marxist?
In the capitalist society I desire, if you want to retire, you do so on your own hard work, ingenuity, and equity. Not mine.
Works for me, just give me back the SS and Medicare dollars I paid in for more than 50 years at a 8% compound earnings rate and I'll happily forgo SS checks and Medicare services.
 
Tell us how it isn't straight out delusional Marxist socialism to demand that older people should feel obligated (or be forced by government) to liquidate their life's wealth?
Who's forcing you? In my world, if you want to live in a mansion on a pile of money and starve to death because you have no income and yet refuse to spend your own money or liquidate your assets, you are free to do so.
All in order to "redistribute the wealth" (where did we hear THAT before) to the sub-set in the working class who are supposedly on the rocks and can't figure out how to improve their financial situation despite all the budget entitlements and identity politics spending thrown at them for doing nothing other than using oxygen.
It's redistribution to force the working class to pay retirees who have long since overdrawn their contributions. Especially when those retirees have significant equity yet refuse to liquidate, relying on the wealth extracted from the productive, working class instead.
A claim made on behalf of that sub-set who did absolutely nothing to earn a claim on any part of those older peoples' wealth after a lifetime of work, but believe they are entitled to a cut of that wealth nonetheless.
nobody is forcing you to sell. Just stop taking from me and mine if youve already spent yours. If you dont want to sell your stuff to pay your own way thats cool. Figure it out.
We should spend more time trying to convince those Marxists to get off their butts, put on work boots, and put as much effort into improving their financial state, versus holding their hand out and claiming to be victims of the Boomers.
I work 40-50 hours a week and take all the OT I can get.
Do you?
If they did that, at the very least there would be a lot more money left over for those who truly cannot support themselves by dint of work and effort.
So 30-40-50 year olds should work harder and sacrifice their future because previous generations think they shouldn't have to sell their accumulated assets?
If you know any of those working class supposedly "on the rocks", Weyerhaueser is offering a $5,000 bonus to anybody willing to put on a set of work boots and start working in their local mills for $26/hr. to start.
$26 an hour wont keep the rent paid, the lights on, food in the familys belly, and the water running. We aren't talking about high schoolers here. The job market is screwed from the bottom up, and grown men can't find jobs making enough to buy a house or start a family. $18 to flip burgers isn't far off and is a lot easier and less dangerous.
Amtrack comes here, as do major highways... sometimes you have to move away from comfort and home to improve your life.
Lots of people are, which creates a lot of other problems in itself.
 
Last edited:
Works for me, just give me back the SS and Medicare dollars I paid in for more than 50 years at a 8% compound earnings rate and I'll happily forgo SS checks and Medicare services.
Well, unfortunately, like the victims of any pyramid scheme, those that fell into it don't get to make more victims. It's going to mean big big sacrifices, particularly from those already vested into the rot.

37 trillion and counting.
Insolvent by year 3030,
Two stats that make it easy to give up something I'm never going to see anyways
 
Well, unfortunately, like the victims of any pyramid scheme, those that fell into it don't get to make more victims. It's going to mean big big sacrifices, particularly from those already vested into the rot.

37 trillion and counting.
Insolvent by year 3030,
Two stats that make it easy to give up something I'm never going to see anyways
Insolvent by 3030? Hmmmm....here's what the Trustee's report for 2025 says, in part:

Under the intermediate assumptions, the projected hypothetical combined
OASI and DI Trust Fund reserves become depleted and unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 2034. At the time of reserve depletion, continuing income to the combined trust funds would be sufficient to pay 81 percent of scheduled benefits.

The OASI Trust Fund reserves are projected to become depleted in 2033, at which time OASI income would be sufficient to pay 77 percent of OASIscheduled benefits. DI Trust Fund reserves are not projected to become depleted during the 75-year period ending in 2099. (Page 6 at 'Conlusion').


Guess they should have make a video instead. So much more entertaining than the 282 page document with replicable data.🤣🤣
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Insolvent by 3030? Hmmmm....here's what the Trustee's report for 2025 says, in part:

Under the intermediate assumptions, the projected hypothetical combined
OASI and DI Trust Fund reserves become depleted and unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 2034. At the time of reserve depletion, continuing income to the combined trust funds would be sufficient to pay 81 percent of scheduled benefits.

The OASI Trust Fund reserves are projected to become depleted in 2033, at which time OASI income would be sufficient to pay 77 percent of OASIscheduled benefits. DI Trust Fund reserves are not projected to become depleted during the 75-year period ending in 2099. (Page 6 at 'Conlusion').


Guess they should have make a video instead. So much more entertaining than the 282 page document with replicable data.🤣🤣
Nitpicking over three years doesn't negate the fact that, yes, SS is facing insolvency within the next decade.
I have very little faith in "projections" when I can run the math myself.

GenAlpha is HALF the cohort size of the Boomers, while GenX and Millenials, although smaller than the boomers, are not nearly as disproportionate as Millenials and GenX vs the cohort group that will be paying into their SS; GenAlpha.

GenX and Millenials are already struggling to pay SS with a disproportion in cohort groups that pales in comparison between that of GenAlpha and millenials/GenX.

GenAlpha us not going to be able to pay for the retirement of GenX and the Millenials.

The birth rate is still in decline.
 
Last edited:
Gosh, you're probably right. Maybe a video, maybe on TikTok? If only people knew how wrong 'them' and 'they' really are.

You'll pardon me if I put my faith in the institution that has been collecting, disbursing, and reporting on same to Congress for over 90 years, correct?
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top