An Appeal to Older People From a Millennial

 

shutterstock_177669056I recently had a discussion with an older cousin of mine in his 50s. He was telling me he would like to see the welfare state gone, deregulation, smaller government, and all the other standard stuff Conservatives want for the future. Then he was telling me how my generation is footing the bill and tough luck for you guys. Live with it while I benefit because you guys didn’t vote the other way in very large numbers. I have heard this same line of argument or reasoning multiple times before. And I explained to him that this position towards millennials as on the hook for paying for the Boomers’ and Gen-Xers’ tab is immoral.

First off, Social Security and Medicare are the biggest welfare programs in the country. People get mad when I say it, but it is true. It was sold to the country as a government-run savings account, but that isn’t the case. People generally take out more than they put in and these programs are bankrupting the nation. Medicare alone will rise from about $615 billion at present, to a little over $1 trillion in just the next seven years. The rise in costs is far beyond anything that was put into it. This is welfare, pure and simple. It is robbing the young and their future to pay for the old. It is robbing the future of this country. That is what is happening. To complain about Uncle Sam stealing or taxing all the time while cashing these checks and enjoying medicare is hypocrisy to the 10th power.

Yes, you got fleeced. The government forcibly took money out of your paychecks for decades to fund unsustainable programs that are robbing the future of this country you hold dear, and the futures of your kids and grandkids, whom I also hope you hold just as dear. You lost that money and what was done to you is unjust. But to then turn around and fleece your progeny because you got robbed does not make it right. It makes things even more unjust and puts in jeopardy the economic well being of your progeny and this nation. I am 26 years old. These programs will not exist at all when I am old enough to be done working or can work no longer. But if I had the choice right now or in the foreseeable future, I would tell the government to keep the money they robbed from me, as I will not jeopardize or steal my descendants’ future. Many conservatives have bought into the idea that we should just accept the New Deal and Great Society as already here. I reject that, totally. The New Deal and Great Society have given us decades of nothing but highway robbery and phony promises. As I reminded my cousin, Millennials didn’t invent Social Security or Medicare, and we have nothing to do with — or to gain from — these programs that will soon break our country.

This is the evil of statism. This is the evil of collectivism. The statists create conflict and animosity between poor and rich, male and female, black and white, young and old, etc., etc. This is what happens when self-reliance is done away with and you force one generation to sacrifice their well being for that of another. To say — as my cousin essentially did — “Enjoy your future, Millennials!” is nihilistic and destructive. It isn’t Conservative. Fighting for the next tax break or reduction in corporate taxes, deregulation, or any other financial matter is a pittance compared to what ending these programs means.

So please, do everything to end your dependence on these programs. Do everything you can to shut the door on them permanently, even if it means you lose money. The future of this nation and your descendants will greatly benefit from it. It means you didn’t force your grandchildren and great-grandchildren to sacrifice their well-being long after you’re in the ground. If conservatives really stand for self-reliance and individualism, they need to stand against intergenerational redistribution and collectivism.

I have heard too many conservatives argue along the same nonsensical and nihilistic lines as my cousin did in defending these programs. That is unworthy of anyone who claims to hold the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Published in Domestic Policy, Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 114 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_1008534 Member
    user_1008534
    @Ekosj

    Hi ChuckSteak

    You correctly point out the following:

    “This is the evil of statism. This is the evil of collectivism. The statists create conflict and animosity between poor and rich, male and female, black and white, young and old, etc., etc. This is what happens when self-reliance is done away with and you force one generation to sacrifice their well being for that of another.”

    But then you jump directly into the statist/collectivist trap by engaging in their hoped-for “conflict and animosity” of young vs old. You are playing directly into their hands. Somewhere in Washington, progressive staffers are reading this thread (and others like it ) and laughing their asses off.

    • #31
  2. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @TheChuckSteak

    Probable Cause:

    TheChuckSteak:Well what are your motives? You said you would “get right on that” sarcastically. So you aren’t for getting on it therefore you are for the other option which is letting this thing burn. That is nihilistic in my view. If you aren’t for the solution you are for the other thing.

    And Bush also signed a trillion dollar medicare drug benefit for 1.2 trillion dollars.

    Steak, you’re very good at throwing tomatoes, blaming others, and putting everyone else on the defensive. I challenge you to do something constructive. Put forward a plan of action. Make a concrete proposal.

    In short, lead.

    We aren’t even close to pushing a serious proposal and that is the problem. People aren’t even aware of just how broke these programs are and even on our side. I am just trying to raise an alarm that if something is going to get done a sacrifice needs to be made. I’ve paid in too and don’t expect to ever see that money back. I don’t want to pay for another decade. I am not in Congress and can’t propose legislation. I am just a lowly Ricochetti who wrote a post highlighting something that should be on the front burner and never is.

    • #32
  3. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Lucy Pevensie:I would love to know the precise statistics on social security: how many people get a tiny return or a negative return on investment vs. those who “take out more than they put in.” I know for a fact that my father could never possibly get out what he has put in, and that those people who are exempt from SS because of specific employers can generally do much better by saving and investing the money than if they had joined SS.

    Here.

    • #33
  4. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @TheChuckSteak

    Ekosj:Hi ChuckSteak

    You correctly point out the following:

    “This is the evil of statism. This is the evil of collectivism. The statists create conflict and animosity between poor and rich, male and female, black and white, young and old, etc., etc. This is what happens when self-reliance is done away with and you force one generation to sacrifice their well being for that of another.”

    But then you jump directly into the statist/collectivist trap by engaging in their hoped-for “conflict and animosity” of young vs old. You are playing directly into their hands. Somewhere in Washington, progressive staffers are reading this thread (and others like it ) and laughing their asses off.

    Where did I get ensnared in that trap? All I do is take guff from the older folks whenever I bring up something like this. I am not trying to be insulting to them or blame them. But they are the ones who are in charge and actively or about to be actively benefiting so I need to appeal to them.  I sure ain’t going to appeal to grade school kids or those yet unborn. The ones I called hypocrites are ones like my cousin who say they stand for principle then don’t blink an eye when it comes to the biggest drivers of debt in the country. I didn’t say all older people were like this. I didn’t say no Conservatives are out there are fighting. But I have heard this same thing time and time again and it drove me to talk about it here.

    • #34
  5. user_1008534 Member
    user_1008534
    @Ekosj

    Hi ChuckSteak

    “I am just trying to raise an alarm that if something is going to get done a sacrifice needs to be made. ”

    And after castigating Boomers you graciously offer them the opportunity to make that sacrifice. ie. Please fall on YOUR sword so I don’t have to.

    • #35
  6. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    There’s no question in my mind that the country is moving toward means testing for social security benefits.

    I think the anti-boomer frenzy is way out of proportion to what is happening in Washington. No one is more aware of the unsustainability of the old-age programs than the government itself.

    They are writing checks against an empty bank account.

    The government will solve the problem by cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, and applying a means test.  And they will look at euthanasia for the old, sick, and disabled.

    And let’s face it, the politicians are not going to take a pay cut.

    This is a problem that will take care of itself.

    • #36
  7. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @TheChuckSteak

    Annefy:If your goal is true reform, pointing fingers and reminding us of who did what is not going to move the ball down the court.

    Seniors are a huge voting block and to remind us the politicans on both sides of the aisle pander to them is hardly an “aha” moment.

    I’m pointing fingers at a specific type of person like my cousin who say one thing and have no problem doing another. I didn’t say anywhere that a particular group or generation was collectively at fault.

    • #37
  8. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @TheChuckSteak

    Ekosj:Hi ChuckSteak

    “I am just trying to raise an alarm that if something is going to get done a sacrifice needs to be made. ”

    And after castigating Boomers you graciously offer them the opportunity to make that sacrifice.ie.Please fall on YOUR sword so I don’t have to.

    Yeah, I am not the one collecting and I am interested in my future and that of my country. I am not interested in sacrificing myself and my future for their sake. That is immoral to ask that of anyone. I’ve paid in for 10 years and I know I am not seeing that money back. I don’t want it. I just don’t want to have to pay until I am in the grave for their retirement. I don’t expect anyone to pay for me. How is any of this controversial?

    • #38
  9. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Social security is never going to be reformed until it absolutely has to, and then it will be done as slowly and painfully as possible.

    And you know what? We’ll be fine. It will stink; it will be a moral failing, but we’ll survive.

    In the coming decades we will benefit from a larger economy and better technology, which will make life much easier than it is now even though we’ll likely have to give up a larger portion of our paychecks.

    It’s still wrong, but that’s what’s going to happen.

    • #39
  10. user_1008534 Member
    user_1008534
    @Ekosj

    Chuck. Listen to yourself.

    The statist/collectivist hopes to sow dissension in their enemy’s ranks. And here you are creating that dissension.

    You say you don’t want to blame Boomers…but you do wish to point out that they were in charge yadda yadda yadda.

    • #40
  11. user_1008534 Member
    user_1008534
    @Ekosj

    “I am not interested in sacrificing myself and my future for their sake. That is immoral to ask that of anyone.”

    That is EXACTLY what you are asking of Boomers!

    • #41
  12. user_989419 Inactive
    user_989419
    @ProbableCause

    TheChuckSteak:We aren’t even close to pushing a serious proposal and that is the problem. People aren’t even aware of just how broke these programs are and even on our side. I am just trying to raise an alarm that if something is going to get done a sacrifice needs to be made. I’ve paid in too and don’t expect to ever see that money back. I don’t want to pay for another decade. I am not in Congress and can’t propose legislation. I am just a lowly Ricochetti who wrote a post highlighting something that should be on the front burner and never is.

    There’s nothing wrong with “raising awareness.”

    FYI, I expect most folks here are plenty aware already.  Some of us have written checks to candidates and think tanks, attended party caucuses and conventions,  knocked on doors, made phone calls, dropped literature, and voted year in and year out for the lesser of two evils.

    I’m tired.  I have fought the good fight.

    Your turn.

    • #42
  13. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @TheChuckSteak

    Ekosj:Chuck. Listen to yourself.

    The statist/collectivist hopes to sow dissension in their enemy’s ranks. And here you are creating that dissension.

    You say you don’t want to blame Boomers…but you do wish to point out that they were in charge yadda yadda yadda.

    I didn’t say all boomers are at fault. They are the ones running the show in Congress right? All of the leadership of Congress are boomers right? Some maybe a little older. So who should I appeal to? They are the ones who are a huge voting block who are directly affected by this issue more than anyone right now. I shouldn’t discuss it with them?

    • #43
  14. V.S. Blackford Inactive
    V.S. Blackford
    @VSBlackford

    Perhaps it would be constructive to discuss what kind of reforms we would like to see come from the GOP. We have to face the political reality that any kind of entitlement reform is going to have a political cost. Remember the granny being pushed off a cliff from a Paul Ryan look alike? It will take a great deal of courage from Congress to even do minimal reforms to Social Security and Medicare. Any reform would have to not impact those who are nearing retirement age. They have paid into the system their whole lives, and to not follow through with those benefits would just not sit well with me. My generation (millennial) would hopefully be more open to change as we do not have retirement on the horizon anytime soon, but the policy would need to be sold well to the public in order to get broad support. It would also be better to do incremental reform, as opposed to a grand comprehensive scheme that never seems to make it out of the legislature.

    • #44
  15. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    You are being unfair to your cousin and his ilk. Calling someone a hypocrite for benefiting from something they were forced, by law, to contribute to is harsh. And hypocrite is the wrong word.

    Hypocrisy would be accepting benefits like food stamps that you are technically qualified for but don’t need, all the while making the argument for small government and self reliance.

    Like I said before, I will willing forgo all future SS money for both my husband and me. But NOT while my children are being forced to contribute.

    • #45
  16. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    TheChuckSteak:

    Ekosj:Chuck. Listen to yourself.

    The statist/collectivist hopes to sow dissension in their enemy’s ranks. And here you are creating that dissension.

    You say you don’t want to blame Boomers…but you do wish to point out that they were in charge yadda yadda yadda.

    I didn’t say all boomers are at fault. They are the ones running the show in Congress right? All of the leadership of Congress are boomers right? Some maybe a little older. So who should I appeal to? They are the ones who are a huge voting block who are directly affected by this issue more than anyone right now. I shouldn’t discuss it with them?

    You know that the boomers are slated to be outnumbered by the millennials very soon, right?

    • #46
  17. user_1008534 Member
    user_1008534
    @Ekosj

    Thete is a world of difference between opening a discussion that acknowledges SS is a mess drastically in need of fixing and suggesting that Boomers are (1) at fault and (2) should tear up their SS checks en masse and (3) are hypocrits if they don’t and claim to be conservatives.

    • #47
  18. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    In fact, this is the one thing GW and Obama agree on 100 percent, as do all of the federal-level politicians: the answer to the social security problem in increased immigration.

    And Obama has accomplished this feat.

    • #48
  19. user_352043 Coolidge
    user_352043
    @AmySchley

    Let’s also not ignore something that we can explicitly blame Baby Boomers for — not having enough children to sustain the program.  My grandparents have eight working children between them to pay into Social Security. My hypothetical children’s four grandparents would have three. (And even though we have two associates degrees, four bachelors, and three masters level degrees between the three of us, we couldn’t afford to support our parents out of our meager salaries.)

    Ponzi schemes can work if you can keep exponential growth going.  Baby Boomers preferred life on birth control pills.

    Edit: and not just birth control pills — after all, abortion rates have been going down as the Boomers are moving out of their fertile years, and are now lower than what they were when abortion was first made legal.  Think of the millions of potential taxpayers who could have helped make sure Boomers “got their money back.”

    • #49
  20. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @TheChuckSteak

    Annefy:You are being unfair to your cousin and his ilk.Calling someone a hypocrite for benefiting from something they were forced, by law, to contribute to is harsh. And hypocrite is the wrong word.

    Hypocrisy would be accepting benefits like food stamps that you are technically qualified for but don’t need, all the while making the argument for small government and self reliance.

    Like I said before, I will willing forgo all future SS money for both my husband and me. But NOT while my children are being forced to contribute.

    I am not criticizing him for being forced. I am criticizing him for throwing his hands up and essentially saying forget it I have no problem with benefiting while the younger generations pay. This is the evil of these programs. Statist programs force all of us to do things we don’t want, and to all be complicit in them whether we want to or not against our conscience or values. I recall a story about Saddam Hussein and how he forced one half of his government leadership to shoot and kill the other half. This forcing of people to do something they don’t want to, and making everyone complicit flies against individual sovereignty. In a way these programs do that. They force you in whether you like it or not, and they make you complicit and they force you to have a stake even if you don’t want one. My problem was with him giving in and saying I have no problem with this. The younger can get the shaft since they voted for O. This to me is wildly against principle and hypocritical.

    • #50
  21. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @TheChuckSteak

    Ekosj:Thete is a world of difference between opening a discussion that acknowledges SS is a mess drastically in need of fixing and suggesting that Boomers are (1) at fault and (2) should tear up their SS checks en masse and (3) are hypocrits if they don’t and claim to be conservatives.

    I didn’t do that. I gave a specific example of my cousin and his view on this and I said that view was hypocritical. If you claim to hold a Conservative view, take the check, and then hold the view that well the younger can take the shaft cause how they voted in one election, that is hypocritical. Taking more than you put in as a Conservative is hypocritical. My cousin calling himself a Conservative and then turning around and saying the younger sacrificing their future well being for my retirement is essentially their problem is beyond hypocritical as a Conservative. And I said I have heard this ridiculous line of reasoning from him and others multiple times.

    • #51
  22. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Can I call for a cease-fire in the inter-generational blame game?

    Social Security was enacted in 1935.  Virtually everyone alive has inherited this system.  ChuckSteak raises a great question about what to do about this mess.  I could have written his post myself about 30 years ago (and yes, 30 years ago we knew that this was a problem).

    If taxes and benefits remain unchanged, Social Security will have a long-term permanent deficit of about 1.5% of GDP (benefit payments will be about 6% of GDP, payroll taxes about 4.5% of GDP).  A good conservative/conservatarian proposal to solve this would combine the following:

    • Beginning immediately, cost-of-living increases will be reduced to the GDP deflator, rather than the CPI.
    • Beginning in 2027, the retirement age will increase by 2 months each year compared to current law, until the retirement age reaches 60.  Thus, by 2033, the retirement age will be 68; by 2039, it will be 69; and by 2043, it will be 70.  (FYI, I start this in 2027 because this progression is already occurring through that year; under current law, persons born in 1960 or later have a retirement age of 67.)
    • Beginning in 2020, the total benefit payable to a retiree will decrease by 1% per year, until benefits are 75% of what they would otherwise have been.  By this, I mean the following: if a person first receives benefits in 2020, those benefits will be 99% of what they would have been under existing law, for the rest of that person’s life; if a person first receives benefits in 2021, those benefits will be 98% of what they would have been under existing law; and so on.  Thus, by 2040, a new retiree will receive benefits that would be 80% of what he would have received under existing law.

    We’d need an actuary to do the math, but I expect that this would establish financial solvency for Social Security somewhere in the 2045-2060 range.  Just the third proposal would eventually balance the system.  This would leave some room for tax reduction in later years.

    FYI, I was born in 1967, which means that I’m proposing some pain for myself — my own retirement age would be 68 years 2 months (rather than 67 years), and assuming that I started taking benefits at normal retirement age, my benefits would be about 15% lower than under existing law.

    • #52
  23. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Why would you criticize him for being forced?

    My point is it is unfair of you to expect him to stand on principle to refuse payouts from a system he was FORCED to contribute in to.

    Had he had the opportunity to opt out and did so, then found himself in need as a senior and consequently put his hand out, your criticism would be appropriate.

    • #53
  24. Matede Inactive
    Matede
    @MateDe

    You can add state and local government employee’s pensions and benefits into the mix. Since those are sinking many large and very blue state budget.  When they go down who do you think those politicians will be looking to to bail them out?

    • #54
  25. user_352043 Coolidge
    user_352043
    @AmySchley

    Matede:You can add state and local government employee’s pensions and benefits into the mix. Since those are sinking many large and very blue state budget. When they go down who do you think those politicians will be looking to to bail them out?

    And I don’t about you, but when I look around the DMV or county courthouse, I don’t see a lot of Millenials …

    • #55
  26. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @TheChuckSteak

    Arizona Patriot:Can I call for a cease-fire in the inter-generational blame game?

    Social Security was enacted in 1935. Virtually everyone alive has inherited this system. ChuckSteak raises a great question about what to do about this mess. I could have written his post myself about 30 years ago (and yes, 30 years ago we knew that this was a problem).

    If taxes and benefits remain unchanged, Social Security will have a long-term permanent deficit of about 1.5% of GDP (benefit payments will be about 6% of GDP, payroll taxes about 4.5% of GDP). A good conservative/conservatarian proposal to solve this would combine the following:

    • Beginning immediately, cost-of-living increases will be reduced to the GDP deflator, rather than the CPI.
    • Beginning in 2027, the retirement age will increase by 2 months each year compared to current law, until the retirement age reaches 60. Thus, by 2033, the retirement age will be 68; by 2039, it will be 69; and by 2043, it will be 70. (FYI, I start this in 2027 because this progression is already occurring through that year; under current law, persons born in 1960 or later have a retirement age of 67.)
    • Beginning in 2020, the total benefit payable to a retiree will decrease by 1% per year, until benefits are 75% of what they would otherwise have been. By this, I mean the following: if a person first receives benefits in 2020, those benefits will be 99% of what they would have been under existing law, for the rest of that person’s life; if a person first receives benefits in 2021, those benefits will be 98% of what they would have been under existing law; and so on. Thus, by 2040, a new retiree will receive benefits that would be 80% of what he would have received under existing law.

    We’d need an actuary to do the math, but I expect that this would establish financial solvency for Social Security somewhere in the 2045-2060 range. Just the third proposal would eventually balance the system. This would leave some room for tax reduction in later years.

    FYI, I was born in 1967, which means that I’m proposing some pain for myself — my own retirement age would be 68 years 2 months (rather than 67 years), and assuming that I started taking benefits at normal retirement age, my benefits would be about 15% lower than under existing law.

    This is a great post and this is why this issue makes me nuts. Financial solvency by 2045 to 2060? It makes me think why not just abolish it and let people keep their own money and do with it what they will? It is insane where the choice is between lets run all these complex numbers based on population growth, GDP, payouts, inflation, and we can get this thing solvent by 2045 to 2060 or just abolish it and let people run their own lives. To me it seems like a very easy choice instead of forcing the entire country to collectively lose as they have already forced us to do with these programs.

    • #56
  27. user_517406 Inactive
    user_517406
    @MerinaSmith

    TheChuckSteak:

    Ekosj:Thete is a world of difference between opening a discussion that acknowledges SS is a mess drastically in need of fixing and suggesting that Boomers are (1) at fault and (2) should tear up their SS checks en masse and (3) are hypocrits if they don’t and claim to be conservatives.

    I didn’t do that. I gave a specific example of my cousin and his view on this and I said that view was hypocritical. If you claim to hold a Conservative view, take the check, and then hold the view that well the younger can take the shaft cause how they voted in one election, that is hypocritical. Taking more than you put in as a Conservative is hypocritical. My cousin calling himself a Conservative and then turning around and saying the younger sacrificing their future well being for my retirement is essentially their problem is beyond hypocritical as a Conservative. And I said I have heard this ridiculous line of reasoning from him and others multiple times.

    What about taking what you did put in TCS?  Young people have been sacrificing for the older generation for many years now.

    • #57
  28. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    The boomer issue is like the overpopulation issue.

    There is either a finite resources pie, or there is infinite capacity for growth. People who believe there is overpopulation are afraid that others will take what rightfully belongs to them.

    I’m on the growth side of the argument. I think we have an infinite capacity for economic growth.

    The government takes the finite resources pie side of the argument because it cannot make its own money. It is dependent on the free market.

    I’m on the private sector side, and I believe that a free economy is sufficient to meet the needs of everyone. A free market will expand on its own.

    The biggest dependency in our country is not the boomers–it’s the government and government-related (in which I include healthcare and education) side that has grown beyond its ability to sustain itself.

    So the government sector is cutting services, not its salaries. It will do everything it can to sustain itself.

    I point to the fact the largest concentration of millionaires is in the Washington, D.C., area.

    • #58
  29. user_352043 Coolidge
    user_352043
    @AmySchley

    TheChuckSteak:

    This is a great post and this is why this issue makes me nuts. Financial solvency by 2045 to 2060? It makes me think why not just abolish it and let people keep their own money and do with it what they will? It is insane where the choice is between lets run all these complex numbers based on population growth, GDP, payouts, inflation, and we can get this thing solvent by 2045 to 2060 or just abolish it and let people run their own lives. To me it seems like a very easy choice instead of forcing the entire country to collectively lose as they have already forced us to do with these programs.

    Well, I hate the programs as much as you do, but …

    Just like Scott Walker left the police and firefighter unions out of his “destroy the public sector unions law” to get it passed, a slow, long term solution is our only real chance.  Just listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth among fellow conservatives about denying them “their money” here on Ricochet.  If we can’t convince Baby Boomers here that “their money” doesn’t exist and that they shouldn’t have a claim on our pocketbooks, we have absolutely no chance with the rest of the country. Don’t forget the mob that chased Dan Rostenkowski and swarmed his car back in the early nineties — old people have nothing better to do than complain.

    • #59
  30. V.S. Blackford Inactive
    V.S. Blackford
    @VSBlackford

    It is not politically possible to abolish social security without broad support from society at large, and I just don’t see that happening. It is a firmly entrenched entitlement. Any reform plan would have to acknowledge that reality.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.