Dr. Peterson, Pessimism, Losing, Persecution and Solution

[_Chap]

Obama is the elected President, with a majority of the Electoral College for him - which is how the Founding Fathers wanted the President to be chosen. If he does not have a mandate - that is, a duty and a right to use his office to try to carry into effect the things he said he would do when he stood for office - who does? Certainly not Romney. And there is nothing in the Constitution to say that if you are not elected by a 'landslide' (whatever that may mean) you are not a real President.

I hold the Founding Fathers to the same level of reverence that I hold the founding fathers of the LDS church... as in... none. I think the Electoral College is antiquated and top heavy. I think our Founding Fathers were afraid that any election of a president by popular vote would mean they, the elite landowners, would lose control of government to the working man. The system has nothing to do with what's fair and everything to do with concentrating power.

You might like to look at the actual operation of political systems that make it impossible for a government to retain power unless it can assemble a coalition based on proportional representation of all the shades of opinion in the society in question. The result often ain't pretty.

Now obviously the holder of the Presidential office is intended to do what he can to run the country within the confines of the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers built into the system - which in the present case will mean cutting a deal with the Republicans who have control of the House of Representatives. But nobody can absolve the Republican House from the responsibility of recognizing that a majority of people voted for policies opposed to those they have glued themselves to, however 'grumpy' they may feel. If they just behave as if the election had never happened, the electorate will rightly punish them in due course.

Bond was talking about Boomers, not the House. And the Boomers will only continue to get more and more grumpy. And since a great many of them are carrying the country's budget on their backs, and will continue to do so for the next 10 years or so, perhaps the younger generation could cut them a little slack when they get grumpy. He who pays the piper gets to choose the tune.

The Baby Boomers did not cut anybody else any slack when they were able to control the political agenda. Why should the rest of society treat them any different when conditions change? The young will be the people who have to work harder than every before under worsening social and economic conditions to give the Baby Boomers the return on their retirement investments that the Boomers seem to think they have a right to expect.

Who's paying the piper then?

[_harmony]

You might like to look at the actual operation of political systems that make it impossible for a government to retain power unless it can assemble a coalition based on proportional representation of all the shades of opinion in the society in question. The result often ain't pretty.

Neither is the Electoral College.

The Baby Boomers did not cut anybody else any slack when they were able to control the political agenda. Why should the rest of society treat them any different when conditions change? The young will be the people who have to work harder than every before under worsening social and economic conditions to give the Baby Boomers the return on their retirement investments that the Boomers seem to think they have a right to expect.

Who's paying the piper then?

The Boomers took their turn; whether or not it was successful depends on whether or not the individual in question shared their vision.

And if the Boomers invested in their retirement, then the Boomers deserve to have their return on that investment, the same as the generation before them.

Who do you think is propping up this government? 20 somethings or 50 somethings?

[_Chap]

And if the Boomers invested in their retirement, then the Boomers deserve to have their return on that investment, the same as the generation before them.

Return on investment is not (alas!) determined by what one deserves. The Baby Boomers may well have an unpleasant surprise waiting for them when they encounter the increasing reluctance of the next generation to vote for a social system that will let the retired live an easy life while the young work harder than the Boomers ever had to do, with the prospect of much less to look forward to when they retire in turn.

Such a scenario could easily lead to people voting for higher taxation on retirement investment income above a given ceiling. Why shouldn't they do so?

[_harmony]

And if the Boomers invested in their retirement, then the Boomers deserve to have their return on that investment, the same as the generation before them.

Return on investment is not (alas!) determined by what one deserves. The Baby Boomers may well have an unpleasant surprise waiting for them when they encounter the increasing reluctance of the next generation to vote for a social system that will let the retired live an easy life while the young work harder than the Boomers ever had to do, with the prospect of much less to look forward to when they retire in turn.

Such a scenario could easily lead to people voting for higher taxation on retirement investment income above a given ceiling. Why shouldn't they do so?

That you think getting old is easy shows how much you don't know. And if you think being the children of parents who are aged and infirm is easy, you really don't know.

For every Boomer who gets old, there will be at least one family of the next generation that is impacted heavily, if the current social network is dismantled. Unless you think the majority of the next generation is going to allow their parents to be homeless and hungry, because they were so selfish they allowed the government to defraud them of the social network they paid into in good faith?

If you're lucky, the Boomers will all die before retirement. Not likely, but then luck never is.

[_Chap]

And if the Boomers invested in their retirement, then the Boomers deserve to have their return on that investment, the same as the generation before them.

Return on investment is not (alas!) determined by what one deserves. The Baby Boomers may well have an unpleasant surprise waiting for them when they encounter the increasing reluctance of the next generation to vote for a social system that will let the retired live an easy life while the young work harder than the Boomers ever had to do, with the prospect of much less to look forward to when they retire in turn.

Such a scenario could easily lead to people voting for higher taxation on retirement investment income above a given ceiling. Why shouldn't they do so?

That you think getting old is easy shows how much you don't know. And if you think being the children of parents who are aged and infirm is easy, you really don't know.

I don't do in real life information on this board. But just for the record:

(1) I don't think getting old is easy. I do think, however, that the Baby Boomer generation will have accumulated investments supporting their retirement to a degree that it is unlikely that later generations will be able to equal. Of course some of them will have no investments at all and be dependent on social security - we are talking averages here.

(2) I don't think it is easy to be the child of parents who are aged and infirm.

For every Boomer who gets old, there will be at least one family of the next generation that is impacted heavily, if the current social network is dismantled. Unless you think the majority of the next generation is going to allow their parents to be homeless and hungry, because they were so selfish they allowed the government to defraud them of the social network they paid into in good faith?

Very odd. Where did I say that I wanted "the current social network [to be] dismantled"? What I did say was the the younger generation who will be working to provide the investment returns to support a more comfortable retirement than they will ever be able to afford may wonder why they should go on doing it.

If you're lucky, the Boomers will all die before retirement. Not likely, but then luck never is.

Oh, I sincerely hope they don't - very sincerely, let me assure you!

[_Markk]

Although I don't like Lou's language and overall viewpoint, I think he is absolutely correct in saying that it was the demographics of the voters that caused Romney to lose. One can't treat women and Latinos like crap and imagine that they will support you in overwhelming numbers. The real tragedy for Romney is that he would not have chosen to treat Latinos and women in that way, awkward clod though he may appear to be; no, it was the populist, conservative, Tea Party ideology, once combined with the retrograde perspective of the Religious Right, that dragged them all down.

Look at those assholes who lost senatorial races. That speaks volumes. Say stupid things about rape, and have your ass handed to you on election day. Get brutal with your immigration policy, and *poof*, there go your hopes to win the Latino vote.

It's all very simple.

How does conservative policies treat Latinos like crap? LOL Obama has sent more illegal immigrants home than Bush did. How do conservative policies treat women like crap?

[_Chap]

Although I don't like Lou's language and overall viewpoint, I think he is absolutely correct in saying that it was the demographics of the voters that caused Romney to lose. One can't treat women and Latinos like crap and imagine that they will support you in overwhelming numbers. The real tragedy for Romney is that he would not have chosen to treat Latinos and women in that way, awkward clod though he may appear to be; no, it was the populist, conservative, Tea Party ideology, once combined with the retrograde perspective of the Religious Right, that dragged them all down.

Look at those assholes who lost senatorial races. That speaks volumes. Say stupid things about rape, and have your ass handed to you on election day. Get brutal with your immigration policy, and *poof*, there go your hopes to win the Latino vote.

It's all very simple.

How does conservative policies treat Latinos like crap? LOL Obama has sent more illegal immigrants home than Bush did. How do conservative policies treat women like crap?

You see? Those Latinos and women voted against Romney because they were dumb. They just had no rational idea of where their real interests lay.

So all the Republicans need to do to win next time is to stick to exactly the same policies, but just describe them more often and in words with fewer syllables. Then they'll be bound to win.

[_Markk]

You see? Those Latinos and women voted against Romney because they were dumb. They just had no rational idea of where their real interests lay.

So all the Republicans need to do to win next time is to stick to exactly the same policies, but just describe them more often and in words with fewer syllables. Then they'll be bound to win.

I can't speak as to women, but for Latinos I wouldn't say dumb, but ignorant and "scared." What interest would you say the average Latino has in voting democratic? Why pick democratic ideology over conservative ideology? We know Obama and his policies send more home, we know that his policies do not line up with their overall "religious values"...i.e. birth control and abortion. Why do they vote democratic?

[_Chap]

You see? Those Latinos and women voted against Romney because they were dumb. They just had no rational idea of where their real interests lay.

So all the Republicans need to do to win next time is to stick to exactly the same policies, but just describe them more often and in words with fewer syllables. Then they'll be bound to win.

I can't speak as to women, but for Latinos I wouldn't say dumb, but ignorant and "scared."...

OK, not dumb, just ignorant. I'm sure any Latinos reading this will feel much better.

They don't realize that most Republicans are really happy about the increasing presence of Latinos in the US, and are glad to see them claiming their fair share of the public square. Where did they get that crazy idea that a large proportion of Republicans wish they would all go back to where they come from?

[_Bond James Bond]

Peterson and Midgley seem to be having the same sad that many white men (and perhaps Baby Boomers in general) over 55 are having. This election served notice that their time is coming to an end. Despite the worst economic circumstances in eighty years the Republicans couldn't run a wealthy piece of white bread like Romney into the White House on the back of a billion dollars of attack ads. Standing in the way? Black people. Latino people. Asian people. Women. Young men! Young women! It's enough to make a patrician faint.

Be that as it may, the younger generation, when they take over the reins of government completely, is going to have to find ways to appease the Boomers. They are still a mighty voting block.

Obama doesn't have a mandate; he didn't win by a landslide. A significant percentage of the population is grumpy and getting grumpier.

332-206 isn't a landslide when Romney had 191 votes baked in? Obama is one of four presidents (FDR, Reagan, Ike) to win a majority of votes in both Presidential elections in the past century. Obama's victory was more decisive than the similar victory Bush II had in 2004 (which was lauded as a mandate).

Boomers can be grumpy for all I care. You're getting smaller and smaller every day.