It’s been ruined for a long time, big money interests has always had a stranglehold on it. That tends to be older people sure but not all of them are beyond 30 either.
They are ruining it, man… Any day now, it will be ruined… Not exactly right now probably, but maybe soon likely… This is a thing that may going to happen probably definitely.
Consider this a warning… Of a probability… Maybe… Eventually… In theory… I don’t know… Could be.
Sadly yes, the boomers who are 50-60 are causing most issues because they fall for the same okey doke.
That’s a funny way to spell “sociopathic rich bastards”
sociopathic rich bastards
I mean they are generally old too, it’s just not their defining characteristic.
I mean, most of them have kids and grandkids, so that money is going to end up in the hands of the young in any case. And they were raised by sociopaths, so the chances that they will be as well is non-zero…
In any case, when outlets like the NYT do things like this, they know that they are using a red herring…let’s get some inter-generational froth going and people won’t notice who is making off with all the money and power…
There’s some truth to the inter-generational conflict. A lot of the boomers and early Gen X were granted limited access to the tools of the owner class (eg. “Reverse Mortgages” are really just a tiny version of the same equity financing the ultra-rich use to access their wealth without sacrificing control of their companies or paying taxes). They’ve socially conditioned and co-opted a lot of our elders into protecting their interests for them, however you are correct that it’s more of an attempt to obfuscate the real threat (the sociopathic rich bastards) and keep us fighting with each other rather than organizing against them.
They have you focused on old people so you are distracted from the fact that capitalism is the problem
This is the answer. The fad (psyop?) of blaming “boomers” for all the world’s ills is annoying AF.
Nah. It’s capitalism and social engineering by the powers that be. That shit is divisive as fuck. The old will be dead soon enough, but that 1% at the top bullshit has gone on for a very long time already. Decades, generations.
No war but class war, brother
Billionaires are ruining it. Don’t let the NYT shift the blame.
The boomers that vote for far right grifters and are happy to pull up the ladder behind themselves certainly deserve a share of the blame too.
Not all boomers. Sorry, blaming “boomers” is rather naive.
I’ve been around long enough to remember boomers blaming all the things on Silent/Greatest Generation. They had all the answers and could not wait to take over.
Just sayin’ - I’m starting to see a pattern here.
The problem with boomers, though, is that they formed such a large voting block that their generation has been able to steer the political system in the US. We started seeing change in the 90s and it was gaining momentum in the early 00s, but the reactionaries went full tilt on fascism as a result.
This is a gross oversimllified take so please don’t think it’s meant as any kind of scholarly dissertation.
Gen Y is the largest generation right now.
All of voting age. Followed by Gen Z (not all of voting age - yet), then Gen X, then boomers.
I mean, what happened in the past as you describe as a result of the huge numbers of boomers is entirely possible. I’m Gen X, so believe it when I say I have my share of resentments about how we were overshadowed nearly our entire lives by boomers, and then the spotlight jumped right to Gen Y, but all because of numbers, and not any unique traits to either Gen Y or boomers or to Gen X.
But at this point, blaming boomers for what is happening now is rather…interesting, I have to say. They are the 4th largest group.
Nearly half of boomers have no retirement savings. Blame them all you want, but the problem is the rich. Always has been. Always will be.
The population that voted for them even though it hurts them are still at fault, even if they didn’t write the billionaire backed legislation.
Well I can tell you for sure it wasn’t only boomers that voted for them.
I’m just trying to emphasize that this is a class war, not a generational war.
Not all Republicans are old.
Lots of boomers and Gen x though.
And not all old people are conservative.
This isn’t an old person problem; this is an asshole problem.
Yeah, there are several new generations of fascists ready to take over when the old ones die off, with exactly the same opinions and goals. It is not an age thing, it is a class thing, but oligarch mouthpieces love to spout this particular brand of obfuscation as part of their propaganda, because it seems to be really succesful strategy.
Does NY Times want to distract us from having class solidarity?
Always.
Yes.
We need to set limits for the age of our politicians. These people are too old and frail to lead.
One day they’re cheating the stock market with insider trading and the next they’re falling down and getting gravely injured.
Or they disappear into a nursing home because of their advanced dementia, or they just turn the capitol into their nursing home, like Feinstein.
Or they’re taking up space on some panel despite their aggressive cancer diagnosis, only to die and delay government hearings.
Maybe we do some kind of public health indicators past 80 or something. I think it’s rather foolish to have some arbitrary age limit, especially when there are plenty of incompetent people of any age.
The voters should be the ones make the choice, in any case. Unless someone is found to be incapacitated by some agreed-upon metric.
No, we literally need to enforce a retirement age on elected offices. You can’t run once you hit retirement age.
Nah.
Could not disagree more. The generational warfare stuff is such bullshit.
Most especially as people are living longer and longer. We need people that have a longer view in there for sure. Older people - with the right amount of empathy and insight - have a lot to offer, especially if they have kids and grandkids. Pushing people out prematurely is rather stupid, if you ask me.
I’d be okay with lowering the age requirements for certain offices - at least where most people have a fully-developed PFC, anyway. In addition, there would be a huge benefit if more effort was put into raising up more leaders within the party, etc. More of a pipeline and more handoffs so there is not some big disconnect, but more of a continuity.
The party should not decide. When the party decides, they work for big business and undermine the democratic process. Politicians should be chosen by voters who elect them. In the case of recent presidential primaries the party has put their thumb on the scale to undermine voters. The party establishment is the problem.
They even failed to remove Biden from running for a second term. He had to drop out after a donor pulled funding. This showed that the people in charge of the party are not the politicians, but the donors. It was pathetic and the party should be treated as an extension of their rich donors. I don’t have a billion dollars, do you?
Thats an awful lot of work thats going to cost taxpayer money when “move over, gramps, let the next batch have a try” is completely free.
Who cares if there are still a couple good old people? There are also good young people chomping at the bit to take over. People who aren’t hopelessly out of touch with reality and the rest of the population.
People shouldn’t be in government past an age where they likely wont be alive for the next decade of consequences from their actions. I’d personally lower the cutoff to like 64. They got their chance to set policy, let people who will live in the world they are making be the ones who steer the boat.
If we try that and it ends up not working, we can reassess. But until we try we’ll never know because those people aim to die in office, and burn the place down on the way out.
“move over, gramps, let the next batch have a try”
That is an option the voters always have.
Honestly, I think the ageism thing is just red herring for the elites to use to further atomize the population.
The problem is really simple to solve.
Politicians represent old people because old people vote. Young people always want to break the system and make a new one, but old people know how to use the existing system to get what they want. .
Young people have all the power they need to be heard, but they just don’t take it. They think voting changes nothing, but they don’t realize it changes everything.
If young people voted, politicians would be forced to take their issues seriously.
Young people always want to break the system and make a new one, but old people know how to use the existing system to get what they want
yeah no. most young people I know dont know jack shit about politics. they’re purely consumers who use TikTok, buy Starbucks and shop on Amazon. Theres nothing breaking the system about them. They don’t vote because of lobbyists who make sure they aren’t represented. When they feel represented they vote.
Hot take- people are stupid if theyre just waiting for someone to show up and represent them. No excuse for not doing your civic duty, let alone attempting to fix something that will make your life better.
Like a dog- you don’t just expect it to do tricks. You have to teach it.
you don’t just expect it to do tricks. You have to teach it.
thats the fun part, thats what theyre taught to do at every level of the education system. Its to vote and wait.
