Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Conservatives don't care about the size of a rich man's yacht. Conservatives don't associate themselves as being dependent on the rich man's money. Conservatives don't associate with the feeling of being entitled to receiving the rich man's money. Conservatives don't associate themselves as being direct recipients of the rich man's money. BTW, there is no moral difference between taking money away from one group to give to another group. Morally and objectively speaking, taking away money from people to give to other people is wrong. Some liberals just don't get it.

One perspective is that money is a prize that one competes for openly and preferably fairly. That's an obvious every man's perspective, a reasonable perspective, and one that cannot be totally dismissed.

To a serious macro-economist, there is another perspective. Money is in effect a lubricant. It is an artificial vaporous thing created by governments to make the exchange of goods and services easier. It is a tool created by governments to manage and improve the economy as a whole. If everyone has some, the economy is inclusive and healthy. If all the lubricant is hoarded by a few, if some wheels are left not greased, the economy falters and fails. If one produces too much money, one ends up with inflation and again the economy falters and fails. To a macro economist, the objective is a healthy economy. To a politician, there is often an agenda to get more money to those who give money to you.

It is possible to advocate a healthy inclusive economy without desiring benefits directly paid to one's self. I am a retired software engineer. I used to write software for the military industrial complex. I am not looking for government handouts. Between saving, pension and Social Security, I should do OK barring something awfully traumatic. I would, however, like to be living in a country with a healthy economy. I am not looking for rich men's money. Very few of the Democrats I know are below the poverty line and seeking benefits, but they too want a healthy economy.

However, many conservatives don't get that. Many conservatives have vile dark misconceptions of how liberals think and make no attempt to respect or listen to actual progressive values and motivations. Vile misconceptions of how the other side thinks are values lock defensive mechanisms. It is a way to protect one's world view while avoiding serious conversation. If you are going to explain and insult my motivations to me while not trying to understand or respect them, the conversation is in grave danger of resembling most every other conversation on the forum.

From a progressive perspective, it is proper to be willing to pay more taxes in order to perpetuate and extend Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want. From a progressive perspective, conservatives are willing to allow people to suffer rather than pay more taxes. The former seems moral. The latter resembles greed. If one buys into this perspective, the morality of the two positions seems perfectly clear.

But I wouldn't expect a conservative to get it, and I fully expect you'll find a way to spin the above paragraph in a way that will avoid your examining your world view.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Conservatives don't care about the size of a rich man's yacht. Conservatives don't associate themselves as being dependent on the rich man's money. Conservatives don't associate with the feeling of being entitled to receiving the rich man's money. Conservatives don't associate themselves as being direct recipients of the rich man's money. BTW, there is no moral difference between taking money away from one group to give to another group. Morally and objectively speaking, taking away money from people to give to other people is wrong. Some liberals just don't get it.

Apparently the proponents of the harshest nostrums of the Right see nothing wrong with mass poverty even to the extent that it causes hunger and homelessness. Of course the current Movement Conservatives see even the insistence upon fair wages for toil -- wages that allow some participation in the bounty of productivity -- as 'taking' from the worthiest of people. Movement conservatives would be in fact enforcers of the will of the economic elites -- big landowners, tycoons and financiers, executives paid well to treat proles badly, and intellectual toadies.

Marx got the impending doom of capitalism wrong; he failed to recognize that capitalists could save themselves from a proletarian revolution by letting the proletariat become a market for the bounties of capitalist productivity. If working people could buy cars, radios, refrigerators, and furniture they would no longer have 'nothing to lose but their chains'. But this said, one ideology -- fascism -- allowed plutocrats to take back what workers had gained. Movement conservatives would do much the same as fascists but be so generous as to avoid setting up torture chambers and concentration camps. They would still drive pay to such minuscule compensation that people would be obliged to work harder and longer under more brutal conditions solely for the enrichment of elites. Falter? Then you and your family will starve or endure exposure.

This is a pointlessly cruel new order, one that can't even sustain itself. The economic meltdowns of 1929-1932 and 2007-2009 repudiate your economic ideology.

Hey, Classic X'er -- you might try this:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...378#post525378

Please show your results in the Forum to which I have linked.

Selfish boomers have put a stranglehold on western political institutions and systematically dismantled martial values while embracing rank hedonism and pacifism which encourages the perpetuation of "girly-men". Economically the boomers have systematically dismantled state involvement in the economy and imposed a superficial "freedom", which destroyed all discipline in society. Boomers to this day try to shove globalism down the following generations throats, even though we clearly signal and sometimes even outright tell boomers "we don't like your idiotic globalism", the boomers shove this nonsense down our throats anyway. The boomers sell and ship off our manufacturing to china so that they could make money, even though the Chinese communists want these infrastructures for the purposes of conquest. The boomers spat on the troops during Vietnam but demand that we sacrifice for them, the boomers imposed ridiculous rules of engagement on our troops in the middle east. Selfish boomers condemn our troops when Iraqis ran down security checkpoints and our troops had to take measure to eliminate the threat. Boomers condemned the troops at Abu Graib, when news of picture surfaced in Afghanistan of troops standing over enemy dead and troops urinating on enemy dead, selfish boomers who refuse to acknowledge the contribution those troops are making to our continued safety discharged and reprimanded the troops rather than doing the right thing and giving them a medal. The boomers have proven to be the most effete and decadent generation in our country's history.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Selfish boomers have put a stranglehold on western political institutions and systematically dismantled martial values while embracing rank hedonism and pacifism which encourages the perpetuation of "girly-men".

Again, we have an attack on someone's perception of what boomers are. Frankly, I don't recognize myself. It is ad-hominum and strawman rather than reality as I see it. While Classic is attacking progressives rather than boomers, it is pretty much the same thing. We have attacks on an imaginary world populated with vile stereotypes. There is no attempt to understand and respect the other guy's point of view. As long as you live in an imaginary reality where your enemies are insane and many others share your antiquated values, so long as you are unwilling to engage with other's real values rather than what is convenient for you to imagine their values, attempting communications is pointless.

I do not anticipate a 4T transformation centered on Restoree autocrats attempting to bring back Agricultural Age government and values. The Agricultural Age is long gone. Nations that tried to cling to Agricultural Age government lost out badly to Industrial Age democracies. The old style of government just cannot compete in the modern world. During the 2T and 3T the rhetoric and stalemate centered on the progressive - conservative divide, not the Agricultural Age - Industrial Age divide. The spiral of rhetoric that might plausibly lead to a spiral of violence or a major transformation is focused in an entirely different direction.

If Classic is not able or interested in understanding and dealing with progressives as they really believe and act, he is at least focused on the real divide.

It was not the boomers that ended the endless cycle of ever more destructive wars. It was nuclear weapons. Prior to nukes, there was generally an aggressive power that was willing to expand its area and resources through brute force. Afterwards, not so much. Anyone with any appreciation of such weapons would understand this.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Conservatives don't care about the size of a rich man's yacht. Conservatives don't associate themselves as being dependent on the rich man's money. Conservatives don't associate with the feeling of being entitled to receiving the rich man's money. Conservatives don't associate themselves as being direct recipients of the rich man's money. BTW, there is no moral difference between taking money away from one group to give to another group. Morally and objectively speaking, taking away money from people to give to other people is wrong. Some liberals just don't get it.

I think we get it. We are bombarded with this philosophy all the time, and it has been dominant in our society for 35 years since Saint Ronnie was elected. We disagree. Guys like me think that the rich took the money away from the rest of us to begin with, so requiring them to give some of it back is not so wrong.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

The whole Red - Blue conflict is a 2T/3T hangover, a bunch of Boomers (and the remaining Silents) fighting "yesterday's war" so to speak. In the 4T and the 1T after it, a more unified vision is set to take hold. One thing I think we will see with the Millies and Homies will be their ability to synch up and get things done. Getting things done will far outweigh ideological debates and ideologues will be looked upon as assholes.

On the other hand, the ideological debates are really about the question of whether we should get things done, or not. It's not a generational thing. And yesterday's war is today's war, since those who do not want to get things done have been holding our society back for 35 years. Nothing has moved forward, in fact, so yesterday's war is still today's war.

Originally Posted by B Butler

One perspective is that money is a prize that one competes for openly and preferably fairly. That's an obvious every man's perspective, a reasonable perspective, and one that cannot be totally dismissed.

To a serious macro-economist, there is another perspective. Money is in effect a lubricant. It is an artificial vaporous thing created by governments to make the exchange of goods and services easier. It is a tool created by governments to manage and improve the economy as a whole. If everyone has some, the economy is inclusive and healthy. If all the lubricant is hoarded by a few, if some wheels are left not greased, the economy falters and fails. If one produces too much money, one ends up with inflation and again the economy falters and fails. To a macro economist, the objective is a healthy economy. To a politician, there is often an agenda to get more money to those who give money to you.

It is possible to advocate a healthy inclusive economy without desiring benefits directly paid to one's self. I am a retired software engineer. I used to write software for the military industrial complex. I am not looking for government handouts. Between saving, pension and Social Security, I should do OK barring something awfully traumatic. I would, however, like to be living in a country with a healthy economy. I am not looking for rich men's money. Very few of the Democrats I know are below the poverty line and seeking benefits, but they too want a healthy economy.

However, many conservatives don't get that. Many conservatives have vile dark misconceptions of how liberals think and make no attempt to respect or listen to actual progressive values and motivations. Vile misconceptions of how the other side thinks are values lock defensive mechanisms. It is a way to protect one's world view while avoiding serious conversation. If you are going to explain and insult my motivations to me while not trying to understand or respect them, the conversation is in grave danger of resembling most every other conversation on the forum.

From a progressive perspective, it is proper to be willing to pay more taxes in order to perpetuate and extend Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want. From a progressive perspective, conservatives are willing to allow people to suffer rather than pay more taxes. The former seems moral. The latter resembles greed. If one buys into this perspective, the morality of the two positions seems perfectly clear.

But I wouldn't expect a conservative to get it, and I fully expect you'll find a way to spin the above paragraph in a way that will avoid your examining your world view.

Money is a necessity that is often associated with ones status, quality of life and their lifestyle. Federal currency is commonly recognized as our legal means of exchange. Lubrication (routine injections/splashes of federal funding) is considered and viewed as necessary by some at all times (progressives in general). It's considered and viewed as OK or necessary at times by others depending on the circumstances and where it's being directed and how it being used and applied within our economic system. It's considered and viewed as excessive, wasteful. exploitative and corrupted to the point of causing some severe issues now and even greater and more severe issues in the future by others. I get it. The question is do you get it too.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think we get it. We are bombarded with this philosophy all the time, and it has been dominant in our society for 35 years since Saint Ronnie was elected. We disagree. Guys like me think that the rich took the money away from the rest of us to begin with, so requiring them to give some of it back is not so wrong.

You're being bombarded with a very common philosophy.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Again, we have an attack on someone's perception of what boomers are. Frankly, I don't recognize myself. It is ad-hominum and strawman rather than reality as I see it. While Classic is attacking progressives rather than boomers, it is pretty much the same thing. We have attacks on an imaginary world populated with vile stereotypes. There is no attempt to understand and respect the other guy's point of view. As long as you live in an imaginary reality where your enemies are insane and many others share your antiquated values, so long as you are unwilling to engage with other's real values rather than what is convenient for you to imagine their values, attempting communications is pointless.

I do not anticipate a 4T transformation centered on Restoree autocrats attempting to bring back Agricultural Age government and values. The Agricultural Age is long gone. Nations that tried to cling to Agricultural Age government lost out badly to Industrial Age democracies. The old style of government just cannot compete in the modern world. During the 2T and 3T the rhetoric and stalemate centered on the progressive - conservative divide, not the Agricultural Age - Industrial Age divide. The spiral of rhetoric that might plausibly lead to a spiral of violence or a major transformation is focused in an entirely different direction.

If Classic is not able or interested in understanding and dealing with progressives as they really believe and act, he is at least focused on the real divide.

It was not the boomers that ended the endless cycle of ever more destructive wars. It was nuclear weapons. Prior to nukes, there was generally an aggressive power that was willing to expand its area and resources through brute force. Afterwards, not so much. Anyone with any appreciation of such weapons would understand this.

I live in a world with money. I live in a world with lots of salesman who are hounding people for a portion and contributions of their money for this or that cause or item at all times. I live in a world with lots of scoundrels, petty crooks and untrustworthy people looking for easy money or a piece of the action. I live in the world of unprotected business. I live in modern day America.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

There is nothing moral about take from the rich to give to the poor either. It's greedy as well.

In the Jewish tradition, it's called "tzedaka", charity, supporting the least among us. It strikes me that having those with advantages use some of their resources to bring necessities and dignity to those less advantaged is the very height of morality. It's greedy for those with excess to not share with those less fortunate.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I live in a world with money. I live in a world with lots of salesman who are hounding people for a portion and contributions of their money for this or that cause or item at all times. I live in a world with lots of scoundrels, petty crooks and untrustworthy people looking for easy money or a piece of the action. I live in the world of unprotected business. I live in modern day America.

Sounds right. I live there too. I do a little personal charity helping people I know well. I support progressive politicians who can do more at a larger scale than I could do personally. I see the scale of the problem as large enough, as involving things like tax rates and money supplies, that private individuals and organizations just can't handle it. If the tax codes are pumping lubricant from the squeaking wheels to those swimming in grease, there isn't much I can do as an individual.

I have a theory. Telemarketers and companies who hire them have exempted themselves from courtesy. I am dubious about private third party charities. When I give to charities, I seek out the charity rather than waiting for them to come to me. These are not the only approaches, I'm sure, but the problems you describe are real.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I have a theory. Telemarketers and companies who hire them have exempted themselves from courtesy.

I sometimes exempt myself from courtesy when saying no to telemarketers and companies who hire them.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Money is a necessity that is often associated with ones status, quality of life and their lifestyle. Federal currency is commonly recognized as our legal means of exchange. Lubrication (routine injections/splashes of federal funding) is considered and viewed as necessary by some at all times (progressives in general). It's considered and viewed as OK or necessary at times by others depending on the circumstances and where it's being directed and how it being used and applied within our economic system. It's considered and viewed as excessive, wasteful. exploitative and corrupted to the point of causing some severe issues now and even greater and more severe issues in the future by others. I get it. The question is do you get it too.

I think so. From the progressive side, I would invoke the notion of freedom from want, but invoke it at the poverty line. If a child is being sent to school hungry as the parents can't afford better, let's look at free lunch programs at the school. If a man can't afford health care for his family, lets make sure Romneycare / Obamacare is set up properly. If it is difficult to impossible for working people at many jobs to save for retirement, something is broke and has to be looked at. There are a lot of people who do not need such help, but there are those who do.

I am concerned about abuse. If you want to point out how the system can be abused and propose a fix, I'll be sympathetic. The more the cheats and crooks abuse the system, the less those in real need are helped. However, the abstract possibility that there might be abuse doesn't mean the whole system should be shunned and shut down.

My sense is that LBJ and the Great Society problems spent too much doing too little awkwardly. That was a time of liberal tax and spend hubris. The people of the time had a culture of trying to solve problems but bit off more than they could chew. Reagan made some prudent and appropriate trimming of the Great Society programs, but since then we've had a lot of conservative tax cut hubris. Both parties, when they start winning votes by pushing the society in a given direction, are apt to push in that direction well beyond the point of wisdom.

Third Turnings are times of selfishness, while Fourth and First Turnings are times where the community comes together to do what is necessary and appropriate. In part, the greater concern for one's own wallet than the welfare of the poor is just where we are in the cycle. The pendulum is not going to swing the other way until the community is aware of and feels a responsibility for its own. In theory that's supposed to happen in time.

But if we're going to converse, the sort of questions are what sort of suffering should be considered intolerable, and what sort of abuses of the system can be identified and eliminated. The exact placements of these lines will be subjective and debatable. Still, a progressive stance that all suffering shall be washed away in a sea of tax and spend, or a conservative stance that because there is a possibility of abuse in a program that the program shall not be funded at all, would be equally absurd. Each set of ideologues should attempt to respect the concerns of the other.

Originally Posted by B Butler

My sense is that LBJ and the Great Society problems spent too much doing too little awkwardly. That was a time of liberal tax and spend hubris. The people of the time had a culture of trying to solve problems but bit off more than they could chew. Reagan made some prudent and appropriate trimming of the Great Society programs,

You keep saying that on the basis of your sense, but what do you see as the facts regarding Great Society tax and spend hubris? What prudent cuts did Reagan make?

I'm not in favor of abuse either, and was in favor of moderate welfare reform (not what was actually passed), but I doubt that Reagan did anything to curb abuse, nor LBJ to cause it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You keep saying that on the basis of your sense, but what do you see as the facts regarding Great Society tax and spend hubris? What prudent cuts did Reagan make?

I'm not in favor of abuse either, and was in favor of moderate welfare reform (not what was actually passed), but I doubt that Reagan did anything to curb abuse, nor LBJ to cause it.

One conservative idea from the Reagan ear is the notion that welfare shouldn't be a way of life for fit people able to hold down a job. A helping hand in a time of need, sure, but the help comes with job training, job placement help and a ticking clock.

In a tax the poor to help the rich economy, this isn't always an adequate answer. If the economy isn't inclusive, if training and placement help don't result in a job, the situation is problematic.

Beyond that, I'll let Classic answer. It seems to be a conservative meme that the system is abusable thus ought to be reduced or shut down. I too would like to hear specifics on what documented abuses exist. In principle I'm against actual abuse of the system as much as any conservative. Money that goes to cheats should go elsewhere. That's not the same thing as delusional abuse that exists only in the minds of conservatives for the purpose of justifying their greed. Let's talk about real documentable problems.

"Also, the white American poor, which is most of them, are socially conservative -- God knows why. They will vote against their own financial interests if a politician makes enough suitable noises about Jesus and guns. They would rather stay poor and prevent gay marriage than have more money and be more tolerant."

---Ernest W. Adams, Game Design Consultant, Author

So, who doesn't get what, now again?

I guess money and material wealth aren't the most important things in life for some people.
What a strange concept!

Originally Posted by B Butler

It seems to be a conservative meme that the system is abusable thus ought to be reduced or shut down. I too would like to hear specifics on what documented abuses exist. In principle I'm against actual abuse of the system as much as any conservative. Money that goes to cheats should go elsewhere. That's not the same thing as delusional abuse that exists only in the minds of conservatives for the purpose of justifying their greed. Let's talk about real documentable problems.

There is a tradeoff. If you make it difficult for cheats to take advantage of a government benefit such as food stamps or medical assistance, you also end up shutting out a lot of genuinely needy people who have trouble jumping through all of the hoops. You have to figure out what balance of coverage versus integrity is acceptable. Each person's preference is different.

It's not as simple as "cheats" vs "non-cheats."
There's a psychological component, for example the tendency for people receiving disability payments to stay disabled when their income depends on it. Which sucks, because paying people with "back pain" to sit around all day depletes available resources for people with permanent and chronic illnesses such as schizophrenia.
And higher-functioning schizophrenics are penalized if they get jobs and earn too much. I wouldn't say that a schizophrenic who isn't working as hard as he or she could, because of that aspect of the system, is a "cheat," but I'd say that the government is providing more support than necessary and possibly even keeping that person from improving his/her financial situation.
Real life is complex. Politics is simplistic.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

It's not as simple as "cheats" vs "non-cheats."

There's a psychological component, for example the tendency for people receiving disability payments to stay disabled when their income depends on it. Which sucks, because paying people with "back pain" to sit around all day depletes available resources for people with permanent and chronic illnesses such as schizophrenia.
And higher-functioning schizophrenics are penalized if they get jobs and earn too much. I wouldn't say that a schizophrenic who isn't working as hard as he or she could, because of that aspect of the system, is a "cheat," but I'd say that the government is providing more support than necessary and possibly even keeping that person from improving his/her financial situation.

Real life is complex. Politics is simplistic.

Yes, that is another classic tradeoff. You want to discourage freeloaders without creating too many hoops for those who genuinely can't work to access assistance.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Again, we have an attack on someone's perception of what boomers are. Frankly, I don't recognize myself. It is ad-hominum and strawman rather than reality as I see it. While Classic is attacking progressives rather than boomers, it is pretty much the same thing. We have attacks on an imaginary world populated with vile stereotypes. There is no attempt to understand and respect the other guy's point of view. As long as you live in an imaginary reality where your enemies are insane and many others share your antiquated values, so long as you* are unwilling to engage with other's real values rather than what is convenient for you to imagine their values, attempting communications is pointless.

A distinction between Boomer elites and other Boomers is apt. Boomer elites have been strong on the vices that Howe and Strauss have linked to Idealist generations (selfishness, arrogance, and ruthlessness) while uncharacteristically weak in the usual positive endowments of Idealist generations (culture, principle, and vision). Boomer executives and right-wing politicians among them have set themselves up as an entrenched elite with the aid of Reagan and both Bushes. So go ahead --they can see wealth and bureaucratic power (which may have been inherited from GI's) as innate characteristics that create a Right to Rule... brutally.

Except in the Plantation South (where such got horrible results in the American Civil War), America has not typically had an all-powerful elite resembling an aristocracy. To be sure, families such as Pew, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, etc. can have the wealth of an aristocracy without being as obnoxious as some of the moneyed elites (Koch, Walton) of our time. We have usually had a strong democratic tradition that implies a contest that alternates the power of the elite classes with mass sentiment. The Gilded Age was a clear exception. So is this time, which looks like a Gilded Age going very bad very fast.

I do not anticipate a 4T transformation centered on Restoree autocrats attempting to bring back Agricultural Age government and values. The Agricultural Age is long gone. Nations that tried to cling to Agricultural Age government lost out badly to Industrial Age democracies. The old style of government just cannot compete in the modern world. During the 2T and 3T the rhetoric and stalemate centered on the progressive - conservative divide, not the Agricultural Age - Industrial Age divide. The spiral of rhetoric that might plausibly lead to a spiral of violence or a major transformation is focused in an entirely different direction.

A 'restoration' of Agrarian-Age values would wildly satisfy those who want an economy based upon cheap labor. But would that work? If anyone thinks that urbanization reduces birth rates, just think what economic despair can do if there is contraception and abortion. After a few decades the population would plummet, and America would be underpopulated. Such implies either (1) openings for immigrants who would bring a more modern view of the world and different expectations to America, or (2) territory that looks easy to conquer and settle after a war that results from the usual follies of a reactionary government.

It was not the boomers that ended the endless cycle of ever more destructive wars. It was nuclear weapons. Prior to nukes, there was generally an aggressive power that was willing to expand its area and resources through brute force. Afterwards, not so much. Anyone with any appreciation of such weapons would understand this.

"Only restorationism", typically an uncritical interpretation of Plato's Republic, can't make adjustments for nukes. No country is going to submit to enslavement if it has nukes. Pakistan has the A-bomb and would make it available to any Muslim country under threat of a "Restorationist" agenda. India would surely use nukes to protect its large and loyal Muslim minority.

*Cynic Hero is the usual second person in this post.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Yes, that is another classic tradeoff. You want to discourage freeloaders without creating too many hoops for those who genuinely can't work to access assistance.

No, you don't get what I'm saying at all. The use of the word "freeloaders" is no different from the use of the word "cheats." It implies a moral judgement and a black and white situation which in most cases doesn't exist .

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

In the Jewish tradition, it's called "tzedaka", charity, supporting the least among us. It strikes me that having those with advantages use some of their resources to bring necessities and dignity to those less advantaged is the very height of morality. It's greedy for those with excess to not share with those less fortunate.

If only that would become more widespread in American politics!

Really, there is only so much material indulgence that anyone can handle gracefully. Even with such deprivations as I now endure, all that I envy about the rich are (1) economic security -- something lacking largely because our elites are so unimaginative in their ways of convincing us that they must resort to fear and (2) cultural access through travel. I can live without the excesses called 'luxury'.

Wow the shit, people who have no life, care about. 58 Flat, what do you do all day? Don't you have a job or something...It must be nice to just sit around all day, research articles to support your biased and hateful opinions, and write walls of text.

Btw I'm pretty sure the left feels the same way about the right. This left v right thing is an endless argument.

All of this talk of freeloaders is a joke. The freeloaders are really the middle class, in my opinion. Benefits, weekends, vacation days, sick days, retirement, pension plans, 401ks. Most of you people are the ones who end up on social security in your elder years, given to you off of the backs of those who actually worked. And they never seem to stop whining about how horrible their suburban, vacation, SUV filled lives are.