Tom Friedman Tries to Scapegoat Baby Boomers

[marmar]

AlterNet / By Ruth Rosen

Tom Friedman Tries to Scapegoat Baby Boomers -- He Should Remember That We Helped Forge American Prosperity
Baby boomers did not contribute to the economic decline of America. Actually, they helped create consumerist prosperity with teenager allowances and middle age purchases.

September 28, 2011 |


Baby Boomers, who have now morphed into “young seniors,” certainly did not contribute to the economic decline of America. On the contrary, this huge demographic bulge—as we have moved through our highly-publicized life cycle-- helped create the country’s consumerist prosperity with our teenage allowances and middle age purchases.

Yet running through the debate on the national debt is the subterranean belief that “young seniors,” once known as Baby Boomers, are stealing from future generations by having too many hip replacements and using up too much medical care to stay healthy and active.

Just recently, for example, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, as he wandered through the streets of Greece, wrote with Athenian authority that Baby Boomers were responsible for this country’s huge debt. Just because Eric Cantor and seventy-eight million other people fit into the rather vague category (1946-1964) of the Baby Boomer generation doesn’t mean that a particular generation caused the housing bubble, or turned our nation into one gigantic gambling casino.

Yes, Virginia, there truly are people who daily bet against the economic health of the nation. ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/story/152559/tom_friedman_tries_to_scapegoat_baby_boomers_--_he_should_remember_that_we_helped_forge_american_prosperity/

[bemildred]

1. We are used to it. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Well there are two different issues here.

1) as a generational cohort we vastly overpaid FICA for 30 years, that surplus has been squandered subsidizing billionaire taxcuts and endless corrupt war, and now the fucknut powers that be, what we used to call The Establishment back when we had a collective brain to our heads, stoned as it was, want to welch on paying it back. Fuck the establishment.

2) the elite leadership sub-cohort of our generation, what we used to call the establishment before we became that elite leadership sub-cohort, is for the most part a bunch of vile corrupt gits, the worst generation of leaders this country has ever seen, and I sincerely mean that. We boomers have to take responsibility for the assholes ruining this planet, they are us.

[Scuba]

3. +1

[malthaussen]

4. Collective Blame?

I disagree with point #2. It assigns collective blame for the actions of individuals. Nothing new about that, it's been a popular tactic for at least a hundred years, but that doesn't make it less wrong. Not to bash Mr Stupidity, but we seem so anxious not to hold individuals responsible for their conduct that we seemingly would rather blame whole groups. Teachers, blacks, immigrants, or any other collective seem to make a better target than specific men and women. It's something we should try to avoid, IMO, since it has often historically led to legal sanctions and even to mass execution of all such persons in the "enemy group," however complicit they may or may not be.

-- Mal

[Beam Me Up]

5. +1 for making a point of that tactic. Taking responsibility is one thing...

blaming is quite another.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. "We boomers have to take responsibility for the assholes ruining this planet, they are us."

"Taking responsibility is one thing..."

Ok I give up. Apparently taking responsibility is two things.

The shitheads ruining the planet are almost entirely from my generation. While I don't personally feel that this is my fault, I take responsibility for the fact that my generation produced a set of leaders who are arguably the worst in modern history. It isn't "collective blame". I don't think we should all be put to death for this, for example, or forced to take a time out. I do think that we ought to take responsibility for it and do something about it.

[SharonAnn]

7. I agree with you. I've been terribly disappointed by many of "our" so-called leaders.

And many members of my generation have supported them and voted for them.

I find it truly hard to understand. I had high hopes for us baby-boomers but I'm sadly disapointed in many of the people we've elected. And, let's face it. We elected them.

And yes, I think we need to take responsibility for it and do something about it.

[Crunchy Frog]

8. I'm pretty sure that he's a baby boomer.

And also that he's a pretty major parasite.

I think if you just burst him and collected the money, it would go a long way to paying off our national debt.

[MidwestPerspective]

9. Don't diss GenJones, as Huff/Post 50 is finding out

Tom Freidman is a very bright guy, but he's off-base blaming Boomers the way he does. And it is important to distinguish between actual Baby Boomers vs. Generation Jones (born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and Generation X). Huffington Post's Huff/Post 50 has alienated quite a few GenJonesers by not being upfront and honest in presenting current thinking about generations among generation experts. DU, however, has been credible in dealing with this. I hope Huff/Post 50 decides to embrace GenJones because it's in its interests to do so, and because there is quite a bit of talk about Debra Ollivier--the new editor--getting canned if GenJones isn't gievn its proper due. The old Baby Boom Generation 1946-1964 definition just isn't accepted by very many credible experts anymore, as a consensus has emerged that GenJones exists.