This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
CBO Report: We have three options, only one is viable – A different plan to consider?
This piece runs on a bit and gets wonkish toward the end. Sorry on both counts. BK
The Congressional Budget Office may have done the country a big favor. It put into blunt words what choices we face. In the report dated July 19th CBO had this to say:
I) Raise federal revenues significantly above their average share of GDP;
II) Make considerable changes to the sorts of federal benefits we provide for older Americans;
III) Substantially reduce the role of the rest of the federal government—that
is, defense (the largest single piece), Food Stamps, unemployment
compensation, other income security programs, veterans’ benefits,
federal civilian and military retirement benefits, transportation,
health research, education and training, and other programs—in our
economy and society.
is, defense (the largest single piece), Food Stamps, unemployment
compensation, other income security programs, veterans’ benefits,
federal civilian and military retirement benefits, transportation,
health research, education and training, and other programs—in our
economy and society.
‘I’ is necessary and it’s going to happen. While this may sound
easy it is not. Increased taxes from workers are just a drag on the
economy. If there must be new taxes, the money raised has to support more than just the rapidly growing aging population. The country is in desperate need of new investments (energy, infrastructure, education); it would be a mistake to channel more scarce financial resources to one segment of the population.
‘III” is also going to happen. Cut backs in defense are critical. The other programs in the “rest of the government” will also be part of the mix. But let’s get real about this.
The US can’t cut these programs by an amount that would move the
needle. Do we really want to eliminate a substantial portion of the
defense budget? It’s true that the US can no longer afford its huge
bases in Asia and Europe. And we certainly can’t afford to go off to
wars that last ten years. We don’t need a huge standing Army. There can
be cuts in the Navy’s carrier fleets. The Air Force doesn’t need new
combat fighters. But it would be the dumbest mistake we ever made to degrade the military so they could not react if and when needed.
So that leaves ‘II’. The baby boomers are the real problem. This chart from the CBO says it all:
Note that of the significant components in the budget there is the
assumption that they all remain about the same as a percentage of GDP
for the next ten years. The exceptions are Social Security and Medicare.
These two programs gobble up a greater and greater share of the pie.
It's simply not possible to change the direction of the deficit in the
USA unless spending for the older population is reduced.
There is no plan from any side of the budget debate that is addressing this simple reality. I have a plan. It goes like this:
Objectives:
-Decrease the number of those covered by Medicare by 20% (now and in the future).
-Maintain existing revenues sources for Medicare at their current (and projected future) levels.
-Provide a major economic stimulus to the health care industry.
It is very tempting to say that a means test is the mechanism to achieve these objectives. IMHO it's necessary that well off seniors have to take a sizable hit.
That may sound like an easy solution, but it is not. The tax codes only
address income, so there is no effective “means test” measuring system.
There would have to be an “asset test”; this is something that does not
exist and would be very unpopular. (Note: If one had $10mm in
the bank it would be very easy to make $500k a year tax free. This very
wealthy person would not be hit with a means test based on income.)
Probably the most significant factor against a means test is that it is
confiscation. While the results may be considered fair by a broad
segment of the population the fact is that this is stealing. I think the courts would not look favorably toward this type of approach. A means test is a very tough political sell.
So the question are:
How do we steal old rich people’s money?
How do we do it in a way that actually has some fairness (to all) attached to it?
And can we do it in a manner that would also act as a broad economic stimulus?
I think it might be possible to achieve these things. Rather than confiscate rich old people's money I want to sell that group something they desperately want. I want to sell them what they want at a very high price.
If those rich older folks don’t want to buy what I want
to offer them, there will be a price to pay. Those with significant
resources will have two choices in my plan. Either they can sign up for
what I’m offering or they have to pay a tax on the SS and Medicare
benefits they receive.
Here is a brief description of the new health care plan that I would offer to high net worth seniors. I call this the Gold Plan. Assume a 65 year old got this in the mail from Uncle Sam:
Your government is offering you a new health plan called the Gold Plan. Here are the features you will like:
-It will cost you nothing out of pocket to get this insurance.
-It will provide the best possible care with no deductions or co-pays.
-You can go to any Dr. you like, whenever you want.
-Your prescriptions are covered at no cost to you.
-There is no part A,B,C or any of that. No paper work at all. You get a Gold card and everything is covered.
-This is the same level of coverage that a President would get.
-This is lifetime coverage, regardless of health outcome. It will never cost a dime out of pocket to get.
That sounds good doesn’t it?
Medicare has an out of pocket monthly cost of $500 (including
supplemental). There are co-pays, tons of forms and deductibles for
prescriptions. Not all doctors or treatments are covered. Medicare is
not cheap and it does not provide for the best level of care. Therefore
if someone 65 got that letter in the mail they would whoop for joy.
What does the new health insurance actually cost? 100% of ones monthly social security check. Sign that payment away and you have a Gold Plan.
Very quick numbers:
*The average cost per Medicare beneficiary is $11,000 per year. (Medicare annual report)
*The average SS check for high life time earners is $1,800 per month or
$21,600 a year. (A range of monthly SS income from $1,400-2,200+ would
be accepted as full payment. This is a progressive feature of the Gold
Plan.)
The math on this looks good from the government’s perspective. A
beneficiary would be "paying" $22k per year. That is more than double
the average cost of a Medicare beneficiary. A portion (approximately
$3,000) would go back to Medicare. The balance of $19,000 a year is
available to cover the benefits under the Gold Plan.
This is the "carrot" part of the plan. There has to be a "stick" to get one's attention. The stick would be a new tax. Those
that are high lifetime earners would be subject to a new tax on their
SS benefits (a flat tax of about 15%) if they don't go for the Gold.
There would be two doors to choose. Yes, either door is costly. But at
least one door has something valuable on the other side.
On the economics: Assuming a 20% participation rate, the Gold
Plan initial revenue pool would be ~$190 billion a year and rise with
annual COLA + 750,000 new enrollees every year (increasing by $20b or
10% PA). The objective would be for the Gold Plan to breakeven. This is a bailout of Medicare. That would be the "prize".
This would also be a huge boost to the medical industry.
In my example Medicare expenditures would go down by $140 billion (20%)
while Gold Plan medical expenditures would rise to ~$200 billion. The
net gain of +$50 billion (and growing) would be very supportive of the
health care industry. I am not a fan of Big Pharma or Big (private)
Hospital, but if you want to create jobs in America, health care is the place to do it. If you think that CAT, CSCO, INTL, GM are going to create the jobs we need, think again. Healthcare is the only growth industry the country has got.
Yes, this is a "backdoor" means test. I'm sorry, but something like a means test has to happen.
Note: If you’ve read me before on this topic you know I am apposed to an economic plan that entails a huge inter generational wealth transfer. Unfortunately, that is the plan we are currently following. My thinking is that we need a different plan. A plan that shifts the burden (substantially) to the generation where the problems reside. The foregoing was my effort to turn the arrow in a different direction.
»
- advertisements -
Exactly.
Thanks for helping me make my point.
+14 trillion. Glad to see at least one ZH'er that gets it - it's not the effing taxes that are the problem - it's the effing spending!
Sorry, Bruce, "But it would be the dumbest mistake we ever made to degrade the military so they could not react if and when needed" is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard a contributor to zerohedge say.
The military budget can be cut in half, by $350 billion a year and still leave us with the most powerful military in the world, more than capable to react when it is truly needed.
Wake up, my friend.
SO TRUE!!
It's easy to be a "great general" when you have all the best toys in the world and enough spare parts to lose 99% of you're arsenal and still have 10 times more then your enemy.
THE US MUST HAVE MORE TRUST IN IT'S GENERALS!
Better tactical planning and leadership could easily reduce the military spending!
I even believe that automating and robotising the entire military is more like a threat to the militarythen a advantage. Today a group of 16 year old kids poses a bigger threat then 10.000 Taliban's in the mountains in Afghanistan.
The maintenance of all these toys cost billions and billions of dollars alone!
WHY IS IT SO HARD TO BEAT THE TALIBAN FOR EXAMPLE?
Because they have a pretty good strategy. And they don't have a trillion dollar budget.
You can only beat guys like that with a good strategy. Not with a joystick.
Alternatively, we could cut the military budget dramatically and spend some of that money on making friends with the rest of the world. That would also mean we have to stop being global assholes and telling everyone else what to do.
You say $350 creates the capacity. If that were correct I would agree with you. I thought I was pretty clear. Cuts in the military side have to and will be made. The issue is what is growing. That is SS and Medicare.
For sure. The response to 9/11 should have been the nuking of Saudi Arabia, not ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What is the point of having the largest army in the world if you can't get your starategy in order? Answer, none. Might as well not have one.
For sure. The response to 9/11 should have been the nuking of Saudi Arabia, not ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What is the point of having the largest army in the world if you can't get your starategy in order? Answer, none. Might as well not have one.
How about a much larger estate tax? How about a 100% estate tax? How much would something like this improve work ethic among future generations of students and employees?
www.liquidinvestor.blogspot.com
What is it about you people who feel you somehow are entitled to what someone else has produced? Why should you get it? Go earn your own. It is easy to say that someone else got it by fraud or scam but maybe they got it from hard work and a good idea. Maybe they actually saved some of their money and then invested it is their business and took a lower paycheck to reinvest into job creation and infrastructure. Maybe they settled for a lower lifestyle so they could have money to grow their business. What entitles you to the fruits of their labor, sacrifice and focus?
You strike me as the sort of total moron who cannot even conceive of a public good, in the sense that econmists(bless their hearts) use it. If you read something like Outliers or any one of a million things like it you come to realize that this sort of pure individualistic philosophy is diametrically opposed to everything that has every made the human race successful. I hope next time your house starts to burn or some poor person steals your stuff you have the integrity to insist that you don't believe in socialism and refuse their services.
"Socialism" is a system.
"Socialist" is a qualitative descriptor.
I think you may have conflated these terms.
Re: What entitles you to the fruits of their labor, sacrifice and focus?
In exchange for their ability to purchase more politicians? Besides, if the smartest people eventually have all the wealth, that means their kids will simply inherit it. There's no end game. Paris Hilton gets to buy more political influence than YOU do. That's not Representative Democracy, that's Paris Hilton Kleptocracy.
You don't really do much real thinking do you? If the smart folks' kids inherit wealth so what? Genetics and lust normally mean over time a reversion to the mean. Translated for you, that means the bright ones will keep and grow what they inherited and the others will spend and waste what they got. "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" is a truism I heard growing up. From what I've seen it seems to be accurate. If you want to insure a normal dispersion over time, all you have to do is eliminate trusts which concentrate wealth and distribute the proceeds to individuals. Then you will see who will and who can't.
Re: If you want to insure a normal dispersion over time, all you have to do is eliminate trusts which concentrate wealth and distribute the proceeds to individuals. Then you will see who will and who can't.
"all you have to do".
Uh,, and who owns the politicians that MAKE the rules about trusts? The people that own the trusts. All you have to do is snap your fingers and somehow Representative Democracy magically appears.
Bruce, I am highly disappointed in you. Normally you show insight and intelligence. Here you have wonked your way to total socialism, collectivism or whatever ism you are comfortable with. You are trying to justify how to keep a broken, spending, debt based system alive. You are trying to be "reasonable". What you are forgetting is that many of us are sick of carrying the burden for the whole country while many find a way to escape through loopholes, friends of ____ and whatever. I lived in Mexico in the 60's and 70's and remember a friend saying "You know why we don't have the disability parking spaces and stickers in Mexico? It's because all the politicians and their families would have them so they wouldn't have to walk so far". So go ahead and find some "creative" way to solve the revenue problem without really giving the axe to spending and all the targets you have in your sights will find a way to avoid the pain. Just like they have over the last 30 years. Any progressive tax system, benefit system, or redistribution system is only another form of collectivism at it's worst. I will give you an "A" for effort but your focus is on the wrong issue.
Okay, so lets jump off a bridge.
I have a much better idea. Fuck the doctahs. Get the government completely out of medicine, make it competitive again, and no one will need medicare, medicaid, or even health insurance. What the wonks, and Bruce, refuse to learn, is that everything works much better without the damn government.
Re: What the wonks, and Bruce, refuse to learn, is that everything works much better without the damn government.
Only if you live is a fantasy world. Government allows the sociopaths and con-artists to scam the public. LOTS of people made BIG BIG money running the Big-MIC, Big-Ag, Big-Road, Big-Water, Big-Airport, Big-House, Big-Ed, Big-AntiDrug, and (the latest) Big-PoliceState scams.
I'm doing well on my Big-FIRE scam at my patriotic Zombie bank.
Come on, life is about the sociopaths scamming the dumbasses. You can't fight nature. If government didn't exist, the sociopaths would create it. And, you can cut one persons socialist scam and not another. Scams, it's what separates the adults from the children.
And that sort of looting got us where we are, flat broke as a nation and a society.
Bruce lives too close to that damn nuke. Sometimes his evil Stalinist second head makes a surprise appearance.
Hey Bruce, love your plan. I'll schedule your first public appearance in front of a group of old folks. You tell 'em you're about to steal their entire social security check, and give it to the pill pushers. I want to see what's left of you.
The nuke comment means you know me. So you also know I'm a boomer. And it is my benfits that are on the line. I would trade them. I know others can't. I am not forcing them to do anything. I would be helping them by kicking in extra to bailout Medicare.
Could I stand up to an audience of grays with this? Sure I could.
Why is health care so much more important than anything else in the world, like food, shelter, sex, drugs, rock and roll? Health care is the most screwed up thing in this country that isn't totally run by the government, and you want to keep feeding the beast.
Free markets work. Soviet Central Planning does not. What is so complicated about that?
Kaiserhoff, I hear Midus Mulligan is starting a colony. You and the productive people ought to join him.
Re: Free markets work.
Free markets only work IF there are no really really really smart amoral scumbags (sociopaths) gaming the system to make it work for them.
Meaning, free markets only work in fantasyland. Like socialism, free markets require a reality where there are no really really really smart amoral people that realize that simply by purchasing some politicians (more sociopaths) they can get the laws changed to ANYTHING they want.
Put your self back 100 years. Pretend you are the Southern Pacific Railroad and want to be declared a corporate "person". All you need to do is find enough corporate worshippers to make it so. Now, here we are. You can't stop the sociopaths with economic words. The sociopaths don't play by fantasy rules, they play for REAL rules. And in realityland the really really really smart amoral scumbag OWN the rules.
Re: And that sort of looting got us where we are, flat broke as a nation and a society.
Everybody loves the socialism they (or their parents) got rich off of. That's the problem with socialism, humans can't say no to free money.
So let me guess. Are you:
A spoiled twelve year old, or
A Herndon Troll?
I'm going with curtain number one. DC is getting scared shitless. About time.
Just off the cuff. How about doing away with Medicare, Medicaid, Social security for everyone under, say, 60. For everyone over 60 the current plans stay as they are. For those under 60 refund all the money they have paid in for their lifetimes and let them buy insurance/save for retirement as they desire. Plans for those under 60 would need to be competitive, especially with gov't out of the picture. Now...please feel free to rip this idea to shreds.
Re: Plans for those under 60 would need to be competitive, especially with gov't out of the picture. Now...please feel free to rip this idea to shreds.
How about we had a functional Representative Democracy of the citizens instead of the corporations (and insurance companies) FIRST.
Kinda hard to talk about ideas that require a political solution when you don't HAVE a Democracy in the first place. We have a Kleptocracy. Government of, by, and for the politically connected that ALREADY own the system.
Soooo... I don't have rip anything to pieces. It's all fantasy. You lost your Representative Democracy decades ago when lobbyists became more important than one person one vote.
Sooner or later we're going to have to get beyond all this meaningless crap & get to work producing STUFF. That's all that really matters. Thats all that will keep the seniors & everybody else going. STUFF. Not SS checks or Medicare, etc. STUFF.
Anybody ever heard of Austrian School economics?
Re: Anybody ever heard of Austrian School economics?
Does that make the nobility stronger or weaker? Which provides the best fantasy story to the peasants? Can we have Big-MIC and cool toys for 50+ with Austrian economics? What about Big-Ag, Big-Road, Big-Water, Big-Airport, Big-House, Big-Ed, Big-AntiDrug, and (new and improved) Big-PoliceState that everybody is getting rich off of?
Limit the scams and there's not much point in being an adult amongst the children.
See you haven't studied or read much Austrian economics. Your choice to stay in your rut.
Using the term "Austrian economics" to notareal~ is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Just run a search on his/her comments.
Austrian economics or not, is anyone listening to what he is saying? He is hitting on the heart of the issue. The problem is BIG. If someone had the balls to take the Sherman anti-trust act to all the big ________ and enact that any corporation with more than .0005% of GDP was taxed at 95% that would solve a huge part of the problem. Break up or leave is the message we should be sending these parasites. And if they leave, impose a 75% duty on their imports into the US.
Re: See you haven't studied or read much Austrian economics. Your choice to stay in your rut.
Economics (like religion) is for believers. The sociopaths and con-artists that own the world don't care what the peasants believe or the plans they make. The smart people use influence and power to get MORE influence and power. Economics and religion are only as good as the laws and people following the rules. That's why there's some people who are "adult like" in their behavior and others who are "child like" in theirs.
Scams, power, influence are for the adults. Representative Democracy (rule of law) is an attempt to try to protect the children from the adults. Didn't work out very well in our case. Big counties with peasants that hate each other are very easy to manipulate by the powerful people above the politics, economics, and religions of the peasants.
Nice imagination, we like imagination!
Going down that road, howzabout getting rid of the medical cartels and gatekeepers and simply cut health-related expenses altogether?
Expanding VHA (by executive order) to cover all Americans would eliminate Medicare while giving care to all citizens (citizens). 6 months of US competition and the cartels would be gasping for money, on the edge of bankruptcy: insurance companies, hospital managements, doctor cartels, pharma companies, bill collectors ... aggressive prosecutions for fraud would 'clear the field' and get rid of a cadre of America's leeches.
There is no reason why medical employment cannot rise when the parasites are done away with. Reform the system and you have tools to work with.
Next ... Wall Street and derivatives ...
..
<Thundering applause> Where do you live now? I can't vote in Virginia.
Wars, Military spending and bankfrauds and bailouts are THE PROBLEM.
"Wars, Military spending and bankfrauds and bailouts are THE PROBLEM."
1. End the Federal Reserve System.
2. Bring back the Draft (and end those 50K re-up bonuses).
Re: Wars, Military spending and bankfrauds and bailouts are THE PROBLEM.
They're also what history books are filled with. It's the same story over and over and over and over.
The predators (sociopaths) eating the prey (dumbasses). Best a person can hope for it to wake-up from their dumbass slumber before they get eaten.
Nope.
(I) is off the table. Go ask the people who lived in the USSR... or tried to make it work. I left the USSA because I will not be bled dry by a bunch of craven, diabolical predators. Maybe I'm a bit more insightful than most, but the lesson of the USSR (and the "Laugher curve", haha) is that the very best people say "screw it" when someone ties a ball and chain around their ankles. Screw that! Screw them. Up theirs. No way, Jose. Not gunna happen. Forget about it.
There are exactly two ways to solve the problem:
#1: MASSIVELY reduce the scope, scale, size and extent of the federal government. And I mean reduce it by at least 95% plus or minus 5%.
#2: Better yet, follow the example of the other evil empire in the last century, the USSR. That evil empire closed the doors and vanished into the pages of history, and EVERYONE is better off for it. The best way to solve the current problems is to follow that wonderful example. We have ZERO need for the central government of the USSA. Zip. Zero. Nada. None whatsoever. Shut it down. Then shut down the states, or cut them back 95%, plus or minus 5%. Then shut down the county governments, or cut them back 95%, plus or minus 5%. No need for local governments, shut them down too.
That's the solution.
After all, this is the bottom line right now:
predators DBA government
predators DBA corporations
predators DBA central banks
NOBODY has any need for predators. Like all out of control destructive beasts, they need to be caged or exterminated. Just to be safe, and save money, let's forgo the cages. Bullets and rope are cheaper.
#2 is inevitable. Given the paid-for state of congress, it is currently the preferred choice. I will leave it to someone else to elaborate that the predators did not vanish from CCCP.
Exactly right. They must be caged or exterminted, because they will never voluntarily go away or cease and desist.
No wait. That is a good plan. Reduce the ability of the Boombads to consume, in an economy that relies on consumption to operate.
That will show 'em. Serves 'em right, too.
Do you Americans not have claw-back taxes on these payouts? Everyone else does. Get a friggin' VAT going.
Americans dig chaos. Oh, and blaming. Blaming is big in America.
Look at my target. High life time earners. I don't think this would change consumption by all that much. The swing is ~$1500 a month. That does not change spending habbits.
Re: What does the new health insurance actually cost? 100% of ones monthly social security check. Sign that payment away and you have a Gold Plan.
Interesting concept. I'd take that deal - I'm 55. The only problem I can see is that eventually you'd have a two tiered system.
Long term, a two tier system will destabilize the society. Much in the same way it will be destabilized by having a large population of peasants and a nobility class.
Soooo, yeah, I'd take that deal, but I suspect - long term - we'd be right back where we started.
Eventually, the society has to come to grips with that fact that most people are average and it needs to provide an average standard of living to all these average people.
Like your articles.
Good comment, My response:
You point to a two tiered medical outcome. That that fact will be destabilizing to society.
You're both right and wrong.
The two tiers only affect the same co-horts (boomers aged +65) No one under 55 would give a damn if there was fighting amongst that group.
I think the greater social risk is to permit the wealth transfer from young to old. That one will rip us apart.
In my plan (I'm glad you like it) the end result is a bailout of Medicare. That would be of great benefit to the 80% that can't afford the Gold. Without a bailout that 80% would not have much coverage.That group might tip their hat at the cohorts who gave them a break.
My plan = Socialism of SS. That is what the opposition to this type of thinking will be.
We need a jobs plan that is organic. This is one.
Bruce,
"We need a jobs plan that is organic. This is one." .... Your proposal is that with health care already exceeeding 16% of GDP, our best path to addressing the collapse of an service based economy is to double down on the health care sector for jobs?
The greatest cost incurred by government health coverage is end of life care (60% and growing according to one of the articles from 2010). The bulk of that 60% is money spent to provide short term extraordinary care that extends the patient's life for a few additional weeks. The health sector does not suffer from a lack of organic growth.
Here is a better bargain for the baby boomers: When you decide to exercise your eligibility for Social Security & Medicare you can choose one of two options
1) You can choose to stay with the current programs as structured but acknowledge (via thumbprint in your own blood) the benefits you will receive are subject to significant reduction based on financial limitations that may impact the ability of the government to adequately fund the program in the fuuture.
2) You can choose to irrevocably waive any extraordinary care measures being paid for by the government (if you have the $ 100k+ to pay for a quadruple bypass good for you [maybe you have saved your money for that rainy day]) but in return, all other SS & Medicare benefits you are eligible for when you choose option 2 (including current COLA's, etc) are irrevocably assigned to you for the rest of your life.
Let me incentivize you, Bruce. Do the math to figure out if my plan saves more money than your approach over the next 50 years. If your plan saves more money, I've got a bottle of 2000 Pomerol stored away in the basement I'll send to you. If my plan saves more money, you contribute $ 100 to the charity of your choice.
barliman
Your point about the increased costs incurred late in life is bang on. Socialized costs, privatized profit. But I have a better plan yet: 1st) Of all the Western European countries, and say Canada, pick any one health care system.... Any one, it doesn't mattter, and save 33% or more right off the top and get everyone covered. Winge away about "socialism" but empirically, the case is pretty damn airtight. 2nd) Have a ounerous estate tax but subsidize education. Let the US be a meritocracy again. (Sorry Ms. Hilton). 3rd). If your income is over 1/2 million a year, your marginal tax rate should be 90%. What are you going to do with all that money anyway? Buy a second yacht for another ocean? There are starving people that you probably put out of work by simply being so efficient. Stealing from the rich? Perhaps it is. Cry me a river. If 1% of the people receive 30% of the income, they only need one hairdresser and nobody else can afford one and hence we're tapped out. It matters little whether they proved themselves in the market place--the wealth concentration is the #1 drag on the economy as a whole. For all those who think this is "stealing from the rich", well your ideas will create a monarchy in a few generations anyway.
Re: The two tiers only affect the same co-horts (boomers aged +65)
Didn't read it that way. So, an interesting concept but (probably) others - say the 40's crowd - would want in on the "Gold plan". But, it's still an interesting idea. It does get money into Medicare from future SS payments. It's overall a good concept.
Re: I think the greater social risk is to permit the wealth transfer from young to old. That one will rip us apart.
Yup, I don't see how having a nobility class of any form is possible if we actually want a Representative Democracy too.
The seniors will never give up their privileged status. Generally speaking, these are the most toxically self-centred people our civilisation has created, outside of bankers. (Not any who read ZH: it's not like you guys drank the 'handout' kool-aid.)
Spend their parents' money? Check. Spend their own? Check. Borrow from foreigners? Check. Mortgage their kids' future earnings? Check. Ship the jobs abroad so they can enjoy low price inflation? Check. Keep quiet as we kill brown people for oil? Hang on... no, that's a check too.
I love Bruce Krasting, but Boomers are toxic - they'll scream blue murder and take the country to hell before they pay a cent more. They'll pull everything down around them - then find they're scrabbling for scraps, and in a much worse state than if they'd sacrificed a little - but they will screw us all.