"Demography is poised to destroy conservatism in a devastating triple threat. The baby boomers will start retiring, and will probably shift a little to the left in the process. Second, Mexican immigrants will most likely end up being pretty leftist. Finally, years of liberals running their own private indoctrination camps through the American education system have finally taken their toll and are churning out reliably liberal kids who will inevitably come of age. Not enough of them are conservatives and not enough of them will be mugged by reality to convert to conservatism. It is ultimately these three factors that threaten to sink conservatism for at least a couple decades."

Source: NRO

Labels: democrats, education, end times, generational conflict, the good guys

"The exit polls have shown, the Democratic primary is turning into a battle between the people that pay for Social Security and those that collect it."

Instapundit via First Friday Collective

A sobering and non-partisan article from Megan McArdle in the Atlantic about how retiring Baby Boomers will change the texture of society in ways we’ve scarcely begun to contemplate.

"The political battles over all of this will be bitter, and they will probably be, too often, won by the retirees, who vote in force (though not always as a bloc). Those same retirees may also vote against things that are actually in their interest—thus shutting out the immigrants who could help them stay at home, and out of the nursing home, longer; turning down school taxes that could create a more productive workforce to support them; fighting for zoning restrictions that make it harder for the low-income workers who provide their services to live within easy commuting distance."

Limestone Commentary

This is why Hillary won't lose in 2008 and why open borders will follow her inauguration. It also explains the popularity of candidates Ron Paul (disclaimer: I think his supporters are absolutely batty) and Senator Barrack Obama. It explains why the GOP is splintering (See Here comes Housing Czarina Hillary to the rescue by Malkin as example). These are heady days for DEMS and one of the reasons Nancy is hiding (lest she reminds the country what will happen when DEMS control all three branches of government).

Finally, has there ever been a better quote to describe Hillary Clinton?

"You must give the Boomers credit: their uncanny ability to focus solely on themselves, approvingly, appears undiminished by age."

And this one from NRO is also priceless:

"While she kept saying, in her victory speech, some variant of "my heart is full" five or six times, I half expected the Sally Field Oscar acceptance: "you love me. You really love me." The new, more human Hillary is going to grate in the opposite direction, I fear."

Labels: clintons, generational conflict

**UPDATED**

closing thoughts on Iowa...

From everything I've read the energy and enthusiasm is clearly on the DEM side. I still believe Hillary will prevail because (a) she represents the establishment (elitists) and (b) has the machinery for a long slog. Also, the pining her ilk (baby boomers) have for Camelot, as captured by this long article in Vanity Fair, is a force/motivator unto itself.

Bill and Hillary, still stuck in the sixties and fighting old battles, look pathetically old. And nothing demonstrates this better than the juxtaposition between Obama and the old (er, new?) Clinton Administration.

Obama's probably more radical than Hillary but the country needs more leadership than the Angelina Jolie/Bill and Hillary Clinton junket to Davos. We need more than Martha Stewart organizing White House "coffees" and the titillating/frenzied drive of some old hippies trying to recapture Camelot. Hillary is nothing more than "business as usual" and a further consolidation of elitist privilege (limousine liberals) under the guise of progressive causes.

If Hillary does win it will be because she's forced to move to the right, and this rightward drift may drive whatever orthodox she has from her triangulating soul [need a substitute for soul]. Unfortunately it won't spare us from whispers of Camelot and the journalistic orgy (and Barbara Streisand) that will follow.

Postscript
If I needed a (c) on why Hillary will prevail I would add the schism developing between the GOP that makes this opportunity for the DEM candidate so heady. The TIME (or Newsweek -- does it even matter) cover with the crying Ronald Reagan was a bit much, but there's definitely a growing divide in the GOP that Hillary must be lusting.

And finally, I'm not answering this email again...A Catholic isn't an Evangelical.

**UPDATED**

Damn. This is from Viking Pundit.

Clinton's campaign has always followed some kind of circular logic that she should be the nominee because she should be the nominee. But now that the "inevitability" myth has been shattered, Hillary has no substance to fall back on. She's been purposely vague on issues and her "standard lines" are as hackneyed as an episode of "ER."

Furthermore, Hillary has been making broad statements like these for months without anybody really challenging her. But now Democrats are asking "what's it all about, Alfie?" What does it mean that Hillary is "ready on day one?" In what special way is Hillary more qualified? Because she once had an office in the West Wing? Preposterous.

Labels: clintons, generational conflict

Baby Boomers sometimes remind me of that tiresome woman at a cocktail party who keeps talking about herself and then finally comes up for air and says, "But enough about me. What about you? What do you think about me?"

- Dean Barnett

Labels: clintons, generational conflict, quotes

"In fact, Xers may well be the first generation whose lifetime earnings will be less than their parents'. Already they have the weakest middle class of any generation born in this century."

Source

I chuckled heartily when I read this article about U.S. Comptroller General David Walker's crusade to save the country from insolvency. Here's the crux of the dilemma: How are politicos going to convince us that we should pay higher taxes when they can't hold the line on spending?

Hillary's solution is to target those who earn the most and she uses fabulously wealthy limousine liberals like Warren Buffett as examples of those volunteering to pay more. But what would Hillary do with the "revenue" (see note below to understand quotations) she takes from all those other very wealthy non-volunteers? We know that she (or any of her cohorts for that matter) won't cut spending on non-essential programs. In fairness to Hillary, asking any politician to stop spending is like asking an addict to substitute jelly beans for smack. It just ain't going to happen.

While Walker mentions tighter controls on spending and cuts to entitlement programs he mostly pleads for higher taxes (cleverly labeled as revenue). And this is one of the biggest word thefts of all times- a government doesn't generate revenue. A business generates revenue when it produces something (a good or service), but the government DOESN'T produce anything.

Echoes of DEM talking points...

Walker even takes a shot at the GWOT since those "threats" pale in comparison to the horrors of insolvency. From where I sit, what I see is a bevy of government officials from both parties fat and happy, anxious to withdrawal from foreign affairs so they can preserve their constituents' desire for a prosperous, no-care-in-the-world retirement.

And the cynical side of me knows that Reid and Pelosi could care less about ending the war (Reid sees it as an opportunity to gain seats in the Senate). What they (and GOP lawmakers) care about is re-deploying dollars currently spent on the "bumper sticker" war to pet projects like peanut containers. These domestic boondoggles keep them in office, expand the size of government, and do nothing to address the "immorality" of future debts.

I believe the historically low congressional approval ratings (and the president's own approval ratings) are a reflection of an absolute loss of confidence and faith in this government.

Postscript

Maybe the most brilliant campaign sound-bite to date has been Obama's statement that a vote for Hillary is "more of the same old thing." Who has the gravitas to break the country from this CLINTON/BUSH stupor? The nation can't go back to pre-911 world (there's not enough HGTV programming in the world to mask the realities of what the radical Islamic fundamentalists are doing) but we're obviously too tired to stay the course. Who can ratchet down the rhetoric, end the partisanship and put pressing issues like social security reform, immigration, health care, terrorism, energy, and government spending on the table? Hillary will get NO break from the vast right wing conspiracy [wink, wink] who have been maginalized by her supporters at the NY TIMES.

She will face unprecedented scrutiny that a doting MSM will find difficult to compensate for and it will guarantee 4 (or 8) years of the same kind of rancor.

Labels: generational conflict

Hillary Clinton announced that she would campaign on a platform that would emphasize the need for collective economics and move away from individual performance and success. It could be called an extension of "It Takes A Village," and it might have been -- had the newspapers bothered to cover it.

This kind of rhetoric isn't new for Hillary. She has promoted collectivist economics for two decades now. Her effort to nationalize health care reflected the same kind of thinking, and this statement shows that she hasn't learned much from that debacle. Almost three years ago, she promised that she would "take things away from [Americans] for the common good," back when the economy had just started its latest expansion. That's collectivism, and it's not limited to Hillary among Democratic candidates.

Source

It sounds like a ready-made "economic solution" for a generation of neutered a$$ clowns like John Mayer. It also "feels" compatible and in line with the values of a generation thrashing about in its dotage and searching for the big easy.

**RELATED**

Hillary: Who’s in the mood for a little collectivism? We’re all in it together!

Say this much for the Glacier: however much her surname, her accent, her choice of baseball team, or her position on Iraq may change, her belief in taking things away from you for the common good remains evergreen.

And the most charming part? How easily and naturally confiscatory rhetoric escapes her lips. “We might need to raise taxes” is a blue-party position; but “we’re going to take those profits”? That’s pure Green, baby.

Hey — that amnesty’s not going to pay for itself.

Source

Best comment from Hot Air visitor:

"Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Alrighty then. Question for Madame Hillary: Who in the government gets to decide what's "fair?"

Follow-up question: "And what exactly qualifies them as judges of 'fairness?'"

I thought so.

Labels: clintons, democrats, generational conflict

I heard two segments this morning on the Baby Boomers on the Wall Street Journal Report (XM Radio). PBS will air a program this evening called "The Boomer Century" in which the viewing public will learn that Boomers; (a) attribute success to self-empowerment (I'm Okay, You're Okay), (b) distrust authority, (c) are comfortable with change, and (d) are idealistic.

The other segment was about the potential glut of McMansions that may flood the real estate market as Baby Boomers start to downsize. As they seek smaller homes, many first-time home buyers (families) will be forced out of the market as demand for smaller homes increases.

Political angle?

Certainly. Hillary is the quintessential Baby Boomer. As this generation slides into its dotage it will elect a representative to write its legacy (and to greedily protect what it has amassed).

Labels: generational conflict

Labels: generational conflict

This non-partisan article by Robert J. Samuelson on boomer entitlements is worthy of review. Some highlights:

In 2005, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cost $1.034 trillion, twice the amount of defense spending and more than two-fifths of the total federal budget. These programs are projected to equal about three-quarters of the budget by 2030, if it remains constant as a share of national income.

Preserving present retirement benefits automatically imposes huge costs on the young -- costs that are economically unsound and socially unjust. The tax increases required by 2030 could hit 50 percent, if other spending is maintained as a share of national income. Or much of the rest of government (from defense to national parks) would have to be shut down or crippled. Or budget deficits would balloon to quadruple today's level.

Think tanks endlessly publish technical reports on Social Security and Medicare, but most avoid the big issues. Are present benefits justified? How big can government become before the resulting taxes or deficits harm the economy?

Limestone Commentary
When the tax rate hits 50% I'm sitting at home on the dole. For anyone keeping score at home and measuring this against The Economics of Private Enterprise in a 12-cell Matrix entitlements would violate cells 1 and 4.

Labels: generational conflict

I walked out for a SAMMY and saw a BOOMER driving around in a Prius. The event triggered this rant.

The BOOMERS have a spent 50+ years behaving like gluttons. Why have they all of sudden become conservationists? Why do they now advocate and preach Environmentology™? The only reason BOOMERS care about conservation now is that it preserves what they've spent a lifetime hoarding. The message, at least as I see it, is this: Even though we've spent a lifetime f**king things up WE need to be responsible for what's left. It's really code for- we're going to live ALOT longer than previous generations and we need you to make sacrifices so we can all hit the shuffleboard court, tour the Costa Rican rainforests, and eat at Denny's for dinner @ 3:00 PM. And it's just not environmentology™ either. The BOOMERS will lurch leftward as they seek European style protections as the Yers, all full of BOOMER applied insulation, will sing Kumbaya as it happens. Head for the hills. No. Really. Head for the hills.

Dislaimer: I'm using sweeping generalities and I don't care.

Labels: generational conflict