Money is, for sure.
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2026
125 points (97.0% liked)
politics
30272 readers
2186 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
American democracy is an oxymoron. It can't be ruined if it never existed. FFS the country is run by two Private Companies who have no legal or constitutional reason to be democratic in who they put up as candidates and because this has been the case since the beginning no one else has a chance.
No, the low IQ wing nuts who make up at least 50% of the population who allow people like Trump to become president. They literally ruin anything good we could have a society 😒
It's not about age, it's about corruption. Old politicians have had more time to make deals, forge alliances, and prove themselves useful to money.
One way to mitigate this is term limits for Congress. Force them out before they can do too much damage, before they can entrench themselves, and gain the support of some billionaire. Less reason to throw millions at a candidate if they'll be gone in eight years.
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.
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 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.
Boomers are aged 62-80 in 2026.
Gen Y is the largest voting block right now.
"Boomer" just means "old person" now. But ageism is still bigotry.
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.
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.
Most boomers gleefully enabled the system.
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 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.
Not all men energy.
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.
They have most of the wealth and the power. They're the ones doing the fascism. Every generation is doing their part on that fucked up front but the buck (literally) starts and stops with the boomers for the most part.
Also Gen X and I don't blame them for the current state of things other than them being responsible for the groundwork that led to where we are and blocking progress as long as they did.
I didn't say all boomers. I very specifically said which ones i meant.
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.
No. Voter apathy, arrogance and virtue signalling transcends age and gender.
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.
Hard age limits are the only practical workable system.
We already have age limits in place for elected offices - just lower age limits. We don't have someone fill out an IQ test to see if they're eligible to be president - we just say no one under 35 can be president.
Any medical or cognitive test you could give to potential candidates would be instantly gamed. We've seen this with literacy tests. There is no health or cognition metric you can use that won't be manipulated for political ends. Expect to see political ideologies declared mental illnesses, as has happened countless times through history.
No, hard age limits are the only way to go. Would banning presidents over 75 bar some perfectly qualified and capable people? Sure. But the under-35 limit has the same problem.
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.
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?
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›