LOL Heidi. He doesn't turn you off because you're a Republican. You define reality in superficial generational terms, using TV characters from the stupidest series ever. That you purport to speak for "suburban women" is nothing short of ludicrous.

A Sladebot - 'nuff said...

Heidi understands the issues the same way Paul Ryan understands Ayn Rand. Laughable.

Paul Ryan received Social Security benefits during his late teens/early twenties. Ryan's well to do lawyer father died, and Ryan's well to do mother got Social Security for Ryan. Paul Ryan had his living, and college payed for by Social Security. Ryan got his, so now Ryan wants no one else to get the same thing that Ryan got. If suburban women like Ryan, then suburban women are not worth listening to.

There is no Generation x. It is a media fabrication. Also, being a Slade Gorton political operative makes your article meaningless. Paul Ryan is a hypocritical scumbag.

I haven't heard the term "lockbox" since 2000! And this is the first time I've heard "Seinfeld" and "Friends" blamed for a voter's choice to be illogical. Hmm.. both shows were produced by NBC, the same network that made fun of Al Gore (on SNL) for his "lockbox" analogy, which no one seemed to understand at the time, either. Could NBC be plotting to subliminally win suburban women over to Paul Ryan?

Looks like Cady's pissed off the Plastics.

"We were numbed by decades of polarized debates on baby boomer issues that, for the most part, never concerned us, but taught us that stalemates are the end result of most political debates."

Polarized debates that never concerned you, Heidi??? Are you referring to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which give older people security and free GenXers to go about their lives without having to spend all their money financially supporting their parents and grandparents? Are you talking about the Bush tax cuts and Middle East wars, which have saddled your generation with trillions in debt? Unless you get out and fight to protect Social Security and Medicare, you and your generation might as well kiss any kind of reasonably secure old age goodbye because most people are never going to be able to save enough to fully protect themselves financially. You better get over that attitude that those programs aren't going to be there.
Actually, Heidi, the ability to fix the budget depends on our willingness to go ahead with systemwide health care changes to reduce cost growth and get everyone into an affordable system, not the other way around. President Obama and the Dems have started us on that road. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney would take us back to square one.
If the Ryan-Romney Medicare plan came into being, you and other GenXers would face even higher costs for health care. Try "relying on each other" rather than the government to deal with that. Yeah, sure.
This is one of the silliest, most self-involved columns Crosscut has run.

That's funny, I always looked at those programs as the means by which GenXers are required to spend all their money financially supporting their parents and grandparents! Perfect illustration of my point below.

My generation rebelled against them.

Just as they relied on Mommy and Daddy to support them while they "found themselves" on communes and in drum circles, they now expect Uncle Sam to support them in their "fulfilled" retirements, which can begin in their 50s and run for half a century. They've lived lives of consumption. They're Ralph Nader's "consumer" writ large. It's up to someone else to foot the bill.

The author represents the new adults in the room. Phrases like "ending Medicare as we know it" don't scare us, because we know that "Medicare as we know it" won't be there when we retire, especially if it's not reformed. Of course there are left-wing outliers who can't bear the thought of living without a government program to oversee every aspect of their lives. There always are. But whereas the baby boomers felt that, to take one small example, "free" contraception is a higher societal goal than self-sufficiency, they are being replaced by generations that did something the boomers never could manage: We learned from their mistakes. And that's a good thing, because it will take more than a generation to clean up after them.

Yeah, right, Breneman, typical dumb Republican response. Everybody was a hippie, you bet. There were no clean-cut frat boys back then, right? And yours is the generation that shipped all the jobs to China, no doubt out of rebellion against the hippies. How did that work out for you? How about we quit with this superficial generation crap and get to work fixing the problems.

Let's acknowledge some hard truths. First, "Medicare as we know it" cannot last. No one is going to save Medicare in its current form. It could go one way - the vouchers in the Ryan budget - or it could go another way - a single payer option "Medicare for all" - or it could go some third way, but it cannot continue as it is. It is not sustainable.

So, no, I am not afraid of the end of "Medicare as we know it". I'm reconciled to it. I'd much prefer that we determine the solution to the problem and move forward with it - whatever that solution may be - than dawdle in the middle of the road or drown in denial. That's just a waste of time that will make the inevitable transition more jarring. That doesn't make me a righty or a lefty but a realist.

Second, pretty much the same for Social Security. It will have to change somehow and the sooner the better. That's not a right or left position; that's a reality-based position.

Third, while I see a lot of good things that government does, and I really, really like public resources like roads, schools, libraries, a criminal justice system and a civil justice system, and while I really, really like regulations that protect me from exploitation and harm, I do see the government doing a lot of stuff that appears silly or wasteful and I'm freakin' tired of it. Top item on my silly and wasteful list is the stalemate in the state and federal legislatures. The reality here is that it's mostly Republicans, especially the Tea Party types, who are refusing to participate in the negotiated plurality of our system and are obstructing progress. Whether I agree with them or disagree with them doesn't matter; they are preventing the implementation of solutions because they are not the solutions that they prefer or, in some cases, because it would look like a win for the other side.

There is no other side. You're all supposed to be on America's side.

Let me close with a little historical perspective. How many generations have ever experienced anything like retirement? Only two. In the whole history of the world, there are only two generations that had an extended period of leisure at the end of their lives. It's not, by any means, normal. Don't get used to it.

There are fixes for both medicare and social security. If you are referring to fixes, I'm in agreement. Large scale change? Eventual nullification? No. Other countries can do it. We can do it. Higher taxes? Sure. But look what you get in return. Raise the cap? Of course. No brainer. The cap of $102,000 is nothing today. Ridiculous! Let's not give in to a right-wing marketing campaign. Heidi - you've been school by TV. Read some history books and find out what life was like prior to social security and health care. Our country is going backwards thanks to apathy and ignorance. We must move forward with intelligent decision-making and information if we are to survive as a civilized democracy.

Gail Collins gets it exactly and amusingly right on Ryan-Romney and Medicare.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/opinion/collins-middle-age-blues.html?_r=1&hp;
"I am 54! How come nobody cares about my health care?"

As a Gen Xer, I applaud Kelly for a great article on our generation's reaction to a number of political issues... but she completely misses the point of the comment she's supposed to be reacting to. And that DOES reveal her Gorton-grown conservatism.

Even were we all to stand up and applaud Ryan for trying to focus debate on the budget and entitlement programs and tax reform, and for finally being a Republican willing to stand up and propose something rather than just opposing everything, that doesn't change his extremely conservative views on a number of key social issues that are important to Gen Xers, and especially Gen X women.

"As a" this, "As a" that. "My generation" this, "our generation" that. What makes people so stupid as to fall into these traps? They represent identity politics at its worst. These policies affect all of us, do you get it.

"As a" this, "As a" that. "My generation" this, "our generation" that. What makes people so stupid as to fall into these traps? They represent identity politics at its worst. These policies affect all of us, do you get it?

Your broken commenting system forced an unwanted double post, when all I meant to do was edit, then it refused to let me delete it. And these stupid "captchas" are unreadable.

"Baby boomers lost a great deal of their savings when the economy collapsed in 2008, forcing Generation X to puzzle through the notion of supporting both their parents and their children."

As a boomer, I have to say that my parents supported their parents, at least augmented whatever their parents got from social security, with a LOT less income than is common now. And, I expect to have some role in supporting my Dad before his life is over. So, are we talking family responsibility here? Or fundamental individualism and selfishness?

Baby boomers got jobs from employers who bought into the tax policy assisted scam of 401Ks and 403Bs -- instead of either a pension or having $$ direct instead of as matchng funds. Baby boomers were shorted by not just the crash of 2007, but the downturn in the early 90s and the post Y2K bust.

We know the casinos rake it in off them that want to gamble. Certain financier boondoggles should not be enabled by government.

In addition, I'd suggest that it is not Baby Boomers who engage in the more-more-more, throw it away and buy new-new-new, culture promoted by all purveryors of gadgets, neat 'stuff' and shiney new buildings. Most baby boomers were raised well by those who lived through the depression and learned to make do, resue and repair.

Mainstream (aka Corporate) Media's NUMBER ONE misconception and out-right lie regarding the federal budget: Social Security is "going broke".
Kelly's reference to this "fact" should make plain to everyone her right-wing, misinformed logic. There must be more Ayn Rand readers around here than I think...

Interesting exchange to this boomer. The article and supportive comments by dbreneman and coolpapa are so far off base in over-generalization land as to be almost humorous in their exaggeration. An Ayn Rand cartoon perhaps.

Most distressing is a Crosscut "Editor's Pick" for one of the nastiest of the bunch:

"Just as they relied on Mommy and Daddy to support them while they 'found themselves' on communes and in drum circles, they now expect Uncle Sam to support them in their 'fulfilled' retirements, which can begin in their 50s and run for half a century. They've lived lives of consumption. They're Ralph Nader's 'consumer' writ large. It's up to someone else to foot the bill."

Please give me a break. I didn't "rely on Mommy and Daddy" and most of the people I know (and that show up in demographic data) didn't either. Nor did most of us come from communes and drum circles. I don't expect anything from government other than good governance and old age security. That includes transportation infrastructure, libraries, fire protection, etc. that you mention. Guaranteed medical care (socialized medicine for sure) would be nice, but America's too full of libertarian extremism and Republican BS.

I suggest you reactionary generalizers review the history of progressive taxation in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) to get some sense for where we should be going, instead of off into your selfish nightmare. I also suggest that you study what's actually wrong with social security; it's just another aspect of America's increasing maldistribution of wealth. There is a class war and the rich are winning. All it would take for social security to be solvent indefinitely is to lift the lid on the wage cap for social security taxes. Are you arguing that the rich should control an ever increasing share of wealth and income (and political control)? Whose interest are you really promoting with your fraudulent 'social security has to change' narrative?

If you can get past your own distaste for those who disagree with you, you might notice that nowhere did I say that all baby boomers were hippies. I said that this was the dominant cultural element of 60s and 70s society that those of us who grew up in those decades found self-serving and narcissistic and which we rebelled against. There is a big difference between discussing dominant historical trends and engaging in "reactionary generalizations." But I suppose as someone who engages in reactionary generalizations yourself, that subtlety may be lost on you.

My "distaste" is with those who state their positions nastily.

Regardless, do you have some citations to support "hippies... the dominant cultural element of 60s and 70s society ... dominant historical trends," without name-calling and I'll see if I can discern some subtlety in your argument. And maybe some response to the social equity arguments in my post challenging the article (and your comments). "the new adults in the room" indeed.

Oh sheesh now we are arguing over who is reactionary. I suggest that an understanding of the real history and hard numbers, as opposed to fairly hateful words that generalize off of individualized experiences, might actually lead people to solutions.

If wishes were ponies, I guess 'reality' can be told by whoever 'resonates'. Forget about real actions that have real outcomes.

This is the type of article that seems to be so filled with contradictory statements. But you can't really tell because the author doesn't explain what she means, or truly doesn't understand anything in depth enough to be able to do so.

One such passage is this:
"Everything changed in 2008. The political system came too close to putting at risk the economic well-being of that which is most important to us."

This needs to be explained. What changed in 2008? I assume she's referring to the crash of 2008 but that was an event. It changed nothing. And the 'political system' wasn't responsible for the crash, at least not mostly. She didn't explain exactly what the problem was, in her mind and no solution was offered. What would she have done differently? Let the banks all go bankrupt? Break them up? What?

Everyone has heard of the Bernie Madoff financial ponzi scheme. He ripped off billions.... from many of his closest friends. But the truly frightening thing about Bernie Madoff is he served as president of the board of directors for the NASDAQ stock exchange!!

So the corruption in the financial system is completely systemic and goes to the very top. This is how the people who run Wall Street behave. Greed has spread like a cancer through the banking system. And Paul Ryan's solution is to privatize Social Security and give the taxpayer money to the cancerous Wall Street casino. No thanks.

Wow, what a depressing essay. This author needs professional help. But she raises a good point, that politicians have succeeded in scaring her so much, that irrational actors like Ryan may have some appeal. If you can't understand a problem, at least have a good tantrum.

If she represents "Generation X" as she says, I sure hope "Generation X+1" can get it together to have an optimistic vision and really make an effort to solve problems. This woman and her "generation" seem determined to wallow in self-pity.

This piece kind of lost its punch when we got to the disclaimer that the author is a former Slade Gorton aide.

Yes, suburban women who happen to be Republican Party insiders aren't upset by the selection of Paul Ryan as Romney's VP candidate. Good to know.

My parents contributed to the support of their elderly parents just as my spouse and I, early boomers both, contributed to the support of our elderly parents. Yes. Our retirement portfolios took a hit in 2008 and 2009 but they have since rebounded. We are not looking to our extended family to come to our rescue. Financially we are in significantly better shape than we were when President Obama took office.

The suburban women I know are turned off by Paul Ryan. His position on Medicare is only one of many reasons. Those of us who battled through the 1960s and 1970s to give women control over our own bodies do not want our daughters and grand daughters to have to re-fight those battles.

I love it when GenXers say they aren't getting anything out of Social Security.

Do you guys have parents and grandparents?

I've been paying into the system for 30 years and haven't gotten a dime out of it while your progenitors have been milking it dry for decades.

Like the episode of Friends, the typical GenX slouch has been mooching off the infrastructure yet now workies about "all his hard work" consisting of one nine month internship at age 35 going to government spending.

Crosscut headline writing at its most annoying. Headline should be: Paul Ryan: Not a Turnoff for Republican Campaign Consultants Who Don't Care That Ryan Has Supported Bills to Narrow the Definition of Rape and to Stop Abortions for Women Who Victims of Rape in Any Event.

Not issues of importance to suburban women, according to this opinionator.

Golly, where would all that money have come from for wars if we boomers hadn't paid into social security all these years. He was your President, Heidi. Please don't ask me to sacrifice for your wars.

"It should be perfectly obvious why the first national politician to spring from Generation X focused his attention completely on the budget crisis."

It is obvious, it's because he sees political advantage in exploiting the budget crisis. Ryan and his adherents have every idea about how to exploit the budget crisis for political gain. They can TALK about it and make you mad. They have NO idea how to actually fix it. His fixes SOUND good, and that's all he cares about. It is pure marketing. Independent analysis shows that the only DEFINITIVE parts of his plan EXPAND the deficit and the debt. The blithe phrase "we'll eliminate waste" is the only hint of substance he brings to the table. And he'll never quantify that "waste" for you, or explain where exactly it comes from.

Like all modern conservatives, Ryan thinks defunding government is the same as reforming it. And he thinks this because it's easy. Just take the money away and everything magically gets better.

Pure marketing for the profit of Wall Street. Michael Hiltzik lays it out pretty well in his LA Times column:

"Americans would be permitted to invest as much as four-fifths of their Social Security taxes in private individual accounts that could be invested in stocks and bonds. (The average permissible diversion would amount to just over half of the program's tax income.) The government would encourage maximum participation by guaranteeing that no matter what happened to their money in the investment markets, no one would end up with less than they would have received from conventional Social Security. Any shortfall would be made up from the federal budget.

In the sponsors' words, the plan would "greatly increase and broaden the ownership of wealth and capital.... All workers could participate in our nation's economy as both capitalists and laborers." But their plan put the entire government on the hook for every individual's investment losses."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120821,0,1818705.column

Wall Street wants all the money. Every penny of it. When will Americans wake up and recognize the suits for the thieves they are? Heidi, will you be the first?

If Ryan believes in less debt, he could pledge to undo the biggest unfunded entitlement ever, Bush's prescription drug benefit.

Remember that Paul Ryan is a life long government employee. He's never held a job in private business, never run a business, never started a business.

The big question is, how does a person become a multi, multi-millionaire on a government salary? Who is stuffing this guy's pockets with money??

The article begins with a reference to Andrea Mitchell's claim that Paul Ryan's "voting record on reproductive rights will not appeal to suburban women." The author, purporting to speak for the "modern suburban woman," claims that things have changed in ways that Andrea Mitchell doesn't understand.

But the subject of reproductive rights, and Paul Ryan's position on that matter (14th amendment protections for fertilized eggs, defunding Planned Parenthood, etc.) is never again mentioned in the article. Instead the author professes sympathy for Ryan's deplorable positions on Medicare and Medicaid and indulges in whining about how tough her generation has it and cliched hippie bashing.

If the author is going to take on Andrea Mitchell for stating that Paul Ryan doesn't speak for suburban women on matters of reproductive rights, she should stick to the subject rather than drifting off into some reverie about the TV shows she enjoyed in her youth.