With the decline of our country, and the probable collapse of Social Security, what will happen to the younger generation of Americans? Will we step up and realize our responsibilities, or are we just too apathetic? As someone pointed out to me recently, there are millions of aborted children that should have been a part of our generation. Who knows how different life would be if they were still alive...
What do you want to discuss in this thread...the financial and social future of young people, or the consequences of abortion? I think these are two different things.
I think that Social Security, abortion, and other issues are all signs of the same root problem. So yes, I do think they go together. I just want to talk about the younger generation's responsibilities and their probablity of recognizing those responsibilities.
If you want to talk about the younger generation recognizing their responsibilities, then confine the discussion to that. That thousands or hundreds of thousands of unborn children might have had a voice is irrelevant to your topic. They are not here to make a statement.
You said, "I think that Social Security, abortion, and other issues are all signs of the same root problem." What is the root problem you see? Please define it.
One of the responsibilities of the younger generation is to stop the abortions that the older generations have legalized. I look upon those millions of unborn babies as peers I could have had.
The root problem, as I see it, is the corruption of America. The founding principles of this country are being corroded away. We have turned from righteousness and are plodding down the road to destruction.
Thanks for this info, Rose. Now I see your perspective. I am sorry for the loss you feel. Young people in America will continue to support or question Roe v Wade, as their parents have done, for years to come. Your voice is important in this ongoing discussion. Glad you wanted to air it here.
Abortions are between the woman, her doctor and family. Politicians shouldn't have any say what so ever. Are the people and politicians who are against abortion going to adopt them all?
The choice for abortion is still choosing to end a life. That it is an accepted choice by many doesn't change that a life ends. In 50 years it might be accepted that another segment of the population is dispensible, and it would still be murder.
Why would it be up to prolifers and politicians to adopt them all? Why not expect parents to be responsible for atleast some of the children? As a society we should help yes, but shouldn't some accountability by the parents be expected?
Maybe more will realize that they should be solely dependent upon themselves instead of the government providing things for them, when government shouldn't in the first place.
It will be realize soon enough, once the future becomes present, which will be an all-out collapse of America's currency.
What difference would it make that aborted babies(use the right word) are actually not here. It certainly wouldn't be better, because of the resources needed.
Not to mention, an aborted babies have no sufficient impact on the growth of those who are born.
I hope we do regain a sense of independence and stop relying on the government to provide everything. I somehow doubt this will happen unless under extreme circumstances.
I disagree that the babies killed would have no sufficient impact - people always have an impact, whether for good or bad. The fact that we of the younger generation are brought up in a society where murdering unborn babies is legal, is only doing damage to the future of the country.
How is a woman's legal right to end her pregnancy damaging the country?
Abortion is murder. And accepted murder is hurting our country's standard of morality.
Actually, not true. Abortion isn't hurting the morality of the Country. It's the religious people who continue persecute those who have abortions that is damaging the country.
Abortion is a legal medical procedure. Murder is illegal.
Then the government defines what's right and wrong? I thought killing a person, whatever the government says, is murder. If the government defined what is murder and what isn't murder, then the Holocaust was full of completely legal "medical procedures".
See, now you're comparing apples to oranges. I guess I should have seen that coming.
Well, Rose, you define abortion as murder; the court doesn't. This is your view, and it needs to be respected, as does the court's.
There are many reasons for absence of morality. Lack of morality doesn't come solely by way of Roe v Wade. I believe morality begins at home, in the family. If kids are raised without rules and consequences, without the understanding of what is right and what is wrong, then their lives have questionable value to society, and further, their lives may have no meaningful impact on the ethics and morals of the future.
"Young People in America" need the support and guidance of their families and communities. It all starts there.
I agree that morality starts at home. We can't blame it all on the government (though I confess it's easy to do). The government is a result of the people and the beliefs of those people (although the voice of the people, I believe, is diminishing). We need to change our families if we are to change the nation.
Whereas the past generations debated and disagreed about abortion... the younger generations already have this issue legally decided. They will grow up maybe thinking that murder (called by another name) is OK. Apathy is the plague of our times.
I have heard that Social Security was collapsing for over 25 years. I'm beginning to believe that's just bad gossip.
Check out the proportion. Majority always wins in any country.
I am not sure why having a bunch more people here would make the situation any better.
"Maybe more will realize that they should be solely dependent upon themselves instead of the government providing things for them, when government shouldn't in the first place."
There is no such thing as true independence...
How can one be on their own when it is through the direct and indirect acts of government that the community, state, and nation is organized, justified, and maintained?
What is the government providing that you think it shouldn't Cags?
The first line of dependency in my book is American business.... It has been private industry, going back to the founding of the colonies) that has used government for its interests.....whether its the Virginia Company or Halliburton..
Yet, when the general population tries to use the government for their interests this is typically ridiculed and derided....
I am not saying that you are doing this Cags, but I will also be intersted in reading your response to the issues I raise here...
What do you think government shouldn't be doing?
Maybe you should take this conversation with Cags offline? I don't see how it addresses Rose's question. Who brought up the government's role? On the other hand, all information is potentially good information, unless it turns out to be otherwise.
"The first line of dependency in my book is American business"
Gorbachev also wrote a book. It didn't save communisim (socislism).
Socialism robs the populace of their vigor. It eliminate or minimizes the need to work, to achieve, to persevere, to produce or to improve products or services.
Lastly, by guarantying resources to EVERYONE, you guarantee an uninterrupted population expansion. Eventually the human bodies will out pace the ability of the gov't to provide (e.g. USSR, Cuba, USA).
Social security (robs the young)
--Every piece of legislation passed by the buffoon president LBJ- EVERYTHING
--Carter's Education Dept
--King's Holiday - like Carter said, too costly
--President's right to wage war w/out consent of Congress
That's a good start...
the older generation has been complaining about the younger generation for generations. The older generation is the younger generation that their parents' generation complained about.
And yet every generation the overall standard of living goes up (for most people).
I don't see any value in complaining about "the young generation" in such broad, vague terms.
I don't think anyone is complaining about the young generation here, Jeff. Rose is describing a perspective some in her generation have, a perspective that she feels strongly about.
I agree that what goes around comes around, and generations are described by that cycle of the older thinking the younger is out of place and the younger thinking the older is the dinosaur. But that's got nothing to do with Rose's argument.
I'm not complaining about my generation. Actually, I would complain more about past generations who have committed actions which have resulted in consequences that the young generation has to deal with.
What I want to encourage is an awakening of my generation - a call to cast off apathy, to care about the future of America.
Rose, I couldn't agree with you more about the need for this generation to do something about apathy. From my dinosaur point of view, let's get rid of cell phones, TV, and the Internet as pathways to a self-absorption that keeps kids inside their own heads (often at the convenient needs of their parents) to live a mental life of instant gratification that leads to pleasuring only the self. Self-pleasure is the breeding ground of apathy.
What would you like to see happen?
Well, I think the younger generation needs to step up for freedom of speech, for one thing. No matter who you are and what you believe, you should feel at liberty to say what you want. No more speech censoring at schools. No more intellectual discrimination. And please please please may there never be internet and other media censorship in America.
We need to put a stop to unconstitutional government-funded programs. No more dependency on government-given education, healthcare, welfare, social security.
I hope we return to the principles of the Constitution... how many in my generation have actually read the Constitution? That would be an interesting poll.
We need to be more involved in our nation's politics: voting for good honest men, not just the better (which is often still bad) of two candidates. We need to be leaders, as well, not just voters.
And as I said before, we need to put an end to immoral behavior such as abortion.
In a nutshell, we individuals need to be reformed ourselves before our nation can be reformed.
Have you considered what Life would be like in America if Abortion didn't exist? Or can you not wrap your mind around it?
Not to mention, when you speak about abortion, you are over stepping all authority and infringing upon the rights of another individual.
I really don't want to get hung up on the abortion issue, as this wasn't my primary topic in the forum. We obviously disagree strongly to the point that neither of us is going to budge in our position. I will say, however, that abortion has nothing to do with the rights of an individual. I don't care who you are or what government you live under, killing your unborn baby is wrong.
Okay, enough of you-
Answer one question- Did YOU Have a Choice in Being Born?
Okay, since you didn't have a choice to be born, then neither does anyone else. That was the point.
But once I was conceived, I had the right to live. No one has a right to take a baby's life.
No true. You had no right to live. There is no right to being born. You seem to be missing that point.
Choice is a right, as long as it doesn't harm another living human being.
Rights can never harm another living, breathing human being. The "right to life" is misunderstood.
You have a right to live your life however you choose to do so, and you to keep that right, you cannot harm others who have also the same right.
The rights are granted/honored to those who are born. They do, honor fetus life for justification of statues of Law and no other reason.
I would define an unborn baby as "another living human being".
I am sure you would.
Edit: Too bad you don't look at a more open view, such as the bigger picture- where individual rights are established, why they are and what they are.
Besides, on the flip side- Have even considered what I said earlier? Do you understand why abortion is legal? Or is it too big to think about?
I am curious?
Before there was this debate about abortion as we know it today, women were ending their pregnancies for tens of thousands of years.
It is not now and never has been a government's right to say otherwise. Roe v Wade affirmed that ancient tradition of women taking care of themselves.
It's good to look into those reasons and weigh them against the religious tenants that would take that decision away from a woman.
You and I, Rose, do sit on opposite sides of the fence. Which is a good thing for young people in America to consider in order to come to their own conclusions about what is right and what is wrong. This is what freedom of speech is about...I only hope that young people today can learn how to assess one idea or belief against another, for the greater good.
I believe it is the government's job to protect life - even life in the womb. We can agree to disagree.
So you are a libertarian who wants government out except when it comes down to enforcing what you want them to.
It is the governments responsibility to protect life. If you believe life begins at conception (as some libertarians do), then this is a consistent stance.
Get back in that BOX!LOL
I happen to be a libertarian that believes the Government doesn't belong in anyones personal decisions so long they don't interfer with anothers liberties.
That being said, I do like the ideas that Libertarians in general don't seem to let the issue divide us as it does in the two mainstream parties.
no, but my parents made a decision or two on the matter!
Very true. You can find evidence of this though out recorded history. I find it amazing. I think it has to do with our fear of change.
"Fear of change".......that's become almost a motto the Left uses to judge the Right.
It has to do with the mottos of "No Fear of Anything" and "If it feels good, do it" that hit the streets in bumper stickers and other ways during the 80's. Young people these days have no guidance from the older generation. So, they're becoming a new generation of lost children incapable of properly teaching future generations. Parents only want to be their children's "friends" instead of their guides/teachers. I admit I messed up in those areas too. But as adults, we reach (or should reach) a point where we realize our mistakes and then we show our children the error of our own ways so that THEY can then, hopefully, not make those same mistakes. Or at the very least, that they know they're accountable for their mistakes.
In these days of sympathy for the Devil, we need to wise up. Before our children and children's children become pawns of that Devil.
YES, we need to get back "in the box"! And we need to keep our kids there until they're adult enough to face the world armed with good old-fashioned common sense and the knowledge of right and wrong.
There is some truth to that as well. I will say this, being heavy handed or overly judgemental gets you no where with young people. In fact it often makes a bad situation worse. Especially when the older generation isn't practicing what they preach. Not all change is bad. The Apostle Paul said "all things are allowable, but not all things are advisable." Simply telling someone NOT to do something is creating an irresitable hazard so to speak.
I was making a broader comment. One can look at quotes from the past and see that the older generation has been saying the younger generation is going to hell in a hand basket for hundreds of years.
But this modern generation of "adults" is actually HELPING them go to hell in a handbasket; that's the difference; they're condoning it.
Since when did discipline go out the window?
And honestly, there were lotsa things that I was told NOT to do, and because of that I didn't do them. Not everything becomes a temptation just because it's forbidden.
it's not hard to figure out what's going to happen. Possible situations include:
1) A president AND congress actually says "well, dang it! we need to pay our debts! Sorry it was so much, but we knew it was coming! Taxes up to 85%, and we're going to cut spending by 90%! Sorry guys, but we gotta do it!"
--- no. that will never happen.
2) We just print the money out of thin air, and thus destroy fiat/paper money.
--- this seems pretty likely: after all, we've created over a trillion in the past couple of months!
3) The public realizes that it's completely impossible for government to manage its finances, and demands that we return most of the services of government to the private sector.
--- this is the only solution that will actually end the problem.
So there you have it. It's either going to be the destruction of the dollar, or the restriction of government. I'll be happy with either - I've got REAL money: silver (it's more than doubled its value in the last couple of years thanks to Bernanke's and Greenspan's utter idiocy)
1- yeah, not going to happen
2- already happening
3- let's do it!
I totally vote for government restriction over dollar destuction - but I'm not sure how much my vote counts
Holy moly! another libertarian on HubPages!
welcome to the light!
"The public realizes that it's completely impossible for government to manage its finances, and demands that we return most of the services of government to the private sector."
That's like telling a 1-year-old it's not going to getting momma's nipple any longer.
That's nice. How does it help "Young People in America"?
it helps them by letting them know not to trust government talking heads and to rely on hard work and VOLUNTARY trade.
If you can't see how "realizing that someone is screwing you over" helps someone, then I'm afraid I simply can't explain the concept.
... and anyway... aren't you in a debate about Abortion with someone? why are you arguing "is this on topic" with me?
And yet it has to happen if the child (or country) is to grow up and mature.
Bush has recently released a a book If you wanna see what I have to say about Georghe W. Bush's new book decision points view my blog at
There wasn't legal abortion for the people ahead of me on the Social Security/retirement thing - and yet here I am, not feeling all that secure about any Social Security money being there for me when I get there in the not-all-that-far-away future; and thinking maybe my Google earnings will have grown enough by then to be a "retirement income" for me.
I see the abortion issue as a completely separate thing, but if it's going to be lumped in here I have to say that I would not want to live on money that came from a whole population of unwanted babies with mothers who weren't prepared to be the right kind of mother children need, or from knowing that a whole load of women had had no choice but to go through pregnancies, deliveries, and putting their baby out for adoption. There's a whole lot of baloney and waste and corruption that has gone on with taxpayer dollars over that last 30-plus years since abortion has been legal. The solution to the threats to Social Security wouldn't have been in the abortion laws. Bigger population, by itself, isn't very often the solution to a lot of problems. In fact, much of the time it just means more people to make the problem worse.
I don't feel very secure with Social Security either. (and at the rate I'm going, I doubt Google adsense earnings are going to cover my retirement.) I read a book about big government affecting the younger generation (I confess that's what sparked this forum), and it described Social Security as a pyramid scheme. I was completely convinced that Social Security was a bad idea to begin with. And we are the ones who are going to pay for it.
The world is no less moral than it ever was, we are just more open and honest about it.
You are right and you are wrong. The world doesn't have a claim to morality, only individuals do. So I agree, the world is no less moral than it ever was. However, despite claims to the contrary, we're not being honest about anything. And that's because we've lost the ability to be self-critical and thus can't know the difference between honesty and falsity.
Nice, UW, a good segue back to apathy.
Well, this is a perfect example why EVERYONE that lives in the United States should have a Roth IRA account. Not only will you get a hefty tax break on it, you'll also be able to put away spare money whenever you can that grows with interest. Waiting inside that account until your ready to retire, without the governments help. sure, you can still collect social security when your retired if you like (presuming it's still around), as well as live off your savings in your Roth account. Heck, even George W. Bush preached the importance of Roth IRA's as a benefit to this country's future. Yes, I know that man is a freaking idiot for getting us into this financial deficit hole we're in now, but he did make a good point about how WE as individuals should all take the initiative to have Roth IRAs. This way we're not completely dependent on retirement from the government or 401k's.
I don't really know much about Roth IRA... I'm all for private retirement funds.
Actually, that's exactly what a Roth IRA is. If anything, once you put your money into a Roth IRA and the IRS can't touch it. If I were you, I'd check it out. One company you should try is Fidelity, as they not only explain it in detail for you, they even have members that will actually sit down and TALK to you about how it works. You should give it a try if you really want to avoid having to solely rely on the government to support you when you retire.
There's only one way to stop abortion....No More Sex!!
Or, here's my idea:
Every single baby boy should have a vasectomy at birth.
Then, the little tyke can grow up having all the sex he wants with no fear of unwanted pregnancy!
Then, when the little tyke grows up and wants to start a family, he can go before a board of some sort...Board of Childbirth. Stocked with all the holier-than-thou people of the community.
He can make his case, telling them why he deserves to be a Daddy.
If they approve, he can have his vasectomy reversed, and voila! Baby-time.
Now, the only darn sticking point is that real little Baby-Killer......War.
that's really not true. plus adults have been saying that for years. for sure, there are lost kids, but there always will be as long as adults don't take responsibility. and yet there are plenty of 'lost' kids who grow up and become responsible, caring adults.
Excuse me, I must've misspoken.
They have no PROPER guidance.
Well, I think we're actually saying the same thing....
Yes, it's adults who need to take responsibility.
And they need to stop allowing children to act in the capacity of adults.
What pisses me off about Social Security is that our grandparents' generation figured out a way to loot the future and make us pay for their retirement, and our parents didn't do anything about it. Now, our parents are starting to retire and, even though it's obviously not going to be able to sustain itself given population numbers etc,, they figure they've paid into for a few decades, so they're going to ride it into the ground for whatever they can get. Leaving MY generation to pay into it for literally our entire working lives with no chance of any value coming back AND the loss of five or six decades of income that could have been saved for our own retirement.
Our parents and grandparents F-ed us.
That's what pisses me off.
Social Security isn't that cut and dried. There are many who pay in for years and expire before they reap a benefit. There are also those who after paying in for decades are diagnosed terminal who need those benefits. Is it messed up? Yes. Like everything else man exploits for selfishness, social security has been looted.
Like all pyramid schemes, Social Security is unstable and bound to collapse. Sure, it must have sounded like a great idea in the beginning, especially when it is the future generations that have to pay for it. But we of the younger generation bear the consequences. It's pretty easy to feel angry at the decisions of our ancestors, but instead of just getting mad, let's do something to change the course of this country. Let's focus our energy on positive action and learn from the mistakes of the past.
I think my mother has the wisest words about all of this. She says that we all let "it" happen, "it" being the problem with Social Security, the problem with letting ourselves be ruled by a government that we stamped our approval on whether we did that actively by voting or passivly by keeping our mouths shut.
As far as I'm concerned, our children run the risk of being sheep led to slaughter unless they exercise their powers of critical thinking...a very tough thing for them to do in this age of media sensationalism and peer pressure.
Parents are at the root of this. When do they step up and behave as adults?
The federal government takes over more of our lives each day only because we let them. We are responsible.
I do worry for the attitude of many of the youth today. I agree with you that critical thinking needs to take place... but we are an apathetic and dependent generation.
My favorite book of the year (America's Youth vs. Big Government) explains a lot of the responsibilities of our generation, but I wonder how many of us will take it to heart.
Thanks for pointing me to America's Youth vs. Big Government. I will check that out.
I am the parent of a 30-some-year-old child. She and I happen to agree on a lot of things, but disagree, too. One thing we talk about often is how our little voices can become big voices through voting and community participation. Our ideas about how to make things better don't always align, but we try nonetheless. We have a dialogue. That's one step forward.
Being involved in the community, voting in elections are the ways that we can use to return our nation to the principles of the Constitution. I think it is great that you and your daughter are involved in these things - it shows that you really care.
adults have been saying that for years.. lol.
yes, here we agree. they require guidance and instruction, but should also be taught how to think and not what to think. we need adults who know how to reason and make decisions based on circumstance and outcome.
People have been bemoaning 'youth tday' since Roman times. Yet we still seem to grow up and get on with life.
We do seem to get on with life, but do we grow up, or grow down?
That's interesting, Cags. "Grow" does mean going forward, but can it imply going backwards? Can we "grow" into depression or into confusion? Time for a Hub on the etymology of the word "grow".
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
or better in terms of taking responsibility, being accountable, possessing a work ethic, strong morality, and ethics? Why? Why not?
by ahorseback12 months ago
Collectively younger Americans probably should be barred from voting , not out of an age issue itself , but merely because of social - cultural maturity . Although...
by siftlibra7 years ago
Do you think most people become wiser when they get older? what do you think can we learn from the older generations?
by AnnCee6 years ago
NEVER HAS THERE BEEN SO LITTLE DIVERSITY WITHIN AMERICA'S UPPER CRUST. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America's upper crust was a...
by Tom Cornett6 years ago
Because.....If liberal progressives are for abortion and gay marriage, then it makes sense that mostly progressive liberals will most often enact those rights...far more than conservatives.Which means...there will be...
by Stacie L5 years ago
Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to dieBy Rachel Rose Hartman | The Ticket If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.