whatever low amount it is.

... in his Atlantic endorsement. I read this:

Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us.

And thought Uh oh...

Wonder what Kos thinks about all this over at Cato?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

WRT?

That's not how the system was designed. You paid for your parents' social security. My generation will pay for yours and the next generation will pay for mine. And, many people will collect more from social security than they put in, but that's okay. The system was designed that way and not as some sort of savings account where you collect your contributions when you get older. What permits this is the growth in population and the increase in wages. 1% of a paycheck now is more than it was in 1970 (although not much more when controlling for inflation).

But the real resentment is coming from the overall economic difference between generations. As this country's wages and economy have declined, people born later do worse than their parents. From USA Today:

•Ages 55-59: Median net worth — the middle point for all households — rose 97% over 15 years to $249,700 in 2004, the most recent year for which data is available. Median income rose 52%.

•Ages 35-39: Median household net worth fell 28% to $48,940. Median income fell 10%.

The increase in the wealth of older people tracks a sharp reduction in elderly poverty that began in the 1960s, when Medicare was introduced and Social Security benefits were improved.

The wealth gap between young and old is on a path to grow even more extreme. Baby boomers — 79 million people born from 1946 to 1964 — are entering their years of greatest wealth and maximum government benefits.

Today, the oldest baby boomer is 61. The youngest is 43. As tens of millions of people head into their years of peak wealth, inequality could soar until baby boomers pass on inheritances to their children or grandchildren.

The inequality debate has focused mostly on the super-rich, who have been getting super-richer. The top-earning 1% of taxpayers — those who make more than $310,000 annually — collected 17% of total income in 2005, up from 13% in 1989 and 8% in 1975, according to Internal Revenue Service data analyzed by economists Thomas Piketty at the Paris School of Economics and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley.

IRS data don't include information on age, race and education. A USA TODAY analysis of Federal Reserve and Census data found that demographics — especially age — could be the most important and overlooked factor behind the widening gap.

The old are richer

Most wealth accumulation happens rapidly and late in life — after the kids leave, when income is high, debts drop, 401(k) accounts fatten and home equity swells, according to Fed data.

The safety net — Social Security, pensions and Medicare — also has resulted in big increases in income for the elderly and a sharp decline in the rate at which they dissipate their assets in old age. Most people over 60 have no mortgage debt, no credit card debt and no car loan.

Trends for younger people have gone in the opposite direction. Mortgage debt peaks for people in their late 30s, the same time they have the most kids at home. About 11% are at least 60 days behind paying on some debt.

Medicare and social security are largely wealth transfer programs where those of working age provide a safety net for older folks. What makes that an issue is that America is in an economic decline where the later you were born, the more economic disadvantage you're at. And the safety nets aimed at helping working folks have been gutted over the past 30 years while wages have stagnated, the cost of education has soared, and housing has gone through the roof. They make less and pay more.

Instead of fighting over how to screw each generation, what we should be doing is fighting to help each generation. It makes no sense that older folks get medicare but families with young children don't. The way to stop all this nonsense is to figure out how government can help all generations live healthy, successful lives.

And that's where all this "guilt" the other generation is unhelpful. It's a good thing poverty rates for the elderly are markedly down. It's a terrible thing poverty rates for the young are not. That's something older Americans need to join with younger Americans to work to fix. But instead of focusing on that, it's so much easier for the media to build resentment. And, hey, when you make $8 an hour and see money going out of your paycheck to pay for Medicare for the old guy who owns your company while you can't take your sick kid to the doctor, it's kind of easy to get resentful.

would only be reduced by about 0.25% according to Ball's plan. From the Ball Plan link:

The plan would avoid major benefit cuts. Like most other reform proposals, however, it does include minor changes in the cost-of-living adjustments to reflect corrections in the Consumer Price Index recommended by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Ball's plan also proposes:

Investment of a portion of Social Security's assets in stocks should be done gradually... starting with 1 percent in 2007, 2 percent in 2008, and so on, up to 20 percent in 2026 and capped at that percentage of assets thereafter. Investments should be limited to a very broad index fund (such as the Wilshire 5000) that reflects virtually the entire American economy.

Tha Ball Plan was first proposed in 1999. I'm sure it could be revised to take into account to the changes we've seen in our economy since then. It's simplicity and the fact that it works within the existing structure of SS make it worth studying, IMO.

It covers everyone (all US residents), and here's how it is to be funded (from the Healthcare Now! link):

Maintain current federal and state funding for existing healthcare programs; employer payroll tax of 4.75, an employee payroll tax of 4.75; establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners, 1/3rd of 1% stock transaction tax, closing corporate tax loop-holes; repeal the Bush tax cut for the highest income earners.