Romney Camp: Why we will get the youth vote.

[Brittain33]

Because fighting inflation above all else and promoting tax cuts and capital preservation over economic growth are a positive agenda for young people...

[Brittain33]

The 25 years old and working vote has too much to lose from outrageous current and future taxes to pay for current levels of spending.

They're not going to be keen on having their future taxes go up because Romney cuts taxes for people in their 40s and older, increasing the deficit while removing the burden of caring for it from older generations who incurred it.

[Brittain33]

Mittens should chat about how means-testless Obamacare jacks premiums up for the youngs to subsidize rich olds like Torie. The youngs seem to be in love with a man who is screwing them. Odd.

The youngs (<26) will be thrilled that, thanks to Obamacare, they can stay on their parents' insurance and that their parents' employers will be paying those premiums whereas before they were less likely to be able to get insurance at their entry level jobs.

[Brittain33]

LOL krazen. I guess I'm a likely Romney voter.

Certainly you are voting against your own interests if you are otherwise.

Social Security is now set to run out of money in 2033. Sorry to be you I suppose!

Romney's promised increases in defense and tax cuts at the upper brackets will contribute greatly to Social Security's stability.

[Brittain33]

The paul ryan plan does an excellent job of reducing medicare and medicaid spending.

I strongly encourage Romney to campaign heavily on the Paul Ryan plan, which cuts medicare and medicaid spending by decree (we will cut x%, and cut everything else by 80%) without explaining how that would happen or would translate into changes policies. But if Romney wants to lose the one age group he's guaranteed to win against Obama, running on cutting Medicare would be helpful, which is why he's not going to do it.

[Brittain33]

Yes, and then the hammer drops after the election when the insurance premiums for those over 26 shoot up to keep mine at a "fair" rate.

How many people are in that predicament - over 26 and paying an individual insurance rate which is much lower than it is for people of median age? I'm asking because I've had health benefits since my early 20s and my age never influenced how much my company spent on me. What is the volume of individual insurance holders in their late 20s vs. those getting it through their companies?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A question asked of Republican presidential candidates: if Democrats offered you a compromise that entailed $10 in spending cuts for $1 in tax increases, raise your hand if you would reject it outright.



You can blame Obama for not seeking compromise with these people, but I can't.

[Brittain33]

Yes, we can (fine 26+ year old young adults for not buying mandatory insurance because they cannot find employment)

We've gone from "the youngs" to "young people older than 26 who don't have employer-provided health insurance and don't want to go in the individual market, but have to." What share of the electorate is that? I bet Obama can afford to lose them.

[Brittain33]

this is one of the more hackish threads I've read on this forum. The election is near!

I remember in the early 2000s how I was certain that Bush's policies would crash the dollar and then, only then, would voters see that he couldn't get away with his irresponsible policies. He might win elections, but the laws of economics were going to cause a disaster, and then they'd see.

Of course, who knew that the deluge would come in winter '08-'09 and from a different source, early enough to cause the Republicans to lose, but late enough for job loss numbers in Feb and March that year to be blamed squarely on Obama by the candidates this year.

[Brittain33]

=

Yes, we can (screw over a whole generation)?

This is not clever. Please stop.

As for your other point, the youngs I know are thrilled to have the opportunity to have insurance through their parents or to be able to afford individual insurance which was not previously on offer except at exorbitant prices because of the adverse selection problem.

[Brittain33]

You've mentioned your nephew's plan before, I just don't know how common that situation is or what that insurance actually buys. Not Ameriplan by any chance is it? What are the benefits - is it catastrophic primarily with high deductibles?

[Brittain33]

You've mentioned your nephew's plan before, I just don't know how common that situation is or what that insurance actually buys. Not Ameriplan by any chance is it? What are the benefits - is it catastrophic primarily with high deductibles?

I don't know the company, but yes, it is a sound plan. I know because it has since been used - big time. We just dodged a bullet actually, because when he moved in with me I found out he did not have medical insurance, and went ballistic. About 10 months later, his world fell apart.

Was it catastrophic only? How do you think the company stays profitable?

[Brittain33]

The youngs I know would like to find a halfway decent job once they are done college. I feel sorry for them if there is four more years of Obamanomics. The Obama Jobless "Recovery" is destroying the hopes and dreams of America. No, America can't afford four more years of Obama.

You're right. We need to return to the successful "red" policies illustrated in this chart.

[Brittain33]

No, it was not catastrophic only, but a "normal" PPO plan. Obviously, the company took a bath on my nephew.

Well, I can't speak for his case, but I do wonder how prevalent or available $60/month plans are, what the copays were, and why everyone wouldn't have them if they could. Nothing that inexpensive was available in Massachusetts and rather than write that off as bad state policy I'd ask about the circumstances of that plan and who would be allowed to apply for it. You need a lot--a lot--of healthy young people to balance out the one bad bet like your nephew. Individual health insurance on the open market was unaffordable for young people because of adverse selection and lack of bargaining power.

[Brittain33]

Who was President in 2007 and 2008?

[Brittain33]

Charts are just so much fun.  I mean it is not as if they prove any cause and effect by themselves. The Pub chart on this little topic will have two lines, one for a "normal" recovery from a deep recession, with the line up from the trough with a nice steep slope, and below it the Obama "recovery" line, with the kind of slope that I could run up on for about 3 miles without feeling any pain, and written above the next "best" thing to a flat line, would be written the word "stimulus." And oh percentages would be used, with a chart scaling to emphasize the point.

Yup. I was responding Politico's line about four years of Obamanomics etc., blah blah. The truth is the 2008-2009 recession was not a normal recession, induced by a demand or supply shock or by high interest rates, but was a different one requiring long-term delevering of, yes, too much debt by individuals. Recoveries from recessions like that are slow and painful because you can't juice demand through interest rates that are already at zero. Having government debt displace absent private debt to keep demand from falling through the floor and leading to a depression was the right thing to do, and the stimulus and auto restructuring contributed heavily to unemployment not being higher and the economy sinking into a tailspin.

Now the U.S. is doing better than any comparable country - those that tried austerity recommended by Republicans are faltering badly, look at the UK, sinking back into recession today, not good for people claiming this is Obama's fault. Look at Europe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

AKA, "not throwing teachers into the unemployment line to compete with others for jobs because tax revenues are down," unquestionably good policy in a recession. They should promote that. Laying off public employees when demand for their services is constant, their wages have a multiplier effect, and we're trying to reduce unemployment, is counterproductive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not going for the "waste, fraud, and abuse" line, are we? How honest is that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yup, that's why we need the Romney plan of cutting taxes, increasing defense spending, and reducing the budget deficit.

[Brittain33]

Who was President in 2007 and 2008?

There you go again.

You posted a chart. Look at the chart. Answer my question.

[Brittain33]

Handwringing about youth unemployment with no credible policies to remedy it, and with stated policies that only make it worse, is tough to respond to. It reminds me of when John Kerry would go to shuttered factories in Ohio in 2004 to talk about the decline of manufacturing. We knew he couldn't bring those jobs back. At some level, he knew it, too. The economy was in decent shape and manufacturing employment was still shrinking. But it was good politics to blame George W. Bush and so he did. So we'll get criticism of Obama for not doing more to reduce unemployment than what he's already done, while Republicans propose austerity and capital-protection policies that serve the interests of people who are not the unemployed. I respect the politicial strategy but not the piousness with which it's expressed.