Talk Elections

Are young people under the age of 30 happy with the economy during the last 4 years in the Obama administration? 

Do young people have a higher rate of unemployment?
Do young people have more student loans to pay off? 
Are young people drowning on credit and living with their parents?

Are young people satisfied with the job Obama has done with the economy and on other issues during the past 4 years? 

Do young people view the future with optimism, or a bleak existence of 8% unemployment as the new normal? 

What are the issues facing young people today, and has the Obama administration effectively addressed those issues throughout the last 4 years?  How excited are young people to vote for another 4 years of Obama and encourage their friends to vote for Obama? 

6.6 Million of them probably aren't happy that Mitt Romney wants to take their health insurance away. (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/08/business/la-fi-0608-young-adult-insurance-20120608)

We haven't been happy since the 90s economy...

Look, none of us are "happy" with the economy. However, it doesn't meant we are going to vote against the president either.

No, but the alternative is to vote for the party whose policies would funnel trillions of dollars more from the young to the old.

Yes, we are.

I can tell you I am better off now than I was 4 years ago. I got insurance again which allowed me to complete my knee rehab and I can get back to school with no problems anymore.

You don't need a job when you can mooch.

Are you not aware that the Democrats created Social Security and Medicare?

Yes because all young people are just moochers who have no ambition and want to live on their parents' largesse forever.

Just ask the Tea Party.

I'll tell you one thing. A lot of young people are saving up for houses. If you live in an area where 5 or 6 years ago the house you wanted (maybe the house you needed to have the same kind of living standard as your parents) was $450,000 and now it's $250,000, that's $200,000 in savings. Even with a decent salary and a high savings rate of your after-tax income, it would take several years of your life to save up that much money. So the drop in housing prices basically gave you back several years of your life in savings. I realize that in general, higher housing prices make people happier since most people are "homeowners", but for young people who are not homeowners the opposite is true.

Get your gubmint hands off my Medicare.

Not to build up my experiences to be more than they are, but coming from an abnormally wealthy demographic I can say with complete confidence that there is a very strong backlash. He has attempted to pander with some acceptable moves, but has been extremely disappointing among my socio-economic age group. A group that was fervently in favor of Obama 4 years ago.

I don't really know anyone who has switched sides. But a lot of people will probably go back to being their usual apathetic selves.

The other day in my religion class, we were talking about Mormonism...my professor asked if anyone was going to vote for Mitt Romney. No one raised their hand. That should be a pretty good indication of the youth votes.

I'm not too happy, but it's not horrible like it was during Bush's 2nd term. That's when the recession was at it's worst.

No, but that doesn't mean I'm going to vote for a worse warmonger who's an actual true believer in the state of Israel.  People who vote for the other person just because the current president hasn't used his magic powers to fix everything are [Inks]ing idiots.  As are people who vote for that current person in office, but that's another story...

lol, Obama's economy. Hack

These days the employers are the moochers.

I suppose you have no problem saying Bush Economy, Clinton Economy, or even Romney's economy in MA.

you're the hack!

Not all. But enough.

Creating a culture of poverty and dependence establishes a block of voters as reliant on government and adds them to the Democratic base. It works well.

Ask any members of your class if they are excited or actually going to go out and vote for Obama.
Its more about political apathy among young people.

Besides, most republicans won't publicly declare who they will vote for if they know they are in a democrat leaning crowd.  But that is why republicans are called the silent majority because the media and hollywood glamorize democrats. 

lololol

Out of curiosity, can you describe to me the lifestyle you are imagining welfare recipients living?

That was a Nixon campaign talking point from 1968 that doesn't really apply to today.

Which is why the Republicans are doing it? That doesn't really make sense.

But then it's Krazen.

The Republicans aren't doing that. You people are. Universal health care paid for by others was your brilliant scheme.

If anything, it's the Democratic party that wishes to preserve programs that funnel billions upon billions of dollars from the young to the old (Medicare and Social Security).

The corrupt bubble in real estate that had predatory lending as its backing created poverty without creating a 'culture' of poverty. The collapse was a certainty; I saw it coming in 2005 when financial instruments that bundled fecal loans began to reek.

My source for that conclusion was the 'Commie rag' known as Business Week.

The predatory lending policies created the "culture" of poverty in the US, not some poor person's dumb decisions.

And most Republicans favor maintaining these programs - but only for olds, of course. Those of us who aren't from the entitled generation that comprises most of the Republican base are expected to pay for them while accepting draconian cuts in what we can expect. That's neither financially nor politically plausible.

Most of the cuts that Republicans propose would disproportionately affect young people. I'm talking about diminished funding for education, healthcare for people below retirement age, and infrastructure improvement. A reasonable system of accounting for government spending would treat many of these forms of spending as investments, and prioritize them accordingly.

Republicans are campaigning on a platform of spending cuts that affect primarily the young and poor while promising increased government largess for their supporters (Boomers, defense contractors, and the upper-middle to upper classes). Even if their policy promises were legitimately fiscally conservative, there is plenty in them for young people to dislike.

No, because everyone will get old. What the Republicans are trying to do with the Ryan plan is exempt everyone older than 55 from cuts, while anyone under that age has to bear the burden. Either the cuts should be effective immediately (only exempting those already on traditional medicare), or payroll taxes should be cut for those under age 55. I have no desire to subsidize people in their highest earning years just so Romney can win a goddamn election.

Already subsidized loans have been cut for graduate students. How much in farm aid has been cut, which subsidizes a disproportionately Republican voter base?

No, we arent

What draconian cuts? You spew this stuff, while after such 'draconian' cuts, the youngs get far more education spending than the olds used to. The youngs get far more health care spending than the olds used to. The youngs get less infrastructure spending and higher tolls, but that's because the Democratic Medicaid program is bankrupting state governments.


Want proof? When Barack Obama went to school the student teacher ratio was 22:1. Today, it's 16:1. And we're supposed to believe the youngs are getting screwed when its the boomers who are getting billed for this massive excess of teachers? Bull!

You people are getting the spending. The fact that the unions and the Democratic party piss it down the drain is another problem.


http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/900746_USAToday.pdf

The present value of Medicare benefits today dwarfs what it was 30 years ago.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

The present value of education spending today dwarfs what it was 30 years ago.

You can talk about a reasonable system of government all you want. That's not what you people enacted.

In today's dollars, the youngs get at least $9k in funding per student. The boomers got half that when they went to school. Miniscule funding cuts doesn't change the numbers.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html

To be fair, the cost of education has significantly outpaced inflation.

Krazen, if we're discussing cost control, there is probably a great deal that you and I can agree on. For instance, we both understand that empirical studies show that the current emphasis on class size is misplaced, and that this is an expensive mistake. Of course, as the same studies show that teacher quality is of prime importance to educational quality, and as teachers are underpaid compared to other professionals with similar workloads and levels of education, I'm also in favor of paying teachers significantly more than they currently earn. (And before you grouse about the length of the school day and school year - I want to see those extended, too.)

I also happen to agree with you that some public employee unions have too much power and often abuse that power at the expense of those who rely on public services, although I suspect that you're more concerned about their effect on the "taxpayer." (This is part of the reason why I don't go prancing around with a red avatar!) But this is a digression, and I have no desire to discuss education policy with you. You've proven elsewhere that you have no respect for public employees, and despite my misgivings about some of their unions, I find your attitude disgusting.

Anyway, education and health care cost more now than they ever have before. We also consume more of both. Reasonable people can disagree on the factors behind this increase, and about what how we can respond to it. For my own part, I believe that quality education and health care should be universally accessible, and that we should be willing to devote a higher portion of GDP than we currently do to making this a reality. (And controlling costs is an important part of broadening access - you certainly won't see me defending, for instance, the easy availability of federally-backed students loans, which have plenty of destructive consequences).

In contrast, you seem to believe that cutting government spending is, in itself, a virtuous goal, and one to be pursued to the exclusion of all others. Most Republicans share this belief, and it is, in large part, why the politicians from your party market their policies as fiscally conservative. Regardless of the actual effectiveness of these policies, they're not representative of the kind of society in which I would like to live, and I think that most people from my generation share this opinion.

Oh don't worry. I have no interest in what you think about education. I merely point out the dollars.







The bolded is, of course, amusing two faced hypocrisy. The boomers never got either of those in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. The boomers got half the education funding that you got for yourself. They didn't get or require today's levels of government healthcare spending.

I get that you have certain ideological goals you want to enact, and you want to tax rich people (read: Seniors and Boomers). That's your business. But the boomers have already ponied up trillions of dollars for Gen Y and you want to take more, and you're accusing them of being entitled! That's rich.

It's astonishing to see someone from Gen Y (and I'm guessing here that you're part of gen Y or close to it) complain about future cuts when they've already had it so good, they want to consume more than prior generations did, they want prior generations to pay for it, and stand to make hundreds of thousands of dollars off Medicare in the future, even after such 'draconian' cuts. Of course society survived just 5 years ago under 'draconian' levels of spending. Shrug. All this education and healthcare spending doesn't come free.


Cling to your ideology if you must, but the numbers don't support you calling them entitled.

Well, yes, government has certainly made it that way. It's highly amusing to see someone whine about education cuts when one already received an extremely expensive K-12 education ($80-$100k for Gen Y, approaching $120k+ for Gen Z or whatever) when they were young and also wants to receive an expected value of $200-300k in future Medicare benefits when they are old.

Well, now the government (federal, state, and local) is broke. And the big 5 are Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Medicaid, and education.

Dude, you're forgetting the one that actually made the government broke: inadequate taxation of the parasitic class.

It's silly to criticize a person for having "ideological goals." We all have them and we are all motivated by them. As opebo points out, yours are showing as much as mine are.

As to the charge of hypocrisy: Americans over the age of fifty-five are responsible for a majority of health care consumption in this country. In arguing that health care should be universally acessible, I'm arguing on their behalf as much as I'm arguing on behalf of younger Americans.

And I'm not sure what you're getting at with regard to education. True, at the secondary and primary levels, spending per pupil is higher now than it was thirty or fifty years ago. So what? It's not clear that the value-added has improved for most students. The same can be said for post-secondary education - where the value-added has decreased, if anything, for most students - but the cost of attending is now much higher in real terms. Most college-educated seniors whom I know attended SUNY schools when tuition was free! Effectively, we're getting the same product as the Boomers did, but it's less affordable even as it's become nearly essential to staying out of poverty.

Arguing with Krazen is a waste of time. You laid out some very good, nuanced points and he responds by saying he doesn't really care what you think.

There is no parasitic class. The one that comes closest is the opposite of the one you're referring to, though they're still rather far from parasitic.

I kinda swayed to Obama for a bit in the 08 election just because of how terrible the McCain campaign was, but I was never that enthusaistic about it, and now i can say for a fact i am of course not happy with Obama's economy, but I doubt Romney, who is definitely of a similar mindset, can do much to help it.

The only thing the government needs to do is provide stability in the tax code. This go to the edge every two years (debt ceiling debate, the impending fiscal cliff) and passing tax code changes with reconciliation that can be changed after 10 years is highly unproductive.

I'm not criticizing you. You're entitled to have them.

Under current law, Gen Y is going to get the same benefits when they turn 55. Except, when they turn 55, those benefits are far more valuable because health care costs are rising and life expectancy is rising.

A single male Boomer making $35,000 retiring in 2015 gets, roughly $174k in Medicare benefits. I already linked the charts for you earlier.

What does someone retiring in 2045 get? Something close to $402k! It's quite natural for those types to get targeted for cuts because they're getting all the cash and responsible for the large bulk of the future fiscal disaster. Cry me a river if you only get $300k rather than the $174k your predecessor got.



So, someone had to pay the cash. You consider your $9000 product to be the same as the $5000 product that Barack Obama got 40 years ago. That $4000 has to come from somewhere. If you want the pricey education you have to give it up somewhere else. And if you don't consider that $4000 to be worthwhile I'm baffled as to why you want it in the first place. A few hours ago you advocated policies that would INCREASE the amount of money the boomers pay for this pricey education.


Big spenders have been in power for 20 years and put a great strain on state/local budgets (the ones that can't print money) long before 2008. You wanted more education spending, and you got it. You wanted more health care spending, and you got it. Well, to make room for that, transportation spending had to be gutted and taxes had to be raised on the 'entitled' Boomers. TINSTAAFL.

It's amazing that you complain about infrastructure spending not being where you like it to be when the big spenders created the conditions that made it so.

The Republican plan shields the 55+ crowd because they didn't get the lavish spending dollars that you want for yourself. The nation doesn't have those dollars anyway.


As an aside, Social Security, unlike the rich and lavish education and medicare  benefits you want, is an extremely raw deal for Gen Y. The solution to that is, of course, privatization. But I don't think you want that.....

You already are. Barack Obama is borrowing $1 trillion a year that you eventually will have to pay for, and gave that money to people who are probably older than you. Congrats.

A question, Krazen: Do you believe that it's possible for the government to continue providing education and healthcare (in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) at the same level of quality without incurring higher costs?

Well, to the former yes, although you don't like my ideas. To the latter, no, but one could compensate by using rationing and providing better first dollar care and less last dollar care.

I think you are an interesting fellow so I have my own question. If you want more expensive healthcare and education than your predecessors got, and the economy is not growing in a particularly rapid fashion, what are you willing to give up in return?

A VAT? Far higher income tax on the middle class? Borrowing and dubious accounting games? Decreased spending in other areas such as transportation?

Thus far, policymakers have chosen 3 and 4 and avoided 1 and 2. But I suspect you are much more honorable than most politicians who are seeking election or re-election.

I would prefer that most households with incomes above the median figure (~$50k) be taxed at a higher rate, and I think that most deductions should be scrapped (including the home mortgage interest deduction).

As for the value added tax - that's a tougher proposal for me to accept. I'm inclined to say that it would be too regressive. That said, taxing what a person "takes" makes more sense than taxing what he or she "gives." I would support replacing the income tax with a progressive consumption tax.

If we do give out way more services than we are giving out now, I think a VAT would be fair to institute. The effect it could have on the economy, since more than 2/3rd of the economy is consumption, is what worries me more.

It doesn't have to come from anywhere, krazen - it is inflation.

40 years ago a darn nice house cost $30,000. 

Those figures are inflation adjusted.

Don't forget the effect of Baumol's cost disease -  salaries have increased for education & health care workers (despite relatively low increases in labor productivity) in response to rising salaries in other parts of the economy that have seen greater increases in labor productivity over the past several decades.

Fair enough. I consider such to be a fair, respectable, and at least appears to be a mathematically sound answer.

Well it can't really be effectively adjusted as the thing is the same:  full health care.  But sure, if health care has inflated more than other items then taxes must be increased.

a) The average life expectancy is only 78.2 years (38th in the world I learned today). This would imply that there is a sizeable portion of the population who doesn't make it to 65 for one reason or another. In short, not everybody gets "old" (for the purposes of this topic).

b) Regardless of how many people "get old" or not, that doesn't answer the question of why we have two massive programs (so massive that we've created an irreparable dependency on them)  that redistribute resources from the young to old, by design.

FWIW, I agree with you on the fine points of the Romney/Ryan plan, especially regarding the Payroll Tax (which I would prefer to be dramatically reformed).

Ok fine, not everyone will get old. But generally most of us will live to be more than 65 years old, and in many cases much more than that. The reason we have these programs is because old people cannot work, and so the rest of us must support them. I support social security and it's not really the one causing our problems, it's medicare.

I think we need to switch to a national health insurance service for all with means tested subsidies. Perhaps a bismarck model with 4 or 5 competing not for profit institutions trying to provide services at the lowest cost. This will also allow much more pressure on providers to lower cost. Something we also need to go towards is paying providers based on outcomes rather than services provided. So they get paid for taking care of x numbers of patients from different populations, and their payment would be based on that. Right now there is no reason for doctors not to order endless tests. Also institute tort reform of course.

The general gist of the people I am around are not happy with the Obama economy, but most of us have really no hope that it can get any better anytime soon. Instead of talking about the real issues facing this country, we harp on abortion, gay marriage, rapegate, Romney's religion, whether he left Bain in 1999, whether Obama was born in Kenya or if he is a socialist, who is the nicer guy, etc... not of which effects us. Meanwhile, we have half of college graduates taking jobs that high schoolers should be doing, unemployment continues to be up, and there is really no end in sight.

The sad thing is, my generation is becoming so jaded with how things are which is not good for the future of this country. It isn't about politics. It's about fixing the problems, and the people in control right now just want to fight over petty crap that is totally irrelevant to the health of this country.

Obama should be beatable. He's had 4 years and has shown little competence to fix things and cannot stand up to his own party most of the time. On the other side, we have Mittens, who's party is more concerned with keeping gays from marrying, arguing which type of rape is legit rape, and whether or not we should keep abortion legal which has been legal for 40 years. It's just really frustrating to myself and plenty of other young people who actually give a damn.

Pretty much agree with what you said. I wouldn't overemphasize what a President can do to fix the economy, but currently the government could provide a stable tax regime which would let businesses make decisions. Right now many are too afraid to hire because they don't know how much in taxes they might be paying next year. I am not saying we shouldn't raise taxes, but if we do it shouldn't be through reconciliation so it becomes a political football every 10 years, and certainly no more of this kick the can down the road for 2 years like we saw with the debt ceiling deal. And you need to combine that with reforms that lower spending so we don't need to raise taxes in the future.

Right. We need to decide on a tax system and set it for at least 5 years. This business of extending them each year is not good for businesses. Instead we just punt every year and wait till next year to see what will happen. If the Bush cuts are going to expire, let them, if not, extend them until our economy is in good enough shape to raise taxes. I still subscribe to the belief that we should not raise taxes when the economy is unstable purely for psychological reasons, and if those in Washington believes that then they need to say so so businesses can plan for the future.

And the president cannot really effect he economy but he can set policies that encourage growth and instill confidence in the public.

I don't subscribe to the idea that non-retired Americans should be automatically responsible for the well being of retired Americans simply because they are both Americans. I would argue that this responsibility should ultimately fall on the individual, or their family if need be. For that reason, I would support allowing the children of elderly parents to add them to their insurance and earn tax credit for doing so.

Your plan is interesting, but I would be wary of nationalizing health insurance. You are essentially talking about Medicare for all, and thus talking about dragging the entire country into the crisis in a way far more disruptive than poorly conceived payroll taxes. We agree on outcome based payments, however.