Are young people (under 30) happy with the Obama's economy the last 4 years?

[Averroës Nix]

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

[Averroës Nix]

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

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

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.

[Averroës Nix]

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.

[Averroës Nix]

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.

[Averroës Nix]

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?

[Averroës Nix]

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?

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.

[Averroës Nix]

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.