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

[krazen1211]

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

[krazen1211]

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?

[krazen1211]

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

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

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.

[krazen1211]

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

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

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.

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.

[krazen1211]

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.

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.

[krazen1211]

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

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

[krazen1211]

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.

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

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.

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.

[krazen1211]

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

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.

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.

[krazen1211]

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.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.....

[krazen1211]

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

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).

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.

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.

[krazen1211]

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.

[krazen1211]

...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.

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.

[krazen1211]

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.

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