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

[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.

[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.

[Sbane]

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.

[opebo]

...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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[opebo]

...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.

Those figures are inflation adjusted.

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.

[stegosaurus]

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.

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).

[Sbane]

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.

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.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.

[Sbane]

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.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.

[stegosaurus]

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.

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.

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.