Young people are screwed. Pass it on

[JustRalph]

Interesting piece on millennials having no future

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2013/11/04/maybe-pain-will-teach-you-millenials-not-to-vote-for-your-own-serfdom-n1733722/page/full

If you have young persons in your life, I would be interested in hearing their reaction.......

[Clocker]

The Official Millenial Motto: I was in favor of ObamaCare until I found out I was going to have to pay for it.

[LottaKash]

The young persons of today need to know and understand, that they are going to have buy some handy new tools in order to succeed in this, the: "new season of hope and change".......Hammers & Sickles...

I weep for my children and grandchildren's future...:( ...It will be ugly for them soon enough, I believe...

[Greyfox]

Interesting piece on millennials having no future

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2013/11/04/maybe-pain-will-teach-you-millenials-not-to-vote-for-your-own-serfdom-n1733722/page/full

If you have young persons in your life, I would be interested in hearing their reaction.......

I don't know about that article, but I do know that America's rising debt is a legacy that both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have sent future generations down a path on.
If the United States can survive 16 years in a row of these two Presidents without major breakdowns in the economy, will be a wonder.
I hope that I'm wrong.

[wisconsin]

I am already seeing the problems through my own young adult boys. There are going to be some serious bumps in the road for them as they age.

[Dave Schwartz]

If the United States can survive 16 years in a row of these two Presidents without major breakdowns in the economy, will be a wonder.

That is a true statement in my opinion.

However, with respect, it is just a little off-center of the message (and truth) of this thread.

It is amazing how young folks can get so much wrong. Perhaps a better way to say that is, "WE humans sure do dumb things when WE are young," because we did them as well.

One thing our intended freedom does is make the young and the old politically equal. Now, on this side of 50, I am not sure that is a good thing. (I say "50" rather than "60" because it seems I got much smarter after 50. Could be a personal thing.)

My point is that in this age respect has been lost for "wisdom that comes with age." We have opted instead for the whole equality thing.

Personally, I think that a minimum voting age of about 40 would be a big step forward. Perhaps there could be a provision for younger people who have greatly contributed to society being allowed to vote a little early. (Note that "contributed," does not mean that they have a top-10 record or an academy award.)


I think this article is right on the money.

To my 20-something sons, I say, "Imagine: Be careful what you wish for."

[Tom]

40 to vote?
I was thinking lower it to 12.
We might tap into a smarter demographic.
As long as we saddle our youth with our debts, thay shouldhave a voice in it.

Maybe 10.

[tucker6]

40 to vote?
I was thinking lower it to 12.
We might tap into a smarter demographic.
As long as we saddle our youth with our debts, thay shouldhave a voice in it.

Maybe 10.
we should go back to the days when you had to be a land owner to vote. That would eliminate the free loaders right off the bat.

[classhandicapper]

we should go back to the days when you had to be a land owner to vote. That would eliminate the free loaders right off the bat.


In a country where taxes are very low, government is very small, etc... there is something to be said for everyone having an equal vote.

In a country where taxes are high, government at multiple levels is large and expanding, etc.. there is something to be said for the value of your vote being tied to the amount of taxes you pay.

[jballscalls]

In a country where taxes are very low, government is very small, etc... there is something to be said for everyone having an equal vote.

In a country where taxes are high, government at multiple levels is large and expanding, etc.. there is something to be said for the value of your vote being tied to the amount of taxes you pay.

In other words, give the power to the people who already have the power? Because people with money who are paying taxes have much more power than people without money who aren't. That seems pretty un-American to me. I think our founding fathers would flip their lid if one person's vote was more important than another. That isn't democracy.

I get what you're getting at, but maybe the answer is that if more of our citizens had means and good jobs and were paying taxes, maybe more of them would vote your way? As it is, so many people are poor, struggling, and/or lazy and milking the system, they can't get off it. It's a vicious cycle.

[JustRalph]

As it is, so many people are poor, struggling, and/or lazy and milking the system, they can't get off it. It's a vicious cycle.

Brought to you by the Democratic Party of the 60's and continued for 3 generations now....... by the current Dem party.

Once you're on the reservation, it's hard to get off. :ThmbUp:

[tucker6]

In other words, give the power to the people who already have the power? Because people with money who are paying taxes have much more power than people without money who aren't. That seems pretty un-American to me. I think our founding fathers would flip their lid if one person's vote was more important than another. That isn't democracy.

I get what you're getting at, but maybe the answer is that if more of our citizens had means and good jobs and were paying taxes, maybe more of them would vote your way? As it is, so many people are poor, struggling, and/or lazy and milking the system, they can't get off it. It's a vicious cycle.
so when they gave the slaves zero voting rights, our Founding Fathers were being un-American. When they gave women zero voting rights, our Founding Fathers were being un-American. Doesn't seem like they'd flip out too much. The fact is that in a democracy, people are not equal, so why are we trying so hard to make everyone equal. The Greeks didn't have equality either back in the day. It's all a utopian fallacy.

[Marshall Bennett]

we should go back to the days when you had to be a land owner to vote. That would eliminate the free loaders right off the bat.
:lol:

[jballscalls]

so when they gave the slaves zero voting rights, our Founding Fathers were being un-American. When they gave women zero voting rights, our Founding Fathers were being un-American. Doesn't seem like they'd flip out too much. The fact is that in a democracy, people are not equal, so why are we trying so hard to make everyone equal. The Greeks didn't have equality either back in the day. It's all a utopian fallacy.

I personally like the idea that everyone's vote counts the same. I'm not any better than someone who works a minimum wage job or someone who is on welfare or disability just because I own my home and pay taxes. I consider myself more fortunate maybe, but not better. So why should my vote count more than theirs? It seems silly and not FAIR. There's that word again.

And your post above was very sharp, you pointed out two very un-american things that our founding fathers did. Both shameful looking back.

[tucker6]

I personally like the idea that everyone's vote counts the same. I'm not any better than someone who works a minimum wage job or someone who is on welfare or disability just because I own my home and pay taxes. I consider myself more fortunate maybe, but not better. So why should my vote count more than theirs? It seems silly and not FAIR. There's that word again.

And your post above was very sharp, you pointed out two very un-american things that our founding fathers did. Both shameful looking back.
we aren't very far off philosophically. I guess the difference is that I believe true equality is like the proverbial unicorn. A fairy tale for kids. Once you get past what will never be possible, the true discussion can start.

[LottaKash]

My point is that in this age respect has been lost for "wisdom that comes with age." We have opted instead for the whole equality thing.


To my 20-something sons, I say, "Imagine: Be careful what you wish for."

Point on Dave...:ThmbUp:

[Overlay]

At the risk of violating "attorney-father" privilege, here's the reaction of one Millennial lawyer (my 26-year-old son, who attended both college and law school in the Ivy League) to the article. I respect his opinion, but I'll be interested in seeing if/how age and life experience may modify his views:

This piece is clearly meant more to put a smile on the face of Breitbart readers than to persuade left-leaning Millennials to vote Republican.

But if you're interested, here's my take on Schlichter's main arguments:

"What did you get? The chance to be forced to buy health insurance you don’t want at inflated rates so my rates can be lower."

It's absolutely true that the success of the Affordable Care Act depends on getting a large number of healthy young people to sign up for health insurance. They are, in the words of Paul Clement, "the golden geese that pay for the entire lowering of the premium." But even so, I think there are several reasons why it makes sense for Millennials to support the ACA.

1) The ACA forbids insurance companies from denying care to people with preexisting conditions.

2) Even if we're less likely to need it, it's still a good thing to have health insurance!

3) We're not going to be young forever. It's important to have a system like this in place for when we get older.

4) There are mechanisms built into the law to help young people deal with higher premiums. To wit, insurance subsidies and the provision that allows young people to stay on their parents' plan until they're 26. It's silly of Schlichter to criticize the latter if his larger argument is that Millennials have been screwed over by the ACA. He can't have it both ways. Either the law infantilizes Millennials or it "enslaves" them to older generations.


"You came to embrace the bizarre notion that conservatives are psychotic Jesus freaks who want to Footloosisze America into a land of mandatory Sunday school and no dancing."

Schlichter strikes me as a Wall Street Journal conservative - the kind of guy who cares much more about keeping taxes low and the government off his back than making sure the gay people down the street can't get married. So maybe it comes as a surprise to him that many people perceive conservatives to be "psychotic Jesus freaks," but to me it's undeniable that the party has suffered for coming to be so closely identified with (mainly southern) fundamentalists. In 2012, the Republicans trotted out not one but two Senate candidates whose campaigns tanked after they made improvident comments about rape and abortion. A Republican Congressman from Georgia, who sits on the House Science Committee(!), claimed that evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang are "lies straight from the pit of Hell": http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/07/nation/la-na-nn-paul-broun-evolution-hell-20121007. None of this is lost on Millennials.

If you don't believe that this affects the way people perceive the party, then consider the voting patterns of Asian Americans. You would think that Asians would be a natural constituency for Republicans - they're hard working and high earning, they have a strong sense of family values, and they're not a part of the dreaded 47% moocher class-in the words of Schlichter--those "couch-dwelling, Democrat-voting losers." But they voted for President Obama by more than a 3 to 1 margin in 2012: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/why_did_asian_americans_vote_for_president_obama.h tml.

What explanation can there be for this other than the toxicity of the Republican brand?


"Enjoy your student loans, Millennials! We tried to tell you that it was a Democrat scam designed to subsidize liberal academia by allowing you to go into decades of crushing debt to pay for a bachelors in Ancient Guatemalan Gender Identity Issues."

Here Schlichter is at his laziest. He's arguing either that college is a waste of money or that Millennials have made themselves unemployable by choosing obscure, impractical majors. Does he honestly think youth unemployment is so high because we're all studying Women's and Gender Studies and Theater? This Princeton Review piece lists the 10 most popular majors, all of which seem pretty unobjectionable to me: http://www.princetonreview.com/college/top-ten-majors.aspx. More comprehensive statistics are harder to come by, but I've already put more effort into this argument than Schlichter has.


"Leaving aside the fact that that your tacky boudoir fumblings are the last thing conservatives care about, have you noticed how your precious Big Brother spies on your doings everywhere else?"

I actually don't disagree with the author on this point. President Obama has been very disappointing on civil liberties issues. I suspect that a candidate (Democrat on Republican) who ran on a consistent libertarian platform of curbing the scope of the NSA and liberalizing drug laws would do very well among folks in my age group.

[JustRalph]

here's the reaction of one Millennial lawyer (my 26-year-old son, who attended both college and law school in the Ivy League) to the article.

You probably could of stopped typing about where the quote above ends. Everything after that was predictable.

I don't know what kind of law he practices but when nobody within ten years of his age group can afford to hire a lawyer, he might have a different outlook. I guess he might get rich doing foreclosure work or transferring homes and property from deceased parents to their kids who live in the basement.

[badcompany]

In a decent society, parents make sacrifices for their kids.

In a welfare state, parents throw their kids under the bus to prop up failed social programs.

[TJDave]

You probably could of stopped typing about where the quote above ends. Everything after that was predictable.


Predictably astute. First class education produces first class thinkers. Overlay should be congratulated on sacrifices made to ensure his son has the necessary skills.

I don't think we have to worry about the Ivy Leaguers of this world. My guess is they'll do OK. ;)

[Greyfox]

but to me it's undeniable that the party has suffered for coming to be so closely identified with (mainly southern) fundamentalists. In 2012, the Republicans trotted out not one but two Senate candidates whose campaigns tanked after they made improvident comments about rape and abortion. A Republican Congressman from Georgia, who sits on the House Science Committee(!), claimed that evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang are "lies straight from the pit of Hell":

Nailed it! :ThmbUp:
Attitudes of Repubs who hold those views are a tremendous turnoff to many.

[JustRalph]

Nailed it! :ThmbUp:
Attitudes of Repubs who hold those views are a tremendous turnoff to many.

And the idiots are going to let Santorum in the primaries again

[TJDave]

And the idiots are going to let Santorum in the primaries again

So what?

No one is forced to vote for him. Bottom line is republicans only have themselves to blame. When they produce a platform and candidates that appeal to the majority of voters they will win national elections.

[classhandicapper]

In other words, give the power to the people who already have the power? Because people with money who are paying taxes have much more power than people without money who aren't. That seems pretty un-American to me. I think our founding fathers would flip their lid if one person's vote was more important than another. That isn't democracy.

I get what you're getting at, but maybe the answer is that if more of our citizens had means and good jobs and were paying taxes, maybe more of them would vote your way? As it is, so many people are poor, struggling, and/or lazy and milking the system, they can't get off it. It's a vicious cycle.

The founding fathers would also have a huge problem with the welfare state and all out meddling overseas. That's why I say 1 person 1 vote is fine as long as government is small.

If you choose to quit school, get 5 different women pregnant, they all wind up on some combination of welfare, food stamps, medicaid, getting abortions, going to jail etc... why should you then have the right to vote for someone that will give you even more?

The idea should be, if you want something, you have to follow the rules of the guy that is actually paying the bills.

If you are going to have a generous welfare state, it should be like the parent/child relationship.

"As long as you live under my roof......"

If the trend continues, the "haves" will eventually get tired of it, take their ball, go somewhere else, and leave the "have nots" to sink into an abyss of their own making.

[classhandicapper]

I think you guys may be missing the major issue.

Even though talking about "the 47%" may have been a major tactical and political error on Romney's part, he was correct.

The republicans are in trouble because there are so many more people now than years ago that are dependent on and want the expansion of existing government programs. The democrats understand this.

Once you get people on these programs, they build their lives around the assumption they will always be there. So it's politically almost impossible to unwind them. That sets the democrats up as the protectors and the republicans at the attackers.

Throw in masses of unskilled and uneducated immigrants that will rely on these things for at least a couple of generations and the republicans can put up the "out of business sign".