Desperate for jobs, youth flee Obama

You libs were so smug when you won the youth vote in 2008. You were crowing that it was all over for the GOP because we only had angry middle-aged white males while you owned "the future."

But now the young people of America have woken up to the reality that they voted in a bum who does not care for them and won't do a thing to help them.

Young people need jobs, and Obama isn't even inclined to do anything about it.

His solution, which makes no sense, is to RAISE taxes on corporations and millionaires. How that will create new jobs, Obama does not explain. It seems rather contradictory to me. Higher taxes will mean FEWER jobs and even more young people unemployed with nothing to do all day but play video games.

 

Dupe.

One of your buddies already posted your washingtonexaminer article.

 

Do you doubt it it true?

Both my adult daughters still live with me.

My younger daughter can't find a job.

Do you think they will vote for Obama?

 

Dupe means it is a duplicate thread. Sorry for the confusion. I was not questioning the veracity of the post.

 

They are not turning to the GOP, they are becoming depoliticized. It is a mistake to think that because they don't like Obama's handling of the youth unemployment problem that they will turn out to vote for Republicans, or will decide not to vote at all. What is happening is that they are becoming increasingly less interested in traditional political action.

This should actually be a matter of moderate concern for business and government alike. Mass youth unemployment combined with a sense of hopelessness and a lack of appreciation for traditional political methods is a recipe for social disorder the likes of which the US hasn't seen since the civil war or perhaps some points during the great depression. I mean, we're basically talking about a group of well-networked people with nothing to lose, who see no hope in peaceful political solutions. The possibility of this developing into a collection of violent political movements is not particularly remote.

It's very lucky that the baby boomers are relatively tolerant of live-in adult children. I think it is highly likely that if parents had not allowed their children back home that we would see violent protests that make Greece look like a minor civil protest.

The depolitization of the American youth will have widespread consequences for the US political system in the future. It will note bode well for the GOP, because while today's youth vote is breaking away from parties it is not abandoning its often radically liberal issue positions. Conservatives will be in for a rough ride in the next twenty to thirty years.

Yet neither are the Republican challengers, which is likely why the young voters either won't go to the polls or will hold their noses and vote for Obama.

The obvious answer to anyone who has ever actually filed corporate taxes is that it will prompt business to reinvest more of their earnings into operations to take advantage of the deduction. They will do that by expanding facilities, hiring more workers, buying new equipment, offering more benefits, etc. I agree that Obama has not done a good job of communicating this blindingly obvious prediction.

That seems unlikely. Raising taxes and implementing some protectionist measures would prompt companies to invest in American operations, which means more jobs for unemployed American youth. The additional government income generated by this might also be used to offset the deficit and maintain essential government spending during a time of economic crisis. After all, the US economy will only fall further if we cut spending right now. The Republican plan of opening the anemic American economy to further international competition and decreasing opportunities for new businesses with a reduction in government spending is much less sensible. Assuming we're actually trying to keep young Americans from immigrating to China, Brazil, or India, of course.

 

Why would they vote for someone with even less of a plan than Obama? I mean, none of his Republican opposition can frame a sensible solution to the problem of youth unemployment either. Obama is bad, but the Republicans are worse, meaning that a vote for someone other than Obama would just put them in a worse situation.

 

Some significant portion of the public revenues goes to paying principal and interest on the public debt. The indebtedness was incurred to pay for past consumption for older generations. That will continue to be the case because reform doesn't seem to be politically possible.

That in turn means money for debt service will consume funds that otherwise would likely have been invested in ways which would have created more jobs. It also means the young will be taxed in order to make payments to the old.

 

You are correct, Albert.

 

STOP! STOP, right now.

You're speaking sense and leftards don't understand that.

 

Actually, the youth are turning to Paul in droves. A lot of young folks, under 30, are leaning more and more libertarian because they are realizing the the older crowd see them as nothing more than a piggy bank.

 

Can this nonsense not be merged with the more popular version?

 

I'm not sure that "turning" is necessarily the right word. He does attract a large following of young voters, but a great many of them are attracted to him because he is an anti-establishment candidate more than anything else. If questioned on his policies, a large majority of the independent and left-leaning Paul supporters do not actually support him as well as the Paul campaign implies. I believe his anti-corporatist and anti-drug-war stances are the primary sources of his support among independent and left-leaning young voters. It would be quite foolish to confuse this with genuine support for libertarianism as a whole, since that could also be adequately tapped by a genuine leftist candidate. Anti-corporatism has roots in both sides of the ideological fence.

In other words, I would propose that they are only loyal to Paul in as much as he does not represent the establishment. That, rather than representing any kind of firm commitment to conservatives or the Republican party, they are simply reacting to his unconventional approach.

I disagree with that assessment. They are not abandoning positions on vitally important issues (for them) like college loan reform, green energy, global warming, welfare for the disadvantaged, etc. What they are adopting is an anti-corporatist position, but for reasons that differ from Paul's. At least, when it comes to the independent and left-leaning young Paul supporters. Granted, he has built a sizable group of right-leaning supporters who may well be adopting the libertarian position.

However, as we can see from his showings at the polls, this "libertarian resurgence" seems to mainly be a matter of activating the same 5-7% of the population that has always been libertarian. Perhaps this merely shows that libertarians are attracted to and divorced from the ideology in roughly even numbers--that just now as younger voters are adopting the position, older libertarians are departing from it.

 

2012 being my first election I will be able to vote, I know my vote will be going to the GOP candidate. I've sat back and watched Obama run this country into the ground. He pushed through healthcare a majority of the country didn't want, and he had congress in his favor for two years and yet he did nothing with it. I see no reason why he should be reelected. Unemployment is still above 9% and it doesn't help that Obama made unemployment benefits last for 99 weeks.
Most kids go into college under the impression they're going to get a job after school but this economy is so bad that most kids can't. Obama is doing nothing to help the youth of America get jobs.

 

What on earth makes you think that the GOP will do any better? They've had an active hand in assuring that the country is run into the ground through their mindless obstructionism on even matters that are typically a mere formality. At the current rate, the GOP and the Democrats will be unable even to agree on naming post offices in the next four or five years. What on earth gives you the idea that these people will run the country any better than Obama has?

Because the Republicans as a whole wouldn't budge. It is an unreal expectation that requires a party to achieve 60 members in the senate before anything can be accomplished. It is insane to have a system where 1 member of the Senate can block all progress on anything. These days, a party does not control the government without a majority in the house, a warm body in the oval office, and 60 seats in the Senate. The Democrats had two of those, but not the third, meaning they had no control whatsoever.

It sure as hell doesn't hurt that Congress extended unemployment benefits. What are you hearing from the GOP candidates that gives you such confidence they'll be able to increase employment?

There is literally nothing the GOP has proposed that would help young Americans find more work.

 

Unless they want Jobs in Logging,Oil Industry, Nuclear Power,Airplane Manufacturing,Military, Farming,Pro Sports, Motor Sports,Firearm Manufacturing, Off Road Touring Industry, Fishing Sports, Power Boating...

 

So you're saying that you have no problem allowing the government to take money out of your hard earned paycheck so someone can sit back and collect on it for 99 weeks? I know I sure don't.

 

There are jobs out there for the youth its just no one wants to do them. Everyone wants to be an engineer or doctor of some sort. Obama hasn't created any jobs for these people though. The truly sad thing about us is that a majority of us is afraid of hard work and breaking a sweat. The exact thing America was built on...

 

Your question is nonsense. The Republican party, for all their faults, are the only ones actually proposing solutions which even begin to approach sensible. The Ryan plan addresses the needed reforms in Medicare and Medicaid, and McCain and Rand Paul submitted a comprehensive jobs plan that reduces spending without raising taxes.

Obama and the Democrats, on the other hand, haven't even submitted a budget in years, and the only thing Obama proposed was voted down UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate. Not a SINGLE Senator voted for his proposal.

Obama's "plan" simply consists of spending more and hoping that class warfare rhetoric will somehow pay for it. The man is totally incompetent.

You're living in a dream world.

 

Rather than let the economy get bound up even more? Yes. Those unemployment checks go directly back into the economy, increasing opportunities to find employment. Given that more of that cost is going to be carried by people who earn more than me, I find this acceptable. In the end, the distribution favors me.

Then stop taking such a myopic view.

 

Then let's just cut everyone in the country a check for a billion dollars. According to your logic, that will fix the economy immediately.

Irony, thy name is someone.

 

Well, I guess if they're willing to trade their environment for a job. I mean, the only way that Democrats "harm" the logging industry is by preventing them from logging national parks and requiring them to log in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner. Which, I might add, has helped increase wages in the logging industry over the long run...

Which seems to be thriving more under the Democrats than under the Republicans. I mean, there's been a big boom in the industry lately.

First new nuclear reactors in the country in decades... opened under a Democrat. I'm currently working a job in the industry, one I would only have because of the stimulus.

I don't think there is anything a Republican president could do to revive air travel (I'm assuming you're referring to commercial aircraft manufacturing, of the sort subjected to a recent labor dispute...). One option might be to reregulate the airlines, but who knows if it would work or not, and it's certainly not in the Republican play book. Either way, without bringing back more air travel, the commercial aircraft industry will be in trouble long-term.

I'll admit, the Republicans are more fetishistic about the military and defense contracting. However, if they're serious with all their talk of balancing the budget, there would have to be substantial military cuts. There's no way it would float politically to maintain absurd defense spending levels while seniors starve in the cold.

Republicans offer nothing the Democrats don't in this respect.

The President can do nothing about this, regardless of his party.

Obama's election has done more for gun and ammo sales than any Republican could ever manage, so get over yourself. A Democrat in office just makes people buy more guns, because they're afraid the big bad government's gonna come take them (despite the fact that there is no real chance of this happening--the Democrats won't touch gun control for decades). So get off your paranoia wagon here. Electing a Republican would depress the firearms industry right now.

Nothing to do with the party of the President.

As for industries a Republican president would harm...

Banking, Motion Pictures, Scientific Research, Biotech, Information Technology, Automobile Manufacturing, Environmental Remediation, Renewable Energy, Healthcare, Health Insurance...

 

Hardly. That would be manufacturing money. Taxing the rich, however, and redistributing it to the poor... that is effective at building demand, which is how you restart an economy facing a deficit in demand. Collect an additional $3 billion in taxes, and give $300 to the poorest 10 million. That would provide an immediate boost to the economy. Or, better yet, give the poorest 1 million mortgage-paying homeowners a $3000 housing subsidy over the course of a year. That's effectively money in their pocket, and it would help the construction industry.

There's a difference between redistribution of wealth and inflating the money supply. The first involves taxing and spending, the second involves printing money out of thin air. The first is a useful tool in prompting additional demand, the latter is a waste of time and ultimately harmful.

 

Nothing to do with President or Party = ROFLCOPTER

 

Distributing $300 dollars to 10 million people does not ensure that it will be put back into the economy. There are good odds that people will either pocket the money or maybe even spend it on drugs. Nothing guarantees that they'll spend it. Plus $300 dollars is not nearly enough for these people to help them got out of their finical downturn.

 

You are correct, Blackrook.

Obama really has no idea how to get our national economy moving forward again. His stimulus has failed, and his foolish ideas of increasing taxes on working Americas is also doomed to failure.

These latest unemployment numbers issued today by Gallup really look bad for Obama.

PRINCETON, NJ -- The U.S. unemployment rate, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 9.0% in mid-February, up from 8.6% for January. The mid-month reading normally reflects what the U.S. government reports for the entire month, and is up from 8.3% in mid-January.

Gallup's mid-month unemployment reading, based on the 30 days ending Feb. 15, serves as a preliminary estimate of the U.S. government report, and suggests the Bureau of Labor Statistics will likely report on the first Friday of March that its seasonally adjusted unemployment rate increased in February. Gallup found that unemployment decreased to 8.3% in its mid-January report, and suggested that the U.S. unemployment rate the BLS reported for January would decline.

Gallup also finds 10.0% of U.S. employees in mid-February are working part time but want full-time work, essentially the same as in January. The mid-February reading means the percentage of Americans who can only find part-time work remains close to its high since Gallup began measuring employment status in January 2010.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152753/U...ail&utm_campaign=sharing&utm_content=morelink