Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Dec 27, 2009.
The Millennials - Pew Research Center
And that's the group that is the most likely to think that health care reform won't affect them...Wait until the taxes kick in and see what their reaction is to it....
Young people under 30 are the most likely age group to think reform would have no effect (54%), while seniors are the least likely to think theyâ€™d be helped (7%.)
I'm not sure that I would say they are the most politicaly progressive just because they voted for Barack. The country was ripe for change. They went with it. This iPod generation is also generally "tuned out" as well, and I expect will go "back to sleep" for the next election cycle unless there is a compelling reason not to.
Young people are generally way more liberal then older folks who actually grow up and are faced with other issues that begin to crowd out the "social issues" that dominate youth.
Things like fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, etc..... become more important with age.
This new generation won't kill the right. It'll just kill the nitwitcons like Sairy.
The right will shift its positions and things will rebalance.
This one is in the general intro information, but of course it looks unlikely that the youngest would be significantly helped; the question is, are the young in favor of the program based on its effect on others. Since half this paragraph compares the elderly's belief on the personal effect, and the other half states it would "have no effect", and since this particular paragraph isn't backed by a particular question with a breakout (there is no breakout by age in any of the dozens of polling questions,) it's hard to tell what "have no effect" means in this context.
A lot of good info on the pulse of the public on September 1, by the way.
They're in a position like the Dems after Reagan's election, if we disregard the difference between ideologies.
The GOP is seeking unity in reaction against a demonstrably stronger popular position. The difference is that the wheels seem to have come off the GOP in terms of the radicalization of their elected politicians.
This may be an early phase of reaction, or they may need to pursue this radicalization until the party simply disintegrates under the weight of its ideological baggage.
Tick. Tick. Tick.
Do fiscal responsibility and lower taxes make you suddenly become more white or religious?
This generation is more racially diverse than any in the history of generational research. This generation is less religiously observant than any since generational research began.
Now of course we can have a purely academic argument about how non-whites and non-Christians should understand how much better for them the right is than the left, but they do not vote that way, and they do not answer survey questions that way.
To my eye, it is obvious how and why the Right has historically alientated these demographics, but we needn't get into that. We have a whole thread nearby, where one of our local rightists complain that a poll oversamples African Americans. Of course the oversampling was corrected in the poll in question, but that's not the point (here.) The point is that the rightists know it's bad for the right-wing cause when African Americans are proportionately represented, or God forbid, if they are overrepresented. This is backed up by the behaviors of non-white and non-Christian voters.
They are more significantly represented in the Millenial cohort than in the boomers, Gen. x, or the WWII generation.
Most people under 30 lean left of center. It's when they get older, start working fulltime, have kids, are maybe paying a mortgage, and see uncle sam raping their wallets, that they move more toward the right. Furthermore, this past election was one like no other. It was a perfect storm in a sense. The internet explosion, an extremely articualte african-american candidate, an unattractive geazer opponent, and 8 years of George Bush. The problem for Obama though, is with so much promised, and so much expected, a letdown could do more for his opposition, than it will have done for him. There is a high level of buyers remorse out there right now, and he needs to remedy that, if he wants to maintain the fandom he accrued during the election. Talking about the demise of one side, or questioning weather one is doomed, is follish. People did that at the turn of this past century for one, and then this past November for the other. They'll both remain strong so long as there is no viable 3rd option, and each repeatedy shows their ineptitude, when given total control.
Thank you but please don't words in my mouth or make attributions that I didn't say. In quoting my posting, you split my quote and interjected,(see post #5)
They're more likely to have the reaction you'd like them to have, if they are required to purchase health insurance they were not previously required to have. The self-perceived "immortality" of the young adults in the age cohort is certainly nothing new. There may be resentment by those who feel that they are healthier and therefore should not be part of a society-wide solution to a society-wide problem. However, they are also both communitarian and voluntarist by comparison to previous age cohorts.
Then again, baby boomers were idealistic until they all started developing real estate and buying junk bonds, right?<<<<<<<<<
attributing it to me. I never wrote it!!!!!I'll assume it was an innocent mistake and that you'll correct it.....
Items in red not mine....
Well, RW, I wouldn't want to appear "follish."
The characteristics of the present generation, however, does not augur well for a party continuing to pursue the poliltics of exclusion.
I do not for a minute buy that life-stage behavior explains the right's epic fail among younger voters.
Rather, there is a mix. Their attitudes will naturally track (to an extent) the same way Baby Boomers' attitudes did.
That is to say, when they have more money, the most selfish elements will be more concerned with their taxes than with others' wellbeing.
It is also the case, however, that society changed wherever the baby boomers turned to accomodate them. The Millenials are nearly the size of the boomer cohort (in stark contrast to Generation X.) We have started to see a similar response. Just as long(er) hair was not a sign of insanity or rebellion from 1970 onward, piercings and tats have gained similar status, on the fashion end.
On the more significant end, everybody (except a few idiots, probably some of whom post frequently here,) understood that Archie Bunker was a satire and not a role model by the 70s, and it's now considered aberrant in most of America to openly advocate segregation. In other words, once we have made a significant advance, the right must move forward or die, once the body politic embraces a progressive stance for a given era.
Additionally, whereas the idealism expressed by young baby boomers in the 60s had a prevalent individualist cast, the idealism expressed by the millenials has a comparatively communitarian cast.
Well, I know someone has no where to go in this forum, when they start to point out spelling. Keep reading those books buddy, some day you might get lucky, and come across one that's called common sense.
Oh wait, let me run a spell check, so that my post is worthy of your attention.
The most selfish elements? What a maroon. I'll never understand why some people view the idea of keeping the money you've worked hard to earn, as being selfish. It's as if a 99.9% tax on all earnings would be ok in a liberals mind. We spend $4 trillion a year on gubmit, yet moonbats think people should openly, and happily, give away more. The vast majority of people, like myself, have no problem with taxation. We understand the need for government. Most of us even understand the need for social programs too. Where we have a problem, is with the blank check, inept, inefficient, never ending manner with which the suits confiscate, and waste away our cash. It's sad that someone would call a persons desire to limit the amount that can be stolen from them, as selfish.
I see that once the sting wore off from the spelling correction, you took the time to respond to a single word of my post.
Thanks for all the studied attention, RW.
To use a parallel argument: It's as if any amount of taxation is a religious taboo in the mind of right-wingers.
But they want the things those taxes provide.
As to the post's subject matter: The right as we know it will flail, bluster, and transform or die, if they have no understanding that a great number of their countrymen now think of the country as having a common interest beyond hating some other country or countries. This increased communitarian impulse is different from the viewpoints of the baby boomers and generation X, even at that age.
From that point of view, those who want to keep what's owed back to society are selfish.
Adapt or die baby.
I can't speak to what a right wing extremist wants from the gubmit, nor the amount they're willing to pay. I've already stated that the general public understands the need for taxes and services, but expects there to be a limit with respect to each. What I can clearly see, is that the extremists from the left feel that any amount of taxation is not only justifiable, but that it's an individuals moral obligation to pay it (only the selfish refuse to pay). It's that thinking that will quickly push the general populace to revolt from the current administration. We're already seeing signs of it now. I think you should heed your own advice, and adapt or die. Part of the reason people disliked Bush and the GOP, was the massive expanse of runaway government under their control. Yet, you feel that an even larger government, with more taxes, is what the public is looking for. I think you're sorely mistaken.
Obviously the eye of the beholder comes into play. I'm speaking of a generational shift; I have stipulated elsewhere that Americans are generally, at present, much more distrustful of their government's role than are other industrial societies.
This leads to poor outcomes in society-wide problem solving. The exception, of course, is military problem-solving.
You and I both know that we are undertaxed if compared with other industrial societies.
I do not advocate 100% taxation. You do not advocate 0% taxation. Therefore the answer to "how much is too much" is best established not through reducto ad absurdum propositions about the "typical liberal" (who you want to say is in favor of any amount of taxation,) or the "typical conservative," who ideologically supports 0% taxation.
The truth is much less apocalyptic sounding. It is that we are undertaxed by comparison with comparable societies. We have poorer society-wide outcomes than comparable societies.
Millenials are more likely than boomers or Xers to see this.
Fiscally, it's a tough crystal-ball exercise to say that their votes will simply fall to the Dems or some party to their left (or some centrist communitarian party, yet to be contemplated.) It's nowhere near that clear or obvious.
Republicans have, however, continued to redouble their concentration on areas such as racial and ethnic intolerance, pro-Christian self-identification, and typical nostalgic exercises that harken back to times and values this generation would not recognize.
Most people live in cities. You cannot win nationally by hating cities.
Most people some day soon will be other than white. You cannot win by villifying non-whites.
Most people know others with different sexuality, different religions, different racial backgrounds. This phenomenon is increasing, not decreasing, as time marches forward.
You cannot win by pointing the finger at other "groups" forever.
This is why the right must adapt of die.
Oh, fugg me.
About that pie.......................
You know, you ARE annoying.
Hubby may want to check the contents and have them analyzed before eating................
Separate names with a comma.