Have the youth given up on Obama?
(Getty Images)
December 30th, 2011
09:03 AM ET

Have the youth given up on Obama?

Editor's Note: Brad Chase is a partner with Capitol Media Partners, a Los Angeles-based communications and public affairs consultancy.

By Brad Chase - Special to CNN

In 2008, the youth vote helped sweep Barack Obama into office.  Americans 18-29 spread the word on social media, energized fundraising and went to the polls.

In 2012, the youth vote is moving on and throwing those omnipresent “Hope” bumper stickers and t-shirts in garbage bins.

Not because of apathy.  Not because another candidate generates more enthusiasm.  Not because of his character.  Not because they think voting is pointless.  The 18-29 vote is up for grabs in 2012 because youth can’t afford cars to put bumper stickers on and those t-shirts are worn out from too many days sitting on the couch unemployed.

The sobering reality:  just 55.3 percent of Americans between 16 and 29 have jobs.  And earlier this year, Americans’ student loan debt surpassed credit card debt for the first time ever.

Rather than develop a lasting initiative to help young unemployed Americans, the President launched “Greater Together” – a campaign tool that offers community forums rather than jobs.  Rather than provide a bailout to those crushed by the burden of educational loans, his student debt relief program was pathetic – only reducing interest rates by a measly 0.5 percent.

No wonder less than half of Americans 18-29 approve of Obama.

It’s no surprise the President is ignoring millenials.  They’re too poor to donate to his campaign this election cycle.  Older Americans are 47 times richer than the young – a striking generational gap in prosperity that has widened from a 10 to 1 ratio when Ronald Reagan was running for reelection in 1984.  At the same time, Obama is ringing up donations from older voters.  In the first 10 months of 2011, he attended 58 fundraisers – twice the number President George W. Bush attended during the comparable period before his reelection.  That’s overkill when the GOP candidate is still TBD.

Millenials haven’t embraced any of the GOP candidates yet, but there’s a huge opportunity for the eventual nominee to swoop in and win over the youth vote.  They have a short memory, filled mostly with three difficult years under President Obama’s economic stewardship.  The Center for the Study of the American Electorate reports that the youth vote won’t come out strongly this time around, but there’s little doubt the voting bloc is up for grabs to the first candidate who offers up viable policies – not themes and slogans – to address their issues.

To win the youth vote in November, a Presidential candidate could start by:

Creating a limited student debt forgiveness program:  It would be impractical and foolhardy to create complete debt amnesty.  Instead, erase all federal student debt for those with more than $30,000 in federal student loan debt and cut the bill by 10 percent for those with debts under that threshold.  That still leaves students accountable – no free rides – but it eases the crushing burden on millions of millenials.  H.Res. 365 by Rep. Hansen Clark (D-MI) was a well-intentioned (albeit pie-in-the-sky) call for debt relief and it’s a good starting point for future efforts.

Controls on Predatory Lenders/ServicersMost students need their parents to co-sign loans and then take care of the bills themselves.  But private loan servicers like American Education Services (AES) have no oversight and resort to bully tactics to threaten students’ parents with credit rating ruin as little as five days after a bill comes overdue for the first time.  Not even credit card companies are that ruthless.  There’s nothing more humiliating and stressful to students or parents than getting harassed for short-term delinquencies.  There’s no need for a Credit Protection Financial Bureau, just more oversight on predators like AES.

Allowing Student Loan Discharge in Bankruptcy:  In 2005, bankruptcy law changed to specifically exclude private student loans from being discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.  Young adults don’t want the headache or stigma of going bankrupt, but sheltering private lenders at the expense of recent graduates is wrong.  H.R. 2028 will restore pre-2005 terms – support for the bill would be huge in generating millennial votes.

The ancillary benefit of student debt relief is a stimulus to the economy.  Older Americans might say that giving money back to the young is an invitation to run up debt again, but millenials have watched their parents get underwater with mortgages and credit cards – it’s the pot calling the kettle black to deny young adults their own bailout.  The stimulus will come in the form of solid and responsible purchases:  a first couch, a first bed, a first set of dinner plates.  This isn’t reckless spending, it’s the type of economic stimulus that Obama’s much-touted stimulus should have been.

Without the youth vote in 2008, the President would have lost North Carolina and Indiana – a 26 delegate swing equal to nearly 10 percent of the 270 electoral college votes needed to win.  The 2012 election promises to be closer and the swing of the youth vote could be enough to tip the balance.  It’s time the President did some soul searching on his feelings toward the youth vote.  And he better do it soon, because the GOP candidate is waiting in the wings and won’t hesitate to take the youth vote.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Brad Chase.

Post by:
Topics: 2012 Election • President Obama • Youth

soundoff (996 Responses)
  1. Dan

    Editor's Note: Brad Chase is a partner with Capitol Media Partners, a Los Angeles-based communications and public affairs consultancy.

    "Capitol Media Partners offers clients facing critical public policy challenges expert advice and supervision of those issues. "

    So who paid chase to write this article and what exactly is their agenda?

    December 30, 2011 at 10:02 am | Reply
  2. Jim

    If the youth don't vote for Obama they certainly won't vote for any republican. Republicans are NEVER going to forgive debt, or do anything for unemployed youths besides cut taxes on mythical job creators, it's just not in them to do it.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:05 am | Reply
    • gordotaco

      easy solution going forward. do not pay professors. hold classes in empty athletic fields. costs will drop dramatically

      December 30, 2011 at 10:09 am | Reply
      • ialsoagree

        Yeah, so will colleges altogether. Being a professor requires a Ph. D. for most areas of curriculum. Professors are already the most under paid doctorate holders in this country – they make less than public school teachers, and public school teachers are the most under paid masters degree holders in this country.

        You want to take their pay away altogether? Say goodbye to all professors, they'll find jobs else where.

        December 30, 2011 at 10:15 am |
      • Dan

        ialsoagree: THat is utter bullsh!t. THE average salary for a college professor is over $80,000 which is way above hat the average teacher makes, not to mention that teachers teach five or six classes a day, while professors may teach as few as one per semester in many universities. In order to save many, many universities have gone to using adjuncts to stem the cost of instruction. The adjuncts teach far more classes and make much less.

        December 30, 2011 at 11:24 am |
    • glj

      And Obama will? He is going to say anything to get re-elected. Then he will continue business as usual.

      December 30, 2011 at 1:51 pm | Reply
  3. Bill Duke

    The young have figured out that the president is only good at giving pretty speeches and taking extended golf vacations.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:05 am | Reply
    • Jim

      What have republicans offers that's better?

      December 30, 2011 at 10:09 am | Reply
  4. DK

    Great! Obama gets to buy votes using the taxpayer's money.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:06 am | Reply
  5. thedude

    Poor Obama – he's beginning to make Jimmy Carter look competent and Richard Nixon look honest.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:07 am | Reply
    • Angel

      And Bush look like American "waste" (that you voted for), and wouldl vote again if you would have a chance, that makes you look like a "dumb" dude.

      December 30, 2011 at 10:13 am | Reply
      • Flatsguide

        Angel, you should come back when you can compose a comprehensible sentenance.

        December 30, 2011 at 10:27 am |
    • Flatsguide

      And that is tuff to do!!!

      December 30, 2011 at 10:25 am | Reply
  6. Angel

    Two words to the question: Obama 2012!

    December 30, 2011 at 10:07 am | Reply
  7. gordotaco

    young people should unionize. the government should pay their dues. then the union reps can talk about how unFAIR things are for them and politicians will find a way to give them stuff to buy their votes. welcome to chicago politics.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:08 am | Reply
  8. Carlos

    Buck Ofama!

    December 30, 2011 at 10:08 am | Reply
    • PM

      Fine example of limited intelligence. Wonderful people like this would allow the GOP to get in control again so they can finish the job that GWB started.

      December 30, 2011 at 10:35 am | Reply
  9. justathought

    Hmm, I could be wrong but when President Obama got elected I thought the Democrats controlled both the House and Sentate his first two years? So how is congress preventing him from creating jobs?

    December 30, 2011 at 10:09 am | Reply
    • ialsoagree

      It's called a filibuster. Some of the "democrats" in the senate and house during Obama's first term were Republicans who had changed parties during their run because they were unlikely to win the republican nomination again. Instead, they ran as Democrats. Other democrats were actually quite conservative, and would not have blocked a republican filibuster attempt.

      So while the democrats, on paper, had a super majority, republican filibusters were still very successful. In fact, republicans succeeded in getting the Bush tax cut extension attached to Obama's health care bill using a filibuster threat. That's the only reason the Bush tax cuts were extended.

      December 30, 2011 at 10:19 am | Reply
  10. Alois

    We don't understand why anybody would see anything good come from this loser from the start given his shady past. The past three years have proven how much of a failure to our country he has been.Loser obama and his corrupt administration need to be removed before he can follow through with his socialist ,corrupt agenda and destroy our country completly

    December 30, 2011 at 10:09 am | Reply
    • ialsoagree

      What failure? Unemployment dropping faster than it has since Clinton was in office? The stock market being hire than it was in 2008 when Bush was leaving office?

      If that's failure, I'll take another big helping of failure please!

      December 30, 2011 at 10:21 am | Reply
      • Dave

        The trolls have been screaming, "worst president ever!" since before he even took office. Wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of their racist delusions.

        December 30, 2011 at 1:14 pm |
      • glj

        Wow, was wondering when the race card was going to come out on this discussion.

        December 30, 2011 at 1:54 pm |
  11. wakeupplease

    Good article, I often wondered where that excellent pre-election organization went to. Obama could have done better on these points in the article and in opinion better support for those losing their homes. But in my book he's still accomplished many things and a better alternative than the GOP. I mean look, he recently had to shame the GOP into preserving the middle class tax break, while in the past 3 years the GOP has had their foot on Obama's throat of tax breaks for the weathiyest 1%. Obama wanted to extend unemployment...GOP say not without a taxbreak for the 1%, etc, etc. With all the turmoil the GOP's only goal has been make Obama a 1 termer, disgraceful. Gotta say my vote is not in the bag for Obama, I feel strongly about Med MJ and tired of feeling like a criminal.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:12 am | Reply
    • gordotaco

      which news org do you plagiarize from? msnbcnn or the huffy post?

      December 30, 2011 at 10:14 am | Reply
  12. a disgrace!

    obama's disgrace of a presidency is over and the faster he is replaced the better chance america has of avoiding a major collapse of its economy.......

    December 30, 2011 at 10:13 am | Reply
    • gordotaco

      or limiting the damage already done

      December 30, 2011 at 10:16 am | Reply
  13. Jay C.

    I haven't given up on Obama. I've just given up on any chance that the republicans will ever give him a chance to get anything done, especially if it would benefit the middle class or reduce unemployment. This guy not only saved GM and Chrysler, but in doing so he stopped the free-fall that the republicans under Bush left our economy in. He also got us out of the senseless, needless, pointless and super expensive war in Iraq, and is starting to wind down in Afganistan as well. Bush was good at starting wars that cost us thousands of service people's lives, and ruined tens of thousands more with lost limbs, traumatic brain injuries, and PTSD. That's an under-appreciated economic burden that will be with us for a generation or more. Just imagine what it would be like if the Repubs still had the Presidency. Oh they'd be getting stuff done all right, it's just that everything they'd get done would be for the super rich and they'd make the rest of us pay for it. Listen, Obama is a good man with good intentions who is doing the best he can to drag this country out of the Flintstone era and into the Jetson's era. If we don't start catching up with the rest of the world now, we will continue to see our economy, education, influence and status diminish to the point of no return. If this country gets turned back over to the republicans again in 2012, kiss your future goodbye, cause it's over.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:16 am | Reply
    • joe

      Obama had a congressional SUPERMAJORITY in both houses his first 2 years. Instead of fixing the economy and bringing us jobs, he focused on a healthcare bill that will make (and has) made the economy WORSE. Stop blaming the rebublicans, they've only controlled 1/3 of power, and have only done so for the last 11 months. Wake up!

      December 30, 2011 at 10:35 am | Reply
      • Jay C.

        Supermajority or not, Repubs still found ways to thwart Obama's well intentioned best efforts that would have moved us in the right direction. Remember the "nuclear option"? Repubs are bad news and they are bullys who lie with a straight face to the American public. There is no bottom that they won't sink below in order to get their way. Vote Republican at your own peril.

        December 30, 2011 at 11:01 am |
    • mikaman3000

      Please move back to North Korea where Cults of Personalities are all the rage. My god you are such a political tool.
      Saw you bashing on good old Fox earlier too. How predictable. Let me ask you something oh wise man....When ABC,CBS,PBS,NBC,HLN,CNN,MSNBC,the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, SNL (most of the time) and pretty much every late night talk show and Hollywood elite are regurgitating the same thing their political masters on the left say and at the same time they all attack the one dissident voice among them(that's right, FOX NEWS).....WHY DO YOU NOT SEE THAT AS A TAD BIT FASCISTIC ???

      December 30, 2011 at 10:50 am | Reply
      • Jay C.

        Your talking about the lone dissident voice that has a history of showing Obama talking while posting "Osama" as his name beneath his picture, right? Give me a break. If you can't see it, I can't help you.

        December 30, 2011 at 11:07 am |
  14. QWERTY

    I never believed in Obama to begin with. I'm an anarcho-communist. His views are the complete opposite of mine. I believe in a better Earth. He believes in exploiting the many for the benefit of the few, including obviously himself. He is a bourgeois. He is certainly no friend of mine.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:16 am | Reply
    • ed galbraith

      "I believe in a better Earth." Do you have ANY idea how juvenile that is?

      December 30, 2011 at 12:16 pm | Reply
  15. blake

    Obama has lost the youth vote if they have wised up any since 2008. Voting for the "cool" candidate without regard to the issues is naive at best.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:19 am | Reply
    • ialsoagree

      As a "young" voter (well, almost), please feel free to show me a better candidate when it comes to issues, I'm still looking and haven't found one.

      December 30, 2011 at 10:23 am | Reply
  16. tom

    This young person is still a solid supporter of our president and especially so after watching the 3-ring circus that has been the GOP/Teabagger candidates playing checkers jumping over each other as the 'new' lead in the polls...only to open their mouths and fall back at the bottom of polls again. Bunch of Bozos that not even their own party can support. the reason Obama hasn't performed up to everyone's expectations is that very same GOP blocking every move he's try to make. Disgusting....every member of congress should be booted out.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:20 am | Reply
  17. Justin

    Obama didn't do anything he campaigned on, I will not be voting for him again this election. My vote will go to Ron Paul.

    He orders arrests on the sick for use of medical marijuana when he campaigned he wouldn't, I guess synthetic heroin is better because it comes in pill form. Kept guitmo open, continued war waging(Only reason we left Iraq is they would agree not to persecute american soldiers), resigning the Patriot Act, NDAA, and now SOPA.

    The last straw is the support for NDAA and SOPA. Signing the NDAA is a sad day in American history the ability to detain and inprision Americans with no trial just sickens me(See Nazi Gestapo act )

    Thank you for the hope and change, all I received was less civil liberties.

    The media might not like Ron Paul but the youth of the nation do.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:25 am | Reply
    • ialsoagree

      I certainly don't support Ron Paul. He wants to fire 200,000 public workers as part of his "job creation plan." He'll use the extra funding to cut corporate taxes, elminate capital gains tax, and deregulate corporations so they don't have to properly clean up and dispose of hazardous waste, and can freely pump carbondioxide and other green house gases into the atmosphere.

      December 30, 2011 at 10:30 am | Reply
      • hawaiisb

        ialsoagree. You are wrong on many if not all your points.
        Moving 200,000 jobs from the public to private sector would be a huge boost to the economy & also would lower the tax/debt burden & return that capital to the productive sector of the economy.
        His reduction of corporate taxes would be another huge boost & would be included with a policy that eliminates ALL corporate subsidies. Currently when a corporation makes money overseas they have to pay a huge tax (The US has the highest tax in the world here!) if they want to bring their capital back into the US & invest it at home. By eliminating this tax, a company that makes money overseas can repatriate that money to the US & invest it here!
        He also would not tolerate pollution & private property rights are actually stronger at regulating pollution than a bought out EPA is. Under the EPA there is an allowance of pollution that is allowed to be output before you reach the threshhold of applicable fines. The EPA commonly only checks on a specific plant every 5 years & many companies feel it is cheaper to pay the fines & pollute than it is to stop pollution.
        Under private property law, where government protected levels of minimum pollution are nonexistant, a company has NO RIGHT to pollute your property (land, air, water) at all. Any pollution detected on anyones private property would be grounds for sueing & the cash amounts awarded to the plaintiff's would EXCEED the fines that would have imposed by the EPA. Private property law would be a better regulator & a much more efficient deterent toward pollution.

        I bet you even think that Al Gore's carbon credit system is the course to be endorsed. That course doesn't eliminate pollution but instead sells the right to pollute to the highest bidder, which in turn makes pollution a priviledge of the wealthiest corporations.

        December 30, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
  18. Heather

    Ha ha, every time I visit my daughter at college, I drive past "Solyndra" - a sizeable campus of buildings right on Highway 880 near UC Berkeley with a HUGE sign trumpeting their wonderfulness. Emblematic of an administration that has fooled a lot of people. How many youngsters who voted for Obama know that his campaign manager, David Axelrod, made a career as a spokesman for the nuclear industry. Illinios (Obama's home state) has the highest density of nuclear power plants, per square mile, of any state in the nation. Now does that shed any light on the roaring SILENCE we are hearing from our government about the Fukushima melt-down (yes, the blob of nuclear materials have left their steel containment vessels and are eating through the cement underlyment as we speak). This administration will do anything to stay in power and to serve its own financial interests. Just wait, it's about to spin up again and I'm sure Axelrod has a bulging "racism" dosier on every republican hopeful.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:30 am | Reply
    • ialsoagree

      Firstly, Solyndra was hugely supported by both sides of the isle. In fact, Bush rushed to get funding for Solyndra passed by Congress in 2008 in fear that Obama wouldn't sign the bill. Ignorance must be bliss, huh?

      Secondly, nuclear material is hot, cool story. Did you know that the nuclear material from the Chernobyl melt down is still "eating through the cement underlyment as we speak?

      What do you think is worse, the radiation exposure you've recieved from nuclear power planets over your entire lifespan, or the excess green house gasses you've been breathing in from your local oil burning power plant?

      Yeah, sure, when a nuclear power plant gets destroyed (all of the 4 times it's happened in history) it's a huge deal. But lets all ignore the fact that oil and coal power plants do far MORE damage to the environment just through their regular day-to-day operation.

      December 30, 2011 at 10:35 am | Reply
      • Heather

        Firstly, why do some Obama defenders compare him with George Bush in an attempt to vindicate this actions? Most of us despised George Bush, so ... what does that say about Obama? Secondly, there is no evidence that greenhouse gasses have a worse effect on health or the environment than nuclear power plants. Chernobyl made a sizeable chunk of land uninhabitable for the next 40,000 years, and Fukushima is on track to beat that record. Thirdly, whatever the relative merits and risks of nuclear-versus-carbonbased power, the Obama administration's SILENCE on nuclear risk is criminal.

        December 30, 2011 at 10:45 am |
      • ialsoagree

        Firstly, I didn't compare Obama and Bush, I said that Solyndra was heavily supported by both parties, and your putting the blame on Obama is ignorant. I take it by your lack of a rebuttal you agree?

        Secondly, Obama's "silence" is not news worthy. We've had nuclear power plants in this country for 40 years. Every President in that time has been virtually "silent" on the "risks" – mean while the US has not had a single serious injury in the general public from nuclear power plants. Why should anyone be talking about the risks, and why would you blame Obama (of all the presidents we've had in the past 40 years) for also being silent, like everyone else has been for 4 decades over a non-issue?

        As to the health effects:

        "The point is that for each person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die from coal. This is adjusted for how much power is produced by each method of power generation."

        I can't post a link, so google "Death Rate from Nuclear Power Vs Coal" and it will be the first result – it includes sources for the data.

        Please go learn!

        December 30, 2011 at 10:54 am |
      • Heather

        ialsoagree, you are playing word games when you say "no americans" have died from nuclear power plant radiation exposure. In fact, plenty of non-americans have died from nuclear power plant accidents. And plenty of americans have died, and are still dying, from exposure to radiation during the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s when nuclear weapons and power were being developed. Have you ever heard of "virgin steel"? Hey you might learn something from googling that phrase. You might also learn something by googling "jimmy carter" and "nuclear" and "the economist". In that article you will find out how seriously one former president took the issue.

        December 30, 2011 at 11:29 am |
      • ialsoagree

        Firstly, I didn't say no Americans have died, Americans have died, on American soil, in American power plants, from nuclear power risks. I said that there have been no major injuries (including deaths) of Americans due to nuclear power – but I should clarify, that's of nuclear power in the US. The reason people in "other countries" aren't relevant is because other countries don't have the nuclear safety standards of the US.

        Secondly, plenty of people have died in the development of many forms of medical treatment, should we abandon those medical treatments because they use to – before they were fully understood – cause injuries and death? No, we should recognize that while things were in development, they cause death.

        Thirdly, I've already showed you that, DESPITE all the accidents from nuclear power, and NOT including the environmental impact of coal/oil, coal and oil are still up to 4 THOUSAND times more dangerous than nuclear power. And yet here you are, railing on about 1 death, and ignoring 4,000. It's the old addage, "1 death is a trajedy, 100 is a statistic." Oil and coal are SO much worse than nuclear power that people have given up complaining about it. You're busying yourself over a paper cut while your patient's heart has stopped.

        December 30, 2011 at 11:59 am |
      • glj

        OK, first point of your is invalid.
        http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-fundraiser-pushed-solyndra-deal-inside/story?id=14691618

        December 30, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
  19. J

    Screw Obama, he got my vote in 2008 and look what he did with it? NOTHING.

    Ron Paul 2012!

    December 30, 2011 at 10:30 am | Reply
    • Mr. Turner

      Ron Paul 2012, Rand Paul '16, '20

      December 30, 2011 at 2:26 pm | Reply
  20. Mark

    Wow, what a waste of reporting. American youth age 18-29 aren't supporting BHO because they feel they got duped the first time around. BHO successfully portrayed himself as the "non-politician." In reality, however, he has engaged in the exact same cronyism and pandering that have become the hallmark of modern politicians. Now people see BHO for what he truly is: a lying politician. To make matters worse for him, now he has an actual track record that is dismal at best. Yes, "hope and change" are gone: things are worse now than 3 years ago. So get ready for another empty campaign on his part stessing "fairness" and "paying your fair share." Translation: class envy and warfare.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:31 am | Reply
    • glj

      This is exactly how Careter won the Presidency in the 70's. He went after the youth. I was one of the fools that voted for him and I quickly realized he was not what he said.

      December 30, 2011 at 2:02 pm | Reply
  21. joe

    That 41% of Americans approve of Obama is mind blowing. The re-election of this president will be the crushing blow to America as we know it and will send us on a pathway to bancruptcy that will make Europe look fiscally sound. The doubling of the budget from Bush's unmitigated 8 year disaster – and this one only needed 3. Give him another 4 and we'll be doomed.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:32 am | Reply
  22. supposedly unfair

    So many people see a bail-out on student loans as not even worth discussing because young people have to learn the responsibility to take care of their own debt and obligations. "Why should my tax dollars help them when I had to pay off every dollar of my student loans when I had them?" Certainly a compelling argument for high school civics but we must not forget two crucial facts here: 1) Tuition rises at a much faster rate than inflation, meaning current college grads have a much greater imbalance between their debt and their salaries than ever before; and 2) Social Security, we all pay into it and currently practically every american gets assistance from it when they turn 65. But everyone knows Social Security is unsustainable in the long-term. I'm 27 and social security will not be around by the time I'm 65. One could easily make the argument that with social security, they are getting to use the tax dollars from everyone to financially assist one particular age-group. That situation will only get worse as more baby-boomers pass that 65 mark (there's more of them and they will live longer than ever) retire, and the still working younger people who will likely never get to benefit from social security will have that part of their paycheck deduction increased. I'm not suggesting we get rid of social security, but we have to realize that government assistance with current student loan debts is both uniquely worse than ever before and that the argument from many that young people should just have to 'deal with it somehow' is unfounded, we could just as easily have said the same about retirement and said that no retirement assistance will be available after 65. We didn't, and given the drop in recent retirement plan values its probably a good thing we didn't, but we have to be mindful that such logic doesn't only apply to them.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:32 am | Reply
    • ialsoagree

      While I tend to agree with your overall assesment, your point 2 is blatently wrong.

      At current rates, Social Security is solvent through 2037 – that, by the way, means not decreasing payouts, and not increasing revenue, and NOT paying back the 1.5 TRILLION dollars that has been borrowed from SS and put toward the general budget.

      Not only is socialy security solvent in the long-term, it's the biggest cash cow the federal government has. Since the year SS was started it has generated surplus revenue (more money coming in then going out), that includes 2011 with the payroll tax cut. In fact, so much extra revenue is generated by social security, democrats and republicans alike borrow money from SS to meet the needs of the general budget on a regular basis.

      So much money has been borrowed from SS, in fact, that SS is actually backing more of the US debt then all of China (1.5 trillion for SS, 1.2 trillion for China). To say that SS is not solvent for the long term displays a MASSIVE lack of ignorance. In fact, the fed can't afford NOT to continue SS, because it generates so much money for the federal budget. What needs to happen is the 1.5 trillion returned to SS, no more money removed from SS for the general budget, SS benefits returned to more generous payouts, and no one will ever have to talk about SS reform again.

      December 30, 2011 at 10:42 am | Reply
  23. Susina

    Obama has done a great job of golfing and lounging around on the public's dime for four years now – we need REAL CHANGE.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:34 am | Reply
  24. Phil

    He DID get things done between 2008 and 2010 (at which time the teaparty elected a Republican majority). Don't believe me, check out http://www.whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com and look at the links on each one of those accomplishments and then look at the date. All those accomplishments where done PRIOR to the mid-term elections of 2010. The Republicans essentially shut him down in 2010 and the country has been suffering ever since. However, you hillbillies go ahead and elect your candidate with the perfect hair and magic underwear and everything should work out fine.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:34 am | Reply
    • Susina

      oh yeah he sure did! instead of national healthcare, we have MANDATORY INSURANCE – what HOPE! what CHANGE!

      Go to hell with your lies – barry is a slacking, lazy POS who had SUPERMAJORITIES in both houses and did what? MANDATORY HEALTH INSURANCE.

      December 30, 2011 at 10:35 am | Reply
      • Noxx

        You're an idiot too Susina. To say that either party has not made effort to keep the other part from getting what they want is completely ignorant. Both parties are guilty of this. This isn't a problem of one party or another, it's a problem of political corruption and politicians caring more about their standing than fixing what needs to be fixed. Again, BOTH parties are at fault here.

        December 30, 2011 at 10:38 am |
      • Phil

        Very intelligent discourse. Now get back in your trailer.

        December 30, 2011 at 11:22 am |
  25. Noxx

    What politician actually gives a flying eff about any of us? when it comes down to it, they want to keep their job, a position of power, above a 18-29 year old having your 15-100K/year job. Especially when no matter what happens, this generation is going to find something to whine and cry about. The idea of working hard to get where you want has vanished. Young people think because they went to college they're OWED jobs and don't put in the work or effort to get a **** job and just sit on the couch. This doesn't help anything. And what have they done to deserve a bailout on their loans? NOTHING. And are they doing anything to prove they're worth it? NO. At least bailing out companies has kept them from going bankrupt and putting us in a worse off position. I'm pretty liberal when it comes down to it, but I do not support laziness. Whether you're conservative or liberal, if you're a lazy piece of ****, you don't deserve ****.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:34 am | Reply
    • Mark of Tennessee

      Nice post

      December 30, 2011 at 10:37 am | Reply
    • Terry Gloege

      Just exactly what the older generation of my day had to say about us.

      December 30, 2011 at 10:40 am | Reply
    • dragon8me

      It was much easier in my generation. One thing that would help would lower the retirement age to free up jobs for young people.

      December 30, 2011 at 10:48 am | Reply
      • Noxx

        Except no one wants to retire because they lost 30-50% of their 401Ks in 2008.

        December 30, 2011 at 10:59 am |
  26. ken

    Obama is a failure. Poverty up! Unemployment up! Energy dependence up! Energy costs up! Washington corruption up! Drug gang activity up! Slaughter of Mexican by drug cartels who feed US Liberal drug users up! US debt up! Viability of US fiscal system down! Obama will go down as the most incompetent President in world history.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:34 am | Reply
    • CHAD C.

      im not sure what rock you live under, but unemployment has been going down each quarter since obama has taken office...

      December 30, 2011 at 10:46 am | Reply
      • joe

        Educate yourself! You are wrong, it was just at over 9.1%!!!!

        December 30, 2011 at 10:57 am |
      • Noxx

        because after so much time you no longer qualify as "unemployed". Graduating students don't qualify either. It's a terrible stat. You need to look at hiring vs. layoffs. I don't know where I can find this stat, but I can guess it's not as friendly.

        December 30, 2011 at 11:00 am |
  27. Mark of Tennessee

    With this group of Republican candidates... The youth will quickly come back to their senses and realize Obama is the only sane choice.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:35 am | Reply
  28. Brad

    I don't understand this. Obama has done so much for youth and minorities

    December 30, 2011 at 10:37 am | Reply
    • CHAD C.

      your right...

      December 30, 2011 at 10:45 am | Reply
      • al

        You wrong.

        December 30, 2011 at 10:49 am |
  29. Lucifer

    If it walks like a Puppet, Talks like a puppet, He Must be a puppet. Sorry Obama you'll have to use your NDAA powers to force votes this time around.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:38 am | Reply
  30. Terry Gloege

    And just who else should they be excited about. All the GOP except Paul are promising a re-run of the Bush era of needless wars, joblessness, and a playing field tilted toward the rich with trickle down economics that never seem to trickle down.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:38 am | Reply
    • Lucifer

      Just the fact that you get "excited" over Obama is proof that you have obviously fell for the propaganda and probably believe everything your TV says is Factual. Get back in line fellow slave.

      December 30, 2011 at 10:50 am | Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.