OT in a survey of 18-26 years olds

[broncosrb26]

I try to stay out of political debates but if the Republican Party would modernize on social issues then they would destroy this election. But they choose to be stubborn and stay stationary instead of evolve. Until then, they will continue to lose presidential elections.

 

[TigerEE91]

The 31% (Sanders), 18% (Obama), and 11% (Hillary) are much more atrocious than the 5% who like Cruz.

Okay dude. Enjoy the election results.

 

[B. Winstonworth]

Tuition was exploding well before 2008.

College debt wouldn't be half the problem it is now if students were majoring in fields that are in high demand and for-profit colleges taking advantage of students.

Republicans aren't the only ones cutting funding. CA has slashed it.

University of Vermont tuition: $14,664 for in-state. Why isn't it much lower in Bernie's state?

Tell this to kids who enrolled in law schools in 2007.

While I completely agree that students should be thinking much more about what they are studying and how it will fit in with their life goals, major choices have little to do with ballooning student loan debt in this country.

 

[iceheart08]

lots of old people ITT telling young people what they do and dont understand. I suppose when the young people tell you old folks what you do and dont understand its ok then to be outraged at the arrogance of the younger generation though right?

 

[TigerEE91]

I try to stay out of political debates but if the Republican Party would modernize on social issues then they would destroy this election. But they choose to be stubborn and stay stationary instead of evolve. Until then, they will continue to lose presidential elections.

So the Republican Party should try to change with the times and be progressive? Ummmmm.....

con·serv·a·tive
kənˈsərvədiv/
adjective

1. holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

Socialism is different than what these kids think it really is. That's why the leaders of Denmark and other Nordic countries get upset when Americans call them Socialist. Americans have a different definition of it than Europeans.

What Bernie and nuts like Jill Stein don't realize is that sharp tax increases will greatly affect behaviors. Most of their plans rest on the idea that the rich, for instance, will trade stocks at the same rate if taxes are raised sharply. I just bring this up to prove how most of the programs liberals want would cost far more than advertised.

There can be a happy medium between Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein. We could provide universal healthcare without bankrupting our country. Have you seen the most recent report about efficiency in healthcare? We are 50th out of 55 countries listed. And the most expensive overall. Is Obamacare perfect? Not close. Is it a good step? Yes. It needs major overhauling. But the younger generation realizes that things such as healthcare should be a priority, and should be funded.

Let me give you another example of how minor changes wont bankrupt our country. SC's roads are shite. But politicians are too spineless to increase the gas tax, which hasnt changed in like 30 years. Would an increase of another 18 cents bankrupt the country? Absolutely not. People might drive more efficient vehicles and might not have boats, etc. But bankruptcy is not going to happen.

The same can be said over many parts of the economy. Do I think free tuition to all is attainable? No. It's not. We have too many colleges for that. Is free community college attainable? You bet.

Like I said, a medium can be reached between Hillary and Jill Stein. And that's what most young people want. Another poster said "who cares, those kids dont vote anyway." Well, those kids will be voting in 15 years, and all the old white people will be dead. And when that happens, the country is going to look a lot different.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...re-system-ranks-as-one-of-the-least-efficient

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Barack Obama is no longer No. 1 in the hearts and minds of young Americans. Nearly one in three (31%) chose Bernie Sanders as the political figure they like and respect most, followed by President Obama (18%) and Hillary Clinton (11%). The Republicans don’t just lag behind, they limp, with Donald Trump in at 9%, Ted Cruz at 5%, and Marco Rubio at 3%.

Only 1/3 chose capitalism as the economic system they preferred. 58% chose socialism and 9% chose communism.

I assume these people have parents! What the hell are we teaching them?

Wonder what that number would be if you took college-aged kids out. I don't really think people in their late 20s and early 30s feel that way about economics. If younger people lean towards Sanders, I also don't think it's so much because they like his policies as it is because they see him as something different from the Democratic normal. Ironically, it's the same reason why more of them seem to like Trump than any other Republican.

 

[diehardtiger1989]

Feel free to call my 2 adult kids and high school age daughter and they will disagree with your poll.

I did my job!!

 

[bflow22]

I am a older Millennial by only a year or two and I hate everything about my generation. Bunch of spoiled morons. I attribute their stupidity and self entitlement to their parents who never taught them manners, discipline, respect of others, or how to be a man/woman both socially or fiscally. The little imbeciles are the ones that when they did something bad their parents would stick up for them rather than discipline them or beat their tail. The same ones who when they got in trouble at school their parents would blame the teacher who reported it and not the kid......

Yep those little jacklegs are all grown up now...... We saw it happening and it was only a matter of time.

 

[iceheart08]

i hate that jill stein is mentioned ITT as some kind of legitimate politician. she is a disaster and has no idea what she is talking about/doing.

@JillStein, please delete your account.

 

[andcam]

This is, literally, the dumbest thing I've read all day.

Ok. Can you refute it? I mean, everything I said is true. You may not like the truth (perhaps that is what you are saying), but it is the truth. That is the message that Bernie is delivering to College campuses and it is resonating. The part about the states cutting higher ed allocations is true as well. In fact, the state of SC cut the amount to higher ed so much in 2008/9 that it made the state ineligible for federal stimulus funds to help with K-12 teacher salaries and I believe it cost the state of SC like $70M (give or take). Guess who got that money? The other 49 states many of which cut higher ed but not to the level to where it was deemed outrageous by the feds. Basically the feds knew that states had to cut monies for K-12 and higher ed, etc but SC did it so much that it was extremely disproportional to the amount of budget shortfalls the state was facing in the great recession. I promise you that the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth strategies in 2008 - 2014 were to balance state budgets using higher ed. And that is exactly what happened in most states controlled by the GOP. And to an extreme level in SC.

Now, if you can refute what I am saying I would love to debate this issue with you. But you need to offer something other than "That is the dumbest thing I have read all day" because it makes your retort basically "The dumbest thing said all day" if you can't offer concrete areas as to where I am wrong.

 

[iceheart08]

Feel free to call my 2 adult kids and high school age daughter and they will disagree with your poll.

I did my job!!

you taught them to ignore scientific evidence? what would they disagree with? the existence of the poll?

 

[andcam]

Were the kids not aware of the costs of the education and the salaries of the jobs available to them when they decided to go to college? Seems like poor planning to go $60k in debt for a job paying $30k/yr

Some were in process and felt it was crazy to stop in the middle of their education. Others knew it was either do this or live with momma for the rest of their lives or go to work at Home Depot. While many knew the debt levels were high to begin with not getting a College degree in this economy is basically a death sentence. It was a rock and a hard place for many and I am guessing you would probably take on debt (and hope for the best) as opposed to taking a job at Hardees after high school as well.

 

[iceheart08]

Wonder what that number would be if you took college-aged kids out. I don't really think people in their late 20s and early 30s feel that way about economics. If younger people lean towards Sanders, I also don't think it's so much because they like his policies as it is because they see him as something different from the Democratic normal. Ironically, it's the same reason why more of them seem to like Trump than any other Republican.

agree with the first statement about economics. disagree with the second. I think that young people think his policies will be whats best for our country. I bet, if polled, they would agree overwhelmingly with the notion that healthcare is a right and that quality education should be attainable without having to pay 60k+ per year. They agree with his non-interventionist policies as well as his stance on trade (which i think is very wrong).

 

[andcam]

For anyone to produce the results of a survey in which the participants don't/can't understand nor comprehend the question is completely meaningless. Even though they "believe" they understand, just as most posters on here do, they have no idea what capitalism is. It's an impossible question to know if you have never experienced it for ourselves. Capitalism is a direct correlation to the freedom/liberty within a country, that's an historical fact. We can read about it, but how can I (we) fully appreciate capitalism if we have never been free? I know I haven't and neither have any of you.

I (we) own nothing, zero, nada, zilch. I don't anything of value (wealth), my car, my house, my property, my bank account, even the organs in my body. If I don't own these things of value (wealth), the logical question becomes, who does? You may think you do, but check again before you reply. The Constitution was written and explicitly outlines (the basis for every original amendment IS private property) that it was never supposed to be this way, but it is now, and for an 18-26 year old to understand this and for anyone to assume they can or will make an educated decision is laughable at best and sad as hell at worst. This applies to any age group in my opinion.

Your post is a good one IMO. And you are right that many probably dont understand the concept fully. But their "feelings" do matter and that is sort of the whole Trump phenomena in a nutshell. Many Trump voters feel that the country has left them behind even if that is not entirely the truth or even if that are partly to blame. This entire election cycle is pretty much on feelings as opposed to reason and I believe a lot of HRC voters fall into that cycle as well. This is an odd time for sure but it cant easily be discounted by simple reason. If so, Trump would have been gone early on in the process and the Republicans would be in the driver's seat about to elect Rubio or Kasich or Walker. Instead the two most unelectable people were chosen at the end (cruz too) because of the intensity of feelings.

 

[andcam]

I try to stay out of political debates but if the Republican Party would modernize on social issues then they would destroy this election. But they choose to be stubborn and stay stationary instead of evolve. Until then, they will continue to lose presidential elections.

So true!

 

[wta21080]

Okay dude. Enjoy the election results.

 

[EagleScoutCU15]

Disclaimer: Millennial (23); hate Bernie, Hillary, and Trump.

I get it, my generation sucks, but who raised us? Who made the participation trophies? Who gave so many of my peers their sense of entitlement? Thanks.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Spoken like a true moron. "it's not my fault college is so expensive and I have all this debt, and I can't get a job. No one told me that I wouldn't be able to get a job with a degree in philosophy, art history, or basket weaving"!

Personally, I don't think business majors even belong in a university. The people with the mindset that a college degree should directly correlate to a job should be going to vocational and technical schools.

But because democracy is such a large part of our culture, everyone thinks they ought to have the prestige of a tradional BA when what they really want is a certificate qualifying them to go into business. That, in my opinion, is the real reason for college tuition inflation and for the astronomical student loan debt that exists, not people who want to study academic subjects. If we'd just kept the bourgeios mentality out of colleges and kept them the elitist institutions they always had been, then BAs in the liberal arts would still be the degrees that qualified people for elite society and others who just wanted to go into business could be on a separate track. This is pretty similar to what's done in France and, I believe, Germany.

Obviously, though, that ship has sailed, and I imagine a lot of people would be offended even by the suggestion. That's part of the reason why it might be better to keep encouraging people to study the liberal arts within the modern American university, so that even many of the people who don't really care about a liberal education can still get some semblance of a comprehensive education.

 

[muddy05tiger]

Tell this to kids who enrolled in law schools in 2007.

While I completely agree that students should be thinking much more about what they are studying and how it will fit in with their life goals, major choices have little to do with ballooning student loan debt in this country.

My proof is that we graduate over 100k psych majors annually, yet have a shortage in STEM fields. Let's hope we don't truly need that many psych majors.

 

[MillerHighLife21]

“Under capitalism, man exploits man; under communism, it is the other way around’’

"We've never had capitalism." - Ron Paul

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

I want to find the 5% of young people who want to be like Ted Cruz and sterilize them. Immediately.

You mean being the son of an immigrant, going to Princeton and then Harvard, becoming Solicitor General of a state at 33 and then serving longer than any other Solicitor in state history, then being elected Senator, then coming in second for his party's nomination for president? Who'd want to do anything like that? Just because you don't like how the guy looks, or you do t like his politics, doesn't make the guy terrible.

 

[B. Winstonworth]

My proof is that we graduate over 100k psych majors annually, yet have a shortage in STEM fields. Let's hope we don't truly need that many psych majors.

Again, I agree that there are issues with the selection of majors. My point was this has almost nothing to do with the exceptional levels of student loan debt.

But to your broader point, do you really want the government subsidizing certain majors over others (that is, the government choosing which majors are valuable and which are not)? Do we really want kids who do not have the aptitude for or interest in STEM majors working in those fields afterwards?

I think the shortage arises from a classic educational economics issue. It is too costly for students with lower aptitudes to obtain a STEM degree at current demand/salaries.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

My proof is that we graduate over 100k psych majors annually, yet have a shortage in STEM fields. Let's hope we don't truly need that many psych majors.

That isn't really proof of anything. STEM is important, but it's not all that's important.

 

[iceheart08]

"We've never had capitalism." - Ron Paul

im curious. do you support total free market capitalism? no regulations on anything, let the free market decide?

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

agree with the first statement about economics. disagree with the second. I think that young people think his policies will be whats best for our country. I bet, if polled, they would agree overwhelmingly with the notion that healthcare is a right and that quality education should be attainable without having to pay 60k+ per year. They agree with his non-interventionist policies as well as his stance on trade (which i think is very wrong).

This could also describe support for Trump. But I don't really think these priorities are about advantage to the nation so much as they're about personal security and socializing the risk of what these kids are doing right now. I also don't really think they would care mich about the lip service pair tk any of these priorities by a politician if the politician just looked iconoclastic and authentic enough. My opinion is that our politics right now is very moody, so mostly not willing to deliberately engage in policy debate.

 

[muddy05tiger]

There can be a happy medium between Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein. We could provide universal healthcare without bankrupting our country. Have you seen the most recent report about efficiency in healthcare? We are 50th out of 55 countries listed. And the most expensive overall. Is Obamacare perfect? Not close. Is it a good step? Yes. It needs major overhauling. But the younger generation realizes that things such as healthcare should be a priority, and should be funded.

Let me give you another example of how minor changes wont bankrupt our country. SC's roads are shite. But politicians are too spineless to increase the gas tax, which hasnt changed in like 30 years. Would an increase of another 18 cents bankrupt the country? Absolutely not. People might drive more efficient vehicles and might not have boats, etc. But bankruptcy is not going to happen.

The same can be said over many parts of the economy. Do I think free tuition to all is attainable? No. It's not. We have too many colleges for that. Is free community college attainable? You bet.

Like I said, a medium can be reached between Hillary and Jill Stein. And that's what most young people want. Another poster said "who cares, those kids dont vote anyway." Well, those kids will be voting in 15 years, and all the old white people will be dead. And when that happens, the country is going to look a lot different.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...re-system-ranks-as-one-of-the-least-efficient

I'm really not even sure how there is a medium between HRC and Stein. One, HRC is all over the map, always has been. Two, Stein has ideas and that's about it. I actually agree with @iceheart08 (I feel dirty) that she isn't a legit candidate.

I agree SC could raise the state fuel tax. But I can't agree to a federal jump that high because some states already charge exorbitant tax rates on fuel. And that boat not being bought will hurt the economy. Is it worth your tradeoffs.

Community college is already free to single moms. It's also covered by the LIFE scholarship in SC. Most ppl qualify for financial aid. My point is that it's already free to most. You're arguing for something you already have, even in SC. I went to Greenville Tech prior to Clemson for four semesters. The ROI the taxpayers receive is atrocious. There's ppl there that are working their third AA at the age of 28.

While I agree HC needs to be more transparent, I disagree the ACA was close to a step in the right direction. You bring up medical efficiency ratings, but how efficient is Medicare, the VA, and Medicaid. I have a mother on Medicare and I saw the VA (yeah, all those great survey results were faked) first-hand with my dad. How are any of those a blueprint for success? Can you say with a straight face they're more efficient than privatized HC? When you can show me "Medicare" for all is a good idea from a cost and efficiency standpoint, I'll get on board with universal HC.

I've also spent lots of time in Australia. Their universal coverage is crap and England's stays in as much scandal as our VA.

 

[muddy05tiger]

Again, I agree that there are issues with the selection of majors. My point was this has almost nothing to do with the exceptional levels of student loan debt.

But to your broader point, do you really want the government subsidizing certain majors over others (that is, the government choosing which majors are valuable and which are not)? Do we really want kids who do not have the aptitude for or interest in STEM majors working in those fields afterwards?

I think the shortage arises from a classic educational economics issue. It is too costly for students with lower aptitudes to obtain a STEM degree at current demand/salaries.

How many of those psych majors graduated and found college graduate level work? What percentage are waiters?

You say they're not connected but they absolutely are.

I'm not say the govt should pay more over another, but I am saying I shouldn't be required to pay higher taxes for a very well educated waiter.

Society does not owe someone a college degree.

 

[muddy05tiger]

That isn't really proof of anything. STEM is important, but it's not all that's important.

Then what else is important besides attaining a college degree that's applicable to the real world?

I'm a poli sci major, so I know how useless it is to job hunt with a degree that's all but useless without grad school (now have an MBA).

 

[Blythewoodtigers]

im curious. do you support total free market capitalism? no regulations on anything, let the free market decide?

If you pose the question, "do you support total free market capitalism?", it literally begs the question, do you understand your own question? I have to assume no because you immediately followed with "no regulations on anything". Why would you want to pose a question if you don't understand it in the first place?

The true beauty of capitalism is the fact it is inherently LOADED with risk. Therefore, if you understand any normal business model, risk = regulation, i.e. no government involvement, i.e. more freedom, i.e. wealth increases. We can go back as far as you want in time, capitalism NEVER changes. As soon as an entity (usually government) attempts to regulate anything, the regulation becomes price manipulation in one form or another, there are several. These are not my opinions, these are facts.

The intent of a regulation is usually always a good one, the problem remains throughout history, none have EVER worked.

 

[Clemson5]

Then what else is important besides attaining a college degree that's applicable to the real world?

I'm a poli sci major, so I know how useless it is to job hunt with a degree that's all but useless without grad school (now have an MBA).

The importance of a college degree is one of the issues. Is a college degree truly necessary to be a personal banker? Salesman? Facility manager?

Edit - only implying here that the push towards the idea of "everyone needs a college degree to be successful and obtain employment" is so oversold. Only using your major as an example, and not you personally - but say someone went to school to study political science. Without getting a further graduate degree, what career path does that person qualify for? Is that degree required for that career path? There are just so many degrees that I think can be simplified and replaced by apprenticeships and true on the job training, without requiring a college degree.

 

[MillerHighLife21]

im curious. do you support total free market capitalism? no regulations on anything, let the free market decide?

I don't support extremes of anything, but I do support an informed free market. To that end, virtually any regulations or laws beyond accurate labeling or false advertising are unnecessary, excluding verifiably highly addictive substances

 

[toolucky52384]

The 31% (Sanders), 18% (Obama), and 11% (Hillary) are much more atrocious than the 5% who like Cruz.

the cruz voters scare me more than any of the above, and i'm a very religious republican.

the man is the epitome of sleaze.

 

[wta21080]

the cruz voters scare me more than any of the above, and i'm a very religious republican.

the man is the epitome of sleaze.

How so? Because the media and Trump supporters said so? Because he's not liked by the establishment? Just curious as to why you think this way.

 

[toolucky52384]

How so? Because the media and Trump supporters said so? Because he's not liked by the establishment? Just curious as to why you think this way.

Because the statements he made throughout the campaign were largely untrue or extremely out of context. Because he is too smart and too well informed to actually believe the things he was saying, which leads me to believe his intended audience was the mouth breathing lowest common denominator bottom feeders of the Republican party. When you don't have ideas or solutions you offer empty rhetoric and wear your faith on your sleeve as loudly as possible.

Remember, this is the guy who said he wanted to carpet bomb ISIS and kept repeating it even after editorials from military personnel indicated that didn't make any sense... why did he keep repeating it, because he wasn't going after well informed supporters, he was going after the brain dead and clueless.

 

[Blythewoodtigers]

I don't support extremes of anything, but I do support an informed free market. To that end, virtually any regulations or laws beyond accurate labeling or false advertising are unnecessary, excluding verifiably highly addictive substances

There is no need to say "free market capitalism", it is the same thing as just saying "capitalism", in your first sentence you are contradicting yourself.

My point is, capitalism is in no way, shape, form or fashion "extreme". "An informed free market" = capitalism. Laws and regulations that do not support private property rights are the ONLY obstacle(s) which cause capitalism to fail. In other words, what these young people see on TV are wall street financials and banks who can use regulations for monetary gain. Through the mechanisms of laws and regulations, they can create an environment with ZERO risk.

Imagine for a moment, if you could make bets, go to Vegas, gamble, knowing you were not going to lose! Is this environment capitalism? This is what these young people (everyone for that matter) see, they think this is capitalism, so their natural tendency is to want what these liars, cheaters, thief's want, i.e. a free ride (socialism).

 

[wta21080]

Because the statements he made throughout the campaign were largely untrue or extremely out of context. Because he is too smart and too well informed to actually believe the things he was saying, which leads me to believe his intended audience was the mouth breathing lowest common denominator bottom feeders of the Republican party. When you don't have ideas or solutions you offer empty rhetoric and wear your faith on your sleeve as loudly as possible.

Remember, this is the guy who said he wanted to carpet bomb ISIS and kept repeating it even after editorials from military personnel indicated that didn't make any sense... why did he keep repeating it, because he wasn't going after well informed supporters, he was going after the brain dead and clueless.

I get the carpet bombing statement. He messed himself up although carpet bombing wasn't in his plan. He actually reneged the carpet bombing statement and said that's not what he meant. Who knows? He did bring ideas and solutions to the table though. You said you were "very religious" and you're saying he's wrong for wearing his faith on his sleeve? BTW, I'm not saying Cruz was the answer by any means, I'm just curious as to why so many conservatives were against him.

 

[toolucky52384]

I get the carpet bombing statement. He messed himself up although carpet bombing wasn't in his plan. He actually reneged the carpet bombing statement and said that's not what he meant. Who knows? He did bring ideas and solutions to the table though. You said you were "very religious" and you're saying he's wrong for wearing his faith on his sleeve? BTW, I'm not saying Cruz was the answer by any means, I'm just curious as to why so many conservatives were against him.

he has a pattern of campaigning on false claims and out of context half truths, i get that he messed up the first time he said it, but he was back at saying it again even after the mess. he was an active participant in the gang of 8 immigration bill (which I would have supported with his amendment) and then campaigned that he was against the entire thing the whole time saying he was trying to de-rail the bill. I didn't like his attempt to defund obamacare, i think the legislature should be obliged to fund the laws it pass until the laws are repealed. i threw out that I am very religious because the religious are Cruz's core demographic and religion linked social policy is his bread and butter. I don't have any problem sharing my faith but i don't wear it on my sleave and I've always been uncomfortable with politicians who do so without also offering substantive problem solving and history of results, I never like the "vote for me because I'm the one that will do God's work candidate," much more in favor of the "yes Jesus Christ is my lord and savior but lets talk about my history of job creation and my plan for immigration reform" candidate.

Elections are about perceptions, and I've never perceived Cruz to be honest or principled. there were 3 candidates when things started that I said I could never vote for, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump.

 

[muddy05tiger]

The importance of a college degree is one of the issues. Is a college degree truly necessary to be a personal banker? Salesman? Facility manager?

Edit - only implying here that the push towards the idea of "everyone needs a college degree to be successful and obtain employment" is so oversold. Only using your major as an example, and not you personally - but say someone went to school to study political science. Without getting a further graduate degree, what career path does that person qualify for? Is that degree required for that career path? There are just so many degrees that I think can be simplified and replaced by apprenticeships and true on the job training, without requiring a college degree.

I have mixed feelings and somewhat agree with the premise of your argument. However, the continued specialization of our economy and businesses not desiring to put vast amounts of training into employees.

As a personal banker, you would need basic credit skills. As a salesman, it just depends. Assuming no college, how else would a business judge a candidate pool?

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

people love to say that they hate socialism but I don't see them sending back their social security checks or refusing medicare; can't have it both ways

"I want my country back, but don't you dare touch my medicare/social security" - tea party town hall attendee

Just so you are aware Social security is an annuity program in which recipients pay in and Medicare is NOT free but a subsidized insurance program in which the insured pays similar to Obama Care