<p>futurenyustudent, are you going to want to pay 9% of your paycheck to medicare when you are in your forties?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Silly we already have that. It’s called Democrats vs. Evangelical Republicans :)</p>
<p>
Another myth 18-29 was 16 percent of the vote. 65+ was 17 percent. Old people don’t outnumber in voting, they outnumber in LOBBYING. Same thing with how Jews are 2 percent of our population but we throw away millions and billions to Israel because of AIPAC.</p>
<p>gottaloveucla, </p>
<p>What we give to Israel is chump change compared to what we give to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc.</p>
<p>We just give those countries money in different ways. </p>
<p>In the last 5 years, the net worth of Saudi Arabia, Iran and even Iraq has gone up trillions of dollars.</p>
<p>Nice energy policy we have… but that’s a different topic.</p>
<p>I get a little angry everytime I see the social security tax taken out of my paycheck, knowing that I likely will never see a penny of that money again.</p>
<p>I am rooting for the young people. Today’s seniors are the greedy and have an extraordinary sense of entitlement.</p>
<p>Past history shows that our view of the future is largely inaccurate and we are probably concerned about the wrong things.</p>
<p>History also shows an unstoppable growth in institutions, especially governments. I am sure we will be funding social security, medicare, universal healthcare, etc. There are plenty of resources to take care of our basic needs, but maybe not some of our grandiose plans as world leaders.</p>
<p>With respect to e-communications, we retiring babyboomers also know what we are doing.</p>
<p>Those “old people” several of you are railing against are the ones that built the society you are benefiting from, you ungrateful little wretches. I personally consider it an honor and a privilege to support my parents’ generation. I hope none of you ever have to face old age and infirmity with a younger generation who shares your belief system.</p>
<p>
That’s complete misinformation. We haven’t bought oil from Iran in 25 years. And purchasing oil is different from a handout. Despicable that you would compare the two.</p>
<p>I am still unhappy about this concept that old people vote more than young people. 17 percent of the voting pop. is 65+. 18-29 is 16 percent. It’s the lobby, the LOBBY. Special interest groups like AIPAC, NRA, and AARP are destroying this country from within.</p>
<p>gottaloveucla, why don’t you start a thread how the Israeli lobby is running ruining the country with its $3 billion a year handout?</p>
<p>I’m talking trillions and trillions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Old people vote. Young people don’t. What’s so hard to understand about that? From a Washington Post article summing up Census Bureau data on the 2004 election:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, not only do people in the oldest age group vote at a rate about 50% higher than the youngest voters, the older the voter, the more likely they are to vote. In other words, the people most likely to benefit from government aid to old people vote the most, and those most likely to be caring for them (ages 45-60) vote in the next highest proportions. The youngest voters, who have the least to lose, the lowest maturity, and who have not yet come to grips with the realities of life, vote the least often. This pattern has not changed since I earned my degree in Political Science in the 1970s. Young people in the US have been voting in lower proportions forever, and I see nothing to indicate that this statistic is likely to change.</p>
<p>As they say. Damned statistics. It’s not good to look at what percentage of old people vote vs. what percent of young people vote. You have to take all the people that voted and look to see what group they fit into. A common error. </p>
<p>So if you take this CNN [CNN.com</a> Election 2004](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html]CNN.com”>CNN.com Election 2004) from 2004 you see how it works. 18-29 was 17 percent of the voting pop. and 60+ was 24 percent. If you made the mark at 65 they would be about 18 percent. This shows that as a proportion of the electorate the elderly are equal to those between 18-29.</p>
<p>True, Washdad, and also, as they get older and start voting more, the key point is they will be getting older, and may just want to rethink that “war” strategy. I mean, we’re all gonna get old. Or not. right?</p>
<p>Personally, I hope and trust I didn’t bring up that kind of younger generation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless math has changed, that’s about 50% more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t you think the issues for 62-year-olds are pretty much the same as 67-year-olds? I don’t think moving the line from 60 to 65 adds much value to the numbers.</p>
<p>The most impressive thing in your reference, I think, is that the people most likely to be helping older family members (age 45-59) combined with the 60+ made up 54% of the vote. That’s a powerhouse combination. No way that “age politics” will be won by the young as the boomers get older.</p>
<p>With any luck, young voters who favor leaving old people to retire in trailers eating dry catfood will keep voting for people like Ralph Nader – neutralizing their votes and giving them no real voice in the government.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ALERT: This is half-joke, half serious. Your parents generation gave us JFK, the automobile, LBJ, and hell even Nixon. Your bone-headed generation gave us Ronald Reagan, two Bushes, and Dan Quayle. Payback is a *****. Lolz.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you read carefully you’d notice I live in California. The general rule I tend to abide by as a voter is to vote for the Dem. if it’s a tight race, but vote my conscience (Green) if the conclusion is foregone. If I was in Florida in 2000 I would have voted for Gore, but I wasn’t.</p>