Libertarian poll: Millennials are … pretty liberal, actually

posted at 6:41 pm on July 10, 2014 by Allahpundit

The good folks at Reason did their best to frame the data here as proof that young adults are skeptics of government at heart, but skim through the major findings and decide for yourself. Millennials do have some right-wing leanings, of course — they’re open in principle to cutting taxes and spending, prefer to see wealth distributed according to achievement, and, most importantly, heavily favor privatized Social Security accounts. (They’re also basically libertarian on issues like gay marriage, marijuana, and banning Big Gulps.) That’s a sign of growing awareness of the entitlement crisis among the generation that’s going to suffer the most from it. Dare we hope that they might be serious about balancing America’s books?

Actually, no. We daren’t.

74 percent of millennials say government has a responsibility to guarantee every citizen has a place to sleep and enough to eat..

69 percent say it is government’s responsibility to guarantee everyone access to health care and 51 percent have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act

68 percent say government should ensure everyone makes a living wage

66 percent say raising taxes on the wealthy would help the economy…

58 percent say the government should spend more on assistance to the poor even it means higher taxes

Not so libertarianish. One interesting question, which cuts both ways, was whether they favor a larger government that provides more services or a smaller government that provides fewer services. When you ask the question that way, they prefer larger government; Millennials like the idea of Uncle Sam lending a helping hand. When, however, you tweak the question to emphasize that larger government also means higher taxes, the results flip. Suddenly, a majority prefers smaller government to a large one. The good news there, of course, is that the more young adults come to grips with the cost of Great Society II, the less eager they are for it. The bad news is that they’re starting from a preference for bigger government, and even when you mention higher taxes, there’s still a sizable 41 percent in favor. If all of this seems hopelessly muddled to you — they prefer smaller government if it means higher taxes, but they support raising taxes to spend more on the poor? — that’s okay. It’s classically American to be small-government in principle and big-government in practice, a point Kevin Williamson emphasized a few months ago in arguing that Rand Paul’s 2016 candidacy is doomed:

When it comes to balancing the budget, Paul is more likely to cut off aid to your mom. That’s where the money is. We spend almost all of the federal budget on a handful of programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense. So any plausible, politically sustainable campaign to impose some sanity on America’s national finances is going to mean reforming—i.e., cutting—all of those. How unpopular is that? Solid majorities of Americans oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits and raising taxes to pay for them, even though a larger majority also believes that the cost of those programs will create economic problems. The number of people who think we spend too much on the military hasn’t topped the 50-percent mark since the Vietnam War. Think about George W. Bush’s attempt at Social Security reform, which left him the loneliest man in Washington. Or consider that in 2012, fiscal conservative wonk-emperor Paul Ryan ran for the vice presidency on a campaign that blasted the Obama administration for making Medicare cuts. Which is to say, even the man in Washington most associated with the words “fiscal conservative” knows better than to run as one. Fiscal conservatives might applaud Rand Paul when he talks about getting Afghan President Hamid Karzai off of welfare, but they’ll scream if he comes within five miles of their Social Security checks. Any candidate who’s serious about fiscal reform is going to be a hard sell in 2016—or any other year.

Like I say, the most hopeful spin you can put on the Reason poll is that Millennials might be more receptive to entitlement reform than the average voter, if only because they’re less convinced that entitlements will be there for them than other generations are. To get them to play ball, though, you need to overcome their big-government sympathies, all of which will be stoked endlessly by lefties bleating about the “social safety net” if/when reform gathers any momentum. How lucky do you feel?

Speaking of Paul, one more interesting finding from the Reason poll via Andrew Kirell. Apparently, at least among Millennials, the great conservative/libertarian alliance ain’t so great:

libs

Millennials who think of themselves as “liberals” are far more open to voting for a libertarian-ish candidate like Paul than self-identified “conservatives” from the same age group is. But that makes sense, right? On college campuses, it’s rarely fiscal issues that animate the most passionate activism. It’s social and cultural issues, probably because they’re usually more accessible and because many (most?) young adults are focused more on building their identities than on pocketbook matters. (Although, post-recession, that might be changing.) Fiscal concerns are something you tend to pick up as you age and start paying attention to your paycheck. Go figure that the age demographic that’s closest to its college years might still be more interested in a candidate’s social agenda than his fiscal one, which explains why young liberals might take a hard look at someone who’s socially liberal and fiscally conservative whereas young conservatives are less inclined. Is that good news or bad news for Rand, who’s eager to reach out to Democratic Millennials but has to survive a primary with Republican Millennials first?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The leftists are hardly ever liberal.

1001 items on display.

Media blackout at the border, like under Hitler, exhibit 1.

Schadenfreude on July 10, 2014 at 6:44 PM

58 percent say the government should spend more on assistance to the poor even it means higher taxes

Until they get a job.

darwin on July 10, 2014 at 6:44 PM

Libertarian poll: Millennials are … pretty liberal Stupid, actually

Fix’d that for ya AP… Now just impeach Obama.

oscarwilde on July 10, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Then we conservative parents should kick them out of the basement and force them to experience the policies they have voted for.

Wino on July 10, 2014 at 6:46 PM

How can one be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time?

darwin on July 10, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Look, if you’re under 30, there’s a pretty good chance your politics are a result of your complete and utter ignorance of anything resembling reality.

BKeyser on July 10, 2014 at 6:47 PM

Shocka!

Splashman on July 10, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Haven’t met a smart one yet.

CurtZHP on July 10, 2014 at 6:48 PM

How can one be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time?

darwin on July 10, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Drugs, lots and lots of drugs. Once they have to start paying their own bills, everything changes.

oscarwilde on July 10, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Is that good news or bad news for Rand, who’s eager to reach out to Democratic Millennials but has to survive a primary with Republican Millennials first?

Bad news. It means that Rand has a constituency, but they’re on the other side of the aisle.

Stoic Patriot on July 10, 2014 at 6:48 PM

How can one be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time?

darwin on July 10, 2014 at 6:46 PM

And that, children, is what’s known as a rhetorical question.

Splashman on July 10, 2014 at 6:49 PM

So they’re self-centered liberals whose major interest so far as their elders is concerned is how many of their teeth they can kick in.

Steve Eggleston on July 10, 2014 at 6:49 PM

From the everybody-gets-a-trophy generation.

BuckeyeSam on July 10, 2014 at 6:50 PM

Not surprised.

DisneyFan on July 10, 2014 at 6:50 PM

We spend almost all of the federal budget on a handful of programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense.

Actually, we spend virtually all tax revenue on entitlements. In 2011 we spent every cent just on entitlements.

We borrow to run the government and the defense department.

By the time Obama leaves office and he has successfully flooded the nation with millions more poor, uneducated and unskilled illegals we will have to borrow just to cover entitlements.

Yay!!!!

darwin on July 10, 2014 at 6:51 PM

(They’re also basically libertarian on issues like gay marriage, marijuana, and banning Big Gulps.)

Lets be perfectly clear, it is not libertarian to support a big government that steal money from productive citizens to pay for the degenerate self destructive lifestyles of other citizens.
THAT IS NOT LIBERTARIAN, that is regressive where they work hard to create an ever larger base of government dependents to vote for the big government.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Is the hammock free too, or do I have to buy it?

RBMN on July 10, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Who said the public schools have not been doing their job?

CW on July 10, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Then we conservative parents should kick them out of the basement and force them to experience the policies they have voted for.

Wino on July 10, 2014 at 6:46 PM

As a good conservative parent, you should been teaching them that there is no free lunch from the git go.

Bakokitty on July 10, 2014 at 6:53 PM

How can one be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time?

darwin on July 10, 2014 at 6:46 PM

You support spending someone else’s money./

CW on July 10, 2014 at 6:53 PM

How can one be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time?

darwin on July 10, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Most everyone I know describe themselves this way.

John the Libertarian on July 10, 2014 at 6:55 PM

I wish people would stop using the term “liberal” to describe these statists. They have nothing in common with Classical Liberalism because they don’t understand and they don’t respect the rights of individuals citizens.

Murf76 on July 10, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Most everyone I know describe themselves this way.

John the Libertarian on July 10, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Are they typically confused a lot?

darwin on July 10, 2014 at 6:56 PM

How can one be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time?

darwin on July 10, 2014 at 6:46 PM

That is easy in thought.
Get rid of the entire welfare state.
Say people can do what they want socially, but cannot vote for a welfare state.
Make anyone who does socially degenerate activities go to others and beg for what will sustain them when they are incapable of sustaining themselves.

Now then, we might have to go back a few generations and get rid of a few other laws other than the simple welfare system. For example, punching a degenerate who just insulted you or a woman should not be considered a crime for example. Society had far more than just government to enforce social mores in the past. We should bring them back.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Are they typically confused a lot?

darwin on July 10, 2014 at 6:56 PM

High-achievers, mostly. Post grads, etc. Live and let live, just stay out of my wallet.

John the Libertarian on July 10, 2014 at 6:58 PM

prefer to see wealth distributed according to achievement

That is NOT a conservative principle. Remove the word ‘distribution’, and add ‘free to succeed or fail entirely free of governmental interference’.

NotCoach on July 10, 2014 at 6:59 PM

The definition of being young is being dumb. The very nature of being young is to be dumb and ignorant.

I have never understood why we look at young people with this idea that what they think is somehow important to how the country should be run.

Would you take a guy just enrolled into medical school and ask his how brain surgery should be done? That is basically the same thing here. Why care what young ignorant people who know zero about life think how things should be done.

If anything the most important people to listen to are senior citizens.

There is a reason people tend to become conservative as they get older. You become wise and have lived life.

The Notorious G.O.P on July 10, 2014 at 7:00 PM

When Harry Browne ran as the Libertarian candidate for President in 2000, he continually asked the following question (he called it the “Great Libertarian Offer”) — the answer to which we, tragically, know for the vast majority of now (I hesitate to call them) Americans:

“Would you be willing to give up your favorite federal government program if it meant never having to pay income tax again?”

We are so scroomed …

ShainS on July 10, 2014 at 7:00 PM

darwin on July 10, 2014 at 6:46 PM

The only way it could be done, and it would a long shot at that, would be to privatize social services provided by government

Otherwise, forget it. Socially liberal always ends up with big-government social welfare programs that cost more than they should and are rarely ever run cost-efficiently.

lineholder on July 10, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Libertarian poll: Millennials are … pretty liberal easily conned with bread & circuses, actually

Corrected for accuracy.

Judge_Dredd on July 10, 2014 at 7:00 PM

prefer to see wealth distributed according to achievement

That is NOT a conservative principle. Remove the word ‘distribution’, and add ‘free to succeed or fail entirely free of governmental interference’.

NotCoach on July 10, 2014 at 6:59 PM

Actually, it is a conservative principle. It’s called the meritocracy. It’s just not a libertarian principle.

Stoic Patriot on July 10, 2014 at 7:01 PM

If all the millenials want is to smoke weed, legalize butt sex, and butcher some African American babies, and in exchange they are willing to end the Federal Reserve and flatten tax system, please sign me up as a millenial. On second thought, skip weed and butt sex.

Rix on July 10, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Actually, it is a conservative principle. It’s called the meritocracy. It’s just not a libertarian principle.

Stoic Patriot on July 10, 2014 at 7:01 PM

No, it’s not. The word ‘distribution’ makes it anything BUT conservative.

NotCoach on July 10, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Butt sex eh?

Judge_Dredd on July 10, 2014 at 7:03 PM

What do you expect from a generation that thinks ‘Game of Thrones’ is actual history.

sentinelrules on July 10, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Given the tremendous amount of indoctrination they are subject to, these are not bad results…I find it encouraging that things “flip” when they are reminded that someone must pay for things…

They are YOUNG. Hence, most are very, very naïve. They have not paid taxes or had to pay rent, etc., in many cases. Again, these are not nearly as bad as one might expect…

What I would really like to see is their responses by age. I suspect that as they get older they become more conservative. I am sure not conservative enough for some (or me) but all is not lost with this generation once they get some skin in the game…

Entrephil on July 10, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Fix’d that for ya AP… Now just impeach Obama.

oscarwilde on July 10, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Nice …

[FYI -- typos in the headline and first paragraph -- "too" instead of "to" ...]

ShainS on July 10, 2014 at 7:03 PM

High-achievers, mostly. Post grads, etc. Live and let live, just stay out of my wallet.

John the Libertarian on July 10, 2014 at 6:58 PM

Live and let live is fine. Socially liberal also includes all the entitlement goodies like free health care and taxpayer funded abortion and birth control. Socially liberal is amnesty.

To mean a liberal society is a free society. Free of government intervention and coercion. In today’s context it just means free stuff bought with taxpayer money.

darwin on July 10, 2014 at 7:04 PM

This country is basically operating on borrowed time. We can get excited about winning some elections here and there as if it’ll make a difference in the end, but it won’t ever be enough. Like a little hot streak in blackjack, it feels good to win, but you know it’s only temporary.

There are just too many structural problems with fixing this government. It’s too easy to blame Obama these days, but he is only the symptom of a culture that has begat an electorate that has become too ignorant and lazy to know any better than to replace him let alone elect him in the first place.

We look at red state economic strength vis-a-vis the blue state model and wonder why the country doesn’t wake up. We look at places like Monaco with their 0% income tax rate and 0% unemployment rate and wonder why that can’t be us. The left looks at them with contempt and anger that they can’t steal their money.

Our political opposition is dumb and driven by envy and greed, and their ranks are growing. The country is finished. Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted.

crrr6 on July 10, 2014 at 7:06 PM

No, it’s not. The word ‘distribution’ makes it anything BUT conservative.

NotCoach on July 10, 2014 at 7:02 PM

“Distribution” simply refers to the manner in which a resource is spread out. If some people work very hard and some people work very little, and if people are rewarded in proportion to their efforts, then there won’t be a uniform distribution of wealth. Some people will end up with a lot, others will have a little.

Stoic Patriot on July 10, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Now then, we might have to go back a few generations and get rid of a few other laws other than the simple welfare system. For example, punching a degenerate who just insulted you or a woman should not be considered a crime for example. Society had far more than just government to enforce social mores in the past. We should bring them back.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Agreed. Freedom if speech does not mean freedom to say things that offend other people.

Wait, what?

RINO in Name Only on July 10, 2014 at 7:06 PM

The only way it could be done, and it would a long shot at that, would be to privatize social services provided by government

Otherwise, forget it. Socially liberal always ends up with big-government social welfare programs that cost more than they should and are rarely ever run cost-efficiently.

lineholder on July 10, 2014 at 7:00 PM

I just don’t think the two are compatible.

If the democrats ever became responsible with taxpayer money the party would die. They offer nothing else.

darwin on July 10, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Who said the public schools have not been doing their job?

CW on July 10, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Exactly – all they have heard since grammar school is liberal garbage. Hopefully some of them will unlearn the crap when they hit the real world… but I don’t have much hope. I think we lost the war in the 60′s when the left infiltrated the school systems…

unaffiliated on July 10, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Hot Intell Rumour:

Israeli-Palestinian conflict
1h
Editor’s note: Several reports indicate that Israel is planning on executing a ground military operation in a matter of hours. We are monitoring the situation. – Jillian

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on July 10, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Agreed. Freedom if speech does not mean freedom to say things that offend other people.

Wait, what?

RINO in Name Only on July 10, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Freedom of speech restrains the hands of the government. NOT the hands of the people. You should learn a bit about constitutions.

We are free to express ourselves without the government coming along and shutting us up.
The idea of fighting words needs to be expanded to where it was in the past. Once you utter those fighting words you are at the mercy of the other person as to what they will do up to a limit on physical harm.

Of course, if you want to argue otherwise, feel free to show me the libertarian society that did not give deference and preference to the virtuous in these situations.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 7:11 PM

Dare we hope that they might be serious about balancing America’s books?
========================================================================

Sounds like there too busy being stoned thinking about stupid sh*t!!!

canopfor on July 10, 2014 at 7:12 PM

darwin on July 10, 2014 at 7:07 PM

They aren’t directly compatible. Not in the least. Particularly with the Dems. And you’re right…they’ll never give that up.

lineholder on July 10, 2014 at 7:13 PM

69 percent say it is government’s responsibility to guarantee everyone access to health care and 51 percent have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act

Maybe my English is rusty. But . . .

Just when did the meaning of “access to” change to “pay for”?

Lolo on July 10, 2014 at 7:13 PM

and you got one writing here for you now.
so…

dmacleo on July 10, 2014 at 7:14 PM

Why would this be a surprise. Every question is do you want free stuff. Follow the money. Unfortunately for them as has been said before economics eventually trumps politics.

It will be a hard lesson. Like many here when young I learned to work, live on not much and be happy. It ended well. Glad I learned it young because learning that now would be tough.

CW20 on July 10, 2014 at 7:15 PM

But … but … but … Rand Paul spoke to college students in Berkeley, and they applauded, and stuff.

Pork-Chop on July 10, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Lolo on July 10, 2014 at 7:13 PM

From a socially liberal viewpoint, health insurance and health care are one and the same. That’s where the paying for it part comes in.

(I’ve had more arguments with Liberals over that point than I could count)

lineholder on July 10, 2014 at 7:16 PM

test – did HA borrow the huffinglue post’s comment filters today?

crrr6 on July 10, 2014 at 7:17 PM

As a long time Prof. of Chemical Engineering who gave up several years ago, I am not sanguine. . .

I can tell you that millennials I taught are/were by and large lazy, both physically and intellectually. They feel that they deserve far more than they have earned by any reasonable standard, and probably even well beyond their ability to contribute/earn.

I can only imagine what millennials who are/were not relatively serious about getting a useful skillset are like.

I imagine they cannot take inputs and generate a reasonable, independent response – even as a well as the supposedly bright people in engineering.

Yes we can!

ha_tspc on July 10, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Maybe my English is rusty. But . . .

Just when did the meaning of “access to” change to “pay for”?

Lolo on July 10, 2014 at 7:13 PM

The day doctors nearly universally started demanding payment for their services. If you have no way to persuade the doctor to do something for you, then you have no access.
There is no God Given right to your needs. You have no natural right to your needs. That is libertarian.
You have the right to freely trade one form of wealth for your needs and you have the right to beg others to provide for you needs.
Need food? Earn it or beg for it. If neither works, you go hungry and better up your game! That is libertarian.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM

There are just too many structural problems with fixing this government. It’s too easy to blame Obama these days, but he is only the symptom of a culture that has begat an electorate that has become too ignorant and lazy to know any better than to replace him let alone elect him in the first place.

We look at red state economic strength vis-a-vis the blue state model and wonder why the country doesn’t wake up. We look at places like Monaco with their 0% income tax rate and 0% unemployment rate and wonder why that can’t be us. The left looks at them with contempt and anger that they can’t steal their money.

Our political opposition is dumb and driven by envy and greed, and their ranks are growing. The country is finished. Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted.

crrr6 on July 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM

kids are only fiscally conservative in that THEY don’t want to have to pay for all the goodies they think the govt should provide. Honestly never saw much difference between liberal and libertarians except libertarians seem to be more into circling the wagons and letting the rest of the word burn while liberals think we should take care of the world.

katiejane on July 10, 2014 at 7:22 PM

There are just too many structural problems with fixing this government. It’s too easy to blame Obama these days, but he is only the symptom of a culture that has begat an electorate that has become too ignorant and lazy to know any better than to replace him let alone elect him in the first place.

We look at red state economic strength vis-a-vis the blue state model and wonder why the country doesn’t wake up. We look at places like Monaco with their 0% income tax rate and 0% unemployment rate and wonder why that can’t be us. The left looks at them with contempt and anger that they can’t steal their money.

Our political opposition is dumb and driven by envy and greed, and their ranks are growing. The country is finished. Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted.

crrr6 on July 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM

The single biggest structural problem of this nation is Social Security. It is the bedrock of nearly every other welfare program. It is the bedrock for the creation of ever dumber children. The dumber they are, the longer you can convince them to keep supporting the older generations who are not willing to face the fact that those social security taxes and medicare taxes were not being set aside for their future use. No matter what, they demand they get their money back, to hell with the fact that the money has to be taken from someone innocent.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 7:23 PM

74 percent of millennials say government has a responsibility to guarantee every citizen has a place to sleep and enough to eat..

69 percent say it is government’s responsibility to guarantee everyone access to health care and 51 percent have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act

68 percent say government should ensure everyone makes a living wage

Game, set, match.

prefer to see wealth distributed according to achievement

^ That’s not conservative.

Axe on July 10, 2014 at 7:24 PM

On behalf of my fellow young folks, I apolo – oh, heck. They’re morons.

Othniel on July 10, 2014 at 7:25 PM

The picture is misleading.

Millennials are liberal to the extent that they’re largely minority.

Pointing to generations is not an apples to apples comparison (which is not to say that it’s any less significant electorally). But it’s not the case that Kids These Days (by which the implication is always Silly White Kids) spend so much time Twittering on their dotcoms that they’re taking a second look at Marx.

Romney won white Millennials. And Romney was not particularly close to winning the election. Demographics are changing; blacks have been generating kids and Latinos are doing likewise and emigrating en masse. “Other” has been doing the same, albeit from a smaller starting point. White Boomers and Gen Xers checked out, worried about Having It All.

HitNRun on July 10, 2014 at 7:27 PM

The people at Reason has long since stopped being real Libertarians. They switched sides twenty years ago when they adopted the personal autonomy agenda over the liberty agenda. They went from following Hayek and von Mises to Rand and Rothbard. Of course the Millennials sound Libertarian to the faux Libertarians at Reason. Sex rights and drug rights are at the pinnacle of their agenda and that is why they see these non existant “libertarian” impulses in Generation Null.

Personal autonomy is the enemy of liberty because a true libertarian society has strong private social institutions. These social institutions place far more constraints on autonomy that does government. Faux Libertarians are just as much at war with civil society as are Progressives. There is something that these faux Libertarians have forgotten. You can’t have functioning markets and political liberty without a strong civil society. Autonomy is a myth. Unless you are a hermit your personal autonomy will always be severely constrained.

jerryofva on July 10, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Othniel on July 10, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Your age group got swamped with the indoctrination more so than ours.

That isn’t an excuse, but it does explain why they have the viewpoint they have.

lineholder on July 10, 2014 at 7:28 PM

This generation of kids can’t help it; they don’t know how to be anything else. Very few parents work at teaching them the true value
of money, perseverance and self-reliance. And for the parents who try, they have to compete with heavy outside influences (school, social media, other clueless kids). When you grow up getting praise and trophies for just showing up, this is how you shape society: the sense of entitlement runs deep because it has been reinforced for decades.

ImmigrantsWife on July 10, 2014 at 7:30 PM

jerryofva on July 10, 2014 at 7:27 PM

That is a great way of saying it.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 7:31 PM

ImmigrantsWife on July 10, 2014 at 7:30 PM

I agree, a large degree of the guilt for this lies at the feet of the parents.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 7:33 PM

My peer group is largely made up of idiots.

Cheshire_Kat on July 10, 2014 at 7:33 PM

69 percent say it is government’s responsibility to guarantee everyone access to health care and 51 percent have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act

Maybe my English is rusty. But . . .

Just when did the meaning of “access to” change to “pay for”?

Lolo on July 10, 2014 at 7:13 PM

That’s interesting. :)

“Access to health care” is apparently an idiom, meaning “treatment.” 69% of people say, then, “it is government’s responsibility to guarantee everyone treatment” –which means pay for it when necessary.

. . . I’m not sure the concept of looking to charitable support will even dawn on anyone from here on out (or the concept of a limited government). The other side of that will probably be that the urgency in supporting charitable causes will be gone.

Who needs ‘em?

Axe on July 10, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Axe on July 10, 2014 at 7:34 PM

I don’t know how it could be an idiom.
Access to something means the ability to obtain it.

Do I have access to a locked house without the key? Does walking up to the door and knocking give me access?
The same is true of medical care. You have no access if you have not ability to get treated. Well, i got to the admitting room of the hospital, but they will not treat me, do I have access to medical care?

Do I have access to credit if I do not have a credit card?

Do I have access to my bank account if I do not have an ID to convince them I am who I am?

In all these cases the item exists, but there is no access to it.

You might want to pick a different term to call an idiom, because access means exactly what it means. The ability to use something.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 7:41 PM

I don’t know how it could be an idiom.
Access to something means the ability to obtain it.

Do I have access to a locked house without the key? Does walking up to the door and knocking give me access?
The same is true of medical care. You have no access if you have not ability to get treated. Well, i got to the admitting room of the hospital, but they will not treat me, do I have access to medical care?

Do I have access to credit if I do not have a credit card?

Do I have access to my bank account if I do not have an ID to convince them I am who I am?

In all these cases the item exists, but there is no access to it.

You might want to pick a different term to call an idiom, because access means exactly what it means. The ability to use something.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 7:41 PM

I don’t know what you’re getting at.

I have access to barbecued chicken right now, but I can’t pay for it so I’m not eating it.

Axe on July 10, 2014 at 7:45 PM

I agree, a large degree of the guilt for this lies at the feet of the parents.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Yes. My mom can explain in great detail the recent phases of parenting styles and their effects, because she has watched it happen. I see the effects, and while I agree that parenting is a large part of the problem, I also know that ultimately we make our own choices. My peers tend to make bad choices. However, as they get older, I have seen them become increasingly more reasonable. So don’t lose hope.

Cheshire_Kat on July 10, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Well then they’ll be the generation who gets the full brunt of the miracles that only leftism can provide.

I’d pay money to be able to hear the first guy say “Ummm…do these cattle cars heading east have wifi?” just for the laughs.

Bishop on July 10, 2014 at 7:51 PM

My mom can explain in great detail the recent phases of parenting styles and their effects, because she has watched it happen.

Cheshire_Kat on July 10, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Dr. Benjamin Spock may have, among so many, been THE prime mover in ultimately destroying America

I’d pay money to be able to hear the first guy say “Ummm…do these cattle cars heading east have wifi?” just for the laughs.

Bishop on July 10, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Heh.

ShainS on July 10, 2014 at 7:56 PM

“Gay Marriage” and drug legalization are not small-government libertarianism. Both involve using big government to prevent people from acting in a moral way.

Count to 10 on July 10, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Millennial and a proud liberal, checking in.

beverlyfreaks on July 10, 2014 at 7:57 PM

There is an old saying that if you’re a conservative at 20, you have no heart, but if you’re a liberal at 40, you have no head. I must not have had a heart in my youth.

College Prof on July 10, 2014 at 8:00 PM

To get them to play ball, though, you need to overcome their big-government sympathies, all of which will be stoked endlessly by lefties bleating about the “social safety net” if/when reform gathers any momentum. How lucky do you feel?

Wrong. The mistake that is always made is the cold turkey approach, or the all or nothing approach. The correct approach is the divide and conquer approach, which by the way has worked for the democrats well.

For example, you play millennials off against social security by arguing that they are not going to get it anyway, and worse yet they it will eat into programs that might be useful for them. So they will be receptive to raising the age for getting social security, means testing for social security, and for private alternatives for SS if they wish to checkout getting (or paying for) SS at all. So right there we have started the process of getting SS under control.

We can use this tactic on all sorts of government programs, by playing one government program off against another. This is possible because so many millennials are selfish and single children. They want magic programs that help them but don’t wish to pay for them or other programs that don’t help them. By using that selfishness to work for us, we can use the argument that we have to save a government program, by gutting another government program (one that group does not care much about). In essence make big government eat itself.

Start off by looking the government programs most Americans don’t like and kill their funding, including the IRS. To me the best way to starve he beast is to starve the people who prepare the food and millennials being as selfish and stupid as they are will not connect the cutting of IRS funding to less government revenue. Of course it will create a lot more tax cheats, but that is life.

Also use the nice sounding phrase of “government reform”. That sounds better to their sensitive ears than “government cutter”. Most young people I think get government is incompetent, but they still hope (how precious) that it can be fixed so they are susceptible to that argument. Obviously “government reform” means “cutting government” but the dumb and young need not be told that.

In fact by taking on the mantle of “government reformer” you can paint the democrats as “government corrupters”…oh that sounds good…I need to patent that…

We are not conservatives…we are reformers…democrats are corruptors of government, the constitution, and freedom…

Yes…I am brilliant sometimes…

William Eaton on July 10, 2014 at 8:04 PM

The millennials I know are seriously liberal and would have voted for Obama twice…. If they voted.

Since they are somewhat disenfranchised from society due to underemployment, the marriage and home-buying is delayed and they haven’t clued into what people mean by soul-sucking taxation and regulation.

So, they don’t vote. Thank God.

Tard on July 10, 2014 at 8:13 PM

Wait until that first hard collision with reality.

formwiz on July 10, 2014 at 8:24 PM

I don’t know what you’re getting at.

I have access to barbecued chicken right now, but I can’t pay for it so I’m not eating it.

Axe on July 10, 2014 at 7:45 PM

If you cannot pay for it and are unwilling to steal it then you do not in fact have access to chicken. Look the word up.

I suppose by your logic I have access to the mega millions jackpot.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 8:31 PM

I am on the Millennial border, I am VERY far right fiscally (flat tax, lose welfare, social security and medicare, etc.) and am socially moderate, but that looks to be where we part ways. I think the term “living wage” is ridiculous on its face and that the government has no right to “guarantee” anyone anything considering that guarantee comes only at the theft of others.

hollygolightly on July 10, 2014 at 8:36 PM

If you cannot pay for it and are unwilling to steal it then you do not in fact have access to chicken. Look the word up.

I suppose by your logic I have access to the mega millions jackpot.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 8:31 PM

By your logic, I have no access to my pursuit of happiness unless you are paying for my strippers. Which I also can’t afford.

– I like ‘em stacked an insecure.

Axe on July 10, 2014 at 8:41 PM

By your logic, I have no access to my pursuit of happiness unless you are paying for my strippers. Which I also can’t afford.

– I like ‘em stacked an insecure.

Axe on July 10, 2014 at 8:41 PM

Pursuit of happiness does not mean having happiness and it also does not cost anything. It is a real right which you possess. You can work towards those things you think will make you happy, so long as they do not impose upon others’ rights.

You really are not very smart are you? Yet you are perfectly happy to advertise that fact here where many people can see this… I can see why the only way you get any is through paying for it. If you can even get it then.

ac·cess
[ak-ses]noun
1. the ability, right, or permission to approach, enter, speak with, or use; admittance: They have access to the files.

Notice something there genius? Access means being able to use, right to use or permission to use. With the respect to healthcare, that means the ability to actually get care, not the fact that a doctor exists somewhere on the planet, whether or not you can find and reach them and convince them to care for you somehow.

This is kind of like the illogical argument that obamacare grants access to medical care. It does not. If no doctor is willing to accept obamacare, or no doctor who is willing to to has time left to, or your condition is not covered, or you do not have the initial deductible to pay for care, then you still do not have access to health care. You have access to insurance and that it all it provides. That is assuming you can afford the premiums.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 8:52 PM

There is an old saying that if you’re a conservative at 20, you have no heart, but if you’re a liberal at 40, you have no head. I must not have had a heart in my youth.
College Prof on July 10, 2014 at 8:00 PM

I’ve been conservative pretty much since I was born (I’ve always been an old person on the inside), but no one who actually knows me has ever accused me of having no heart. I just use my head to figure out whether the things I get emotional about are actually problems, and if so, how best to approach fixing them.

The fallacy that mistakes rationality with heartlessness is a hard one to fight. People seem very attached to the idea that cold reason is true reason. My experiences have suggested otherwise.

Cheshire_Kat on July 10, 2014 at 8:54 PM

Pursuit of happiness does not mean having happiness and it also does not cost anything. It is a real right which you possess. You can work towards those things you think will make you happy, so long as they do not impose upon others’ rights.

You really are not very smart are you? Yet you are perfectly happy to advertise that fact here where many people can see this… I can see why the only way you get any is through paying for it. If you can even get it then.

Well, now you’re just hurting my feelings.

ac·cess
[ak-ses]noun
1. the ability, right, or permission to approach, enter, speak with, or use; admittance: They have access to the files.

Notice something there genius? Access means being able to use, right to use or permission to use. With the respect to healthcare, that means the ability to actually get care, not the fact that a doctor exists somewhere on the planet, whether or not you can find and reach them and convince them to care for you somehow.

It also means, according to your definition, permission to approach. And that, along with the enter, speak with bits — most of the connotations of the word — would suggest an abstraction of affiliation, or, much more fun, intercourse with.

Which is how I would understand access to abortion, for example. Women in the United States have access to abortion. That doesn’t mean they can afford it, and it doesn’t mean someone must pay for it if they cannot. It means it’s available.

I really don’t know what use there might be in going around this tree with you again. There was nothing to argue about to begin with.

This is kind of like the illogical argument that obamacare grants access to medical care. It does not. If no doctor is willing to accept obamacare, or no doctor who is willing to to has time left to, or your condition is not covered, or you do not have the initial deductible to pay for care, then you still do not have access to health care. You have access to insurance and that it all it provides. That is assuming you can afford the premiums.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 8:52 PM

If you say so.

Axe on July 10, 2014 at 9:10 PM

Is that good news or bad news for Rand, who’s eager to reach out to Democratic Millennials but has to survive a primary with Republican Millennials first?

Bad news. It means that Rand has a constituency, but they’re on the other side of the aisle.

Stoic Patriot on July 10, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Actually it is good news if Rand and other faux Libertarians figure this out. Since 2008 I have always believed that the political system would be better served if the Reason crowd and Ronulans move over to the Progressive side. If they could make headway in the Democratic Party then eventually the reign of the socialists would be over. It would be like recreating the political parties at the start of the Republic. Adams versus Jefferson. I might not like the Jeffersonians but at least they won’t take away my rights.

jerryofva on July 10, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Axe on July 10, 2014 at 9:10 PM

You really are an ignoramus aren’t you?

Permission to approach, or the ability to walk into a hospital still is not access to medical care. You might have access to a waiting room. Of course, I think they can still kick you out if they determine you are a vagrant not in need of medical care and just looking for a warm or cool place to stay. Until they choose to treat you, you have no access. Kind of like when I went to the VA with a gallbladder stone going through my pancreas, or maybe it was several, they never said. While I was on my way there I had no access to a pain killer. While I sat in the waiting room I still had no access to a pain killer. Even after they took me into the emergency room, still no access to a pain killer… Until they actually chose to give it to me, I had no access to a pain killer. Sure, it was there, and it was legal for me to get it, and I was getting closer all the time, but at the end of the day, they could have said no… Thus no access.

So, you still going to argue that the existence of something automatically means that everyone has access or are you willing to show a minute amount of intelligence and humility and just admit you are wrong?

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 9:19 PM

More detail from the article–no surprise why the GOP is apparently losing this bunch:

Millennials’ social liberalism is mixed with strong opposition to many nanny state regulations:

….
67 percent of millennials favor legalizing same-sex marriage

61 percent say abortion should be legal in all or most cases
…….
59 percent say the government should allow online gambling

57 percent say marijuana should be legal, although just 22 percent say cocaine should be legal

52 percent say either the government should not set a legal drinking age or that the legal drinking age should be lower than 21

jim56 on July 10, 2014 at 9:23 PM

How can one be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time?

darwin on July 10, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Easy. Socially liberal (or really libertarian) means fewer laws to enforce, which means the need for less government, which means the need for less taxes.

jim56 on July 10, 2014 at 9:26 PM

They are in favor of raising taxes on “the rich” as long as the rich are people that make a lot more than they do. The problem is that there’s not much money there because the very rich are few in number.

The money always has to come from the middle class too.

slickwillie2001 on July 10, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Easy. Socially liberal (or really libertarian) means fewer laws to enforce, which means the need for less government, which means the need for less taxes.

jim56 on July 10, 2014 at 9:26 PM

Real life gets in the way of that.
Less enforcement of good social mores results in more degenerate behaviors, resulting in more deadbeats, resulting in more votes for more social services to take care of the degenerates at the expense of the virtuous.
This becomes a never ending progress where the burdens placed on the virtuous and the benefits given to the degenerates creates more degenerates and fewer virtuous. Eventually it ends badly when there are too many degenerates to support compared to the number of virtuous producing.
Thus, no, socially liberal does not create a smaller government. Why? Because socially liberal not only gets rid of government coercion against degenerate behavior, it also demands acceptance of degenerate behavior with the power of the government being used against any virtuous who works to reduce the degenerate behaviors.
We did not need laws to prevent deviancy becoming a big burden on society before. The good moral citizens either beat them into submission or chased them out of town and eventually they either died off or changed their ways or learned to keep it IN THE CLOSET.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 9:33 PM

58 percent say the government should spend more on assistance to the poor even it means higher taxes

They might think this because the public has been sold fraudulent statistics. When the government tells us who is “poor” or what percentage of the population is “poor’, they don’t count the value of free government benefits those people are already receiving.

This is why we will always have “poor” people no matter how high taxes are or how many benefits we rain down on the “the poor”.

slickwillie2001 on July 10, 2014 at 9:38 PM

Until they choose to treat you, you have no access.

^ I don’t know what to say.

Kind of like when I went to the VA with a gallbladder stone going through my pancreas, or maybe it was several, they never said. While I was on my way there I had no access to a pain killer. While I sat in the waiting room I still had no access to a pain killer. Even after they took me into the emergency room, still no access to a pain killer…

^ This has nothing to do with anything. Although, I’m sorry you had no access to a painkiller.

Until they actually chose to give it to me, I had no access to a pain killer.

^ There it is again.

So, you still going to argue that the existence of something automatically means that everyone has access or are you willing to show a minute amount of intelligence and humility and just admit you are wrong?

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 9:19 PM

I never said the existence of something automatically means that everyone has access to that something.

– What’s the difference between “access to health care” and “health care”?

Axe on July 10, 2014 at 9:43 PM

– What’s the difference between “access to health care” and “health care”?

Axe on July 10, 2014 at 9:43 PM

Okay.

The hyphen is just to set off what I’m responding to. People in the past have said there wasn’t enough difference between the two, so I’ve tried to do better.

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 5:28 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/10/mitch-daniels-we-need-a-truce-on-social-issues-to-concentrate-on-our-fiscal-crisis/comment-page-4/#comment-3627532

–Links of calls to boycott United Airlines because of the personal actions of its CEO. You are wrong, Press1foEngrish.

jim56 on April 3, 2014 at 5:59 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/03/mozilla-ceo-resigns-after-uproar-over-his-opposition-to-gay-marriage/comment-page-3/#comment-7896086

You shouldn’t even be able to comment here. Hows that?

Bmore on July 10, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Oh, no, Bmore. Axe might be Jimbo3.

jim56 on July 10, 2014 at 10:01 PM

I never said the existence of something automatically means that everyone has access to that something.

– What’s the difference between “access to health care” and “health care”?

Axe on July 10, 2014 at 9:43 PM

Access to health care means you have the ability to use healthcare. There are many things that need to be in place to do this.
1. if you have an acute emergency, in the united states, you effectively need to get to an emergency room that cannot deny you care that also has enough resources to assign to you. Until those two criteria are met, you do not have access to healthcare. The healthcare you get here is emergency room service and sometimes admittance to the hospital.
2. If you do not have an acute emergency condition, the fastest path to access to healthcare is to go to an open clinic that sees people on a first come first serve basis. They will typically demand payment upfront. Until they agree to see you, you do not have access to healthcare through them. Healthcare is the care you get once admitted into the treatment rooms.
3. Having a family doctor who has your insurance on hand and has open access periods, usually an hour or two on only a couple days a week. But if your insurance has a copay, you will get no access until you pay that copay upfront in many cases. This also works if you can wait a while and make an appointment, but they still mostly demand payment up front.
4. Charity clinics and hospitals. They will ask you to prove you are needy in most cases and if you cannot prove that, you likely will not have access through them to health care. At least not free charitable stuff. I am sure they are willing to take payments which help pay for other charitable works. The health care here will again be the services they provide for you.
5. You can have a doctor who is prepaid, I forget the term here… Let me google it. Concierge and maybe on retainer… This is where you pay a a very high premium in order to have a doctor or a team of doctors on standby waiting for your need of medical care. Unless you are extremely rich, you are going to be sharing this doctor with a few other people and thus he might not always be accessible to you, but very frequently they will be. While you have access to their services, until you actually use them, you get no actual health care.

You see, there are ways to get access to health care, but there is always a limiting factor. The fact that there is a doctor, hospital or other form of health care provider does not guarantee you access to that care. I cannot just walk into a hospital right now and demand an MRI. I cannot walk into a doctors office and demand him to see me. I cannot go to the clinic down the street and order them to put a bandage on my finger. I cannot go to a charity and demand they care for me. I can to to many of these places and barter for access. And even then it does not guarantee me access to care. The hospital will demand money, and maybe more than I can afford. The doctor might be overwhelmed with other patients. The clinic as well might tell me to get lost and put my own bandage on, what do they look like, my mother? The charity will tell me I am far to well off to get my care free of charge… Hell some of them might just tell me they do not treat white people or men!

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 10:03 PM

Real life gets in the way of that.
Less enforcement of good social mores results in more degenerate behaviors, resulting in more deadbeats, resulting in more votes for more social services to take care of the degenerates at the expense of the virtuous.
This becomes a never ending progress where the burdens placed on the virtuous and the benefits given to the degenerates creates more degenerates and fewer virtuous. Eventually it ends badly when there are too many degenerates to support compared to the number of virtuous producing.
Thus, no, socially liberal does not create a smaller government. Why? Because socially liberal not only gets rid of government coercion against degenerate behavior, it also demands acceptance of degenerate behavior with the power of the government being used against any virtuous who works to reduce the degenerate behaviors.
We did not need laws to prevent deviancy becoming a big burden on society before. The good moral citizens either beat them into submission or chased them out of town and eventually they either died off or changed their ways or learned to keep it IN THE CLOSET.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 9:33 PM

Not really. Not much of a connection that I see between gay people, people who have pre-marital sex or abortions or most people who gamble on-line or smoke dope with people who steal, assault or beat up other people. (Stealing, assaulting and beating up other people is what I would consider degenerate behavior.)

jim56 on July 10, 2014 at 10:05 PM

One more thing on access. I can go to the VA hospital, but as we can see by the VA scandal, it is not certainty you will get access to any of the healthcare promised. There are quite a few dead veterans who were assured they had “access” to health care. They had no such thing. They had a promise of access and no actual health care.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 10:08 PM

Not really. Not much of a connection that I see between gay people, people who have pre-marital sex or abortions or most people who gamble on-line or smoke dope with people who steal, assault or beat up other people. (Stealing, assaulting and beating up other people is what I would consider degenerate behavior.)

jim56 on July 10, 2014 at 10:05 PM

You do not see many connections at all.
You likely do not know what degenerate behavior is. Maybe you can define if for me… Not actual activities that are degenerate, but the core of what degenerate means in this sense.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 10:10 PM

Reminds me of this article…
http://angrywhitedude.com/2014/03/planet-of-the-millennials/

MMK on July 10, 2014 at 10:17 PM

Access to health care means you have the ability to use healthcare.

astonerii on July 10, 2014 at 10:03 PM

“All things being equal” –and I agree with that.

I think the only problem you have with me is frame of reference. I say that women in America have complete and unfettered access to abortion. The Progressive argues that, in a wider frame of reference, she can’t be said to have any real access to abortion if she can’t afford it. So, there, “access to health care” can’t be an idiom — just a statement of fact (ignoring that “health care” magically became a euphemism there).

I’m conservative and political, and in political arguments, I’m not going to use any frame of reference greater than the State for this. She’s equal to everyone else, and she has the same access as everyone else, and that access is complete and unfettered, whether the reality of life in a greater frame of reference otherwise makes it impossible. Otherwise phrases like “access to affordable health care” can’t be constructed. Those are explicit in contemplating conditions.

I didn’t misuse the term, astonerii, but at least I can finally understand what your problem with it was.

– I need to ditch.

Axe on July 10, 2014 at 10:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2