Enough about “the children”: We need a better argument against the national debt
Why does this ubiquitous line fail to spur Americans to demand fiscal reform? In part because it is poorly suited to those who most need convincing: younger Americans. This group was essential to reelecting Barack Obama, who has overseen an expansion in publicly held federal debt greater than all his predecessors combined. Indeed, younger voters preferred Obama to Mitt Romney by a 23-point margin. According to a Pew Research Center analysis of national exit-polling data, younger voters also strongly prefer more expansive government: 59 percent of voters aged 18-29 said “government should do more to solve problems,” compared to 35 percent among the 65-and-older group. And while Pew has found that younger adults are more likely than older Americans to say that providing Social Security and Medicare benefits at current levels will place too great a financial burden on younger generations, even the 18-29 cohort still believes that preserving Social Security and Medicare is more important than reducing deficits, 48 to 41 percent.
Republicans have clearly got some explaining to do. But simply lamenting that a failure to curb spending today will unfairly burden our “children and grandchildren” isn’t likely to cut it. A great many of these younger voters don’t have children, and convincing them to forgo the benefits of government spending now for the sake of someone else’s kids is a hard sell. Some may, for the moment, want to preserve generous Medicare and Social Security benefits for the sake of their own aging parents and grandparents. And many of them may not even want children of their own: Demographic trends suggest that today’s younger Americans are relatively unconcerned about producing children and grandchildren, let alone their fiscal situation. The young women who supported Obama because he forced employers to fund their preferred methods for not having children seem particularly unlikely to be persuaded by calls for generational forward-thinking.









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
OK, I’ll say it again.
Let it Burn
Add fuel
Fan as needed.
Make them suffer the consequences.
astonerii on February 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM
Translation: Stop using your best argument against us, it really hurts when you are right.
Dollayo on February 2, 2013 at 9:03 PM
Well, it could be pointed out that it is bankrupting the nation and that the other places that try to do this sort of junk either end up like Zimbabwe or Wiemar with a lovely bit of hyperinflation that destroys the economy.
ajacksonian on February 2, 2013 at 9:05 PM
If they don’t care about anyone but themselves and have little sense of the future, then nothing is going to convince them. Telling them that in 20 years they may face some consequences for the out of control spending isn’t going to cut it either. From a selfish short-term point of view, looting the piggy bank while the money is still flowing makes more sense than immediate self-denial.
sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 9:06 PM
I like this argument better: “Everything will be fine, you’ll see. Oh yes…you will see.”
And then walk away. Stupid people got a full frontal economic education starting in 2009 and they voted for more of the same in 2012, so give them what they want. You can’t fix the stupid, let them be stupid.
Bishop on February 2, 2013 at 9:06 PM
Just say our crippled economy is being propped up by a gigantic expanding credit bubble, and the more it’s inflated, the more people will die after it pops and before it can be rebuilt.
elfman on February 2, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Contra to Keynesian imaginings, the deficit itself (and government spending in general) acts to depress economic activity and reduce productivity. That means it is hurting us right now.
Count to 10 on February 2, 2013 at 10:33 PM
Younger people have never seen the horrors of communism and it’s many forms on their televisions.
Not until they see real world examples and the reality of it will it hit home to them.
ButterflyDragon on February 2, 2013 at 10:49 PM
That’s just hate talk. Communists love their children just like you do.
Socratease on February 2, 2013 at 11:10 PM
The younger generation doesn’t have kids. They have cats and dogs, and if there’s a kid, child support. They live on credit cards and student debt. They have no concept of paying any of it back. If they want it, they buy it and charge it. The arguments like “it will unfairly burden your children and grandchildren” were designed for people who CARED about someone other than themselves. Too many in this generation don’t, and now I sound just like my grandparents used to.
UnderstandingisPower on February 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM
Maybe we should point out more often how the debt is a threat to national security? Might be able to scare some sense into some of the youngins.
lynncgb on February 2, 2013 at 11:55 PM
I’ve recently read (sorry, no linky) that the current annual amount of Federal deficit spending is debasing the currency to the tune of $15 dollars out of everybody’s pocket each day. That should be able to sink in for the typical minimum wage worker. 2 hours of your work every day for them is going down a rathole, and that doesn’t even account for any taxes yet.
Jimmy Doolittle on February 3, 2013 at 1:45 AM
1. Liberals don’t really care about children, so that isn’t your best argument.
2. As UnderstandingisPower pointed out, the entire CONCEPT around which that argument revolves has been thrown out the window.
MelonCollie on February 3, 2013 at 9:24 AM