The problems with the Republican brand among young people run deeper than Bush. Young people are often cynical about politics, but believe in government. By a 68 – 28 percent margin, voters would rather have a bigger government providing more services over a smaller government providing fewer services. Even Republican young people prefer a larger, more generous government (57 – 40 percent for bigger government with more services). [[GAG!]]
Okay, so young people are idealistic (read: naive) about the benevolence of government and have a preference for the nanny state. I suppose it's because our parents take care of us, and as we grow up we think the government should too.
The leading volunteered issue for the President and the Congress is not the war (19 percent), but the economy and economic issues (39 percent in total). A majority (58 percent) of young people say they are “one paycheck away from having to borrow money from their parents or credit cards.” Two thirds are working for an hourly wage and 60 percent worry a great deal or some about their debt load. Most do not earn a four-year university degree (just a quarter in this survey are currently in a four-year college or have graduated from one). Young people of color, women (especially unmarried women) and the less educated in particular report a real
So, let me get this straight: we will give all our votes to the party that we think will expand our government and provide with more services, all the while complaining about how little we earn. In the short term that seems to make sense: we're poor, so we need more government services because we can't afford private equivalents. But where do those services come from? TAXES. Of course not our taxes; we're poor so we pay fewer of them to start, and no one will raise our taxes. Instead let's tax our rich, evil employers so they can decide to cut labor and wages (not below that minimum, though!) and either pay us less or not at all. As an added bonus we can curb incentive for investment, thus hindering the creation of new opportunities and productive capital. Yeah, that makes sense. My blood pressure goes up just thinking about it.
Sidebar: I am TIRED of the class warfare slogan "tax cuts for the rich!" First, tax cuts for the rich do not automatically mean tax increases on the poor (in the current climate, they do however mean deficit spending that leads to inflation, which affects the poor more than the rich--but that's a result of spending not tax collection). Second, rich people sign the salary checks at every job I've had, and frankly I'd like them to have more money so they can use it to pay me to do things. Third, how is it fair or moral to impose a bigger burden (via a progressive tax system) on the more productive members of society who use comparatively less of the social programs that the tax revenues pay for? Please explain this to me (and I will reject out-of-hand any argument that is premised on the canard that the rich are only rich because they "stole" from everyone else)!