Older people, in general, have far more time to devote to political pursuits. The primary reason it's mostly older people talking about politics on TV is that they can be out at a political event at 2pm and stand in front of the camera crew.

The approach can be summarized as: "government is a vending machine to serve my interests; I put taxes in and a equal or greater pile of stuff comes out and goes directly to me". It's possible a large number of people of any age group believe this but it certainly looks much more stark when someone 65+ believes it (and acts on it, often in a well-organized bloc).

The other thing that spurred my comment is the statement "with complete disregard for children's well-being." That's the truly dishonest part, as it completely misrepresents the political position of about half the country. It's a strawman.

I wouldn't worry about the idea that old people skew fiscally conservative; they are typically enthusiastic socialists, at least as far as redistributing money from younger people to pay for their ever expanding benefits.

They aren't just over-represented in perception; they are a self-interested bloc that is over-represented in terms of redistributive policy. The furore that emerges whenever someone delicately suggests that we means-test benfits so middle-class oldies (and above) can't help themselves to the public pot (well in excess of what they have contributed) is proof of that.

The fact that children (who have had almost zero opportunity to shape their current financial situation) now live in poverty at a substantial higher rate than 65+ people does suggest something a bit closer to "complete disregard". The political position of about half the country (or more) in most Western countries is a strange combination of rugged individualism applied to others and an outsize enthusiasm for unearned handouts for oneself.

It's not strange, nor is it a combination. It's just one thing, called "FYIGM."