Senator Obama on Fox News Sunday (April 27 2008)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In either case, Obama or Clinton it'll be deja vu....

Deja vu of the 90's where most Americans shared in the prosperity and productivity gains? Where the median income rose 11% rather than decreased 1% as it did under Bush? Cool. Sign me up for that deja vu. We all need it.

It's never a fair comparison to juxtapose the 90"s to the 00's....There was no war in the 90's (not that we weren't attacked time and again) and Clinton nearly ran the U.S. Military into the ground by under funding the U.S. Military under the guise of what he repeatedly said was "the Peace Dividend".

Keep in mind that the war that costs this country is the war that Bush chose to wage. The war that drains the military's blood and the treasury's coffers is one that he waged against a country that hasn't attacked us nor was going to attack us. While there will always be fanatics out there wishing and inflicting harm on others, make no mistake that we're at a costly war in the 00's solely because the fool at 1600 Penn Ave made it so.

Your forgetting huge chunks of history there dog. Ok, if you want to say Iraq is a war we didn't need and was a choice then you may have your argument. I don't agree but I can at least see your side. But what happened on 9/11 and the resulting war in Afghanistan was a choice? Surely you jest. That had a huge impact on our economy that you just cannot ignore.

The war in Afghanistan is not what's costing us a fortune. That war is a legitimate, lawful and -coincidentally - shared effort. It that war of choice in Iraq that's been dragging us down.

[Ban Hammer 13,353]

I was particularly in tune to what Obama considers "rich".......Over 70K, or was it 75K......Anyway, I'm in the six figures range and I don't feel rich!

There's a whole lot of America who think over 70K would be fabulous......

i'm not one of them. i don't like pay cuts.

[GaryC 7]

In either case, Obama or Clinton it'll be deja vu....

Deja vu of the 90's where most Americans shared in the prosperity and productivity gains? Where the median income rose 11% rather than decreased 1% as it did under Bush? Cool. Sign me up for that deja vu. We all need it.

It's never a fair comparison to juxtapose the 90"s to the 00's....There was no war in the 90's (not that we weren't attacked time and again) and Clinton nearly ran the U.S. Military into the ground by under funding the U.S. Military under the guise of what he repeatedly said was "the Peace Dividend".

Keep in mind that the war that costs this country is the war that Bush chose to wage. The war that drains the military's blood and the treasury's coffers is one that he waged against a country that hasn't attacked us nor was going to attack us. While there will always be fanatics out there wishing and inflicting harm on others, make no mistake that we're at a costly war in the 00's solely because the fool at 1600 Penn Ave made it so.

Your forgetting huge chunks of history there dog. Ok, if you want to say Iraq is a war we didn't need and was a choice then you may have your argument. I don't agree but I can at least see your side. But what happened on 9/11 and the resulting war in Afghanistan was a choice? Surely you jest. That had a huge impact on our economy that you just cannot ignore.

The war in Afghanistan is not what's costing us a fortune. That war is a legitimate, lawful and -coincidentally - shared effort. It that war of choice in Iraq that's been dragging us down.

The war in Afghanistan isn't free. It costs money and is still costing us money. The damage to our economy from 9/11 was vast. The cost of added security measures because of the terrorism is also expensive. Yes the war in Iraq is expensive but it's only a part of the price we are paying for Clintons lack of attention during his watch.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Teachers are not in demand?

I don't know about that - but they do however get paid a pittance which is frankly criminal.

I'm not sure I'd have the gall to suggest that a person in a low paying occupation does not work hard or that their low pay implies that are some sort of failure - it isn't really that simple. There are plenty of industries that require highly qualified people - but which are traditionally low paying. Teaching is one, publishing is another. As is journalism.

Firstly, I’m going to preface this with the fact as you travel through years in the workforce you should make more money, especially those that are degreed. So if you make less than 100k a year and you’re 35 then, come’n dudes.dudess’. you shouldn’t be at that level anyway at your age unless you’re an extrodinary “star”.

If you’re 58 YO as I am and you are degreed and you don’t make more than 100k then, well, I don’t know what to say…………

Now, if you want to be indignant about what's been fact for as long as I've been in the workforce.....It's no secret that a person that pursues a career in teaching, humanities, history, basket weaving, etc, or any other degree that is non-technical in nature, that, er, frankly equates to no real tangible technical skill, has limited job potential. If you’re a person that is one that wishes to pursue these careers out of love or duty, then you accept the fact that you’ll never get rich from these occupations. If not then you’re probaly delusional or you have a good case to sue your HS counselor!

As we all know, but some will indignantly deny, traditionally pursuing these educational skills are considered (by most) relatively unremarkable and, are, ….umm, sort of easy to achieve, and subsequently many people have these "skills" listed on their resumes when entering the job market.

What I say is statistically true although I'm not going to bother citing a source. It's intuitively obvious and just a fact of life. It's a lot easier to get a degree in English Lit than Medicine, or Engineering......The degree of difficulty is profound between these examples.

The dems purport to make all of us the same regardless of skill and wish to dictate parity with workers having skills up and above those mentioned previously, and they do this via union activism, amongst other methods.

That's the democratic strategy and has been so for the past half century.

And yes, those that make <100k/year (depending on age, and where you live!) are probably deadbeats......

What the democrats attempt to do is have the factory worker in Toledo achieve parity with the engineer in Chicago.

It's Marxism and that's what the democratic party is all about in this century........

Well... I don't really care about what the Democratic party is "all about", whether its Marxism or no. That wasn't my point. Put simply - there are many people out there who work very hard in critical professions (like teaching) and yet don't make that much money. I don't think that's a particularly scandalous statement to make.

Teachers should be valued for the simple reason that without a decent educational system you have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming a journalist, doctor, engineer or rocket scientist.

And yes, those that make <100k/year (depending on age, and where you live!) are probably deadbeats......

100K/year is the benchmark for deadbeat?!

A degreed person that's at the end of their career...as I said if you're 60-ish and you don't make 100k then you're definetly doing something wrong!

Well.....that's about the most ignorant thing I've ever seen written on VJ.

Many people never had the opportunity to go to college. Many people work jobs that they like, and they aren't high-paying ones. Many people do jobs that benefit everyone, but don't pay much. Many people live in areas where 100K just isn't possible no matter long you've worked at a job and advanced 'up the ladder'. The LAST thing I would call most of these people is "deadbeat".

Is the farmer who works 12 hours a day and makes maybe $30,000/year a deadbeat?

What about the 80 year old guy who has worked for one employer his entire life and makes $35K/year?

What about the guy who is working a job he likes, even though it pays less money?

What about the single mom working 2 jobs and bringing home $30K/year? Is she a deadbeat?

What about the age thing? Do you honestly believe that all jobs have a tidy little progression where you work, you stay there, you try hard, you get promotions, you make 100K/year? This isn't 1950 any longer, you know.... there is no such thing as job security these days. No more pensions, no more profit-sharing, no more dedication to employee or employer....If you can stay at an employer for more than 5 years, you're lucky.

Of all of the ridiculous, moronic, ill-informed, prejudicial, offensive things I've seen you post over the years; this one beats all.

My FIL is an associate at an architectural firm. He's in his late 50's and doesn't make $100K.

Edited April 28, 2008 by Number 6

[kaydee457 13]

Teachers are not in demand?

I don't know about that - but they do however get paid a pittance which is frankly criminal.

I'm not sure I'd have the gall to suggest that a person in a low paying occupation does not work hard or that their low pay implies that are some sort of failure - it isn't really that simple. There are plenty of industries that require highly qualified people - but which are traditionally low paying. Teaching is one, publishing is another. As is journalism.

Firstly, I’m going to preface this with the fact as you travel through years in the workforce you should make more money, especially those that are degreed. So if you make less than 100k a year and you’re 35 then, come’n dudes.dudess’. you shouldn’t be at that level anyway at your age unless you’re an extrodinary “star”.

If you’re 58 YO as I am and you are degreed and you don’t make more than 100k then, well, I don’t know what to say…………

Now, if you want to be indignant about what's been fact for as long as I've been in the workforce.....It's no secret that a person that pursues a career in teaching, humanities, history, basket weaving, etc, or any other degree that is non-technical in nature, that, er, frankly equates to no real tangible technical skill, has limited job potential. If you’re a person that is one that wishes to pursue these careers out of love or duty, then you accept the fact that you’ll never get rich from these occupations. If not then you’re probaly delusional or you have a good case to sue your HS counselor!

As we all know, but some will indignantly deny, traditionally pursuing these educational skills are considered (by most) relatively unremarkable and, are, ….umm, sort of easy to achieve, and subsequently many people have these "skills" listed on their resumes when entering the job market.

What I say is statistically true although I'm not going to bother citing a source. It's intuitively obvious and just a fact of life. It's a lot easier to get a degree in English Lit than Medicine, or Engineering......The degree of difficulty is profound between these examples.

The dems purport to make all of us the same regardless of skill and wish to dictate parity with workers having skills up and above those mentioned previously, and they do this via union activism, amongst other methods.

That's the democratic strategy and has been so for the past half century.

And yes, those that make <100k/year (depending on age, and where you live!) are probably deadbeats......

What the democrats attempt to do is have the factory worker in Toledo achieve parity with the engineer in Chicago.

It's Marxism and that's what the democratic party is all about in this century........

Well... I don't really care about what the Democratic party is "all about", whether its Marxism or no. That wasn't my point. Put simply - there are many people out there who work very hard in critical professions (like teaching) and yet don't make that much money. I don't think that's a particularly scandalous statement to make.

Teachers should be valued for the simple reason that without a decent educational system you have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming a journalist, doctor, engineer or rocket scientist.

And yes, those that make <100k/year (depending on age, and where you live!) are probably deadbeats......

100K/year is the benchmark for deadbeat?!

A degreed person that's at the end of their career...as I said if you're 60-ish and you don't make 100k then you're definetly doing something wrong!

Well.....that's about the most ignorant thing I've ever seen written on VJ.

Many people never had the opportunity to go to college. Many people work jobs that they like, and they aren't high-paying ones. Many people do jobs that benefit everyone, but don't pay much. Many people live in areas where 100K just isn't possible no matter long you've worked at a job and advanced 'up the ladder'. The LAST thing I would call most of these people is "deadbeat".

Is the farmer who works 12 hours a day and makes maybe $30,000/year a deadbeat?

What about the 80 year old guy who has worked for one employer his entire life and makes $35K/year?

What about the guy who is working a job he likes, even though it pays less money?

What about the single mom working 2 jobs and bringing home $30K/year? Is she a deadbeat?

What about the age thing? Do you honestly believe that all jobs have a tidy little progression where you work, you stay there, you try hard, you get promotions, you make 100K/year? This isn't 1950 any longer, you know.... there is no such thing as job security these days. No more pensions, no more profit-sharing, no more dedication to employee or employer....If you can stay at an employer for more than 5 years, you're lucky.

Of all of the ridiculous, moronic, ill-informed, prejudicial, offensive things I've seen you post over the years; this one beats all.

My FIL is an associate at an architectural firm. He's in his late 50's and doesn't make $100K.

Firstly, I feel like Obama when he revealed his snobery over guns and church......

The deadbeats I refer to are the drop outs, the illegals, and those whose only ambition is to flip burgers a McDonalds and generally anyone that make babies and families without the ability to sustain them and expect to be subsized by the "rich" people via their advocates, the democrats.........I'm talking about entitlements here, but I'm not sure what the hell you're off on........

If you're a farmer that makes 30K a year and you work very hard and can't get ahead then I suggest that you find a new vocation for I'm not subsidizing your existance to achieve parity with mine. This notion that these people don't have responsibility for their own situation is absurd!

That's what this all comes down to. I have it and there are those that want to give what I have to those that don't, and usually those that don't strive to get it themselves.

Many people have had the opportunity to go to college. I grew up in the slums of Brooklyn and I managed to find a way. The opportunities are there so please don't become an apologist for a class of people that had essentially the same choices I had. You'll get noplace in your argument.

Clearly you have some profound misconceptions concerning employment. Firstly, those that are in a profession that stay at one job, with one firm for any period of time is at a very, very distinct disadvantage financially to those that move around progressively. Moving around is the only way to work your way up the salary scale, but you still need a profession that's in demand.

That's how you work your way to 100k, not staying in a job for 30 years at the same company........There's two stratagies; one you stay with the same company or corporation but move to different positions, those that require "hiring", or you seek employment elsewhere. No, it's not 1950 anymore but be happy it isn't!

Lastly, I agree that teachers aren't paid what they should be but again, it's a profession that simply doesn't demand high pay.

With the exception of unionized large metro areas, the qualifications to teach are relatively low. What this means is that any undergrad can aquire a teaching position in most places in this country. When I was in Va the requirement to teach middle school was undergrad degree and two months of a "teaching Certification" course.

As long as it's a job whereby the bar is set relatively low for hiring then it will remain a low paying profession.

You're perspective sure is skewed regarding those that made choices in their lives that now impact their place in the financial pecking order.....

And I'll reiterate, if you're 58 y/o and degreed, and you want to make 100k+, and you're not there, then you've made some bad choices and you need to take responsibilty for your own decisions.....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And you say Obama is elitist.

Wow.

[dalegg 143]

And yes, those that make <100k/year (depending on age, and where you live!) are probably deadbeats......

100K/year is the benchmark for deadbeat?!

A degreed person that's at the end of their career...as I said if you're 60-ish and you don't make 100k then you're definetly doing something wrong!

I would go that far Kaydee. I am at the "end of my career" and I feel quite happy with my 70K income. It supports my family and I quite well and I am proud of myself for getting as far as I have.

I'm taking it for granted that you meant you wouldn't go that far.

I know lots of 60ish people who don't make 100K and they are certainly not deadbeats. Two people making 80k per year nets an income of $160,000 and they will live pretty good even here in California. If they get divorced are they suddenly deadbeats?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Should it also be pointed out the relative difficulty of getting a new job once you hit your 50's and 60's?

[kaydee457 13]

Should it also be pointed out the relative difficulty of getting a new job once you hit your 50's and 60's?

Well, you have to network. In my industry there's always a group of people moving about and you need to stay in touch with your peers.

Every new job I've obtained throughout my career in the the civilian industry was obtained through networking.

[kaydee457 13]

And yes, those that make <100k/year (depending on age, and where you live!) are probably deadbeats......

100K/year is the benchmark for deadbeat?!

A degreed person that's at the end of their career...as I said if you're 60-ish and you don't make 100k then you're definetly doing something wrong!

I would go that far Kaydee. I am at the "end of my career" and I feel quite happy with my 70K income. It supports my family and I quite well and I am proud of myself for getting as far as I have.

I'm taking it for granted that you meant you wouldn't go that far.

I know lots of 60ish people who don't make 100K and they are certainly not deadbeats. Two people making 80k per year nets an income of $160,000 and they will live pretty good even here in California. If they get divorced are they suddenly deadbeats?

I never said that people that make 70k and less are deadbeats, or at least I don't recall saying that. The inference was drawn by others.

I wanted to say that the democrats, in having dived up the classes, wish to take from those that have to redistribute to those that don't have. It's all about funding their entitlements......

The democrats need "victims" to exist and those that struggle are only "victims" of their own choice.......

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Should it also be pointed out the relative difficulty of getting a new job once you hit your 50's and 60's?

Well, you have to network. In my industry there's always a group of people moving about and you need to stay in touch with your peers.

Every new job I've obtained throughout my career in the the civilian industry was obtained through networking.

Well... I'm not talking about me, I'm not in my 50's or 60's. I'm talking about relatives and friends of mine who have essentially been aged-out of the workplace in their respective industries.

Edited April 28, 2008 by Number 6

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In either case, Obama or Clinton it'll be deja vu....

Deja vu of the 90's where most Americans shared in the prosperity and productivity gains? Where the median income rose 11% rather than decreased 1% as it did under Bush? Cool. Sign me up for that deja vu. We all need it.

It's never a fair comparison to juxtapose the 90"s to the 00's....There was no war in the 90's (not that we weren't attacked time and again) and Clinton nearly ran the U.S. Military into the ground by under funding the U.S. Military under the guise of what he repeatedly said was "the Peace Dividend".

Keep in mind that the war that costs this country is the war that Bush chose to wage. The war that drains the military's blood and the treasury's coffers is one that he waged against a country that hasn't attacked us nor was going to attack us. While there will always be fanatics out there wishing and inflicting harm on others, make no mistake that we're at a costly war in the 00's solely because the fool at 1600 Penn Ave made it so.

Your forgetting huge chunks of history there dog. Ok, if you want to say Iraq is a war we didn't need and was a choice then you may have your argument. I don't agree but I can at least see your side. But what happened on 9/11 and the resulting war in Afghanistan was a choice? Surely you jest. That had a huge impact on our economy that you just cannot ignore.

The war in Afghanistan is not what's costing us a fortune. That war is a legitimate, lawful and -coincidentally - shared effort. It that war of choice in Iraq that's been dragging us down.

The war in Afghanistan isn't free. It costs money and is still costing us money.

Better than 75% - 80% of the money we spend on the war machine goes to Iraq. Afghanistan and all other counter terror operations consume 20% or less of the total. Don't sit there pretending that the major source of the fiscal problems isn't the war in Iraq. It is and you know it.

[kaydee457 13]

And yes, those that make <100k/year (depending on age, and where you live!) are probably deadbeats......

Ah, so I did....I apologize. I had Obama. I got caught up in the argument....

[kaydee457 13]

Should it also be pointed out the relative difficulty of getting a new job once you hit your 50's and 60's?

Well, you have to network. In my industry there's always a group of people moving about and you need to stay in touch with your peers.

Every new job I've obtained throughout my career in the the civilian industry was obtained through networking.

Well... I'm not talking about me, I'm not in my 50's or 60's. I'm talking about relatives and friends of mine who have essentially been aged-out of the workplace in their respective industries.

Just curious but what industries would those be? Are they here in the U.S. ?

[GaryC 7]

In either case, Obama or Clinton it'll be deja vu....

Deja vu of the 90's where most Americans shared in the prosperity and productivity gains? Where the median income rose 11% rather than decreased 1% as it did under Bush? Cool. Sign me up for that deja vu. We all need it.

It's never a fair comparison to juxtapose the 90"s to the 00's....There was no war in the 90's (not that we weren't attacked time and again) and Clinton nearly ran the U.S. Military into the ground by under funding the U.S. Military under the guise of what he repeatedly said was "the Peace Dividend".

Keep in mind that the war that costs this country is the war that Bush chose to wage. The war that drains the military's blood and the treasury's coffers is one that he waged against a country that hasn't attacked us nor was going to attack us. While there will always be fanatics out there wishing and inflicting harm on others, make no mistake that we're at a costly war in the 00's solely because the fool at 1600 Penn Ave made it so.

Your forgetting huge chunks of history there dog. Ok, if you want to say Iraq is a war we didn't need and was a choice then you may have your argument. I don't agree but I can at least see your side. But what happened on 9/11 and the resulting war in Afghanistan was a choice? Surely you jest. That had a huge impact on our economy that you just cannot ignore.

The war in Afghanistan is not what's costing us a fortune. That war is a legitimate, lawful and -coincidentally - shared effort. It that war of choice in Iraq that's been dragging us down.

The war in Afghanistan isn't free. It costs money and is still costing us money.

Better than 75% - 80% of the money we spend on the war machine goes to Iraq. Afghanistan and all other counter terror operations consume 20% or less of the total. Don't sit there pretending that the major source of the fiscal problems isn't the war in Iraq. It is and you know it.

It's more like 70-30% for just war spending according to the CBO. Then there is the other costs associated with fighting terrorism. In the end it comes out to more like 60-40%. That isn't the point. If Bubba Clinton had done his job we wouldn't have any of this expense. Both are Clintons wars, Bush was just left to fight it.