Hear hear! :D

A minor quibble: Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States ) shows only 1.5% of households earning over $250k (per a 2005 Census Bureau source). Even looking at households over $125k (as the Obama plan is for individuals over $125k and couples over $250k) you're still talking about something around, or under, 10% of households. The point of this being that while many of this 1.5% may be Republican, most Republicans, even most Republican parents, are earning far less than the threshold, and are, as the saying goes, "voting against their class interests" in supporting Republican economic policies.

This is nicely written. It's kind of how you would want to explain things to your grandparents. More people need to read this. Unfortunatly, I doubt anyone who actually NEEDS to read this would even get all the way through it. Maybe it would be a better speech.

Kudos to you

Not sure how I saw this but it sickens me. Its the same immature, selfish, and lazy mindset that is behind so many of the problems in this country today. Our parents didn't get to where they are by taking it from THEIR parents, did they? We have no right to ask people that have worked hard for what they have to give it to those that either haven't, or won't, or even if they have that just think somehow they're entitled to more than what they have earned. And if you think having Social Security means you're set you life you need to go back and do some reading. IF its even there when they go to use it. Obama's politics are for those that are dumb enough to think that taking money from the people that CREATE jobs and giving it to those that wont or cant is the way to spur the economy. WRONG. People don't need handouts, they need JOBS of their own. So THEY can earn what they will, not be dependent on the gov't to a greater extent than they are already. The problem you mentioned about having a degree and only finding shitty paying jobs is one of our own creation. With more and more people getting these degrees the SUPPLY of degree-holders is becoming enormous, while the DEMAND for them is lessening due to so many companies moving jobs overseas where the TAXES are so much less on them and the wages they have to pay aren't mandated by the gov't. Its simple ECON 101. It means we have to work HARDER, and be SMARTER to succeed. Not sit back and whine, "But I HAVE a degree, now gimme gimme gimme." You try to take your little speech to YOUR parents and see if they don't laugh you out of the house. "Hey, Mom and Dad? Yeah, I know you've worked your whole life for what you have but ya see, I'm young, naive, and lazy and don't want to work for it so you should give it to me now so the gov't can mismanage and misspend it and give it to other people who haven't earned it either. Can you just make the check out to the Obama campaign for me? That'd be great, thanks!" Really? Come on now, think for yourself instead of mindlessly listening to whatever some smooth talker tells you just because you think war is bad and you don't like Bush (neither do I, btw) and he tells you the same thing. Change DOESN'T mean GOOD, it means DIFFERENT. Which can be better, or a whole lot worse. You said it yourself: "Your fears are warranted. We don't have the experience that you do, we don't have the resources, or the opportunities. But we share with you one fundamental thing- our values. American values. We want to make a life for ourselves, to eke out our own niche, our own livings, and provide everything for our own families. You will never be able to prepare us for this, but you are our parents. It's your job to understand us and to support us. To help us make the right choices. Not to take all choices away from us." Basically "we dont know what we're doing but we mean well so fork it over Dad." and "we want to provide for OUR family but we want to do it by taking from YOURS. You have to sacrifice Dad because I'm spoiled and refuse to." And by voting for someone that wants MORE gov't programs and MORE handouts you dont INCREASE those choices you mentioned, you GIVE THEM AWAY to a gov't that thinks that we're too dumb to do things for ourselves and too lazy to work for it. And if we vote him into office we'll be proving just that.

Sorry, I actually DID put spaces and such in there but it came out all mushed like that. Not sure why.

Your comments are spot-on. But the only way anything changes if OUR generation (generation Y or what have you) actually goes out and votes. It is a known fact that the 18-24 year old block tends to not vote on election day. Also one of the most reliable portions of the electorate are the elderly. So while I agree with most of what you say, for our generation to claim our country, we either 1) have to vote or 2) viva la revolucion

Amazing. This puts a lot of things in perspective for me. Thanks! signed, another unemployed college graduate Obama supporter

Sandman, this post isn't about not wanting to work for ourselves its about wanting the opportunity to do so. Under the current, republican, administration's policies and the McCain campaigns policies of trickle down economics nothing happens for people outside of the top 10% (at most). Trickle down economics hasn't worked since Regan first proposed them. They basically amount to, "hear we're going to give more money to the people that don't need it and they'll eventually give some to you". So far, that has never happened. Under the Bush administration the unemployment rate has increased and more and more jobs have moved over seas because of republican efforts to deregulate and by extending bad policies of tax breaks for importing and exporting goods. Why would GM want to keep their plants here when they can pay lower wages overseas? When they can simply keep on plant open to build one part here, ship it to China to be assembled there for lower cost and an exportation tax break, then ship it back here with an importation tax break to be sold at a huge mark up? That's the results of republican and neo-con policy and I for one welcome a president that has the balls to take those breaks away and instead give the tax breaks to companies that will keep and/or create jobs here. VOTE OBAMA.

*here

sigh also, *one

Try this then if your so convinced that the Dems have all the answers. You may not like the source but you cant argue facts: By Tom Fitton September 30, 2008 Our politicians deliberate just how far down the road to the perdition of socialism/communism/fascism they plan to take our country in response to the latest financial crisis while we want to know the true source of the financial meltdown in the home mortgage industry leading to the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and today's attendant financial crisis. Let's follow the money trail back about nine years. Check out this article from the September 30, 1999 edition of the New York Times: (web site) In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. [Emphasis added.] The article goes on to predict that such a strategy might not cause problems during times of economic prosperity but that Fannie Mae could run into serious financial difficulty during an economic downturn. And here we are with the financial markets on the verge of collapse and the federal government debating the largest government bailout in the nation's history. While the Clinton administration is certainly culpable for getting the ball rolling on these high-risk loans, there is plenty of blame to go around. Fannie Mae led by Clinton's former budget director Franklin Raines and Obama campaign advisor Jim Johnson took Clinton's risky gamble and then doubled down. The pair allegedly cooked the books at Fannie, issued countless dubious mortgages, and then took huge bonuses before leaving the company. Both men have also been accused of accepting special mortgage deals from Countrywide (a co-conspirator in this financial mess) as well. Johnson resigned from his official position with the Obama campaign because of the scandal, though he, like Raines, may still be advising him. (To be sure, these "companies" contributed generously to Republicans and kept many a Republican on the payroll and their boards. Some will point to Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, as an example.) Politicians on Capitol Hill were no better. For example, Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT), who was also nabbed in the Countrywide scandal, took more money in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than anyone else in the U.S. Senate. (Barack Obama, with only four years in the Senate under his belt, was close behind.) When reform proposals for Fannie and Freddie were put before Dodd, he called them "ill advised." Despite their accounting problems and dire warnings of crisis, these "government sponsored enterprises" with the full support of liberals in Congress and their special-interest community organizing friends such as ACORN pushed for more subprime lending for their politically-correct constituencies. And calculating financial institutions (too many of which had corrupt relationships with these very same politicians) were happy to play along. Now the entire country is facing a financial disaster. Any lessons learned? Not in this town. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are raring to reinvigorate the ruinous business of subprime loans to those who can't handle them. And the latest version of the bailout would take "profits" in the bailout scheme from the taxpayer and give them to government programs designed to push yet more risky mortgage loans and related programs controlled by liberal activist groups. Your Judicial Watch plans to investigate some of the corruption issues I've raised above. Both parties deserve scrutiny. (The FBI, a day late and a dollar short, is investigating, too.) Accountability will be our watchword. I'll let you know what we find in future installments of the Update... Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch Shed Light on Barack and Michelle Obama's Shady Connections During his presidential campaign Barack Obama has attempted to cast himself as an outsider, someone who is above corruption and politics as usual. As I've written in this space before, Obama's suspicious connections suggest otherwise. Our investigators were in Chicago and uncovered documents that provide some interesting details regarding the nature of these connections. Here are just a few highlights. Judicial Watch obtained documents that detail the long-term and close relationship between Barack Obama and leftist domestic terrorist William Ayers. (Obama has seriously misled the public in this regard.) According to the documents, Obama served as Chairman of the Annenberg Challenge, (web site) a school program designed by Ayers, for eight years (1995-2002). The documents include a fundraising letter signed by Obama requesting a $22,500 grant noting, "we [meaning the Annenberg Challenge] are launched." Ayers is reported to have been the power running this group and Obama needs to better explain his contacts with him. Judicial Watch uncovered documents that further establish Obama's connection to convicted felon Antoin "Tony" Rezko. (web site) Documents show Barack Obama supported a housing development project known as Cottage View Terrace, which yielded $900,000 in developers' fees for Rezko and Obama's employer, lawyer Allison Davis. (The project application states, "State Senator Barack Obama has provided support.") Rezko, who was involved in Obama's home purchase, was recently convicted on 16 counts of fraud and money laundering, has personally donated at least $21,000 to Obama's campaigns, and raised over two hundred thousand dollars in additional support. Judicial Watch uncovered documents that raise questions about Michelle Obama and the Rezko land deal as well. One document that lists the number of community institutions involved with the Cottage View Terrace project includes The University of Chicago. In 1998, Michelle Obama was working for the University of Chicago as Associate Dean of Student Services. She was also in charge of developing the University's Community Service Center. The University wrote three letters in which it "enthusiastically supports" the project. The university supported other Rezko projects as well. (web site) Other documents we found show that another close associate of Obama, Valerie Jarrett, whom CBS News once called "the other side of Barack Obama's brain," is also connected to Rezko. She served on the Board of Directors for the Fund for Community Redevelopment and Revitalization, an organization that worked with Rezko and Davis, (web site) and also voiced her support for other Rezko projects. As I've noted previously, John McCain and Barack Obama both have questionable ties and ethical skeletons in their closets. (I, for one, am not as quick as some to "forgive and forget" when it comes Sen. McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal.) No matter who is elected in November there are two certainties: Government corruption will continue to be a problem. And Judicial Watch will remain ever vigilant in holding corrupt politicians accountable. http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2008/tf_09301.shtml

Hello from a fellow Gen-Y kid, I want to thank you so much for saying the things I wanted to say but couldn't form in my mind. Your brilliant words resonate so deeply with myself and much of our generation. We're out there giving it all we've got, we've busted our asses to get our degrees, rise above the mediocrity and attain the lives we grew up with. But we can't. The old saying goes something like shoot for the moon and even if you miss you'll land among the stars; however, our generation isn't even allowed to see the moon. It's hidden away in some distant board room we'll never get to see the inside of. I've paid my dues. Temp jobs and receptionist positions seem like the perfect way to get your foot in the door, but they aren't. I, for one, am tired of being looked over. Even with a strong will to work and degrees in Sociology and Political Science, I was forced to take a menial job with a big telecom. Last year, I was debating Montesquieu and Locke, becoming an expert in Brazilian political history, reading the doctorate-level sociological theory, and working diligently on actual research under the guidance of a professor. This year, apparently the best I can do for the world entails counting the number of Motorola chargers in the back room of a cell phone store. Like many of you, I am livid. I can relate to those of you with jobs that don't pay enough to do anything with. We can't afford our own place. I personally can barely afford to help my dad with my car payment each month and tuck away some for if and when I go to graduate school. But while my job seems menial, I consider myself lucky. There are many recent grads like myself drowning in debt with no job prospects at all. I'm a lucky one. I graduated college debt free (thanks to a full academic scholarship and d-a-d-d-y), and I have some semblance of an "adult" job with health benefits (a luxury many of my friends don't have). We aren't stupid. Use us. We can teach the world a thing or twelve. Thanks for listening (and thank you for writing this) PS-I stumbleupon-ed your words here: http://furious-citizen.org/2008/10/letter-to-the-repblicans-of-my-parents-generation/ PPS- Sandman, I love your quiet rhetoric attempting to place Socialism and Communism with Fascism. You're comparing extremely different ideologies. Broken down, Socialism and Communism are on the left with fascism on the right. Apart from that, Communism has never existed in actuality. Communist Russia and China were/are dictatorships. Socialism and Communism encourage social change from the bottom up, something the USSR and China have never had.

great, mine got all mushed together as well.....