Senator Obama on Fox News Sunday (April 27 2008)

[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.

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

Well for one there's my dad in the UK - who was an Engineer up until about 10 years ago when he got laid off a second time. Now he's a health and safety inspector making less than I currently do.

[no name 1]

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.

Edited April 28, 2008 by illumine

[kaydee457 13]

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.

You've got that right!

[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.

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.

Sure, because it's always the Democrats' fault. Again, Clinton did not chose to wage an illegal war on Iraq. Clinton did not chose attack a country that neither attacked the US nor posed any threat that would have called for an attack. I gotta hand it to the GOP: For a party that says it promotes personal responibility, the Repulicans sure are the best at deflecting it.

[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.

Sure, because it's always the Democrats' fault. Again, Clinton did not chose to wage an illegal war on Iraq. Clinton did not chose attack a country that neither attacked the US nor posed any threat that would have called for an attack. I gotta hand it to the GOP: For a party that says it promotes personal responibility, the Repulicans sure are the best at deflecting it.

The truth is the truth. If Bubba had been paying attention while we were attacked again and again this whole mess could have been avoided. He was a coward more interested in getting BJ's than protecting the country. Bush has shown great personal responsibility in the last 8 years. He has done what he thought was right and hasn't backed down. He hasn't tried to blame it on anyone else.

What you call an illegal war is one that was long overdue. Just remember also that this "illegal war" was approved by the dems in congress. No, it was demanded by the dems in congress. Yet now they are the ones deflecting. The congressional dems are a bunch of two faced cowards.

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

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.

don't you have someone to report?

[no name 1]

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.

don't you have someone to report?

Edited April 28, 2008 by illumine

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

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.

don't you have someone to report?

apparently not.

[GabiandVi 34]

Get an education and you'll make six figures..... Three jobs? How many classes did they cut in JHS?

That's the root of the problem here, and the crux of the class battle. Teamster Unions have espoused this flawed and skewed argument supposedly to close the gap between those that achieve and those that don't, for years.......

In this distorted and anti-capitalistic view those that are "workers" should earn the same as those that are "professionals"....

Inherently flawed in a capitalistic society.

Enter Barack, and Hillary- Let’s tax the achievers to subsidize the deadbeats.

Pay for their Health Care, and probably their retirement too.......

Marxism, unabashed, and reborn.

Just read Hillary's thesis!

I think equal taxes means equal percentages, not higher percentages from one segment of the population. However, I have an MA and the going salary for my job puts me well below Obama's standard for rich. Even if I had a PhD and 30 years of experience, I'd still be making less than 70K, so it's not as simple as you think.

I'm a teacher, BTW, a professional. I give the education that you need to earn the big bucks.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

Sure, because it's always the Democrats' fault. Again, Clinton did not chose to wage an illegal war on Iraq. Clinton did not chose attack a country that neither attacked the US nor posed any threat that would have called for an attack. I gotta hand it to the GOP: For a party that says it promotes personal responibility, the Repulicans sure are the best at deflecting it.

The truth is the truth.

Exactly. And that truth is that only one person gave the marching orders to invade a country that had not a first damn thing to do with what happened on 9/11 or with how many BJ's Slick Willie had gotten. Not a first damn thing.

And for the record: Congress can decide all it wants. That doesn't make anything legal outside of the borders of the US. Remember, as much as some people would like to think so, Congress does neither represent nor rule the world.

[GaryC 7]

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.

Sure, because it's always the Democrats' fault. Again, Clinton did not chose to wage an illegal war on Iraq. Clinton did not chose attack a country that neither attacked the US nor posed any threat that would have called for an attack. I gotta hand it to the GOP: For a party that says it promotes personal responibility, the Repulicans sure are the best at deflecting it.

The truth is the truth.

Exactly. And that truth is that only one person gave the marching orders to invade a country that had not a first damn thing to do with what happened on 9/11 or with how many BJ's Slick Willie had gotten. Not a first damn thing.

And for the record: Congress can decide all it wants. That doesn't make anything legal outside of the borders of the US. Remember, as much as some people would like to think so, Congress does neither represent nor rule the world.

Nice denial there. So it's all Bush's fault. None of the blame is shouldered by the congress that authorized the war or by Clinton that fell asleep at the switch. Well, guess who is deflecting now? Your opinion is solely based on hatred for Bush, nothing else matters to you. So that means your opinion means nothing to me. Rant on my friend.

ETA.. Congress can do anything it wants to do. I don't recognize the UN or their authority. The war was legal by our laws. That is all that matters. To hell with the UN.

Edited April 28, 2008 by GaryC

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The war was legal by our laws. That is all that matters. To hell with the UN.

So are you in favour of isolationism or the sort of nationalist unilateralism that was favorable in the years preceding WW1?

[GaryC 7]

The war was legal by our laws. That is all that matters. To hell with the UN.

So are you in favour of isolationism or the sort of nationalist unilateralism that was favorable in the years preceding WW1?

Yep. Any march towards a world government is a bad thing. The US should never give up it's sovereignty.

[chri'stina 190]

As far as the 70K thing, it really really matters where you live. No one around where I live can be rich on 70K, especially not since the housing boom. 100K wouldn't be rich either here.

I didn't watch the video so I can't say much more on it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The war was legal by our laws. That is all that matters. To hell with the UN.

So are you in favour of isolationism or the sort of nationalist unilateralism that was favorable in the years preceding WW1?

Yep. Any march towards a world government is a bad thing. The US should never give up it's sovereignty.

Neither of those positions amount to the US giving up its sovereignty.

The US is however bound by the international treaties it has signed.