Young voters not so hot for Obama now? Update: Obama bumper sticker removal instructions

posted at 9:15 am on December 31, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Ever since I was a young(er) man, I’ve heard about the coming wave of young voters who were ready to “rock the vote” and change the world. Sadly, while this was predicted every four years, it rarely happened. The youth vote tended to raise their voices loudly for the media but failed to deliver on election day. That changed to a certain extent in 2008, though, when they turned out in fairly impressive numbers for Barack Obama. So are they gearing up for a similar showing in the coming year? At least according to one analysis, not so much.

In 2008, the youth vote helped sweep Barack Obama into office. Americans 18-29 spread the word on social media, energized fundraising and went to the polls.

In 2012, the youth vote is moving on and throwing those omnipresent “Hope” bumper stickers and t-shirts in garbage bins.

Not because of apathy. Not because another candidate generates more enthusiasm. Not because of his character. Not because they think voting is pointless. The 18-29 vote is up for grabs in 2012 because youth can’t afford cars to put bumper stickers on and those t-shirts are worn out from too many days sitting on the couch unemployed.

The sobering reality: just 55.3 percent of Americans between 16 and 29 have jobs. And earlier this year, Americans’ student loan debt surpassed credit card debt for the first time ever.

The Occupy movement may have been one of the leading indicators for this, and perhaps the Democrats shouldn’t have been so quick to embrace the squatters. You only have time to go camp out and annoy people in the park for months on end if you’re unemployed. (Or, alternately, employed by a labor union to camp there.) And no matter how much they may rail against Wall Street bankers and the wealthy, when it comes time to vote, unemployed people tend to blame the party in power.

Does this mean that large numbers of them will suddenly flock to the GOP and support the eventual Republican candidate? That might be a stretch. But what is far more believable is that they’ll go back to staying home on election days.

One group of young voters is very charged up again, of course, but they’re working for Ron Paul. And these are voters who don’t tend to have a second choice. If Paul isn’t running next November, they’re unlikely to show up for anyone else, and they’re certainly not going to embrace Obama. Could 2012 be the return of voter apathy in the 18-29 year old demographic?

UPDATE: Courtesy of itsnotaboutme in the comments section, a friendly, video tutorial for young voters needing to remove those pesky hope and change bumper stickers from their cars. (If they can still afford cars.)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

That’s the ticket to get us to vote for a continuing slow death by a ’1000′ cuts regulations and penury slavery for our progeny.

chemman on December 31, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Nonsense. “Conservative management” by definition would require the restructuring of the tax structure and entitlements to ensure solvency of the Republic. How is this “death”?

You seem to believe that a President Romney would be as fiscally incompetent as the nitwit in the Oval Office. I wonder why?

Jaibones on December 31, 2011 at 11:40 AM

“A-ha ha! Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?”- johnny rotten

http://youtu.be/iix18rtJmU0

mittens on December 31, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Nonsense. “Conservative management” by definition would require the restructuring of the tax structure and entitlements to ensure solvency of the Republic. How is this “death”?

You seem to believe that a President Romney would be as fiscally incompetent as the nitwit in the Oval Office. I wonder why?

Jaibones on December 31, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Wrong. Conservative management according to the RINO/RNC/Romney vision means spending the tax dollars more efficiently than the Democrats. It doesn’t mean spending less or taxing less.

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 11:54 AM

My son worked for a local manufacturer this Christmas for a whopping $8/hour. When he got his paycheck, he saw that $60 had been taken out for payroll taxes. I told him that he had just spent 7.5 hours working for Obama.

We have a new Republican.

johnboy on December 31, 2011 at 10:10 AM

That’s absurd. Had McCain won he’d be paying the same $60. And if Romney wins he will again pay that same $60. I hope you didn’t fill your son’s head with ideas like vote GOP and you don’t have to pay FICA taxes anymore.

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Jaibones on December 31, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Can’t speak for chemman, but Romney would only be marginally better than Obama fiscally. Why? Because he doesn’t want to cut anything. He may, but just may, nibble around the edges, but he will not reform anything. He is a “Progressive Republican” in the same vein as the GHWB, GWB, Johnny Mac,, Newt, and a whole slew of others… Statists all that believe the Federal Government has both the responsibility and the authority to fix everything and do it well. he will slow down the train heading toward the cliff but won’t stop it to switch the track its on. And regardless of his statement of EO’s and ObamaCare, we need full repeal, with his continued enthusiastic support of RomneyCare I don’t believe for a second that he will work for that.

Neomom on December 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Did they actually say which part of O’Bozo they like, or was it just the usual ignorance and stupidity?

Jaibones on December 31, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Of course, anyone who disagrees with you politically has to be stupid. When did HA turn into Kos?

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM

If Ron Paul said he changed his mind about legalizing debilitating drugs, more than half of his base would disappear, regardless of their ages. Liberertarianism leaves a bad after-taste now…

Oracleforhire on December 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Can’t speak for chemman, but Romney would only be marginally better than Obama fiscally. Why? Because he doesn’t want to cut anything. He may, but just may, nibble around the edges, but he will not reform anything.
Neomom on December 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM

I’m glad someone else gets it. Romney is a technocrat manager. He’s not a fiscal conservative. His skills is in taking a bloated bureaucracy and making it more streamlined. But that is not the same as shrinking the bureaucracy.

He’ll look at the $3T budget and think, OK how can we get more productivity out of that $3T. He won’t look at it and think, OK how can we get that $3T down to $2T? Which I suppose is better than Obama who will look at the $3T and think how can we get that $3T to $4T. But it’s pathetic to see people who think Romney will come in and take an ax to spending. He won’t. It’s not him. Never has never will be.

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 12:02 PM

“And you damn kids get the hell off my lawn, too!”

BettyRuth on December 31, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Yup, had to do that just the other day as a matter of fact. How that is even remotely pertinent escapes me.

Archimedes on December 31, 2011 at 12:03 PM

chemman on December 31, 2011 at 11:20 AM

actually in glendale…

cmsinaz on December 31, 2011 at 12:03 PM

You seem to believe that a President Romney would be as fiscally incompetent as the nitwit in the Oval Office. I wonder why?

Jaibones on December 31, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Uhmm, one word comes to mind…Massachusetts.

Any further questions?

Archimedes on December 31, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Lovin’ the BS removal kit and glad I’m not stupid enough to need one.

HellCat on December 31, 2011 at 12:12 PM

My son worked for a local manufacturer this Christmas for a whopping $8/hour. When he got his paycheck, he saw that $60 had been taken out for payroll taxes. I told him that he had just spent 7.5 hours working for Obama.

We have a new Republican.

johnboy on December 31, 2011 at 10:10 AM

That’s absurd. Had McCain won he’d be paying the same $60. And if Romney wins he will again pay that same $60. I hope you didn’t fill your son’s head with ideas like vote GOP and you don’t have to pay FICA taxes anymore.

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 11:56 AM

I take it, you never heard that republicans on principle, favor lower taxes? or that in principle, they are less likely to get higher than under a democrat?

That was just nasty of you, to imply they’re putting nonsesense in their son’s head, then a couple of posts down, take violent objection to anyone suggesting that dem talking points are stupid?

really?

No, FICA won’t disappear tomorrow, that wasn’t what he said was it?

Being against taxes being high on principle is absurd to you? You can believe a line of reasoning is idiotic without thinking the person holding it is dumb as a post,

I love my wife, but we don’t always agree on politics.. she’s a democrat of the blue dog kind, but still a democraqt even though she’ll vote GOP this year.

mark81150 on December 31, 2011 at 12:13 PM

and no, she didn’t vote for Obama in 08, she was a very disgruntled Hillary voter.

mark81150 on December 31, 2011 at 12:17 PM

I want to hear an indepth interview of Romney with only questions about what his specific plans are if elected President.
lea on December 31, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Me too. If you’re interested in a 150+ page .PDF of generalities, here’s his plan:

Ceteris Paribus on December 31, 2011 at 12:20 PM

I take it, you never heard that republicans on principle, favor lower taxes? or that in principle, they are less likely to get higher than under a democrat?

That was just nasty of you, to imply they’re putting nonsesense in their son’s head, then a couple of posts down, take violent objection to anyone suggesting that dem talking points are stupid?

You’re talking to a Dem plant, you do realize that? His entire goal here is to dismiss every candidate as “not really a conservative”/”not conservative enough” in the vain hope that he’ll stir up enough sentiment to get people to stay home in November.

You cannot convince someone who isn’t writing in good faith.

Esoteric on December 31, 2011 at 12:22 PM

So,.. it all comes down to, if you don’t support my (Paul/Gingrich/Perry/whomever)… then you’re voting for Obama lite?

When did my party become a suicide pact?

I can’t have my way., so me and mine will just dive off the cliff in a fit of self righteous selfpity?

is that what it comes down to?

This is like the die hard establishment R’s who threatened to vote for Carter in 80, because that crazy rightwing warmonger Reagan was gonna start WW III.

If you can’t get your nominee, then you work to hold Romney’s feet to the fire to get your support, that is how it’s supposed to work anyway. Not naming anyone, but to walk away, because you failed to convince everyone,..

I miss the days when Reagan pulled us together, this Polish firing squad of rino’s conservatives and libertarians doesn’t win the country jack.

are we ever going to agree on anything?

mark81150 on December 31, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Esoteric on December 31, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Actually, never thought about it, being a noob, I’m sometimes fuzzy on who’s who other than long time commenters. I can be too literal minded sometimes, a personal flaw I’m working on.

Thanks for the nudge.

mark81150 on December 31, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Those of you talking about Romney not cutting are missing the point completely.

It’s Congress that makes law and budgets.

Unless you think Mitt’s gonna make common cause with Congressional Democrats to oppose the GOP – possible IMO only if the Stupid Party goes all Terri Schiavo social-con and loses the public – what matters is a solid GOP Congress.

JEM on December 31, 2011 at 12:34 PM

There’s only one thing certain about the “youth vote.”

They ain’t young very long.

Jack Bauer on December 31, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Actually, never thought about it, being a noob, I’m sometimes fuzzy on who’s who other than long time commenters. I can be too literal minded sometimes, a personal flaw I’m working on.

Pro-tip: any commenter who chooses a term like “angry [x]” or “true conservative” or tries to frontpage their RAGE and ULTRA-CONSERVATIVENESS, etc. etc….is pretty much guaranteed to be a lefty doing a bad imitation of what they *think* people on the right are actually like.

Ever notice how all the posters with those sorts of names play into the worst stereotypes that the liberal media and commentariat have about conservatives being bass-ackwards, irredentist, burn-it-all-to-the-ground grumps? Well you and I know full well that this isn’t even remotely like any conservatives we know…the only people who think that conservatives behave that way are liberals who want to spoof us, both for the lulz and because they really do think that they can stir up enough discontent to “have an effect.”

This is part of why I realized it was pointless to try and argue with the “angrycon” people on places like Hot Air: they’re not even really here in good faith, they’re just playing a role they learned from stereotypical representations of conservatives in media and on their preferred liberal websites.

Again, their number one priority is sowing discontent about the man they (as liberals) fear the most as nominee: Romney. There are lots of people here who have perfectly genuine and valid problems with Mitt (hell, I’m one of them!), but the difference between those folks and these ‘plants’ is the relentless ‘always turn the subject to how evil Romney is and how Obama would be better’ message control they have.

Esoteric on December 31, 2011 at 12:39 PM

LI had some good posts, the best bumper stickers of the year

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/12/best-bumper-sticker-of-the-year/

and the worst http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/12/worst-bumper-sticker-of-the-year/

I saw my first “I am the 99%” sticker today, he was turning into a shopping center, perhaps to participate in evil capitalism.

beacon on December 31, 2011 at 12:44 PM

There’s only one thing certain about the “youth vote.”

They ain’t young very long.

Jack Bauer on December 31, 2011 at 12:39 PM

But many are stupid forever.

Rio Linda Refugee on December 31, 2011 at 12:47 PM

So,.. it all comes down to, if you don’t support my (Paul/Gingrich/Perry/whomever)… then you’re voting for Obama lite?

When did my party become a suicide pact?

mark81150 on December 31, 2011 at 12:28 PM

With the exceptions of Coolidge & Reagan, two all too breif interludes, I beleive it was sometime in the 1880′s.

Archimedes on December 31, 2011 at 12:51 PM

But many are stupid forever.

Rio Linda Refugee on December 31, 2011 at 12:47 PM

LOL. Young and dumb. Old and stupid.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Unfortunately, Utopian-seeking idealistic youth are easily manipulated by shallow promises unsupported by the lessons of history. They will abandon Obama and flock to Ron Paul.

onlineanalyst on December 31, 2011 at 1:09 PM

At least the democrats fair worse, they fight dirty, they have no Honor, they will say or do anything to cement their grip on power,..

But they have tribal squabbles to make ours look like a paper cut, and they never always all get on the same page.. and sometimes as in 1980, the mask slips, and the country sees just who they put in power..

I pray 2012 is such a year,.. I believe it is, and while we should never count on God saving us from ourselves, I do not believe our time is done, or our destiny fulfilled. So instead of one strong leader, we’ll be saved this time, by a great many individuals who aren’t ready to throw away the idea of America, no matter what the media says about it.

mark81150 on December 31, 2011 at 1:10 PM

If Paul isn’t running next November, they’re unlikely to show up for anyone else, and they’re certainly not going to embrace Obama

I wouldn’t be too sure about that, most of that Paul youth vote is from anti-war, legal weed crowds and they went for Obama in ’08 so they’ll do it again.

clearbluesky on December 31, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Unfortunately, Utopian-seeking idealistic youth are easily manipulated by shallow promises unsupported by the lessons of history. They will abandon Obama and flock to Ron Paul.

onlineanalyst on December 31, 2011 at 1:09 PM

And if history is any indication, they will abandon the electoral process altogether if Ron Paul fails to secure the nomination. I’m not that pessimistic.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Still, the most prevalent bumper stickers, so far, are for Obama and Ron Paul.

The other drivers are decent people.

Schadenfreude on December 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Lovin’ the BS removal kit and glad I’m not stupid enough to need one.

HellCat on December 31, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Me too!

>>Hope and Change Are Out the Door

http://biggovernment.com/tobytoons/2011/12/05/wanting-still-another-4-hope-and-change-are-out-the-door/

Green eyed Lady on December 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM

I wouldn’t be too sure about that, most of that Paul youth vote is from anti-war, legal weed crowds and they went for Obama in ’08 so they’ll do it again.

clearbluesky on December 31, 2011 at 1:14 PM

But Obama hasn’t taken a real anti-war stance. And has he said anything about weed at all? The only way to NOT feel disappointment at Obama as a liberal is to have a complete-and-total disconnect from reality. I’m inclined to think that if they were going to support Obama at all, they wouldn’t be supporting a nominal Republican to replace him.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM

But Obama hasn’t taken a real anti-war stance. And has he said anything about weed at all?

No, but he hasn’t done anything for gays either but they just believe he will in his second term, same thing with the Paul voters.

clearbluesky on December 31, 2011 at 1:36 PM

My son will turn 18 in time for Election Day but too late for Primary Day in Georgia. He’s not apathetic but isn’t confident that he has the requisite knowledge to vote responsibly. Ironically, he is way better informed than most of his peers. I hope to persuade him to vote despite his misgivings as it is not only a right and a privilege, but his generation’s very future hinges on the election results.

Buy Danish on December 31, 2011 at 1:37 PM

That’s absurd. Had McCain won he’d be paying the same $60. And if Romney wins he will again pay that same $60. I hope you didn’t fill your son’s head with ideas like vote GOP and you don’t have to pay FICA taxes anymore.

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 11:56 AM

At least you can agree that Romney and McCain are just Big Gov’t types who wouldn’t ever dream of doing what’s necessary to reduce the bloat of Gov’t and let us keep more of our money.

You completely missed the man’s point though, which doesn’t help your cause, whatever that might be.

Spliff Menendez on December 31, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Still, the most prevalent bumper stickers, so far, are for Obama and Ron Paul.

The other drivers are decent people.

Schadenfreude on December 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM

I’m seeing many more local/state bumper stickers than any Presidental campaign stickers.

Which just goes to show that the people still care, but they realize the President, whoever that might be, can’t do a damn thing without the right people in the Senate and the House.

It also gives me hope that people are becoming more involved in their hometown elections, which is where real education reform will have to begin.

Spliff Menendez on December 31, 2011 at 1:46 PM

I take it, you never heard that republicans on principle, favor lower taxes? or that in principle, they are less likely to get higher than under a democrat?

That was just nasty of you, to imply they’re putting nonsesense in their son’s head, then a couple of posts down, take violent objection to anyone suggesting that dem talking points are stupid?

mark81150 on December 31, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Get your panties unbunched. What I said was it’s absurd to say “my son worked 7.5 hours for Obama, he’s now a Republican” because he paid payroll tax. He didn’t work for Obama. He worked for the federal govt and will continue working for the federal govt regardless of who the next president is.

And which of our fearless Republican leaders want to lower payroll taxes by the way? Romney? LOL. The only guy that has even mentioned Social Security was Perry. And as soon as he talked about it, the Romney / RNC / RINO machine went into overdrive to destroy him for it.

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 1:51 PM

If you can’t get your nominee, then you work to hold Romney’s feet to the fire to get your support, that is how it’s supposed to work anyway.

mark81150 on December 31, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Hold his feet to the fire? That’s a good one. His entire campaign so far has been to tell conservatives to go to hell. And this is in the primary. And you think once’s he’s elected he’ll give a rat’s ass what we think?

And who else will hold his feet to the fire? John Boehner? Mitch McConnell? These two incompetents couldn’t get $1 of spending cuts while giving Obama $2T in new borrowing. That’s the group who will cut spending?

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 1:56 PM

At least you can agree that Romney and McCain are just Big Gov’t types who wouldn’t ever dream of doing what’s necessary to reduce the bloat of Gov’t and let us keep more of our money.

Spliff Menendez on December 31, 2011 at 1:43 PM

I agree 100% with that statement. Which is why voting for Obama or McCain/Romney makes absolutely no difference.

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 1:57 PM

There is actually some substance to Mitt.

IlikedAUH2O on December 31, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Yes there is. It’s called ‘progressivism’.

KirknBurker on December 31, 2011 at 2:04 PM

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 1:56 PM

You see what I see. Mitt at best will not overturn O-care.

Mitt will ignore the Right as he placates the Left, DC, the Media, the Dems (who he has lots of big government bipartisonship with, example: Kennedy).

He’ll put a leftist on the SCOTUS like Souter.

If he wins the nomination, you will hear loud cries for a third party in 2013, one that is right of center to counter the Dems left of center.

The problem is that we lack balance in the system.

KirknBurker on December 31, 2011 at 2:07 PM

That’s absurd. Had McCain won he’d be paying the same $60. And if Romney wins he will again pay that same $60. I hope you didn’t fill your son’s head with ideas like vote GOP and you don’t have to pay FICA taxes anymore.

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Unless I’m mistaken, a provision of Obamacare that kicks in in 2014 is the imposition of FICA tax on flow-through S Corporation income that’s reported on the individual returns of S corp shareholders. One could argue that the provision puts their treatment on par with the treatment of general partners in partnerships and members of limited liability companies, but S corporations have some different features from partnerships and LLCs that warrant not subjecting the S corp income to FICA tax.

Also, a common Democratic solution for Social Security solvency is removing the salaries/wages cap for the OASDI portion (6.2%) of the FICA tax.

BuckeyeSam on December 31, 2011 at 2:28 PM

My son is a Ron Paul supporter. When I asked him if it was between Romney and Obama he said he wouldn’t vote. And I think he’s typical.

Our young people are disinterested from towing the party line. They distrust BOTH parties. Paul is appealing to young people because of his purity to the constitution. Us older people have experience and history on our side in that there is no purity in politics. You need to collaborate and, yes, sometimes give concessions in order to “win” (if there is such a word in politics).

Ah, but being in California, we are completely irrelevant anyway in presidential elections anyway.

Alibali on December 31, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Who’s holding hands with Obama?

Schadenfreude on December 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM

UPDATE: Courtesy of itsnotaboutme in the comments section, a friendly, video tutorial for young voters needing to remove those pesky hope and change bumper stickers from their cars. (If they can still afford cars.)

Hysterical! Thanks, Jazz and itsnotaboutme)!

shaloma on December 31, 2011 at 4:10 PM

I’ll vote for Barry if I can afford those damned grocery bills.

galtani on December 31, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Why shouldn’t we rally around Romney? .This…

Neomom on December 31, 2011 at 5:28 PM

Forgive the recently registered figuring out how to link…

Neomom on December 31, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Young voters not so hot for Obama now?

More evidence that AGW is a fraud.

Update: Obama bumper sticker removal instructions

It’s much easier to just send the car over the cliff.

Of course, it’s imperative to get out of the car before doing so.

rukiddingme on December 31, 2011 at 5:31 PM

I believe the “wild card” will be the VP pick. The election Is still ten mos. away and anything can happen.
That said, if Romney is the Nominee who would you like to see as VP?

savoybrown on December 31, 2011 at 8:05 PM

And Republicans need to totally forget about spending money trying to get the Black vote – 98% is going to Obama no matter how bad Obama is.
albill on December 31, 2011 at 9:40 AM

R U sayin 98% of me black bro’s and sis’s are RACIST? How dare you, you big-got redneck southern whitey male who actually has a job.

The PC poe-leece be on yo trail. U B sarry.

jarhead0311 on January 1, 2012 at 5:31 AM

I followed the link in this article about the percentage unemployed young people which took me to http://nymag.com/news/features/my-generation-2011-10/

It is interesting to read on a few points, the first is, that many of today’s young 20′s have baby boomer parents. They taught them to think in these cliche Occupy Wall Street Cliches, however, the baby boomers for several reasons are a large part of the 1%.

They also taught their children either by helping them, or pushing them to be merit achievers. The baby boom generation was the last generation to get into college based on academic merit, and probably to have most of their college paid for by their own parents.

They are the ones who equated college with success, and thought that it was Admittance to college that transformed young people into high achieving career personalities. It worked for them.

I am not negative about a college education, like some you may read here or listen to on the radio. I really think there is an intrinsic value in learning and developing your mind through your early twenties in math, science, English, writing, reading because the brain does grow and mature; I don’t think it is the only place for people that age, you can learn and grow what ever your choice is. Or not. So, please only consider the students in the article when you read it. It is just a slice of life they are talking about here. Read about the kids who worked hard in school and achieved mostly by merit, or so they thought.

I am not so negative about the self esteem they talk about in the article, the kids were told it was self esteem, but as you read you see that for a large percentage of students they do equate their own self esteem and accomplishments. A lot of it was merited, and not just a participation trophy. Just because someone gives out participation trophies, does not mean that some of the students really were the best, and KNEW it.

The young people today cannot relate to the easy transition their parents made from hippy to CEO. My generation, people who graduated from college during the late Jimmy Carter years until the Reagan revolution, know what it is like to graduate in a recession and lose 5 years of earning power. The baby boomers had all the jobs, and then the new hires the companies wanted were fresh out of college. The baby boomers did not sympathize with their younger brother and sisters, they have been there in the establishment at businesses and in all walks of life controlling things and having got there first.

From this perch they have been the elites telling us all what to do, so what I am saying is, that their picture has always been askew. When you look at the democrat party, you see liberal elites, of whom, many were the baby boom generation, and in their guilt over success, they have tried to make an even playing field for the able and the less able, and now their own children have arrived in that world, of everyone earning $10 an hour. Of some jobs advertised but held back on hiring because you need a few more special this or that at the company to look diverse. Where is admittance based on our merit, the children ask?

I am wondering if they will start to see it? Their parents did not see what they were doing to the rest of us.

We have just been thru a nasty recession, ask yourself after your next appliance service call, or trip to the auto dealers, or you name the thing…shouldn’t the people still working be the best, most overqualified employees possible? How did my auto mechanic survive the scrutiny of the layoffs?!!!! There should be no job in this country not held by the most perfect candidate for the position.

These liberal elite young 20′s did not suffer thru some of the school policies that are foisted from on high at our kids in public school now. The misuse of standards to shape 100% of kids to average achievement. As soon as one is average, the teacher moves on to the next one. No merit class, no tracking. Schools are not rewarded for the number of students that become exceptional, and are discouraged from pointing them out. In MA where I live, you are tested only to 10th grade ability, but can get into college with that credential, and some are crying that it leaves some kids out!

Read the article, it is about the state young adults find themselves in, and food for thought. If you have kids that graduated from college by 2005, like I do (my others are younger than that) you will remember the huge difference between the way you felt and their opportunities compared to the younger ones.

We oldsters know the ideals of the Occupy are NOT the solution, but I think this call to advancement on the basis or hard work and merit can appeal to these kids. I know they are the children of the liberals who caused it, but we need to encourage it because it is right for America.

I loved the bumper sticker video, YAY 2012, the year in which we send B.O. packing on an all expenses paid vacation to the 57th state, all expenses, paid by HIM.

Fleuries on January 1, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Obama bumper sticker removal instructions

If you failed to remove that 2008 ‘Obama Hope’n Change’ sticker in your rear window, chances are it has already been removed. Some helpful citizen probably removed it with a brick. :)

BigSven on January 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM

We have just been thru a nasty recession, ask yourself after your next appliance service call, or trip to the auto dealers, or you name the thing…shouldn’t the people still working be the best, most overqualified employees possible?

Overqualified means that their talents are going to waste – and doing a worse job under higher stress.

How did my auto mechanic survive the scrutiny of the layoffs?!!!!

A myriad of reasons, including the proverbial office or regional politics. As many layoffs have happened, the problem becomes a lack of available work for too many people.

I’ve had good few that were taken out from an offer by a very influential university. The university wanted the land, and a profitable dealership was razed for university housing. That didn’t reflect on their competence or quality, however.

There should be no job in this country not held by the most perfect candidate for the position.

Then nobody would have a job – be careful for what you wish to happen. That’s what you get when you have the perfect chase out the good.

sethstorm on January 2, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Comment pages: 1 2