Hattip to commenter W.K. Aiken. Army Colonel, retired, and trial attorney, Kurt Schlichter lays it on the line to Obama supporting Millennials:
Good plan. Now fetch my latte – I’m in a hurry to get to my corner office. And I’ll leave you a tip – next time you decide to vote for a liberal, first be born in 1964.
Don’t think that I’m happy about this. I came to Los Angeles after the Gulf War. I had a car and a few bucks I had saved in the desert which went right into paying for Loyola Law School. I had no contacts and no money, but I knew I had endless opportunity.
I worked hard. I could start a business. I could get credit. I could – and did – build my own future.
But can you? Liberalism, with its impoverishing redistribution, crippling regulations and the debt it suckered you into undertaking, has ensured that most of you can’t.
You live with your parents, and Obamacare encourages sponging until you are 26 years old. At 26, I was leading Americans in a war, not begging mommy to pay my bills. The liberals want you to be eternal man-children, wearing cargo shorts and passively pumping money into their socialized medicine nightmare in return for “Brosurance” you don’t want or need.
It breaks my heart to see the young lawyers I hire hobbled by six figures of debt. But hey, your desperation works fine for us established folks. I got 297 applications for a junior associate position. Let me say that again – 297. Most of them weren’t even practicing law – they were brewing coffee, not writing briefs. Now, I understand that most of you learned nothing but liberal clichés in college, but take a guess: As an employer, are the salaries I pay generally more or less when I have 297 people competing for each job?
So feel free to keep voting for the liberals who keep you in chains. I’ll take my cheaper insurance, my future Social Security checks, and the other benefits that come from being established without guilt. The guys who you squander your votes upon certainly won’t change that equation. You’ll tread water in life, but hey, at least those conservatives won’t be in charge!
Thanks again, suckers. Now get off my lawn.
Go here to read the scorching rest. Not all of the young were gulled of course, I’m looking at you Donnie, and I truly feel sorry for the young who saw this disaster coming and refused to walk in lockstep with their generation. As for the rest, one great advantage of being young is that there is time to learn and change, and I think this will occur for many people who voted for the man who is a complete and utter disaster for their generation. Why? Because of the truth of this saying of Ben Franklin: “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.” As the video at the beginning of this post demonstrates, Obama and his political flacks assume all Millennials will be idiots forever. Prove him wrong.
I still can’t get over how easily the youth vote was bought in the last election.
1. “free sex”, as in sex without consequences. Boys can let the government pay for their girlfriend’s baby, whether contracepted, aborted, or born (and fed). Girls can get the government to pay for their baby, whether contracepted, aborted, or born (and fed).
2. “free-reduced” lunches for all, to be paid for with the money rich people have hidden away in mattresses.
So easy. Too easy.
We need to raise the voting age to 30.
I did not find it instructive or amusing. Were I that age, I think I would tell Col. Schlichter, Esq. that he’s a wretched stylist and he is welcome to take his upraised middle finger and run it through a meat grinder.
The Millennials in effect did that Art with their futures when they elected Obama twice. Schlichter is merely telling them the blunt truth, something that their generation has rarely received.
Recently chatted with my dad, when he commented about “boomers”– as the folks before him. He was born in 50, you see, which was post Boomer last time he listened to the talking heads. (five years after soldiers came back is WELL outside of the “baby boom from everyone gettin’ it on” effect, rationally.)
More reasonably, I’d want to tell the man to grow up.
This is bull:
I worked hard. I could start a business. I could get credit. I could – and did – build my own future.
Well, if he’s a Gulf War Vet and thinks being born in 64 is notable, he’s probably a generation to half a generation younger than my folk; so he’s already benefited from his parents not having to support their parents, and is currently not having to support his parents in their retirement, and is now scolding those who are paying without a chance in hell of getting back.
Being older, he also didn’t have as high of college costs.
Given his choice of starting point, he probably also got in on the “boom” part of the cycle, rather than the “bust” part my folks were in– and which my family is also working through.
I’d suggest he deal with the log in his own eye before he deals with the mote in the “Millennial’s”– younger folks don’t vote in nearly the numbers of older ones, and as part of the newly minted “35 and under youth-vote,” I am sick of being blamed for the screw ups of my elders AND of some portion of my generation. Right up there with being blamed for something someone’s ex-wife did, because I’m female and thus must support her.
I constantly see articles like this and I wonder: Okay, yes, we are the eternally infantile generation because we are lazy, granted – but – what am I supposed to do? I mean, I am working; I am in school paying for it myself; I spend on ONLY and I mean ONLY what I need; but to read my fellow Conservatives, I should feel ashamed for living with my mother when I am 20. I cannot afford to move out, and as someone with a single mom and eight siblings (all younger except the one with autism) I don’t know if I should.
I don’t have any money because I want to enter medicine. Some of the conservatives say that I shouldn’t have gone to college – okay, fine. BUT the Col. seems to look down on those jobs which you don’t need college to get: specifically, selling coffee. I cannot win here! If I go for the professional degree I am a loser; if I am a working stiff, I am a loser.
Should I have joined the army? Well, I want to eventually, but I have Degenerative Disc Disease and am just getting back to being able to run long distances.
So, don’t hate on people who are 20. I was able to vote in ONE national election. I voted for the GOP, but even if I hadn’t, it was people currently older than me that gave the GOP the loss of five out of the last six presidential elections. And I am sure that I am about the only 20 year old to vote in my town on the 5th, so I am gonna blame the Democrat victory here on you older guys.
PS If the gods could give me a repeal of the XXVI Amendment, I would take it – but they won’t.
My point was just that my life is not full of options right now, so don’t blame me for doing the best I can.
As the title at the beginning of this post indicates Clay, I am not blaming you, but rather the members of your generation who flocked to Obama. As for which generation is most responsible for the overall mess the country is in, I would unhesitatingly point my finger at the boomers, the age cohort to which I belong.
Clay, I admire your determination and I am sure it will pay off in the end. There is NOTHING wrong or bad, per se, about the mere act of living with one’s parents after attaining legal age, as long as you are taking responsibility for your own needs and expenses to the best of your ability. If you are paying your own way through college and your presence at home is helpful to your mother and your siblings, I’d say you meet those criteria. The notion that all young adults should leave home immediately upon turning 18 and attempt to live completely on their own is a fairly recent one; in past generations it was common for young adults to live in their parent’s households until they married.
There’s also nothing wrong or bad about accepting work that doesn’t require a college degree. The problem is with people who insist that all such jobs MUST pay as much and have benefits equal to those that do require college education or specialized training — for example, fast-food workers who go on strike demanding $15 an hour.
The original author’s remark about law firm applicants who were “brewing coffee” instead of practicing law was intended, I believe, not as a criticism of their personal work ethic but simply to point out how hard it is to get a good entry level position with a legal firm.
“five years after soldiers came back is WELL outside of the ‘baby boom from everyone gettin’ it on effect'”
According to all the “talking heads” and other demographers I’ve ever heard or read, the Baby Boom is defined as the period 1946 through at least 1960, and more commonly 1964, because birth rates were significantly higher during this period than in any of the years before or after. The Baby Boom is generally believed to have peaked in 1957 with nearly 4 million births that year — more than there would be in any subsequent year of the 20th century, I believe.
The postwar Baby Boom was NOT merely a result of “everyone gettin’ it on” after the men came home from the war — divorce rates also spiked immediately after World War II. Rather it was a result of a thriving economy and generally increased confidence in the country’s future, which tends to make people more willing to marry and have children.
According to all the “talking heads” and other demographers I’ve ever heard or read, the Baby Boom is defined as the period 1946 through at least 1960, and more commonly 1964, because birth rates were significantly higher during this period than in any of the years before or after.
Now, yes.
When my dad was my age, no; he was told he wasn’t a Boomber; it was accepted because of things like him being in high school for the “Summer of Love,” not college. Mrs. Hoyt of According to Hoyt has a similar story, including losing work because she was too young, then losing it because she was too old.
Growing up, they were the guys right after the Boomers. It tracks rather well with my own frustration of being on the year that marks the “youth vote”– when I was 18, it was up to 25; when I turned 25, it went to 30; when I turned 30, it became 35 and under.
Rather it was a result of a thriving economy and generally increased confidence in the country’s future, which tends to make people more willing to marry and have children.
… you seriously want to argue that it had nothing to do with a large portion of the mates of those who were the right age to get pregnant being at home, instead of on the far side of the world?
For the record, when I was young I went to the same school my dad did– and wouldn’t be surprised if some of the textbooks went back to when he was a kid. I can remember seeing mentions of the five or ten years after the end of WWII mentioned as “the boomers,” usually with an additional note that they “came of age” during the early to mid sixties.
It’s a problem with trying to make pop-culture labels fit neat, mathematically coherent models– you end up trying to claim that someone born the year after the original walkman was born is the same ‘generation’ as someone whose mom used an MP3 player and old headset to let them listen to music before birth.
“you seriously want to argue that it had nothing to do with a large portion of the mates of those who were the right age to get pregnant being at home, instead of on the far side of the world? ”
No, that’s not what I said, I am simply pointing out that an increased birth rate that went on for 14-18 years after the war ended could not have been ONLY due to couples getting, shall we say, swept up in the joy of being reunited. Maybe in the case of first babies being born to men who had just gotten home from the war, and their wives; but something else made said couples decide to go ahead and have the second, and third, and fourth (and beyond) kids — and that “something” was the fact that living standards were rising, plenty of good jobs were available, housing was available at a reasonable price, etc.
Or there was the post-war birth jump, and women were incredibly less likely to die from childbirth, and general health understanding went up.
but something else made said couples decide to go ahead and have the second, and third, and fourth (and beyond) kids — and that “something” was the fact that living standards were rising, plenty of good jobs were available, housing was available at a reasonable price, etc.
There have to have been other vectors at work. Growth in per capita income was comparatively rapid during the 1949-54 business cycle, but that during the 1947-49 cycle, the 1954-58 cycle, and the 1958-61 cycle was not. IIRC, the 1960-70 was one of the more rapid post-war cycles, but the size of birth cohorts declined almost monotonically during the period running from 1957 to 1976.
It is my understanding that post WWII, the Catholic priests preached big families, and the Baby Boom was largely a Catholic, not a Protestant, phenomenon. Alas, I don’t remember where I read that.
It also needs to be remembered that really good contraceptives (aka, the Pill) didn’t exist and breastfeeding rates were likely at an all time low as people could more easily afford “formula” or at least the ingredients to make the homemade version. Fertility would have come back very quickly on any postpartum mother of that era.
It is my understanding that post WWII, the Catholic priests preached big families, and the Baby Boom was largely a Catholic, not a Protestant, phenomenon. Alas, I don’t remember where I read that.
I will wager from E. Michael Jones, who was pushing that thesis. Dr. Jones was at one time an engaging social critic but went off the rails about a dozen years ago. I would tend to distrust his ability to interpret social statistics correctly as well as his historiography. ‘Engaging’ does not mean ‘accurate’ or ‘trustworthy’. (One reason I would be skeptical is that I grew up in a liberal protestant milieu where people had generally married in their early 20s and most had at least three children and five was not rare.)
I know the name E. Michael Jones, but don’t think I have any of his books. I suppose I could have read that in an article. My Protestant friends (all Boomers, but I came a bit after) have smaller families than the Catholics I know who are Boomers, who had several more. (The Protestants have 4 or 5, the Catholics 8 or 9).
I do know that in our area, currently, two or three children seems to be the “in number” no matter the denomination.