FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB General Discussion Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 09:28 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-05-2003, 07:36 PM   #81
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Origionally posted by Ultimate Atheist
Oh that's B.S.
...
Some people don't have the privilege of making "career choices".
No, that's B.S. Anyone in America who wants a career and is willing to work for it can achieve one. If you really were a straight 'A' student like you claim, you would have had no trouble getting scholarships to pay for everything. The vast majority of worthwhile careers have no need of large funding, they need hard work. The origional poster was right. Even adults who have already made mistakes can change their career path with hard work. What makes people poor is not a lack of choices but rather choosing the wrong thing which is more a matter of culture than wealth. It is this very culture of victimhood that creates victims. Those who take responsibility for their own lives, rather than blaming someone else, almost always succeed.
acronos is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 07:40 PM   #82
Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Vine
Posts: 12,950
Default

Quote:
Yeah the system is keeping everyone down except me and Lamma. For the rest of the population of the us, the man just quashes their hopes and dreams
Hmm by my count the B-man has slaughtered a total of 15 straw men in this thread so far. Impressive.
August Spies is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 07:55 PM   #83
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 216
Default Sell off

Quote:
Not sure who really is to blame although the sudden sell off and bursting of the "bubble" days after GW came in seemed highly suspicious.
The sell off began early 2000 - well before Bush was elected, much less took office.

It's silly to blame the economy on either president Clinton or Bush, but if your naive enough to do so then any honest person would put it in Clintons lap as the above link shows. Too bad so few people are honest.
acronos is offline  
Old 06-06-2003, 05:56 AM   #84
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: somewhere in the known Universe
Posts: 6,993
Default

Quote:
The sell off began early 2000 - well before Bush was elected, much less took office.
What? What I see is a decline in 99 and then a significant climb and then a continued and significant trend of downturn from the day GWB2 was inaugerated in January of 00!

All I know is that 2.7 million jobs have been lost since that man took office. That I have lost significant amounts of money in my stock portfolios. That the national debt is higher then it has ever been and that the surplass is gone. I know that the tax cuts haven't helped me a bit and the rich are getting $90,000 + tax returns and the poor aren't eligible for the increase in the EIC. I know that fiscal responsibility (the alleged mantra of the Republican Party) is a foregone relic and that every where I look important social programs (like Head Start, Reading Recovery, after school programs, etc.) are being cut. The Republicans blame everything on the liberals and Clinton, but every single time one of them gets hold of the helm in the White House we have shitty economic times. It was that way under Regan, Bush I and now it with Bush II. How much you want to bet IF the economy turns around they will be ALL too willing to take the credit for it, but they aren't willing to take responsibility for the poor economic choices they have made.

My great grandchildren will ge footing the tax bill for the national debt long after I have gone. Sorry, but the majority of Americans, including the poor were better off under Clinton. Paying down the national debt is fiscally responsible and the ramifications of poor economic policy are being felt by more then just the 2.7 million people who lost their jobs, pensions and the security they spent years building.

Brighid
brighid is offline  
Old 06-06-2003, 07:03 AM   #85
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 368
Default

Quote:
What? What I see is a decline in 99 and then a significant climb and then a continued and significant trend of downturn from the day GWB2 was inaugerated in January of 00!
Bush was not inaugerated until January of 01.

If you want to see how the Dow has performed under the different administrations, you can go here , scroll down to the Dow data, and select which decade you want to see.
queue is offline  
Old 06-06-2003, 11:46 AM   #86
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,842
Default

I just ran across this reprint of a Paul Krugman column from 10/02, detailing the actual shrinkage in the middle class since the 1970s. I wasn't hallucinating it.

Here's a taste:
Quote:
Adjusting for inflation, average family income -- total income divided by the number of families -- grew 28 percent from 1979 to 1997. But median family income -- the income of a family in the middle of the distribution, a better indicator of how typical American families are doing -- grew only 10 percent. And the incomes of the bottom fifth of families actually fell slightly.

Let me belabor this point for a bit. We pride ourselves, with considerable justification, on our record of economic growth. But over the last few decades it's remarkable how little of that growth has trickled down to ordinary families. Median family income has risen only about 0.5 percent per year -- and as far as we can tell from somewhat unreliable data, just about all of that increase was due to wives working longer hours, with little or no gain in real wages. Furthermore, numbers about income don't reflect the growing riskiness of life for ordinary workers. In the days when General Motors was known in-house as Generous Motors, many workers felt that they had considerable job security -- the company wouldn't fire them except in extremis. Many had contracts that guaranteed health insurance, even if they were laid off; they had pension benefits that did not depend on the stock market. Now mass firings from long-established companies are commonplace; losing your job means losing your insurance; and as millions of people have been learning, a 401(k) plan is no guarantee of a comfortable retirement.
Ab_Normal is offline  
Old 06-06-2003, 12:32 PM   #87
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: somewhere in the known Universe
Posts: 6,993
Default

Quote:
Bush was not inaugerated until January of 01.
I am sorry I meant 01 and thank you for point out that error.

When I look back at the data the Dow was slipping from 4 and 5000 to about 3000 and after his inaugeration it took a serious hit (actually I believe it took a serious hit the DAY he was inaugerated.) and hasn't even come to recover half its volume.

We are also at the highest unemployment rate in 9 years ... it doesn't appear to be getting better.

Brighid
brighid is offline  
Old 06-06-2003, 12:53 PM   #88
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mars
Posts: 2,231
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by brighid
I am sorry I meant 01 and thank you for point out that error.

When I look back at the data the Dow was slipping from 4 and 5000 to about 3000 and after his inaugeration it took a serious hit (actually I believe it took a serious hit the DAY he was inaugerated.) and hasn't even come to recover half its volume.

We are also at the highest unemployment rate in 9 years ... it doesn't appear to be getting better.

Brighid
Just nine years?

Martin
John Hancock is offline  
Old 06-06-2003, 12:57 PM   #89
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: somewhere in the known Universe
Posts: 6,993
Default

WOW!!! Martin that is a great slide ... does anyone see a trend here?? DANG ... Voting for a Bush is like voting to lose your job, your house, your pension .....

Brighid
brighid is offline  
Old 06-06-2003, 12:57 PM   #90
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: SoCal USA
Posts: 7,737
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Optional
[B
It's the difference between talking about trends vs talking about specific cases.

-me [/B]
Optional, what you said about trends vs. specific cases is important.
Each of us is a specific case, no? The point is that a trend doesn't have to affect you or me or any other individual. There's nothing productive about seeing one's own self as a victim of a trend or being at the mercy of the political party in power at the moment. I don't see the sense in throwing up ones hands and saying "I just have to wait for better politicians to make my life better".

I'm not saying that you believe this because I don't know you well enough to state that. But it does seem to be a pervasive attitude here.

We don't live in on a one dimensional road where there is only one path to take. If I had a degree of any sort I could find a way to make that degree work for me. If I came up short on money for education I could find a way to pay for it. The way I got the money might not be the most expedient and it might cause me to graduate a few years later than I would have liked, but I would get it done if I wanted to.

Maybe it's because I deal with people on a daily basis who've made their way from far worse than ordinary circumstances to build extraordinary lives.
I can think of 4 people I know right off the top of my head who would classify as people who fulfilled the "American Dream". Three of whom are minorities. All of them have one thing in common and that's simple and very hard work.
HaysooChreesto! is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:28 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.