on Bush and his crashes
Boris Foelsch
I'm not so sure about some of the commentary - I find road riding to be at
least as dangerous as off-road, but it's amusing anyway.
In their subtle way, I think they're trying to say GWB's not real smart
about staying safe on a bike.
Mark Hickey
Well it IS the New York Times. ;-)
I think it's great that both candidates are riding bikes, and that
both are doing it with enough abandon to crash once in a while (you
don't want a commander in chief who is scared by a little road rash).
I just wish Kerry would buy a real jersey and Bush would lose the toe
clips. Fabrizio must be horrified.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
mark
"Boris Foelsch" wrote
>
> In their subtle way, I think they're trying to say GWB's not real smart
> about staying safe on a bike.
>
>
period.
--
mark
>
RonSonic
wrote:
Yeah, Bush crashes, and I'm sure he could use more bike skills.
But... all you guys who thought GWB looked silly in that photo on his bike with
the stupid reflectors and all, TAKE A LOOK AT KERRY! OMG, this is a hoot.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/08/01/weekinreview/01mcgr02ready.html
Never have I seen a leg/bike ratio like that.
Ron
foldedpath
news:v32qg0dt1oejvfhi0...@4ax.com:
> Yeah, Bush crashes, and I'm sure he could use more bike skills.
>
> But... all you guys who thought GWB looked silly in that photo on his
> bike with the stupid reflectors and all, TAKE A LOOK AT KERRY! OMG,
> this is a hoot.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/08/01/weekinreview/01mcgr02ready
> .html
>
> Never have I seen a leg/bike ratio like that.
>
> Ron
I think that's a bit of optical distortion, from a wide-angle lens aimed
slightly downwards. Makes the bike look too small. Here's a shot from a
different angle, longer lens:
--
Mike Barrs
Robert
> "Boris Foelsch" <b_fo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/weekinreview/01mcgr.html?8hpib
>>
>>I'm not so sure about some of the commentary - I find road riding to be at
>>least as dangerous as off-road, but it's amusing anyway.
>>
>>In their subtle way, I think they're trying to say GWB's not real smart
>>about staying safe on a bike.
>
>
> Well it IS the New York Times. ;-)
>
> I think it's great that both candidates are riding bikes, and that
> both are doing it with enough abandon to crash once in a while (you
> don't want a commander in chief who is scared by a little road rash).
True, but there are some elements of this bicycle pissing contest that
are somewhat worrying. For instance, the reference in a previous article
in the Denver Post (see earlier thread "where did all these SEROTTAS
come from???", link from "meb" on 29 July) to GWB's riding with such
fury that his Secret Service agents are getting broken collarbones and
ribs trying to keep up with him.
A bit of a shame that GWB feels the need to assert whatever virility he
may have by trying to humiliate his bodyguards who are doing their best
(poor sods) to protect him. Why does he have to try to burn his riding
mates off his peloton all the time? Gives a truer insight into his
leadership style than most would want to see.
Sounds like the kind of thing that Idi Amin used to do with *his*
security detail.
Be sure that GWB doesn't shave his legs. Hrr, hrr, . . .
>
> I just wish Kerry would buy a real jersey and Bush would lose the toe
> clips. Fabrizio must be horrified.
(pls - for us on the wrong side of the pond - who's Fabrizio?)
/Robert
Tom Sherman
> ...
> (pls - for us on the wrong side of the pond - who's Fabrizio?)
Fabrizio Mazzoleni is the defending champion of the Tour de Farce.
--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area
Kurt Tappe
if you don't crash every now and then you're not riding hard enough.
:-)
-Kurt
RonSonic
wrote:
The fisheye's one thing, but isn't why his calf is smaller than the water bottle
- it's closer to the camera..
Better shot, but doesn't change much, still looks like a doofus and still has no
legs. At least he's got enough tan to avoid the "flourescent tubes with hair"
look.
Ron
Werehatrack
It takes subtlety to *not* say it. It takes blindness to not see it.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Werehatrack
wrote:
>Better shot, but doesn't change much, still looks like a doofus and still has no
>legs. At least he's got enough tan to avoid the "flourescent tubes with hair"
>look.
Kerry almost certainly doesn't have time to spend two or three hours a
day on a bike. In his position, I'd say that he's lucky to get two or
three hours a week. You don't get LanceLegs(tm) sitting at a desk or
in the seat of a limo or plane.
Dubya, OTOH, seems not to give a damn whether he's on the job or off
doing something else.
foldedpath
news:9tiqg0hi5k5gu3tev...@4ax.com:
>>http://tinyurl.com/44bq3
>
> Better shot, but doesn't change much, still looks like a doofus and
> still has no legs. At least he's got enough tan to avoid the
> "flourescent tubes with hair" look.
>
> Ron
Hah! You must have seen me riding my bike recently!
That look immediately precedes the "lobster leg" look.
--
Mike Barrs
Pat
>
> True, but there are some elements of this bicycle pissing contest that
> are somewhat worrying. For instance, the reference in a previous article
> in the Denver Post (see earlier thread "where did all these SEROTTAS
> come from???", link from "meb" on 29 July) to GWB's riding with such
> fury that his Secret Service agents are getting broken collarbones and
> ribs trying to keep up with him.
>
> A bit of a shame that GWB feels the need to assert whatever virility he
> may have by trying to humiliate his bodyguards who are doing their best
> (poor sods) to protect him. Why does he have to try to burn his riding
> mates off his peloton all the time? Gives a truer insight into his
> leadership style than most would want to see.
Okay, cool off a bit, here. As I understand it, he is learning to ride on
the trails--or no trails--on his ranch. He is riding a mountain bike. I have
never seen a peloton on mountain bike trails (have you?). I am sure new
mountain bike riders fall from time to time. I read that he took up
mountain biking because his knee was giving him problems when he ran.
That's the basic stuff. Now, where you get from that to "asserting virility"
and "burning his riding mates off the peloton all the time" I don't know.
This reminds me of the letter writer who wrote to the editor that because
John Kerry didn't throw a perfect strike at that baseball game, that meant
he "couldn't be trusted to complete anything." Take a deep breath and
realise this is not real deep stuff! It's just sports!
Pat in TX
Pat
The man's learning to ride a mountain bike off road. Give him a break! All
newbies have crashes. I did an endo when I got my mountain bike. I fell
when I got my new inline skates. it has nothing to do with intelligence and
everything to do with experience.
Pat in TX
> >
>
>
Mark Hickey
>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:56:14 GMT, "mark" <ma...@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>>In their subtle way, I think they're trying to say GWB's not real smart,
>>period.
>
>It takes subtlety to *not* say it. It takes blindness to not see it.
What does it take to truly believe that a truly dumb person could
actually rise to the most powerful position on earth?
Tom Sherman
> ...
> What does it take to truly believe that a truly dumb person could
> actually rise to the most powerful position on earth?
Who said Dick Cheney was stupid?
Trevor Jeffrey
Mark Hickey wrote in message ...
>Werehatrack <rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:56:14 GMT, "mark" <ma...@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>
>>>In their subtle way, I think they're trying to say GWB's not real smart,
>>>period.
>>
>>It takes subtlety to *not* say it. It takes blindness to not see it.
>
>What does it take to truly believe that a truly dumb person could
>actually rise to the most powerful position on earth?
An illusion called democracy.
TJ
LioNiNoiL_a t_N e t s c a p E_D 0 T_N e T
> virility he may have by trying to humiliate his bodyguards
> who are doing their best (poor sods) to protect him.
That lot deserve every helping of humiliation he can dish them: a bunch
of girlie-men who can't even keep up with a middle-aged Fred like the
President.
--
Robots don't kill people -- people kill people.
http://www.irobotmovie.com/
Ryan Cousineau
Tom Sherman <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
> Robert wrote:
>
> > ...
> > (pls - for us on the wrong side of the pond - who's Fabrizio?)
>
> Fabrizio Mazzoleni is the defending champion of the Tour de Farce.
Tour de Rêves. Check the archives.
I should know, I'm the president of the fan club,
--
Ryan Cousineau, rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.
Ryan Cousineau
Robert <rxobert...@txripnet.se> wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> > "Boris Foelsch" <b_fo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/weekinreview/01mcgr.html?8hpib
> >>
> >>I'm not so sure about some of the commentary - I find road riding to be at
> >>least as dangerous as off-road, but it's amusing anyway.
> >>
> >>In their subtle way, I think they're trying to say GWB's not real smart
> >>about staying safe on a bike.
> >
> > Well it IS the New York Times. ;-)
> >
> > I think it's great that both candidates are riding bikes, and that
> > both are doing it with enough abandon to crash once in a while (you
> > don't want a commander in chief who is scared by a little road rash).
>
> True, but there are some elements of this bicycle pissing contest that
> are somewhat worrying. For instance, the reference in a previous article
> in the Denver Post (see earlier thread "where did all these SEROTTAS
> come from???", link from "meb" on 29 July) to GWB's riding with such
> fury that his Secret Service agents are getting broken collarbones and
> ribs trying to keep up with him.
Considering some of the damage that I have done to myself riding against
only myself (and that I have seen others do without any encouragement
from me) using a mountain bike, I'd say that falling down is an
unavoidable element of "serious" dirt riding. If you're not pushing fast
enough to occasionally fall down, you're probably not riding very
seriously, or the terrain isn't very serious.
> A bit of a shame that GWB feels the need to assert whatever virility he
> may have by trying to humiliate his bodyguards who are doing their best
> (poor sods) to protect him. Why does he have to try to burn his riding
> mates off his peloton all the time? Gives a truer insight into his
> leadership style than most would want to see.
That could just mean he's riding at his own pace, and that the Secret
Service guys aren't very good riders. I guess he should wait, but I'd
say it's the perogative of the Prez to ride hard and fast during his
downtime.
I'm tempted to read more into Kerry's repeatedly blaming sporting
mishaps on his security detail, which actually has a tad more chance of
giving some character insight than assuming Bush is the reason his SS
men keep getting hurt.
> Sounds like the kind of thing that Idi Amin used to do with *his*
> security detail.
No, it doesn't.
> Be sure that GWB doesn't shave his legs. Hrr, hrr, . . .
>
> > I just wish Kerry would buy a real jersey and Bush would lose the toe
> > clips. Fabrizio must be horrified.
>
> (pls - for us on the wrong side of the pond - who's Fabrizio?)
Winner of the Tour de Reves. A legend in his own mind. The ultimate
peloton style authority. A force to be reckoned with.
Fx199
>From: kta...@voicenet.com (Kurt Tappe)
>Date: 8/1/2004 2:28 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <62f8ea51.0408...@posting.google.com>
Yeah.."a 3 inch cut above his knee"
WOW, alert the media
Kerry's calves look OK, his quads are plain puny
Tom Sherman
> In article <2n4pamF...@uni-berlin.de>,
> Tom Sherman <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert wrote:
>>
>>
>>>...
>>>(pls - for us on the wrong side of the pond - who's Fabrizio?)
>>
>>Fabrizio Mazzoleni is the defending champion of the Tour de Farce.
>
>
> Tour de R?es. Check the archives.
>
> I should know, I'm the president of the fan club,
Fabby has also done some track racing.
See <http://www.ihpva.org/Land/chicken.jpg> for a picture. ;)
Werehatrack
<tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> ...
>> What does it take to truly believe that a truly dumb person could
>> actually rise to the most powerful position on earth?
>
>Who said Dick Cheney was stupid?
Bingo.
A Muzi
<ma...@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>>>In their subtle way, I think they're trying to say GWB's not real smart,
>>>period.
> Werehatrack <rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>>It takes subtlety to *not* say it. It takes blindness to not see it.
Mark Hickey wrote:
> What does it take to truly believe that a truly dumb person could
> actually rise to the most powerful position on earth?
He was underestimated in the election for his first term, too.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Ryan Cousineau
RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 16:23:52 -0000, foldedpath
> <mba...@NOSPAM.nightviewer.com>
> wrote:
>
> >RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
> >news:v32qg0dt1oejvfhi0...@4ax.com:
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/08/01/weekinreview/01mcgr02ready.htm
> >> l
> >>
> >> Never have I seen a leg/bike ratio like that.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >
> >I think that's a bit of optical distortion, from a wide-angle lens aimed
> >slightly downwards. Makes the bike look too small. Here's a shot from a
> >different angle, longer lens:
>
> The fisheye's one thing, but isn't why his calf is smaller than the water
> bottle
> - it's closer to the camera..
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/44bq3
>
> Better shot, but doesn't change much, still looks like a doofus and still has
> no
> legs. At least he's got enough tan to avoid the "flourescent tubes with hair"
> look.
Given that Kerry is, ohhh, 60 years old and not doing Master's races, I
would say his legs are fine.
But dude's gotta shave his legs. That's just not a proper roadie look.
I've got Fabrizio's back,
Robert
---8<----cutting texts from previous contributors ----
> I'm tempted to read more into Kerry's repeatedly blaming sporting
> mishaps on his security detail, which actually has a tad more chance of
> giving some character insight than assuming Bush is the reason his SS
> men keep getting hurt.
I think I missed that - do you have any links? Good point.
/Robert
Don Wagner
>That's the basic stuff. Now, where you get from that to "asserting virility"
>and "burning his riding mates off the peloton all the time" I don't know.
If you wanted to make a case for a President displaying virility,
there were shots of Ronnie chopping wood back in the 1980's.
Obviously staged, but the guy was doing the work, you know?
You also have to realize that Bush and Reagan lived and associated
themselves with US states that are a bit more rugged and outdoorsy
then others. MTB beginners get banged up a lot at first.
>This reminds me of the letter writer who wrote to the editor that because
>John Kerry didn't throw a perfect strike at that baseball game, that meant
>he "couldn't be trusted to complete anything."
He threw that ball like a Girl Scout...a weak armed Girl Scout at
that.
--Don--
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
S o r n i
> Given that Kerry is, ohhh, 60 years old and not doing Master's races,
> I would say his legs are fine.
>
> But dude's gotta shave his legs. That's just not a proper roadie look.
>
> I've got Fabrizio's back,
You shave Fab's BACK?!?
Bill "EEEEWWWwwwwwwwwwww" S.
Ryan Cousineau
Robert <rxobert...@txripnet.se> wrote:
The NYT account of the snowboarding fall:
Kerry's bike fall:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-05-0
2-kerry-bike_x.htm
My bad: I can't find any accounts in which he blames others for the bike
fall.
Robert
> In article <LaoPc.99852$dP1.3...@newsc.telia.net>,
> Robert <rxobert...@txripnet.se> wrote:
>
>
>>Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>---8<----cutting texts from previous contributors ----
>>
>>>I'm tempted to read more into Kerry's repeatedly blaming sporting
>>>mishaps on his security detail, which actually has a tad more chance of
>>>giving some character insight than assuming Bush is the reason his SS
>>>men keep getting hurt.
>>
>>---8<---
>>I think I missed that - do you have any links? Good point.
>>/Robert
>
>
> The NYT account of the snowboarding fall:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3v88u
>
> Kerry's bike fall:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-05-0
> 2-kerry-bike_x.htm
>
> My bad: I can't find any accounts in which he blames others for the bike
> fall.
Interesting point you make, though. Kerry was probably in a sh*tty frame
of mind in general during that trip to the snow. Is he then in the habit
of blaming others when he's feeling down? Let's just hope that the
Secret Service skier really _did_ klutz it up and ran into Kerry.
Question is then, if one were offered a guest bike ride with either Bush
or Kerry, what would be the better ride, given equally good scenery?
/Robert
Pat
> >This reminds me of the letter writer who wrote to the editor that because
John Kerry didn't throw a perfect strike at that baseball game, that meant
he "couldn't be trusted to complete anything."
>
> He threw that ball like a Girl Scout...a weak armed Girl Scout at
> that.
> --Don--
Tell me, truthfully, Don, can YOU throw a ball from a major league diamond
60 feet and make it a strike? Can you? I doubt it. Don't forget, the mound
is higher than the ground around it. Many a "manly man" has tried this
little trick and found it to be much more difficult than the casual fan
would imagine. It takes lots and lots of practice. So don't rag on the guy.
You couldn't do it, either. Oh, and BTW, we don't pick presidents in this
country according to how far they can accurately throw a baseball!
Pat in TX
Pat
> >>
> >>>I'm tempted to read more into Kerry's repeatedly blaming sporting
> >>>mishaps on his security detail, which actually has a tad more chance of
giving some character insight than assuming Bush is the reason his SS
> >>>men keep getting hurt.
> >
> > My bad: I can't find any accounts in which he blames others for the bike
fall.
Me, neither. What's with the "repeatedly blaming"? He didn't do it.
>
> Interesting point you make, though. Kerry was probably in a sh*tty frame
> of mind in general during that trip to the snow. Is he then in the habit
> of blaming others when he's feeling down? Let's just hope that the
> Secret Service skier really _did_ klutz it up and ran into Kerry.
Maybe a cigar is just a cigar! The guy ran into him. He commented on it. Big
deal. Don't try to psychoanalyze somebody from one incident.
>
> Question is then, if one were offered a guest bike ride with either Bush
> or Kerry, what would be the better ride, given equally good scenery?
>
> /Robert
The better ride would be with Kerry because he has more experience in riding
bikes. He's just all around more athletic than George Bush.
Pat in TX
>
Pat
Silly. He uses the hot wax pull-off treatment.
Pat in TX
>
>
Don Wagner
>Tell me, truthfully, Don, can YOU throw a ball from a major league diamond
>60 feet and make it a strike? Can you? I doubt it.
Up until last year I was a relief pitcher in a fast pitch softball
league in NNJ. Yeah, I could throw a strike with some decent speed
with a baseball.
At the very least I would practice somewhere private before I had to
do it in public.
>Oh, and BTW, we don't pick presidents in this
>country according to how far they can accurately throw a baseball!
But we should...we really should.
Mark Hickey
Maybe we should. Bush threw out the first ball in the a game in the
2002 (IIRC) World Series. Didn't move around a lot, but was dead
center in the strike zone.
I think they should cancel one of the debates and have a bike race.
Get Nader involved too - I want to see what he rides (probably got
four wheels and weighs 200 pounds). ;-)
Mark Hickey
>> Question is then, if one were offered a guest bike ride with either Bush
>> or Kerry, what would be the better ride, given equally good scenery?
>>
>> /Robert
>
>The better ride would be with Kerry because he has more experience in riding
>bikes. He's just all around more athletic than George Bush.
I kinda doubt that. Bush ran the last 5K he was in 20:29 - that's a
hair under 6:37 minute miles - pretty impressive for a guy his age
(and I'll wager better than the majority of us could do). I think
Kerry's probably in pretty good shape for a guy his age as well - but
I haven't seen anything that indicates he's got the legs and lungs to
compete in the presidential race if it was a 5K...
RonSonic
>
>> >This reminds me of the letter writer who wrote to the editor that because
>John Kerry didn't throw a perfect strike at that baseball game, that meant
>he "couldn't be trusted to complete anything."
>
>
>>
>> He threw that ball like a Girl Scout...a weak armed Girl Scout at
>> that.
>> --Don--
>
>Tell me, truthfully, Don, can YOU throw a ball from a major league diamond
>60 feet and make it a strike? Can you? I doubt it. Don't forget, the mound
>is higher than the ground around it. Many a "manly man" has tried this
>little trick and found it to be much more difficult than the casual fan
>would imagine. It takes lots and lots of practice. So don't rag on the guy.
Bush nailed it.
>You couldn't do it, either. Oh, and BTW, we don't pick presidents in this
>country according to how far they can accurately throw a baseball!
See Jonathon Swift - it goes back. It's amazingly silly what democracies demand
of their representatives.
Ron
java man
rons...@tampabay.rr.com says...
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 13:11:07 -0500, "Pat" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >> >This reminds me of the letter writer who wrote to the editor that because
> >John Kerry didn't throw a perfect strike at that baseball game, that meant
> >he "couldn't be trusted to complete anything."
> >
> >
> >>
> >> He threw that ball like a Girl Scout...a weak armed Girl Scout at
> >> that.
> >> --Don--
> >
> >Tell me, truthfully, Don, can YOU throw a ball from a major league diamond
> >60 feet and make it a strike? Can you? I doubt it. Don't forget, the mound
> >is higher than the ground around it. Many a "manly man" has tried this
> >little trick and found it to be much more difficult than the casual fan
> >would imagine. It takes lots and lots of practice. So don't rag on the guy.
>
> Bush nailed it.
>
a great leader.
;-)
Rick
Ken Ferschweiler
: "Pat" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
: >> Question is then, if one were offered a guest bike ride with either Bush
: >> or Kerry, what would be the better ride, given equally good scenery?
: >>
: >> /Robert
: >
: >The better ride would be with Kerry because he has more experience in riding
: >bikes. He's just all around more athletic than George Bush.
: I kinda doubt that. Bush ran the last 5K he was in 20:29 - that's a
: hair under 6:37 minute miles - pretty impressive for a guy his age
: (and I'll wager better than the majority of us could do).
Wasn't that actually a 3-miler? Which would be a 6:49 pace. Still
no slouch, but not the sort of superhuman performance we get from,
say, Kim Jong Il, with his golf scores in the low 50s...
-Ken
Pat
> >Tell me, truthfully, Don, can YOU throw a ball from a major league
diamond
> >60 feet and make it a strike? Can you? I doubt it. Don't forget, the
mound
> >is higher than the ground around it. Many a "manly man" has tried this
> >little trick and found it to be much more difficult than the casual fan
> >would imagine. It takes lots and lots of practice. So don't rag on the
guy.
>
> Bush nailed it.
And I can tell both you and Mark that Bush took a lot of time to practice.
It was in the news about him taking off from his work to practice throwing
the ball so that he wouldn't look bad. Evidently Kerry is more secure in his
manhood than Bush because he didn't think it was important to do a lot of
behind the scenes preparation, eh?
See, this can get downright silly. So, Bush practiced and practiced and
threw the ball. Kerry didn't practice and didn't do so well. Bush fell off
of a Segway! Horrors! That surely makes him a "girlie man" eh?
Pat in TX
>
Pat
> >
> >The better ride would be with Kerry because he has more experience in
riding
> >bikes. He's just all around more athletic than George Bush.
>
> I kinda doubt that. Bush ran the last 5K he was in 20:29 - that's a
> hair under 6:37 minute miles - pretty impressive for a guy his age
> (and I'll wager better than the majority of us could do). I think
> Kerry's probably in pretty good shape for a guy his age as well - but
> I haven't seen anything that indicates he's got the legs and lungs to
> compete in the presidential race if it was a 5K...
>
> Mark Hickey
Ah, but you are talking about only running. Kerry skis, rides bikes,
windsurfs, and on and on and on. Bush only runs---and now is learning to
ride a bike. Ergo, Kerry is more athletic. And, I can say I haven't seen
anything to indicate that Bush could compete with Kerry in windsurfing....so
what? Do you only pick the sport that you think your man could win? We are
talking about "more athletic" here, not just who can run faster.
Pat in TX
Don Wagner
>See, this can get downright silly. So, Bush practiced and practiced and
>threw the ball. Kerry didn't practice and didn't do so well. Bush fell off
>of a Segway! Horrors! That surely makes him a "girlie man" eh?
No ReaMan(tm) can ride a Segway.
gwhite
Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> Werehatrack <rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:56:14 GMT, "mark" <ma...@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>
> >>In their subtle way, I think they're trying to say GWB's not real smart,
> >>period.
> >
> >It takes subtlety to *not* say it. It takes blindness to not see it.
>
> What does it take to truly believe that a truly dumb person could
> actually rise to the most powerful position on earth?
One must only register as a democrat. That's all. In fact, for how
foolish George Bush does appear at times, it is an absolute miracle he's
not a democrat. Of course, he can't compete with Edwards, who seems
hell-bent to set new standards.
Mark Hickey
>
>> >
>> >The better ride would be with Kerry because he has more experience in
>riding
>> >bikes. He's just all around more athletic than George Bush.
>>
>> I kinda doubt that. Bush ran the last 5K he was in 20:29 - that's a
>> hair under 6:37 minute miles - pretty impressive for a guy his age
>> (and I'll wager better than the majority of us could do). I think
>> Kerry's probably in pretty good shape for a guy his age as well - but
>> I haven't seen anything that indicates he's got the legs and lungs to
>> compete in the presidential race if it was a 5K...
>Ah, but you are talking about only running. Kerry skis, rides bikes,
>windsurfs, and on and on and on. Bush only runs---and now is learning to
>ride a bike. Ergo, Kerry is more athletic. And, I can say I haven't seen
>anything to indicate that Bush could compete with Kerry in windsurfing....so
>what? Do you only pick the sport that you think your man could win? We are
>talking about "more athletic" here, not just who can run faster.
The race in question was a 5k (3.1 miles).
I honestly have no idea about what other sports Bush participates in.
I only know about the ones Kerry does because he uses them as photo
ops (not that there's anything wrong with that). We could compare the
one sports activity we've seen 'em both do (throwing a baseball). ;-)
As cyclists, we tend to focus on cardiovascular capacity and leg
strength to measure "athletic ability" (just see some of the "NASCAR
vs. Lance Armstrong threads)... and being able to run sub 6:30 miles
puts Bush in a fairly elite class of athlete. Not close to setting
any records - but fast enough to bubble to the top 5-10% of any local
race in his age group (maybe better). But I'll wager you're right -
not many people from Midland Texas are good windsurfers... (been
there, don't wanna live there).
Mark Hickey
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> What does it take to truly believe that a truly dumb person could
>> actually rise to the most powerful position on earth?
>
>One must only register as a democrat. That's all. In fact, for how
>foolish George Bush does appear at times, it is an absolute miracle he's
>not a democrat. Of course, he can't compete with Edwards, who seems
>hell-bent to set new standards.
You may have something there... Theresa Heinz-Kerry seems to have
switched off the common sense circuits fairly often since converting
to Democrat (she was a registered Republican until John's candidacy -
oops). Maybe a lot of people at the convention were smoking weed and
it got to her... ;-) ,<---- note
Tom Sherman
> ...
> As cyclists, we tend to focus on cardiovascular capacity and leg
> strength to measure "athletic ability" (just see some of the "NASCAR
> vs. Lance Armstrong threads)... and being able to run sub 6:30 miles
> puts Bush in a fairly elite class of athlete. Not close to setting
> any records - but fast enough to bubble to the top 5-10% of any local
> race in his age group (maybe better)....
It should be easy for Shrub to keep in shape, since he has never worked
a real job in his life. It is not so easy when it is 12+ hours from the
time one leaves for work until the time one gets home.
S o r n i
Oh boo hoo. Doesn't cleaning the Slurpy machine keep you toned enough?
Bill "Kerry marries his net worth" S.
Ryan Cousineau
wrote:
> > >Tell me, truthfully, Don, can YOU throw a ball from a major league
> diamond
> > >60 feet and make it a strike? Can you? I doubt it. Don't forget, the
> mound
> > >is higher than the ground around it. Many a "manly man" has tried this
> > >little trick and found it to be much more difficult than the casual fan
> > >would imagine. It takes lots and lots of practice. So don't rag on the
> guy.
> >
> > Bush nailed it.
> > Ron
>
> And I can tell both you and Mark that Bush took a lot of time to practice.
> It was in the news about him taking off from his work to practice throwing
> the ball so that he wouldn't look bad. Evidently Kerry is more secure in his
> manhood than Bush because he didn't think it was important to do a lot of
> behind the scenes preparation, eh?
Who says Kerry didn't? But W. has considerable previous experience with
baseball, and not just in the Rangers' front office. I doubt it took
very much work to get back in form. Not that any of this really matters,
not even to us :).
> See, this can get downright silly. So, Bush practiced and practiced and
> threw the ball. Kerry didn't practice and didn't do so well. Bush fell off
> of a Segway! Horrors! That surely makes him a "girlie man" eh?
Yes, but he's out-girlied by the Kerry's visit to NASA. Not because of
JFK's costume dysfunction (not a big deal except to those who thought
Dukakis lost because he looks like Snoopy in a tank, or Bush 41 lost
because he couldn't keep his food down), but because JFK or his handlers
had the poor judgment to throw a hissy fit about it.
ObBike: I could out-ride either of these guys. This does not make me a
good candidate for US President. Mainly because I am too young, have the
wrong passport, and was born in the wrong country.
Well, there may be other reasons,
Mark Hickey
>ObBike: I could out-ride either of these guys. This does not make me a
>good candidate for US President. Mainly because I am too young, have the
>wrong passport, and was born in the wrong country.
Hmmmm. Imagine if the presidential race was on the bike. I guess
Lance would be president (or maybe not - he's not 35 yet).
>Well, there may be other reasons,
I can think of a few.... ;-)
Ryan Cousineau
Mark Hickey <ma...@habcycles.com> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> >ObBike: I could out-ride either of these guys. This does not make me a
> >good candidate for US President. Mainly because I am too young, have the
> >wrong passport, and was born in the wrong country.
>
> Hmmmm. Imagine if the presidential race was on the bike. I guess
> Lance would be president (or maybe not - he's not 35 yet).
Heaven help us all. Can you imagine a world where the nation's most
insufferable fattie master racer was our leader? Just imagine what
Gaggioli (to choose someone at random) would do....
> >Well, there may be other reasons,
>
> I can think of a few.... ;-)
(Let sleeping dogs lie, Ryan...)
gwhite
That's it. If Bush is so stupid, why isn't he a democrat?
Pat
> > What does it take to truly believe that a truly dumb person could
> > actually rise to the most powerful position on earth?
>
> One must only register as a democrat. That's all. In fact, for how
> foolish George Bush does appear at times, it is an absolute miracle he's
> not a democrat. Of course, he can't compete with Edwards, who seems
> hell-bent to set new standards.
If you are a Republican and that's the best you can say about Bush, you're
in a sad, sad way.
Pat, an Independent.
Raoul Duke
"Tom Sherman" <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote in message
news:2nb2i4F...@uni-berlin.de...
> It should be easy for Shrub to keep in shape, since he has never worked
> a real job in his life.
What a dipshit. If being Governor of Texas and * PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES * doesn't qualify as a "Real Job", I don't know what does.
Are you really that stupid?
Dave
gwhite
He (and Jobst Brandt) thinks that the reason 62 million died in the
Soviet Union was because of "bad leaders" rather than bad ideology. So
yes, he really is that stupid.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Peacetime* body count:
Location (Regime) Deaths Era
Soviet Union (Communist) 61,900,000 1917-1990
China (Communist) 35,200,000 1949-present
Germany (Nazi-Fascist) 20,900,000 1933-1945
China (Kuomintang) 10,400,000 1928-1949
Japan (Imperial-Fascist) 6,000,000 1936-1945
China (Communist Guerrillas) 3,500,000 1923-1948
Cambodia (Communist) 2,000,000 1975-1979
Turkey ("Young Turks") 1,900,000 1909-1917
Vietnam (Communist) 1,700,000 1945-present
Korea (Communist) 1,700,000 1948-present
Poland (Communist) 1,600,000 1945-1948
Pakistan (Yahya Khan) 1,500,000 1971
Mexico (Porfiriato) 1,400,000 1900-1920
Yugoslavia (Communist) 1,100,000 1944-1990
Russia (Czarist) 1,100,000 1900-1917
Turkey ("Ataturk") 900,000 1918-1923
United Kingdom (Democratic) 800,000 1900-present
Portugal (Fascist) 700,000 1926-1975
Croatia (Fascist) 700,000 1941-1945
Indonesia (Suharto) 600,000 1965-present
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/1998_Draft/five/Slouching2_5genocide.pdf
"Once we remember the possibility of the existence of such a system, the
differences between
socialism and fascism become trivial, superficial and, above all,
non-essential. Differentiation of
socialism and fascism from capitalism permits the recognition of their
similarity. They do differ
from each other, but only in the way in which the scalene and the
isosceles differ from each other:
in degree, but not in kind. Socialism and fascism are each forms of
statism, forms of government in
which the government is given complete or extensive control over the
lives of its citizens."
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html
Tom Sherman
Shrub has had plenty of advisors and handlers to do all the real work,
including telling him what to say and think during his political career.
Not at all the same thing as being handed several hours of work in the
late afternoon that is due the morning (or similar situations).
Additionally, Shrub has never had any real job pressure on him during
his life, since whatever mistakes he would make were taken care of by
"daddy's friends".
Mark Hickey
>Shrub has had plenty of advisors and handlers to do all the real work,
>including telling him what to say and think during his political career.
Hmmmm, which is at odds with "he never listens to anyone" schtick
that's also trotted out as gospel. Heh. Would you guys make up your
mind - it's so confusing... ;-)
>Not at all the same thing as being handed several hours of work in the
>late afternoon that is due the morning (or similar situations).
>
>Additionally, Shrub has never had any real job pressure on him during
>his life, since whatever mistakes he would make were taken care of by
>"daddy's friends".
I'll wager GWB has more pressure in a given week than 99% of us will
face in the course of a tough year. I know I wouldn't want the job,
especially with the acid environment in Washington DC right now
(neither candidate can do anything that's not going to get ripped
apart by the other side).
Todd Kuzma
> *Peacetime* body count:
>
> Location (Regime) Deaths Era
>
> Soviet Union (Communist) 61,900,000 1917-1990
> China (Communist) 35,200,000 1949-present
> Germany (Nazi-Fascist) 20,900,000 1933-1945
> China (Kuomintang) 10,400,000 1928-1949
> Japan (Imperial-Fascist) 6,000,000 1936-1945
> China (Communist Guerrillas) 3,500,000 1923-1948
> Cambodia (Communist) 2,000,000 1975-1979
> Turkey ("Young Turks") 1,900,000 1909-1917
> Vietnam (Communist) 1,700,000 1945-present
> Korea (Communist) 1,700,000 1948-present
> Poland (Communist) 1,600,000 1945-1948
> Pakistan (Yahya Khan) 1,500,000 1971
> Mexico (Porfiriato) 1,400,000 1900-1920
> Yugoslavia (Communist) 1,100,000 1944-1990
> Russia (Czarist) 1,100,000 1900-1917
> Turkey ("Ataturk") 900,000 1918-1923
> United Kingdom (Democratic) 800,000 1900-present
> Portugal (Fascist) 700,000 1926-1975
> Croatia (Fascist) 700,000 1941-1945
> Indonesia (Suharto) 600,000 1965-present
I guess that the US doesn't make the list as the Native
American genocide was only in the thousands. We're hard to
beat when it comes to slavery though!
By the way, I think that the numbers for Indonesia are a bit
low. I've read figures over 2 million. The CIA helped a
bit there because the Suharto regime was supposedly going
after the communists.
Plus, remember that China is our biggest trading partner.
Go WalMart! If I understand our government's position,
trade with China and Vietnam is very good, but trade with
Cuba is very bad.
Todd Kuzma
Heron Bicycles
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
LaSalle, Il 815-223-1776
http://www.heronbicycles.com
http://www.tullios.com
Ken Lehner
> >>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:56:14 GMT, "mark"
> <ma...@mousepotato.com> wrote:
> >>>In their subtle way, I think they're trying to say GWB's not real smart,
> >>>period.
>
> >>It takes subtlety to *not* say it. It takes blindness to not see it.
>
> > What does it take to truly believe that a truly dumb person could
> > actually rise to the most powerful position on earth?
>
You mean "misunderestimated".
Appkiller
I know I wouldn't want the job,
And most of us wouldn't want you to have the job either.
App
gwhite
Todd Kuzma wrote:
>
> I guess that the US doesn't make the list as the Native
> American genocide was only in the thousands.
Exactly -- that is the point. For as horrendopus and dispicable as the
treatment of the Indians was, the US doesn't make the list. One
especially keen example of mistreatment was Andrew Jackson (founder of
the Democrat party) ignoring the Supreme Court and sending the
Cherokee's out on the The Trail of Tears. The Cherokees had adopted
some of the euro culture in accepting the concept of property rights,
only to have it violated by Jackson (hah hah, what's new with
democrats).
No, the US was/is no utopia. But *comparatively*, it is better than any
place else. People still immigrate here. Few ever leave, although I
can think of a few that should.
There was a utopia, or so it was promised to be. Here's what happened
there:
*Peacetime* body count
Location (Regime) Deaths Era
Soviet Union (Communist) 61,900,000 1917-1990
China (Communist) 35,200,000 1949-present
> We're hard to beat when it comes to slavery though!
What! You prop up straw men? The only way a USA could come into being
was to accept slavery initially. This much cannot be argued against by
anyone with at least a rudimentary study of history. You could argue
that the USA should then have *not* come into being. Okay, you can say
that. What does it mean in a comparative sense since utopia is a pipe
dream for doofuses that smoke but don't inhale (meaning they'ed think
more clearly if they were stoned -- that's how cracked they are)?
It means slavery might *still* exist in the South. It means separate
states might have warred constantly with each other instead of just once
(and that one time terminated the slavery issue forever). You would
have at least some difficulty saying the USA should never have been
*and* that non-existance would be a better comparative result than what
we in fact ended up with. Slavery was a political compromise of the
time, not the bad dream of a 21st century couch potato.
> By the way, I think that the numbers for Indonesia are a bit
> low. I've read figures over 2 million. The CIA helped a
> bit there because the Suharto regime was supposedly going
> after the communists.
"...helped a bit...?" I already posted the data. So okay, give the bad
ole US *all* the credit. We don't bust 1 million.
>> Indonesia (Suharto) 600,000 1965-present
"A regime whose hands are as bloody as those of the Suharto regime in
Indonesia-with the blood on its hands of perhaps 450,000 communists,
suspected communists, and others who simply were in the wrong place at
the wrong time at its creation in 1965, and perhaps 150,000 inhabitants
of East Timor since the Indonesian takeover in the mid-1970s--such a
regime barely makes the twentieth century's top twenty list as far as
the massacre of civilians is concerned."
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/Slouch_power4.html
But since you have decided to go ahead and play the body count game, you
might want to count people saved to. There again we are not perfect,
just better (by a lot).
> Plus, remember that China is our biggest trading partner.
> Go WalMart!
Ah yes, evil Wal-mart. There is nothing worse than convenience, low
prices, and liberal return policies. OUTRAGEOUS!!!
> If I understand our government's position,
> trade with China and Vietnam is very good, but trade with
> Cuba is very bad.
Would that be the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton,
or Bush administrations whose Cuba policies you find inconsistant? I
guess it must be Bush 43,... right?
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/Slouch_divergence5.html
Raoul Duke
"Todd Kuzma" <tul...@TheRamp.net> wrote in message
news:4113A988...@TheRamp.net...
We're hard to
> beat when it comes to slavery though!
Well, actually, we are. We abolished it many years ago. It still exists in
Africa.
http://www.iabolish.com/today/features/sudan/
Dave
Todd Kuzma
> Would that be the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton,
> or Bush administrations whose Cuba policies you find inconsistant? I
> guess it must be Bush 43,... right?
Well, our trade with China and Vietnam were pretty much nil
under Johnson and Nixon and haven't reached any significant
levels until the 1980s at the earliest. I don't claim that
any party or president is better in this regard.
The fact is, whether we trade with a communist country or
not has little to do with the fact that they are communist.
It has to do with various political and economic
realities. For Cuba, the political benefits of refusing to
trade are greater that the economic benefits of opening trade.
China's communist government ensures that wages will remain
obscenely low compared to the West. That means that WalMart
can offer the lowest priced goods. You cannot get those
wages in a free market economy.
So, if what's good for WalMart is good for America, then
communism is good for America. We are a country of people
who demand fair wages for ourselves but refuse to pay them
for others.
Tom Sherman
> ...
> So, if what's good for WalMart is good for America, then communism is
> good for America. We are a country of people who demand fair wages for
> ourselves but refuse to pay them for others....
Do people in the US really demand fair wages for themselves? The minimum
wage has fallen well behind inflation over the last three decades to the
point where it is not a living wage, and only the bloated salaries of
top executives have kept overall real wages from falling over the same
period. Every year, lower and middle class people in the US work for
longer hours for the same or lesser compensation.
There is a class war between the holders of capital and labor in the US,
and capital has been winning for the last 25 years. Of course, the
"liberal" media (owned by capital) denies this is occurring, and manages
to fool most of the US population into believing they are better off
than the Europeans and Japanese in quality of life when this is not the
case.
Eagle Jackson
software testing and some software development, shows that some wages
in America are much higher than can be obtained elsewhere for
equivalent work from an educated, skilled, hard-working, and eager
workforce.
Some Americans expect a standard of living higher than their wages or
productivity warrant, while others such as in India or Eastern Europe
are overjoyed to use their education and skills to advance
economically.
A large number of high-tech startups today, even US based ones, have
some portion of their effort come from offshore sources. Not because
it's their preference, but because US labor in some cases has priced
itself out of the market.
Ryan Cousineau
eaglej...@hotmail.com (Eagle Jackson) wrote:
First-world labour is in the continuous process of pricing itself out of
the market. Cheaper labour has been available elsewhere pretty much
since the Japanese started their post-war reconstruction ("made in
Japan" used to mean what "made in Taiwan" meant 10 years ago and what
"made in China" means today: cheap, and probably not well-made). Despite
this, American (and Canadian; the economies are relatively similar)
productivity and specialized knowledge is such that there are still a
lot of very high-paying jobs which don't get outsourced.
Ironically, certain services and retail operations look the most
resilient in the face of off-shoring: you can't hire a plumber from
India to come to your house, and it's still easier to buy shoes in
person than to check fit and comfort via UPS and the WWW.
Ryan Cousineau
Tom Sherman <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
I've been to Europe (have in-laws in Greece) and have read a fair bit
about Japan.
European visitors are typically amazed at the land-holdings and houses
that normal middle-class people (like my normal, hourly-wage,
non-management parents) on this continent have.
There is much to like about Europe, and I would happily live there (and
intend to at some point). But pretending the US is some sort of hellhole
held together by collective illusions is to miss a pretty key point:
most people in the US like their lives, and would probably point to
things you dislike (expansive suburban housing, roomy cars, big portion
sizes) as what they like. De gustibus et cetera.
Japan...at the recommendation of an acquaintance who spends considerable
time in Tokyo and the US, I read a book called "Dogs and Demons" which
details some of the strange problems Japan has. I don't entirely agree
with the book, which verges from some of the amazing (and
resource-draining) weirdness associated with, oddly enough, Japan's
concrete industry and its public-works bureaucracies, to some rather
petty irritations about minor details of Japanese life and culture (I
don't think Manga are as big a symbol of Japanese infantilization as the
author, for example). Japan is sufficiently prosperous that it doesn't
have to deal with its problems at the moment, but the problems are
sufficiently serious that they're a major drag on the life of the
average Japanese.
Tom Sherman
> ...
> European visitors are typically amazed at the land-holdings and houses
> that normal middle-class people (like my normal, hourly-wage,
> non-management parents) on this continent have....
The reason that many people in the US have these houses and property is
that they or their parents purchased them in the three decades following
WW2 when real wages were increasing, the tax burden was much more
progressive, and much of the workforce was unionized.
Over the last three decades, the upper classes in the US have through
their funding of right-wing "think tanks", ownership of the media and
copious campaign contributions changed the balance to greatly favor
capital over labor. The result is that US workers spend far more time at
work than they used to (the most of any industrialized nation), while
their real hourly compensation continues to drop. This is concurrent
with the massive growth in income of the top wage earners (corporate
executives) and the increased concentration of wealth to the economic elite.
R.White
> gwhite wrote:
>
> > Would that be the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton,
> > or Bush administrations whose Cuba policies you find inconsistant? I
> > guess it must be Bush 43,... right?
>
> Well, our trade with China and Vietnam were pretty much nil
> under Johnson and Nixon and haven't reached any significant
> levels until the 1980s at the earliest. I don't claim that
> any party or president is better in this regard.
>
> The fact is, whether we trade with a communist country or
> not has little to do with the fact that they are communist.
> It has to do with various political and economic
> realities. For Cuba, the political benefits of refusing to
> trade are greater that the economic benefits of opening trade.
>
> China's communist government ensures that wages will remain
> obscenely low compared to the West. That means that WalMart
> can offer the lowest priced goods. You cannot get those
> wages in a free market economy.
Wal-Mart can offer lower priced goods because they subsidize low
wages with taxpayer money. Wal-Mart claims that 70% of their workforce
is fulltime. Wal-Mart defines fulltime employment as "28 or more hours
per week."
Mark Hickey
>Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
>> ...
>> European visitors are typically amazed at the land-holdings and houses
>> that normal middle-class people (like my normal, hourly-wage,
>> non-management parents) on this continent have....
>
>The reason that many people in the US have these houses and property is
>that they or their parents purchased them in the three decades following
>WW2 when real wages were increasing, the tax burden was much more
>progressive, and much of the workforce was unionized.
Errrr, Tom... the size of the average house has grown dramatically
since the post WWII boom and the 70's (if you don't believe it do some
checking on realtor.com). Look at the size of the bedrooms. Look at
how large the garages were (try to find a new house with a ONE car
garage).
You're probably right about one thing though - many large, luxurious
houses were built by union leadership.
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>
>>
>>>...
>>>European visitors are typically amazed at the land-holdings and houses
>>>that normal middle-class people (like my normal, hourly-wage,
>>>non-management parents) on this continent have....
>>
>>The reason that many people in the US have these houses and property is
>>that they or their parents purchased them in the three decades following
>>WW2 when real wages were increasing, the tax burden was much more
>>progressive, and much of the workforce was unionized.
>
>
> Errrr, Tom... the size of the average house has grown dramatically
> since the post WWII boom and the 70's (if you don't believe it do some
> checking on realtor.com). Look at the size of the bedrooms. Look at
> how large the garages were (try to find a new house with a ONE car
> garage)....
But how many of the purchasers of these new, larger houses had capital
in the form of a smaller, older residence that they could sell to
partially finance the new residence?
If one has no inherited wealth (including financial support from living
relatives) but comes from the lower classes, it will take a long time
for even a person of above average ability and determination to achieve
middle class status, as the barriers are considerable. This is not
something the upper classes want people to understand, as they benefit
from the erroneous belief that all that holds people back is government.
Therefore, they still promote "America as the land of opportunity", even
though that place ceased to exist several decades ago.
David Reuteler
> But how many of the purchasers of these new, larger houses had capital
> in the form of a smaller, older residence that they could sell to
> partially finance the new residence?
my folks didn't (bought their first home in their late 60s). none of my
friends did. i can't believe that my world is the exception. everyone's
been buying houses for the past 7 years.
> If one has no inherited wealth (including financial support from living
> relatives) but comes from the lower classes, it will take a long time
> for even a person of above average ability and determination to achieve
> middle class status, as the barriers are considerable.
the primary fiscal barrier is funding college. i dunno about being from the
lower classes (you'll need to define that) but i received no inheritance nor
support from my family after 18, yet was able to put myself through college
and grad school and eke out a living that's easily at least middle class
without too much trouble (slightly understated .. it was trouble). well,
except for the $35,000 in student loans i just paid off. but there are enuf
people in similiar situations for me to believe it's fairly common. the big
predictor seems to be priorities often conveyed from your parents, the means
at least were there when i was 18.
> This is not
> something the upper classes want people to understand, as they benefit
> from the erroneous belief that all that holds people back is government.
> Therefore, they still promote "America as the land of opportunity", even
> though that place ceased to exist several decades ago.
now if you'd said upper ruling class ..
--
david reuteler
reut...@visi.com
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
>
>>But how many of the purchasers of these new, larger houses had capital
>>in the form of a smaller, older residence that they could sell to
>>partially finance the new residence?
>
>
> my folks didn't (bought their first home in their late 60s).
Compared to wages, housing was more affordable then. I was referring to
the present, in particular the changes in income and wealth distribution
over the last 30 years.
>>If one has no inherited wealth (including financial support from living
>>relatives) but comes from the lower classes, it will take a long time
>>for even a person of above average ability and determination to achieve
>>middle class status, as the barriers are considerable.
>
>
> the primary fiscal barrier is funding college. i dunno about being from the
> lower classes (you'll need to define that) but i received no inheritance nor
> support from my family after 18, yet was able to put myself through college
> and grad school and eke out a living that's easily at least middle class
> without too much trouble (slightly understated .. it was trouble). well,
> except for the $35,000 in student loans i just paid off. but there are enuf
> people in similiar situations for me to believe it's fairly common. the big
> predictor seems to be priorities often conveyed from your parents, the means
> at least were there when i was 18.
Student loan burdens are much greater now than they were 30 years ago.
Tuition has risen greatly at public universities as government funding
has been cut, while non-loan student aid has been cut back severely.
Having to put off the purchase of a house (paying rent instead) means
that a person from the lower class will always be significantly behind
someone from the middle class economically, given similar job
achievements. This (among other factors) puts the lie to the claim of a
"level playing field" that "conservatives" love to claim would exist
were it not for "big, bad government".
Todd Kuzma
eaglej...@hotmail.com wrote on 8/7/04 8:22 PM:
> Not because
> it's their preference, but because US labor in some cases has priced
> itself out of the market.
I was speaking specifically of China. There is no free laobr market there.
The wages are low because they are what the government says they are.
Business likes this a lot. It's why the CIA overthrew Guatemala in 1954.
Guatemala's democratically-elected government allowed wages to based on the
free market. This increased costs to US fruit companies. So, we overthrew
the government and installed one that would cap wages.
In China, we don't need to worry about all that. Our totalitarian friends
keep everything in line for us. China is a businessman's wet dream:
guaranteed poverty wages, no environmental or safety regulations, and a
government willing to crush anyone who tries to change that.
Todd Kuzma
Heron Bicycles
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
LaSalle, IL
http://www.heronbicycles.com/
http://www.tullios.com/
Blair P. Houghton
No, it doesn't.
A real job involves actual effort or creation of valuable
intellectual property.
Bush's only "effort" is not drinking on camera.
--Blair
"And I'm not sure he's not going to
fuck that up."
Tom Sherman
> in article c6996826.04080...@posting.google.com, Eagle Jackson at
> eaglej...@hotmail.com wrote on 8/7/04 8:22 PM:
>
>
>> Not because
>>it's their preference, but because US labor in some cases has priced
>>itself out of the market.
>
>
> I was speaking specifically of China. There is no free laobr market there.
> The wages are low because they are what the government says they are.
> Business likes this a lot. It's why the CIA overthrew Guatemala in 1954.
> Guatemala's democratically-elected government allowed wages to based on the
> free market. This increased costs to US fruit companies. So, we overthrew
> the government and installed one that would cap wages.
>
> In China, we don't need to worry about all that. Our totalitarian friends
> keep everything in line for us. China is a businessman's wet dream:
> guaranteed poverty wages, no environmental or safety regulations, and a
> government willing to crush anyone who tries to change that.
It sounds like the Chinese need a communist revolution to improve the
lot of the workers.
Of course, the post 1949 Chinese government has never practiced true
communism/Marxism, but merely paid lip service to the ideas as a way to
establish totalitarian control, and has seamlessly moved to fascism over
the last two decades.
Mark Hickey
>David Reuteler wrote:
>
>> Tom Sherman <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
>>
>>>But how many of the purchasers of these new, larger houses had capital
>>>in the form of a smaller, older residence that they could sell to
>>>partially finance the new residence?
>>
>>
>> my folks didn't (bought their first home in their late 60s).
>
>Compared to wages, housing was more affordable then. I was referring to
>the present, in particular the changes in income and wealth distribution
>over the last 30 years.
Housing was a lot simpler then too - two bedrooms, no or maybe a one
car garage, very basic appliances. While the median cost of housing
has gone up relative to the average wage, I'm not at all sure the cost
of a similar house has.
>Student loan burdens are much greater now than they were 30 years ago.
Graduate earning potential is much greater now that it was 30 years
ago too.
>Tuition has risen greatly at public universities as government funding
>has been cut, while non-loan student aid has been cut back severely.
There are still plenty of progams for those who want to go to college.
Very low cost student loans make perfect sense - I actually prefer
that to a handout since you're enabling the student to make a lot more
money after graduation (so he/she can pay it back with the increase in
income they EARN).
>Having to put off the purchase of a house (paying rent instead) means
>that a person from the lower class will always be significantly behind
>someone from the middle class economically, given similar job
>achievements. This (among other factors) puts the lie to the claim of a
>"level playing field" that "conservatives" love to claim would exist
>were it not for "big, bad government".
Uhhhh, I doubt you'll get much argument that someone with more money
is ahead of someone with less money. But to claim that it's
impossible (or even all that difficult) for a motivated person to
achieve home ownership in the US is just wrong. It may also disgust
you, but home ownership has hit new highs under the GWB
administration. That doesn't mean that everyone will have their own
home - and as often as not it's not just an "income problem" but a
"spending problem".
David Reuteler
> Student loan burdens are much greater now than they were 30 years ago.
ouch. i left college 8 years ago.
> Tuition has risen greatly at public universities as government funding
> has been cut, while non-loan student aid has been cut back severely.
there was very little non-loan student aid when i was in school. the pell
grant programs even in the 90s didn't exist except for the poorest of the
poor. gsl or stafford loans are how most people get through school and
that's been true since at least the late 80s.
the increase in tuition has, however, been insane. i can't speak for now
but 8 years ago if you wanted to goto college and were willing to bear the
burden of loans you could go (at least to a public university). but yea,
if that stops being true and acccess to education is cut off then what you
say will certainly come to be true and then we're pretty much all fucked
for a lot of reasons.
> Having to put off the purchase of a house (paying rent instead) means
> that a person from the lower class will always be significantly behind
> someone from the middle class economically, given similar job
> achievements.
given similiar job achievements why are they lower class? i'm also $35,000
behind my buddy whose parents put him through school but i'm also many tens of
thousands ahead of the guy born of rich parents who was unfortunate enuf to
be dumb as a brick. point being?
> This (among other factors) puts the lie to the claim of a
> "level playing field" that "conservatives" love to claim would exist
> were it not for "big, bad government".
eh? there is no level playing field w/r/t to access to the elite class
but access to the middle class is not out of reach for the lower class.
we're not talking horatio alger stories here.
--
david reuteler
reut...@visi.com
java man
ma...@habcycles.com says...
> While the median cost of housing
> has gone up relative to the average wage, I'm not at all sure the cost
> of a similar house has.
>
In 1979, my first house cost 2.25 times my annual salary. I no longer
have the same house or the same job, but I live only a block from my old
house, and it sold again last month for 10 times what I paid for it in
1979.
If the person doing my old job had bought that house last month, he/she
would pay 6 times their annual salary for it.
Similar comparisons can be made on a direct house-to-house basis in most
urban areas with healthy economies, and in most cases, the relative
value of homes has increased.
Custom titanium bikes, on the other hand, have decreased in price in the
past 10 years. ;-)
Rick
David Reuteler
>> my folks didn't (bought their first home in their late 60s).
>
> Compared to wages, housing was more affordable then. I was referring to
> the present, in particular the changes in income and wealth distribution
> over the last 30 years.
sorry, you misunderstood. my parents just now bought their first house (two
years ago) in their late 60s (of age).
--
david reuteler
reut...@visi.com
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Rick,
Your neighborhood (like you) may have improved significantly
in the last quarter-century just by growing older.
Supply and demand in housing often makes older neighborhoods
unreasonably attractive because it's hard for developers to
whip up a charming old neighborhood with lots of trees and
character. People will pay for the ambience an ignore the
deteriorating plumbing, wiring, roofs, streets, foundations,
and other practical aspects.
Almost every day, for example, I ride past the corner house
that I grew up in, and I still enjoy a happy glow at the
thought that some other dumb son-of-a-bitch has to trim its
eighty yards of waist-high hedge. But he's probably quite
happy to pay for the privilege of clipping the silly thing.
Carl Fogel
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
>
>>Student loan burdens are much greater now than they were 30 years ago.
>
> ouch. i left college 8 years ago.
>
>
>>Tuition has risen greatly at public universities as government funding
>>has been cut, while non-loan student aid has been cut back severely.
>
>
> there was very little non-loan student aid when i was in school. the pell
> grant programs even in the 90s didn't exist except for the poorest of the
> poor. gsl or stafford loans are how most people get through school and
> that's been true since at least the late 80s.
>
> the increase in tuition has, however, been insane. i can't speak for now
> but 8 years ago if you wanted to goto college and were willing to bear the
> burden of loans you could go (at least to a public university). but yea,
> if that stops being true and acccess to education is cut off then what you
> say will certainly come to be true and then we're pretty much all fucked
> for a lot of reasons.
Do you consider the equivalent of 5 to 10 years of discretionary income
in student loans after finishing school to be a reasonable burden?
>>Having to put off the purchase of a house (paying rent instead) means
>>that a person from the lower class will always be significantly behind
>>someone from the middle class economically, given similar job
>>achievements.
>
>
> given similiar job achievements why are they lower class? i'm also $35,000
> behind my buddy whose parents put him through school but i'm also many tens of
> thousands ahead of the guy born of rich parents who was unfortunate enuf to
> be dumb as a brick. point being?
I was referring to background, not current status. A person from the
lower class will be paying off student loans and may not be able to save
up for a down payment on a house at the same time. A person from the
middle class would not have the same student loan burden, and would in
many cases receive financial assistance from their family in purchasing
a home. In addition, they will eventually inherit a substantial amount
of property, while someone from a lower class background will not.
My real point here is that the contention made by many in the media that
success is based solely on ability and effort is blatant propaganda.
>>This (among other factors) puts the lie to the claim of a
>>"level playing field" that "conservatives" love to claim would exist
>>were it not for "big, bad government".
>
> eh? there is no level playing field w/r/t to access to the elite class
> but access to the middle class is not out of reach for the lower class.
> we're not talking horatio alger stories here.
People from the middle and upper classes have no idea how much of their
"success" is due to their good fortune in having the advantages of that
class provided to them, and how many obstacles exist to climbing out of
the lower class. And the government policies of the last 25 years
(attempting to revoke the New Deal) have made it harder, not easier.
Tom Sherman
> ...
>>Student loan burdens are much greater now than they were 30 years ago.
>
>
> Graduate earning potential is much greater now that it was 30 years
> ago too.
Maybe in a few select fields it is. Between outsourcing, decreased
benefits, and mandatory unpaid overtime, real hourly wages have
decreased for the majority.
Mark Hickey
>My real point here is that the contention made by many in the media that
>success is based solely on ability and effort is blatant propaganda.
No one's ever said that you can't get ahead on luck or inheritance
too.
That said, there really is nothing to keep someone who's got ability
and is willing to put forth the effort from getting ahead. That's
clear today with the highest level of home ownership in US history,
contrary to the dire picture you're trying to paint.
Most people who are renting are paying as much or more as a mortgage
on the same house would cost them. Most of them have the means to
save up a down payment as well - just not the discipline. That
includes a lot of people who make a lot more money than you or I.
gwhite
Running in circles in the Caucus Race, Tom Sherman wrote:
> It sounds like the Chinese need a communist revolution to improve the
> lot of the workers.
Peacetime body count:
China (Communist) 35,200,000 1949-present
You are an idiot.
Alice in Wonderland:
"Everybody has won, and all must have prizes." -- Dodo
"But who is to give the prizes?" -- chorus of voices
Orwell's Animal Farm:
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Alice will grow up and leave Wonderland. Or at least we hope she does.
Tom refuses.
"When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty." --
Confucius
gwhite
Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> David Reuteler wrote:
> Do you consider the equivalent of 5 to 10 years of discretionary income
> in student loans after finishing school to be a reasonable burden?
If it isn't worth it, then they shouldn't borrow the money. If they
decide to take out the loan that is exactly what they are saying: the
burden was worth it.
> I was referring to background, not current status. A person from the
> lower class will be paying off student loans and may not be able to save
> up for a down payment on a house at the same time. A person from the
> middle class would not have the same student loan burden, and would in
> many cases receive financial assistance from their family in purchasing
> a home. In addition, they will eventually inherit a substantial amount
> of property, while someone from a lower class background will not.
"Everybody has won, and all must have prizes." -- Dodo
"But who is to give the prizes?" -- chorus of voices
"Equality of results" is the big lie that ends up with millions of dead
bodies when practiced. Attempting to equalize results is a mirage,
wholly discredited empirically if not in pop politics.
> My real point here is that the contention made by many in the media that
> success is based solely on ability and effort is blatant propaganda.
Complete bullshit -- a big fat lie. No one of any respect claims the
results do not have a fractional element of luck -- both good and bad.
> > eh? there is no level playing field w/r/t to access to the elite class
> > but access to the middle class is not out of reach for the lower class.
> > we're not talking horatio alger stories here.
>
> People from the middle and upper classes have no idea how much of their
> "success" is due to their good fortune in having the advantages of that
> class provided to them, and how many obstacles exist to climbing out of
> the lower class. And the government policies of the last 25 years
> (attempting to revoke the New Deal) have made it harder, not easier.
FDR's Raw Deal has probably done more to fuck poor people than anything
else in the 20th century. He made the depression worse. His legacy has
hindered the very economic growth that puts today's laggard above
yesterday's mean (M. Friedman). Socialists are not the friends of the
poor. It is complete arrogance to think one can replace the extended
market order -- whose incomprehensible complexity was acquired through
an evolutionary process -- though designed intent (F. Hayek). But then,
socialists have always had a full supply of arrogance.
java man
carl...@comcast.net says...
And they'll also pay to avoid a long commute. Property values in nice
neighbourhoods seem to be inversely related to commuting time.
>
> Almost every day, for example, I ride past the corner house
> that I grew up in, and I still enjoy a happy glow at the
> thought that some other dumb son-of-a-bitch has to trim its
> eighty yards of waist-high hedge. But he's probably quite
> happy to pay for the privilege of clipping the silly thing.
>
I swear you've seen my old yard!
Rick
RonSonic
>in article c6996826.04080...@posting.google.com, Eagle Jackson at
>eaglej...@hotmail.com wrote on 8/7/04 8:22 PM:
>
>> Not because
>> it's their preference, but because US labor in some cases has priced
>> itself out of the market.
>
>I was speaking specifically of China. There is no free laobr market there.
>The wages are low because they are what the government says they are.
>Business likes this a lot. It's why the CIA overthrew Guatemala in 1954.
>Guatemala's democratically-elected government allowed wages to based on the
>free market. This increased costs to US fruit companies. So, we overthrew
>the government and installed one that would cap wages.
Oh, bullshit. It's about a lot more than low wages. If low wages were the
determining factor we'd be overwhelmed by that industrial giant Haiti.
>In China, we don't need to worry about all that. Our totalitarian friends
>keep everything in line for us. China is a businessman's wet dream:
>guaranteed poverty wages, no environmental or safety regulations, and a
>government willing to crush anyone who tries to change that.
Don't think they're doing on the behalf of us capitalists. Besides, as lousy as
their present wages are, the recent influx of manufacturing jobs has been a
tremendous improvement for the people working them.
Ron
RonSonic
<ri...@xoutxtelus.net> wrote:
>In article <6addh0d4j5fm2ks9b...@4ax.com>,
>ma...@habcycles.com says...
>> While the median cost of housing
>> has gone up relative to the average wage, I'm not at all sure the cost
>> of a similar house has.
>>
>That depends on the market. In urban centres it most certainly has.
>
>In 1979, my first house cost 2.25 times my annual salary. I no longer
>have the same house or the same job, but I live only a block from my old
>house, and it sold again last month for 10 times what I paid for it in
>1979.
>
>If the person doing my old job had bought that house last month, he/she
>would pay 6 times their annual salary for it.
>
>Similar comparisons can be made on a direct house-to-house basis in most
>urban areas with healthy economies, and in most cases, the relative
>value of homes has increased.
True. There will continue to be more suburban housing available, but they aren't
making more real estate inside city limits. That's bound to increase values.
>Custom titanium bikes, on the other hand, have decreased in price in the
>past 10 years. ;-)
It's a beautiful thing.
Ron
RonSonic
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> Tom Sherman <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>...
>>>>European visitors are typically amazed at the land-holdings and houses
>>>>that normal middle-class people (like my normal, hourly-wage,
>>>>non-management parents) on this continent have....
>>>
>>>The reason that many people in the US have these houses and property is
>>>that they or their parents purchased them in the three decades following
>>>WW2 when real wages were increasing, the tax burden was much more
>>>progressive, and much of the workforce was unionized.
>>
>>
>> Errrr, Tom... the size of the average house has grown dramatically
>> since the post WWII boom and the 70's (if you don't believe it do some
>> checking on realtor.com). Look at the size of the bedrooms. Look at
>> how large the garages were (try to find a new house with a ONE car
>> garage)....
>
>But how many of the purchasers of these new, larger houses had capital
>in the form of a smaller, older residence that they could sell to
>partially finance the new residence?
>
>If one has no inherited wealth (including financial support from living
>relatives) but comes from the lower classes, it will take a long time
>for even a person of above average ability and determination to achieve
>middle class status, as the barriers are considerable.
Avail yourself of the educational opportunities, work had and smart. Yeah, maybe
that's a "considerable" barrier to your average crack head, but millions and
millions of people manage.
And remember, the alternative is NOT some glorious world of prosperity for all,
but the world most of humanity has suffered throughout history where you work
your damn ass off all the time just to eat to work another day.
>This is not
>something the upper classes want people to understand, as they benefit
>from the erroneous belief that all that holds people back is government.
>Therefore, they still promote "America as the land of opportunity", even
>though that place ceased to exist several decades ago.
Says you, sitting at your computer.
Ron
JP
> Tom Sherman <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
>
> >My real point here is that the contention made by many in the media that
> >success is based solely on ability and effort is blatant propaganda.
>
> No one's ever said that you can't get ahead on luck or inheritance
> too.
>
> That said, there really is nothing to keep someone who's got ability
> and is willing to put forth the effort from getting ahead.
So then, everyone who's got ability and is willing to put forth the
effort can get ahead? Would you say then, that the reason that the
middle class real wages have been going down for almost 25 years while
the wealthy have been getting much wealthier in real terms is because
the middle class as a whole either lacks ability or the will to put
forth the effort to get "ahead"? That is where your statement
inescapably leads.
Let me suggest an alternative reason: our economic system has been
tweaked over the last 25 years in a way that allows only a minority of
the middle class (statiscally speaking) to get "ahead" over the course
of their lives.
In a nutshell, the wealth that is being created in this country is
going to those who are already wealthy. The American Dream has become
the American Pipe Dream, because hard work and ability are no longer
enough to get ahead in a country where most new wealth is
pre-allocated by our economic system to the already-wealthy.
> That's
> clear today with the highest level of home ownership in US history,
> contrary to the dire picture you're trying to paint.
>
> Most people who are renting are paying as much or more as a mortgage
> on the same house would cost them. Most of them have the means to
> save up a down payment as well - just not the discipline.
Let them eat cake.
JP
Todd Kuzma
rons...@tampabay.rr.com wrote on 8/9/04 12:58 PM:
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:04:44 GMT, Todd Kuzma <tul...@theramp.net> wrote:
>
>> I was speaking specifically of China. There is no free laobr market there.
>> The wages are low because they are what the government says they are.
>> Business likes this a lot. It's why the CIA overthrew Guatemala in 1954.
>> Guatemala's democratically-elected government allowed wages to based on the
>> free market. This increased costs to US fruit companies. So, we overthrew
>> the government and installed one that would cap wages.
>
> Oh, bullshit. It's about a lot more than low wages. If low wages were the
> determining factor we'd be overwhelmed by that industrial giant Haiti.
Which part is BS? The fact that China controls worker wages or the fact
that the CIA overthrew the Guatemalan government in 1954. Both are pretty
well-documented. Do a Google search on "Guatemala 1954" for tons of
sources.
>> In China, we don't need to worry about all that. Our totalitarian friends
>> keep everything in line for us. China is a businessman's wet dream:
>> guaranteed poverty wages, no environmental or safety regulations, and a
>> government willing to crush anyone who tries to change that.
>
> Don't think they're doing on the behalf of us capitalists. Besides, as lousy
> as
> their present wages are, the recent influx of manufacturing jobs has been a
> tremendous improvement for the people working them.
Of course, they aren't doing it for us, but it works out pretty well. So,
if the influx of jobs is good, we should be lifting that embargo against
Cuba any day now, right?
Todd Kuzma
gwh...@TaxesInstitutes.com wrote on 8/9/04 11:49 AM:
>
> Running in circles in the Caucus Race, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> It sounds like the Chinese need a communist revolution to improve the
>> lot of the workers.
>
> Peacetime body count:
> China (Communist) 35,200,000 1949-present
>
> You are an idiot.
First, I think that Tom was just pointing out the irony of the current
situation. Second, the statistic above does not imply that all communist
revolutions will result in massive genocide just as the history of the US
does not imply that all new democracies must enslave minority races and
murder indigenous people.
Eagle Jackson
It's a lot easier to blame a "conspiracy of the upper classes" and
"being brainwashed by the media" for one's own circumstances than to
accept the personal responsibility for failing to have the sense and
discipline to get a good education, work hard, make personal sacrifice
in order to invest for the future.
In America, the opportunity is there for the taking. Millions of
immigrants come here every year to grab their own slice of the
American dream. (And millions more if we'd let them <g>) It may not
be easy but for those willing to work hard for it, they can achieve
it.
If you don't like your circumstances and are looking for someone to
blame, look in the mirror.
gwhite
Playing fast and loose with other peoples lives, Todd Kuzma wrote:
>
> in article 4117AB2E...@TaxesInstitutes.com, gwhite at
> gwh...@TaxesInstitutes.com wrote on 8/9/04 11:49 AM:
> >
> > Running in circles in the Caucus Race, Tom Sherman wrote:
> >
> >> It sounds like the Chinese need a communist revolution to improve the
> >> lot of the workers.
> >
> > Peacetime body count:
> > China (Communist) 35,200,000 1949-present
> Second, the statistic above does not imply that all communist
> revolutions will result in massive genocide...
It's record is close enough to perfect. Wake up. There is no
comparison of magnitudes -- not even close.
Tom Sherman
> in article 4117AB2E...@TaxesInstitutes.com, gwhite at
> gwh...@TaxesInstitutes.com wrote on 8/9/04 11:49 AM:
>
>>Running in circles in the Caucus Race, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It sounds like the Chinese need a communist revolution to improve the
>>>lot of the workers.
>>
>>
>>Peacetime body count:
>>China (Communist) 35,200,000 1949-present
>>
>>You are an idiot.
>
>
> First, I think that Tom was just pointing out the irony of the current
> situation.
Exactly. I was pointing out that the "communist" system in China was
communist in name only. What it used to be was a totalitarian command
economy, but with the introduction of private enterprise it has morphed
into fascism.
"gwhite" is either too much of a knee-jerk reactionary to understand, or
is being deliberately obtuse.
Mark Hickey
Let me sum it up this way. You're wrong. Hard work and ability are
what is needed to get ahead. Doesn't mean that you can go into the
wrong business and do so (say, bicycles...) though... ;-)
Or perhaps you're operating under a much different set of assumptions
than I am - what do you consider "middle class" to be in terms of
adjusted gross income? Here in the Phoenix area, they're building
many thousand large, very nice new homes every year, and don't seem to
have any problem selling them. They're larger and nicer than the
homes that were already here (on average of course), so by definition
SOMEONE is getting ahead, and it's not limited to some sub-sub-subset
of the general population (far from it).
>> That's
>> clear today with the highest level of home ownership in US history,
>> contrary to the dire picture you're trying to paint.
>>
>> Most people who are renting are paying as much or more as a mortgage
>> on the same house would cost them. Most of them have the means to
>> save up a down payment as well - just not the discipline.
>
>Let them eat cake.
I'd suggest they pay cash rather than using their credit card to buy
that cake, too.
Mark Hickey
Tom Sherman
When over 40% of a person's paycheck goes towards student loan payments,
it is very difficult to save for a home purchase, retirement or some
other purpose - say becoming a LBS owner or small volume bicycle
manufacturer.
Tom Sherman
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>David Reuteler wrote:
>
>
>>Do you consider the equivalent of 5 to 10 years of discretionary income
>>in student loans after finishing school to be a reasonable burden?
>
>
> If it isn't worth it, then they shouldn't borrow the money. If they
> decide to take out the loan that is exactly what they are saying: the
> burden was worth it.
>
>
>>I was referring to background, not current status. A person from the
>>lower class will be paying off student loans and may not be able to save
>>up for a down payment on a house at the same time. A person from the
>>middle class would not have the same student loan burden, and would in
>>many cases receive financial assistance from their family in purchasing
>>a home. In addition, they will eventually inherit a substantial amount
>>of property, while someone from a lower class background will not.
>
>
> "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes." -- Dodo
> "But who is to give the prizes?" -- chorus of voices
>
> "Equality of results" is the big lie that ends up with millions of dead
> bodies when practiced. Attempting to equalize results is a mirage,
> wholly discredited empirically if not in pop politics....
Yes, look at the millions murdered in post WW2 Scandinavia and Benelux,
where higher education is free, a minimum income, health care and
housing are guaranteed, workers are protected from the abuses of the
free market, and poverty is practically non-existent. That is why all
the people in those countries can not wait to emigrate to the US. [End
sarcasm].
If people in the US realized what a poor deal they were getting relative
to the overall wealth of the country, there would be a “Velvet
Revolution” at the next election, with the current Democratic Party
ending up on the far right (as it would be in Western Europe).
Tom Sherman
Let's see:
I have an MS from a top ranked school, I put in over 50 hours a week of
work on the average, and I work harder than most of my co-workers.
As for spending, I almost never go out to eat or spend money on any
other entertainment, I drive a 10+ year old car; I have not purchased
any expensive consumer electronics except for one computer during the
last 10 years, and rent a small, one-bedroom apartment, etc. The only
"optional" spending I have done since graduation is for one trike that
was about 4 months worth of student loan payments.
With all the above education, work and personal sacrifice, I can pay off
my student loans in 6 or 7 years instead of 10.
As for the suggestion to look in the mirror, I will refrain from making
a counter suggestion, as it would involve quoting Dick Cheney, which I
try to avoid.