economy still improving [Archive]

View Full Version : economy still improving

strandinthewind

07-20-2005, 10:24 AM

Greenspan: Solid growth, more hikes
Fed chairman tells House panel 'significant uncertainties' could alter positive economic outlook.
July 20, 2005: 10:36 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, in probably his last semi-annual testimony to Congress, said Wednesday that the U.S. growth outlook was solid and the Fed should keep raising interest rates.

But he warned "significant uncertainties" surround this positive prospect, including the high price of energy, labor costs, the future behavior of low long-term interest rates and the danger this could spell for the country's housing market.

"Our baseline outlook for the U.S. economy is one of sustained economic growth and contained inflation pressures," he told the House Banking Committee in the text of his remarks, made available to the media before delivery.

"In our view, realizing this outcome will require the Federal Reserve to continue to remove monetary accommodation. This generally favorable outlook, however, is attended by some significant uncertainties that warrant careful scrutiny," said Greenspan, who is due to stand down at the end of January.

Turning to long-term yields that have stayed low in the face of rising official interest rates, Greenspan said their decline was "without precedent" and warned their future behavior was a risk to the outlook.

Part of the danger lies in the fact that low borrowing U.S. costs have contributed to a boom in U.S. house prices, with Greenspan citing "speculative fervor" in some markets.

The Fed has raised interest rates in nine quarter-percentage point steps since June last year to 3.25 percent and is expected by financial markets to keep going to around 4.0 percent by the end of 2005.

In his testimony, Greenspan cited the last Fed policy committee statement, which said the Fed expects to raise rates at a "measured" pace.

The 79-year old chairman, due to retire in January, said it was not clear if U.S. unit labor costs would keep on a modest upward path and warned this could have an important impact on inflation.

A spike in oil prices above $60 per barrel along with other energy price rises posed another important risk.

A flattening in prices would be good for inflation, but Greenspan noted that financial futures markets see little chance of a decline in energy costs "for years to come."

Find this article at:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/20/news/economy/fed_greenspan.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

strandinthewind

07-20-2005, 10:25 AM

AND ---

Revenue Surge Shrinks Deficit
Tax Cuts 'Working,' President Says, but Some Voice Caution

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 14, 2005; A01

The federal budget deficit will slip to $333 billion this fiscal year, from $412 billion in 2004, as a surge of unanticipated tax receipts pushes the red ink significantly below levels projected just five months ago, White House officials said yesterday.

The midyear budget forecast also shows that President Bush is on track to reach his goal of halving the deficit a year before his deadline of 2009. By 2008, the White House forecasts that the deficit will fall to $162 billion, or 1.1 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). A slight rise projected for 2010 reflects the initial cost of Bush's proposal to add private investment accounts to Social Security.

"It's a sign that our economy is strong, and it's a sign that our tax relief plan, our pro-growth policies, are working," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting at the White House.

In dollar terms, the 2005 deficit of $333 billion would still be the third highest on record. That figure relies on the expenditure of about $173 billion in surplus Social Security taxes that must be repaid when baby boomers enter their retirement years. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) called the deficit numbers "misleading" because "Congress is raiding Social Security to mask the true size of the deficit," which he says should be more than $400 billion.

But the change from February's projections is dramatic. Then, the White House foresaw a record deficit of $427 billion, equal to 3.5 percent of the GDP, for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. Under that forecast, the deficit would have risen for the fourth straight year, from the $128 billion surplus Bush inherited in 2001. Now, the deficit is expected to finally begin receding, and it would come in at 2.7 percent of the GDP, smaller in those terms than the deficits of 15 of the past 25 years.

"The U.S. budget deficit is falling, and it's falling fast," said White House budget Director Joshua B. Bolten.

Independent budget experts cautioned that a number of debatable assumptions underpin the White House's deficit projections. The improved budget picture for 2005 is almost all the result of $87 billion in unanticipated tax receipts, much of which may have resulted from one-time events, such as a one-year corporate tax holiday enacted last year.

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said last week that such events probably will not make much difference for the budget picture by the end of the decade. But the White House assumes that tax receipts will come in an average of $82 billion higher in each of the next five years than the administration forecast in February. A White House budget official called the assumption "eminently reasonable," because tax receipts rarely decline even from elevated levels in an expanding economy.

The White House does include $37 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan war costs for 2006 and $13 billion in 2007, but Bolten said those costs will certainly be higher. The projection does not include additional expenditures to fix the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a parallel income tax enacted to ensure the rich pay taxes but one that increasingly ensnares the middle class. Bolten acknowledged the AMT needs to be fixed but said it should be part of an overall tax revision effort that does not change total tax revenue.

The White House also assumed that interest rates over the next five years will be considerably lower than those projected by the private sector. Lower interest rates would shrink payments due on the expanding federal debt. Such payments have already risen 14.5 percent over the level at this time last year, as the Federal Reserve Board raises rates, according to the CBO. And Anthony M. Santomero, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, warned yesterday that rates are likely to continue their rise.

Moreover, Bolten said, the real strains on the federal budget deficit will be seen beyond the administration's five-year window, when retiring baby boomers begin driving Medicare and Social Security expenditures dramatically higher.

"Don't be deceived," warned U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker. "We face large and growing structural deficits in the long term that are getting worse every day, and it's time that we start to address them."

Republicans boasted that the improved outlook vindicated their drive to cut taxes in each of the last four years, claiming that much of the boost in tax revenue was the result of economic growth stimulated by the tax cuts. The White House used the news to resume its push to make permanent tax reductions set to expire at the end of 2010.

"There's no doubt that the effect of the tax cuts . . . have been an enormous factor in producing the additional income that has found its way now into the federal treasury," Bolten said.

Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.) and Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.), the ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Budget committees, agreed that the short-term numbers are a marked improvement. But Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said the administration was "claiming credit for an F-plus in fiscal management."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071301617.html

David

07-20-2005, 11:23 AM

Greenspan: Solid growth, more hikes
Fed chairman tells House panel 'significant uncertainties' could alter positive economic outlook.Economic news is mostly bogus. The politicos & their plebs have the public convinced that it's all important stuff & useful to them. Hewlett-Packard is laying off thousands of workers, so "solid growth" means nothing to them -- or to the region in which they'll be laid off.

Economic news is what is always is: some people get jobs, some people don't; some people get cost-of-living raises, some people don't; some people can afford their mortgages, some people can't; some people make money in the stock market, some people don't.

But EVERYONE is paying a ****load for gasoline at this point.

strandinthewind

07-20-2005, 01:29 PM

Economic news is mostly bogus. The politicos & their plebs have the public convinced that it's all important stuff & useful to them. Hewlett-Packard is laying off thousands of workers, so "solid growth" means nothing to them -- or to the region in which they'll be laid off.

Economic news is what is always is: some people get jobs, some people don't; some people get cost-of-living raises, some people don't; some people can afford their mortgages, some people can't; some people make money in the stock market, some people don't.

But EVERYONE is paying a ****load for gasoline at this point.

True - but these figures are not meant to represent a single company or sector. They represent the economy as a whole, which thankfully is improving.

HomerMcvie

07-20-2005, 01:38 PM

True - but these figures are not meant to represent a single company or sector. They represent the economy as a whole, which thankfully is improving.
It's not improving around here, at least not yet. My mortgage company is very hopeful that it turns around soon....

David

07-20-2005, 01:46 PM

True - but these figures are not meant to represent a single company or sector. They represent the economy as a whole, which thankfully is improving.Yeah but that's my point. The "economy as a whole" is just an abstract gauge, a series of numbers & computations for economists to dabble with. The government & the press have the general public believing that a series of positive or climbing numbers means good things to individuals, & it just doesn't follow. It's an example of the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc -- the fallacy of confusing consequence with sequence.

If so-and-so gets a good job this year, it's not necessarily a result of an "improving economy" -- which is all macro bull****. It's more than likely a result of micro situations, not to mention luck.

But politicians pitch these macro numbers around (& every day in every paper brings another "report" -- sometimes totally contradicting the report of the previous day) in order to scoop votes & popularity; & the media do the same thing in order to give their readers the idea that they're better off today than they were yesterday, so that those readers will buy the big-ticket products of the advertisers, who keep the newspapers afloat. (Newspapers live off large advertising revenue, not classified ads & certainly not "news.")

strandinthewind

07-20-2005, 02:00 PM

Yeah but that's my point. The "economy as a whole" is just an abstract gauge, a series of numbers & computations for economists to dabble with. The government & the press have the general public believing that a series of positive or climbing numbers means good things to individuals, & it just doesn't follow. It's an example of the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc -- the fallacy of confusing consequence with sequence.

If so-and-so gets a good job this year, it's not necessarily a result of an "improving economy" -- which is all macro bull****. It's more than likely a result of micro situations, not to mention luck.

But politicians pitch these macro numbers around (& every day in every paper brings another "report" -- sometimes totally contradicting the report of the previous day) in order to scoop votes & popularity; & the media do the same thing in order to give their readers the idea that they're better off today than they were yesterday, so that those readers will buy the big-ticket products of the advertisers, who keep the newspapers afloat. (Newspapers live off large advertising revenue, not classified ads & certainly not "news.")

While I agree, there must be a general guage to determine things. I also agree with you that luck is a big part of it. Interestingly, Bush's "luck" was 9/11 which allowed him subsequently to be fiscally irresponsible and borrow trillions to help set up the economy, though I think the tax cuts did initially help. In the end, I think economies are cyclical and are never really more than that despite the prodding.

gldstwmn

07-20-2005, 05:34 PM

AND ---

Revenue Surge Shrinks Deficit
Tax Cuts 'Working,' President Says, but Some Voice Caution

And yet, pretty much everyone I know cannot believe the property tax bill they have received in the last couple of years. I'm talking about people who I have talked to state wide.
So yes, I guess W can say tax cuts are "working" but for whom?

gldstwmn

07-20-2005, 05:35 PM

HomerMcvie

07-20-2005, 05:38 PM

Kodak just laid off another 10,000 as well.
Well, that's been coming for 5 years. It was INEVITABLE with digital photography. Technology that has become obsolete, at least on the scale it was.

gldstwmn

07-20-2005, 05:42 PM

Well, that's been coming for 5 years. It was INEVITABLE with digital photography. Technology that has become obsolete, at least on the scale it was.

You'd think a camera company would see it coming and do something about it. Bad management.

HomerMcvie

07-20-2005, 05:43 PM

And yet, pretty much everyone I know cannot believe the property tax bill they have received in the last couple of years. I'm talking about people who I have talked to state wide.
So yes, I guess W can say tax cuts are "working" but for whom?
Property taxes are out of control here. Mine went up $800 this year. Yet I have no kids going to schools, riding buses, etc. I think there should be a credit for those without kids. We're helping with overpopulation, the environment, etc, yet we have to pay for the people who multiply like bunnies. And the people who multiply like bunnies, are often, the ones who pay little or no property taxes. JMO.

HomerMcvie

07-20-2005, 05:46 PM

You'd think a camera company would see it coming and do something about it. Bad management.
Well, other than going into digital camera manufacturing, what are they going to do? And, I'm assuming most digital cameras are built overseas anyway. Processing old style film was an american job, since the product was already here.

gldstwmn

07-20-2005, 08:58 PM

Well, other than going into digital camera manufacturing, what are they going to do?

Diversify their business. :shrug:

irishgrl

07-21-2005, 06:53 AM

True - but these figures are not meant to represent a single company or sector. They represent the economy as a whole, which thankfully is improving.

I read that too.....all I can say is, CA is still laboring under a statewide deficit, so for me to read articles that say the economy is improving is a bit unreal.
I have a feeling that the "economy" that those articles are referring to is the big business sector, NOT the reality for Joe Everyman.

Im sure the Administration is gratified to be able to crow that the Federal deficit is now only a paltry $333 Billion instead of $412 Billion previously. ($333 Billion deficit is STILL the 3rd highest in History!) And then there's this: The improved budget picture for 2005 is almost all the result of $87 billion in unanticipated tax receipts, much of which may have resulted from one-time events, such as a one-year corporate tax holiday enacted last year.
Considering that we didnt have a deficit at ALL when the Shrub took office, Im sure you'll understand if I dont clap :mad:

btw: CA has the WORLD's 5th largest economy so to discount "a single sector" is unrealistic--all of these sectors make up the whole.....so, I have to ask: with so many States having difficulty (not just CA), I wonder just exactly WHICH segment of the economy is actually improving? Trickle down sure isnt working where I live.......

irishgrl

07-21-2005, 07:01 AM

Diversify their business. :shrug:

personally, I think there is something to be said for the film pictures as opposed to digital....I have a digital, and I went out and bought a film camera. Unfortunately, I am sure I am in the minority, therefore, I cannot keep Kodak afloat... :sorry:

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 08:00 AM

. . .
Considering that we didnt have a deficit at ALL when the Shrub took office, Im sure you'll understand if I dont clap :mad: . . . .

Well, that was more a projected number than actual cash in the bank and the US still had outstanding debt and lots of it when W took office :shrug:

Moreover and though many are loathe to admit it, the US was at the beginning of a recession when W took office and Clinton's projected surplus was built mostly on fraud that he failed to catch. So, Clinton get's no applause either as far as I am concerned, though the economy for the most part was better in general under him even considering the fraud. Also, it is a little unfair to lay all of the wasting of the "alleged" surplus (again, it was built mostly on the fiction of Enron, MCI, the tech boom, etc. ) on W because 9/11 did happen and it probably would have happened under any regime and 9/11 caused major damage to the already faltering economy.

Anyway - there's my rant and I am happy the economy is getting better overall.

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 10:01 AM

U.S. Jobless Claims Drop Sharply

Thursday, July 21, 2005

WASHINGTON — The number of Americans filing new claims for jobless benefits (search) fell by an unexpectedly sharp 34,000 last week, the largest drop since 2002, due in part to fewer auto-sector layoffs, a government report showed on Thursday.

First-time claims for state unemployment insurance aid fell to 303,000 in the week ended July 16 from a revised 337,000 the previous week, the Labor Department (search) said.

It was the largest one-week decline since December 2002 and brought new claims to the lowest level since April.

Wall Street (search) had expected a far smaller decrease to 327,000 from the original reading of 336,000 in the week ended July 9.

A Labor Department analyst said there were no special factors behind the large drop, but noted the number of new claims from the automobile sector was smaller than the previous week.

The closely watched four-week moving average, which smooths weekly volatility to provide a better sense of the pace of layoffs, fell to 318,000 from 321,250 in the prior week.

The number of people who remain on the benefit rolls after drawing an initial week of aid fell 41,000 to 2.58 million in the week ended July 9, the latest for which figures were available.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163187,00.html

sara1998

07-21-2005, 10:05 AM

gldstwmn

07-21-2005, 10:09 AM

Property taxes are out of control here. Mine went up $800 this year. Yet I have no kids going to schools, riding buses, etc. I think there should be a credit for those without kids. We're helping with overpopulation, the environment, etc, yet we have to pay for the people who multiply like bunnies. And the people who multiply like bunnies, are often, the ones who pay little or no property taxes. JMO.

I can see your point of view. But remember, your roads are paved and you have clean water.
I sympathize with you on the property taxes. Part of the reason that they are skyrocketing is because the states/counties are receiving less money from the federal government than they used to becasue of those fabulous Bush tax cuts.

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 10:09 AM

Mine just went up about $150 a month... :shocked:

Interestingly and though most states had to raise the tax rates to compensate for less Fed. monies - most property has significantly increased in value over the last five or six years - in fact many have almost doubled in value due to the real estate boom of the last ten years, which was fueled by historically low interest rates. That increase in property value has made rates go up as well.

gldstwmn

07-21-2005, 10:12 AM

Mine just went up about $150 a month... :shocked:

Ouch. That's a lot.

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 10:12 AM

Property taxes are out of control here. Mine went up $800 this year. Yet I have no kids going to schools, riding buses, etc. I think there should be a credit for those without kids. We're helping with overpopulation, the environment, etc, yet we have to pay for the people who multiply like bunnies. And the people who multiply like bunnies, are often, the ones who pay little or no property taxes. JMO.

Again, this is why I am for a flat tax for all income over say $30,000 a year with no tax on those make under $30,000 a year. I think all this some get a deduction and some don't is horseshiitte and unfair. I mean I spend a fortune on my Scotties and consider them my kids - where the hell is my tax break :mad:

irishgrl

07-21-2005, 10:14 AM

Interestingly and though most states had to raise the tax rates to compensate for less Fed. monies - most property has significantly increased in value over the last five or six years - in fact many have almost doubled in value due to the real estate boom of the last ten years, which was fueled by historically low interest rates. That increase in property value has made rates go up as well.

I wonder, if the housing market drops (which it surely will) will house values go down, and therefore property taxes?)

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 10:16 AM

Here is an article on the ficticious savings under the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10813-2004Jul24.html

Taxes Cut, Not Saved

By Jonathan Weisman and Neil Irwin

Jerry Bailey is precisely the kind of taxpayer President Bush had hoped to bestow his tax cuts on: an entrepreneur brew-pub owner, a job provider, not overly rich by Washington area standards but well off enough to pay a hefty sum to the federal government each year.

But after three tax cuts in three years, the part-owner of Loudoun County's Old Dominion Brewing Co. is not exactly celebrating his gains. Sure, his federal tax bill was trimmed, by a healthy $5,600, according to a rough calculation by Clint Stretch, director of tax policy at the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP.

But other factors having nothing to do with federal taxes have clouded Bailey's situation. This year, the property tax bill on his Bethesda home will reach $6,725, a $950 increase over his payment four years ago. The annual cost of his 56-mile-a-day commute has jumped more than $300 since 2001, and the long, slow decline of business profits these past four years has left Bailey far behind, no matter what his federal tax payment may be.

"I'm not paying any taxes at all because we're not making any money," Bailey said with a sigh. "I loved paying taxes. It meant we were doing all right."

As the Democrats converge on Boston this week to nominate their presidential candidate, the rhetoric around the economic policies of the past 42 months will doubtless be shrill. At first blush, the Democrats' case may seem like a hard sell. Economic growth has returned. Job growth, while slow, has perked up over the past 12 months. Most of all, Republicans may expect some gratitude for cutting taxes by more than $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years.

But many Americans feel they have lost ground since 2001, and a solid 71 percent are convinced they have received no tax cuts at all. A poll by CBS News and the New York Times in March found that only 22 percent believe the policies of the Bush administration made their taxes go down; 25 percent said their taxes actually went up.

Taxpayers in the Washington area at the highest income levels appear to have profited handsomely from the tax cut, as one Cleveland Park businessman's tax returns show. Further down the income scale, some people barely broke even, as Alverta Munlin and Donald Belton can attest, after local taxes and rising costs of living were factored in. And some struggling middle-income families, such as that of Serkalem Nessibu, lost their entire tax cut to things like the rise in their property tax because of the increased value of their home. Presumably, the numbers would have been worse for many people had they not had their federal taxes cut; but these other demands on their money help explain why some taxpayers may dismiss the tax cut and instead focus on their reduced bottom line.

True, rising property and sales taxes at the local level have clawed back as much as 27 percent of the federal income tax cuts, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at the research firm Economy.com. Nonetheless, he said, personal income tax payments have fallen about $200 billion since Bush took office.

"I don't think there is any doubt that [the tax burden] has dropped," said Greg Jenner, acting assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy. "The statistics are irrefutable, and it's absolutely clear that the American people are better off because of the tax cuts that the president proposed."

Since early 2001, state and local taxes have actually fallen as a share of personal income, said Mark Warshawsky, assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy, from 6.3 percent of income to 6.1 percent. Factor in federal taxes and the total tax burden has plunged from 18.3 percent of personal income to 13.9 percent.

"Tax cuts on the federal level have greatly outweighed those state and local [tax] increases," agreed Dean Maki, an economist at J.P. Morgan Chase, who has studied the impact of tax law on personal incomes and spending.

But Maki had a caveat that could well apply to the Washington area, one that can easily make people feel as though their annual outlays have grown, no matter what: Housing prices in the Northeast and California have risen considerably faster than the national average. Deloitte & Touche's Property Tax Services Group in Chicago found that single-family home values nationally have jumped 24.2 percent since 2001, from a median $147,800 to $174,600. But in the Northeast, median home values shot from $146,500 in 2001 to $212,280 in May, a 45.5 percent leap.

That, in turn, has driven up property taxes and cut into individual gains from the federal tax cuts. Nationally, property taxes rose an average of more than 10 percent, DeLoitte researchers say. In Alexandria, they rose 53 percent.

As the economy slowed in 2001 and federal funds for states tightened, local jurisdictions had to find myriad ways to raise revenue that have pinched local consumers' pocketbooks. In 2001, the District of Columbia repealed a law that would have lowered the top marginal rate on income earned in the city to 8.5 percent from 9.5 percent. In the past three years, the District has raised taxes on cigarettes, alcoholic beverages and phone services.

Maryland has raised a number of fees, such as raising the price to register a typical car to $128, from $81. And Virginia this year passed a wide-ranging tax package that will increase the sales tax rate by a penny per dollar starting next month, and eliminate a $12,000 state income tax deduction for wealthy seniors.

"I have no doubt I've gone backwards," said Al Aitken, an American Airlines copilot who is trying to organize a property tax revolt through his VOTORS, or Virginians Over-Taxed On Residences. "I favor President Bush's tax cut, but my increase in property taxes more than ate it up."

Aitken has the records to prove his point. In 1997, he fled his five acres outside of Manassas when his property tax payment reached $4,000, then settled on 10 acres in Culpeper County, where his tax payment dropped to $1,700. But Washington sprawl and soaring real estate prices quickly caught up to him. By 2002, his tax obligation was back up to $4,000. It has now reached $6,000.

With an income of $128,132, including a Marine Corps pension, Aitken did profit from the president's tax cuts, saving roughly $3,150 last year, by Stretch's calculations. But $2,000 of that was snatched away by Culpeper County. About $270 was consumed by rising gasoline prices, inflating the cost of his 100-mile commute to Dulles International Airport. His net gain? $880.

It's something, of course, but there are other factors. The collapse of the airline industry in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks took a toll on Aitken personally. This year, American Airlines pilots swallowed a 23 percent salary cut to keep the planes flying. With wages last year totaling $92,236, Aitken effectively gave back more than $21,000. His net gain vanished into a substantial loss.

Bush administration economists say such anecdotes do not paint an accurate picture of the national experience. Property taxes have risen, but measured against personal wealth, the increase has been slight, from 1.24 percent of personal incomes in 2001 to 1.35 percent now. Overall, they stressed, after-tax incomes have risen 11 percent since the president took office.

"People are always nervous about changes in tax law, and they're skeptical about the benefits," Jenner said. "But overall, wages have gone up, and after-tax income has gone up significantly," Warshawsky added.

Of course, many Washingtonians have come out ahead -- way ahead. Last year, with his firm revving back up, a Cleveland Park businessman who discussed his finances only on condition of anonymity pulled down more than $1,035,000 in salary and bonuses. His wife, a federal employee, chipped in $45,000, giving the family of four a sizable income that enjoyed tax rate cuts in every income bracket, including the top, which was lowered from 39.6 percent to 35 percent.

The couple also received $33,512 in taxable dividends last year. Before Bush took office, those would have been taxed at the ordinary income rate of 39.6 percent. But last year, Congress slashed the dividend rate to 15 percent. All told, the businessman's taxes fell $44,500 from where they would have been under the Clinton-era tax code, according to Deloitte & Touche. With the assessment of his house more than doubling since 2001, his property taxes have risen by $4,320. But rising gas prices had negligible impact on a commute of just four miles. The household's net gain? About $40,000 a year.

Down the income scale, the picture looks considerably different. Serkalem Nessibu, an Ethiopian immigrant in her forties, moved to the United States in 1979 and since then has achieved a middle-class existence. She and her husband have a three-bedroom house in Accokeek, in Prince George's County, and two children, one of them on the way to college this year.

To help support it all, Nessibu works one full-time job answering the phone at a downtown Washington hotel. After her shift ends, she typically packs up and goes to a second job, working until recently as a supervisor at a diner. Altogether, she works 70 to 75 hours a week, and brought home $38,000 last year for her efforts. Her husband was laid off from his job with an electric utility when there was a merger two years ago, and he now works part time driving a bus while looking for permanent work.

Altogether, Nessibu's family made about $50,000 last year, and she paid about $1,100 less on her federal taxes than she would have had the Bush tax cuts not been enacted. But the family took home about $60,000 back in 2000, when the economy was booming, Nessibu received ample overtime at the hotel and her husband worked full time. They bought a house in 2000, and the property tax has zoomed from about $800 to almost $2,000, more than enough to negate her gains from the federal tax cuts.

She took her 15-year-old son out of public school and he now goes to a Catholic school that costs $8,000 a year. And with her 18-year-old daughter starting college, Nessibu is having to take out loans to pay for education.

Routine costs also have risen. The co-payment for medical care is $15, up from $10. Her car insurance shot up when her kids turned 16.

"The groceries and the gas, everything seems to go up in price," Nessibu said. "Everything I make goes to pay basic living expenses or pay for my children's education. I really appreciate being here in America. I just hope the second generation will be more successful than we are."

Bailey's tale also illustrates the wider economic headwinds facing Americans these past years. He pays himself $100,000 to run the brew pub. His wife, a government epidemiologist, earns $120,000. But the real money once came from their 22 percent ownership in Old Dominion Brewing, a share that yielded $132,000 in additional income in 1999, when the pub cleared $600,000. As the air leaked out of the Northern Virginia technology bubble, Bailey's brewery suffered collateral damage. Profits slid to $535,000 in 2000, $197,000 in 2001, $86,000 in 2002 and just $3,397 in 2003.

Bailey's share of the profits comes as a dividend payment, theoretically making him one of the big winners last year, when Congress slashed the tax rate on dividends. But for now, that is cold comfort. His dividend in 2003 amounted to $747.34, his tax savings $157 -- hardly enough to make up for the $290,000 in lost personal profits since Bush took office.

In the rougher world off North Capitol Street, Alverta Munlin has been feeling squeezed as well. The 68-year-old tutors children and organizes adult education programs for Center City Community Corporation, earning about $38,000 to support herself and her adopted 14-year-old. It is not easy, she admitted. She gets some assistance to cover the $5,700 tuition that covers her child's Catholic-school education. Her mortgage payment of $585 and her utility bills of up to $150 a month all add up.

But what really galls her is a crackdown by the District on the appearance of the neighborhood around her First Street NW home. Twice now, she said, she has been fined $100, first because her grass was too long, then because there was trash in the alley.

"I'm 68 years old. I cannot be out sweeping streets, and I cannot afford to hire someone else to do it," she protested. "The mayor takes it for granted that people can do this. I don't have that luxury."

The Bush tax cuts did lower her federal tax payments, by about $1,000 last year, thanks to the child tax credit that grew from $500 to $1,000, as well as tax-rate cuts at the bottom of the income scale. But 20 percent of that gain went to those two fines. An additional $113 will disappear when her property tax payment jumps from $939.84 this year to $1,052.61. Remaining from her tax cut? $637.

In a single-room-occupancy hotel at 14th and R streets in Northwest Washington, Donald Belton is also confronting the cost of living in the nation's capital. For most of the Bush years, Belton, 37, lived on the streets, messed up on heroin, cocaine, marijuana, "a little bit of everything," he said.

But last year, he turned himself over to the interfaith charity So Others Might Eat, and turned his life around. He shook off the drugs, enrolled in SOME's job-training course, studying building maintenance, and accepted assistance to cover the $603 a month he needed for his room with a shared bath and kitchen.

In early May, he finished school. By the end of the month, he had landed a maintenance mechanic's job at a Washington hotel, earning $26,000 a year. Then in June, he said, he was dropped from the D.C. Housing Authority's rental assistance program. Just under half his $700 biweekly take-home pay goes to his hotel. Dreams of an apartment of his own now seem remote.

"I want to get out," he said. "I want to find an apartment, but you can't find one for $600, $650 a month in D.C., and I can't get out of town because of the transportation."

As he stretches his $26,000 a year, Belton will receive some help from the Bush tax cuts -- $350, by Stretch's estimate. But that may be dwarfed by cutbacks in social services, increases in Metro fares and D.C. rents that have increased 18 percent since 2001.

For years, the District received federal funds -- about $3 million at its height -- for drug-crime prevention, public safety programs, even basketball leagues in its public housing projects. In 2003, those funds vanished, said Michael Kelly, director of D.C. public housing.

"The fact of the matter is a lot of programs have been cut," said Gregory P. Irish, director of the D.C. Department of Employment Services. "When you have high unemployment, you can't merely depend on tax cuts. You have to put some money out there for job training."

Indeed, local government organizations say much of their tax increases were driven by the unfunded demands of the federal government. Since 2001, 62 percent of the nation's cities raised public safety spending above the rate of inflation, in part because of terrorism threats and the demands of the new Department of Homeland Security, said Chris Hoene, research manager at the National League of Cities.

During that time, city property tax collections cumulatively rose 5 percent in 2001, 7 percent in 2002 and 4 percent in 2003.

In their No Child Left Behind education law, Congress and the president promised that funding for Title I, the main federal program for disadvantaged students, would be increased significantly to help bring poor-performing schools up to new expectations. But this year, federal funding will fall $6.2 billion short of that pledge, said Dan Fuller, director of federal programs at the National School Boards Association.

Congress long ago mandated programs for children with special needs, but the gap between the cost of those programs and the federal contribution to cover them will reach $10 billion, a gap that is being made up largely with property taxes.

"There is essentially a federal education tax," Fuller said. "It's disguised as a local property or sales tax increase, but it's because the federal government is not providing for their mandates."

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 10:19 AM

I wonder, if the housing market drops (which it surely will) will house values go down, and therefore property taxes?)

Well, it would seem so. However, most base the value of a property on the mortgage. Thus, when you refinance and take cash out, which many have done, the value the tax is based on will go up. It tends to stay stagnant for awhile after that. That is why in many areas the little old lady who has lived in the house next door for 30 years has her million dollar home valued at like %$100,000 for tax purposes while the people who just bought next door have their property valued at the million dollar mark. Computers have somewhat made this process fairer than that example, but many properties that have not been on the market are still severely undervalued.

Also, the raising of the Fed rates will slow the housing market. It will be interesting to see what the five year effect is. I predict house prices will fall about 10%.

David

07-21-2005, 11:32 AM

"I really appreciate being here in America. I just hope the second generation will be more successful than we are."This is the crux. The Baby Boomers -- who are now reaching retirement age -- are the last generation to be better off than the generation before them. That used to be one thing you could count on in the United States: great-grandparents expected their children to be better off, & they were; & grandparents expected their children to be better off, & they were. But the parents of people in their 20s & 30s today are generally better off than their children. We're in the middle of the first American generation ever to have moved permanently backward.

HomerMcvie

07-21-2005, 12:01 PM

Again, this is why I am for a flat tax for all income over say $30,000 a year with no tax on those make under $30,000 a year. I think all this some get a deduction and some don't is horseshiitte and unfair. I mean I spend a fortune on my Scotties and consider them my kids - where the hell is my tax break :mad:
So a single man making $29,000 owes nothing? Wow, that's fair! :rolleyes:
People with FOUR kids should pay FOUR times the school taxes. People with zero kids should pay just that, IMO. The white trash that were living next door(who moved last week! :blob2: :blob1: :blob2: :blob1: ) had four kids, yet couldn't even pay $600 rent. I don't feel like their kids should be my responsibility. If you don't have a good job, wear a condom, for christ's sake!!! Yada, yada, yada....global village...

I'm with you on the pet tax cuts. I've dropped $5k on my dog's cancer treatment so far this year. So far, it's paid off. :)

chiliD

07-21-2005, 12:05 PM

This is the crux. The Baby Boomers -- who are now reaching retirement age -- are the last generation to be better off than the generation before them. That used to be one thing you could count on in the United States: great-grandparents expected their children to be better off, & they were; & grandparents expected their children to be better off, & they were. But the parents of people in their 20s & 30s today are generally better off than their children. We're in the middle of the first American generation ever to have moved permanently backward.

If we were still a country that was fully a Republic, I doubt that this would've happened...once we became this subversive Facist state, and a Republic in name only, not in practice, the whole place took a spin down the proverbial toilet bowl.

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 12:07 PM

So a single man making $29,000 owes nothing? Wow, that's fair! :rolleyes:
People with FOUR kids should pay FOUR times the school taxes. People with zero kids should pay just that, IMO. The white trash that were living next door(who moved last week! :blob2: :blob1: :blob2: :blob1: ) had four kids, yet couldn't even pay $600 rent. I don't feel like their kids should be my responsibility. If you don't have a good job, wear a condom, for christ's sake!!! Yada, yada, yada....global village...

I'm with you on the pet tax cuts. I've dropped $5k on my dog's cancer treatment so far this year. So far, it's paid off. :)

The $30,000 was just an arbitrary figure - maybe $20,000 would be better.

Congrats on the cancer treatment success!!!!!!!!!!

As for wearing a condom, I think people ought to have to get a license to get pregnant and that license should be issued after a class on parenting is completed :laugh:

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 12:10 PM

This is the crux. The Baby Boomers -- who are now reaching retirement age -- are the last generation to be better off than the generation before them. That used to be one thing you could count on in the United States: great-grandparents expected their children to be better off, & they were; & grandparents expected their children to be better off, & they were. But the parents of people in their 20s & 30s today are generally better off than their children. We're in the middle of the first American generation ever to have moved permanently backward.

I am unsure that is true. Though it certainly could improve, I think more people are getting higher level degrees now and more people have better paying jobs and more expensive houses than their parents. More minorities and women are in higher level positions. I say this as a general statement using general indicators. So, I think I am confused by your meaning of "better off."

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 12:11 PM

If we were still a country that was fully a Republic, I doubt that this would've happened...once we became this subversive Facist state, and a Republic in name only, not in practice, the whole place took a spin down the proverbial toilet bowl.

That is because all must be evangelical Christians or die :rolleyes:

HomerMcvie

07-21-2005, 12:14 PM

The $30,000 was just an arbitrary figure - maybe $20,000 would be better.

Congrats on the cancer treatment success!!!!!!!!!!

As for wearing a condom, I think people ought to have to get a license to get pregnant and that license should be issued after a class on parenting is completed :laugh:
Because if the figure's $30,000, I, literally, would be better off taking a cut in income. Why would someone want to make......say.... $42K, if you ended up below $30 AFTER taxes? Might as well take an extra day off of work every week. :thumbsup:

So far so good on the cancer, although melanoma has an 85-90% reoccurance rate. :distress: We're done with radiation and chemo now. We're going to try some holistic treatments next week. Herbal oils and the like. What's there to lose?

I agree with the class on parenting. It irks me to no end that nearly everyone I see with four kids, can't afford them, so they end up on some program. DON'T HAVE KIDS IF YOU CAN'T PAAAAAYYYYYY FOR THEM!!!!

irishgrl

07-21-2005, 04:13 PM

DON'T HAVE KIDS IF YOU CAN'T PAAAAAYYYYYY FOR THEM!!!! This is a typical narrow minded view of the situation considering that the majority of children are born to single parent households (single I MIGHT ADD *NOT BY CHOICE*) Generally speaking, Pregnant women are abandoned because the fathers arent ready for the responsibility, and these women are mostly young or underemployed/undereducated. To compound the problem they wont be able to complete an education (should they want to) until their children are in school themselves....its completely simplistic to act as though the whole problem is solved by *wait until you can PAAAAAAAY for a child* JMO

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 04:18 PM

This is a typical narrow minded view of the situation considering that the majority of children are born to single parent households (single I MIGHT ADD *NOT BY CHOICE*) Generally speaking, Pregnant women are abandoned because the fathers arent ready for the responsibility, and these women are mostly young or underemployed/undereducated. To compound the problem they wont be able to complete an education (should they want to) until their children are in school themselves....its completely simplistic to act as though the whole problem is solved by *wait until you can PAAAAAAAY for a child* JMO

Bless your heart :laugh: - Homie was talking about the situation where some idiots married or not willingly screw away and perhaps with any radom and willing partner - with little care or regard to how the hell they are going to take care of the kids. That is wildly different that the oh so long suffering feminist prodgy you illustrate :wavey:

gldstwmn

07-21-2005, 04:39 PM

gldstwmn

07-21-2005, 04:40 PM

If you don't have a good job, wear a condom, for christ's sake!!! Yada, yada, yada....global village...

Tell it to the churches.

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 04:41 PM

It's heartbreaking.

I still do not understand how we have moved backward.

gldstwmn

07-21-2005, 04:42 PM

gldstwmn

07-21-2005, 04:46 PM

As for wearing a condom, I think people ought to have to get a license to get pregnant and that license should be issued after a class on parenting is completed :laugh:

A license to use my ovaries? You know, some men are really fixated on certain women's body parts but when it comes down to power and control it's all about the ovaries.

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 04:47 PM

A license to use my ovaries? You know, men are really fixated on certain women's body parts but when it comes down to power and control it's all about the ovaries.

Now Now - it takes two to Tango - I think men should have to undergo the same thing to impregnate a woman. Thus, a license to use the penis :laugh: without protection.

gldstwmn

07-21-2005, 04:48 PM

I agree with the class on parenting. It irks me to no end that nearly everyone I see with four kids, can't afford them, so they end up on some program. DON'T HAVE KIDS IF YOU CAN'T PAAAAAYYYYYY FOR THEM!!!!

Tell it to the churches. Be fruitful and multiply and all that.

gldstwmn

07-21-2005, 04:50 PM

I still do not understand how we have moved backward.

Then go back and read that fabulous article you posted earlier in the thread. :) :xoxo:

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 04:54 PM

Then go back and read that fabulous article you posted earlier in the thread. :) :xoxo:

Well, I get that times have not been the easiest for many for the last few years.

But, the fact remains that overall, more people than ever are going to college, more women and minorities are getting better paying jobs than ever, and more people are homeowners than ever. That belies the credibilty of any statement that we as a society as a whole are not moving forward and that the newer generations are not better off than the previous ones.

gldstwmn

07-21-2005, 04:58 PM

Well, I get that times have not been the easiest for many for the last few years.

But, the fact remains that overall, more people than ever are going to college, more women and minorities are getting better paying jobs than ever, and more people are homeowners than ever.

Juxtaposed with say, the 1950's? I know people with engineering degrees that are making $40,000 a year.
It's great that more people can got to college but how many of them are getting decen paying jobs with benefits when they get out? How long is it taking them to pay off their student loans?
Certainly there are more homeowners but there are also a lot more people.

irishgrl

07-21-2005, 05:02 PM

Bless your heart :laugh: - Homie was talking about the situation where some idiots married or not willingly screw away and perhaps with any radom and willing partner - with little care or regard to how the hell they are going to take care of the kids. That is wildly different that the oh so long suffering feminist prodgy you illustrate :wavey:

My mistake, then; If people are merely having babies out of boredom then that's irresponsible, and not what I was referring to at all.....

as for my "oh so long suffering feminist *prodgy* (do you mean ideology?)
I can tell you that the scenario I painted is all to common both from personal experience and from the standpoint of my job, where I work with single moms applying for public assistance. Bless YOUR heart, I know what I am talking about when it comes to THAT.............. :nod:

gldstwmn

07-21-2005, 05:03 PM

Now Now - it takes two to Tango - I think men should have to undergo the same thing to impregnate a woman. Thus, a license to use the penis :laugh: without protection.

Your quote said "I think people ought to have to get a license to get pregnant."
Well darling, people don't get pregnant, women do.
When the government wants to get into micromanaging what people do in private, it's probably time to go.

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 05:04 PM

Your quote said "I think people ought to have to get a license to get pregnant."
Well darling, people don't get pregnant, women do.
When the government wants to get into micromanaging what people do in private, it's probably time to go.

Actually, it take two :shrug: at least last I checked :laugh: But and to clarify - I meant both participants.

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 05:06 PM

My mistake, then; If people are merely having babies out of boredom then that's irresponsible, and not what I was referring to at all.....

as for my "oh so long suffering feminist *prodgy* (do you mean ideology?)
I can tell you that the scenario I painted is all to common both from personal experience and from the standpoint of my job, where I work with single moms applying for public assistance. Bless YOUR heart, I know what I am talking about when it comes to THAT.............. :nod:

Bless your heart :wavey:

Again, I agree that women are abused all of the time. Whether that is more common that some stupid chick getting knocked up because she is too stupid to use protection or insist on the guy doing so - who can say for sure, but I think the latter is more prevelant.

gldstwmn

07-21-2005, 05:08 PM

Actually, it take two :shrug: at least last I checked :laugh: But and to clarify - I meant both participants.

Can a man get pregnant?

irishgrl

07-21-2005, 05:30 PM

Jason, Ive seen womens' rights shrink decade by decade and we've only had them for such a short time anyway...You cant possibly understand this as you are fortunate enough to be White Male who is (I assume financially comfortable) In short, you are master of your own destiny.

If, however, women are forced to go through unwanted pregnancies, their futures will be sadly curtailed. If this continues, I forsee a future where the dichotomy between opportunites for women and opportunities for men revert back to 19th century standards.

All I can say is, Im glad Im not a young woman just starting out today because the prospects certainly look bleak for women unless there is a HUGE turnaround.

HomerMcvie

07-21-2005, 05:35 PM

irishgrl

07-21-2005, 06:06 PM

Strand.......HIT.......THE......NAIL.......ON.......THE......HEAD...... :D
Thanks for breaking out your common sense hammer while I was at work. :xoxo:

well, if you happened to read my post further up, I realized my misunderstanding, and agreed with him (and you) regarding people simply being careless. There's no excuse for not using birth control.
That doesnt negate my position re: abandoned mothers however. Many times women are swept away by the ideal of a happy home/family life and suddenly find themselves alone once the pregnancy is more than a happy "dream"

gldstwmn

07-21-2005, 10:16 PM

well, if you happened to read my post further up, I realized my misunderstanding, and agreed with him (and you) regarding people simply being careless. There's no excuse for not using birth control.
That doesnt negate my position re: abandoned mothers however. Many times women are swept away by the ideal of a happy home/family life and suddenly find themselves alone once the pregnancy is more than a happy "dream"
Yup. :nod:

HomerMcvie

07-21-2005, 10:30 PM

There's no excuse for not using birth control.
That doesnt negate my position re: abandoned mothers however. Many times women are swept away by the ideal of a happy home/family life and suddenly find themselves alone once the pregnancy is more than a happy "dream"
That's kind of my point. What's the divorce rate now? 50%? If a woman(or man, for that matter) doesn't have an independent income that can support a child, or children(especially), she or he should(imo) really consider not having more than one or two children. Divorce hits, then what? Make everyone else pay for your mistake?

irishgrl

07-21-2005, 11:05 PM

That's kind of my point. What's the divorce rate now? 50%? If a woman(or man, for that matter) doesn't have an independent income that can support a child, or children(especially), she or he should(imo) really consider not having more than one or two children. Divorce hits, then what? Make everyone else pay for your mistake?
I would venture to say the large percentage of these women who find themselves in the "family way" are YOUNG, UNEDUCATED (or UNDER educated) with very little skills to depend upon in order to become financially independent.

its all very easy to be judgemental where you sit, but as a male (even moreso if you're a WHITE male) you are at a decided advantage in the workplace regardless of relative job readiness. If a woman is stuck at home raising kids, how the hell do you expect her to get educated or get a meaningful job? Not to mention the cost of childcare (which AINT cheap btw, and the FULL cost usually falls to the mother) which furthere eats into her paycheck...

so, yes, in an ideal world people should wait until they can afford a child, but sometimes children come whether you are ready or not, birth control notwithstanding. Also, you should consider the demographics of this country: the fastest growing group (ie, the one with the highest birthrates etc) is the Hispanic population which is Catholic, and therefore DOESNT BELIEVE in birth control.

Another thing you need to realize: you are focusing on the actions of the parents, but the fees you pay and the public assistance we all pay for is for the benefit of the CHILDREN. I myself have been on welfare, for quite a few years until my kids were in school and I could go back to College. I now pay my fair share of taxes and I am raising a child ALONE.

gldstwmn

07-22-2005, 12:09 AM

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 02:26 AM

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 02:27 AM

Strand.......HIT.......THE......NAIL.......ON.......THE......HEAD...... :D
Thanks for breaking out your common sense hammer while I was at work. :xoxo:

BTW - Street Angel is awesome :xoxo: ;) :wavey: :D

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 02:28 AM

. . .

All I can say is, Im glad Im not a young woman just starting out today because the prospects certainly look bleak for women unless there is a HUGE turnaround.

Yep - because abortion was legal when you were 18 :shrug: Come on - women have FAR more rights today than they did 20 years ago. I think you can never admit this though.

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 02:30 AM

I would venture to say the large percentage of these women who find themselves in the "family way" are YOUNG, UNEDUCATED (or UNDER educated) with very little skills to depend upon in order to become financially independent . . . .

That is rank BS - I know so many educated white females who slept with anything that moved and got knocked up. You just always want to assume the women are so innocent and it is the big bad male penis who gets everyone in trouble unwillingly.

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 10:24 AM

That is rank BS - I know so many educated white females who slept with anything that moved and got knocked up. You just always want to assume the women are so innocent and it is the big bad male penis who gets everyone in trouble unwillingly.
now THAT is rank BS.....because I guarantee you that if you compare the two classes of pregnant women (educated/uneducated) you will find that the vast overwhelming majority are UNeducated. I am not saying women are innocent, what I am saying is, men abandon women who become pregnant, and once a woman is pregnant, she is stuck... and YES it IS the big bad male penis that causes trouble! a woman cant impregnate herself! I mean really! The only immaculate conception that I know of was Mary, Jesus' mom! Unfortunately, it seems as though you suffer from the same male tunnel vision that straight men suffer from when it comes to the reality of single motherhood....

Thank your maker YOU cant get pregnant m'dear....... :eek:

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 10:33 AM

Yep - because abortion was legal when you were 18 :shrug: Come on - women have FAR more rights today than they did 20 years ago. I think you can never admit this though.

actually it WAS. and as for rights, The elimination of affirmative action has effectively ensured a wage/opportunity dichotomy (which can be confirmed here (http://www.iwpr.org/States2004/index.htm)) Women continue to make less per dollar at the same jobs as men do, and there is a real glass ceiling for the majority of women in upper level jobs.
Link (http://womensissues.about.com/od/genderdiscrimination/i/isgendergap.htm)
Link 2 (http://careerplanning.about.com/od/forwomenonly/a/glass_ceiling.htm)

access to abortion information is denied, birth control is less accessible (now pharmacists are refusing to dispense birth control or the morning after pill) female minors may not receive abortions (or cross state lines to an abortion friendly state) they must tell their parents (which wasnt the case when I was younger)

What the HELL is wrong with you? I cant imagine HOW you think things are better today, unless its simply because you are male, and have NO concept of the reality for today's women. And the right wing wackos are rabid about eliminating Roe, because their ideal world has women at HOME and not cluttering up the schoolrooms or job market.

Btw: Family Court is one of the most misogynistic male bastions in our society.
I am VERY familiar with Family Court workings, both from the Court Clerk standpoint, from the Family Law Attorney Standpoint and from the Litigant standpoint.

dudden22

07-22-2005, 10:40 AM

No economic improvement here, or in the whole state for that matter. I will believe it when I see it. I agree that women have more rights now, but they are slowly going to be taken away if we continue to sit back and let these mentally ill people (Evangelicals) take over our country. The same will happen to gays.

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 11:05 AM

but they are slowly going to be taken away if we continue to sit back and let these mentally ill people (Evangelicals) take over our country. The same will happen to gays.

actually, its been happening in earnest since the 80's.
HERE (http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/roe30/timeline.html) is a timeline of the whittling away at Roe....

Anybody familiar with Tanya Meilich? She wrote "The Republican War on Women" (she is a Republican btw) which lays out chapter and verse the systematic effort to return women to 2nd class status. Women, more than any other "minority" (which is an ironic misnomer) are under attack by the established white male power structure. Fact.

I expect white males to deny it. :shrug:

The Tower

07-22-2005, 11:19 AM

now THAT is rank BS.....because I guarantee you that if you compare the two classes of pregnant women (educated/uneducated) you will find that the vast overwhelming majority are UNeducated. I am not saying women are innocent, what I am saying is, men abandon women who become pregnant, and once a woman is pregnant, she is stuck... and YES it IS the big bad male penis that causes trouble! a woman cant impregnate herself! I mean really! The only immaculate conception that I know of was Mary, Jesus' mom! Unfortunately, it seems as though you suffer from the same male tunnel vision that straight men suffer from when it comes to the reality of single motherhood....

Thank your maker YOU cant get pregnant m'dear....... :eek:
Hmmm... ya know- if it's a woman's body and a woman has the right to choose (I agree with those statements), then it's a woman's responsibility to keep herself in situations where she's not going to get pregnant (if that's what she chooses). If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she should tell her partner that and make sure that the dude is using a condom and that she is using some form of birth control. Not all women can take birth control pills, but there are other forms of birth control out there.

DrummerDeanna

07-22-2005, 12:10 PM

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 12:48 PM

actually it WAS. and as for rights, The elimination of affirmative action has effectively ensured a wage/opportunity dichotomy (which can be confirmed here (http://www.iwpr.org/States2004/index.htm)) Women continue to make less per dollar at the same jobs as men do, and there is a real glass ceiling for the majority of women in upper level jobs.

access to abortion information is denied, birth control is less accessible (now pharmacists are refusing to dispense birth control or the morning after pill) female minors may not receive abortions (or cross state lines to an abortion friendly state) they must tell their parents (which wasnt the case when I was younger)

What the HELL is wrong with you? I cant imagine HOW you think things are better today, unless its simply because you are male, and have NO concept of the reality for today's women. And the right wing wackos are rabid about eliminating Roe, because their ideal world has women at HOME and not cluttering up the schoolrooms or job market.

Btw: Family Court is one of the most misogynistic male bastions in our society.
I am VERY familiar with Family Court workings, both from the Court Clerk standpoint, from the Family Law Attorney Standpoint and from the Litigant standpoint.

Mostly silly male bashing by an elitist quasi feminist - nice :laugh: One must wonder why you even bother to speak to men at all :laugh: :rolleyes:

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 12:50 PM

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 12:55 PM

Hmmm... ya know- if it's a woman's body and a woman has the right to choose (I agree with those statements), then it's a woman's responsibility to keep herself in situations where she's not going to get pregnant (if that's what she chooses). If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she should tell her partner that and make sure that the dude is using a condom and that she is using some form of birth control. Not all women can take birth control pills, but there are other forms of birth control out there.

those are very mature statements........unfortunately not all pregnant women are making mature decisions, and remember, it takes TWO to be responsible. if a guy refuses to use a condom, and the girl then says no, and the guy is *ready to go* do you think they are just going to take no for an answer? I dont....

by the way: the most effective form of birth control is the pill, all others drop in effectiveness by comparison, and therefore the risk of unplanned pregnancy is greater.....

my initial statement was that many (most?) pregnant women find themselves ALONE once they disclose their pregnancy to their partners, and for me, that is an even bigger issue. We wouldnt have a lot of the social problems/issues we have now if BOTH parents were required to be responsible, and the fathers couldnt just leave at the first sign of obligation....

The Tower

07-22-2005, 01:08 PM

those are very mature statements........unfortunately not all pregnant women are making mature decisions, and remember, it takes TWO to be responsible.
Yawn. Excuses, excuses.... It can't be a two way street. Either the woman takes responsibility for her body and the things that happen to and go inside her bodies or she doesn't. If a woman chooses to be irresponsible about her body than she has no one to blame for the consequences than herself. Ignorance is not an acceptable complaint against unintended consequences.

if a guy refuses to use a condom, and the girl then says no, and the guy is *ready to go* do you think they are just going to take no for an answer? I dont....
Sorry, that excuse is a cop-out and it doesn't work. If a woman stays with a guy who would refuse to wear a condom, she has no one to blame but herself. That kind of **** doesn't fly in the gay community, so women aren't off the hook either.

by the way: the most effective form of birth control is the pill, all others drop in effectiveness by comparison, and therefore the risk of unplanned pregnancy is greater.....
If women are concerned with being pregnant, they should get informed on their options. If they are not concerned about getting pregnant, then they shouldn't complain about it if they do.

my initial statement was that many (most?) pregnant women find themselves ALONE once they disclose their pregnancy to their partners, and for me, that is an even bigger issue. We wouldnt have a lot of the social problems/issues we have now if BOTH parents were required to be responsible.
Meh. Yeah, there are a lot of jerks out there. Does that absolve women of their responsibilities towards the bodies they own? Nope.

If BOTH parents were responsible than a man should have the right to deny his partner to have an abortion- somehow, I'm thinking you don't agree with this....

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 01:15 PM

. . . my initial statement was that many (most?) pregnant women find themselves ALONE once they disclose their pregnancy to their partners, and for me, that is an even bigger issue. We wouldnt have a lot of the social problems/issues we have now if BOTH parents were required to be responsible, and the fathers couldnt just leave at the first sign of obligation....

I just think that is BS - I think most pregnancies are wanted by both. I mean millions of kids are born every year and I find it hard to believe that the majority of those were all the result of some now absent and formerly horny guy forcing himself on an unwilling and uninformed chick. I do think that happens though and that is sad.

HomerMcvie

07-22-2005, 01:17 PM

Mostly silly male bashing by an elitist quasi feminist - nice :laugh: One must wonder why you even bother to speak to men at all :laugh: :rolleyes:
:nod: :nod: :nod: She will NEVER agree with that - it is all the male's fault and women are blameless victims of society :nod: :nod: :nod:
Good luck, Jason.

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 01:25 PM

Ignorance is not an acceptable complaint against unintended consequences. I was referring to YOUNG women who are ignorant, and rash...and so sorry, but it IS a reason, even if you dont agree with it.

Sorry, that excuse is a cop-out and it doesn't work. If a woman stays with a guy who would refuse to wear a condom, she has no one to blame but herself. That kind of **** doesn't fly in the gay community, so women aren't off the hook either. Well, the number of women who are RAPED is much higher than the number of MEN who are raped, I guarantee you.

If women are concerned with being pregnant, they should get informed on their options. If they are not concerned about getting pregnant, then they shouldn't complain about it if they do. Birth control can fail. then what? if you take birth control to prevent a pregnancy and it doesnt work.......(which does happen) your argument falls flat.

Yeah, there are a lot of jerks out there. Does that absolve women of their responsibilities towards the bodies they own? Nope. OK: I was married TWICE. Each time, my husbands requested that I stop taking the pill. Each time it took about a year to become pregnant. In ALL THAT TIME, neither husband said to me "I've changed my mind, Im not ready to raise a child" EACH TIME, when I became pregnant, the Husband LEFT. I received NO support from EITHER one. I raised my girls alone. I was the ONLY ONE WHO DID TAKE RESPONSIBILITY and I submit to you that women are FAR MORE likely to take responsibility for the babies than the men. As far as I am concerned, there are MOSTLY jerks out there.

If BOTH parents were responsible than a man should have the right to deny his partner to have an abortion- somehow, I'm thinking you don't agree with this I think it would be poetic justice for a woman to go ahead and have the baby and then abandon the daddy/child, but ya know? women arent (for the most part) wired that way...

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 01:34 PM

I was referring to YOUNG women who are ignorant, and rash...and so sorry, but it IS a reason, even if you dont agree with it.

I refuse to accept that any girl over the age of 12 does not know how to get pregnant. Thus, the term "ignorance" is inappropriate. They know good and well that no sex = no baby. I think any girl who does not use her own protection during consenual sex does so at her own risk.

Well, the number of women who are RAPED is much higher than the number of MEN who are raped, I guarantee you. .

That is a little misleading as you know the statistics on males who are raped are woefully inadequate for a variety of reasons - as they are for women for that matter.

Birth control can fail. then what? if you take birth control to prevent a pregnancy and it doesnt work.......(which does happen) your argument falls flat.

Well, I think there is a difference between trying and having it fail as opposed to a free for all and then "oops I am pregnant - poor me how did this happen - its all the jerk male's fault because it was a meaningless fling and surprise he is now nowhere to be found" :shrug:

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 01:35 PM

Can a man get pregnant?

I was coming from the angle of the pregnancy was a shared thing a la the common term "we are pregnant" - but no, a man cannot get pregnant :cool:

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 01:42 PM

Mostly silly male bashing by an elitist quasi feminist - nice :laugh: One must wonder why you even bother to speak to men at all :laugh: :rolleyes:

Truthfully I have no use for most men. I have a few male friends, but I stay away from relationships like the plague. I refuse to ever be victimized again.

btw: I am no elitist, I am just speaking from my own experience. :shrug:

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 01:47 PM

I refuse to accept that any girl over the age of 12 does not know how to get pregnant. Thus, the term "ignorance" is inappropriate. They know good and well that no sex = no baby. I think any girl who does not use her own protection during consenual sex does so at her own risk.
I am not referring to ignorance re: the mechanics of sex, I am referring to ignorance re: the CONSEQUENCES of sex.

That is a little misleading as you know the statistics on males who are raped are woefully inadequate for a variety of reasons - as they are for women for that matter. my point was, a woman is FAR more likely to suffer negative consequences for saying NO.

Well, I think there is a difference between trying and having it fail as opposed to a free for all and then "oops I am pregnant - poor me how did this happen - its all the jerk male's fault because it was a meaningless fling and surprise he is now nowhere to be found" :shrug: as to that, I agree. I am not suggesting mass orgies here...where did you get THAT idea? What I SAID over and over again is that many women find themselves abandoned once they disclose to their partner that they are pregnant. If you dont believe me, just look up stats on the increase in single parent households (http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/children/children.html)

The Tower

07-22-2005, 02:10 PM

I was referring to YOUNG women who are ignorant, and rash...and so sorry, but it IS a reason, even if you dont agree with it.
Please read my posts. I said that ignorance is not an acceptable complaint. There are all kinds of reasons for things- if one is ignorant of something and a bad consequence comes of it, you learn your lesson, accept reality, and don't make the same mistake again. As so as we allow ignorance to be an acceptable complaint for one's miseries then all responsibility has been thrown out the window.

Well, the number of women who are RAPED is much higher than the number of MEN who are raped, I guarantee you.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that women should be given a pass on their personal responsibility because they decide to enter relationships and/or have sex with men who will rape them?

Birth control can fail. then what? if you take birth control to prevent a pregnancy and it doesnt work.......(which does happen) your argument falls flat.
My argument doesn't fall flat- I'll state it again, since it obviously isn't getting through. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she needs to research her options. If she is aware that birth control methods can fail, and she doesn't want to get pregnant then don't allow semen to have the ability to impregnate her ovum. It's not rocket science.

OK: I was married TWICE. Each time, my husbands requested that I stop taking the pill. Each time it took about a year to become pregnant. In ALL THAT TIME, neither husband said to me "I've changed my mind, Im not ready to raise a child" EACH TIME, when I became pregnant, the Husband LEFT. I received NO support from EITHER one. I raised my girls alone. I was the ONLY ONE WHO DID TAKE RESPONSIBILITY and I submit to you that women are FAR MORE likely to take responsibility for the babies than the men. As far as I am concerned, there are MOSTLY jerks out there.
If you knew they were jerks, then why did you have kids with them? I would think after you got burned the first time that would be a little wary the second time around.

I think it would be poetic justice for a woman to go ahead and have the baby and then abandon the daddy/child, but ya know? women arent (for the most part) wired that way...
The fact that you think an eye for an eye is poetic justice suggests otherwise.

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 02:18 PM

Please read my posts. I said that ignorance is not an acceptable complaint. There are all kinds of reasons for things- if one is ignorant of something and a bad consequence comes of it, you learn your lesson, accept reality, and don't make the same mistake again. As so as we allow ignorance to be an acceptable complaint for one's miseries then all responsibility has been thrown out the window. I am not talking about a complaint, therefore this is a moot point.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that women should be given a pass on their personal responsibility because they decide to enter relationships and/or have sex with men who will rape them? I never said women should be given a pass on anything! What I said was, if a woman says "no" and a man decides its a "yes" why is it only a woman has to deal with the consequences?

My argument doesn't fall flat- I'll state it again, since it obviously isn't getting through. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she needs to research her options. If she is aware that birth control methods can fail, and she doesn't want to get pregnant then don't allow semen to have the ability to impregnate her ovum. It's not rocket science.
Fine and dandy. Men should accept NO as an answer then. Thats not rocket science either.

If you knew they were jerks, then why did you have kids with them? I would think after you got burned the first time that would be a little wary the second time around. DUH, I FOUND OUT they were jerks only after they LEFT! Do you think men wear little signs that say "Im gonna leave you high and dry if you become pregnant even though I asked you to stop taking the pill?" GET REAL. Men are con artists.

The fact that you think an eye for an eye is poetic justice suggests otherwise The shoe doesnt fit so well on the other foot, does it?

Again, as I said, most women arent wired that way. We have something called a "maternal instinct" which men sadly do not.

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 02:19 PM

. . . I am not suggesting mass orgies here...where did you get THAT idea?

LOL - well, they have their time and place :cool: :laugh:

What I SAID over and over again is that many women find themselves abandoned once they disclose to their partner that they are pregnant. If you dont believe me, just look up stats on the increase in single parent households (http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/children/children.html)

Well, a single family home is not really dispositive of a man leaving in a bad way because many women chose to have children alone and that is not really because the man leaves.

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 02:22 PM

LOL - well, they have their time and place :cool: :laugh:

Well, a single family home is not really dispositive of a man leaving in a bad way because many women chose to have children alone and that is not really because the man leaves.

yes, that is also true. That is my current situation.

I know there are good men out there, they are just dammed hard to find :laugh: :wavey: ANNNNNNND........they're taken! :laugh:
But, as I obviously have terrible taste in men, and I am much happier alone, I am just fine the way things are with my few guy friends (oddly I think my guy friends are better friends than my girlfriends EVER were) and my single life.

DrummerDeanna

07-22-2005, 02:23 PM

gldstwmn

07-22-2005, 02:24 PM

I was coming from the angle of the pregnancy was a shared thing a la the common term "we are pregnant" - but no, a man cannot get pregnant :cool:

:p :laugh: :laugh: :p

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 02:25 PM

Maybe I've just been lucky - but in the couple of instances when a stupid guy tried to weasle out of wearing a condom - I turned them down flat - and once - and here we go into TMI land - we were already involved in activity - and the first condom broke - he claimed they were too small and that we should continue without one...and I pretty much laughed at him and said, "NO WAY!"

He begged, he pleaded, etc - but I refused to back down - it was hard - BUT I DO NOT want a pregnancy - so I know what I gotta do :shrug:

I gotta agree that ignorance and other arguments don't really fly - I think most women know how NOT To get pregnant :shrug:

I think you WERE lucky! but again, I wasnt talking about the MECHANICS of sex, I was referring to the CONSEQUENCES of sex.......and young women really have no clue what awaits them for the next 18 years in terms of the sacrifices, the expenses, the childcare headaches, the hassles over custody/visitation/child support etc........its a huge life change and when you're 18 or 20 something, you've really got no clue.......

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 02:28 PM

. . . Fine and dandy. Men should accept NO as an answer then. Thats not rocket science either.

I think you think all men hear "no" and then ravage the helpless girl anyway. I know many many guys who respect the word "no." Does rape happen - of course it does and I hate that. But, I suggest there would be ten times the number of rapes already out there if all men disregarded the "no."

. . . GET REAL. Men are con artists.

Well, those two apparently were - but two apply that generalization to all men is incorrect. And - if you get down to it, many women (though not most by any means) trap men by getting pregnant by deception. Some women also falsely claim rape for pecuniary gain or revenge. Thus, do we label all women con artists? What was that about shoes and feet :wavey:

. . . Again, as I said, most women arent wired that way. We have something called a "maternal instinct" which men sadly do not.

Once again, to apply that to all men is wrong. I know plenty of guys who are very maternal with their kids. Furthermore, what about two gay guys who adopt a child and provide a safe and supportive home for that child? Are you implying those two gay guys should not be able to adopt a kid because they lack the maternal instinct you allege all women have?

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 02:30 PM

Maybe I've just been lucky - but in the couple of instances when a stupid guy tried to weasle out of wearing a condom - I turned them down flat - and once - and here we go into TMI land - we were already involved in activity - and the first condom broke - he claimed they were too small and that we should continue without one...and I pretty much laughed at him and said, "NO WAY!"

He begged, he pleaded, etc - but I refused to back down - it was hard - BUT I DO NOT want a pregnancy - so I know what I gotta do :shrug:

I gotta agree that ignorance and other arguments don't really fly - I think most women know how NOT To get pregnant :shrug:

I have to say that what you described is a hard situation. In the heat of a consenual moment, it is hard to stop when the condom breaks. Our bodies (both male and female) are made to want to see the act to its fruition. And - ya can't blame a guy for trying :laugh:

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 02:32 PM

yes, that is also true. That is my current situation.

I know there are good men out there, they are just dammed hard to find :laugh: :wavey: ANNNNNNND........they're taken! :laugh:
But, as I obviously have terrible taste in men, and I am much happier alone, I am just fine the way things are with my few guy friends (oddly I think my guy friends are better friends than my girlfriends EVER were) and my single life.

Lord Child - being alone is Nirvana to me right now :cool:

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 02:37 PM

I think you think all men hear "no" and then ravage the helpless girl anyway. I know many many guys who respect the word "no." Does rape happen - of course it does and I hate that. But, I suggest there would be ten times the number of rapes already out there if all men disregarded the "no." I submit it happens more often than not....as you know, relatively few rapes are reported because law enforcement and society still operate under a "blame the victim" mentality........

Well, those two apparently were - but two apply that generalization to all men is incorrect. And - if you get down to it, many women (though not most by any means) trap men by getting pregnant by deception. Some women also falsely claim rape for pecuniary gain or revenge. Thus, do we label all women con artists? What was that about shoes and feet :wavey: I abhore deception of any kind, male or female. but my comment was in reference to the lengths men will go to to get inside a woman's pants...its really amazing....

Once again, to apply that to all men is wrong. I know plenty of guys who are very maternal with their kids. Furthermore, what about two gay guys who adopt a child and provide a safe and supportive home for that child? Are you implying those two gay guys should not be able to adopt a kid because they lack the maternal instinct you allege all women have?
Men in general do not have a maternal instinct as it is generally understood.
I am not saying men cant be loving with their children because they can!
But there is a vastly different bond that is created when you've had a living being inside you, you feel it kick, you are intimately connected in a way that a man can never understand no matter HOW loving they are. Its just different, and you will have to accept that.
FYI: my best friend (one of my few male friends LOL!) in the world is gay and has considered adopting. I know he would make a great father for a child but I think (since I know him so well) that it is because IMO he is in touch with his feminine side. :angel:

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 02:43 PM

. . . but my comment was in reference to the lengths men will go to to get inside a woman's pants...its really amazing....

Well, call Mother Nature and file a complaint :laugh: :wavey:

Seriously, that is the way we and most other animals were made. The male is the traditional sexual aggressor.

DrummerDeanna

07-22-2005, 02:46 PM

I think you WERE lucky! but again, I wasnt talking about the MECHANICS of sex, I was referring to the CONSEQUENCES of sex.......and young women really have no clue what awaits them for the next 18 years in terms of the sacrifices, the expenses, the childcare headaches, the hassles over custody/visitation/child support etc........its a huge life change and when you're 18 or 20 something, you've really got no clue.......

I realize that - but again - I don't know of any women who don't know that sex=pregnancy!

or disease :shrug:

The Tower

07-22-2005, 02:59 PM

I am not talking about a complaint, therefore this is a moot point.
Which means that you are talking about reasons, which means that women do not have to be responsible. "It's not my fault, I didn't know I could get pregnant if I had sex with my boyfriend" No wonder my tax bill is jacked through the roof.

I never said women should be given a pass on anything! What I said was, if a woman says "no" and a man decides its a "yes" why is it only a woman has to deal with the consequences?
Perhaps women should take more time in evaluating the men they choose to have sex with before they get to the point where the man is going to reveal himself as someone who would force sex on her. If he's a total asshole and it happens all of sudden, then I would expect the woman to dump the dude instantaneously. Sadly, I know so many women who stay with jerks. I don't know why they do it, but they do.

Fine and dandy. Men should accept NO as an answer then. Thats not rocket science either.
Of course, men should accept "no" as answer. Who ever said they shouldn't?

DUH, I FOUND OUT they were jerks only after they LEFT! Do you think men wear little signs that say "Im gonna leave you high and dry if you become pregnant even though I asked you to stop taking the pill?" GET REAL. Men are con artists.
If men are con artists, then women must be awfully gullable.

Again, as I said, most women arent wired that way. We have something called a "maternal instinct" which men sadly do not.
Meh. Everyone's got an opinion. I don't think the "maternal instinct" you're talking about is all it's cracked up to be.

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 03:05 PM

Well, call Mother Nature and file a complaint :laugh: :wavey:

Seriously, that is the way we and most other animals were made. The male is the traditional sexual aggressor.

so true so true :nod: as long as the line isnt crossed into "no" territory, its all good :woohoo:

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 03:12 PM

Which means that you are talking about reasons, which means that women do not have to be responsible. "It's not my fault, I didn't know I could get pregnant if I had sex with my boyfriend" No wonder my tax bill is jacked through the roof. No, you are confusing "reason" with excuse. I wasnt talking about excuses or complaints, I was taking about the reason. Young women ARE ignorant by virtue of their not having amassed any real life experience, therefore to expect them to make mature decisions is unreasonable and unrealistic.

Perhaps women should take more time in evaluating the men they choose to have sex with before they get to the point where the man is going to reveal himself as someone who would force sex on her. If he's a total asshole and it happens all of sudden, then I would expect the woman to dump the dude instantaneously. Sadly, I know so many women who stay with jerks. I don't know why they do it, but they do.
Perhaps they should but I myself have been more of an "heart" person than a "head" person and as a result, suffered much in relationships out of a basic needyness...I can tell you that many women (myself in particular) stayed in bad relationships because I had so little self esteem that I only felt worthy if a man thought I was worthy.....sad but true. In any event, I didnt know the extent of the "jerk-factor" until I became pregnant--both times. I didnt assume husband #2 would leave me when I became pregnant (just because husband #1 did)........I gave him the benefit of the doubt and was rewarded by the same treatment for my trust.

Of course, men should accept "no" as answer. Who ever said they shouldn't? The RAPISTS. The MOLESTERS. THE INCESTUAL FAMILY MEMBERS.

If men are con artists, then women must be awfully gullable.
THIS woman was.......

Meh. Everyone's got an opinion. I don't think the "maternal instinct" you're talking about is all it's cracked up to be.
Ah...you're suffering from "Venus envy!" :laugh:

The Tower

07-22-2005, 03:30 PM

No, you are confusing "reason" with excuse. I wasnt talking about excuses or complaints, I was taking about the reason. Young women ARE ignorant by virtue of their not having amassed any real life experience, therefore to expect them to make mature decisions is unreasonable and unrealistic.
I might have thought this before the age of tee-vee, but not today.

Ah...you're suffering from "Venus envy!" :laugh:
Not even close. I have never, and would never, want to be a woman.

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 04:03 PM

so true so true :nod: as long as the line isnt crossed into "no" territory, its all good :woohoo:

and then you know sometimes "no" means "yes" :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

cut to steam coming out of Mary's ears :laugh:

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 04:06 PM

I might have thought this before the age of tee-vee, but not today.
there's a HUGE difference between watching a program on tv and actually going thru something first hand. TV is abstract. it cant possibly prepare a person for life because ultimately it isnt real--what is going on onscreen isnt the viewer's reality. You can tell me all about your life experiences but I wont know what the hell you are talking about until I have actually lived thru it myself. (to the degree that I can. obviously there are some things that I can never experience, and vice versa)

Not even close. I have never, and would never, want to be a woman.
I was JOKING but it is a fact that unless you've felt a baby grow inside you, you will have absolutely NO idea what maternal instinct IS. For you to dismiss it out of hand as "not everything its cracked up to be" only shows the depth of your ignorance about it. I have no idea what it is like to be a male but I dont discount their experiences as invalid.......for SHAME!

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 04:08 PM

. . . Not even close. I have never, and would never, want to be a woman.

Well, you already sit to to pee - so . . . . . :p :p :p :p :p

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 04:09 PM

Well, you already sit to to pee - so . . . . . :p :p :p :p :p

Jason you are SO bad :]

strandinthewind

07-22-2005, 04:10 PM

Jason you are SO bad :]

LOL - and I, of course, have PMS worse than any chick I know :laugh:

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 04:17 PM

LOL - and I, of course, have PMS worse than any chick I know :laugh:

Im sure you exaggerate my dear :xoxo:
besides, anyone who likes ice cream the way YOU do is A-OK with me! :]

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 04:21 PM

I realize that - but again - I don't know of any women who don't know that sex=pregnancy!

or disease :shrug:

to clarify: by consequences, I dont mean disease OR that sex=pregnancy. by consequences I mean the 18 years of responsibility, the issues of childcare, the possibility of family court battles, the sacrifices a woman may have to make in terms of putting her career on hold, and various other issues that arise as a direct result of actually being responsible for the child once it arrives. THAT is what I meant by consequences. :nod:

sometimes I forget that the written word is problematic.......

sparky

07-22-2005, 04:36 PM

I have seen VAST stupidly quite recently that relates to this subject.

Warning - GRAPHIC

A female friend of mine had a booty call 2 weeks ago with a guy she had dated once. She raved about how they did it 6 times.

So, I am telling her about a bad sexual experience I had a few months ago. Concerning a guy who wanted me to "swallow". So sad, too bad. Never happening. The last guy who did that - unexpectedly "got there" without letting me know, got knocked to the floor by my fist. Bastard. I told him I wasn't into that. Anyway...

She then tells me that she didn't mind when this guy did that to her. She was just hoping she wasn't pregnant. I hollered at her " How the hell would THAT happen? You didn't use any birth control ?"

The answer "I had vaginal dryness."
I told her that was the stupidest thing I'd ever heard in my life, and that her actions were idiotic, dangerous, and irresponsible.

The response, "People make mistakes. **** happens."

She was pissed at me because I called her on her ****. I told her that as my friend, I would expect her to hit me in the head with big chunk of lumber if I told her I was letting random guys dump semen in me. She is still mad at me.

So, here we have a 40 year old, college educated woman with a great job, and all that stuff. Making a stupid choice when she knows better. She already had one kid with a jerk at 18. Evidently didn't learn. Ready to risk her life, pregnancy, and all the rest for an orgasm with a guy she has met once.

Happens all the time. I have to posit that she bears the brunt with this one. It is no secret what the risks are. She has the friggin uterus. She is the guardian, so to speak. It's her ass if she slips up, and she is well aware what the price can be. She can read.

I saw all kinds of stupid, thoughtless breeding as kid, and the consequences. Poverty, violence, alcoholism - doesn't take a PhD to figure it out. Not even for a 5 year old. Before I was even sexually active, I knew about AIDS, and that unsafe sex could very likely kill me. So I haven't had it. Pretty simple.
Semen in my body = very likely a slow lingering death. So guess what ? No semen in my body. Pretty damned basic. Don't know why people don't get that. Semen in body = pregnancy. What's the problem here ? Are people that stupid ?

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 05:37 PM

The Tower

07-22-2005, 05:38 PM

there's a HUGE difference between watching a program on tv and actually going thru something first hand. TV is abstract. it cant possibly prepare a person for life because ultimately it isnt real--what is going on onscreen isnt the viewer's reality. You can tell me all about your life experiences but I wont know what the hell you are talking about until I have actually lived thru it myself. (to the degree that I can. obviously there are some things that I can never experience, and vice versa)
I was referring to the fact that with the widespread communication of today's era, very few women can claim ignorance or the consequences of pregnancy.

I was JOKING
I got that.

but it is a fact that unless you've felt a baby grow inside you, you will have absolutely NO idea what maternal instinct IS.
I didn't claim to know what it was.

For you to dismiss it out of hand as "not everything its cracked up to be" only shows the depth of your ignorance about it.
My statement wasn't ignorant. I've seem mothers do horrible things to their children and create situations for their children that are also horrible. With that in mind, "maternal instinct" is not everything it's cracked up to be.

I have no idea what it is like to be a male but I dont discount their experiences as invalid.......for SHAME!
I didn't either. I guess we're reading different posts :shrug: .

Well, you already sit to to pee - so . . . . .
No I don't, Missy! I'm just gonna leave it at that.... ;)

Are people that stupid ?
Yes.

Johnny Stew

07-22-2005, 05:40 PM

I had always been told that AIDS (assuming you are referring to AIDS when you say slow lingering death) didnt survive stomach acids....It doesn't.
However, if you have a cut in your mouth or gum disease, you can be infected that way (though it's still a much lower risk than unprotected anal sex).

The Tower

07-22-2005, 05:41 PM

sparky

07-22-2005, 05:45 PM

one thing tho...regarding this:

I had always been told that AIDS (assuming you are referring to AIDS when you say slow lingering death) didnt survive stomach acids....is this wrong?

I think part of the problem could be incomplete information or downright MIS-information....what do you think???

Who cares if stomach acid kills HIV ? Who knows ? I don't want to find out, frankly. Probably no way to really prove that anyway. But I am careful with sex. There is plenty of info out there, and when it comes to STD's I prefer to err on caution's side. Plenty of people prefer to take chances. That's why there are so many unwanted preganancies and people with HIV. It's no secret how you get both ! People are idiots, that's what I think.

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 05:57 PM

I was referring to the fact that with the widespread communication of today's era, very few women can claim ignorance or the consequences of pregnancy. Again, I will state that it is one thing to be TOLD and quite another to actually deal with the reality. For example, many of these young people will have their first taste of the real world (finding a place to live, paying bills, dealing with childcare, and various other responsibilities they will now have to have hands on experience with....quite different from reading about it or hearing about it or even seeing your friend go thru that....

I didn't claim to know what it was.
My statement wasn't ignorant. I've seem mothers do horrible things to their children and create situations for their children that are also horrible. With that in mind, "maternal instinct" is not everything it's cracked up to be.
Yes its true some mothers seem bereft of this quality, I dont know why. If they had it, they wouldnt treat their children badly.
I didn't either. I guess we're reading different posts :shrug: .
to clarify: I meant that I have no real idea what it means to be a man and have uniquely male experiences, therefore, again, I felt you as a male were hardly in a position to downgrade "maternal instinct" Even tho some mothers seem to be lacking in maternal feelings, that is no reason to downgrade the phenomenon altogether, since the women who DO feel such a bond treat their children accordingly, and thus it IS what it is cracked up to be, it is the LACK of maternal instinct that allows mothers to treat their children badly...

The Tower

07-22-2005, 05:58 PM

People are idiots, that's what I think.
:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

Truer words were never spoken.

Here in LA, there was a guy who got in a gun fight with the LAPD. He was at his business (I think) and he had a bottle of Jack D, some cocaine, a gun and a lot of ammunition. He also had his two year old daughter with him and his 16 year old daughter. He started freaking out and his 16 year old daughter called 911. The cops showed up and he barricaded himself in his business with both of his daughters. His 16 year old daughter managed to get out. A gun battle ensued and the man fired at police while holding his two year old in front of him. The two year old got shot by the LAPD and died. The man also was killed.

The wife of the man who was killed was outraged at the LAPD for shooting her two year old daughter. The family of the 16 year old girl has ostrocized her for calling the cops and is blaming her for the death of the two year old.

Huge demonstrations against the LAPD have been going on. Prior to one of the demonstrations, the surveillance video from the gun battle revealed that the man was using his daughter as a human shield against the LAPD. A local news reporter interviewed a woman who was at the protest and asked her what she thought about the revelation regarding the human shield, the drugs, the booze and the ammunition (and the years of domestic violence committed by the man). The answer from the protestester was "who cares, the LAPD killed the two year old girl".

:rolleyes:

The Tower

07-22-2005, 06:00 PM

it is the LACK of maternal instinct that is deplorable..........
That's what I said.

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 06:03 PM

That's what I said.
no, you said it wasnt what it was cracked up to be. I submit it IS, for when it is absent, you see abuse. In fact I will go so far as to say that it explains why close to 90 percent of the child sexual abuse you see in families is committed by MEN because they have no such built in mechanism against it.

sparky

07-22-2005, 06:08 PM

:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

Truer words were never spoken.

Here in LA, there was a guy who got in a gun fight with the LAPD. He was at his business (I think) and he had a bottle of Jack D, some cocaine, a gun and a lot of ammunition. He also had his two year old daughter with him and his 16 year old daughter. He started freaking out and his 16 year old daughter called 911. The cops showed up and he barricaded himself in his business with both of his daughters. His 16 year old daughter managed to get out. A gun battle ensued and the man fired at police while holding his two year old in front of him. The two year old got shot by the LAPD and died. The man also was killed.

The wife of the man who was killed was outraged at the LAPD for shooting her two year old daughter. The family of the 16 year old girl has ostrocized her for calling the cops and is blaming her for the death of the two year old.

Huge demonstrations against the LAPD have been going on. Prior to one of the demonstrations, the surveillance video from the gun battle revealed that the man was using his daughter as a human shield against the LAPD. A local news reporter interviewed a woman who was at the protest and asked her what she thought about the revelation regarding the human shield, the drugs, the booze and the ammunition (and the years of domestic violence committed by the man). The answer from the protestester was "who cares, the LAPD killed the two year old girl".

:rolleyes:

Jackasses. Hooray for the LAPD. If that idiot had survived he would be convicted of child abuse and endangerment. What were the cops supposed to do ? Let him fire willy nilly into the crowd ? Sucks about the kid. Obviously her piece of trash (illegal immigrant with a criminal record) of a father didn't gave a damn about her. Good riddance as far as he goes. Sorry the cops have to deal with the anguish of killing the kid, but then again, that was her father's doing.

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 07:27 PM

Jackasses. Hooray for the LAPD. If that idiot had survived he would be convicted of child abuse and endangerment. What were the cops supposed to do ? Let him fire willy nilly into the crowd ? Sucks about the kid. Obviously her piece of trash (illegal immigrant with a criminal record) of a father didn't gave a damn about her. Good riddance as far as he goes. Sorry the cops have to deal with the anguish of killing the kid, but then again, that was her father's doing.
yep, I'd say a definite lack of maternal instinct going on (cue the laff track) ;)

all bad jokes aside, that is truly a tragedy, but I think the 16 yr old did the right thing and the LAPD really had no choice...they really are embattled arent they?

The Tower

07-22-2005, 08:27 PM

Jackasses. Hooray for the LAPD.
I love that word "Hooray".

yep, I'd say a definite lack of maternal instinct going on (cue the laff track) ;)
The mother was questioned the afternoon after it happened and she was yelling and screaming about how wrong the SWAT team was, blah, blah, blah. All this about a man who physically beat her frequently and held her daughter in the line of fire while firing a pistol at law enforcement officers.

It boggles the mind.

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 08:46 PM

I love that word "Hooray".

The mother was questioned the afternoon after it happened and she was yelling and screaming about how wrong the SWAT team was, blah, blah, blah. All this about a man who physically beat her frequently and held her daughter in the line of fire while firing a pistol at law enforcement officers.

It boggles the mind.

gotta agree with ya there Towie......it certainly does...I guess she's just milking her lousy 5 minutes of fame....I mean, what else could it be? how is it that the kids werent with HER in the first place? Some people find it easier to point fingers rather than accept they might also be at fault... :shrug:

DrummerDeanna

07-22-2005, 08:53 PM

Thought I posted this earlier - guess not :shrug:

But anyway - I heard about that SWAT team thing on NPR today - tragic, yes, but the SWAT team did what had to be done, sadly. And some guy they interviewed said they don't even know which member (and they may never know) shot the little girl.

But apparently some of the SWAT guys are totally traumatized by what happend :distress:

sparky

07-22-2005, 09:07 PM

I love that word "Hooray".

The mother was questioned the afternoon after it happened and she was yelling and screaming about how wrong the SWAT team was, blah, blah, blah. All this about a man who physically beat her frequently and held her daughter in the line of fire while firing a pistol at law enforcement officers.

It boggles the mind.

Mother. The word is used loosely. Let us take moment to think about the scumbag guy....and the fact that she was happy to hop in the sack with him.
I tell ya...institutionalized serial killers can get wives. There is always a woman somewhere for any guy. No matter what he is or what he's done. Always. That is what boggles my mind.

DrummerDeanna

07-22-2005, 09:13 PM

Mother. The word is used loosely. Let us take moment to think about the scumbag guy....and the fact that she was happy to hop in the sack with him.
I tell ya...institutionalized serial killers can get wives. There is always a woman somewhere for any guy. No matter what he is or what he's done. Always. That is what boggles my mind.

That statement is too true. Sadly, it hits a situation a little too close to home for me right now - well sort of.

I've a cousin who is the bigges dick ever - he's a complete and total 100% asshole. He's abusive (verbally and probably physically) - because HIS dad was and he never sought help..

Anyway - he's getting married tomorrow to a candidate for dumbest woman on the planet.

I'm physically sick by the whole thing - this STUPID woman is putting man before her children. SHe's got a 7 or 8 year old girl who it turns out was molesting her younger son and my cousin's son - well when asked where she learned that? ALl signs point to my cousin...this little girl is on the verge of being taken away by the state (it takes an act of God or near death for a child to get taken away in NM) - but the wedding is STILL ON!

MEanwhile my bitch aunt and my grandma are going on and on about this manipulative little girl and what a liar she is.

It's AWFUL. I'm really upset about it - as is my siste r- but we're powerless you know?

Anyway - just because you CAN have kids - does not mean one should...

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 10:40 PM

That statement is too true. Sadly, it hits a situation a little too close to home for me right now - well sort of.

I've a cousin who is the bigges dick ever - he's a complete and total 100% asshole. He's abusive (verbally and probably physically) - because HIS dad was and he never sought help..

Anyway - he's getting married tomorrow to a candidate for dumbest woman on the planet.

I'm physically sick by the whole thing - this STUPID woman is putting man before her children. SHe's got a 7 or 8 year old girl who it turns out was molesting her younger son and my cousin's son - well when asked where she learned that? ALl signs point to my cousin...this little girl is on the verge of being taken away by the state (it takes an act of God or near death for a child to get taken away in NM) - but the wedding is STILL ON!

MEanwhile my bitch aunt and my grandma are going on and on about this manipulative little girl and what a liar she is.

It's AWFUL. I'm really upset about it - as is my siste r- but we're powerless you know?

Anyway - just because you CAN have kids - does not mean one should...

those who know me, know I am fighting a battle to tighten up the laws that are supposed to protect children. It has its roots in a personal issue, but its grown to mean something more than that to me. It is my personal crusade.
And, because I am a fighter, I will NOT REST until our children can be SAFE in their own homes...

irishgrl

07-22-2005, 10:43 PM