Congratulations to all Americans!

[Olsen]

You might want to check your history. We weren't enjoying much in 1980, it was not prosperous in the least. Check what interest rates were at that time. That was killing business of every kind.

Oh, and don't forget the Iran hostages. We're still paying for that, thank you Mr. Carter. The most incompetent president we've ever had, although the current one is well on his way. (Anyone see how he insulted Netanyahu?)

The best thing about 1980? We had an election...

Isn't it more of a national humiliation to have to borrow money from China, a communist state, to get by from day to day, than that the Iranians held hostage CIA agents that had participated in torture?

What kind of national humiliation would you prefer?

Is national humiliation an important part of politics, then what about the US/Israel relationship.

Show us who's the boss!

 

[antiquark]

Obama is the first Democrat in my lifetime who moved far left from his campaign rhetoric.

For the record, here is a list of Obama's campaign promises on health reform (2008):
http://usliberals.about.com/od/healthcare/a/ObamaHlthCare.htm

Here's a breakdown on the promises he's fulfilled:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/health-care/

By and large, he did what he promised to do. He did not hoodwink the populace by acting all right-wingish during the campaign.

 

[dfoo]

Since this is a photography forum, and we're talking about Thatcher, you might be interested in Richard Billingham, who documented his working class family during the Thatcher era. It wasn't a pretty sight!
...

I remember these years very well, as I was growing up during them. The UK at the time was not a nice place to be. Riots, poverty and unemployment. I also remember Canada very well in the late 80's. Massive government dept, huge unemployment and no money. Getting a summer job was a massive accomplishment. I look around now... the places where I couldn't get a summer job cannot fill their positions. There is no way you can compare the world of today with the world 20 to 30 years ago, unless you are remembering things through rose colored glasses.

 

[Olsen]

Democrats tend to campaign as centrists, Republicans as conservatives, with some exceptions. (Bush ran on 'compassionate conservatism.' McCain tried claim to be a conservative, but his record shows otherwise, he had no credibility with true conservatives.) Recent history shows that Republicans tend to compromise towards liberals once in office, and up until Obama, Democrats tended to govern towards the center. Obama is the first Democrat in my lifetime who moved far left from his campaign rhetoric. Of course, he was always far left, his team did a great job concealing that fact ('hope and change', hardly controversial, nothing but 'feel good' but no substance), and the Republicans had a poor candidate who did not run on conservatism, but on 'bipartisanship.'

We really don't know what the majority of the US voters mean. Because they don't vote. They don't register to vote, even. Participation in a typical US presidential election is lower than 50%. George Bush jr won by getting 'about 22%' of the total potential votes. By this he matched the number of votes that the fascist le Pen in France got at best or neo nazi Frp here in Norway. But with 22% of the votes of all the potential votes it is possible to get into the White House.

Frightening. The system must be reformed.

You can start with that 'every citizen above 18 should have the right to vote without having to register'. That is common in most countries calling themselves democracies.

 

[dfoo]

Having more stuff is not a measure of an improved life style/standard of living in and of itself. There are far more people in Canada today that spend their net family income making the payments on all that they owe and saving virtually nothing for the future than in my parents generation. ...

I don't disagree that most people are financial idiots. I look at my friends buying crap they cannot afford, spending money they don't have, in permanent dept and shake my head. However, the fact that they are in dept does not change the fact that they generally have more income (even though that income may be servicing dept) than in years past.

 

[Olsen]

I don't disagree that most people are financial idiots. I look at my friends buying crap they cannot afford, spending money they don't have, in permanent dept and shake my head. However, the fact that they are in dept does not change the fact that they generally have more income (even though that income may be servicing dept) than in years past.

All of us have more income now than in 1980. But where does that growth come from? If the nation you have lived in has built up a huge dept too, then it is all - smoke and mirrors...

 

[parsec1]

We used to call thatcher 'the bitch' in fleet street and I met her many times to photograph her. They weren't my favorite assigments.
A big fan of hers was the president of Malawi in Africa. He 'privatised' the water supply in his country.
What a bleedin JOKE.
First three months most had fresh clean water which was mainly responsible for the lowering of the child mortality rate by 70%. Then the water bills arrived at the mud dwellings in the villages for the first quarter which of course nobody could pay as the size of the bills were more than most Malawians would or could earn in a lifetime. Once again they were back drinking from the brackish disease infected water and 6 months later the child mortaliy rate rose by 70%. What a surprise !

thatcher was and still is the epitomy of capitalist evil. The 'pull the ladder up I'm alright type' of evil . The sort of evil that engulfed America during the Vietnam War that sent the poor to fight and die for a wicked and evil obbssesion that provided a few arms manufacturers shareholders with massive profits until the draft papers arrived for their sons.
BTW I have quite a few American friends one a former 'Wild Weasel' ( YGTBSM) who I helped down from a tree after he ejected out of his aircraft over Laos. (another tale to be told)
.

 

[Nikon Bob]

dfoo

I remember the late 1980s in Canada also and the difference where I live is that today you cannot find a summer job where you could in the late 1980s. The places of work have either ceased to exist entirely or shrunk to such an extent as to be a shadow of their former selves. There are however still minimum wage jobs to be had here. Canada is such a large country that what is true of one area is not true of another at any given point in time. Your reality is much different than mine at this point in time.

Bob

 

[antiquark]

I also remember Canada very well in the late 80's. Massive government dept, huge unemployment and no money. Getting a summer job was a massive accomplishment.

I graduated from university in 1992. That was the 8th year into the conservative govermnent of Brian Mulroney. The unemployment rate at the time was the highest since the great depression! I remember the right-wing a**holes at the time saying that people didn't have jobs because they didn't want them.

Anyways, in the election of 1993, the conservative party went from 169 seats in parliament, down to two (2!) seats! Haha, totally decimated.

I actually did find a job with my engineering degree... I worked as an usher in a movie theater for a while! Ah, the good old days, when the conservatives were in charge.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Where did I attack the liberal media? I seem to have missed that. POST 112, 'Leftist', 216 'Liberal'

I didn't say America is 'centre-right' either. The quote is: "nearly twice as many people call themselves conservatives as liberals."Post 212



Again, a term I did not use, and I speak for myself. Post 212 again, which also contained a lot of opinion about what 'the majority of Americans' believe. I apologize for the hyperbole of 'vast'.



Which election results are you speaking of? Some have been within a point or two, but others have been landslides. 'Landslide' is almost always hyperbole in elections, and from recollection, the term has been used at least as often for Democrat victories as for Republican.

Democrats tend to campaign as centrists, Republicans as conservatives, with some exceptions. (Bush ran on 'compassionate conservatism.' McCain tried claim to be a conservative, but his record shows otherwise, he had no credibility with true conservatives.) Recent history shows that Republicans tend to compromise towards liberals once in office, and up until Obama, Democrats tended to govern towards the center. Obama is the first Democrat in my lifetime who moved far left from his campaign rhetoric. Of course, he was always far left, Or from a European viewpoint, only moderately right-winghis team did a great job concealing that fact ('hope and change', hardly controversial, nothing but 'feel good' but no substance), and the Republicans had a poor candidate who did not run on conservatism, but on 'bipartisanship.'

See annotations above.

Cheers,

R.

 

[parsec1]

Where did I attack the liberal media? I seem to have missed that.

I didn't say America is 'centre-right' either. The quote is: "nearly twice as many people call themselves conservatives as liberals."



Again, a term I did not use, and I speak for myself.



Which election results are you speaking of? Some have been within a point or two, but others have been landslides.

Democrats tend to campaign as centrists, Republicans as conservatives, with some exceptions. (Bush ran on 'compassionate conservatism.' McCain tried claim to be a conservative, but his record shows otherwise, he had no credibility with true conservatives.) Recent history shows that Republicans tend to compromise towards liberals once in office, and up until Obama, Democrats tended to govern towards the center. Obama is the first Democrat in my lifetime who moved far left from his campaign rhetoric. Of course, he was always far left, his team did a great job concealing that fact ('hope and change', hardly controversial, nothing but 'feel good' but no substance), and the Republicans had a poor candidate who did not run on conservatism, but on 'bipartisanship.'

You forgot to mention Nixon ?
We shook hands once in the White House...a press 'advisor' suggested I should check I still had 5 fingers and my wristwatch ! but I said " I wear my watch on my left wrist " "no matter" he replied "Check anyway " !!!

 

[Nikon Bob]

I don't disagree that most people are financial idiots. I look at my friends buying crap they cannot afford, spending money they don't have, in permanent dept and shake my head. However, the fact that they are in dept does not change the fact that they generally have more income (even though that income may be servicing dept) than in years past.

If you use the Bank of Canada inflation calculator, it will show that $1 in 1980 is equivalent to $2.73 in 2010. Now there is at least one caveat and that is you must believe in the method the bank use to calculate CPI. If you earned $20,000 in 1980 you would need to earn $54,600 just to tread water with no increase in your actual purchasing power. People have far more consumer goods now not because they earn substantially more but because getting credit is far easier that it was. Your earned income gets you far more credit than it should. That is not a situation unique to Canada.

Bob

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Bob,

I do not have the January 2010 figures to hand, but January 1980 to January 2009 on the UK Retail Price Index is about 3.3x, so again, £15,000 in 1980 is £50,000 today 'just to tread water', as you so eloquently put it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Another thing that happened in the early 1980s was the interest rate on loans and mortgages shot past 20%. It seems to me that this was about the time lending institutions starting taking the man's and the woman's earnings into account to determine the amount that could be borrowed in the form of a mortgage. Prior to that it was possible to raise a family on one income and not suffer too badly. Now the norm is to have two incomes in one household. Granted you have more stuff that you don't actually own but the family is far more in debt also. Anyhow that was likely where the fall to the financial crisis we are still going through really started. Apologies for being so far off the original topic.

Bob

 

[splitimageview]

Isn't it more of a national humiliation to have to borrow money from China, a communist state, to get by from day to day, than that the Iranians held hostage CIA agents that had participated in torture?

What kind of national humiliation would you prefer?

Neither of course. 🙂 Give me Reagan, again please.

Is national humiliation an important part of politics, then what about the US/Israel relationship.

Explain.

 

[splitimageview]

"Where did I attack the liberal media? I seem to have missed that."

POST 112, 'Leftist', 216 'Liberal'

So it is an 'attack' to describe the liberal media for what it is?

I'm sorry, I thought 'liberal' was a description you would like.

What is it when you describe a non-liberal paper as the 'Daily Fascist?' That's probably not an attack, right?

 

[splitimageview]

We really don't know what the majority of the US voters mean. Because they don't vote.

Well, we know exactly what the majority of voters mean, as they 'do' vote. 🙂 I think you mis-typed here.

But you are right, the percentage of the population that votes is low. That's why you see all sort of ACORN registration programs, signing up felons, non-existent citizens, etc. And it's why you see Democrats shooting down every proposal to require people to prove they are citizens before they vote.

 

[splitimageview]

By and large, he did what he promised to do. He did not hoodwink the populace by acting all right-wingish during the campaign.

No, he didn't act any-wingish. He did his best to disassociate himself from any leftist radicals (Bill Ayers to name one.)

He was on center right on many issues, just for sound bites, like going thru the budget line by line to get rid of waste, controlling earmarks, etc. Because we were spending just too much, you see, the previous administration was reckless with spending...he was really running against Bush. Of course, he's now set an all time spending record. So much for that promise...

 

[Roger Hicks]

So it is an 'attack' to describe the liberal media for what it is?

I'm sorry, I thought 'liberal' was a description you would like.

What is it when you describe a non-liberal paper as the 'Daily Fascist?' That's probably not an attack, right?

This is disingenuous in the extreme, and you know it.

You are quick to protest that others misunderstand or misquote you, but then 'misunderstand' or twist what they say to at least the same extent. For example, did I describe the Daily Mail as the Daily Fascist? No, I said it was the only (mainstream) newspaper further right than the Torygraph, so much so that it was known to some as the Daily Fascist.

Also, this was a reference to two newspapers, one moderate right, one xenophobic, hysterical, shrill and extremely right-wing, rather than a blanket condemnation of the 'liberal press' without mentioning a single newspaper. To a non-American who is not of the fairly far right in his own country, there is no liberal mainstream press in the USA. There's middle of the road, right-wing and barking.

Pretending that 'liberal' is NOT an attack from someone holding your political views is on a par with dear old Hanoi Jane saying that 'f*** you' is one of the nicest things you can say to someone, because if you meant it, you'd only say it to someone you wanted to ****.

Cheers,

R.

 

[splitimageview]

Your post is more than extreme, Roger.

I have quoted both liberal and conservative media here. It simply doesn't make sense to say that calling liberal media 'liberal' is an attack, any more than it would be an attack to call conservative media 'conservative.'