Political discussion thread

^ yea, just imagine what it was like in the 1300s/dark ages; we're A LOT better off now (except for the fact that the apocalypse is coming soon, haha).  At least I'd rather be alive now than back then.

jimmy_row wrote: ^ yea, just imagine what it was like in the 1300s/dark ages; we're A LOT better off now (except for the fact that the apocalypse is coming soon, haha).  At least I'd rather be alive now than back then.

True but I still feel that children and teenagers would be more disciplined in the dark ages than they seem to be now.

Maybe they were just as naughty but they probably respected their elders and authority more.  However, as I've never lived in the Dark Ages, I cannot say how true my statement was.

And obviously I can't say for sure either; but there are obvious other reasons why the quality of life is generally better now, and common people have much more power to change things for themselves than they did before.  Maybe the reason children seemed to be raised "better" long ago was because the annoying pip-squeeks...the weak ones all died of the plague so they weren't around to get mud all over your coat (half-joking).

James wrote: jimmy_row wrote: ^ yea, just imagine what it was like in the 1300s/dark ages; we're A LOT better off now (except for the fact that the apocalypse is coming soon, haha).  At least I'd rather be alive now than back then. True but I still feel that children and teenagers would be more disciplined in the dark ages than they seem to be now. Maybe they were just as naughty but they probably respected their elders and authority more.  However, as I've never lived in the Dark Ages, I cannot say how true my statement was.

I was being a tad facetious there, James, but as somebody who actually works in our beleagured education system I felt that some sort of defence was in order.

Here's some backup to an opinion I expressed earlier:

The union way up
America, and its faltering economy, need unions to restore prosperity to the middle class.
By Robert B. Reich
January 26, 2009

Why is this recession so deep, and what can be done to reverse it?

Hint: Go back about 50 years, when America's middle class was expanding and the economy was soaring. Paychecks were big enough to allow us to buy all the goods and services we produced. It was a virtuous circle. Good pay meant more purchases, and more purchases meant more jobs.


At the center of this virtuous circle were unions. In 1955, more than a third of working Americans belonged to one. Unions gave them the bargaining leverage they needed to get the paychecks that kept the economy going. So many Americans were unionized that wage agreements spilled over to nonunionized workplaces as well. Employers knew they had to match union wages to compete for workers and to recruit the best ones.

Fast forward to a new century. Now, fewer than 8% of private-sector workers are unionized. Corporate opponents argue that Americans no longer want unions. But public opinion surveys, such as a comprehensive poll that Peter D. Hart Research Associates conducted in 2006, suggest that a majority of workers would like to have a union to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. So there must be some other reason for this dramatic decline.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-reich26-2009jan26,0,1124419.story

Slartibartfast wrote: Here's some backup to an opinion I expressed earlier: The union way up America, and its faltering economy, need unions to restore prosperity to the middle class. By Robert B. Reich January 26, 2009 Why is this recession so deep, and what can be done to reverse it? Hint: Go back about 50 years, when America's middle class was expanding and the economy was soaring. Paychecks were big enough to allow us to buy all the goods and services we produced. It was a virtuous circle. Good pay meant more purchases, and more purchases meant more jobs. At the center of this virtuous circle were unions. In 1955, more than a third of working Americans belonged to one. Unions gave them the bargaining leverage they needed to get the paychecks that kept the economy going. So many Americans were unionized that wage agreements spilled over to nonunionized workplaces as well. Employers knew they had to match union wages to compete for workers and to recruit the best ones. Fast forward to a new century. Now, fewer than 8% of private-sector workers are unionized. Corporate opponents argue that Americans no longer want unions. But public opinion surveys, such as a comprehensive poll that Peter D. Hart Research Associates conducted in 2006, suggest that a majority of workers would like to have a union to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. So there must be some other reason for this dramatic decline. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-reich26-2009jan26,0,1124419.story

The only smart thing coming from Robert Reich I've heard was the line when he told Harvard students that talking about an average salary is like stating that the average height between him and Shaquille O'Neal is 6'.

^Supply and demand. 

IVNORD wrote: Bill Clinton made millions from foreign sources http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/clinton_finances

Who would you rather pay to speak Clinton or GW Bush?  I guess we'll see in the coming years.

Edited by Slartibartfast - January 28 2009 at 11:47

Slartibartfast wrote: IVNORD wrote: Bill Clinton made millions from foreign sources http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/clinton_finances Who would you rather pay to speak Clinton or GW Bush?  I guess we'll see in the coming years.

Can I pick neither?