How is the federal government aborting fetuses?

I assume in the usual manner: abortifacients, D&C, etc.

The federal government is performing abortions? That's news to me. Please link me to where it says the federal government is performing abortions.

You got an abortion? Good for you. I want to be clear: You drove to the abortionist on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired a physician the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe getting your abortion because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and block your abortion, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

Not only that but my abortion was very enjoyable knowing that I had the freedom to have it because US soldiers invaded, raped and pillaged a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

The abortionists didn't build that.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

If you think one can graduate from WPI without taking a lot of science courses then you are more poorly informed than I ever suspected.

If you think that taking science courses (as in getting passing grades in science courses) is enough to excuse absurd statements on rape and pregnancy then you're incredibly naive.

Is anyone excusing Atkins's absurd statements?

He has a degree in Management Engineering (he can engineer managers!) from WPI, how is even capable of making absurd statements?

He seems to be a religious guy.

Our current President has a law degree from Harvard and doesn't seem to know how judicial review works.  Go figure.

Yes, you have been doing so, in your usual disingenuous way.

Was I excusing his absurd statements by calling them "absurd"?

You make no sense.

Calling his statement "absurd" long after you began defending his underlying position on different grounds doesn't change all that much.  

Where did I defend his underlying position?

In posts 1 and 3 you defended his position. In posts 7 and 10 you moved on to defending him personally.

Comment #1 posed a question. 7 & 10 were attempts to clear up misconceptions.

Do you have an answer to #1?

That was #37.

Your "question" in #1 could (and should) have been put as affirmative statement instead, such as "My tax money shouldn't be used to procure abortions for poor women, whether they got raped or not", but then you couldn't pretend afterwards that you were merely eliciting opinions of others.

Your comment 37 was simply incoherent.

And I don't really have a problem per se with my tax money being used to fund abortions for poor women, though I think it would be better for everyone if they didn't have unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Yet you responded as if you understood perfectly well what I said. Amazing.

Almost everyone agrees "[I]t would be better for everyone if [poor women] didn't have unwanted pregnancies in the first place". But problems arise when people who say this also want to outlaw birth control, like Todd Akins or Rick Santorum or Paul Ryan.

People who have been supporting Akins claim that women don't get pregnant if they get raped know that their actual position (i.e., let's force women to choose between celibacy and getting pregnant and having babies) wouldn't sell to many Americans. He regrets being upfront, not his position.

I didn't respond to comment 37. You imagined that.

...problems arise when people who say this also want to outlaw birth control, like Todd Akins or Rick Santorum or Paul Ryan

...let's force women to choose between celibacy and getting pregnant and having babies

Ho ho!

Don't read newspapers much?

Yes, that word was indeed "force". When no pleasant options exist, one usually has to force people to make choices they don't want to make.

Did some newspaper report that Atkins, Santorum, and Ryan wanted to outlaw birth control, or did you imagine that?

(Also, your definition of "force" appears to depart from the accepted definition.)

They have all publicly opposed birth control. None of them has introduced legislation to outlaw it because they like their jobs.

You right-wingers always associate "force" with violence. Other sorts of force exist, as any dictionary would tell you.

They have all publicly opposed birth control. None of them has introduced legislation to outlaw it...

Why did you ask me about reading newspapers?

You right-wingers...

Other sorts of force exist...

They want to, they just realise they can't. As you would know if you followed their public statements, hence my remark about reading newspapers.

I can't help it that you defend hard right-wingers persistently as if you were one, giving rise to what you consider misconception. I understand (and appreciate more than you realise) that you don't support endless no-win American wars, which position wouldn't qualify as "right-wing" in your country, and I also understand that you take other positions that wouldn't qualify as right-wing. So why do you sound so wedded to loonies in your writing? (Glad you found me humorous again, though.)

Force (verb) can be synonymous with "constrain", "oblige", "push", "enforce" and other similar words. When you give people two unpleasant choices and "oblige" or "push" them to choose one or another, you have "forced" them to do something they don't want to do.

When you give people two unpleasant choices...

Well, if they don't want babies, women could (1) not have sex, (2) use birth control religiously and be lucky enough to have it always work, (3) have abortions when they do get pregnant, or (4) have babies anyway. (Did I miss one possibility? Which one?) Now, since most uber-Christians and ultra-conservatives in their camp want to eliminate options 2 and 3, what would be left that I missed?

Management Engineering is a degree you receive from the Business Department and is not a science degree.

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

No kidding.

Right.  So much for your assumption regarding Akins' extensive scene education at WPI.

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

I'm guessing he almost certainly knows more science than you do.

Why?  How are you sure of this "fact?"

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

So much for your assumption regarding Akins' extensive scene education at WPI

It was a misspelling.  Good to know we're dealing with someone who never, ever makes a mistake.

According to WPI's curriculum guide: "MGE majors complete a number of basic introductory courses in math, calculus, statistics, science, and computer science. They must complete the Management Core courses from an approved list. MGE Majors also complete six courses in a technical focus. The remainder of the program consists of the Sufficiency, IQP, MQP, free electives, and Physical Education, to a total of 15 units. Students can customize their study based on their interests and career goals. Complete program details are listed in the current undergraduate catalog."

These are the course descriptions in the technical focus.  
This is an explanation about the IQPs.  These are examples of MQPs.

Thus, Akins could have graduated from WPI with one survey course in science to his credit and nothing else.  But, please to go on with your basic ignorance of which you speak.

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

Thus, Akins could have graduated from WPI with one survey course in science to his credit and nothing else

And you know this how?

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

Based on the knowledge you display on Trees/Things.

Cite or STFU.

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

Just go look for any conversation between you and Acefantastik. Fish in a barrel.

Do we discuss science (which is what your contention regarding my lack of scientific knowledge is about)?  Please stick to the topic at hand and reveal my lack of knowledge about science or STFU.

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

Besides which, Ace is a troll who has declared unwavering hatred for me.  I don't bother with him any longer as it's useless for me to try to discuss anything with him.  How pathetic are you that you can't find a statement of mine supporting your contention and you have to play the Ace in the deck?

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

He is questioning your knowledge of trees. What do you know about trees?

Well, trees and things.

By the way, can you wikipedia some stuff about Akins's anti-evolution stance? Maybe you could help out and add some stuff to his page.

By the way, can you wikipedia some stuff about Akins's [sic] anti-evolution stance?

trumpeted his support from religious conservatives, backing proposals to promote the display of the Ten Commandments on public property, to keep references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and to teach intelligent design alonside [sic] evolution in public schools

So, maybe he's not anti-evolution.  He just wants disingenuously to "teach the controversy".

Not saying it's not true, but that is pretty non-specific.

The one that comes from someone with the power to enact legislation, a bit moreso than the one coming from a bunch of ladies-who-lunch on a TV show.

So, you're saying that in a hypothetical match-up between, say, Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown, Quayle would win the media perception battle?

(I make the distinction, because it's should be clear to anyone with a brain he was correct on the substance.)

I didn't say anything about winning media perception battles.

You said something about relative power. Let me restate the question: Who has more power: someone that influences one vote in Congress, or someone who influences all voters of Congressmen?

The ladies on the View are influencing all members of Congress? For real? They got that kind of power? Are they Jews too?

Listen gerry, people using the media to influence lawmaking is a means to an ends. media = means, law = ends. When you're the guy that writes and votes on the laws, you are the fuckin' means and ends.

I think gerry was getting at a more indirect relationship: that the View influences all people who bother to show up to vote for Congressional seats, thus all Congresspeople want to be in ideological lockstep with the View. However, I seem to have missed the Senate's resolution urging Obama to grant Polanski a presidential pardon.

As well, we sort of expect our representatives to be able to rise above the media fray, particularly US Senators. Similar to how, during the 2008 campaign, McCain refused to toe the Fox News line about Obama possibly being a Muslim and probably being a terrorist, whereas Palin did and rode that wave to FNC gig.

...anyone with a brain he was correct on the substance.

Who are you talking about here? Who was correct on the substance?

As the shock-value cover of the Atlantic Monthly put it back then: "Dan Quayle was Right." Of course, the whole controversy was silly. It was the odd bird (back then, before, or now) who would try to argue that, all other things being equal, kids aren't better off with two parents. The Murphy-Brown-becomes-a-mommy episodes were a huge ratings boost for the show, and Quayle and many other conservatives interpreted that as a "dads don't matter" movement in the zeitgeist. If you watched the shows (I did), it was a weird target to pick... which kid is better off, the one with a single mom who opts not to abort her one-night-stand accident because she really wants the kid and has a great career and her financial shit together and seeks out someone to act as a father-figure... or the kid whose parents believed their minister when he said that sex before marriage makes baby Jesus cry, who then get married at 20 years old to have sex, pop out a couple kids, and then about 8 years later one or more of the parents decide they weren't done partying, so they divorce and dad's presence in the kids' life is limited to alternate weekends, when he shows up in his shiny new giant pickup with even shinier cowboy boots on and a girlfriend on his arm who's wearing daisy dukes and still shinier cowboy boots? Anybody with half a brain knows the correct answer to that question, but plenty of conservatives wouldn't.

Anyway, I'm going to ape the Atlantic and go for some shock value myself...

TODD AKIN WAS RIGHT

Yeah, I said it. Look at me, I'm a fuckin' badass out-of-the-box-thinkin' provocateur! No, I don't mean Akin's statement about human females being like ducks that are able to wiggle their tubes around to fend off 'legitimate rape.' The guy is obviously a mushbrain when it comes to biology. I mean the follow-up where he said:

But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment [for legitimate rape], but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

If you oppose abortion because you start from the premise that a zygote has a fully-vested human right to life, then Akin's statement is the logical conclusion. Unless you think that punishing children for their father's crimes, and meting out the death penalty when the father gets a less-than-life prison sentence, is just.

Personally, I find the idea of forcing a rape victim to bring their pregnancy to term to be horrifying, Taliban-level savagery, but then I'm pro-choice. If you oppose abortion, but would grant exceptions for rape, incest, the girl being too young (the GOP position on abortion is like a box of chocolates), then really what you're endorsing is slut-shaming unmarried girls who have consensual sex. Which, to some people, sounds like a war on women.

The Murphy-Brown-becomes-a-mommy episodes were a huge ratings boost for the show, and Quayle and many other conservatives interpreted that as a "dads don't matter" movement in the zeitgeist. If you watched the shows (I did), it was a weird target to pick... which kid is better off, the one with a single mom who opts not to abort her one-night-stand accident because she really wants the kid and has a great career and her financial shit together and seeks out someone to act as a father-figure... or the kid whose parents believed their minister when he said that sex before marriage makes baby Jesus cry, who then get married at 20 years old to have sex, pop out a couple kids, and then about 8 years later one or more of the parents decide they weren't done partying, so they divorce and dad's presence in the kids' life is limited to alternate weekends, when he shows up in his shiny new giant pickup with even shinier cowboy boots on and a girlfriend on his arm who's wearing daisy dukes and still shinier cowboy boots? Anybody with half a brain knows the correct answer to that question, but plenty of conservatives wouldn't.

Only quoted it because that was awesome. :bowdown:

...or the kid whose parents believed their minister when he said that sex before marriage makes baby Jesus cry, who then get married at 20 years old to have sex, pop out a couple kids, and then about 8 years later one or more of the parents decide they weren't done partying, so they divorce...

No, I got Quayle's point.

The point I was making in that example (which isn't hypothetical, BTW, it's a nearly-journalistic description of our former next-door neighbors, and while I feel pretty bad for the mom and daughters having had to sell the house and move into a shitty apartment due to post-divorce finances, I was a bit relieved that they moved before our daughter got old enough to ask questions about what the hell was going on next door) is that thoughtful people who have kids out-of-wedlock or without a biological partner at hand can and often do provide a better environment for their kids than couples who blindly follow the social mores and conventions that social conservatives associate with the 'good old days.' Especially because the latter couples frequently end up divorced a few years after having kids.

If you watched Murphy Brown, you'd know that the between her character and her character's support network, there was little chance of her kid having anything other than an awesome upbringing.

"Often"?

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm

That essay is about divorce, not "thoughtful people who have kids out-of-wedlock."

Ah, I misunderstood your one-word reply to be challenging the idea that religious Americans frequently get divorced.

Sorry, I don't have anything but lots of anecdotes to back up the idea that two committed, responsible, loving people, who opt for a domestic partner cert instead of a marriage license, make better parents than a young party hardy married couple who drag their bleary-eyed selves and their kids to church most Sundays.

which kind of statement do you think should warrant more concern? The kind that might lead to more rape pregnancies, or the kind that would lead to more rape?

I believe rape is evil, and I unequivocally support a legally ironclad right for any woman in any nation to abort her rapist's fetus.  FIN.

We should also bomb the shit out of the rest of the developed world and destroy their infrastructure to make sure their is no competetion for American manufacturing.

Also: abortion was largely illegal and unavailable in those halcyon days!

Unavailable? I thought the house-call family doctors would be quite understanding and willing to resolve an unwanted pregnancy via cruder methods.

Maybe it was coat hanger sales that made the economy so dynamic in those days!

Good job, you almost got half of the joke!

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

They seem to forget that a single middle class earner could support a family of four, with health coverage, pension and a paid vacation in their cabin on the lake.

You have to be specific with these idiots - they get confused so easily. Use 'quality of life', a relative measure.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

Median income is dramatically higher today than in the post-WWI era.

At least you knew who I was referring to... I'll give you that.

I'll reply to the Village Idiot this one time. WRONG.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/the-struggles-of-men/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=159784724

And again, for the idiots, "Quality of Life". All you see is money.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

No, I am correct. You are looking at carefully cherry-picked statistics. "The struggles of men" in the URL told me all I needed to know even before clicking through.

(You aren't nearly sophisticated enough to understand it nor seemingly inclined to examine evidence from sources that do not align with your biases, or I would also start a conversation about how many such claims about "stagnation" of incomes are illustrations of SImpson's paradox.)

As for "quality of life," we're living longer, healthier lives in a cleaner environment. I dunno what you consider to be "quality."

Always correct. No one understands anything but you (oh, and Alf), even though you seem as lost in your biases as anyone here. Certain things have improved since 1964? (Love those smart phones. And we live longer because of better medicines.) Sure, but such economic progress as has been made has been hogged by 1% of your population.

Meanwhile, all you can think of when you think of workers who could afford to support their families and own their own homes in those days was "we should have broken their unions". But how dare anyone call you "right-wing".

...economic progress as has been made has been hogged by 1% of your population

Surely you meant "Ho ho!" since everyone else here undoubtedly knows exactly what I meant.

For my edification, novy, please explain.

"Hog" (verb): Keep or use all (or most of) something for oneself in an unfair or selfish way.

If conservatives think that quality of life has increased so much in America, why do they keep writing books about the demise of America and its values? Well unless you think American values are only economic. Also, healthier and cleaner lives seem to be the product of progressive values like access to healthcare and environmental regulations.

The decline in moral values is directly related to the economic difficulties of certain segments of the population and therefore their quality of life (including things like access to health care).

Oh okay.

For example: If a subset of the population is culturally disinclined to value education, we should expect them to be less educated, on average, and to be poorer.

You know, all those black people who used to have no rights whatsoever and used to get hung from trees for almost anything. They were much better off then.

How ironic that most people think it has been white males who have mostly gotten screwed these last 30 years, while you look to "decline[s] in moral values" to explain why some of those few who really DID gain really didn't.

Your racial views, so much like cleaned-up versions of Alf's, provide yet another reason to think of you as right-wing.

...all those black people...

Maybe you were thinking of women, in general? Maybe you weren't thinking of anyone? Maybe you wouldn't be honest enough to tell us what you were thinking in any case?

I was thinking of, for example, people who get married before having children.

First you say "The decline in moral values is directly related to the economic difficulties of certain segments of the population and therefore their quality of life (including things like access to health care)." and then that "certain segment" that you identify with that "decline in moral values" was "people who get married before having children"?

No, you really weren't thinking of them.

But if you had been thinking of people who DON'T get married before having children, European rates of unwed motherhood don't correlate with not having access to healthcare, so "decline in moral values" wouldn't be "directly related" to not having access to health care.

In some restaurants, they have pictures of when they opened their business. One that I have gone to opened in 1964. A picture of their menu showed that you could buy T-bone steak with potatoes, vegetables, and dessert fort 75 cents and coffee for 10 cents. Then you tell me "median income is dramatically higher today than in the post-WWI era" (even though we were talking about post-WWII) as if that really tells us anything meaningful. You might as well add that we didn't have smart phones in 1964, and thus our standard of living must be dramatically higher today.

Ever see Monty Hall's first "Let's Make A Deal" program from sometime around 1965? "The Big Deal Of The Day" had that brand new car, of course, but also lots of kitchen and living room furniture. It was valued at $1,700 and change. In those days, you could have bought your new house for $20,000.

Meanwhile, I notice you didn't bother to address Otto's assertion that in those days, one middle-class wage earner could easily support his family, with health insurance, pension, vacations, and so much more. I would think you'd have heard of "inflation".

Sorry, that ""WWI" was a typo - should have said "WWII." But median income today is dramatically higher than in 1964.

Due to inflation, the $20K house in 1965 would be $137K today. It was also a considerably smaller house in 1965 than the ones built now.

...you didn't bother to address Otto's assertion that in those days, one middle-class wage earner could easily support his family, with health insurance, pension, vacations, and so much more

"The same is true today. What of it?"

Utter horse pucky, but just what I expected from you. Most "middle-class" families these days need two wage earners to afford such things, and many still can't afford them, as poverty numbers have continued to go up since Bush Jr took over in 2001.

His definition of "middle class" might be different from yours, and either way he'll twist the definition so as to be meaningless.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

What he defines as "middle class" used to be called "upper middle class", which group has indeed been doing very well as America's economy pushes some people up and most people down.

...as America's economy pushes some people up and most people down

Fascinating links. Pretty much what I expect from you, bald assertions and snide insults.

Link.

You're welcome.

Thanks.

So, those figures show increases in numbers of well-off people in raw numbers. So out of 300,000,000 million Americans in 2010, 118,000,000 had high median incomes. How many Americans were there in 1975 again? Much less? How about percentages? Oh, right, you said more people were well to do, not greater percentages of people were well to do.

However you wish to put it. Both as a percentage and (obviously - so obvious, in fact, that I didn't think I needed to spell it out quite so explicitly) in absolute numbers more people (or households, or whatever) are better off today than in the 70s (or whatever reasonably lengthy period in the past you wish to compare).

Not "as a percentage", but I don't really feel like belabouring this particular point. If anyone has been following our conversation, we can leave it to them to figure it all out for themselves (with liberals probably agreeing with me and conservatives agreeing with you), and we can agree to disagree (if we can agree even on that). Now that we have reached that portion of this thread when most people have shined it on, I want to discuss something different.

I have noticed, with some interest, that more than half of my responses to posts on TnT end up being directed at you (or Alf), and I found myself pondering that recently. Otto set it off by asking me why I respond to almost everything you write, even when you say something you will later deny saying or plainly just intend to be ornery, and I subsequently concluded that my answer to him was emotionally dishonest and that I would benefit from being more self-aware.

My first thought was that you drew me in by your sheer antagonism (to almost everything I write as well as to me personally), prompting me to want to "fight back", but lots of other folks on TnT find my thinking obnoxious without especially wanting to engage me or prompting me to "fight back" against them. For example, gerry and tjb both regularly wax eloquent on subjects with respect to which I strongly disagree with them, yet my relations with them bear no resemblance to my relations with you.

Then I thought that our (seldom acknowledged) agreements (e.g., war and peace) made our disagreements more emotionally engaging, but I dismissed that as well because you can't disagree with anyone on everything, yet I still don't go back and forth with others as I do with you. Then I thought that your sheer persistence engaged my own bullheadedness in turn, but that didn't happen on Plastic, where lots of people were every bit as bullheaded as I was.

As I floundered about in my thinking, I found myself revisiting your relations with Thalia, which I had to admit to myself were much more poisonous than your relations with me. I remember times when I thought that I was leaving TnT because I was tired of bickering with you, but then was drawn back anyway, even as Thalia doesn't seem to have been drawn back. So what accounted for my being drawn back even as Thalia (and certain others) have stayed away?

I have more than one friend in meatspace with whom I disagree vehemently on political issues, who qualify as "right-wing" on matters that I actually care about (even as I care much less about American political issues, which don't really affect me that much). Your orthodox American Libertarianism (which really doesn't qualify as strictly right-wing) amuses me (as I ostensibly "amuse" you) more than it angers me (as my friends sometimes anger me), yet it also plainly engages me as well.

One of my only friends on Plastic was also (usually) orthodox in his Libertarianism. I almost never argued with him (because our agreements on spiritualism and religion overwhelmed our disagreements on politics), but maybe I should have. Maybe I find this philosophy more interesting than I have heretofore admitted. But lots of folks on TnT embrace Libertarianism more fervently and explicitly than you do without engaging me. (Although I also find myself liking Mr. Slothrop more and more.)

At last, I concluded that I must like you, for whatever reasons. That I cannot yet say precisely why bothers me, as I like to think of myself as self-aware and emotionally honest with myself. No doubt I will have to consider this matter at greater length, although there will be no need to share my further musings on this subject with you or others on TnT. I also well understand that you won't actually reply to any of this (except perhaps with short toss-off remarks), since that wouldn't be your style. So be it.

See you on another thread.
     

The guy is not Libertarian.

Perhaps I should have used small "l" instead. Insistent fiscal conservatives who both think that most wars and foreign involvements should be avoided and don't rail on about stopping drugs and abortion qualify as what my old friend used to call "libertarian lite", whether they acknowledge it or not.

What fooled me about him was that he always defends lunatic right-wingers, as if he considers them his friends. I have concluded that he does so mostly to pick fights. Even as he sounds ultra-right and insults "liberals" at every opportunity, he can list all of his political positions that would qualify as Liberal.

I used to call this sort of thing "dishonest", but most people deserve to be called "unaware" of themselves and their motivations instead.

I have never said anything and then later claimed I didn't say it. If you believe otherwise you are mistaken. (You certainly will be unable to provide any examples.)

Thalia would persist on saying the sky was green, even after you showed her the sky. She was an impressively spectacular dolt.

To the extent I am libertarian, I am only orthodox in in that I think the US federal government should be a government of enumerated powers.

I can always count on you to say what I expect. I take back my claim of "orthodoxy", as I have already done in my response to indecentspeech.

I would define it as everyone except the top 5% and bottom 20% of households, by income.

What's your definition?

Would you define it that way in France or Greece too? How about China? I think "middle-class" deserves to be defined so as to make it clear what people actually earn, in constant dollars, but then we would be discussing statistics, and I utterly agree with you that that would be purposeless.

Most "middle-class" families these days need two wage earners to afford such things...

...many still can't afford them, as poverty numbers have continued to go up...

You might as well add that we didn't have smart phones in 1964, and thus our standard of living must be dramatically higher today.

Are you seriously arguing that this is not the case?

Virtually everything we buy today is a vastly better deal today: we spend less on food (under 10% now vs 20% in the post-war period), clothes are dramatically cheaper, cars last 200K miles no problem while getting better gas mileage and having far better comfort features (plus your average 2012 minivan will absolutely curb-stomp a 1965 mustang in a race),  household appliances will do everything short of giving you a beej, and 42-inch televisions with on-demand access to huge libraries on A/V media are a staple of middle class living rooms throughout the country.

Oh, and we have freaking Star Trek style communicators that can instantly access nearly the entirety of human knowledge and possess more computing power than existed on the planet in 1960.  And we carry them in our pockets.

Of course, as our spending on durable goods has decreased, the income that has been freed up has largely poured into positional goods like houses and college education, where the supply in many market areas is fixed.  

Having recently been looking for a house in a finite market (in contract now), this is mind-blowingly obvious: the south bay is a small place with highly restrictive zoning laws, horrible traffic and lots of people with high incomes that have jobs in the Menlo Park-Palo Alto-Mountain View area.  The result is that 800 sq. ft. bungalows in Palo Alto cost about $1M and drop by about $100K for every 3 miles outside of Palo Alto in either direction.

If you want to lower housing costs, vote against zoning regulation.  If developers were allowed to build more units in high cost areas, they would because they can make more money.  And If the supply were sufficient, the prices would drop.  

Are you seriously arguing that this is not the case?

If you want to lower housing costs, vote against zoning regulation

* Looking at long-term trends, natch.

They actually believe that incomes are lower today* - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Well, to be fair, as I pointed out above, big ticket positional goods are more expensive and people tend to notice how much more they are paying for housing more than how much they are saving on virtually everything else and how much extra stuff they have.  It is a strange illusion they are falling for.

Another liberal favorite: rent control.

Don't even get me started... I've had conversations with otherwise intelligent people around here that go like this:

Them: "I wish I could move up to SF but it is sooooo expensive"

Me: "Well, if they got rid of rent control, developers would build more units which would lower the prices.  In addition, landlords would lower their initial rents because they would no longer be locked in to a rate schedule which exposes them to the 'risk' that you might stay for more than a few years"

Them: "No, none of that would help - the new places just cost more than the old ones and the landlords up there are always looking for any excuse to evict you so nobody is able stay in one place that long anyways"

Me: [crying]

The stupid, it burns...

Stuff today might be lower priced but I wouldn't say that necessarily translates as a "better deal".

(I'm going to take everything you said as factual, because I don't want to get into a debate about every detail.)

• Food is cheaper and it is also more shitty. It is cheaper because we are totally disconnected from it, it's literally made in factories not farms and most of it is pack full of fillers and other horrible pointless stuff (well it's not pointless to the megacorps trying to sell you 20% real food and 80% bullshit.

• Clothes are cheaper, again for the same reason food is cheaper, because they are shit. Most clothes hardly last 2-3 seasons. I remember people used to talk about wearing their "jeans from college" or decades-old clothes, now I never hear about that.

• Agreed that a new car will last 200K miles (if it's not a BMW or Ford) but is gas mileage better? It's recently been better because car companies are now competing to make more fuel-efficient cars but even the 80s weren't vehicles getting decent gas mileage? I mean the imported cars. By the way, gas mileage isn't a product of better technology, we've had better technology for ages, it's the product of consumer demand. Americans have demanded more efficient cars now, when for a long time they demanded big ass suvs for their fat asses.

• Appliances may do more things in crazy ways like those steam washers and such, but just with other things, I hear more complaints about appliances fuckin' up within a few years whereas I remember people having their refrigerator for 30+ years. Hell, I replaced 3 lawn mowers this year.

• Agreed again on there's more on-demand content for your brand new 42" LED TV with 3D so people can masturbate to THE WIRE whenever they want, but most content is bullshit. I can go on Netflix and maybe 10-20% of the stuff is worth watching, the rest is garbage.

• And lets not even get into how shitty houses are built nowadays. Yeah they can put up developments real fast and build some big ass houses but they are shit. The materials are crap, they work is shoddy, and generally they are terrible looking - huge, gaudy, and incredibly unslightly.

You forgot to add: "Now get off my lawn!"

Food is cheaper and it is also more shitty.

Srsly?  Have you ever read a 1950's cookbook?  Or do you just have an aspic fetish?

Clothes are cheaper, again for the same reason food is cheaper, because they are shit. Most clothes hardly last 2-3 seasons. I remember people used to talk about wearing their "jeans from college" or decades-old clothes, now I never hear about that.

I have plenty of clothes that are 5+ years old.  I hear this complaint a lot, but I've never really noticed it.

gas mileage isn't a product of better technology

That's the most retarded thing I have ever heard.  Variable valve timing is a major win on efficiency and is still improving.  For a while, the extra efficiency was translated into more horsepower rather than better fuel efficiency, but that is starting to go the other way.

I hear more complaints about appliances fuckin' up within a few years whereas I remember people having their refrigerator for 30+ years

Have you ever used a 30+ year old refrigerator?  They suck.

Also, where the hell are you buying your lawnmower?

but most content is bullshit

This has always been the case.

The materials are crap, they work is shoddy, and generally they are terrible looking

People have been saying this for at least 50 years - my grandfather thought that houses built in the 50s & 60s were crackerboxes, too.

You're just getting old.

Not sure what I am suppose to get out of that link, other than processed food was crap then and still crap now. It's just prettier crap because they have better graphic designers.

You missed my fuel efficiency point. I am not saying technology hasn't improved, it definitely has, but like you stated referring to horsepower, technology wasn't used for fuel efficiency until consumers demanded fuel efficiency. Electric cars and hybrid technology have been around for decades but weren't implemented until gas prices shot up. Same thing happened in the late 70s, that's why you had increased demand for small, fuel efficient cars and that's why imports started to dominate over American oversized junk.

Actually, in my relatives' house in India they still use a 30 year old refrigerator and works perfectly fine.

I bought my lawnmower[s] from Home Depot and Lowes. Good thing I saved the receipts and bought warranties. I had two die in the same WEEK, different brands too.

No, you're missing the point: automobiles are tremendously better today than 20-30 years ago. You are fixated solely on gas mileage while ignoring that today's high-tech engines are, like all such machines, a trade off between efficiency and power. Cars today are considerably more powerful than decades ago. This is not to mention how much more comfortable and safe cars are today. (I know a test driver at BMW in South Carolina that not only survived a 90MPH 45-degree collision with a concrete wall while driving a X-6, but didn't have a single scratch on him and suffered only a bruise on his shoulder.)

You are also absurdly incorrect about food. As just one example, the price, quality and mind-blowing variety of fresh produce available in supermarkets today would have been considered miraculous 30 years ago. That such produce is available year round would not have been imaginable back then.

Refrigerators 30 years ago didn't last 30 years: they had to be repaired to last that long. Since equivalent appliances today cost so much less in real terms it is much less likely that someone will replace, for example, a broken refrigerator compressor when a brand new appliance will cost at worst a few dollars more. (High end appliances, e.g, SubZero refrigerators, are repairable due to the fact that the replacement cost makes paying a repairman reasonable.)

I must agree with you about food. I remember the produce sections of the A & P in the 60s, and you got about 30 different items. The most average supermarket today has vastly more produce, spices, cheeses, pastas, meats, yogurts and breads than when I was a kid. As to being seperated from the production of food, I've always lived in a big city. We don't see cows in Chicago anymore, nor does any other urbanite.

My wife and I have both owned cars that surpassed 100,000 miles. Up until the mid-90s such milage was a very rare event. Whatever happened to planned obsolescence? Instead, the auto makers, both foreign and domestic finally got rust-proofing right, which in the big issue in places that salt the streets in the winter.

Is the X6 made in SC? That turns me off to it.

Yes cars are safer, more powerful, and have more features. One of which actually matters for transportation, the other two just add weight and make them more inefficient. You need a more powerful engine to tow around the fat-asses and dvd players and all other junk they throw into cars. They are also considerably more expensive. (Also: They are safer because they have to be safer because all the other vehicles are oversized and dangerous.)

More food is available, but its still crap. Your year-round fresh produce tastes like nothing. Ask anything who came from another country about the your fresh produce and they will tell you they can't even taste a tomato. It's not a good thing to have they shouldn't be growing in the winter.

Yes, you have durable goods that now are disposable goods. Let's not fix a refrigerator, let's throw it away and buy a new one. Of course companies then have incentive to make shitty products, read: disposable products.

Is the X6 made in SC? That turns me off to it.

Why?

They are also considerably more expensive.

Not all that much, and not that much on a per mile basis either.  Factor in the much longer lifespans of new vehicles, and they are much cheaper than 1960s shitboxes.

It's not a good thing to have they shouldn't be growing in the winter.

So good tomatoes in the summer and no tomatoes in the winter is superior to good tomatoes in the summer and meh tomatoes in the winter?  That is a really bizarre argument.  

I've been to plenty of other countries - produce tastes pretty much the same, dude (although availability may be different).

Let's not fix a refrigerator, let's throw it away and buy a new one

In countries where labor is expensive and things are cheap compared to disposable income, yes - it makes a lot of sense to buy new over repairing an old device.  In countries where labor is cheap and things are expensive compared to disposable income, it makes more sense to repair.  

You might as well complain that an upper-middle-class engineer can't afford a full complement of household staff in the US the way he could in India.  

If I am paying a premium price for a German car, I want it made in Germany. The X6 starts off I believe at $60K (though I doubt there's a single one under $70K on a lot anywhere).

Tomatoes are shit all year round. Not just in the winter.

Produce from other countries does not taste the same. I believe the whiskey tasting might be killing your taste buds. :P No, but seriously, the census is clear on this. Actually, that's why ethnic grocery stores do well, because people want the imported stuff, 'cause the stuff here sucks.

The household staff/servant thing is going away. Labor costs are getting higher. But anyway it's not good for things to be disposable, it creates a wasteful society where people do not appreciate the quality of products and thus companies do not either.

If I am paying a premium price for a German car, I want it made in Germany

That is a really bizarre attitude.  Every car you can find is going to be designed and built all over the world - why is the location of the final assembly that important to you?

Produce from other countries does not taste the same

Yes it does.

that's why ethnic grocery stores do well, because people want the imported stuff

The ethnic grocery stores around here sell the same produce as Safeway as best I can tell.  

Unless I need something really oddball, I have a local grocer that stocks really good produce and has an awesome butcher.  

Tomatoes are shit all year round. Not just in the winter.

Sure, if you buy hothouse tomatoes in the summer they are going to suck as much as the ones in the winter.   Try going to a farmers market or even Whole Foods and get the heirloom tomatoes when they are in season.

But anyway it's not good for things to be disposable, it creates a wasteful society where people do not appreciate the quality of products and thus companies do not either.

When people can afford it, they are going to prefer new over repaired.  I would also venture that it makes the company care even more about the quality of their product because they need to win the next sale too.

Is the X6 made in SC?

That turns me off to it

Yes cars are safer, more powerful, and have more features. One of which actually matters for transportation, the other two just add weight and make them more inefficient

Your year-round fresh produce tastes like nothing

Let's not fix a refrigerator, let's throw it away and buy a new one

Food is cheaper and it is also more shitty

If only we had quality and cost of food we did back in the days before refrigeration!

Most clothes hardly last 2-3 seasons.

That's because most clothes are cloth. You're conflating cultural practice with durability. Cotton wore out just as quickly in the Before Times -- the difference was that people would repair holes or sew new panels instead of trashing the whole thing. They had to; cloth was expensive and they were poor.

To be fair, some more traditional materials are more durable. Do feel free to expound on the benefits of wearing wool throughout the summer, once you've tried it.

is gas mileage better?

Depends on the era, depends on the car. The Michigan-built land battleships of the 50s, yes. Zippy sport cars from the 30s or economy cars from the early 80s, no -- but no modern car built along those lines would be allowed on the road. No safety features, no emission controls, wrong type of fuel. We'd have to roll back 40 years of regulation to get a Ford Pinto (34 MPG!) on the road today -- not to mention indemnify the manufacturer from multi-million dollar litigation like the kind that killed the Ford Pinto.

I hear more complaints about appliances fuckin' up within a few years whereas I remember people having their refrigerator for 30+ years.

Again, welcome to the regulatory era. Emission control standards and "green" design leads to more complicated (read: more failure prone) machinery.

The materials are crap, they work is shoddy, and generally they are terrible looking - huge, gaudy, and incredibly unslightly.

Contrast the multi-story concrete bunkers of the 50s and 60s, which manage to be huge and unsightly monuments of survivability that will remain eyesores for decades to come.

Are you saying regulation is the reason we got the great cars we have today?

Fuel efficiency is not my only criterion for "great" cars.

It's just a never ending case of brain-death here. CONSUMPTION -These is what the Randroid/Doddering Old Fools contingent see as a measure of quality life. Hey, how 'bout healthcare, secure pensions, reasonable working hours or, you know, vacation time maybe?  Why does this simple idea trip them up so badly?

And then the flaccid mofos have the temerity to demand a definition of middle class when it is plainly spelled out in my second link. But why read when you can tell the entire content from the URL? Right? Confirmation bias is a bitch.

Delete my fucking account. What is the point of a community where 50% of the conversation revolves around the ramblings of a doddering old fool and a remorseless bigot anyway?

U mad bro?

Healthcare is consumption, dumbass, and Americans consume a whole lot more of it than anyone else. We also have practical statutory limits on working hours and receive something like 8% - 12% of workdays as paid leave time.

These thing you imagine we need? We already got 'em.

There are a couple reasons why the definition of "middle class" in that survey report is problematic:

1. It defines someone with an annual household income of $100,000 as being outside the middle class. It calls this group the "upper income tier," but who really uses such a label for themselves?

2. It compares the size of this "middle class" to its size (using the same definition) in 1971, but then goes on to discuss income trends from 2000. This is a telltale that someone may be cherry-picking data in order to argue for a pre-conceived position.

There is a reason why you and your ilk go around arguing about how many quality-of-life angels are dancing around on the head of a pin. The data do not support your beliefs and you must invent your own fictional narrative if you are to have any story to tell whatsoever.

You're almost there, keep thinking about what I posted.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

OK.

True that.

Nifong was trying to make his career out of that case.