If LBJ wasn't such a liar, would he be rated one of the best presidents ever?

But not to worry Darla... I know Cypress will completely ignore that example as well. Because the numbers would show that he is wrong.
 
SF: If you want to believe that the Reagan/PoppyBush/Dubya years have been a golden age for the middle class and working americans, I'm through trying to convince you otherwise. I suppose you have to convince yourself of that, in order to keep support your reagan/libertarian/trickle down economics ideology. As Darla said, the reality is self evident to most of us.

I suspect you don't have any relatives, or know very many working americans in rural america, small town america, or the rust belt. Particulary people who are old enough to remember post-World War two on through the 1970s.

I do know those kind of people. Blue collar working class stiffs. They know, and their daddies know, that there was a time in america when a good, blue collar union job was all you needed to live the american dream.

I invite you to travel down the mainstreet in most any small town in america...from pennsylvania to kansas. Look at all the boarded up shops, and factories. And ask some of the old timers around there what things were like, comparitively, 30 or 40 years ago.
 
Hmmm... lets see... I grew up in a small farm town. Population 3500 or so.

Most people I know are working Americans. Yes, I know many blue collar workers. Not only among my friends, but among my clients. You just get all hung up on the diminishing influence of UNIONS. That is your hangup. You think that because union jobs are diminishing and unions have priced their labor out of the market that somehow this is Reagans fault?

You can most certainly quit trying to explain yourself. Unless of course you would like to point out where I was wrong in the salary example provided to Darla.

Or perhaps you could show where... inflation adjusted... salaries for the middle class have gone down.
 
Why you still ducking answering the questions Cypress? Why don't you address the salary example I gave Darla (since she is too lazy to read it)?

Or perhaps it is just easier to ignore all of this and simply post the same bullshit in another few weeks.
 
No...!

Cypress said:
Kennedy couldn't get most of his domestic agenda passed.

yeah, its probably true JFK and LBJ shared many of the same domestic goals. They're Democrats, after all.

But, did LBJ simply carry on JFK's legacy, as a courtesy to JFK - never really believing in the agenda himself? Sorry, that's laughable.

LBJ doesn't stike me as a mild-mannered man, who didn't have his own thoughts and agenda. A man who meekly devoted his own presidential term to courteously carring out JFK's agenda, but never really believing in it himself.

I think LBJ totally believed, and was committed to this agenda. And here's the fact: LBJ got it passed - most of in in about three or four short years. JFK didn't get much of his agenda passed.
Click to expand...



See the Eisenhower/ Kennedy papers re: the Vietnam experince...it was in fact a bi-partisan war...y'all really need to research before making asses outta yourselfs!
 
so you are not even going to wait a few weeks? Just going to post the same crap again? clearly you are either too lazy to read or simply too ignorant to understand the response I already gave to your previous post.
 
Lmao...

Superfreak said:
so you are not even going to wait a few weeks? Just going to post the same crap again? clearly you are either too lazy to read or simply too ignorant to understand the response I already gave to your previous post.
Click to expand...

Yup...just wait a few and the 'Three Musketeers' will be a bullying you from the pulpits!:tongout:
 
Right...

Darla said:
Yeah, I am already on this bandwagon.

Vietnam was his fatal flaw, and it was a tragedy for this country in ways that can never be measured. Never.
Click to expand...


Sorry but you were not even a egg or sperm during this period..how would you know???
 
Yup....

Darla said:
Have you ever heard of the American Revolution?
Click to expand...


It's called history 101...and sorry but I was part of history during the VN experience...anymore silly arguments from the left???
I am not dead just yet as well as quite a few vets from WWII and Korea!
 
Superfreak said:
Hmmm... lets see... I grew up in a small farm town. Population 3500 or so.

Most people I know are working Americans. Yes, I know many blue collar workers. Not only among my friends, but among my clients. You just get all hung up on the diminishing influence of UNIONS. That is your hangup. You think that because union jobs are diminishing and unions have priced their labor out of the market that somehow this is Reagans fault?

You can most certainly quit trying to explain yourself. Unless of course you would like to point out where I was wrong in the salary example provided to Darla.

Or perhaps you could show where... inflation adjusted... salaries for the middle class have gone down.
Click to expand...


"Or perhaps you could show where... inflation adjusted... salaries for the middle class have gone down."


REAL WAGES
1964-2004

Average Weekly Earnings (in 1982 constant dollars) For all private nonfarm workers

1964 $302.52
1965 310.46
1971 318.05
1972 331.59
1973 331.39
1974 314.94
1975 305.16
1976 309.61
1977 310.99
1978 310.41
1979 298.87
1980 281.27
1981 277.35
1992 257.95
1993 258.12
1994 259.97
1995 258.43
1996 259.58
1997 265.22
1998 271.87
1999 274.64
2000 275.62
2001 275.38
2002 278.91
2003 279.94
2004 277.57

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits:+Real+Wages+(1964-2004)
Click to expand...


>

A new study cited in the WSJ reveals that 30-year-old men are making less than three decades ago:

U.S. men in their 30s today are worse off than their fathers' generation, a reversal from a decade ago...A generation ago, men in their 30s had median annual incomes of about $40,000. Men of the same age now make about $35,000 a year, adjusted for inflation. That's a 12.5 percent drop between 1974 and 2004, according to data from the Pew Charitable Trusts' Economic Mobility

http://blogs.chron.com/watercoolerconfidential/2007/05/post_14.html
Click to expand...
 
Okee Dokee then...

Darla said:
There you go dumbass.

See, with a little coaching from me you were able to answer your own question. Fine work.
Click to expand...



Now quote the rest of my comment..sound bites are not allowed in real life...darla! Back to class with darla!:pke:
 
Cypress said:
SF: If you want to believe that the Reagan/PoppyBush/Dubya years have been a golden age for the middle class and working americans, I'm through trying to convince you otherwise. I suppose you have to convince yourself of that, in order to keep support your reagan/libertarian/trickle down economics ideology. As Darla said, the reality is self evident to most of us.

I suspect you don't have any relatives, or know very many working americans in rural america, small town america, or the rust belt. Particulary people who are old enough to remember post-World War two on through the 1970s.

I do know those kind of people. Blue collar working class stiffs. They know, and their daddies know, that there was a time in america when a good, blue collar union job was all you needed to live the american dream.

I invite you to travel down the mainstreet in most any small town in america...from pennsylvania to kansas. Look at all the boarded up shops, and factories. And ask some of the old timers around there what things were like, comparitively, 30 or 40 years ago.
Click to expand...


Times have changed and the world has changed. If you want to halt economic progress we can go back 50 years where there were lots of blue collar union people working in factories and we had limited economic competition overseas. You must really hate the '90's tech boom because that was driven by many young people and entrepreneurs who did not set up union shops.

I was born in Midwest and my entire family is from the Midwest so I'm very aware of what is going on in middle America. How do you propose we get back to the '50's? Become purely isolationist and make every private company a union shop?
 
Hummm...

cawacko said:
Times have changed and the world has changed. If you want to halt economic progress we can go back 50 years where there were lots of blue collar union people working in factories and we had limited economic competition overseas. You must really hate the '90's tech boom because that was driven by many young people and entrepreneurs who did not set up union shops.

I was born in Midwest and my entire family is from the Midwest so I'm very aware of what is going on in middle America. How do you propose we get back to the '50's? Become purely isolationist and make every private company a union shop?
Click to expand...


You made some fair points about going 'back to the future' (this was a cute movie)...alas I did live in 'Happy Days'...all was well and fair..just food for thought mind ya!
 
and NO, breaking down one segment of the population isn't going to cut it... unless you believe all middle class income earners are men in their 30's.
 
"1982 272.74 -1.66%
1983 277.50 1.75%
1984 279.22 0.62%
1985 276.23 -1.07%
1986 276.11 -0.04%
1987 272.88 -1.17%
1988 270.32 -0.94%
1989 267.27 -1.13%
1990 262.43 -1.81%
1991 258.34 -1.56%
1992 257.95 -0.15%
1993 258.12 0.07%
1994 259.97 0.72%
1995 258.43 -0.59%
1996 259.58 0.44%
1997 265.22 2.17%
1998 271.87 2.51%
1999 274.64 1.02%
2000 275.62 0.36%
2001 275.38 -0.09%
2002 278.91 1.28%
2003 279.94 0.37%
2004 277.57 -0.84% "

So from your own site... the wages under Reagan and beyond went UP... not much... but up... not down. which is what I said. Yes, they are down from 1964 (by the way... what happened to 1960-1963... do we get to just lob off parts of the decade when discussing the 60/70's vs 80/90's?

So the decrease in wages occurred in the 70's. Which is what we have been telling you. The 70's sucked for the economy, they sucked for the workers, they sucked for unemployment, inflation, high interest rates. Much of which occurred thanks to all the wonderful federal government intervention established under Johnson.

Thanks again for failing to read your own site. I do want to commend you on cherry picking your data above... good work trying to hide the numbers under Reagan. (and yes, I returned the cherry picking favor)

I also would like to commend you for picking the data from working life, which does not link directly to the US Labor website data it is using. Very convenient.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top