PDA

View Full Version : Something to think about



Drop1
01-23-2008, 08:05 PM
Stop for a moment,and read this
Sunday, January 6, 2008provided byWSJ

Will the baby boomers' retirement cause the stock market to go bust?

That question, studied and debated for more than a decade, is no longer hypothetical. Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, the former New Jersey teacher who was born one second after midnight on January 1, 1946, became eligible for Social Security benefits this New Year's day, making her the first splash of a demographic tsunami. Over the next three decades, nearly 80 million boomers will join her.

To some prognosticators, the prospect of this swollen generation stepping down is a fright -- many times worse than the stock market's tumble last week. If the baby boomers stop working, they ask, who will produce the goods and services to keep the economy growing? If they stop earning, who will pay taxes to fund their Social Security and Medicare checks? And if they sell off stocks and bonds to finance their golden years, who will buy?

More from The Wall Street Journal Online:







The answers to those questions remain covered in fog. Only this is absolutely clear: The generation that was first raised by Dr. Spock, first mesmerized by television and first serenaded by the Beatles is about to redefine retirement, just as it has every other stage of American life.

Threat to Stocks

At the core of concerns about the baby boomers' retirement is something economists call the "life-cycle hypothesis" of economic behavior: Most people tend to save little when young, build up savings during middle age, and then spend those savings in retirement.

That leads some savvy analysts to fret that the boomers' retirement will be marked by widespread selling of stocks and bonds. Jeremy Siegel, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, has said his computer model shows that, absent help from overseas investors -- buying he does expect to cushion the blow -- the boomers' retirement could cause stock prices to fall 40% to 50%.

"We have never witnessed anything like this," Dr. Siegel says of the huge exodus from the work force and its potential market effects.

But don't short the stock market just yet. There are reasons to think the future won't be so dire.

To begin with, a boomer-driven sell-off is unlikely to begin in the next decade or so. Many boomers are just reaching their peak earning years, and, for a while at least, their increased savings will offset any securities sales by others like Ms. Casey-Kirschling who opt for early retirement.

Moreover, while the baby boomers' rapid ramping up of savings helped fuel the soaring stock market of the '80s and '90s, the data suggests the "dissaving" after retirement happens much more slowly -- less a hill than a gently sloping plateau.

Assist From Abroad

Then there's the fact that the U.S. is, increasingly, an integrated part of a global economy. Even if boomers want to sell, Dr. Siegel argues, there will be plenty of younger and newly wealthy people in China, India and other emergent countries who will be ready to buy all the securities that the boomers want to dump.

"We can sell our assets to the rest of the world," Dr. Siegel says, "and they can ship us their goods." To some extent, of course, that's already happening.

not_a_smooth_ride_but.gif

Complicating the picture is the problem of how to pay for the government benefits that boomers are entitled to in retirement. The Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security spending, absent changes, will grow from about 4% to 6% of the U.S. economy in the next 25 years, while Medicare and Medicaid will grow from 4% to 8%. By 2050, programs for the elderly are likely to eat up as big a share of the economy as the entire government does today -- forcing working Americans to face a possible 50% increase in their taxes.

David Walker, the U.S. comptroller general, thinks failure to come to grips with that fundamental fiscal problem could hold the seeds of the U.S.'s demise. "The Roman Republic fell for many reasons," he has said, "but three reasons are worth remembering: declining moral and political civility at home, an overconfident and overextended military in foreign lands, and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government."

Still, while demography may be destiny, that destiny is not unalterable. There are several economic developments that could lessen the burden of the boomers' sunset years.

One is more rapid growth in productivity. Once the boomers retire, the U.S. will have only two workers for every one person in retirement -- compared with four today. But if those workers are more productive than their predecessors -- perhaps because of better technology -- they can earn enough to finance the boomers' retirement and maintain the nation's wealth. The prospects for technology and productivity rescuing the day, however, have dimmed in the past year, as the government's measures of productivity growth have slowed.

Importing Workers

Another possibility is immigration. The U.S. can allow in more, younger workers from overseas. While that may be economically attractive, however, it's politically deadly -- as candidates are learning in this year's presidential campaign.

Finally, there is the possibility that baby boomers learn that work doesn't end at 62 or 65 or 66, but rather at 70, 75 or even 80. When Social Security was created, the average American had no reason to expect to live to the age of 65. Today, thanks to improvements in health care, he or she has every reason to expect to live to 75 or 80 or beyond. If so, shouldn't we remain productive members of the work force for longer?

If the answer to that question is yes, it would go a long way toward ensuring that grim economic and market forecasts for the baby boomers' final years never come to pass.

Write to Alan Murray at Alan.Murray@wsj.com

pooltchr
01-24-2008, 12:49 AM
Just a thought...but in the past 3 decades, since Roe v Wade was passed, we have killed of approximately 50 million babies. That might have made a huge difference in the forecasts.
Steve

sack316
01-24-2008, 02:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Just a thought...but in the past 3 decades, since Roe v Wade was passed, we have killed of approximately 50 million babies. That might have made a huge difference in the forecasts.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Because there were never any abortions before Roe V. Wade? Nobody called to find "Jane" even during the roughly (only) 100 year span of this country that legal abortion was vigorously fough against? And that even in those times, even when "Jane" couldn't be found, nobody ever traveled to another state where it was still legal to do so? And nobody ever made false allegations of rape or incest in order to legally obtain one, even in many states that it was illegal- but only to a point. And even beyond that, even with those possibilities exhausted, nobody still would ever dare find a back alley abortionist to do the deed?

We are likely on the same page as far as our personal feelings about abortion... but I'll freely say it's not this 28 year old male's place to tell a woman what she can and can't do...

BUT, taking the social security crunch and equating Roe Vs. Wade with the reasoning for it... well it's pretty rediculous. That line of thinking assumes each of those lost would become productive, working, tax paying members of society. And if that were the case then yes, you would indeed be correct.

But I find it more likely that were history over the last 30 years to have happened in the way you speak that:

- Our orphanages would be more degraded, overcrowded, and unsuitable to raise children in than they already are.

-More lower income families would need MORE help than they already are getting, and thus creating more stress on the aid system than already exists as is... which also in turn may have even caused less funding towards social security anyway, just to take care of those families.

- likely a high percentage of those children would have been raised in homes that had no business raising children. Either from poverty, resentment from rape, whatever, etc. Thus more than likely resulting in an even higher amount of a criminal populous... which in turn (guess what?) would mean more funding to build even more prisons, jails, etc.

- and just use your imagination for whatever else. When one can assume a possibility of one thing to be true, one must also take into account that it is not factual, and as such, the complete opposite MAY also be true.

I probably don't like abortion any more than you do... but rather fight something after most of the damage has been done, how bout we all fight for some education... REAL education about sex. REAL education about how the world works, REAL education about how actions have consequences. REAL education about birth control. Scare tactics only heighten curiosity... if the scare tactics worked we'd be without such a high rate of teen pregnancy and would have won the war on drugs long ago. So how's about working towards giving our youth some credit, and giving them some real facts. And then, maybe in time, we won't have to worry about a certain number of abortions taking place because maybe... just maybe... there won't be such a need for the service. Just a thought.

Sack

hondo
01-24-2008, 07:22 AM
Sack, I'm old enough to remember the seedy back street butchers who performed the abortions before Roe vs. Wade.
I hate abortions too, but do we go back to the illegal abortions?
That's just plain insane.

Drop1
01-24-2008, 09:16 AM
Just a thought,today there are six billion people on earth,and in fifty years,it is projected,there will be nine billion people.I donīt know what percentage will be born in the Western Hemisphere,but no matter what thirty billion is a lot of people to prepare for. We need to look at our six percent of people using twenty five percent of the worlds GDP,and be ready to make big changes how the resources of the world are going to be allocated. This is not about abortion,but about sharing the world.

LWW
01-24-2008, 10:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Just a thought,today there are six billion people on earth,and in fifty years,it is projected,there will be nine billion people.I donīt know what percentage will be born in the Western Hemisphere,but no matter what thirty billion is a lot of people to prepare for. We need to look at our six percent of people using twenty five percent of the worlds GDP,and be ready to make big changes how the resources of the world are going to be allocated. This is not about abortion,but about sharing the world. <hr /></blockquote>
You poor victim of the public education system! /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Nine minus sis does not, never has, and never will equal thirty.

Gladly you will not be doing the math to see how those resources are allocated.

BTW, at the end of the 19th century a smaller portion of the population used a much larger portion of resources.

How'd the 20th century turn out?

LWW

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-24-2008, 01:54 PM
Killing babies is illegal in this country. Please try to stop lying about what America does.

Gayle in Md.

bamadog
01-24-2008, 02:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Killing babies is illegal in this country. Please try to stop lying about what America does.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle, when was the last time you heard a pregnant woman ask "do you want to feel my fetus kicking"?

Gayle in MD
01-24-2008, 02:05 PM
Tap Tap Tap. An excellent post, Sack. There are two programs that I believe are essential in bringing sanity back to this country, unhampered, sex education, and the head start program. Poverty, and run away Dads, still a growing problem in our country, along with women's rights issues of equal pay for equal work. All three contribute to the number of abortions.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
01-24-2008, 04:11 PM
Gayle just because you don't want to face it does not make it go away, abortion is baby killing. You can pick any definition you want but in the end, that was a little baby that was aborted.

If there ever could be a bright side, then this is it, that is one less person voting Democrat in 18 years.

eg8r

eg8r
01-24-2008, 04:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Poverty, and run away Dads, still a growing problem in our country, along with women's rights issues of equal pay for equal work. All three contribute to the number of abortions.
<hr /></blockquote> Women's rights issues of equal pay for equal work, you have got to be kidding me. Women are killing their babies because the guy next to them makes more money? You really are a laugh. You just look for opportunities to remove self-responsibility from the equation.

Why don't you mention kids who are out having sex and choosing to abort because it is an easy way out?

eg8r

Drop1
01-24-2008, 06:56 PM
Did you ever go to school? you miss the entire point of the post,and then come up with a word "sis",what a smart a$$ moron. Only caring about the cup,and never the content. I'm not going to explain to you the implications of three billion more people wanting their share of world resources. You are too callow to plan a future,let alone explain it.

bamadog
01-24-2008, 09:19 PM
Harry, I don't think you need to worry about planning the world's future. Somehow it has gotten along without your planning.
Why don't we let the market worry about a apportioning the resources. That's the most rational force I know of.
Btw, are you aware that the looming crisis in Europe is not too many people, but too few?
That's right, Europe's population is declining, and they are in BIG trouble.

Drop1
01-24-2008, 10:12 PM
I won't live long enough to see it,but my grand children will. Yes I'm aware of the problems of Europe. That doesn't change the problems here. Do you know Mexico has a labor shortage,and are importing workers from Guatemala? There is a lot I don't know,and you don't know. But it is easy to see six percent of the population of the world,can't run the other ninety four percent for long.This is not about politics .

Drop1
01-24-2008, 10:15 PM
Globalization think!!

sack316
01-25-2008, 12:26 AM
actually eg8r, she may not have been as far off base as you think when it comes to the women's rights and equal pay stuff. To be honest, it's not something I ever thought about as a contributing factor either. But in a study of the reason women had abortions, the response was "Cannot afford a baby" 21.3% of the time, trailing only behind "wanted to postpone childbearing" (25.5%). Also, 10.8% said "having a child would disrupt their education or their job". So while those numbers are obviously not conclusive to those factors Gayle mentioned, it certainly made me take note that it could be more of a factor than I ever would have imagined.

For those interested, the entire results were as follows:

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other


What I find most disturbing is that Risk to Fetal health and risk of maternal health comprised ONLY a tad over 6% combined, while some of the top reasons... well weren't necessarily the most reasonable. Another nod to education being a big key. May not be the end all be all solution to it all, but certainly must at least be part of an answer. We have methods of birth control that are as near failsafe as anything in this world can be. So either the sexual participants are not aware enough of these methods, not educated properly on how to use these methods, or simply are again not educated enough to know the full possible consequences of their actions.

Sack

LWW
01-25-2008, 03:43 AM
It matters not if I went to school.

By your confession you are of inferior intellect.

Now, before you whine and moan me about attacking you again ... I didn't.

You insist upon hating and acting a fool and I continue to expose you.

This can all be peaceful if you want it to be.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-25-2008, 07:26 AM
Ed,
You have a very narrow picture in your mind about who gets abortions, why they get them, and when they are performed. Have you ever studied the statistics, (although I understand they have been somewhat skewed since Bush crashed into the WH) to educate yourself about the subject?

Also, your frequent references to the poor, buying plasma TV's, for example is such a narrow view of the reality regarding those Americans who find themselves in dire circumstances. How come you don't mind knowing that George Bush has spent $100,000.00 on each Iraqi, yet we have half the children east of the Mississippi going to bed hungry right here in our country?

When are you going to get it? The broad basis of Republican economic policies, are destroying this country. How many jobs could have been created had we spent the now projected two and a half trillion that Iraq is going to cost us, rebuilding our infrastructure, and investing in energy independence. It is no coincidence that the last time we had to provide a huge bail out for the savings and loan pigs, was when the last Bush was in office, and also the last time our economy took a dive, and oil prices went through the ceiling.

As for abortion, since neither you or Steve can address any subject without yet again bringing it up, although neither of you will ever have to make such a decision, you are WRONG. A fetus, is not a baby. If you were in a laboratory and a fire broke out, and there was a five year old child present, and a tray of two dozen embryoes, and you could only take one thing in your hands, which would you chose to save? I'm quite sure neither of you will never answer THAT question.

Regardless of how anyone feels about the subject, it is none of your business what a woman decides to do in her personal life, about her personal decisions. It isn't YOUR fetus, to protect, and it isn't YOUR future hanging in the balance. If not for the religious fanatics in this country who think they have a right to dictate to all others, according to their religious dogma, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

You seem to think that Democrats are the only people having abortions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just ask your former Senator, Barr, who paid for his wife's abortion with his personal check, after railing on the Senate floor about abortion for years.

People, all people, even women, have a right to privacy, and self-determination. YOU, have no rights in the matter of how a woman lives her life. Often your comments smack of not only racism, and hatred for the poor, but also for women. It's no picnic for a woman in the business world, and if you want your daughter to be able to expect to be paid equally for the same work that a man performs, you'd better begin to address the issue of sex discrimination, for it surely exists. Women ARE discriminated against in the work place. That is a fact. Men, who are not misogynists, have no problem acknowledging that fact.

It's easy to judge people, anyone can do that, but don't sit there and try to tell me that if a drug addicted, black criminal, broke into your house and raped your daughter, and she was devastated over the prospect of giving birth to the fetus resulting, that you would force her to bring that fetus to term. Or that if a hurricane, wiped you out, and the insurance companies screwed over you, and you lost your job, that you wouldn't be right there in line with your neighbors taking whatever assistance the Federal Government was offering.

I may never have been poor, but that does not blind me to what those who are born into poverty, must overcome, in order to live a decent life in this country, nor am I judgemental over women who, for one reason or another, decide that abortion is the best course to take, even though it isn't something that I could do, it is none of my business, what another woman decides, nor is it any of yours, or Steve's, and in many of the cases I personally know about, adults were involved,not teenagers, and it was the man who pushed for the abortion, and the woman who would have brought the fetus to term, had she been making enough money to take care of it once it was here. Narrowmindedness, is quite inappropriate when judgeing such a broad subject, and the right wing bravado goes right out the window when one of them is actually involved in a situation of an unwanted pregnancy, believe me.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-25-2008, 07:28 AM
No Ed, you are a laugh for twisting logical points of a debate, to absurd translations. That tactic gets old fast.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-25-2008, 07:31 AM
Tap Tap Tap! Narrow, unrealistic conclusions about broad, pervasive issues, is the Hallmark of Republican and Christian philosophy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
01-25-2008, 09:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You have a very narrow picture in your mind about who gets abortions, why they get them, and when they are performed. <hr /></blockquote> No I do not, I just make sure that your very narrow view is expanded to include reality.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, your frequent references to the poor, buying plasma TV's, for example is such a narrow view of the reality regarding those Americans who find themselves in dire circumstances. <hr /></blockquote> Once again, those references are only there to bring your narrow views back to reality. You think all the problems of this country are big business and W, and I think that is flat out wrong. My posts are simply to offset your narrow views.

[ QUOTE ]
When are you going to get it? <hr /></blockquote> What "it" are you referring to? Is it the kool aid BS you try to push here on the board? I pray I never get that.

[ QUOTE ]
As for abortion, since neither you or Steve can address any subject without yet again bringing it up, although neither of you will ever have to make such a decision, you are WRONG. <hr /></blockquote> That is a very narrow minded chauvinistic statement of which like normal you are flat out wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
If you were in a laboratory and a fire broke out, and there was a five year old child present, and a tray of two dozen embryoes, and you could only take one thing in your hands, which would you chose to save? <hr /></blockquote> I grab some embryos, put them in the 5 year olds hands grab the balance myself and lead the way to safety. You on the other hand choose to save only one child and kill the rest. I am not sorry that I don't share your views on baby killings.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of how anyone feels about the subject, it is none of your business what a woman decides to do in her personal life <hr /></blockquote> But it is my constitutional right to state how I feel and I will not allow someone like yourself to stand in my way.

[ QUOTE ]
Just ask your former Senator, Barr <hr /></blockquote> He is just as much your senator as he is anyone else in the US.

[ QUOTE ]
If not for the religious fanatics in this country who think they have a right to dictate to all others, according to their religious dogma, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
<hr /></blockquote> As much as you would pitifully like to pin this on religion you are wrong, it is about you wanting the "right" to kill a baby and me calling you a baby killer.

[ QUOTE ]
People, all people, even women, have a right to privacy, and self-determination. <hr /></blockquote> Those are your made-up rights not much different than that goof llotter who thought it was ok to shoot the doctor.

[ QUOTE ]
Often your comments smack of not only racism, <hr /></blockquote> Can you back up your lies? Show me examples of my comments having a racial flare.

[ QUOTE ]
and hatred for the poor, but also for women. <hr /></blockquote> Only in your narrow minded, chauvinistic view.

[ QUOTE ]
It's easy to judge people, anyone can do that, but don't sit there and try to tell me that if a drug addicted, black criminal, broke into your house and raped your daughter, and she was devastated over the prospect of giving birth to the fetus resulting, that you would force her to bring that fetus to term. <hr /></blockquote> If my daughter is in my house, she will have the baby. I flat out under zero circumstances believe in baby killing.

[ QUOTE ]
Or that if a hurricane, wiped you out, and the insurance companies screwed over you, and you lost your job, that you wouldn't be right there in line with your neighbors taking whatever assistance the Federal Government was offering.
<hr /></blockquote> Unlike my fellow Americans needing assistance I will not be in that line during normal working hours.

[ QUOTE ]
I may never have been poor <hr /></blockquote> Well, just stop there. According to your logic about men and abortion this would be a good time for you to keep quiet.

[ QUOTE ]
Narrowmindedness, is quite inappropriate <hr /></blockquote> Which is why I would suggest you quit acting narrowminded.

[ QUOTE ]
believe me.
<hr /></blockquote> I am finding with every additional post of yours, your opinion becomes less and less believable.

eg8r

eg8r
01-25-2008, 09:33 AM
I did not twist anything, I took your words and showed you how goofy you sound.

eg8r

eg8r
01-25-2008, 09:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
actually eg8r, she may not have been as far off base as you think when it comes to the women's rights and equal pay stuff. To be honest, it's not something I ever thought about as a contributing factor either. But in a study of the reason women had abortions, the response was "Cannot afford a baby" 21.3% of the time <hr /></blockquote> Gayle was completely off the deep end when she made that ludicrous statement. Your quote says nothing about women having an abortion because they don't have equal rights in the office. You are taking one absolutely giant stretch to equate that and I think you along with Gayle are doing a great disservice to the intelligence of our female workers.

That study blankly states, they are killing their babies because they cannot afford them NOT because they make less money than their male counterparts. Do not make any more of the stat than what is there unless you want to act dishonestly.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-25-2008, 09:49 AM
As usual, no effort to honestly answer any of my points, with any integrity. You didn't even make any effort to honestly answer the question about the fire in the lab, because you can't answer it. without acknowledging that there is a difference between a living child, and a poetntial child. Typical.

[ QUOTE ]
If my daughter is in my house, she will have the baby. I flat out under zero circumstances believe in baby killing.
<hr /></blockquote>

An absolutely repulsive point of view, IMO, and it says volumms about misogeny.

[ QUOTE ]
I am finding with every additional post of yours, your opinion becomes less and less believable.
<hr /></blockquote>

I am finding with every post of yours that I read, that when you can't win an argument, you simply provide false translations, which do not fit the debate. You refused to answer the question about the lab, because your method is to cop out when your philosophies have been debunked.

Gayle in Md.

Drop1
01-25-2008, 09:50 AM
Great defense Moron.

Gayle in MD
01-25-2008, 09:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
That study blankly states, they are killing their babies because they cannot afford them NOT because they make less money than their male counterparts. Do not make any more of the stat than what is there unless you want to act dishonestly.

<hr /></blockquote>

You twist every factor which goes against your side of a debate, and then you accuse those who present the facts, of dishonesty? BWA HA HA HA...you'd never win a high school debate, Ed.

Gayle in Md.
Beginning to wonder if Ed is related to certain recent newbies around here... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

LWW
01-25-2008, 09:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> As usual, no effort to honestly answer any of my points, with any integrity.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>
I think you have to make a point first sweetheart.

LWW

eg8r
01-25-2008, 10:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As usual, no effort to honestly answer any of my points, <hr /></blockquote> I did not see any. I am fair, list your points specifically with bullets and drop all the extra BS that fills your posts and I will respond to each bullet specifically.

[ QUOTE ]
An absolutely repulsive point of view, IMO, and it says volumms about misogeny. <hr /></blockquote> I simply do not care about your opinion. Like I said, you are pro-baby-killing, I am not. If you like to call names then I would refer to your point of view as a murdering, cold blooded killer.

[ QUOTE ]
I am finding with every post of yours that I read, that when you can't win an argument <hr /></blockquote> I did not know we were trying to win an argument but since you think so, OK your penis is longer.

[ QUOTE ]
You refused to answer the question about the lab <hr /></blockquote> Don't sit there and post some bold faced lie. I responded directly to your dumb situation. I stated I would not take just one, if I can save all the lives that is what I would do. You are a pro-baby-killer and would only take what you thought to be the easy way out and try to lie away the reason why you did not do everything possible to save everyone.

Now that you have pointed out that I did not answer your question (which proven I did) where was your answer to my question in which you dishonestly stated my posts are racial? Come one Gayle, if this is not hypocrisy then what is?

eg8r

eg8r
01-25-2008, 10:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You twist every factor which goes against your side of a debate <hr /></blockquote> Once again, I did not twist anything. For anyone that reads this post, please explain how I twisted sack's posts (I will post them again)...

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sack:</font><hr> actually eg8r, she may not have been as far off base as you think when it comes to the women's rights and equal pay stuff. To be honest, it's not something I ever thought about as a contributing factor either. But in a study of the reason women had abortions, the response was "Cannot afford a baby" 21.3% of the time <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> That study blankly states, they are killing their babies because they cannot afford them NOT because they make less money than their male counterparts. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> OK, now we all know Gayle will not honestly reply because her chauvinism controls her views. Gayle started this by saying women's equal pay to men's pay is a contributing factor to baby killing. I said that is crazy to think a women will abort her baby because her male counterpart makes more money.

So can someone (other than Gayle) please explain how I twisted her post and especially how I twisted sack's post.

eg8r

SKennedy
01-25-2008, 10:34 AM
OK Gayle, as you know I disagree with pretty much all you say. However, I will agree with you on several points here...
First, I think you are correct about our ideas being wrong about who is getting abortions....they are not all black, or hispanic, or democrats, liberals, poor, etc.
Second, I agree that it is an absolute shame that a woman does not get the same pay as a man...provided they have the same qualifications and are doing the same work. However, I just don't see much of that really going on and I'm not so sure some of the numbers on that subject are correct. I do agree that to pay a woman less than a man simply because she is a woman is a disgrace and an injustice.
And third, I also agree with you about the truly hungry and forsaken children in this country....
Now that I have agreed with you on 3 topics, I will sit back and wait for lightening to strike me dead!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I can only hope eg8r can forgive me.....sorry buddy.

sack316
01-25-2008, 10:36 AM
FWIW, I'll gladly admit eg8r didn't twist any of my posts. He replied directly to what he read, or at the very least in the way he interpreted what I was saying.

But, what I will say is that in my post that you were replying to last, is that I was simply noting the possibility of that being a factor of which I had never thought about before. I'm not necessarily saying "Oh, wow, Gayle was completely correct in her statement, nor do I go as far to say (as you did) that she was completely wrong. As I said, I really don't know what the factors really are. And indeed, the answers from the surveys are semi-vague. But as someone who really can't know ecactly what the reasons are, I cannot deny the fact that equality issues could be a possible reason in some cases.

Now, of course the entire 21% that responded thay they couldn't afford a baby didn't mean it is because their male counterparts make more than they do. But IF any portion of that group was because of that reason (which certainly is a possiblity I never thought of before this), then it deserves to at least be looked at as such. If you are gonna be so anti-abortion, then you should at least be open minded enough to look and all the possibilities for the reasons behind them, it would better armor you for your fight against it. As I said before, I am not for it... but at the same time I know it's not my place to say what others can and can't do. But I do at least try to keep my mind open to more than just what I my preconcieved (no pun intended) notions are on the matter.

Sack

SKennedy
01-25-2008, 10:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> As usual, no effort to honestly answer any of my points, with any integrity. You didn't even make any effort to honestly answer the question about the fire in the lab, because you can't answer it. without acknowledging that there is a difference between a living child, and a poetntial child. Typical.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
If my daughter is in my house, she will have the baby. I flat out under zero circumstances believe in baby killing.
<hr /></blockquote>

An absolutely repulsive point of view, IMO, and it says volumms about misogeny.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I am finding with every additional post of yours, your opinion becomes less and less believable.
<hr /></blockquote>

I am finding with every post of yours that I read, that when you can't win an argument, you simply provide false translations, which do not fit the debate. You refused to answer the question about the lab, because your method is to cop out when your philosophies have been debunked.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle, he did answer your question about the fire and about his daughter getting rape. As for misogeny? He's talking about his daughter for Pete's sake!! Do you have children? Do you have a son? He did stipulate while she was living under his roof.....I have no doubt that if such a tragedy did occur and his daughter did have an abortion, that Ed would still love his daughter and be supportive.

Mu daughter is a freshman in college. I can't believe the poor decisions being made by these young girls her age and as a result the pregnancies....of course the guys are long gone, etc. One of her fellow cheerleaders gained a bunch of weight and denied she was pregnant. Well, she was and never told anyone....no medical help..nothing. She recently had the baby. What a terrible shame that this girl had no one to talk to about her situation. I'm sure she was fearful of people being judgemental about what she had done, her condition, etc. Regardless of our viewpoints, these things happen each and every day. I hope my daughter would certainly come to her parents for support in a similar circumstance. I like to think she would not be in that predicament, but those of us with children know that this can happen to anyone. Sex education and the pill is certainly favorable over the alternative. I know I was conceived in the back seat of a car, I just don't remember the make and year model.

wolfdancer
01-25-2008, 12:38 PM
Not to worry....for the near future, as far as the market goes, we're not going to be pulling our money out of it. Heck, this beats Bingo for excitement and thrills!!! I traded over $3m in stocks a few years ago....some stocks I held onto for less then 5 minutes. I broke out about even, but my broker loves me!!
Cal state decided that I owed them over $330k, and issued a lien....but once I figured out how to correctly file, they settled for a couple of hundred.
Now, long term...that's a whole new ball game. We're now screwing up the actuarial tables...which is why SSA keeps sending me notes "you dead yet?" Probably why Bush vetoed stem cell research?
Some years ago, I read where the avg retiree cashes in his chips after cashing in only 18 SS checks.....wonder what the
new avg is?
They are moving back the retirement eligibility age, one month at a time....but I think they'll have to come up with a "Soylent Green" solution for our "green" to remain solvent.

wolfdancer
01-25-2008, 01:03 PM
I don't see any percentages here for risk to mental health...if there's one thing kids will do...it's drive you crazy.
Ed was saying that he has just a couple of bills left to be debt free....and I hate to break the news to him....but he has a quarter-million debt running around his house in diapers:
"For 2004, the newest data available, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that families making $70,200 a year or more will spend a whopping $269,520 to raise a child from birth through age 17"
Don't get me wrong though....they are worth every penny of it...

Drop1
01-25-2008, 01:56 PM
Some are.

Gayle in MD
01-25-2008, 02:27 PM
Ed, I give you more credit for intellect, than that. You did twist the entire subject of women having abortions because they cannot afford to bring a fetus to term, into some kind of revenge women take upon a fetus, over unequal pay. I'm quite sure, you know that wasn't what I was driving at.

Secondly, you had only two options in the blazing laboratory. Take the tray of petri dishes with two dozen embryoes, or take the five year old child. You chose to twist the question in order to avoid it altogether, editing it to fit your comfort, and avoid giving an answer to the question as it was posed.

Make a choice, Ed, or just admit that you can't because you refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between an embryo, and a living human being.

As for your statements about the hypothetical, which I'm sure we both don't even want to think about, a robber, breaking into your home, and raping your daughter, your response is precisely the kind of thinking that turns people like myself against organized religion.

Life isn't black and white. Take me, for example. If someone had told me that by nineteen, I would be raising four children, I'd have said, in my youthful ignorance, "NO WAY, I'm not stupid!"

However, now at almost sixty three, I have understood that plans, are just plans, and are often far from the reality which comes our way, and hence, people find themselves without food or water, on buildings, crying out for help. I don't believe that Jesus qwould check to see if they owed a Plasma TV, before he answered their calls.

I recall the day after my Mother-in-law was killed in a horrible accident, and her little boys, or those I like to call my boys, now,... were unaware of their own loss. What do children know, at four and a half, six and seven and a half? But I knew, because I was a young mother myself at the time, and had great respect for my mother-in-law, the kind of person she was, and the kind of mother she was. When I had finished bath time, and story time, and was hugging their sweet little heads, and standing beside them as they said their prayers, I knew, that these were now my boys, and that I would do everything I possibly could, to give to them everything that their mom would not be able to give to them. Suffice it to say, life hands us many challenges which we do not expect, but how we choose to meet those challenges, is a personal decision, not to be infringed upon by others, who cannot possibly know what is in our hearts, or what we have available to us subject to what we have learned, and under the conditions prevailing in each of our lives.

I have held the hands of many, in my life, who are facing grave circumstances, and my experiences have led me to be compassionate toward my fellow human beings, as they face the many trials and tribulations which they will surely face. Taking harsh judgement upon them is not my way, and knowing my place, comes from believing that I cannot know what has led them to the place in which they find themselves.

I find organized relilgion to be a harsh, unforgiving, uncompassionate way of viewing life, and no one will ever convince me that any God would wish that people behave without forgiveness, without compassion, and without acceptance of the fact that we cannot know the secrets of all others lives. "If we could read the secret history of each man's life, we would find sorrow and suffering enough, to disarm all hostility."

I do not believe that any of us are FOR abortion, but I do believe that it is not our place, as mere mortals, to cast judgement upon others. And yes, I do think that women are paid less, according to statistics, about thirty cents on every dollar, for the same work performed by men, and that the glass cieling does exist, and that no group has ever been as discriminated against, more consistantly, than women.

I do not know for sure who Jesus was, but I do know that I seldom hear his teachings muttered by so called Christains, and particularly on this forum.

I find it heartbreaking, that any man would force his own daughter to do something which was against her will, and particularly over an issue of which no man can have personal knowledge, just because of stories in books written thousands of years ago, by strangers, who each told a different story. IMO, your position in this hypothetical, regarding your daughter, amounts to inhumane treatment, and emotional abuse, and in fact, much of religious dogma falls under the heading of emotional abuse, and I can assure you that any father who would take that view, would lose the love and respect of his daughter for the rest of her life.

That's all I can say about it, and frankly, I hope the subject of abortion is avoided on this forum, for everytime you choose to call it baby killing, I hear the voices of women I have known, and those hands I have held, and the stories of their lives, and it hurts me to think that any man could be so insensitive. Life isn't black and white, it is complex, and difficult, and trying, at its best, and while we may embrace it as it is, and choose to focus on the positive aspects of life, its beauty and its many pleasures, we should never forget that there are so many others without our resources, financial, emotional, and mental, and there can never be one fair rule that fits all people, in all circumstances.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
01-25-2008, 03:37 PM
You have expressed your thoughts very well.

SKennedy
01-25-2008, 04:48 PM
You are right Gayle....life is not black and white and not always real simple no matter how hard we try to make it that way. Your post was compassionate and heartfelt. Thanks for sharing. We all come from different backgrounds and experiences, which is why we are all so different. However, we are also very similar. While we may argue about abortion, there is no doubt in my mind that everyone participating in this thread values life. You and Ed value it highly, which is why you two argue so much about the topic of abortion. We always tend to focus on our differences and the negative things, and we often overlook the similarities and the good things. Ed is young and vibrant (I've met him), and while Gayle may not be quite as young as Ed, there is no doubt from her posts that she is vibrant as well. We'll take these disagreements any day over 2 inanimate lumps of clay. As for me, I'm glad and thankful I have life, and I enjoy it every day.

SKennedy
01-25-2008, 05:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
I find organized relilgion to be a harsh, unforgiving, uncompassionate way of viewing life, and no one will ever convince me that any God would wish that people behave without forgiveness, without compassion, and without acceptance of the fact that we cannot know the secrets of all others lives. "If we could read the secret history of each man's life, we would find sorrow and suffering enough, to disarm all hostility."
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Here's the irony....as a christian I could not agree with you more. The God I believe in advocates forgiveness, compassion, and acceptance of the fact that we cannot know the secrets of all others lives (he tells us not to judge others for this very reason). If you have ever read the New Testament, you will see that Jesus did not agree with the disciples in their scorn against women. Women were treated as 2nd class citizens, or even worse by Jews and Gentiles alike. But Jesus treated them as equals and admonished others to do the same.....he teaches the same with regard to race.
Scorning abortion is not the same as scorning the woman who had an abortion. We are admonished to hate the sin but to love the sinner. Unfortunately, most of us christians get confused and reverse this admonishment. I know I have....and it is wrong. In the end, human beings are fallible, and our sense of justice and fairness is not always correct....ask the guys imprisoned falsely until DNA evidence proved otherwise.

DickLeonard
01-28-2008, 11:21 AM
SKennedy your asking the wrong people, ask the people who the different states put to death. Your state of Texas under GWB was the killing state. Do you think in 152 deaths there was no innocent person put to death? Do you think a retarded person could help in his defense? He must have, he was one of the 152.####

SKennedy
01-28-2008, 11:57 AM
I think it is wrong to put a retarded person to death. I don't know all the details about that case and not sure if he really was retarded, or to what extent. And of course, killing an innocent person is wrong. However, I am not opposed to the death penalty (my wife is opposed to it). While I am not opposed to the death penalty, if it was banned I would not be upset. I can see both sides of the issue and do not have a strong opinion one way or the other. Then again, it's probably good that I'm not in charge with complete control over who lives and dies....I see people everyday I'd like to kill... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
As for Texas killing folks....if you are someone who doesn't want to live in this state because you fear the State may execute you for things you do, then please stay where you are. I think that's why Deeman left! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif