And so, in the early 1970's, interest rates were good, there was low unemployment and new business. Well, after 1973, Roe versus Wade, things changed and are still changing, going downhill. People say it's the economy. No, God can take care of the economy ... it's the abortions. Stop the murder of our little babies, not fetuses, so God again will smile on our country.
67 comments
Between the 1950s to today there have been massive changes in the U.S. domestic and the international structure of financial institutions. This was triggered in part by an unforseeable economic phenomena that also changed paradigms in other areas of the economy, especially in government intervention.
Interest rates didn't really start going up until about 1979, and they came down again after 1985. Unemployment dropped until 1979, peaked in 1982, then dropped again throughout the 80's. There's no correlation between the economy and Roe v. Wade.
God can take care of the economy, but can't stop abortions?
Well, I think we should nominate this girl to alternative bizarro universe. Because, as far as I am concerned, in England abortion was partially legalised in 1968 and things went in the same pace PLUS all the illegal abortions that happened.
As far as I can tell, it's a plastic figure (and I'm pretty sure a live human set on fire wouldn't be able to keep that pose), though the image came from 4chan, so absolute certitude is impossible.
Up to 1973, the US government was wasting money and lives killing Vietnamese for the sake of presidential egos. Just like GW Bush in Iraq. They did this with deficit spending so that the US public wouldn't find out what the real financial impact was. Just like GW Bush. Once the war was lost, the bills came in and the government had to raise taxes and reduce spending to cover the bills. The presidents who did this got the blame, not those who wasted the money (like GW Bush).
In order for God to smile upon us, may I reccomend human sacrifices? And since Patricia Austin is a such a devotee, maybe she could the first one thrown into the volcano? The Skydaddy wil surely upon our country then.
You are an idiot. It appears the job problem is far more recent than 1970. http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964
image
Employment:
Jobs 8
One of the most important measures of economic well-being is the number of people with jobs. The number of jobs in the economy increased 2.38 percent per year under Clinton, but it has decreased 0.17 percent per year under Bush.9 While it's clear that the economic downturn in 2001 was not Bush's fault, the sluggishness of the recovery is unprecedented in the period since the federal government began issuing detailed employment reports in the 1940s. There have been 1.7 million jobs created since September 2003, which may sound like a lot, but that number falls short of the 1.8 million jobs that must be created per year just to match population growth, and it falls far below the 3.7 million jobs that the administration predicted would be created when the president signed his 2003 tax cut into law.10 This slow job growth is largely attributable to both the failure of the administration's fiscal policies (which targeted tax cuts to stimulate savings rather than spending) and the failure of its trade policies (which have done a poor job of opening foreign markets to spur export growth, and have not created the conditions for an orderly decline in the value of the dollar, which would have helped ease the trade imbalance).11
Full-time vs. Part-time Jobs 12
The change in the number of jobs does not provide a complete picture of employment in the U.S. economy. Not only did the Clinton years produce many more jobs than the Bush years have, but they also produced more full-time jobs compared to part-time jobs. This is an important indicator because in an economic slowdown many displaced and new workers resort to part-time work as a second-choice option. Granted, some people might prefer part-time work because they have children or attend school. But, overall, a decrease in the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs implies that a greater share of workers have less stable work with fewer benefits. The ratio of full-time to part-time work rose under Clinton by 0.11 percent per year, but it has decreased at an annual rate of 1.67 percent since the beginning of 2001. In fact, the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs has not only reversed direction, but as of September 2004 it has fallen below what it was before Clinton took office.
Jobs with Good Wages
The economic well-being of American workers is determined not only by whether they have jobs -- ideally full-time jobs with benefits -- but also by how well their jobs pay. This indicator is a weighted index based on the change in the number of jobs in different income quintiles under Clinton and Bush.13 A positive value represents job growth biased toward higher paying jobs, which reflects an upwardly mobile economy. A negative value represents job growth biased toward lower-paying jobs, which reflects a more downwardly mobile economy. The score of 4.70 during the Clinton administration means that the economy produced significantly more jobs in high-wage quintiles than in the low-wage quintiles. In contrast, the score of -1.0 during the Bush administration substantiates reports that new jobs created under Bush have generally paid worse than the jobs that have been lost. For example, from 2000 to 2003, the economy added 540,820 jobs in the lowest-wage quintile. Meanwhile, 451,440 jobs were lost in the middle quintile and 357,900 jobs were lost in the two highest quintiles.14
Americans with Health Insurance 15
Since most working Americans with health insurance get it through work, changes in the share of Americans who have health insurance is another indication of the quality of jobs in the economy. Under the Clinton administration, the share of Americans covered by health insurance went up 0.12 percent annually. Under Bush, there has been a 0.55 percent yearly decrease. Even more striking is that 5 million more Americans were without health insurance in 2003 than in 2000 and 3.8 million fewer Americans had employment-based health insurance.16
You imply that God is not omnipotent. Apparently, God CAN take care of the economy, but God cannot stop abortion. Hmmm. You seem to feel that abortion is a more important issue to God than is the economy, so why wouldn't God simply put an end to abortion?
You know, Patty, economics is a very large and complicated subject. They teach it at universities and such. There are lots of books written on the subject.
Correlation does not imply causation, dimwit. Besides, things haven't been all bad since then - hell, it's only the last few years that inflation-adjusted wages have been going down.post hoc ergo propter hoc . It's hard to get much closer to the definition of the fallacy than this.
I once met someone from Hobart: lots of wools and leather. All in all, a very natural look. In a 19th century kind of way. She did tend to speak in a rather strange dialect and drool a lot, though. :-)
And so, in the early 1970's, interest rates were good, there was low unemployment and new business. Well, after 1973, Roe versus Wade, things changed and are still changing, going downhill. image
People say it's the economy.
More specifically, the oil crisis, combined with the bill for the Vietnam War coming due, combined with Reagen's disasterous tax policies. Things got better in the '90s, but now they're worse again due to the dot com bubble bursting, combined with Bush's even worse tax policies handing money to the rich while deficet spending in Iraq, creating a bill now coming due.
No, God can take care of the economy ...
We spent a fortune that we didn't have on a war, there was a shortage of a resource that is vital to us, and we had a senile old president who was utterly incompetent in the field of fiscal policy, during a time of extreme inflation. Obviously, that couldn't have caused an economic downturn, because a magic sky fairy always makes sure the economy does well. It must be that my favorite buggaboo pissed him off.
...it's the abortions.
Sigh.
Republicans like Bush are spending money we don't have on pointless wars and giving huge tax cuts to the rich, thus causing negative economic effects. On top of this, they've convinced you not only that they aren't causing the problem, but that one of your fundamental rights is . You are willing to hand over your inalienable rights because you've been tricked into thinking they're causing economic downturn by the people actually responsible for economic downturn.
Sad.
Stop the murder of our little babies, not fetuses...
Oh. Babies, not fetuses. Whew. For a second there, I thought you were talking about abortion.
So, which babies are you referring to? There aren't that many babies being killed.
Or were you using it in the metaphorical sense, to refer to "our children?" Are you referring to our sons and daughters being murdered in the stupid Iraq war?
Or did you mean fetuses, since anti-choicers often try to conflate an actual baby and a fetus, or even a clump of cells.
Shit, you were talking about abortion after all.
...so God again will smile on our country.
Abortion is legalized. Then, an economic downturn happens. Humans, quick to make causal connections, link the two. A superstition is born.
No, really, a superstition is a belief that an event will cause good or bad fortune created by a neutral event being coincidentally paired with a reward or punishment. You just got one.
Of course, I can easily disprove it. If God gets pissy over abortions, why would Roe vs. Wade have any effect? Roe vs. Wade didn't change the abortion rate, it just made abortions safer and less painful.
Abortions didn't start in 1973, and other countries in the world have different dates for this important human rights item. They all plummeted in that same economy crisis anyway.
Abortions have always been around, ever since the first proto-human realized that certain plants dislodge fetuses from the womb. Most societies have valued existing life more than potential life; a mother was more important to the children she already had and to the husband, than to potential future kids, so abortions were not really mentioned, but more or less accepted.
The only thing that happened in 1973 were that abortions became safe and regulated, they were done by medical professionals in sanitary conditions.
Let's try your logic.
Well, that was around the time Dark Side of The Moon was released, and some of of Pink Floyd's most famous albums were from 1973-1979, so it's Roger Waters' fault! We must kill him, so we can return to a decent economy.
(Made about as much sense)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
