Free Republic

>>>Yeah, women don’t care if they can feed their families, or about their children cutting off various parts of their bodies, they don’t care about sending young men and women off to war as long as they can rip those babies out of their bodies at a convenient location.<<<

I am dreading see exactly how many votes team blue gets over this issue because some women, and men, indeed care about ripping babies out of the womb more than anything.

You are wrong. Dresden was purposely set out for total destruction from Bomber Harris. And the USA fully participated in that air raid that went on for 2 or 3 day.

And many cities in Japan were set ablaze. Here’s an excerpt from history.com

“The cluster bombing of the downtown Tokyo suburb of Shitamachi had been approved only a few hours earlier. Shitamachi was composed of roughly 750,000 people living in cramped quarters in wooden-frame buildings. Setting ablaze this “paper city” was a kind of experiment in the effects of firebombing; it would also destroy the light industries, called “shadow factories,” that produced prefabricated war materials destined for Japanese aircraft factories.”

>>>So Russia deliberately targets civilians

Isn’t that a war crime?<<<

The USA firebombed Germany and Japan. Something about breaking their will to fight doncha know. Those attacks killed way way more people than the atomic bombs ever did.

>>>You don’t like the A-10? Go back to DU!!!<<<

lmao. The US Airforce doesn’t like the A-10. Why else were they trying to retire it?

A-10s lol. Even our airforce doesn’t want them. The Gripens are the cheapest modern fighter to operate. It’s about 1/4th the cost per hour to fly as the F-35. And they are made to take off and be serviced from remote locations.

>>>“ Only FOUR? Hardly worth setting up the maintenance facilities.”

Exactly my thought. Its a waste of time and manpower to even train.<<<

These fighters are the Toyota Camry’s of the industry. A bit pricey upfront but their lifetime costs are the cheapest around. I’m sure Hungary will be buying more in the future.

you need to post a working link

>>>When I bought my first house, back in the day, I packed lunch every day, made all my own dinners, gave up going out, even for beers, sacrificed on just about all purchases, barely made the mortgage payment. Oh, and fixed my own late model cars. That was when I was in my late 20’s. Kids today would blow their ability to make the payment in a week of door dash lunches and their must have new cars.<<<

Your life experience is not advice for the 25-35 year old demo looking to buy a first house and start a family. I’m not saying if they did what you did it wouldn’t be beneficial. I’m saying they can do everything you did and still not have money to afford a home. Simply look at the average income vs. the average housing prices for markets where most Americans live. This is why things are broken.

You need TWO INCOMES now to buy a house for a large number of young adults. That is incredibly sad. If a wife can’t afford to quit her job, who will raise the next generation? Answer: Daycare.

>>>>Local market?
Median income 63K
Median House? 525K
That is unaffordable for most folks.<<<<

You have to be careful about telling the truth here. So many Boomers are going to tell you back in my day you just had to work hard blah blah blah. Yeah back in your day, the average rent was about 3 to 4 days wages. Local to me in a very poor choice of suburb (chicago metro) from my point of view to live in, starter homes are renting for $2,000 or higher.

Something is really broken in regards to real estate costs. Like you said, the prices have been rising way faster than wages over time. Perhaps the costs are rising because many are viewing single family homes as an investment vehicle. But that sort of analysis is over my head to be honest.

>>>I wouldn’t trust anything lying fake Indian Warren has to say. It’s a shame you do.<<<

Don’t be an ass and try to shame me. I have been following this topic a fair bit. It’s just uncommon to find a source that has so many facts in one concise place, hence why I posted Warren’s info. Just because someone you dislike writes a book doesn’t mean it has to be factually inaccurate. And I did preface that this was before she became a politician.

Nonetheless while I was searching for a particular video of hers I found this 3 minute gem from some outfit called the Lucia Capital Group.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhlJUOBMjqs&ab_channel=LuciaCapitalGroup

The video says many millennials are able to live within their means by going without what prior generations had: Cars and homes. FYI this video is 4 years old. Real estate has bumped up in most markets a lot since then, and ofc the interest rates are double. If Millennials were delaying home buying when the market was relatively cheap, what hope does Gen Z have for doing as well as their parents.

Cherry please don’t take what I say personal to you. Obviously there are exceptions when you generalize.

I had Boomer parents and my friends growing up mostly had boomer parents. My experience is that they were definitely different from their own parents generation. And of course not everyone of them.

>>>Older people got a permanent 20% drop in value for their lifetime of savings with no potential for pay increases, just in the past 3 years. Much more if they want to eat.<<<

not to be a downer, but isn’t this just the tip of the iceburg? How can the democrats keep going into debt at the rate of $2 trillion a year without offsetting that debt through inflation? Cause 100% inflation over 5 years and the debt is substantially reduced as a share of the GDP. And why stop at 100% inflation. Why not make it 300% and really shrink the debt relative to GDP.

fun fact half of US Dollars are held by foreigners. So I can see people who would think it’s a good idea to inflate our way out of this mess we are in.

>>>I’d seriously check those figures as people on TikTok tend to lie and exaggerate for clicks<<<

I get that. However I tend to believe this man as I have watched another interesting speech on this topic by none other than Elizabeth Warren. Before she became a politician she wrote a book called the TWO INCOME TRAP. She was comparing data from 1970 to around 2003. Despite the higher rate of two income households, the disposable income fell from 50% in 1970 to 25% in 2003.

I’m not a mathematician, but I’m pretty sure keeping 50% of your wages in 1970 was pretty awesome. MAYBE YOU WEREN’T KEEPING 50% as a young person just starting out, but what about 30, 40 and 50 year olds in 1970?

I did a quick YouTube search of her speech that I watched and can’t find it. However here she is giving an interview about that same book and it’s only a five minute segment. Recall she was a professor at this time and not a politician.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnH2eJAvK84&ab_channel=MassachusettsSchoolofLawatAndover

I’d be thrilled to give a conservative analysis of the changes over time but I have not seen one.

While I am not a boomer, nor Gen X, I have a hard time feeling sorry for Boomers. Your generation came of age during a great economy. And your generation took the birth control pill and for a short while legitimately had twice the earning power of the prior generations. That worked for a while until all the women in the workforce pushed wages down. Now two incomes is a sad necessity for most young families.

Your generation also went wild on unconventional behavior. Right and wrong was muddled. Divorce became commoonplace in the 70s and latch key kids became a real thing.

I recall being a teenager (I was born in 1970) listening to Boomers being exasperated with their children not listening to them. As a smart mouth teen I would ask them if they would ever behave like this when they were young and they would almost always look at me like I was the most stupid person in the world. They would say of course not, my parents would have killed me. Then I would give them the look like, well why don’t you do the same. And suddenly they looked rather small.

However I can’t really hate on Boomers because there has never been a time in history when human beings could control their fertility. As we can see around the world and despite culture or religion, women went for birth control in a big way. That is imo, the most significant event that turned our culture. Women went from being nurturing moms to boss babes who can do anything a man can do. And how have the children suffered for it.

And now the youth are so strapped, they may not even have children. I guess that’s one way to make sure the rent is paid on time.

I did the math on that guy’s stats of an average rent of $108 and average income of $9,000 in 1970. You could pay your rent in just 3 days of work. Simple math, no taxes deducted.

It matters little how much burger flippers get paid in some states. The rent is still too high in the cities of America.

The sooner Ukraine runs out of the ammo and troops the better for everyone. Ukraine can’t win. The sooner we go back to letting Russia and Ukraine export like before the better for all. The sooner Russian oil and gas can freely go wherever, the better for all.

Outside of Ukraine the big loser in this war is Germany. Their economy has been devastated by the loss of cheap oil and natural gas. Maybe that’s parts of Joe Biden’s plan, who know was that guy thinks is a good idea.

I'm Gen X FYI. I'm not attacking or insulting anyone. I was simply shocked when I saw how much harder life has become since the year I was born.

As interesting a read that Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America might be, I’m not sure why I would need to read that to simply find out why that group would care one way or another about the election of Lincoln. I asked you a question what that group would care about the election of Lincoln. I believe you said they didn’t like oppression in your first reply. I’m just not sure what Lincoln would have done or what they imagined he might have done to them.

I have read Shelby Foote’s 3 volume narrative on the civil war many times. Would you consider that to be the establishment narrative?

>>>A very large percentage of Southern soldiers were Scots-Irish. Sons of migrants from the lowland Scotland who had a long and bitter history of oppression by the Church of England, and wound up in the southern Appalachians because they weren’t wanted in the northern states either. These families had no connection to the rich Piedmont landowners who owned slave plantations. They fought because they hated being imposed upon by central governments of any stripe.<<<<

The election of Lincoln was imposing what on the Scots_Irish? If they were poor they owned no slaves. How was Lincoln’s election going to be oppressive to them?

As far as I know it was the South’s fear that eventually the north would impose their will on the south in regards to slavery. And thus when an abolitionist was elected, they bolted. Lincoln’s initial thoughts on how to end slavery was to do it gradually and possibly compensating slave owners for their losses. Lincoln was adamant in his belief that slavery was wrong. But less sure on the best way to go about ending slavery. Candidate Lincoln was not in favor of immediate abolition.

During the war immigration continued to swell the ranks of the North with fresh military aged men. The North was able to not only build ships for it’s own navy, but to build ironclads for other countries. At the end of the war one of four southern men of military age was dead. And the south had zero compensation for the loss of their slaves. If you ask me, the Confederates have nobody to blame but themselves.

The civil war may not have been about slavery for the north, but it sure was for the south. The average white citizen of the north was extremely racist and Lincoln could have never started to fight the Confederates if he made the war about slavery. In fact many slave states didn’t initially rebel. Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee joined after Beauregard opened fire on Fort Sumter. It was a response to Lincolns call for a draft to fight the south.

Even so, the slave states of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri did not join the Confederacy. How the hell could the war be to free the slaves? It simply couldn’t.

But for the south it sure the hell was. And here’s a great YouTube video talking about this exact topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjsxhYetLM0&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0&index=8&ab_channel=Atun-SheiFilms