The children of baby boomers are the new debtor class. Buckling under a heavy weight of debt, new workers step into an economy of low-wage and contingent work, a combination that makes the basics of adulthood increasingly unattainable. “We grew up in the Regan era where everything was fake, voodoo economics, and we’re not seeing the connections,” says Anya Kamenetz, author… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (18)Page 1 of 1 pagesI have no pity for most recent graduates of our higher ed system (I’m one of them, 2 years out). Most people major in “Literature,” “History,” pol. science or underwater basket weaving and expect, no DEMAND to find real jobs! You know, when I went to school my life was pretty dull because I majored in Bioinformatics, a very challenging and demanding field with much to learn from computer science & biology. I now have a very good job, amazing! A skill that can be applied! I didn’t waste mommy & daddy’s money getting a degree in something un-employable, partying with the frats and becoming a professional protestor. I know all these things are part of the “college experience” but I was more interested in my future “rest of life” experience.
Moral of the story: I can afford to pay my student loans and do not demand more of the government. You know, college is simply not for everybody. It is an economic risk, on a case-by-case basis people have to decide whether it is really worth it for them if they don’t think they will be employable. Some people are better off learning a trade, carpentry, plumbing, electrical, mechanic whatever - all of these fields turn a very nice buck and these things are always in demand.
Posted by Hyjinx22 on May 17, 2006 at 2:08 PM Unions are unfortunately not a long-term solution either. Just look at how the union has utterly destroyed GM with obligations it simply doesn’t have the financial capacity to meet. Or the airlines for that matter. Cradle-to-grave French-like job security and benefits is an insanity, people need to make sure they get paid what they’re worth in the now and do their own long-term planning and investing. Unions that over-reach as they inevitably do destroy the very buisnesses that employ them, the greed of the moment offsets the futures of others to come.
Posted by Hyjinx22 on May 17, 2006 at 2:13 PM “they may soon find themselves screaming in the streets like their French counterparts.”
Who are these counterparts? Are we referring to the crazy Algerian/French youths that burned 100’s of cars in France? With the ignition being the French govt attempting to make rules that made it easier to hire - and fire if necessary - young workers?
“A Federal Reserve survey says the median net worth of households under 35 rose just 1.3 percent in the last decade after inflation.”
Doesn’t this mean that the under 35 crowd is actually better off now than a decade ago?
“She graduated five years ago, picking up $60,000 in consumer and student debt along with her diploma.”
So a couple of years of community college and two years of USF (my old school!) and she owes $60K!?! Certainly we should provide more help in financial planning for people who obviously lack the basic skills! (What an awful poster child for this article!)
Hey, why don’t we start with something sensible? Perhaps we could reduce tuition for in state public universities via more federal aid (rather than cutting taxes, which preferentially helps those who don’t need the help?!? We might also wonder if the goal should be *everyone* going to college, when many would benefit from technical schools (plumbers and other techies make good $$$s). But no matter what we do. i doubt that unskilled workers are going to be making $100K/yr salaries, as they did in the “old days”. So we are all going to have to learn to live with that. . .
Also, the idea that each generation will be “better off” (read even more consumptive) than the last is a bad one. We all need to live with less. With increased efficiency, this does not have to be painful, but either way, the addition to ever expanding material wealth is just going to have to end (and no, this does not apply to the very rich, they will NOT feel our “pain”).
Posted by wolf on May 17, 2006 at 2:33 PM I participated in this article knowing full well that many readers would blame me for my debt problem and perhaps even attack me personally. “wolf,” thank you for taking on that charming role. It is easy to judge others when we do not know their circumstances, is it not?
The child of a single mother left penniless after a nasty divorce, I had to pay for my own education. To complete school in a reasonable amount of time I chose not to work but a very little had to finance my education with loans. That meant I also had to use credit cards for necessities - and for helping my household, which included my dying grandmother. So yes, I graduated with debt. The reasons for that debt are legitimate, and it shows your lack of ability to consider all the possibilities to assume the debt was a result of wild partying or shopping sprees.
I did not choose “underwater basket weaving” as my major, but rather the soulless but supposedly useful Business Administration - Marketing track. The average salary of people with my education and experience in Tampa is about $35,000 - not very much when you have a baby to support and a lot of debt to repay.
“wolf,” I do not lack financial planning skills as you so judgmentally suggest, as I am currently running a small business and managing to pay all my bills on a small salary. You clearly suffer from the mentality of someone who has never needed - truly needed - anything. You may think an inflation-adjusted household income growth of 1.3% is good, but compared to the dramatic rises in cost of living it’s nothing. I mean, look at the rise in medical costs over the last ten years; it’s like 100% or something incredible! So costs go up, salaries stay flat, but I’m the bad guy for being in debt. What else would you have me do? Live in my car? Stop eating? Go bankrupt?
“We all need to live with less.” True. As I am doing. But the debt isn’t going anywhere, and I want to plan for my child’s future. Why can’t our state education be free as it is in many other countries? Then I could be a contributing member of my local economy instead of paying student loans.
Posted by mandyminor on May 18, 2006 at 6:32 PM mandyminor - hey we agree that education should be cheaper or even free! So we agree on an important issue.
Funny story. I too was a child of a nasty divorce. I too had to work my way through college (physics in my case). I worked part time (SAGA food service, it it still there?) and lived very inexpensively. Still i graduated with some debt (about $2K). This was a while ago, back in 1982. Still USF holds fond memories for me. Of course, i had no dying grandmother to help (but i did help my destitute mom, mostly with my labor but also a small amount of money).
Doesn’t inflation adjusted growth mean “real” growth? As in adjusting for the cost of living?
I wish you and your family nothing but good fortune. As the media have pointed out, we are a nation of debtors (both public and private). I think this does not have to be so, perhaps i am mistaken.
If i attacked you personally, i apologize. No personal attack was intended.
Posted by wolf on May 18, 2006 at 7:11 PM Hi wolf - thanks for your follow-up and even-tempered response. I don’t know about SAGA food service, sorry! USF holds fond memories for me too, and I don’t blame the school in any way for my debt.
Inflation-adjusted numbers usually mean the numbers aren’t as good as they look. For example, families made $7,000 annually in 1960 and $30,000 annually in 1990. But inflation-adjustment takes into consideration the rise in living expenses that grew faster than income. So, the 1990 family actually has less spending/saving power than the 1960 family.
I also agree with you that college is not for everyone, but in 1993 when I graduated from high school if your answer to the question “What are you doing next?” was anything other than “Going to college” then you might as well have said, “Eating a turd.” You went to college or you were a loser. In hindsight I wish I’d trained as an electrician or something, because you’re right - they’re always in demand and make a good living. And incidentally, the reading I’ve been doing say that to ensure your livelihood you should do work that a person must be physically present and trained to do. They can outsource web design, but not plumbing!
The best to you as well. Physics is rad!
Mandy
Posted by mandyminor on May 18, 2006 at 7:32 PM In contemporary societies if one wanted to get a job but didn’t want to go to college and accumulate a lot of debt, what would be the best way of going about it?
There doesn’t seem to be a lot of secure alternatives in the united States, but in Europe (Germany for instance) a lot of young people don’t attend the Gymnasium (German version of college) but instead are taught a skill: welding, health care, plumbing, auto repair and so on.
There seems to be some bias in the united States against such an approach. In fact, as the lady said, to take that approach tends to run the risk of being classified as a loser. Well that might change. Time will tell. VS Naipaul, the Trinidadian author who won the Nobel for Literature in 2001 recently stated in an interview that he didn’t see any point in going to University any more. And remember: Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, is a college dropout. It may be that a college degree is no longer necessary to achieve wealth and success, even in the States.
Posted by sequ0yah on May 18, 2006 at 11:22 PM If, in the name of ‘growth’, you sacrifice the future financial well-being of an entire generation of young people (my generation, in fact), you’re simply begging for recession down the road. Wolf, you miss the point of statistics that demonstrate only a small growth in real median income, which is that the middle is not any better off, the bottom half is losing, and the rich are getting much, much, much richer. The entire POINT is that college debt is primarily effecting those from the lowest several income deciles, stymying mobility for even the most hard-working. Technical training is one answer, but if promoted in such a way that it reifies existing class identities it severly shallows the intellectual pool in the long run.
And Hyjinx, you really need to back up your opinions about unions with facts and avoid contradictory arguments. For service-sector employees who’d like to get paid ‘what they’re worth’, ‘in the now’, unionization (esp. of the minority variety) provides the best possible chance of this occurring. Why do you twist history by blaming unions for the fall of auto manufacturing in America any more than you blame trade policy or corporate mis-management?
Truly, it is the greed of Sallie Mae (a recently privatized, massively-profit-taking scandal of a business) that is robbing the future knowledge workers/creative members of society from realizing financial independence.
Posted by wedontneedroads on May 19, 2006 at 1:30 PM wedontneedroads -
It is an obvious fact that unions are largely responsible for the downfall of GM (the airlines are mis-managed anyway, but the unions def. contribute). How can you operate a business where you pay something on the order of 3X more people full salaries than are actually working at any given time? How can a company compete with non-union shops such as Toyota and Honda when they have that kind of overhead which is inevitably reflected in the price of vehicles? I’m not blaming them for the entire fall of all auto manufacturing, otherwise I would have included Ford which is in the midst of a large restructuring itself, so don’t twist MY statements idiot. It is simple economics:
Massive overhead from pensions, healthcare, workman’s comp and paying people for essentially doing nothing = bankruptcy!!!
Where do you think all the money comes from if a company cannot bank its profits and re-invest them into future product development. Most people are simply devoid of reality on this issue and believe that “big business” always has a ready and infinite supply of cash for everyone’s friggin’ needs. It just isn’t true.
As for the cost of living, it is directly tied to the rise in wages, which inevitably causes inflation. I do not think it fair for the rest of us that unions have mandatory raises which are designed to “cover” the increased cost of living that they inevitably help to create. While the rest of us have to have our taxes raised to pay the bloated salaries of government/union employees who are raising the cost of living on the rest of us that have no such guarentee of a raise. Or if not government, have those costs passed directly to us in the goods and services that we purchase, a more direct impact on the cost of living.
Posted by Hyjinx22 on May 19, 2006 at 3:09 PM Thank you, Mischa Gaus,
The article was wonderful and very accurate of the sad state that things are in. Beautifully written, supported, and with a wonderful tone.
There is really no point in trying to persuade people who don’t accept the general premises and perceptions that you write about.
Some people get it. Others won’t. That’s why the country is where it is, and this is where it’s going. They see nothing wrong with it.
I just wanted to let you know that it was a great article and an important one, like everyting else in “In These Times.”
The article is an end in itself. I don’t feel you need to defend it in any way at all. Thank you for writing it.
Posted by K on May 20, 2006 at 7:21 AM http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/e-resources/ebooks/records/ecx8592.html
This article shows average starting salaries in 1993. Business and Management graduates were starting around $27,000 in 1993. Now those same graduates are starting around $55,000 ... which is double from 1993.
STUDENT LOAN PAYMENTS HAVE NOT DOUBLED SINCE 1993. IN FACT, ACCORDING TO YOUR FIGURES, STUDENT LOAN PAYMENT INCREASED ONLY $40 per month since 1993.
SO, YOU POINT HAS JUST BEEN DEBUNKED !!!!!
lol….
Nice try….
~~~~~~~~~~~~
* article #1 *
EMPLOYERS PREDICT A 14.5 % INCREASE IN NEW COLLEGE GRAD HIRING FOR 2006 (For the third year in a row, the job outlook is positive)
Employers plan to hire more new graduates from your class—the class of 2005-06—than they hired in 2004-05. Many employers are offering higher starting salaries than were offered to last year’s graduating class, too. About two-thirds of employers plan to increase the number of new grads they bring into their work forces by the end of this academic year.
http://www.jobweb.com/joboutlook/2006/default.htm
~~~~~~~~~~
* article #2 *
JOB PROSPECTS BRIGHT FOR 2006 GRADS
Graduation won’t be the only cause for celebration for college seniors this summer. The class of 2006 will enjoy the best job market in four years, a report by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) predicts.
http://www.fastweb.com/cpt/resources/articles/index/110217?id=
~~~~~~~~~~
* article #3 *
THE JOBS COME LOOKING FOR GRADS
University of Wisconsin Business School senior Joe Jennings is kicking back, enjoying his last few months of college life. And why shouldn’t he? Jennings received four job offers by the end of the fall semester and accepted a position at PriceWaterhouseCoopers in Chicago in late November.Jennings says he was surprised by how easy it was to land a job. “It was awesome,” he says. “I got offers from companies I’d never even heard of—extremely painless.” The 23-year-old, who will earn a starting salary of $53,500 with a $2,000 bonus, is not alone. This year’s job market for undergraduates is the strongest since 2000. These job-market improvements are the most dramatic—and in some cases extreme—in years.
http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/mar2006/bs20060321_3250.htm~~~~~~~~~
* article #4 *
HIRING FRENZY
“Companies are hiring like gangbusters, and college seniors know it,” said Susan Vobejda, vice president of marketing for Yahoo! HotJobs.
College grads are confident and have high expectations for just about all aspects of the job, including salary. More than half of college grads surveyed by Yahoo! said they believe they will earn more than $50,000 their first year on the job.Angie Meyer, with the career placement office at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business in Indianapolis, watched as accounting majors walked away with starting salaries as high as $55,000 this spring.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060521/BUSINESS/60521035 53/1003
Posted by tina1 on May 22, 2006 at 9:19 PM Mandy,
“Why can’t our state education be free as it is in many other countries? Then I could be a contributing member of my local economy instead of paying student loans…”
There’s no such thing as “free state education.” Even public K-12 isn’t free. It is paid for out of the public treasury. If you weren’t paying those bills, others would be.
“...Then I could be a contributing member of my local economy instead of paying student loans.”
Don’t worry about the economy. To the extent that you had to pay for your school, others didn’t have to pay for your school, and their dollars are supporting the economy. And, actually, you paying for yourself (and, in your case having debt) is a nice incentive for you to work really hard and be really productive, which is great for the economy.
Jeff
Posted by jeffc on May 25, 2006 at 8:32 PM Mandy,
“Inflation-adjusted numbers usually mean the numbers aren’t as good as they look. For example, families made $7,000 annually in 1960 and $30,000 annually in 1990. But inflation-adjustment takes into consideration the rise in living expenses that grew faster than income. So, the 1990 family actually has less spending/saving power than the 1960 family.”
Wrong. Did your Business-Marketing program include a finance class? Here’s an inflation adjustment example. Let’s say you made $30,000 in 2004. Let’s say you get a raise so in 2005 you made $30,900. Let’s say in 2005 inflation was 3%. Here is the inflation adjustment: in 2005 dollars, your 2004 salary was $30,900 (multiply the $30,000 salary by 1 + the .03 inflation rate), or putting it another way, in 2004 dollars, your 2005 salary was $30,000 (divide the $30,900 salary by 1 + the .03 inflation rate). Either way, same result: in inflation adjusted terms, you neither lost nor gained ground.
The group mentioned in the article that earns 1.3% more after adjusting for inflation gained ground over the time period. Not much perhaps, but they gained ground.
Jeff
Posted by jeffc on May 25, 2006 at 8:42 PM Wedontneedroads,
“For service-sector employees who’d like to get paid ‘what they’re worth’, ‘in the now’, unionization (esp. of the minority variety) provides the best possible chance of this occurring.”
Actually, absent unions they are getting paid what they are worth. The wages they are earning are their best deal in the market (or they’d go somewhere else, right?). Unions and laws that support unions allow the 15% or so that are in unions to get paid more than they are worth.
“Why do you twist history by blaming unions for the fall of auto manufacturing in America any more than you blame trade policy or corporate mis-management?”
He should support his assertions with arguments. For example, the assertion is that unions are the primary reason the auto manufacturers stumbled. An argument to support that is the heavy cost burden of unionization hindered the attraction of enough capital to be able to keep pace with the R&D efforts of the Japanese manufacturers.
Jeff
Posted by jeffc on May 25, 2006 at 8:58 PM Jeff,
It is true that people 30, 40, 50 years ago had more disposable income, because the cost of living wasn’t so high. I’m not going to spend my time searching for some article to reference, because I’ve read it many times and know it to be true.
Yes, if a college education were free here it would still cost me, in terms of taxes paid. But if our leadership distributed money differently than paying for college for people wouldn’t be any more of a burden than they already pay every April. Of course there should be limits, like no “college as a career” stuff, but it would work.
I said if I wasn’t paying loans I could be a contributing member of my LOCAL economy - health food store, pet store, restuarants, boutiques. As it stands most of my income goes out of state to corporations already doing very well.
About your comment to Wedontneedroads, no you can’t assume, based on free market idealism, that people get paid what they’re worth. We’ve been conditioned for so long to bow to the corporate authority, people don’t even know what they’re worth. Oftentimes a Ford job is the only job in town, so they take it rather than have no money at all. And if corporate leadership would get paid less workers could be paid more. This from The Nation’s website: “between 1970 and 2001, the top 100 executives’ median income increased from 35 times the average worker’s salary to 500 times what the average worker makes. In 2003, Bank of America cut 5,000 jobs from its payroll, while its CEO Kenneth Lewis took home $37.9 million.” It’s sick. It’s your “free market” gone wild.
And to save you the trouble, yes I did bother to look that one up, because I knew where it was.
Mandy
Posted by mandyminor on May 25, 2006 at 10:45 PM Hey Jeff,
Unions are the main reason our auto industry is in trouble. I grew up in N.E. Ohio and saw first hand what terrible workers unions produce. The blue collar workers in Ohio have this mindset that they are entitled to have a job. They were always trying to screw the company that they worked for.
The guy right across the hall in office is a Financial Planner, he has his own business. He use to be a plant manager back in the 70’s for a Tier I supplier and they were union. They thought that one of the union workers was taking naps on the night shift, so he came back to the plant with a camara and took pictures of him sleeping several times ... and they fired him.
What do you think the union said? That he was sick, and they management should of taken him to the hospital. They threatened to file a lawsuit. So they had to hire him back. Not only did they have to bring back the loser, but they had to cut him a check for the time when he was fired .. back wages, which was about 5 weeks.
Have the statistics for employees calling off sick at Union auto plant like Ford or GM. It’s about 12%. Honda, Toyota, BMW and Nissan plants in the U.S. that are non-union have a call off stat of around 3%.
Posted by tina1 on May 26, 2006 at 4:39 AM Mandy,
“I’m not going to spend my time searching for some article to reference, because I’ve read it many times and know it to be true.”
Should I be surprised that your faulty memory is the source of your unshakable certainty?
“But if our leadership distributed money differently than paying for college for people wouldn’t be any more of a burden than they already pay every April.”
If I’m correctly reading between the lines, you’re saying “pay for everybody’s college by taxing ‘the rich’ more.” That is a position that you are free to take. You do know, of course that it is one more move in the direction of socialism, don’t you? If that is what you want, then that is what you want. Just be willing to accept the moral and economic costs of your proposed policy as well as what you see as the benefits.
It is also possible that you’re saying that paying for college could be done not by raising taxes on “the rich” but simply by getting rid of other government programs and using the funds to pay for college. I’m all for getting rid of a substantial chunk of the federal government, but I’m not sure it would be wise to offer government-paid college. If we’re going to do something like that, I’d sooner provide all 18 year olds a contribution to an account that could be used for either higher ed or treated as an IRA.
“I said if I wasn’t paying loans I could be a contributing member of my LOCAL economy - health food store, pet store, restuarants, boutiques. As it stands most of my income goes out of state to corporations already doing very well.”
Actually, you don’t need to worry about your local economy either. Those corporations that do you the service of lending you money have shareholders all over the country, including in your very own community, that not only—through dividends or stock appreciation—get a piece of the payments that you pay, but they also get a piece of the payments that other borrowers from other communities pay, which then ends up in your community.
By the way, do you realize that financing your education took away from some other local community? Yeah, you borrowed however many dollars it was that came from some bank in some other community. Do you realize that they could have been contributing to their own local economy instead of financing your education?
Hey, I have an idea if you’re worried about your local economy. Refinance your loans through a locally-owned community bank. That will keep the money in town, and you won’t have to worry about your local pet store. And you can stop being a burden to other communities.
(See? This is what happens when you go down such a foolish line of thinking: someone like me is willing to go with you and show you the error of your ways.)
MORE>>>>>>>
Posted by jeffc on May 26, 2006 at 5:08 PM MORE:
“no you can’t assume, based on free market idealism, that people get paid what they’re worth.”
Well let’s define terms. I mean we aren’t taking about spiritual worth. We’re talking about the economic worth of what they have to offer for trade vis a vis what is needed. (For example, a person may know philosophy inside and out, but it doesn’t add to economic value if nobody needs it.) I’d say the market is paying them exactly what they’re economic worth is, and if they think what they have to offer is worth more, they’re certainly free to go get it.
“We’ve been conditioned for so long to bow to the corporate authority, people don’t even know what they’re worth.”
Business organizations such as partnerships and corporations are just traders in the market. In what ways does one “bow to corporate authority”? Aside from the cases in which the government offers monopoly power to a corporation, who is dealing with corporations other than on a voluntary basis?
“Oftentimes a Ford job is the only job in town, so they take it rather than have no money at all.”
Then what that job pays is the economic value of what they have to offer. There may be a job 1,000 miles away that might pay more, but proximity is a factor in economic worth. In your example, Ford is offering a voluntary exchange of work for pay. If you don’t like the pay, don’t take the job, but what Ford needs to offer to fill the job is the economic worth of that job. Now, unions and union-supporting legislation can intervene in this relationship, but make no mistake about it: the purpose is to raise pay above what pay would be absent the union intervention.
“And if corporate leadership would get paid less workers could be paid more. This from The Nation’s website: between 1970 and 2001, the top 100 executives’ median income increased from 35 times the average worker’s salary to 500 times what the average worker makes. In 2003, Bank of America cut 5,000 jobs from its payroll, while its CEO Kenneth Lewis took home $37.9 million. It’s sick. It’s your “free market” gone wild.”
Workers COULD be paid more even if corporate leadership DOESN’t get paid less. I wonder why it doesn’t happen? Could it be that what one employee is paid is not a factor in what another employee is paid? Could it be that, regardless of what a company pays for one job, the company would be foolish and would cede ground to its competition to pay more than the economic worth of another job? If the shareholders of a corporation were to cut a CEO’s salary from $40 million to $1 million, do you suppose they would then give everybody else raises just to be nice? Of course not. Any savings are the property of the shareholders. They’d offer raises only if they NEEDED to, but that would be the case regardless of whether or not they cut the CEO salary.
It’s quite foolish to think that what a company pays one employee has an effect on what the company pays another employee. I think we can all agree—especially those among us that think that the market leads to low wages—that the market sets wages. Yet suddenly when CEO pay comes into play, the fact that the market sets wages is conveniently ignored. Suddenly, magically, companies, if they would just cut CEO pay, are going to ignore the market and pay above market wages, huh? Nope. If they cut CEO pay, the shareholders reap the benefit of the savings, but that doesn’t translate into increases in the pay of other employees.
Jeff
p.s. Bank of America had huge profits—almost $17 BILLION in 2005. They didn’t cut those jobs because they paid the CEO $38 million. They easily could have kept those jobs even if they had paid the CEO $500 million. They cut those jobs because they didn’t need people doing those jobs anymore. That’s how an efficient economy works. It’s telling the people that lost their jobs: “What you’ve been doing isn’t needed anymore. Go elsewhere in the economy and put your skills to use where they are needed.” Keeping people in unnecessary jobs is known as inefficient allocation of resources.
Posted by jeffc on May 26, 2006 at 5:09 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Mischa Gaus
- Korean Workers get Sirius
Female factory workers wage three-year strike against satellite radio manufacturer. - No Match? No Mas!
The Department of Homeland Security is trying to force employers to either fire workers whose names and Social Security numbers don't match. Widespread job loss often results when the government dons its immigration-enforcement blinders - The Olympic Hustle
Chicagoans are already beginning to fear what hosting the 2016 Summer Games might do to their city - Doing It For Themselves
The Coalition of Immokalee Workers turns 'corporate social responsibility' from oxymoron into reality - Interrogations Behind Barbed Wire
Who's to blame for America's new torture techniques? - Starbucks Gets Wobbly
Embattled baristas at the coffee giant turn to the Industrial Workers of the World for solidarity unionism
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
