Was the "zero's" decade the worst of them all?

[opie's twisted balls]

There's a recent Time Magazine article (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1942834,00.html) that attempts to make the case that the '0x decade has been the worst in recent memory. Granted worst is a subjective description and I think its human nature to remember the latest pain and suffering the most vividly but I'm inclined to agree that right from the start of 2000 to the end of 2009 its been a shitty decade.

So where do we go from here? Will the upcoming teen decade be a continuing global slide into further conflict, disaster and financial strife or will there be a collective rebound, time of peace and prosperity?

[KingGeno]

http://motivateurself.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/large-hadron-collider.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

What's "recent memory?" I assume they're making this post-Vietnam, so it would basically have to be 1980 onwards.

[KnoxHarrington]

Well, if we're talking shitty decades, the 1930's has to be top of the list, with the '40s close behind.

[TheMojoPin]

Well, if we're talking shitty decades, the 1930's has to be top of the list, with the '40s close behind.

The 60's blew, too. The 70's were pretty horrid.

[jauble]

The 60's blew, too. The 70's were pretty horrid.

No plumbing and no internet porn? the 1800s must have blown.

[razorboy]

The 1340s were pretty awful.

[high fly]

There's a recent Time Magazine article (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1942834,00.html) that attempts to make the case that the '0x decade has been the worst in recent memory. Granted worst is a subjective description and I think its human nature to remember the latest pain and suffering the most vividly but I'm inclined to agree that right from the start of 2000 to the end of 2009 its been a shitty decade.

So where do we go from here? Will the upcoming teen decade be a continuing global slide into further conflict, disaster and financial strife or will there be a collective rebound, time of peace and prosperity?


I am not willing to call it the worst of all times, but it has been mighty bad.


The decade began with things going well, the longest expansion of the American economy was underway, we were at peace, we had budget surpluses that made it possible to put "Social Security first" and make it solvent out to 2052.
Economists were having to change their models for what constituted "full employment" when the rate dipped to 3.8%.

Then we had Bush elected and he made a total hash of things.
Right away he blew out the budget surpluses and quickly set a new record in size of the deficit.
He and his senior advisors ignored an avalanche of over 100 intelligence reports telling them a massive terrorist attack was coming, and nearly 3,000 Americans were killed.
The administration lost it's nerve and panicked. At such times leaders have to keep their cool and that bunch went to pieces.
They pushed through the Patriot Act and took advantage of our fears and prejudices when they lied us into a war with Iraq and got over 4,000 more Americans killed, over 30,000 wounded, many losing eyesight, internal organs and/or limbs, over 60,000 suffered TBI and over 100,000 have needed psychological treatment.
The war removed the greatest impediment to Iranian ambition and granted them a large measure of influence over their former enemy, tilting the balance of power in the Gulf to our disfavor.
Meanwhile, wages stagnated while cost of living rose, more than eating up any gains most people made in wage increases.
Wage disparity widened and poverty increased.
Just as supply-side didn't prform as advertised in the 80s, now we are getting the same result as back then - the worst recession since the Great Depression. Just like the one brought on the first time we tried supply-side, this one has driven unemployment into double-digits and resulted in massive deficits.
Bad economic times always seem to drive crime rates up and also brings out the crazies who want a race war or some other such insanity in our fair land....

[midwestjeff]

http://online.wsj.com/media/juggle_debbie_art_257_20080423123536.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

The decade began with things going well, the longest expansion of the American economy was underway, we were at peace, we had budget surpluses that made it possible to put "Social Security first" and make it solvent out to 2052.
Economists were having to change their models for what constituted "full employment" when the rate dipped to 3.8%.

Then we had Bush elected and he made a total hash of things.
Right away he blew out the budget surpluses and quickly set a new record in size of the deficit.

I disagree with this.

I was certainly not a fan of Bush prior to 9/11, but I don't think you can look at his time up until 9/11 as all that remarkable. The vast majority of the bad decisions and spending came after 9/11.

[Furtherman]

The 60's blew, too. The 70's were pretty horrid.

The 50's were boring. The 60's rocked. The 70's, oh my god, obviously suck. Maybe the 80's will be Rad!

[high fly]

sorry, double post

[high fly]

I disagree with this.

I was certainly not a fan of Bush prior to 9/11, but I don't think you can look at his time up until 9/11 as all that remarkable. The vast majority of the bad decisions and spending came after 9/11.

I recall one of the debates in 2000, either the first or second with Gore. They were asked about what they would do with over $2 trillion in surpluses being projected by the CBO.
Bush responded by saying he would have a combination of tax cuts and spending on things like missile defense.
Gore replied, noting that Bush was proposing $2 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in spending, and said it would take $4 trillion to cover both.
Bush replied somewhat incoherently, but sarcastically, making a reference to Gore's "fuzzy math."
I am not sure, but Bush may have even made the quote signs in the air with his hands.
That was what people heard and Bush was never held to account for his answer.
Well, sure enough, he proceeded to do what Gore said he would.

Yes, it pretty much occurred after 9/11, but it was on the way and Gore accurately pointed it out. Bush was a supply-sider when he was elected, and people were fooled by his promise of a "more humble" foreign policy. I think 9/11 allowed his instincts to be more easily realized in terms of foreign policy.
Oh, and in the campaign he also promised to leave Social Security alone, since Clinton had made it solvent out to 2052 with surplus money. Bush raided the trust fund for something like $139 or $159 billion, making it insolvent again and we hear righties bitching about it now as if it has always been in the shape it is....

[Doctor Z]

This has definitely been the worst decade in at least 10 years.

[boosterp]

In my lifetime we had a major oil crisis in the late 70s then a crash in the late 80s. We have had it rough in recent times but we will make it through.

[razorboy]

This has definitely been the worst decade in at least 10 years.

I could think of nine other stinkers off of the top of my head.

[jauble]

I could think of nine other stinkers off of the top of my head.

How many decades has there been in the last 10 years?

[PapaBear]

They all pale to this one...

http://www.shugarecords.com/images/records/392ce676-f1dd-483a-bc22-060b08d1ba42-0.JPG

[sailor]

They all pale to this one...

http://www.shugarecords.com/images/records/392ce676-f1dd-483a-bc22-060b08d1ba42-0.JPG

they'd kick that old lady's ass.

http://www.metalkingdom.net/album/img/d5/1254.jpg

[pennington]

Everybody at Time Magazine is gloomy because circulation is down, there are cut-backs and with the internet Time has lost it's clout. They had Obama on the cover more than any other person. Now that his approval ratings are going down, it's because of the decade.

That said, for me personally, the 90's suuuuucked. The 00's have been pretty good actually.

[TheMojoPin]

Everybody at Time Magazine is gloomy because circulation is down, there are cut-backs and with the internet Time has lost it's clout. They had Obama on the cover more than any other person. Now that his approval ratings are going down, it's because of the decade.

LULZ whut

[A.J.]

The Red Sox won two World Series in this decade -- which pretty much redeems it for me.

[GregoryJoseph]

The 80's were far and away the worst decade pop culture wise.

The music, the movies, etc. were HORRIBLE.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

http://www.phenomforest.com/images/2-10yrforest-2.jpg

[Contra]

The 80's were far and away the best decade pop culture wise.

The music, the movies, etc. were AWSOME.

Yes they were

[STC-Dub]

Well, if we're talking shitty decades, the 1930's has to be top of the list, with the '40s close behind.

That was going to be my call, the 30's were not very fun from what I can tell.

[Penelope]

The 0s were dismal in the economy, US conflict, and the worst popular culture ever. The rise in celebrity gossip magazines and TV shows, horrible auto-tune music, the celebration of narcissism, oppressive conformity, and the glorification of the stripper as a role model for women. I'll be glad to see this shit decade go.:clap:

[Earlshog]

This has definitely been the worst decade in at least 10 years.

hater

[Melk]

I guarantee that the next decades will seem worse because of the Internet. We are able to get information exponentially faster than we ever have and we use this resource to find and distribute the most negative and ridiculous crap among ourselves.

The sad part is that we, as a society, love bad news. The Internet gives the bad news to us faster and cheaper than ever.

[opie's twisted balls]

The 80's were far and away the worst decade pop culture wise.
We can agree that some muslims present a threat to Western society but I can't buy into your sentiments about the 80's.

I LOVED the neon decade. Great music, movies and above all I fucked a lot.