Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'll take Louis Brandeis, FDR and MLK. Give me brains, brawn, and an iron will. The courage of convictions -- that's what the other side has (well, they aren't big on brains, but they have the dollars to compensate) and it will take an equal or greater force.

I'm not talking historically (FDR trampled on the Constitution as much as, if not more than, Dubya), I'm talking the last 10 years.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

While I'm thinking about it ...

The biggest losers in President Obama's deal with the Republican on taxes aren't the Democrats. It's the bond market.

Yields soared in the wake of the plan that will add upwards of $900 billion to the federal deficit, sending bond prices tumbling, especially in the municipal market.

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/111531/bond-vigilantes-may-thwart-tax-deal?mod=bb-budgeting&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

What you need to do is compare now to the '70's and make sure you are fair and don't factor in technology too much. In the '70's you could buy a single family home, own two cars, and send your kids to a decent school and your job would be cutting paper in a bindery and your wife could stay home..

My father made more money in retirement than he ever did a s a Prof at UMaine

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

My father made more money in retirement than he ever did a s a Prof at UMaine

Back then going out to eat was a rare treat. People do it much more often now.

 

[goldy_331]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Scooby's claims baffle me. My parents both worked, we had two crappy old used cars, did most of the work on them ourselves, had one crappy old TV, one old phone, NEVER flew anywhere, like Bob says going out to eat was an event and never to anyplace very nice, none of us kids had music lessons or played expensive sports. My wife works part time and we have LOTS more in every way than we did growing up. Even accounting for the fact that I went to college and my old man didn't, and there were three kids versus only one now - we are still hugely better off than my family growing up was.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Scooby's not counting that we blow our money on entertainment and technology to an absurd degree in 2010 compared to 1975.

One TV in the living room and a house phone vs. 3-4 tvs, multiple DVD/Blu-Ray machines plus the discs, monthly cable and internet bill/netflix, a computer or two, video games and consoles, Ipods, multiple cell phones...

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Scooby's claims baffle me. My parents both worked, we had two crappy old used cars, did most of the work on them ourselves, had one crappy old TV, one old phone, NEVER flew anywhere, like Bob says going out to eat was an event and never to anyplace very nice, none of us kids had music lessons or played expensive sports. My wife works part time and we have LOTS more in every way than we did growing up. Even accounting for the fact that I went to college and my old man didn't, and there were three kids versus only one now - we are still hugely better off than my family growing up was.

I guess everyone's situation will be different but I find the premise more often than not to be true with the people I've talked it over with.

EDIT: and yes I asked you consider the relative difference in technology as a non-factor.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I guess everyone's situation will be different but I find the premise more often than not to be true with the people I've talked it over with.

EDIT: and yes I asked you consider the relative difference in technology as a non-factor.

I understand the technology request, as far as it represents discretionary spending though it is relevant...the next time I see a 10 year old kid with a droid I'm going to make a citizen's arrest. I want to avoid sounding smug also, but, what we can afford in my house and what we buy are two different things...the latter is less, by the way.

I'm astounded by people I know who can't seem to say no to anything or make any judgment on what not to buy.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

You can't filter out the effects of technology. A lot of technological advances have let to things like cell phones, that are more convenient and, arguably, improve our quality of life, but cost a good chunk of change over time. We had nothing like that back in the 70s, so our folks didn't spend a bunch of money on all sorts of electronic gadgets and services and entertainment. Even stuff like going to a movie was a big deal, whereas I know folks who go to movies every weekend. No internet back then. The list goes on and on where we spend money on things where there is no comparable thing they spent money on back then. Of course, everybody's situation now and then is different, so I can understand different perceptions.

One area things have gotten worse I think is the food we eat, though even in the 70s things were getting worse, with junk food, etc. My wife and I are being more and more careful to avoid buying food with all sorts of additives, corn fillers (like high fructose corn syrup), etc. But there's an extra cost to getting stuff that does't have 50 ingredients, 40 of which you have no idea what they are. I don't think the food industry was nearly as far along back then in cheapening a large portion of our food supply with fillers, additives, and other artificial stuff.

Sometimes I think stuff back then was made better, and in some cases it definitely was. But on the other hand, you replaced headlights on your car regularly as well as other car parts you rarely if ever replace now. Though on the other hand you have all sorts of complicated junk on the car you can't work on at all yourself, unlike my '73 Vega that I did all sorts of work on.

 

[goldy_331]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I live in the same HOUSE I did growing up, although we added on to it. You see the house that was big enough for a family with three kids wasn't nearly big enough for a family with one. Everyone i see around me has way bigger houses and way more stuff than we and our friends did growing up. Everyone I know eats out multiple times a week - we were lucky to get out more than once a quarter. My kid plays one very expensive sport and another somewhat less expensive sport versus my couple of cheap, or free sports. My kid takes private piano lessons, not us when we were kids. When we did eat at home it was worse food than we now eat - you wanted salmon, it was pink and in a can, you wanted vegetables in the winter - they were in a can too, steak - maybe for your birthday otherwise it was ground beef. None of these are impacted by technology, other than the contribution to the general increasing standard of living. All the folks around me are very similar, everyone has bigger houses and more stuff, they eat better and travel more, the go out for entertainment more too.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

That's true. Stuff like fresh produce is a lot more available during the winter than it used to be. People tell me my significant dislike for brussel sprouts must be because of eating yucky canned or frozen ones as a kid. But I'm still not taking a chance.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So all of Bush's tax cuts were "for the rich"? That's your position?

No it benefited the rich more than any other group. Just look at capital gains tax 28% 20% and 15% with the Bush tax cut. (0% for low income family)
Only 1 in 7 had capital gains in 2006 or put another way 86% of tax payers didn't benefit/hurt from it but the wealthy sure made out like bandits .

I'm not sure what changed for Obama since the election but he has turned into Bush2.

http://www.urban.org/publications/1001201.html

The taxation of capital gains has once again become an issue in the presidential campaign. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has proposed to reverse most of the cut in capital gains taxes since 1997 for individuals in the top two rate brackets, increasing the rate from 15 percent to 20 percent or more. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona has claimed that higher capital gains taxes would affect millions of middleincome Americans.

Fewer than one in seven individual taxpayers report taxable capital gains in any year. In 2006 just 13.4 million out of 138.3 million taxpayers reported taxable net gains

Many taxpayers with gains had modest incomes ? more than half (52 percent) of those with taxable net gains or capital gains distributions had incomes below $75,000. But high-income taxpayers accounted for the overwhelming share of capital gains (Table 1).

The 3 percent of tax returns with adjusted gross income exceeding $200,000 reported 31 percent of AGI and 83 percent of capital gains. The 0.3 percent of returns with AGI exceeding $1 million reported 15 percent of AGI and 61 percent of capital gains. Capital gains represented less than 4 percent of AGI for gains recipients with income less than $200,000, but about 40 percent of AGI for those with income exceeding $1 million.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Technology:

Growing up vs. Now's equivalent.

Atari 2600 = a PS3
Cable TV (we had it as soon as it came out) = Cable and/or Dish with HD
VCR = a Blu-Ray player.
2 TV's = 4 TV's with an HD flat screen
A home phone = A cell phone plan.

I don't know anyone who thinks there life is better or easier because they own a smartphone. And eating out I don't consider a luxury, I consider it a necessity because were just busier now. Fact is in relative terms my life is no better than my Father's and he was a blue collar worker and his wife didn't work until I was a teenager.

But, we're digressing now. Read the book. You can get it cheap and it's an eye opener whether you agree with it or not.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I live in the same HOUSE I did growing up, although we added on to it. You see the house that was big enough for a family with three kids wasn't nearly big enough for a family with one. Everyone i see around me has way bigger houses and way more stuff than we and our friends did growing up. Everyone I know eats out multiple times a week - we were lucky to get out more than once a quarter. My kid plays one very expensive sport and another somewhat less expensive sport versus my couple of cheap, or free sports. My kid takes private piano lessons, not us when we were kids. When we did eat at home it was worse food than we now eat - you wanted salmon, it was pink and in a can, you wanted vegetables in the winter - they were in a can too, steak - maybe for your birthday otherwise it was ground beef. None of these are impacted by technology, other than the contribution to the general increasing standard of living. All the folks around me are very similar, everyone has bigger houses and more stuff, they eat better and travel more, the go out for entertainment more too.

There is no doubt about any of this. People spend far more money now than they did when my parents were raising me and my brothers. We never needed anything that we didn't have but we didn't have the toys folks have now

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Another example of why I don't think this hurts Obama for 2012. The plan is ****ed popular.

Two-thirds of Americans (66%) favor extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all Americans for two years, and an identical number support extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

There is no doubt about any of this. People spend far more money now than they did when my parents were raising me and my brothers. We never needed anything that we didn't have but we didn't have the toys folks have now

Don't get me started. 9 times out of 10 the "back in my day" argument is a fallacious product of sepia-toned memories (witness the illusion of the "sexual revolution" or the so-called "family values" of a bygone era -- all inane myths), but families used to be forced to make very painful choices like which kid to send to college, not which gaming system to buy junior.

If there has been a shift downwards, it's been the burgeoning of poverty since Reagan -- the ranks of people with no choices have grown due to Republican neo-Coolidge policies and we have repeated the 1920's. For those people, and there are a lot of them who might have had a shot at the middle class during that terrible benighted era when we had a modicum of commitment to equality, things have gotten worse.

We had a very brief period where we were serious about taking care of the less fortunate, and then it was plowed under by a combination of racism and apathy. From about 1950 through 1975 we were a genuinely great nation, one nearly unparalleled and unprecedented in history. Then it all unraveled as the Me Generation found its ideal ideology in the self-serving neglect of a contemporary "conservatism" which isn't worthy of the name, and which is simply Force Majeur. The rich played this one great -- they convinced poor whites that social welfare was a giveaway to blacks. They ladled out that poison for a generation, it worked, and it's bequeathed us the country we have now.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Another example of why I don't think this hurts Obama for 2012. The plan is ****ed popular.

It's going to bite him in the butt next election... breaking every promise he made as a candidate. war/finance/etc... etc... etc... we should rename this administration as 3rd Bush term.

I used to be the stupid public. I bought the lower-taxes, balanced-budget mantra from the pundits, politicians and the "reporters" too. It sounds so good and reasonable... lower taxes for everyone blah blah.
Follow the money for the real story.

Fact on capital gains tax reduction (Really for the rich):

138million taxpayers only 13million (10%) had capital gains in 2006.
If you made less than $200,000 then your 4% of income (capital gains) were taxed at 15%.
If you made more than $1,000,000 then your 40% of income (capital gains) was taxed at 15%.

That says it all. follow the money. where is the tax cut money going to.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

It's going to bite him in the butt next election... breaking every promise he made as a candidate. war/finance/etc... etc... etc... we should rename this administration as 3rd Bush term.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you that he's broken promises, or that he's similar to Bush in many many ways.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the notion that this move is going to hurt him in 2012. I just don't see the evidence for it. You really think liberals are going to give up on "The One" after just two years? Really? I can't see it happening. Provide some evidence to the contrary?

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Back then going out to eat was a rare treat. People do it much more often now.

Same thing with going to the movies or a sporting event.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I understand the technology request, as far as it represents discretionary spending though it is relevant...the next time I see a 10 year old kid with a droid I'm going to make a citizen's arrest. I want to avoid sounding smug also, but, what we can afford in my house and what we buy are two different things...the latter is less, by the way.

I'm astounded by people I know who can't seem to say no to anything or make any judgment on what not to buy.

It amazes me...what the hell does a kid under the age of 15 need a cell phone for? They cant drive, most families still have a landline, they can call from a friends house or a pay phone. It is ridiculous!

I have used this example before, but I was working at a school in the city a couple years back...many of these kids came from low income households and could barely afford lunch money yet they had new clothes, Ipods and cell phones...it drove me nuts!