Letters to the Editor
-
gneubeck
A) We were not in a recession at the end of Clinton's second term and no economist nor fairminded individual could assert as much. We simply did not meet the economic conditions for what is termed a recession. If that was a recession, we are now in a logarithmically amplified depression.
B) those numbers are insane, and even a conservative would have to scoff at, especially, the 30,000 dollar line. As someone who made about 35,000 that year, I can tell you: I did not pay 8 thousand in taxes. But you need not rely on my take on it. The chart originated from data from the Tax Foundation and, besides the values being extrapolated by poor math, also failed to account for inflation versus the real value of the dollar.
-
gneubeck 2
Couldn't find what I had been reading, but in short summary: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html ... I was half recollecting correctly regarding inflation, if not spot on:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html
-
It's funny
I worked as a production assistant on the Rocky II film. Yeah, maybe I'd like to be in my early 20's again, knowing what I know now, knowing how life was going to turn out 30 years in my future, but, sorry, life ain't like that.
I'm in my early 50's right now, still in the Philadelphia area, with a 22 year old son in college with loans he'll take years and years to pay off.
My memories of the beginning of the 2nd Clinton administration, '97 and on are not that cheery. I'm one of those poor bastards (female type) who lost out on the technical bubble after teaching myself a lucrative career in computers while being a SAHM, and who watched everything we had, dreamed of having go down the drain. By the end of '97 getting a consulting job (forget a permanant one) in this geographical area in the technical arena began to go down hill, with all the younger folks thinking that they could make their fortunes if they just got their MCSE. You know, I bet most of those young kids and not so young kids are still paying back THEIR loans for the classes and tests they took while Clinton was playing not so nicely with others.
I don't know how this new Clinton will do if by some miracle she gets to the White House, but I'm still trying to figure out how, if a family is living paycheck to paycheck, with every dollar accounted for in rent (mortgage), utilities, credit, and other living expenses and by the time the next pay day rolls around they have maybe $4.00 left in their pockets are going to be able to pay even 10% of their income for the mandated healthcare, if their employers don't or can't.
Does Hillary's healthcare plan come with the magic spell that can get blood from a stone? How in the hell can a family with one or more children, making under $50,000 a year, before taxes, and that is often touted as the median income level, will be able to come up with $5,000 per year in real dollars to pay for healh insurance? She has yet to explain that in 20 debates!!!
Yeah, maybe there might be flaws in Obama's plan, that might leave some people to choose NOT to buy health insurance, but Hillary is going to MANDATE they do, but again where is that magic spell?
When you are in your 20's the future is a long road filled will hopes, dreams and magical thinking that they will come true. When you are in your 50's much of that has worn off, and reality hits you in the face each morning as you watch a new wrinkle or gray hair appear magically where it wasn't there the night before.
-
All starting to come back
Right, it was that besides insane calculations, the marginal tax rate brackets shift upwards and hence a 30,000 dollar earner may well have dropped into a lower marginal tax rate by this date anyway.
What was I thinking? Value of the dollar... well, goes to show it helps to compose oneself before spouting off at the lip. Not that this would apply to you, gneubeck, inasmuch as you are cutting and pasting your tax postings anyway.
-
Sarah
I am sorry about your hard luck story and the wrinkles, but firstly, no one has stipulated 5000 dollars a year inasmuch as the prices would be negotiated between the government and insurance system we have.
Theoretically, bringing down medical costs is possible with goverment assurance that a certain fixed number of people will be 'purchasing' ... 100 new customers at a lower rate is more money than 50 at a higher rate, essentially. This is why it is cheaper for large organizations to ensure insurance than for a single person or even family. Moreover, one is assuming as-yet-to-be-determined provisions and grants will be given for those living under the poverty line.
Moreover, it is exactly people who don't have health insurance who are helping to aid rising costs by NOT being covered and then being unable to pay. This is a vicious circle where costs rise to account for non-payment and emergency service and as a result there are more of these a year.
I would suggest it is you who do not see things for how they are.
-
Patriot Act Reality
Dear ScepticalGeek,
Senator Obama did not vote for the Patriot Act. He was not in the U.S. Senate when it was initiated. After he was elected to the U.S. Senate he voted for an amendment to remove and change sections of the act stipulating that more changes were needed. Hillary Clinton was in the U.S. Senate and did support the Patriot Act, voted for authorization of the Iraq war and the bankruptcy law that is unfairly making victims of health problems homeless.
-
Could Someone at Salon Explain To Me...
I came into this conversation late, so when I read TishiJo's response to ScepticalGeek's Patriot Act nonsense I searched for Geek's original post wondering, "Is the vitriol coming out of the Clinton camp so thick that a supporter would fantasize about Obama being on the wromg side of the Patriot Act when he wasn't even in the Senate?" Well, I was even more astonished to find that Salon's Letters to the Editor people gave the comment a red star.
I am not one of those readers who says Salon is biased one way or the other when it comes to the race for the Democratic Nomination, but honestly, how can you give a red star to a factually incorrect post such as ScepticalGeek's? I would think that, since one has the choice of reading only "Editor's Choice" letters, that Salon would prefer to avoid awarding posts that are woefully inaccurate--or at least you'd also select those letters that correct wild accusations. Is it that those responsible for the "Editor's Choice" are as ill-informed. I expect more from y'all. Some poor slob may be at the water cooler tomorrow sounding like an idiot about Obama's "support" for the Patriot Act based on his/her assumption that those red stars mean something. Get your shit together, people. Or, am I wrong?