posted on December 15, 2000 01:12:40 AM new
How many of you remember the last recession? Has six to eight years really made that much of a difference? Have you forgotten the tweleve years under Ronald Reagan and Bush, Sr. so easily?
To refresh your memory: RR reached out to the Unions in 1980 and then proceeded to destroy them for the next eight years. Millions of middle-class jobs were replaced by food-service jobs.
RR also sold the American electronics industry to Japan. It used to be a Vital National Interest in those days and electronics was protected from competiton from outside the USA.
The RR went and changed the electronics classification, saying that "innovation" was being stiffled. What he really meant was that high-paying middle-class jobs were keeping business owners from another summer home in the Alps. RR proceeded to throw tens of millions of men, women and choildren onto the streets. He sold us down the river. Remember?
Trickle-Down economics. In the end, it was clear that it should have been named Cash-Flood Upwards Economics. It's still so popular an idea with repulican leaders that George Jr. is planning on making it his #1 economic plan.
1980 through 1994 sucked. I've lived through it and hated it. And just as then, we are repeating history and this time, there won't even be any food-service jobs for Americans.
Summary: those who voted for George Bush will get just the kind of government that ignorant people deserve. The rest of us who remember and know better will have to suffer for four years until the problem can be rectified.
posted on December 15, 2000 03:20:22 AM new
Why suffer for 4 years, there's the whole rest of the world out there, anyone can move if they don't like this president.
And, what did you do to help your candidate get elected? Did you vote early and often? Did you participate in voter registration drives? Did you volunteer to drive people to the polls? Did you sign on at your nearest party headquarters? Put a sign in your yard? Bumper sticker? Anything?
If you really want to make a change, get involved, do the work that people do when stuff like this is very important to them.
posted on December 15, 2000 07:16:55 AM new
Borillar:
I couldn't agree more.
How fast people forget WHY old man Bush DIDN'T get re-elected.
Typical behavior in this country though...
When things are going great, screw it up!
Look for a massive military buildup, higher taxes for the middle & lower class, lower taxes for the rich, higher unemployment rate, less help for the elderly, drastic reduction in education programs, higher interest rates, dead-slow economy, and a few armed conflicts in the coming 4 years.
posted on December 15, 2000 08:38:24 AM newAre you old enough to remember the two major oil 'crisis' periods when the country had the crisis while the suppliers got rich?
So true, krs. And do not forget "deregulation". And something precisely similar to the oil crisis is happening here in California with the Power Industry that was deregulated this year. Starting last June, our electricity prices tripled driving many small business owners out of business. Electricity priced at $50/megawatt hour in June 1999 reached $1100/megawatt hour this past week. Wholesale power producers are complaining about the "shortage" of power even as they take their plants offline for "unscheduled emergency maintenance". Sound familiar? Oh, and let's not forget who was the biggest corporate contributot to GW's campaign....Enron Corp (Power Company) of Dallas, Texas. California is operating in crisis mode right now with daily threats of blackouts from the Power Suppliers who until countermanding orders from the FERC this week required CASH PAYMENT from power distributors to buy power. It will be interesting to see just how GW is going to deal with this in light of his views on deregulation. Maybe it's "payback" time for California.
posted on December 15, 2000 09:04:09 AM new
Yeah people can get a little short in that memory department after a few years of prosperity. Because after a little prosperity Republican buzz words like: Tax cut, reduced spending here with massive increases there sounds great. We have a surplus after so many years of running in the red. Well take consolation that Bush's first budget won't be until next year.
posted on December 15, 2000 09:21:28 AM new
This was in yesterday's NY Post, and I thought it was interesting:
Lose-lose for liberals
I KNOW a lot of rich, liberal salaried guys who are crying in their Cabernets today. As one of them puts it: "I voted for Gore with my heart, but my wallet said that if Bush won, I'd be better off by about $500 a week through his tax cuts. Now, thanks to the balance of the Congress, I've got President Bush and no tax cuts." -- Neal Travis
posted on December 15, 2000 09:40:06 AM new
Sorry you guys had such a bad time in the 80's. It was great for me.
In 1980, I was 23 and making minimum wage $8,320 per year. By 1990, I was making $30,000. In between, I had gotten married and moved to California and purchased a home. The economy I saw was robust and gave me numerous opportunities to move up and make more money each time.
We know that even in slow economic times and high inflation (think Jimmy Carter), people still make money and are successful. How much of it is based on the economy vs. the individual's ambition and drive?
And I see the energy crisis in California as price manipulation at it's finest. Deregulation has worked in other areas with no problems. Many power plants are working down here at half-capacity saying they weren't told they needed to increase their output. I just want to know who's pocketing the cash.
posted on December 15, 2000 09:50:44 AM new
vote early and often? I only got to vote twice, once in the primary and once in the election. Did I miss something? As for moving to another country, I like it here. If I think the new prez is an idiot, I can say so. Anyway we'll have another one in four years. I can wait it out.
[ edited by december3 on Dec 15, 2000 09:51 AM ]
posted on December 15, 2000 09:52:08 AM new
Tax cuts are nearly meaningless to anybody but corporate interests.
Oh golly! I'll vote for HIM 'cause he says he's gonna cut my tax by 10%! But it doesn't happen, it's an empty promise. And even in all the fanfare of a real live tax cut, what does it mean?
Oh, the rate drops a point or two, but maybe a new limitation appears on deductible line items. Remember when you got to deduct all interest payments? Well, good old Ronnie fixed that, didn't he? Remember when medical payments were deductible in full? Even when you could deduct that amount paid for an HMO?
Why, where did it go? You gotta' have a whole heck of a lot of medical payments to get over that 7.5% hump. Cute trick, wasn't it? Shoving those limitations onto the workforce while everybody sat in mesmorized belief in the tax cut being promised on the TV.
Republican voters are SOOOO stupid that they keep on believing in all the pap even while they miss the fact that instead of less they are paying MORE taxes. "Well, it doesn't matter anyway" says Mabel in Kansas, "I use the standard deduction anyway, it's easier". Right, Dearie, so you prefer your screwing built right in.
posted on December 15, 2000 09:59:28 AM new
njrazd,
Glad that you consider that great. Must have been a real exciting day when you broke above the mean poverty level,eh?
Don't try to blame Jimmy Carter for thos inflation rates; he inherited them. In fact, if someone looks into it, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that he was a victim of a designed, or preordained, failure.
posted on December 15, 2000 11:27:55 AM new
krs...oh yeah...Carter inherited the high interest rates, but Bush is already being blamed for the recession that's starting now, before he's even in office.
And yes, I do consider my good fortune to be
"great." I worked hard for it.
posted on December 15, 2000 12:09:05 PM newIn between, I had gotten married and moved to California and purchased a home. The economy I saw was robust and gave me numerous opportunities to move up and make more money each time.
njrazd, I don't know what economy you "saw" but the economy where you live (and I, because we live in the same county) was in the toilet by the end of 1991. The defense industry was decimated, and people who worked for the same companies for 30 years or more were let go with 2weeks severance pay. The military moved out, and as a result, our shipbuilding and repair (big employers) industry suffered and to this day hasn't recovered. Until biotechs and technology began setting up here, we were in dire straits. That's what saved us.
How much of it is based on the economy vs. the individual's ambition and drive? That's a question to ask one of the thousands of people who lost their jobs after 30 years or more with the same company, and no hope of finding another. I'm glad you weathered that period so well. It was damn tough for me. I saw my job and my career evaporate in a year's time(and I wasn't in Defense) and as a single mother (at the time) with a mortgage and non-tax deductible student loans, I cannot begin to tell you about the depths of despair that I felt on a daily basis. Hard economic times have nothing to do with "ambition and drive". It's an equal opportunity malaise affecting all but the very rich. And this latest economic downturn, especially in light of the high energy, housing, and fuel costs DOES NOT bode well for California, and in particular, where WE live. I hope you are able to weather the next two years. After all, it sounds like you have much more to lose than you did when you moved here.
posted on December 15, 2000 12:15:45 PM new
In looking at my pay stubs I find that the majority of my payments for medical insurance are deducted before taxes are paid. So the %7.5 of gross adjusted income requirement to deduct medical expenses as it relates to medical insurance isn't really an issue.
posted on December 15, 2000 12:18:52 PM newKatyD if your economic hard times were the result of the extreme downsizing of military contractors you can hardly blame Ronald Reagan for that. He was directly responsible for the boom times in that industry.
posted on December 15, 2000 12:20:15 PM newSo the %7.5 of gross adjusted income requirement to deduct medical expenses as it relates to medical insurance isn't really an issue. How nice for you, Dr. Beetle. Too bad it IS an issue for those millions who don't HAVE medical insurance because they can't afford to pay for it.
KatyD
(stray NOT)
[ edited by KatyD on Dec 15, 2000 12:21 PM ]
posted on December 15, 2000 12:24:29 PM newDr Beetle I wasn't blaming Ronald Reagan for it. Where did I say that? I was pointing out the fact that an economic recession detrimentally affects more than the few individuals who could be accused of having a lack of "ambition and drive".
posted on December 15, 2000 12:26:14 PM new
Oh, then you mean your little preestimated and capped medical investment fund? Thank Bill Clinton for that facility.
posted on December 15, 2000 12:29:38 PM newKatyD I was addressing your tendency to blame everything on some Republican somewhere. And I offered no opinions about ambition and drive.
As for those that can't afford medical insurance they wouldn't benefit from any tax break anyway now would they? I was specifically addressing KRS's point that the 7.5% limit was a sham. Since the majority of those that do have enough money to pay for medical insurance do get tax relief on those costs.
posted on December 15, 2000 12:39:28 PM new
I think you'd better have another look at your paystub. What's listed as a benefit is not earned income and you don't pay for it. The remaining portion of medical insurance you pay may be small, and if you have no other medical bills would render the 7.5% cap insignificant FOR YOU, but don't come off speaking for every person because your situation probably doesn't cross to theirs.
( least, Dr. Beetle, you got the "7.5%" configuration right the second time. I had begun to think that there was a reason that you hold such a strong affinity with GWBUSH.)
posted on December 15, 2000 12:45:10 PM newDr Beetle pardon me, but my only "tendency" is to voice my opinion where I see it fits. If it somehow makes you feel guilty, there is nothing I can do about it.
As for those that can't afford medical insurance they wouldn't benefit from any tax break anyway now would they? Oh, they most certainly would as we're talking about out of pocket medical expenses. I can't tell you how many people I know who have NO or very high deductible insurance coverage, and pay for emergency trips to the dr's office (and dentist) out of their own pocket BECAUSE they can't afford high insurance premiums. They hope for the best that a devastating illness or accident doesn't occur. Of course if it were, once that 7.5% of their gross income in medical payments is achieved, they will be able to deduct it from their returns. I'm sure THAT comforts them to a great degree. I'm sorry, but I'm only addressing your tendency to dismiss issues with an airy "if it doesn't affect ME, it isn't important".
posted on December 15, 2000 12:49:44 PM new
"Of course if it were, once that 7.5% of their gross income in medical payments is achieved, they will be able to deduct it from their returns. I'm sure THAT comforts them to a great degree."
But only that portion which is above the breakpoint. They still are taxed for those amounts under it.
posted on December 15, 2000 01:00:29 PM new
Reagan created a larger Debt and Budget deficit than all the previous presidents combined.
In July 2000, the Treasury Department announced that the United States will pay off $221 billion of debt this year -- the largest one-year debt pay down in American history. This will be the third consecutive year of debt reduction, bringing the three-year total to $360 billion.
Reagan gave us higher interest rates, higher unemployment rates, and a depressed economy.
Under Clinton / Gore, we had the lowest interest rates, lowest unemployment rates, lowest poverty rate, and the highest homeownership rate in over 25 years.
posted on December 15, 2000 05:16:09 PM new
Yes, Krs, I'm lecturing (again) and, yes, I remember both oil crises; I remember when ketchup became a vegetable. I remember working my lunchtimes and dinner times at the cafeteria, making 85% of minimum wage, because I was a college student, and I remember Ronald Reagan changing that to where anyone under 18, student or not, could be paid 85% of minimum wage. Now, I don't know if the 85% of minimum wage law for students is still on the books, but my daughter, now 17, started her first job, at KMart, this past summer, at full minimum wage, they had her working more than 40 hours a week, and they're trying to get her to work more hours than she wants to now that school is back in. Twenty odd years ago, at her age, I could hardly find even a part time job, at less than minimum wage, and I already had an associate's degree.
Anyway, I hate to spoil all the fun, but the important result of this election is not that George W. is president. The important result of this election is that there's a Republican House, Senate, and President.
For all of you who have bought into the increasingly popular "vote by the candidate, not by the party" line, and "voting a straight party ticket is lazy" stuff, maybe it's time to rethink that. Which party the president is is only a small part of the picture, the president/house/senate make up is far more important.
You're unhappy about the possibility of Bush's policies going through? Better start thinking about 2002. Vote for "real" Democrats, not those "blue-dog" more Republican than Democrat Democrats in the primaries, and then vote for Democrats again in the election.
And, when the next presidential election comes, vote a straight party ticket, for whichever party's policies you prefer.
posted on December 15, 2000 05:37:51 PM new
I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will post no more forever (until then, probably).
[ edited by december3 on Dec 15, 2000 09:51 AM ]