-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/what-surprise-i-get-nothing-from-house.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
aimai
Really? Give me a percentage.
Definition of plenty: 1: a full or more than adequate amount or supplymore than adequate amount or supply
aimai
All the gay people you know have kids? Every gay person you know has kids?
ALL?
aimai
Some of us made the rational decision NOT to have kids because we KNOW/knew how much it costs.
I ...made...the....decision...not...to...have....kids....let alone...2,3,4 kids.
John lives and breaths politics....living in the far suburbs would NOT be a practical place to live for his living....ie interviews,Capitol Hill, TV and Radio station interviews wher ehe can be there in minutes.
You're quite a flame
I look at co-workers that are coupled and make the same salary I do - they're able to have a better standard of living because they're combining incomes. However, the tax code, particularly if they have a kid, gives them all kinds of perks.
aimai
aimai
Someone's selling something for their kids school or girl scout cookies or someone is engaged or getting married or having a their first baby ( and now seems gifts are now given for the 2nd and 3rd baby)
Again, a single person doesn't get these silly perks etc.... it's just a suttle reminder that you are single or gay or that you are worthy of extra from the gov''t or coworkers.
Ok, that was my bitch session for today.
Plenty of people like me with a Social Security income of $12K a year (all the income I have after 50 yrs of working at shitty office and other jobs and raising 2 kids by myself) who will not get anything either. Not that it matters to me, I just don't care about money anymore, just surviving.
I'd say you're living la vida loca these days.
This sounds more like Republican propaganda than anything a real live person actually believes. I'm about as liberal as you get and that doesn't come anywhere close to the truth. I've been on welfare and I've been fairly well off in my lifetime and frankly I'd rather be making enough money that my taxes will go up than be unemployed and hoping for an extension of benefits.
I get your point about cost of living but do you think maybe some of this post is a little over the top?
First, you're sexual lifestyle has ZERO to do with it. Second, as noted, you chose your place of domicile. Third, you do have a job and an income. Many people don't have either anymore.
If you care to hear about hardship, I can tell you my story. I was employed, making $70k/yr on top of my wife's salary when I got injured on the job blowing out two disks in my spine. Because of that injury, I have not been able to work in my profession (physically demanding) and have been unemployed. Far from a spendthrift, I used the measly insurance settlement to pay off all outstanding debt except the mortgage, and still, we've scrimped by on my wife's salary alone as I have tried to find job after job in a state that has the fourth highest unemployment rate in the nation (some counties in South Carolina have a 12% unemployment rate). When I tried to get a TEMP job making minimum wage I was told I was "too old", "too set in my ways", "made too much money", "I'd been injured and put in a workers comp claim", and "I didn't have a degree"... you name the excuse... so... "please try another agency". Oh yeah, and did I mention I have a step-daughter in her sophomore of college and we had to scrimp to find the money to buy the books for her classes this semester at the expense of buying a little more food? But hey, at least I'm not the 93-year-old man who had his electricity turned off and froze to death in his house.
So, no... not really sympathetic here that people's taxes are going to be used to stimulate the economy, get jobs opening up again, so I can support my family, too. Sorry.
So you're saying more than 150 million people in America don't have jobs or a home?
If 300 million people live in America...and you are saying many don;t have both.....then "many" would mean over 150,000,000 people.
I'm not trying to be a smart alick....but you cant go throwing around figures like 150,000,000 people are out of work and have no home.
"Many" =/= "Most" If he had said "Most people don't have either" than your comment would be correct. But "many" is not necessarily a relative word, and it certainly doesn't require a certain percentage of the whole.
read what you just typed... read it again... then again...
the people ARE the economy. idiot.
jobs are being outsourced to cut costs... companies aren't paying what they used to, even in urban areas.
put it this way... eight years ago, when I moved here, 20% of people who worked in San Diego could afford to own a house/condo here. Which means the cost of living pay increases weren't allowing people to live where they actually work.
even with the housing market crashing here... nobody has the money to buy. not even mentioning all the jobs that are disappearing.
in times like these, the wealthy get wealthier... imagine having $50,000 in cash and just waiting for the right moment to jump into the market.
or enough money to buy prime real estate in the city... just waiting for the real estate market to tank before you do so.
the wealthy sit and wait... and they'll double what they have in five years.
There are higher costs of living in certain urban areas.
If someone's judged to be bad at running a bank, why the f are they still RUNNING A BANK?
yes, they need to take into account the fact that we live in urban areas. there needs to be an overhaul of the tax system. that's not what this is. do you want to take a guess when this bill would see a vote if that had to be decided. congresspeople and senators would be haggling over what's an urban area and how urban areas already get lots of federal dollars (so do farms and rural areas, i know).
basically, everytime you flip out about not getting your mid/upper middle class due, it reminds me how you could be a republican if they didn't hate who you are. we made the choice to live in a city. i know if i wanted a house i could move to a more suburban area and easily afford one with what i've saved living in a city, but i like cities...it's the price i pay.
I found this out when I moved from suburban Syracuse (making about 35k/year... and living large) to the city of San Diego.
using a cost of living calculator $35k in Syracuse = $60k in San Diego... or at least it did eight years ago.
in the government's eyes however, if you went from $35k to $45k... you're doing better, not worse.
I suppose they'd like everyone to move to suburban areas?
Oh, and I'm still paying a car loan for a friend in L.A. who has been out of work for over a year.
Quit your bitching, John.. ;^) Lots of people worse off right now.
And yes, you people do have to pay for the kidlets. They'll be helping to support you in your old age, people.
We're a family of four and I'm the only one working, making about $56k, and we do live paycheck to paycheck, but we're not by any means poor. I could do without, there are others who are much more needy.
What I'd prefer more than anything is health care reform. That is where my money goes to, huge insurance bills, and we're all generally healthy.
Face it, the urban East (and semi-urban West) have become prohibitively expensive. It's cost of admission that you have chosen to pay for remaining in a culturally/socially/politically prominent place. So pay your cost of admission and enjoy the benefits; or move.
That would NOT be possible if he lived in the suburbs.
John needs to get his face out there.
If you were a surfer for a living, would you live inland 30 miles... cause it's cheaper?
If you were a theater critic, would you live in Frostburg Mrayland cause it's cheaper?
If you designed and made and sold your own brand of bathing suits, would you live in the suburbs of MAine or LA or Miami?
Just like that quote, " Why do you rob banks? "Cause that's where the money is"
(This is not in specific regards to John's status, just very generally good advice.)
Hopefully, in a couple years when I have more experience and the market picks up (I hope I hope I hope) I will be able to seek greener pastures in the Midwest. But picking up and leaving now, no matter how desirable, is absolutely impossible.
Again, I'm not trying to complain. I have a great life and I never expected to benefit from tax cuts or stimulus. I just wanted to point out that as much as I long for a cute house with a small yard, it ain't happening any time soon, despite my obnoxiously large salary.
I just want a living like any other
What do I get
I only want relief that's my belief
What do I get
What do I get
Oh oh what do I get
What do I get
Oh oh what do I get
I'm in distress I need a check
What do I get
I'm not on the make I just need a break
What do I get
What do I get
Oh oh what do I get
What do I get
Oh oh what do I get
I'm honestly really embarrassed for you.
Of course, that assumes there would be JOBS for all the college graduates. Else it would just be a huge loss for everyone.
You're also right about one other thing: all of us should be mad that the bulk of this money is going to help big business and leave those of us with student loans or consumer debt to fend for ourselves.
But the rest of this post is just silly complaining that doesn't make much sense. If you can afford to buy a condo in DC or any other major city in the northeastern US, you DO NOT need financial help. It really is as simple as that. Alternatively, if this stimulus check is something you really do need, perhaps you jumped into the condo market a bit prematurely. No? Then stop complaining about the meager amount of your tax money that goes to helping those who actually need it. If you lived in Paris you'd be paying much more.
The fact that you are seeing other people tells me that you don't live in a cabin you built yourself from wood that you cut your self on an island set apart from the mainland. You are a member of society and you benefit from a well-educated society. Do you really think you get nothing in return? Seriously?
Why should only those with children pay for a benefit we all enjoy?
Your worldview is quite limited and guided by greed.
There so much about our tax code that is simply insane. Yet nothing ever really happens.
John, I call BS on that remark. No one hates success or money, just money gotten by paper pushing frauds in the investment industry or trust fund babies etc.
Single people of all sexual orientations are ignored in most tax breaks in this counttry.
But, I don't dislike success, and I don't see taxes as penalties for your success. That is a total strawman argument. Emotionally effective, but lame.
Also, the "What's in it for me?" mentality is part of the problem that led us into the economic crisis. That root is greed.
With greater success comes greater responsibility. Those at the higher end of the economic spectrum have a moral obligation to those of us down low (I am now unemployed and have been for 6 months).
Additionally, this stimulus package is designed (albeit flawed) to stimulate the economy. It seems to me that this endeavor is good for everyone. Everyone's success is greater in a growing economy.
I pay a premium to WALK everywhere, go to the world's greatest museums and entertainment, whenever I want. So while there may be programs that should take cost of living into consideration, I would not trade places with the people in rural PA.
I am deaf. I lost my hearing while I fell through the cracks in the safety net. I got sick while I was insured. While I was trying to get a diagnosis, my insurance lapsed (COBRA) and doctors stopped treating me. Yes, they told me "no money, no care" even though I was clearly about to die. I survived, but I lost my hearing. It took me two years to finally get on disability. Now I'm on SSI disability. I live on $674 (up from $637) a month, plus food stamps. No matter where you live in the US, that's not a lot of money. Try living on that.
I agree that we should not pay for banker's vacations, office decorations, or airplanes. Please do not begrudge me my extra ten bucks a month. I would like to eat meat every once in a while.
calm down and look around you
we are all hurting
Your screed sounds painfully similar to Rush Limbaugh. Perhaps some OxyContin should be added to your list of normally ingested pharmaceuticals.
While I fully concur with your assessment of the foolishness of tax policies that do not take into consideration the cost of living, it should be pointed out that the federal government must include these provisions in its compensation agreements or it would be unable to attract qualified people to fill positions. And the federal government doesn't have the choice left open to private enterprise to locate all of its operations in less costly geographic locations. It must serve people where they live.
I'm particularly distressed by your whining about student loans. Your loan payments are in return for something of value you received. You certainly had other alternatives. You could have pursued a career as a "fry station manager" at McDonald's, or as a greeter at Wal-Mart and avoided the cost of a college education. You might also have selected to choose a less expensive institution for your undergraduate studies, including, perhaps, community and technical colleges that cost far less than four-year institutions.
As a gay man who's frequently observed the unfairness of tax policies that benefit families, I'm also appreciative of the freedom I have to pursue my own interests without the obligation of having to worry about caring for children and their incumbent expenses. I would never trade places with any of my heterosexual siblings whose lives have been guided and restricted by their familial responsibilities.
This blog frequently - almost incessantly - promotes mass transit as an Utopian objective. Generally, I agree that more funding should be funneled into mass transit projects and high-speed rail, and that such projects could contribute significantly to improving our environment while cutting the cost of transportation. Yet mass transit and high-speed rail would have little direct impact on the 60,000,000 people who reside in rural areas of our nation who rely almost exclusively upon highways to get to their jobs, retail establishments, homes, and medical facilities, and to transport the products of their labor to urban markets.
Like you, I favor smarter urban and suburban planning, with greater density preferable to the sprawl we've been encouraging over the past century. Yet, just as you prefer living in an expensive, urban area, there are tens of millions of people who do not share that preference and who long to live less congested lives. Given that our nation has so much land, and there really is a need to populate even the most remote areas if we're to achieve and sustain national connectivity, I'm more than willing to accommodate those who are willing to live in the wilderness, however one might define that term.
Inherent in nationhood is a social contract that is always evolving yet must somehow include all of its people. The needs of each individual and/or segment of the population are not always identical, nor do they demand the same priority. Currently, our entire financial system is threatened, and should it completely collapse, ALL OF US will pay an enormous cost. Thus, the priority must be on stabilizing the system, which means stimulating the economy. That can best be achieved by funneling money and resources to a maximum number of people and entities, which given our demographics, means supporting families.
I'm not sure who it is you're referring to as the "people who have rather cushy jobs, guaranteed paychecks, and unlimited health", but I suspect that you're hinting at government employees, since that's the complaint I continually hear from conservatives at town hall meetings who are critical of government employees' wages and benefits.
Moreover, I don't see that Obama is recommending any tax increases for people who fall within your earnings level. Accordingly, I'm not sure how you can conclude that you're paying for anything. It seems to me that Obama's intent is to borrow the money, not tax you or others like you. And to pay the bill his strategy seems to be to spread the cost among the highest earners, who are also the greatest beneficiaries of our system of government, and to gradually inflate away some of the long-term expenses, in effect repaying the mountain of debt with cheaper dollars. That is, one should note, how we managed the enormous debt that arose from World War II.
However, look: by any stretch of the imagination, you're doing well. Those students loans you took out were your choice and the investment you made to make as much money you do now. You choose to live in DC rather than Gaithersburg or Baltimore. Can we kindly take a bit of personal responsibility for our own choices in life?
Could John meet Rahn Emanuel in 15 minutes at Union Station coffee shop if John lived in Gaithersburg?
I'd need at least 25% more just to live in DC!!
Maybe next year they'll add the $300.00 sequin speedo's tax credit to the tax code.
But enough cattiness, if you really want that child tax credit, you can always adopt.
Just please oh please, stop with the victim politics!
"too gay". Jeezus!
I don't agree with very many of your opinions, but I think you are spot on here. Even though you will catch a lot of flak from many liberals.
When I was well off, I saw incidents of poverty and need, and occasionally sent off a check, but still complained about my co-pays on insurance, and what things cost, and the inequities I saw in how I was treated. The big picture really doesn't swim into view--into clarity--until you lose everything. That makes you deeply aware of the humanity of others and exquisitely sensitive to the pain and misfortune of others.
A (relatively) good life insulates you--and when stories appear like the one yesterday, the 93-year-old man who died, frozen in his home in Wisconsin because the Electric company shut off his power--when I was well-off, I would have been touched and outraged, but it really wouldn't have stayed with me long. I would have moved on to complain about my car insurance, or some other event that immediately concerned me. Now that I'm sliding toward poverty and have no health insurance or security (or much hope, for that matter), these stories affect me more deeply--and linger in my mind--because I see the hard times so much more clearly than I did. I'm fairly certain I have skin cancer--but there's nothing I can do about it at this point--and there's 20,000 people who die a year in this country because they have no access to health care.
John's reaction is totally human--and I wouldn't be too hard on him. In his way, he's just wanting less financial worry and freedom from stressing over his health. He wants what we all want--a little more equity and fairness and the ability to live comfortably in a just society. It's just being seen through the lens of his own life--and that's what we all do. In the long run, the good that John does makes up for a little crankiness over personal difficulties.
My two kopeks worth...
I have made the same mistake as you...your commenters for the most part will skewer you if you represent yourself as an overtaxed working man with no benefits. Be careful...they can get ugly.
"You know," Kurt said to Saul, "the speaker has made more on one trade than you or I have on the sales of all our books.'
"True enough," said Saul, "but I've got one thing he'll never have.'
"What's that?" Vonnegut wondered.
"I've got enough," Saul Bellow said, "and that speaker never will."
son's cell phone dropped in glass of orange soda ($100)
Co-pay on my new prescription ($45)
New tire for car ($99)
knowing that no matter how much or how little I have, it is always "enough".....PRICELESS
So, they get paid more to work in a city, but they also get taxed more because their salary is more, which is more or less how the private sector works.
No?
I will never understand the "...some in the base of the Democratic party hate money and success. They think anyone who has busted their butt and made it in this country deserve to be punished, or at least shunned" thinking.
Nothing in my experience even suggests this meme.
But beyond that -- and that would require a far greater overhaul of the tax policy than a fast stimulus package would accomplish -- I think John's whining is exactly that. This stimulus bill isn't about who wins and who loses, who makes money out of it and who doesn't. The whole approach is (supposed to be, at least) about rising the tide to raise all boats.
Furthermore, Washington DC receives $5.55 in federal spending for every $1 paid in federal income tax -- whereas New York state receives only $0.79 in federal spending for every $1 we pay in federal taxes (according to: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/...). This isn't a fair apples-to-apples comparison, of course, given the huge number of federal employees centered by necessity in Washington -- though we've got quite a few here in NYC, too, if not not nearly as many. But I'm still willing to bet that more of my federal tax dollars go to support John's streets, subway, schools, police force, fire department, etc., than his go to support mine. I'm fine with that, given that DC is a special case as US cities go (and doesn't even have representation in Congress that can vote on tax and spending bills), but it also doesn't make me feel too sympathetic toward gripes by a Washington DC resident that he's somehow "left out" of the stimulus package.
Take a look at the subways in most major US cities then go look at the DC Metro and tell me who's getting a better deal.
Cleveland too
Most of your $5.55 is actually going to the Maryland and Virginia suburbs.
And while some or most of that $5.55 may be going home to the Maryland and Virginia suburbs, it's not the same thing. Because Maryland itself gets $1.30 in federal spending for every $1 paid in federal taxes and Virginia gets $1.51 for every $1 in federal taxes. Both of those would include people who live in the suburbs but work in DC (because their federal taxes would be counted as coming from MD or VA, not from DC).
So, whether we're discussing DC, VA or MD compared to other states, they all still get more of my federal tax dollars paid from here in New York than my state gets from the taxpayers there. Not counting DC, the top ten biggest states on the federal take are:
1. New Mexico
2. Mississippi
3. Alaska
4. Louisiana
5. West Virginia
6. North Dakota
7. Alabama
8. South Dakota
9. Kentucky
10. Virginia.
This is as of 2005, the last year the Tax Foundation has data for. Of those states, only New Mexico and Virginia voted for the "big spending" Barack Obama. IN FACT, among all the 32 states (plus DC) shown as getting more from the federal trough than they pay in, 63% went for McCain in the election (and, yes, I counted Nebraska as only 2/3s a Republican state, since 1 of its electoral votes went for Obama). Of the 18 states that pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending, 94% went for Obama. Of these, only Texas, which gets $0.94 for every dollar paid in federal taxes, went Republican in the last election.
South Dakota, another state with a small population, along with North Dakota and Oklahoma, have large concentrations of Native Americans living on reservations and receiving federal monetary support. Other Western States such as Wyoming, Nevada, Montana, New Mexico and Colorado also benefit in terms of federal dollars because of defense facilities.
I suppose that if you'd like more federal dollars to come to your state you might want to encourage it by recruiting a military base or two. Or perhaps a nuclear waste facility, or a few federal prisons.
Every time base cuts are discussed, every congressman and Senator try to keep the ones in their states.
Why is that? They're economic engines. So, yes, it is federal money that helps these states.
(Though I'm not saying I believe your premise. I'd have to see for myself before I believe these estimates do, in fact, include military bases.)
You cannot complain that DC pays no state taxes and then ignore that it has all the costs of a state, costs which it must finance through its revenue structure. For all practical purposes, and most federal laws, DC is a state.
It's also true that most federal salaries paid in Washington DC go home every night to Maryland and Virginia. Your statistics are inaccurate.
Wealth should be based on the amount of square footage and acreage a person or family inhabits, with the exception of farmland of certain acreages. There is no viable reason that developments in new--or even existing--communities should be the current standard of bloated, oversized houses on bloated, oversized lots. The maintenence of the lawns alone is an environmental disaster, not to mention the need for cheap fuel and plentiful highways and streets to get anywhere.
We pay outrageous taxes and high property values in Chicago and other cities, and see little in return. Littered streets, bad schools, poor city services, and subway stops that look and smell like sewers. All for sharing a foundation and a roof on an outrageously tiny and expensive city lot with 2 other families with no green space to speak of. The suburbs have it all, at the expense of the cities. What a sham. For those of us who do it anyway, it's because our jobs or our lives depend on it, or because we see the raping of natural wilderness and farmlands as deplorable.
The tax code needs to be re-written, and the way taxes are spent needs to be re-evalutated. Standards of density that have existed in cities around the globe for centuries need to become the norm again.
Now there's a policy I can agree with.
I would like to benefit, but my next door neighbor is unemployed, with a nonsupportive husband, a housepayment, and two ravenous teenaged sons. And there are a lot of seniors in my neighborhood, some on good pensions from the railroad, some not doing so well. It's snowing heavily and these people are all at grave risk of slip and fall in the winter, and the city doesn't have money to do sidewalks. And down the street is an apartment complex where the state has housed a lot of Mental Health clients who need to be bussed to a ball game now and then. These people all need some help.
Today I made a phone call and signed on with a seasonal employer for $110 a day for the spring and summer weekends. I used to make four times this much. But I'm too old to get hired at that level now. I have a half time job, making peanuts but getting half my health insurance paid for, and I'm grateful to have it. I don't go to nice restaurants any more, do takeout, buy new clothes except when something critical falls apart, or go to the south of France on vacation (way more important than new clothes). My retirement is 40% smaller and I'll be working past my planned retirement age. But still, there are people much worse off than me in my neighborhood. I have a house (a house!), paid for. A car, paid for. And a tenant, God bless my tenant.
Still, I'd love to get some money out of this......I promise to spend it on locally made products....
And what is it with claiming that student loans helped and so Joh should shut up? Yeh, they did help. They better. But it does not mean John wasted whatever he made as a result. These loans are huge today. It takes years to pay off. And these student loans create jobs that drive the economy.
Bottom line - I will spend what is left. If I have nothing left - well, too bad for economy. My bills are exactly the same. Dollar for dollar. Mortgage is the same, student loans are the same, food is the same. If that package does not help me lower my spending budget - I am out of the game, I am not playing. maybe somebody else making $8-10/hour should buy that car or washer, or maybe even a house.
Since you posted the Peanuts cartoon yesterday, I think this is a good time to bring up the quote from "A Charlie Brown Christmas": "All I want is what's coming to me. All I want is my fair share." You sound just like Sally right about now.
I actually stopped contributing to AmericaBlog after I read that ridiculous post of yours about telling your friend not to come out of the bathroom until either he or the grasshopper (or cicada or whatever it was) was dead. I never understood why you didn't just have your friend get the damn thing and put it outside. Yet, a few months down the line you were there screaming at the top of your little voice about Sarah Palin killing turkeys. A higher life form, I suppose. But I digress...
And, yes, you do go to Paris once a year or more. I also seem to recall a trip to Greece for what was it--three weeks?--in the not-too-distant past. That's great you get to travel so much. And all that stuff about being good at finagling free trips? Sounds like the same kind of "spin" that you are constantly decrying. It seems to me like you've got it pretty good, John, certainly better than a lot of folks right now. So kwitcher bitching.
My sugggestion is that the next time there is one of these stimulus package situations, that you write your screed and read it over as many times as you need to so that you can feel better. Then throw it out. Please don't demean yourself by posting that crap. I will need to see a helluva lot more than a disclaimer of "It's not about me," for me to believe that that is indeed what it is about, and all it is about. It's stuff like this post, and the one you wrote last year about not getting what was coming to you, that make me ashamed to be a liberal.
Another 15% of the population is NOT WORKING, because they are too old.
Another few percent (anyone got these numbers?) is not working because they are disabled.
That leaves, say about 60% of the population in the labor pool.Take out a good chunk of that who are home with preschool children, working in the home.
So let's say 55% of the population is eligible to work. 8% of that group is unemployed but seeking work (some labor experts say adding the "discouraged" to that makes real unemployed about16%.) So let's say 10% times 55% subtracted from 55% means actually about 50% of the population is employed.
Maybe three quarters of these have disposable income (meaning you have money to go to a movie or out to eat or for a drink or even to buy a car). We're down to about 37% of the population with money to spend now (over a hundred million people, folks) but they aren't doing so. Will a stimulus check cause them to run to Starbuck's or Burberry's or autoshowrooms? I don't think so. I think it's psychological. The confidence thing. When people feel safe again, they will spend.
The saving going on right now is a good thing, and perhaps a long term behaviour change. We don't need stimulus checks, we need to bring back manufacturing and the hope of a future paycheck. It's the rising tide that floats all boats. Or as my former governor used to say, the best social program is a good job.
I'm just so sick of hearing people whine about how "the government is giving MY money to THOSE people." The way I see things, that attitude is directly responsible for much of the mess government has become.
"I know some in the base of the Democratic party hate money and success."
I've been a Democrat in a Democratic city with Democratic friends all my life but have never met a Democrat who hated money and success. I mean more money means more drugs and abortions, amirite?
Do you have any idea just how repulsive these posts are? Grow up.
And the marriage breaks and child breaks kind of annoy me too.
Trouble is, half the single, childless people don't want to stay that way, so it's impossible to build a political power base with them.
So, there ya go...
Do you really want the human race to die out? If not, then don't complain about women giving birth because it's going to happen whether or not you approve.
Human beings on this planet are breeding like rabbits on Viagra. The schools are overcrowded and the health care system overtaxed. My local county, for example, is building new schools every year, adding trailers to the existing ones, and they still cannot keep up. I've even heard of classes being held in janitor's closets.
By *NOT* having kids, I'm actually HELPING society...yet I have to pay higher taxes than the folks too lazy to use birth control? That's not just unfair...it's completely illogical.
IF the birth rate was significantly low, you may have a point. But it is not....population is skyrocketing by the day. Yet we keep rewarding those who make it worse.
Child tax credits make sense for those that adopt and perhaps even for those that limit themselves to one, maybe two kids. But for those that just pop out new kids like an assembly line? Stupid, stupid.
This is basically a car payment . What it means that between just putting food on the table and paying his bills leaves him well out of the market for big ticket goods.
Lots of people are in his boat and these are the people that theoretically should be doing well. Blame it on technology or outsourcing or whatever else you like but of we don't even things out, we will have major problems down the line.
And as for the other point about subsidizing kids. I have no kids either but I am OK with paying for them.
Kids are hellishly expensive and if we don't subsidize them people will either not have kids (which if it goes on too long is catastrophic) or they will have poorly educated throwaways, neither of them lead to a good society.
Lastly, as for getting people into crowded cities. No. No. No. Its great for people with authoritarian tendencies who long for people to order around but it kills population replacement. if you can barely afford to live in D.C. what makes you think working class parents can afford to raise quality kids there? Unless wages go up people can't afford to have kids in cities
Well thought out suburbs and exurbs with decent schools are great places to raise kids unlike crowded metros.
Our working people send money to the poor in 3rd world countries..but it really goes to some obscenely rich politico or dictator and used to keep oppressing the people.
It doesn't really matter of they are bad ro good as long as they are government.
Why cant we all have this?
Seriously -- I rarely come across such an immature rant.
In the last decade, I have worked as an actor. It is a vocation I love doing -- something about which I am extremely passionate and for which I have developed a following, a large group of people who support me and want me to continue. But it's a pursuit that doesn't always pay my expenses.
I'd love the luxury of indulgently thinking I should be able to do whatever I want and therefore be insulated from tough choices about my livelihood -- but I'm too reasonable and mature for that.
About 16 months ago I decided my situation required me to put my true wishes on hold while I pursue a more responsible course. I moved to a bigger area where there were more opportunities and got a 9 to 5 job with good health insurance, I'm on hiatus from my acting career until I can create a situation that makes it more sustainable. I miss what I had been working toward -- but I know I am only on hiatus. The choice to pursue something that allows me to live within my means -- and even put some money away in savings for the future -- has been, for lack of a better phrase, very adult.
So, maybe instead of wasting time ranting that you're too special to have to make the hard choices we all face and you're too entitled to have to give up something you've chosen, you ought re-examine your priorities and figure out how to live within your means.
In other words, it's time to grow up.
Because I took money from my 401K, at it's depleted value, and since that is counted as "earnings" for the year, my taxes were based on a high income. My partner did not pay taxes. Neither of us got the rebate and for the same reason neither of us will get a tax break under the new proposed relief.
I feel like I am screwed any way I turn. I am trying to work more doing retirement consulting stuff, but it gets me screwed up with even more taxes. If we were married under the tax law, we would collect the max under the rules.
Anyone got an idea here?
More rants, please.
Which I'm sure in his mind is the same thing.
I'm a small buisness owner who is also not getting any breaks. And I don't care. What I DO care weather the plan is effective in jump starting the economy as a whole. If I get a cookie, its a bonus-- but I'm certainly not going to piss and moan if I don't.
Can we do "trickle-up" for a change?
There is nothing for me either, but I did not expect there to be anything in it for me. My husband and I make a good living, we have only one child and two credit cards between us. Our house is small, but we live below our means and always have we regulary save money. We took two family vacations together last year and we are doing ok. This stimulus is not for us. I have told my friends who are in similiar situations to spend more to help out the economy. I'm going to the salon to get my hair and nails done and my car washed this weekend so that when the economy does recover we will still have these small businesses in my neighborhood. My daughter and husband love to bowl, so they are keeping their membership in their league so that the bowling alley will survive along with the employees . Stop whining...
People are scolding you, saying you have just about everything, so
you should appreciate it all instead of complaining.
Let's talk about something which you DON'T have, but many of your readers DO have (being older and somewhat wiser):
FEAR.
1.Fear of finding out you have some 'pre-existing' medical condition
(like HIV, for me, in 1984), so you maybe can't get health insurance, ever. Plus, how long will you live? 5 years? 10 years? I'm still here
That's 24 years. Of a death sentence hanging over you.
2. Fear when you lose your job (if you DID get insurance) that you'll never get insurance again, since you have a 'pre-existing' condition
3.Fear, onc e you have lost your insurance, how will you get medical treatment, blah blah blah.. so you go to 'free clinics.'
4. FEAR- after working for yourself as a contractor for years, using 'free clinics' for your treatment.. you end up in the hospital one night with
serious intestinal problems. Will they admit you?
5. FEAR: sure, they admitted you, but you must have immediate surgery to remove 12 inches of rotted intestines, due to undiagnosed CANCER.
Who knew? The Free Clinic sure didn't think to test for it earlier.
6. Fear- of the coming 6 months of Chemotherapy, something that NO ONE EVER WANTS TO GO THROUGH.
(Oh, also, fear... who's going to pay for it?)
7. Oh, I forgot-- Fear of not being able to breathe, if you just HAPPEN to get pneumonia during your hospital stay, and they have to jam a breathing tube down your throat. Complications, you know...
8. Fear: Let's say you are on an SSI Disability now, and generous Medi-Cal (you'd be dead by now if you were living in Georgia or Alabama, and had Medi-caid.. just ask any nurse))..
You're actually too weak to even have fear-- that takes energy. Chemo-
therapy leaves you totally helpless and weak. . What if something happened to your partner, who's taking care of you.. you can't drive, cook, even walk, during Chemotherapy. You can barely watch TV
or read eMails. It's no picnic. Oh yeah-- you aren't working,
so there's no money to EAT. That's okay, because during chemo,
you don't want to eat.
9. Fear of what will happen for the future.. you are recovering from cancer, you are UNINSURABLE, you must pay your rent based on a
$650/month disability SSi payment, and you can no longer afford to
live in your city (Los ANgeles) because all the rents are sky-high,
and everyone else is a millionaire,
and you are already late every month (my rent was $1200.m, split between my partner and me).
That means my whole SSI check went for my share of the rent, except for $40 (yay!).
10. Fear of if .. and when the cancer will return, and how I'll get treatment
next time around (I had been lucky enough to be enrolled in a "study"
the first time around)
11. The fear my mother felt, 15 years ago-- she was a 40-year Blue Cross health insurance customer, and ONE time, her bill payment
was late or lost, or something. They dropped her. FORTY YEARS
of paying on-time. Know what happened next?
Her doctor found a "lump". Sooo... she scrounged for cancer treatment, found something, some research study again, involving getting on a plane to D.C. every two weeks, and vomiting all the way back;
went through it by herself (I can't imagine how), and she's fine to this day,
however, she is UN-INSURABLE.
------------------------------------------
You're young. You'll land on your feet, whatever happens. ANd, you have connections.
Stop complaining.
I .. today....have a choice between heating gas this week, or groceries. After reading your post, I blew the money on BBQ ribs, a bottle of
wine, and fancy beer for my partner. To hell with heating gas, to hell with groceries. What's the point? Should've got one of those fake mortgages
you blame for everything, then walked away... hell, they would have taken the house away anyway, for the emergency surgery ($80,000?)
and the six months of chemo ($125,0000?)
I can build a house, rebuild an engine, light and costume an entire theatrical production, and once, I could even write well. I'm not much older than you. Get some perspective on what's going on outside of D.C., please.
Meanwhile, listen to your commenters. They are a thoughtful, wise bunch. I hope they all don't leave after this. Your post was not up to your usual standards, and you should print an apology to your readers.
sr
What does federal locality pay have to do with anything you've said? i usually agree with you on everything, but you are totally off base on this one.
Locality pay is NOT "hardship pay". You are totally ignorant. It was set as the cost of labor in specific regions. Labor costs more (and it costs more to live) in certain areas. The cost of living is higher in Hawaii and the Bay Area and Alaska than many areas, so those locality rates are higher. Do you think it's fair to pay some people doing the same job in Kansas City the same as those in San Francisco? They used to do that and it didn't work.
Locality pay was set by leglislation and studies years ago and is only adjusted each year.
And before you get excited about your healthcare, I am a Fed and because i wear an artificial limb, I have to pay out of pocket 20% of the cost every two years for a new one (they wear out). The copayment went from 10% to 20%. The limb costs around $15000, you do the math. And you consider my pay "hardship". Screw that. I ain't getting rich and I still pay 30% of my health care premium to boot.
I'm all in favor of you getting what you need in spite of your singling out my group as if we are living the high life.
1) they aren't able to help themselves
2) they will be paying your retirement
Deprive them and see how well you do in your later years.
Hello John! Other people have justly taken you to task for whining. I want to point out that the line above is a Republican talking point and it is a lie. If not, please show me some of these Democrats.
I've spent 30 years working in non-profits helping people with HIV, the disabled, environmentalists, and so on. I have $80,000 in my 401-K and NO PENSION. I've been around lots of lefty Dems - I am one myself - actually, I'm a pinko fag - and I think you should be ashamed of yourself for encouraging people to think that there are Democrats who "hate success." What's next? Will you talk about who's a Real American and who's not? Or who "hates America?"
Sheesh
Please don't be honest in the future. Your readers can't deal with it. It makes them irritable. Also, to all you commenting who are pointing out that they are the poor people who are sick or cant get a job or pay their bills etc etc etc....get off the internet and focus on making more money somehow or another job or something. I live in memphis...one of the nastiest low income places i have ever been==anyone can go out and get a job here...it just takes the will. Also, if you people are so poor and needy then why are you on the internet??? Are you paying the monthly service fee or pirating?? If you are paying the bill I suggest you cut that luxury out of your life and pay some of the other bills you are whining about.
Wow! Great advice Sparky. I, too, live in a city in California. I can't afford to buy a house, yet John can. Does that mean HE is a harder worker than I? hahahahaha
OK, if you want to make this personal, then consider this: *I* raised 3 children, mostly by myself. Did John? I had NO student loans. Why did John? Why was he paying off a loan for a JD degree, when he doesn't use it? I don't jet off to Europe at least once a year. Why does John? (I could go farther but will stop now.)
Bottom Line: I don't begrudge John what he does or buys; those are HIS choices. but why does HE do this? I am not, nor ever have I ever been, on welfare. I live within my means, which are rather low, since my stroke happened right as my baby graduated from high school. I would have loved to help my kids out with their college costs, but couldn't. I would love to jet off to Europe even once! Much less once a year. But I can't.
Just know that you do NOT know everything about everyone. So spare us the "advice" of not paying for the internet if we are having a hard time. For your information, my roommate pays for the internet, not me. He needs it for his business, and I use it because it IS free for me.
When you start lecturing others, just remember, you really DON'T know everything, although you seem to think you do.
Eh...who should be? If the poor pay for it, they are only going to break even. Where's the stimulus in that?
Mercy, already. America's working "poor" - big dreamers, hard workers, always striving for better - have been literally raped, robbed, stabbed, and beaten for their last few dollars over the past 20 years, especially so in the last 8. The fact that it has not been Democrats leading the band on that tune, is somehow cause to despise Democrats? Where's the logic? And to further imply that Democrats are constantly successful in getting more entitlements for the "poor" -- well, so where are they? Safety nets are virtually nonexistent. And if you want to talk entitlements, well - these days, that's only for the rich, the landed, the landlord, and the financial schemer, and precious few others.
The way I see it, if you're not on the list, in Republicanville you're simply screwed, as you plainly see.
On the other hand, in Demville, if you ask those who get some stimulus benefits, for a few bucks from each of us so you CAN get your medicine, do you think Dems would actually help you?
So there you go. If we get the money, you benefit. Imagine how flush you'd be if we got ALL the trillions OF OUR OWN MONEY that were simply poured down the gaping maw of the wealth-worshipping cabal, for no one's benefit but their own. We are generous and kind, and they are not. We deserve it, and they don't. Unfortunately you are caught in the middle, but as long as we are getting something, we will try to make sure that those like you, if you have a need, will be taken care of too. That is the true Democratic spirit, that you would call success-hating?
Aw, hopefully you were just having a good gripe, and stirring up a little contrary stew on a frigging cold day.
Eventually I decided I wanted a better standard of living so I moved out of NYC and now I am in Phoenix with a house, 2 cars, a big screen TV and I live a very comfortable suburban life under the same basic income. I miss NYC but I also enjoy the higher standard of living where I am.
John, your perceived need for the stimulus plan is not the result of your need for survival. It is the need to stay in the condo in the expensive city you live in. If you lived somewhere else you would have more money to spend and any suggestion of needing bailout money would be a joke.
I don't think blogging and lawyering are urban dependent lines of work. You have a right to live in the city of your choice but you don't have the right to do it without feeling an economic pinch.
The fact the the government pays differently in different places is a red herring in my view. Many employees don't have a choice where they are sent to live. You do.
My husband and I are "rich" too -- crammed into a tiny little apartment mostly because we didn't want a massive commute into the city every day because we wanted to reduce our carbon footprint. Could we have afforded a big house in the suburbs, with two flat screen TV's, two cars, etc? Yes... but we didn't because we wanted to avoid putting more fossil fuels into the air. We pay a ton of money for a TIIIINY little apartment... but don't forget, we're rich. And since we don't have kids, we pay more in taxes and we don't get shit from the tax code. Oh, and don't get married folks. When you get married, you pay EVEN MORE in taxes, so it's better to live in sin. Welcome to America. We are not rich. Not by a long shot.