Wooh! Another Bush stimulus package

[miel]

Break out the champagne, rich people, some money is comin' your way!

I remember the last one has a complete write off for business equipment over a certain weight and the Hummer dealers in the city where I grew up actually ran out of Hummers because the businesspeople were buying them as write offs.

It worked for a little while...I guess. It would have been a little nicer to help out the poor people but the rich people need help too, right?

[thedoorchick]

In what way doesn't this help the poor? (Other than not giving a refund to people who didn't incur and pay the taxes initially).

In terms the refund in terms of of percentage of taxes paid, it will be an enormous impact to poor and middle income folks, and a miniscule impact to the wealthy.

As for the section 179 expensing, all I have to say is that someone who buys a huge vehicle they don't need, just so they can expense it, is not the sharpest knife.......People just don't understand that spending money just to have a tax deduction, still sets you back more than you were before. Unfortunately, two mostly unrelated tax laws converged there to form the Bermuda triangle. The expanded section 179 deduction should have had some sort of exclusion for street-use motor vehicles, IMO.

[KGif]

I too am confused as to why you are implying that "rich people" are the only ones who will be benefiting here. I can certainly entertain a debate on the effectiveness of the package .... but unless I am missing something I don't see how the rebate applies to the rich only. Off to do some more research ...

[LyLMyssChaos]

As a "poor" person, I was quite pleased with the last package that was put through and I am very optimistic about this one. I really think it's antiquated stereotyping to imply that just because a Republican is involved that it will be "anti-poor." That really isn't the case. Republicans are not anti-poor, they just have a different idea of how to help.

[diam124]

The last time this happened I was single and living paycheck to paycheck (although I certainly would not have considered myself poor - I just lived in an expensive area and had a crappy job). I remember that I was thrilled to get that refund so I could pay off some debt.

[laura]

I'm confused, too, why you say this only benefits rich people? And also, what would you suggest as an alternative? A refund only for people who make under $X?

I don't remember the details as they pertain to me personally last time this happened. Does anyone know off hand what year that was? ETA: Nevermind, it was 2001.

[KGif]

Laura - I believe it was in 2001.

[pocket]

Last time I got $300 and I made around 35K at the time and had no deductions to speak of. Ya-f'ing-hoo. I just don't think that this really has much of an impact on the economy. Since we are already in debt up to our eyeballs, all it does it increase our debt. It's just moving around the deck chairs on the titanic. the problem is that the housing bubble burst, we don't make anything here anymore, and we are bleeding money into Iraq at $20 million a day. It's just a feel-good. Structurally we are still F'ed.

[thedoorchick]

If anybody doesn't want their rebate because they think it's too piddly to matter, they can feel free to send it to me. I'll spend it. :D

I totally understand the concerns about the national debt and to be frank I have those concerns as well. I do not necessarily think this a good idea, all things considered. However, that is a totally different issue than whether "only the rich" will benefit from this.

[jennylou]

I'm not against it, in the least. :D While some people will go spend it on crap (how many remember what they spent their 2001 check on? I do - I got tires to replace my bald ones), I won't be.

I've heard it could be as much as $800, though more likely to be $500. No matter the number, I'll take it. :)

[pocket]

Honestly, I think mostly people will spend it and not even think for a second that they might as well just endorse the back and mail it straight to China. So we just depress the dollar even more. Get real. I do think that a few hundred is not that much and won't really make a big difference. We are just taking out yet another loan on our overdrawn account.

[meganth]

The only thing i'm confused about is where the hell the money will come from to fund this rebate.

[pocket]

The only thing i'm confused about is where the hell the money will come from to fund this rebate.

from your kids. it's coming straight out of your kids' pockets.

[Delta]

I also am confused as to how this helps the rich only?

Also, Congress is in the hands of the Democrats and so any final package is up to them and they've already agreed to most of what Bush has suggested so you can take it up with them, too.

Also, this rebate thing is stupid. I say just leave it alone and let the business cycle work. But politically they have to do something because government has to rescue us all.

[Dally]

I like getting a check as much as the next person, but it feels like the gov is trying to buy our affections instead of addressing real economic issues. How can we afford to give so much money back when we are in debt and the war is costing us so much? Answer: we can't afford it.

[miel]

OK, I was being snarky. A little snark for a late afternoon pick me up!

I can't get into whether or not Republicans care about the poor. I'd say their policies do not help the poor. The gap between rich and poor has never been larger and wages are stagnant so let's just say they have helped the rich quite a lot. I was not kidding about the Hummers. People got tax write offs for buying Hummers and some of the dealerships ran out of Hummers at the end of the year as everyone rushed to buy them for a tax write off. Is this actually the best way to stimulate the economy? I'd rather see infrastructure projects that would create jobs or something useful that actually had a long term effect. Give teachers a pay raise or give old people some more money in their social security checks. Maybe hire a bunch of police. Crime is up. Spread some money around to cities and states to hire more police or firemen. I can think of a whole bunch of things better than giving already wealthy people gigantic tax breaks. Even buying computers for schools, etc. And don't think these are somehow more costly. They are not more costly. The Hummers cost the government money just the same. in lost tax revenue. Give soldiers a pay hike. Whatever.

No, I didn't benefit but my parents did. They have a lot more money than I do. The Bush tax cuts are partly responsible for their ability to buy a vacation home and they aren't complaining about their vacation home but they sure do wish he wasn't president. Unfortunately for the American economy, their vacation home is not in the United States.

[larslobster]

The article I read said that the rebates will most likely only be for individuals making less than $80,000 or couples making less than $110,000. That's hardly helping the rich - they won't get a rebate at all.

I do think the rebates are a completely asanine idea that the White House and Congress are throwing out there as a temporary fix to try to keep us out of recession until after the election. If they really think throwing people a few hundred dollars will fix the huge fundamental problems in our current economy that are heading us towards recession, they're completely clueless.

[Sha259]

Count me in in thinking that this is just a last ditch feel-good effort by the govt. I really don't see how this is going to "give a shot in the arm" to the economy. First off, with the way that this economy is going, they might get more people saving it instead of spending it. And if they do spend it, what happens next? Secondly, how long do they really think $1600 goes in a middle class family household?

Quote:
Originally Posted by meganth
The only thing i'm confused about is where the hell the money will come from to fund this rebate.

from your kids. it's coming straight out of your kids' pockets.


This makes me soooo :mad:
My chances of retiring comfortably are basically toast. Not only am I paying for a war that I didn't want, and paying into a Social Security system that probably wont even exist when I'm 65, but I'll have to pay for this eventually too. Just peachy...:rolleyes:

[laura]

Well I think $1600 could/would go pretty far for some people.

But I'm wondering if anyone has any data on whether or not this "boost" in 2001 actually had any effect on the economy, dramatic or otherwise? I assume yes or they wouldn't be proposing it again, but does anyone know?

[pocket]

Why would you assume that the Administration makes decisions that are based on logic, governance and actually helping people? They don't care about you at all. They show their contempt for us in every decision they make. They care about pumping a little short term cash into the economy so that the recession is pushed back a quarter and becomes the next Administration's problem. It's nothing but raising the limit on the credit card.

[Delta]

My chances of retiring comfortably are basically toast. Not only am I paying for a war that I didn't want, and paying into a Social Security system that probably wont even exist when I'm 65, but I'll have to pay for this eventually too. Just peachy...But it's not the government's job to provide for your retirement.

But I'm wondering if anyone has any data on whether or not this "boost" in 2001 actually had any effect on the economy, dramatic or otherwise? I assume yes or they wouldn't be proposing it again, but does anyone know?Not really, but the tax cuts in 2003 did.
Why would you assume that the Administration makes decisions that are based on logic, governance and actually helping people? They don't care about you at all. They show their contempt for us in every decision they make. They care about pumping a little short term cash into the economy so that the recession is pushed back a quarter and becomes the next Administration's problem. It's nothing but raising the limit on the credit card.I'll try to ignore the hyperbole here and just say I don't agree with this 'stimulus package' at all but the Democrats are just as eager for it as Bush so why is it all his fault (again)? I do think that a big part of it is not wanting to be blamed for not doing anything about it like his dad was blamed (and I obviously don't think that's a great reason either.)

Also, Miel - The rebates will most likely go to people who don't pay ANY income taxes at all and the income limit is probably going to be capped at 110k for couples and 85k for individuals. And they'll probably also include the business equipment writeoffs because it gets businesses to spend money and create/protect jobs, etc.

[thedoorchick]

I was going to comment on some posts but I see Delta came in and did it for me so let's just say I agree 100% with her comments, no big surprise. :)

[ginadc]

But it's not the government's job to provide for your retirement.

Since when is paying 7.5% of our annual incomes into Social Security (or 15% for those of us who are self-employed and don't have employers to pay for the other half) having the government pay for our retirement? Last I looked, I earned that 15%, not the government. I'm not asking them to pay me a thing I didn't earn. I am more than willing to have "my" FICA taxes sustain the retirement of a current generation, but then they damn well better sustain Social Security for future generations.

Or is your point that you think we should just abolish Social Security?

[Niobe]

But it's not the government's job to provide for your retirement.

It's not? Then why am I paying so damn much to Social Security?

[Delta]

Sha said that her chances of retiring comfortably were toast. But if you are counting on the government to provide you with a comfortable retirement, then I'd have to say you are toast. If all Americans have that attitude then I'd say we are all toast. I guess they call them "entitlements" for a reason. And my point was much bigger than Social Security. We should all feel responsible for our own retirements.

I do think the SS system needs an overhaul, though not necessarily an abolishment. It's not sustainable at this rate (though it's nothing compared to Medicare.) Personally, I'd rather the government not confiscate my "retirement" money - if that's what it supposedly is - and hold it for me for 30 years. I'm more than capable of handling it myself. But I guess the government knows better than me?

For my own peace of mind, I am in no way counting on SS to be there for me when I am old, I don't feel entitled to it, and I certainly don't want to burden my kids' generation with it.

PS: Niobe - I am afraid of your signature! ;)

[laura]

I don't feel "entitled" to SS benefits, nor am I relying on them for my retirement, but I do think *something* should be done. Either overhaul the system so it functions for everyone who contributes or stop taking money out of my check. Also, it's possible she meant she is being burdened by losing 7-15% of her income that she is unable to invest personally for her own retirement, with no promise of any future benefits from the government. Over time, that could be a significant difference in comfort level.

This was sort of my question above:

I'll try to ignore the hyperbole here and just say I don't agree with this 'stimulus package' at all but the Democrats are just as eager for it as Bush so why is it all his fault (again)? I do think that a big part of it is not wanting to be blamed for not doing anything about it like his dad was blamed (and I obviously don't think that's a great reason either.)

I assumed there was some actual thought going into the proposal since both sides seem pretty eager about it. But that's obviously my bad for thinking the government possesses any forethought.

[ginadc]

Personally, I'd rather the government not confiscate my "retirement" money - if that's what it supposedly is - and hold it for me for 30 years. I'm more than capable of handling it myself. But I guess the government knows better than me?

Well, I think a lot of us could probably manage our retirement funds better than the government. But Social Security is a safety-net program. It's designed to protect people who cannot or do not save properly for retirement (and there are all kinds of reasons why that might be, not just being a stupid loser who deserves to live on the street in their 70s) from being left destitute when they no longer have earning power.

Say I worked for Enron and bought into the idea that it was a really smart notion to invest all my money back into this company I so believed in. Say I lost all my retirement savings when Enron went bust, and I was already 55 years old. Realistically, how much chance do I have of earning that back in 10 or 12 or even 15 years? At least Social Security offers some measure of protection.

My grandmother worked her butt off her whole life in menial jobs--cleaning, bakery counter, Avon lady, and so on. She had absolutely no pennies left to save. Social Security was pretty much all she lived on after she couldn't work anymore.

There are all kinds of reasons why people, from higher up on the ladder to the bottom, need Social Security. Lots of people think they've made good retirement plans, and it turns out that they aren't as good as they thought they were. And to say "We're only going to take SS from the people we think might really need it" makes no sense. There's no way to predict for sure who will need it. And honestly, it's kind of the same thing as paying taxes that go to school systems. Even if I'm not a parent, I benefit from having good schools in my community that educate children well. And even if I never need Social Security (and could invest that 7.5% or 15% of my income better), the fact that Social Security exists protects all of us from the consequences of thousands or hundreds of thousands of senior citizens having no resources.

[jennylou]

I agree with Ginadc - many people who are using the social security benefits didn't necessarily mishandle their money or fail to plan at all for retirement. My fil has his 401k - it was invested in the stock market - great plan if the market doesn't tank, but it unfortunately has. Add into that the fact that he was forced into early retirement after he was laid off at 61 years old. The only place that would hire him was Sears - for little more than minimum wage.

But, to look at where they have lived the last thirty something years, in a nice area that is in a great school district, you wouldn't exactly peg him as "needing" social security. The fact is, they do need it and will likely have to sell their house within the next year as the 401k money is almost gone.

[Delta]

I understand the point of Social Security so no need for the explanation. I do think we need to raise the retirement age and probably grandfather in cuts or do some sort of privatization.

And point still stands - we all should feel responsible for providing for our own retirement, plan for it, and not just assume the government is going to help. Especially people our age when we can see the problem looming on the horizon and can do something about it for ourselves now.

[ginadc]

So...did Jenny's FIL not plan for his retirement, Delta? Sounds like he did, and circumstances have made those plans unworkable. My grandmother...well, she honestly didn't have a lot of time/room/ability to plan for retirement. She was just working to keep her head above water her entire life.

You say you don't need such things explained to you, but when you blithely dismiss the issue as "we all need to plan better," it sounds like you don't understand or don't care much about the situations of a wide variety of people who either have planned and seen those plans shot to hell, or who haven't had a free penny to plan with.

And I really don't think believing that we deserve to get back the $$ we've paid into SS is "assuming the government is going to help." Getting back money we've rightfully earned is not getting "help" from the government.

[phoenics]

Does anyone know of the details of the rebate? Is there a salary cap?

[Niobe]

Especially people our age when we can see the problem looming on the horizon and can do something about it for ourselves now.

Well, that's presumptive. What about people who can't do something about it now, because right now, they are trying to put food on the table and keep the rent paid? They're still paying into Social Security, why is it so wrong to expect the money they are paying in to be returned to them when they need it? You are in a position to put money away, but you are very fortunate and should probably take a moment to remember that fact. LOTS of Americans aren't in a position to do something about it for themselves.

[thedoorchick]

I don't understand the logic that people should feel entitled to get back what they put into SS. I hear this logic from the same people who think that the "rich" (whatever that term really means) should pay in large amounts in taxes but not necessarily get any benefit from them, because it's their "obligation" to support those less fortunate.

Are we all entitled to receive benefits commensurate with taxes we've paid, or aren't we?

As far as I am concerned, Delta's point still stands. People should take the initiative to provide for their own retirement. This is a matter of personal responsibility and financial prudence. If disaster happens, SS is there, at least it is at the moment, but it should be the safety net, not the planned retirement income. I don't think there is any benefit to arguing about how this person lost it all in the crash of a particular stock, or how that person can't save for retirement because there are just too many expenses of today. We could argue about that all day, and it's pointless and is a red herring. How do we determine who can or can't take responsibility for their retirement? What is the test?

I think that raising the retirement age is one of the best things we can do to prolong the funds available for SS. However, I am well aware that such action is probably politically impossible.

[Delta]

I don't understand the logic that people should feel entitled to get back what they put into SS. I hear this logic from the same people who think that the "rich" (whatever that term really means) should pay in large amounts in taxes but not necessarily get any benefit from them, because it's their "obligation" to support those less fortunate.And from the same people who want income tax "rebates" to go to people who didn't even pay income tax in the first place and to be withheld from people who did in fact pay plenty in taxes.

I think you are reading way into what I am saying, Ginda and Niobe. I'm not ignoring anything. I understand why SS is there (even if it's grown wildly beyond the original framework because of life expectancy and population trends) and understand why it is important that we maintain it for people who need it and it's not necessarily wrong for them to draw on it once they've contributed into it.

But, the fact is, we all have a responsibilty to plan for our own retirements whether we are going to need government help or not. We cannot count on the government to help us retire 'comfortably'. Do either of you dispute that fact? I'm not talking about if you can affort it or not, I'm talking about in general it's our own responsibility and not the government's to provide for our own retirement. If we can't even agree on that then I'm baffled.


And I really don't think believing that we deserve to get back the $$ we've paid into SS is "assuming the government is going to help." Getting back money we've rightfully earned is not getting "help" from the government.When the government is writing IOUs to itself and spending "our" money the minute we give it to them, then I certainly can't look at it this way. Especially when SS can't pay for itself in a few years. It's a pay as you go system and since it started with no money in the 'trust fund' and relied on their current generation of workers to pay for their retirees, and we had no say, really, in that social compact I can't say that rules aren't subject to change at some point. So, in my view, SS is in fact 'help' from the government (ie the current generation of workers.)

[ellidew]

Can someone explain what this means for me? We are WELL below the single and couple income level and every penny that comes into our house gets used either to pay bills, send ds to school, etc... I don't want to debate about any issue having to do with it. For me it comes down to, the government might want to give me a little extra money and i sure as hell could use it!

Anyone have a quick explanation?

[laura]

The quick and dirty details speculated in this thread are:

Potential rebates of $800/single or $1600/household + the rebates will most likely only be for individuals making less than $80,000 or couples making less than $110,000

[ellidew]

Thank you laura. I believe i read Bush would outline it in his state of the union, is that correct? If so, when would the rebates occur?

[udsweetpea]

But, to look at where they have lived the last thirty something years, in a nice area that is in a great school district, you wouldn't exactly peg him as "needing" social security. The fact is, they do need it and will likely have to sell their house within the next year as the 401k money is almost gone.

Would he be eligible for a reverse mortgage so he wouldn't have to sell the house?

[HeatherFL]

Andrea, I was wondering that too. A friend of mine just had his grandmother do it and it worked out really well for her.

[ellidew]

In order to qualify for a reverse mortgage, do your payments have to be in default?

[phoenics]

The quick and dirty details speculated in this thread are:

Potential rebates of $800/single or $1600/household + the rebates will most likely only be for individuals making less than $80,000 or couples making less than $110,000

Well crap!

[udsweetpea]

In order to qualify for a reverse mortgage, do your payments have to be in default?

Here's a good website detailing some of the requirements of a reverse mortgage... Reverse Mortgages (http://www.mortgageloanplace.com/reverse_mortgages_qualifications.html). They're mostly for retired people wanting to use the equity in the house to receive payments from a lender to help with living expenses.

[jennylou]

Would he be eligible for a reverse mortgage so he wouldn't have to sell the house?

Nope, they're in a good school district, but the area has been hard hit by the mortgage crisis. There are tons of houses in foreclosure. On their block alone, only one house has sold in the last 10ish years - it went foreclosure. It's the newest comp and it brought down the whole block. At any rate, they've refinanced over the years and I will be surprised if they end up with any money out when they sell, I don't see the market improving this year, so I'd guess they might get 10k out by the time they pay all the fees involved with selling a house.

[ellidew]

Here's a good website detailing some of the requirements of a reverse mortgage... Reverse Mortgages (http://www.mortgageloanplace.com/reverse_mortgages_qualifications.html). They're mostly for retired people wanting to use the equity in the house to receive payments from a lender to help with living expenses.

My bad. I was thinking of something else!

[jnettie]

I don't think anyone relies on SS to live comfortably anymore, but I think lots of people were lead to believe that SS would be there for them to help out in their old age. For the younger working generation now (those of us under 40, I'd say), we're living in a time when we know SS isn't reliable. But for my parents' generation (over 50 - my parents are 60), SS was supposed to be a guarantee.

Moreover, if you are living a comfortable life now with the ability to save for your own retirement, it's easy to say everyone should be doing so. However, many of us are still paddling furiously just to keep afloat. If I put money into a 401k now, I'd just be more in debt.

[thedoorchick]

I still don't understand the value of these "us v. you" discussions. I find it hard to believe that viewpoints on the value of saving for one's own retirement are divided strictly based on whether someone can afford (or believes s/he can afford) to save. Saving for retirement ought to be a line item in a person's regular budget, but unfortunately, it seems to all too often fall into the discretionary category.

FWIW, we are more comfortable now than we used to be, but a few years ago when DH's business was tanking, there were days in which I wondered how on earth the day to day bills would get paid. But I was still enrolled in my 401(k). Just enough for the company match - 6% - but I knew something was better than nothing, especially considering I had 30+ years left till retirement for the money to grow. And I realized that, no matter how tight I thought things were, I would regret not making our future some kind of priority.

[ThreeYell]

I still don't understand the value of these "us v. you" discussions. I find it hard to believe that viewpoints on the value of saving for one's own retirement are divided strictly based on whether someone can afford (or believes s/he can afford) to save. Saving for retirement ought to be a line item in a person's regular budget, but unfortunately, it seems to all too often fall into the discretionary category.

It is "us" and "them." "WE" have college degrees and high-paying white collar jobs with health insurance and homes we own with reasonable mortgages and all the other trappings of life in the upper middle class, if not upper class. "THEY" spend all of their low salaries on food and shelter and maybe some medical bills they've accumulated over the years because their jobs don't offer health insurance and they can't begin to afford even the most basic policy. Or hell, maybe they're like the millions of Americans who do have health insurance yet are still bankrupted when their claims are denied. A line item on a budget that doesn't involve feeding someone or buying them the drugs they need is just a dream.

Do you honestly think that everyone can just tighten their belt, be more "personally responsible" and be able to provide for themselves once they aren't able to work anymore?

[AmyE]

Here's the thing: people are living much longer these days. that plus a few other incremental changes means that people are withdrawing MUCH MUCH more from social security than they ever put in. So, if you want to withdraw JUST what you put in, plus adjustments for cost of living and inflation and such, you won't have much more than peanuts, and you will likely outlive "your money". At least, that's how it is currently working.

I do think SS is necessary for some people who would otherwise be destitute. But I don't think it can (or necessarily should) survive in it's currrent incarnation. I don't consider my inputs as "my money." I think of it like a tax just like any other tax: it goes where the politicians tell it to go, and I elect the politicians, at least in theory.

I have no problem for example in paying for good schools, although my kids aren't school age.

I do firmly believe that by the time I retire, Social security will be a means-tested benefit. And I quite frankly hope that I will be able to save enough on my own that I will not qualify. In that case, everything that I put into the social security fund theoretically will go to someone else, who didn't earn as much or didn't save as much as I did. I don't think it will end up being much more than enough to keep a shoddy roof over their heads and cheap groceries in their cupboard, but I hope it will help keep them off the streets and shelters. Essentially it will become a welfare payment, and that's fine with me, but I wouldn't want my retirement to be like that. I do have a college education and a white-collar job, so I have the opportunity to write a different ending. Those who are less fortunate will need more help. And those who are dumb or irresponsible...well, they won't live very well on whatever they are left with if they have to survive on social security alone.

The reality is that right now my SS payment goes to people like my aunt, who was a bank teller for 30 years making just over minimum wage. She has enough to be in a relatively nice, but Section 8 apt building, and lives ok. No vacations, dinner out is the local Dennys every once in awhile. She also put into SS for 30 years, but frankly isn't that smart, didn't manage money very well, and that's just the way it is. She's barely above the poverty line...but that, in my opinion, is what social security is for. A safety net for the elderly, not a retirement plan.

[miel]

Three Yell: Yes. We are hurting but really when I think about it all I can think of is: If it is doing this to us what the ef is it doing to those other families out there who are so much worse off than we are?

I think about this a lot. A whole lot. When I think: Gosh, being broke and not making enough with a coming recession is scary I can't help but think about what it is like when you have to buy medicine and you are broke. And for your kid? I can't even imagine how hard that must be.

It's just simple economics--some people barely make enough to pay the rent, keep the utilities on and buy food and some people don't actually make enough to always do all those things at the same time. And there are a whole lot of people like that. They can't save money. There's isn't all that much they can do. And of course, many of these people have second jobs. Maybe we can't fix everything they have to go through but we could at the least (1) Make sure education is fair and every kid goes to a good school and, if they are inclined, can go to college and (2) Ensure everyone health care and (3) Make sure the disabled and elderly don't suffer deprivation and want and (4) Make sure no kid goes hungry. Since all the other industrialized economies do this and have as good or better standards of living as the U.S. (while also having less overall wealth) it's more than feasible. Funny thing is that most of this used to be standard. This was an overwhelmingly popular assumption at one point. What the heck happened?

[thedoorchick]

I simply cannot believe that anyone can think it is really that simple, that we can put the whole population into buckets of "us and them" and assume that everyone in the "us" bucket is wealthy and can and should save for retirement,and everyone in the "them" bucket doesn't save and shouldn't be expected to.

Because it's just not that simple. Plenty of people can afford to save for their retirement but they choose not to because they'd rather spend today's money on something to enjoy today. Do I think this applies to every last man, woman and child in the country? No, I do not. But it's extremely short-sighted to assume that everyone who doesn't think ahead to their own retirement is simply too "poor" (there are those generic terms again) to do so.

It is not "us" vs. "them" and if it is, this country will never get anywhere because we will all be too busy worrying about what someone else did wrong (the government, the "rich," the employer, take your pick) instead of worrying about what we personally ought to do.

And all that to say, this whole side conversation really has no point, and will not get anywhere, which I mentioned in an earlier post. We can argue all day about how there really are some people who don't have two spare nickels to rub together (which I certainly believe is true) or we can all agree that looking forward to one's own retirement and not assuming it's the government's responsibility is a smart, prudent thing to do.

[jajacobsen]

Thedoorchick - sort of off topic, but I want to go back to the Hummers comment. My understanding is that Publication 946 limits section 179 deductions for SUVs to $25k (from the IRS.gov website)

Sport Utility and Certain Other Vehicles
You cannot elect to expense more than $25,000 of the cost of any heavy sport utility vehicle (SUV) and certain other vehicles placed in service during the tax year. This rule applies to any 4-wheeled vehicle primarily designed or used to carry passengers over public streets, roads, or highways, that is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight and not more than 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. However, the $25,000 limit does not apply to any vehicle:

Designed to seat more than nine passengers behind the driver's seat,

Equipped with a cargo area (either open or enclosed by a cap) of at least six feet in interior length that is not readily accessible from the passenger compartment, or

That has an integral enclosure fully enclosing the driver compartment and load carrying device, does not have seating rearward of the driver's seat, and has no body section protruding more than 30 inches ahead of the leading edge of the windshield.

Now that was published in 2006. Has it been revised or will this new stimulus package otherwise change this limit? I can't see how or where but you are much, much more teh tax expert than I am (I onyl do my own and for a few other persons; my practice is more the financial side of being a CPA)

[ThreeYell]

Miel, I think about it a whole lot too and agree completely with your list of priorities.

I don't agree that looking forward to one's retirement is a prudent thing to do because it assumes that successfully preparing for financial solvency in old age is something everyone can do. It is not. People buying Coach purses instead of maxing out their 401Ks is a canard. The problem is working people who do not make enough to make ends meet now and have no way to save enough to support themselves later. The conservative argument just assumes these people away or makes it their own moral failing for not being rich.

And today we're probably creating a new group of people who truly need Social Security. How many responsible people who invested their retirement money just like they were supposed to are going to see it vanish as soon as the market opens this morning? I sure wouldn't want to be 60something right now.

[Sha259]

Quote:
My chances of retiring comfortably are basically toast. Not only am I paying for a war that I didn't want, and paying into a Social Security system that probably wont even exist when I'm 65, but I'll have to pay for this eventually too. Just peachy...

But it's not the government's job to provide for your retirement.


I love how you took what I said out of context and it derailed the original topic.:rolleyes: Can you point out where I said the gov't was responsible for my retirement savings? My comment was specifically about my personal feelings on the fact that, with the good Lord's grace, I could be a tax paying citizen for the next 55 years. And I could be paying for a lot more than I bargained for. A War, this stimulus package, and by-proxy, the whole sub-prime issue that put us where we are now economically. And no, I'm not ashamed to say that I don't appreciate the current state of Social Security, and do not like paying into the system as it stands. I do it because it's the law, and cannot wait for future reform of the system (reform not eradication).

Now, after saying all that, can you see why I say that my retirement is in jepardy? I'll have alot more to pay out in the years to come. Money that, had we not had these other issues would be going into my retirement savings. But, my pay isn't going up to compensate. That means more of my take home pay goes out of my pocket (and my retirement savings) and goes out to repay gov't debt.

But every dollar I can spare these days goes into my retirement savings (and I'm 25), specifically because I have a strong feeling that when I reach 67 (or whatever age retirement will be when I'm old enough, probably 75) Social Security will not be available to me whether I need it or not.

Okay, that's enough of my personal griping. Back on topic!:)

[Delta]

No. As a conservative I certainly understand there are people who go through life barely able to put food on the table and live day to day, paycheck to paycheck. I absolutely understand that these people will need help in retirement. Absolutely.

But, in general, the onus should be on the individual to plan for his or her own retirement. My comment about it not being the government's responsibility was in response to someone who said their chance of retiring comfortably is shot due to the national debt and current spending. IMO, that assertion is completely the wrong way to look at the government's role in providing for retirement.

(1) Make sure education is fair and every kid goes to a good school and, if they are inclined, can go to college and (2) Ensure everyone health care and (3) Make sure the disabled and elderly don't suffer deprivation and want and (4) Make sure no kid goes hungry. Since all the other industrialized economies do this and have as good or better standards of living as the U.S. (while also having less overall wealth) it's more than feasible. Funny thing is that most of this used to be standard. This was an overwhelmingly popular assumption at one point. What the heck happened?Of course everyone wants those things, but how much of it is the government's responsiblity to provide and to what extent? Comparing the US to other countries is not really fair because of our open borders, our inherent rejection of socialism, etc.

Sha - So you obviously agree that it's not the goverment's job, ultimately. I apologize for misunderstanding you.

[Delta]

And today we're probably creating a new group of people who truly need Social Security. How many responsible people who invested their retirement money just like they were supposed to are going to see it vanish as soon as the market opens this morning? I sure wouldn't want to be 60something right now.Most people by the time they are in their sixties do not have much allocated into stocks (unless they want the risk.) That is Investing 101. And most people in their sixties who have been invested and planning for their retirements are benefitting tremendously from the economic growth of the past 20-30 years.

[thedoorchick]

jajacobsen, I agree with you; I have not dealt with this issue since before 2006, so I was thinking of the old law.

[thedoorchick]

I don't agree that looking forward to one's retirement is a prudent thing to do because it assumes that successfully preparing for financial solvency in old age is something everyone can do. It is not. People buying Coach purses instead of maxing out their 401Ks is a canard. The problem is working people who do not make enough to make ends meet now and have no way to save enough to support themselves later. The conservative argument just assumes these people away or makes it their own moral failing for not being rich.

"Working people" includes a whole host of folks, from dirt poor to upper class and beyond, all of whom could make some reason or excuse for not saving for retirement. Some of those reasons/excuses are reasonable, and some are not. People "buying Coach purses instead of maxing out their 401(k)'s" is a real fact, not something the conservatives dreamed up for dramatic effect. Far too many people live for today with no thought of tomorrow, regardless of their resources. It's not always the case, or even often the case, but the situation does exist. And to assume that everyone who does not save literally cannot spare a cent towards their retirement is just as faulty as assuming that everyone can fully support themselves for life.

And the conservative argument does not assume anyone away. Several conservatives in this thread have stated more than once that the truly poor do exist and that the overall wisdom that saving for one's retirement is prudent does not exclude that. Do you honestly think that the inability of some people to put money away makes the whole wisdom of the concept inapplicable? Since when is this an all or nothing idea?

[msnicolea]

I am going to have to agree with thedoorchick and delta here, to an extent. I absolutely agree that people who are able to should save more. We live in a consumer-driven society where people extend themselves FAR beyond their means in order to buy lavish homes, fancy cars, etc. . I do not think it's the government's job to subsidize irresponsible lifestyle choices. People earning fair, substantial salaries need to save their money--stop using credit cards to buy things that they don't need--and build a nest egg. It makes me crazy to hear about people's financial "woes" while they are living in enormous homes and paying for fancy cars. They don't know from woes.

That being said, as a nation we have a moral obligation to take care of our poor and provide for seniors with financial need. I don't think these positions are mutually exclusive. I also think that if Bush and Co cared more about working class and poor families than they do about their wealthy friends, and if they stopped giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, we could more ably provide for people who really do need it.

[Delta]

This is all just the classic conservative vs. liberal argument.

[msnicolea]

Well, conservatives (in general) would make a better case if they did more to support poor and working poor people and less to maintain the disparity of wealth in this country. These days, there's really no such thing as compassionate conservatism."

[jajacobsen]

TDC - Thanks. The point is, I agree with you in philosphy on this subject but listening to certain people here and in the news scream that the government is providing free Hummers (soo NOT true even if the purchase price was 100% deductible under section 179) to the rich just drives me crazy.

My opinion is - if you are truly indigent, well God bless you and I'm sure you're doing the best you can and not debating this on the internet. But if you are sitting in a nice office or have the luxury of a computer and internet connection at home, well then you probably can and should optimize retirment savings.

Maybe eat out less - shop at Target and the Gap less - take that Starbucks money that was being justified in another thread - and put it toward a 401k or IRA.

Because continuing to spend in a manner that was unheard of in 1950 and refusing to save is just sticking your head in the sand and encouraging "nanny state" politics, the end result of which is socialism.

These same people wil be decrying the "economizations" and lack of personal choice that come with 100% government provision for things like health care and elder care.

And FTR, I vote liberal and am for national healthcare. But DH and I do max out our retirement contributions each year even though we get no employee match or any free money like that. But then, we drive old cars and don't buy expensive clothes. But we'll be comfortable and able to make our own choices in our retirement.

[Delta]

I also think that if Bush and Co cared more about working class and poor families than they do about their wealthy friends, and if they stopped giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, we could more ably provide for people who really do need it.This type of rhetoric is so old and does nothing to solve anything. The fact is, for the past 5 years at least, the tax burden of the top brackets has increased while the burden of the lower brackets has decreased. 40% of wage-earners last year paid nothing in income taxes. 96% of total tax revenue is paid by 50% of the population. 40% by the top 1%. How much more progressive should we get?

[Niobe]

This type of rhetoric is so old and does nothing to solve anything. The fact is, for the past 5 years at least, the tax burden of the top brackets has increased while the burden of the lower brackets has decreased. 40% of wage-earners last year paid nothing in income taxes. 96% of total tax revenue is paid by 50% of the population. 40% by the top 1%. How much more progressive should we get?

Um, we could progress to a point where the top 1% didn't have that much money to pay in taxes in the first place. A more equitable distribution of wealth and all that jazz.

[Delta]

So you mean even more income redistribution via the government? I'm confused.

Probably the biggest thing we can do to narrow that gap policy-wise is to clamp down on illegal immigration.

[msnicolea]

You're right, delta--the disparity of wealth and pro-wealthy economic policies in this country aren't a problem at all. My bad!

[thedoorchick]

I agree with msnicolea, and this is what I have been trying to say, that encouraging greater responsibility in saving and taking care of the poor and elderly are not mutually exclusive positions. I probably did not make my point as clearly.

However, I concur with Delta re: the tax issues. The highest tax brackets continue to expand and the top wage earners continue to shoulder an ever increasing portion of total taxes collected in this country.

Niobe, are you suggesting that socialism is the answer? Because if you are, I'm not sure I can coherently discuss - the whole notion makes my head hurt to even ponder it. Having a lot of money is not inherently morally wrong, sinful or unethical, not to mention not unsympathetic (holy double negatives, Batman!).

[ThreeYell]

It is the classic liberal versus conservative argument. Always fine family fun. ;)

As for how much progressive we should get in tax policy, significantly, IMO. The top 1% has seen its income level increase 176% while the bottom quintile's has increased 6%. We haven't seen income disparity like this since the roaring 20s. Good times!

I think jajacobsen's point is basically what I'm saying - if you're dicking around on CC at your office job or at home on your wireless highspeed, by all means do what you can to secure your economic future. CC members have always seemed pretty financially on the ball to me. The problem comes when you assume that because we can do it, everyone can.

[ysolde]

Last time I got $300 and I made around 35K at the time and had no deductions to speak of. Ya-f'ing-hoo. I just don't think that this really has much of an impact on the economy. Since we are already in debt up to our eyeballs, all it does it increase our debt. It's just moving around the deck chairs on the titanic. the problem is that the housing bubble burst, we don't make anything here anymore, and we are bleeding money into Iraq at $20 million a day. It's just a feel-good. Structurally we are still F'ed.


Last time, people saved it rather than spending it. It seems more than likely people will save it this time, too. It has to do, in part, with the time of year. People shop a bit blindly in December. In January? Not so much. This time, it also has to do with the fact that people are well aware that the economy is in a downward spiral. When you see your neighbors, relatives, and friends getting downsized (here's hoping it isn't appening in your home), you tend to save, not spend. So whatever impact this small amount is meant to have on the economy will no doubt be mitigated by the economic need to have as much in savings as possible.

Moreover, even if everyone were to go out and spend $800, that would not solve the underlying structural weaknesses in the current US economy. We depend too much on foreign oil, too many people live too far from where they work to change that, with no alternative infrastructure to cars (big mistake). China now owns a huge stake in the US dollar (who knew that would happen?). We have focused on a failed foreign policy instead of strengthening our economy at home (I have no problem with focusing and spending on a successful foreign policy, but throwing good money after bad is no policy at all, IMHO). We have changed from a manufacturing to a service economy, and from a high-end service to a low-end service economy in less than a generation. A lot of highly-educated people in our economy are floundering as a result (there have been a series of articles in trade publications about people graduating from third-tier law schools and below who have six-figure student loan debt and never work as attorneys -- this is the law schools' dirtiest secret).

I doubt that a three-figure check changes the reality of people who are working 16 hour days, 6 days a week, just to pay back student loans, while crashing on a friend's sofa and eating Ramen noodles twice a day. I doubt that a three-figure check changes the reality of people who are paying thousands for an exurban home each month, thousands more for the gasoline to get to and from there, and are watching their equity vaporize.

These are scary times for most folks, and they are only growing more frightening.

[jajacobsen]

Well actually I was sorta saying the opposite. You have NO IDEA how many friends/clients complain to me over a latte about their economic plights and the fact that they just can't get ahead or save for the future/have maxed out all their credit cards/ and are now upside down on their mortgage/ all the while making lunch plans with others on their blackberries/ hgiing me goodbye and zooming off in their late-model, probably leased, car.

THAT makes my head hurt.

Hey, I'm FOR national healthcare and elder care/retirement. But I still don't think that having a government which provides these alleviates me and my DH from providing for our own financial well being since we ar eblessed with the means to do so (even though I drive a ten year old vehicle and bring leftovers to lunch at work every day don't have a blackberry and my cell phone came free with a two year contract OH MY!)

[ThreeYell]

One more thing - I do think it's interesting to realize that if we all take our own advice and save more money, then we're really, really in trouble. Those tax refunds aren't intended to boost savings. They're intended to be spent immediately. We are supposed to go out to the Gap and buy more sweaters.

I can get just as indignant as the next person over the insanity of recent years when people were madly pulling money out of their houses to buy more and more crap they don't need. I am not able to wrap my head around how a reasonably smart person could think that's a good idea. Yet, the economy was happy as long as they kept spending. Profligate spending does help the economy, at least in the short term.

[Delta]

You're right, delta--the disparity of wealth and pro-wealthy economic policies in this country aren't a problem at all. My bad!
But my question was - will a more progressive tax structure fix this? My question is for ThreeYell now, too. Do you advocate a 50% tax bracket? 60%? And at what levels? Because there is a big difference a family making 350k a year and someone making millions, but they are in the same bracket right now. What other government policies do you advocate to narrow the gap?

[Sarah]

I don't think people are necessarily buying extravagent, crazy things to overspend.

I have so many friends who are making relatively low incomes (35-45k for a two family income) who overspend on the little things, as Jajaconsen said. Not that they're bad people or anything, but $20 here and there really does add up, especially if socked away when you're in your mid twenties, as most of them are.

My DH used to be a financial adviser and he said he had tons of clients making incomes of like 80k or so, and they had almost nothing saved for retirement, and not fancy cars or anything, but a lot of "stuff" they didn't need, and most had a missing thousand dollars or more a month they didn't know where they were spending, all from just discretionary spending.

[thedoorchick]

Yeah, the "latte factor" is probably the biggest thing for most people, because small amounts like that are hardly noticed at the time.

[miel]

But if you are sitting in a nice office or have the luxury of a computer and internet connection at home, well then you probably can and should optimize retirment savings.

Many people who work in offices make $20,000 or less a year. Secretaries and receptionists especially. What do people with the price of transportation, housing, medicine and food and wages are stagnant? They don't save money. If you are indigent, obviously you can't save money but what if your housing and food and medicine and health care and transportation to and from work take up your entire income? You can't save for retirement. Many people can't save for retirement. Where I live a one bedroom apartment is $1000. I'm not saying some genius couldn't figure out how to economize on minimum wage with rents and food and so forth that high but you can see why it would be hard.

My retirement money is in stocks and I'm going to lose a ton of it now anyway. Hopefully I will gain it back but it does make a difference that the stock market is going to tank for the second time in the 10 years I've been working.

To be honest, Jajacobsen, I do admire you and I think everyone wishes they were as wise with their money as you are. Those decisions start really early, actually. The people who tend to be better off are people who picked careers that pay decent money. Choice of career is a major financial decision and most people don't even see it that way. But then the fact that teachers and nurses and social workers can't make enough to live on in some parts of the country is kind of a problem.

These are scary times for most folks, and they are only growing more frightening.

Yeah, maybe that's why I'm blathering on (and I will shut up now). We do need some kind of policy to put the middle class back on its feet. As much as we want to point fingers, it will not be a happy thing if the American standard of living just dissipates. Everyone but the very rich will feel the hit if that happened. The economy does depend on a middle class that can spend money. People can say that they save and how great that is but when economies go down the drain then even the most fiscally wise will be negatively affected. I wish people were more worried about this.

P.S.: Sarah. Yes! Discretionary spending! That is so true! I totally agree with that and have seen it myself. I just find it is easier to not spend any money on anything if I can help it. I bought my family a bunch of clothes at Christmas sales and then I think how dumb that is. I mean, 75% off got to me but it causes me so much mental agony to spend money these days I'm not sure it is worth all that inner turmoil!

[msnicolea]

Policies I support to narrow the gap and end poverty:

~redefine how poverty is measured and adjust benefits accordingly
~improve public schools and increase early education $$$$$
~decrease teen births
~increase the minimum wage
~create more manufacturing and other skilled jobs--and make it more difficult/less lucrative to outsource!

[ThreeYell]

There is a big difference between $350K and $20 million and generally the difference is between money you make at your job and investment money. One of the simplest things to me it to increase the tax rate on long term capital gains. The estate tax is another good one. I haven't thought much about additional brackets, though I do think it's a little crazy for lawyers and dentists and CPAs to be in the same bracket as hedge fund managers.

To turn it back on you, Delta, if we don't try to address it through tax policy, how do you suggest we help the bottom 80 or so percent of the country? And do you believe there's a legitimate conservative solution to be had after the conservatives have tied their lot to Bush for so long? Is a conservative policy ever workable, or does Washington corrupt absolutely? Seems like we've gone down this path before...

[ysolde]

When I said things are getting scary, I really meant it. Look around you. Talk to the secretaries, the receptionists. How many are asking for overtime (overnight shifts, weekend shifts) because their husbands have lost thier jobs? How many are on a "diet" that involves no longer bringing in their lunch at all (so that their children can eat lunch, or to pay for a child's asthma medicine, now that the copayments have increased)?

Working poor no longer means working at a fast food restaurant. It is the people who are all around you.

[jajacobsen]

You know what REALLY bugs me? I think there are genuinely poor people in the US and in a country as rich and wealthy as we are that is a crime. But how do we help teh poor without creating (or worsening) an entitlement culture?

Like the subprime lending mess. I have very,very little sympathy. And you know what, my husband is a housing related field and we are sweating it daily but know the best thing is to let the market correct itself.


How do we help the truly poor and disadvantaged without rewarding chronic poor decision-making?

[ysolde]

I don't believe in rewarding chronic poor decision-making. I also don't believe in stop-gap minuets, like this stupid "stimulus" package, designed to do nothing but make Bush and Congress look like they are doing something, when, to borrow a phrase from Tim Rice, we're all going to see, and how, they've done nothing for years.

How is $800/person supposed to address the chronic, underlying problem of a huge budget deficit (how Bush and his pals managed to get us from a budget surplus to a multi-trillion dollar deficit defies logic and comprehension)? THIS is at the core of our economic woes: we, at the federal level, have been spending money like there is no tomorrow (and for little Arbusto, there is no tomorrow, since he's out of office: Apres lui, le deluge, n'est-ce pas?). We will be paying this debt . . . Heck, we will be paying to service this debt for generations, and no one is paying attention. Take your farm and mortgage it to the hilt. Then take your children's house and mortgage it to the hilt. Then go to the bank and get a mortgage on a house your grandchildren will build when they are born and grown up (the US can do this) -- and tell the bank it will be a nice house. Use that money to pay for improvements on some dilapidated old ranch somewhere really far away where, hopefully, the new owners will be nice to your grandkids and sell the grandkids water they will need in the future. And hope the grandkids won't mind servicing the debt you incurred on the house they don't even have yet.

[phoenics]

Yeah, maybe that's why I'm blathering on (and I will shut up now). We do need some kind of policy to put the middle class back on its feet. As much as we want to point fingers, it will not be a happy thing if the American standard of living just dissipates. Everyone but the very rich will feel the hit if that happened. The economy does depend on a middle class that can spend money. People can say that they save and how great that is but when economies go down the drain then even the most fiscally wise will be negatively affected. I wish people were more worried about this.



I so agree with this. This is where my concerns lie. The middle class is just evaporating, whereas before, it was growing. Can we get back to that place?

[jajacobsen]

Ysolde - n I don't think $800 will solve the problems of tomorrow. They don't think so either, they probably hope it will just help sove the problems of the next elecion!

But here's the deal - we all can make better choices. That secretary skipping lunch because she ca't afford it? Well one can make a tuna sandwich for about 60 cents, so she probably could come up with the $15-15/mo to pack her lunch. And if she really can't afford that - there are food stamps. But because she can't eat out - even if just fast food - she feels "poor." That's NOT poor. It' just shifting your priorities.

Maybe the law school grad who owes $200k in loans - gasp - shouldn't have gone to such expensive schools if he or she couldn't afford them. Many, many people get through undergrad and grad school with less than $100k in debt, even without parental support. Lots of great attorneys go to state schools. Many of them go to work for silk stalking law firms. It can be done.

Am I against student loans? Of course not. They make a lot of sense, as do home mortgages. But just because someone is willing to lend you money for something a car, a home, an education, or even a war, doesn't mean you should borrow the max because if the repayment plan relies upon "everythign going right" the plan is flawed.

[phoenics]

Policies I support to narrow the gap and end poverty:

and make it more difficult/less lucrative to outsource!

Not that I don't agree with the others you listed, but hallelujah yes! Working at a financial company in a more management role, I REALLY see how companies choose to outsource - it's a no brainer. They are actually given incentives TO outsource (within reason)... so what happens is you get American workers who expect to be paid X (which is higher than what companies can outsource for), and then either they get laid off or choose to accept lower salaries in order to have a job... then they get disgruntled and discourage younger people from entering those careers. Then younger people don't know what career to even choose - which jobs have the smallest chance of being outsourced?

How much education or specialization or integration do you need to have to prevent your position from being outsourced?

It's a tough question and a crazy one to even be considering when you're a high school student or even a college student.

And then there is the other side: the reverse brain drain that WILL eventually happen where all of the talent leaves the US and we won't have any talent HERE to fill it back up because our educational systems will be so bereft of money AND students.

I understand the need for globalization, but sometimes it just feels like an excuse for companies to get cheap labor. How is our economy supposed to get better when college-educated (or even graduate school educated) americans can't get/keep good jobs because employers have NO incentive to hire them over people from other countries who work for pennies where they live?

Unless you are in a really specialized area such as research (where it's more difficult to outsource), or jobs where direct communication with people is paramount, it's really hard. For those 'silo' type positions where you mostly work on your own and then join the work at the end... wow is it tough.

I don't think Fred Brooks anticipated this (though maybe I should ask him) when he wrote The Mythical Man Month... outsourcing seems to be breaking the rules he came up with about work and project development.

[phoenics]

Maybe the law school grad who owes $200k in loans - gasp - shouldn't have gone to such expensive schools if he or she couldn't afford them. Many, many people get through undergrad and grad school with less than $100k in debt, even without parental support. Lots of great attorneys go to state schools. Many of them go to work for silk stalking law firms. It can be done.

Woah. So you should only go to law school if you can afford the $20-30K per year that it will cost, aside from living expenses? Or just go to the cheapest one, that you could graduate at the top of your class from and STILL never get a job because the school is so lowly ranked? There are good state law schools, but many law firms look at the Ivy League ones FIRST. That's just how it is - unless you have connections out your ass.

My cousin went to Yale Law School and she said that she chose Corporate Law as her specialty because it was the only area that made it worth it. But it also meant that when she graduated, she would DEFINITELY have a job waiting and she did. She's now a partner in the most prestigious (and lucrative) law firms in Atlanta.

But I know friends of hers who went to other law schools that were cheaper but they STILL owe a lot of money to those schools - and they aren't/weren't Ivy League schools). They wanted to do other kinds of law, like personal injury law, or civil law or any other kind that doesn't bring in tons of money.

Law school isn't like graduate school, in that nearly NO ONE goes for free! I went to grad school for computer science and I paid exactly $2K for it because I had one semester that was unfunded. And I paid that money myself because I was working then and being paid well and all I was doing was getting my dissertation turned in (I had already defended and the dissertation was written - it was some stupid school policy that made me wait as I missed one little deadline and had to wait to graduate in the spring). The rest was paid for and I was in school forever (all the way from undergrad to a PhD).

But med school (unless you do an M.D./PhD) and law school are NOT like that!


Am I against student loans? Of course not. They make a lot of sense, as do home mortgages. But just because someone is willing to lend you money for something a car, a home, an education, or even a war, doesn't mean you should borrow the max because if the repayment plan relies upon "everythign going right" the plan is flawed.

That could be true - especially with this war - but I don't think it's unreasonable for young people going to law school that there will be a job for them when they graduate, especially if they graduated with great marks and lots of recs.

It's ironic that you mentioned the war because I don't equate President Bushwhacked and his Administration's decision to go to war the same as I equate a young person going to Law School.

In one instance, it was a piss poor decision to go there (war) and horrible management once we got there. In order for the Law School situation to match up, you'd have to have picked the most expensive Law School in the world and THEN messed up SO badly that you got kicked out 1 day before graduation. Which means you'd owe all of that money and STILL have no law degree or way to pay off all of that money.

[thedoorchick]

Outsourcing really is an economic decision, plain and simple. I don't know what the answer is in regard to how to keep jobs here, but the fact is that companies will hire labor where it is less costly to do so. When you can have the same work done by a staff person in India as opposed to the U.S. for a fifth the cost, and I am not exaggerating, then the answer seems simple.

I realize it's not simple, but in the end, like everything else, it comes down to costs of doing business.

[ysolde]

Ysolde - n I don't think $800 will solve the problems of tomorrow. They don't think so either, they probably hope it will just help sove the problems of the next elecion!

But here's the deal - we all can make better choices. That secretary skipping lunch because she ca't afford it? Well one can make a tuna sandwich for about 60 cents, so she probably could come up with the $15-15/mo to pack her lunch. And if she really can't afford that - there are food stamps. But because she can't eat out - even if just fast food - she feels "poor." That's NOT poor. It' just shifting your priorities.

Maybe the law school grad who owes $200k in loans - gasp - shouldn't have gone to such expensive schools if he or she couldn't afford them. Many, many people get through undergrad and grad school with less than $100k in debt, even without parental support. Lots of great attorneys go to state schools. Many of them go to work for silk stalking law firms. It can be done.

Am I against student loans? Of course not. They make a lot of sense, as do home mortgages. But just because someone is willing to lend you money for something a car, a home, an education, or even a war, doesn't mean you should borrow the max because if the repayment plan relies upon "everythign going right" the plan is flawed.


I am talking about people who were bringing in their lunches before. Long ago, they could afford heaven -- the subsidized cafeteria. A year or so ago, they could afford to bring in lunch. Now, it's bring in that tuna sandwich, or pay for the kid's asthma medication, because the copayment on meds just went way up. Or they could bring in that tuna sandwich, if they can make sandwiches for dinner, and not eat theirs. See, in NYC, a lot of men are out of work. We have not been doing well since before 9/11, and 9/11 just put the nail in the coffin. That was six and a half years ago, and for many, no jobs in sight.

And you may not know this, but many if not most state law schools are quite good "second tier" (a few are very very good "first tier"). People who can get into the state law schools usually go. But lots of people want to go to law school, and there are lots of lower tier schools out there that will take your money. People go, with the hope of six-figure starting salaries blinding them. No one at these schools tells them that those jobs represent fewer than 5% of all first-year jobs. No one at those schools tells them that a degree from a lower-tiered law school in a so-so (or worse) market guarantees them nothing but a six-figure student loan debt. It is a growing problem.

[msnicolea]

What about the responsibility companies have to this country and its citizens? Sure, they can find cheaper labor elsewhere--how about instead, they commit to making less money and boost this nation's economy? How about they take care of the working class instead of themselves? CRAZY TALK!

[phoenics]

Outsourcing really is an economic decision, plain and simple. I don't know what the answer is in regard to how to keep jobs here, but the fact is that companies will hire labor where it is less costly to do so. When you can have the same work done by a staff person in India as opposed to the U.S. for a fifth the cost, and I am not exaggerating, then the answer seems simple.

I realize it's not simple, but in the end, like everything else, it comes down to costs of doing business.

Totally - however I still believe that companies had no incentive NOT to outsource - quite the opposite. They had tax incentives TO outsource (both from the government AND from foreign governments). This is what needs to be modified, imo. I think globalization is good, however not when the American economy is falling apart. Outsourcing is making a tiny % of Americans filthy rich and it's making other countries wealthier, but the middle class is being gutted.

[phoenics]

What about the responsibility companies have to this country and its citizens? Sure, they can find cheaper labor elsewhere--how about instead, they commit to making less money and boost this nation's economy? How about they take care of the working class instead of themselves? CRAZY TALK!

Well now that is crazy talk, lol - we wish, huh?

[thyme]

I have a hard time feeling a whole lot of sympathy for someone who sinks three years of their life and a $hitload of money into a third-tier law school because they are under some delusion that they will be immediately rich when they get out. The rankings are not exactly a secret. The stats on law school grads and salaries and bar pass rates are available. If you think you're smart enough to be paid six figures your first year out of school, you have no excuse for not looking at the facts.

[phoenics]

I have a hard time feeling a whole lot of sympathy for someone who sinks three years of their life and a $hitload of money into a third-tier law school because they are under some delusion that they will be immediately rich when they get out. The rankings are not exactly a secret. The stats on law school grads and salaries and bar pass rates are available. If you think you're smart enough to be paid six figures your first year out of school, you have no excuse for not looking at the facts.

I think ysolde was stressing that this is why many people end up choosing the top-tier schools and incurring more debt - because they realize this fact.

And I have friends who attended 2nd tier schools and they never expected to make a lot of money - just enough to cover basic living expenses and to pay off their loans before too long and THEN they expected to reap the so-called benefits of going to law school.

I also think that it's still possible to go to a 3rd tier law school and make money - but those are the exceptions to the rule, imo. The world of law after law school is so priveleged and networks are paramount. If you don't have connections and the prestige of a top law school, you're dead in the water in most cases. I think some people may not recognize this and while they don't think they'll be ballers, I think they do expect to do reasonably well when they graduate... but we're living in times where many of them can't even get a job and I think that's a shame.

[ysolde]

I think ysolde was stressing that this is why many people end up choosing the top-tier schools and incurring more debt - because they realize this fact.

And I have friends who attended 2nd tier schools and they never expected to make a lot of money - just enough to cover basic living expenses and to pay off their loans before too long and THEN they expected to reap the so-called benefits of going to law school.

I also think that it's still possible to go to a 3rd tier law school and make money - but those are the exceptions to the rule, imo. The world of law after law school is so priveleged and networks are paramount. If you don't have connections and the prestige of a top law school, you're dead in the water in most cases. I think some people may not recognize this and while they don't think they'll be ballers, I think they do expect to do reasonably well when they graduate... but we're living in times where many of them can't even get a job and I think that's a shame.

Yup. There are too many people at all levels of education and society these days who simply can't get a job anymore. Not the job. A job. The middle class in its entirety is disappearing right before our eyes. The professionals can barely make ends meet anymore. My friends and I are debating, seriously, whether we can afford to have children. You know how people talk about "immigrants" living six to a home and sending all the money back to "Somewhere Else"? Well, here we have temps working six days a week, late into the night, sharing tiny apartments in the city, and sending the money to wives and kids in Pennsylvania. The pink collar class is taking on second and even third "jobs" (I find myself buying lipglosses from an ever-growing number of women) just to stay afloat. More and more people go "on vacation" and just stay home. Even driving has become too expensive.

Rentals in the City are still enormously expensive -- and they are filled with young Europeans and Asians, not New Yorkers. The City's restaurants -- once so full you could not get a reservation -- are now so empty, half the time I have to look twice as I go past, thinking they are closed.

The signs of a really bad economy are everywhere, and people are in denial as to how bad it has become.

[Anna Low]

Ysolde, as always, you are spot on. I don't live in NY, but do live in a fairly large city. Here is what I have been observing - people are being foreclosed out of their homes - not because they took weird loans that ballooned but because they lost their jobs due to downsize/rightsize and cannot find something else to pay their bills. It is happening in my own neighborhood. Jobs, at least those which include benefits (option of medical, 401K, sick/vacation time) are hard to find. And in my area, there is a huge gap between those who have money (a lot of it) and those which are just barely eeking by. There are very few true middle class (money wise) people left.

[AmyE]

The thing is, all of this has happened before. When times are good, people tend to make decisions that turn out to be bad when times turn bad. This is true of individuals, school districts, states and the feds. Even those who COULD just tend not to plan ahead. That means they get into trouble, leaving the pool of people in trouble much larger than it needed to be, and the pool of people who could be taxed more or give more to charity or whatever is that much smaller.

What it takes to be "middle class" has also changed. Many people want to have that second bathroom in the house, not one bath for 5 people like when we were growing up. And 1200 sq ft for a single family home doesn't cut it anymore - you have to have 2200 sq ft. Not just a color TV, but TWO color TVs. And video games for the kids because all the other kids have them. Americans eat out more than ever before in our history rather than cooking at home. Many people not only took out unusual mortgages, but they also HELOC'd their homes and used it as an ATM. (90% of subprimes went to refinanced homes, not first time buyers). The fact is..that all worked for several years. And now it won't.

Yes, there are outsourced jobs and layoffs and it is only going to get worse for the next 3-4 years, in my opinion. But despite the very real problems of some who really are making "good" decision and are in a bad situation, there are many many others who made bad decisions. I see that in my own family - lots of folks who didn't go to college but had good jobs, only to buy houses they couldn't afford when 10 years ago they would have expected to rent (and would have been financially better off), people who had steady jobs and a nice enough home but took out insane mortages to buy a new car and new electronics and "travel," people who only make 20-30K per year but spend it all on eating out and hanging out with friends (no kids, lived with roomates - why the heck not when you are 23?)....the list goes on and on. And they were FINE until about 18months ago - there was no savings for any of them, but they really didn't expect they would ever need it. They will not be fine by the end of this year.

The rainy days are here...and most people didn't plan for them.

[LyLMyssChaos]

I'm one of those people that doesn't have extra money to set aside for retirement. My husband is working 3 jobs and I'm working 1 just to keep our heads above water. My husband is currently in school however and hopefully there will be some room in our budget for this kind of thing when he gets into his career field. His employer offers an awesome matching program, but there just isn't extra money for that.

To those that say it's as simple as "not shopping at Target/the Gap as much," it really isn't about that at all. We don't shop. I buy only what we need. I mean, my kids have worn the same coats and winter boots for 2 years now (and they were given to them as gifts because we didn't have the money to buy them.) I'm actually dreading the upcoming spring/summer season because I have 2 kiddos that are going to be in sizes not worn before in this house. Thank goodness for Ebay, or they might have nothing at all to wear. ;p

With all of that being said, I have always looked at the money we pay into social security as our way of supporting our current older generation. I never expected that money to be there for me. I really would like that when I'm old that the younger generation will help care for me, but it's not likely.

It truly is a terrifying proposition to now that you can barely be sure you are providing for your needs today, let alone 30 years from now.

[Delta]

Policies I support to narrow the gap and end poverty:

~redefine how poverty is measured and adjust benefits accordingly
~improve public schools and increase early education $$$$$
~decrease teen births
~increase the minimum wage
~create more manufacturing and other skilled jobs--and make it more difficult/less lucrative to outsource!First, poverty is never going to be ended. That's just a fact. In a capitalist society there is always going to be an unequal distribution of wealth and income. So, there will always be rich people and middle class people and poor people. But we can always strive to boost the economy for everyone and lift as many as we can. Would you add to your list cracking down on illegal immigration, which brings down wages and takes jobs away from the American working class and adds to the numbers of indigent? What about encouraging fathers to take responsibility for their families, especially in the black community? (Not just my point, but Obama's, among others.) And we can create more manufacturing and skilled jobs and increase wages by lowering corporate tax rates (US has one of the highest) and create tax incentives for companies to invest in equipment and research and technology.
There is a big difference between $350K and $20 million and generally the difference is between money you make at your job and investment money. One of the simplest things to me it to increase the tax rate on long term capital gains. The estate tax is another good one. I haven't thought much about additional brackets, though I do think it's a little crazy for lawyers and dentists and CPAs to be in the same bracket as hedge fund managersThreeYell, you are smart, so I don't understand how you don't see that raising capital gains taxes is only going to encourage investment capital to leave this country, rather encourage it to be invested in the American economy to promote entrepreneurialism, create jobs, wealth, etc. Unprecedented economic growth occured in this country when capital gains were cut. It would make no sense to raise them when our objective is to create jobs and opportunities for people here. :confused: As for the estate tax, I am philosophically opposed to the government confiscating my already taxed money after I die so I can't get on board with that (as you probably suspected already. ;) )

To turn it back on you, Delta, if we don't try to address it through tax policy, how do you suggest we help the bottom 80 or so percent of the country? And do you believe there's a legitimate conservative solution to be had after the conservatives have tied their lot to Bush for so long? Is a conservative policy ever workable, or does Washington corrupt absolutely? Seems like we've gone down this path before... Does the bottom 80% or so need help? Do you mean like government assistance? I do think they can be helped through tax policy - by cutting the corporate rate for reasons I said above to create jobs and encourage investment in America. What do you mean by your statement about government corrupting absolutely and how does it pertain? (I kind of follow you but not quite.)

I think that fundamentally liberals and progressives are more concerned with equalizing everyone in society than conservatives, whose main objective is promoting liberty and personal freedom and responsibility, and they are inherently suspicious of government programs meant to help. So, our objectives here are not necessarily the same. Do you know what I mean? I personally tend to take a macroeconomic look at things WRT tax policy and encouraging economic growth, rather than redistribution of income through the government. I certainly think that the government has a role to play in helping those who cannot help themselves, and it is unmatched in terms of its distribution abilities. But I think that the more the government tries to rescue people, the more it makes them dependent on the government.

Now, that's not to say that conservatives always look askance at government programs and regulation, especially in very tough times. Things like the New Deal (along with WWII) helped raise the country from the Great Depression and some of the programs are around today that foster a sense of security (FDIC, etc.) But in general, we are always going to be suspicious of programs that put more of our money and power in the hands of Washington.

Liberals seem to think that conservatives don't care about the poor because conservatives are not fans of their well-meaning government programs or income redistribution. But in fact, conservatives don't believe that in the long run these things are necessarily good for the poor or the country or its people. Conservatism comes from a belief that you don't help people by declaring them victims. It believes in the power of people to overcome hardship through innovation and self-reliance and local communites, even through tough times. It believes in local control and personal responsibility, personal virtue and caring not only for yourself but for those around you who need help (and I don't mean through government coercion.) In our view, more government assistance and government programs discourage personal responsibility not only for ourselves, but for our fellow man. In the long run, government can't be compassionate.

(Of course, the flip side here is cutting spending. I don't think a completely balanced budget is always necessity, but we certainly cannot maintain current levels of spending, even if revenues go up. But that's a whole 'nother topic.)

[jajacobsen]

The thing is, all of this has happened before. When times are good, people tend to make decisions that turn out to be bad when times turn bad. This is true of individuals, school districts, states and the feds. Even those who COULD just tend not to plan ahead. That means they get into trouble, leaving the pool of people in trouble much larger than it needed to be, and the pool of people who could be taxed more or give more to charity or whatever is that much smaller.

What it takes to be "middle class" has also changed. Many people want to have that second bathroom in the house, not one bath for 5 people like when we were growing up. And 1200 sq ft for a single family home doesn't cut it anymore - you have to have 2200 sq ft. Not just a color TV, but TWO color TVs. And video games for the kids because all the other kids have them. Americans eat out more than ever before in our history rather than cooking at home. Many people not only took out unusual mortgages, but they also HELOC'd their homes and used it as an ATM. (90% of subprimes went to refinanced homes, not first time buyers). The fact is..that all worked for several years. And now it won't.

Yes, there are outsourced jobs and layoffs and it is only going to get worse for the next 3-4 years, in my opinion. But despite the very real problems of some who really are making "good" decision and are in a bad situation, there are many many others who made bad decisions. I see that in my own family - lots of folks who didn't go to college but had good jobs, only to buy houses they couldn't afford when 10 years ago they would have expected to rent (and would have been financially better off), people who had steady jobs and a nice enough home but took out insane mortages to buy a new car and new electronics and "travel," people who only make 20-30K per year but spend it all on eating out and hanging out with friends (no kids, lived with roomates - why the heck not when you are 23?)....the list goes on and on. And they were FINE until about 18months ago - there was no savings for any of them, but they really didn't expect they would ever need it. They will not be fine by the end of this year.

The rainy days are here...and most people didn't plan for them.

I completely agree with this. If we all ate and lived like most of the US did in the 70s when we were growing up, we all would be a lot healthier and wealthier.

[jajacobsen]

I'm one of those people that doesn't have extra money to set aside for retirement. My husband is working 3 jobs and I'm working 1 just to keep our heads above water. My husband is currently in school however and hopefully there will be some room in our budget for this kind of thing when he gets into his career field. His employer offers an awesome matching program, but there just isn't extra money for that.

To those that say it's as simple as "not shopping at Target/the Gap as much," it really isn't about that at all. We don't shop. I buy only what we need. I mean, my kids have worn the same coats and winter boots for 2 years now (and they were given to them as gifts because we didn't have the money to buy them.) I'm actually dreading the upcoming spring/summer season because I have 2 kiddos that are going to be in sizes not worn before in this house. Thank goodness for Ebay, or they might have nothing at all to wear. ;p

With all of that being said, I have always looked at the money we pay into social security as our way of supporting our current older generation. I never expected that money to be there for me. I really would like that when I'm old that the younger generation will help care for me, but it's not likely.

It truly is a terrifying proposition to now that you can barely be sure you are providing for your needs today, let alone 30 years from now.

LMC - I feel for you, I really, really do. I just think that teh difficulties you are facing are not typical of most Americans.

I grew up in your situation. One of five children, literally no money. Clothes came from charity (we didn't even shop at goodwill) or Mom made them. My first "job" at age 14 was cleaning houses at construction sites getting them ready to show - paid under the table.

My mom never saved for retirement. She just couldn't. She will never have to worry much about retirement. She raised 5 great children who will (and do so now) support her. We all worked and scraped our way through college with no parental assistance - and yes we took out loans but only reasonable amounts. We're her retirement plan. (That and the lottery - right!)

I really hope the same for you. (And when you can - please maximize that employer match at your husband's job!)

[ThreeYell]

ThreeYell, you are smart, so I don't understand how you don't see that raising capital gains taxes is only going to encourage investment capital to leave this country, rather encourage it to be invested in the American economy to promote entrepreneurialism, create jobs, wealth, etc.

It's simple. I don't believe in trickle down. While the stock market and corporate profits and jobs numbers might be strong, it doesn't actually get down to the bottom. It doesn't result in good jobs with living wages. The rising tide does not raise all boats. Interesting you should mention the WPA. I've seen lots of talk lately about essentially a modern-day WPA used to fix the crumbling infrastructure. As a progressive and a New Orleanian, I'm very intrigued.

Re: Washington corrupting, you have to get elected to Congress to play a role. Once beholden to donors and a district and reelection campaigns, how do you vote against the school spending and pass up the pork? I hear an earmark only hurts the first time. ;)

What about encouraging fathers to take responsibility for their families, especially in the black community? (Not just my point, but Obama's, among others.)

Just want to make sure I've got this straight - when a black man doesn't pay child support that's not only a moral failing but responsible for the failing economy, but when a business doesn't provide health insurance to its employees with all the attendant financial consequences of that decision, that's just smart business?

And we can create more manufacturing and skilled jobs and increase wages by lowering corporate tax rates (US has one of the highest) and create tax incentives for companies to invest in equipment and research and technology.

I wish I could find information on what the real rate is when adjusted for all the loopholes. A tax rate doesn't mean much when no one actually pays it.

And it's not that I don't think that conservatives don't care about poor people, though I do think you've made poor choices in your leaders if that really is a priority. It's that I don't think conservatives get poverty. I don't see them acknowledge the obstacles that every individual born into poverty face and, on the flip side, the advantages all of us born into relative wealth have.

Oh so disjointed. Why do I post before coffee?

[msnicolea]

A distrubution of income can exist without the lower classes living below the poverty level--that is a fact. I'm not suggesting there be no gap--I'm suggesting the gap be narrowed. And it is possible, despite the naysayers. Frankly, Delta, your post is depressing and seems rather hopeless. I prefer to take a more positive position, and wrok towards eradicting poverty in my community.

There are plenty of capitalist societies without the extreme levels and % of poor that we have in this country. It's disgraceful and, frankly, un-Christian.

LMC, I understand how difficult your circumstances are and I really do feel for you and your family. What I don't get, however, is why you support politicians who do nothing to support families in your income bracket, and who treat the near-poor and poor in this country as an after-thought. The Republicans are not a friend of the working poor or indigent--and I can give you hundreds of examples why.

[diam124]

LMC - I feel for you, I really, really do. I just think that teh difficulties you are facing are not typical of most Americans.

Really? I think those types of financial problems are actually pretty common.

[msnicolea]

And I agree with diam--LMC's situation is very common--and she even has it better than some.

In Milwaukee, for example, 33% of children in public schools here live below the poverty line. 33%. In a country of enormous wealth. I think this is morally reprehensible. Does someone want to justify this to me? Or explain to me how it is these children's "fault"--the fact that they are born into poverty makes it VERY likely they will live in poverty as adults--how they bear the blame for that? And some cities have it even worse:

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/jan08/poverty_010808_big.gif



I find it laughable when people post about creating their own fortunes or success--as if you were born into poverty, Delta. As if you have any clue how hard it is to break the cycle. Pisses me off to now end.

[thedoorchick]

I wish I could find information on what the real rate is when adjusted for all the loopholes. A tax rate doesn't mean much when no one actually pays it.
I've worked in corporate tax for 14+ years. What information are you looking for? Every country has its own tax rate structure and every country has items of income which are excludable or expenses which are deductible differently for book and tax purposes.

And considering that most large corporations are audited and the taxable income starts with audited book income, there are a lot less opportunities to hide taxable income - contrast this to the billions of dollars individuals make under the table and don't report. Corporations bear a significant burden of the taxes collected in the U.S., and (dividends received deduction notwithstanding), much of that income is taxed twice.

[LyLMyssChaos]

Wow, Detroit made top 3(too bad it wasn't for something good! :( )

I think that the economy in Michigan is REALLY doing poorly and it is catching A LOT of people off guard.

To answer the question about why I support candidates who "don't help the poor;" I believe that they DO help them, just not in the way that some think they should be. I firmly believe in the concept of "Give a man a fish, you have fed him today. Teach him to fish and he is fed for life." I would prefer to offer training assistance, child care assistance, transportation assistance, etc. I have no problem with some temporary aide for things like shut off notices, housing emergencies, food. But truly there are people whom make it their "career" to be on government assistance. I know that these are in the minority of cases, but they do occur. And it is these people whom allow greed to preside that taint the view for everyone.

I grew up on welfare. I have seen the abuses of the system. Once a month we carpooled with friends and drove 30 minutes to stand in line for 5 1/2 hours to get our food stamps. As I stood in that line, I saw some horrific things. I know that a lot of it, I couldn't understand simply because despite being poor, my father taught us that we should be thankful to have that help and that we should use that assistance wisely. There are a lot of people on welfare who look at getting assistance as something that is owed to them.

I don't believe that government assistance is a right. Nobody is required to provide for you. If you choose to have children, then you need to figure out how to provide for them. Are there some situations where people need a hand up? Certainly, and THAT is what I feel welfare should be for. It should not be unlimited and recipients should not become dependent on it.

It has been my belief that what I see from the Democrat side is more of just throwing money at the problem instead of finding solutions. The key is to walk a fiscal tightrope. One has to figure out how to aid those whom need it without burdening everyone else. I don't think the "Robin Hood" philosophy is fair. We shouldn't tax the "rich" to feed the poor. I don't believe that everyone should be equal. I don't think that just because someone was successful and has become wealthy that they owe it to others to care for them. Somehow they earned/received that money and they have the right to keep it. It's not their fault that others do not have as much abundant wealth. If they want to assist? Then by all means they should, but no one should be entitled to that assistance. It is not fair to impose even more tax on those that already pay more than 50% of all tax burden to support the other 95% of people. I do not begrudge anyone for having more than I do. If I want to do better financially? I need to make the appropriate changes to have that happen.

[Delta]

Just want to make sure I've got this straight - when a black man doesn't pay child support that's not only a moral failing but responsible for the failing economy, but when a business doesn't provide health insurance to its employees with all the attendant financial consequences of that decision, that's just smart business?OK but I wasn't talking about just child support. I was talking about encouraging men to take responsibility - as in don't leave, stick around and help raise them emotionally and financially - their children and the mothers of their children. I certainly think it's a moral failing (as well as economically devastating) when parents of either gender leave their families high and dry. Single parent families make up a HUGE portion of the poor and the phenomenon is self-perpetuating. (And I'm not sure where businesses providing health insurance comes in here, exactly...)
And it's not that I don't think that conservatives don't care about poor people, though I do think you've made poor choices in your leaders if that really is a priority. It's that I don't think conservatives get poverty. I don't see them acknowledge the obstacles that every individual born into poverty face and, on the flip side, the advantages all of us born into relative wealth have.I understand what you are saying. And I do think that conservatives should do more to make those acknowledgements, absolutely.
In Milwaukee, for example, 33% of children in public schools here live below the poverty line. 33%. In a country of enormous wealth. I think this is morally reprehensible. Does someone want to justify this to me? Or explain to me how it is these children's "fault"--the fact that they are born into poverty makes it VERY likely they will live in poverty as adults--how they bear the blame for that? And some cities have it even worse:Who is saying it's their fault? Of course it is not. That is a complete (and common) straw man argument. And my points still stand - the best way to ultimately lift people out of poverty is to create jobs (from what I understand Milwaukee has a relatively high unemployment rate?) and enourage and promote family responsibility. I would bet that that a very large percentage of these kids are in single-parent households?

And nobody has yet to address my points about curbing illigal immigration.

[ThreeYell]

OK but I wasn't talking about just child support. I was talking about encouraging men to take responsibility - as in don't leave, stick around and help raise them emotionally and financially - their children and the mothers of their children. I certainly think it's a moral failing (as well as economically devastating) when parents of either gender leave their families high and dry. Single parent families make up a HUGE portion of the poor and the phenomenon is self-perpetuating. (And I'm not sure where businesses providing health insurance comes in here, exactly...)

Oh, I agree with you and have said as much in other threads on other issues. I'll take it a step farther and talk about the devastating effect of divorce on lower income women and children. As hard as it is to raise a family with two people and two incomes, it's nearly impossible to do it on one. And sure, anyone who leaves their kids high and dry is an jerk. But how do we fix this? How do we make them support their families? I'm about to start volunteering in the New Orleans public schools (ranked number 2 in msnicolea's chart before the storm) and one of the projects my organization does is to teach job interview skills and help connect kids with local businesses. It sounds like a great idea, but I do have to wonder how much it can help. I hope I'll be pleasantly surprised. I'm genuinely perplexed as to the best way to attack the problem.

The point about health insurance is that you picked one random example of something that hurts economically and I picked another. I've often seen it argued that businesses have no moral responsibility to provide health insurance to their employees and that all they should do is look at their bottom line. I disagree, and suggest you could look at deadbeat dads as simply looking at their own bottom line and deciding paying for their kids isn't in their own economic self interest.

I don't really understand the illegal immigrant argument. Sure they provide cheap labor but that also lowers the price of goods and services making them more available to more people. If labor costs go up, prices go up. Maybe you could talk a little more about it. I'm willing to learn something new today but I'll warn you in advance that I have a hard time getting worked up over immigration.

[jajacobsen]

I find it laughable when people post about creating their own fortunes or success--as if you were born into poverty, Delta. As if you have any clue how hard it is to break the cycle. Pisses me off to now end.

I think part of that was addressed at me because I was - quite literally by anyone's definition - raised below the poverty line and I have spoken about it in this thread.

So - it's okay for CCer's to post how poor and badly they are doing and we feel sorry for them - and really empathize (at least I do) but for those of us who are American success stories - whose entire family has managed to raise itself out of such situation by sheer hard work, determination, and probably a lot of luck, to post about how it is possible to break the cycle - that pisses you off?

Sorry.

I understand my experience is not everyones'. But I also understand that things are not as bad as some make out, that we all have choices and opportunities, and part of being a grown up is assuming personal economic responsibility.

I have lived poor and lived rich. Now Dh and I are middle class. I have lived in the US and in the UK for an extended period of time and that gives me a good perspective on what national healthcare really means (I'm for it). I've been downsized twice and fired once and during those periods took jobs well below my skill and former income level (and did not make much more than what I would have got on unemployment) just to keep money rolling in the door. I have had huge healthcare bills which were not covered by insurance. So I think that gives me a valid perspective. It may not be everyone's but it is valid.

Don't borrow $100k in student loans unless you have a guaranteed job offer and then think three times before doing so. Don't go out and lease a new car when a modest used one will do if that is what you truly can afford. Save some money back for unexpected crises. If you are a parent, take that job you don't like because it provides health care for your kids. Don't refi your house and draw on your HELOC til there is no equity left, Don't spend, spend, spend like there is no tomorrow. Be willing to move and make changes to provide a better future. Study what will provide a good job rather than what you might "like to do." Realize that for most of us, there is a diifference between an avocation and a vocation.

Yes, there are truly poor and there should be - and are - programs in place. Those programs could be greatly improved (national healthcare). But job creation is one method of alleviating a lot of these problems, as is a greater sense of personal responsibility for many.

[msnicolea]

At what point did I suggest that people overcoming great financial odds and buidling a life for themselves pissed me off? I am the grandchild of immigrants--I know all about the importance of edcuation and hard work. But I was LUCKY to be born into a family that was already financially stable--I never had to go without or start from scratch. And some of you have no idea what that is like, what barriers families face.

No, what pisses me off is sanctimony from the Right, often from people who were born into above-average means, pontificating about how poor people "just don't work hard enough." And please show me where republicasn, on a national level, hve supported the creation of manufacturing and other such jobs that would help the lower and middle classes? What has Bush done to create jobs in this country? To lower the burdens facing our working poor?

The sterotype of Democrats throwing money at social problems is old and misinformed--I can point out many examples of clear policy ideas that promote early childhood edcuation and job creation--2 major parts of anti-poverty efforts.

And things really ARE that bad--take a look at Milwaukee, Detroit, New Orleans, etc. . . People seem to have a very limited world vision. Everyone in your neighborhood is ok--well, then things must not be that bad!