Plan B Forum

Taxes in our future are something we are going have to get used; I don’t see any other solution. The question is who do we tax and how and how much? Everybody is going have to pay more taxes. And things like earned income tax credit will have to disappear, but the rich will be hit the hardest. But there is a limit to how much the rich can be taxed. The rich are in the best position to avoid taxes. They can move their investments overseas and leave the country; there are already people who do that. However there are a group of rich people that can be taxed unmercifully and there is nothing they can do about it. They actually produce nothing of intrinsic value; their product cannot be eaten, worn, lived in or used to transport oneself. They are performers and artist; writers, singers, actors and sports stars. They could be taxed at ninety five percent and as long as the government got the money as withholding there would be nothing they could do about it. People like Oprah Winfrey would be screaming for mercy. Liberal would be affect disproportionately, but you conservative hater take heart Rush Limbaugh would be affected as well.

Who is proposing a 95% tax on the rich?

The Hen wrote:Who is proposing a 95% tax on the rich?

No one I know of, but tax rates in the past have been very high in the US. I was just using an extreme example.

Clinton raised the top rate to 34% and capital gains were taxed as regular income (which they should be) and the deficit disappeared. No significant number of people left the country.

No one is proposing eliminating the earned income tax credit.

Hysterical speculation is for unthinking fear-mongers. Get a grip.

yrs,
rubato

Romney has not explained how he will pay for his tax plan and analysts are pretty much unanimous in saying that it cannot be done without going after big ticket items like the mortgage interest deduction and the earned income tax credit. Given that the EITC is a significant factor in why some of the 47% he was whining about do not pay income tax, it is not hysterical at all to think he would be looking there to pay for the tax cuts he wants to bestow on his fellow silver spooners.

Clinton raised the top rate to 34% and capital gains were taxed as regular income (which they should be) and the deficit disappeared.

Complete and utter bullshit. (This has been blown out of the water before, but he is either too stupid to remember that fact or too dishonest to care, so he keeps repeating it.) Here's what actually happened:

The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars). In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.

During the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, respectable relative to today’s economy, but disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965.

For example, it was a half a percentage point slower than under Reagan during the four years following the first year of the recovery from the 1982 recession.

Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year. But real hourly wages continued to stagnate, rising only 2 cents to 7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992. No real gains for the middle class there.

Federal government receipts increased an average of $90 billion a year while the annual increase in federal spending was constrained to $45 billion. That led to a $183 billion, four-year reduction in the budget deficit to $107 billion in 1996.

However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term.


Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.

The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.

In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.[Did you catch that Wrong Way? The capital gains tax rate was cut to 20% not raised to the income tax rate.]

The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.

Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.

The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.

The boom was on. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000:

Economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.

Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.

As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.

Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.

Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadl ... -increase/

I realize there are way too many number in there for rube to be able to follow it, but that's the record.

"Mitty is stupid enough to want to do it" is not a strong predictor of the future even in the increasingly unlikely event he is elected.

Pushing 14 million households (1999 numbers, higher now) closer to or into poverty is just not a great electoral strategy..



yrs,
rubato

If we ever get an adult in the White House, we can expect him (or her) to convince Congress to enact major tax reforms that will simplify the IRC, eliminate a cornucopia of deductions and credits, and promote general prosperity by its fairness, consistency, and predictability. We have none of those three right now. As anyone who follows such things knows, the Federal Government NEVER gets its house in order by raising taxes, but rather by general prosperity, which has the effect of dramatically increasing tax revenues. Our current problems are caused by the phenomenon of Congresspersons assuming, in the Best of Times, that those revenues are not only going to last forever, but that they can be spent NOW! This is manifestly why Social Security is so fucked up at present. It was taken from a supplement to one's retirement provisions to the source that most middle class workers assume will carry them comfortably to the Grave. Not the same thing at all.

As for confiscatory Federal marginal tax rates (90% and so forth), we have had them in the past, but there was always an overriding provision that limited the actual rate to 50%, which the super-rich generally find tolerable. As hinted above, the ones who really get screwed are the sports stars and entertainers, who get millions in salary and can't do much to delay or avoid today's taxes.

But the federal government is not where the crushing taxes will come from. Our state and local governments, for the most part, have promised their employees and retirees a level of opulent retirement that will bankrupt virtually all of the states, counties (parishes), cities, and towns within the predictable future, because those entities - unlike the federal government - cannot print money. Look for state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and inheritance taxes to explode over the coming years.

I'm personally doing my best to avoid as much of it as possible, because the changes are inevitable.

rubato wrote:Clinton raised the top rate to 34% and capital gains were taxed as regular income (which they should be) and the deficit disappeared. No significant number of people left the country.

No one is proposing eliminating the earned income tax credit.

Hysterical speculation is for unthinking fear-mongers. Get a grip.

yrs,
rubato

It is not fear mongering the national debt will destroys our country if we don’t do something about it and I think the time for moderate measures has passed. How else can we pay off the debt without raising taxes?

I get the earned income tax credit. It is a nice thing to have, but I could do without it. And I bet the hold country could do without it without any mass starvation or other deprivation.

If the tax rate is raised to eighty or ninety percent we will see lot of rich people flee the country, except for the people I mentioned earlier who have no escape. Didn’t John Lennon leave Britain because of the high taxes there back then?

We might be able to sell the rich on a sixty or seventy percent tax rate as long as the y felt they were not being screwed. As the president puts it “everyone will need to have some skin in the game” and feel some pain. Even the poor could pay something, a symbolic amount.

The path forward can be seen in repeating what worked before and not repeating failures (like the Republican administrations).

A:
Median income.
Q:
What decreased under both Bush administrations and increased under Clinton The Wise?


Data from the US Census bureau:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d ... household/

2011 Dollars
Year ******** Median* ******** Ann.% ******** % change per admin.
******** ******** ******** ******** ******** ******** ********
2008 ******** $52,367 ******** -3.38% ******** -3.30% Bush II
2007 ******** $54,202 ******** 0.76% ******** ……. Bush II
2006 ******** $53,793 ******** 0.84% ******** ……. Bush II
2005 ******** $53,342 ******** 0.87% ******** ……. Bush II
2004 ******** $52,880 ******** -0.79% ******** ……. Bush II
2003 ******** $53,303 ******** -0.39% ******** ……. Bush II
2002 ******** $53,511 ******** -1.19% ******** ……. Bush II
2001 ******** $54,155 ******** -1.82% ******** ……. Bush II
2000 ******** $55,158 ******** 0.28% ******** 15.08% Clinton the Wise
1999 ******** $55,005 ******** 2.44% ******** ……. Clinton the Wise
1998 ******** $53,695 ******** 3.37% ******** ……. Clinton the Wise
1997 ******** $51,944 ******** 2.55% ******** ……. Clinton the Wise
1996 ******** $50,653 ******** 1.35% ******** ……. Clinton the Wise
1995 ******** $49,979 ******** 2.84% ******** ……. Clinton the Wise
1994 ******** $48,600 ******** 1.39% ******** ……. Clinton the Wise
1993 ******** $47,931 ******** -0.37% ******** ……. Clinton the Wise
1992 ******** $48,109 ******** -0.91% ******** -3.51% Bush I
1991 ******** $48,551 ******** -2.27% ******** ……. Bush I
1990 ******** $49,680 ******** -1.93% ******** ……. Bush I
1989 ******** $50,657 ******** 1.60% ******** ……. Bush I


* the mean income from the center quintile is taken as the Median overall.


yrs,
rubato

Data from the Congressional Budget Office, a primary source.

These are -effective- Individual income tax rates. That is the amount actually paid, or the most accurate information. You can see that there was a small increase for the top group and a decrease for the bottom group in taxes. A return to a more fair tax system, like this one, is all that is required to bring us close to solving our deficit problem. Claims of 50% or higher taxes are pure unthinking hysteria.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41654

Table 1A

Effective Individual Income Tax Rate

Year ******* Lowest **** Second **** Middle **** Fourth **** Highest **** All **** Top 10% **** Top 5% **** Top 1%

1979 ******* 0.0 ******* 4.1 ******* 7.5 ******* 10.1 ******* 15.7 ******* 11.0 ******* 17.4 ******* 19.0 ******* 21.8
1980 ******* 0.2 ******* 4.5 ******* 8.0 ******* 10.7 ******* 16.5 ******* 11.7 ******* 18.2 ******* 19.7 ******* 22.3
1981 ******* 0.5 ******* 4.8 ******* 8.3 ******* 11.1 ******* 16.7 ******* 12.0 ******* 18.2 ******* 19.6 ******* 21.5
1982 ******* 0.4 ******* 4.2 ******* 7.4 ******* 10.0 ******* 15.3 ******* 11.0 ******* 16.9 ******* 18.3 ******* 20.4
1983 ******* 0.4 ******* 3.8 ******* 6.7 ******* 9.1 ******* 14.2 ******* 10.2 ******* 15.6 ******* 16.9 ******* 19.4
1984 ******* 0.7 ******* 4.0 ******* 6.7 ******* 8.9 ******* 14.1 ******* 10.2 ******* 15.6 ******* 17.0 ******* 19.3
1985 ******* 0.5 ******* 4.0 ******* 6.6 ******* 8.8 ******* 14.0 ******* 10.2 ******* 15.4 ******* 16.7 ******* 18.9
1986 ******* 0.4 ******* 4.0 ******* 6.5 ******* 8.8 ******* 14.2 ******* 10.4 ******* 15.5 ******* 16.6 ******* 18.3
1987 ******* -0.6 ******* 3.2 ******* 5.8 ******* 8.1 ******* 14.9 ******* 10.3 ******* 16.8 ******* 18.5 ******* 21.5
1988 ******* -1.1 ******* 3.1 ******* 5.9 ******* 8.3 ******* 14.9 ******* 10.4 ******* 16.6 ******* 18.2 ******* 20.7
1989 ******* -1.6 ******* 2.9 ******* 6.0 ******* 8.3 ******* 14.6 ******* 10.2 ******* 16.3 ******* 17.7 ******* 19.9
1990 ******* -1.0 ******* 3.4 ******* 6.0 ******* 8.3 ******* 14.4 ******* 10.1 ******* 16.0 ******* 17.5 ******* 19.9
1991 ******* -1.6 ******* 2.9 ******* 5.8 ******* 8.1 ******* 14.3 ******* 9.9 ******* 16.0 ******* 17.6 ******* 20.6
1992 ******* -2.1 ******* 2.5 ******* 5.5 ******* 7.9 ******* 14.5 ******* 9.9 ******* 16.3 ******* 18.0 ******* 21.2
Begin, Clinton the Wise era.
1993 ******* -2.3 ******* 2.3 ******* 5.4 ******* 7.8 ******* 14.9 ******* 10.0 ******* 17.0 ******* 19.1 ******* 23.2
1994 ******* -3.9 ******* 1.9 ******* 5.3 ******* 7.8 ******* 15.0 ******* 10.0 ******* 17.1 ******* 19.2 ******* 23.0
1995 ******* -4.4 ******* 2.0 ******* 5.3 ******* 7.8 ******* 15.5 ******* 10.2 ******* 17.7 ******* 19.8 ******* 23.7
1996 ******* -5.1 ******* 1.8 ******* 5.4 ******* 7.9 ******* 16.1 ******* 10.7 ******* 18.3 ******* 20.5 ******* 24.2
1997 ******* -5.2 ******* 2.1 ******* 5.6 ******* 8.0 ******* 16.4 ******* 11.0 ******* 18.5 ******* 20.6 ******* 23.8
1998 ******* -5.4 ******* 1.5 ******* 5.0 ******* 7.9 ******* 16.5 ******* 11.0 ******* 18.7 ******* 20.6 ******* 23.4
1999 ******* -5.2 ******* 1.7 ******* 5.0 ******* 8.0 ******* 17.1 ******* 11.4 ******* 19.3 ******* 21.3 ******* 24.0
2000 ******* -4.6 ******* 1.5 ******* 5.0 ******* 8.1 ******* 17.5 ******* 11.8 ******* 19.7 ******* 21.6 ******* 24.2
End, Clinton the Wise era.
2001 ******* -5.6 ******* 0.3 ******* 3.9 ******* 7.1 ******* 16.3 ******* 10.3 ******* 18.7 ******* 20.8 ******* 24.1
2002 ******* -6.0 ******* -0.2 ******* 3.6 ******* 6.7 ******* 15.5 ******* 9.7 ******* 17.9 ******* 20.0 ******* 23.7
2003 ******* -6.0 ******* -1.1 ******* 2.8 ******* 5.9 ******* 13.7 ******* 8.4 ******* 15.8 ******* 17.7 ******* 20.4
2004 ******* -6.2 ******* -0.9 ******* 3.0 ******* 5.9 ******* 13.9 ******* 8.7 ******* 15.9 ******* 17.6 ******* 19.7
2005 ******* -6.5 ******* -1.0 ******* 3.0 ******* 6.0 ******* 14.1 ******* 9.0 ******* 16.0 ******* 17.6 ******* 19.4

Total Effective Federal Tax Rate

1979 ******* 8.0 ******* 14.3 ******* 18.6 ******* 21.2 ******* 27.5 ******* 22.2 ******* 29.6 ******* 31.8 ******* 37.0
1980 ******* 7.7 ******* 14.1 ******* 18.7 ******* 21.5 ******* 27.3 ******* 22.2 ******* 29.0 ******* 30.8 ******* 34.6
1981 ******* 8.3 ******* 14.7 ******* 19.2 ******* 22.1 ******* 26.9 ******* 22.4 ******* 28.2 ******* 29.4 ******* 31.8
1982 ******* 8.2 ******* 13.8 ******* 17.9 ******* 20.6 ******* 24.4 ******* 20.7 ******* 25.3 ******* 26.0 ******* 27.7
1983 ******* 9.1 ******* 13.7 ******* 17.5 ******* 20.1 ******* 23.9 ******* 20.4 ******* 24.8 ******* 25.6 ******* 27.7
1984 ******* 10.2 ******* 14.6 ******* 18.0 ******* 20.4 ******* 24.3 ******* 21.0 ******* 25.2 ******* 26.1 ******* 28.2
1985 ******* 9.8 ******* 14.8 ******* 18.1 ******* 20.4 ******* 24.0 ******* 20.9 ******* 24.7 ******* 25.4 ******* 27.0
1986 ******* 9.6 ******* 14.8 ******* 18.0 ******* 20.5 ******* 23.8 ******* 20.9 ******* 24.3 ******* 24.6 ******* 25.5
1987 ******* 8.7 ******* 14.0 ******* 17.6 ******* 20.2 ******* 25.8 ******* 21.6 ******* 27.2 ******* 28.5 ******* 31.2
1988 ******* 8.5 ******* 14.3 ******* 17.9 ******* 20.6 ******* 25.6 ******* 21.8 ******* 26.7 ******* 27.8 ******* 29.7
1989 ******* 7.9 ******* 13.9 ******* 17.9 ******* 20.5 ******* 25.2 ******* 21.5 ******* 26.3 ******* 27.2 ******* 28.9
1990 ******* 8.9 ******* 14.6 ******* 17.9 ******* 20.6 ******* 25.1 ******* 21.5 ******* 26.1 ******* 27.0 ******* 28.8
1991 ******* 8.4 ******* 14.2 ******* 17.6 ******* 20.5 ******* 25.3 ******* 21.5 ******* 26.6 ******* 27.6 ******* 29.9
1992 ******* 8.2 ******* 13.7 ******* 17.4 ******* 20.2 ******* 25.6 ******* 21.5 ******* 26.9 ******* 28.1 ******* 30.6
Begin, Clinton the Wise era.

1993 ******* 8.0 ******* 13.5 ******* 17.3 ******* 20.2 ******* 26.8 ******* 22.0 ******* 28.6 ******* 30.5 ******* 34.5
1994 ******* 6.6 ******* 13.1 ******* 17.3 ******* 20.4 ******* 27.4 ******* 22.3 ******* 29.4 ******* 31.3 ******* 35.8
1995 ******* 6.3 ******* 13.4 ******* 17.3 ******* 20.5 ******* 27.8 ******* 22.6 ******* 29.8 ******* 31.8 ******* 36.1
1996 ******* 5.6 ******* 13.2 ******* 17.3 ******* 20.3 ******* 28.0 ******* 22.7 ******* 30.1 ******* 32.0 ******* 36.0
1997 ******* 5.8 ******* 13.6 ******* 17.4 ******* 20.5 ******* 28.0 ******* 22.9 ******* 29.9 ******* 31.6 ******* 34.9
1998 ******* 5.8 ******* 13.0 ******* 16.8 ******* 20.4 ******* 27.6 ******* 22.6 ******* 29.3 ******* 30.8 ******* 33.4
1999 ******* 6.1 ******* 13.3 ******* 16.9 ******* 20.5 ******* 28.0 ******* 22.9 ******* 29.7 ******* 31.2 ******* 33.5
2000 ******* 6.4 ******* 13.0 ******* 16.6 ******* 20.5 ******* 28.0 ******* 23.0 ******* 29.6 ******* 31.0 ******* 33.0
End, Clinton the Wise era.
2001 ******* 5.1 ******* 11.5 ******* 15.3 ******* 18.9 ******* 26.7 ******* 21.4 ******* 28.5 ******* 30.0 ******* 32.8
2002 ******* 4.7 ******* 10.8 ******* 14.8 ******* 18.3 ******* 26.0 ******* 20.7 ******* 27.9 ******* 29.5 ******* 32.8
2003 ******* 4.6 ******* 9.8 ******* 13.8 ******* 17.4 ******* 25.0 ******* 19.8 ******* 26.8 ******* 28.5 ******* 31.7
2004 ******* 4.3 ******* 9.9 ******* 14.1 ******* 17.3 ******* 25.2 ******* 20.1 ******* 27.1 ******* 28.7 ******* 31.4
2005 ******* 4.3 ******* 9.9 ******* 14.2 ******* 17.4 ******* 25.5 ******* 20.5 ******* 27.4 ******* 28.9 ******* 31.2


yrs,
rubato

Rub, if high taxes are not the solution what the hell is the solution. Do you think we as a nation can ignore the national debt forever? Little piddling tax increases will not be enough money; it will just put us more in debt. We have to raise enough money to not only take care of those in need and fund our liabilities while at the same paying off the national debt. I feel we need taxes that are constitutionally set aside just to pay the national debt.

rubato wrote:The path forward can be seen in repeating what worked before and not repeating failures (like the Republican administrations).

A:
Median income.
Q:
What decreased under both Bush administrations and increased under Clinton The Wise?

yrs,
rubato

Don't forget it has decreased under Obama too.
And Carter.

oldr_n_wsr wrote:

rubato wrote:The path forward can be seen in repeating what worked before and not repeating failures (like the Republican administrations).

A:
Median income.
Q:
What decreased under both Bush administrations and increased under Clinton The Wise?

yrs,
rubato

Don't forget it has decreased under Obama too.
And Carter.

Obama took over during the worst economic collapse in 80 years. A collapse which the Republicans created.

An intelligent person would not make that comparison.

I will check and see if it went down (inflation-adjusted) under Carter.

yrs,
rubato

liberty wrote:Rub, if high taxes are not the solution what the hell is the solution. Do you think we as a nation can ignore the national debt forever? Little piddling tax increases will not be enough money; it will just put us more in debt. We have to raise enough money to not only take care of those in need and fund our liabilities while at the same paying off the national debt. I feel we need taxes that are constitutionally set aside just to pay the national debt.

A small increase in taxes for the top group, many of whom pay too little (like Mitty) is all that is necessary.

yrs,
rubato

Obama took over during the worst economic collapse in 80 years. A collapse which the Republicans created.

And has done nothing to turn it around. It has gotten worse. (Could it have been worse or better without what he did is not the discussion). Results are what matter and most people are worse off than they were 4 years ago.

An intelligent person would not make that comparison.

What comparison did I make? I pointed out that the median income has gone down during the last four years (aka the Obama years).
You compared the Clinton vs Bush years, I only stated it also went down during the Obama years.

I will check and see if it went down (inflation-adjusted) under Carter.

You do that.

oldr_n_wsr wrote:

Obama took over during the worst economic collapse in 80 years. A collapse which the Republicans created.

And has done nothing to turn it around. It has gotten worse. (Could it have been worse or better without what he did is not the discussion). Results are what matter and most people are worse off than they were 4 years ago.

First, I don't agree that he's done nothing to turn it around. I won't bore you by re-posting any of rubato's statistics, graphs, charts, etc. (I'm sure he'll happily do that on his own ) but there are hopeful signs in the stock market, the real estate market, and yes, even the job market. (If things really had been getting worse for all of the past four years, you'd probably still be looking for work after your first job loss, and dgs would not have been able to go from one well-paying job to another at the age of 63, and I'd probably be unemployed too. My father lost his last job at the age of 62 during the Carter/Reagan recession and died at the age of 69 without ever having gotten another job...and without ever seeing the White Sox win a World Series.) Most economists agree that things have been going (slowly--as slowly as the Republicans can manage) in the right direction.

But the more important point is this: Mitt Romney and the Republicans have proposed NOTHING that would improve the economy that is both (a) different from Obama and (b) different from the Bush policies which caused the Great Recession in the first place.

Sure, I'd prefer a quicker recovery...but I'll take a slow recovery over another crash anytime.

you'd probably still be looking for work after your first job loss,

After 24 years, 11 months and 2-1/2 weeks I Did that.
And again
And again

But to be fair, the second "And again" was my fault. But that sums up my last four years.
Some may say it is getting better but I don't see it. Is it better than it could have been? well that can and will be debated.
Housing prices really suck on LI but that doesn't matter much to me as I bought in 1985 and have no intention on selling.
Income is down and prices are up, which do matter to me.
Anyone can say policies put into place during past administrations are the problem. We can go back to Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and finally the Obama administration to assign blame.

A year before the collapse I saw it coming. There was a really big mortgage broker/company near where I worked and I went to happy hour one day (pick your day, ) in August 2007 and this company had just layed off over 1000 employees. They were all at my favorite pub (all us alcoholics have a favorite, it's the one that sells booze and has a nice buy back policy ) and I asked them what happened. They told me and then I knew the housing market, which had been obscenely out of wack, was about to collapse and the company had just closed. Some of those there had just been hired (a week or two before).

Being an engineer and not in the housing market/business I didn't fret over it. Maybe I should have as the "ripples" affected every industry.

One can say Obama kept even worse from happening, but we will never know. I do know that unemployment has been over 8% (with the real number closer to twice that), median income has dropped (along with my salary but again, that is partly self imposed), and gas (aka inflation) has gone up. Expenses (be it taxes or user fees or whatever) have gone up. Less money is available to spend that actually might spur the economy. And it all has gotten worse in the last 4 years from my perspective and all the people I know. Who or what started it is a different discussion. Right now it sucks (even if I do still make a descent salary). My cousin, who has a PhD in phsycology and has held $125,000 jobs is unemployed. Many of the jobs I keep hearing about being created are either seasonal or low paying service jobs. Engineers, advancely educated and Phd's are unemployed and many of those "new" jobs are, "do you want fries with that?".

Do I blame Obama? not entirely but partly. It seems he did not know what he was getting into and had no plan and no solution.
We are 15+ TRILLION in debt, are printing money trying to spur the economy and it just gets worse. Slow turnaround? I don't see it. Sure teh stock market has essentially rebounded, but that measn nothing to most Americans. most Americans are struggling, have been struggling and look to the future and only see more struggle.

In my opinon, it is time for a change. Remember "Hope and Change" and a transparent governement and halving the deficit and shovel ready jobs and all that? None of that happened. People can blame the "other party" all they want, a real leader would compromise and get soemthing that might work.

Sorry for the rant, but it's how I see it. NY will go to Obama, so my presidential vote against means nothing. However there is a rep seat and a senator seat that I am watching/looking into and a few local campaigns going on that I do have more of a say in.

oldr--I tend to agree with you re jobs; I know far too many highly qualified people (mostly scientists) who have been in the job market for more than 2 years with nary an interview. There might be some job growth, but it is in the lower paying, often minimum wage jobs. Some of these people are just giving up looking for work--it doesn't bode well for a recovery, and means even fewer people will be paying into social security making that situation even worse. I'm not all that hopeful this will turn around anytime soon, and yet the benefits that seem to keep the peoples' heads above water are evaporating, with few in DC reallly caring. And that's where I assigning blame to obama--he has plenty of excuses for why he didn't/couldn't act, but few real actions to help those who voted them in. Pretending things are getting better by quoting misleading statistics helps no one, especially those who need it most.

I thought being an engineer was somewhat "outsourcing proof". I got layed off from Motorola after doing power studies, microprocessor studies and every other quailification of every IC/design part of a product and when it came time to do the actual design, it went to the far east.

A buddy of mine works for what used to be SMSC (they make the peripheral IC's in your PC/laptop) and they were just bought by Texas based (?) Microchip. For the last 8 years he has been on the phone every monday night at 9pm (yes, 9 at night) with his counterparts in India. He and his co-workers (all EE's with degrees from BS to Phd's) have been on edge recently (more than usual) as more of the design software is being shipped overseas. Seems us engineers in making info transfer available 24/7 at close to the speed of light have bit ourselves in the ass. Design cna (and is) done anywhere and the info can be transfered as the person is doing it. So, us in the northeast cannot compete with someone in the south let alone India or Taiwan.