Gender: Do not display
Hometown: South - Carolina and Dakota
Home country: Oz
Current location: Kansas
Member since: Mon Nov 15, 2004, 03:30 AM
Number of posts: 33,770
Hometown: South - Carolina and Dakota
Home country: Oz
Current location: Kansas
Member since: Mon Nov 15, 2004, 03:30 AM
Number of posts: 33,770
I often think of the past. For one thing, because I am old and can remember when Isaac Asimov and Arthur Ashe and Robert Kennedy were still alive.
But for another thing because I do historical research every day, looking for distant relatives and family connections.
Today I am looking at John Loomis in the 1880 census. He was 52 years old and his wife Sarah was 46. Living in Butler County, Iowa and working, of course, as a farmer. They have seven children living with them in 1880, including their two oldest sons George 26 and Burton 24 and down to their youngest son Sherman 6.
1870 census tells me they have two more daughters who were not with them in 1880 when they would have been 23 and 21. And it also tells me that John is apparently the anti-christ, since it says his personal property was worth $666 in 1870 and his land was worth $350.
In the 1900 census, George was still with them, a widower, and Sarah's mother, 86 year old Sallie Vincent was also with them! The 1900 census also says that only 7 of their 9 children are still lving (perhaps the 7 listed in 1880?) and that only 1 of Sallie's 5 children was living. I know that sons George, Charles and Sherman were alive in 1900. I cannot find Burton and cannot identify John Wesley. The daughters I will not be able to find unless a) I get lucky and a widowed parent is living with one of them in later censuses or b) somebody posts their own family information online including one of those daughters.
As it turned out, I got lucky and after her husband passed away, Sarah was living in 1910 with her daughter Minnie B, who had 3 children by a Mr. Fuller and was now married to a James H. Miller. Her daughter Amanda is also with them in 1910.
But that is getting into the weeds of research, which was not why I started this essay.
I wanted to think about, to talk about the way they lived back then. 1880 was only 133 years ago. Hardly a blink in terms of history. I mean, the other day a 103 year old woman was on the news chatting away with her interviewer. My mom and dad's grandparents were living in 1880.
How did they live? Consider John's family. He and his wife raised 9 children on just what they could get from the land. John was not paid a living wage. John did not have a 40 hour work week or paid holidays or paid vacation or paid sick leave or health insurance with his job. (And, as I well know from experience, neither do most self-employed people today). He did not have electricity or central heat or air conditioning either.
He probably heated his home with firewood, and if he got hot, the best he could do is drink a cold drink (with no refrigerators) or take a cold bath (with no running water). They fed their family with what they got from the ground and from their livestock, and with farm products that they sold. They had to can their own food, probably slaughter their own meat and churn their own butter and make their own clothes. Unlike me, they probably did not have a closet or three full of old clothes and multiple pairs of boots and shoes.
Think of Sarah giving birth to 9 children between August 1853 for the first and June 1873 for the last. No such thing as an ultrasound and likely almost no pre-natal care.
Think of what the kids did not have. No bicycles (invented in the 1860s). No skateboards. No board games. No such thing as basketball or football (baseball though, dates to before 1850 but how readily was equipment available - balls, gloves, bats?) And in some ways they are better off too, because there was no such thing as four square either. No such thing as a radio, a television, an ipad, an ipod, a computer, a VCR, no playstation (although I guess pong was invented in about 1872) (see how old I am, I remember pong). no records, no CDs (I guess they did have these things called 8 tracks) and very few musical instruments. There were very few public libraries, if any.
Not much in the way of schools. The 1940 census tells me my dad's maternal grandfather (born in 1860) had a 4th grade education, his wife had a 6th grade education (but their daughter graduated from the University of Wisconsin in 1927 (yes, my grandma rocks!) Dad's paternal grandfather (born 1875) had a 10th grade education and his wife had a 6th grade education. Only one of my mom's grandparents lived past 1940, her paternal grandfather, who had an 8th grade education.
It was like living in North Korea, there was no such thing as Coca-cola. No such thing as a la-z-boy. No such thing as McDonalds (all you hitchhikers try not to pass out when you consider that reality) or Amazon. Billions and billions of consumer items that we are able to buy today, including DVDs of Carl Sagan's TV show, were not available in 1880 even if they could afford them with their average income of perhaps $3,000 a year. John lived to be almost 80 and Sarah lived to be 87. Did they think life was hard or that life was good, or both at various times?
Something to think about. There has been a lot of improvements and inventions in the last 130 years, and in spite of the unfairness of those at the top grabbing a gigantic slice of the pie thanks to Reagan, we do still have it pretty good in San Dimas these days. If only we would be excellent to each other. Drop one of us back in 1880 and we would have no doubt about the hardness of life back then. Today, we have lots of benefits and advancements that we perhaps do not appreciate enough. Even advancements in justice. In 1880, Sarah could not vote. She lived long enough to see women's suffrage. Did she register and vote in the 1920 election before she died in 1921? Or just celebrate the progress?
Considering the years as well, Sarah lived through the Civil War and WWI. We have had nothing like those in my lifetime. 117,.000 Americans died in about two years of WWI and 620,000 died in the four years of the civil war. The battle of Gettysburg itself, with 51,000 casualties was almost as deadly to Americans as all of Vietnam (it is worth remembering though, that the Vietnam war, like the Iraq invasion, was far more deadly to those living in the country where it was fought and feeling the brunt of our military might) , and that when the US population was much smaller.
The future may not be bright. I worry about things like population, resources, and environmental damage that even my nieces and nephews will face in their lives, but the present seems pretty good compared with the not-so-distant past.
Posted by hfojvt | Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:21 PM (14 replies)
because what you wrote is NOT true
"The credibility of his self defense claim flew out the window, the instant Zimmerman ignored what he was told, got out of his car and headed in Trayvon's direction."
Clearly I need to put this in my journal because many people seem to think that is what happened. It's not.
What happened is this
Zimmerman calls the police (and it is on tape and the recording is on the web)
Zimmerman (paraphrased) Now he is walking toward me. He's checking me out.
more talking. Then you can hear Zimmerman open his car door and start breathing hard as he is obviously walking after Trayvon. As Zimmerman talks to dispatch. The dispatcher picks up on the heavy breathing and asks
Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
n.b. This is just what Zimmerman said. I am not claiming that this proves Zimmerman actually stopped following Trayvon or trying to figure out which way he went.
and as for Zimmerman "instigating" a confrontation. Something else is also a FACT.
Zimmerman on the tape says "shit, he's running" and then talks to dispatch for another minute during which he also says "I don't know where he is". So I still don't see how Zimmerman could catch Trayvon.
Posted by hfojvt | Sun Jun 30, 2013, 05:41 PM (1 replies)
Here's the history of it
You see the cap was increasing even before Reagan, although it was flat from 1937-1950.
The real value of the cap in 2013 dollars increased from $73,165 in 1980 to $88,544 in 1988, but it was also growing before Reagan, being just $62,324 in 1974.
The real thing Reagan did was increase the payroll tax, it was 6.13% in 1980 and 7.65% by 1990 (although some of those increases may have come from laws passed before Reagan was President) and the tax increase on the self-employed was huge. Those job creators saw their tax rate go from 8.1% in 1980 to 15.3% by 1990, almost a 90% increase, and on top of the increases in the cap. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html
Posted by hfojvt | Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:20 AM (1 replies)
Is he serious? A MERE $400,000 a year? MERE?
A MERE $280,000 a year? MERE? 50% of taxpayers make less than $35,000 a year. So $200,000 is not "mere".
Those are the people who SHOULD be paying higher taxes - because they have most of the money.
In 2008, the top 0.1% had 10% of all AGI, the top 1% had 20% of it, and the top 10% had 46%. The bottom 50% had only 13%.
So, it looks like this
top 0.1% - 10%
top 0.9% - 10%
top 9% - 26%
next 40% - 41%
bottom 50% - 13%
Collectively, the top 9% has more money that the top 1%
I am NOT saying that the top tax rate shouldn't be much higher, or that the top 1% shouldn't pay more in taxes.
But you cannot give $666 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% (like Obama just did when he made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent) and also give $1.7 trillion to the top 19% and then say "the problem is ALL with the 1%" like that fucking $1.7 trillion is just chump change.
Again, here is a clue for the top 20% - quit looking up at the top 0.1% and feeling poor. Look down at the bottom 80% and realize YOU are rich. That maybe YOU can pay another $1,800 a year in taxes and that money could be used to fund food stamps or unemployment benefits for people much less fortunate than you.
In fact, the top 20% is a very, very big part of the problem. They favored the Reagan tax cuts - because they themselves got decent money from it. THEY also (most of them) favored the Bush tax cuts, AND favored keeping most of them permanent. They wanted to keep getting their slice of the $1.7 trillion. In fact, I am quite sure that most of them would rather impose the chained CPI on the rest of us before they would give up their share of the $1.7 trillion.
Things are more stacked against the bottom 70% than they are against the bottom 99%. Remember the $1.7 trillion.
Posted by hfojvt | Mon Apr 15, 2013, 11:51 AM (0 replies)
I was just being sarcastic, because that is always the excuse conservadems use when one of their sell-outs betrays the working class and gives big bonuses to the rich, then they say "but, but, but, he/she needs to be re-elected."
Here's CTJ's analysis of it. A tax hike for the bottom 20% and 46.4% of the benefits going to the richest 5% and 77.9% (!!!) going to the richest 20% http://ctj.org/html/desc97.htm
Posted by hfojvt | Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:40 AM (1 replies)
here are the colas http://www.ssa.gov/cola/automatic-cola.htm
2001 - 3.5%
2002 - 2.6
2003 - 1.4
2004 - 2.1
2005 - 2.7
2006 - 4.1
2007 - 3.3
2008 - 2.3
2009 - 5.8
2010 - 0
2011 - 0
2012 - 3.6
so $1.000 a month has grown to $1,361.14 a month by 2012.
Now some might think that is a huge growth, and think that if it was reduced to $1,300 that that would not really be a "cut". Because, after all $1,300 is still more than $1,000.
But that is not what really happens. Consider, for example, the price of gas. In 2000, gas was selling for, let's say $1.25 a gallon. (I think it was less, but it was increasing from the low of 89.9 in late 1999 and I remember it increased just in time to hurt Gore in the election even though it was probably higher than $1.25 when Clinton was elected in 1996. I remember that too, because it was right when I bought my 2nd car in 1996 and gas was about $1.30.
Anyway, that $1,000 in 2000 would buy you 800 gallons of gasoline. By 2012, $1,000 would only buy about 300 gallons of gasoline.
The same is true, although I cannot remember prices, of things like bread and milk and any number of other items. Some items held steady. For example, I remember buying a Trek bicycle in 1990 for about $300 and then a new one in 2002 for $300 and then another one in 2004 for $275 (because they had a sales tax holiday)
So $1,300 in 2012 would only be equivalent, in general, to $975.03 in 2000. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1300&year1=2012&year2=2000 If the COLA does not keep up with inflation, then you are going backwards even as the nominal value of the check goes up, the real (non inflation) value is going down.
However, it does appear that past COLAs for Social security have been beating the rate of inflation. At least for the period from 2000-2012. The $1,000 growing to $1,361.40 beats the inflation rate of $1,333.3. Or, put another way, the real value of $1,361.40 in 2000 dollars is $1,021.11.
But the COLA has probably not been keeping up with the increasing costs of food, gasoline and medicine.
Posted by hfojvt | Sat Apr 6, 2013, 02:47 PM (1 replies)
including twice during the primaries.
Obama "I've been very clear on this"
Posted by hfojvt | Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:53 AM (0 replies)
There is no "a place".
"I would ever feel welcomed in a place that considers me a pedophilia enabler,"
the "place" does not consider anything or believe anything. There are 47 star members who have me on ignore and 49 blocking PMs from me, and yet "the place" does not have me on ignore - only many of the members do. Some members say some things and they may even get dozens of recs for saying it, but that is not a statement from "the place". Just an opinion of some of the people who post here.
The place does not agree 100% on anything.
Except maybe that the Jets still suck. There IS widespread, nearly unanimous agreement on that.
Posted by hfojvt | Sun Mar 17, 2013, 03:21 AM (1 replies)
tell me again how Republicans lost?
First of all, don't shoot the messenger.
I am just relaying the results of two reports from Citizens For Tax Justice
The first one shows that the betrayal (err, the "deal") was NOT a tax increase, it was a tax CUT
If all of the Bush tax cuts got extended that would have been a tax cut of $3.9 trillion.
Since only 85% of the Bush tax cuts were extended it means a tax cut of $3.3 trillion. Add to that the $369 billion in estate tax cuts which the White House is calling an increase in the estate tax. The total is $3.7 trillion in tax cuts.
We are supposed to cheer because the top 1% is gonna pay another $600 billion in taxes.
Okay, fine, but how is the $3.7 trillion in tax CUTS divided up.
That is in the next report http://ctj.org/pdf/bidenmcconnelldistribution.pdf Read it and weep.
The bottom 60% gets just 19% of the tax cut.
The same amount as the richest 1% gets.
The top 20% gets 65% of the tax cut - $2.4 trillion over ten years.
Say hello to more income inequality. $2.4 trillion in tax cuts for the top 20%. $700 billion in tax cuts for the bottom 60%. Plus $124 billion in recovery act credit provisions. Is still only $800 billion for the bottom 60%
Oh well, maybe those tax cuts to the top 20% will trickle down to the rest of us.
And we in the bottom 60% are supposed to believe that Obama is on OUR side? That the Democratic Party is on OUR side?
They will claim to be, but $2.4 trillion vesus $800 billion shows that claim is a lie.
Was it the best they could do? They did not even OFFER anything better to the American people. Our false choice was - keep 78% of the Bush tax cuts or keep 100% of them. No elected offical - not Tammy Baldwin, not Elizabeth Warren, not Dennis Kucinich, not Alan Grayson, not Sherrod Brown, not Sheldon Whitehouse, not Bernie Sanders, not Al Franken. None of them ever used their position to demand - let's keep ZERO percent of them and aim tax cuts at the bottom 60%.
All of those supposed progressives are apparently owned by the richest 20%.
Posted by hfojvt | Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:53 AM (22 replies)
"Rubin and his allies control the Democratic Party with their money at the moment. Their financial power will not be easily overcome. However, it is important that people understand that the Rubin-Clinton team is every bit as much about redistributing money from the rest of us to the very rich as the Republicans."
From Dean Baker http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/26-0
"Their financial power will not be easily overcome."
There seem to be those here who suggest that those of us from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" are not loyal Democrats because we would attack the perfidity of the Rubin wing of the Democratic Party.
Let me once again link to, listen to and quote Ted Kennedy
"I am asking you to renew the commitment of the Democratic Party to economic justice"
"The serious issue before us tonight, is the cause for which the Democratic Party has stood in its finest hours ... our cause has been, since the days of Thomas Jefferson, the cause of the common man, and the common woman. Our cimmitment has been, since the days of Andrew Jackson, to all those he called "the humble members of society" - the farmers, mechanics and laborers. On this foundation we have defined our values, refined our policies and refreshed our faith."
A deal that heavily favors the top 20% over the bottom 40% is NOT a deal worthy of that heritage.
The Rubin wing is happy to accept and fight for such a deal, but I am not. Nor am I willing to just roll over and accept their domination of the Democratic Party. No, I will stand with the bottom 75%, the common man and the commom woman and hope that they will join together to take our party back.
Posted by hfojvt | Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:25 PM (20 replies)