HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » hfojvt » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1


Profile Information

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: 34,822

Journal Archives

actually it has not

and I do not believe there were significantly more deductions in the past. I am pretty sure there are still significant deductions that are still with us, as the current stats I looked at showed.

In 1993, the standard deduction was $3,700. The inflation calculator tells me that is $5,964 in 2013 dollars. Not all that much different from the $6,100 the standard deduction was in 2013. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=171

It was $2,300 in 1984 which is $5,156 in 2013 dollars, but the 1984 number was rather low. It was $2,300 in 1979 which is $7,380 in 2013 dollars. Making $6,100 actually 17% lower than it was in what I call the "good old days" (before Reagan ruined the country). The real value was closer to $7,000 in most of the 1970s (although it went up and down - in 1977 it was boosted to $8,457 in 2013 dollars!!!!)

Here's the inflation calculator.

some people might have wanted

a Democratic President who did not embrace Reaganomic talking points.

So on a list of Obama's accomplishments are a few things that Republicans would applaud.

What do Republicans always push? Tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts. Tax cuts, Republicans say, are always good. And tax increases are bad.

And Obama embraces that message, and so, apparently, do his supporters. From his list of accomplishments:

"Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act , he cut taxes for 95% of America’s working families. http://bit.ly/eSEI4F

Under Obama, tax rates for average working families are the lowest they’ve been since 1950. http://bit.ly/f74pD8

He extended and fully funded the patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax for 10 years. http://bit.ly/eFeSdP"

Take the first one as an example. According to CTJ, the stimulus cut taxes for 98% of working Americans. http://ctj.org/pdf/truthaboutobamataxcuts.pdf

However, they don't bother to mention that the richest 10% got 34% of those tax cuts. The richest 20% got 51% of them.

On the other hand, the poorest 40% only got 23% of them.

So, uhm, yeah, it's so great that Obama cut taxes in a way that benefits the top 20% far more than it helps the bottom 40%. That's definitely what I was hoping he would do when I voted for him twice.

No, actually, it wasn't.

For some reason, I was hoping for better than that.

House seats that can be flipped

Going by results in the last Presidential election, handily compiled by a Kossack http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/19/1163009/-Daily-Kos-Elections-presidential-results-by-congressional-district-for-the-2012-2008-elections#

+% of Obama win, (-% of Romney win) in various Congressional districts

A - seats we ought to capture - total of 3

CA-21 +12
CA-31 +16
NJ-2 +8

B - seats with a numbers in our favor - total of 15

CA-10 +3
CO-6 +6
FL-13 +1
FL-27 +6
IA-3 +4
IL-13 +0.3
MN-2 +0.1
MN-3 +0.8
NJ-3 +5
NV-3 +0.8
NY-2 +4
NY-11 +4
NY-19 +6
VA-2 +1.5
WA-8 +1.6

C - Seats with a decent shot (that Romney barely won) - total of 10

CA-25 -2
FL-25 -2
NY-22 -0.4
NY-23 -1.2
OH-10 -2
PA-7 -2
PA-8 -0.1
VA-4 -1
VA-10 -1
WA-3 -2

28 seats where Republican incumbents should be vulnerable anyway. There are seats where Democratic incumbents are vulnerable as well. Perhaps those are worth noting, because we need to fight to hold them as well as fighting to win others

D - seats that are long shots, but perhaps doable - total of 41 (15 of them where Romney's margin was less than 5%)

CA-39 -4
CA-49 -6
CO-3 -6
FL-2 -5
FL-7 -5
FL-10 -7
FL-12 -9
FL-15 -7
FL-16 -9
IA-4 -8
IL-6 -8
IL-16 -8
KS-3 -10
MI-1 -9
MI-3 -7
MI-4 -8
MI-7 -3
MI-8 -3
MI-11 -5
NE-2 -7
NJ-4 -9
NJ-5 -3
NJ-7 -7
NJ-11 -5
NM-2 -7
NV-2 -8
OH-1 -6
OH-5 -9
OH-14 -3
OH-15 -5
OH-16 -8
PA-6 -3
PA-11 -9.5
PA-15 -3
PA-16 -6
VA-1 -8
VA-5 -7
WI-1 -4
WI-6 -7
WI-7 -3
WI-8 -4

The Republican Recession and the Democratic Recovery (updated again)

So I made the mistake of watching Michelle Bachmann.

She continues to push trickle down economics and to ask "where are the jobs?"

Well the first question needs to be, where did the jobs go?

The answer to that is that they went away in Bush's last year in office. Basically Bush trickled them down his leg. This is perhaps my 4th update and the BLS keeps changing their numbers. So, if you are keeping score, the numbers will not be exactly the same as the last update http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021566043

Why the numbers from 2008 should change between 2010 and 2014 is a mystery to me, but presumably the latest numbers are more accurate than the earlier numbers. These are the job gains (or losses) by quarter.

First, the Republican recession, a very severe one

1st (150,000)
2nd (570,000)
3rd (945,000)
4th (1,952,000)

total (with Bush as President) (3,637,000)

1st (2,319,000) note - Obama was sworn in as President and the stimulus passed in the middle of this quarter
2nd (1,528,000)

total (in Obama's first five months in office (3,847,000) Clearly NOT the result of Obama policies.

Then the Democratic recovery (starting by slowing the freefall)

3rd (794,000)
4th (411,000)

total of the last half year (1,205,000)

That the economy was no longer losing 1,000,000+ jobs every quarter is a very positive thing. The economy was in free fall and the stimulus was like a parachute. When you open a parachute, you keep falling, but at a much slower rate so that the landing does not kill you. But things kept getting better for the economy.

1st +101,000
2nd +620,000
3rd (166,000)
4th +467,000

total 2010 + 1,022,000

1st + 470,000
2nd + 628,000
3rd + 435,000
4th + 570,000

total 2011 + 2,103,000

1st +787,000
2nd +324,000
3rd +456,000
4th +626,000

total 2012 +2,193,000

1st +622,000 (-15,000)
2nd +547,000 (-22,000)
3rd +502,000 (+27,000)
the next is mostly provisional (estimates)
4th +575,000 (-15,000)

total 2013 +2,246,000

The numbers in parentheses there are the number of JOBS that governments CUT. Showing that Republican austerity policies are STILL a drag on the economy.

So 7.5 million jobs in the last four years. As Governments have CUT 766,000 jobs since May 2009. The private sector then has added 8.3 million jobs.

If our economic policies were more sane, we would have worked to KEEP those 700,000 government jobs. When somebody gets a job for the government, whether as a postal carrier, teacher, firefighter, garbage collector, food inspector, or whatever, even a janitor like me, they not only provide services to the public, but their paycheck allows them to spend money in the private sector. Which creates, or supports, even more jobs.

But if those jobs are cut, that is another drag on the recovery.

Of course, it is true that 7.5 million new jobs still does NOT equal the 8.7 million jobs that Bush (and Bachman's) policies trickled away in 2008 and 2009. Bachman kept saying "In the last seven years" as if Bush was not President seven years ago (to our great misfortune).

We are slowly recovering from a Republican jobs catastrophe. We'd be recovering even better if not for the catastrophe of November 2010 which gave us a Republican Congress.

I will say this again, every three months, until November. And if you are still reading this, thanks for staying with me.

Go to Page: 1