That was my quandry in this last (few) election(s).

I've not felt we had anyone to vote FOR. Anyone who would weather the storms of championing the changes we need to get us back on the right path.

Perot was the last real candidate that was really for CHANGE. Obama isn't. He was and is a talking head shot run by who knows who. Full PR pres. as was Kennedy.

The Dems want to spend, be PC and take care everyone, which of course costs us all down the line - witness the welfare state Kennedy gave us. The Repubs don't seem to have a real direction and there are no other REAL candidates.

You can't even make a difference on the local level because so many of the funds needed to run a city are federal with all the strings attached.

 

My company has a project in California. Unskilled Laborers are making $25/hr PLUS union benefits. It's a freaking rip-off.

The average California state employees make $80k/year based on an article I read. The monthly payroll for the state is over $1.5 BILLION.

The U.S. is going to turn into California and then we're all screwed.

To the OP, just be happy you got a stimulus check. I busted my ass in school and in my job for the last 8 years since being out of college and guess what the government gives me for doing all that? A kick in the nuts and a huge tax bill.




Oh, Happy New Year everyone!

 

My daughter lives in Cali. and it takes that kind of income just to exist. She makes almost $70,000 and has to share an apartment with 2 other people. Her share of the rent is still about $1,500.

All of her costs except vegetables are quite a bit higher than here. Especially gas.

 

Well, the "supporting people who suck society dry" thing has been discussed already, I think anybody that is working and supporting themselves (and others) can agree on that.

But I do have a question that may open some eyes.

I'm just curious how many people that "don't have much disposable income" are living above the AVERAGE lifestyle for major expenses such as house/cars/hobbies/ect. When I say "AVERAGE" I really don't think that includes people that are swimming in a sea of debt because they didn't manage their credit exposure properly and lived above their means.

I think "just barely getting by" means that you struggle to pay for food/gas/mortgage while you live in a safe but reasonably priced income area (Say, sub $200K for a 4 bdr house in the Dallas area) and driving a "just getting by car" (not a 30K sports car).

Just because you don't have liquid assets doesn't mean you don't have disposable income, you just decided to spend it already.

 

I just started this rant because, as its 31-Dec-08, I'm about to write checks for about $24,000 in property taxes. So far I am not willing to do my TurboTax to find out how much income taxes I owe. Can't face it. Without need to say: There will be no capital gains taxes this year!

However, I've travelled around the world and KNOW that I am extremely lucky and blessed to live and work in the USA! Our poor, would be upper middle class (if not near rich) in Thailand. [Memory: I went to a little Methodist church in far eastern Thailand, near Cambodia. I threw a 500 baht note (~$20) into the offering plate. The local Pastor came by after the service, and in halting english, asked if I was sure I meant to give so much. It apparently was the single biggest offering of the year.]

Doug has a point. Many of us (although I don't think I personally do) live beyond our means; as least on a sustainable basis. But its hard to agrue that R-compounds are not a living expense .

I just don't like the whole attitude that other people seem to think they are entitled to MY hard earned money. I strongly believe in helping our fellow man, but my giving and their taking are not the same thing.

Al

 

While I'm bitching: I saw a television report recently about the "mortgage crisis". The "credit victim" that was being interviewed was saying that his adjustable ARM had adjusted (thus the name) and he was now unable to pay his mortgage. Poor guy. Then the interviewer asked about the adjustment. He had taken out his mortgage with a 1.9% APR. His ARM adjusted to 6%! and that ruined him. OMG. When I refinanced my mortgages a couple of years ago I locked in 6% for the next 30 years, and was happy, and have paid my 6% ever since. When is 6% unreasonable... unexpected. Heck, that's a pretty good rate. That guy was living in a subsidized fantasy world for the last 2 years.

Al

 

You're lucky to have gotten anything - I didn't get any...

 

As a Mortgage Lender I see all kinds of financial statements and over the last year or 2 I've noticed that more and more people have lower ratios. Which simply means they have lower debt than what I have been used to seeing in the previous 10 years or so.

People seem to be doing a better job of handling their debts and balances.

I think it's due to credit scores getting so much press and people finally realizing that the quantity of debt both in number and balances hurts.

 

Well I think the consensus of the OP is that he DIDN'T want the stimulus if they deducted the amount from your earnings. To be honest, neither do I.

 

It wasn't deducted from your earnings, it was an advance credit on your income taxes. Big difference.

Anyway, I agree with AATees on all fronts. There has to be a balance, but if Obama and the gang don't realize soon enough that it is the "rich" that create jobs and employ the "poor" (using both terms loosely), then this economy is going into the crapper even more quickly than it already is.