Comments on: FINALLY!? He is asking the right question http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/ Ground zero for all things political in Delaware Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:42:29 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Dana http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/#comment-54077 Dana Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:47:30 +0000 http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=6079#comment-54077 The Pico family is better off, by a lot. I ran my 2006 and 2007 income through a tax year 2000 Form 1040, just to see what the Bush tax cuts did for us. The answer: we saved $12,905 in federal income taxes in just those two years. The Pico family is better off, by a lot.

I ran my 2006 and 2007 income through a tax year 2000 Form 1040, just to see what the Bush tax cuts did for us. The answer: we saved $12,905 in federal income taxes in just those two years.

]]> By: Von Cracker http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/#comment-53959 Von Cracker Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:59:38 +0000 http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=6079#comment-53959 Go move to N. Korea - it hasn't had an attack on its soil in decades! Loser. Go move to N. Korea – it hasn’t had an attack on its soil in decades!

Loser.

]]> By: Von Cracker http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/#comment-53957 Von Cracker Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:57:58 +0000 http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=6079#comment-53957 Wudda poo-nanny! She rather have the illusion of safety than freedom!!! Loser. Wudda poo-nanny!

She rather have the illusion of safety than freedom!!!

Loser.

]]> By: jason330 http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/#comment-53956 jason330 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:50:55 +0000 http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=6079#comment-53956 What we need is more tax cuts for the top 2% of earners. That will turn this thing around. What we need is more tax cuts for the top 2% of earners.

That will turn this thing around.

]]> By: cassandra_m http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/#comment-53955 cassandra_m Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:47:30 +0000 http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=6079#comment-53955 Better of is defined in economic factors in the article that started this off. That would be why we are all focused on it. You certainly have a good point, but let's not forget the subject of the thread. And thanks, anon -- I missed the measurement in 1982 dollars. Better of is defined in economic factors in the article that started this off. That would be why we are all focused on it. You certainly have a good point, but let’s not forget the subject of the thread.

And thanks, anon — I missed the measurement in 1982 dollars.

]]> By: edisonkitty http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/#comment-53949 edisonkitty Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:30:22 +0000 http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=6079#comment-53949 Way to miss the point, all. Or, how to lie with statistics. Are you better off with your constitutianal rights being trampled? Are we a better nation for torturing people? Are we moving in the right direction with our dependence on fossil fuels? Need I go on? Better off is not limited to economic factors. Way to miss the point, all. Or, how to lie with statistics. Are you better off with your constitutianal rights being trampled? Are we a better nation for torturing people? Are we moving in the right direction with our dependence on fossil fuels? Need I go on? Better off is not limited to economic factors.

]]> By: anon http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/#comment-53948 anon Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:28:52 +0000 http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=6079#comment-53948 of course, CPI excludes energy prices, so the price of oil, electric, etc. doesn't directly affect the inflation rate until all the producers start passing on their increased energy costs into non-energy goods, so there is a delayed effect, but you are now seeing it accelerate, that is why real wage is going down faster this year. of course, CPI excludes energy prices, so the price of oil, electric, etc. doesn’t directly affect the inflation rate until all the producers start passing on their increased energy costs into non-energy goods, so there is a delayed effect, but you are now seeing it accelerate, that is why real wage is going down faster this year.

]]> By: anon http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/#comment-53947 anon Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:26:56 +0000 http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=6079#comment-53947 Cassandra.... that 1.45% is in 1982 base dollars and therefore already takes inflation into account... the point is that 1.45% sucks and it's Bush's fault. Real wage is a direct measure of the US standard of living. Cassandra…. that 1.45% is in 1982 base dollars and therefore already takes inflation into account… the point is that 1.45% sucks and it’s Bush’s fault.

Real wage is a direct measure of the US standard of living.

]]> By: cassandra_m http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/#comment-53944 cassandra_m Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:18:09 +0000 http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=6079#comment-53944 Mercy, even the SSA COLA for last year alone was 2.3%. I certainly doubt (tho I haven't done the math) that 1.45% over six years doesn't come close to matching the increase in the CPI for those same 6 years. Mercy, even the SSA COLA for last year alone was 2.3%. I certainly doubt (tho I haven’t done the math) that 1.45% over six years doesn’t come close to matching the increase in the CPI for those same 6 years.

]]> By: anon http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/#comment-53940 anon Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:06:57 +0000 http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=6079#comment-53940 Well, ... I just did the math from bls.gov: 2000 avg weekly earnings: 273.35 2008 avg weekly earnings: $277.81 % change: 1.45 (bls measures real earnings in 1982 base dollars) Well, … I just did the math from bls.gov:

2000 avg weekly earnings: 273.35
2008 avg weekly earnings: $277.81
% change: 1.45

(bls measures real earnings in 1982 base dollars)

]]> By: cassandra_m http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/#comment-53938 cassandra_m Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:58:51 +0000 http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=6079#comment-53938 Is the 1.2% for the total of six years or for <i>each year</i>? It is still a crappy number, but especially bad if it covers all 6 years which is the way I read it from the original post. Is the 1.2% for the total of six years or for each year? It is still a crappy number, but especially bad if it covers all 6 years which is the way I read it from the original post.

]]> By: anon http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/#comment-53936 anon Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:55:02 +0000 http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=6079#comment-53936 <i>How do you come up with earnings decreasing after inflation? Your numbers don’t add up, child.</i> Take it up with the bls.gov, it's their numbers. <i>And a 1.2% increase in wages over six years is a functional decrease in wages</i> Sorry Cassandra, I'm on your side but the 1.2% increase is already adjusted for inflation. It still sucks though, and is below historic norms. Your other numbers are right though. How do you come up with earnings decreasing after inflation? Your numbers don’t add up, child.

Take it up with the bls.gov, it’s their numbers.

And a 1.2% increase in wages over six years is a functional decrease in wages

Sorry Cassandra, I’m on your side but the 1.2% increase is already adjusted for inflation. It still sucks though, and is below historic norms.

Your other numbers are right though.

]]> By: cassandra_m http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/#comment-53934 cassandra_m Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:52:53 +0000 http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=6079#comment-53934 Interesting that Sharon's link has no links to the referenced IRS data. Interesting that Sharon’s link has no links to the referenced IRS data.

]]> By: cassandra_m http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/#comment-53931 cassandra_m Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:50:55 +0000 http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=6079#comment-53931 Inflation-adjusted median household income in 2000 -- $49,158 Median household income in 2006 --$48,201 (H-6 Tables Census Bureau 2000, 2006) Poverty Rate 2000 -- 11.3% Poverty Rate 2006 -- 12.3% (Historical Poverty Tables Census Bureau) And a 1.2% increase in wages over <i>six years</i> is a functional decrease in wages, since prices for food, gas and housing certainly increased faster than 1.2% over six years. And a big reason why 80% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. Inflation-adjusted median household income in 2000 — $49,158
Median household income in 2006 –$48,201
(H-6 Tables Census Bureau 2000, 2006)

Poverty Rate 2000 — 11.3%
Poverty Rate 2006 — 12.3%
(Historical Poverty Tables Census Bureau)

And a 1.2% increase in wages over six years is a functional decrease in wages, since prices for food, gas and housing certainly increased faster than 1.2% over six years.

And a big reason why 80% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.

]]> By: Sharon http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/26/finally-he-is-asking-the-right-question/#comment-53930 Sharon Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:49:30 +0000 http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=6079#comment-53930 U.S. News and World Report is a "wingnut site"? Are you one of those people who link to Media Matters? U.S. News and World Report is a “wingnut site”? Are you one of those people who link to Media Matters?

]]>