All of this is just a short term fix. And truth be told, it has been happening over past 3 decades. Reagan and Clinton have just as much blame as the current administration. This is an interesting perspective on this(the midas touch)
rawdawgbuffalo | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 11:49 am | #

John, are you feeling a little masochistic this morning? Didn't we already discuss this into the ground yesterday? I agree that this is going to do relatively little to help bolster the economy, but a one time rebate of $300 or so is going to do little when your premiums hit $2000 a month.

You're right to think that this stimulus package is worthless and just a political ploy, but your anger is a little off base. There is nothing wrong with helping the poor. Everyone should contribute to that cause. But yes, the rich should be contributing a far greater percentage than they currently are, which would definitely take pressure off of the middle class.

NOTE FROM JOHN: Bruce, you are responding to numerous arguments I did not make.

I said that the problem isn't that one $300 check is going to break anyone making $75k a year. Never said it. What I clearly said was that far too many proposals from the Democrats are ONLY geared towards the poor, or at the very least don't help everyone - fixing health insurance for example and only focusing on poor kids when everyone else is scared to death of what their insurance won't cover should they suddenly have a catastrophic illness, or fixing education by only focusing on "inner-city" schools and ignoring the vast number of suburban schools that now have gang problems, drug problems, metal detectors etc.

I never said that there is something wrong with helping the poor. I said that a political party that only helps the poor with every single proposal, and ignores the rest of America, isn't going to be winning a lot of elections, or solving a lot of our long-term problems.

Edited By Siteowner
Bruce | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 11:57 am | #

John, there's no evidence now that the posts are all gone, but most people took your post as a "pity those making only 75k in the best cities in the country" opinion, and missed what is indeed a valid point about the Dems only concentrating on the low wage earners. (not saying I totally agree, but it's a reasonable argument.) hope you can read your post again and see how people would take that from it. when most everyone misses your point, is it possible you didn't make it clearly?
SkippyFlipjackX | 01.25.08 - 12:14 pm | #

Jeez, what happened to the 559 comments that were on here yesterday????!!!!!!
pinky | 01.25.08 - 12:18 pm | #

I'm sorry to say it, but after having written this blog for four years, and having run online communities for a good decade now, I've gotten to know how people act online. Then tend to be much ruder, and much more impulsive, than they would ever be in person. And the really odd thing is how truly hateful they can be to people they know to be good people. So, no, I can't accept that people misread my post. They didn't read my post. The explanation I just gave Bruce is almost verbatim from my post itself. Read it for yourself, it's still there. The problem is that too many people feel the need, or can't control the urge, to be hateful when conversing online. Not angry - hateful. And it's a big problem. If I hadn't been witnessing this kind of reaction for ten years now, I might agree with. But the sad truth is that people choose to see what they want to see, they don't read what anyone really writes, they make a snap decision by the first paragraph, and if you don't agree with them, you're the devil, even if they've known you for years. I've been called a racist because I think Cynthia McKinney is a nut, and she is, and because I criticized Obama during the McClurkin thing. I've been called an Indian-hater, and someone spammed the site for weeks, because I miss my school's symbol and said I was divided about it being phased out. I've been called a woman hater because I used a popular 20-year-old (at least) gay expression to mock a Republican, an expression that suddenly the most vocal gay people in the comments claim they've never heard of (which is utter bull), and I'm also a woman-hater because a lot of Hillary's campaign moves have bothered me of late. I hate, and apparently "fear," trans people because we disagree about ENDA. Oh yeah, and that also makes me an awful gay person who's never done anything for the community. I'm a Jew-lover and an Arab-hater because I have actual nuanced opinions about the Middle East. And on and on and on. There's a certain level of hate that unfortunately comes when you let everyone have anonymous access to the town square, and it happens on all the blogs, on all bulletin boards online, in all chat rooms, but for some reason I thought our own readers would be different. I was apparently wrong. Just wait and see the comments that come next. They'll speak for themselves.
John Aravosis | 01.25.08 - 12:19 pm | #

I never said that there is something wrong with helping the poor. I said that a political party that only helps the poor with every single proposal, and ignores the rest of America, isn't going to be winning a lot of elections, or solving a lot of our long-term problems.

----------

Indeed this was said, but only after a lengthy rant about how hard it is for a single person to live on $75K, and how unfair it is that that person won't be receiving a tax rebate. I think you'd lost about 90% of us after that, and for damn good reason.

NOTE FROM JOHN: Liar. This is what I'm talking about. People simply lie because they disagree with you, so they simply must instantly hate you. When did I say that the Democrats should never ever do anything to help the poor? Never did. But again, you lie because it's the only way you can justify the personal attacks.

Edited By Siteowner
pt | 01.25.08 - 12:33 pm | #

My rough guide has always been that your monthly rent/mortgage payments should never be more than 1/3 of your after-tax income. My dad's old rule was that you should be able to pay your rent with one week's pay.

This may mean that if you make $75k/year that you can't afford to have a nice apartment in the nice part of a big city. And if you do, it might mean you have to give up some up other things.

The only reason a single person with no kids could be struggling on $75/year, anywhere in the country is because of personal lifestyle choices (where you live, eating habits, travel, hobby).

Maybe for you, it means going to Florida instead of France this year.

NOTE FROM JOHN: Again with the cute personal attacks. Are you aware that my trips to Europe are usually free? My tickets are usually covered by another business trip that I piggy back France on, or last summer I had friends watch my apartment, and they paid me, and it made up a big chunk of my ticket. I'd call that about as smart and frugal as you could get. You go to Florida and you pay for it. I go to France and I don't. And you simply do not live in Washington or NYC as a 40-something paying health insurance, paying off or having paid off what in today's economy would be $120,000 in student loans, try to put money away for your retirement and buy your first home. It is simply wrong to suggest that $75k a year is swimming in money for someone in that situation. You can make all the cute remarks you want, but facts are facts, please argue them. Oh yeah, and I rent a small studio in a neighborhood that had, and still has, a pretty high crime rate. You simply don't know Washington, which is my point.

Edited By Siteowner
Nylund | 01.25.08 - 12:35 pm | #

NOTE FROM JOHN: Liar. This is what I'm talking about. People simply lie because they disagree with you, so they simply must instantly hate you. When did I say that the Democrats should never ever do anything to help the poor? Never did. But again, you lie because it's the only way you can justify the personal attacks.

----------

My fault for not being clear: "Indeed this was said" referred to your statement, "I said that a political party that only helps the poor..."

I'm saying, yes you did say what you claim to have said, but unfortunately it came along with way too much pity for someone making $75K. Settle down.
pt | 01.25.08 - 12:44 pm | #

Settle down? Again, this is what I'm talking about. You guys can't make a single point without throwing in a snippy or bitchy comment.
John Aravosis | 01.25.08 - 12:52 pm | #

The health insurance thing is another issue. We should be like all other major countries and provide that...higher education as well, but regarding this one stimulus check, I do not think its unreasonable to leave out people making more than $75k per year. Please don't mistake this as support for the proposed measure. It has many flaws.

Only about 6% of households in the US make more than $150k per year (according to the 2005 census). It seems to me that many Americans will be getting a check.

If anything, I think we should lower that limit and give those under it even more. Targeting money to those who need it the most is very important in such fiscal stimulus plans.

In the context of the stimulus plan, those that make above $150k/year as a couple, but aren't the super rich only account for about 5% of US households (one again, according to the 2005 Census).
Nylund | 01.25.08 - 12:53 pm | #

The reaction to this post is a good indication of why we'll never get comprehensive health care reform, only an endless parade of compromised and confusing "targeted" programs.

Which is, I think, John's point.

Think of it this way: if we had real single-payer, all the ugliness surrounding the SCHIP brouhaha, with Michelle Malkin peeking in your windows to see how nice your tableware is, would have been irrelevant.

In fact, most of this discussion of whether or not it's hard to get by in a high-cost-of-living area on what would be high-roller money in the sticks looks like it was cut-and-pasted from the SCHIP/Malkin threads. The differences in who's arguing what side are fascinating.
Nero's Fiddle | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 12:58 pm | #

Actually, Nero, I worry that any health care fix is going to leave a lot of people out - those who are not "poor." And let's face it, very few of us could afford $2000 a month premiums - and probably none of us could afford something catastrophic. But I fear that the Dems don't really care about helping people beyond the poor. Again, helping the poor is a wonderful thing. But if it's the only people you help, then everyone is pretty much screwed.
John Aravosis | 01.25.08 - 1:01 pm | #

I don't entirely agree with you John but thanks for the clarifying posts. I'm afraid that by using yourself and your friends as examples, you're going by personal experience (a good thing) but invite (fairly or not) rebuttals that are personal in nature.

If 75k isn't a good cutoff, what is? Should $300 checks go to people making $1 million/year? Up there it's not economic stimulus, it's simply taking money away from other programs. I think what the Democrats did was good -- to say to the Republicans "OK, you want economic stimulus? Give money to the people who will actually spend it." Make them squirm at helping the people they don't bump into at Nieman-Marcus. Sure, there should be a cost-of-living index, but that would probably be a lot of effort to administer, I would imagine. And would a person in Kalamazoo think it's fair that a person in DC got an extra couple hundred just because of where he or she lives?

Hey, how long do bans last? I think I got banned yesterday for getting infantile on a person who insisted on calling me "idiot" and "moron" for no reason. I'd like to be able to post comments from my home machine again. When might that happen? (Then again, my IP changes periodically so it might not be me who was banned.)

NOTE FROM JOHN: Email me about the ban.

Edited By Siteowner
SkippyFlipjackX | 01.25.08 - 1:24 pm | #

You know John, I agreed with your post. Sad that so many posters consider me "elitist" because of my income and the city I live in. I like your post and the issues you brought up.
scottinsf | 01.25.08 - 1:42 pm | #

"Some guy living in a mansion in Topeka making $74,999 a year will get his little gift from the US Treasury and you, living in NYC making $75,001 out of a 300 sq ft studio apartment will get nothing."

Not true, in any respect.
“Individuals with incomes up to $87,000 and couples up to $174,000 would get partial rebates. The caps are higher for those with children.”
from here (email addy needed): http://tinyurl.com/23yhyr

Maybe you should amend your post and change all the numbers from 75k to 87k.
cb | 01.25.08 - 1:59 pm | #

John:

Approximately 95 percent of US households have incomes below $150,000.

In your opinion, are the vast majority of Americans poor?

NOTE FROM JOHN: Again, you didn't bother reading my post, so you're criticizing me for something I never even wrote or talked about. I didn't say a thing about households making $150,000 a year. I was talking about people making $75,000 a year. Having said that, ask someone in NYC if $150,000 a year makes them rich - and I don't live in NYC, so I have no personal stake in this point - and then ask a household of 2 people how they live on $150k in NYC, and you'll be surprised what you find out about expenses up there. They may make the upper 5% in America, but they certainly don't have the lifestyle of the upper 5% because of the horrendous cost of living. Talking about salaries without looking at the relative cost of living doesn't really tell us much.

Oh, and to answer your last question, in my opinion the vast majority of Americans are facing serious problems with health care, education, and overall trying to make a living, absolutely. And the longer we deny that fact the longer we will suffer politically.

Edited By Siteowner
lemuel pitkin | 01.25.08 - 2:20 pm | #

Having said that, ask someone in NYC if $150,000 a year makes them rich - and I don't live in NYC, so I have no personal stake in this point - and you'll be surprised what you find out about expenses up there.

Ok, first off, I never talked about $150,000, so it's not relevant to the conversation. Secondly, the $150k you're referring to was in the actual stimulus package for couples, not single people. Third, do you have $120,000 in student loans, paying $1200 a month for them in addition to your rent? Anyone who's gone to graduate school in any professional degree, law, medicine, does. You'd be hard pressed to explain how you live on $40,000 a year paying, say, $1200 a month on rent (if you're lucky), and another $1200 on your grad school loans - leaving you a little over 11k to pay for utilities, insurance, food, and that's of course assuming that you pay none of that $40k in fed taxes, local taxes, or SS. And I have to tell you, I know lots of people in NYC, and not a single person would say that you get by fine on $40,000 a year in New York City, unless you aren't paying for insurance, didn't bother to go to grad school, aren't putting any real money away for retirement, and aren't planning on ever buying a first home. So, I'm sorry, but you're not describing "living" in my book. You're getting by with no plans for a future. And that's the very problem I'm describing, unless we've now given up on the idea of people getting an education, having health care, and actually ever owning a home, i.e., we now consider all of those luxuries that don't fit into the equation. I certainly don't consider them luxuries.
John Aravosis | 01.25.08 - 3:16 pm | #

Sorry, I only delete assholes. Anyone is fair to disagree about anything on this blog, and our regular readers know it. I even let a few right-wing trolls stay because, honestly, they're not that bad - they disagree like hell, but they're generally harmless. So if I don't delete right-wingers, the only leftwinger I delete are true assholes. So don't worry, your comments are safe provided you're not a dick.

Edited By Siteowner
A Real Rogressive | 01.25.08 - 3:32 pm | #

"That means that if you make $75,000 or more a year, no check for you. Forget that fact that you live in NYC or DC or San Francisco, where prices from property to food are outrageous. "

i dont know how anyone reading that sentence could take it as anything other than a whine, especially considering the median household income of the country is around $40,000. and the other week you posted that the new crippled laptop/toy from apple was cheap at $1,800.

my girlfriend lives in mount pleasant, DC at a salary far below 75 grand and manages to get by fine. she shops at the giant in columbia heights and prices there are pretty much the exact same as the giant i shop at in suburban philadelphia.

housing is ridiculous, but thats not just in DC, its just more inflated because DC is actually a nice place that people want to live. and your museums are free, which rules.

anyway, krugman i believe has the right take on the whole stimulus thing.

NOTE FROM JOHN: Again, with the median household income argument. It's really not relevant what the median household income is unless you look at the comparative cost of living in each city. DC is far more expensive than most places in America, as is NYC, as are a lot of places in California as well. It is simply not true to say that most of the country is just as expensive as DC. As for your girlfriend, does she have $120,000 in student loans, which a typical grad student getting a law degree, a medical degree, or any other professional degree would have? Is she paying her own insurance? How much is she putting away for retirement? And how much is she saving to buy her first home? I suspect that, just like the other person above, you're not describing someone who is planning for a future, you're describing someone who is getting by (unless they're getting help from their family). Or unless she's in her 20s, and can afford to not plan for her future (or thinks she can afford). I'm not talking about some 23 year old kid, I'm talking about people, who can live in a group house with 5 other people. I'm talking about older professionals in this town who have real insurance premiums, real debt, and are not living high on the hog on $75k a year.

And finally, Mt. Pleasant isn't exactly the Taj Mahal when it comes to crime, no where in DC is. This simply isn't a city that's worth the cost of living here - it is not NYC - but unfortunately, if you want to affect national policy, you don't have a choice.

And I'm not even sure what to do about your comment about the laptop. Obviously I'm talking about the relative cost of a Mac laptop. You do know that top of the line Macs go into the 2000s range, right? So $1800 for a new, super-duper, deluxe one is relatively cheap for a Mac. Are you saying it's actually relatively expensive for a top of the line Mac? Again, I don't understand your point. People are now upset that I pointed out that the new Mac is cheaper than the old ones? Give me a break.

And yes, free museums help your pocket book a lot, the one time a year you visit them. That would be $10 saved, yes that's true. :-)

Edited By Siteowner
r | 01.25.08 - 3:34 pm | #

I didn't say a thing about households making $150,000 a year.

John, you specifically said that married couples making over $150,000 would not get a rebate check, and clearly saw that as a problem. A couple making over $150,000 is near the top of the income distribution in any part of the country.

ask a household of 2 people how they live on $150k in NYC, and you'll be surprised what you find out about expenses up there.

I live in New York City, and am quite comfortable with my income of about $50,000 a year. Most of my friends make less, many in the thirties, and none are poor by any stretch of the imagination. Why don't you ask me about expenses here? You might be surprised yourself.

But let's look at the statistics. barely 10 percent of New York City taxpayers (350,000 out of 3.2 million) report incomes of over $75,000. (Source.) The median income for a full-time worker in NYC is about $40,000.

In other words, the vast majority, of New Yorkers would be eligible for the rebate. Those left out are the richest tenth or less of the population, which is not most people's definition of the middle class.
lemuel pitkin | 01.25.08 - 4:34 pm | #

You know John, I agreed with your post. Sad that so many posters consider me "elitist" because of my income and the city I live in. I like your post and the issues you brought up.
scottinsf | 01.25.08 - 1:42 pm | #

You might try considering the possibility that it had something to do with the content or tone of your posts and not just your salary or your "sf".
SkippyFlipjackX | 01.25.08 - 4:49 pm | #

Ok, first off, I never talked about $150,000, so it's not relevant to the conversation.

Third, do you have $120,000 in student loans, paying $1200 a month for them in addition to your rent? Anyone who's gone to graduate school in any professional degree, law, medicine, does.

You'd be hard pressed to explain how you live on $40,000 a year paying, say, $1200 a month on rent (if you're lucky)

And I'm not even sure what to do about your comment about the laptop. Obviously I'm talking about the relative cost of a Mac laptop. You do know that top of the line Macs go into the 2000s range, right? So $1800 for a new, super-duper, deluxe one is relatively cheap for a Mac. Are you saying it's actually relatively expensive for a top of the line Mac? Again, I don't understand your point. People are now upset that I pointed out that the new Mac is cheaper than the old ones? Give me a break.

Edited By Siteowner
[] | 01.25.08 - 3:34 pm | # 

John, for a media-savvy guy you can have a bit of a tin ear :)

No one's upset because you said the "Air" is cheaper than other Macs. Replace "Mac" with "Mercedes" in your post and you might understand. Most people can't afford them so they drive Hondas. Sure, a C320 might be cheap by Mercedes standards but they're not cheap.

I can get a Dell laptop for $500. $1800 might be cheap for a mac but it's not cheap for a laptop and for lots of people it's not cheap, period. I didn't see the original post but I believe that's what "r" was pointing out.
SkippyFlipjackX | 01.25.08 - 5:00 pm | #

Meh. I don't need their little bribes anyway. What would I do, buy an iPod or two? Honestly since I'm earning between 80-100/yr, even in a medium-high COL city, I don't mind that the middle class and poor get a break.
And I'm not kidding myself - I'm upper middle class, no two ways about it. I'd rather earn what I earn than get $600 this year and earn 74,999.

"The Republicans ONLY want to help the rich, and the Democrats ONLY want to help the poor. Screw everybody else. I am so sick of these people."

Yes well since everyone earning over 75k/yr is < 10% of the population... :S we'd be outvoted here, and the rich get a lot more funding for their goals.
I admit I occasionally get annoyed that I'm not rich enough to have a Swiss account and get out of wealth redistribution, but then I remember that it is a lot more fun being on the rich side of the scale, even if I'm not rich.

It's not about one puny rebate. You're right. The plan sucks. But it doesn't suck because some people get $300 and I don't.
Geek | 01.25.08 - 5:18 pm | #

Second time reader, first time commenter:

I live in DC. I make 41k a year. I live in a nice neighborhood with nice people who don't clean up after their dogs. I do have some rude neighbors (Karl Rove, Tucker Carlson, to name two prominent cobagz) but overall it is a phenomenal place to live.

I put money away every month. I pay down my debt every month. I pay my bills every month. I support myself. I haven't taken a trip outside the US since 2006 but I did go on vacation in the summer of 2007.

I do have to take the bus to Dupont Circle to go see shows on U Street and I do like to walk places (walked home from the 9:30 Club last night). I rely on Metro, Metro Bus, RideOn and ZipCar.

Maybe you don't consider that living, John, but then maybe you need to redefine your priorities. Sure, this stimulus package is worthless, but your post, which I have read at other sites since you don't have the courage to back your convictions, sounded exactly like all the right wing bitching I have ever heard about welfare and other social programs.
Chuckles | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 10:14 am | #

John -

"Then [sic] tend to be much ruder, and much more impulsive, than they would ever be in person." (John A)

Clearly we've never met in person, because I definitely am.

I was an early fan of and linker to your blog, before your skin thinned and your comment editing commenced.

How dare the unwashed masses challenge your opinion? How dare we?
mdhatter | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 1:58 pm | #

Also, why is this blog still on Blogspot? I thought you had moved to a private hosting service years or months ago? Didn't you have a fundraiser or pledge drive or something?

It's funny how a fundraiser for you (people paying for your luxuries) is acceptable but an economic stimulus package (which you either completely misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented) is absolutely intolerable. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

Potato, potato.
Pundit, blowhard.
Chuckles | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 4:41 pm | #

Living on $75k a year????? That's rediculous!!1 I can't even afford to gas my Hummer on that kind of money!!11!
F. M. Asshat | Homepage | 01.29.08 - 3:43 am | #

John since your so straped for cash. May I suggest a free dining experience?
Eat It!
F. M. Asshat | Homepage | 01.30.08 - 4:13 am | #

How come you haven't banned Asshat, Johnny A-List? He or she is WAY worse than me, and more than that, he linked to a BATTLE RAP accusing you of nefarious emuitry. Are you gonna stand for that, or are you gonna drop the ban hammer? I detect that you are not an equal opportunity banner. In fact, I think you are a cob logger. I said it.
Pinko Punko | Homepage | 01.30.08 - 4:47 pm | #

I refuse to leave until Asshat is banned back to the stone age.
Capt. Trollypants | Homepage | 01.30.08 - 6:22 pm | #

Holy shit, I'm gonna have to start banning some more mother fuckers.

Attention assholes: It's not easy for this 40-something (sigh) to achieve the state of mind required to awe you each day. I have needs. My morning Starbucks latte, for example. (Soy, because I am lactose intolerant.)

I am also ASSHOLE intolerant. Most of you ASSHOLES do not know what it's like to pay $120,000 for a degree. Well, that's the kind of sacrifice it TAKES to be an A-List blogger like myself.

But because of all these sacrifices, I might never even own my own home or be able to retire in the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed.

Which reminds me. Americablog 2.0 is ALMOST HERE! Just keep sending me your money! Like I said on Sept. 15, 2006, it's gonna be awesome! Just a few more weeks!

Your hero,
Johnny
Johnny A-List | Homepage | 01.30.08 - 11:52 pm | #

Well, Johnny.

Thank you for responding. I'd like to REMIND you that Americablog 2.0 has been in the planning stages since 2005.">since 2005 It is the Liberal Fascism of blogs, and I expect it to never be designed with such thoughtfulness, or such care.
Pinko Punko | Homepage | 01.31.08 - 3:11 am | #

mmmmm Starbucks!!!!!!!1
F. M. Asshat | Homepage | 01.31.08 - 4:32 am | #

I wonder if we can get people together in a class action lawsuit to force Aravosis to make the move to a private hosted service instead of the free service he currently enjoys of blogspot? I wouldn't dare to ask for my money back, had I ever been so foolish to donate money to the gold-plated flatware fund. I mean, uh, new blog fund.

Can we get some transparency in this here blog?
Chuckles | Homepage | 01.31.08 - 1:30 pm | #

Seriously, John,

It has got to bother you to read these comments. Just dress us up in banned-ana hammocks. You know you want to!

Drop the hammer, dude!
Pinko Punko | Homepage | 02.02.08 - 8:00 pm | #

Perhaps he can't afford his internet connection bill and has to go to the library to blog?!?!!12
F. M. Asshat | Homepage | 02.03.08 - 3:19 am | #

I think he can't afford his internet bill because Aravosis spent all the money from the last fundraiser on caviar and champagne for his last "Look at How Much Money Those Rubes Gave Us!" party.
Chuckles | Homepage | 02.04.08 - 11:48 am | #

BRAINSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Pinko Punko | Homepage | 02.05.08 - 12:45 am | #

BRAWNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Gregor Samsa | Homepage | 02.05.08 - 7:22 pm | #

Emu emu emu emu emu emu emu $300 don't buy much emu but an emu without an extra $300 is a sad emu.
Gregor Samsa | Homepage | 02.21.08 - 3:33 am | #