Saturday, December 6
Aww...Wall-E
In the end, the New Yorker's attempt at naming the top 10 films of 2008 reduces to a single sentence, "All hail Wall-E."
Tuesday, December 2
I Am Not Allowed to Disclose That Information
I'm on the phone with Microsoft right now, and suspected that the forced English from 'Michelle' was in fact someone in a call center in Delhi or Bangalore who had been given a crash course in formal American English.
However, when I asked 'Michelle' where she was located, she replied,
"I'm sorry, sir. I am not allowed to disclose that information."
At which point, she transferred me to a more senior member of her call center named "Bill."
However, when I asked 'Michelle' where she was located, she replied,
"I'm sorry, sir. I am not allowed to disclose that information."
At which point, she transferred me to a more senior member of her call center named "Bill."
Saturday, November 29
Wednesday, November 19
'Coconut Diaper'
I, personally, find 'Clocks' to be an excellent musical rendition of the golden ratio.
However, anyone who likes Coldplay is ceaselessly mocked. For example:
"Know how I know you're gay?"
"How?"
"You like Coldplay."
Even though I'm a Coldplay fan, I appreciate this New Yorker writer's hatred of the band.
However, anyone who likes Coldplay is ceaselessly mocked. For example:
"Know how I know you're gay?"
"How?"
"You like Coldplay."
Even though I'm a Coldplay fan, I appreciate this New Yorker writer's hatred of the band.
Wednesday, November 12
Kitty Litter Model
I think Hans should be a model and pose on cat food and kitty litter bags.
I am curious if getting your cat into the modeling business is a profitable endeavor. How do you get started? Send a couple headshots to Meow Mix? I wouldn't want the fame getting to Hans' head though. He already snorts too much cat nip.
Stop That Smell!
From the financial crisis and global recession, to the burgeoning Iranian nuclear program, to the rampant and senseless killings in Congo, there is no shortage of grave problems needing attention. In deference to the serious dialogues that need to take place, I'll take on an issue of daily concern to individuals everywhere. No one is spared from its suffering, and the root causes are both unpredictable and plentiful.
Whether it is the cabbage rolls and garlic chicken from PF Chang's that your close friend consumed for dinner, or the Spicy Hot Wings you and the boys had last night at Hooters, or even your Mother's black bean chili, the end result is always the same. And it always smells.
It happens in elevators, public restrooms, cars, and even under the sheets, Dutch Oven style. No matter the context, exposure always necessitates a solution. This begs the question: How do you stop that smell?
Through observation, I've found two popular techniques.
First, a classic, The Two Finger Pinch. This is quick, one-handed, and relatively easy to execute. Below is my attempt to reenact a post-exposure Two Finger Pinch:
Though it is the traditional approach, The Two Finger Pinch can be painful to implement, especially if you have a stuffy, clogged nose. This second technique is better suited to handle a variety of exposure scenarios. In my opinion, the Peace Sign Plug is clearly the best solution:
Hopefully, this dialogue can be an avenue to discovering even better solutions in the future. What's yours?
Whether it is the cabbage rolls and garlic chicken from PF Chang's that your close friend consumed for dinner, or the Spicy Hot Wings you and the boys had last night at Hooters, or even your Mother's black bean chili, the end result is always the same. And it always smells.
It happens in elevators, public restrooms, cars, and even under the sheets, Dutch Oven style. No matter the context, exposure always necessitates a solution. This begs the question: How do you stop that smell?
Through observation, I've found two popular techniques.
First, a classic, The Two Finger Pinch. This is quick, one-handed, and relatively easy to execute. Below is my attempt to reenact a post-exposure Two Finger Pinch:
Though it is the traditional approach, The Two Finger Pinch can be painful to implement, especially if you have a stuffy, clogged nose. This second technique is better suited to handle a variety of exposure scenarios. In my opinion, the Peace Sign Plug is clearly the best solution:
Hopefully, this dialogue can be an avenue to discovering even better solutions in the future. What's yours?
Wednesday, November 5
Why I'm Happy
Some reasons I am happy Obama will be president:
1) It has been a long, long, long time since the world has been this excited about the result of a US presidential election. Many foreigners are inspired by Obama, and feel that he is the leadership America needs. No matter what he ends up accomplishing, he has already injected much needed legitimacy back into America. How can a terrorist convincingly complain of the evil Western infidels when we have just democratically elected a man with the middle name Hussain as president? I am glad that Obama can inspire the world, and hopefully America can use and benefit from the legitimacy his presidency will bring.
2) Obama is extremely intelligent. He outperformed the Clintons and the Republican machine to go from nowhere eight years ago to the first African American president-elect in US history. Clearly, he has talent, and the campaign has tested him in many ways. He has been consistently cool headed and rational. He has relied on the support of 200 foreign policy analysts in informing his world policy views. He surrounds himself with brilliant men like Paul Volcker, considered the best Federal Reserve Chairman in recent history. I do not know what Obama can ultimately accomplish, and I do not know what he will try to accomplish, but I know that he is inspiring, and I know that he is rational. To me, this is extremely important.
3) I think that there is something really important about our having put a black family in the White House. I think it will do something to this country to see that, and I think it will be positive. Hopefully, this is a huge step in leaving the toils and troubles of racism behind us.
1) It has been a long, long, long time since the world has been this excited about the result of a US presidential election. Many foreigners are inspired by Obama, and feel that he is the leadership America needs. No matter what he ends up accomplishing, he has already injected much needed legitimacy back into America. How can a terrorist convincingly complain of the evil Western infidels when we have just democratically elected a man with the middle name Hussain as president? I am glad that Obama can inspire the world, and hopefully America can use and benefit from the legitimacy his presidency will bring.
2) Obama is extremely intelligent. He outperformed the Clintons and the Republican machine to go from nowhere eight years ago to the first African American president-elect in US history. Clearly, he has talent, and the campaign has tested him in many ways. He has been consistently cool headed and rational. He has relied on the support of 200 foreign policy analysts in informing his world policy views. He surrounds himself with brilliant men like Paul Volcker, considered the best Federal Reserve Chairman in recent history. I do not know what Obama can ultimately accomplish, and I do not know what he will try to accomplish, but I know that he is inspiring, and I know that he is rational. To me, this is extremely important.
3) I think that there is something really important about our having put a black family in the White House. I think it will do something to this country to see that, and I think it will be positive. Hopefully, this is a huge step in leaving the toils and troubles of racism behind us.
Tuesday, November 4
Polling: Round Two
I got up at 6 AM this morning to vote. I arrived at my polling place around 6:15, aghast to find a line stretching at least four blocks. Apparently, although polling was to begin at 6 AM, voting didn't actually start until 6:30, as many staffers failed to show up on time. I was constrained by an 8:15 AM appointment. At 7:30, after having waited an hour and fifteen minutes, only half of those in front of me had voted, and I left the line, resigned. Hopefully, my second try will be more successful.
Mine is a story of inconvenience, but those who work all day may have only one chance to make it to the polls. The lack of adequate staffing and booths is disappointing. High voter turnout is a welcome change from the apathy of past elections. Greeting unprecedented voter interest with incompetent logistics and half-hearted planning shows the unflinching ability of the American democratic system over the last eight years to be persuasively inept.
Mine is a story of inconvenience, but those who work all day may have only one chance to make it to the polls. The lack of adequate staffing and booths is disappointing. High voter turnout is a welcome change from the apathy of past elections. Greeting unprecedented voter interest with incompetent logistics and half-hearted planning shows the unflinching ability of the American democratic system over the last eight years to be persuasively inept.
Friday, October 17
Rock n' Roll Joyride!
Nathan Berdahl was one of the best people you could ever know.
Have a rock n' roll joyride.
Have a rock n' roll joyride.
Thursday, October 16
He Gets a Little Crazy
Our riveting dialog continues. Surprisingly, my deft analysis hasn't yet converted him. He has deep faith in trickle-down economics. Is it better to worship Reagan or God?
Jeremy,
Thanks for responding. I agree that we have income redistribution right now, and some level of income redistribution is required for this country to operate. But a promise to take money from 5% of the people and give it to 95% of the people is pandering to the greed and entitlement mentality of the masses. (BTW, its also a lie. Some independent reporting agency says that Obama's plan will raise taxes on the top 19% of wage earners.)
I agree that we as a country need to provide a safety net that provides the basic necessities - which are food, shelter, and medical care - to poor people. That exists today. But if Obama wanted to help the very poor, his proposal would be to increase taxes on 95% of the people so that he could give the money to the poorest 5%! I don't agree at all that we need to steal from the rich to redistribute money to the middle class; I don't think my money should be confiscated by the government so that the plumber who charges me $75 per hour can get free healthcare. Obama's tax proposal is essentially buying votes from the masses by promising to confiscate the money from the rich. Frankly, I find it disgusting. His proposal to tax US businesses is also stupid - this is a global economy, the businesses and jobs will just move overseas - or our businesses will find it impossible to compete with businesses from overseas (See: US Automobile Business) This is another message meant to appeal to the gullible masses, it is not intellectually honest at all.
I totally disagree with your premise that the rich get rich by oppressing or standing upon the shoulders of the poor. I am well off because I have provided a service to my employer that helps my employer make money. Basically, I make much more money for my employer than my employer pays me. I have never walked over a poor person to get my money, nor does my money depend upon lower class people to suffer. I know a lot of rich people, and I don't know of anyone who has gotten rich by oppressing the poor. People get rich by using their talents and efforts to provide a service that someone else values enough to pay them well.
You wrote: "There certainly isn't anywhere near equal opportunity for all in this country, when children don't have access to health care or legitimate education and many families can't afford to send their children to college."
All children and all PEOPLE, even illegal immigrants have access to healthcare. Hospital emergency rooms are not allowed to turn away people who are in need of treatment. Every child in this country is provided with 13 years of free education. Don't tell me that the inner-city public education isn't "legitimate" - many people come out of these schools very well educated because they WORKED at school rather than acting cool. I totally disagree with your assertion that everyone is entitled to a college education. However, you know from experience that a child who performs well in his 13 years of free education also gets a free college education. You EARNED your scholarship, you were not ENTITLED to it.
When you graduate from Wash U, you will likely become wealthy yourself. You will have EARNED your wealth through your talents, efforts, and proper decision making. But what if that dreadful decision that you made a while back had resulted in your scholarship being revoked, jail time, depression, drug addiction, and a life of poverty? Should the top 5% of earners be forced to support you just because you made a stupid decision?
Doesn't the success of Obama himself refute the very concept that the poor or the minorities do not have sufficient opportunities in America?
Mike
Poor black man gonna be President? Guess that's enough for the poor and minorities combined! Welfare? Reparations? Fuck that, we're letting a Po' black man be president.
I digress. Here's my response:
Hey Mike,
First, I wanted to clarify what I meant by the rich being supported by the poor. I am not talking about anything direct. Of course you haven't directly stood upon the shoulders of the poor, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying that capitalism, as a system, requires there to be different income classes. If everyone were earning what you earn, that would be communism. In order for a capitalist system to function, there is a pyramid distribution of wealth. For every executive earning 200K, there have to be managers below him earning 100K, sales people earning 50K, and janitors earning 30K. Do you see what I am getting at? This system in which a business exists that you can give services to requires capitalism, which requires there to be a great deal of low-income wage earners. So, you rely on capitalism, and thus rely on low-income wage earners. I'm not saying you rely on the poor to be oppressed or anything, I'm just saying, you can't be in the top 5% of wage earners unless there's 95% below you.
I very much appreciate your sentiments about not wanting your money redistributed to a plumber who is already well off and charging you $75. However, everyone in this country does not have the access to health care that they deserve. People CAN show up at emergency rooms and get helped if their leg breaks or they're having a heart attack. But, what about surgeries and treatment for cancer? Medicine and antibiotics for people with long-term illnesses? Long-term treatment for people with chronic illnesses? Preventative care? Many of these needs go unaddressed by the current health care system. To assert that a child has proper access to healthcare because they won't get kicked out of the emergency room if they're bleeding to death is superficial. Proper access to healthcare involves much more than this. Further, after a number of days, hospitals can and do kick people out who don't have insurance. We have programs in place to provide medical care, shelter, and food, but they are largely mismanaged, corrupt, underfunded, or plagued by other problems. Our social system needs drastic reform.
From what I have read about Obama's tax proposals, analysts suggest that his taxes on businesses will not be enough to have any significant productivity effect. Further, recent studies have been released that show that through tax breaks, loopholes, and globalization, almost all multinational corporations avoid paying alot of US taxes already. This is from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, about McCain's tax proposals. It shows that the drastic costs of his tax cuts essentially outweigh the advantages of lower tax rates.
The consequences of Senator McCain's proposals for economic efficiency and the distribution of economic burdens depend critically on how the measures are financed. To the extent that individual and corporate marginal tax rate reductions are deficit financed (that is, the government simply borrows more), the positive effects of lower tax rates will be offset by the costs of increased government debt. More government debt eventually translates into higher interest rates, which discourage business investment and consumers’ demand for homes and such durable goods as automobiles, or into increased debt owed to foreigners, which mortgages the nation’s long-term economic future. And if swelling deficits are closed by future tax increases rather than spending cuts, we impose much greater economic costs of taxation on our children and grandchildren than they would face if we do not enact tax cuts today.
If growing deficits eventually require draconian spending cuts—a stated goal of those who adhere to the “starve the beast” theory of government—then vulnerable populations may lack essential services; critical infrastructure investments for roads, bridges, and dams may be deferred; and the national defense may suffer.
The expanded version of Senator McCain’s plan would magnify the advantages and
disadvantages of the basic proposal. Expanding the scope of expensing would move the tax system in the direction of a tax on consumption, rather than income. The biggest drawback of this version of the proposal is that it would add enormously to the public debt. By 2018, tax revenues would be 16.3 percent of GDP, a level not seen since the early 1950s, before enactment of Medicaid, Medicare, or the national highway system. It seems clear that the promises Senator McCain makes (or implies) in his speeches could not be sustained without a radical and unprecedented downsizing of government.
And, this is a general comparison of their two plans. By the way, the full analysis does suggest taxes will only be raised on around 5% of earners. I think where you're drawing your 19% from is that when they do a quintile study, the top quintile (20%) see after-tax income go down slightly. However, taxes decrease for 15% of those people, but they are offset by an increase on the 5%.
If enacted, the Obama and McCain tax plans would have radically different effects on the distribution of tax burdens in the United States. The Obama tax plan would make the tax system significantly more progressive by providing large tax breaks to those at the bottom of the income scale and raising taxes significantly on upper-income earners. The McCain tax plan would make the tax system more regressive, even compared with a system in which the 2001–06 tax cuts are made permanent. It would do so by providing relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution.
Senator McCain has proposed substantial tax cuts, offset only very partially by proposals to broaden the tax base. Some of these tax cuts would have positive economic benefits, but adverse effects of the resulting increased deficits may make the net effect of the plan economically harmful.
Further, since 2001, inequality in distribution of income after-tax has grown faster than inequality of income distribution pretax. This means that tax policy since 2001 has been regressive, through taxes, the inequality of income is exacerbated by taxes that are disproportionately preferential to high income earners. Why is it better to choose McCain, whose tax cuts disproportionately cut rates for those at the top? You complain about Obama's tax policies being unfair because they burden the top 5%. Why, instead, is burdening the bottom 80 or 90% with no tax relief while providing huge cuts to households at the top a better policy? Also, it has been said that Obama's closing of the corporate tax loopholes will actually increase productivity and efficiency, both in how firms invest their money, and in spending less resources trying to avoid tax liability.
Okay, now about education. An article on CNN.com and Foxnews.com recently indicated that in America's biggest cities, the highschool graduation rate was below 50% Many people do not come out of inner-city schools very well educated. Very few people from inner city schools make it into college. An anecdote about a hard-working student persevering through an inner-city school and going to college is a story of survival, not proof of the legitimacy of his K-12 education. Many inner-city schools are plagued by budgetary issues, violence, and a lack of necessary supplies and qualified teachers. These are real problems concerning real schools, largely ones in big-cities. These problems need to be addressed with something besides Bush's unfunded mandate: No Child Left Behind. Children who must attend these second rate public schools are not receiving a proper education. I have volunteered, here in Saint Louis, in some of these schools. They are in terrible shape, and they are not a constructive place for children to learn. Just because the public schools in Leawood and Sioux Falls are safe, clean, and well-funded, does not mean every school is. You are right, every student isn't entitled to a college education. However, I think that if a person works hard in high school, scores well and gets a good GPA, and is motivated to go to college, there should be a system in place allowing him/her to do that. This includes private scholarships, continued funding for Pell grants, and continued funding for the Stafford and Perkins subsidized loan programs.
It seems that you are suggesting that if I had gotten my scholarship revoked, I would have been a homeless bum addict all my life. I find that to be ridiculous. I've never had an addiction, and I don't think that my terrible mistake should've cast me to a life of poverty. Isn't our system supposed to be about rehabilitating people into productive citizens? First, I think that marijuana should be decriminalized. Many recent scientific reports have indicated that it is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. This is not saying that I didn't make a stupid decision. I chose to take a huge risk, knowing what the laws were. This was incredibly stupid, and I risked my education. However, if hundreds of thousands of non-violent people weren't being thrown in jail for marijuana possession, and were instead given fines, we wouldn't be spending $18,000 per person per year to keep them in jail. I, personally, think that it is an incredible waste of money, and an incredible waste of someone who could potentially be productive in society. If I had been thrown into jail because of my stupid decision, I would be on your tax bill because of LAWS, not just personal irresponsibility. Take someone who works, pays taxes, and smokes marijuana at night. Sure, that may not be a healthy lifestyle, but they are not leeching off the system. However, if they get caught and thrown into jail because of the law, now you have to support them.
In general, I think you were bringing up my bad decision to highlight whether or not irresponsible people should be supported on your money. This is why social programs, especially unemployment and welfare, need to emphasize reintegration into the work force. They need to have specific time limits, and force people to retrain for new jobs. That way, no one lives off welfare forever, and instead becomes a productive, tax-paying member of society. This, however, has little to do with either Obama or McCain, as neither of them have laid out much detail as to social program reform. I think that unemployment should be in place, though. Many hard-working people lose their jobs, especially when the economy is as it is now. Unemployment allows them to survive and support a family while they look for another job or retrain for another career.
Also, I do not think that Obama being successful says there is equal opportunity for all. He is one person, who came from a middle-class family. Anecdotal evidence is never reliable. Even if Obama came from a very poor family, and went to an inner-city school, how many of his friends would have died on the streets from gang-violence? How many would've endured a violent, unstable childhood and found themselves working for 10 dollars an hour for the rest of their lives? The story of one person making it doesn't speak to equal opportunity.
-Jeremy
Jeremy,
Thanks for responding. I agree that we have income redistribution right now, and some level of income redistribution is required for this country to operate. But a promise to take money from 5% of the people and give it to 95% of the people is pandering to the greed and entitlement mentality of the masses. (BTW, its also a lie. Some independent reporting agency says that Obama's plan will raise taxes on the top 19% of wage earners.)
I agree that we as a country need to provide a safety net that provides the basic necessities - which are food, shelter, and medical care - to poor people. That exists today. But if Obama wanted to help the very poor, his proposal would be to increase taxes on 95% of the people so that he could give the money to the poorest 5%! I don't agree at all that we need to steal from the rich to redistribute money to the middle class; I don't think my money should be confiscated by the government so that the plumber who charges me $75 per hour can get free healthcare. Obama's tax proposal is essentially buying votes from the masses by promising to confiscate the money from the rich. Frankly, I find it disgusting. His proposal to tax US businesses is also stupid - this is a global economy, the businesses and jobs will just move overseas - or our businesses will find it impossible to compete with businesses from overseas (See: US Automobile Business) This is another message meant to appeal to the gullible masses, it is not intellectually honest at all.
I totally disagree with your premise that the rich get rich by oppressing or standing upon the shoulders of the poor. I am well off because I have provided a service to my employer that helps my employer make money. Basically, I make much more money for my employer than my employer pays me. I have never walked over a poor person to get my money, nor does my money depend upon lower class people to suffer. I know a lot of rich people, and I don't know of anyone who has gotten rich by oppressing the poor. People get rich by using their talents and efforts to provide a service that someone else values enough to pay them well.
You wrote: "There certainly isn't anywhere near equal opportunity for all in this country, when children don't have access to health care or legitimate education and many families can't afford to send their children to college."
All children and all PEOPLE, even illegal immigrants have access to healthcare. Hospital emergency rooms are not allowed to turn away people who are in need of treatment. Every child in this country is provided with 13 years of free education. Don't tell me that the inner-city public education isn't "legitimate" - many people come out of these schools very well educated because they WORKED at school rather than acting cool. I totally disagree with your assertion that everyone is entitled to a college education. However, you know from experience that a child who performs well in his 13 years of free education also gets a free college education. You EARNED your scholarship, you were not ENTITLED to it.
When you graduate from Wash U, you will likely become wealthy yourself. You will have EARNED your wealth through your talents, efforts, and proper decision making. But what if that dreadful decision that you made a while back had resulted in your scholarship being revoked, jail time, depression, drug addiction, and a life of poverty? Should the top 5% of earners be forced to support you just because you made a stupid decision?
Doesn't the success of Obama himself refute the very concept that the poor or the minorities do not have sufficient opportunities in America?
Mike
Poor black man gonna be President? Guess that's enough for the poor and minorities combined! Welfare? Reparations? Fuck that, we're letting a Po' black man be president.
I digress. Here's my response:
Hey Mike,
First, I wanted to clarify what I meant by the rich being supported by the poor. I am not talking about anything direct. Of course you haven't directly stood upon the shoulders of the poor, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying that capitalism, as a system, requires there to be different income classes. If everyone were earning what you earn, that would be communism. In order for a capitalist system to function, there is a pyramid distribution of wealth. For every executive earning 200K, there have to be managers below him earning 100K, sales people earning 50K, and janitors earning 30K. Do you see what I am getting at? This system in which a business exists that you can give services to requires capitalism, which requires there to be a great deal of low-income wage earners. So, you rely on capitalism, and thus rely on low-income wage earners. I'm not saying you rely on the poor to be oppressed or anything, I'm just saying, you can't be in the top 5% of wage earners unless there's 95% below you.
I very much appreciate your sentiments about not wanting your money redistributed to a plumber who is already well off and charging you $75. However, everyone in this country does not have the access to health care that they deserve. People CAN show up at emergency rooms and get helped if their leg breaks or they're having a heart attack. But, what about surgeries and treatment for cancer? Medicine and antibiotics for people with long-term illnesses? Long-term treatment for people with chronic illnesses? Preventative care? Many of these needs go unaddressed by the current health care system. To assert that a child has proper access to healthcare because they won't get kicked out of the emergency room if they're bleeding to death is superficial. Proper access to healthcare involves much more than this. Further, after a number of days, hospitals can and do kick people out who don't have insurance. We have programs in place to provide medical care, shelter, and food, but they are largely mismanaged, corrupt, underfunded, or plagued by other problems. Our social system needs drastic reform.
From what I have read about Obama's tax proposals, analysts suggest that his taxes on businesses will not be enough to have any significant productivity effect. Further, recent studies have been released that show that through tax breaks, loopholes, and globalization, almost all multinational corporations avoid paying alot of US taxes already. This is from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, about McCain's tax proposals. It shows that the drastic costs of his tax cuts essentially outweigh the advantages of lower tax rates.
The consequences of Senator McCain's proposals for economic efficiency and the distribution of economic burdens depend critically on how the measures are financed. To the extent that individual and corporate marginal tax rate reductions are deficit financed (that is, the government simply borrows more), the positive effects of lower tax rates will be offset by the costs of increased government debt. More government debt eventually translates into higher interest rates, which discourage business investment and consumers’ demand for homes and such durable goods as automobiles, or into increased debt owed to foreigners, which mortgages the nation’s long-term economic future. And if swelling deficits are closed by future tax increases rather than spending cuts, we impose much greater economic costs of taxation on our children and grandchildren than they would face if we do not enact tax cuts today.
If growing deficits eventually require draconian spending cuts—a stated goal of those who adhere to the “starve the beast” theory of government—then vulnerable populations may lack essential services; critical infrastructure investments for roads, bridges, and dams may be deferred; and the national defense may suffer.
The expanded version of Senator McCain’s plan would magnify the advantages and
disadvantages of the basic proposal. Expanding the scope of expensing would move the tax system in the direction of a tax on consumption, rather than income. The biggest drawback of this version of the proposal is that it would add enormously to the public debt. By 2018, tax revenues would be 16.3 percent of GDP, a level not seen since the early 1950s, before enactment of Medicaid, Medicare, or the national highway system. It seems clear that the promises Senator McCain makes (or implies) in his speeches could not be sustained without a radical and unprecedented downsizing of government.
And, this is a general comparison of their two plans. By the way, the full analysis does suggest taxes will only be raised on around 5% of earners. I think where you're drawing your 19% from is that when they do a quintile study, the top quintile (20%) see after-tax income go down slightly. However, taxes decrease for 15% of those people, but they are offset by an increase on the 5%.
If enacted, the Obama and McCain tax plans would have radically different effects on the distribution of tax burdens in the United States. The Obama tax plan would make the tax system significantly more progressive by providing large tax breaks to those at the bottom of the income scale and raising taxes significantly on upper-income earners. The McCain tax plan would make the tax system more regressive, even compared with a system in which the 2001–06 tax cuts are made permanent. It would do so by providing relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution.
Senator McCain has proposed substantial tax cuts, offset only very partially by proposals to broaden the tax base. Some of these tax cuts would have positive economic benefits, but adverse effects of the resulting increased deficits may make the net effect of the plan economically harmful.
Further, since 2001, inequality in distribution of income after-tax has grown faster than inequality of income distribution pretax. This means that tax policy since 2001 has been regressive, through taxes, the inequality of income is exacerbated by taxes that are disproportionately preferential to high income earners. Why is it better to choose McCain, whose tax cuts disproportionately cut rates for those at the top? You complain about Obama's tax policies being unfair because they burden the top 5%. Why, instead, is burdening the bottom 80 or 90% with no tax relief while providing huge cuts to households at the top a better policy? Also, it has been said that Obama's closing of the corporate tax loopholes will actually increase productivity and efficiency, both in how firms invest their money, and in spending less resources trying to avoid tax liability.
Okay, now about education. An article on CNN.com and Foxnews.com recently indicated that in America's biggest cities, the highschool graduation rate was below 50% Many people do not come out of inner-city schools very well educated. Very few people from inner city schools make it into college. An anecdote about a hard-working student persevering through an inner-city school and going to college is a story of survival, not proof of the legitimacy of his K-12 education. Many inner-city schools are plagued by budgetary issues, violence, and a lack of necessary supplies and qualified teachers. These are real problems concerning real schools, largely ones in big-cities. These problems need to be addressed with something besides Bush's unfunded mandate: No Child Left Behind. Children who must attend these second rate public schools are not receiving a proper education. I have volunteered, here in Saint Louis, in some of these schools. They are in terrible shape, and they are not a constructive place for children to learn. Just because the public schools in Leawood and Sioux Falls are safe, clean, and well-funded, does not mean every school is. You are right, every student isn't entitled to a college education. However, I think that if a person works hard in high school, scores well and gets a good GPA, and is motivated to go to college, there should be a system in place allowing him/her to do that. This includes private scholarships, continued funding for Pell grants, and continued funding for the Stafford and Perkins subsidized loan programs.
It seems that you are suggesting that if I had gotten my scholarship revoked, I would have been a homeless bum addict all my life. I find that to be ridiculous. I've never had an addiction, and I don't think that my terrible mistake should've cast me to a life of poverty. Isn't our system supposed to be about rehabilitating people into productive citizens? First, I think that marijuana should be decriminalized. Many recent scientific reports have indicated that it is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. This is not saying that I didn't make a stupid decision. I chose to take a huge risk, knowing what the laws were. This was incredibly stupid, and I risked my education. However, if hundreds of thousands of non-violent people weren't being thrown in jail for marijuana possession, and were instead given fines, we wouldn't be spending $18,000 per person per year to keep them in jail. I, personally, think that it is an incredible waste of money, and an incredible waste of someone who could potentially be productive in society. If I had been thrown into jail because of my stupid decision, I would be on your tax bill because of LAWS, not just personal irresponsibility. Take someone who works, pays taxes, and smokes marijuana at night. Sure, that may not be a healthy lifestyle, but they are not leeching off the system. However, if they get caught and thrown into jail because of the law, now you have to support them.
In general, I think you were bringing up my bad decision to highlight whether or not irresponsible people should be supported on your money. This is why social programs, especially unemployment and welfare, need to emphasize reintegration into the work force. They need to have specific time limits, and force people to retrain for new jobs. That way, no one lives off welfare forever, and instead becomes a productive, tax-paying member of society. This, however, has little to do with either Obama or McCain, as neither of them have laid out much detail as to social program reform. I think that unemployment should be in place, though. Many hard-working people lose their jobs, especially when the economy is as it is now. Unemployment allows them to survive and support a family while they look for another job or retrain for another career.
Also, I do not think that Obama being successful says there is equal opportunity for all. He is one person, who came from a middle-class family. Anecdotal evidence is never reliable. Even if Obama came from a very poor family, and went to an inner-city school, how many of his friends would have died on the streets from gang-violence? How many would've endured a violent, unstable childhood and found themselves working for 10 dollars an hour for the rest of their lives? The story of one person making it doesn't speak to equal opportunity.
-Jeremy
Family Fun, Continued
Here is my reply to my Uncle Mike's last email, in which he complained of Obama's communist income redistribution policies. Refer to the Family Fun Feud post to read his email.
Hey Mike,
I think this is where we may come to an ideological stand still. It seems that one of your main issues with Obama is his tax policies, which you earlier claim are fairly meaningless for a presidential candidate. Either way, you say that his increasing taxes on people making more than 250K is income redistribution. I think it is less black and white, and more shades of Grey. Our country has income redistribution right now. People at the top pay more taxes on a percentage and total basis than people on the bottom. People on the bottom, logically, receive more in social benefits (i.e. food stamps, unemployment, etc.) than people at the top.
This does not mean that we are socialist or communist, just because we have some form of income redistribution. It has been well proven that trickle-down economics, the idea that relieving the tax burdens on the rich and corporations will grow the economy and benefit the lower class, doesn't work. I just read, from an economist journal, that approximately 3-4% of tax breaks to the wealthy actually make it down the economic ladder. In fact, 75% of the economic growth in the last 8 years has gone to those at the top 1%. The middle and lower classes have been waiting to "get wet" under the Republican's trickle-down economics for the last 8 years. They simply haven't seen any benefits. Why is it unfair to employ policies that ensure that every child in this country has the opportunity to receive a good education and be guaranteed health insurance? Shouldn't we as a country find it important to ensure that everyone has access to some level of basic necessities? I think you have to ignore alot of problems in this country to claim that there is equal opportunity for all. There certainly isn't anywhere near equal opportunity for all in this country, when children don't have access to health care or legitimate education and many families can't afford to send their children to college.
Where does your income, as someone earning at the top of the ladder, come from? How is it supported in a capitalist society? Your ability to earn a great deal comes from a wide-base of much poorer wage earners. Without these millions of people willing to work for 8 or 10 dollars an hour, the cost of operating almost every business in this country would become prohibitive. Wage earners are NECESSARY for this capitalist system to function. So, the relationship between wage earners and people making 250K a year is quite real. The relationship between people over the age of 25 and under the age of 25 is entirely arbitrary. I don't think the comparison is legitimate. I do not think that Obama or the democrats' policies are aimed to force everyone into an equal standard of living. Instead, I think they are designed to finally bring to the struggling middle class and lower class basic opportunities and necessities that they require.
You talk about it being unfair that the majority of americans, the 95% of Americans making under 250K, would be allowed to vote to capture more earnings from the top 5%. Why, in the world, then, would the opposite be more fair? Under McCain, capital gains taxes, which effect only those at the very top of the income ladder, will receive significant tax breaks, while the majority of Americans see little benefits. Oil companies will receive billions in tax breaks under McCain, yet the idea of a middle class family struggling to get by receiving an additional $2000 in tax cuts, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums, is unfair??
I think that the top income earners in this country enjoy a great deal of advantages, through corporate tax policies, government provided infrastructure, cheap labor from wage earners, subsidies, trade policy, tax breaks, etc. So, from this perspective, I do not think it is socialist or communist, or unfair income distribution, to say that some percentage of the great benefits reaped by those at the top should be captured and distributed to the middle and lower classes, so that they can be ensured basic services and necessities. I think this is the best way to reach equal opportunity in this country.
Jeremy
Hey Mike,
I think this is where we may come to an ideological stand still. It seems that one of your main issues with Obama is his tax policies, which you earlier claim are fairly meaningless for a presidential candidate. Either way, you say that his increasing taxes on people making more than 250K is income redistribution. I think it is less black and white, and more shades of Grey. Our country has income redistribution right now. People at the top pay more taxes on a percentage and total basis than people on the bottom. People on the bottom, logically, receive more in social benefits (i.e. food stamps, unemployment, etc.) than people at the top.
This does not mean that we are socialist or communist, just because we have some form of income redistribution. It has been well proven that trickle-down economics, the idea that relieving the tax burdens on the rich and corporations will grow the economy and benefit the lower class, doesn't work. I just read, from an economist journal, that approximately 3-4% of tax breaks to the wealthy actually make it down the economic ladder. In fact, 75% of the economic growth in the last 8 years has gone to those at the top 1%. The middle and lower classes have been waiting to "get wet" under the Republican's trickle-down economics for the last 8 years. They simply haven't seen any benefits. Why is it unfair to employ policies that ensure that every child in this country has the opportunity to receive a good education and be guaranteed health insurance? Shouldn't we as a country find it important to ensure that everyone has access to some level of basic necessities? I think you have to ignore alot of problems in this country to claim that there is equal opportunity for all. There certainly isn't anywhere near equal opportunity for all in this country, when children don't have access to health care or legitimate education and many families can't afford to send their children to college.
Where does your income, as someone earning at the top of the ladder, come from? How is it supported in a capitalist society? Your ability to earn a great deal comes from a wide-base of much poorer wage earners. Without these millions of people willing to work for 8 or 10 dollars an hour, the cost of operating almost every business in this country would become prohibitive. Wage earners are NECESSARY for this capitalist system to function. So, the relationship between wage earners and people making 250K a year is quite real. The relationship between people over the age of 25 and under the age of 25 is entirely arbitrary. I don't think the comparison is legitimate. I do not think that Obama or the democrats' policies are aimed to force everyone into an equal standard of living. Instead, I think they are designed to finally bring to the struggling middle class and lower class basic opportunities and necessities that they require.
You talk about it being unfair that the majority of americans, the 95% of Americans making under 250K, would be allowed to vote to capture more earnings from the top 5%. Why, in the world, then, would the opposite be more fair? Under McCain, capital gains taxes, which effect only those at the very top of the income ladder, will receive significant tax breaks, while the majority of Americans see little benefits. Oil companies will receive billions in tax breaks under McCain, yet the idea of a middle class family struggling to get by receiving an additional $2000 in tax cuts, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums, is unfair??
I think that the top income earners in this country enjoy a great deal of advantages, through corporate tax policies, government provided infrastructure, cheap labor from wage earners, subsidies, trade policy, tax breaks, etc. So, from this perspective, I do not think it is socialist or communist, or unfair income distribution, to say that some percentage of the great benefits reaped by those at the top should be captured and distributed to the middle and lower classes, so that they can be ensured basic services and necessities. I think this is the best way to reach equal opportunity in this country.
Jeremy
Wednesday, October 15
Finally a legitimate Republican campaign ad!
This is a real campaign print ad, courtesy of the Sacramento County Republican Party. It's good to see some intelligent discourse every once in awhile.
Tuesday, October 14
Behavioral Control
My philosophy teacher, on Monday, chastised me after class for being consistently 5-10 minutes late to class. I lay here in bed, with class at 10 AM, knowing undoubtedly that I will arrive on-time tomorrow.
I find it unsettling that an action so petty can so readily constrain me. Even more unsettling: What assortment of more powerful forces am I also so indefensibly answerable to?
I find it unsettling that an action so petty can so readily constrain me. Even more unsettling: What assortment of more powerful forces am I also so indefensibly answerable to?
Monday, October 13
Fun Family Feud!
When I come across a juicy left-leaning article or liberal piece of information, I quickly pass it on to my ultra-conservative family via email. I hope that this constant barrage will gradually indoctrinate them. I sent my family an email about national debt the other day, and it resulted in the following exchange with my Uncle Mike. This is my first email:
National Debt When Jimmy Carter arrived at the White House:
$660 billion.
Added during Carter's four years: $337 billion.
Added during Ronald Reagan's eight years: $1.6 trillion.
Added during George H. W. Bush's four years: $1.6 trillion.
Added during Bill Clinton's eight years: $1.5 trillion.
Added during George W. Bush's seven years, nine months: $4.5 trillion.
Portion of the $9.5 trillion added to the national debt during the past 31 years and seven months that came during Republican presidencies: $7.7 trillion.
Percentage of that $7.7 trillion added during George W. Bush's two terms: 58%.
Could somebody explain again what "fiscal conservative" means?
My uncle Mike, who is decently wealthy, had the following response:
Jeremy,
I'm not annoyed at all, and thoroughly enjoy this type of discussion.
It has been a while since I took Political Science, but I seem to recall that the President has no authority whatsoever over national spending. Isn't that the legislative branch? Since the President has no control over either tax rates or expenditures, this analysis is quite meaningless. It would be informative if it compared the percentage of national debt when the Congress was controlled by Democrats vs. Republicans. Could you find that analysis?
BTW, this banking mess was started by the idea that the government needed to enable more people to buy houses. Sounds great, right? Who could argue? Anybody who would suggest otherwise is clearly an oppressor of the masses, and probably a racist to boot.
The government pushed for Fannie and Freddie to lower their qualification requirements, to guarantee loans that they had not previously guaranteed. Adjustable rate loans with low teaser rates to make it possible for more people to qualify based upon initial monthly payments. 100% loan values when previously 80% was the maximum (That rule was in place to ensure that Fannie and Freddie could take a 20% drop in market value before their guarantee had to be met. Basically, Fannie and Freddie went from guaranteeing that home prices would not drop by more than 20% to guaranteeing that home prices would not drop PERIOD.) Then they offered no-documentation loans for those who still could not qualify or were just frauds. These policies, NOT deregulation, caused a massive increase in the demand for homes, which naturally caused a dramatic increase in the price of homes. Fannie and Freddie were now effectively guaranteeing that the 50% home price increases seen over the past 8 years or so would never retreat.
Which party do you think was most influential in pushing these new policies and regulations through? Which party would think that, "it's not fair" that only wealthy people can afford a big house in the suburbs? Which party's current VP and Presidential candidates were amongst the top 5 recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie?
Here is what it comes down to:
Do you believe people are entitled to what they earn through their talents, efforts, and decisions? (Capitalism)
Or do you believe that everyone should have the same rewards, regardless of their talents, efforts, and decisions? (Communism)
Do you believe that EVERYONE is entitled to a big house in the suburbs? Your presidential candidate certainly does!
Mike
Well, I hate those damn Reds. He almost had me convinced. Here's my response:
Hey Mike,
I appreciate your response, and I enjoy your writing. But, before I can agree with your relegating this presidential election to Capitalism vs. Communism, I must disagree with you on some of your assumptions.
First, if the President has no control over spending, why are we spending any time at all worrying about the tax policies and spending proposals of McCain and Obama? You are correct that the legislative branch must approve or disapprove a budget. However, the president composes the budget. Legislators are largely constrained to either approving or disapproving a spending proposal. Congress does have an effect on the ultimate amount of spending, but the president wields a great deal of power in the tax policies and spending that ultimately gets approved. And, the Bush administration was unfortunately backed by a spend-now-pay-later Republican majority in Congress from 2003 - 2007. I will try to find some analysis of Republican versus Democrat spending when each had control of Congress.
This is from Paul Krugman, a professor at Princeton, who just won the Nobel Prize in Economics today. His analysis seems to directly contradict yours. Here's part of what he wrote:
But here’s the thing: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.
Partly that’s because regulators, responding to accounting scandals at the companies, placed temporary restraints on both Fannie and Freddie that curtailed their lending just as housing prices were really taking off. Also, they didn’t do any subprime lending, because they can’t: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn’t meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income.
So whatever bad incentives the implicit federal guarantee creates have been offset by the fact that Fannie and Freddie were and are tightly regulated with regard to the risks they can take. You could say that the Fannie-Freddie experience shows that regulation works.
Okay, its me again. “Owning a home lies at the heart of the American dream.” A quote from Bush following his proposal in 2002 for a set of policy initiatives designed to increase homeownership. He's a republican, right? Here's a clip from a 2004 White House press release from the Bush administration:
Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America's vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush's initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:
American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;
Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;
Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and
Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.
So, the Bush administration saw increasing homeownership as an end goal. The result? No foresight into reasonable regulations and safeguards against predatory lending. Further, the deregulated banking environment (McCain: The Deregulator!) allowed for commoditization and securitization of the mortgages, resulting in the mortgage-backed security. These securities allowed private lenders to issue no-collateral, no-documentation loans that they could pass off to investors in a matter of days. This relived them completely of their obligation to lend responsibly.
Further, here's a clip from a New York Times article about McCain's disingenuous ties with Freddie and Fannie:
It turns out that the Washington firm of Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, was profiting handsomely from Freddie retainers until the government took over the mortgage-finance companies last month amid the credit crisis.
Mr. McCain insisted that Mr. Davis had no involvement with his business for several years. But he appears to have been benefiting from the $15,000 a month that Freddie paid the firm from the end of 2005 through last August. Previously, Mr. Davis was paid nearly $2 million across five years in running a group set up by Fannie and Freddie officials to beat back stricter regulation.
The good, the bad and the ugly of lobbying are well known, but it’s a stretch for a man with 25 years in Washington to demonize it. His brain trust is heavy with consultants and lobbyists. Other McCain aides with past ties to the lending companies are the strategist Charlie Black; Wayne Berman, deputy campaign finance chairman; and Mark Buse, chief of staff at Mr. McCain’s Senate office.
When a lack of regulation in the mortgage industry lead to this crisis, and republicans pushed for more homeownership without further oversight, I don't see how McCain comes out on top. Obama certainly doesn't believe EVERYONE is entitled to a big house in the suburbs, and neither does McCain. However, McCain believed, up until a few months ago, that Wall Street and our nation's economy should operate with as little regulation and oversight as possible. This collapse of our economy has proven that this ultra-free market stance simply doesn't hold water. McCain has said himself that he doesn't know much about the economy. His advisors? Phil Gramm, a likely choice for Treasury secretary, is a huge deregulator who took special care while in the Senate to prevent oversight of financial derivatives. The very derivatives that lead to the collapse of AIG and Lehman. House Republicans recently recommended, as a solution for the financial crisis, that we eliminate capital gains taxes. A troubled financial institution has no capital gains to tax! The intellectual state of the Republican party is in a sorry state.
Okay, I've gone on long enough. I hope you can see, at least, that I am not of my beliefs because I believe in socialism or communism. Quite the opposite, I see realism and intelligence in the Democratic party right now, and don't see Obama as having the socialist doctrine you assign to him.
Jeremy
Hawt business, I thought. But, there's no convincing my Uncle Mike. Here's the finale. He sounds pretty reasonable until he starts talking about forced labor camps...
Jeremy,
You have a significant advantage in time to do research on this topic! I’m also disappointed that you would find a Princeton Nobel prize economist’s opinions more credible than mine!
The President makes a budget proposal, but my recollection is that the congress just calls this “DOA” and creates their own budget. I don’t think the congress is limited in any way by the President’s budget proposal. The President’s only choices are to veto the congressional budget or approve. Congress has refused to allow him a line-item veto, so he has to approve or disapprove the congressional budget in its entirety. But like I said, it has been a long time since I took Government class. The tax policies of McCain and Obama are fairly meaningless, other than their ability to convince Congress to follow these policies or veto proposals that differ from their policies. The Executive branch has much more to do with foreign policy than it does with the economy, but the American public doesn’t realize that and blames the President for everything. I think the American public should select Congressmen based primarily upon fiscal policy and Presidents based primarily upon Foreign policy.
I am also fairly certain that the President cannot pass laws to prevent the creation of mortgage-based financial derivatives – that would again be up to congress. Who has been in charge of all of the congressional finance committees in the recent past? Weren’t both Obama and Biden chairmen of certain finance committees, which is why Freddie and Fannie gave them so much money?
Its pretty clear that both parties had ties to Fannie and Freddie, and thanks for reminding me about sub-prime not being guaranteed by them. However, I believe that they lowered their limits for what they accepted for their guarantees, making their “prime” mortgages more risky. The run-up in prices (bubble) also erased the safety margin that the down payment requirements were meant to provide. I also think that the government regulators (not de-regulators) forced them to lower these limits several years ago. I would appreciate it if you would set me straight on these topics if I am mistaken.
Overall, do you really think that Republicans were more heavily involved than the Democrats in efforts to increase home ownership by people who could not afford them? Is that really the Republican M.O.? There is nothing wrong with that goal, but the methods were disastrous - reasonably predictably so.
Do you not also agree that Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on people making over $250K while reducing taxes for everyone else is income redistribution? Isn’t income redistribution the very heart of communism?
What is fair about using the rules of democracy to enable the majority to confiscate the earnings or belongings of a minority? Is that just OK since the minority is rich in this case? Would you also be in favor if the employed majority voted to force the unemployed minority into forced labor camps? Or if the majority of people over age 25 voted to confiscate the earnings and belongings of those under age 25? What’s the difference?
The financial crash certainly has narrowed the asset gap between the rich and the poor, but I’d prefer that the poor get rich rather than the rich get poor! I think history shows that attempts to ensure that the rich and poor share the same standard of living results in everyone having a very poor standard of living. The US Constitution calls for equal opportunities for all, not equal assets for all.
Finally, I think it is trouble for our country whenever EITHER party has control over both the congress and the presidency!
Mike
National Debt When Jimmy Carter arrived at the White House:
$660 billion.
Added during Carter's four years: $337 billion.
Added during Ronald Reagan's eight years: $1.6 trillion.
Added during George H. W. Bush's four years: $1.6 trillion.
Added during Bill Clinton's eight years: $1.5 trillion.
Added during George W. Bush's seven years, nine months: $4.5 trillion.
Portion of the $9.5 trillion added to the national debt during the past 31 years and seven months that came during Republican presidencies: $7.7 trillion.
Percentage of that $7.7 trillion added during George W. Bush's two terms: 58%.
Could somebody explain again what "fiscal conservative" means?
My uncle Mike, who is decently wealthy, had the following response:
Jeremy,
I'm not annoyed at all, and thoroughly enjoy this type of discussion.
It has been a while since I took Political Science, but I seem to recall that the President has no authority whatsoever over national spending. Isn't that the legislative branch? Since the President has no control over either tax rates or expenditures, this analysis is quite meaningless. It would be informative if it compared the percentage of national debt when the Congress was controlled by Democrats vs. Republicans. Could you find that analysis?
BTW, this banking mess was started by the idea that the government needed to enable more people to buy houses. Sounds great, right? Who could argue? Anybody who would suggest otherwise is clearly an oppressor of the masses, and probably a racist to boot.
The government pushed for Fannie and Freddie to lower their qualification requirements, to guarantee loans that they had not previously guaranteed. Adjustable rate loans with low teaser rates to make it possible for more people to qualify based upon initial monthly payments. 100% loan values when previously 80% was the maximum (That rule was in place to ensure that Fannie and Freddie could take a 20% drop in market value before their guarantee had to be met. Basically, Fannie and Freddie went from guaranteeing that home prices would not drop by more than 20% to guaranteeing that home prices would not drop PERIOD.) Then they offered no-documentation loans for those who still could not qualify or were just frauds. These policies, NOT deregulation, caused a massive increase in the demand for homes, which naturally caused a dramatic increase in the price of homes. Fannie and Freddie were now effectively guaranteeing that the 50% home price increases seen over the past 8 years or so would never retreat.
Which party do you think was most influential in pushing these new policies and regulations through? Which party would think that, "it's not fair" that only wealthy people can afford a big house in the suburbs? Which party's current VP and Presidential candidates were amongst the top 5 recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie?
Here is what it comes down to:
Do you believe people are entitled to what they earn through their talents, efforts, and decisions? (Capitalism)
Or do you believe that everyone should have the same rewards, regardless of their talents, efforts, and decisions? (Communism)
Do you believe that EVERYONE is entitled to a big house in the suburbs? Your presidential candidate certainly does!
Mike
Well, I hate those damn Reds. He almost had me convinced. Here's my response:
Hey Mike,
I appreciate your response, and I enjoy your writing. But, before I can agree with your relegating this presidential election to Capitalism vs. Communism, I must disagree with you on some of your assumptions.
First, if the President has no control over spending, why are we spending any time at all worrying about the tax policies and spending proposals of McCain and Obama? You are correct that the legislative branch must approve or disapprove a budget. However, the president composes the budget. Legislators are largely constrained to either approving or disapproving a spending proposal. Congress does have an effect on the ultimate amount of spending, but the president wields a great deal of power in the tax policies and spending that ultimately gets approved. And, the Bush administration was unfortunately backed by a spend-now-pay-later Republican majority in Congress from 2003 - 2007. I will try to find some analysis of Republican versus Democrat spending when each had control of Congress.
This is from Paul Krugman, a professor at Princeton, who just won the Nobel Prize in Economics today. His analysis seems to directly contradict yours. Here's part of what he wrote:
But here’s the thing: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.
Partly that’s because regulators, responding to accounting scandals at the companies, placed temporary restraints on both Fannie and Freddie that curtailed their lending just as housing prices were really taking off. Also, they didn’t do any subprime lending, because they can’t: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn’t meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income.
So whatever bad incentives the implicit federal guarantee creates have been offset by the fact that Fannie and Freddie were and are tightly regulated with regard to the risks they can take. You could say that the Fannie-Freddie experience shows that regulation works.
Okay, its me again. “Owning a home lies at the heart of the American dream.” A quote from Bush following his proposal in 2002 for a set of policy initiatives designed to increase homeownership. He's a republican, right? Here's a clip from a 2004 White House press release from the Bush administration:
Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America's vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush's initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:
American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;
Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;
Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and
Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.
So, the Bush administration saw increasing homeownership as an end goal. The result? No foresight into reasonable regulations and safeguards against predatory lending. Further, the deregulated banking environment (McCain: The Deregulator!) allowed for commoditization and securitization of the mortgages, resulting in the mortgage-backed security. These securities allowed private lenders to issue no-collateral, no-documentation loans that they could pass off to investors in a matter of days. This relived them completely of their obligation to lend responsibly.
Further, here's a clip from a New York Times article about McCain's disingenuous ties with Freddie and Fannie:
It turns out that the Washington firm of Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, was profiting handsomely from Freddie retainers until the government took over the mortgage-finance companies last month amid the credit crisis.
Mr. McCain insisted that Mr. Davis had no involvement with his business for several years. But he appears to have been benefiting from the $15,000 a month that Freddie paid the firm from the end of 2005 through last August. Previously, Mr. Davis was paid nearly $2 million across five years in running a group set up by Fannie and Freddie officials to beat back stricter regulation.
The good, the bad and the ugly of lobbying are well known, but it’s a stretch for a man with 25 years in Washington to demonize it. His brain trust is heavy with consultants and lobbyists. Other McCain aides with past ties to the lending companies are the strategist Charlie Black; Wayne Berman, deputy campaign finance chairman; and Mark Buse, chief of staff at Mr. McCain’s Senate office.
When a lack of regulation in the mortgage industry lead to this crisis, and republicans pushed for more homeownership without further oversight, I don't see how McCain comes out on top. Obama certainly doesn't believe EVERYONE is entitled to a big house in the suburbs, and neither does McCain. However, McCain believed, up until a few months ago, that Wall Street and our nation's economy should operate with as little regulation and oversight as possible. This collapse of our economy has proven that this ultra-free market stance simply doesn't hold water. McCain has said himself that he doesn't know much about the economy. His advisors? Phil Gramm, a likely choice for Treasury secretary, is a huge deregulator who took special care while in the Senate to prevent oversight of financial derivatives. The very derivatives that lead to the collapse of AIG and Lehman. House Republicans recently recommended, as a solution for the financial crisis, that we eliminate capital gains taxes. A troubled financial institution has no capital gains to tax! The intellectual state of the Republican party is in a sorry state.
Okay, I've gone on long enough. I hope you can see, at least, that I am not of my beliefs because I believe in socialism or communism. Quite the opposite, I see realism and intelligence in the Democratic party right now, and don't see Obama as having the socialist doctrine you assign to him.
Jeremy
Hawt business, I thought. But, there's no convincing my Uncle Mike. Here's the finale. He sounds pretty reasonable until he starts talking about forced labor camps...
Jeremy,
You have a significant advantage in time to do research on this topic! I’m also disappointed that you would find a Princeton Nobel prize economist’s opinions more credible than mine!
The President makes a budget proposal, but my recollection is that the congress just calls this “DOA” and creates their own budget. I don’t think the congress is limited in any way by the President’s budget proposal. The President’s only choices are to veto the congressional budget or approve. Congress has refused to allow him a line-item veto, so he has to approve or disapprove the congressional budget in its entirety. But like I said, it has been a long time since I took Government class. The tax policies of McCain and Obama are fairly meaningless, other than their ability to convince Congress to follow these policies or veto proposals that differ from their policies. The Executive branch has much more to do with foreign policy than it does with the economy, but the American public doesn’t realize that and blames the President for everything. I think the American public should select Congressmen based primarily upon fiscal policy and Presidents based primarily upon Foreign policy.
I am also fairly certain that the President cannot pass laws to prevent the creation of mortgage-based financial derivatives – that would again be up to congress. Who has been in charge of all of the congressional finance committees in the recent past? Weren’t both Obama and Biden chairmen of certain finance committees, which is why Freddie and Fannie gave them so much money?
Its pretty clear that both parties had ties to Fannie and Freddie, and thanks for reminding me about sub-prime not being guaranteed by them. However, I believe that they lowered their limits for what they accepted for their guarantees, making their “prime” mortgages more risky. The run-up in prices (bubble) also erased the safety margin that the down payment requirements were meant to provide. I also think that the government regulators (not de-regulators) forced them to lower these limits several years ago. I would appreciate it if you would set me straight on these topics if I am mistaken.
Overall, do you really think that Republicans were more heavily involved than the Democrats in efforts to increase home ownership by people who could not afford them? Is that really the Republican M.O.? There is nothing wrong with that goal, but the methods were disastrous - reasonably predictably so.
Do you not also agree that Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on people making over $250K while reducing taxes for everyone else is income redistribution? Isn’t income redistribution the very heart of communism?
What is fair about using the rules of democracy to enable the majority to confiscate the earnings or belongings of a minority? Is that just OK since the minority is rich in this case? Would you also be in favor if the employed majority voted to force the unemployed minority into forced labor camps? Or if the majority of people over age 25 voted to confiscate the earnings and belongings of those under age 25? What’s the difference?
The financial crash certainly has narrowed the asset gap between the rich and the poor, but I’d prefer that the poor get rich rather than the rich get poor! I think history shows that attempts to ensure that the rich and poor share the same standard of living results in everyone having a very poor standard of living. The US Constitution calls for equal opportunities for all, not equal assets for all.
Finally, I think it is trouble for our country whenever EITHER party has control over both the congress and the presidency!
Mike
Sunday, September 28
Palin's Resignation
I'm going to make a prediction. Palin doesn't show up for the VP Debates at WashU on Thursday. Perhaps a last minute resignation, or a third 'campaign suspension.' Speaking of McCain's last campaign suspension, it turns out TV ads continued to be ran, every field office was open, and no events were canceled. However, I digress. How can the McCain campaign allow Palin, who exhibited the intelligence of a thirteen year old in the Couric interview, to dribble nonsense from her empty head on stage as a representative of their campaign? I see no option for McCain, then to engineer someway of distancing himself from his god-awful VP choice.
Considering Sarah Palin for the role of VP in this country is irresponsible and laughable. Have Americans really become so distanced from rationality and so grossly misinformed that they would seriously think Sarah Palin should be one step away from the presidency? I don't think I'd trust her to manage a Burger King in Juneau, let alone our fucking country. I didn't think it possible to go lower than Dubya this election, but our nation has astonished me with a resounding, echoing empty-headedness.
As John Stewart says, here it is, your moment of Zen:
Couric: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don't know, you know … reporters.
Couric: Mocked?
Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.
Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…
Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.
Considering Sarah Palin for the role of VP in this country is irresponsible and laughable. Have Americans really become so distanced from rationality and so grossly misinformed that they would seriously think Sarah Palin should be one step away from the presidency? I don't think I'd trust her to manage a Burger King in Juneau, let alone our fucking country. I didn't think it possible to go lower than Dubya this election, but our nation has astonished me with a resounding, echoing empty-headedness.
As John Stewart says, here it is, your moment of Zen:
Couric: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don't know, you know … reporters.
Couric: Mocked?
Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.
Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…
Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.
Sunday, September 7
Assassinations, Security, and Elections
Assassinations. Riveted? Before I go further, it is necessary that I specify why I’ve chosen to write about Barack Obama and John McCain being assassinated in September or October of 2008. Unlike Fox News or CNN, I am not bringing up ‘Obama Assassination Attempt: Guns Found!’ as a piece of base tabloid sensationalism to lure in more trashtastic (not to EVER be confused with Fanchtastic) viewers. No, I respect the readers of the Fanchtastic blog and would never subject them to pathetic junk food writing. My purpose is to reveal the necessity of basic humanitarian needs as a precursor in any society to democracy and free elections.
At sixty some days before the election, most Americans are waist-deep in Obama/McCain news and punditry. How devastating to our political process would their assassinations be? Who would fill the void? There are many who could step up as qualified candidates for either party. However, in the wake of the deaths of both major candidates, would Americans be prepared to make an informed decision in November? Similar to post 9/11 America, fear would grip the country leading to panic-driven decision making and dangerous blame seeking. Following September 11, America surged with zealous uninformed hate for the Muslim world. The assassinations of Obama and McCain would perpetuate similar fear-based sentiments. Envision, further, if on election days, polling centers were being attacked. Millions of Americans had no running water or sewage. Food shortages plagued cities. Looting left thousands of businesses without inventory and bankrupted. How successful would a presidential (or any) election be?
Now, think back to those triumphant Iraqis, parading their purple fingers and newfound ‘democracy.’ Let alone a lack of basic provisions like food, security, and shelter for a predominance of Iraqis, most are illiterate. Those that aren’t are exposed to state propaganda and censored news. The efficacy of elections in America with these circumstances seems preposterous. Yet, the major news networks in the US, acting as Bush administration lackeys, gushed about the successful implementation of democracy and free elections in Iraq.
Before we disillusion ourselves with pride over this purple democracy, perhaps we should consider what is instrumental to real freedom and democracy. The continuing focus in Iraq and Afghanistan, before we declare ‘Mission Accomplished!’ must be the solidification of security, basic infrastructure, education, and free press. Let us not be fooled again.
At sixty some days before the election, most Americans are waist-deep in Obama/McCain news and punditry. How devastating to our political process would their assassinations be? Who would fill the void? There are many who could step up as qualified candidates for either party. However, in the wake of the deaths of both major candidates, would Americans be prepared to make an informed decision in November? Similar to post 9/11 America, fear would grip the country leading to panic-driven decision making and dangerous blame seeking. Following September 11, America surged with zealous uninformed hate for the Muslim world. The assassinations of Obama and McCain would perpetuate similar fear-based sentiments. Envision, further, if on election days, polling centers were being attacked. Millions of Americans had no running water or sewage. Food shortages plagued cities. Looting left thousands of businesses without inventory and bankrupted. How successful would a presidential (or any) election be?
Now, think back to those triumphant Iraqis, parading their purple fingers and newfound ‘democracy.’ Let alone a lack of basic provisions like food, security, and shelter for a predominance of Iraqis, most are illiterate. Those that aren’t are exposed to state propaganda and censored news. The efficacy of elections in America with these circumstances seems preposterous. Yet, the major news networks in the US, acting as Bush administration lackeys, gushed about the successful implementation of democracy and free elections in Iraq.
Before we disillusion ourselves with pride over this purple democracy, perhaps we should consider what is instrumental to real freedom and democracy. The continuing focus in Iraq and Afghanistan, before we declare ‘Mission Accomplished!’ must be the solidification of security, basic infrastructure, education, and free press. Let us not be fooled again.
Splicing McCain's 2008 Acceptance Speech with Bush's 2000 Acceptance Speech
I'm sorry. Two daily show clips in a row. Smacks of laziness. But, come on, the RNC has provided so much delicious fodder for John Stewart's brilliant sense of humor. I insist this clip is worth it.
Thursday, September 4
John Stewart brilliantly ripping apart O'Reilly and Karl Rove.
John Stewart makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Please watch.
Wednesday, August 20
The Wackness of Movie Reviews
A few weekends back, I went to see The Wackness with Mr. Zelmer and his girlfriend Ox. The movie takes place in 1994 in New York City. A lonely, unsure high schooler, Luke, who sells weed out of a vendor cart, begins exchanging the good stuff with a psychiatrist for his counseling. The psychiatrist is disoriented and troubled, and the two develop an uncomfortable but endearing friendship as well as a business (selling that chronic) relationship. Simultaneously, Josh falls for the psychiatrists' daughter, a confident, popular girl with fleeting interests. The movie is mostly a character study, and Ben Kingsley, as the psychiatrist, is captivating. Having sincerely enjoyed the movie, we were eager to read reviews to compare our opinions. Instead of fresh perspectives, however, the reviews never made it past the wading pool. They were far too shallow and caught up with the minutia. Perhaps that is a weak comparison. I doubt wading pools are ever caught up with minutia, but babies do pee in them.
The NY Times review complained about the overstatement of nostalgic items related to 1994. It also moans that Josh Peck, who plays Luke, didn't do a good enough job in one scene of conveying the tension between his outward affectlessness (which, by the way, is a word not even recognized by Microsoft Office) and the riot of feeling inside him. As valid as these criticisms may be, they seem to miss the point. I liken it to receiving a brand new Lexus on your 16th birthday, and complaining about a spec of dirt on the windshield.
Sweet Sixteen aside, are these complaints reasonable coming from a movie critic? Perhaps sitting down to watch a movie with the specific intent of criticizing it distorts the experience and amplifies seemingly meaningless imperfections. Quite aptly, they ARE called critics. However, I see a few issues with the conventional movie review. First, should the review's purpose be to espouse inadequacy no matter how insignificant? Many movie reviews are written with this intent. But, it is not necessarily useful to the reader.
Many times, the reader of a movie review is simply trying to inform their decision on which movie to see. Among readers who have yet to see a movie, criticisms on, for example, the inability of an actor to portray a certain struggle of emotions in a specific scene has no context. These readers would be alternatively better served with an evaluation of the enjoyment, emotion, excitement, and entertainment offered by the movie.
This kind of review would attempt to define the ‘entertainment value’ of a movie, helping a reader decide whether or not the movie is worth seeing. Or, in what context [with who] it is best seen.
So, to help usher in an era of user-centric movie criticism, I would like to found a new website: ReelReviews.com. Now hiring.
The NY Times review complained about the overstatement of nostalgic items related to 1994. It also moans that Josh Peck, who plays Luke, didn't do a good enough job in one scene of conveying the tension between his outward affectlessness (which, by the way, is a word not even recognized by Microsoft Office) and the riot of feeling inside him. As valid as these criticisms may be, they seem to miss the point. I liken it to receiving a brand new Lexus on your 16th birthday, and complaining about a spec of dirt on the windshield.
Sweet Sixteen aside, are these complaints reasonable coming from a movie critic? Perhaps sitting down to watch a movie with the specific intent of criticizing it distorts the experience and amplifies seemingly meaningless imperfections. Quite aptly, they ARE called critics. However, I see a few issues with the conventional movie review. First, should the review's purpose be to espouse inadequacy no matter how insignificant? Many movie reviews are written with this intent. But, it is not necessarily useful to the reader.
Many times, the reader of a movie review is simply trying to inform their decision on which movie to see. Among readers who have yet to see a movie, criticisms on, for example, the inability of an actor to portray a certain struggle of emotions in a specific scene has no context. These readers would be alternatively better served with an evaluation of the enjoyment, emotion, excitement, and entertainment offered by the movie.
This kind of review would attempt to define the ‘entertainment value’ of a movie, helping a reader decide whether or not the movie is worth seeing. Or, in what context [with who] it is best seen.
So, to help usher in an era of user-centric movie criticism, I would like to found a new website: ReelReviews.com. Now hiring.
Friday, August 1
Charity and Moral Obligation
A friend recently gave 25 dollars to UNICEF. He had been telling himself to donate for awhile, to no avail. With the guiding hand of inebriation, however, he championed children's rights worldwide with the triumphant click of a button...and his debit card.
Making a donation is simple and selfless. But, our conversation lead us to find much deeper, more complex issues in the decision to give. Among others, what is the purpose of your giving? To satisfy your own moral framework? To meet a larger moral obligation? For recognition? Recognition is a significant psychological barrier for many. With the donation to UNICEF, you are affecting children thousands of miles away in an undefinable and unseen way. Without recognition, incentive falls to morality. Moral giving quickly becomes a sticky issue. My friend brought up the following scenario:
You are on your way to an ethics lecture (can this be drenched in any more irony?) and walk past a lake with a baby drowning. You are faced with a decision. Either, ignore the cute, little water-logged bundle of joy, and continue on your way. Or, save the little guy. Saving the baby, however, means ruining your clothes and missing your lecture. If the person agrees that they are obligated to concede a day of productivity and, say, $200 in clothes, then, logically, they are equally obligated to donate $200 to save a child overseas.
This is an effective way of motivating charitable giving, but in my mind, the logic of this moral obligation doesn't stand up. Consider if, instead of walking by one drowning baby, you are subjected to this same situation, day after day, for a year. 365 babies saved, 365 days of lost productivity, and theoretically $73000 in clothes. How can you be morally obligated to save a baby one day, but not the next? Taken to the test, it seems that the rather innocuous moral obligation of $200 soon becomes an entire year's productivity and 73000 dollars.
So, on what basis can you find an indefensible and definable moral obligation to give? Perhaps, instead of seeking an overarching moral framework, giving must be predicated on personal choice and an emotional aversion to suffering. I haven't reached a conclusion, yet. Maybe a donation to UNICEF will clear my mind.
Making a donation is simple and selfless. But, our conversation lead us to find much deeper, more complex issues in the decision to give. Among others, what is the purpose of your giving? To satisfy your own moral framework? To meet a larger moral obligation? For recognition? Recognition is a significant psychological barrier for many. With the donation to UNICEF, you are affecting children thousands of miles away in an undefinable and unseen way. Without recognition, incentive falls to morality. Moral giving quickly becomes a sticky issue. My friend brought up the following scenario:
You are on your way to an ethics lecture (can this be drenched in any more irony?) and walk past a lake with a baby drowning. You are faced with a decision. Either, ignore the cute, little water-logged bundle of joy, and continue on your way. Or, save the little guy. Saving the baby, however, means ruining your clothes and missing your lecture. If the person agrees that they are obligated to concede a day of productivity and, say, $200 in clothes, then, logically, they are equally obligated to donate $200 to save a child overseas.
This is an effective way of motivating charitable giving, but in my mind, the logic of this moral obligation doesn't stand up. Consider if, instead of walking by one drowning baby, you are subjected to this same situation, day after day, for a year. 365 babies saved, 365 days of lost productivity, and theoretically $73000 in clothes. How can you be morally obligated to save a baby one day, but not the next? Taken to the test, it seems that the rather innocuous moral obligation of $200 soon becomes an entire year's productivity and 73000 dollars.
So, on what basis can you find an indefensible and definable moral obligation to give? Perhaps, instead of seeking an overarching moral framework, giving must be predicated on personal choice and an emotional aversion to suffering. I haven't reached a conclusion, yet. Maybe a donation to UNICEF will clear my mind.
Tuesday, July 29
5 Reasons You Can't Vote McCain 2008
If you're reading this, and you're in the top 1% of earners in America, totally disregard everything I say. How could you NOT vote for McCain?? For everyone else, here are some less than impressive tidbits on Mr. POW.
1. McCain worships Reaganomics. [Trickle down economics]
In the eight years of reign by big Dubya, 75% of America's economic growth has gone to line the pockets and deck out the private jet bathrooms of the top 1% of the income bracket. McCain consigns to the typical Republican recipe to spur growth: tax cuts. Putting aside the exaggerated rhetoric of the dueling campaigns, the Federal government's take of the GDP will be approximately 17.6% under McCain and 18.3% under Obama. A relatively paltry difference. More significant is where that 18-ish percent of the GDP comes from, and where it goes. McCain favors cutting the corporate income tax, and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, which has historically prevented wealthier Americans from avoiding taxes. Thus, lower tax liability in the upper echelon, with the theory that this extra money will trickle down to the masses in the form of wage increases, et cetera. However, this extra money, especially in the era of globalization, rarely trickles down to lower income Americans. Instead, it is invested overseas or payed out to wealthy stockholders in the form of dividends.
For the 98% of Americans that make under $250,000 dollars, Obama's tax policy will provide far more savings.
2. McCain has vowed to appoint only pro-lifers in his judicial appointments.
John McCain has stated that his judicial appointments will be subject to a single-issue litmus test: abortion. In a 2005 article in the New Yorker, a powerful pro-life advocate said:
"I wanted a commitment from ... John McCain that if elected he would appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. McCain, in private, assured me he would appoint pro-life judges."
A single issue stance on judicial appointments is closed-minded and dangerous. Essentially, John McCain has promised many well-qualified people that they will be categorically disregarded on the basis of their views on abortion. For everyone but the unborn children, shouldn't we be more concerned with a judge's impartiality and academic qualifications?
3. McCain wants free elections in Iraq, but disregards the Iraqis' basic needs.
McCain, following in Bush's footsteps, will bolster nation building policies aimed towards more free elections. However, this strategy is naive and has clearly failed. Sure, Iraqis with purple ink on their fingers voting for their next leader sounds great. But, it is ultimately only a semblance of democracy. Without focusing on basic human needs: security, education, basic infrastructure, and food, no 'free election' will accomplish anything.
Obama's foreign policy will focus on organic, incremental change and humanitarian efforts as a stepping stone to building the foundation for new successful democracies. Placating the American public with news of more elections in Iraq and Afghanistan simply doesn't cut it.
4. McCain is OLD!
This isn't as bad as it sounds. McCain is still answerable to an antiquated moral framework that discriminates and marginalizes. For example, McCain was absolutely baffled when asked if he thought it was reasonable that Medicare covers Viagra, but not birth control. Reasonable, intelligent, and utilitarian decision making can't happen at the hands of someone who is so constrained by his ultra conservative 'family values' base, that he can't even take a stance on the availability of birth control. Raging, 4 hour erections are a different story.
5. McCain will drastically cut valuable social programs, but still deficit spend.
Some programs that McCain pledges to eliminate:
Head Start funding for 340,000 kids
Pell Grants for 1.6 million college students (universities are for poor kids, too??)
Title 1 School Funding
WIC assistance which includes nutritional foods, nutrition education, and health screenings for 3.4 million low-income parents and children
But, don't worry, kids. Defense spending will see no cuts under McCain's iron fist.
1. McCain worships Reaganomics. [Trickle down economics]
In the eight years of reign by big Dubya, 75% of America's economic growth has gone to line the pockets and deck out the private jet bathrooms of the top 1% of the income bracket. McCain consigns to the typical Republican recipe to spur growth: tax cuts. Putting aside the exaggerated rhetoric of the dueling campaigns, the Federal government's take of the GDP will be approximately 17.6% under McCain and 18.3% under Obama. A relatively paltry difference. More significant is where that 18-ish percent of the GDP comes from, and where it goes. McCain favors cutting the corporate income tax, and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, which has historically prevented wealthier Americans from avoiding taxes. Thus, lower tax liability in the upper echelon, with the theory that this extra money will trickle down to the masses in the form of wage increases, et cetera. However, this extra money, especially in the era of globalization, rarely trickles down to lower income Americans. Instead, it is invested overseas or payed out to wealthy stockholders in the form of dividends.
For the 98% of Americans that make under $250,000 dollars, Obama's tax policy will provide far more savings.
2. McCain has vowed to appoint only pro-lifers in his judicial appointments.
John McCain has stated that his judicial appointments will be subject to a single-issue litmus test: abortion. In a 2005 article in the New Yorker, a powerful pro-life advocate said:
"I wanted a commitment from ... John McCain that if elected he would appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. McCain, in private, assured me he would appoint pro-life judges."
A single issue stance on judicial appointments is closed-minded and dangerous. Essentially, John McCain has promised many well-qualified people that they will be categorically disregarded on the basis of their views on abortion. For everyone but the unborn children, shouldn't we be more concerned with a judge's impartiality and academic qualifications?
3. McCain wants free elections in Iraq, but disregards the Iraqis' basic needs.
McCain, following in Bush's footsteps, will bolster nation building policies aimed towards more free elections. However, this strategy is naive and has clearly failed. Sure, Iraqis with purple ink on their fingers voting for their next leader sounds great. But, it is ultimately only a semblance of democracy. Without focusing on basic human needs: security, education, basic infrastructure, and food, no 'free election' will accomplish anything.
Obama's foreign policy will focus on organic, incremental change and humanitarian efforts as a stepping stone to building the foundation for new successful democracies. Placating the American public with news of more elections in Iraq and Afghanistan simply doesn't cut it.
4. McCain is OLD!
This isn't as bad as it sounds. McCain is still answerable to an antiquated moral framework that discriminates and marginalizes. For example, McCain was absolutely baffled when asked if he thought it was reasonable that Medicare covers Viagra, but not birth control. Reasonable, intelligent, and utilitarian decision making can't happen at the hands of someone who is so constrained by his ultra conservative 'family values' base, that he can't even take a stance on the availability of birth control. Raging, 4 hour erections are a different story.
5. McCain will drastically cut valuable social programs, but still deficit spend.
Some programs that McCain pledges to eliminate:
Head Start funding for 340,000 kids
Pell Grants for 1.6 million college students (universities are for poor kids, too??)
Title 1 School Funding
WIC assistance which includes nutritional foods, nutrition education, and health screenings for 3.4 million low-income parents and children
But, don't worry, kids. Defense spending will see no cuts under McCain's iron fist.
Monday, July 28
Smoking By Yourself?
This is my first foray into the blogosphere. It will be poignant, relevant, and...I'm full of shit.
It is a longer story for a longer time, but a brief version prefaces the dilemma I face. I am currently in a program that includes random drug testing. Thus, I am unable to indulge in black tar heroin, crack [whores], cannabis (indica and sativa strains!), and alcohol. As a result, I have had to become creative in finding new permissible self-destructive vices.
Speaking of which, I bought a hookah the other day. As with any new purchase, my shiny, black, new tobacco water pipe is delightfully novel. So, as I sit here listening to Futurehead's self-titled album, and chatting on AIM...I succumbed to my prominently displayed, enticing new vice.
So, after lighting the coal and packing the molasses drenched apple flavoured tobacco into my new 'bowl'...I am sitting here, alone, smoking. Puff after puff, I become increasingly dizzy. Dizzy with self-doubt. Smoking hookah by myself? Exactly how shameful is this? I will cease and desist and ponder this inquiry. Good night.
It is a longer story for a longer time, but a brief version prefaces the dilemma I face. I am currently in a program that includes random drug testing. Thus, I am unable to indulge in black tar heroin, crack [whores], cannabis (indica and sativa strains!), and alcohol. As a result, I have had to become creative in finding new permissible self-destructive vices.
Speaking of which, I bought a hookah the other day. As with any new purchase, my shiny, black, new tobacco water pipe is delightfully novel. So, as I sit here listening to Futurehead's self-titled album, and chatting on AIM...I succumbed to my prominently displayed, enticing new vice.
So, after lighting the coal and packing the molasses drenched apple flavoured tobacco into my new 'bowl'...I am sitting here, alone, smoking. Puff after puff, I become increasingly dizzy. Dizzy with self-doubt. Smoking hookah by myself? Exactly how shameful is this? I will cease and desist and ponder this inquiry. Good night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
