Nathan Berdahl was one of the best people you could ever know.
Have a rock n' roll joyride.
Friday, October 17
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
