tj: i think its going to be a close election and it will make tuesday night interesting
me: popular-vote wise i think it will be a close election, but i think it will be pretty much an electoral landslide for Obama
tj: have you not heard obamas warning!? this is the last week, things arent over! its not the time to claim victory!!
me: i'm not claiming victory, i'm just telling you what i think
my gut is telling me that "undecideds" are going to break strongly for McCain
the data seem to show that they are not going to break strongly enough
but as odd as it is to say with him being a republican and kind of tempermental, I think in the privacy of the voting booth, McCain will seem like the safer choice to a lot of people
stick with the devil you know, right
but i'm going to go on the polling data with this one because usually it is right, and say that Obama has enough support that a strong independent break for McCain isn't going to be enough for him
tj: lets hope you're right
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Research Topic
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26brooks.html?em
Here's something to look into: the trends in the economy and equality in governments characterized by liberal orthodoxy vs. a more limited approach that nonetheless aims to lay the groundwork for a more equal society.
Here's something to look into: the trends in the economy and equality in governments characterized by liberal orthodoxy vs. a more limited approach that nonetheless aims to lay the groundwork for a more equal society.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Trickle Up
I posted this reply to the article "A Liberal Supermajority" in the WSJ today:
Most liberals individually do not believe in "big government" the way many conservatives demonize them to. Usually, they believe in "government just big enough to support my pet projects", and with a Reid-Pelosi-Obama government, it's the aggregate of all these liberal pet projects that become the "big government" that conservatives hate and fear so much. So let's refrain from demonizing individual "tax and spend" liberals and focus on what I took to be the original point of your argument, liberal government unchecked (I agree, we have reason to be concerned).
If you listened to the presidential debates, moderators occasionally attempted to address this issue in the context of the recession, which the author brought up: We may be less likely to face this balloon in government programs because the next President will have to prioritize. From what I heard, it was Senator Obama who enumerated his priorities (healthcare, the environment, education), and Senator McCain who contended that we could do it all.
Lastly, the author's use of quotation marks to denote "the rich" and "green elites" conjurs images of old white men in smoky rooms chortling at the ludicrous notion that we might be facing global environmental disaster and that a person making $200,000/year is considered rich. All arguments to the contrary aside, this image is not working for the Republican Party and the author would be well-advised to rethink his base-pandering tactics.
-an Independent
I didn't post the full extent of what I really thought bc I wanted the comment to get posted, but let's address some other issues in the original article (I can't even get into all of them):
1) The idea that wealth redistribution is bad.
-I understand the arguments against wealth redistribution: it stifles growth by taxing investors and those who would own their own business, my money is my money, it's a slippery slope into socialism, etc. Let's consider for a moment the current economic crisis, however, and think about putting money into the hands of people who would actually spend it, and moreover, spend it on Kraft products, Coca-Cola, and McDonalds (by company, these three make up 10% of the DJIA). When was the last time Warren Buffett ate string cheese, you think? But he (or at least his holding company) will benefit off the people who eat it on a regular basis. Letting the rich keep their money benefits the poor, under trickle down theory, by advancing investment in companies, thereby promoting growth and job creation: a rising tide lifts all boats. But, spreading some of that money to people who don't have enough to buy the things they need benefits company revenues, which benefits the rich. Furthermore, high inequality leads to a less-safe society for everyone. Besides, the U.S. has experienced more growth under Democratic Presidents than Republican ones; even if the business cycle is the major underlying cause of this, it is not consistent with the argument that Republicans stimulate the economy significantly or that Democrats slow it significantly. Indeed, all it says is that either party has little effect at all! We could argue about this (and who benefits more from the gov't, the rich or the poor?) around in circles, and we do, which is why we have politics and a power sharing system, and huge majorities of one party could be cause for concern. But, the President's job is larger than the veto, so again it's just one issue in the many that voters use to make up their minds.
2) Environmental policies are thrust upon us by a "green elite".
-Sure there is a "green elite", but they are those who can afford to buy local and organic, and install solar panels in their homes. They are not, as the author implies, an oligarchy of liberals who want to impose their agenda on the unwilling American people. It is irresponsible and morally reprehensible to discredit the good work people are doing to try and save our planet and benefit everyone on it. If you're not willing to help, at least thank us for the positive externality you will be receiving. That's just my axe to grind.
Most liberals individually do not believe in "big government" the way many conservatives demonize them to. Usually, they believe in "government just big enough to support my pet projects", and with a Reid-Pelosi-Obama government, it's the aggregate of all these liberal pet projects that become the "big government" that conservatives hate and fear so much. So let's refrain from demonizing individual "tax and spend" liberals and focus on what I took to be the original point of your argument, liberal government unchecked (I agree, we have reason to be concerned).
If you listened to the presidential debates, moderators occasionally attempted to address this issue in the context of the recession, which the author brought up: We may be less likely to face this balloon in government programs because the next President will have to prioritize. From what I heard, it was Senator Obama who enumerated his priorities (healthcare, the environment, education), and Senator McCain who contended that we could do it all.
Lastly, the author's use of quotation marks to denote "the rich" and "green elites" conjurs images of old white men in smoky rooms chortling at the ludicrous notion that we might be facing global environmental disaster and that a person making $200,000/year is considered rich. All arguments to the contrary aside, this image is not working for the Republican Party and the author would be well-advised to rethink his base-pandering tactics.
-an Independent
I didn't post the full extent of what I really thought bc I wanted the comment to get posted, but let's address some other issues in the original article (I can't even get into all of them):
1) The idea that wealth redistribution is bad.
-I understand the arguments against wealth redistribution: it stifles growth by taxing investors and those who would own their own business, my money is my money, it's a slippery slope into socialism, etc. Let's consider for a moment the current economic crisis, however, and think about putting money into the hands of people who would actually spend it, and moreover, spend it on Kraft products, Coca-Cola, and McDonalds (by company, these three make up 10% of the DJIA). When was the last time Warren Buffett ate string cheese, you think? But he (or at least his holding company) will benefit off the people who eat it on a regular basis. Letting the rich keep their money benefits the poor, under trickle down theory, by advancing investment in companies, thereby promoting growth and job creation: a rising tide lifts all boats. But, spreading some of that money to people who don't have enough to buy the things they need benefits company revenues, which benefits the rich. Furthermore, high inequality leads to a less-safe society for everyone. Besides, the U.S. has experienced more growth under Democratic Presidents than Republican ones; even if the business cycle is the major underlying cause of this, it is not consistent with the argument that Republicans stimulate the economy significantly or that Democrats slow it significantly. Indeed, all it says is that either party has little effect at all! We could argue about this (and who benefits more from the gov't, the rich or the poor?) around in circles, and we do, which is why we have politics and a power sharing system, and huge majorities of one party could be cause for concern. But, the President's job is larger than the veto, so again it's just one issue in the many that voters use to make up their minds.
2) Environmental policies are thrust upon us by a "green elite".
-Sure there is a "green elite", but they are those who can afford to buy local and organic, and install solar panels in their homes. They are not, as the author implies, an oligarchy of liberals who want to impose their agenda on the unwilling American people. It is irresponsible and morally reprehensible to discredit the good work people are doing to try and save our planet and benefit everyone on it. If you're not willing to help, at least thank us for the positive externality you will be receiving. That's just my axe to grind.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Fact-checking correction
Okay, here's a better explanation of what's going on here, from farther down the factcheck.org page:
"If the company is actually that profitable, and depending on how the business is organized legally, Obama’s plan would indeed raise his federal income taxes, and Obama conceded as much during the exchange. As we’ve written before, small businesses commonly are organized in such a way that their owners file business taxes as individuals. So if Joe’s plumbing business earns more than $200,000 per year (or $250,000 if Joe is married and files tax returns jointly) then his taxes would indeed be higher under Obama's plan than under McCain's."
"If the company is actually that profitable, and depending on how the business is organized legally, Obama’s plan would indeed raise his federal income taxes, and Obama conceded as much during the exchange. As we’ve written before, small businesses commonly are organized in such a way that their owners file business taxes as individuals. So if Joe’s plumbing business earns more than $200,000 per year (or $250,000 if Joe is married and files tax returns jointly) then his taxes would indeed be higher under Obama's plan than under McCain's."
Fact-checking
Take a quote like this from Factcheck.org:
McCain said “Joe the plumber” faced “much higher taxes” under Obama’s tax plan and would pay a fine under Obama’s health care plan if he failed to provide coverage for his workers. But Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher would pay higher taxes only if the business he says he wants to buy puts his income over $200,000 a year, and his small business would be exempt from Obama’s requirement to provide coverage for workers.
For me, this hardly clarifies the issue. The $200,000 number must be referring to a tax bracket that already exists and would theoretically be the same under McCain, because we know the magic number for Obama is $250,000, the cutoff at which people would face higher taxes than they would under McCain. Sorry Joe, "Share the Wealth" is part of the American Dream, that's why we have a progressive income tax. If you don't like that, vote for Ron Paul. Remember, sharing the wealth makes a safer society for everyone, and I urge you to remember where you came from and think about the breaks you got as a taxpayer bc wealthier people where bearing the heftier share of the tax burden. If you make six figures, maybe it's your turn to support that burden.
McCain said “Joe the plumber” faced “much higher taxes” under Obama’s tax plan and would pay a fine under Obama’s health care plan if he failed to provide coverage for his workers. But Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher would pay higher taxes only if the business he says he wants to buy puts his income over $200,000 a year, and his small business would be exempt from Obama’s requirement to provide coverage for workers.
For me, this hardly clarifies the issue. The $200,000 number must be referring to a tax bracket that already exists and would theoretically be the same under McCain, because we know the magic number for Obama is $250,000, the cutoff at which people would face higher taxes than they would under McCain. Sorry Joe, "Share the Wealth" is part of the American Dream, that's why we have a progressive income tax. If you don't like that, vote for Ron Paul. Remember, sharing the wealth makes a safer society for everyone, and I urge you to remember where you came from and think about the breaks you got as a taxpayer bc wealthier people where bearing the heftier share of the tax burden. If you make six figures, maybe it's your turn to support that burden.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
A Peek at the Other Side
As Dems gleefully pounce on the failure of deregulation as a Republican policy, here is a persuasive argument by Sebastian Mallaby that deregulation actually had little to do with the crisis.
And also from WaPo, Krauthammer also wrote something I found insightful. I usually find Krauthammer inciteful (as to rage), so color me surprised.
And leave it to George Will to restore my faith in Politics.
And this isn't really from the other side, but a nice analogy from David Brooks to Plato's cave, anyway:
"This money was entrusted to a few thousand traders who sloshed it around the world in search of the highest returns. These traders live in a high-tech version of Plato’s cave. They do not see reality directly. Instead they see the shadow of reality as it dances around in numbers on their computer screens. They form perceptions about other people’s perceptions of where the smart money is going next, so they’re three or four psychological levels removed from normal economic activity."
And also from WaPo, Krauthammer also wrote something I found insightful. I usually find Krauthammer inciteful (as to rage), so color me surprised.
And leave it to George Will to restore my faith in Politics.
And this isn't really from the other side, but a nice analogy from David Brooks to Plato's cave, anyway:
"This money was entrusted to a few thousand traders who sloshed it around the world in search of the highest returns. These traders live in a high-tech version of Plato’s cave. They do not see reality directly. Instead they see the shadow of reality as it dances around in numbers on their computer screens. They form perceptions about other people’s perceptions of where the smart money is going next, so they’re three or four psychological levels removed from normal economic activity."
Check it Out
From: http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/
"4:50 p.m.
Not quite 10,000: The Dow closed under 10,000 for the first time since Oct. 26, 2004 today, even though it was far above the low of the day,
Over that period of nearly four years, here are the best and worst performers of the stocks now in the index, as measured by Bloomberg. (Figures do not include dividends.)
Best
1. Hewlett-Packard, up 129%
2. McDonalds, up 98%
3. Exxon Mobil, up 57%
4. Chevron, up 42%
5. Coca-Cola, up 30%
In other words, a tech recovery, two oil companies and two companies that sell inexpensive food or drinks.
Worst
1. General Motors, down 77%
2. Citigroup, down 60%
3. Alcoa, down 45%
4. Home Depot, down 42%
5. General Electric, down 36%
A car company that bet on S.U.V.s, a basic material company facing a recession around the world, a troubled bank, a retailer dependant on a vibrant housing market, and a conglomerate that long depended on its financial arm."
"4:50 p.m.
Not quite 10,000: The Dow closed under 10,000 for the first time since Oct. 26, 2004 today, even though it was far above the low of the day,
Over that period of nearly four years, here are the best and worst performers of the stocks now in the index, as measured by Bloomberg. (Figures do not include dividends.)
Best
1. Hewlett-Packard, up 129%
2. McDonalds, up 98%
3. Exxon Mobil, up 57%
4. Chevron, up 42%
5. Coca-Cola, up 30%
In other words, a tech recovery, two oil companies and two companies that sell inexpensive food or drinks.
Worst
1. General Motors, down 77%
2. Citigroup, down 60%
3. Alcoa, down 45%
4. Home Depot, down 42%
5. General Electric, down 36%
A car company that bet on S.U.V.s, a basic material company facing a recession around the world, a troubled bank, a retailer dependant on a vibrant housing market, and a conglomerate that long depended on its financial arm."
Monday, October 6, 2008
A comment on Kristol's column from Middlebury :)
33.
October 06, 2008 6:42 am
Link
It's interesting to see the Republicans' current state of desperation neatly packaged in one simple column. This summation of your morally bankrupt conversation with the blindly ambitious tool, Sarah Palin, shows exactly why you are going to lose this year.
— JA, Middlebury, VT
Recommend Recommended by 136 Readers
October 06, 2008 6:42 am
Link
It's interesting to see the Republicans' current state of desperation neatly packaged in one simple column. This summation of your morally bankrupt conversation with the blindly ambitious tool, Sarah Palin, shows exactly why you are going to lose this year.
— JA, Middlebury, VT
Recommend Recommended by 136 Readers
Terry and I agree on something
"Fannie and Freddie are definitely culpable in this...their mandate was to help people get mortgages for less interest, and those mortgages should have stayed in house, not sold to make money which is beyond their mandate. Besides, W himself has proclaimed promoting homeownership to be within the scope the government, so maybe some government subsidy to keep the loans in house would be in order, if you agree with him."
-a message I wrote to AM several weeks ago, in response to an article blaming the C.R.A./Fannie and Freddie for the crisis. I recently found out that Terry and I came independently to this same conclusion. I would modify my response slightly to acknowledge that the mortgage giants' hands were tied: they had to trade in these mortgages to raise capital to make new loans. If we as a country believe we should be promoting homeownership to underrepresented groups, then the capital should come from a combination our subsidy, i.e. taxes, and low-risk investment. The C.R.A. in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but its intersection with bad policy had an outcome that contributed to our current global economic predicament.
Question: now that the crisis is really taking off overseas as well, were there similar government-backed mortgage giants engaging in risky behaviors in other countries, as well? I heard that the mortgage and housing culture abroad is much different; most mortgages have shorter terms and rates pegged to an inflation index, which limited the market for them. If that's the case, and there wasn't a player like Fannie/Freddie, were all these toxic securities American-made?
-a message I wrote to AM several weeks ago, in response to an article blaming the C.R.A./Fannie and Freddie for the crisis. I recently found out that Terry and I came independently to this same conclusion. I would modify my response slightly to acknowledge that the mortgage giants' hands were tied: they had to trade in these mortgages to raise capital to make new loans. If we as a country believe we should be promoting homeownership to underrepresented groups, then the capital should come from a combination our subsidy, i.e. taxes, and low-risk investment. The C.R.A. in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but its intersection with bad policy had an outcome that contributed to our current global economic predicament.
Question: now that the crisis is really taking off overseas as well, were there similar government-backed mortgage giants engaging in risky behaviors in other countries, as well? I heard that the mortgage and housing culture abroad is much different; most mortgages have shorter terms and rates pegged to an inflation index, which limited the market for them. If that's the case, and there wasn't a player like Fannie/Freddie, were all these toxic securities American-made?
Friday, October 3, 2008
Generally Not a Krauthammer Fan, But...
Brilliant. Apart from the line about Dems believing nonsense, which pales in comparison to the nonsense Repubs will swallow ;)
Thursday, October 2, 2008
For Whom the Bell Tolls
A reaction to this editorial of today's nytimes:
Based on a quick amortization of a loan balance and then that balance reduced by 10%, it looks like lender profits would only take a 5% hit...you can help the borrower more than you hurt the lender. And keep in mind this 5% decrease is coming out of interest...that is to say, profit. It's not like we're asking the lenders to become charitable institutions...and as long as there is potential for profitability, we should be able to get them on board. It's convincing them that 5% lower profit outweighs increased foreclosures. We are all in this together, and have to come up with a solution that works for the entire economy, and not everyone is going to like every part of it. I don't think that the "moral hazard" is that great in bailing out borrowers...their credit will still be destroyed and there will be regulations and other incentives in place that discourage this kind of borrowing.
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
-John Donne
Based on a quick amortization of a loan balance and then that balance reduced by 10%, it looks like lender profits would only take a 5% hit...you can help the borrower more than you hurt the lender. And keep in mind this 5% decrease is coming out of interest...that is to say, profit. It's not like we're asking the lenders to become charitable institutions...and as long as there is potential for profitability, we should be able to get them on board. It's convincing them that 5% lower profit outweighs increased foreclosures. We are all in this together, and have to come up with a solution that works for the entire economy, and not everyone is going to like every part of it. I don't think that the "moral hazard" is that great in bailing out borrowers...their credit will still be destroyed and there will be regulations and other incentives in place that discourage this kind of borrowing.
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
-John Donne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)