That may seem like an odd title for my first post after this historic election, but it is in response to and op-ed by Rep. John Boehner that appeared in the Washington Post today. I posted this comment:
Why should we listen to you when you offer the same old Republican recipe of tax cuts? Do you really think that cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% is a good idea when you consider that 25% is still higher than most countries and will have a limited effect on domestic investment, especially when we could be funding human capital investment with the lost revenues that would actually encourage businesses to invest here bc they know the American workforce really is the best in the world?
And, do you really expect to capture the youth of America, the next generation, by stigmatizing "radical environmentalists?" For John Boehner, it's anchors aweigh on the S.S. Irrelevant.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Limericks!
I am having a lot of fun with the WaPo limerick contest (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/11/tell-the-campaign-in-a-limeric.html):
There once was a small town mayor,
Who when criticized cried, "that's not fair!
My opponent is elite
And will bring us defeat
And pals around with terrorists like Bill Ayers!"
Posted by: lizziellen November 4, 2008 11:13 AM
The ads this campaign have been wiley,
Invoking Paris and Britney and Miley.
But we the people know better,
Even in states that are redder,
Than to believe the likes of O'Reilly.
Posted by: lizziellen November 4, 2008 11:23 AM
Sarah Palin has caused quite the mania,
You betcha, she'll out-campaign ya.
The states she did take
Are Pro-America, not fake,
But she won't get 1600 Pennsylvania!
or,
Sarah Palin has caused quite the mania,
You betcha, she'll out-campaign ya.
Some Americans are "pro",
Others "fake", lmao,
Lucky us "fakers" have 1600 Pennsylvania!
or, courtesy Sannie,
Sarah Palin has caused quite the mania,
You betcha, she'll out-campaign ya.
Some Americans are "pro",
Others "fake", doncha know,
Lucky us "fakers" have 1600 Pennsylvania!
There once was a small town mayor,
Who when criticized cried, "that's not fair!
My opponent is elite
And will bring us defeat
And pals around with terrorists like Bill Ayers!"
Posted by: lizziellen November 4, 2008 11:13 AM
The ads this campaign have been wiley,
Invoking Paris and Britney and Miley.
But we the people know better,
Even in states that are redder,
Than to believe the likes of O'Reilly.
Posted by: lizziellen November 4, 2008 11:23 AM
Sarah Palin has caused quite the mania,
You betcha, she'll out-campaign ya.
The states she did take
Are Pro-America, not fake,
But she won't get 1600 Pennsylvania!
or,
Sarah Palin has caused quite the mania,
You betcha, she'll out-campaign ya.
Some Americans are "pro",
Others "fake", lmao,
Lucky us "fakers" have 1600 Pennsylvania!
or, courtesy Sannie,
Sarah Palin has caused quite the mania,
You betcha, she'll out-campaign ya.
Some Americans are "pro",
Others "fake", doncha know,
Lucky us "fakers" have 1600 Pennsylvania!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Election Nerves
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)