Enemies won't challenge the US when John McCain is President because he's been tested. He says so. I'm afraid in my book that comes awfully close to the sWaggerer himself with his "Bring 'em on" rhetoric. Look how well that worked out.
I'd rather have someone who thinks, talks, considers and then takes action to a hothead who boasts about his war-making activities.
I remember back in 2000 turning to my wife after the vice presidential debate and saying "If they (Bush/Cheney) get in, we're going to have a war." Cheney said in that debate that an army was not for peace-keeping, an army was for fighting. And he said it with that unmistakeable air of a guy just itching for a good fight (whatever that is).
Well, we've had eight years of fighting and I think it's time to go back and sit down and talk like civilized adults instead of childishly zipping our lips shut, crossing our arms and humphing threateningly. GWB and Dick C. have shown us what it's like to have mindless bullies running the show. Enough, already!
Diplomacy, anyone?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
A Matter of Percentages
According to this CNN piece, McCain is claiming that 40% of Americans don't pay any taxes at all. As a result of this astounding fact, he claims, the only way this 40% can benefit from Obama's tax cutting is to receive checks from the government (paid for, of course, by the hard-done-by super-rich).
I see two scenarios here and I've contacted FactCheck in the hopes of finding out which (if either) is true.
I can cheerfully accept the 40% if we include infants, small children, retirees, the homeless, full-time students, stay-at-home moms (and dads!), the unemployed and other non-wage-earning groups. If we're talking about specific individuals who pay no tax, 40% doesn't seem all that out of whack. And the large majority of those are living off taxed money. There is a tax-paying breadwinner in the family who will pay less taxes under the Obama plan.
What would really depress me would be to find out that 40% of American households earn so little that they pay no taxes at all. First and foremost, it would imply that 40% of American households are living below the poverty line because surely that is the point where someone is considered to be earning enough to contribute to the country's well-being. Er, this is America, no? Forty percent?
This could be true, of course. And I'm hoping that FactCheck will come through with the goods. But I came upon some disturbing info yesterday that, considered in the light of this 40% thing, is pretty scandalous. In 1980, the top 10% of Americans earned 33% of all the country's earnings. After Ronald Reagan introduced "trickle-down economics" this grew to 40% by 2000. Wait for it, it gets worse. By 2004, it grew to 60%. At that time, the top 1% was pulling in 40% of the income. Who knows where the percentages are now. It will be another 3 or 4 years before anyone gets them out. But think of it this way. The average person in the top 1% is earning 90 times the average earnings of the bottom 90%.
In other words, if we doubled income taxes on just the richest 100,000 people, we could eliminate taxation on everyone else in the country and be no worse off as a nation. Actually we'd be a lot better off because everyone else would have lots of money in their pockets to pay off debt and stimulate the economy. We'd need less social programs because we'd have a lot less people who needed them. We might even get people being able to save for their own retirement.
It's also arguable that that 1% would not be noticeably worse off - they might have to put off buying that extra Lear jet for another month but I expect they'd get by.
I see two scenarios here and I've contacted FactCheck in the hopes of finding out which (if either) is true.
I can cheerfully accept the 40% if we include infants, small children, retirees, the homeless, full-time students, stay-at-home moms (and dads!), the unemployed and other non-wage-earning groups. If we're talking about specific individuals who pay no tax, 40% doesn't seem all that out of whack. And the large majority of those are living off taxed money. There is a tax-paying breadwinner in the family who will pay less taxes under the Obama plan.
What would really depress me would be to find out that 40% of American households earn so little that they pay no taxes at all. First and foremost, it would imply that 40% of American households are living below the poverty line because surely that is the point where someone is considered to be earning enough to contribute to the country's well-being. Er, this is America, no? Forty percent?
This could be true, of course. And I'm hoping that FactCheck will come through with the goods. But I came upon some disturbing info yesterday that, considered in the light of this 40% thing, is pretty scandalous. In 1980, the top 10% of Americans earned 33% of all the country's earnings. After Ronald Reagan introduced "trickle-down economics" this grew to 40% by 2000. Wait for it, it gets worse. By 2004, it grew to 60%. At that time, the top 1% was pulling in 40% of the income. Who knows where the percentages are now. It will be another 3 or 4 years before anyone gets them out. But think of it this way. The average person in the top 1% is earning 90 times the average earnings of the bottom 90%.
In other words, if we doubled income taxes on just the richest 100,000 people, we could eliminate taxation on everyone else in the country and be no worse off as a nation. Actually we'd be a lot better off because everyone else would have lots of money in their pockets to pay off debt and stimulate the economy. We'd need less social programs because we'd have a lot less people who needed them. We might even get people being able to save for their own retirement.
It's also arguable that that 1% would not be noticeably worse off - they might have to put off buying that extra Lear jet for another month but I expect they'd get by.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
I am Sarah Palin's Friend!
I bet that wasn't obvious to you from my previous postings. Actually, it wasn't obvious to me either until she told me. My old buddy Sarah sent me a nice letter headed "Dear Friend, " asking me for my support. Ol' Moosehunter (as I'm her Friend, I'm sure she won't mind me calling her that) tells me she would be really pleased if I would join the Republican National Committee and give them a couple of thousand bucks out of my unlimited post-crash supply. They need the money because those pesky Democrats with their "fearful and pessimistic mentality" are "set to raise over $1 billion" (her bolding) to "relentlessy flood America's airwaves with their negative and false attacks against our Republican candidates."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the McCain campaign had opted for Federal funding. Shouldn't that preclude he or his co-candidate coming to me with hand out, even if it is for that no-specific-candidate body, the RNC? By the way, exactly how is the RNC going to run ads that don't urge you to vote for a specific candidate? Are there several Republicans running for President? Forgive me, I hadn't noticed.
Well, I hate to disappoint my old Friend Sarah. I'm just too darn fearful and pessimistic to find hope in her "confident, optimistic view of principled, conservative government and opportunity for all." Even if it does mean the "Obama-Biden Democrats" will take "total control of our government."
As for cutting "through the false claims and fearful rhetoric of the [O-B D's]," I'm having trouble identifying same through the din of the "Palin around with the ignorant" mob. And in these dark times, I much prefer fearful to fear-mongering.
Sarah, with Friends like me, you better not quit your day job quite yet.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the McCain campaign had opted for Federal funding. Shouldn't that preclude he or his co-candidate coming to me with hand out, even if it is for that no-specific-candidate body, the RNC? By the way, exactly how is the RNC going to run ads that don't urge you to vote for a specific candidate? Are there several Republicans running for President? Forgive me, I hadn't noticed.
Well, I hate to disappoint my old Friend Sarah. I'm just too darn fearful and pessimistic to find hope in her "confident, optimistic view of principled, conservative government and opportunity for all." Even if it does mean the "Obama-Biden Democrats" will take "total control of our government."
As for cutting "through the false claims and fearful rhetoric of the [O-B D's]," I'm having trouble identifying same through the din of the "Palin around with the ignorant" mob. And in these dark times, I much prefer fearful to fear-mongering.
Sarah, with Friends like me, you better not quit your day job quite yet.
Monday, October 13, 2008
How to stimulate the economy
While Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats attempt to give the middle class a chance to recover from the overwhelming disaster that has befallen them in the last few weeks, the GOP has its own suggestion: make the already ludicrously rich even richer. Here are their ideas:
1. Removing legal barriers to speed up new offshore oil drilling. A law banning offshore drilling expired October 1, but Republican lawmakers say lawsuits could block new offshore rigs and want judges to quickly rule on the cases.
This will deliver untold billions to those same energy companies that are already making tens of billions a quarter while having absolutely no impact on American families for years to come, if ever. Why not allow the oil companies to spend as much as they want on windmills, tidemills and geo-thermal power and deduct the lot from their taxes instead? Of course, the trouble with those forms of energy is that once you've built them, they're self-sufficient. You can't go on selling the same old crap over and over again.
2. Lowering taxes on income that U.S. corporations earn from their overseas subsidiaries.
1. Removing legal barriers to speed up new offshore oil drilling. A law banning offshore drilling expired October 1, but Republican lawmakers say lawsuits could block new offshore rigs and want judges to quickly rule on the cases.
This will deliver untold billions to those same energy companies that are already making tens of billions a quarter while having absolutely no impact on American families for years to come, if ever. Why not allow the oil companies to spend as much as they want on windmills, tidemills and geo-thermal power and deduct the lot from their taxes instead? Of course, the trouble with those forms of energy is that once you've built them, they're self-sufficient. You can't go on selling the same old crap over and over again.
2. Lowering taxes on income that U.S. corporations earn from their overseas subsidiaries.
...making it even easier to offshore jobs and put more and more Americans out of work.
3. Eliminating capital gains taxes on the sale of homes up to $500,000 for a couple.
And that will help most Americans how exactly? THERE IS NO CAPITAL GAINS TAX if you move from one house to another. This ONLY helps those with second, third, forth and, yes, eleventh homes. Can anyone say "John McCain?"
4. Suspending capital gains taxes on securities purchased during the next two years.
Considering that most middle-class Americans don't trade in securities directly to speak of, this is another one that only affects the "investor class" - the ones with all those Bush tax dollars that they can now drop into the thoroughly deflated market and ride back up. Let's see, what can I do with that $700 thousand I just got in the McCain tax cut?
5. Extending government deposit insurance to business transaction accounts.
Bear in mind that small businesses are already covered. We're talking here about LARGE businesses like, oh, Enron, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and the like. That's really going to help the little guy pay his mortgage, isn't it.
6. Directing the government to guarantee inter-bank loans.
Then all the banks can just lend themselves out of debt. "Hey, you lend me a couple billion, I'll lose it (nudge, nudge), and then you can just claim it back from the government."
OK, all you people who think preventing gay marriage is more important than providing your family with a roof over their head and the odd square meal, go for it! After all, trickle-down economics has worked so well so far, why stop now?Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Palin Comparison
In recent days, Sarah Palin has been unfavorably compared with those intellectual heavyweights George W. Bush ("makes George Bush look like an intellectual") and Dan Quayle ("...and you, Sarah, are no Dan Quayle"). She has compared herself to a pitbull with lipstick. Tomorrow, she will finally be off the leash and people will get to compare her to Joe Biden but, by setting very low expectations for her, the McCain camp has tried to ensure that anything other than a complete flusterf@#$ will be considered a triumph.
Isn't she running for Vice President? Isn't that the person who advises the president? Isn't that the person who steps in when things go south? Shouldn't that person be considered as if they were going for the top job? After all, we won't get a second chance to say "no" -- "Well, we did vote for her as VP, but we never thought she'd become President - can we please have someone else?"
Tonight I watched some clips from her speeches and debates in Alaska. Taken with the speech she delivered at the convention and her clear skill at the snide put-down, the image she conjures up for me is the leader of the high school in crowd. You know, the one in all those movies who spends her time verbally slicing lesser mortals to ribbons while her sycophants giggle. Not very smart, but very attractive and v-e-r-y nasty. In the movies of course, she always gets her come-uppance and ends up losing her pet jock to the mouse who's been the long-suffering victim of her scathing attacks.
In real life, she gets to run for vice-president. Who-da thunk it?
Isn't she running for Vice President? Isn't that the person who advises the president? Isn't that the person who steps in when things go south? Shouldn't that person be considered as if they were going for the top job? After all, we won't get a second chance to say "no" -- "Well, we did vote for her as VP, but we never thought she'd become President - can we please have someone else?"
Tonight I watched some clips from her speeches and debates in Alaska. Taken with the speech she delivered at the convention and her clear skill at the snide put-down, the image she conjures up for me is the leader of the high school in crowd. You know, the one in all those movies who spends her time verbally slicing lesser mortals to ribbons while her sycophants giggle. Not very smart, but very attractive and v-e-r-y nasty. In the movies of course, she always gets her come-uppance and ends up losing her pet jock to the mouse who's been the long-suffering victim of her scathing attacks.
In real life, she gets to run for vice-president. Who-da thunk it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)