I hate to say it, but I think Obama is in danger of being known as the Spam President.
Also, Coulter strikes again (from her recent book):
"We also have a term for the youngsters involved: 'the children of divorce,' or as I call them, 'future strippers.'"
"In a related phenomenon, various half-black celebrities insist on representing themselves simply as "black" - the better to race-bait their way to success. Actress Halle Berry, singer Alicia Keys, and matinee idol Barack Obama were all abandoned by their black fathers and raised by their white mothers. But instead of seeing themselves as half-white, they prefer to see the glass as half-black. They all choose to identify with the fathers who ditched them, while insulting the women who struggled to raise them."
She really needs to stop this foolishness. It is not just low-class and racist/classist - it is also wrong and stupid. The amazing thing is, people buy her books. Who are these people? Most Republicans I know are too smart or sensible to listen to Coulter's rubbish. Or so I hope. Who, then, is left to pay their hard earned money to listen to her toxic brain dumpings?
And governing philosophy aside, what does Ann Coulter hope to accomplish with her "work?" The only possible answer: Nothing. She's just after the $$$. And that's pathetic.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Red States Heart Taxes
I'm not saying Republicans should stop complaining about taxes, but let's be real for a minute. The fact of the matter is that blue states subsidize red states. See data below (from a 2004 Tax Foundation report).
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
Saturday, April 18, 2009
The Greatest Nation?
"The United States is the most creative, innovative, entrepreneurial and generous country on Earth."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/shapiro.entrepreneurs/index.html
A couple of points. First, people always say stuff like this. But is it really true? I'm not so sure. We're more creative than the Japanese? We're more generous than Nordic countries? I don't know.
Second, articles like this irritate me. I don't love the bailouts, or all elements of the stimulus package. But to pull the whole "bankrupting America for future generations" argument is silly (not only because it wasn't Obama who allowed the debt to spiral out of control. He's inherited a mess. See image below).
Debt is not the worst thing ever. Sure, it's high now, but it has been higher (over 100% of GDP in the 1940's - see image). And the best way to pay off debt is to stimulate the economy to raise future revenues. I just don't see what this guy is advocating for. "Letting markets handle it" is just not a concrete solution.
Allowing "bad companies to fail" is also not as simple as this guy seems to think. Our entire system is at risk of collapse; some of the companies at risk are the driving force of our economy, and letting them fail could easily have cascading effects. Output would fall, tax revenues would fall, and that big fat debt would still be big and fat.
Finally, I still do not understand why everyone has a phobia of government spending. Anyone who has taken basic economics knows that in the face of externalities, public goods, and collective security, the government is - practically speaking - the only one who can step up and provide. That is, it is sometimes efficient for the government to spend (so, for example, on infrastructure... who else is going to do it? No one has a private incentive to repair a highway or build a high-speed rail network).
So we might have to pay higher taxes in the future. Honestly, big deal. Look at the tax rates in other countries... compared to them, our rates seem on the low side - or at least average. SEE GRAPH HERE
It's a great privilege to live in the US - still one of the world's most vibrant nations. But with that privilege comes a responsibility to support our government for the good of all of our fellow citizens. And maybe that means that we have to pay slightly higher taxes. I think Joe Biden was right when he said paying taxes is patriotic. It was just stunning that he was criticized for saying it.
I paid a lot of taxes in the last week - and I felt great about it. I just can't imagine ever bemoaning my tax burden. And I really can't understand the uber-wealthy bemoaning theirs. With the level of poverty that exists, both in the US and worldwide, I think it is immensely selfish for the super-rich to complain about the "burden" they feel. Sure, giving up money isn't awesome. But in my opinion, the wealthy are damn lucky to have the money to give up.
Hopelessly incoherent rant over.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/shapiro.entrepreneurs/index.html
A couple of points. First, people always say stuff like this. But is it really true? I'm not so sure. We're more creative than the Japanese? We're more generous than Nordic countries? I don't know.
Second, articles like this irritate me. I don't love the bailouts, or all elements of the stimulus package. But to pull the whole "bankrupting America for future generations" argument is silly (not only because it wasn't Obama who allowed the debt to spiral out of control. He's inherited a mess. See image below).
Debt is not the worst thing ever. Sure, it's high now, but it has been higher (over 100% of GDP in the 1940's - see image). And the best way to pay off debt is to stimulate the economy to raise future revenues. I just don't see what this guy is advocating for. "Letting markets handle it" is just not a concrete solution.
Allowing "bad companies to fail" is also not as simple as this guy seems to think. Our entire system is at risk of collapse; some of the companies at risk are the driving force of our economy, and letting them fail could easily have cascading effects. Output would fall, tax revenues would fall, and that big fat debt would still be big and fat.
Finally, I still do not understand why everyone has a phobia of government spending. Anyone who has taken basic economics knows that in the face of externalities, public goods, and collective security, the government is - practically speaking - the only one who can step up and provide. That is, it is sometimes efficient for the government to spend (so, for example, on infrastructure... who else is going to do it? No one has a private incentive to repair a highway or build a high-speed rail network).
So we might have to pay higher taxes in the future. Honestly, big deal. Look at the tax rates in other countries... compared to them, our rates seem on the low side - or at least average. SEE GRAPH HERE
It's a great privilege to live in the US - still one of the world's most vibrant nations. But with that privilege comes a responsibility to support our government for the good of all of our fellow citizens. And maybe that means that we have to pay slightly higher taxes. I think Joe Biden was right when he said paying taxes is patriotic. It was just stunning that he was criticized for saying it.
I paid a lot of taxes in the last week - and I felt great about it. I just can't imagine ever bemoaning my tax burden. And I really can't understand the uber-wealthy bemoaning theirs. With the level of poverty that exists, both in the US and worldwide, I think it is immensely selfish for the super-rich to complain about the "burden" they feel. Sure, giving up money isn't awesome. But in my opinion, the wealthy are damn lucky to have the money to give up.
Hopelessly incoherent rant over.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Torn
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/opinion/10krugman.html
I have to say that I am torn about this issue. I have many friends who work in finance and banking, and I feel that to the extent that finance is necessary (for capital allocation, risk management, portfolio diversification, etc.), it is a good thing. But as a person interested not only in policy, but in a more equitable allocation of income in the US and globally, I do have serious doubts about the merits and inherent "goodness" of the financial industry.
Furthermore, as a student of government, I do wish that more people dedicated their lives to public service. The problems in the public sector are so challenging and so big that we really do need the best minds in the country/world working on them (especially these days). So I do get a bit sad to see so many brilliant people - who I know could change the world for the better through public service - end up in the financial sector. It's my bias too, and I acknowledge that. But it is still extremely frustrating.
I have to say that I am torn about this issue. I have many friends who work in finance and banking, and I feel that to the extent that finance is necessary (for capital allocation, risk management, portfolio diversification, etc.), it is a good thing. But as a person interested not only in policy, but in a more equitable allocation of income in the US and globally, I do have serious doubts about the merits and inherent "goodness" of the financial industry.
Furthermore, as a student of government, I do wish that more people dedicated their lives to public service. The problems in the public sector are so challenging and so big that we really do need the best minds in the country/world working on them (especially these days). So I do get a bit sad to see so many brilliant people - who I know could change the world for the better through public service - end up in the financial sector. It's my bias too, and I acknowledge that. But it is still extremely frustrating.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)