Ford shoots down latest rumor of a Fiesta RS
5 years ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reads
Blogs I Read
-
-
-
-
Dark Spirits and Ancient Aliens3 days ago
-
-
-
-
The Answers4 years ago
-
-
Friday Squid Blogging: Squid Purses20 hours ago
-
-
9 comments:
My comment on my post. Obama represents an opportunity (not guarantee!) to rise above the poor state that the United States has become. Please, please -- can't we do better than McCain, the old, tired, Bush-esque politics? Can't we embrace something with passion and a sincere love for what this country can become once again? Can you really tell me that McCain is the BEST we have to give ourselves?? If so, post a comment and tell me why.
I hear there is going to be a throw down here.....bring it on!! :-)
I am not touching this ..... ;o)
okay, as much as i would love to vote for obama (his speeches, or mccain's for the next 4-8 yrs...hmmmm) here's what's holding me up: more gov. run programs. do you REALLY think they're going to work? in his speech, he says that the what the gov "should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves". well, frankly, i think it's a rare thing that an individual, a community, or even a state can't do, which the fed. gov. can do better.
welfare...let's keep it in communities, so that we can make sure it's not abused and those that need it have it.
health care...in years past, doctors knew that the poor would need discounted, even free, rates. now it's illegal to give a free visit.
college loans...college tuition skyrocketed once the gov got involved.
and there are so many more examples. lesson: the fed gov SUCKS at running programs that effect the details of our lives. let it protect us in a war situation, let it ensure that we have the freedoms to choose the paths of our lives...but that's just about it. am i dreaming? maybe a bit. but while mccain might alter and adjust, i think he'll do less expanding of the gov. and that's a good thing. now go read atlas shrugged and vote for ron paul.
alright. that should get everyone going. let the games begin!
Good Job Bets,
I would try and post something like that, but it would just turn into a " Screaming Rant " that would be illegible to normal human beings. I have my opinions but can't express them well, remember I'm not too smart, if I was do you really think I would have been a
" Hairy Legged Ole' Beat Cop " for my life career .. ;o)
Thanks,
P.S. I do think OBAMA in 08' would be a huge mistake in the long term health of our nation.
Let's hear it for Bets and the "Hairy Legged Ole' Beat Cop"! Yeah!
The silver-tongued orator is easy to listen to and he's passionate but his message doesn't ring true. He seems to have appeared out of nowhere like the Great Gatsby to give us all we want.
He says he'll give a tax cut to 95% of Americans. Now, if I really thought he could do that, he might get my attention.
Of course he wants to come down on the evil corporations and "close the loop holes". It's time everyone realizes that a tax on business is a tax on us and it hits the poor way harder than the rich. So don't come with any blather about taxing business because the only places they have to go get the money is from us either through lower wages or higher costs for products.
And what's that silliness about McCain not wanting to chase bin laden to his cave. Is Obama really going to march through Pakistan to get bin laden?
I suggest that if Obama really wants my vote, he concentrate on fixing the system first. Lets start with social security and medicare before we add another big bureaucracy. If you count on their system for retirement, you get to live sub-poverty for the rest of your life. And elders have to pay for a medical supplement just to get the doctors to take them. At least Bush had the audacity to suggest that maybe we ought to begin turning the program into a true retirement, but the liberals wouldn't hear of it.
Bottom line is: get the government out of our face. We don't need these lamo programs and we don't want to pay for them. We'll do it for ourselves.
Now I grant you that McCain is not too much better and he's way harder to look at and listen to, but that's why he's got Palin. At least maybe he'll help hold the line until we get someone like Ron Paul in.
Yoder...where are you?
QUOTE:
“okay, as much as i would love to vote for obama (his speeches, or mccain's for the next 4-8 yrs...hmmmm) here's what's holding me up: more gov. run programs. do you REALLY think they're going to work? in his speech, he says that the what the gov "should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves". well, frankly, i think it's a rare thing that an individual, a community, or even a state can't do, wich the fed. gov. can do better.”
This is a very good example of the effective use of political framing. Few if any who have come to believe that “the only good federal program is a cut federal program” have any evidence-based arguments to support it. But it has been ingrained into the public consciousness for so long by neo-conservatives (note that, coming from a polito-historical perspective, neo-conservatives have been around for a couple decades) that it’s considered a common sense fact.
That’s a tragedy because policy is created based on ideology and political indoctrination, rather than evidence and research. In reality there is no binary answer. Some federally managed programs work incredibly well.
Others do not work well at all.
Once upon a time, before I was born, history teaches that the
Republican Party used to not simply be against “any” government social spending on principle, but instead was against wasteful spending on ineffective programs.
Republicans used to support certain federal social spending, but were hard-nosed accountants that demanded balanced budgets and the elimination of waste in programs. That’s great! Too bad that is not reflected in today’s Republican Party leadership, the last eight years of which has brought us record breaking budget deficit, record breaking national debt, and the most expansive government in modern history.
That’s right, between the creation of Homeland Security and other federal departments, there are more government employees in Washington now than ever before and government spending is completely out of control and throwing us into debt every single year. I remember when this countries former leaders left us with a budget surplus.
You provide some anecdotal examples of programs that “don’t work.” I have to work directly with at least one of those programs, so I’d like to comment back:
QUOTE:
“welfare...let's keep it in communities, so that we can make sure it's not abused and those that need it have it.”
I don’t want you to feel like I’m picking on you specifically, but this is another example of what happens when ideology is repeated without personal understanding of the facts.
It may surprise you to know this, but we don’t have Federal Welfare anymore. What was commonly called “Welfare” actually referred to Aid to
Families with Dependent Children which was essentially around since the Social Security Act of 1935, but was terminated in 1996 under President Clinton’s so-called welfare “reform.” What replaced it was called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF. TANF has federal *guidelines*, however any state may opt out.
In the case of Idaho, the state opts out, and thus its total assistance that any family, regardless of number of dependents or level of need can receive is a whopping 312$ PER MONTH. Try living on that. Heck, try even surviving on that long enough to get a job that will support your family or receive work training needed to qualify for a job that will support your family.
This “aid” comes with an ungodly amount of restrictions that virtually guarantee that almost any single parent with dependents will be kicked out of the system in a matter of months. What’s WORSE about this is that the data available about how welfare used to work completely contradicts that standard conservative narrative.
I don’t have the source information for the data at my fingertips – but if you’re really going to doubt me than I can contact at least one source, Professor Daniel Huff of Boise State University, who has the source information on this data.
The data analyzed welfare recipients from a ten year period from 1986 to 1996 when welfare “as we know it” was eliminated. It showed that of all persons receiving welfare, over 70% were off welfare in *less than one year.* Another 20% were off welfare in *less than two years.* That means 90% of welfare recipients were using welfare for *exactly* what it was intended - temporary assistance to persons in need while transitioning to new and stable work.
The entire conservative narrative of the “Welfare queen” (as coined by Ronald Regan) was largely an artificial construction of conservatives, not connected to factual data, designed for the sole purpose of eliminating social spending and lowering the tax burden for wealthy Americans. That’s it.
QUOTE:
"health care...in years past, doctors knew that the poor would need discounted, even free, rates. now it's illegal to give a free visit."
I’m not sure where it’s illegal to give a free visit. It’s certainly not in Idaho. I know this, as I received free visits when I was fighting my way through bankruptcy, in part due to medical bills. Nothing about the federal government requires doctors to charge rates that the poor can’t pay. However, a for-profit medical system encourages *precisely* that.
As far as federal programs go, Medicaid is the example conservatives never want to talk about. Because not only does it work and work well, but it also operates with a stunning 3% overhead. That is multiple times lower than any for-profit provider you can find. It works, it works well, and it is cost efficient, taking only a small fraction of the federal budget.
QUOTE:
"college loans...college tuition skyrocketed once the gov got involved."
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Just because something happened *after* something else, doesn’t mean it was caused by that thing. I think it’s a pretty difficult task to try and quantify how “government involvement” caused tuition to skyrocket.
Government is “involved” only insofar as it provides financial assistance to prospective students in the form of very limited grants or – more commonly – loans. College tuition has skyrocketed primarily due to increasing commercialization of the institutions, greater demand, and thus greater competition between institutions.
Institutions are under pressure to provide greater and greater level of services to compete with each other, and as they do this, their costs go up.
State schools remain relatively affordable. Private school tuition has little to no connection to the federal government offering student loans whatsoever. This example is probably the weakest.
QUOTE:
“the fed gov SUCKS at running programs that effect the details of our lives.”
There are a wealth of counter-examples to this claim. However, in addition to this, its also important to point out that its not surprising that federal programs dealing with national issues don’t always work as effectively or efficiently as they could – you have half of the politicians in Washington deliberately trying to make them fail for purely ideological reasons. Nevertheless, many programs work, and work well.
The federal government has an appropriate place in providing programs. The REAL issue is making those programs work efficiently, selecting the right programs for federal management, and eliminating waste.
QUOTE: “He says he'll give a tax cut to 95% of Americans. Now, if I really thought he could do that, he might get my attention. “
http://outtheotherear.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/gr2008061200193.gif
I believe it actually translates out to 90% of Americans, who make under $200,000 a year – that’s 90% of us. And as you’ll notice, Obama’s tax plan translates into more savings for most Americans. McCains tax plan consolidates tax breaks, giving the most to 10% of Americans.
QUOTE: “Of course he wants to come down on the evil corporations and "close the loop holes". It's time everyone realizes that a tax on business is a tax on us and it hits the poor way harder than the rich. So don't come with any blather about taxing business because the only places they have to go get the money is from us either through lower wages or higher costs for products.”
Okay so, you just made a claim – a proposition, if you will. I’m curious to know on what basis you make this claim? Did you see actual study of these issues?
Read research from policy or tax centers? I’m always a bit skeptical of claims that sound like pure ideology. And they sound like ideology when they are presented as absolute fact without any “facts” to support them. Hearing someone say it on CNN, when they also do not provide any support for their claim, or hearing your favorite partisan (left, right or other) gurus say it, when they also don’t provide any support for the claim is not very compelling.
Just because it’s “said” somewhere “out there” doesn’t make it anything more than a political trick. Politicians do the same old sloganeering (on both sides) because they know it works.
Republican politicians know they can get away with baseless claims like “all taxes are bad mmmkay?” because their particular audience already *wants* to hear that message. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or false.
I could, for example, say that it’s about time Americans realize that rainbow-shitting unicorns are the answer to all of our society’s ills, and without any kind of evidence to support that claim, there’s very little reason why anyone should accept it.
I think we should strive for something a little more advanced.
So I’d like to make a counter-claim, and contend that talking about too much taxation on corporations is a bit ludicrous when 68% of all US based Corporations pay zero taxes.
Please allow that to sink in, and try to separate yourself from all the “talk” that you’ve heard. Sixty-eight percent of all US-based corporations pay zero in taxes, or more accurately paid zero in taxes during the period studied (1998-2005, which continued the trend from the last study, examining 1996-2002).
Now, my claim might sound more “researched” but I haven’t done anything until I provide you with reference to the research and evidence so you can look at it yourself. That would come from the governments own study, from the Government Accounting Office, also known as the GAO. And both the current and previous study have been summarized on my blog:
http://practical-vision.blogspot.com/2008/08/corporations-pay-too-much-in-taxes-if.html
The links to both news articles on the report also include download links for the full report itself. But here’s a summary if you trust me. In 1996-2002, during the huge economic boom, some of the largest corporations in the country were paying zero taxes, these companies had a combined total of 3.5 TRILLION dollars in profits over that period. In 1998-2005, it was close to 3 trillion, and the number of corporations paying zero taxes rose to 68% of them all. Moreover, of non-US based corporations having business in the United States, over 70% of them paid zero taxes as well.
We’re not talking about poor corporations that are already paying an appropriate share of taxes as part of their investment into the society that has made them rich. And we’re not talking about corporations that would have no choice but to raise prices or lower wages. We’re talking about companies posting record busting profits gaming the system to avoid taking their part of the responsibility for the social investment required to keep our society running and keep making them rich.
Some other interesting findings?
Why were these corporations paying zero taxes? In some cases they were purely breaking the law, attempting to mask profits and funnel money illegally out of the country. The government under the current administration has dramatically decreased auditing practices – and now less than one fifth of all business audits are conducted directly.
The listed corporate tax rate is 35%. Maybe that’s too high, maybe it isn’t. But that’s not what should be troubling all of us. What should be troubling all of us is that, according to the GAO, the average *effective* tax rate (that means the real rate) that corporations pay *on average* is about 10%. Now, that’s less than what I pay, and I don’t even make a median income! Again, all this information is at the link I provided. So please don’t take my word for it. I could have always made a mistake in my understanding or analysis of the information.
I am not anti-capitalist. I am pro-capitalism! But I am for a very specific kind of capitalism.
I am *against* “plunder” capitalism which seeks to maximize profits in an unsustainable way by plundering society rather than investing in it, plundering the environment rather than coexisting in it, plundering the workforce rather than partnering with it, etc.
Plunder capitalism is when someone thinks that Corporate persons have no responsibility to invest *back* into the infrastructure of society just like the rest of us do, and a rate that is appropriate to their ability, just like the rest of us do. Corporations provide jobs, as does other business, and that’s a good thing. But that’s not “reinvestment into the infrastructure.” That’s investment into the labor that *they* need. The infrastructure is what ensures that the labor pool is well educated enough to take the jobs corporations need, and that they are healthy enough to live long enough to work for the corporations, and that they have their food, family, and well-being needs at least modestly met so that they can be productive for corporations, and so on.
I am for SUSTAINABLE CAPITALISM, which is forward-looking, focused on long term sustainable growth vs. short term unsustainable gains that collapse later. To do that, we need corporations to be responsible social partners and do their part to invest into the infrastructure of society – that means paying a level of taxes as an investment that they are expected to pay, not playing ZERO.
Some other interesting facts about taxation and business. Have you thrown around the “x policy will hurt small businesses” line without ever looking for research on the subject? If you have, I’d take a look at some actual research:
http://practical-vision.blogspot.com/2008/08/big-misconceptions-about-small.html
And some data about the so-called “economic expansion” of 2001-2007 that wasn’t:
http://practical-vision.blogspot.com/2008/08/2001-2007-expansion.html
One last thing, the beautiful thing about evidence-based claims, built on research, is that it completely nullifies the argument “well you’re just quoting something form some x-wing slanted source and so its totally biased.” Research stands on its own.
If it doesn’t explain the numbers, it isn’t research. If it doesn’t have citations so that you can do further study if you disagree, it isn’t research. And many times, you can even get an explanation of the exact methodology used in conducting the research. In other words, you have everything you need to know whether or not the research is scientifically valid and logically truthful. Doesn’t really matter where it’s posted.
QUOTE: "At least Bush had the audacity to suggest that maybe we ought to begin turning the program into a true retirement, but the liberals wouldn't hear of it."
If Bush had his way, people would have lost nearly 400% of the value of their “social security” by now. Social security is designed to be just that – SECURE. It’s designed to be guaranteed income so that we don’t end up like we used to be with our grandparents out in alleys eating dog food out of tin cans.
Do you remember when the big Bush Push was on for privatizing social security? They tried to make people believe that social security was going to fail in a matter of years? Know why that whole push died? Sorry mate, but it wasn’t because of evil “liberals.” The Conservative controlled Congress said “hell no” and for good reason – because the evidence was not at all there to support those claims of a social security crisis.
Very much like what we know all know was fabricated evidence about conditions in Iraq, the Administration tried the same game at home – and failed. They are now drowning in reports; some from inside the government itself, showing that social security is more than totally solvent for the next fifty years at least. I don’t have that data at my fingertips, and I’m tired. I’d ask you to look into it yourself if you want.
Perhaps it’s true that it may not be enough to meet all of a retirees needs. But it is an appropriate safety net. If someone needs more, then personal responsibility would dictate that they start building their supplemental 401K or other savings today.
But if someone screws up, or have circumstances beyond his or her control – in old age they should know that we as a society don’t leave our elders – any of our elders, deserving or not, out in the cold to starve and die.
Post a Comment