You can send me a mesage by email: jim at i-rant.org
You can leave me a note on this website.
But don't forget to leave a comment on a particular post.
JimmyC
Its all about getting elected - this won’t stimulate the economy - it will kill productivity. Reminds me of the nice Greek neighbor I met when visiting the family house in Lemnos. He was "on disability" so he worked the land for food and collected his disability check (he was technically a construction worker). It didn’t pay to go back to work even after he got well.
From "Obamas 95% Illusion" - WSJ.com - October 13, 2008 Review & Outlook - Opinion
One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today. It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut." For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals: - A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple. - A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition. - A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies). - A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000. - An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support. - A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year. - A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles. Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut. The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS. The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is. The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers. It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit — his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We’ve written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain’s proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don’t now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn’t create a new one. There’s another catch: Because Mr. Obama’s tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income. Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you’re a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery — among many — of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama’s 95% illusion to go unanswered.
Bailout Plan Gains Key Support - WSJ.com
Thank goodness!
Lets get this done and move on. Further:Real Time Economics : Believe It or Not, Bailout Won’t Substantially Expand the Deficit
In congressional testimony earlier this week, Peter Orszag, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, told lawmakers that the program should be treated on net-expected-cost basis. The cost wouldn’t be recorded as gross outlays, but as “the purchase cost minus the expected value of any estimated future earnings from holding those assets and the proceeds from the eventual sale of them.” Since the value of the assets will be set by what the government pays, the program should at least be budget neutral in the near term. That approach would be similar to the current budgetary treatment of other programs such as student loans or lending to farmers.
The program does still have to be funded, and that likely means debt issuance from the Treasury. The government will have to borrow to buy the assets, but it’s no different than borrowing to buy anything else. Once the purchase is done, the buyer owns something that has value and can liquidated. Of course, right now those assets don’t have a market, but Treasury SecretaryHenry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke expect that to change.
The program could even mean less issuance of government debt over the long term. “The TARP is being used to purchase assets which are intended to be sold or held to maturity,” said Michael Feroli of J.P. Morgan Chase. “As these assets are sold or mature in 2010 and following years, they will reduce the need for Treasury issuance, as funding inflows from running down the TARP portfolio defray other funding needs.”
But all that is based on the assets at least holding the value the government pays for them, which is far from certain. Feroli, though, thinks the risks are small. “Taking the years 2009 onward as a whole, the TARP will likely have little direct effect on the long-run fiscal position. If one wants to worry about fiscal matters, the demographically-fueled entitlement problem will make the mortgage mess look like small beer,” he said. –Phil Izzo
Update: The CBO responded to this post to make it clear that Director Orszag didn’t suggest that the Treasury plan would have zero impact on the deficit. The CBO post said there are too many unknown factors to quantify the impact on the deficit, adding that it “depends on three factors: (a) the degree to which the transactions result in a gain or loss to the government; (b) the administrative costs of running the program; and (c) any interactive effects with other government programs.” The office concludes that “although the lack of specificity in the bill means that CBO cannot currently quantify its net budgetary impact, and although there is some possibility that the government could realize a net gain on the transactions authorized under the bill, it seems more likely that enacting the bill would result in an increase in the federal deficit. In other words, the net budgetary cost (including administrative costs) is very likely to be substantially smaller than $700 billion, but it seems likely to be greater than zero.”
Rights Group Accuses Hezbollah of Indiscriminate Attacks on Civilians in Israel War - New York Times “The fact that more Israeli civilians didn’t die is not a tribute to Hezbollah but a tribute to Israeli bomb shelters,” Ms. Whitson said. “The point we’re making is that even though they say ‘only 43 Israeli civilians were killed’ that doesn’t make it O.K.”
My bile is up - I have to post this here as I have in other people’s face-book (my mom and sister, oye)!
Vice in GoGo Boots was the article I commented on: That was a really stupid editorial. The Times continues to go down-hill. If you can’t look for good here you don’t get it. I’m disappointed you couldn’t find a better bit of writing to do your satire. How fun it is to degrade a woman for being a woman. How odd it is to compare a potential VP to a First Lady. How stupid it is to focus on shopping and a breast-pump then execution on the job. It may be satire but its just like the satire about Obama’s race - stupid and it lingers.
I know my mom and sis think this is an insult to women - that the republicans just picked her for the woman vote. The conspiracy theory people all think the religious right is forcing him to do things. Who the hell knows, its all crap anyway. Mom makes a point that Liz Dole would have been better, that Palin should focus on Alaska and her family. Okay, good point - I agree Alaska needs her. Sis believes Hillary is a brilliant, educated, dedicated, person who best represented her views. I guess I wouldn’t have voted for Clinton because she is nothing like me, I’m not brilliant, barely educated and she doesn’t represent my views. Neither does Obama. I’m not thrilled with McCain and I don’t know enough about Palin and Biden is not my kind of politician. What the hell am I going to to. I’ll tell you this…
I give up - you both win. I will only vote for ugly women who don’t love their children from now on. Never mind the the many women I come in to contact every day who’s husbands take care of their children while they help change the world. Case in point - I work with 5 women, 3 have children, they are loving mothers who’s husbands keep house or work as well, and they are better salespeople then me. Imagine that.
From 2000 to 2002 most brackets dropped by one percent, and there was a new low bracket added for the "lucky duckies" at the very bottom. In 2003 most brackets got an additional cut of two percent with a special gift for the "other" lucky duckies, the ones at the top. But note that the rich still paid more in 2003, and everybody else paid less, than was the case in 1992.
Will Obama take us back to 1993? Will McCain hold the line? Try this out:
Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2008
Single
| 1992 | 1993-2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003-2008 | |
| $0 to 8,025 | 15% | 15% | 15% | 10% | 10% |
| 8,025 to 32,550 | 15% | 15% | |||
| 32,550 to 78,850 | 28% | 28% | 27.50% | 27% | 25% |
| 78,850 to 164,550 | 31% | 31% | 30.50% | 30% | 28% |
| 164,550 to 357,700 | 36% | 35.50% | 35% | 33% | |
| 357 - above | 39.60% | 39.10% | 38.60% | 35% |
Married
| 1992 | 1993-2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003-2008 | |
| $0 to 16,050 | 15% | 15% | 15% | 10% | 10% |
| 16,050 to 65,100 | 15% | 15% | |||
| 65,100 to 131,450 | 28% | 28% | 27.50% | 27% | 25% |
| 131,450 to 200,300 | 31% | 31% | 30.50% | 30% | 28% |
| 200,300 to 357,700 | 36% | 35.50% | 35% | 33% | |
| 357 - above | 39.60% | 39.10% | 38.60% | 35% |
Add in state tax and you have to make a lot of money these days, but the more you make, the more you don’t make. If I owned a business and employed people I would think twice about expanding my business and hiring more - but if this wasn’t here, the sky is the limit. During the Clinton administration, more then 60% of every dollar a married couple made over $200K went to uncle sam, FICA and state taxes. 35-40% for those single people making less then 78K - I don’t want to go back to that.
Oh Brother, what is John thinking? Let her stay and finish the job in Alaska and she can come back at 52 to run the country. I said the same thing about Obama - I wish he had run for Governer of Illinois or Hawaii rather then taking this on with so little experience.
Sara Palin should stay Governor. I knew nothing about her but she certainly has done great things for the state in the short time she has been there. But it is a short time. Sara Palin on Wikipedia
Joe Biden? What’s this do for Obama - he gets someone that knows the Sentate and Washington as well as McCain does. But to me, that’s a liability not an asset. I guess his foreign policy work helps but this just doesn’t excite me. Still no experience running anything on this ticket. And this country needs someone who can run it, not just fix it. Joe Biden on Wikipedia
All the jokes about her looks and baby and whatever. Politics is politics. She is beautiful and had a "crazy youth" a popular athlete who became a news anchor and mayor. Then elected Governor in a tough race, God bless her! I imagine at this point Bill Clinton is trying to find a way to get in her pants either way, although she doesn’t have the same relationship with her state troopers as he did. Obama - he is eating this up, a demagogue ready to rule the world, because he knows better.
Many of my friends think Biden will kill her in debate. I’ve never heard Palin speak so I don’t know her debate skills. And I think she is too inexperienced to be president but:
If Obama had done as much in two years as a senator as she has in her short time as governor he would be a viable presidential candidate. I think its a long shot but I think that is the point. Read them both and you decide:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/
http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/ms-alaska/
The Democrats will undoubtably make the leap to McCain dying in office and an inexperienced VP running the country. They must think Obama is going to die in office too because his inexperience is irellivent as Bidin can run the country when it happens. What the heck?
More Artists Steer Clear of iTunes
Per this article. Maybe the data isn’t there but it would have been interesting to compare this to the gold age of the 45s (whenever that was) - we didn’t have that many when I was a kid in the early 70’s but what about the 60’s? Come to think of it, I did have friends with reasonably large stacks - Quite frankly I could imagine that there were a lot more one hit wonders back then as we bought 45’s rather then albums. I do remember some 2 to 3 song LP’s. Maybe iTunes could go to a two song option with the bonus "flip side". Anyway - I wonder what the empirical data shows for that scenario. My point is, this isn’t that new of a model. Maybe if all these single song downloads were not there these artists wouldn’t be selling anything (Big difference between .99 and $14 for a CD). Maybe today’s artists simply cannot fill an album. I was a fan of bands like Genesis, YES and Pink Floyd as a kid - so I "Had" to buy the album to get the full picture. However I never would have bought an album from Gary Wright even though I knew Dream Weaver by heart after making my "tape mix" from a friend or the radio.
So I’m in the movie theatre and 4 girls walk in and sit one seat away from me in the same row. Its Batman - The Dark Knight. The kind of movie I like to get lost in. 30 minutes to go in the movie and the girl closest to me pulls out her blackberry with a backlight and starts tapping away. I figure - important message from her boyfriend that his wedgie got stuck and he needed help. Then 15 minutes to go and she pulls it out again, the freaking climax of the movie and what the hell is so freaking important!? I actually got up and moved over 5 seats (away from the awsome center seat I had).
When the lights come on we all leave, only one girl leavs her slurpie cup and empty bag of popcorn on the seat.
Generation Y? Generation Why? Generation Me! Well, we were just as bad - my father was right.
Study finds students narcissistic
These kid’s parents were the "boomers" - the original ME generation. My parents were one each - before and after the boom. I think the difference is that the Boomers were much more physically connected to each other (in many ways) and that led to much more empathy and consideration where the mood of this generation is social but disconnected as they communicate via technology rather then woodstock, wine bars and anti-war rallies. The boomers did end up a bit too selfish during the 80’s and 90’s but they did create a boom in the economy - maybe this generation will help us tweenies get out of the dip we are in now. I hope, there aren’t enough of me right now to support all those retiring boomers!. But first, they have to get their heads out of their computers, read less and get a little dirty. Its one thing to talk about hope, rail in your blog (smile) and complain about the evil empire; its another thing to contribute to the economy, walk among those of us actually working for a living and to give leadership to the next generation by creating wealth and prosperity through something more then temporary fixes and wealth redistribution. In too short of a time there won’t be much to redistribute - it will all be in India and China.
Republicans Worry That McCain Pick Will Rile Party Base
The exchange illustrates the concern within the Republican Party over Sen. McCain’s No. 2. While the senator has said he will pick someone who shares "my principles, my values and my priorities," he has also often done as he pleases rather than as he is told.
You know, I hope he does - GW started out that way and quickly became Chaney’s patsey. The last real man in the white house was Regan - man up John, do what is right not what is expected.
