The bridge to nowhere...

Two Three Reasons Sarah Palin Should Not Be Vice President
By Brad DeLong

No reasons so far why Sarah Palin would be qualified to be president--aside from a claim that she shares a hairdresser with Amy Winehouse. And a bunch of big negatives are flooding in. The biggest surround the fact that John McCain stands at least one chance in five of dying over the next four years and that she would then become president. Here are three:

Sarah Palin's Abuse-of-Power Scandal ("Will No One Rid Me of This Meddlesome State Trooper?" Department)

One of them is her firing of Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monega for no reason anybody can explain--except for the likelihood that Monega had not obeyed her staff's demand to fire State Trouper Mike Wooten, Palin's ex-brother-in-law.

Now Palin's story is that she had absolutely nothing to do with her aide Frank Bailey's demands that Monega fire Wooten.

That story didn't fly when Henry II Plantagenet tried it after the murder of Archbishop Thomas:

Palin's the One: So now we've learned that Sarah Palin is McCain's choice for nominee. I have to say. It's a daring pick but I think a very weak pick. I'm perfectly happy with it. Palin is in the midst of a reasonably serious scandal in her home state. Her brother-in-law is a state trooper who is in the midst of an ugly custody battle with her sister. And she's accused of getting the state police to fire him. Recently she was forced to admit that one of her aides had done this, though she insists she didn't know.... John McCain... a cancer survivor who turns 72 years old today, is picking a vice presidential nominee who has been governor of a small state for less than two years and prior to that was mayor of a town with roughly one-twenty-seventh of the citizens that Barack Obama represented when he was a state senator in Illinois...

Sarah Palin Lies in Her First Speech:

The second is the fact that she could not get through her first speech without telling a lie:

Anchorage Daily News, 10/5/06: Palin Said She Supported The So-Called "Bridge To Nowhere," But Was Concerned Money "Flow" Was "Going to Slow":

As for the infamous 'bridges to nowhere,' MacDonald asked if the candidates would forge ahead with the proposed Knik Arm crossing between Anchorage and Point MacKenzie and Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge. Each has received more than $90 million in federal funding and drew nationwide attacks as being unnecessary and expensive. He also asked if they support building an access road from Juneau toward -- but not completely connecting to -- Skagway and Haines. 'I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for,' Palin said. She said the projects link communities and create jobs. Still, Palin warned that the flow of federal money into the state for such projects is going to slow...
MSNBC, 8/29/08 Palin: "I Told Congress 'Thanks But No Thanks' On That Bridge To Nowhere":

During her speech in Dayton, Ohio, after being introduced as McCain's running mate, Palin said, "I told Congress 'thanks but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said, 'we'd build it ourselves.'...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Well its going to be hard for Obama...

But at least McCain is working as hard as he can to make it easier....




--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Krugman on new census numbers...

About that Bush Boom …

The 2007 income, poverty and health insurance numbers are out. As far as I can tell on a first read, there’s nothing deeply surprising. Still, they represent a landmark — and not in a good way.

The key point is that 2007 was the end of an economic expansion — whether or not the NBER declares a recession, the employment situation, which is what matters to most people, has deteriorated sharply this year. So 2007 was as good as it got in this cycle. Yet median household income was lower than in 2000, while both the poverty rate and the percentage of Americans without health insurance were higher.

In short, the economic policies we’ve been following just aren’t working.
Is the bad economic news all Bush’s fault? No, of course not — but remember, the key argument of the right has always been that tax cuts and deregulation would produce good news, a rising tide that raised all boats. Boy, has that not happened.
But remember, we’re just a nation of whiners.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

compatancy???compentancy??? ahhh competancy!!!!

"The swelling tide of toxic home loans is proving to be even more worrisome than initially feared"

It would be nice if some of the people who get paid big dollars because they supposedly have high skills could acknowledge that they messed up. It would also be nice if the national media did not consider it part of their job to cover up for powerful people who messed up on their job.

Yes, that headline is a a direct quote. It also is the sort of statement that has no place in a serious news article. The swelling tide of toxic loans is not proving to be more worrisome than feared. The problem is that the people who were supposed to be regulating the financial system did not know what they were doling.

The people who did understand the economy knew that an unprecedented run-up in house prices, with no remotely plausible explanation based on fundamentals, with no corresponding increase in rents, was a bubble. We also knew that bubbles burst. And, we knew that when bubbles in a highly leveraged asset like housing burst, that lots of debts go bad and that banks then take really big hits.

The NYT should be exposing the incompetence of people who were paid big dollars to know the housing and financial markets (this includes both bankers at place like Citigroup, Merill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the top regulators) and completely failed in their responsibilities.

It should not try to tell readers that the housing crash was somehow an unforeseeable event that came out of the blue. It was an entirely predictable event and it was only incompetence that prevented these people from seeing it. Unfortunately, unlike dishwashers and custodians, bank executives and regulators are not held accountable for their performance. Instead, the media covers it up for them.

This goes under contending conservatives because they like to say people who earn a lot deserve it for "obvious" reasons... not so much in the real world.

Move away from sound good feel good theoretical world and conservatives have to run for the hills.



--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Fair Tax tactic...

There are some classic tactic that Fair Tax folks use...

not even making claims about the plan itself it just makes you start off questioning the legitimacy...

A Comment from my last fair tax post

The problem with your question is that basically all the serious economists with any credibility are paid think tankers in one way or another. Almost unanimously, those who have put the most study into the proposal agree that it would be a very good thing in the long run. Those who conclude against the FairTax usually do so because they deem the transitional problems to be too tough to weather.

Show me an unpaid economist who comes down against the FairTax and I will show you where he has missed something or changed something in his model.

I made an empirical statement and asked for an example... its bad form to try to flip the question around on me as if its now my obligation to prove the opposite. To try and make it seem... "wow thats obvious..." but never cite anyone isn't an answer. its an aversion.

I'll check out the post he mention when I get home...

fair tax people don't help their case...


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

response on taxes and economy...

Anonymous said...
Jim

You say look at what made our economy the greatest in the world. If you don't believe in the FairTax fine. Now look at what is ruining our economy in relation to the tax laws of other nations. We are becoming more and more uncompetitive.

Exactly! This is the consequence of our move away from Keynesian economics towards the back of a napkin supply side economics. The Laffer curve is laughable! But the impacts of cutting taxes at the expense of our infrastructure and making the middle class.. and future generations pay for it has hurt us dramatically.

I'll quote myself...

The impacts of the Bush tax cuts have been huge. And it has hurt our business competitiveness around the globe. That is reason--as the book, "the politics of Bad Ideas" points out--that the World Economic Forum the deterioration of the US public finances has begun to damage US competitiveness. This is a business research institute in Switzerland. The US experienced the most dramatic drop in rankings of ALL nations.

Also there is a myth that American businesses are being strangled by taxation at the expense of competitiveness. I'll outsource to Economist Mark Thoma at U. Oregon "The Greek Menace" who brings together some stuff around the web... I'll quote the larger point--aside from conservatives once again manipulating with hyperbole rather than data...

Economist Dean Baker:

Washington Post Misleads Readers to Push for Lower Corporate Tax Rates

Today, the preferred policy is further reductions in corporate income taxes. To advance this agenda the Post tells readers that, "U.S. companies operating abroad already labor under a bigger tax burden than most foreign competitors."

That's not what the OECD says. Data from the OECD show that in the average member country corporate taxes are equal to about 3.5 percent of GDP. In the United States, corporate taxes have generally been between and 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent of GDP over the last two decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office (Table F-4).

But more broadly this decline comes from the conservative revolution. The Regan myth--keep in mind he raised taxes twice to try to correct the harm done from his tax cut at the beginning of his term--of taxes cuts creating economic growth was considered flawed by many economist in theory... and now we have the data to back it up. But the propaganda has remained useful. Our society has become less equitable with the reductions in the top economic bracket. Disparities of wealth over the long term have a huge impact in undermining the market system. We haven't seen such disparities of wealth since the 20's. And we have Regan and the pathology of tax cuts.


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

still not doing homework!! I swear I'm leaving now!

Scale in the Housing Market

The NYT discusses efforts by local governments to use public money to purchase and renovate foreclosed properties to help revitalize hard-hit areas. At one point the article presents a comment from an economist at the CATO Institute complaining the program that supports this effort will distort the housing market and that it would be best to leave this process to the private sector.

It would have been helpful to put the size of the program in context. The program involves $4 billion in federal money. This is equal to approximately 0.02 percent of the value of the $20 trillion housing stock. It is equal to approximately 0.3 percent of annual housing sales. Spending of this magnitude is not likely to lead to large distortions in the housing market.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

more henry dems blog posting... I have to go to homework now!!!

Green jobs, health care, government

I want to respond the Henry Libertarian starting with the purpose of government since this is a fundamental difference between the conservative every man for themselves mentality and a more realistic economics and social governing of Democrats who want to protect citizens and empower our economy.

Henry Libertarian commented:

The Government is NOT here to take care of us.

The government is here to protect and empower. Come on now you are a Libertarian. Look back to your intellectual forefathers such as the Liberal John Locke.

Civil Government is a social contract to protect individuals and their basic liberties from the group. The group. The government is their to protect and empower them as individuals. Its also their to protect and empower the economy. Free-market advocates since Adam Smith have noted that markets require basic structures infrastructure--legal, regulatory, military. Individuals need some entity to protect them from market failures and violence. So your government isn't thier to take care of us is opposed by your own Libertarian ancestory... as well as any accurate conception of how markets work.

Barack Obama promises to "create five million new green jobs." The entire civilian workforce in the US is a little over 145 million people. So if Barack Obama’s adds five million new green jobs then one in every 33 jobs in the United States would be a new "green" job.

The basic response is... I'm not sure where the issue is. I'll outsource this to economist Dean Baker (from email)...

this includes all the derivative jobs that are associated with "green jobs." So if we have 500,000 construction workers employed retrofitting buildings, we might have another 500,000 employed transporting materials, producing the inputs in factories, or even producing raw materials. The same would be the case with fuel efficient cars or hybrids.

The 5 million figure is probably high even by this standard, but it is not ridiculous on its face, especially by political standards.

So Obama may be playing up the numbers... I dunno. Economist fight amoungst themselves on the derivative impacts of policies--since an economy is a collective effort with broad repurcussion outside the direct impacts of the targeted goal.

Henry Libertarian:

Why do "earmarks" always come up? They take up the money that could be spent on things like education and Healthcare.

I'm just going to quote myself on this one...

The Economist magazine pointed out that all earmarks add up to less than $20 billion a year. That for fiscal year 2008 is $64.56. Since that is a very small chunk of my tax dollars and its part of the push and pull of a federal system. I have faith in our processes of checks and balances... and faith that corruption can be founded and dealt with... the sky isn’t falling

This can’t possibly be top priority is it? If it is... we’ll jsut disagree. I put getting Bin Ladin, protecting our national security, protecting our troops, stegthening our economy, ending the health care crise, ending the transportation crisis, ending the education crisis–the Regan revolution sure has created a lot of crisises!

Yes schools are overcrowded. Why? We cannot build schools before the kids are there. Schools get built in responce to the need for them. What good does it do to create 10 new schools if the area does not have enough children to support that? The Federal Government DOES NOT have ANYTHING to do with how the Counties run the school system.

Yeah... part of the problem... Local government is more easily manipulated by feel good economic policies...

Schools are underfunded? Which school systems do not have books?

Couldn’t name them but from what I hear my nephew has had classes where he couldn’t take the book home for homework since there weren’t enough of them. I heard many of the same stories across the board. One of my goals as chairman is to get more substantial data on that one so it’s a fair challenge and I’m certain I can answer it with more than hear-say data–though I trust what these people are telling me, you can’t necessarily take it at face value...

Which school systems cannot provide learning materials for the children?

Teachers pay for large amounts of supplies out of their own pockets... is that really at question here?

Could we possibly give them more money? Sure, but maybe we should look at how the money that the County is being given is being spent first.

The chairmans race here in Henry was focused on economic challenges like bringing in new businesses, fixing the trasnportation issue, development and smart growth... I don’t think penny pinching is a serious solution... but feel free to peruse the henry county budget I’d be intrigued to what you find...

I can tell you this, my child has books at his school and an appropriate amount of educational resources and he attends public school. Teacher pay too low, as compared to what?

Ask his teacher how much out of pocket she has provided... also ask about grants from private sector–families, businesses

Current teacher pay levels do attract talented people to the profession. NEA estimated that the average classroom teacher salary for 2004-05 was $47,674.

Average... If Bill Gates walks into a bar the average jumps sky high... doesn't mean every school gets comparable pay rates... the inner city... and at risk enivronments have trouble with teacher retention. At large teacher retention is a problem because people get fed up with the problems and go back to private sector.


Once again I will repeat myself. Healthcare rises due to lawyers and insurance costs. Also, stop trying to cover illegal aliens. They do not have "rights" to our social benefit systems. In Texas, where the state comptroller estimates illegal immigrants cost hospitals $1.3 billion in 2006. Undocumented immigrants are driving up the number of people without health insurance.

We have an immigration problem... but the idea that this is the reason health care is so expensive is absurd. You got to look at the macro environment as a whole...

Here are the major contributing factors.... NCHC:

Why is the number of uninsured people increasing?

Millions of workers don’t have the opportunity to get health coverage. A third of firms in the U.S. did not offer coverage in 2006.4
Nearly two-fifths (38 percent) of all workers are employed in smaller businesses, where less than two-thirds of firms now offer health benefits to their employees.7 It is estimated that 266,000 companies dropped their health coverage between 2000-2005 and 90 percent of those firms have less than 25 employees.
Rapidly rising health insurance premiums are the main reason cited by all small firms for not offering coverage. Health insurance premiums are rising at extraordinary rates. The average annual increase in inflation has been 2.5 percent while health insurance premiums for small firms have escalated an average of 12 percent annually.4
Even if employees are offered coverage on the job, they can’t always afford their portion of the premium. Employee spending for health insurance coverage (employee’s share of family coverage) has increased 143 percent between 2000 and 2006.8
Losing a job, or quitting voluntarily, can mean losing affordable coverage - not only for the worker but also for their entire family. Only seven (7) percent of the unemployed can afford to pay for COBRA health insurance - the continuation of group coverage offered by their former employers. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage, a very high price given the average $1,100 monthly unemployment check.9
Coverage is unstable during life’s transitions. A person’s link to employer-sponsored coverage can also be cut by a change from full-time to part-time work, or self-employment, retirement or divorce.10

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 59% of the nation's illegal immigrants are uninsured, compared with 25% of legal immigrants and 14% of U.S. citizens.

Immigration reform--how ever it would end up looking like would help this issue... plus why else do they sneak over the boarder... the third world has an impact on our country... increase prosperity in Mexico and you won't see as many people coming here to pay for their own families health care, food, and well-being. Why do you think McCain (he was for it before he was against it) and Bush supported immigration reform. Its a huge problem that needs to be solved in a way that doesn't hurt our economy. Kick them all out mentality of conservatives would cost us economically...

Illegal immigrants represent about 15% of the nation's 47 million uninsured people.

Sorry.. that would be 47 million Americans. Your numbers are just wrong...

DeNavas-Walt, C.B. Proctor, and J. Smith. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006. U.S. Census Bureau., August 2007. http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

Even Hillary Clinton's story about the woman who died because she didn't have health insurance turned out to be fake.

I don't know and don't care about that story... it was a narrative... campaigns are full of naratives. But thats why social scientific data is where the debate should be... the my brother know a guy who knows a guy who saw x is not a way to get an accurate representation of the world.

You consistently see Republicans use such tactics... escpecially locally. Moderate Repub's do have something substantial to say on policy data... even when I disagree with their priorities I at least applaud their policy efforts--conservatives on the other hand like magic, voodoo (GHW Bush), and other mythical beasts that fight the evil hobgoblins of the world.

There is no Constitutional Right to health care coverage.

Okay... it'd be absurd to think everything needs to be a constitutional right... that'd just be ineffiecient. As a proponent of markets... I don't want to create more needless gridlock in government... I like and want efficiency. But lets not forget "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness." The markets failures infringe on all 3.

NCHC Facts about Health Care:

Studies estimate that the number of excess deaths among uninsured adults age 25-64 is in the range of 18,000 a year. This mortality figure is more than the number of deaths from diabetes (17,500) within the same age group.10

10Institute of Medicine. Insuring America’s Health - Principles and Recommendations. The National Academies Press, 2004.

back to Henry Libertarian...

Private industry works just fine when you leave it alone and stop all of the Liberal regulating.

How is that working out for us so far? I think turning towards mild regulation and market competion from a non-profit making institution that wants effieciencies since they don't have a profit motive to pay ceo's while denying coverage and making doctors increase their staff--and your doctors bills to pay for that staff--to get people the coverage they need. This can't possibly be a real argument on your part.

Plus John McCain doesn't want to remove protectionisms on Doctors and patents... these would lower the cost of people gonig to the doctor and lower the cost of medication. So thats an empty argument all the way around since he doesn't want to end protectionisms and regulation. Obama vs. McCain we are just debating policy priorities of who we want to protect... people... or share-holder values and CEO pay (at the cost of human lives, American bankruptcies, and harm to small businessnesses

Barack Obama is looking to rely mostly on the heavy hand of the government for regulating healthcare.

Modest smart regulations often make markets work better... not always mind you... but in things like health care its obvious. All you need to do is compare us with other nations--we rank 37th in the world according to the World Health Organization... and pay 2-3 times as much as other industrialized nations to get worse quality of care. You don't have much of a case for that one.

What did Bill Clinton do for healthcare reform? Hillary Care was presented to the Democratic-controlled Congress on November 20, 1993. U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D) qualified his agreement against the plan saying "there is no health care crisis" ... "there is an insurance crisis" but also indicated "anyone who thinks [the Clinton health care plan] can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it." In August 1994, Democratic Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D) introduced a compromise proposal that would have delayed requirements of employers until 2002.

Yes and the reasons health care reform didn't work was--everybody together now--Republicans blocking the efforts.

You can't--well you can, but no one should take you seriously--complain about the impacts of Repubican obstruction. The other issue is the amount of lobbying on behalf of the health care industry... its quite a profitable business if you didn't know. Did I mention we pay 2-3 times as much as other countries... for WORSE care--oh yeah I think I did.

In Great Britain after many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens.

I'm for market competition... the government, with its massive purchasing power, and its lack of a need to pay huge salaries to ceo's (not to mention spending money to keep from getting people care) would be a check on profit motive at the expense of care. I'm not for less market competition I'm for real market competition. No go on that one too...

In Canada, Chaoulli v. Quebec UPDATE (June 9, 2005): In a 4 to 3 decision, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down Quebec's law that prohibits private medical insurance.

Stawman... we're not trying to prohibit private medical insurance. Once again... conservative tactics 101... make up stuff that just isn't true...

The Cuban Government has implemented a two-tiered medical system (e.g. "medical apartheid") that caters to foreign tourists while denying native Cubans access to basic medical necessities (at least it is "free" to them).

If costs keep going up here unchecked by government participation you'll start seeing Americans start going abroad for care... plus once again strawman... you aren't accurately representing the Obama plan. Its market competion with private insurance to bring down the profit motive to a more effieicent and equitable level.

Australia's universal health care scheme is relatively new (introduced in 1983, which built on the 1974 Medibank program). As with all socialized health care systems, there is a mixture of public versus private care (approximately 30% of Australians also retain private health insurance). As a result, the private patients receive better care than their medicare counterparts.

Sure if you are willing to pay for better care... I don't have a problem with that!!!! But citizens... HUMANS deserve a basic level of care. To think otherwise leads you to moral quandaries that would make me appalled. But thats a personal decision for everyone to decide.

The impacts of Republican everyman for themselves... vs. creating an economy that protects and empowers citizens is the distinguishing factor in this debate. plus killing people and unnecessarily creating market inefficiencies in the richest nation in the world is a bit absurd and a very sad statement to the impacts of the conservative revolution on American citizens.




--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Henry Dems blog post...

I work my ass off debating conservatives... some times I think its pointless... I hope people learn something from it... (see main post for links)

This liberal lacks a retort? McCain, Obama, and the economy

I'm glad to see we are getting a more active blog. The more we debate... the more we discuss... the more we have dialouge. The less the right wing swift boat attacks and urban ledgends that Republicans have used time and time again will work.

The discussion is on McCain and his 8 houses... or however many.

Henry Libertarian commented:

That shows how "out of touch" and "privileged" Obama is, which Liberals like to ignore. Sure it is fun to point across the isle and snicker, but when you are guilt of the same thing suddenly you get defensive and don't see the humor anymore. If you want to call McCain rich then show me a politician at the federal levels that isn't. You obviously don't have a retort or you would have said something better. Obama wants to tax businesses that make goods and provide services which will make goods and services more expensive. With Obama's Trillion-Dollar Spending Plan, who do you think is going to pay for it?

First... "when you are guilty of the same thing? How so? The Rezko smear has been shown to be a complete fabrication for more see Factcheck.org which is a nonpartisan group that I highly recommend to those like myself who want to deal in policy and not whitewash the issues. Read the Rezko Reality to see that Henry Libertarian like many Republicans is misinformed on the issue.

If you want to call McCain rich then show me a politician at the federal levels that isn't.

That is known as a straw man in logic. I'm not arguing that Obama has note earned an impressive income. Or that middle class and working class americans are seldom representative of elected officials.

But here is the deal. Obama understand that Americans deserve to be empowered... he wants to help middle class Americans get a higher quality of life. John McCain wants to cut taxes on the rich... which has harmed our economic health over the past 30 years of supply side reganomics.

I mean there are reasons why European nations--and Canada too!--have more economic mobility than we do in America. These are all repurcussion of conservative economics--a less equitable outcome for hard working americans.

So saying I want to have it both ways because "Obama is rich too" is either a misunderstanding or clever rhetorical trick which won't work. I'll assume its a misunderstanding.

Obama wants to tax businesses that make goods and provide services which will make goods and services more expensive. With Obama's Trillion-Dollar Spending Plan, who do you think is going to pay for it?

First... lets go back to the core questions. Obama wants to bring back the strong economic growth that was seen before the conservative revolution of tax cuts at the cost of quality of life.

The impacts of the Bush tax cuts have been huge. And it has hurt our business competativeness around the globe. That is reason--as the book, "the politics of Bad Ideas" points out--that the World Economic Forum the deterioration of the US public finances has begun to damage US competitiveness. This is a business research institute in Switzerland. The US expereienced the most dramatic drop in rankings of ALL nations.

Also there is a myth that American businesses are being strangled by taxation at the expense of competativeness. I'll outsource to Economist Mark Thoma at U. Oregon "The Greek Menace" who brings together some stuff around the web... I'll quote the larger point--aside from conservatives once again manipluating with hyperbole rather than data...

Economist Dean Baker:

Washington Post Misleads Readers to Push for Lower Corporate Tax Rates

Today, the preferred policy is further reductions in corporate income taxes. To advance this agenda the Post tells readers that, "U.S. companies operating abroad already labor under a bigger tax burden than most foreign competitors."

That's not what the OECD says. Data from the OECD show that in the average member country corporate taxes are equal to about 3.5 percent of GDP. In the United States, corporate taxes have generally been between and 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent of GDP over the last two decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office (Table F-4).

Also here is the tax policy center on Obama's "business tax increases" that you claim will destroy our economy (pg 22)

Obama’s proposal to make permanent the Research and Development (R&D) credit and the renewable energy production credit would make it easier for firms to make investment decisions because they would no longer have to worry each time the credits approached their expiration. Both credits encourage particular behavior that Congress has deemed worthwhile and the change would likely increase both the amount of business investment in R&D and the development of more renewable energy sources. Most economists believe, however, that credits for selected investments in renewable energy are a less cost-effective way of reducing global warming and dependence on imported oil than approaches that raise the price of fossil fuels (including the cap-and-trade proposals advanced by both Obama and McCain) and allow private markets to select the least costly ways of reducing fossil fuel use.

The two sets of revenue-raisers that Obama has proposed would raise taxes on corporations and individuals engaging in particular activities and thus might cause them to change their behavior. To the extent that the provisions close loopholes in the current tax system, they could lead to more efficient use of resources, in terms of both how firms invest their funds and the use of financial strategies to exploit loopholes. The Obama campaign is probably overstating how much revenue additional loophole-closing proposals can raise, however, particularly with regard to proposals to reduce revenue lost from taxpayers who conceal offshore income and exploit international differences in tax rates to shift income to low-tax jurisdictions. There is little hard knowledge about how much revenue is lost to these transactions and administrative efforts to control them are ongoing.

These are equitable and smart chagnes in the tax code. Not perfect for my market theory wonkish Jim Nichols world... but politics is about compromise and consensus and this is a great step towards creating a more equitable economy that not only empowers middle class america but increases all our prosperity through economic revival and a move away from supply side economic nonsense.

Your concern about goods and services is moot since the incomes and savings of middle class and working class americans will rise... which will happen since ending the Bush economic fiasco will improve our longterm economic forcast. WHy do you think the Bush tax cuts created a recession recovery that faired so poorly compared to other post war recorvies?

With Obama's Trillion-Dollar Spending Plan, who do you think is going to pay for it?

Trillion dollar spending worries you? Obama would boost the debt by $3.5 trillion but at the same time increase spending and tax cuts that help middle class Americans. McCain would increase the debt by $5 trillion and all we get is more of the Bush economy stagnation and tax cuts for people who will just by bigger houses and nice boats.

Remeber a tax cut is government spending... like it or not.. So McCain is definately not your guy--why defend the worse of two evils by your own parameters.

I'll conclude with the Tax Policy Center again...(Intro)

The two candidates’ tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income

This Liberal lacks a retort? Mama said wonk you out...

We understand economics... and we will bring policies that protect and empower Americans. The every man for themselves mentality Republicans promote not only hurts our citizens, our economic competativeness... but its just plain old bad economics and ways of treating our fellow man...



--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

China communist?

Neal Boortz seems to think that infrastructure investment is communist?

At a campaign stop in Chester, Virginia Obama said, "everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now and the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are all vastly superior to us now, which means if you're a corporation deciding where to do business, you're starting to think, Beijing looks like a pretty good option."

So not only is Obama praising the Chinese government, but he honestly believes that it takes government in order to make a country great. He honestly thinks that spending your tax dollars will be what makes our country more appealing to corporations ... no mention of the brutally high corporate interest rates in the United States. Maybe that's a reason, Obama, why businesses wouldn't look to the United States as a great place to invest? I guess that's the not the way the "progressive" mind sees it though.

The idea that Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, and Joseph Stiglitz are communist is laughable and speaks to Neal's knowledge about economics... but heres the question: does anyone still think China is communist? State-Capitalist yes, but yeah Communist? not so much. Someone smarter than I might be able to explain why Neal Boortz is right on this one....

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Fair tax become law?

CAN IT PASS -- ARE YOU KIDDING?

Someone wrote to this blog saying Fairtax can still pass.

Are you kidding?

THe leaders have abandoned ship. No one is even trying to get a Congressional hearing. The 1.5 million man Fairtax rally in Washington was a total flop - NO ONE showed up.

There is nothing going on anywhere that we can see about Fairtax.

Very very strange -- especially since Fairtax was supposed to be so well "researched" with 70 sponsors in Congress, and hundreds of thousands - over a million -- active supporters.

In fact, Fairtax leaders are making sure there are NO hearings. Apparently Fairtax leaders seem more interested avoiding questions - particularly questions under oath -- about their plan.

So how on earth can it pass?? No one is pushing it. Its not only off the national radar -- its off its OWN radar. Even Fairtax supporters have nothing going on.

Thats probably because the leaders found out, what many of us said from the start. Fairtax is a farce. Literally, a farce. Not sort of a farce, not kind of a farce, its a total farce.

For one thing- its the highest sales tax on the planet earth. And it on your RENT. ITs on your UTILITIES. ITs on your car insurance.

And medical costs. These lunatics were going to put the highest sales tax on EARTH on your cancer surgery, chemo, on your child's dental work, on your ER visit.

So the parents of a child with leukemia could have to pay 100K in SALES taxes because they had the audacity to spend money to try to keep their child alive?

When you start to realize things like this -- you start to see the Fairtax would be wildly, absurdly unpopular. People won't like 100K is sales tax on their hospital bill, especially when they don't make half that.

Will renters just go ahead and pay thousands of dollars a year in sales tax on their rent? And food. And utilities. And virtually everything they buy?

Hell no they won't. And Fairtax leaders started to figure this basic fact out. So they wisely just walked away from this well meaning, but luney idea.

Now sit down a minute, and think. Think about this real real hard. Cause its real real easy. Do you really think people will WANT to pay the highest sales tax on earth, on their rent? Their car insurance? AND their medical cost, utilities, ect ect?

You see, few of Fairtax fans even KNOW what the plan is. Oh, they know the hype. THey know the BS. But they have no clue what the real plan is.

What do you think the impact would be if suddenly people were paying the highest sales tax on earth --- on their rent? No one else even charges a sales tax on -- and rent, but Fairtax idiotically pretends all renters will pay these insanely high taxes on their rent.

So Fairtax is a rent tax. Its also a medical tax.


A car insurance tax. A food tax. A utility tax. A cancer surgery tax. A prescription drug tax. Not just a "modest" tax -- but the HIGHEST sales tax ON EARTH tax.

SO people wouldn't go for this tax -- not when they find out what it really is.

Fairtax couldn't possibly pass. Not when people find out.

If the leaders would have Congressional hearings -- people would know better. Thats why you won't ever see Congressional hearings. The leaders are too smart to have any.

But wait will people would find out -- its not 23% _- its more like 60-70%. Because the 23% figure was based on the lie that they could collect 800 billion in revenue FROM the government. Idiots. Take that farce away, refigure the whole plan. And in Congressional hearings, the Fairtax leaders won't get away with the BS tricks the use on their fans at some rally (which they never have anymore anyway)

Plus -- Fairtax bases their BS on cutting the wages of 100 million American workers -- so prices will fall. Riiiiight. Sure - Im sure everyone will want to rush out, take 30% cut in pay, then pay the world's highest sales tax. Wait till "details" like this come out -- as they would in any congressional hearing.

There are no leaders pushing it. IN fact they are hiding from it. Its a farce. People would hate it.

So you tell me -- can it pass?

Fairtax leaders would never actually show up at a Congressional hearing -- or even allow a Congressional hearing -- and answer questions about it.

So no -- it can't pass.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Social Security redux

Social Security zombies

No matter how many times you try to kill the mythical Social Security crisis, it just keeps coming back.

David Ignatius:

Pelosi describes with relish her strategy for trouncing Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security — which was to blast it mercilessly, without offering an alternative. The implicit message is that negotiation and compromise are for losers. The reality that Social Security is facing bankruptcy seems not to interest either Pelosi or Reid.

The Congressional Budget Office:

CBO’s projections indicate that future Social Security beneficiaries will receive larger benefits in retirement—and will have paid higher payroll taxes—than current beneficiaries do, even after adjustments have been made for inflation and even if the scheduled payments are reduced because the trust funds are exhausted.
Oh, and CBO projects that the trust funds will last until 2049.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Social Security

Part of the reason the public is misinformed about social security... "its not going to be around when we need it..." is the media does not do its job.

Outsource to Dean Baker:
The Washington Post War On Social Security Continues

The Post yet again is complaining that politicians who are unwilling to deal with a Social Security shortfall that is first projected to hit in 2049, when John McCain will be 113 years old. To try to makes it case sound more compelling it refers to the date 2018 when the Social Security trustees project that tax revenues will first be inadequate to meet benefit payments.

Of course 2018 is completely irrelevant to the finances of the program. At that point the program is projected to have accumulated more than $5 trillion in government bonds. But the Post wants to scare readers to advance their Social Security agenda so they trot out 2018 as though it is a date that anyone needs to worry about.

The positive side of this story is that Social Security's finances look much better than the Post's. If it keeps making up scare stories about Social Security, perhaps the date of its demise will be hastened.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Social Security...

Here is the Congressional Budget Offices report on Social Security.

Its not going to run out of money...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Social Security

Citizen Jay comments:

Citizen Jay said...
"I believe that when we Americans look deep into ourselves and ask us what we want our government--because it is our government: it is our agent to do what we want with our money..."

Why not eliminate a percentage of social security taxation, if not altogether? Why should the money go to government? Why can the money not be placed in a retirement account untouched by government? Why could the money not be placed into Roth IRA accounts, or a percentage of the amount currently taxed as social security?

That is a very sad statement. Social Security keeps millions of elderly people above the poverty line. If anyone made this country great... if anything about what we currently have is good. We can thank those who came before. To say that government should not protect those who have given so much to us... is just a view of government I find appalling.

If you stated it just for philosophical quandry... I once again see the pathology of philosophers who like to debate ideas for the sake of debate... yet ignore the fact that others are pertutating those ideas in an attempt to undermine government and our economy.

The idea that government shouldn't touch these peoples money speaks to two flaws. One the idea that its "peoples" money is wrong. The people would have no economy, no jobs, no money without that which the government provides. So the concept itself is incoherent.

Two: the idea that government is not in the business of protecting people is a very sad position. The conservative revolution has had a huge impact in promoting this view. Government is there to protect and empower people... without government we would have nothing. A Hobbesian all against all.

He goes on to state:

You and I will not see a dime of social security come retirement age. I want the people to have direct control over their money (and it's use towards the long-term future).

Factually not true. Its right wing propagandha... you've been watching too much fox news.


The Crisis that isn't

Barack Obama has been running for president full-time for nearly a year. While he has impressed millions of people across the country and managed to garner substantial support for his candidacy, he is still mired in second place in the polls. Second place does not win nominations, so with time running out, Obama is getting a bit desperate.

This is the only way to understand his attack on Hillary Clinton for not having a plan to close Social Security’s projected shortfall. As Senator Clinton rightly pointed out, the projected problems with Social Security are distant and relatively minor. There is no reason that she needs to develop a plan for plugging a hole that is not projected to arise until 2046, almost thirty years after the latest date that she can leave the White House.

Obama’s own plan called for raising the income cap on the payroll tax, which would be a modest tax increase on upper middle income workers, and a very substantial tax increase on the highest paid workers. Proposing tax increases is not generally a smart way to win elections, but Obama clearly hoped to be rewarded with positive news stories and editorials, and praise for his courage from the print and broadcast pundits. His plan did earn him some praise from these quarters, but not enough to raise him from his distant second place standing in the polls.

While Obama’s attack can be dismissed as simply bad political judgment, the deeper issue is that attacking Social Security has so much resonance with the media elite. This group has been blatantly ignoring and/or misrepresenting the facts in its attacks on Social Security for almost two decades. They have used their power over the news to force politicians to respond to their agenda, praising those who advance their Social Security crisis story and damning those who try to keep the projections in perspective.

Politicians who refuse to say what we should do with Social Security are not dodging a tough issue, they are simply being realistic. We don’t know what the world will look like in 2040, 2050, and 2060. Under very plausible assumptions, Social Security will remain fully solvent right through these decades with no changes whatsoever. However, even if the program needs to be changed to maintain solvency, none of us has great insight as to how those who have not yet entered the workforce will opt to divide their lives between work and retirement.

If it is necessary to make up a Social Security shortfall, will people in 2050 prefer to retire later, get lower benefits, or pay higher taxes? We don’t have any real basis for answering this question. Furthermore, the people alive in 2050 will not care how we did answer the question. The country will almost certainly reshape the Social Security program at least once before 2050 regardless of what we might choose to write into law in the next few years.

Social Security is an issue where good policy is also good politics. The best thing that progressive politicians can do for the program is to use their megaphone to counter the scare stories. After hearing a steady drum beat of stories about Social Security’s pending bankruptcy, tens of millions of people question whether they will ever see the benefits they have earned. These people must be assured that the program faces no major financial threats, only political threats from those who want to cut and/or privatize Social Security.

It is unfortunate that much of the elite media must be included on the list of Social Security’s opponents. This makes the necessary public education effort far harder than would otherwise be the case. On the other hand, the influence of the elite media is dwindling rapidly. Newspaper readership is plummeting, as is the audience of the network newscasts. People are increasingly turning to the Internet for their information and finding a much broader range of sources.

The Internet was crucial in defeating President Bush’s effort to privatize Social Security in 2005 and it will undoubtedly play an extremely important role in combating any future efforts at privatization. As the importance of the Internet grows and the traditional media shrinks, time is clearly on the side of those who want to protect Social Security.

It is unfortunate that Senator Obama fell in with the bad guys on this one. If he wants to gain ground on Clinton he will have to find a more legitimate issue.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

don't make McCain bitch slap you Obama...

So far McCain has accused Obama of treason... attacked him for inspiring people to participate in the process... and played the race card time and time again (how many more ad's will we see Obama next to a white women? How many more... "Obama is playing the race card" statements?)



So NOW he's going to throw down? Sigh... John McCain is a Gigolo according to Rush Limbaugh... and he spends more on servants than the value of the average Americans house...

Its a subtle "John McCain is tough as shit" which Republicans want to believe. But how tough is a man that doesn't want to protect those who need help... who need an economy that can empower them to rise up the economic ladder. How tough is it to scoff at the idea of getting kids health care? How tough are the Republicans that they will pass on the other side of the road when they see a man beaten and bloodied?


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

The McCain is rich as fuck and doesn't know a thing about your life angle...

via Paul Krugman A very good jeer

So the Obama campaign is going all out on the issue of McCain’s multiple houses. Isn’t that kind of stupid? Yes, it is — and it was also necessary.
Two key points.

First, Republicans always — always — campaign by portraying the Democratic candidate as an out-of-touch elitist, while their guy is a man of the people. Al Gore grew up in a penthouse apartment! (In a shabby residence hotel, but never mind.) John Kerry windsurfs! Meanwhile, George Bush vacations at his ranch (bought as a prop for the 2000 campaign — and he doesn’t ride horses — but somehow that never got brought up.)
Protesting that the candidate is really a wonderful guy doesn’t work. Stupid as it may seem, counterattack is the only option. If the Gore campaign had gone after the fakeness of the Bush ranch, or the cronyism that made Bush rich, the world would be a different place today.

Second, the Obama campaign needed to turn things around fast. Yes, the polls still show a tight race with maybe a slight edge. But a narrative was starting to emerge, of McCain as the comeback kid and Obama as the man who couldn’t live up to his own hype. And those narratives can be deadly.

So, McCain said something that the Obama campaign may be able to use to turn things around. It’s not the way things should be; we really should be talking about health care plans (and I wish Obama would.) But right now, this week, making fun of McCain’s houses (but they’re not his, they’re his wife’s!) was the only option.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

contending conservatives... one email at a time....

Brad Delong is on the team...
The Only Way to Win Is Not to Play

An email I just sent:

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't seem worth it to participate in your poll. These are not questions on which I have any particular value or insight to add. And they are not questions the answers to which would inform America's voters about their choices. I think you should rethink this project. Ask yourself: "What can I report to do the most to help America's voters learn about and weigh their choice this fall?"

Apologies,

Brad DeLong

And here is the backstory:

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Madigan, Tom wrote:

Hi Brad,

Just wanted to touch base with a reminder about the NationalJournal.com blogger poll. Please take a moment and send me your responses to our first round of questions. Thanks for taking part.

Pick the demographic group that Obama most needs to sway during the convention: Women; Whites over 45; Blue-collar workers. Comment:

Do you think Michelle Obama will help or hurt her husband’s candidacy in the general election? Help; Hurt. Comment:

What portion — if any — of the Democratic convention program should be devoted to tearing down John McCain and the Republican brand? More than half; About half; About a third; About a quarter; Hardly any. Comment:

What do you expect Hillary Clinton will focus more on in her convention speech? Attacking John McCain; Burnishing the Clintons’ image; Praising Barack Obama.Comment:

If you want to join the team who work every day to make politics about policy, ideas, and data rather than swiftboat attacks and meaningless distractions email me (your blog or email if you like) and I'll post you on the list.

I of coarse will be adding bloggers who are on the team whether they know it or not.




--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

blog post from the Henry Dems site...

I must be crazy... trying to run two blogs... that have political slants.. durning an election year. While you are chairman of one county, campaign manager in a state senate race, are in school, and work part-time...

Here is my most recent post on the Henry Dem's website. Please go sign up on the site to have new blog posts emailed directly to you.

from the comments page...

TO catch people up there has been a health debate going on in the comments page. I want to pull it to the front and hopefully entice others to comment as well. The more people dig into the numbers, and talk about their own opinions and feelings on these important issues... the more people will feel inspired to once again participate in the process.

Think about that for a second. By taking some time out of your day to think about and participate in dialogue you are helping empower someone else to want to join to political process. For too long people have been turned away from politics by attack ads and corruption. Well the only way to fight back and stop those things is through MORE participation not less.

Here was the thread so far... and then I’ll responded at bottom. Remember I represent Jim Nichols ideas... you should participate so that you can advocate for your ideas and views...

Henry Libertarian commented:
What we need is REAL change not tax and over spend Liberals. You only want to redistribute waelth not create any new income or jobs. Obama isn't the answer to ANYTHING except "Who is the worse choice for President in '08?"

On 08/21/08 04:37 PM

On 08/21/08 04:51 PM

On 08/22/08 08:26 AM

Henry Libertarian commented:
Clinton didn't "create" all of those jobs, he benefited from the .com boom and no one credits him with the .com bust either. Obama's plans will cost $200 billon a year. Ranking Democrats vowed in December to put a moratorium on earmarks; instead, a record number infect legislation pending in Congress, with 32,000 requests this year, compared with about 13,000 in 2006 . In 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slipped in a $25 million provision for San Francisco's waterfront on a $15 billion federal water bill at the last minute. Cutting individual taxes increases spending wich creates more tax money. Fixing health care does not mean going the Hillary Clinton way of demanding that everyone buy health care or an employer does not have to hire you. Fixing health care starts with tort reform in keeping health provider costs down. I am not sure what school your child goes to but my child has books and supplies. The school is responsible for teaching your child not for buying them paper, pencils, pens, glue, etc. The Federal Government should not have ANYTHIG to do with local school systems. You say that you are not for too much government but you want them to control everything and provide it for you. Be responsible for yourself and stop looking for handouts.

Jim Nichols commented:
Also what do you mean by overspend? Our classroom sizes are far too big and lack basic things like supplies and books. Our health care crisis--we rank 37th in the world, and pay 2 to 3 times as much as other industrialized nations--is harming our global competitiveness and litterally killing americans... or at least making them file bankruptcy. Our transportation infrastructure is massively underfunded. Our mental health systems... underfunded. I'm not for too much government... but we aren't investing in our long-term economic sustainability.. and it shows. People pay the price of the Regan economic revolution of cut taxes worry not about the consequences...

Jim Nichols commented:

Well actually the Republican record on the economy and economic growth speak for themselves. George Bush is about to end his 8 years in office having created fewer jobs than Clinton averaged each year of his term. Ever since Regan we've run deficits except during the Clinton years... data speaks louder than words!

My response:

"Clinton didn't "create" all of those jobs, he benefitted from the .com boom and no one credits him with the .com bust either. "

My claim wasn’t to imply Clinton "created" those jobs as if by magic. That not how an economy works. But my claim was intended to point out that every time they open their mouths Bush/McCain/and Company like to say that their economic policies will create jobs... or that they are pro-growth. The question should at least be asked of them... why do you think so?



The paternalistic: "Father says so" [or Bush... or McCain...] is not an economic argument.

And just a question because it seems to be begged...So the Republicans think you have to wait for a dot-com, or real-estate bubble... to create economic growth? Keynes would smile at that one.

Obama's plans will cost $200 billion a year.

true... for those of you who don’t know $200 billion is–if memory serves me–how much Obama’s health care plan costs. For context 200 billion is $645.58 per-capita. 645.58 in my tax dollars going to get millions of people who lack health insurance–such as myself–the ability to get needed medical care and not harm our economy since early treatment rather than last minute care is by far cheaper–more efficient to use an economists term.

And just to give you an idea of how much conservatives end up sounding like they are on mars when talking policy. I spend between 800-1400 dollars a month on health care treatment since I lack health insurance. Its condescending to hardworking Americans who get up each day and try to pay the rules to be told "tough cookies"

Its time for democrats to tell Republicans to cut the crap when it comes to pubic policy.


He then moves onto ear marks...

Ranking Democrats vowed in December to put a moratorium on earmarks; instead, a record number infect legislation pending in Congress, with 32,000 requests this year, compared with about 13,000 in 2006 . In 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slipped in a $25 million provision for San Francisco's waterfront on a $15 billion federal water bill at the last minute

First a question why do "earmarks" always come up when talking to a conservative? The Economist magazine pointed out that all earmarks add up to less than $20 billion a year. That for fiscal year 2008 is $64.56. Since that is a very small chunk of my tax dollars and its part of the push and pull of a federal system. I have faith in our processes of checks and balances... and faith that corruption can be founded and dealt with... the sky isn’t falling.

$25 million for the San Fran waterfront.

For those that don’t know... for fiscal year 2008 that would be 8 cents of my tax dollars. 8 cents? 8 cents? Do we really need to deal with 8 cents? Millions without health care, Bin Ladin still on the loose, terrorist recrutiments UP after the Iraq war... and conservatives want to talk about 8 cents????

Since you brought it up I’ll answer it. San Francisco is a major tourist hub. It brings in tourists from all over the world–myself included. Ask an economist... Adam Smith... Joseph Stiglitz... anyone outside of the Heritage institute really and they will point out the importance of investment in vital infrastructure. Tourism brings a lot of money to the state of California and the United States as a whole. Next time I go to San Fran and enjoy a stroll through one of the tourist district I will feel pleased to know my 8 cents helped me have an enjoyable visit.

Cutting individual taxes increases spending which creates more tax money. ...

Yeah point blank not true... was never thought to be true in theory by a large chunk of economist... and since the Regan revolution has still not proven true in the real world.

You often hear this argument... "the tax cuts pay for themselves." Its either someone misinformed or trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Don’t let them do it. For more on this read "The Politics of Bad Ideas–the Great Tax Cut Delusion and the Decline of Good Government in America" by Bryan D. Jones and Walter Williams both of whom are at the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at University of Washington.

Then we move back to health care...

Fixing health care does not mean going the Hillary Clinton way of demanding that everyone buy health care or an employer does not have to hire you. Fixing health care starts with tort reform in keeping health provider costs down.

We rank 37th in the world for quality of health care. We rank 37th!!!

WE SPEND 2 to 3 times as much as other industrialized nations who already have universal coverage. We are creating huge profits for a small group of people, causing hard working Americans to go bankrupt from illnesses they have no control over, and we are killing people every day because they lack needed treatment. Our businesses put at a competitive disadvantage because they are paying the price....

The idea that tort reform and health care provider costs is going to fix the market failure we are currently dealing with is a bit of a stretch. Private insurance companies and the bureaucracy they bring into the health care system IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. Insurance companies pay people a lot of money to go through peoples files to try to keep people from getting insurance or certain treatments.

I am not sure what school your child goes to but my child has books and supplies. The school is responsible for teaching your child not for buying them paper, pencils, pens, glue, etc

Our schools are underfunded.... class sizes too large... teacher pay too low.

As someone who dropped out of high school... I can tell you how passionate I am on making sure that our kids stay competitive in a global economy.

If we don’t invest in our kids... and create and educated work force we will continue to fall far behind Japan, Europe and the other industrialized nations in the world As someone who wants to know my economy is going to be strong and stronger... over the long run I can tell you how passionate I am at making sure the needed investment in our infrastructure is spent NOW.

Instead of seeing a hand-out... see it as a hand-up which helps empower other people to rise up and helps protect your own economic security at the same time

You say that you are not for too much government but you want them to control everything and provide it for you. Be responsible for yourself and stop looking for handouts.

When did I say that??? I don’t know how to respond to that one since I never said I want them to control everything and provide it for you. Republicans always try this trick. If it isn't a trick then its a manipulation. I never said any such thing so I can't respond to the attack.

Be responsible for yourself and stop looking for handouts

That about as condescending as it gets... and you see it from conservatives all the time.

You don’t know me... but it doesn’t matter... you shouldn’t need to. The presumption should always be that people are trying to play by the rules and work hard. Plus I'm demanding better schools, better health care system, better foriegn policy. What do those things have to do with not being responsible for myself... what about that is look for a handout. I'm demanding Government actually do its job. It is there to protect and empower people. Plus personally I believe that which we do to the least of these is very telling about ourselves.

Every time someone tells me to stop whining and work hard I think of my grandfather who got up everyday before the sun to go work on his farm, would then go work at the factory for 8 to 10 hours, to come home and raise a family. He died with less than $200 to his name and never lived very far above the poverty line. You can call me every name in the book... but you I won’t let you call my grandfather lazy.

Imagine if Democrats finally told Republicans.. .cut the crap. The attacks, the personal a fronts, the swift boat ads... and urban legends speak to how little Republicans how when it comes to policy. But they win if Democrats don’t fight back. Knock on doors, make phone calls.... help bring our country back to the entrepreneurial machine it once was. Government is in the business of empowering its citizens. Its time to say no to another Republican who won’t do the job.




--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

What am I missing here?

Boortz...
THE U.S.EXAMPLE

Barack Obama finally came around on Russia, scolding the nation for invading a sovereign nation (Georgia). However, now he has thrown a new caveat into the mix: the United States should set a better example on that front, too. He says, "We've got to send a clear message to Russia and unify our allies ... They can't charge into other countries. Of course it helps if we are leading by example on that point."

So finally, Barack Obama comes out and directly compares Russia's military invasion of Georgia to our own efforts in Iraq. Way to go Big O.

Does anyone remember Georgia being a threat to Russia? Did Georgia have a weapons program? Was Georgia in violation of multiple UN Resolutions ... violations that authorized any UN member to go in and remove their leader? Just wondering.

What am I missing?

Does anyone remember Iraq being a threat to the their neighbors let alone the United States? Did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?--and weren't the U.N. weapons inspectors, as well as many allies, and anti-war activists here at home pointing to the holes in that idea? Wasn't the US in violation of UN Resolutions when it preemptively attacked with no authorization from the Security Council?--the answer is yes if you weren't aware.

The lack of awareness about the facts during the war... and the rewriting of history afterwards has been an amazing and shockingly successful feat by conservatives.

And if you were wondering how laughable the idea that Iraq was a threat... think back to Iraq I. Where Arab countries were calling for us to beat back the preemptive attack by Iraq which lacked authorization from the security council. Thats why we fought with a HUGE coalition, and the war was paid for--mostly by Saudi Arabia if my memory serves me.

Agree or disagree with how it went down... we--Republican and Democrat alike--knew how to win wars, effectively, and at as little cost to our soldiers and our citizens wallets. Republicans were taken over by the conservative wing and all of a sudden the ability to win a war becomes this great quandary. As if military strategy was back to the rock, bigger rock, spear, club... of our ancestors days in the caves.

sigh... what a waste of lives, money, and our national security...

Obama 2008. The lesser of two evils...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com