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

Politics...

Everybody wants to participate in t-shirt politics and half-time trivia talking points.

Politics isn't supposed to be entertaining, politics isn't supposed to be entertainment.

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

Neal Boortz...

From his daily email...

The taxpayers of Prior Lake-Savage in Minnesota should be outraged. Their tax dollars funded the construction of a brand new $16.8 million elementary school. The people of the school district were so excited because their schools are "overcrowded." Do you know why they are overcrowded? Bluntly speaking ... too many parents having children that they (a) can't afford to raise; and, (b) won't take responsibility for. But don't get me started on that...

Question... since the Regan revolution of tax cuts... the economy that people once knew and still desire went away. Government after the Regan revolution no longer protected people and no longer empowered the economy to grow and reap rewards at all income levels. It turned our economy into an every man for themselves affair.

Unfortunately for those impacted by the Regan revolution (i.e. most everyone) economists since Adam Smith have been pointing out that an economy is a collective effort. You feel it every day and in many ways you don't even realize.

Why turn to the negative? Imagine if these people assumed the economy of the New Deal era... with all the post war growth and the newly created middle class--which the government program known as the G.I. Bill almost single candidly did... could it be possible that they were expecting the conservative revolution to pay off the way conservatives claim... and so made economic decisions that obviously seem unwise--is that a nicer way of putting it?--to Boortz.

Plus isn't behavioral economics and cognitive science addressing the question of people acting through emotion and biology rather than a reasoned and economically rational way. And if this holds true. Why would Boortz's bash people for doing that which isn't logical but is still natural.

You could simply flip it around and create incentives to do rational, efficient, and economically productive things rather than feel the need to punish and condemn. My job isn't to punish and condemn. My job is to forgive, protect those who are weaker, and empower those who need a hand up.

Boortz always seem to see a hand-out... when quite often it is really a hand-up.

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

This is how conservatives win elections for the Republican party...

Obamamania...
Written
by Dr. Jack Wheeler

The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya. Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave s hips. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.

Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves; he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.

It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.

Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum , I believe it because it is absurd.

Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior. His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.

A vote for McCain empowers people like this. Vote Obama 2008. Any questions?

Lesser of two evils yes... but far less than the views of people like this...


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

Go out and organize... register voters... vote... our Republic is at stake: Obama 2008

A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy

by Sheldon S. Wolin

Sept. 11, 2001, hastened a significant shift in our nation's self-understanding. It became commonplace to refer to an "American empire" and to the United States as "the world's only superpower."

Instead of those formulations, try to conceive of ones like "superpower democracy" or "imperial democracy," and they seem not only contradictory but opposed to basic assumptions that Americans hold about their political system and their place within it. Supposedly ours is a government of constitutionally limited powers in which equal citizens can take part in power. But one can no more assume that a superpower welcomes legal limits than believe that an empire finds democratic participation congenial.

No administration before George W. Bush's ever claimed such sweeping powers for an enterprise as vaguely defined as the "war against terrorism" and the "axis of evil." Nor has one begun to consume such an enormous amount of the nation's resources for a mission whose end would be difficult to recognize even if achieved.

Like previous forms of totalitarianism, the Bush administration boasts a reckless unilateralism that believes the United States can demand unquestioning support, on terms it dictates; ignores treaties and violates international law at will; invades other countries without provocation; and incarcerates persons indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing access to counsel.

The drive toward total power can take different forms, as Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union suggest.

The American system is evolving its own form: "inverted totalitarianism." This has no official doctrine of racism or extermination camps but, as described above, it displays similar contempt for restraints.

It also has an upside-down character. For instance, the Nazis focused upon mobilizing and unifying the society, maintaining a continuous state of war preparations and demanding enthusiastic participation from the populace. In contrast, inverted totalitarianism exploits political apathy and encourages divisiveness. The turnout for a Nazi plebiscite was typically 90 percent or higher; in a good election year in the United States, participation is about 50 percent.

Another example: The Nazis abolished the parliamentary system, instituted single-party rule and controlled all forms of public communication. It is possible, however, to reach a similar result without seeming to suppress. An elected legislature is retained but a system of corruption (lobbyists, campaign contributions, payoffs to powerful interests) short-circuits the connection between voters and their representatives. The system responds primarily to corporate interests; voters become cynical, resigned; and opposition seems futile.

While Nazi control of the media meant that only the "official story" was communicated, that result is approximated by encouraging concentrated ownership of the media and thereby narrowing the range of permissible opinions.

This can be augmented by having "homeland security" envelop the entire nation with a maze of restrictions and by instilling fear among the general population by periodic alerts raised against a background of economic uncertainty, unemployment, downsizing and cutbacks in basic services.

Further, instead of outlawing all but one party, transform the two-party system. Have one, the Republican, radically change its identity:

From a moderately conservative party to a radically conservative one.

From a party of isolationism, skeptical of foreign adventures and viscerally opposed to deficit spending, to a party zealous for foreign wars.

From a party skeptical of ideologies and eggheads into an ideologically driven party nurturing its own intellectuals and supporting a network that transforms the national ideology from mildly liberal to predominantly conservative, while forcing the Democrats to the right and and enfeebling opposition.

From one that maintains space between business and government to one that merges governmental and corporate power and exploits the power-potential of scientific advances and technological innovation. (This would differ from the Nazi warfare organization, which subordinated "big business" to party leadership.)

The resulting dynamic unfolded spectacularly in the technology unleashed against Iraq and predictably in the corporate feeding frenzy over postwar contracts for Iraq's reconstruction.

In institutionalizing the "war on terrorism" the Bush administration acquired a rationale for expanding its powers and furthering its domestic agenda. While the nation's resources are directed toward endless war, the White House promoted tax cuts in the midst of recession, leaving scant resources available for domestic programs. The effect is to render the citizenry more dependent on government, and to empty the cash-box in case a reformist administration comes to power.

Americans are now facing a grim situation with no easy solution. Perhaps the just-passed anniversary of the Declaration of Independence might remind us that "whenever any form of Government becomes destructive ..." it must be challenged.

Sheldon S. Wolin is emeritus professor of politics at Princeton University and the author of "Politics and Vision: The Presence of the Past" and "Alexis de Tocqueville: Between Two Worlds."

Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.

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

to the question of changing ones mind, political expediency, and other question we like to talk about politically...

McCain's performance was less consistent than Obama's. This fact cannot be disputed in the critical, unbiased mind. I wonder at the primary cause for McCain's change in performance from "maverick critic of the Bush administration" to supporting Bush-policy 95%. Is this action a simple change of mind, an indication of political ambition, or a combination of the two scenarios? My inquiry is of a strictly personal nature, and not of true political concern; as it relates to neither your motivation for this post nor my final decision come this November. What are your thoughts to my question?

I avoid mind-reading... (thats a response that I stole from economist dean baker and philosopher David Pacini). Baker criticizes news articles when they discuss politics from the question of personal beliefs and personal political philosophy.

These are things these leaders and decision makers may or may not hold but there is no way to verify. How can we trust a journalist who is only seeing certain aspects of candidates and elected officials? Plus they only interact in certain way and politicos are aware they are interacting with a reporter--there is no such thing as off the record.

I flip the question around as something that might be interesting in an abstract way. But I tend to focus those kinds of discussions to philosophers, artists, and other cultural animals. Politics should be serious discussions since it is serious life or death issues at stake. I don't like the cult of personality that the media and voters fixate on.

I always respond by pointing to this negative tendency within out political culture.

They can't read minds can they? No, they can report on the facts, the policies, the positions, contributors, x...y...z...

We can't read minds can we? Its not meant to be condescending to the question since I do think its interesting. But I'm up to my ears in serious politics and most of my interactions with voters have to do with petty issues that are of no importance. Its a very sad state of affairs... and it explains how we've ended up with the corruption and apathy that we now have. We reap what we sow... no?

they can't read minds. I think this is part of my issue with individualizing candidates. I don't comprehend at all the "I vote for the best person." "I like him as a person"

This individualization and personification... has nothing to do with political policy or leadership. Conservatives are often passionate--Liberals can do so as well--about personal politics.

Hell I know the name of Clinton's cat--socks...

why in the world do I need to know that...

we want people discussing political differences. When the news media and political junkies talk about someones political philosophy as the instigator or certain decisions we confuse what we are talking about... as well as what we are capable of knowing.

I'd be intrigued to have philosophical discussions with these people. But that's neither here nor there when it comes to leadership and policy decisions.

I get--whats a good word--frustrated when we talk about candidates doing things for philosophical or political expediency. Talk about the context of verifiable facts; people will infer what they will. But its like the race question... Obama has no need to respond to it. He's a sucker cause he keeps responding which is what McCain wants.

I don't think this speaks to the voters as people who only care about petty stuff. I just think they know there is no point in caring about the important stuff... its driven into them by the media, the two major political parties--who need each other to play the devil, and core gropus who enjoy the status quo while they bemoan the apathy and corruption. When one profits and enjoys the perks of the status quo... one will do and say anything to make it stay the way it is.

The only solution... organize, participate, and never give in...

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

Shocked?

The Media like having darlings... for a long time they thought they had one in John McCain.

Changing Lanes
by Elizabeth Kolbert

The past few weeks have seen a change in McCain. He has hired new advisers, and with them he seems to have worked out a new approach. He is no longer telling the sorts of hard truths that people would prefer not to confront, or even half-truths that they might find vaguely discomfiting. Instead, he’s opted out of truth altogether. “Well, that certainly didn’t take long,” the Times observed.

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

THE MEDIA KEEP FALSE SIMPLICITIES GOING, WHILE COMPLEXITIES DROP OUT

One example of a false simplicity that returns front and center and there persists after the underlying complexities get a brief hearing is Obama’s supposed refusal to visit wounded troops. The charge, made in an ad by the McCain campaign, that Obama passed up a chance to visit the wounded in Germany because he wanted to go to the gym instead was quickly shown to be false, as was the alternative charge that he didn’t make the visit because he wasn’t going to be allowed to bring photographers. I believe the ad, not widely shown to begin with, has been withdrawn. However, the explanation of why he didn’t go is a little complicated and it will not be remembered. What will be remembered, and this may well have been the effect aimed at with the advertisement, was that Obama for some reason or other passed up a chance to visit the wounded. A more important example of a false simplicity holding on front and center is the issue of whether the Surge succeeded. Even those who claim that it did, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, readily agree, at least when questioned, that other factors operated to bring about the reduction of violence in Baghdad – including former Sunni militants becoming allies of the present Iraqi government; the main Shiite militia standing down at least for the moment. Would these factors have operated without the Surge? How did the Surge affect them? Sorting out the answers to these questions would take time that the media did not take; but it would have been helpful at least just to have the public bear in mind that the questions needed to be looked into before judging just what the success of the Surge amounts to. The public has not been encouraged to bear this in mind. On the contrary, the debate has reverted to the simple issue of whether the violence diminished after the Surge, which invites the fallacy that if it did it was because of the Surge.

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

Thank you Bill O'Reilly, Thank you Neil Boortz

This might make us pause the next time we chuckle at talking head talk show hosts like O'Rielly, Boortz, and i'm sure their are left wing ones... (but they aren't as popular so I don't know their names) who use invective and condecencions. Its not funny... people who are angry for legitimate reasons, and lack education on many complex issues--will take their anger out on others in sometimes dangerous and definately unporductive ways.

As chairman for the Democrats in Henry I have actively reached out to Republican leaders and told them my focus is on policy not people and that if there ever see myself or others out in public representing the Democratic party who get out of line and turn to mud/invective to please call me and tell me.

This stuff matters... those discussing the issues... escpecially those on radio should be leaders. Its time for everyone to hold them accountable for that trash. You are what you say... you are what you do...

Phone message warns Sierra Club 'bullets are coming' (AJC)

By TIM EBERLY
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/18/08

The Sierra Club might have made an enemy in Early County.
Staffers for the environmental organization's chapter in Atlanta reported to police that someone left a threatening message on its voicemail, presumably because the Sierra Club won a lawsuit that prevented the building of a power plant in the poverty-stricken county desperately in need of jobs.

"We need those jobs," the anonymous caller said. "You (expletive) communists have screwed us for the last time. You better have eyes in the back of your head because the bullets are coming."

The call came in on July 4 — four days after the Sierra Club and other environmental groups won a lawsuit in Fulton County that prevented the coal-burning plant from being built, charging that it would emit up to 9 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.

The plant would have brought millions in tax revenues and more than 100 high-paying jobs to the county, which is in Georgia's southwestern corner and ranks as the state's sixth poorest.

A Sierra Club staffer reported the incident to police July 8. A police report describes the caller as a white man, possibly 30 years old or older, with a Southern accent.

Atlanta police advised the Sierra Club to save the threatening message and contact its phone service provider to trace the call, the report said.
When reached by phone Friday afternoon, Patty Durand, director of the Georgia chapter of the Sierra Club, declined to comment.

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