THIS IS AWESOME (It was one of those random forward things):
I recently asked my friend’s little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day.
Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, ‘If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?
She replied, ‘I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.’ Her parents beamed.
‘Wow…what a worthy goal.’ I told her, ‘But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $100. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $100 to use toward food and a new house.’
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, ‘Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $100?’
I said, ‘Welcome to the Republican Party.’
This is some really scary stuff from the Wall Street Journal:
A Liberal Supermajority
I think most of my friends who are democrats truly understand the magnitude of change that is coming. We’re going to become France.
This is a big mess, but I think this article: The Paulson Plan Will Make Money For Taxpayers - is probably right.
I think, however, the article missing the other big issue: short vs. long-term outlook. Obviously, the fed isn’t doing the bailout as an investment, but the very structure of the bailout would appear to be an investment. The government is effectively buying all of these assets. The advantage the government has is that it doesn’t need to make money and no one really cares about its balance sheet (yeah we can debate whether that’s good or not later).
I believe most of these assets will have some value… eventually. How long is open to debate.
So I think this bailout will generate money for the government (directly - I also think it will benefit indirectly as the economy recovers). Hopefully they won’t waste it… but they probably will.
What they should do is basically structure the bailout as a special case U.S. sovereign wealth fund. That might restrict how the use any upside that should come of this.
At the very least it should be packaged and contained so we can track and understand the outcome. IE: in 20-40 years, did the bailout make money? lose money? break even? I’ll given even odds that we won’t even know. Perhaps I’m too cynical.
This is a really good article on capital gains from the WSJ:
Obama’s Capital Loss
The fact that it is in response to an Obama position - that raising capital gains to 20-25% is ok - is not what makes this article interesting. It actually has some pretty interesting stats that show increases in capital gains materially decrease tax income because the higher tax changes peoples behaviors.
Another brilliant example of our government at work: Banks: Planned Net-gambling curb could disrupt e-commerce
My favorites:
The 2006 law forces banks and other financial intermediaries to police money flows that could be related to Internet gambling. It never received a formal up or down vote in the entire Congress; instead, Republican congressional leaders simply glued it on to an unrelated port security bill that was approved nearly unanimously.
Got to love the largely libertarian Ron Paul. I wish more of our politicians thought about things this way:
Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-minded Republican candidate for president, said that could lead to more Internet regulation: “Though I do not endorse gambling per se, people should make their own decisions. It’s a personal choice. I’ve always been concerned about this type of regulation and legislation–it’s likely to open the door (to control and regulation) of the Internet itself.”
And, the one issue I agree with Barney Frank on:
Rep. Barney Frank, the Democratic chairman of the full House Financial Services Committee, used the chance to talk up his bill that would effectively legalize–but closely regulate, including with criminal background checks and financial disclosure–the online gambling industry.
Why can’t we have a govenment that acknowledges personal responsibility?
I am rapidly beginnging to feel like there is no possible good outcome in the upcoming election. I’m also beginning to feel like government bureaucracy and inertia is going to kill our country.
This article about the $53 trillion asteroid is a pretty depressing look at our grand retirment (cough cough entitlement) system and how it’s screwed. I’ve been reading a lot about this recently. I should have linked more of it. One article said we should have turned the social security fund into a sovereign wealth fund - which is a brilliant idea. However, I can’t seem to find the article.
Anyway, on to the other topic. I had been leaning strongly toward voting for Obama. I voted for him in the Texas primaries - the first time I’ve ever voted for a democrat. However, I’ll admit that I was swayed by the whole preacher incident. I’m not a huge fan of religious influence in government to begin with, but Obama calls this guy his “spirtual advisor.” Which, even if the guy wasn’t over the top, is disturbing. Although this is even worse, since from what I have read Jerimiah Wright is just plan nuts. It’s note like you can just ignore this either, Obama has been going to his church for 20 years - he had to know this person’s opinions, especially given the spritual advisor stuff. It’s just a sign of bad judgement and bad people selection. (Which are probably also the root causes of the failure of current administration.)
Anyway, this article (The Audacity of Rhetoric) was pretty interesting. It was written by Thomas Sowell at the Hoover Institute / Stanford. I don’t necessarily agree with everything in this column, but it’s definitely a point of view worth considering.
I haven’t written Obama off yet, but this thing has certainly killed off my enthusiasm. I went to a rally and even met him while he was in Texas - so I definitely put in some effort. The whole situation really disappoints me.
It’s a shame to put this in a negative post, but hey:
I will say Obama certainly has charisma and gravitas.
| Democrats |
Republicans |
Me |
| Socialist Leaning |
Free Market Capitalism |
R |
| Big Government |
Small Govermnent |
R |
| Big Spending |
Fiscal Conservatism |
R |
| Socially Liberal |
Socially Conservative |
D |
| Secular |
Religious messages |
D |
The high-level positions are broad and represent the traditional positions. They are changing - for example the Republicans aren’t doing a particularly good job on the small goverment and fiscal conservatism fronts right now. And the democrats are starting to pander to the religious crowd.
Where-oh-where is a good party:
- Understands and supports capitalism and free markets.
- Keeps a leash on government spending.
- Keeps the government small - bureaucracies are never effective.
- Let’s people basically do what they want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.
- Doesn’t push a religious agenda down people’s throats. (Yeah, like an abstinence policy is ever going to accomplish anything.)
- Never mentions religion.
The biggest thing for me is:
PERSONAL RESONSIBILITY
If someone messes it up - it’s their fault. Don’t bail them out, let them take their lumps and grow and move on. And for the love of god get rid of the tons of lawyers out there suing our soceity into oblivion. If someone spills hot coffee on themselves - it’s not McDonald’s fault, it’s the persons fault. This type of crap is just getting out of hand.
That’s probably the biggest reason why I lean toward Obama. He at least acknowledges the personal responsibility issue. And he did it at the one rally I attended. Anyway, I think this is possibly the single biggest issue facing the future of our country. If people don’t take responsibility for their actions then we’re screwed. We will become a soceity afraid to take risks, afraid to go outside, and afraid to interact - all while looking over our shoulders waiting to see if we are about to get sued.
/rant
I think I’ve said this before, but I’m not a big fan of Hillary. This article:
Political Perceptions: Vice President Clinton?
Is interesting. And scary… to me at least.
I’m not a Democrat. I used to be a Republican, but they’ve so sold out to the religious right / evangelicals that they horrify me now. So I’m kind of screwed. See my next post for more info.
Anyway, as one of the undecided this would be a huge mistake for Obama. Right now I’m leaning towards voting for him. (I did vote for him in the Texas primary.) However, I WOULD NOT vote for Obama / Hillary.
Hillary just seems fake and plastic to me. Like she’ll say anything to get elected. I know she’s smart, but she just seems to lack common sense and vision. I read something comparing here to that overachiever in the front row who always raises their hand for every question - that resonated with me. (I’d cite it but I can’t remember where I saw it.) Anyway, she has booksmarts but no passion or vision.
I also think it would be a shame if we elected someone because of their spouse and that seems to be the main reason most people are voting for her. And maybe because Rush Limbaugh told them to.
And if McCain picks Huckabee as his running mate.. I guess then I’ll be screwed because I refuse to vote for them either. The last thing we need is a former preacher as Vice President - that will do wonders for the perception of the country around the world.
Let me be upfront: I’m not particularly excited about any of our choices this year. Although I think they might be less appalling than the last one… but I’m not entirely sold on that yet.
Anyway this is a quote from Hillary (Clinton looks to stop Obama in aftermath of 10 losses):
“We need to make a choice between speeches and solutions, because while words matter greatly, the best words in the world aren’t enough unless you match them with action.”
And this choice (ah the irony) sound bite:
“It is time to get real,” Clinton said, “to get real about how we actually win this election… It is time to move from good words to good works — from sound bites to sound solutions.”
WTF. She was a First Lady and a junior senator. Full time, permanent politician. What has she ever done? (BTW, I’m not suggesting some of the other candidates have done anything more, but given the crap she is spouting is silly in that context.) I just want to puke everytime I read these speeches. They are so full of shit that it is unbelievable. I wonder if they actually believe the crap that comes out of their mouths.
Like “Hilary the Christian” and “Hilary the Woman of Action”…. I’ll add “Hilary the Plastic Doll”. Anyway, I just find all this stuff both very hypocritical and very fake.
Brief digression: it also pisses me off that these senators get to run around and IGNORE their real job - ie: miss votes - to run for president. If you want to run for president you should have to resign from Congress - make it mean something. If you cared about the people who elected you to that position you’d do that and let them get the representation they deserve.
I’m not sure about Obama and McCain is a bit of a wildcard, but at least they’re both passionate and mostly real (I’m not sure there is such a thing as a “real” presidential candidate). So I hope we get one of them. Or better yet maybe Bloomberg will run - he’s the only candidate I think I could really get excited about.
However, I think I might to go to an Obama function tomorrow - maybe even get a chance to meet him. It will be my first ever donation to a Democratic candidate, but I think it’s worth taking a look.
/rant
 Article from News.com:   Net taxes could arrive by this fall
Yikes. It’s here again - net tax debates. The U.S. operates under a federalist system and has a long history of protecting states rights on all sorts of fronts. However, this model is clearly showing signs of wear and if anything is going to break it, my bet (I wish I could bet) is on the Internet being the cause. Â
The guy who thinks the Internet is made of pipes, Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens said he would like:
“to see an impregnable ban on taxes on the Internet.”
Wow! Well Ted and I finally agree on something relating to the Intarweb… I mean Internet.  I say: DON’T TAX THE PIPES… or anything flowing through them.
Here is why Internet taxes are bad:
- They are a huge burden on entrepreneurs. Some states (like California) are pretty obnoxious about “nexus” which determines if you owe taxes to them or not. It’s hard to keep track of and easily activated (like a sales person in California…. or possibly even one that visits a lot). Anyway, collecting sales taxes is an incredible burden and just creates jobs for accountants and a requirement that entrepreneurs buy crap tax accounting software that makes developing cool and interesting applications very difficult. This whole issue will be more critical as more entrepreneurs develop cool and interesting web businesses.  Whether it’s selling stuff on eBay - a big generator of new small businesses, but when does this qualify for sales taxes? - or a Web 2.0 innovator that has a cool new service that costs a few bucks a month or year for a premium service? The burden on these business is quite significant. Amazon and Dell can probably afford the accounting overhead, but not a small business.Â
- If you think state governments are bad, imagine how obnoxious some of these little townships are. I can’t wait until some backwater town decides to tax the Internet in some stupid way. You know it will happen.
- Someone will decide to try tax e-mail or some bullshit like that. That will be fun. Let’s have various national, state, county, and city, governments tracking our every Internet activity so they can tax it. Not to mention the joy someone in that chain will take in knowning what everyone is doing. I’m sure nothing nefarious could happen…. uhm yeah.
If the bureaucrats who are so effective at wasting all the money we already give them insist on taking more, here are my recommendations:
- Create a national sales tax and redistribute it to the states so at least it will be uniform to collect and pay. (And if we’re lucky cause a panic and never pass. Because, just like income tax, once they get their hand in the cookie jar they will never take it out.)
- Only tax companies that do a large amount of business over the Internet. Like $100mm or more so that the cost of developing systems to manage and pay all these gazillion different taxes (in Texas the sales tax is different in every county…. imagine having to sort that crap out as a small web site.) Â
God save us from these jackass like Senator Michael Enzi from Wyoming who wants to mandate taxes on Internet purchases.  I’m glad that the National Governor’s Association is lobbying for this. BTW, I bet those hypocrites don’t pay the voluntary sales tax now.
The states are collapsing into financial ruin from missing this sales tax so far. Let them whine some more. Besides, if they actually get money from some new windfall like this they’ll just waste it anyway. No, I’m not cynical about government spending. Not at all. If only they were run like businesses.Â
Oh and while I’m on the subject I love this one:Â
“I’ve got to spend this money now or my budget will get reduced next year.”
Way to encourage the right behavior.
/rant
