Germany is making sense.

"Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, turned the tables on her international critics on Wednesday by accusing the US and other governments of making “cheap money” a central tool of their economic management, thus planting the seeds of a similar crisis in five years."

"Ms Merkel has been wary of raising public borrowing to stimulate demand"

Holy sh!t, why is Europe lecturing us on monetary discipline? Because they are right!

Bush started this bailout and Obama is not only going along but promising more. Unbelievable! Where are the politicians urging caution? Where are the skpetics? Where is the voice of reason and moderation? 

$200b more ... for consumer credit?

In addition, with support from the U.S. Treasury, the Fed will provide up to $200 billion in financing to investors buying securities tied to student loans, car loans, credit-card debt and small-business loans.

"He added that the market for securities backed by consumer debt "came to a halt" last month, making it nearly impossible for millions of Americans to find affordable financing for everything from college to computers."

Wait a sec... I though the problem here was mortgages? Do we really care if people can't get 0% credit cards? Isn't cheap money the problem? Cheap money that is creating unmanageable debt that can't be repaid and that is then defaulted on?

So our solution is to lubricate the problem? 

I don't see how any of this bailout money is going to solve the problem. Its like our pyramid is collapsing and our solution is grow the pyramid even larger. How does giving the American people access to more money solve the problem that they can't even pay back the money they've already borrowed? 

Biased media? or Biased people?

Do people lack so much common sense that we need to remind them that their news and media is inherently biased? Or are the majority of people well aware they are receiving facts filtered through some medium whether it's network news, cable, radio or the Internet? 

What is more naive: Not knowing your information is biased or thinking there are unbiased sources of information? 

I would contend they both are equally ignorant. 

Any news, no matter how fair and balanced it sounds is always filtered through an editor. Either the content of the piece or the entire piece itself  is filtered by someone. Someone chooses what is in and what is out, how its written and where it is placed. There is an inherent bias in this process. Could part of the process be to eliminate bias? Sure. But who could do that? and aren't they also biased? Wouldn't the people who chose this person be biased in there choosing? (i hope most people get this)

Well what about news that does not go through a filter (blogs, websites, op/ed pieces)? Those are purposely unfiltered and inherently biased by design. 

The problem of unbiased media seems to be a recent phenomenon. I say "problem" because the entire concept of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press was specifically to foster biased media... is that a problem?

Is the idea to remove bias or balance the bias? 

Removing the bias would be censorship. 

Balancing the bias as a requirement is also censorship. (Who says when it is balanced?)

Allow access to everything and accepting the fact that all media/news/facts are biased is the only way. (aka Net Neutrality)

So far I think this should be relatively obvious. It gets more complicated when we think about (or have problems with) people who don't take it upon themselves to go to many different biased sourced to form their opinion of the world around us. The question now is, do these people have valid opinions? 

Anyone who says 'no' would have to be either omnipotent or ignorant. You would either have to know everything or not know that you don't know everything. That is why they are called opinions. 

It is the fact that we all have different opinions that allow us to create all the different sources of news and media that we all should have equal access to. It's a continuous feedback loop. 

The conclusion to this is: All media is biased. There is no holy grail of pure information. Rather than trying to unbias the media we should be celebrating it. 

Most people are not very intelligent, I get that. The conclusions they may come to may be completely ridiculous, however, people are cognizant enough to chose how they are informed... biased or otherwise. 

Go RH!

Link

Now do we have to start bailing out stupid old people, too?

Home Prices in Decline

Home prices are down 16% nationally since a year ago... Up to 31% in places like Vegas. Zowie. How hard did ATL and Portland get hit? North Carolina's down, but only about 3-4%. The house we're building now we're paying about 10-15% less than what people were paying a year or two ago, so hopefully we won't be upside down as soon as we move in.

Link

Common sense from TMQ

From today's Tuesday Morning Quartback on ESPN

Oh No! Gasoline Prices Are Falling! Just last winter, gas at $4 a gallon was said to represent a super-ultra emergency, and ExxonMobil profits were said to be obscene. Now gas is $2 a gallon and this is bad, according to CNBC economics bobbleheads, who last week warned the lower pump price will depress oil-company profits. Just last winter, rising consumer prices were said to represent a super-ultra emergency -- now that consumer prices are falling, that's supposed to be bad too, owing to the possibility of deflation. But innovation and rising labor productivity are supposed to drive down prices. Lower prices are a core goal of capitalist economics!

These points should serve as reminders that the mainstream media always present all economic news as bad. Higher interest rates? Bad for borrowers. Lower interest rates? Might cause inflation. Normally, the media's penchant for spinning all economic news as bad doesn't matter -- but right now it does, as pessimism more than logic seems to be driving the weak economy. Speaking as someone who pulled the election lever for Barack Obama (and whose daughter worked for the Obama campaign round the clock for months), I agree with John McCain's statement, "The fundamentals of the economy are strong." They are. McCain was right! Innovation is high. Labor productivity is high. There are no shortages of any resource or commodity. Pessimism is driving the downturn, and that pessimism is advanced by relentless media negativism.

Even the Wall Street Journal is spinning events in the most pessimistic light. A page one story declared, "Investors in the U.S. stock market have lost more than $9 trillion since its peak a year ago." But there is a distinction between a decline and a loss. The paper value of U.S. equities has declined $9 trillion since the peak in October 2007, but many investors have suffered no loss because they haven't sold. Many people's houses have declined in value in the last two years, but most people haven't lost a dime because they haven't sold -- just as many people's houses rose in value from 2002 to 2006 but most people did not gain, again because they did not sell. Doing nothing can be the smart move in a bear market, and those investors, individual or institutional, who have cleverly done nothing have incurred no losses and are likely to come out ahead in the long run. Yet some insist on claiming $9 trillion has been "lost." Exaggerating the negative only worsens the economic-confidence picture.

Obama Wants Head

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20081123/cm_huffpost/145788?m

Mr. Obama, said that Lewinsky was "a fresh face" with "a lot to offer."

...said that Mr. Clinton was cautiously supportive of the prospect. "He's always had great admiration for Monica's abilities," Cooper said. "I think he's just concerned that she might get in over her head if she were given a job as a political move."

hahahaha!

Another $700b?!

Another $700b

Gulp.

The U.S. government is prepared to lend more than $7.4 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers, or half the value of everything produced in the nation last year

Really?! 

CitBank bailout approved

Bailing out Citi

Additional bailout for Citigroup

Really?

"Citigroup is so large and interconnected that its troubles could spill over into other institutions. Indeed, Citigroup is widely viewed, both in Washington and on Wall Street, as too big to be allowed to fail."

Didn't we hear that before? I'm starting to get really nervous every time I hear "too big to fail"... talk about scare tactics! If your company is in trouble fly to Washington in a Lear Jet and say "we are too big to fail and if you don't give us money NOW the earth will crash into the Sun."

"the plan could serve as a model for other banks, heralding another shift in the government's morphing financial rescue."

Morphing financial rescue... I'm having trouble with the morphing part. What is this the Mighty Morphin' Power Bailout? Shouldn't there be a commission or a vote or someone supervising the morphing?

Oscar Rogers SNL

Fix it!

Obama: 'Millions of jobs' in danger next year

Obama: 'Millions of jobs' in danger next year

" President-elect Barack Obama said on Saturday that he was crafting an aggressive, two-year stimulus plan to revive the troubled economy, warning that swift action was needed to prevent a deep slump and a spiral of falling prices."

Didn't we just do that with the $700b ??

Obama in October called for a $175 billion stimulus measure, but his comments in the radio address on Saturday signaled he was prepared to push for a much larger package, though he did not give a price-tag.

What? So is Barack just jealous that Bush beat him to two bailouts before he took office? 

"But what is not negotiable is the need for immediate action."

Huh? Wasn't that the line we got fed 2 months ago?

Chuck Norris 2012

One United America for Change

Hitler promised the Germans that he will provide jobs, a better life, changes to the economy, a stronger government, civil peace, and greater national pride if they voted for him in the 1933 elections.

Bill Richardson, Sec'y of Commerce, Gun Nut

Bill Richardson, democratic governor of New Mexico, is rumored to be Obama's pick for Secretary of Commerce. Bill Richardson has a concealed-carry permit and has been endorsed by the NRA in the past. He must have lied on his questionnaire. Those sneaky heat-packing libs... When will they learn?

link

Madam Secretary

Madam Secretary 

I can't say this really bothers me.

Hillary was actually very centerist in her foreign policy poistions since she's been in Congress.  A nice nod to the 18 million cracks in the ceiling as well. 

Big 3 Bailout - delayed... for now

 "Until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said

I don't know how much of this is Pelosi being smart and how much is the fact that she didn't have the votes due mainly to the fact that Republicans and the Bush Administration are not supporting any bailout. Either way, I'm gald we don't have to worry about this for a couple weeks. 

Funny quote:

"I don't believe we have the luxury of a lot of time," GM CEO Rick Wagoner told a House hearing.

But apparently they all had the luxury of flying their private jets to Washington to beg for money. 3 CEO, 3 jets, all coming from the same city and going to the same city to ask for a bailout. 

But hey at least fuel prices are low. 

Sweet Marxist Posters

Frenchmen and Al Qaeda Agree: Welcome to The End of American Dominance

Sarkozy has made clear that he is determined to keep the initiative on what the French regard as a long-overdue discussion of American-style capitalism and its excesses.

After the meeting concluded on Saturday, he was not shy about proclaiming that the era of American hegemony in world finance was over. "America is the No. 1 power in the world," he declared. "Is it the only power? No, it isn't. We are in a new world."

...

Sarkozy was the first to propose the summit meeting to Bush. American officials said that it was Bush's idea to expand the guest list to the G-20, which includes China, Brazil, India and other emerging countries, rather than limit it to the usual gathering of seven industrialized countries, plus, at times, Russia.

The two leaders also had differing interpretations of what happened at the meeting. Sarkozy portrayed it as a landmark gathering, saying, "Europe for the first time expressed its clear determination."

"Never ever," he added, had the Americans been willing to negotiate on the kinds of radical regulatory changes that were on the table in Washington.

By contrast, Bush noted that the leaders had reaffirmed the importance of free markets, free trade and the primacy of national regulation.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/19/business/global.php

We have seen in our own lifetimes how well massive debt and failed economics worked for the Soviet Union.

With every federal bailout and the increasing nationalization of our economy, we are reaffirming the beliefs of anti-American, anti-free market socialists.

As our leaders continue taking us down this road, the emerging countries will continue to purchase our debt and industries. Our political power will wither with our economic power.

I will leave you with a summary of my thesis: Hippies smell. French people smell. And all the chicks got hairy armpits.

All Politics Are Local

...so I got interested in this Big Three Bailout being championed by Democratic leadership and how it's a bad idea. Michael got me thinking - Is it just democrats in favor of this bad idea?

Turns out, there's what's called an "Auto Caucus" in the US Senate, with both Democrats and Republicans from states with a stake in the US Auto industry. And those republicans are waving the bailout flag themselves.

From today's Houston Chronicle:
With so much rancor on Capitol Hill, lawmakers from states with some of the biggest stakes in the auto industry were angling to come to the rescue.

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said they were drafting a compromise measure that would speed access to the $25  billion in loan guarantees.

I know Voinovich, a republican, is a member of the Auto Caucus, and I bet Bond is too.

So what we have here is politicians doing what politicians do best - representing their constituencies. It just so happens that democrats are in charge right now, and Michigan, the biggest of the auto states, has long been an instrumental swing state, hence the support of party leaders like Obama and Pelosi.

(Side thought: I bet, if this ever gets to a vote, that representatives of states with a big presence of foreign automakers (ie - Alabama, Tennessee, I believe), will come out strongly against the bailout.)

I'm still not saying it's a good idea. But putting this all on "O Ba Ma" is ignoring what's just politics as usual. If the Big Three were based in Texas, I bet the major players in this story would have markedly different stances.

Oh, and the bank bailout received such strong bipartisan support because, let's face it, every politician wants to play nice with the investment bankers.

EDIT:Furthermore, it wouldn't surprise me if, in their heart of hearts, the politicians standing behind this know they don't have the votes. They just need to be able to go back to their constituents (in the case of national leaders, that includes unions) and say that they stood for them. In the end, this may just be a case of sound + fury = nothing and everyone knows a change is gonna come.

This is a well laid out argument from a politician with a legitmate business background. I personally don't like Mitt Romney, but his position is laid out clearly. Give it a quick read, its short. 

"IF General Motors, Ford and Chryslerget the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed."

"The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check."

Pirates Attack! Ya-aar!

Pirates demand $10m ransom...
World leaders: We're powerless to act... 

Dawn of the Pirate!

It's nice to see pirates back in the news for something other than Dinsey movies and rum. 

When Our Leaders Are Being Chanted For

Wheee!! Political/musical stereotypes are fun!

Catastrophic Collapse!!

GM's Wagoner says automaker bailout needed to save U.S. economy from "catastrophic collapse"!!!!

GM's Wagoner also said "O ba ma, O ba ma, O ba ma" hoping that by chanting the saviors name 3 times in a row that Barack would magically appear and bail him out. 

Informed On The Important Issues

Such as Palin's wardrobe.

The Obama chant makes me want to slit my wrists.

Can I finish? Can I finish?

I stumbled upon this today from Perot Charts.

Everything explained in a couple pie charts with easy to read primary colors. It's like reading USA Today with your Grandfather.  

No really, let them fail

Let me clarify my call for “letting them fail”. By fail I mean, fail in their existing structure. The Big 3 should not fail permanently or totally. If the Government bailout money can force this restructuring then I’m all for it. However two things are going on that are worrying me:

1) Pelosi and Obama are both adamant about saving the Big 3 and they are both adamant about requiring restructuring. However; they seem to focusing on the wrong type of restructuring. 

Pelosi said the plan would call for "immediate, targeted assistance" and must include several principles, including the restructuring of the companies "to ensure their long-term economic viability," new fuel-efficiency standards, and the development of advanced vehicles. She said it would include "even stronger limits on executive compensation and assurances to protect the taxpayer." Pelosi did not mention any plans for the UAW to make any concessions as part of the legislation. Environmentalists and Pelosi have vehemently opposed using that money for anything other than designing and building vehicles that get higher gas mileage and produce less pollution. 

Is it just me or are we putting the cart in front of the horse? 

2)The Big 3 are pandering for bailout money in a sensational way:

$25 billion in bailout money or the end of America. Nice GM, nice. The sensationalism and inaccuracies in that video are so wrong I don’t know where to start. I’ll sum it up like this: The implication that since the American auto-industry is so big and touches so many workers that its collapse will ripple through EVERYTHING it touches is just plain wrong. 

It also assumes that any collapse will be a complete collapse… it won’t be. Will it be a consolidation, probably. Do we really need Chrysler? How about we let Chrysler collapse and be absorbed into GM. Why wouldn’t we want that? Everyone was fine when Mercedes bought Chrysler… do we have a problem with an American company buying an American company? So its ok for the Germans to buy Chrysler and the Belgians to buy Budweiser, but GM merging with Chrysler is imminent collapse?  

This is not like the financial sector! The global credit markets were systemically broken. The entire global industry was broken. (regardless, I still am against the $700b bailout) Saying we should bailout the auto industry is totally inaccurate. We are bailing out 3 companies. The rest of the industry is fine.

Isn’t funny how Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, Hyundai have no problem setting up factories in our own backyard, selling cars through American dealerships and employing American employees. Goddam insourcing !! 

Can't we all just get along?

Charter for religious harmony

Good timing on this article after the last religion post. 

"Charter for Compassion invites people from "all faiths, nationalities, languages and backgrounds" to help draft statements of principles and actions that should be taken."

The question is: Are atheists happy or angered or indifferent? 

Gun Owner = Sex Offender?

http://www.sunherald.com/prnewswire/story/954052.html

Gun Owners not Welcome on Obama's White House Team

Illinois State Rifle Association

SPRINGFIELD, Ill., Nov. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):

In yet another example of hostility towards lawful firearm owners, the Obama transition team is weeding out applicants for White House positions who own firearms themselves, or who come from firearm-owning families.

Evidence of the Obama team's distaste for firearm owners may be found as Question 59 of a 63 item questionnaire administered by Obama staffers to all potential applicants for positions in the Obama White House. The question asks for sensitive information about firearms owned by the applicant and his/her family.

"Question 59 provides clear insight into how Obama and his people perceive firearm owners," said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. The questionnaire poses a number of questions asking the applicant to reveal any unethical activities, or embarrassing Internet chats, then wraps up by asking if anyone in the applicant's family owns a firearm. Obviously, Obama feels that owning a firearm is akin to talking dirty in Internet chat rooms. But that should come as no surprise as, while an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted for SB1195 - a provision of which called for gun owners to be registered in the same manner as sex offenders."

"Once again, we have to ask ourselves just what candidate Obama was talking about when he said he has 'respect' for the 2nd Amendment," commented Pearson. "If this latest assault on gun owners is considered a gesture of respect, then either Obama or myself is very confused."

A copy of the questionnaire may be found at http://www.isra-pvf.com/obamaquestionnaire.pdf

The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners.

WEB SITE: http://www.isra.org

SOURCE Illinois State Rifle Association

Crappy Economy = Cheap Gas!

Really? I saw $1.94 this morning. Nothing like a global economic meltdown to alleviate our energy woes. Makes me wish I bought a truck 3 months ago. 

Drink it up!

Bail them out!

• The Big 3 are getting a bailout.
• Detroit itself wants a bailout.
  
• California wants a bailout.
  
• Philly, Phoenix, LA and NYC want bailouts. 
  

Can Rochester get like $10 million ?

Can Jim Kelly get some help buying the Bills so they don't move to Toronto? Talk about outsourcing! 

What about the non-digital imaging captial of the world? Can we get a handout? 

Is it really Xerox's fault they invented the PC, the mouse, the interweb and the xerox machine and still couldn't make a profit?  Bail it out B!

And finally, how could we let the Fast Ferry fail? Talk about being "too big to fail"... AIG, Morgan Stanely, GM, Fast Ferry... what? 

Let them fail.

We really need to smack someone in the face if our only rationale for bailing out Detroit is “Hey, we bailed out Wall Street.”

I won’t even try and justify the Wall Street bailout, I was against it then, I’m against it now and shame on McCain and Obama for rolling over and playing ball when the pressure was on.

Regardless, bailing out Ford? GM? Really? Have you driven a Ford lately? Really?! I know the big 3 make some great cars (specifically truck, sports cars and the Pontiac Vibe), but most of them suck and that’s not the worst part, those companies are buried in pensions, unions and unreasonably high salaries and benefits for factory workers. Where is it stated that a factory worker who works on the line for Detroit for 30 years should be able to raise a family of 5, put kids through college and retire comfortably on a cushy pension? That plan didn’t work, move on Detroit, its 2008, really?!

Letting the Big 3 fail would allow them to enter bankruptcy, reorganize, renegotiate debt with their suppliers while being protected under bankruptcy, force union concessions and allow them to re-emerge as a consolidated and more efficient company that can put America at the front of 21^st century car manufacturing.

How else are they going to compete with Japan ? (… but its not really Japan we need to worry about it. Its Korea. I’d drive a Hyundai over a Ford any day.)

The Fairness Doctrine is neither fair nor a doctrine… discuss.

Fairness Doctrine 

1949: The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced

"The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented"

Interesting George Takei involvement.

Obamaspambots

Obama to pioneer Web outreach of presidency

Sure, it stands to reason... The way we communicate is changing rapidly, so the way we engage in politics is changing just as rapidly. Obama just happens to be the one in front right now. (Other than all those people putting up spraypainted signs that said "GOOGLE RON PAUL" last year.)

Republicans say they'll be watching for White House Web outreach that appears overly political.

"Hopefully, Obama will be a president for all Americans, not just the political supporters on his e-mail list," said Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant.

I can already tell you how this is going to play out. Democrats skew young, and thus more technologically literate. "Hopefully, Obama will be a president for all Americans" in six months will turn into "Obama doesn't seem to think all Americans are equally important" when people discover, OMG, cranky old people don't use computers.



Cripes, they lose one lousy election, driving a nail into the coffin of the "permament majority" dream, and turn into a bunch of whining, petulant children. It's gauche enough when the democrats do it. Now the GOP just looks like sore losers.

Ron to the resuce

What is the future of the Republican Party?

"But that is the wrong question. The proper question should be: Where is our country heading? There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election. It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train."

The great Christmas debate

Why believe in a god?

I don't want to start the annual "put Christ back in Christmas" debate. Separation of Church and State blah blah blah. I get it. 

But does this campaign really start to go too far the other way? Is asking "Why believe in a god?" any different than saying "Believe in god!" 

Edwords said the purpose isn't to argue that God doesn't exist or change minds about a deity, although "we are trying to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people's minds." 

Ok, I don't really have a problem with that and I think that should apply across the board. And that is why I have zero problems with the word "Christmas", manger scenes, Jesus, wisemen, frankincense, and myrrh. 

Why can 'Christmas' be offensive, but anti-Christmas isn't? I thought the compromise was that we just leave religion out of the public forum. Shouldn't anti-religion also be kept out then? 

If we can ask "Why believe in a god?" I damn well hope we are all comfortable enough in our beliefs to hear the answer. 

The GOP loses its way

CNN: Conservatives didn't lose election, GOP did

"Republicans have campaigned on the conservative themes of lower taxes, less government and more freedom -- they just haven't governed that way."

I couldn't agree more... thank you Bush for paving the way for Obama. 

$4 gas. Then and now.

Headline: Inflated gas prices deter driving, cut down on commutes and save the planet.

I live in an area that has seen gas go from $1.50 up to $4.50 and then fall to $1.99. It should come as no shock, but during that time I used less gas, started carpooling (which we are still doing), convinced our office to start a telework program (which we have 1 day a week now) and traffic was much lighter (though it has since gone back to crappy as the price went to sub-$2)

It should come as no shock… but it was a shock.

I had always been vehemently against artificially raising the price of anything to effect behavior and when gas got to $3 I stuck by that. There had always been talk in congress about taxing the crap out of gas to get people to drive less and buy more fuel efficient cars. When gas hit $3 I remember thinking: “See! At $3 people drive just as much, traffic is just as bad and big engines are awesome! A dollar tax wouldn’t have done anything… stupid liberals!”

But then it hit $4…. Turns out $4 was the magic number and the price of gas wasn’t artificially inflated by taxes, but by oil speculators.

My wife and I found ourselves in traffic last week thinking: “You know, maybe $4 gas was a good thing.”

Which has me pondering, should we tax the crap out of gas to change driving habits?  

If Obama cuts taxes for 95% of ...

It doesn't really matter if Obama plans on cutting taxes on families making less than $250k, or $200k, or $150k. What does matter is just how disproportional our "progressive" income tax really is. I think we have all come to accept the idea of the progressive income tax and the idea that rich people will pay not only more taxes, but a higher percentage as well. Some facts:

• The top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes
  
• But reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income. 
  

So 5% of the population takes on 50% of the tax burden while only accouting for 30% of all income. Something doesn't quite seem progressive there. 

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33 % of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
  

So in the past 20 years the top 1% has been getting taxed faster while accounting for a larger and larger percentage of taxes yet their income wasn't increasing at the same rate. 

• Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
  

8 years ago, half of the tax payers pay 96% of the taxes.

• Final point - 38% of people filing income tax paid $0 in tax. 

I would like a rational explanation as to why we should increase the tax burden on anyone in the top 50%, let alone the top 5% or 1%. 

These number are courtesy of the US Treasury Dept. 

Obama The Gun Salesman

“Clinton was the best gun salesman the gun manufacturers ever had,” said Rick Gray, owner of the Accuracy Gun Shop in Las Vegas. “Obama’s going to be right up there with him.”

Sales at his shop doubled on Wednesday, Mr. Gray said, to more than 20 guns from three to 10 on a typical day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/07guns.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Let's Curb that Irresponsible Democratic Spending

Woo-hoo! Round and round we go!


Edit: Skip ahead to 2:16 if you don't want to watch the whole thing.

PS - I thought we could post inline YouTube clips?

Politics as Sport

I'm already seeing with this blog exactly what has turned me off about American politics for the last decade. It saddens me to no end to see political discourse reduced to rooting for one team against the other. Railing constantly against why "The Other Guy" sucks... Us vs. Them, Black vs. White. It's not that I don't enjoy spirited debate; Anyone who knows me knows that's not true. I guess it's just that what passes for political "discourse" today is ultimately so tiring and unproductive.

I like to think that we're above all this, not only as friends on this page, but as a country. But when I see someone with advanced degrees from respected, accredited institutions explaining how he's not going to refer to people as "niggers" despite his better judgment, I really wonder where we're headed.

When people actually think that Barack Obama is a covert muslim hellbent on converting us all, or that John McCain truly believes "wealthy" is defined as an income of $5 million or more... I just don't know how answer to beliefs like that. Trying to respond to such things is like drinking from a firehose of stupid.

Chuck D once referred to the "dumbassification" of America, on all sides, and I can't help but wonder if he's right. Society, by it's very nature, is supposed to progress... But have we reached the end of evolution?