Keith_Indy on Jan 06 2009 | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Economics, Keith's Page
The current bailout mania, and the long going practice of spending our way into debt, ought to be considered the highest form of “taxation without representation” as the government is taxing the future revenue of people who, at the moment, can not vote, may not even be born, or who currently are not US citizens.
The injustice of it all!!!
Sphere: Related ContentLee on Nov 07 2008 | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Election 2008, Investing
Ben Armbruster at ThinkProgress is upset Fred Barnes and Dick Morris are blaming Obama for the post-election declines in the stock market. Armbruster’s case is a little defensive and misjudged (he cites the New York Times’ opinion, as if that would mollify critics), but then the transition from implacable critic of a government to determined apologist for a proto-government has been swift for all at TP.
However, in a general way he does have a point to object on I think. People are out to make cash gains where and when they can in this market, and opportunities have been rather few lately. To the extent that there was a specific macro cause, it seems to me the abrupt election day rally was the more likely culprit for the subsequent sell-off. That is what we’ve seen in other isolated spikes on events this year. The Saturnian habit for feeding yourself by eating your children, rather than letting them grow up to sow the fields, if you will.
Although it should be said that Dick Morris’ point that provoked Armbruster’s ire is not entirely unreasonable either. There’s certainly some incentive for selling on a small gain now, if you expect capital gains taxes to be substantially higher later. Comprehensively rejecting that as a buried motive is not reasonable.
Sphere: Related ContentSynova on Oct 30 2008 | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Economics, Hugo Chavez, Libertarianism, Synova's Page
The idea of “Going John Galt” makes me a little bit uncomfortable, to tell the truth. John Galt essentially said screw them all, and shut down knowing that a whole lot of people would be hurt. It was about the only way he could make his point and make it stick.
Maybe we could do this without shutting down the economy?
But, as I think about it, a protest citing John Galt and out and out telling people what is going on might be a good idea, because people are going to go John Galt… quietly.
And I have no faith at all that anyone who now thinks that it’s a good thing to make the rich pay are going to understand what happened any more than Chavez or Mugabe understand what happened (or is happening) to their economies.
Sphere: Related ContentChrisB on Oct 24 2008 | Filed under: Chris' Page, Domestic Politics, Election 2008, taxes
Alan Reynolds at Cato asks “How’s Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?”
Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 — roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013.
How is he going to pay for it?
Read the whole thing for an overview of what Obama is promising in inscreased spending and loss of tax revenues and how his rational for paying for it falls far short of the goal. How will we pay for all this? It’s something I’ve wondered for a long long time and have only found hand waving about corporate loopholes and better efficiencies savings that seem absurd on their face.
That leaves 3 options as I see it. We will do one or some combination of
Increasing the national debt may not be as politially feasible in the near future as it has been in the past (at least I hope), so it’s clear that can’t account for all of it. I’m not sure how much more the democrats will be able to tax the rich and corporations. I mean, they might try, but I don’t think it will give them the returns they would hope for. So that leaves raising taxes on the rest of us and cutting spending. Any whats the only part of the budge the democrats have been known to favor spending cuts for? The military.
Sphere: Related ContentLee on Aug 02 2008 | Filed under: Around the Web
No sales tax, no income tax, no capital gains tax, no inheritance tax….If I could only figure out a way to have income in Grand Cayman, I’d move without a minute’s notice. As it stands, it’s easy to avoid taxes even here if you don’t have a job.
Sphere: Related ContentLance on Jul 26 2008 | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Interviews, Lance's Page, Law, Libertarianism
While my opposition to modern liberal left politics is pretty clear, I generally feel that name calling is rarely needed, or warranted. I certainly do not believe that any particular ideology is more or less likely to have virtuous people, whether we are speaking of kindness, generosity, bravery or integrity.
I also don’t believe that any party or ideology is represented by more intelligent or educated leaders and intellectuals. That being said, I have for quite some time made an exception when it comes to a few people. On the libertarian side, the puppet who speaks, when it comes to mendaciousness and general ideological nuttiness. On the left side of the aisle Harry Reid. He is either one of stupider men to ever hold office, or mendacious in a way that is so totally incompetent that it is almost inconceivable. He makes Bush, Kerry, Quayle and Gore look like absolute geniuses, or maybe straight talkers. I have no idea what is behind much of what he is saying here, stupidity (though it gets my vote above) or some weird attempt at Soviet style New Speak, but this video has to be seen to be believed. Hat tip: McQ via The Lonely Conservative.
Sphere: Related ContentLee on Feb 11 2008 | Filed under: Economics, Lee's Page
photo: Simón Pais-Thomas
Mick at Uncorrelated has another lovely post on the essentially vile character and politics of Mike Huckabee. Toward the end of his remarks he briefly hits Huckabee’s proposed Fair Tax:
…and politically DOA policy planks like the fair tax.
(Uncorrelated)
Politically DOA we must hope, because Huckabee’s tax plan would do more than “eliminate the IRS.” It would probably eliminate the US economy along with it.
Sphere: Related ContentMichaelW on Jan 29 2008 | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Election 2008, Health Care, MichaelW's Page
As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney oversaw the implementation of state-wide universal health care, something that he touts as a major accomplishment on his campaign website. In fact, after signing the legislation into law, Romney penned a an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal extolling the virtues of the health care plan, even going so far as to hold it out as a model for other states to follow:
And so, all Massachusetts citizens will have health insurance. It’s a goal Democrats and Republicans share, and it has been achieved by a bipartisan effort, through market reforms.
[...]
Will it work? I’m optimistic, but time will tell. A great deal will depend on the people who implement the program. Legislative adjustments will surely be needed along the way. One great thing about federalism is that states can innovate, demonstrate and incorporate ideas from one another. Other states will learn from our experience and improve on what we’ve done. That’s the way we’ll make health care work for everyone.
Of course, many think Romney’s “accomplishment” is nothing to write home about, especially during a Republican primary race: (more…)
Sphere: Related Content
Risk and Return
Multinational Force-Iraq
QandO
Marginal Revolution
Robby's Last FM Journal
The Volokh Conspiracy
Get rewarded at leading casinos.
