Archive for Economics

Holy Crap, March Is Here Already

Posted in Economics, Government, Morality, Politics, Rant with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 3, 2013 by Xajow

Yeah, been a while.  It’s okay. I’m here now.

Kinda like the 2012 Mayan calendar “end of the world” thing, the date for the start of the much lamented sequestration has come, and the country has some how managed not to fall immediately into ruin. If President Obama believed the warnings he was using during his recent fear-mongering campaign, he must be shocked to see that there have not been immediate massive firings of teachers, police officers and fire fighters. Although why the federal government sequestration would have resulted in such, no one actually knows. Continue reading

Tax Cuts Are Not Expenditures

Posted in Economics, Government, In the News, Politics, Taxes with tags , , , , , , on August 12, 2012 by Xajow

From what I have heard in the news lately, I guess I need to go over this one again. Tax cuts are not expenditures. Tax cuts are not expenditures. Tax cuts are not expenditures. Continue reading


Posted in Economics, In the News, Politics, Trade with tags , , , , , , on July 18, 2012 by Xajow

A lot of fuss is being made lately about outsourcing. In the words of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, quit yer bitchin’! Outsourcing is beneficial. As A. Barton Hinkle explains over at Continue reading

Senator Chuck Schumer Is Appalled

Posted in Economics, Government, In the News, Patriotism, Philosophy, Politics, Taxes with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 26, 2012 by Xajow

Via, I came across an article in the politics section of the Huffington Post about Senator Chuck Schumer being “appalled” that his proposed plan to punish people for renouncing their citizenship would ever be compared to, frankly, similar legislation that was passed in Germany in 1931. According to the video at the top of the Huffington Post article, Senator Schumer believes that and similar comparisons are “absurd” and “odious”. Why? Senator Schumer explains in the video:

The law Mr. Norquist refers, references in Nazi Germany was purely discriminatory. It targeted a particular race of people, the Jewish people, and punished them for nothing other than being Jewish and exercised freedom of movement. It was meant to constrain that freedom by forcing Jews to reside inside Germany. Our proposal targets no single race, creed or class. It doesn’t punish you for factors beyond your control, like who your parents were. It applies based on actions you take, namely disowning the United Stated to avoid taxes. Our law is not triggered by a wish to travel beyond America’s borders, or even reside permanently in a foreign country. It’s the act of renouncing one’s U.S. citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxes that triggers our bill.

Don’t be so sure. According to the Wikipedia page about the German law:

The Reichsfluchtsteuer (“Reich Flight Tax”) was a capital control law implemented in order to stem capital flight from the Weimar Republic. The law was created through decree on 8 December 1931 as part of the “Fourth Decree of the Reich President on the Protection of the Economy and Finance and on the Defense of Civil Peace” (“Vierten [Not-]Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zur Sicherung von Wirtschaft und Finanzen und zum Schutze des inneren Friedens”), as published in the Reichsgesetzblatt 1931 I, pp. 699-745. The Reichsfluchtsteuer was assessed upon departure from the individual’s German domicile, provided that the individual had assets exceeding 200,000 RM or had a yearly income over 20,000 RM. The tax rate was set at 25 percent.

During the Third Reich, the use of the Reichsfluchtsteuer shifted away from dissuading wealthy citizens from moving overseas. Rather, the departure of Jewish citizens was desired and permitted by the Nazi government — even after the Invasion of Poland — until a decree from Heinrich Himmler forbade Jewish emigration on 23 October 1941. The Reichsfluchtsteuer was used as a “partial expropriation” of the assets of Jewish refugees who were persecuted and driven to flee their homeland.

In other words, the German law was initially passed before the Nazis came to power and, at least initially, targeted people of wealth rather than race.

Senator Schumer also goes on to say

I know a thing or two about what the Nazis did. Some of my relatives were killed by them. And saying that a person who made their fortune specifically because of the positive elements in American society, in turn, has a responsibility to do right by America is not even on the same planet as comparing to what Nazis did to Jews.

Basically Senator Schumer is trying to claim his proposed legislation is nothing like the Reichsfluchtsteuer because he is not doing what the Nazis did to he Jews. Yes, no one is claiming Senator Schumer or Senator Bob Casey (the cosponsor of the bill) are out to kill people who are renouncing their U.S. citizenship. That does not mean, however, that the proposed legislation bears no resemblance to the Reichsfluchtsteuer. And the fact that Senators Schumer and Casey are being more egalitarian in who they seek to punish does not mean this law is patriotic or a good idea.

But the good senator was not finished. In the video he also says:

Mr. Saverin is, in essence, an economic tax dodger. And once upon a time, the right-wing castigated draft dodgers for failing to heed their nation’s call. Those who fled the country were vilified as cowards, as self-absorbed traitors. Yet in this case, the same exact kind of unpatriotic, un-American behavior is actually being defended by the right-wing. It’s off the deep end.

Wow. Several objections immediately come to mind. The left once lauded draft dodgers. They also have tended to disprove of criticism of draft dodgers. And no, a person renouncing U.S. citizenship to avoid taxes (if that was Mr. Saverin’s intent) is not exactly like avoiding conscription by leaving the country. Obviously just leaving the country is not the same as renouncing U.S. citizenship. What is telling in this is that the senator wants to equate conscription, something we stopped doing in the U.S., with his notion that people who are economically successful in the U.S. automatically owe the U.S. government anything the U.S. government says they do. Which is does not put a favorable light on the proposed legislation.

But wait, there’s more.

According to the article:

Schumer added that he found it troubling that conservatives would lionize someone like Saverin, who was called an American hero on Forbes’ website.

“Can you believe it? An American hero? Renouncing your citizenship now qualifies as heroic for the hard right wing?” Schumer said.


“This has gone so far, this idolatry they have taken to such an extreme end, [that] they make Eduardo Saverin into their patron saint,” Schumer said. “In the name of low taxes for the wealthy, they have lionized an inherently unpatriotic person.”

“It is scary. It is a scary, absurd place where even a tax dodger who renounces America for his own 30 pieces of silver is celebrated as a patriot and an American hero. It is perverse,” said the senator. “I am appalled by making heroic a man who renounces citizenship to escape a tax rate of capital gains of 15 percent.”

Whoa there, senator. You are the one clearly going off the deep end. Thirty pieces of silver? What is scary is a U.S. senator trying to equate Mr. Saverin’s renunciation of U.S. citizenship with the betrayal of Jesus. People should be appalled by the senator’s serious lack of perspective. His comments are absurd and border on the asinine.

Mr. Saverin dropping his U.S. citizenship (for which he turned in the paper work in January of 2011 let us not forget) is not a betrayal. The man will still be paying taxes to the U.S. government. That Senators Schumer and Casey are having a hissy fit over the fact that Mr. Saverin managed to escape merely the capital gains tax is ridiculous. And if Mr. Saverin renounced his U.S. citizenship to avoid taxes, I wish he would take this opportunity to throw this back in the faces of the senators and claim his expatriation as a protest against unfair taxation. Which would be a protest with a great American tradition. (Boston Tea Party ring any bells?)

Tax “Avoidance” by Apple Computers and President Obama

Posted in Economics, Fairness, Government, In the News, Philosophy, Politics, Taxes with tags , , , , , , , on April 30, 2012 by Xajow

A few days ago, The New York Times ran a lengthy article about, according to the headline, “How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes”. There is some predictable whining in there about how Apple Computer is avoiding paying taxes. Where was the whining about President Obama avoiding paying taxes?

Although the Times article itself is interesting, there are some spots of sad cluelessness in it. For example:

A mile and a half from Apple’s Cupertino headquarters is De Anza College, a community college that Steve Wozniak, one of Apple’s founders, attended from 1969 to 1974. Because of California’s state budget crisis, De Anza has cut more than a thousand courses and 8 percent of its faculty since 2008.

Now, De Anza faces a budget gap so large that it is confronting a “death spiral,” the school’s president, Brian Murphy, wrote to the faculty in January. Apple, of course, is not responsible for the state’s financial shortfall, which has numerous causes. But the company’s tax policies are seen by officials like Mr. Murphy as symptomatic of why the crisis exists.

“I just don’t understand it,” he said in an interview. “I’ll bet every person at Apple has a connection to De Anza. Their kids swim in our pool. Their cousins take classes here. They drive past it every day, for Pete’s sake.

“But then they do everything they can to pay as few taxes as possible.”

Yeah. Of course Apple tries to pay as few taxes as possible. Anybody with a modicum of income and sense does. (And, oddly but not surprisingly, that includes President Obama.) The California budget crisis has pretty much nothing to do with what Apple pays in taxes and everything to do with massive California government spending. But once again we see this odd attitude that if people and/or businesses cared about their city/state/country, they would pay more taxes. The question I want answered, and which the article does not address, is: does De Anza College president Brian Murphy claim deductions on his personal income taxes? In other words, does he do everything he can to pay as few taxes as possible? If so, he is a hypocrite to then complain about Apple.

Some days back, President Barack Obama’s tax records were released, and apparently he paid about 20.5% of his income in taxes, which was, we were assured, slightly higher than the rate paid by his secretary. Somehow this proves we need to raise taxes on the wealthy. I suggest that this proves first that the taxes the secretary pays is probably too high, and second that Obama is choosing to claim deductions on his taxes. The reason his tax rate was so low, we were told, is because he donated lots of money to charity. But those deductions are voluntary. No one forced him to claim those deductions on his tax return. So if, as we were told, Obama believes he should pay more in taxes, then why did he not do so? Even if he had someone else prepare his tax return, he could very easily tell that person to claim no deductions. Apparently he did not do this.

So what about Obama contributing money to the U.S. Treasury? As I pointed out the other day, President Obama is not going to do that because, according to David Axelrod anyway, that is not the way things are done. Yet Obama says the wealthy, including himself, ought to pay more taxes to the government. Why they must be forced to do so rather than choosing voluntarily to do so, no one has yet explained.

Back to the Times article and Mr. Murphy’s whining:

“When it comes time for all these companies — Google and Apple and Facebook and the rest — to pay their fair share, there’s a knee-jerk resistance,” Mr. Murphy said. “They’re philosophically antitax, and it’s decimating the state.”

Again we come to the “fair share” argument. Fair is entirely subjective. Apple does actually pay billions in taxes and contributes millions of dollars to various organizations and charities. Were I a betting man, I would bet Google and Facebook and Intel and Cisco do the same. The idea that somehow the financial crisis is all their fault because they’re just not paying enough in taxes is silly. That is sort of like a person who makes a $50,000 per year salary spending $70,000 and then blaming his massive debt on his employer for not paying him more.

In any case, again and again and again I have to come back to the idea that if you want government have more of your money, then you should give the government more of your money. Take responsibility for yourself. If Obama and Warren Buffet want the government to have more of their money, why are they not writing checks to the U.S. Treasury? I’m not sure what Buffet’s problem is, but I can guess at Obama’s motivation. He is, after all, a politician.

In Obama’s case, the obvious answer is that what he wants is for government to have more control. He probably also wants to be able to claim he cares about middle-class voters by sticking to the wealthy. He does seem to like his class warfare rhetoric. But mostly, in my opinion, he believes the government needs more control. His intentions may well be entirely good. But good intentions are not enough. Good intentions do not mitigate bad and unintended consequences. The problem, in general terms, is that Obama and people like him believe the solution to everything is more government control. And all the evidence that more government control does not help in the long run (and often not in the short run either) is simply ignored.

If you think this is somehow not about controlling other people, then I will point again to Obama not choosing to take zero deductions on his taxes and his choosing not to give more money to the U.S. Treasury. If he genuinely believed the government needed to have more of his money, he would have given it to the government. People act on what they believe. When they say one thing and do another, they indicate a lack of belief in what they say. There is a word for this. I’ll give you a hint. It starts with an h and ends with ypocrisy.

Lies My President Told Me (part one)

Posted in Argumentation, Deregulation, Economics, Fairness, Government, Morality, Philosophy, Politics, Taxes with tags , , , , , , , on April 15, 2012 by Xajow

In my previous post I mentioned the bit about the President claiming we pay money for tax cuts. That came from his April 14, 2012, weekly address. The video is available at Your Weekly Address, and the transcript is also available at “the press office”. So since this is my blog, let’s go over some of the other things I think are wrong with what the President had to say.

First up, the first sentence of the address.

One of the fundamental challenges of our time is building an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules.

So many things wrong just in that one sentence. The federal government cannot build such an economy. Only individuals working cooperatively and voluntarily something like that. There is nothing voluntary about government taxation. “[E]veryone does their fair share” according to whom? By people like Obama who know what is best for you is what he means. “[E]veryone plays by the same rules.” Except that Obama is not actually promoting that everyone play by the same rules. He is promoting one set of rules for these people, the poor, another set of rules for those people, the middle class, yet another set of rules for this other group, “the wealthy”, and still yet another set of rules for yet another group,“the wealthiest Americans”. And that is just with rules about income taxes. In no way, shape or fashion has he proposed anything resembling everyone playing by the same rules.


  1. being identical in amount, type and/or kind
  2. being identical to or being the thing mentioned
  3. unchanged in condition, nature or character
  4. very similar or identical manner

What about progressive tax rates and the “Buffet Rule” and things of that nature is everyone playing by the same rules? Answer: nothing.

And as many Americans rush to file their taxes this weekend, it’s worth pointing out that we’ve got a tax system that doesn’t always uphold the principle of everyone doing their part.

According to whom? Who is deciding what qualifies as someone doing his or her “part”? The top 50% of tax payers pay something like 98% of all money the IRS takes in. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay something in the neighborhood of 2% of all the IRS takes in. Who is not doing their part?

Now, this is not just about fairness.  This is also about growth.  It’s about being able to make the investments we need to strengthen our economy and create jobs.  And it’s about whether we as a country are willing to pay for those investments.

No. This push the President is making is not about fairness at all. And it is not about “whether we as a country are willing to pay for those investments.” It is about deciding to forcibly take more money from some people because it will make Obama and people like him feel better. That is what they mean when they talk about fairness. They have decided on a subjective and probably arbitrary idea of what seems fair to them, and they want to force other people to conform to that idea. That is not fair, nor is it compassionate or moral or most of the other gussifications (words to gussy up) they want to hang on such ideas.

In a perfect world, of course, none of us would have to pay any taxes. We’d have no deficits to pay down.  And we’d have all the resources we needed to invest in things like schools and roads and a strong military and new sources of energy – investments that have always bolstered our economy and strengthened the middle class.

But we live in the real world, with real choices and real consequences. Right now, we’ve got significant deficits to close.  We’ve got serious investments to make to keep our economy growing.  And we can’t afford to keep spending more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans who don’t need them and didn’t even ask for them.

What he means is, he believes the people in the federal government (who agree with him) are the ones who have to plan and shape the economy and society to keep them from breaking down, and some how getting at best about $100 billion (and then probably only in the short term) from wealthy people is somehow going to magically make a $15 trillion (with a ‘t’) debt crisis go away. Understand that 15 trillion is 15 thousand billion. One billion is this: 1,000,000,000. One trillion is one thousand of those. $100 billion is not going to make a $15 trillion debt managable. Let me put this in smaller terms. Zack gets himself in debt to Judy for $15,000. Zack then says, “I know. I will get $100 dollars from Steven, and that will take care of the debt.” Obviously, that is not enough. But that is pretty much what Obama is selling. Snake oil if ever I saw it.

Warren Buffett is one of the wealthiest men in the world.  But he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.  That’s just the way the system is set up.  In fact, one in four millionaires pays a lower tax rate than millions of hardworking middle-class households.

As Warren points out, that’s not fair and it doesn’t make sense.  It’s wrong that middle-class Americans pay a higher share of their income in taxes than some millionaires and billionaires.

I will agree with that. The tax rate for most people should be dropped considerably. But then there is also the something like 45% of the U.S. adult population which does not pay any taxes at all. For many of them, their tax rate should go up. I mean, we are talking about people doing their part, paying their fair share, right?

It’s simple:  If you make more than $1 million every year, you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do.  On the other hand, if you make less than $250,000 a year — like 98 percent of American families do — your taxes shouldn’t go up.

I have a better proposal. Close the loop holes and tax almost everyone with an income at a rate of no more than 10%. I think 8 or 9% would probably be enough. And, of course, every tax payer pays the same rate. You know, everyone playing by the same rules.

That’s all there is to it.  It’s pretty sensible.  Most Americans support this idea. One survey found that two-thirds of millionaires do, too.  So do nearly half of all Republicans.

This is what government should protect us from, not what it should be doing. Popularity does not make right.

I know they’ll say that this is all about wanting to raise people’s taxes.  They probably won’t tell you that if you belong to a middle-class family, then I’ve cut your taxes each year that I’ve been in office, and I’ve cut taxes for small business owners 17 times.

I wonder how much we “paid” for those tax cuts? Anyway, how is the “Buffet Rule” not about raising taxes?

But the thing is, for most Americans like me, tax rates are near their lowest point in 50 years. In 2001 and 2003, the wealthiest Americans received two huge new tax cuts.  We were told these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. Instead, we got the slowest job growth in half a century, and the typical American family actually saw its income fall.

If I may use one of Obama’s favorite excuses, “It would have been worse if we hadn’t.” Maybe not, but I could not resist. Anyway, as I recall, in 2001 and 2003, almost everyone got a tax cut. My father did, and he is certainly not one of the wealthiest Americans. He is not a millionaire, and only makes a five digit salary. And slowest job growth in 50 years, eh? You mean like how the unemployment rate went up past 9% after the stimulus (spending) bill that was supposed to prevent that was passed? Oh wait, that happened on Obama’s watch. Which is to say, Obama’s record on job growth is not the high ground he would have you believe.

So what about job growth? Yep, it sucked under Bush and Obama. We also got massive increases in government spending and, despite what some will claim, a lot more regulation. This has a significant effect on job growth. Making operating a business more expensive is not going to help job creation growth.

On the flip side, when the most well-off Americans were asked to pay a little more in the 1990s, we were warned that it would kill jobs. Instead, tens of millions of jobs followed.

We were told the stimulus bill would keep unemployment below 9% too. Anyway, this is a severe over simplification. The 1990s also saw NAFTA passed, which was a tiny step in the right direction. Less protectionism helps job growth. Bush and Obama have done the opposite. The 1990s also saw an increase in a lot of businesses moving jobs overseas. Lots of things happened in the 1990s that had positive and negative effects on job growth. We also had economic bubbles, like the tech bubble that popped, which first lead to job growth and then to job losses when the bubbles popped. What I’m saying is, Obama is not giving you the whole story.

You know how “scientific” studies by tobacco companies that “proved” smoking cigarettes was not harmful are highly questionable? The President’s comments here are questionable for the same reason. He is only telling you the part that helps his case and ignoring anything else. And for about the same reason: self-serving bias.

So we’ve tried this trickle-down experiment before. It doesn’t work.

We’ve tried flying before. The flying machines all crashed. Flying doesn’t work. What I mean is this thing where government tries to control the trickle-down effect does not work because that is not how trickle-down actually works. Leave people alone, and it works just fine. If it did not work, no one would being buying boats and fancy cars and designer clothes. But people do buy those things. And the people who make those things buy other things. And so on. Yes, it does work. It is not speedy, neither is it a cure all, nor a get rich quick plan. But that does not mean it does not work. 

And middle class families have seen too much of their security erode over the past few decades for us to tell them they’re going to have to do more because the wealthiest Americans are going to do less.

Security eroded thanks in large part to a meddling government, who thinks propping up economic bubbles in definitely is somehow how capitalism is supposed to work; and who thinks massively spending the country in trillions of dollars of debt that the government promises it will eliminate in 30 years is some how a good plan for the economy of the nation; and who thinks that the government coercing banks into “affordable housing loans” (i.e. subprime lending) not working out is somehow all the fault of Goldman-Sachs; and who thinks the people who provide 98% of the federal government’s tax revenue are somehow doing less than those who pay 2% of the federal government’s tax revenue. Okay, I am starting to get a bit sarcastic, but hopefully you get my point. Obama’s comment is a bit like an alcoholic accountant with a gambling addiction saying, “I know I wasted most of the money you gave me before now, but this time, this time I’m really going to make things right.”

Also, Obama is basically arguing that letting you keep your money is not as good for you as the government taking it from you and spending it as the government sees fit. It’s more of that “government knows best” hubris.

We can’t stop investing in the things that will help grow our economy and create jobs – things like education, research, new sources of energy – just so folks like me can get another tax cut.

From my admittedly very libertarian position, those are not things in which the federal government should be investing. But beyond that, the very arrogance of Obama’s comment almost makes be nauseous. He says this as if only the federal government can invest in these things, which is, of course, not at all true. To be sure, America in general should not stop investing in these things. We should just stop trusting the federal government to do it for us.

So I hope you’ll ask your Member of Congress to step up and echo that call this week by voting for the Buffett Rule. Remind them that in America, prosperity has never just trickled down from a wealthy few.  Prosperity has always been built by a strong, thriving middle class.  That’s a principle worth reaffirming right now.

He is almost right. Prosperity has never just trickled down from a wealthy few. Much has been made by people working from the bottom up. Something that requires freedom, not hobbling. But the thing is, prosperity is made by many things working together in an unplanned order, arising organically and voluntarily as desires and necessities and whims direct. Of course it is never made just by the trickle-down effect. It is never made by any one thing alone. Which is why the government can never effectively control it.

This is a lesson made painfully and demonstrably obvious by history. Which is what makes the lies from the President so particularly execrable. He should know better. And I cannot help but wonder if he does. Or is he like the Richard Attenborough character in the movie “Jurrasic Park”? Believing that he can control life even to the point of thinking after each disaster the next time he can finally get control. Either way, he is entirely wrong.

John Hammond: You’re right, you’re absolutely right. Hiring Nedry was a mistake, that’s obvious. We’re over-dependent on automation, I can see that now. Now, the next time everything’s correctable. Creation is an act of sheer will. Next time it’ll be flawless.

Ellie Sattler: It’s still the flea circus. It’s all an illusion.

John Hammond: When we have control again—

Ellie Sattler: You never had control! That’s the illusion!

There is value in liberty. There is value in being free from the coercive control of others. There is value in recognizing the illusion of control does nothing to make us safer. There is value in voluntary cooperation with others. There is value in a free society. Those, Mr. President, are values worth recognizing and reaffirming right now.

Michael Moore Shows His Ignorance, Again

Posted in Argumentation, Economics, Morality, Philosophy, Politics with tags , , on November 2, 2011 by Xajow

Among the more ridiculous and hubristic celebrities in the U.S. is Michael Moore. His “documentaries” are chock-a-block with factual errors and propaganda. And he apparently believes he has some sort of mainstream following. Anyway, recently he put up at his blog a post about what he did with the three million dollars he made from selling the distribution rights to his film “Roger & Me”. The first item on his list was to pay all of his taxes. How generous. And yes, I am being sarcastic. But here is what Moore claims:

I told the guy who did my 1040 not to declare any deductions other than the mortgage and to pay the full federal, state and city tax rate. I proudly contributed nearly 1 million dollars for the privilege of being a citizen of this great country.

It’s funny to me that he sees no problem giving a third of his income to the government. Makes me wonder if he still does. It would surprise me if he did. Still, it’s his money.

But then he says he contributed his money. Taxes are not contributed. Taxes are paid. The difference is not insignificant. A contribution implies the action is voluntary. Taxation may be many things, but it is not voluntary. Else it would not be called taxation but rather donation. That Moore does not know the difference is not surprising.

Citizenship is not a privilege for which one pays dues to the government. The USA is not a club or a fraternal organization. It is a nation. Once again, Moore seems to have trouble telling the difference.

But wait, it gets better. Among a lot of other silly self-back-patting comments he makes, Moore says this:

I do very well — and for a documentary filmmaker, I do extremely well. That, too, drives conservatives bonkers. “You’re rich because of capitalism!” they scream at me. Um, no. Didn’t you take Econ 101? Capitalism is a system, a pyramid scheme of sorts, that exploits the vast majority so that the few at the top can enrich themselves more. I make my money the old school, honest way by making things. [emphasis in the original]

Um, no, capitalism is not a pyramid scheme, which Michael Moore would have learned had he taken Econ 101. Capitalism is exactly how Moore made his money. He made three million dollars, by his own account, because he took something he privately owned, the film “Roger & Me”, and sold distribution rights to the privately owned (i.e. not government owned) corporation Warner Brothers. That is called capitalism. Individuals in the private sector making things and selling them in the private sector is capitalism. So yes, Michael Moore is wealthy precisely because of capitalism. That he does not understand this illustrates the extreme depth of his ignorance of things economic.

Why people continue to listen to a man who is so clearly full of himself and so obviously ignorant regarding the things about which he claims to speak with authority is something I do not understand. Even if one agrees with his political ideas, at some point one has to question what he says. How could you not? If one does not question people like Michael Moore, that is just as bad as never questioning the church or politicians or CEOs or anyone else claiming authority. The thing is, as soon as you start questioning the things Moore says, his arguments crumble to the ground.

But it doesn’t end there.

It is precisely this disconnect that prevents Republicans from understanding why anyone would give of their time or money to help out those less fortunate. It is simply something their brain cannot process.

Apparently Michael Moore thinks Republicans do not understand the concept of charity. Again, he shows his ignorance. His comment rests on the completely ignorant idea that Republicans are not charitable. Republicans have been shown to be, in general, just as if not more inclined to charitable giving than Democrats. But Moore does not just think Republicans are incapable of understanding charity, he believes that he, and those who agree with him, are morally superior to those who do not agree with him.

“Kanye West makes millions! What’s he doing at Occupy Wall Street?!” Exactly — he’s down there demanding that his taxes be raised. That, to a right-winger, is the definition of insanity. To everyone else, we are grateful that people like him stand up, even if and especially because it is against his own personal financial interest. It is specifically what that Bible those conservatives wave around demands of those who are well off.

And here he shows his ignorance of what the Bible teaches. The Bible does not demand that the wealthy pay more in taxes to the government. And more specifically, it does not demand that the wealthy attempt to use government to forcibly take money from other people. What the Bible says is that if you have a lot of money and/or possessions, then you have responsibility to give your money to help the poor and the widows and the orphans. Your money. Not other people’s money. Your money.

(Jesus’ teaching on taxes is probably not what Moore thinks it is. But I’ll say more about Jesus’ comments on taxes in another post.)

And no, Kanye West demanding his taxes be raised is not insane, it’s just stupid. No one is stopping him from giving the government more of his money. He can write the government as large a check as he wants. There is even a special account called “Gifts to the United States” to which West and Moore and George Soros and anyone else can send their money. Just send the money to

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

And yes, that is an actual address. You can find it at For those not paying attention, that is a link to a U.S. Treasury web page. So, yes, it’s real.

The thing is, with a few minutes of thinking, reasoning and searching, ignorance of these things is easily discarded. So the question then is, why does Moore (and a whole lot of other people) not bother?

About the Bloomberg Hosted Republican Debate

Posted in Economics, Politics, Running for President with tags , on October 12, 2011 by Xajow

You may not have seen the latest Republican debate on Bloomberg TV. You’re probably better off not seeing it. It was a little bit depressing in spots. Like when Mitt Romney and Herman Cain tried to argue that we both did and did not need the massive bailouts from the government. The bail out was needed, they say, but they didn’t like the way it was done. How did they think it would play out? Were they really surprised by it? And these are guys who want to be POTUS?

Then there was the conversation that started with a question from Karen Tumulty, a Washington Post Political Correspondent and the one who accused John McCain of playing the “race card” because he dared to run an ad critical of Barak Obama’s connection to  Franklin Raines, the former CEO of Fannie Mae. What Tumulty said was this:

Congresswoman Bachmann, three years after the financial meltdown, Main Street continues to suffer. People have lost their jobs, they’ve lost their homes, they’ve lost their faith in the future. But Wall Street is thriving. The banks not only got bailed out by the government, they have made huge profits, they’ve paid themselves huge bonuses.

Do you think it’s right that no Wall Street executives have gone to jail for the damage they did to the economy?

Sigh. Really? At this point in the story, there are still people who want to blame only Wall Street executives? Seriously? I’m not saying people on Wall Street did not do some wrong things. Of course they did. But to ask that question as if they were they were solely to blame for the entire financial crisis is just ludicrous. Thankfully, Michelle Bachmann, in one her more lucid moments, immediately began to place blame where it truly belongs: the U.S. government.

BACHMANN: I think if you look at the problem with the economic meltdown, you can trace it right back to the federal government, because it was the federal government that demanded that banks and mortgage companies lower platinum level lending standards to new lows.

TUMULTY: But the federal government has also deregulated them.

Groan. At best one might claim the federal government minimally deregulated them, which is to say, it removed a small amount of regulations. It did not, as the use of the word deregulate without modifiers implies, eliminate all regulations. There were more, not less but more, regulations in the year 2008 than there were in the year 2000. The number of regulations, particularly of the financial sector, has not gone down in any significant fashion. To claim banks and mortgage companies were deregulated as if all regulations had been removed is more than a little deceptive.

So after Bachmann rightfully placed the blame where it belongs, Tumulty turned to Newt Gingrich to see if she could get him to blame Wall Street. He did not. But keep in mind how this part of the debate started. Remember that question Tumulty asked:“Do you think it’s right that no Wall Street executives have gone to jail for the damage they did to the economy?”

GINGRICH: The fact is, in both the Bush and the Obama administrations, the fix has been in. And I think it’s perfectly reasonable for people to be angry. But let’s be clear who put the fix in: The fix was put in by the federal government.

And if you want to put people in jail — I want to second what Michele said — you ought to start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and let’s look at the politicians who created the environment, the politicians who profited from the environment, and the politicians who put this country in trouble.

CHARLIE ROSE: Clearly you’re not saying they should go to jail?

Yeah, that’s right. Charlie Rose, who voiced no objection to Tumulty’s question, actually objected to the implied suggestion that two of the politicians responsible for the damage done to the economy should be sent to jail.

This is an inherent problem with the public debate over the financial problems of the country. Some people clearly refuse to accept the idea that government bears a large part of the responsibility for the damage done. But the banks, but the greedy CEOS, but, but, but… Here is a clue that I will give you for free: All those banks and CEOs and corporations did what they did in large part because of the government. All those greedy sub-prime loans, done because the government, with prompting from liberals and conservatives, pushed “affordable housing” for as many people as possible. And that is just one example. As Ron Paul later pointed out, “you can’t cure the disease if you don’t know the cause of it.” Until people are willing to admit that the government is holds the majority of the blame for what happened, they are not going to be willing to face up to what needs to be done to solve the problem.

We have some Republican politicians who are talking about it, but beyond Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, I doubt seriously whether any of them have the stones to follow up on that rhetoric and actually do something about it. Ronald Reagan talked about smaller government, and under his Presidency, the government got larger. George W. Bush campaigned on smaller government rhetoric, and he helped expand government at a pace only outdone by the current President. So when you see Romney and Cain and the like saying we needed this stimulus bill or that bailout package but they would have handled it differently, know that they are simply promising more of the same. The Republican Party should be embarrassed that Romney and Cain and Perry are their front-runners in the race for POTUS.

Herman Cain, I want to like. The problem is he keeps talking about being a business man and how he solved problems as a business man. Herbert Hoover was a business man too. And he too thought he could run the country the way he ran a business. And that was a disaster. And Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, I really don’t like. Nine percent income tax. Nice, but it will never stay at nine percent. Nine percent sales tax, not the worst idea, but he should pick a sales tax or an income tax. Not both. Nine percent corporate tax. No. We need no corporate tax. Cain claims his plan is bold and different. But we will still end up with the same old politics insisting that the “wealthy” (whoever they are) need to pay more, that the poor need tax breaks, that corporate profits are unfair, blah, blah, blah, yackity schmackity. The 9-9-9 plan is not terrible in concept, but I have no faith that it will be executed the way he claims. And even if he could get it passed in the first place, there is nothing to guarantee that it would not be changed in short order. Remember, nothing Congress does is permanent.

If I have time, I’ll talk more about the Bloomberg hosted Republican debate later. Unfortunately, I don’t have the luxury of spending all my time on this blog.