December 8, 2009

If You Mess It Up, Clean It Up

Cleaning up after myself was something Madre and Grandma beat into me at an early age; it was the price of being allowed inside the house. But as the eldest of five, I was also expected to clean up the messes my younger siblings had created. Frankly, chores were a lot easier when what I was cleaning up was a mess of my own making. Moreover, there was something hugely satisfying about the times when my wormy little sister was caught shirking in her room and forced, spitting and snarling to join in the cleanup efforts. All these years later, I feel much the same way about paying taxes, particularly those that go to support programs and ideologies I find anathema.

But my libertarian leanings notwithstanding, some taxes actually make sense to me.

Taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, for example, pay for roads and highway maintenance, putting the onus for their upkeep on the people who actually use them. Taxing our likker supposedly helps offset all the social damage done by us shiftless chard-swilling drunkards. Redemption taxes on bottles and cans not only encourage less wasteful packaging, but provide industrious homeless and wayside drifters with a ready source of lunch money. Those sorts of taxes don’t offend me in the slightest, and in times of national travail even seem like a reasonable part of the solution.

Although never a huge crowd-pleaser, new taxation will most certainly become an increasingly more pressing issue as our Country attempts to get its torpedoed economy righted, repaired, and back in the water. Our local, state and federal governments can’t just come right out and tell us that our tax obligations have doubled and may, in coming years, double again. So as with the measured quantitative easing of housing prices, wage and job cuts, and soon, rising interest rates, they’ve begun to come up with a lot of clever new ideas for wringing every last penny out of us without literally triggering an armed insurrection.

Two proposed new taxes will likely be up for public debate in the coming months, and on a purely practical basis, both seem to me to be relatively user-responsible ways of counteracting the budgetary deficits that are besetting governmental agencies around the country.

In California, four voter initiatives dealing with the legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana have been cleared for petition, a comprehensive summary of which can be found here.

Given the tacit support of Gov. Schwarzenegger, who has called for an “open debate” on the issue, it is likely that at least one of them will garner the required 433,971 signatures necessary to place it on the June 6, 2010 ballot.

A not-so-subtle backdoor approach to full-scale legalization of the maligned weed, people who under other circumstances would be taking to arms at the very suggestion of quintupling an existing tax, (on legal usage,) are in this case demonstrating in support of initiating one. Legalization and taxation, they argue, would flood the market with cheap product and dis-incentivize illegal Mexican/Chinese grower cartels in our state and national forests, freeing up USFS and local authorities to police more pressing matters. It would regulate who could sell marijuana and to whom, and ensure that users access the public health system to screen for infectious diseases and unsanitary conditions. It would provide a source of income to unemployed pot enthusiasts, furloughed bureaucrats, and backyard hobbyists with some space to spare in their kitchen gardens. And in addition to providing potentially billions of needed simolleans (and sensemilla for that matter,) to depleted State coffers, it would finally end the moral hazard bred by disrespect for what has for years been considered by a good many Americans to be a really, really stupid prohibition. (Official number of Americans who have “tried” marijuana at least once is estimated by drugabuse.gov at somewhere near 40%, while alternet puts it at closer to 47%.) The exact figures are open to interpretation.

What is known is that in the last decade nearly 6.5 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges, 89% of which were for simple possession. That’s a lot of public-defender expenses, incarceration expenses, probation expenses, and social services expenses we could eliminate. One has to question whether the social costs of enforcing the laws against marijuana are commensurate with the tax monies to be gleaned from taxing and regulating its use. As has been seen in the gay civil rights movement with which it is concurrent, the well-organized push toward legalization and taxation of marijuana promises to stir up a spirited debate.

A second tax proposal now gaining momentum was first suggested in 1971 by Yale economist and Nobel Laureate, (1981) James Tobin, for whom it is named. The so-called Tobin Transaction Tax would levy a fee on every financial transaction that goes though any of the world’s markets, bourses, or exchanges, and the proceeds used to offset the imbalance between the influence of the financial industry and the public economy at large.

When British PM Gordon Brown resurrected this proposed global tax at last month’s G-20 meeting in Scotland, Timothy Geithner reportedly opposed it on the grounds that it would be too hard to implement internationally. “I have not seen a version of that kind of tax that I think would work, be effective, and would be appropriate for our country,” he later told a congressional hearing.

Unspoken, of course, was the effect such a transaction tax might have on trading houses such as Goldman Sachs, and how it might impact international currency manipulations by agencies such as the Federal Reserve. Nancy Pelosi also expressed reservations about the feasibility of its even-handed international application.

However, the idea is beginning to take hold in an election-conscious Congress increasingly besieged by outraged citizens of all political stripes who feel that the financial sector has grown too big and too powerful for the society it is supposed to serve.

Last Thursday, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) proposed a bill that would impose a .25% tax on all securities transactions. Obviously tied to Obama’s plan for a “jobs bill,” and aimed at Wall Street, not the small investor, the bill has the support of labor and an increasing number of grassroots taxpayer organizations.

Predictably, business and banking lobbyists sprang into action.

“Weakening our capital formation system is not a better outcome” says David Hirshchmann, president of the United States Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness.

Michael McMahon (D-N.Y.), Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), and Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.) all representing districts rife with wealthy banking and investment interests circulated a letter which read in part, “…A $150 billion tax on financial transactions will fall on millions of hardworking Americans who are saving for their future through their 401k plans, mutual funds, pensions and other savings vehicles,…”

European banking interests have taken an even more cynical red-meat approach, tying support for the tax to “helping poor nations like Africa” or “funding those who care about climate change.” In coming weeks, one expects to see similar obfuscating tactics from the American banking industry.

Timothy Geithner, no doubt chastened by President Obama’s recent remarks on the economy (see below,) met with House Speaker Pelosi on Thursday. Of Geithner’s G-20 remarks in opposition to the tax, House Financial Services Committee chair, Barney Frank, who was present at the meeting, reported, “She said that Geithner felt he had been misrepresented.” Further clarification was not immediately forthcoming, but apparently Mr. Geithner has now taken a more nuanced stance on this issue.

Finally, for those of us whose concerns about the President’s handling our national economy have brought us to the verge of mayhem, may I suggest taking the time to read through the following exchange between economist Robert Kuttner and our banker-in-chief during the question and answer session following last Thursday’s jobs summit at the White House. As with most of the President’s unfiltered remarks, I found it not only thoughful, but even reassuring. And at this point, that’s saying a lot.

ROBERT KUTTNER: You know, most of the things that have been proposed today cost money, and there is this concern about the federal deficit….

BARACK OBAMA: Well, I think this is an important point. You know, we’ve been talking a lot about specific initiatives. There is a macroeconomic element to this whole thing. And so let me just amplify what was just said.

We have a structural deficit that is real and growing, apart from the financial crisis. We inherited it. We’re spending about 23 percent of GDP and we take in 18 percent of GDP and that gap is growing because health care costs, Medicare and Medicaid in particular, are growing. And we’ve got to do something about that.

You then layer on top of that the huge loss of tax revenue as a consequence of the financial crisis and the greater demands for unemployment insurance and so forth. That’s another layer. Probably the smallest layer is actually what we did in terms of the Recovery Act. I mean, I think there’s a misperception out there that somehow the Recovery Act caused these deficits. (Note: all emphases ahansen’s.)

No, I mean, we had — we’ve got a 9-point-something trillion-dollar deficit, maybe a trillion dollars of it can be attributed to both the Recovery Act as well as the cleanup work that we had to do in terms of the banks. In turns out actually TARP, as wildly unpopular as it has been, has been much cheaper than any of us anticipated.

So that’s not what’s contributing to the deficit. We’ve got a long-term structural deficit that is primarily being driven by health care costs, and our long-term entitlement programs. All right? So that’s the baseline.

Now, if we can’t grow our economy, then it is going to be that much harder for us to reduce the deficit. The single most important thing we could do right now for deficit reduction is to spark strong economic growth….

…We understand that in this administration. That’s not always the dialogue that’s going on out there in public and we’re going to have to do a better job of educating the public on that.

The last thing we would want to do in the midst of what is a weak recovery is us to essentially take more money out of the system either by raising taxes or by drastically slashing spending. And frankly, because state and local governments generally don’t have the capacity to engage in deficit spending, some of that obligation falls on the federal government.

Having said that, what is also true is that unless businesses and global capital markets have some sense that we’ve got a plan, medium and long term, to get the deficit down, it’s hard for us to be credible, and that also could be counterproductive. So we’ve got about as difficult a economic play as is possible, which is to press the accelerator in terms of job growth, but then know when to apply the brakes in the out-years and do that credibly. And you know, we are trying to strike that balance, but we’re going to need help from all of you who oftentimes are more credible than politicians in delivering that message.

Because we want to leverage whatever public dollars are spent, and we are under no illusion that somehow the federal government can spend its way out of this recession….

(The full conversation can be found here).

by ahansen




RSS feed | Trackback URI

118 Comments »

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2009-12-08 09:29:23

Geez, it sounds like ‘lil Opie summed up in three paragraphs, what takes it wmbz to post in 1,271 comments. (Not including 262 of Bartlett’s Familiar Quotes) ;-)

“We have a structural deficit that is real and growing, apart from the financial crisis. We inherited it. We’re spending about 23 percent of GDP and we take in 18 percent of GDP and that gap is growing because health care costs, Medicare and Medicaid in particular, are growing. And we’ve got to do something about that.”

“You then layer on top of that the huge loss of tax revenue as a consequence of the financial crisis and the greater demands for unemployment insurance and so forth. That’s another layer. Probably the smallest layer is actually what we did in terms of the Recovery Act. I mean, I think there’s a misperception out there that somehow the Recovery Act caused these deficits.”

“…So that’s not what’s contributing to the deficit. We’ve got a long-term structural deficit that is primarily being driven by health care costs, and our long-term entitlement programs. All right? So that’s the baseline.”

 
Comment by dreadlord76
2009-12-08 09:50:22

I’m sorry, but “Likker”?

Comment by holytrainwreck
2009-12-08 12:42:45

Likker? I hardly even know her!

 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2009-12-08 12:57:50

Got pretentiousness?

Comment by ahansen
2009-12-08 13:56:27

…hic.

Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2009-12-08 21:18:43

Clink, clink. Good one gal.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by basura
2009-12-08 10:10:42

Well he seems to say the right things, but his actions are completely opposite to what he says.

We get it, health care and social program drives the defict, but how adding more people into these programs supposed to help reduce it. Please don’t be fooled by deficit neutral and b*s like that. It’s a 3 trillion program and we will be paying for decades to come. May be that’s what we need to do as a country, but the lying has to stop. Stop lying to us that it will pay for itself.

One good thing though, it might just hasten the imminet collapse much sooner.

Comment by pressboardbox
2009-12-08 12:25:45

Sh!t covered sh!t with creamy sh!t filling would be an approximation of our leadership.

Comment by DinOR
2009-12-08 16:14:54

pressboardbox,

Hard to argue that, but what’s concerned me more on a local/street level is ( and chime in if you’re getting the same treatment? ) of late, changing horses on you midstream, really isn’t a big deal any more?

Be it your phone company, utilities, mortgage company and ALL… these employers, the latest fashion is to simply say: “I realize you were promised this, that or the other thing but ‘that’ person gave you the -wrong- information! So you’re just SOL pal!”

And the really have no qualms about it? I’ve had people move up deadlines ( the -day- before the ‘new’ deadline ) and then have them walk away feeling perfectly satisfied they’ve fulfilled their obligation! How many of you have had people totally re-neg on you of late and still have them be totally comfortable inside their own skin? Man, I can’t get thru the day without a good stern rug pulling.

 
Comment by wmbz
2009-12-08 16:25:19

LOL! Yep, and a whole herd of folks lining to bite into that delicious sounding dish.

 
Comment by robin
2009-12-09 03:34:54

But, pressboardbox, how cool is the presentation?

 
 
Comment by Reuven
2009-12-08 14:19:25

You know, there’s a great, fair, way to pay for health care:

Eliminate the tax deduction for dependent children.

And there’s a great, fair, way to pay for bank bailouts:

Eliminate the tax deduction for mortgage interest.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2009-12-08 15:46:09

I agree with you. And I’m speaking as a homeowner who’s never had children. I’m tired of subsidizing pro-natalism.

Comment by MightyMike
2009-12-08 16:13:11

I’m also a homeowner who’s never had children. I’d agree with phasing out the morgage interest deduction. It doesn’t actually do much to making home ownership more affordable and it confuses people.

Even though I have no kids, I’m not sure that I would eliminate the kid deduction. However, I do think that it is interesting. When poor folks get cash from the government to help support their kids, it’s called welfare and it’s considered a bad thing by most Americans. On the other hand, when parents get a tax break that the rest of us don’t get, most folks probably consider it to be a wonderful apple pie kind of thing.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by DD
2009-12-08 21:39:14

Plz eliminate both deductions. If you can’t afford em, dont’ buy em or produce em.

 
 
 
Comment by rms
2009-12-08 19:02:19

I have two children and a home, and I completely agree with Reuven. No one should have children or a home if they can’t afford them. End of story.

 
 
 
Comment by WT Economist
2009-12-08 10:11:22

How about taxing pensions, since most of those in younger generations won’t get them, on the same basis as other income? For public employees, they are tax exempt in New York and Michigan.

http://www.freep.com/article/20091206/NEWS06/912060446/1318/Should-Michigan-tax-pensions

Comment by In Montana
2009-12-08 13:15:34

Well that oughta get retirees voting with their feet..

Comment by WT Economist
2009-12-08 13:51:41

The workers and business owners, who pay all the taxes now, are already casting that vote.

 
 
 
Comment by az_lender
2009-12-08 10:20:11

What makes you say that a 0.25% tax on securities transactions is “aimed at Wall Street and not the small investor” ?? At a time when the small investor is lucky to find a safe vehicle yielding 3% or more per annum, you suggest taxing away the first month’s income on such a vehicle.

Comment by aNYCdj
2009-12-08 10:41:29

AZ:

Even if it was 1/10 of 1 cent on any stock over $1.. 1 cent on $50 and 5 cents on $100 stock it would eliminate lots of those high frequency trading schemes since they work on those kind of margins.

 
Comment by ahansen
2009-12-08 11:11:47

Obviously, as it is now proposed, it would affect small-time private investors, but the aim of the tax as I understand it, is to discourage the computerized carry trade by large investment houses, in which multi-billion units change hands multiple times a day to take advantage of minute changes in the differential between currencies.

Presumably by the time some iteration of this proposal made it way through the world’s congresses and parliaments, interest rates will have risen enough to offset the hit to ROI of private traders.

Comment by polly
2009-12-08 12:27:53

Or the newest “thing” in computer trading that allows the biggest investment houses to trade based on “future” information by querying the market price by offering trades and cancelling them, then making profitable trades based on the information learned a nanosecond earlier. It doesn’t even have to be a currency based market inefficiency to work.

Total scum bags. Sci fi shows used to joke about sending winning lottery numbers back in time. These guys have basically figured out how to do it.

Comment by oxide
2009-12-08 15:18:03

So wait, they create information and then trade on it? Sounds like a combination of pump&dump AND insider trading. How is this legal?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by polly
2009-12-08 17:50:11

How is it insider trading? They aren’t getting information from inside the company. They are creating it themselves.

I think “pump and dump” is limited to people who talk up a stock (lying) and then sell their shares in it before the truth gets out. That doesn’t fit this scenario either.

Being unfair does not make it illegal.

 
Comment by DD
2009-12-08 21:42:22

Being unfair does not make it illegal.

But there has to be something about helping to ruin the financial situation and strength of a country? well, I guess not.

“I GOT MINE”!

 
 
 
Comment by holytrainwreck
2009-12-08 12:45:27

Outlawing derivative gambling would go much further here.

Comment by tresho
2009-12-08 14:49:06

Outlawing derivative gambling would go much further here. Maybe it would be better to simply tax derivatives as they are formed. No tax paid = invalid derivative which cannot be enforced as a contract.
I’m thinking of a metaphor where Pig Men who graze the commons, use it up and foul it with their droppings, have to pay a grazing fee based on their weight.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by polly
2009-12-08 17:35:10

How can you tax a derivative as it is made? Businesses are taxed on their profits. People are taxed on their income. You don’t have that information when the contract is created. You could be talking about a sales tax, but that is pretty much what is being proposed here, except on all financial transactions, not just those defined as derivatives.

 
Comment by tresho
2009-12-08 22:07:57

You don’t have that information when the contract is created. A flat tax to create the contract. When the contract is settled, the amount must be known. Tax a % of that.

 
 
 
 
Comment by DennisN
2009-12-09 09:01:54

A more palatable means of taxing such transactions would be to set up a 3rd category of capital gains rates for assets held less than 24 hours.

Long term (over one year) cap gains 15%
Short term (24 hours to one year) cap gains 35%
Microterm (less than 24 hours) cap gains 80%

Comment by CA renter
2009-12-10 03:04:01

This is exactly what I was thinking, Dennis. Agree 100%!

 
 
 
Comment by michael
2009-12-08 10:56:40

i would suggest a modification of the capital gains tax as well:

securities sold in one year - 80% tax

securities sold in one to three years - regular tax rate

securites held for more than three years (maybe 5) - 0% rate.

tax rate on interest income should be equal to the rate on dividends (i think 10%).

Comment by DinOR
2009-12-08 16:17:59

michael,

Not that you aren’t reaching out for new ideas ( when we don’t seem to be getting a lot of direction? ) but the truth is, and we’ve discussed this here before, long-term-investing is DEAD!

You can’t just “buy & hold” any more. But I do like where you’re going in terms of “gettin’ real” w/ confronting our issues.

 
Comment by aNYCdj
2009-12-08 17:54:13

Not a good idea maybe securities sold the same or next day 80% .. 1 week 50% .. 1 year 15% 3years 5% 5 years 0% would eliminate day trading and computerized programs

———————————–
securities sold in one year - 80% tax

 
 
Comment by Spokaneman
2009-12-08 11:02:31

“and that gap is growing because health care costs, Medicare and Medicaid in particular, are growing”

And anyone that thinks about it for a minute will realize that the only way to “bend the cost curve” is to stop doing stuff to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. At some point, we are going to wise up, and realize that we cannot continue to spend 30% to 40% of a person’s lifetime medical expenditures on end of life care. Is that rationing? In my mind it is more rational that rationing.

I’m no spring chicken, so this will likely impact me in the most personal of ways in the next 15 years or so. Regardless, it is the right thing to do.

Comment by ahansen
2009-12-08 11:41:01

Spokane,

I’m in the same boat, and having personally confronted my own “end care” and found my private insurance woefully lacking (and MediCal totally useless,) hope that I will have both the rationality and the courage of my convictions when the time comes for me to confront it again. I’ve only been so insistent on being treated this time because I believe my insurance company has a contractual obligation to cover my reassembly, and because in my own small way I feel I am still of use to society. Thirty years from now, maybe not so much. If it meant my kid having to sell off his assets to keep me alive a few more months or years, I guarantee it wouldn’t happen.

Un-supplemented Medicare is not as generous as you might imagine, and a lot of the graft and fat is being cut even as we type. Private insurers have already set the standard for rationing. As more and more of us boomers begin to access the system, you can bet your bootie that basic benefits will be pared to the bone. The brouhaha over “death panels,” (actually hospice options and funding,) abortion, euthanasia, etc., are, in my opinion, a last gasp of protest over what will increasingly come to be seen as rational public policy.

Comment by In Montana
2009-12-08 13:20:17

“If it meant my kid having to sell off his assets to keep me alive a few more months or years,”

Who in hell does that? No, he should help you sell off your assets, until they are gone.

What I’m seeing is a lot of testators and heirs trying to keep assets and shove the expense off onto the rest of us.

Comment by aNYCdj
2009-12-08 17:58:24

Then get active and change the law…..Its already changing it used to be 1yr, then 3 years to transfer assets, then 5 some states 7years..so you REALLY have to have long Family talk about end of life care.

—————————-
What I’m seeing is a lot of testators and heirs trying to keep assets and shove the expense off onto the rest of us.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by DD
2009-12-08 21:55:37

Who in hell does that?

Lots of women and men spend all their monies as well as all their extra time keeping unhealthy family folk viable or viable enough.
Tangible and intangible ways of “sell off his assets”.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by michael
2009-12-08 11:53:55

i propose the same ideaology for any terminal illness…whether they are 6 or 60.

also, include anyone suffering from a chronic severe mental illness or disability (paranoid schizophrenia, severe bi-polar disorders, MS, muscular distrophy, etc.)

i propose the same idealogy for the homeless and other recipents of welfare services.

they produce nothing and are a drain on society.

Comment by michael
2009-12-08 11:56:31

heck…lets just include anyone over 30…we could put little glowy things in their palms that turn from green to red when they hit 30…and then hunt them down with a police authority…we’ll call them sandmen.

 
Comment by ahansen
2009-12-08 12:17:02

Taken to the opposite extreme, michael, why not provide stomach stapling for anyone who wants it? Liver transplants for all alkies and addicts? In-patient psychiatric care and spa treatments for those on the verge of a “nervous breakdown?” Private 24/7 nurses for those with bad backs?

Everyone deserves a humane standard of care–regardless of their contribution to the overall society….

All I’m saying here is that policy shifts in publicly mandated treatments and protocols will necessarily reflect economic reality– private “morality” aside.

Comment by michael
2009-12-08 12:22:36

my comment was in response to spokaneman.

“At some point, we are going to wise up, and realize that we cannot continue to spend 30% to 40% of a person’s lifetime medical expenditures on end of life care. Is that rationing? In my mind it is more rational that rationing.”

i was just listing other costly ailments to society that we could be more “rational” about.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Spokaneman
2009-12-08 13:35:57

Not sure whether you are being facetitous, or serious. But, there is only so much money to go around when it comes to health care. Since individuals are loathe to take responsibility for thier own health care, as witnessed by the epidemic of obesity, smoking, sedentiary lifestyle etc., at some point, the bill payer, which for better or worse in the case of the eldery, is the federal government, is going to have to severely limit the kinds of care available at the end of life.

The government can not continue to provide every possible service for every person indefinately in hopes of prolonging life for weeks or months.

 
Comment by Rancher
2009-12-08 16:13:02

“The government can not continue to provide every possible service for every person indefinately in hopes of prolonging life for weeks or months.”

Finally, the clarity of unvarnished truth.

As a retired person, I am included in Medicare, against my wishes, and also have
supplemental insurance for anything that Medicare will not cover, plus insurance for
extended stay or hospice care. The same
is for my wife. We refuse to be a burden to
anyone, including ourselves.

Behold the pale horse.

 
Comment by DD
2009-12-08 22:11:08

every person indefinately in hopes of prolonging life for weeks or months.

or even years a la ‘Schiavo’ etc, who is one among many who are being kept alive, but aren’t?

Thank goodness TimeWarner left the SyFy channel but took away other good ones tonight. Bastids.

 
 
Comment by X-philly
2009-12-08 12:24:31

ahansen,

Some of your posts give one the impression that you’re depressed, and that’s understandable given what you’ve been through.

But you shouldn’t foist your grim view of the world on the rest of us. I don’t much like YOUR “private morality”.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by michael
2009-12-08 13:24:43

“But you shouldn’t foist your grim view of the world on the rest of us.”

especially not under the guise of “libertarianism”.

 
Comment by ahansen
2009-12-08 13:32:58

Not depressed at all, in fact I just got in from a long trek in the new snow and am thoroughly exhilarated. I am, however, realistic about what the country is going to have to deal with in the coming decades as our demographic shifts and our economy contracts. I’m not all that thrilled about it either, but that doesn’t change the facts.

By confronting and discussing it now, we may be able to come up with some decent options and means of coping as these events transpire. But ignoring the obvious is what got us into this mess in the first place.

As for morality, I have none. Ethics, yes. But have no use for public opinion; my job is to present an alternate way of looking at issues that affect us all. That includes bioethics.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2009-12-08 15:07:23

But you shouldn’t foist your grim view of the world on the rest of us. I don’t much like YOUR “private morality”.

How absurd is that statement? She hasn’t ‘foisted’ anything on anybody. She wrote a post. If you don’t like her ‘grim view’- then don’t read it.

 
Comment by michael
2009-12-08 15:07:30

“Ethics, yes. But have no use for public opinion; my job is to present an alternate way of looking at issues that affect us all. That includes bioethics.”

i thing x-philly is saying that your alternate way and/or ethics are overwhelmingly influenced by your personal tragedy…which may exlcude you from the debate.

it’s kinda like taking cindy sheehan seriously on matters of foreign policy.

…with all do respect of course. i personally like your writings…i find them thought provoking although biased.

 
Comment by michael
2009-12-08 15:18:05

perhaps exclude was too strong a word.

 
Comment by Bad Chile
2009-12-08 15:20:24

Reminds me of this, from Edward Abbey
“A pessimist is an optimist that knows the truth…”

 
Comment by ahansen
2009-12-08 15:59:44

“Tragedy” and misadventure are two entirely different things, michael. Losing a loved one is a tragedy. My loss was only superficial. And hugely annoying.

 
Comment by laurel, md
2009-12-08 20:28:03

Dear Ms ahansen,

You have the most thought provoking and intelligent posts on this blog. You must keep it up. Although I am 61 years old, whenever I read your posts I feel like I am back in college trying like hell to keep up with the extra smart students.

 
Comment by ahansen
2009-12-08 21:03:18

Bless your heart, laurel. It’s reassuring to know that my words are not just bouncing off the walls. Thanks.

 
Comment by DD
2009-12-08 22:21:03

understandable given what you’ve been through

People who have life changing events usually see things much clearer than those who have not.

 
 
 
Comment by aNYCdj
2009-12-08 18:00:25

Michael:

Then why do we fight against Kevorkian…he had the right idea

Let people choose their demise.

Comment by DD
2009-12-08 22:23:13

Let people choose their demise.

It is their life, they can choose.IMHO.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by DD
2009-12-08 21:58:52

also, include anyone suffering from a chronic severe mental illness or disability (paranoid schizophrenia, severe bi-polar disorders, MS, muscular distrophy, etc.)

Did you see the O show with the shizophrenic infant to toddler aged child(saw 20 min of it) Parents spent all their time and money renting 2 apts so the new infant wouldn’t be harmed. Lived separately and all their time was spent on the one child.
I guess better people than I.

 
 
 
Comment by 2banana
2009-12-08 11:10:51

How about taxing socialists? They want socialism in America, let them pay for it.

Comment by ahansen
2009-12-08 11:24:07

“They” don’t necessarily want “socialism,” (whatever that may mean at this point in the game,) “they” want a stable economy in which to survive and do business. “They” want a reasonable assurance that when “they” write a check, it will be accepted and credited. “They” want a more equitable set of rules than an economic policy which, as we have now seen, has stacked the deck against private citizens in favor of huge, multi-national corporations.

When you think about it, “taxing socialists” is precisely what this administration appears to be attempting…as powerful entities that have grown bloated receiving public largesse at the expense of the taxpayers, are now beginning to be held to account.

Comment by pressboardbox
2009-12-08 12:04:19

Well, I just might not work until “they” figure all of this out. If everyone with the capcaicity to do so collectively sat on his hands…where would that leave “them”?

Comment by ahansen
2009-12-08 12:20:06

Pert’ durn cold and hungry, I would imagine. And rather bored….

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by pressboardbox
2009-12-08 12:33:22

Let them eat carbon tax credits.

 
 
 
Comment by holytrainwreck
2009-12-08 12:50:28

Corporations should never have the same rights and privileges as natural persons. Full Stop.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2009-12-08 13:11:54

And to think that corporate personhood came about via a headnote in a Supreme Court decision. Not the body of the text of the decision. A headnote.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by tresho
2009-12-08 14:52:53

And to think that corporate personhood came about via a headnote in a Supreme Court decision. Not the body of the text of the decision. A headnote.
They’ve created monsters.

 
Comment by DinOR
2009-12-08 16:31:34

tresho,

Agreed, I don’t know how anyone can take Corp’s seriously any more? Bad enough it was Enron etc., but just looking at the way these knuckleheads and their ever-moving-targets come into play is more than I can stand.

Does -anyone- in the workforce ‘really’ have any delusions their employer… has their best interests at heart? I mean other than people that wear clown suits and work at Chuck-E-Cheese’s?

 
Comment by oxide
2009-12-08 18:39:20

I don’t know how anyone can take Corp’s seriously any more?

Because that’s where the deep pockets are?

 
 
Comment by DD
2009-12-08 22:07:06

OUR Supremes have to take away Person-hood from Corporations, take away their “free speech” as if they are indeed persons.
Corporations have supreme power over human beings and that should never have happened and it has to be rescinded in black/white strong language. THAT will be a feat within itself as the supremes and all of congress are duly owned by multinational corporations and uber elite investors who want to pollute etc to their hearts content w/o a shred of conscious while kaching-ing all the way to the bank.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by CA renter
2009-12-10 03:11:06

Well said, DD!

 
 
 
Comment by SMF
2009-12-08 13:27:27

‘Powerful entities’ should have many public entities included in it. Including law enforcemt, firefighters, unions, teachers, etc.

And higher education as well.

Comment by ahansen
2009-12-08 13:35:11

Agreed, SMF.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by holytrainwreck
2009-12-08 12:53:47

Being social is ok, since no man is an island, and without a measure of collective being, things just wouldn’t take place decently and by arrangement, if at all.

Socialism shouldn’t be a bad word any more than Republican or Democrat. Your self-talk is saying that it is, however it’s a neutral term.

Comment by DinOR
2009-12-08 16:33:35

holytrainwreck,

I’m… almost willing to come on board w/ that definition? At some point, just having a semblance of consistency would be welcome ( no matter ‘what’ you want to call it )

 
 
 
Comment by JustSayNo
2009-12-08 11:18:42

take away health care from all government employees especially congress - make everyone pay into social security - take away all social programs like roads, libraries, neighborhood and city decorations, anything that is paid for from everyone so we can satisfy those who want everyone to have nothing but what they earned at a job they got lucky enough to get based on talents given to them by their creator - those not given talents should just die - take away fire stations and their trucks, take away any thing that will help the poor, continue to pay very low wages to keep people poor and just hope they die quickly -

Comment by 2banana
2009-12-08 11:42:36

You mean like the way people live in Cuba, North Korea and the former USSR?

Comment by JustSayNo
2009-12-08 12:26:23

to 2banana - just responding to those who profess these beliefs that they heard from rush, hannity, coulter, palin and boner (repub head in congress) - they don’t seem to understand we already have socialism - our congress lives off of socialism, the military has a socialism system in place for them, and many government workers who usually are the ones against health care for all - they mouth words they don’t know or understand - like the seniors at the teabag BS who said they did not want socialize health care when in FACT they are already on a socialism system with medicare - it seems people want crap for others because at this moment they have theirs - then they lose a job or their house (because they bought into the ponzi scheme) then their song changes - sorry these vultures who are against health care, roads, libraries, fire depts, (all socialism systems) when they lose their job - they might understand - but as long as they listen to rubbish - they never will - no much different then those who bought low and sold at the height and now laugh at those who did not realize that they were getting caught up in a bubble - they got their’s and now laugh at others who were stupid enough to trust them when they sold their overpriced house to some sucker.

Comment by alpha-sloth
2009-12-08 15:16:00

Careful pointing out the socialism inherent in a standing military, that produces near-fatal cognitive dissonance in some here.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by DD
2009-12-08 22:26:52

Careful pointing out the socialism inherent in a standing military, that produces near-fatal cognitive dissonance in some here.

wow, isn’t that the truth.

 
 
Comment by mathguy
2009-12-08 15:23:49

I think the difference between
a)military, fire, police, roads, water (but not power), sewer, and *emergency healthcare* (ambulance, ER stuff).
and
b) non-emergency healthcare, insurance, schools, public transportation
is the following:

Our lives are in immediate danger if we don’t have access to those services and keep them maintained in a fashion serviceable to the entire public. We *must* live with the overhead and inefficiency we know is endemic to government services because the fire department *must* be there when our house is on fire. Just think, without water, your nearest metropolis would be chaos within 3 days.

On the other hand, we should get the (federal) government out of the public education system both via the Federal financial aid, and Department of Education. We should get them out of the healthcare business. If you get sick, you’ve had your whole life to prepare with insurance, etc… We should probably take care of orphans and the mentally ill, but other than that, you make your bed, then lay in it…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by MightyMike
2009-12-08 16:19:50

Why not get government out of education altogether? Eliminate all public schools. Let taxpayers keep the taxes that they pay to support the miserable schools. Parents could then take that money and use it to send their kids to the private or religous school of their choice.

 
Comment by Rancher
2009-12-08 16:22:53

+100

 
Comment by wmbz
2009-12-08 16:58:22

“Let taxpayers keep the taxes that they pay to support the miserable schools. Parents could then take that money and use it to send their kids to the private or religous school of their choice”.

+100
However that is the 3rd. rail big-time! You know how many make work and redundant jobs would be blown off. The voucher system is way over due, but no need to let cost saving economics get in the way. Not to mention a better education, it’s not about that.

 
Comment by aNYCdj
2009-12-08 18:16:59

Or buy DRUGS….pole dancers and bottles of petron

kidz wo neads by kidz 2 bee edukatid?

——————————
Parents could then take that money and use it to send their kids to the private or religous school of their choice.

 
Comment by DD
2009-12-08 22:31:37

If you get sick, you’ve had your whole life to prepare with insurance, etc…

WTH are you kidding us? Yep, like everyone has ins. and has had all their lives. Except for jobs, lots of folks in the 60’s and earlier didn’t have ins.

And as for education, so, essentially you will have a massive polarization of our country, and have many not able to afford education. Just the elite. Again, a one sided proposition.

 
 
Comment by DinOR
2009-12-08 16:40:16

JustSayNo,

You do have points, and some really -good- points but I can’t agree w/ all of it. Firstly I absolutely understand that just b/c some people aren’t ‘regulars’ here didn’t mean they were clueless about the Housing Bubble!

Contrary to conventional wisdon here ( and the rush to categorize FB’s and scumbag REIC-members into fast, pre-determined camps ) there were plenty of innocents here!

But what good is awareness of the bubble to some guy that was sitting patiently on the sidelines minding his own business for prices to move favorably for ‘him’ WHEN… he loses his job, his credit it no in shambles and he’s no better off than legions of MEW-illionaires?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by jfp
2009-12-08 13:52:09

There is another side to government mandated social programs, however. People used to depend on each other in a community for the help that everyone needs in life from time to time. However, now that the government has stepped in as an intermediary (and taken its cut in the process), people have some fantasy that they do not need each other anymore. The elderly can be discarded and the homeless can be ignored in this brave new world because “hey, I’ve already paid taxes!”

Comment by SaladSD
2009-12-08 15:01:42

In California we need to overhaul our proposition system, so that the sticker price for each new Proposition is front and center. Everyone wails about big government and taxes and yet we keep voting for stuff we don’t want to pay for, since in the law of averages there are so many Propositions floated about that one of them is going to appeal to our own special interests, whether we have kids, are old, infirm or unemployed. There’s just not enough uber-people out there to pay for all of this….even though homebuilders and real estate speculators keep chasing these 1%ers, to the detriment of the 99% out there that can dream away about the fakey McMansion lifestyle…. This is what years of self-help mantras have brought us to. Sure, there’s always been snake-oil, but never such easy credit to buy it.

 
 
 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2009-12-08 11:35:28

“Now, if we can’t grow our economy, then it is going to be that much harder for us to reduce the deficit. The single most important thing we could do right now for deficit reduction is to spark strong economic growth….”

How can you have economic growth with mass outsourcing? It was possible during the housing bubble, because all of those construction, realty, mortgage, and other jobs were created. But now we need permanent employment. And not only that, we need to stop hemorrhaging what jobs we still have. The day that the job “summit” was announced, Caterpillar announced the closing of a US plant, eliminating jobs, and the opening of a new one in China. At the same time, the administration was asking for suggestions regarding the creation of jobs. They need to wake up. A job saved is every bit as important as a job created.

Comment by cobaltblue
2009-12-08 13:53:00

“The single most important thing we could do right now for deficit reduction is to spark strong economic growth….”

The eggheaded social engineering types that dominate the Obama admin don’t have a clue about sparking economic growth. They only know how to be parasites upon an existing tax base.
These are all professional politicians, lawyers, and “educator” types who have never in their lives started an actual business, made a payroll, or fought for the success of their own finished goods or products in the marketplace.
All they’ve ever known is that someone else does the actual work to create wealth, while they formulate policies and regulations to advance their ideology, tax, and appropriate the wealth of others.

The O-Bots are great for killing every incentive in private business to hire someone; while they spout off about social “fairness”.

Comment by SaladSD
2009-12-08 15:19:31

I’d like to see some facts to substantiate your claims, many of Obama’s cabinet members come from business oriented backgrounds. I guess if you opened a frozen yogurt business you’d think that was sufficient qualification for heading these posts. Here are just a few bios, for your consideration:

Eric H. Holder Jr. is the attorney general, appointed by President Obama. Mr. Holder has a history of being sponsored for prominent positions by presidents of both parties. He was appointed a United States attorney and then deputy attorney general by President Clinton. For the previous five years, he served as a judge on the District of Columbia Superior Court, a post to which he was nominated by President Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Holder worked for 12 years with the Justice Department’s Public Integrity section, prosecuting misconduct by state officials, judges, F.B.I. agents and a Federal prosecutor. He also worked as a partner at Covington & Burling, representing big-name clients like the National Football League, Chiquita Brands International and Merck.

*****
Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning experimental physicist, is secretary of energy in the Obama administration.

Dr. Chu served as chairman of the physics department at Stanford, and head of the electronics research laboratory at Bell Labs. He shared the 1997 Nobel in physics for his work on cooling and trapping atoms with laser light.

Beginning in 2004, he was director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which has 4,000 employees and an annual budget of $600 million.

****
Senator Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, is secretary of the interior. Mr. Salazar, a former director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and state attorney general, is a farmer and rancher whose family has lived in Colorado for five generations.

Comment by DinOR
2009-12-08 16:45:34

SaladSD,

Might… want to look a little closer to Mr. Holder’s record. Especially Chiquita.

That aside, I’m not sure it’s necessarily conflicted to say that CAT is opening a plant in China? This is the growth market they’ve been waiting for! Producing them there, really does make more sense than transporting a finished earth mover half way ’round the world.

I think where GrizzlyBear has a more than valid point is that ( how long will it before -everything- CAT makes is made in China and all of a sudden, shipping bach ‘here’ for OUR use “makes perfect sense”.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by X-GSfixer
2009-12-08 17:08:45

CAT may or may not want to build tractors/bulldozers in China. China’s trade policy’s require it, if you are to do any kind of business in China.

Between their restrictions about moving capital out of the country, requirements that you find a Chinese “partner” before you can do business in China, their “you can’t sell it here unless you make it here” policy, and the full court press on technology transfer and industrial espionage, nothing will be built North America or Europe within a generation, unless our government grows a pair.

The Chinese don’t care about “social unrest”, as long as it happens somewhere besides China.

 
Comment by CA renter
2009-12-10 03:18:04

+1, GS.

 
 
 
Comment by Watching the Carnage
2009-12-08 15:48:38

Amen Brother

Comment by Watching the Carnage
2009-12-08 15:53:26

My Amen brother was pointed to Cobalt - and SaladSD’s response just underscores Cobalt’s point.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by DD
2009-12-08 22:43:42

response just underscores Cobalt’s point.

Cobal t you really need to lay off those mean one-sided meds.

 
 
 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2009-12-08 17:20:25

“The O-Bots are great for killing every incentive in private business to hire someone; while they spout off about social “fairness”.”

And exactly how have the Repubs been good when it comes to preserving jobs instead of outsourcing? Take off those partisan blinders.

 
 
 
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2009-12-08 12:08:27

The first tax would be a given anyway by issuing a sales tax on it. So no need for a tax on marijuana.

The second proposed tax is totally dictatorial (worldwide tax). Let’s not have a world government.

Comment by ahansen
2009-12-08 12:36:31

Why not, BiLA?
We have a world economy….

Some uniform method of regulating global financial transactions might put a stop to the jobs “outsourcing” so many condemn. It would level the playing field for… oops. Never mind.

Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2009-12-08 13:22:02

A real libertarian likes competing governments. All democracies go bad eventually. So a one world democracy will go bad for all. No way to escape to a freer country.

Comment by knockwurst
2009-12-08 14:45:36

Freer countries don’t want you. Nothing personal, they don’t want me either.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2009-12-08 17:51:25

I’ll take the “nothing personal.” But how do you know they don’t want me? Do you know me?

 
 
 
Comment by CA renter
2009-12-10 03:21:37

ahansen,

I think most of us would prefer to choose which nation and government we live with. We cannot have people from such different cultures and economic structures to somehow “magically” work together as one. Look at what happens every time two different/conflicting societies are **forced** to live together. Has it ever worked out in the long run? I don’t know a single instance where it has.

 
 
 
Comment by Nathan in Fresno
2009-12-08 13:21:28

The folks at TransUnion noted last week that approximately 10% of California mortgage borrowers were at least 60 days late in the third quarter of 2009:

http://www.bubbleinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/TU.jpg

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2009-12-08 13:49:28

“The so-called Tobin Transaction Tax would levy a fee on every financial transaction that goes though any of the world’s markets, bourses, or exchanges, and the proceeds used to offset the imbalance between the influence of the financial industry and the public economy at large.”

How about funding too-big-to-fail bailout insurance reserves out of a Tobin tax, with a special surcharge for Megabank, Inc gamblers whose failure could cause the global economy to collapse?

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2009-12-08 13:59:47

Am I the only observer who sees the Fed constantly speaking out of all corners of its mouth at the same time? Glasnost with an inconsistent message is beyond useless.

The Fed

Dec. 7, 2009, 5:56 p.m. EST

Fed must lean against bubbles, Dudley says
Regulators should monitor and limit leverage in financial system

Related stories

* Inflation will not get out of hand, Bernanke vows (Dec. 7)
* Treasurys stay up after good 3-year-note auction (2:17p)
* FlashForward: What Obama’s sellout costs (10:34a)
* Calculating the true value of ‘woman’s work’ (11:39a)

By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — To prevent another devastating financial crisis, the Federal Reserve is going to have to learn how to identify and deflate asset bubbles before they can destabilize the economy, New York Federal Reserve Bank President Bill Dudley said Monday.

The best way to control bubbles may be to monitor and limit the amount of leverage (or debt) that the financial sector takes on, Dudley said. As president of the New York Fed, Dudley is vice chairman and a permanent voting member of the Federal Open Market Committee.

Targeting asset bubbles would be a massive cultural shift for the Fed, but “the costs of cleaning up after the fact have been immense,” Dudley said in speech at Columbia University in New York. A copy of his prepared remarks was made available in Washington. Read Dudley’s speech.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says he expects the U.S. economy to continue its recovery next year, but that a weak labor market and tight lending leaves it growing at a moderate pace. The News Hub analyzes Mr. Bernanke’s comments and its implications for the markets.

“Developing an effective, more pro-active approach is not easy,” Dudley said, but research is showing that fast growth in leverage is associated with debilitating bubbles.

“Limiting increases in leverage may help to prevent bubbles from being created in the first place,” he said. “It might be appropriate for the Federal Reserve — working with functional regulators such as the Securities Exchange Commission — to monitor and limit the buildup in leverage at the major securities firms and the leverage extended from these firms to their clients and counterparties.”

 
Comment by wmbz
2009-12-08 14:01:02

“But my libertarian leanings notwithstanding, some taxes actually make sense to me”.

“As with most of the President’s unfiltered remarks, I found it not only thoughful, but even reassuring”.

Now that’s just plain funny!

 
Comment by The_Overdog
2009-12-08 14:11:29

The last thing we would want to do in the midst of what is a weak recovery is us to essentially take more money out of the system either by raising taxes or by drastically slashing spending. And frankly, because state and local governments generally don’t have the capacity to engage in deficit spending, some of that obligation falls on the federal government.

———————————-
The consumate politician. The tough choices always have to be made tomorrow. The economy is too bad, we can’t raise taxes or cut spending. The economy is hot, we don’t want to slow it down by raising taxes or cutting spending.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Comment by alpha-sloth
2009-12-08 14:55:51

Has the economy already heated up and they’ve refused to slow it down? Seems like you’re congratulating yourself on a prediction that has yet to come true. But I guess if your mind is already made up, the facts won’t matter.

Comment by The_Overdog
2009-12-08 15:34:29

I think I’ve been around long enough to pat myself on the back. Maybe I’m wrong, but somehow I really doubt it.

 
 
Comment by Ben Jones
2009-12-08 20:04:55

‘The economy is too bad, we can’t raise taxes or cut spending. The economy is hot, we don’t want to slow it down by raising taxes or cutting spending.’

This is the inevitable consequence of politicizing the money supply/interest rates (ie central banks, and the congressional dog or tail, depending on how you look at it, as congress votes its own debt limits and the Fed, through wall street, funds it).

Silly, isn’t it?

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2009-12-08 17:06:49

“In California, four voter initiatives dealing with the legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana have been cleared for petition, a comprehensive summary of which can be found here.”

Govt-sponsored dope for everyone!

Comment by Professor Bear
 
 
Comment by jetson_boy
2009-12-09 08:47:57

What Obama mentioned is actually grossly understated. There’s a book that came out about a year ago called: “Contagion. The financial epidemic that is sweeping the global economy” by John Talbott- the financial author who predicted the fall of the tech and housing bubbles with deadly accuracy.

In one part of the book, a list is shown with all of the liabilities combined and it ads up to something like 54 TRILLION dollars. The list goes as follows:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt guarantees: $5.3 Trillion
Retirement fund, federal employees: $4.7 Trillion
Social Security: $6.5 Trillion
Present Value of Medicare shortfalls: $32.3 Trillion
Net Debt SS and Medicare: $5.2 Trillion
Total US debt outstanding: $11.0 Trillion

As you can see, his remark about healthcare costs were drastically understated. We’re talking about $40 Trillion dollars related to medicare alone. To give you an idea of how much this is, its more than the entire GDP of the world. Stunning. So while many people gripe about health care reform, it HAS to happen.

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post