Comments Posted By the Dragon
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 58 Comments
A <em>ROGUE</em> REACTION: PALIN IS NO REAGAN
Liberty60 said:"She hasn’t framed a vision of America that doesn’t seethe with rage at the ever-shifting target of “elites”; instead of a vision of what she wants America to become, we get sniping of a vague and just-out-of focus group of evildoers, variously the media, corporations, regulators, immigrants. She is selling anger and resentment, not shared sacrifice and advancement."
I think you are partially correct, at least at this point in time...11/20/2009. I suspect there is a lot of rage in the country currently.
I submit your take, and that of most of how one defines Sarah Palin, is when/how you were introduced to her. For most it was when she was selected as McCain's VP choice 14 odd months ago. Which was quickly followed by a public colonoscopy, the magnitude rarely seen in my lifetime.
I had seen her previously, in several inverviews on CNBC related to Energy issues where she was upbeat/optimistic and forward thinking, IMHO of course.
I don't see that there will be great difficulty (obviously presuming things don't change for the better in the next year to 18 months) to pivot and channel the current rage into support for a specific comprehensive agenda. Particularly, IF, Obama does not pull a Clinton and moderate his objectives, and the ecomony, particularly unemployment does not improve. Yea, I know, a lot of caveats.
I wouldn't be surprised IF Sarah Palin's battle cry coupled taxes and Government spending with Social Security and Medicare reforms as a comprehensive solution to what is ailing the country. I can actually see a large segment of the public being willing to support a comprehensive solution, if things have not improved. I can also see that being a strongly bi-partisan solution, rather than a partisan one. Should my fantasy actually come to pass, I suspect some of her current supporters will be uncomfortable, yet trusting.
I see her more in the Andrew Jackson mold. AND, just for the record I am not saying she is like Andrew Jackson (before the spears fly).
IF one looks back to Sarah Palin's track record in Alaska, she worked with whomever she needed to get the things, she believed needed to be done. In fact, she got far more done with Democrats than Republicans.
This all assumes she actually decides to run, something I am not sure will happen. I think the likelyhood increases if the economic situation does not improve.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 20.11.2009 @ 14:34
Rick,
Interesting take.
Seems like you are in a similar place as Frum.
I do have a question for you. Since you seem to want to shed conservatism/republicans of any ignorant fool who might see potential in Palin, Where do you get enough votes to win an election (presuming there could be 2-5 million idiots in the like/support Palin category), also remembering of course, that anyone stupid enough to think that tax cuts might be part of the solution are persona non-grata as well (maybe another 5+ million)? OR is it that you want our votes, but we are only allowed in the back of the bus and required to shut-up?
What did Obama win by? 6/7 million votes? Add 5-10 million voters who don't qualify because either support for Palin or support of tax cuts, you begin with a deficit of 12-15 million votes, it will be interesting to see how you get anyone elected.
As best I can tell, you are several years younger than me. There are similarities between the reactions and treatment of Ronald Reagan in 1977 and Sarah Palin in 2009 by both the Republican establishment AND the press. Reagan the Cowboy/Warmonger, Sarah Palin the stupid bimbo from Alaska. I remember that period well as I started my grassroots phase in 1975 in Virginia. And, before you repeat Palin is no Reagan, I am not asserting that she is.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 20.11.2009 @ 13:44
PALIN AND HER SUPPORTERS IN A TIME WARP
busboy,
Yes, we are generally in agreement.
A couple points of disagreement (excluding Sarah Palin) which would probably be narrowed if we were discussing them over a pint.
1.) You are correct I have great faith in "Tax Cut's" loosely defined as incentives in the tax system. This faith comes from over 20 intense years of income tax practice. Unfortunately, Many/most individuals make decisions based tax related incentives OR avoid tax related penalties. I ALWAYS tell/told new clients I have 3 rules they must agree with before I take them as a client. Rule 1...I DO NOT wear ties. Rule 2...My humor is offbeat, so when I say something ans laugh...Laugh it WAS funny, Rule 3...This is the only important rule. You don't do anything for tax purposes...with only a couple a specific exceptions...In 99+% of the cases a Good Tax decision is a Bad economic decision.
I have had clients lose thousands,even millions of dollars saving hundreds, maybe thousands even tens of thousands of dollars.
Example: One of my focus area's was taxation of investments. Business was booming in the rock and roll "Tax Shelter" era particularly in the late 1980's. I think I actually recommended 2 tax shelters of the hundreds I saw. Almost all were like a lottery ticket, you got the tax benefit today, and you didn't know for 3-10 years whether the investment was going to pay even a dime in return. Did my clients listen? Some did, yet the enticement of investing say 30-50K with a theoretical possibility of a future profit while avoiding laying out 10K with their tax return was like the moth to the flame. Idiocy in my book, yet human beings will act like human beings every time.
The tax issue, and corresponding taxpayer behavior, in my experience, is psychological and/or sociological far more than it is economic.
Another thing I learned is that even while expressing understanding of the alternatives and recognizing the one that BEST suited their personal finances and situation, when the rubber meets the road, they would only follow that path IF there were tax incentives/rewards.
2.) As to macro-economic theory, and Krugman or other economists. I personally call the field "egonomics". Look over a period of say 20 years. You will find that most of the prominent economists have been incorrect more often than they have been correct. I suspect that ratio is roughly 2-1 incorrect to correct.
What might attribute to the inability to be consistantly correct? The underlying theories haven't really changed, the inconsistant variable is the inability to consistantly predict the actual behavior of the humans (again, not an economic issue, rather a psychological or sociological one). You can have a logical and PERFECT model when actual behavior matches predicted behavior. Say a model predicts 2X and 6Y and the stupid humans actually behave .75X and 9Y. Does the Theory suck or do you need to polish the chrystal ball?
Finally, Krugman may be world acclaimed and I am just someone in the DC suburbs no one has ever heard of, yet I will stack my record for predicting how taxpayers will react/behave in reference to specific tax proposals against anyone. Krugman probably has a supurb Theory, my experience says his chrystal ball is cloudy currently. Only time will tell, and this thread will have long since forgotten.
3.) I think expanded my doer/thinker/leader idea maybe a bit farther than I would. No harm, I am often inarticulate with the written word. There is a reason I am an accountant. I only have to deal with 10 digits and a limited number of symbols. Those of you who communicate well, I admire, you have the challenge of 26 letter and 8-10 punctuation marks and symbols. That is an skill which I have not mastered.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 19.11.2009 @ 23:01
Liberty60 said;"“Cut taxes”…sweet Jesus. Seriously? Thats the universal, all purpose sure fire magic bullet Republican solution.
The layoffs are happening because businesses stopped getting clients, because no one is lending money now as a result of the Crash;
Cutting taxes on what little income businesses have now, isn’t going to do squat.
Until the markets start running again, until money starts flowing through the system again, taxes could be zero, and nothing would happen."I guess you're correct. IF you take the most simplistic definition of "cut taxes".
Didn't TARP free up credit?
The US Tax Code has numerous provisions applicable to Employers besides the Individual Income or Business Income tax rate.
You are also correct that there are other factor's, including very tight credit.
The real question is, is there a solution? Or should we all band together, surrender, and recite the Chicken Little mantra "the sky is falling".
We can blame Bush for the TARP "slush fund" 733 bil
Credit Obama etal for 787 bil stimulus "slush fund".Could those funds have been used more efficiently? I suspect so.
My own idea instead of the Stimulus was a payroll tax holiday for 3/6/9/12 months, depending what amount of 3/4 to $1 trillion. What would that have done? Saved an employer 8-10% of payroll. The employee would have received a @ 8% raise, and most/many would spend most and save some of that increased cash flow. IF more money is spent on goods or services aka "stimulus".
I have also toyed with the idea of a several $ trillion loan program for business, BUT since I have many unpleasant experiences with client's dealings with the "Small Business Admin" I don't have faith that it could be done without massive "red tape" and particularly fraud.
Rick mentions cutting government spending, with I obviously agree, AND he gives many good reasons WHY that will/can not happen.
Also, we have a tax increase coming down the pike next year when the Bush tax cuts expire. Now there is a stimulus if I ever heard of one.
OF course, There is another solution. Probably start a "Civil War". Nationalize ALL business (I mean ALL business owners are rich and crooks), appoint a Government flunky to run each business, employ ALL the unemployed (saves paying unemployment) at say 40-60K per year. Have a 60-70% flat individual income tax rate. Have to work with the salary and tax rate to make everything balance. Then we can all live happily ever after.
As a practical matter, no matter what Sarah Palin says, or what Rick says or what you and I say, there is 1 more year before voters, should they decide to do so, can make a some change, and then only at the Congressional level, which could be vetoed by the President, and UNLESS some Senate Democrats got cold feet, a veto would be sustained in the Senate.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 19.11.2009 @ 14:20
Busboy,
Oops.. you said "Why does an education make you sneer at Krugman? What about decades of study and research makes someone less qualified in your eyes than someone who hasn’t done that? You seem to believe in the whole “educated people are dumb” ideology . . . as someone that doesn’t understand the thinking, can you explain what is so untrustworthy about studying something?"
What I reject is the idea that a diploma for one school(group of schools) makes you "God", and a diploma from any other school, or no diploma at all (Bill Gates for example...didn't he drop out?) makes one ignorant. Yes, these are intentionally painted at the extremes.
There are individuals with similar Godlike credentials who come to diametrically opposite conclusions on the same issue. MUST I accept that both are correct due to their resume's? I may be ignorant, but I'm not that stupid.
Summary...performance not resume. It's what you can do with what you learned, NOT where you learned it.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 19.11.2009 @ 12:06
Busboy,
You asked "If you’re hiring an executive for your business, would you rather hire the person got a doctorate from the Wharton Business School at U. Penn, or the one that got a Masters from the University of Phoenix online?"
You asked a very good question. Personally, I have had several businesses which have been profitable. None at the level to hire an outside Executive. So I have no actual experience.
The answer is I would hire the individual who has a "track record" of doing what needs to be done. A resume is nice, demonstrated practical ability is a MUST. I also would give preference to someone with the the ability or track record, to think out of the box.
I guess you can summarize it best as there are thinkers and doers and maybe a subset of doers are leaders. You don't necessarily hire a thinker to be a leader or doer, just as you shouldn't/wouldn't necessarily hire a leader/doer to be a thinker. There aren't alot of individuals who excell at both.
Regards,
ps: 10-12 years ago I was hired to do several years tax work for the Wharton School Alumnea Assn. (I think that was what it was called, it was external to the school itself, but was activly involved with school fundraising and alumnea issues). You would have thought there was a Wharton grad who could have handled it ;-)
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 19.11.2009 @ 11:30
Supplement to #34.
Rick,
Here is the 4th question of the interview, and 1st substantive Question Rush asked Governor Palin.
"RUSH: They can't wait to meet you, judging by the reception you got during the campaign. Now, ladies and gentlemen, Governor Palin, when we spoke last Thursday I spoke to her a lot about the things in her book regarding the campaign. That stuff you'll read in the Limbaugh Letter, and I predicted to Governor Palin then that much of her book would be ignored in light of the dirt that she was supposedly dishing from the campaign. So Governor Palin what I'd like to do here is go some different directions from what we did in the newsletter interview and start with the economy. We have 10.2% unemployment. We see no end in sight. The administration and others are suggesting next year could be just as bad with unemployment going up to 11%. What would you do differently than is being done now?
GOV. PALIN: It's over 10%, and in fact it could be closer to 17 or 18 when you consider those who have kind of given up and are not applying for unemployment benefits. So it's bad, it's really bad and then of course Fed Chair Bernanke announced that there are still weak job prospects for the very short term and probably long term, and that's an uncomfortable place for our country to be. What we need to do is shift gears and really head in another direction because what we're doing right now with the Fed, it's not working. We need to cut taxes on the job creators. This is all about jobs, creating jobs. We have to ramp up industry here in America, and of course reduce the federal debt, quit piling on and growing more. But those commonsense solutions there, especially with the cutting taxes on the job creators, that's not even being discussed. In fact, increased taxes is the direction it sounds like Obama wants to go."
You somehow missed this as you decided to focus on the 5th question and answer which
was somewhat more generic, yet anyone actually listening would know it incorporated part of this answer given 30 seconds earlier.It's interesting that you seem to want a 500 page position paper in 3 sentences. Your argument seems to be that tax cuts were the ONLY and EXCLUSIVE answer.
I gave my credentials in 34, NOT to say I know much or anything about Macro economics. I don't and don't pretend to. YET, I can give you a very accurate assessment of HOW individuals/taxpayers are likely to react/behave in response to tax policy and economic policy as enacted into law. Macro Economics is only useful to the extent that those Economists who create/promote certain policies actually and accutately project/predict the resulting behavior of millions and hundreds of millions of individuals. My experience, at least regarding executing economic policy through the Tax Code, is that they are generally incorrect in assessing/predicting actual human/taxpayer behavior.
Taxes have been a tool of behavior modification for decades. It rarely achieves the stated objective, often/usually creates the opposite behavior.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 19.11.2009 @ 07:08
Rick,
You called me a gasbag in another thread, probably deservedly. I humbly return the title to you for this post.
I am a CPA, prepared between 8,000 and 9,000 Individual and business tax returns starting in 1978. Also, got a diploma from a marginal school, William & Mary.
While these numbers are from memory, BUT Reagan inherited interest rates in the mid to high teens, inflation approaching 10%, a cake walk I admit.
You write "Sorry, Sarah. Tax cuts alone ain’t gonna fix this. Millions of jobs have been permanently lost - millions. You are living in a dream world - or time warp - if you believe that a little Reagan-like tax cutting will lift all boats."
It's interesting how you disdain of Sarah Palin so much that you IGNORE her actual statement to Rush on tax cuts. I realize you didn't find this qualitative enough because IT DID NOT fit your meme. Sarah Palin said that taxes should be cut on JOB CREATORS. Yep we have lost jobs, it's obviously stupid to cut taxes on the individuals and businesses WHO ACTUALLY HIRE people.
Let me give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume this is NOT about your pet peave "Sarah Palin". I'll accept you would write this same screed about ANYONE who stupidly proposed tax cuts. That makes this even more farcical.
You're on the side of Angels and the great intellectual Paul Krugman Yale and MIT PhD with Nobel Economics Prize. His analysis...Don't worry, be happy.
Regards,
Only small minded dolts read things into what other people write that aren't there. You have absolutely no clue what I think about tax cuts (I support limited and targeted tax cuts in this instance). You just spouted nonsense about me not supporting tax cuts any time any place because you're a brainless twit who is too lazy to find what I actually believe about tax cuts - too much work.
Anti-intellectualism? Where?
ed.
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 18.11.2009 @ 22:01
IS THERE ANY WAY SARAH PALIN CAN RECOVER?
Morgan,
Several things:
1.) I would like to see the COMPLETE Couric and Gibson tapes. I doubt we would find anything MORE damning on the cutting room floor, and I suspect that IF the COMPLETE interviews were shown, there would be more points in Mrs. Palin's favor that the Public never saw. I do doubt that even complete that the interviews were particularly good. Lesson to Sarah. Take your own camera crew to any political interview you do.
2.) I love all the help, the press and Democrats want to give in reference to Sarah Palin. IF Sarah is/will be so devistating for Republicans, they would be smiling and encouraging. I play alot of poker, I encourage the poor players and congratulate them at every chance. The good players, most likely to take my money, I just keep quite.
3.) The Republican elites have their own nests to watch and feather, and have a right to fear, Sarah took on the corrupt Republican establishment in Alaska, and isn't particularly loved there.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 16.11.2009 @ 18:42
Rick,
Thanks for the chuckle.
I don't know what Sarah Palin's plans are for the future, YET if she decides to run, I will be 1st in line to do ALL I can to work for her election.
One of her greatest qualifications is that "very few of the elites in the Republican party take her seriously as a party leader." That's very refreshing since that crowd has done exceedingly well for me and many grassroots Republicans lately, not. Maybe IF we actually had party leaders who had a clue about what a percentage of base wants, things might have gone better. Wasn't John McCain their PERFECT candidate? He was "moderate" and loved by the media. That also worked out very well.
Rick, are you intellectually lazy? I don't remember ANY posts dealing with Quantum Physics or Chaos Theory lately. Maybe you should take some time to study those areas so you can have some credibility when you write about politics and society...so we can take your thoughts seriously. That's not actually necessary, because you have a perspective based on your life experiences and interests.
As Presidents go, wasn't Woodrow Wilson a Great Intellectual? How did that work out?
I have voted in 10 presidential elections. Only twice, was I able to vote enthusiastically FOR the Republican nominee. And that vote was for some "B" movie actor. A Candidate who was just as or more despised by the "very few of the elites in the Republican party take her(him) seriously as a party leader." In fact these elite leaders of 1980 leaked hard and lobbied hard for a Gerald Ford VP candidacy at the Republican convention to give gravitas/credibility to the ticket.
I happened to have seen Sarah Palin BEFORE she was chosen as McCains VP. I had seen her on CNBC several times discussing Energy policy. Granted that is what a Governor job is, to sell the state and it's resources.
Rick, I presume you have a poor view of Ronald Reagan. Obviously he was intellectually lazy, He didn't know anything about anything, but he did have a philosophy fixed firmly. Oddly, he thought he would hire people who DID know specific somethings about most things. I submit that concept worked well in most things, AND caused problems in others.
Regards,
Rick, are you intellectually lazy? I don’t remember ANY posts dealing with Quantum Physics or Chaos Theory lately
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2009/07/11/the-mystery-of-consciousness/
Did you read anything at all in the article?"I wouldn’t necessarily call her incurious in a George Bush sort of way but neither would I refer to her as possessing the innate intelligence of a Ronald Reagan who actually did change the narrative about himself. Reagan had an active, curious mind and the good sense to reach out to experts who educated him, as well as filling in knowledge gaps by reading voraciously."
Jesus fucking christ kid, you don't have to prove to me that you're an anti-intellectual gas bag by commenting on stuff that you haven't even read.
ed.
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 16.11.2009 @ 13:14
