And the US Govt. spurred by general outrage, again does exactly the wrong thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20bailout.html?hp
Why would you amend the Tax code to do this? The tax code has nothing to do with this and has to be constantly simplified and not added to. The tax code should be relooked at only to reflect socio-economic changes and not political ones. Its a socio-economic tool and not a political tool.
IF (and its a big one) there are employees at the firm actually doing a good job of clearing up the mess, THEY deserve a bonus,if not now, maybe in the future, and they too will come under this net. And there are a million loopholes to worm out of a "bonus". The ideal way would be to cap payouts and go through tight regulations and approval process for every bonus. As nationalised (lets get real... yeah nationalised) firms, this CAN and SHOULD be done. I'm sure taxpayers would'nt mind paying people at these firms who really deserve it, for these few would be the one who're actually protecting the bailout money. For all my ranting, I still believe in people and I do believe that some that really do a good job do exist.
And American taxpayers shouldn't have to resort to changes in tax code to get the money back. They simply ought to demand 100% of it back without a tax code change. They deserve the money back. The money has been stolen from them and doesn't require a change in law to get it back. A tax code change implies that many other institutions honestly restructuring and have the potential to turn a corner this year or the next will also be affected. It also implies that a government can be a vindictive and petty institution and I thought that was thrown out with Bush and his minions.
For once I agree with the minority Republicans who oppose this
"Led by Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the party leader, several House Republicans assailed the legislation, calling it a diversion by Democrats eager to escape scrutiny for failing to block the bonuses."
The Govt. had an opportunity to block such unfair payouts
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20bonus.html?hp
...and they didn't. Its a Govt. screw up and it is acknowledged that people in the know, knew. Most of the payouts went out last week and the week before and the govt. could very well have blocked it.
As of now, employees of firms with bailouts should be considered public servants. The thieves should be punished and the ones doing the protecting effectively can be rewarded. Changing tax codes takes care of the former but restricts the latter.
Scorn Trails A.I.G. Executives, Even in Their Driveways
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/nyregion/20siege.html?ref=business
And this is completely wrong. The executives should be taken as a collective and dealt with in that way. Hounding individuals is simply not the way to go.
Showing posts with label republican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label republican. Show all posts
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Friday, October 26, 2007
Ron Paul Rules the waves!!
I did a bit of research on Ron Paul after being so impressed by him, watching the you tube clips of the Michigan Republican Debate which featured all the current Republican candidates.
Ron Paul seems to be the darling of the internet masses. "Ron Paul" is the second most searched Technorati term after "You Tube"!. At the last incomplete list by a blogger there are an amazing ~70 blogs dedicated to Ron Paul! There's even an "Indian and Pakistani Friends of Ron Paul" Blog!
Incomplete list of Ron Paul Blogs
Most supporters of Ron Paul are democrats who plan to vote republican for Ron during the primaries, like this guy here, in whose post, I was amazed to find, the idea of why to support Ron, practically is the same as mine...
A Republican blog banned users from discussing Ron Paul because he attracted an unusual number of supporters. That's pretty obvious isn't it? Considering the the average Republican supporter who doesn't support Ron couldn't possibly know to read or write coherently much less use the web. And the redstate blog's spokesman commented thus -
"These people are not part of the Republican coalition. It's somewhat naive to think that these people will stay in the race with Republicans when Ron Paul is no longer in the race," said Erickson.
While that may not be all that true today, its obvious that the more literate of the Republican supporters are more libertarian and less republican. As the republican party increasing gets a bad rap as a party that doesn't respect fiscal responsibility especially after the excesses of the current Bush government, more and more libertarains are either going to support the democratic party or work toward strengthening the Libertarian party. And as more and more libertarians move out, the republican party gets even more of a rap as a party of illiterates and fundamentalists. Hmm.. sounds like a dream come true :)
The Clinton administration has proved that the Democrats are more than capable of fiscal responsibility and they aren't so much of a left-leaning party economically as they are liberal.
With more and more innuendo piling up that Ron Paul isn't a republican after all, I assume the people who stick to the republican party because of its fiscal policies and are heavily invested in knowing their politics and their candidates are going to feel more and more alienated about their ideology being given the short shrift. While Guiliani and Romney make a decent attempt at being classic republicans, voters with the kind of heavy investment described will still feel slighted. Once upon a time, in pre-tech revolution times, the Republicans were the party that was the conscience of the liberal and literate. Today it has become a disgusting mish-mash of military-industrial-religion complex that considers its "core" to be that of barely literate christian conservatives, who wanted decent pious lives but who've been mauled and manipulated into bible-thumping, shotgun wielding religious maniacs who bomb doctors, lustfully cry for state sponsored killing and for good measure bay for the blood of "godless" arab-looking people by the likes of nuts, nincompoops and plain idiots like Pat Robertson and Bush. This sad de-facto feudal enterprise is fueled by money from cynical manipulators who abuse the good offices of capitalism, like Bechtel, Blackwater, Halliburton and the slimy like. Hopefully, this is the beginning of a long, heavy slide for the Republicans.
Now, the problem is there would then need to be a credible alternative to the Democrats... Time for a multi-party party of The Green Party, The Libertarian party and the Democratic Party perhaps? he he....
Ron Paul seems to be the darling of the internet masses. "Ron Paul" is the second most searched Technorati term after "You Tube"!. At the last incomplete list by a blogger there are an amazing ~70 blogs dedicated to Ron Paul! There's even an "Indian and Pakistani Friends of Ron Paul" Blog!
Incomplete list of Ron Paul Blogs
Most supporters of Ron Paul are democrats who plan to vote republican for Ron during the primaries, like this guy here, in whose post, I was amazed to find, the idea of why to support Ron, practically is the same as mine...
A Republican blog banned users from discussing Ron Paul because he attracted an unusual number of supporters. That's pretty obvious isn't it? Considering the the average Republican supporter who doesn't support Ron couldn't possibly know to read or write coherently much less use the web. And the redstate blog's spokesman commented thus -
"These people are not part of the Republican coalition. It's somewhat naive to think that these people will stay in the race with Republicans when Ron Paul is no longer in the race," said Erickson.
While that may not be all that true today, its obvious that the more literate of the Republican supporters are more libertarian and less republican. As the republican party increasing gets a bad rap as a party that doesn't respect fiscal responsibility especially after the excesses of the current Bush government, more and more libertarains are either going to support the democratic party or work toward strengthening the Libertarian party. And as more and more libertarians move out, the republican party gets even more of a rap as a party of illiterates and fundamentalists. Hmm.. sounds like a dream come true :)
The Clinton administration has proved that the Democrats are more than capable of fiscal responsibility and they aren't so much of a left-leaning party economically as they are liberal.
With more and more innuendo piling up that Ron Paul isn't a republican after all, I assume the people who stick to the republican party because of its fiscal policies and are heavily invested in knowing their politics and their candidates are going to feel more and more alienated about their ideology being given the short shrift. While Guiliani and Romney make a decent attempt at being classic republicans, voters with the kind of heavy investment described will still feel slighted. Once upon a time, in pre-tech revolution times, the Republicans were the party that was the conscience of the liberal and literate. Today it has become a disgusting mish-mash of military-industrial-religion complex that considers its "core" to be that of barely literate christian conservatives, who wanted decent pious lives but who've been mauled and manipulated into bible-thumping, shotgun wielding religious maniacs who bomb doctors, lustfully cry for state sponsored killing and for good measure bay for the blood of "godless" arab-looking people by the likes of nuts, nincompoops and plain idiots like Pat Robertson and Bush. This sad de-facto feudal enterprise is fueled by money from cynical manipulators who abuse the good offices of capitalism, like Bechtel, Blackwater, Halliburton and the slimy like. Hopefully, this is the beginning of a long, heavy slide for the Republicans.
Now, the problem is there would then need to be a credible alternative to the Democrats... Time for a multi-party party of The Green Party, The Libertarian party and the Democratic Party perhaps? he he....
Monday, October 22, 2007
Ron Paul for Prez!!! Ron Paul for Indian PM!!!
With all due respect to my opinions as on date when I wrote my first post on the Michigan Republican debate , I have made a startling discovery.
If I were American, I have actually found myself a Republican I can vote for and be at peace with my supposed liberal ass self. And that Republican is one I would vote for over the current crop of Democrats... anyday.
I think all Democrats who believe in the principles of the Democratic Party, in liberalism, in libertarianism, in the first amendment, in social security, in putting people above business... rather than in the supposed leading lights like Obama and Clinton should vote for this man. This man stands for all those values far better than any current Democrat leader does. And he does so emphatically.
Four years with him at the helm would change the United States back into one of the most respected nations in the world from the currently rather discomfiting ... most hated.
The man is Ron Paul, Senator from Texas. Yes... TEXAS! A republican from Texas... mother of bloody God... how could that be possible. But yes. It happens. Intelligence, insight and moral superiority shine from wherever. Even from bang in the middle of the center of the religio-industrial-politico complex of cowboy land texas. And even from something as morally degrading as the republican party that uses a "values debate" (values as defined by fundamentalist, obscurantist, morally repugnant and simply stupid interpretations of the new testament) to decide on its candidate.
This silver haired, slight, craggy-faced man is emancipation for American politics. He goes back to the turn of the 20th century Republican morals. When Republican actually stood for the literal meaning of the word "republican" and not the christian fundamentalist organisation that masquerades as a political party today.
This man stands up for personal liberty. In an universe where wussy-democrats who are in majority in the senate still agree to increase discretionary powers to pry into privacy, this man dares to support personal liberty and privacy in the debating platform where pleasing all is a must.
This man stands up for a "when blame needs to be laid, lay it first on yourself" principle to foreign policy when tank-nozzles and f-22 noses are phallic symbols of american pride to "bring democracy wherever oil is" the game of the day. He insists that America set its home right before it preaches to others. !!!.. This man is a Republican. I wouldn't dare say that even in the middle of a bunch of californian academicians. American moral supremacy is something taken for granted by even the most liberal, libertarian person in the USA, except perhaps for Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky!
This personal actually believes and states publicly that all is not hunky-dory with Domestic Policy as executed by the current Government.
I can live with his public stances on core conservative issues- abortion, homosexual rights, christianity and immigration. No one with such emphasis on personal liberty and accountability could go too far right. I do believe that he will straddle the fence and back-burnerise on these core conservative issues, whenever they impinge on liberty. I can live with that. I do believe liberalism and libertarianism can be slowed but never stopped or reversed.
I cry that we can't find someone with his mind in Indian Politics. Americans will never find another like him for the rest of their history. And they will never know it either. He will never get past the primaries, and will only have a select few fans who appreciate what could've been if Ron Paul....
I wonder if six-degrees of separation is too wide to let him know that one of his biggest fans is on the opposite side of the planet and the other side of the universe where political ideology is concerned.
If I were American, I have actually found myself a Republican I can vote for and be at peace with my supposed liberal ass self. And that Republican is one I would vote for over the current crop of Democrats... anyday.
I think all Democrats who believe in the principles of the Democratic Party, in liberalism, in libertarianism, in the first amendment, in social security, in putting people above business... rather than in the supposed leading lights like Obama and Clinton should vote for this man. This man stands for all those values far better than any current Democrat leader does. And he does so emphatically.
Four years with him at the helm would change the United States back into one of the most respected nations in the world from the currently rather discomfiting ... most hated.
The man is Ron Paul, Senator from Texas. Yes... TEXAS! A republican from Texas... mother of bloody God... how could that be possible. But yes. It happens. Intelligence, insight and moral superiority shine from wherever. Even from bang in the middle of the center of the religio-industrial-politico complex of cowboy land texas. And even from something as morally degrading as the republican party that uses a "values debate" (values as defined by fundamentalist, obscurantist, morally repugnant and simply stupid interpretations of the new testament) to decide on its candidate.
This silver haired, slight, craggy-faced man is emancipation for American politics. He goes back to the turn of the 20th century Republican morals. When Republican actually stood for the literal meaning of the word "republican" and not the christian fundamentalist organisation that masquerades as a political party today.
This man stands up for personal liberty. In an universe where wussy-democrats who are in majority in the senate still agree to increase discretionary powers to pry into privacy, this man dares to support personal liberty and privacy in the debating platform where pleasing all is a must.
This man stands up for a "when blame needs to be laid, lay it first on yourself" principle to foreign policy when tank-nozzles and f-22 noses are phallic symbols of american pride to "bring democracy wherever oil is" the game of the day. He insists that America set its home right before it preaches to others. !!!.. This man is a Republican. I wouldn't dare say that even in the middle of a bunch of californian academicians. American moral supremacy is something taken for granted by even the most liberal, libertarian person in the USA, except perhaps for Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky!
This personal actually believes and states publicly that all is not hunky-dory with Domestic Policy as executed by the current Government.
I can live with his public stances on core conservative issues- abortion, homosexual rights, christianity and immigration. No one with such emphasis on personal liberty and accountability could go too far right. I do believe that he will straddle the fence and back-burnerise on these core conservative issues, whenever they impinge on liberty. I can live with that. I do believe liberalism and libertarianism can be slowed but never stopped or reversed.
I cry that we can't find someone with his mind in Indian Politics. Americans will never find another like him for the rest of their history. And they will never know it either. He will never get past the primaries, and will only have a select few fans who appreciate what could've been if Ron Paul....
I wonder if six-degrees of separation is too wide to let him know that one of his biggest fans is on the opposite side of the planet and the other side of the universe where political ideology is concerned.
Monday, October 15, 2007
The Republican Debate - Surprised by Sin!!
Technorati Profile
The transcript of the Republican debate at nytimes.com
I expected to be bored. I expected to be disgusted with conservative views on abortion, immigration, the church and other stuff but the first few minutes of the Republican debate were certainly a huge surprise. Irrespective of the fact that most of the republican hopefuls might in themselves be idiots of the first order (with the exception of maybe McCain, Guiliani and Romney), their advisors and speech writers are certainly first-class. That is to be expected from mostly millionaire conservatives but the way each of their opinions were tailored to appeal to middle class americans could blow a huge hole in Democrats' campaigns. Some of the republicans were actually talking protectionism, indirect sales tax as opposed to income tax... The approval ratings say that people look to democrats to managing the economy properly. The republicans have moved from being right-wing both socially and economics-wise to being simply social right-wingers. The current campaigns seem to be directed to get lost ground back.
The republican's problem is not that they are careful about spending, that's just peachy. Its not that they support lower taxation, fills my heart with joy. The point is that they don't mind cutting spending for health insurance for poor children ( the SCHIP expansion veto) and cutting spending on public works for the average American which lead to incidents like the minneapolis bridge crash, the Katrina bungling etc. but don't think twice about spending on ramping up their testosterone in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in relatively peaceful central asia just to spite Russia or expanding patrolling in the malacca straits (for goodness sake!! what the hell does the US want to do there??)
Their lower taxation is first enjoyed by people with incomes >200000$ per annum and later by those with lower incomes. The higher your income the more you benefit i.e. the lesser you earn the lesser you benefit. And no, not in absolute terms; in percentage terms. Middle class americans pay an average of 30% of his/her income as tax while the hedge fund manager probably pays about 2 to 5% of his close-to-billion$ income, the average CEO pays about 15%. The more you earn the less you pay.
Call me cynical but I think Republicans came up with the idea of indirect consumer taxation, which sounds like a leftist dream, because its easier to screw around with this supposed "fair tax" than with income tax. You can tax bread at 2% and Humvees at 20%. Sounds fair enough. But at the end of the day, everyone eats the same amount of bread (oh! organic bread will be taxed lower of course... guess who consumes organic, whole wheat bread fortified with omega oils?) but the middle class doesn't buy humvees. So a larger percentage of middle class income goes to buy the basics which are taxed at the same rate for everyone while the rich have more money to buy playthings with. In a republican regime, the consumption tax WILL be screwed around with to leave the likes of billionaire ranchers with more money in their hands.
Even supposedly level-headed Guiliani goes "You can't possibly cut every tax, as I think Congressman Tancredo pointed out. You need money for police. You need money for military. But I cut, I think, as many taxes as you possibly could in that period of time.".. oh! he will cut every other tax.. cut every other spending but he wouldn't dream of cutting spending for the actual phallic tools of state control.
The transcript of the Republican debate at nytimes.com
I expected to be bored. I expected to be disgusted with conservative views on abortion, immigration, the church and other stuff but the first few minutes of the Republican debate were certainly a huge surprise. Irrespective of the fact that most of the republican hopefuls might in themselves be idiots of the first order (with the exception of maybe McCain, Guiliani and Romney), their advisors and speech writers are certainly first-class. That is to be expected from mostly millionaire conservatives but the way each of their opinions were tailored to appeal to middle class americans could blow a huge hole in Democrats' campaigns. Some of the republicans were actually talking protectionism, indirect sales tax as opposed to income tax... The approval ratings say that people look to democrats to managing the economy properly. The republicans have moved from being right-wing both socially and economics-wise to being simply social right-wingers. The current campaigns seem to be directed to get lost ground back.
The republican's problem is not that they are careful about spending, that's just peachy. Its not that they support lower taxation, fills my heart with joy. The point is that they don't mind cutting spending for health insurance for poor children ( the SCHIP expansion veto) and cutting spending on public works for the average American which lead to incidents like the minneapolis bridge crash, the Katrina bungling etc. but don't think twice about spending on ramping up their testosterone in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in relatively peaceful central asia just to spite Russia or expanding patrolling in the malacca straits (for goodness sake!! what the hell does the US want to do there??)
Their lower taxation is first enjoyed by people with incomes >200000$ per annum and later by those with lower incomes. The higher your income the more you benefit i.e. the lesser you earn the lesser you benefit. And no, not in absolute terms; in percentage terms. Middle class americans pay an average of 30% of his/her income as tax while the hedge fund manager probably pays about 2 to 5% of his close-to-billion$ income, the average CEO pays about 15%. The more you earn the less you pay.
Call me cynical but I think Republicans came up with the idea of indirect consumer taxation, which sounds like a leftist dream, because its easier to screw around with this supposed "fair tax" than with income tax. You can tax bread at 2% and Humvees at 20%. Sounds fair enough. But at the end of the day, everyone eats the same amount of bread (oh! organic bread will be taxed lower of course... guess who consumes organic, whole wheat bread fortified with omega oils?) but the middle class doesn't buy humvees. So a larger percentage of middle class income goes to buy the basics which are taxed at the same rate for everyone while the rich have more money to buy playthings with. In a republican regime, the consumption tax WILL be screwed around with to leave the likes of billionaire ranchers with more money in their hands.
Even supposedly level-headed Guiliani goes "You can't possibly cut every tax, as I think Congressman Tancredo pointed out. You need money for police. You need money for military. But I cut, I think, as many taxes as you possibly could in that period of time.".. oh! he will cut every other tax.. cut every other spending but he wouldn't dream of cutting spending for the actual phallic tools of state control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
