Hume: The Surge Made The Iraq War Worth It | ThinkProgress.
As I have heard it, the luck of the Irish is that if you fall into a septic tank you will come out with a rose. You still fell into a septic tank, something that most reasonable people would agree is a bad thing, but at least you have a rose!
In the case of Iraq, we jumped into the septic tank. And I’m not sure that that is a rose…
Stanley DIY Workforce Tool Box | Stanley DIY Tool Boxes | DIY Answer Guy.
I use the box as a great way to carry Dominion game cards, but after reading about how he uses it as a tool box, I will have to investigate another use.
Bloomberg’s Awful Comment; What Can We Say For Certain Regarding the GSEs? | Rortybomb.
Rule of Thumb: Whenever a politician opens their mouth – verify what they are lying about. And whose lie are they repeating?
Elaine was wondering about the puff of steam she saw receding towards Colorado Springs and the bunch of anoraks that were hanging out at our RR crossing as she returned from the store.
I will try to get by the rail yard tomorrow and see the engine up close.
OWS’s Beef: Wall Street Isn’t Winning It’s Cheating | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone.
Matt Taibbi has an excellent rant on a big why behind Wall Street.
…we hate the rich? Come on. Success is the national religion, and almost everyone is a believer. Americans love winners. But that’s just the problem. These guys on Wall Street are not winning – they’re cheating. And as much as we love the self-made success story, we hate the cheater that much more.
We cheer for people who hit their own home runs in this country– not shortcut-chasing juicers like Bonds and McGwire, Blankfein and Dimon.
If you have an underwater mortgage, say $120,000 mortgage on a house that is assessed at $80,000, and you are making the mortgage payments on schedule, and you ask the bank to refinance to a lower rate and the bank can’t do that because you are asking to finance a loan that is greater than the collateral, does this make sense? You’re still willing to make the payments on the $120,000 amount but you would like to pay at today’s interest rates.
Why can’t the bank work with you on this? The fiscally responsible action is for you to walk away from the loan, leaving the house and the debt in the bank’s hands. This is what all those Wall Street entrepreneurs would do. Of course it isn’t the ethical thing to do, but what do ethics have to do with fiscal responsibility?
I would like to propose a few taxing proposals.
First is to take federal social insurance (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) off the books and let them be funded by a straight 20% payroll tax. Those payroll taxes go straight through to the trust funds and don’t go through the Congress. Congress can oversee the Trustees. I would also suggest that Medicare/Medicaid will provide universal coverage.
Let’s get rid of the itemized deductions, give every household a flat deduction of $75,000, calculate the non-social insurance expenses for the government and figure out how much revenue we need to collect to cover the difference. Then calculate what we need to tax everyone to meet our goals.
As an example: We have $13T income in the US. With the 20% payroll tax the Social Insurance Funds are collecting $5.2T (employer matching). That should cover the annual medical costs and retirement funding with no problem.We have ~$9T in flat deductions, leaving about $4T to cover the federal budget. Taking the Social Insurance costs out of the picture we have about $2T to cover. So a 50% tax on everyone’s income over $75,000 will cover the budget with no deficit. And the Corporations don’t have to pay any taxes!
Or we could arrange for the personal income tax to cover 3/4 of the budget and Corporations to cover 1/4 of the budget. Then we have $0.5T coming from Corps and $1.5T coming from the people with a 37.5% tax rate.
I am sure there are some tweaks that need to be accounted for. What about folks whose income doesn’t come from payrolls? They need to contribute to the Social Insurance funds. And what about 1 person households and 2 person households and 10 person households, etc? Do they all get the same $75,00 deduction? Some more pondering is needed.
I heard an interview of Roger Martin the other day on Business Daily and he pointed out that the idea that companies are in business in maximize the shareholders short-term profit is just because someone said so. There is no reason that this should be the driving goal of capitalistic businesses.
I suppose that over the years the idea of short-term profits has become the loudest voice in the room.What if we changed that to reward 10-year growth? A company’s executives and board put together long-term goals and drive the company in that direction and they are rewarded for reaching those goals – in 10 years. Bonuses will be paid to you or your estate whether you are still with the company. And if the 10-years goals are set every year, potential investors can see how well the management is doing and decide if they want to invest or invest more. There are no extraordinary bonuses based on past year’s performance or non-performance. Profits/dividends can still be distributed annually, but the focus on performance is long-term.
It will require a paradigm shift to get away from immediate gratification ( I hate using that term but I think it actually works here.) I can’t imagine the current crop of business managers will move willingly in this direction. So much easier to game the system in the short-term. I don’t know how we could go about introducing this as a common business practice. Possibly use the SEC to reward the long-term planners? Disincorporate companies that don’t line up? Talk to the states that incorporate companies and get them to change their rules?
Whatever, let’s put it on the table. I’m sure there are a lot of considerations to include. Maybe 7-year planning rather than ten (let’s not go to 5-year planning).
I was thinking about my idea of setting up the House of Representatives to have one representative per 100 000 citizens. While that would increase the House from 435 to ~3100 right now, it would leave the Senate at 100, 2 Senators per State.
Let’s also increase the Senate to have 6 Senators per state. The Senators continue to serve 6 year terms and they continue to be elected on their current schedule. But three Senators would be elected in each election and the three top vote-getters would get the office. So the result will end up with each state probably having a Republican, a Democrat and a Third Party type – or a second Rep. or Dem. depending on the vote totals. I think this would give popular 3rd party candidates a chance to be heard on the national stage as well as providing a moderating influence on the two-party duocracy we have today.