From the Times online
I like a lot of the NYT's video features online. Since they don't have commercial breaks, they can do longer interviews (this one is about 17 min.), and they bring some of the detail of print journalism to a video format that often works better than print for interviews (or at least works differently). Actually, it's a lot of the same things I like about the News Hour (and do I ever like the News Hour!).
Maybe this will be the year that evangelical voters take seriously the gospel's injunction to care for the poor and not show favoratism to the rich. Probably not, but I can pretend to hope.
OK. I should get back to working on the syllabus for my summer class. I get a fresh crop of summer freshmen on Monday morning. (Can you imagine your first college instructor being ME?!?)
Peace.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The Times on tax policy:
"In a study of the candidates’ plans made public Wednesday, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that in contrast to Mr. McCain, 'Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers.'
The study said, 'The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution,' whereas 'Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes.'”
More here.
If I had had you as my first college instructor, I might've gone on to earn the degree. Instead I got a bunch of hacks.
No offense to the good profs at Wheaton, I just only got one of them.
It's easy to talk about taxes when you are wealthy have plenty of loopholes to protect your money. How about someone coming to be pres that makes a combined income of 50k.
It's easy to talk about raising taxes on yourself and lowering them on people making a combined $50k income? Because that's what Obama is doing... as opposed to McCain who would cut his own (and a bunch of millionaire's) taxes while leaving the middle class high and dry (waiting for the trickle-down, supposedly).
Having money isn't enough to make someone economically unethical (though, since you brought it up, Obama makes much less than any other major contender for either party this year); the question is how your economic policies are structured to treat people with varying amounts of wealth. McCain's party-line economic policy is simply immoral.
Paul Krug on Bush's lingering influence on both candidate's tax policies:
Bush's Poison Pill
I think the tax cuts of both candidates are not particularly responsible, given the budget deficits. As for morally responsible tax code, how about simplification and removal of loop holes so that the rich have to pay their fair share? Higher taxes on the rich tend to result in lower tax revenues as they practice more creative investing.
Spending five-thousand dollars per second in Iraq isn't helping our budget deficit much, either.
Of course we need to close loopholes in the tax code and actually regulate and enforce the laws we have (the kid-glove treatment of white-collar criminals doesn't help), but even if all the loopholes were closed, the current tax code (especially the absence of taxes on dividends) is ludicrous. Many of the wealthiest people in America make all of their income from dividends on investments: appart from his nominal salary as VP, Dick Cheney pays no income tax. Zero. People who make 30k combined incomes are paying for the public services provided to multimillionaires who pay no income taxes (not the least of which service is protecting their wealth from criminals and revolutionaries).
True, Federal spending needs to be cut back to a level that is sustainable long term; and yes, the tax code is not truly progressive. It's progressive if you look at the lower and middle class, but when you include the rich, it's not.
Warren Buffet actually has put out a million dollar offer to anyone in the Forbes 400 who pays a higher tax rate than their receptionist. To date, no money has been given out.
Personally, I believe the very poor should receive a credit, and the regressive nature that kicks in above middle income levels needs to be redone to at least a flat tax for people above the median income, but I'm not really concerned about taxes being progressive once you get beyond the median income. I'm tempted to suggest that both the middle class and the rich are equally obligated to help the poor.
Post a Comment