You can get an opinion, a strong opinion, from almost any Alaskan especially after a long dark winter. One should stay away from politics, but the histrionics have reached such a level I can't resist. I think they are all nuts. The rudeness has reached such a level that I think members of both parties will disagree with anything from the other side of the isle even if it was their own position just weeks before. My point is there is no middle ground.
One side insists on the support of big business; the other side has a linear concept of the economy. Both are expressed, even recited, as a blind mantra. The support by legislation and regulation of old irrelevant monopolies that should have been in chapter 11 decades ago chokes innovation, production and progress. I am specifically thinking about bandwidth and copyright. The other side, including those that know better, call for taxes to reduce the budget deficit, and speak of higher taxes as the only way to increase federal programs. There are more of course but these two are enough.
For example, just when the economy needs as much help as it can get the FCC is supporting interests that suppress the Internet and the future that this technology represents. If the administration is blind to the significance of our fragile leadership in TCP/IP, our economy will suffer a great deal. This issue may be more important than the Iraq situation.
On the other hand, I listened to a report by a PHD Economist from the
General Accounting Office who was put on the spot by Senators from both sides as to the effect of the tax cut on the deficit. He clearly responded that with in the statistical parameters it would make no difference, either way, and the legislators should feel free to carry out what ever their proposed plans. Neither party heard anything but what was their own political prejudice. The Economist stated his case several times and when pressed fell back on technical terms. To illustrate look at the Daily Treasury Statement, www.fms.treas.gov/dts/ Look at the bottom of the second page and see the treasury receipts day's date, month to date and year to date. Then compare to the same date a year ago by looking in the archives. It is easy to navigate but the archive dates are bunched, so you have to interpolate.
An interesting point for you to take, the daily receipts, as a year over percentage have a strong correlation with the movement of the stock market. It is a matter of liquidity. Anyway the liquidity expressed has everything to do with the GDP and very little to do with the tax rate. I suspect that if you raised taxes enough the treasury revenue would go down and if you lowered them enough the same would result. What the GAO economist was saying was that curve is broad enough that what you do will, statistically speaking make no difference---do what you like. The GDP is a product. Notice that it is several times greater than the circulating money supply.
Is there room for a write in candidate? Who would that be?
One side insists on the support of big business; the other side has a linear concept of the economy. Both are expressed, even recited, as a blind mantra. The support by legislation and regulation of old irrelevant monopolies that should have been in chapter 11 decades ago chokes innovation, production and progress. I am specifically thinking about bandwidth and copyright. The other side, including those that know better, call for taxes to reduce the budget deficit, and speak of higher taxes as the only way to increase federal programs. There are more of course but these two are enough.
For example, just when the economy needs as much help as it can get the FCC is supporting interests that suppress the Internet and the future that this technology represents. If the administration is blind to the significance of our fragile leadership in TCP/IP, our economy will suffer a great deal. This issue may be more important than the Iraq situation.
On the other hand, I listened to a report by a PHD Economist from the
General Accounting Office who was put on the spot by Senators from both sides as to the effect of the tax cut on the deficit. He clearly responded that with in the statistical parameters it would make no difference, either way, and the legislators should feel free to carry out what ever their proposed plans. Neither party heard anything but what was their own political prejudice. The Economist stated his case several times and when pressed fell back on technical terms. To illustrate look at the Daily Treasury Statement, www.fms.treas.gov/dts/ Look at the bottom of the second page and see the treasury receipts day's date, month to date and year to date. Then compare to the same date a year ago by looking in the archives. It is easy to navigate but the archive dates are bunched, so you have to interpolate.
An interesting point for you to take, the daily receipts, as a year over percentage have a strong correlation with the movement of the stock market. It is a matter of liquidity. Anyway the liquidity expressed has everything to do with the GDP and very little to do with the tax rate. I suspect that if you raised taxes enough the treasury revenue would go down and if you lowered them enough the same would result. What the GAO economist was saying was that curve is broad enough that what you do will, statistically speaking make no difference---do what you like. The GDP is a product. Notice that it is several times greater than the circulating money supply.
Is there room for a write in candidate? Who would that be?
Comments