Ok, so I have to do it. I am usually not one to interject my opinion on the plain of politics, for fear that I will be railed in whatever stance I have, but as I worked today I had an interesting thought.
The big issue in the election right now is taxes, or so it seems. It feels like all this Joe the plumber crap is blowing up, or blew up and now it's all anyone can talk about. Well, anyway, I play fantasy football, and today, I noticed that a tight end name Kellen Winslow makes over $230,000.00 per game, that's right, per game, to play football. To play a freaking GAME. That means without playoffs, in a 16 game season, he makes roughly, close to 4 million dollars. Now that is without endorsements or bonuses. That is simply his contract.
Now I will get to the politics part of this political blog. Like I mentioned previously, all the hubbub, that's right, hubbub right now is about taxes. Maybe I am confused or don't understand the facts, but Republicans are pissed because Obama wants to cut taxes for the middle income families and raise them, or at least not give a cut, to individuals making over 200,000.00 per year, or more than one person making a combined income of 250,000.00 per year. Now, for those of you who are upset about this whole issue, you have to be making over 200,000.00. Because for you to be upset that the people like teachers, firemen, police officers, and mid-income families are getting a tax break and kellen winslow, and all the other people who make a "more than decent wage" don't, seems to be absurd to me. If anything, the people who can afford to be taxed, should. Anyway, just venting. Like I said, maybe I am ill-informed, but all other issues aside, I am with Obama on this one.
Peace
10 comments:
I am disappointed that this is the only post with the label "Kellen Winslow".
Well... not that disappointed.
Hey Andrew,
I also don't typically interject my political opinions, but for the sake of discussion, I also have a couple thoughts. I would try and explain, however, I read a blog that puts it much better than I could...the excerpt is below.
I personally think that they way to look at this is not, "how is this going to benefit me?" Instead, we should look at how this will benefit the overall economy...which will end up benefiting me much more in the long run.
So the news stations are all buzzing about Barack Hussein Obama’s comments to a plumber while being video taped yesterday. The plumber questioned BHO in regards to the likelihood of seeing increased taxes. The junior senator responded by saying the following in this interview:
“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Now, I am certainly not an economist, but that fiscal policy sounds very familiar - I think there is actually a term for it. I am bit bewildered as to why everyone seems so shocked about this comment, as if he has not been saying something equivalent to that for months and months. I believe the shock is in response to how blatantly and truthfully he said this, a gaff I would be willing to wager he later regretted.
I still do not understand why individuals are in such a conundrum about whether prosperity “trickles down” or “climbs up” a society. It is a pretty basic, albeit conservative, principle of economics that when the “business owners,” or should we call them “your employers” have the freedom and fiscal stability to grow, expand and, oh I don’t know, hire you, then the society as a whole benefits. More wealth is created, more opportunity materializes and all of this fosters a general climate of prosperity where the free market economy (yeah, remember that antiquated term from high school economics - thanks Mr. Fletcher) actually works. Let’s play it out…
You want to make more money working at that construction company. Wow, I bet if the owners and investors of that huge corporation were not so burdened with ridiculous taxes and unnecessary regulation, they would have the money to take on more projects from the other growing companies that desperately need to expand… and just maybe if they took on those new projects, they would want to hire more workers, and if more people had jobs, that corporation would have to respond to that ‘free market economy’ principle of… oh wait, you are going to love this one, “supply and demand”… and pay their productive employees more to stay so that they would not want to go get a job at the construction company down the street that is also booming with business and ready to hire hard working and experienced individuals. Wow, businesses growing, employees motivated to work hard and then getting properly compensated for it - sounds crazy!
OR
You can heavily tax that company owner and send him a government mandate telling him that he has to hire specific workers, who may or may not be as qualified or work as hard. Then, as his production level slows and his need for employees decreases, you can hand those mediocre workers, who have no real motivation to work, a “tax credit” (aka WELFARE - thank you for new definition, BHO) so that they go home with more money - most of which they did not even have to earn. Eventually, the company slows so much that the owners can no longer afford to keep in open and have to lay off all of the employees - but they are all ok with it because that means that get more “tax credits” (and what is that again… $0 income, minus a “tax credit” = FREE MONEY). Eventually, the owners and investors are so financially devastated that they qualify for the “tax credits, ” which were originally funded by BHO reaching into their bank accounts, but now must be funded by the good ‘ol dollar bill printing press, because there are no more business owners to tax (all of this doing remarkable things for the value of the almighty dollar). The society spirals into an unmistakably socialist regime where no one works and everyone is ready to get their handout from Uncle Sam. Hmmm… sure sounds like paradise!
I will repeat what I quoted from Glenn Beck in a previous post, “Please, people, just think!”
-Josh Kolkana, http://kolkana.wordpress.com/
Is Kellen Winslow hiring? I'm in.
P.S.- That last senario makes me chuckle. I guess giving consumers more money wouldn't in turn give the economy, I dunno, some money back maybe? It's a cycle. The money may go to the consumers/working class at first, but it always comes back around.
now i am no economist, nor do i have a very strong base of economic knowledge but i do have a response!
apparently we only want the benefits of a free market economy and not the consequences. See when we start to get into a serious pickle caused by a lack of "unnecessary regulation" look what happens: The government swoops in and throws a giant 700 Billion dollar safety net under the falling free market economy. But then that is no longer called a "free market economy." Its called a "controlled market." There's a term for you. (yes, i had to look that up.)
since the day our income tax was instituted it had different rates for different incomes. it is nothing new about it. It has been much higher than it is now and than it proposed to be. If we are to insinuate socialism because of tax policy well then we are implicating every president since Teddy Roosevelt who did not repeal it (that would be all of them).
the goal here is not to kill production or competition or anything that the can be provided by an unfettered free market. The goal is to give those who do not have a chance to succeed the chance to succeed. It is the same goal of public education.
lastly, in is incredibly disrespectful to refer to Barack Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama." Not disrespectful in the sense that he is in a position to be treated with respect or anything of the sort. I mean it is disrespectful in the sense that all people should be treated with the respect that they deserve as living human beings. Yes, i understand that it is his name, but the intent is to insinuate associations (if only mentally) with Sadam Hussein and other Middle Eastern men who have been deemed terrorists. It is sad, cheap and shameful.
I shall now step down from my soapbox.
i realized after i commented that i neglected the idea of "trickle-down" economics aka side supply. Again, i don't know much but i do know that economics, like most fields is much more complex than on simple answer. Economies don't all work the same way nor does one economy, ie the American economy, stay the same throughout its existence. That being said, there are many respectable and reasonable economic theories. Side Supply has been tried and here is what a couple of economist have to say about it:
"The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts."
- Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695.
Nathan,
I didn't write that...simply a cut and paste from another blog. Is it disrespectful to call John McCain, John Sidney McCain? No. Same with Obama.
But nobody refers to John Mccain as John Sidney McCain because "Sidney" isn't really a name that holds any weight in American (not compared to "Hussein" at least). There's no need to add a middle name in there except to use it to (at the very least subconciously) create negative feelings towards Obama (and if you were wondering, when you view the blog you quoted it's clear that the author is not in the habit of providing middle names for everyone, only Obama, which only further proves the point).
thank you johnathan. That is exactly what i was saying. It is not the fact that he is using Obama's middle name that is wrong. That would be ridiculous. It is, as i said in my earlier post, the INTENT. People don't use Obama's middle name to differentiate him from all the other Barack Obama's out there. The intent is to conjure up the idea of a terrorist. it is what is called Fear-mongering.
Like I said, didn't write it. Sorry it offended you.
Post a Comment