At least those in the audience at the DNC event know what's up.
Transcript from White House on President remarks at a DNC event:
"THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you, everybody. Please have a seat, have a seat.
It is wonderful to see all of you. I've got a lot of friends in the room here. People who knew me before anybody could pronounce my name. (Laughter.) People who knew me before I had gray hair. (Laughter.) It is wonderful to see those of you who’ve been friends for a long time, and it’s wonderful to see new friends here as well.
What I'd like to do is to make some very brief remarks at the top and then have a chance to take a few questions, because that will give us a chance to http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifhave a dialogue, and you might have some suggestion that we haven’t thought of. "
blah, blah, blah... but then this:
"As a consequence of that swift, decisive, and sometimes difficult period, we were able to take an economy that was shrinking by about 6 percent and create an economy that is now growing, and has grown steadily now over many consecutive quarters. Over the last 15 months we’ve created over 2.1 million private sector jobs. (Laughter.) "
My repeat from the OFFICIAL White House transcript: "(Laughter.)"
For real. Click here for the official release.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Romneycare
Last summer, the family met Mitt Romney at a book signing event. Very personable guy, and we really enjoyed meeting him. I keep telling the kids, "you met the future President of the United States." The response back usually involves some sort of dubious skepticism. Well, apparently the Wall Street Journal thinks the same way:
CLICK HERE
I've always given Romney as pass on Universal Healthcare in Massachusetts. He was a Republican governor of a very liberal state. I know, I lived there for 22 years. He gave, "the people" what they wanted. He pitches it that way - sort of. Romney credits letting states decide for themselves. Very Jeffersonian of him. However, in my opinion, he misses the mark. He needs to use the above WSJ Editorial to his advantage.
Romney has been opposed to Obamacare since prior to introduction. He was on the anti-passage train at least as early as the Tea Party. He's criticised for his flip flopping opinion on the topic. However, he needs to make this stance:
"I'm opposed to universal healthcare not only because its a states' rights issue [which he believes it is], but rather, I've tried it and IT DOESN'T WORK." He shouldn't been running from Massachusetts failed universal health initiative. He should embrace it. "I was convinced about the effectiveness universal healthcare by a panel of experts who told me it would work, enough so that I supported its legislation. However, I now have firsthand knowledge - It failed. Vote for me, and I'll make sure it doesn't do to the country what it's doing to Massachusetts."
This message should be supported and approved by Romney for President 2012
CLICK HERE
I've always given Romney as pass on Universal Healthcare in Massachusetts. He was a Republican governor of a very liberal state. I know, I lived there for 22 years. He gave, "the people" what they wanted. He pitches it that way - sort of. Romney credits letting states decide for themselves. Very Jeffersonian of him. However, in my opinion, he misses the mark. He needs to use the above WSJ Editorial to his advantage.
Romney has been opposed to Obamacare since prior to introduction. He was on the anti-passage train at least as early as the Tea Party. He's criticised for his flip flopping opinion on the topic. However, he needs to make this stance:
"I'm opposed to universal healthcare not only because its a states' rights issue [which he believes it is], but rather, I've tried it and IT DOESN'T WORK." He shouldn't been running from Massachusetts failed universal health initiative. He should embrace it. "I was convinced about the effectiveness universal healthcare by a panel of experts who told me it would work, enough so that I supported its legislation. However, I now have firsthand knowledge - It failed. Vote for me, and I'll make sure it doesn't do to the country what it's doing to Massachusetts."
This message should be supported and approved by Romney for President 2012
Monday, May 9, 2011
Home Owner x2
We have contracted to buy a house here. Won't close for another month, but have gone through inspection and such already.
It's in the same town we already live in, but is a lakefront property - as opposed to "lake access" which we have as renters. Praying for a nice Summer.
The house is a little further south & west than we originally planned, but it's in a decent neighborhood which is rare around the lake. The kids will be able to ride their bikes, there is a park down the street and they will be able to go to the same schools.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Good riddance
And justice for all.
I have to admit, I thought he was dead long ago, but no one could prove it. I'm glad we had the satisfaction of Navy SEALS taking him out - even if years too late. I only pray he knew who was in the compound.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Mobility
There was a blog post related to a Treasury Dept study that emphasizes a fact that I have highlighted for a long time.
When people (mostly on the Left) discuss income inequality, they refer to a group they call the "rich." However, one of the biggest flaws is that the "rich" are hardly ever the same group of people over time. Income mobility moves people in and out. New entrepreneurs, businessmen/women and sports athletes change the makeup of the super-rich time and again. Those that made fortunes in one year, may not make it in another. Note the Dept of the Treasury report:
" Income mobility of individuals was considerable in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period with roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom quintile moving up to a higher income group within ten years.
About 55 percent of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile within ten years.
Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 — the top 1/100 of one percent — only 25 percent remained in the group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over the study period.
The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).
Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the study period: Median real incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation; real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period; and median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the high income groups. "
So comparison of income classes year over year, needs to be taken with a grain of salt because they aren't the same people. So the "rich get richer" isn't accurate. It's the 1% of the highest income earners earned more than their counterparts in earlier years.
When people (mostly on the Left) discuss income inequality, they refer to a group they call the "rich." However, one of the biggest flaws is that the "rich" are hardly ever the same group of people over time. Income mobility moves people in and out. New entrepreneurs, businessmen/women and sports athletes change the makeup of the super-rich time and again. Those that made fortunes in one year, may not make it in another. Note the Dept of the Treasury report:
" Income mobility of individuals was considerable in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period with roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom quintile moving up to a higher income group within ten years.
About 55 percent of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile within ten years.
Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 — the top 1/100 of one percent — only 25 percent remained in the group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over the study period.
The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).
Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the study period: Median real incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation; real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period; and median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the high income groups. "
So comparison of income classes year over year, needs to be taken with a grain of salt because they aren't the same people. So the "rich get richer" isn't accurate. It's the 1% of the highest income earners earned more than their counterparts in earlier years.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Soon to shred
Emily's birthday today. We got her a wakeboard. Originally slated as a Christmas gift, we determined it cruel to give such a gift when use of it would be five months away. With the snow gone and talk of "ice-out" dates, near-term use seems more reasonable in April.
Happy Birthday, Em.
Happy Birthday, Em.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Quote of the Day
"Democrats immediately began attacking Paul Ryan's budget proposal. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said that it was literally a death trap for seniors, while Pelosi claimed the GOP's spending cuts would starve the elderly. But remember what Schultz was saying about toning down our rhetoric just a couple months ago? And how Obama lectured Republicans last year about not scaring seniors?" Laura Ingraham.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Dance the night away
Katie participated in a 2-time per week, multi-week, after-school dance program. Both girls participated in the four-day dance camp run by the High School Dance Team, the Hawkettes (the high school mascot is the White Hawks). In the first all-company dance, Katie is in the back whereas Emily is in front.
Untitled from Bill Moore on Vimeo.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Progressive
Tax rates. For those that claim the infamous "rich" don't pay their share (click to enlarge):
Out of OECD countries, the richest 10% is the U.S. take down the 3rd largest percentage of all income at 33.5%. We trail only Italy and Poland. Other developed countries are not materially different, but lower - U.K. @ 32.3%, New Zealand 30.3%, Germany 29.2%, Japan 28.1%. France is among the lowest at 25.5%. I would argue that the U.S. is so high because of the outlier effect. The top .01% of income generators in the U.S. generate huge amounts of money, and that effects the group as a whole. That's not such a bad thing for two reasons, 1. that is what our capitalist system is based on, and 2. those in the top 10% is a constantly varying population pool. The ability of participants in a capitalist system to migrate between income brackets is a good thing - it is the American Dream. As Milton Friedman said many times (and I'm paraphrasing), the capitalist system isn't a perfect system, but it's the system that has made the most societal advancements and largest increases in communal prosperity of any economic system in the history of the world.
The first column above shows that same population pool's percentage contribution of the overall tax burden. The U.S. tops the list at 45.1%. So the largest earners in the U.S. generate 33.5% of the income, but pay 45.1% of the taxes. There is no OECD country in the world where the highest earners pay a larger share of the taxes. The only other country in the 40s is Italy, a country (like Greece) known to "tax" people without effective collection. The U.S. has the greatest burden of taxes to income at 1.35x.
Out of OECD countries, the richest 10% is the U.S. take down the 3rd largest percentage of all income at 33.5%. We trail only Italy and Poland. Other developed countries are not materially different, but lower - U.K. @ 32.3%, New Zealand 30.3%, Germany 29.2%, Japan 28.1%. France is among the lowest at 25.5%. I would argue that the U.S. is so high because of the outlier effect. The top .01% of income generators in the U.S. generate huge amounts of money, and that effects the group as a whole. That's not such a bad thing for two reasons, 1. that is what our capitalist system is based on, and 2. those in the top 10% is a constantly varying population pool. The ability of participants in a capitalist system to migrate between income brackets is a good thing - it is the American Dream. As Milton Friedman said many times (and I'm paraphrasing), the capitalist system isn't a perfect system, but it's the system that has made the most societal advancements and largest increases in communal prosperity of any economic system in the history of the world.
The first column above shows that same population pool's percentage contribution of the overall tax burden. The U.S. tops the list at 45.1%. So the largest earners in the U.S. generate 33.5% of the income, but pay 45.1% of the taxes. There is no OECD country in the world where the highest earners pay a larger share of the taxes. The only other country in the 40s is Italy, a country (like Greece) known to "tax" people without effective collection. The U.S. has the greatest burden of taxes to income at 1.35x.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)