A lot of red states seem to want to secede from the union since Obama got elected. I say I hope they all secede. Here are just some rudimentary numbers. These states that seem to have such an issue with federal spending, taxes etc... seem mighty content with federal funding. Here is what the state received in return for every dollar paid in federal taxes by its residents.
Red States -
Alabama - 2.47
Arizona - 1.45
Florida - 1.20
Georgia - 1.09
Kentucky - 1.75
Mississippi - 2.03
North Dakota - 1.45
South Carolina - 1.92
South Dakota - 1.58
West Virginia - 2.57
Blue States
California - .87
New York - .72
New Jersey - .49
Washington - 1.04
Oregon - 1.15
Pennsylvania - 1.03
Minnesota - .47
Illinois - .71
I think the federal government should just institute a simple rule. No state can get more back from the federal taxes then what their residents put in. Would be interesting to see what these states do when they don't get money from Federal government they so adamantly hate. I know its impractical etc... Just thought I would look at it from a different perspective. (It may be advantageous for the federal budget)
11.13.2012
11.07.2012
Response to a post
The comment below was posted on Facebook by a classmate. I have stayed away from saying a lot about the election lately but the post quoted below made me feel the need to comment.
1. "public healthcare will make you wait months for the doctor" - I haven't seen any longer lines, the plan hasn't gone into effect yet so we don't know if lines are going to be longer. Also Medicare has been in effect for decades and I am not sure that has resulted in "longer lines" for seniors. Now they can't get the same level of care perhaps as a private cash payer. Last I checked people can still pay and get whatever level of service they want.
2. "if you get a serious illness like cancer" - you are in a better position now than before the health care law. The second highest reason individuals file BK is because of healthcare costs due to a major illness. The new law does away with caps on health insurance policies. Not to mention you can actually get insurance if you have had a major illness. Prior to the bill a person could not get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
3. " i hope that nobody cares about finding a job when they graduate from school with 100K of debt " - If Mr. Romney had it his way we would be borrowing money from our parents etc... to go to school. For those of us (me) that don't have parents with money, the availability of lower interest rates on loans and availability of grants is how we get to school period.
4. "bc the economy is in shambles and unemployment rates are so high" - there is no denying that the unemployment rate is high. Unemployment is on a downward trend and should continue that way. No excuses here the President has failed to accelerate the rate of growth. I have my own thoughts but this is certainly a point of concern.
5. "bc you will get taxed and your money will go to the government who will then pay for those "less fortunate" - The tax issue is a huge one and hard to summarize in a line, but the money is not going to the "less fortunate." 66% of our national budget is spent on Social Security, Medicare and Defense Spending. This is not money that goes to the "less fortunate." Welfare does make up 12% of our budget but almost a third of that is for unemployment. People that aren't "lazy" but just out of work.
i think both candidates were going to be good presidents. i honestly think anyone who gets to the point of running is probably going to be ok. BUT i do hope that none of you get sick.. bc public healthcare will make you wait months for the doctor. if you get a serious illness like cancer, you may not be able to get treatment bc public insurance may not pay for it like private insurance. i hope that nobody cares about finding a job when they graduate from school with 100K of debt bc the economy is in shambles and unemployment rates are so high. i hope that if you miraculously get a job, that you don't make a lot of money bc you will get taxed and your money will go to the government who will then pay for those "less fortunate"... however many people who are "less fortunate" are lazy, uneducated people who have never worked a day in their lives and they spend their money on alcohol, drugs and superficial things.
1. "public healthcare will make you wait months for the doctor" - I haven't seen any longer lines, the plan hasn't gone into effect yet so we don't know if lines are going to be longer. Also Medicare has been in effect for decades and I am not sure that has resulted in "longer lines" for seniors. Now they can't get the same level of care perhaps as a private cash payer. Last I checked people can still pay and get whatever level of service they want.
2. "if you get a serious illness like cancer" - you are in a better position now than before the health care law. The second highest reason individuals file BK is because of healthcare costs due to a major illness. The new law does away with caps on health insurance policies. Not to mention you can actually get insurance if you have had a major illness. Prior to the bill a person could not get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
3. " i hope that nobody cares about finding a job when they graduate from school with 100K of debt " - If Mr. Romney had it his way we would be borrowing money from our parents etc... to go to school. For those of us (me) that don't have parents with money, the availability of lower interest rates on loans and availability of grants is how we get to school period.
4. "bc the economy is in shambles and unemployment rates are so high" - there is no denying that the unemployment rate is high. Unemployment is on a downward trend and should continue that way. No excuses here the President has failed to accelerate the rate of growth. I have my own thoughts but this is certainly a point of concern.
5. "bc you will get taxed and your money will go to the government who will then pay for those "less fortunate" - The tax issue is a huge one and hard to summarize in a line, but the money is not going to the "less fortunate." 66% of our national budget is spent on Social Security, Medicare and Defense Spending. This is not money that goes to the "less fortunate." Welfare does make up 12% of our budget but almost a third of that is for unemployment. People that aren't "lazy" but just out of work.
9.19.2012
Some delayed observations about the Republican convention
So this entry is going to be a little short. I almost forgot the whole 30 in 30 days and it is only day 2. So here goes nothing. Many would argue that the best speaker of the Democratic Convention was Bill Clinton. I think most would agree that the Republicans are the party of history. So what about their recent history. Anyone wonder where Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell were at during the Republican convention.
The party of history is going outside of its way to make us forget the most recent chapter of it. They want us to forget what happened to the debt under Bush, that we got attacked under a Republican President, that we went to two wars, "Mission Accomplished" , etc... They want to tell us President Obama hasn't done much. I am the first to say I am not pleased with a lot of things, but here is a short list of things that have been accomplished in four years under President Obama:
The party of history is going outside of its way to make us forget the most recent chapter of it. They want us to forget what happened to the debt under Bush, that we got attacked under a Republican President, that we went to two wars, "Mission Accomplished" , etc... They want to tell us President Obama hasn't done much. I am the first to say I am not pleased with a lot of things, but here is a short list of things that have been accomplished in four years under President Obama:
- The American auto industry was saved.
- Universal Health Care was passed
- The Dream Act
- Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed
- Withdrawal from Iraq started
- Osama Bin Laden Killed
- Ghadafi Killed
- Wall Street Reform Passed
- Stimulus Passed
- Asked Mubarak Publicly to step down and he did.
This was four years, two of which are perhaps the most stridently partisan years in recent history. But then again Republicans don't believe in recent history...
9.18.2012
NFL Referees
I had a post yesterday on facebook stating that this whole replacement referee thing is a little crazy, and a few people had responses. Steve Young said on MNF afterwards that as long the demand is inelastic it doesn't matter to the owners. I tend to agree if we keep watching, if tickets keep getting sold the owners won't have any reason to do anything at least not in an economic sense. The economics of it bring me to something I have noticed over the last few years.
The NFL owners are the 1% and in the large scale of things it makes little or no difference to them financially if they pacify the referee union. But, everything in our current climate is about the Rate of Return.We constantly hear about corporate greed, the 1% getting richer, the inequities in incomes growing, and the long list of financial scandals that have taken place.
Let me pose a question for you: Would you rather have a portfolio returning 12% annually where you know nothing about the underlying investments, or a portfolio making 8% where you understand the underlying investments? I am not sure what your answer would be but I am sure at least some portion of it has to do with your ability to lose money. Think of it this way if I am a billionaire and I am investing a $100,000 I would lean towards the higher return. If it is the last $100,000 I have, I might be more careful.For the 1% making investments they aren't investing their whole net worth, they won't lose their home, or not pay their bills. The game is just different.Also some of the largest investors are Mutual Funds, Pensions, etc ... who have to answer to secondary investors. For these passive investors the rate of return becomes paramount.
It makes complete sense on another level as well. If you own a company with 500 employees, there can at least be an argument that the employees are in someway your constituency. If you are on the board of a public company, your constituency are the shareholders. One could argue that in the case of a director not maximizing profits is the amoral decision.
Corporations are growing larger and larger, the investors tend to be passive and even in private companies the focus on immediate returns means that the only thing that matters is profit. I am not sure this behavior can be curbed unless there is a fundamental shift in America's love affair with corporations...
The NFL owners are the 1% and in the large scale of things it makes little or no difference to them financially if they pacify the referee union. But, everything in our current climate is about the Rate of Return.We constantly hear about corporate greed, the 1% getting richer, the inequities in incomes growing, and the long list of financial scandals that have taken place.
Let me pose a question for you: Would you rather have a portfolio returning 12% annually where you know nothing about the underlying investments, or a portfolio making 8% where you understand the underlying investments? I am not sure what your answer would be but I am sure at least some portion of it has to do with your ability to lose money. Think of it this way if I am a billionaire and I am investing a $100,000 I would lean towards the higher return. If it is the last $100,000 I have, I might be more careful.For the 1% making investments they aren't investing their whole net worth, they won't lose their home, or not pay their bills. The game is just different.Also some of the largest investors are Mutual Funds, Pensions, etc ... who have to answer to secondary investors. For these passive investors the rate of return becomes paramount.
It makes complete sense on another level as well. If you own a company with 500 employees, there can at least be an argument that the employees are in someway your constituency. If you are on the board of a public company, your constituency are the shareholders. One could argue that in the case of a director not maximizing profits is the amoral decision.
Corporations are growing larger and larger, the investors tend to be passive and even in private companies the focus on immediate returns means that the only thing that matters is profit. I am not sure this behavior can be curbed unless there is a fundamental shift in America's love affair with corporations...
9.11.2012
9/11/2012
On this day 11 years ago, I awoke to images that are the equivalent of Pearl Harbor for many in our generation. At the time I was working for the California State Assembly and immediately made my way to our office to see what if anything needed to be done. I was the only one that made it to work that day. Very shortly afterwards I was contacted by our Chief of Staff and told that after I took care of a couple administrative things I should head home and await further instructions. I provide this background not to suggest anything really, besides the fact that we were all, all in shock. Disbelief, angst, fear, a feeling of a lack of control, etc... were the feelings of the day.
The question that I think merits discussion now 11 years later is where have we come since then? 9/11/2001 was a test of our resolve as a country, a people, a community, and a democracy. Did terrorists and the prospect of terror change us into something entirely different? Did this change make us better or worse? The answers to these questions may seem obvious to some but proposing better alternatives seems harder.
We have Guantanamo and many agree we should close it. What should we do with the prisoners that can't go back to their own country and won't be taken in anywhere else? Obviously it would have been best not to have a Guantanamo in the first place... but in our moment of terrified fervor we didn't think that far ahead.
We went to Afghanistan and again many agree we should completely withdraw. What should we do about the Taliban? Over the last decade we have attempted to dismantle all other military and violent presence in Afghanistan besides our own. Have we eliminated the Taliban or will our withdrawal allow them to fill the large hole of power that is left behind? Again perhaps we shouldn't have gone in, but in our moment of terrified fervor we didn't think that far ahead.
We went to Iraq, Saddam Hussein is dead. Is Iraq, especially it's people any better off today? Our position in Iraq is certainly better, today American and Western oil companies own access to most of the oil in Iraq. Iraq today has higher levels of oil production than before before the war. Is the internal Shia v. Sunni strife any better? Not our problem, I may agree, but over the last few years we have armed, and disarmed one faction or the other as we saw fit. Do we just leave and let them figure out the mess caused by us drawing and redrawing lines to our liking? Yeah there were no weapons of mass destruction, and Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq... perhaps we shouldn't have gone in...
I think what we as Americans should take away from that fateful moment 11 years ago as we reflect back is an understanding that reacting in terrified fervor can sometimes have bad results... Should we not react then, I am not sure there is an answer to that inquiry. All I know is that our forefathers created a democracy that has a system of checks and balances that can sometimes make progresses slowly, but arguably that prevents hasty decisions that leave us in a position like we are today: in two of the longest wars in our history, with a prison that we can't seem to close, the list goes on...
The question that I think merits discussion now 11 years later is where have we come since then? 9/11/2001 was a test of our resolve as a country, a people, a community, and a democracy. Did terrorists and the prospect of terror change us into something entirely different? Did this change make us better or worse? The answers to these questions may seem obvious to some but proposing better alternatives seems harder.
We have Guantanamo and many agree we should close it. What should we do with the prisoners that can't go back to their own country and won't be taken in anywhere else? Obviously it would have been best not to have a Guantanamo in the first place... but in our moment of terrified fervor we didn't think that far ahead.
We went to Afghanistan and again many agree we should completely withdraw. What should we do about the Taliban? Over the last decade we have attempted to dismantle all other military and violent presence in Afghanistan besides our own. Have we eliminated the Taliban or will our withdrawal allow them to fill the large hole of power that is left behind? Again perhaps we shouldn't have gone in, but in our moment of terrified fervor we didn't think that far ahead.
We went to Iraq, Saddam Hussein is dead. Is Iraq, especially it's people any better off today? Our position in Iraq is certainly better, today American and Western oil companies own access to most of the oil in Iraq. Iraq today has higher levels of oil production than before before the war. Is the internal Shia v. Sunni strife any better? Not our problem, I may agree, but over the last few years we have armed, and disarmed one faction or the other as we saw fit. Do we just leave and let them figure out the mess caused by us drawing and redrawing lines to our liking? Yeah there were no weapons of mass destruction, and Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq... perhaps we shouldn't have gone in...
I think what we as Americans should take away from that fateful moment 11 years ago as we reflect back is an understanding that reacting in terrified fervor can sometimes have bad results... Should we not react then, I am not sure there is an answer to that inquiry. All I know is that our forefathers created a democracy that has a system of checks and balances that can sometimes make progresses slowly, but arguably that prevents hasty decisions that leave us in a position like we are today: in two of the longest wars in our history, with a prison that we can't seem to close, the list goes on...
9.07.2012
So everyone's been talking about the Toyota recall. All of a sudden everyone is driving a deathtrap made by Toyota! I find this extremely hard to believe. Yes, there is a recall (time to time manufactures have them). Yes, under rare circumstances it may cause one's to accelerator to accelerate SOMETIMES out of control (most likely you would and should have noticed the gradual lag present in the accelerator). But seriously, why the media frenzy surrounding it? Toyota has been trying to resolve the issue. It's executives have publicly apologized and come up with a resolution and are still attempting to make sure this will completely fix the problem. What more are we looking for here? The media has led us to become some sort of lynch mob. "Off with their heads," we scream.
If your car starts to accelerate switch it into neutral apply the brake. If you can't switch it to neutral turn key to the "ACC" position or hold the "start/stop" button for 3-5 seconds and turn off the engine. This will cause the engine to turn off and along with other electronics in the car so be prepared to apply more effort to turn the steering wheel and apply more pressure to use the brakes. Pull safely over to the side and call Toyota to have the vehicle towed and repaired. DONE!!! Why the "hooplah" and backlashes from customers?
Another Rant
Been a while since I have ranted. Law School tends to keep me a little busy. I have lots to rant about this time around but I think I will stick to one thing that came to my attention this week. Representative Peter King of New York is holding hearings about the increase of radical Muslims in America. What amazes me is the lack of any uproar with this going on. Muslims in America are the new 2nd rate citizen... These hearings at their best reflect a McCarthyism that many thought we had left behind. Antecdotal evidence is being thrown around to link organizations like CAIR to terrorism. I am not saying they may not be linked but this is supposed to be a Congressional hearing you would think some concrete proof would be required,... but who are we kidding this is the Congress in 2011 proof is not their strong suit. Since antecdotal evidence seems to be foray of the day here are a few thoughts of my own. Just some facts 400 of the richest americans have more wealth than the bottom 50% of Americans. Americans spent twice what any other developed nation spends on health care and have the 37th ranked health care system according to the UN. I could go on but I would think even these two simple things require a little more attention than Mr. King's hearings...
3.26.2012
Are republicans watching the same primary?
I have been hearing a lot lately about the confidence of Republicans that they can beat Obama. Perhaps they can, but it's the arrogance with which they present their thoughts that strikes me. I mean Romney at this point is the likely candidate, he can't get his own party to like him. I mean here are some reasons why Romney will likely struggle
1. Politicians are not trustworthy, Romney takes the cake he can't tell what his own position is.
2. People vote their religion. Romney is a Mormon, he is closer to a Muslim then Obama.(Mormon's believe in multiple marriages too)
3. People want someone like them. Romney is a rich, 1%er, guy from the northeast that is nothing like them.
4. People at least want to be able to believe what you say. Romney is not sure he believes what he says.
5. People want a job creator. Romney has a track record of slashing and destroying jobs.
6. People like transparency. Romney doesn't, he still has not released more than two years of his taxes.
7. Romney looks good in debates against Bachman, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul. You tell me which one of those candidates seems like the orator that Obama is.
I think Obama is going to have a challenge on his hand because in my opinion it doesn't matter who the candidate is. People blindly vote their team, red or blue. The question is what are the people at the edges going to go for and I for one am not ready to call it a landslide in either direction.
1. Politicians are not trustworthy, Romney takes the cake he can't tell what his own position is.
2. People vote their religion. Romney is a Mormon, he is closer to a Muslim then Obama.(Mormon's believe in multiple marriages too)
3. People want someone like them. Romney is a rich, 1%er, guy from the northeast that is nothing like them.
4. People at least want to be able to believe what you say. Romney is not sure he believes what he says.
5. People want a job creator. Romney has a track record of slashing and destroying jobs.
6. People like transparency. Romney doesn't, he still has not released more than two years of his taxes.
7. Romney looks good in debates against Bachman, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul. You tell me which one of those candidates seems like the orator that Obama is.
I think Obama is going to have a challenge on his hand because in my opinion it doesn't matter who the candidate is. People blindly vote their team, red or blue. The question is what are the people at the edges going to go for and I for one am not ready to call it a landslide in either direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)