If you thought that the Obama campaign occasionally sounded like it was scripted by Aaron Sorkin, this is for you:
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Do you want a middle-class tax cut?
If you know me (and I don't flatter myself: you probably only read this blog if you know me), then you are middle class, or even "working class" (read: the verbotten words "lower class").
Do you want a tax cut?
See, here's the thing: I would take a tax cut, but I don't need a tax cut. If the nation is in such dire financial straights, I'll give up my tax cut to ease the deficit and still spend money. After all, we have a steady income: I can still shop. And the tax cut wouldn't represent enough money for me to buy a new car or anything. It would amount to - what? - $100 a month? What are we talking about here?
The tax cut aspect of the Obama Administration's proposed economic stimulus package is pretty fuzzy - as all tax cut plans seem to be - and is steeped in politics from both sides of the aisle. Personally, I'm more interested in seeing significant infrastructure spending. I've been bitching about that forever. But Professor Krugman makes a good arguement in yesterday's Times:
By the way, you are still OBLIGED to read Krugman as long as this financial crisis persists. If you haven't, DO IT.
Do you want a tax cut?
See, here's the thing: I would take a tax cut, but I don't need a tax cut. If the nation is in such dire financial straights, I'll give up my tax cut to ease the deficit and still spend money. After all, we have a steady income: I can still shop. And the tax cut wouldn't represent enough money for me to buy a new car or anything. It would amount to - what? - $100 a month? What are we talking about here?
The tax cut aspect of the Obama Administration's proposed economic stimulus package is pretty fuzzy - as all tax cut plans seem to be - and is steeped in politics from both sides of the aisle. Personally, I'm more interested in seeing significant infrastructure spending. I've been bitching about that forever. But Professor Krugman makes a good arguement in yesterday's Times:
...there’s a problem with a public-investment-only stimulus plan, namely timing. We need stimulus fast, and there’s a limited supply of “shovel-ready” projects that can be started soon enough to deliver an economic boost any time soon. You can bulk up stimulus through other forms of spending, mainly aid to Americans in distress — unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.. And you can also provide aid to state and local governments so that they don’t have to cut spending — avoiding anti-stimulus is a fast way to achieve net stimulus. But everything I’ve heard says that even with all these things it’s hard to come up with enough spending to provide all the aid the economy needs in 2009.I don't know about that. Because we need as much economic stimulus as we can get, you think a middle class tax cut that will not be spent, but saved, is something we HAVE to do? I'm not convinced.
What this says is that there’s a reasonable economic case for including a significant amount of tax cuts in the package, mainly in year one.
By the way, you are still OBLIGED to read Krugman as long as this financial crisis persists. If you haven't, DO IT.
As the situation in Gaza deteriorates further...
I suspect that, in the years to come, Americans' understanding of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians will become even murkier. The fact of the matter is that most Americans do not understand the roots of the conflict now, and more and more Americans fail to cower when they're called anti-Semitic for questioning Israel's actions against Hamas and Fatah. That dog doesn't hunt anymore.
Most Americans 40 years of age or younger do not see Jewishness as a negative. Like our parents' generation, we don't see the old prejudices and they are not the motivation for our political/social/global perspective. Think of this: in the movie It's a Wonderful Life, curmudgeonly Mr. Potter sneers at George Bailey's efforts to help "a lot of garlic eaters". Do you know what that means? If you're my age (mid-30s), you'd have to know something about turn-of-the-century immigration statistics, geography, and frankly cooking to understand that comment. Certainly if my parents understood it they did not subscribe to it. And the comment drifts completely by my own generation.
So here we are, the new generation of middle America, who doesn't quite understand why we are supposed to support Israel without question or discussion. That isn't going to go away. I don't think its very difficult to present an argument to my generation about why Israel needs our support. I just don't think we're going to continue to offer Israel our unqualified support.
That said, Glenn Greenwald today talks about the ground situation in Gaza, points out that Israel is still unconstitutionally barring journalists from entering Gaza, and shares his experience having a rational discussion about the conflict with an irrational commentator.
Most Americans 40 years of age or younger do not see Jewishness as a negative. Like our parents' generation, we don't see the old prejudices and they are not the motivation for our political/social/global perspective. Think of this: in the movie It's a Wonderful Life, curmudgeonly Mr. Potter sneers at George Bailey's efforts to help "a lot of garlic eaters". Do you know what that means? If you're my age (mid-30s), you'd have to know something about turn-of-the-century immigration statistics, geography, and frankly cooking to understand that comment. Certainly if my parents understood it they did not subscribe to it. And the comment drifts completely by my own generation.
So here we are, the new generation of middle America, who doesn't quite understand why we are supposed to support Israel without question or discussion. That isn't going to go away. I don't think its very difficult to present an argument to my generation about why Israel needs our support. I just don't think we're going to continue to offer Israel our unqualified support.
That said, Glenn Greenwald today talks about the ground situation in Gaza, points out that Israel is still unconstitutionally barring journalists from entering Gaza, and shares his experience having a rational discussion about the conflict with an irrational commentator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
