Piers
Morgan is having the plug pulled on his primetime show. Due to his lack of ratings and anti-American
feel, CNN has decided to remove him. After all the controversy around his show
during the gun debate and lack of assimilation into American culture, he just
didn't fit. It appears that everyone is looking for reasons as to why his show
wasn't successful. From his accent to his policies, everything he seemed to
advocate didn't sit well with the American audience. It makes sense, given his
British origins, the American people didn't seem to really care what he had to
say. Maybe it's time for Morgan to look for a new career, since he not only has
failed here, but also in his native country.
Ah Paul
Krugman, the accomplished progressive economist. Keynesian at heart. Today his
opinion column is to comment about the 'death tax.' He then goes on to attack
Republicans as a whole for their plan on combating Obamacare, which pretty much
has come down to stories of people who lost their insurance. In talking with
the death tax, Krugman points out that it only effects the minority,
millionaires. He seems to have no problem with this because it doesn't have
anything to do with 'ordinary' Americans. Personally, those people earned that
money and they only reason that tax exists is to get more money from them, it
doesn't seem to make any logical sense. Isn't death a tax enough, and why don't
the wealthy have the freedom to pass on their earnings to whom they please
without worrying about an extra tax. He then goes after the personal stories of
people who have lost insurance due to Obamacare and finds inaccuracies in their
stories. Krugam is great at putting up distractions and taking a few examples
of error to disregard the entire thing. I guess Obama's delay of the employer mandate
was not because people were actually losing their coverage, but because he fell
for the dishonest reports from Republican lawmakers, at least that seems to be
what Krugman wants to believe.
This is
an interesting little piece that talks about economic mobility, how people move
between being poor and rich. Economists note that economic mobility still
occurs, and at the same rate today as it has since the latter half of the 20th
century. But, while that sounds good, the percentages moving between classes
appear to be low, at least according to this author. While America isn't the
highest on income mobility, the author claims that the mobility which they do
have isn't high. The interesting thing about the claim 'high' is that it isn't
defined. My main question is, what is the desired income mobility percentage
and who determines it? The author goes on to say that since income mobility
isn't high, we should focus on standards of living for the poor instead. And he
then notes how standards of living have skyrocketed since the mid 20th century.
Amazingly, with our standard of living shooting up, so does our definition of
people who are poor. So you can't compare those who were poor in 1950 with
those in 2014, because they are in totally different circumstances. Then, he
says "you need to either get wages growing or talk about things that scare
politicians, like “redistribution” and “taxes.” I'm sorry, but since when
did redistribution of wealth create income mobility? If you're taking from the
top and giving to the bottom, you will move the top down and the bottom up,
there is no wealth created.
The
Supreme Court has rejected appeals from the NRA on handgun restrictions for
those between 18-20. From the pro-2nd
Amendment view, that right only applies to those who are over the age of 20.
This is an interesting piece though, because in some states you may actually
carry a gun if you are under 21. In my native state of NH, I was unable to
purchase a pistol; however, I was (and did) able to obtain a concealed carry weapons
license. So, in NH I was legally allowed to walk around with a loaded gun but
unable to go into my local gun shop and purchase one because of federal law.
Secretary
Hagel has proposed reducing the size of the American military to below WWII
levels. This will come as a good thing to libertarians and liberals, while as a
sign of weakness to many conservatives. To the conservative, it will show the
world that the US no longer is trying to keep its position as the dominant
power of the globe. Demonstrating a weak foreign policy. To the rest, it will
be a relief the US appears to be more committed to less foreign intervention.
As the Hill notes, it's unnecessary for such a large military force when we are
not fighting a large land war. However, just because we are reducing personnel,
doesn't mean that American intervention abroad will stop. What used to be
reserved for ground troops will likely be assigned to drones.
No comments:
Post a Comment