Watercooler chats
哪有保家卫国那么简单？中国的历史相对 homogenous，没有过典型的殖民地经历，也没有被外人挑拨着打内战的经历。想象一下，把数目相似的一群中国男人和一群日本男人放到一个荒岛上，然后外面不停地送武器进去，时不时地扶植一方或者另一方上台屠杀对方。没几年就会变成self-fueling fire，都不需要外界灌油。
美国不能撤，那些油井油田，好不容易抢到手，一撤还不都留给Shiite majority？（Isn't democracy great?) 上台肯定都是亲伊朗叙利亚的。万一都学委内瑞拉的样儿，Exxon, Texaco, Halliburton 吃什么？你以为他们会听任小样儿撤退制定有损自己利益的中东政策？沙特也不干哪，王子王叔的跟咱德州大亨们都是亲亲热热一家人，门路广着呢。
美国不能撤，那些油井油田，好不容易抢到手，一撤还不都留给Shiite majority？（Isn't democracy great?) 上台肯定都是亲伊朗叙利亚的。万一都学委内瑞拉的样儿，Exxon, Texaco, Halliburton 吃什么？你以为他们会听任小样儿撤退制定有损自己利益的中东政策？沙特也不干哪，王子王叔的跟咱德州大亨们都是亲亲热热一家人，门路广着呢。
此喵已死，有事烧纸
。 Interesting video on Washington Post Web site presented by the deadpan Dana Milbank:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 8061201051
If you have any doubt about what our beloved VP shoots up in his vein every day, this video should reassure you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 8061201051
If you have any doubt about what our beloved VP shoots up in his vein every day, this video should reassure you.
此喵已死，有事烧纸
我倒想骑车上班， 可太不安全了。
不过我的车只上班下班， 每个月加一缸油， 还能忍受。我有朋友上下班各开一个钟头， 影响比较大。
我也跟小k有同样的想法， 油价涨就涨吧， 也许可以逼着美国人改变生活方式， 至少住郊区上班的人得想办法carpool。
就是物价嗖嗖地涨， 有点肉痛。在N久没去过walmart后前天去了walmart, 无意中发现那种小瓶的蔬菜油3年前2块多一瓶， 现在4块了。涨幅超过50%。
说个好笑的， 某人同事烧包地买了奔驰SUV, 一加仑才跑12mile, 现在油价一涨， 他痛苦地想卖掉， 不好卖。
不过我的车只上班下班， 每个月加一缸油， 还能忍受。我有朋友上下班各开一个钟头， 影响比较大。
我也跟小k有同样的想法， 油价涨就涨吧， 也许可以逼着美国人改变生活方式， 至少住郊区上班的人得想办法carpool。
就是物价嗖嗖地涨， 有点肉痛。在N久没去过walmart后前天去了walmart, 无意中发现那种小瓶的蔬菜油3年前2块多一瓶， 现在4块了。涨幅超过50%。
说个好笑的， 某人同事烧包地买了奔驰SUV, 一加仑才跑12mile, 现在油价一涨， 他痛苦地想卖掉， 不好卖。
putaopi wrote:北加的CSA是送货上门的，但不是exactly到家门口。是分片儿送到一个集中地点，大家再去拿。我们家附近最近开了个organic farm， 就在住宅区的中间，原来是属于本地学区的一块儿空地，一直都有开发商打主意。最后市民委员会决定租给农场，我们真可以腿儿着去买菜了。Knowing wrote:CSA 是得自带布口袋去领菜的。。。其实我很想让他们送上门但是没这个OPTION。
油价上涨对我们家的生活影响不大，因为我们住的地方上班上幼儿园买东西都很方便。不过，眼见着骑车上班的人多起来了。
现在偶是胡军的扇子。
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=91479424
Comparing Tax Policies
McCain:
* All households would receive some type of tax break under McCain, with the biggest breaks going to the top 1 percent of wealthy households. For instance, households earning $3 million a year would get, on average, a tax break of close to $270,000.
* Taxpayers making between $160,000 and $225,000 would get a $4,400 tax break on average.
* Families making less than $20,000 would get about a $19 break.
Obama:
* All households, except those in the top 5 percent of the income scale, would benefit from Obama's tax cuts.
* Taxpayers earning between $160,000 and $225,000 a year would, on average, see their taxes reduced their taxes by $2,800.
* Households making less than $20,000 would, on average, get a $570 break.
Source: Tax Policy Center
此喵已死，有事烧纸
大概说法是富人交很多很多的税，总数交得比穷人多，所以应该得到减免。
下面是Freakonomics 的blog 上面看来的，作者是不被我待见的Justin Wolfers。
（出处：http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... air-share/
下面是Freakonomics 的blog 上面看来的，作者是不被我待见的Justin Wolfers。
（出处：http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... air-share/
So that got me to thinking about how fair the tax system really is. Do the well-off pay their fair share, or do they also deserve a tax break?
Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary.
So it appears that the tax system favors the super-rich over working stiffs.
And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:
I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists.
So far, no-one has taken him up on this bet.
What about those of us who are merely among the well-off, and not in the Buffett-stratosphere?
Now, I’m no Warren Buffett (believe me!), but I’ve just finished figuring out my federal taxes for the year. I live comfortably (one of the virtues of teaching in a business school), but was dismayed to learn that my federal taxes for 2007 amount to only 16 percent of my income.
This strikes me as astonishingly low. And it’s not like I have a fancy approach to tax minimization; I just write off a bunch of business-related expenses, and benefit enormously from deductions for mortgage interest and charitable giving. Obviously city and state taxes drive my total tax bill up a bit further, as do payroll taxes, although I plan on getting some of that back as social security in my old age.
But the point remains: I had never quite realized that the Warren Buffett problem extends far enough down the income distribution that even folks like myself aren’t paying their fair share.
So I repeated Warren Buffett’s experiment here at Wharton. And it appears that I’m paying lower taxes than the administrative staff in my department. And if it is true here, I suspect the same goes equally for most folks in the top 10 percent of income earners. (Incidentally, according to Piketty and Saez, around half of all income in the U.S. goes to those of us in the top decile ― roughly anyone with a family income of six figures or more.)
此喵已死，有事烧纸
McCain 的退税是按比例退吧？收入高的家庭本来交的税就多，退的也多。Obama 的就是民主党的劫富济贫，反正你收入高，也不差这点儿钱。
现在加州这边特别喜欢讲这两个退税的数字差别。我很不喜欢，太哗众取宠了。本来双收入无孩中产阶级家庭就是税收最高的一群，再高做生意的人能避税的手段太多了，到了这种竞选拉票的时候又用这种绝对数字来抓眼球。尤其是加州是民主党的大本营，更尤其是在加州的生活水准这么高，根本没有几个家庭能够支撑单收入，上班时间去商店基本看不到别的地方很多带孩子的家庭主妇的情景。“$160,000 and $225,000 a year” 这一档在加州根本不能算高收入的少数人，明明是最稳定的打工供房族，在民主党这里仍然成了高收入不用关心的一档。民主党认为得加州选票如探囊取物吗？
现在加州这边特别喜欢讲这两个退税的数字差别。我很不喜欢，太哗众取宠了。本来双收入无孩中产阶级家庭就是税收最高的一群，再高做生意的人能避税的手段太多了，到了这种竞选拉票的时候又用这种绝对数字来抓眼球。尤其是加州是民主党的大本营，更尤其是在加州的生活水准这么高，根本没有几个家庭能够支撑单收入，上班时间去商店基本看不到别的地方很多带孩子的家庭主妇的情景。“$160,000 and $225,000 a year” 这一档在加州根本不能算高收入的少数人，明明是最稳定的打工供房族，在民主党这里仍然成了高收入不用关心的一档。民主党认为得加州选票如探囊取物吗？
云浆未饮结成冰
I am always so annoyed by all the tax cut talks. I don't care who has to cough up the dough, but a nation can't live beyond its means and a financially responsible government has to balance the budget. If the money has to come from somewhere, it should come from the top 1% or 5%. Because there is simply not enough tax money could come out of bottom 90% who makes under 100k a year. “$160,000 and $225,000 a year” are not rich people in California, but they are rich else where. And if you compare the 2 plans, the difference is only $1600. Frankly, it is not a big deal for the "upper middle class". But fro people making under 20k, $550 is a HUGE deal.
有事找我请发站内消息
双收入有孩和无孩交税几乎没什么区别。提醒一下。
笑嘻嘻 wrote:McCain 的退税是按比例退吧？收入高的家庭本来交的税就多，退的也多。Obama 的就是民主党的劫富济贫，反正你收入高，也不差这点儿钱。
现在加州这边特别喜欢讲这两个退税的数字差别。我很不喜欢，太哗众取宠了。本来双收入无孩中产阶级家庭就是税收最高的一群，再高做生意的人能避税的手段太多了，到了这种竞选拉票的时候又用这种绝对数字来抓眼球。尤其是加州是民主党的大本营，更尤其是在加州的生活水准这么高，根本没有几个家庭能够支撑单收入，上班时间去商店基本看不到别的地方很多带孩子的家庭主妇的情景。“$160,000 and $225,000 a year” 这一档在加州根本不能算高收入的少数人，明明是最稳定的打工供房族，在民主党这里仍然成了高收入不用关心的一档。民主党认为得加州选票如探囊取物吗？
现在偶是胡军的扇子。
2001 以及后来的Bush 减税计划是美国自二战以来最昂贵的三次减税方案之一。
这里面减税的大头好处，落在商业公司和股票市场上（corporate tax cut and capital gain tax cut）。如果仅仅提出给这些个体减税，人民肯定起哄----但对付他们也很简单，给大公司减一百块的税，给富人减五十块，同时给普通人民减一块钱的税，穷人不减。你支持不支持？不同意给商业和股市和富人减税，那你自己也减不下那几块零钱。他们就吃定你了。（现在干脆出18分的汽油税把人买下来，你愿意把自己给卖了吗？）
结果呢？国会里绝大部分人都低头了，01年时候正是经济萧条，打出刺激经济的旗号无往不利，而且无人敢说，我代表我们选区的人民不要这笔短视的钱。当时谁那么胆大站出来反对了？John McCain，他说你这样拿国家的钱喂corporations，喂股市，慷国库之慨，挥霍后代的钱，是不负责任的行为。
这还是在入侵阿富汗和伊拉克之前的事情。此后打仗，派正规军，花几倍价钱雇佣商业部队去打仗，或者让Halliburton给美军提供设备和服务，任凭他们给五角大楼开天价的账单。这些钱都是哪儿来的？要不要听政府派的财政审核员auditors发现多少国防contractors乱收钱的故事？要不要听这些auditors怎样被上面的高层压下去让他们闭嘴的故事？官商勾结，再简单不过了，特别是打仗之中，是发财的大好机会。
我强烈推荐Fresh Air节目今年访问前共和党温和派议员 Lincoln Chaffee 的节目，非常非常fascinating，尤其是他回忆七年前白宫通过减税package 强迫国会就范的手段：
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=89689567
为什么美国在过去八年里没命一样地印钞票？不仅给自己带来长期的经济损害和通胀压力，而且连带害了中国，中东，和日本等收购美元的国家。为什么现在大家都眼睛瞪着横飞的现金和飞涨的commodity，食物，原油，能源，一片惊慌失措？为什么钱不值钱，去欧洲旅行都负担不起？
这里面减税的大头好处，落在商业公司和股票市场上（corporate tax cut and capital gain tax cut）。如果仅仅提出给这些个体减税，人民肯定起哄----但对付他们也很简单，给大公司减一百块的税，给富人减五十块，同时给普通人民减一块钱的税，穷人不减。你支持不支持？不同意给商业和股市和富人减税，那你自己也减不下那几块零钱。他们就吃定你了。（现在干脆出18分的汽油税把人买下来，你愿意把自己给卖了吗？）
结果呢？国会里绝大部分人都低头了，01年时候正是经济萧条，打出刺激经济的旗号无往不利，而且无人敢说，我代表我们选区的人民不要这笔短视的钱。当时谁那么胆大站出来反对了？John McCain，他说你这样拿国家的钱喂corporations，喂股市，慷国库之慨，挥霍后代的钱，是不负责任的行为。
这还是在入侵阿富汗和伊拉克之前的事情。此后打仗，派正规军，花几倍价钱雇佣商业部队去打仗，或者让Halliburton给美军提供设备和服务，任凭他们给五角大楼开天价的账单。这些钱都是哪儿来的？要不要听政府派的财政审核员auditors发现多少国防contractors乱收钱的故事？要不要听这些auditors怎样被上面的高层压下去让他们闭嘴的故事？官商勾结，再简单不过了，特别是打仗之中，是发财的大好机会。
我强烈推荐Fresh Air节目今年访问前共和党温和派议员 Lincoln Chaffee 的节目，非常非常fascinating，尤其是他回忆七年前白宫通过减税package 强迫国会就范的手段：
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=89689567
为什么美国在过去八年里没命一样地印钞票？不仅给自己带来长期的经济损害和通胀压力，而且连带害了中国，中东，和日本等收购美元的国家。为什么现在大家都眼睛瞪着横飞的现金和飞涨的commodity，食物，原油，能源，一片惊慌失措？为什么钱不值钱，去欧洲旅行都负担不起？
此喵已死，有事烧纸
Can't say I'm surprised. Isn't it great that political correctness is dead?
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ ... index.html
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ ... index.html
It seems not everyone in the Republican Party is sticking to the message and helping to portray the party as modern and, well, not racist.
At the Texas Republican Convention this past weekend, the Dallas Morning News' Trail Blazers blog reports, one vendor was selling the pin that appears with this post. (If you can't see the photo, the pin reads, "If Obama is President... will we still call it The White House?")
此喵已死，有事烧纸
I hope his/her kids don't grow up to be self-hating Asians.
General Accuses Administration of War Crimes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1
The two-star general who led an Army investigation into the horrific detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib has accused the Bush administration of war crimes and is calling for accountability.
In his 2004 report on Abu Ghraib, then-Major General Anthony Taguba concluded that "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees." He called the abuse "systemic and illegal." And, as Seymour M. Hersh reported in the New Yorker, he was rewarded for his honesty by being forced into retirement.
So if war crimes were committed, who's responsible?
In today's installment of a major McClatchy Newspapers series on the U.S. detention system, Tom Lasseter writes: "The framework under which detainees were imprisoned for years without charges at Guantanamo and in many cases abused in Afghanistan wasn't the product of American military policy or the fault of a few rogue soldiers.
"It was largely the work of five White House, Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers who, following the orders of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, reinterpreted or tossed out the U.S. and international laws that govern the treatment of prisoners in wartime, according to former U.S. defense and Bush administration officials.
此喵已死，有事烧纸
-
SmilingFace
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 2008-06-17 4:46
cant agree more.There are many important role HRC can play. Ted Kennedy lost in 1980 primary but he went on to be the best senator one can be. I hope HRC will do the same. It is time to prove she is a worker, a fighter, and nothing takes her down, including a failed presidential bit.
HRC once said It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush.
And she only "suspend" her campaign, that's all.
I do think she is cool.
饱食终日,无所用心