Monday Morning News Update

Los Zetas, a Mexican drug cartel, has claimed that Bank of America has helped launder money through a Texas based racehorse business with BofA accounts. While the bank has admitted in errors of laundering in the past, the question remains whether or not Bank of America has any sort of participation in such money laundering and if they have any efforts in preventing this in the future.

At 11:50 AM this morning, President Obama proposed the extension of tax cuts for citizens earning less than $250,000 a year. This will cost the government $150 billion in revenue in 2013. While Romney's campaign efforts supports tax cuts for individuals on all income levels, will Obama's venture of building a stronger middle class win him the presidential election?

Our poor, earthquake-damaged Washington Monument has now postponed is open date to past 2014. The 5.8 earthquake that shook it last year has caused renovations to reach up to $15 million.

A seemingly death sentence to a cancer patient has turned out to become a potential cancer killing life saver. While unfortunately the patient who received the new drug therapy passed away, the new-found realization of what this drug could do has paved a new path for cancer research. 

Congratulations to Roger Federer's seventh Wimbledon title over Andy Murray this weekend. It's been more than two years since Federer has won a major title. Congrats Federer, you still got it!

Debunking Liberal Economics Volume 1 "A College Degree is Key to the Middle Class" Issue 1: Government Inflated a Bubble

Before I begin I also would like to welcome our new writers and thank them for their time to helping Matt and I out on this crazy project we envisioned. To our readers, I hope I am turning you. 

(Matt, I would love to put up a poll to find out the ideological skew of our readers, my guess is at least 70-30 against me. Maybe even 95-5…) 

Now, I will dive into the issue at hand: liberal policies of just throwing money at the problem have created an issue and the only way to solve it is by completely re-envisioning the model.

I didn’t mean to make this post a response to Matt, but I later decided to just focus this post on something Matt wrote in his last post in what has shaped up to be “Education Week at CR”. Matt wrote, “Whenever anything goes wrong, you can always expect conservatives to blame the government.” Matt, there’s probably a cause-effect problem here. You see if A constantly causes B, one would be correct to say that A caused B. However, what you are asserting in that statement is that A did not actually cause B. So let’s take a look at whether A did cause B, shall we?

Friday Links: Heresy, Innovation, and Disappointing GDP

Ice Cube knows it, you do too.  What?


That's right, it's Friday.  So get your open containers ready because Conflict Revolution Daily Links are about to go DOWN.  Let's take a look at what's in the news today:

1) The United States economy grew at a disappointing rate of 2.2% on the first quarter of 2012, lower than the median rate of 2.5% forecasted by economists and lower than the 3.0% growth between October and December of 2011.  Some silver lining?  Consumer confidence hit the highest level in a year, indicating improving demand, while household purchases ticked up by 2.9%, exceeding even the most optimistic estimates.  Also, Germany and Japan's economies are shrinking, and Britain is officially in a double-dip recession... so at least we're not them. ["Economy in US Grew Less Than Forecast in First Quarter," Bloomberg, 4/27/12]

2) Stephen Siena, CR's other esteemed writer, has long argued that modern, Western secularism is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian thought and stressed that this really makes the US a Christian nation. So is Western secularism just another in the long line of Christian heresies? ["Bad Religion," Slate, 4/19/12]

3) CNN's John Avlon gives a well-reasoned perspective on tax reform, but how anyone sees the Republicans and Democrats as being equally intransigent is completely beyond me.  Call me when 95 percent of congressional Dems sign a pledge to NEVER cut spending. ["Why tax reform talk a dead end," CNN, 4/17/12]

4) Former Bush speechwriter David Frum on what Barack Obama can learn from Lyndon Johnson ["Read this book, Obama!," The Daily Beast, 4/15/12"]

5) Finally, from an excellent blog on urban living, why cities with lower carbon emissions are more innovative ["What Makes Some Cities Greener Than Others," The Atlantic Cities, 4/22/12]

The British economy is in recession, but so is the time left in your work week.  Kick back but don't switch back... the Conflict Revolution will not be televised, but it is available on the internet.

Over and out.

Email Debate: What's Fair?

With the recent debate over the Buffett Rule and talk of economic fairness filtering into the presidential campaign, Matt and Stephen decided to get to the bottom of what we mean when we say "fair share" - and how that should be reflected in tax policy.  Let's see what happens when the emails exchanged by two people stop being polite... and start getting real.

Stephen: Matt, much is spoken about paying one's "fair share". But what does that even mean? Can you give me a principle that we could gauge future taxes on?

Matt: I actually think that "fair share" alone is a terrible political line because it sounds like something my kindergarten teacher would have said and it doesn't do anything to connect the idea of fairness to economic growth.  That being said, to me, fairness is the idea that we have the biggest economy in the world, and should ensure that everyone in the country at least has the opportunity to share in its riches.  Not a guarantee, but at least the opportunity.  We should build the best tax and government structure we can to ensure that - therefore, if you make a lot of money, you should be taxed at a higher rate in order to help pay for that structure and ensure broader opportunity for others living in the same country that nurtured your success.  

Stephen: This response does a great deal to use nice concepts and ideas. But from that I've only gained that you want a tax structure that allows everyone to participate in acquiring riches. Let's hold off on that idea for just a moment, but I'd like to get back to it later. Now, can you please articulate what a "fair share" tax systems would look like? How do we know if we achieved it? Unless it just based on ensuring broad participation in economic growth.

Matt: Something tells me that this will conclude with you arguing that the only "fair" outcome would be for everyone to pay a flat tax (i.e. 20% of your income regardless of what you make).  This is a compelling argument, but only on a superficial level.  We need to pay for a government that responds to the needs of its people, and it is our responsibility to ensure that everyone has as close to an equal chance as possible at succeeding in life.  Taxing everyone at 20%, or 30%, or whatever it is would not yield anywhere near enough revenue to pay for this.  Thus if you have more money, you should pay more.  Not an exorbitant amount, but more.  Utilitarianism 101 - greatest good for the greatest number.

"BUFFET RULE" TAX PLAN FAILS IN SENATE TEST VOTE

So, what's next?

Also, check out this assessment of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement: It's dead. Is it?

(Photo credit to Craig Hudson)

Email Discussion: Do Tax Returns Matter?

In one of Conflict Revolution's more civil discussions, Stephen and Matt discuss whether or not politicians should be compelled to release their tax returns, and whether wealth matters when you're running for President.

As always, these are real emails from real people...

****

Stephen: Matt, with tax day nearing and Obama's tax return out there... do you think there is any reason for releasing tax returns for the general public's information?

Matt: YOU OPPOSE THIS? THERE IS NO HOPE. Just kidding. Maybe you don't actually oppose it. But seriously, I had never thought much about the tax return question. I guess it's just one of those things I came to take for granted about presidential campaigns. What's your objection (if you have one)?

Stephen: My objection is that they don't really mean anything (tax returns do not affect one's policies) yet the media plays them up. Instead, they are used as a distraction in order to (largely) create a disconnect between a candidate and voters (who likely don't make as much) - this is a particularly useful tactic on the left. It seems to me like it's only utility is to raise class issues. But I believe it was Jon Stewart who defended Obama's elitism by claiming (and I agree 100%) "shouldn't the president be of above average intelligence?" Well if that is true, and again I couldn't agree more, what's so crazy about the president being of above average wealth?

Matt: I see your point. Who really cares exactly how rich Mitt Romney is, since it's not like we didn't know already that he worked in private equity, where one could reasonably make the assumption that he made a lot of money. Pretty sure the awkwardness and general tone-deafness that people attribute to his well-heeled background would also have shone through regardless. On the other hand, don't we want as much information as possible to be out there on the people whom we are going to consider electing?

"There is Nobody in this Country Who Got Rich on His Own"

After watching the below video, sent to him by Matt, Stephen was so enraged that he needed to respond to what he called "utter horseshit." As a man who doesn't use the word horseshit lightly, now is his time to refute this garbage. Here's the article that made Stephen so mad that he was ready to dump toxic waste into the Hillsborough River just to get back at Matt.

First, I'd like to start by agreeing with Elizabeth Warren, yes the wealthy did not spontaneously pop into existence. But does that really prove your argument or anything you really stand for? Actually, the way I see it it's painful to the liberal movement to remind us all of the Social Contract (which this argument plays off).

1 - Leave it to liberal "intellectuals" to reignite a debate that was settled in the mid-1700's. Yes, I understand the Social Contract, we all come together into society because alone we cannot provide all the goods society can. In return, we sacrifice some things. Fine, but I can't see how that leads to progressive liberalism, Matt if you would be so kind please explain.

Read the rest of Stephen's argument and check out Matt's response after the jump...