tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28333063526493435932023-11-15T09:03:42.893-05:00SenseCrisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.comBlogger294125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-62664098491965719462012-04-03T12:08:00.001-04:002012-04-03T12:09:40.254-04:00What Constitution?Obama claims that it would be "unprecedented" if the Court overturns a law passed by Congress. Well that is wrong.<br /><br />The man is a well qualified Dope but is rapidly earning major idiot status. When he was running 4 years ago, the media liked to call him a constitutional law professor. He was actually a senior lecturer who apparently was unqualified for any position related to constitutional law. As President, he has consistently opined about active cases and interfered with due process (asking the racist law professor from Harvard and the cop over for a beer; Treyvon Martin; this one; lecturing the Court from the State of the Union Podium) which no President should do.<br /><br />A supposed "constitutional law Professor" who is not familiar with Marbury v. Madison is a bigger Dope/Idiot that anyone ever realized - not even considering that everything else he said in this article is absolutely incorrect. Not knowing what is in the Constitution might be an impeachable offense for a President sworn to uphold it. Exactly what does he think is in the document that he is sworn to uphold?<br /><br />The real mystery is how anyone can support this guy.<br /><br />PS: Really great job by the mainstream press in keeping the idiot's stupid statements out of the discussion. Romney should be shouting this from the mountain top. Santorum should go away.Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-14216011373222354012012-03-13T12:20:00.002-04:002012-03-13T12:25:32.607-04:00Dodd/Frank won't go awayNewsday reports that Dodd/Frank has made accounts with less than $100,000 unprofitable. They are outraged that the banks are raising prices and discouraging people with less than $100,000. The writer says it is a pracitial problem for consumers.<br />It is also a practical problem for the banks. What is a rational business supposed to do? Maybe the writer thinks they should lose money on the majority of its customers and make it up in volume. Of course they look to alternative sources of income through higher fees. Exactly who does Dodd/Frank help? The protections needed had nothing to do with credit card fees and other consumer account fees. Dodd/Frank just limited the fees on people who overdraw their accounts. So the banks raised fees on everyone. Another great job by two guys who ran away from the results of their social experiments. Laughable.Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-19846967805826607252012-03-12T13:47:00.000-04:002012-03-12T13:48:48.579-04:00Obama-rithmeticPresident Obama announced yesterday that employers premiums would be reduced 3,000% under his health care plan. Immediately after that he said that this would enable employers to give everyone a raise. The immediate corrective action by the WH was that he actually meant that employer premiums would go down $3,000 and he simply misspoke. There was no mention in the correction about the raise comment. <br />The hand picked crowd of KoolAid drinkers was delirious with joy. Whatever Obama meant, he said 3,000% and the crowd applauded wildly. People with a third grade education are aware that when a price decreases 100% it becomes free (at least they were at one time). But this group of geniuses bought it blindly. To be charitable, they had no time for the in depth analysis that 3rd grade arithmetic requires. Suppose they really knew somehow that he meant that premiums would decrease $3000 per employee and had time for reasoned analysis. They would then know that since the employer costs are about $10,000 each, the President projects that this bill would result in a 30% reduction in premiums. This fantasy is not projections made by anyone. Even the WH correction does not make what he said accurate. <br /><br />So we have the President making wild promises; a group of people buying whatever bilge the President says because he says it; the White House making corrections that don’t correct anything; and the ever obedient media not bothering to report anything. This is not mispronouncing a word which was once covered extensively. This – by any interpretation – is a self-serving lie.Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-32577626901278690922012-03-12T13:46:00.001-04:002012-03-12T13:47:37.127-04:00Old lettersSome old letters to Newsday that never made the blog foll. Dates are uncertainCrisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-82102867830475337332012-03-05T10:43:00.002-05:002012-03-05T10:48:19.777-05:00Quitting smokingNY State is sponsoring a gross commercial to get people to stop smoking. It was certainly stomach turning but turning my stomach at dinner time will do nothing to make me stop smoking since I never started. So the state <br /><br />I had this exchange with the state agency that produced the effort.<br />Me:<br /><br />First, I do not smoke and never have. I write in strong opposition to your TV commercial. I refer to the one that shows I guy with an oxygen mask wheezing and gasping for air. It is gross and disgusting. That is presumably your aim and you have succeeded. However, most of the people subjected to this atrocity do not smoke. Imagine the effect that "successful" commercial had upon me while I was eating dinner and watching the Met game. In case your imagination is weak, it made me sick. There is no opportunity to change the station, the commercial breaks into full gross out immediately. This is in poor taste. What is the next media crusade? Pictures of manged bodies aimed at drunk drivers? Aborted embryos? We agree that people should not smoke. We should also be able to agree that there are limits to how offensive commercials should be. Sincerely, Bill Lau<br /><br />Them:<br />Dear Bill:<br /> <br />We regret the advertisement was personally upsetting to you. The approval process for our ads includes testing with NYS smokers and extensive review at the Health Department. Potential ads are pre-tested with smokers and ads that test well in terms of motivating smokers to quit are recommended for approval by the Health Department. While the majority of citizens in New York State are non-smokers, smoking has a tremendous impact on everyone in our society. Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in New York State and smoking-related illnesses cost the state over 8 billion in medical costs alone each year. To put this in perspective, every pack of cigarettes sold in NYS costs taxpayers $10 in smoking-related medical costs. The ads we run are tested to ensure that they have a strong impact on public health by encouraging current smokers to quit and discouraging young people from ever starting. Evocative ads, such as the ones currently airing, have contributed to reductions in adult and youth smoking which are both at their lowest levels on record in our state.<br /> <br />Thank you for sharing your feelings. I will be happy to log your complaint stating you feel this commercial is too graphic and offensive. While you agree for the need for people to quit smoking, you object to how our message was presented.<br /> <br />The New York State Smokers’ QuitLine<br /><br />Me:<br />You tested this on smokers and the true believers in the Health Department. So you put out a campaign to the general population that is was tested against the small percentage of people that you are trying to reach but not against the majority of people - people who do not smoke and never will – even if this commercial is never shown. It makes no sense.<br /> <br />It is a given that other people smoking costs billions in health bills and that costs all of us money. But your solution costs all of us more money for these ads to get other people to stop. How about directing your campaign at the people who are smoking and leave the rest of us to be able to have a peaceful dinner? <br /> <br />Even better, if you are going to hit the entire population, do it to enlist everyone in your cause. Get people do not smoke (the majority) to realize what smokers are costing them; then you will have the majority on the bandwagon. Start a campaign to move the health care costs to the smokers: If someone gets cancer or another disease from smoking, why should their insurance cover them (and rates go up because of it)? <br /> <br />Your information about testing its effectiveness is unconvincing. Does anyone ever follow with all those motivated smokers in the test base to see if they stopped? Did they just say what they thought you wanted to hear? Were they motivated to quit before seeing this ad? Or were they motivated to stop was it expensive and stupid?<br /> <br />In the meantime, please pull this nauseating commercial. <br /><br />The good news is that they no longer run the commercial. Must have run out of money.Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-19246684557543563312012-03-05T10:42:00.001-05:002012-03-05T10:42:17.457-05:00The wrong DebateThe current debate on contraceptive coverage has been deliberately misrepresented. Both sides are appealing to their supporters for transparent political reasons. This should not be framed either in religious or woman's rights terms. The basic issue is whether the Federal government can dictate - to any employer - the extent of the medical benefits that the company offers. If the Feds can mandate contraceptive coverage, they also have the right to mandate coverage for breast and penile enlargements, tattoos, veterinary services and or any thing else that the bureaucracy thinks people should have. Our medical insurance system is messed up enough. The debate should be about making it better not worse.Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-18016663575314696092012-03-05T10:41:00.001-05:002012-03-05T10:41:40.299-05:00Retire RushTell me again what a wonderful job Rush & Co do helping to convince people that the Democrats are wrong. His latest round of name calling just chased more people away and he gave Obama a few more points in the polls. Good job, Rush.<br /><br />Question:<br />Mr. Independent voter is looking around to determine who to support; reads some headlines; and even watches some news shows. He learns that Rush supports Republicans/Conservatives and that Rush thinks Democrats are stupid. Mr. Independent also quickly determines that Rush is an idiot. The obvious reaction is that the independent guy will not want to be on the same side as Rush since Rush must be wrong. Think about it; it is a perfectly natural reaction: Don't you automatically not believe anything Pelosi says? <br /><br />This is my latest letter to Newsday:<br />First, let's stipulate that Limbaugh is a jerk. Second, here is another analogy. I want to play golf. I can't play golf without golf balls. I want someone else to pay for them. Show of hands - who wants to pay for my golf balls? Same situation. <br />There is no question that Limbaugh's name calling was moronic. Like all the Republican blabber about values, it moves the discussion from where it should be to issues that are not properly things that the Federal government, political parties and voters should have at the top of their lists.<br /><br />The sad thing is that he was right but now the story is how he said what he said - not what he was trying to say. Way past time for him to retire and go back (?) to taking drugs. He has zero ability to express himself as other than a complete moron and now has even less chance to help elect to convince anyone that Obama should not be re-elected. I congratulate the advertisers who dropped him and only hope more will do so. My next campaign will be getting people who listen to him to stop so his ratings plummet. Only good things will ensue.Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-66493817218766089702012-03-05T10:40:00.002-05:002012-03-05T10:41:03.808-05:00VAlues reduxHannity ignored a similar screed and, not surprisingly, Newsday didn't print it either, although some of the individual columnists do respond. I've sent things to the candidates and when there is a response - not often - it is a thanks-for-the-interest form letter.<br />The point is that talking to people who agree will not do any good. It is important to rationally engage and respond to people who disagree. The election will be determined by the 15-20% of the people who don't pay much attention. They are the target. The Hannitys of the world certainly are not aiming at the right place and neither are most of the primary candidates. <br />Santorum's main ability is to increase Obama's chances;<br />Paul may be right about lots of things but most of his troops are proud of saying they will stay home in November unless Paul is nominated so we might as well have Dole again.<br />Unfortunately, Newt is damaged goods. <br />So, why is there a doubt about who it should be? Social issues. Wonderful.Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-38518487416147729152012-03-05T10:40:00.001-05:002012-03-05T10:40:21.048-05:00The wrong valuesI can't take any more.<br />I am starting a campaign - possibly too late but it needs doing. It is a campaign to get the Republican primary back to the real world. The real world being one where the goal is to have a Republican candidate that:<br /><br /> has a chance to win;<br /> will campaign on issues that impact the majority of the electorate;<br /> has the background to be credible on these issues;<br /> has a personal life that is beyond distortion, although it will be distorted anyway;<br /> understands that while values are important, values are inherently divisive and will not win this election; and does win the Presidential election<br /><br /><br />So, it is campaign to re-direct the primary effort. Right now, the Republican primary will be determined by people who are focused on the wrong things. As a result, while gas prices reach $4; the Administration admits it doesn't know what to do about gas; the Administration is sending guns to Mexico while Mexico keeps sending us Mexicans; every week another green company that was loaned millions goes bankrupt; I'll stop but there is obviously more, while all this is happening, the Republican candidates who are really pretty close on stuff that matters are falling all over themselves. Why? About whether Fred can marry George, whether George should be in the Army, abortion, contraception, whose theology is the correct one and other stuff that will not get anyone a job, lower their taxes, decrease spending, or stop us from becoming Greece.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the guy who could win has to defend himself because these primary voters think (and I use "think" in its broadest sense):<br /><br /> that members of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) are not CHRISTians,<br /> that Mormons are cultists but their religion is not,<br /> that policies he had 20+ years ago makes a difference now. (Note: 26 years before Reagan's speech for Goldwater, he was campaigning for Truman. It's that inability to think again.)<br /><br />Like it or not, the "values" ship has sailed. The election will be won by the guy that the the majority thinks can get the economy going in the right direction. So, spending time and money on stuff that is irrelevant and not related to the economy is exactly where Obama wants it to be. We know Democrats are stupid but the Republican primary focus is also exactly where Obama wants it to be. What does that make Republicans? Every time there is another values quote (mostly Santorum but the others are forced to also make similar statements), Santorum polls higher in the primary and Obama polls higher in a head to head race with him. How is that good? It is time for reality - Santorum, Newt and Paul have no chance in the general election so let's stop acting like dopey Democrats and get the campaign back to the economy and the only guy who will campaign on it.<br /><br />So, my campaign is answer every email I get of an anti-Obama cartoon, joke, or anecdote, (almost none of which are related to the economy and most are about "values") with a reminder that "It is the economy, stupid" is the most accurate political advice available. The rest will take care of itself, I hope. <br /><br />Have everyone spread the word. "It is the economy, stupid"Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-72440934116593357762012-03-05T10:39:00.001-05:002012-03-05T10:39:40.822-05:00It isn't freeThere were two mistakes made in the latest health care mandate. The first was to display the President’s complete lack of business sense. Somehow, he has determined that moving the requirement to pay for this coverage or any other coverage from the employer to the insurance company is “cost neutral” or free. It is not free; the additional coverage is an additional expense to the insurance company who will make up the money in additional charges somewhere. The “offsets” discovered as cover for his backtracking on this issue are a joke.<br />His second mistake was in thinking he can issue an edict to people who do not want to buy something and force them to buy it. Forgetting any religious issue, his mindset is that if he thinks you should buy something, you have to buy it. This is the issue with his health care proposal. It does, however, provide a way to make the 25% government owned General Motors more profitable. He can mandate that everyone has to buy a Chevy or he apparently thinks he can.Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-72888582497249197512012-03-05T10:38:00.001-05:002012-03-05T10:38:57.637-05:00And back againEllis,<br /><br />We can agree:<br />There certainly were many culprits; I am all for giving relief to those who were defrauded; and I too wish that being sleazy was a crime. <br /><br />We can disagree: <br />People who are underwater because they didn't make a down payment are not entitled to government relief any more than I am because I lost equity in my home. <br />And the vast majority of these loans were underwritten by F/F. The banks were willing participants but were following F/F policy. The only reason these loans were approved was that F/F was buying them and the banks had no liability. The grownups involved clearly knew enough not to add these dopey loans to their portfolios - unlike those who started this sub-prime mess.<br /><br />The mystery is that intelligent people are supporting a deal that encourages people on the edge stop paying; rewards people who already have stopped; has no effect on F/F loans at all; and has me wondering why I don't get $1,800 and a principal reduction. <br /><br />And thank you for answering.<br /><br />BillCrisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-56547791289380825002012-03-05T10:37:00.000-05:002012-03-05T10:38:25.619-05:00Henican respondsThanks, Bill. As you correctly point out, there is no one cause of the housing collapse. There is no one group culpable. There is no one easy solution. Certainly government policy, bading lend proceedures and irresponsible borrowers all played a part. So what do we do? Up til now, we've done almost nothing, other than bail out the banks. Isn't it about time we begin to get needy homeowners some relief and make some of the sleaziest lenders pay? We've already begun to change government policiy, thankfully. Crafting a way of doing the first two isn't easy, for some of the reasons you cite. But there are several good reasons to do so. 1. The lenders should have known better. They're the growns-up in the lending process. 2. The housing collapse remain a huge burden on the entire economy. A foreclosed home hurts everyone in the block, everyone in the town -- and on and on. 3. Not one of these loans was written by Freddie or Fannie or any other government agency. They were approved by bankers and mortgage hypsters and other supposed professionals whose recklessness, greed or evil -- you pick it -- just about sunk our ecnomy. And so far, hardly any of them have paid at all. To me, that's the biggest piece of unfinished business here. This deal is a start but only a start.<br /> <br />Of course, I welcome your disagreement. Thanks for taking the time to write.Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-90055866964201535792012-03-05T10:36:00.002-05:002012-03-05T10:37:40.125-05:00Letter to Ellis HenicanIt is clear that anyone who committed fraud should be prosecuted. What is not so clear is that the majority of these mortgages were to those who were "pressured, tricked, defrauded, deceived, or otherwise victimized". This is what your article and the Attorney General would have us believe but is completely unsupported. There was fraud but it is a fiction to suppose that the majority of Americans - while making the largest economic decision they will ever make - did not know what they were doing. <br /><br />What is clear is that the decision to vastly increase the Government's (Fannie/Freddie/FHA) portfolio of sub-prime mortgages and the subsequent modifications to their lending guidelines (which the banks all followed) channeled money to people who never would have qualified under any sensible lending criteria. That decision was not fraud, just ill-conceived and politically motivated. But it is where it all started. (Hint: Google Andrew Cuomo HUD and Sub-prime) Greenspan didn't help but Andy, Barney, Maxine and Chris had more to do with it.<br /><br />Is it cynical to question whether an Attorney General in the Administration of one of the perpetrators is chasing easy targets to direct us away from those who actually were involved?<br /><br />It is also unclear why everyone who is "underwater" needs to be saved.<br />A fable: Two guys with the same income buy homes for exactly the same amount of money. Mr. A has saved up 25% of the purchase price and makes that as a down payment. Mr. B has no savings and takes out a mortgage for the entire purchase price. The value of both homes goes down 20% Mr A is not underwater; he just lost most of his equity and savings. Mr. B is underwater and has lost exactly nothing. But the Attorney General's, your article's and the Administration's plans all help Mr. B. The moral appears to be that saving and prudent purchase are not rewarded while overspending is. <br /><br />So, investigate to find the cause. Knowing what happened will go a long way to avoiding a repeat performance, punishing fraud, identifying corrective measures, and making for better policy in the future (maybe). The easy target is just not always the right one to aim at.Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-59721363104443957182012-03-05T10:35:00.001-05:002012-03-05T10:35:56.578-05:00January unemployment numbersSome perspective needs to be applied to the December numbers. Even if these numbers reflect a trend rather than the seasonal addition of people to wrap gifts - and we all hope that it is a positive trend - the reporting and exuberance needs to be tempered, especially on LI.<br />Several things need to included in the reporting after the obvious fact that more employment nationally is a good thing. Like,<br /><br /> Where are these increased jobs and what are the local policies in the places that create job growth? For example, Sheldon Silver wants to raise the minimum wage to Connecticut/Massachusetts levels. Are Connecticut and Massachusetts adding jobs or are they as stagnant as LI?<br /> About 10,000 a day are becoming eligible to collect Social Security What is this doing to the number of people looking for jobs and the resulting unemployment rate?<br /> The few times it is reported, the number of people that are actually working appears going down as the unemployment rate also goes down. That is certainly counter intuitive and looks like people are leaving the job market regardless of age. To what extent does that impact the rate?<br /> What kind of jobs are being added? Jobs that require wearing a hairnet and a name tag need to be distinguished from actual head of household positions to accurately gauge what is happening<br /> Unfortunately, the reported number of jobs - even if they are head of household jobs - is still below what is needed.<br /> We should celebrate that the rate is going down; not that the reported rate is 8.2%. <br /><br />It is good that the rate goes down. It makes people more confident, especially people who have jobs. Unfortunately, with all the other factors considered, a lower rate is a public relations issue, does not create any jobs, and it does not help anyone who is looking for a job to find one.<br />So, let us celebrate the good news and look forward to those who have a public voice do a better job of explaining what it means.Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-2226112207654127362011-11-07T08:09:00.003-05:002011-11-07T08:16:58.706-05:00ResearchThe does not seem to be any definition of what "fair share" means when applied to taxing the people who have money. The tax raisers among us certainly would not consider it fair if everyone one paid the same amount of money; they don't consider it fair if everyone paid the same percentage of their income in taxes (they must have missed the day in 3rd grade where many learned that 20% of $1,000,000 is more than 20% of $50,000); and they don't consider it fair that the top rate is infinitely higher than the lowest rate which is 0%. The left's definition of "fair share" appears to be that some people should pay everything that is needed. What happens when that is not enough?Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-12923755623094486632011-11-07T08:08:00.001-05:002011-11-07T08:08:44.863-05:00Whiner in chiefPresident Obama is making progress. He has advanced from blaming his predecessor to blaming everything. He tells us that his economic plans would have worked except there was a tsunami, problems in the Middle East, oils prices went up and other things happened that were beyond his control. That speech is the first time I have heard any President actually whine and I have been around for more than most. While it is good to know that he recognizes his failures, the blame thing is really getting old.Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-69004853936708328242011-11-07T08:05:00.000-05:002011-11-07T08:06:59.945-05:00Well, Recuse me.When a judge is assigned a case where there is personal involvement, they are supposed to recuse themselves. Our President has at least two close relatives who have been in this country illegally for years and he is still involved in the illegal immigration discussions. The White House has no comment. HmmmCrisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-11672423009190068352011-10-28T14:08:00.000-04:002011-10-28T14:09:54.580-04:00Getting RicherThere are several very deceptive things wrong with the article about the rich getting richer. <br /><br />There are reasons why this has to happen: <br /><br />The top tier has money to invest and does so; the bottom tier does not, so just can not grow as quickly. In addition, inflation makes the absolute difference even larger. The same inflation rate on a larger amount of money has a larger absolute impact.<br /><br />There is no limit to what the upper tier earns; all the other tiers are limited in what they earn by the tier structure. <br /><br />If someone in a lower tier earns more than the tier limit, they move up. Except at the top, the highest earners in every tier are always leaving. <br /><br />The study was over 30 years. Are we to believe that we are discussing the same people? The people in the lowest tier 30 years ago have moved on – obtained more skills, gotten better jobs and higher salaries. If the same people are still in the lowest tier after 30 years, they have a problem, not society. <br /><br />Meanwhile, the lowest tier has constantly been replenished by new kids leaving the nest, immigrants, etc. It is no surprise these are at the bottom; starting at the top is not the usual way to success. Whether they stay there is the issue.<br /><br />The results of the study are reported in manner that is deceptive and intellectually dishonest. If this is what the Occupy Wall Street movement is about, it shows their lack of perception.Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-22994749995129962592011-08-09T20:40:00.001-04:002011-08-09T20:40:56.548-04:00Two ways to get betterDebbie and Frank are really in debt trouble and go to two counselors. The smooth talking counselor’s plan has multiple parts: increase their credit line; get money from a few strangers who have more money than they do; over the next 10 years they will have to spend less than they had planned to – more than they are spending now but less than they had planned on. Debbie and Frank are excited about this new way of saving and promise to plan on spending even more so when they cut back a little the savings are even greater. With this savings plan and the counselor’s optimistic projections about their future income growth, they will be in great shape in about 10 years if all the assumptions work out. The other counselor is not as popular with all their friends, seems be less optimistic and his plan is harder. He does not want them to increase their credit line. He wants them to stop spending more than they take in. He notes that their spending has gone way up in the last few years but their income has not – he wants them to go back to that spending level. And he doesn’t think that a slower rate of increased spending is the same as savings. Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-83842985056566611752011-08-09T20:36:00.000-04:002011-08-09T20:37:05.488-04:00CompromiseOver the last few weeks, I have learned that I support terrorism, hostage taking, and those who hold a gun to the Government’s head; am in favor drilling for oil, rivers that burn, dirty air and water; am a racist; anti-education; against everyone paying their fair share of taxes; and generally an ignorant, beer swilling, gun toting, religious fanatic who only listens to my side of any argument.
<br />I have apparently earned all of these labels not because I actually hold those opinions but because my opinions are radically different from most of those in the media and the entire Democratic Party. To be clear:
<br />I do believe that a Government that spends 40% more than it takes in is not a supportable policy.
<br />I do believe that there is a place for sound environmental policy. I just do not believe that that is what the EPA or the Department of Energy is doing. There is a middle ground between preserving the environment and stopping everything because there is a lizard crossing the street. And exactly what is the Department of Energy doing?
<br />I do believe that no one should be discriminated for or against based upon the color of their skin. I also believe that when exactly the same guy tries repeatedly to kill us all, it is only reasonable and prudent to pay particular attention to guys like that.
<br />I do believe that most teachers and other workers want to do a good job. I also believe that people should be evaluated and paid based upon their job performance and that there are some organizations that go overboard in protecting poor and unqualified workers only because they are part of that particular organization.
<br />I do believe that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. Whether fair share means that 50% of the people pay nothing for the privilege of voting and living in this great country while the other half make up the difference is something that needs to be determined based upon a policy more thoughtful than to “tax the rich” because they have money.
<br />Most of all, I believe that all these issues should be debated based upon their merits. The current situation is that people I agree with present their positions – which admittedly can make your eyes glaze over – and the other side calls us names. There is no real debate between the positions – being able to hear both sides, hard as that is to do with the current media – would be a help to us all. Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-81830459251147330312011-07-17T09:12:00.000-04:002011-07-17T09:13:18.435-04:00Sanity definedThe government borrows 40% of what it spends. One solution to living off of credit is to raise the credit limit while another is to not spend as much. The former is characterized as the reasonable thing to do to avoid an unthinkable outcome. The latter is a bomb throwing step toward economic calamity. Now that we have identified who to blame it only remains to implement the reasonable, moral and caring solution. Raise the debt ceiling for everyone: people with too much credit card debt – raise their borrowing limit; people who bought homes they could never afford – refinance and give them more cash to spend; national debt – borrow and spend. What could go wrong?Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-57786988641482024882011-07-17T09:10:00.001-04:002011-07-17T09:12:44.713-04:00Who makes money on gasA Newsday article notes that prices will go down 10-20 cents when the government imposed gas formulas expire for the season. Add the state/federal taxes that account for about another $.50 and the Federal printing press that is making the dollar sink and over 25% of the current price of gas is due entirely to the government. Government policy to discouraging the domestic production that could increase supply and lower the market price doesn't help much either. The price of gas is a dollar before an oil company produces a single gallon of gas, pays any of their hundreds of thousands of employees, or the small business guy who owns the station makes a nickel. The government's cut is the stable part of the price. Exxon does not make a dolooar profit on each gallon but the government does. There plenty of reasons why the price of gas is high but our government is the main one.Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-89800236864056896042011-07-17T09:09:00.000-04:002011-07-17T09:10:11.812-04:00Debbie & FrankDebbie and Frank are really in debt trouble and go to two counselors. The smooth talking counselor’s plan has multiple parts: increase their credit line; get money from a few strangers who have more money than they do; over the next 10 years they will have to spend less than they had planned to – more than they are spending now but less than they had planned on. Debbie and Frank are excited about this new way of saving and promise to plan on spending even more so when they cut back a little the savings are even greater. With this savings plan and the counselor’s optimistic projections about their future income growth, they will be in great shape in about 10 years if all the assumptions work out. The other counselor is not as popular with all their friends, seems be less optimistic and his plan is harder. He does not want them to increase their credit line. He wants them to stop spending more than they take in. He notes that their spending has gone way up in the last few years but their income has not – he wants them to go back to that spending level. And he doesn’t think that a slower rate of increased spending is the same as savings.Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-41292226048611106952011-07-17T09:06:00.001-04:002011-07-17T09:09:06.157-04:00Could it Be?The information clog might be breaking up. An editorial applauds the decreased Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac lending and concludes that we would be better off without the government in the mortgage guarantee business. An article describes the Dodd-Frank requirements for down payment and borrowing limitations related to income and other indebtedness. Ironically, these are the same lending criteria that existed for decades and were discarded by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to make it easier for everyone to own a home. Follow the trail. These agencies guaranteed the mortgages that met their non-criteria and called them sub-prime. The agencies were guaranteeing them so banks responded by making these absolutely secure, guaranteed by the US government loans. The agencies then bought the loans packaged them and sold the resulting securities that were based upon these absolutely secure, guaranteed by the US Government loans. As we are all so painfully aware, making loans with no credit criteria leads to defaults. As the loans defaulted, the securities plummeted in value and so did the derivatives which were based upon the government guaranteed securities. Increasingly, the finger is being pointed at the government’s involvement and attempt at social engineering. A new book on the financial crisis co-authored by a New York Times columnist/business and financial editor (!!!???), blames the central role played by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as government policy that pressured banks into relaxing lending standards so that the "under represented" could buy homes they could not afford. <br />What is going on?Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833306352649343593.post-68433869030948590342011-07-01T19:35:00.001-04:002011-07-01T19:35:59.385-04:00Teaching Teachers UnionsThe head of the teachers union has written Newsday to express opposition to any changes to the current system of teacher evaluation. There are no suggestions for correcting an evaluation system which is clearly not working; only that the changes are bad. In support, he refers to unspecified “educationally sound measures” and the “best educational research” that have been the basis of the system for years. We are now living with the results. There is lip service to having the best teachers but his union, like all unions, is congenitally opposed to rewarding better performance. Finally, at the head of his list of things that will suffer if there are any changes are “impromptu discussions of world events”. More discussions of world events would be a good thing but could these teacher led classroom discussions possibly involve promoting any world events such as the union’s positions on school budgets, pension reform, political candidates and the like?Crisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09980037559635041691noreply@blogger.com0