Hail to the Chief!

General Discussion
61

Bscar2…just to respond to your comment about forcing all politicians to enroll in Obamacare. That IS the intent; to provide all persons with the same health insurance that politicians receive. You got your wish !
The problem is, the opponents (Romney types) don’t think you and I deserve it, and only they do. We should be the ones paying the highest rates, losing insurance when we reach a cap and refusing enrollment due to pre existing conditions.

It was the Bush administration that encouraged Mass to have universal healthcare by informing them that due to budget cuts, Mass would lose millions in state health aid. Romney and Kennedy cut a deal with the Feds, that if they provided universal care to Mass residents they could continue to receive the aid. It seems that EVEN the Bush administration felt Heath care cost would go down over time and state aid could be reduced under a universal healthcare plan…ultimately referred to by you as Obamacare.
Bush did get that right.

Romney/Ryan now propose ( and already passed in the House) drastic reductions in state Medicaid and other aid, making it impossible for Mass. to continue with its popular plan, Romney care. That’s because two of the sources for their program comes from the Feds.

Nice comment bscar2…but it holds no water. Romney made a living making money off the federal govt…money that he thinks no one else deserves, cause he was smart enough to “steal it first”. I just wish conservatives would read more before they made comments about Obamacare…

READ bscar2. http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/2009.12.27/859.html

62

"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]

The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.)[6]" - Wikipedia

I believe the housing crisis and the energy crisis are unrelated in cause, but both affect the state of the economy.

The CRA encouraged, even required, banks to create ways to provide home loans to those who were unable to purchase under traditional guidelines. From that eveolved “low doc”, “no doc”, and ARM loans. These meant anybody could buy a home. About the same time, during the Carter administration, unemployment, interest rates, and inflation rates were all double-digit. A demand backlog had built. In the early '80s inflation, interest rates, and unemployment all dropped to single digits and homebuyers flooded the market. Home prices ballooned and “toxic loans” papered the landscape. When the bubble burst, the banks were left holding a lot of poorly secured loans to builders and to homeowners.

To compound the issue, the Glass-Steagall act of 1933 was repealed in 1999. The G-S act was passed after the great depression to ensure that banks never again would be in a position of being having their lending businesses in jepordy by mixing loans with unsecured investments. That opened the door for derivatives. Derivatives are basically totally unsecured products whose value is determined solely by their projected future worth.

In short, the financial policies of our representatives in DC have for decades been and continue to be promulgated around the ability of the financial institutions to make money, rather than to protect borrowers. The foxes have taken over the henhouse.

The energy crisis is, IMHO, a whole other disaster. It’s about energy policies that benefit industries that filll DC with lobbiests. It’s about energy policy created by people with vested interests.

63

It appears to me that lobbyists have bought out government and are responsible for most of the current economic debacle. A groundswell of desire for immediate gratification has been fostered by marketing with all manner of grand credit schemes. The “gimme mine now” stampede rushed over the the bank and into the river in the Bush II years and the Wall St crocodiles got their fill and left carcasses floating. The big banks wrote the new bankruptcy law that takes away most protection from individuals. Technology is giving collectors easy access to track down and hammer debtors into submission. It’s a winner take all game now and those who own the game make the rules and keep winning while the poor just get poorer. If we continue that course we will eventually face civil unrest.

64

Rod Knox.not according to Ron Paul-have you ever had the retail sales tax explained to you? Its not perfect,the current system lacks a long way from being worth a hoot as well.You would be suprised what rich people spend and if they percieved they were paying less in taxes,I expect they would spend considerably more.I have been around well off people most of my life and the ones that were trying to convince you they had no money ,usually were well padded and the other rich ones were trying to get you to work for them as cheaply as possible.The luxury tax sure as heck didnt work, the beauty of the retail sales tax is that everyone pays it no one avoids it,from the drug pusher on up to the millionaire(you cant say the same about the income tax) and as a bonus we could eliminate another string of bureaucracy as well-think IRS-Kevin

65

The tax structure has evolved into a necessary combination of incomes for the government. Depending upon one type of tax puts you at risk during economic times that affect that source. To simplify the tax code may make it more simple to understand, but it puts all those depending upon govt. services at risk. Whose depending ? Like, everyone.

66

Kevin, the official numbers show that GDP in 2007 was $13.8trillion and retail sales were $4trillion. That would mean that 73% of all income would go un-taxed in the “fair tax” scheme. I heard Hannety tonight ranting against a proposed “sales” tax on purchases of securities and equities. He is a shuck and jive man for Wall St and his bosses are taxed at a lower rate than you. If the federal budget requires 25% of GDP and 73% of GDP is excluded from taxes the “fair tax” rate would be 90%. That would put a crimp in your life style unless you are one of the 1%.

67

jtsanders " ‘Depending on the employer teachers don’t need any degree, or may very will need a PhD + EdD to teach, it mainly depends on what the employer wants’

I suppose there is the issue of which teachers we are talking about. I meant grade school teachers, not university teachers."

Yep, me too, the norm for college instructors is still Professor even if that is not their actual title.

There are many grade schools that pride themselves on how many members of their faculty that have earned advanced degrees, and earned and gifted phd/edds. Find the “best” private schools in your area and I am willing to bet there is a phd/edd teaching at the school.

Again, it all depends on the employer.

Just because you have a big degree doesn’t mean you can no longer teach little children, advanced degrees are suppose to give you more opportunities not less.

68

dagosa please tell me why minds like yours don’t get the media time our country needs – have you considered webisodes.

I’m not saying that I agree with everything you have said, but I do agree with everything I’ve read authored by you.

keep up the good work

69

"Kevin, the official numbers show that GDP in 2007 was $13.8trillion and retail sales were $4trillion. That would mean that 73% of all income would go un-taxed in the “fair tax” scheme."
Nope, GDP is not income. Gross income for 2007 was $8.7 trillion, less $1.1 trillion in federal income taxes yields $7.6 trillion. So using your $4 trillion in retail sales, over 50% of income would be taxed. Of that not taxed, I imagine much of it was housing and donations. If we start with taxable income of $5.9 trillion and deduct the $1.1 trillion in taxes, we get $4.8 trillion, so 84% would be subject to a national sales tax.

70
It appears to me that lobbyists have bought out government and are responsible for most of the current economic debacle

I agree 100%. We need to restructure the way the Lobbyists system works. Really limit their access and the money they spend to influence congress. Just take a look at the Jack Abramoff fiasco. And it’s not just at the Federal level…but also the local level. Right now here in NH we have a lot of money being pumped into the state from lobbyists to promote gambling and a Casino at Rockingham Park. A couple of state lobbyists have already been disciplined for this.

71

IMHO lobbyists are the single biggest and least talked about influence in bad policy. I agree that something needs to be done.

And it’s getting worse. It’s becoming more prolific at the state level. And coming in fro out of state. NH these past few decades has been getting overrun with out of state special interest groups (unemployed lawyer feeding at the public trough) and using th ecourts system to change the way NH runs. My favote example is the Conservation Law Foundation, an out of state group who’s filed repeated lawsuits to hold up the badly needed I-93 expansion and force implementation of a rail system instead, even though that has already proven unfeisable financially. They’ve cost NH residents tens of millions of dollars and postponed the project for 10 years.

72
My favote example is the Conservation Law Foundation, an out of state group who's filed repeated lawsuits to hold up the badly needed I-93 expansion

If we didn’t have these frivolous lawsuits it would be done by now. It’s now projected to finish sometime around 2017. Not just the money wasted…but the accidents and discomfort to everyone driving it. I have to travel north on 93 some mornings. And South bound is backed up for miles and miles.

73

lobbyist aren’t the problem, corrupt pol are the problem; term limits would remove many of the ones that have amass so much power that lobbyist see him/her as a short cut to getting things done.

Take a look at the ‘Parks and Recreation’ TV show ‘how a bill becomes law’ episode: http://www.hulu.com/watch/409127#iundefined,p3,d0

the senate is notorious for foolishness like that, that’s why a really strong Executive is necessary to set the tone and force the hand of congress.

74
the senate is notorious for foolishness like that, that's why a really strong Executive is necessary to set the tone and force the hand of congress.

I do NOT want to give that much power to ONE man.

75

“Just because you have a big degree doesn’t mean you can no longer teach little children, advanced degrees are suppose to give you more opportunities not less.”

My wife teaches preschool, has a masters degree, and continues to take classes.

76

Around number 20 on my list would be the abolition of DST-Kevin

77

I don’t really think a “sales tax only” tax structure is the solution, but since the very wealthy pay the least percentage-wise in taxes, at least in reality, not on paper (think tax shelters, off-shore accounts, and other loopholes that the rest of us don’t have the time and resources to swing), maybe this plan would actually increase revenue from the very top.

Of course the very wealthy would likely find a way to skirt these regulations as well…

78
My driving point is our world economy, and particular our national economy needs an educated citizenry not just the work force but everyone. College is just as necessary now as High School was 40 years ago, and literacy was 60 years ago.

LPA, I think the status-quo, “credentialism run amok” educational system is part of the problem, not the solutuion. Think about it: with the advent of the internet, it’s never been easier to educate one’s self. Yet the cost of education is outpacing inflation…as if the task was becoming harder. There’s a pretty obvious disconnect there: you aren’t paying for an education…your paying for a credential that says you are!

Every skill set I’ve learned in my life (with the exception of my Associate’s degree earned in pursuit of my commercial pilot’s license) has been acquired “informally,” without third-party accredidation. (And, to be truthful, if I was hirable in the aviation industry without the sheepskin, I wouldn’t have acquired it.)

I firmly hold to the belief that–today–anyone can educate themselves to any level desirable, autonomously. They just need the desire and discipline.

(The only problem is that we don’t live in a society that values education, per se, but the third-party accredidation of education. Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, I speak as someone who wanted to get his GED at age 10, and be done with institutional learning entirely!)

79

Oblivion,who was it Leona Helmsely that said “taxes are for the little people”? they probaly would find some loopholes.If I was fantastically wealthy everyone around me would have money,now to No. 21-Kevin

80

Hmmm, the problem is you know what you know or at least what you think you know, but I don’t have any idea what you know compared to anyone else. If you have a PhD in engineering, I have some idea what you know and it has some credibility when you sign off on a bridge design. But the most brilliant self-educated person is not going to be trusted to sign off on a bridge. Would you? My BIL is mechanically brilliant and was offered a full ride in engineering, but he didn’t believe in formal education. So instead spent a career in truck driving with no one recognizing his talents. Its just the way things are and sometimes people actually find they learn something they didn’t think they would when they go to the work and expense of getting their ticket punched.