|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 10, 2009 7:23:42 GMT -6
Maybe you should take a govt job Doc, I hear they still have nice defined benefit plans, and they may be the only one still hiring...
|
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 10, 2009 7:36:38 GMT -6
The post office should NOT deliver to all reaches of the country -- people leaving in extreme rural areas should have to pick up mail at a post office. And delivery should be cut to three days a week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 10, 2009 8:02:08 GMT -6
Doc, just be a Super for a few years...
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 15, 2009 21:06:01 GMT -6
I wanted to wait and do Medicare/aid last, but I saw this article in the NYT today.
Prescriptions - Making Sense of the Health Care Debate
September 15, 2009, 4:01 pm
L.B.J.’s Daughter Defends Medicare, Her Father’s Legacy
By Katharine Q. Seelye
Here’s a blast from the past. While everyone is talking about Medicare, Lynda Bird Johnson Robb is stepping up to remind everyone that it was her father, former President Lyndon B. Johnson, who signed Medicare into law in the first place.
Ms. Robb appears in a video released today on behalf of the Alliance for Retired Americans and its campaign to mobilize seniors to support an overhaul of the health care system. In the video, Ms. Robb says she is distressed to see Medicare being maligned in the current debate and urges seniors to help push for health insurance for everyone. It is striking to see how much Ms. Robb looks and sounds like her father. And she shares his views: “Ensuring all Americans have guaranteed affordable health care is the missing piece of the modern American social contract.” She also echoes the civil rights era when she mentions the opposition to health care legislation now. “My father overcame similar opposition in the fight for Medicare,” she says. “With your help, we can overcome again.” ------------------------------------------ While in concept this is a good idea, help the aged and the poor who can't help themselves, Medicare and Medicaid are two programs that are an absolute disaster. Currently these programs are unfunded liabilities to the tune of $35 Trillion. You thought those deficits we are racking up on the federal level are large? The unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Medicaid would put a significant dent in the net worth of our entire country. More to follow. In the meantime take a look at chapter 13 of Chris Martenson's "Crash Course," a series of videos dealing with economic and other issued concerning our nation. I highly recommend you view the entire series of 20 or so videos. www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-13-national-failure-save
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 15, 2009 22:11:22 GMT -6
Economix - New York Times Blog
September 15, 2009, 4:21 pm
Americans Say Uncle Sam Wastes Half of Every Dollar Spent
By Catherine Rampell
Americans believe the federal government is wasting about half of every dollar it spends, with state and local governments viewed as slightly less wasteful, according to new Gallup data.
Here is Gallup’s chart of responses to this question, asked sporadically over the last 30 years:www.gallup.com/poll/122951/Americans-Uncle-Sam-Wastes-50-Cents-Dollar.aspxGenerally political independents are most cynical about the usefulness of spending at all levels of government, followed by Republicans and then Democrats. People living in states led by Republican governors are just as likely to say their state government is wasting money as people living in Democrat-led states, the recent poll data found. None of this seems to bode well for politicians’ recent pushes for big, expensive policy changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 15, 2009 22:42:29 GMT -6
In the corporate world, one just files for Chapter 11, and you restructure... all those common stock holders with those pieces of paper that are 'supposedly' worth something get washed out.. Everything's then fine... Same thing happens on a larger scale and has happened in many countries.. they just declare the old stuff worthless (or worth very little) and re-issue new stuff... and the obligations of the old go byebye. Problem solved. ...take a look back through history... and have a good sleep  |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 21, 2009 20:11:18 GMT -6
I'm sure some of you have heard about Congressman Jack Murtha's, (PA) Airport for No One. If not this will get you up to speed. Once you read the story remember, our country is now over $11 trillion dollars in debt and has over $35 trillion in unfunded liabilities (meaning that the cash flow coming in is exceeded by the dollars that will flow out in the future (think medicare and social security) Yet they just keep spending money like drunk'n sailors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=c3d36739-b101-55d6-5de4-b199e7dda3a6 (Demint's website re the airport) -------------------------------- Pre-vote Article in the Washington PostDeMint Calls for an End to Murtha Airport WasteWashington Post, September 16
By Carol D. Leonnig
A Republican Senator called on Congress Wednesday to stop the decades-long flow of federal funds to a little-used rural airport named after Congressman John P. Murtha as a textbook example of government waste.Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said the John P. Murtha Airport in the congressman's hometown of Johnstown, Pa., rivaled the famous "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska for the amount of federal dollars it had wasted, and offered an amendment to stop an annual $1.4 million subsidy for airport traffic there. The airport has received $200 million in federal funds in the last 15 years. Most of those funds were steered there by Murtha, including more than $25 million for stronger runways to handle heavy military planes, which don't fly there; $8 million for a radar system, which isn't used; and $800,000 in new stimulus funds to repave an alternate runway. "We're not taking away the $200 million they've already gotten.... We're just saying enough is enough," DeMint said. "If we cannot cut the funding for this little airport in Pennsylvania, named after the congressman that helped get it $200 million ... if we cannot look at the facts in this particular case, and decide as a Congress to stop this, then there is nothing we can cut here, then there is no such thing as waste. " His amendment, scheduled for a vote on Thursday, has little chance of success, and a similar move was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 263-154 earlier this year. Sens. Arlen Specter and Bob Casey, both Pennsylvania Democrats, defended the airport, noting that 152 other airports in the country receive a similar passenger subsidy to protect air travel to remote areas. Specter said the runway improvements in Johnstown were necessary to keep area military and National Guard in "a state of constant readiness" in case they had to move quickly during a wartime or domestic terrorist attack. --------------------------------- Post-vote article in the WSJ
The Wall Street Journal
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
SEPTEMBER 22, 2009
The Airport for No One
The Senate votes to keep funding Jack Murtha's weekend landing strip.Republicans had their Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, and now Democrats seem intent on wrapping themselves firmly around Congressman Jack Murtha's Airport for No One in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. So much for changing the culture of spending in Washington.
Last week 53 Senators—including 51 Democrats—voted down an amendment by Republican Jim DeMint of South Carolina to stop spending federal funds on the airport that Mr. Murtha built with more than $150 million in federal subsidies and earmarks over the last two decades. (The Republicans voting against Mr. DeMint were Kit Bond and George Voinovich, neither of whom is running for re-election.) The airport has three daily commercial flights, and those are to Washington, D.C. The federal subsidies average $100 for each of the fewer than 30 passengers who use the airport each day, which means it would be cheaper for taxpayers to buy a train ticket for Mr. Murtha and other Washington D.C.-bound travelers than to keep the airport open. Pennsylvania's two Senators, Democrats Arlen Specter and Robert P. Casey, Jr., denounced the DeMint amendment because it singled out one airport. Of course, so do Mr. Murtha's earmarks. The Senators also argued that airport funding decisions should be left to the Federal Aviation Administration. But everyone knows that Mr. Murtha's clout at the House Appropriations Committee trumps the FAA. Earlier this year the airport received $800,000 in federal stimulus money, which has been spent in part to pave a second runway, even though the first one is barely in use. Mr. Murtha also secured $8.5 million for a new radar system that's never been used. Mr. DeMint pleaded with his colleagues that "if we can't cut funding for this project, we can't cut anything in Washington" and that the Senate will have declared "there's no such thing as waste, there's no such thing as fraud and corruption." He lost, but voters keeping score can add it to their mental tally of why we have a $1.6 trillion deficit. ---------------------- What a surprise. And if you wonder why our country is on life support, look no further. Both republicans and democrats, do it.
As for the Senate vote that rejected Demint's amendment 43-53, how did our illustrious Senator's from Illinois vote? See for yourself. A yes vote would end the subsidy, a no vote continues the largess.
www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-284
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 21, 2009 21:09:21 GMT -6
Just sent an email to Senator Durbin:
Dear Senator Durbin,
I am extremely disappointed that you would vote to allow funding for the Murtha Airport to continue. (pursuant to your no vote on DeMint amendment #2410 re House Bill H.R.3288)
Senator Durbin, as I am sure you are well aware, our country now has a national debt of over $11 trillion dollars. In addition, our country currently has unfunded liabilities for Medicare and other federal programs in excess of $35 trillion.
Senator,where does it end? Both the WSJ and the Washington Post state that this airport is unnecessary and nothing more than pork for another powerful Senator.
What is the legacy being left to our children and future generations? Doesn't it make sense to insist that every dollar spend by our government be critical to the needs of our nation and its citizens?
I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and the reason is very simple, I am ashamed and disgusted by both parties' mismanagement of our resources and a failure to put in place sound principles of governance so as to preserve a way of life (that my generation was able to enjoy) for future generations.
Sincerely,
Michael Crockett
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 22, 2009 5:32:14 GMT -6
I'm sure some of you have heard about Congressman Jack Murtha's, (PA) Airport for No One. If not this will get you up to speed. Once you read the story remember, our country is now over $11 trillion dollars in debt and has over $35 trillion in unfunded liabilities (meaning that the cash flow coming in is exceeded by the dollars that will flow out in the future (think medicare and social security) Yet they just keep spending money like drunk'n sailors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=c3d36739-b101-55d6-5de4-b199e7dda3a6 (Demint's website re the airport) -------------------------------- Pre-vote Article in the Washington PostDeMint Calls for an End to Murtha Airport WasteWashington Post, September 16
By Carol D. Leonnig
A Republican Senator called on Congress Wednesday to stop the decades-long flow of federal funds to a little-used rural airport named after Congressman John P. Murtha as a textbook example of government waste.Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said the John P. Murtha Airport in the congressman's hometown of Johnstown, Pa., rivaled the famous "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska for the amount of federal dollars it had wasted, and offered an amendment to stop an annual $1.4 million subsidy for airport traffic there. The airport has received $200 million in federal funds in the last 15 years. Most of those funds were steered there by Murtha, including more than $25 million for stronger runways to handle heavy military planes, which don't fly there; $8 million for a radar system, which isn't used; and $800,000 in new stimulus funds to repave an alternate runway. "We're not taking away the $200 million they've already gotten.... We're just saying enough is enough," DeMint said. "If we cannot cut the funding for this little airport in Pennsylvania, named after the congressman that helped get it $200 million ... if we cannot look at the facts in this particular case, and decide as a Congress to stop this, then there is nothing we can cut here, then there is no such thing as waste. " His amendment, scheduled for a vote on Thursday, has little chance of success, and a similar move was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 263-154 earlier this year. Sens. Arlen Specter and Bob Casey, both Pennsylvania Democrats, defended the airport, noting that 152 other airports in the country receive a similar passenger subsidy to protect air travel to remote areas. Specter said the runway improvements in Johnstown were necessary to keep area military and National Guard in "a state of constant readiness" in case they had to move quickly during a wartime or domestic terrorist attack. --------------------------------- Post-vote article in the WSJ
The Wall Street Journal
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
SEPTEMBER 22, 2009
The Airport for No One
The Senate votes to keep funding Jack Murtha's weekend landing strip.Republicans had their Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, and now Democrats seem intent on wrapping themselves firmly around Congressman Jack Murtha's Airport for No One in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. So much for changing the culture of spending in Washington.
Last week 53 Senators—including 51 Democrats—voted down an amendment by Republican Jim DeMint of South Carolina to stop spending federal funds on the airport that Mr. Murtha built with more than $150 million in federal subsidies and earmarks over the last two decades. (The Republicans voting against Mr. DeMint were Kit Bond and George Voinovich, neither of whom is running for re-election.) The airport has three daily commercial flights, and those are to Washington, D.C. The federal subsidies average $100 for each of the fewer than 30 passengers who use the airport each day, which means it would be cheaper for taxpayers to buy a train ticket for Mr. Murtha and other Washington D.C.-bound travelers than to keep the airport open. Pennsylvania's two Senators, Democrats Arlen Specter and Robert P. Casey, Jr., denounced the DeMint amendment because it singled out one airport. Of course, so do Mr. Murtha's earmarks. The Senators also argued that airport funding decisions should be left to the Federal Aviation Administration. But everyone knows that Mr. Murtha's clout at the House Appropriations Committee trumps the FAA. Earlier this year the airport received $800,000 in federal stimulus money, which has been spent in part to pave a second runway, even though the first one is barely in use. Mr. Murtha also secured $8.5 million for a new radar system that's never been used. Mr. DeMint pleaded with his colleagues that "if we can't cut funding for this project, we can't cut anything in Washington" and that the Senate will have declared "there's no such thing as waste, there's no such thing as fraud and corruption." He lost, but voters keeping score can add it to their mental tally of why we have a $1.6 trillion deficit. ---------------------- What a surprise. And if you wonder why our country is on life support, look no further. Both republicans and democrats, do it.
As for the Senate vote that rejected Demint's amendment 43-53, how did our illustrious Senator's from Illinois vote? See for yourself. A yes vote would end the subsidy, a no vote continues the largess.
www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-284
These are the exact examples of why people do not want to turn ANY more money over to eithe the Republicans or the Deomcrats- O'bama just doesn't seem willing to open his eyes to see his own party is as guilty as the one being blamed for our financial mess. He's a very bright guy- until he can stop this crap in his own party- I am not willing to listen to any more spending. as for Durbin- it appears that when he retires he'd fit nicely on our SB - rubber stamp to spend millions we don't need to |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 22, 2009 12:36:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 29, 2009 8:49:32 GMT -6
WSJ Opinion Page
Subprime Uncle Sam
The FHA makes Countrywide Financial look prudent. September 29, 2009
The Treasury has announced new "capital cushion" requirements for financial institutions to reduce excessive risk and prevent taxpayer bailouts. Seems sensible enough. Perhaps the Administration will even impose those safety and soundness standards on federal agencies.
One place to start is the Federal Housing Administration, the nation's insurer of nearly $750 billion in outstanding mortgages. The agency acknowledged this month that a new but still undisclosed HUD audit has found that FHA's cash reserve fund is rapidly depleting and may drop below its Congressionally mandated 2% of insurance liabilities by the end of the year.
At a 50 to 1 leverage ratio, the FHA will soon have a smaller capital cushion than did investment bank Bear Stearns on the eve of its crash.
Its loan delinquency rate (more than 30 days late in payments) is now above 14%, or from two to three times higher than on conventional mortgages. Its cash reserve ratio has fallen by more than two-thirds in three years.
The reason for this financial deterioration is that FHA is underwriting record numbers of high-risk mortgages. Between 2006 and the end of next year, FHA's insurance portfolio will have expanded to $1 trillion from $410 billion. Today nearly one in four new mortgages carries an FHA guarantee, up from one in 50 in 2006.
Through FHA, the Veterans Administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers now guarantee repayment on more than 80% of all U.S. mortgages. Sources familiar with a new draft HUD report on FHA's worsening balance sheet tell us that the default rates have risen most rapidly on the most recent loans, i.e., those initiated or refinanced in 2008 and 2009.
All of this means the FHA is making a trillion-dollar housing gamble with taxpayer money as the table stakes. If housing values recover (fingers crossed), default rates will fall and the agency could even make money on its aggressive underwriting. But if housing prices continue their slide in states like Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada—where many FHA borrowers already have negative equity in their homes—taxpayers could face losses of $100 billion or more.
So far Congress has pretended that these liabilities don't exist because they are technically "off budget." They stay invisible until they move on-budget when a Fannie Mae-type cash bailout is needed. The Obama Administration is at least finally catching on to these perils and last week proposed some modest reforms. These include appointing a "chief risk officer" at FHA, tightening home appraisals, requiring that FHA lenders have audited financial statements, and increasing the capital requirement of FHA lenders to $1 million up from $250,000. The scandal is that these basic standards weren't in place years ago.
Unfortunately, Washington won't touch more significant reforms for fear of angering the powerful nexus of Realtors, mortgage bankers and home builders. As we've written for years, the FHA's main lending problem is that it requires neither lenders nor borrowers to have a sufficient financial stake in mortgage repayment. The FHA's absurdly low 3.5% down payment policy, in combination with other policies to reduce up-front costs for new homebuyers, means that homebuyers can move into their government-insured home with an equity stake as low as 2.5%. The government's own housing data prove that low down payments are the single largest predictor of defaults.
Private banks know this. Burned on subprime mortgages, they are back to requiring 10% or even 20% down payments. Congress should at least require a 5% down payment on loans that carry a taxpayer guarantee. If borrowers can't put at least 5% down, they can't afford the house.
As for rooting out fraud that contributes to high loss rates, the obvious solution is to drop the 100% guarantee on FHA mortgages. Why not hold banks liable for the first 10% of losses on the housing loans they originate, a reform that has been recommended since as far back as the early Reagan years? No other mortgage insurer insures 100% loan repayment. Alas, while offering its minireforms, the Obama Administration reassured its real-estate pals that FHA insurance will continue to carry "no risk to homeowners or bondholders."
Which means all the risk is on taxpayers. David Stevens, the FHA commissioner, nonetheless declared this month: "There will be no taxpayer bailout." That's also what Barney Frank said about Fannie and Freddie.
------------------------
What can we do? Imo, vote for a complete turnover of Congress every election till someone gets it.. Maybe then there will start to be some change.
|
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 29, 2009 9:55:14 GMT -6
The problem is clearly political. Everyone KNOWS that 3.5% is a farcical, irresponsible number for a down payment, yet no one has the balls to insist on more. No one has the balls to tell people they can't afford to own a house. And no one has the balls to tell the banks they need to cover some of the liabilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 30, 2009 9:44:29 GMT -6
online.wsj.com/article/SB125424963214850111.htmlblogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/09/29/tax-revenue-tumbles-change-in-receipts-by-state/ (state by state analysis)
Wall Street Journal
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009
Falling Tax Revenues Slam States
By CONOR DOUGHERTY
State tax revenues in the second quarter plunged 17% from a year earlier as rising unemployment and reduced spending hurt sales- and income-tax collections, according to Census Bureau figures released Tuesday.The decline was the sharpest since at least the 1960s. The biggest drop among major revenue sources was in state income taxes, which were down 28% from a year ago. Sales-tax revenues fell 9%. About two-thirds of state revenues are derived from sales and income taxes. The numbers aren't adjusted for inflation or changes in tax rates. The steep declines show how the recession continues to cripple state finances, despite support from the federal stimulus package and signs of a nascent recovery in economic activity. "This brings really bad news for almost every single state and leaves them with unprecedented budget crises," said Lucy Dadayan, a senior policy analyst with the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York. Falling revenues, combined with growing demand for social programs like Medicaid, have forced states to slash spending and scramble to raise revenue through changes including new taxes, legalized slot machines and pricier fishing licenses. But with tax collections continuing to decline, many have been forced to reopen budgets after they have been passed to push through even bigger cuts to staffing and services. States, unlike the federal government, are generally required to balance their budgets.In Michigan, stalled budget negotiations between the governor and the legislature could force state government to shut down if a deal isn't reached by Wednesday night. The governor would likely have to take emergency steps to keep essential services, such as hospitals and prisons, operating. "We remain optimistic that we will have a budget in place," says Liz Boyd, a spokeswoman for Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Some cash-strapped states are rethinking the level of services the government provides. In Louisiana, a commission next month will ponder ideas including cutting 15,000 state jobs, about 13% of the total, in the next three years and eliminating money-losing toll collections on a New Orleans bridge. "Anything is fair game," said Amber King, a public information officer for state Treasurer John N. Kennedy, who serves on the "streamlining commission." The group is supposed to make final recommendations by mid-December, she said. Some of the sharpest tax declines were in states that have been among those hit hardest by the recession, particularly those with high concentrations of jobs in the battered housing sector. In Arizona, overall tax revenues fell 27% in the second quarter. Tax revenues fell 12% in Florida and 14% in California. States across the country saw big declines in personal income taxes, the largest single source of state funding, representing about a third of states' overall revenues. Eleven states -- including California, New York and Wisconsin -- saw personal income taxes fall more than 30%. Corporate income taxes, which tend be volatile and generally account for only a small portion of state revenues, rose 3%. Despite signs that the recession is abating, many analysts don't foresee state revenues rebounding anytime soon. Economists widely expect the national unemployment rate, 9.7% in August, to remain around 9% through 2010, keeping pressure on wages and incomes. At the same time, after losing trillions in wealth, many consumers are paying down debt and paring back spending -- reducing sales taxes. "The decline in tax revenue collections indicates that states will likely continue facing weak tax revenues for the quarters ahead," the Rockefeller Institute's Ms. Dadayan said. For many states, even grim revenue projections are turning out to be too high. Lower-than expected revenues caused Massachusetts's governor to cut the budget four times during the fiscal year that ended in June, including drawing down reserves from a rainy day fund and eliminating unfilled jobs. History may repeat itself: With revenues still weaker than expected, the state could be forced reopen the budget as early as next month, said a spokesman for the state's Executive Office for Administration and Finance. —Leslie Eaton contributed to this article. Write to Conor Dougherty at conor.dougherty@wsj.com
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 30, 2009 11:41:30 GMT -6
This is why the taxes passed onto real property owners is going to be excruciating...because these burdens would have normally been relieved by the income/sales/other taxes.
We have been saying this for a couple years now... The domino effect is still in the beginning stages.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Oct 6, 2009 18:50:21 GMT -6
Kids will find out they've been robbed
Published: 10/3/2009 12:02 AM
LTE Daily Herald
Today your children have been taught, and your grandchildren are being taught, that when the prices are going up and jobs are being lost, it is the fault of those greedy capitalists and not the government; it's policies, and their printing presses.
The schools never mention the printing press. Do you remember asking mom for money and she says,'I don't have any", and you said, 'why don't you just write a check'?
Today, as adults, we have not gotten much smarter, we are still asking mommy to write a check. My relatives in the Czech Republic, all during the Communist years, would sit their children down after school and have them un-learn the Commie line they were being fed at school. When the wall came down they, and many others, were in the position to profit, (once a dirty word), from their freedom.
The debt has not disappeared; it is alive and well booked to your kids' indebtedness. Today we still have the same amount of debt, but it belongs to governments [us]. Normally, debt would get destroyed and turn to thin air. Debt is a mistake between lender and borrower, and both should suffer. But the government is socializing all these losses by transforming them into liabilities for your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Easier to pass our losses to our children.
One reason most people are not worried is because in our government-mandated schools, economics is not considered to be important. The schools have turned out economically ignorant parents, ergo, children. They are listening to the polished politicians, who spin an economic fairy tale. Someday, the kids will find out that the government/parents have not only stolen from them but have taken their credit cards and ran them up past the max.
Dushan Lipensky
Wheaton
I like this guy. He makes some good points.
|
|
