Tag Archives: Politics

Economics

Money, Money Money…

I don’t like where some economic advisers are wanting to take us.

Why don’t we, the people, take this TARP bailout money and start our own bank(s) to provide the short-term credit for corporate entities – this appears to be where the credit logjam is occurring – and let the current financial institutions die? This will provide the capital needed for the economy to run for the near-term and if the new bank(s) is set up right it may be able to address the long-term funding growing corporations need.

We might even be able to get into some consumer credit business as well, but why not leave that to the banks and credit unions that didn’t run themselves into the ground. Once all the current banks that have dug this economic sinkhole  have buried themselves, we can sell our young vibrant bank(s) to investors and recoup our investment.

We don’t need to nationalize the existing banks and get stuck with their toxic wastes. We can start anew and try to do it right.I’m not sure that this approach will help any for the mortgage market, but realistically, people with no income and with a $500K mortgage should default and give the house back to the bank that financed them.

As the commenters in the linked article note, don’t give any money to the folks who created the crisis. Don’t reward bad behaviour.

General, Liberating Thoughts, Politics

And then the super computer starts smoking…

I remember taking an oath when I enlisted in the Navy Reserve many years ago.

Federal law requires everyone who enlists or re-enlists in the Armed Forces of the United States to take the enlistment oath. The oath of enlistment into the United States Armed Forces is administered by any commissioned officer to any person enlisting or re-enlisting for a term of service into any branch of the military. The officer asks the person, or persons, to raise their right hand and repeat the oath after him. The oath is traditionally performed in front of the United States Flag and other flags, such as the state flag, military branch flag, and unit guidon may be present.

In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

In the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

Guide Note: There has been some controversy about whether the phrase “So help me God” is mandatory. I have seen officers allow enlistees to omit these words, if they choose, according to their religious preference and beliefs. However, federal law does not appear to make any part of the oath optional. See 10 United States Code, Section 502.

(From:)

Now, what happens if the first part, defending the Constitution, is under attack from the second part, the president and the appointed officers? The third part, the UCMJ, clarifies it all with reference to obeying Lawful Orders. Of course, how is a simple enlisted service member supposed to know the difference? They are just following orders from the educated officers. Pity they don’t make acing the civics course a prerequisite for enlistment.

(Compare with the President’s oath of office)

Politics

What do I want in a new Administration

· Habeus Corpus

· National HMO

o All citizens automatically subscribed.

· Sunset Laws – All Federal laws expire after 20-25 years.

· A more representative Democracy – 1 representative per X citizens: X = 100,000 – 150,000 – 200,000 – TBD

· One basic Income Tax deductible – poverty level for your category/location.

o No Itemization

· Linear progressive income tax – up to 40% for income in excess of presidential salary – details TBD.

o Maybe another 10% for every multiple of the President’s Salary?

· A National Service Education Bill, similar to the GI Bill I used through college in the ‘70s

o 3-4 Years of Military, Community, National, Service Qualifies

· Pay for medical school in exchange for 10+ years of service in National HMO or other Public Health Service

· National Guard not activated and deployed outside of US Territory without declaration of war or declaration of National Emergency – by Congress.

· Reserve Forces not called up to active duty without declaration of war or declaration of National Emergency – by Congress.

· Reserve Forces and National Guard not deployed into combat zones without declaration of war – by Congress.

· Recognition that the President is NOT a king, that the president does NOT represent the People, that the president executes the instructions of Congress.

· Anyone with more than 15 years legislative experience in Congress can not hold a committee or sub-committee chairmanship or a speakership.

· No monetary foreign aid to non-democracies, kleptocracies and countries in civil war.

· No military aid anywhere.

· Only registered voters are allowed to donate to political campaigns.

· Revision of Capital Gains Taxes

o No tax paid on selling one stock/fund/security to reinvest in another stock/fund/security

o Tax only when stock/fund/security is sold and is not reinvested

· Revision of Estate Tax

o No tax on physical property, e.g. land, art, heirlooms, private businesses, etc.

o Tax on money/stocks/funds/securities overseen by SEC or its international equivalents.

o Tax on physical properties only when sold. e.g. you inherit a Renoir and don’t sell it in your lifetime- you are never taxed for it – and you can pass it on to the next generation. If they sell it they are going to pay a lot of taxes on it. ($0 cost basis)

o Tax inheritance (as noted above) at something like 60-70% for any estate worth more than 10 times the president’s annual salary. Less than that can be treated differently

· Corporations are not persons – legally

· Corporations must subject to regulatory oversight

o Regulatory oversight requirements reviewed every 5-10 years

§ Regulations shouldn’t be a straight jacket

§ More protection against gaming the system

o If an individual wants to run a business and doesn’t want to incorporate, they are not subject to the regulations that govern corporations, nor the protections.

· If a Federal Agency has certified that a product is safe for public use, then the Federal government is liable for any suits brought against the product

o Strong Inspector General office to ensure against collusion

o Strong certification process – who cares if it takes 20 years to evaluate.

o Vendor may release with preliminary approval but without protection

· Any compensation dispensed in excess of the President’s annual salary is considered corporate profit

· FEMA should set up Emergency Distribution centers at the various large military reservations around the country and pre-stock emergency supplies. Consumables can be rotated through with various international relief efforts. Trailers may be aired out before they are needed.

· President’s Annual Salary equal to ten times the median household income.

Economics, Politics

Let me see if I have this straight

Let us say I am making $200,000 a year and paying 10% tax on that. My take home would be about $180,000.  So I wouldn’t want to exert myself a little harder to make, say, $300,000 because I would be in a higher tax bracket. For $300,000 I would pay the same 10% on the first $200,000 (Take home $180,000)  and, say, 20% on the next $100,000 (Take home $80,000). Because then I would be taking home only $260,000 instead of $180,000 and there isn’t any incentive in the world that would make me exert that extra effort.

I wouldn’t want to move into the top 2% of earners in the US because I would have to pay more taxes for making more money. Nevermind that I am earning such a comfortable income because I am using the social infrastructure this country has developed with tax dollars. No, I have gotten to this level on my own and nobody gave me anything along the way and they shouldn’t expect me to give back to some imaginary community that makes it all possible.

Yeah, that sounds straight enough.

Economics, Politics

This is not looking any better

The Nation is tracking how the bailout is proceeding.  It continues to ring so wrong.

This bit

But, if you look more closely at Paulson’s transaction, the
taxpayers were taken for a ride–a very expensive ride. They paid $125
billion for bank stock that a private investor could purchase for $62.5
billion. That means half of the public’s money was a straight-out gift
to Wall Street, for which taxpayers got nothing in return.

is very irksome, but the private investor they are invoking is Warren Buffett, who was only putting up a few billion into Goldman-Sachs. And then they extend the analogy of the deal Buffett made with GS to cover all nine institutions, something I don’t think is quite fair.

But the upshot is that we appear to have the wolves in charge of the foxes in charge of the chicken coop. And the wolves are preparing for one last plunder before they retire. I don’t trust the administration to monitor and manage the bailout, I don’t trust the Congress to provide oversight on the wolves. I don’t expect the Justice Department to initiate criminal prosecutions in a timely fashion. I don’t trust the Republicans to do anything other than plunder the US treasury as best they can. And I don’t trust the Democrats to provide any ‘check and balance’ to stop the Republicans. (Hell, they may even join the bandwagon.) It would be nice to be pleasantly surprised.

Economics, Politics, Preparing for the worst

A Privatized Social Security

Recently, I have been seeing or hearing a few references about privatizing Social Security, and how it doesn’t seem to be an issue this election. I wonder why?

If people really wanted to go about privatizing Social Security, I would suggest that we build on the existing scheme. Leave the current SSA accounts in place and then allow the individual to set aside some completely voluntary amount into an account that they, personally, can manage. They can select the funds to be invested in, or the stocks or bonds to be purchased. I imagine a lot of brokerage firms like Fidelity and T Rowe Price and Merrill Lynch and Charles Schwabb and others will be glad to set up structured plans to aid the novice investor in directing the growth of these future retirement accounts (all in exchange for a very small percentage, annually, of the account’s net worth).

We can call them Individual Retirement Accounts, since they are for an individual to build up a retirement nest egg. And we can motivate the reluctant citizen to invest in their future with all sorts of tax reliefs and incentives. It’s hard to see any down-side to this plan. If everyone invested 10% of their income every year, in not too long a time everyone would be millionaires. Just think of it, a nation with 300-Million+ millionaires. And they would still be getting Social Security checks! This is such a no-brainer, I’m surprised no one has thought of it before.

Economics, Politics

WTF!

Banks to Continue Paying Dividends

Here we are, bailing out all these banks who are so badly in need of capital in order to operate and do their banking thing, and they want to pay out over half of the money we are rescuing them with to the investors who goaded them into their malfeasant ways in the first place.

And then there’s this:

Ed Yingling, chief executive of the American Bankers Association, said he was increasingly hearing from banking executives who feel they should not be forced to accept money with so many strings attached. He said these banks don’t need the money, but they are willing to use it to increase lending, so long as they are not punished for doing so.

Are we forcing banks to accept federal money?

The more I hear about this entire venture, the more it stinks. I think the best idea is to take the $700 Billion and create a separate banking system. Let the new banks put liquidity into the system and let the old banks die. (I heard this proposed earlier this month (Oct 10?) on CNN or MSNBC but my google-fu is not not working and I can’t find a link to it. It sounded like a very workable idea. There was even a way for the government to gracefully bow out of the banking business once the foundation was set.)