Comments by CAFEmporia
Page 1 of 16 | Next
Posted on October 1 at 12:24 a.m.
The problem is hardly a matter of satisfying ideological grievances, it is patching up a system that is failing now to deliver stability and security within the financial markets. Credit has dried up including the short term transactions which allow our economy to run smoothly.
The government does need to step in in this case simply because the markets are unable to overcome the failure of confidence brought about by these zero valued assets that threaten to undermine seemingly almost all large financial houses. To be sure, the markets are self correcting and will eventually sort out the winners and losers. Such extreme market corrections create many victims, though. Most of us believe we should enact a patch for the system and then pass new regulatory laws (loosening and tightening rules as appropriate) to ensure as much as possible that such lack of responsibility does not repeat again.
It is good that Congress did deny the first bill presented. It failed in numerous ways. Now, though, the SEC has eased Market to Market Valuation restrictions which may help some in the short run but will likely decrease confidence in the financial markets even more, bringing about a repeat of the banking crisis of the late 80's. Congress must therefore act decisively and in the near future to ensure that this crisis is snuffed before it spreads even further.
Hopefully, our Representatives and Senators will now devise a more thoughtful bailout bill which includes more oversight, more participation of the private sector and, therefore, less federal money, and an insistence upon failed institutions actually failing rather than profiting from their mistakes.
Posted on June 2 at 10:11 a.m.
There were many tax cuts enacted over the last 7 years. There was one which applied only to those making $150K or more, in fact. The original '01 cut was 3% for all tax brackets except the highest. The wealthiest received a 4.5% cut from a maximum federal rate of 39.5% to 35%. Since then, other cuts have provided various reductions which often applied only to those with wealth.
For instance, the highest federal rate for capital gains (making profits on assets) were lowered to 15%. The rate for stock dividends (which had been treated as income) was also reduced to that number. These are taxes which apply most often to those with already high incomes.
Compared to 2001, the decrease in taxes in 2010 would be about $234 billion (Citizens for Tax Justice). Of that, $121 billion would go to just 1.4 million taxpayers.
We should keep in mind that the reason for a graduated income tax is to keep the disparity between rich and poor smaller rather than greater. When such disparities become great the consequences are political, economic, and social instability. Revolutions are often fueled by such problems. One of the distinct characteristics of third world countries is a large disparity between the incomes of the top 10% and the bottom 90%. When considering a flat tax option, we should consider whether or not we wish to become a third world country. I think we do not.
Alan Greenspan, the great Libertarian economist, wrote in his recent book that this disparity is one of our greatest problems as a nation. I think we should listen to him.
On Obama-Gore
Posted on May 19 at 5:32 p.m.
I like Al Gore, boring though he might be. He would bring experience and great knowledge and balance to the administration. However, if you mean that Gore might be the VP again, I doubt it would work. In fact, I seriously doubt he would be interested in any elected position again. He seems to have been cured of that.
I would prefer the Scandinavian model for health insurance, myself. The Canadian system is more expensive than most single payer programs and is fraught with problems. It's still less than half of what the US pays (per capita) for health care. The British system is wonderful in terms of its ability to respond to emergency situations including large scale problems and individual emergencies. However, it is less effective when it comes to the work flows of standard (but serious) surgeries as well as handling elective surgical choices.
I don't know about Canada, but the UK's health care system results in slightly longer lifespans but significantly increased health spans - meaning, the amount of time a person lives in good health. The US lags far behind most developed nations in terms of individual health on a national scale. The poor, particularly, but also ethnic minorities are less healthy as groups than otherwise which is a shame.
On Obama-Gore
Posted on April 10 at 10:21 a.m.
My apologies . . . This has, indeed, gotten a bit confusing. I posted my comments (above) to the wrong thread. However, the overall sentiment does apply to this thread, as well. I would prefer civil discussion to outbursts of anger which are often enough embarrassing to the writer more than anyone else. As one person here said, they did post at a moment of high dudgeon and acknowledged it to be inappropriate.
Other forums across the web have become useless because they have become anarchic shout fests rather than exchanges of opinion and information. Here, numerous threads result in exchanges of great value in forming individual opinions. Even were I living someone where else, this would be a desirable site upon which to land.
Posted on April 10 at 10:06 a.m.
The deletion of the two postings were done correctly. Mine was one of those postings. The first poster used a phrase for children born in the US to undocumented aliens which is clearly a slur which approaches upon the obscene. I took exception to the use of the phrase but erred in repeating it within the context of my objection.
Gwen Larson was completely within bounds to delete both postings because of that.
I feel that there is nearly complete freedom on this forum to post whatever thoughts any of us might have. The only caveat is that we are asked (in a demanding way) to refrain from personal attacks and to withhold remarks like the one that caused this stir which characterize a specific group in a negative and unfair manner.
Doing so allows us to have reasonable conversations which are less likely to go out of control. This policy does not take away anyone's freedom. In fact, everyone's freedom of expression is enhanced. I applaud the policy as well as the way the Gazette enforces it.
CAF
Posted on March 30 at 9:26 p.m.
Gwen, I do not mind that slur being removed at all. I found it very offensive, as anyone should. Thank you.
CAF
Posted on March 29 at 7:30 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted on March 27 at 12:03 a.m.
The governor's veto was appropriate on numerous levels other than "politics". Global warming is a real issue, one we must face and one that threatens the welfare of future generations as well as our own, regardless how well the plants enjoy the infusion of CO2.
Among the drawbacks of these plants in SW Kansas, the chief problem IMHO is the pollution. There is also the rising cost of building and operating the plants not to mention legislation which will surely be passed next year affecting coal fired anything and, given that these plants will be in the early stages of building, the effects could be costly. The water issue should be of great concern. That section of Kansas is dry and the aquifer there is very low and sinking. These power plants require lots of water and it may not be available in the future given the current rate of usage.
Whether that coal will be burned or not is hardly the issue. We have a serious, serious problem with our environment and someone must take a stand and say, this must stop. There are things in this world which are worth some sacrifice and if we must do some of that, it would be worthwhile given the consequences of staying the course. I believe that the consequences of changing to other means of power generation would be surprisingly little, would create just as many or more jobs, and would improve our quality of life as well as that of generations to come.
On The veto
Posted on March 21 at 1:23 p.m.
I think that many people who agree that the federal government needs to make changes which would encourage more efficient energy models were, indeed, put off by the word "genocide", and are therefore silent regarding this thread. Saying such a thing is not some left-wing or liberal rhetoric, though. As a liberal, I agree on this point with those of you who imply you are conservative.
Such words are used too easily and without forethought. The same can be said for other words or thoughts such as claims that the average Iraqi is better off than before our invasion. In many, many ways, that is decidedly untrue. In other ways, yes, things are better at least in the potentialities of the future. But that is all ideological rhetoric and irrelevant to the initial message involved in this thread.
I agree with Mr Priest that we are, indeed, handling our energy crisis poorly. The best we do is to subsidize biofuels which increase costs, actually increase pollutants, and cannot, as they are currently made, replace oil imports or ease the worldwide shortages which are already upon us. Government support for research into other fuels has been half-hearted at best. The corporate culture has been to prioritize short term profits rather than long term responsibility.
I think he makes some good points - though as a former Marine, I, too, am peeved about that "genocide" comment. Too often, we (humans) tend to respond in a fit of anger rather than waiting until we are better prepared to present our arguments in a more positive way.
CAF
Page 1 of 16 | Next
Posted on October 1 at 12:17 p.m.
crackinsack is correct about that math being all wrong in kcfan's example. That email which has been widely distributed on the internet has it that if we take $85 billion and distribute it among a possible 200 million adult Americans, everyone will get $425,000.
Nope. That's a thousand times higher than is correct.
Everyone would get $425 (that's four hundred and twenty five dollars) which is enough to have a nice weekend in Kansas City but not much more. It wouldn't even cover most people's monthly credit card spending.
If we end up spending $3 trillion to patch up our financial markets so that we can then rewrite our regulatory laws in a better way, the cost to each of 300 million Americans would be about $10,000 per person. That's enough for a pretty nice European vacation for two.
That's still a lot of money, but it is hardly that 425K which is so grossly exaggerated.
Seriously, we need to get liquidity injected into the financial system. This is not just a local problem or a national one; it is becoming a global problem with primarily American causes.
A global recession, similar to what occurred in the 1920s and 30s, would be a disaster beyond reckoning and it would last many years. That is not an acceptable outcome. Congress needs to act with alacrity, but also with sagacity to patch and then fix these problems.
On Not buying it