GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!
In the 1880's to 1920's the US was a nation of individual farmers and shopkeepers. Since that time the nation has changed. The US has become a group of large social and business organizations. People work for large co's, join large organizations. This necessitates a realignment of gov'ts role. The individual is frequently powerless against these large organizations. This is why people join labor unions, buy from coops--Costco, political parties etc.
Now one of the main purposes of gov't is to protect the public against the excessive greed, and power seeking of these large organizations. Some examples--the raliroads in the 1880's, the sub-prime mortgagor people in the 2000-2008, the pharmaceutical co's, the banks and wall street, 2000-2008, teachers unions etc Lastly we need protection against the protectors
The tea party financed primarily by Rupert Murdoch, Beck is on his payroll, and the Koch brothers and others do not want to be regulated Can we leave our future in the hands of these large organization and very wealthy people?. This was the George Bush program of gov’t without oversight, or unregulated. Judging by the results the answer is NO.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!
WHY DOESN’T PRES OBRAMA USE THESE Three GREAT REASONS TO ADVANCE HIS PROGRAM?
1) On Tax cuts for the rich the Pres again has let the republicans set the terms of the debate. The debate should not be primarily on the SIZE OF THE DEFICIT. The debate should be on measures to help the economy grow. As it stands now everyone is expecting the Pres to cave and agree to tax cuts for the very rich. There will some whiney excuse about the mean republicans who held the tax cuts hostage unless given to the rich. WHY NOT TURN THIS SITUATION AROUND! AFTER THE ELECTION THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCES THAT HE WILL VETO ANY TAX LEGISLATION THAT HAS A TAX CUT FOR THE VERY RICH.
If the republicans want a tax cut they agree to leave the rich out. This would probably be the outcome as the Republicans seem much more strong on tax cuts than the democrats.. John Boehner let the cat out of the bag IF THEY DON’T AGREE THE TAX CUTS EXPIRE. Take a clue from Bill Clinton in 1993, this might be the best outcome.
2 In 1948 Harry Truman campaigned against the ”do nothing Congress” Why can’t Pres Obrama use this type of approach against the do nothing Republicans now? There is an old saying, “Are you part trying to help or are you part of the problem?” There are many approaches that should show the Republicans are part of the problem.
3 Show the public that the gov't is their friend and protector not their enemy.
The social security provides us with money in later years, Security and Exchange Commission guards against financial fraud, the FDIC protects against loss of assets if a bank goes under, the FBI protects us against criminals and terrorists, the US Dept of the Interior protects our land resources and helps supply our energy. We benefit when these dept's perform their duties. One of the reasons the country is in trouble now is the Bush administration did not fund these dept's and appoint people interested in helping the public.
4 All of these approaches seem more powerful than saying however bad the democrats are the republicans are worse. The “worse” approach seem noticeable lacking in motivation and generating enthusiasm.
1) On Tax cuts for the rich the Pres again has let the republicans set the terms of the debate. The debate should not be primarily on the SIZE OF THE DEFICIT. The debate should be on measures to help the economy grow. As it stands now everyone is expecting the Pres to cave and agree to tax cuts for the very rich. There will some whiney excuse about the mean republicans who held the tax cuts hostage unless given to the rich. WHY NOT TURN THIS SITUATION AROUND! AFTER THE ELECTION THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCES THAT HE WILL VETO ANY TAX LEGISLATION THAT HAS A TAX CUT FOR THE VERY RICH.
If the republicans want a tax cut they agree to leave the rich out. This would probably be the outcome as the Republicans seem much more strong on tax cuts than the democrats.. John Boehner let the cat out of the bag IF THEY DON’T AGREE THE TAX CUTS EXPIRE. Take a clue from Bill Clinton in 1993, this might be the best outcome.
2 In 1948 Harry Truman campaigned against the ”do nothing Congress” Why can’t Pres Obrama use this type of approach against the do nothing Republicans now? There is an old saying, “Are you part trying to help or are you part of the problem?” There are many approaches that should show the Republicans are part of the problem.
3 Show the public that the gov't is their friend and protector not their enemy.
The social security provides us with money in later years, Security and Exchange Commission guards against financial fraud, the FDIC protects against loss of assets if a bank goes under, the FBI protects us against criminals and terrorists, the US Dept of the Interior protects our land resources and helps supply our energy. We benefit when these dept's perform their duties. One of the reasons the country is in trouble now is the Bush administration did not fund these dept's and appoint people interested in helping the public.
4 All of these approaches seem more powerful than saying however bad the democrats are the republicans are worse. The “worse” approach seem noticeable lacking in motivation and generating enthusiasm.
Monday, October 4, 2010
USA TODAY!
THE USA TODAY- ONCE A LEADER NOW AN ALSO RAN
The USA Today is not all sunny. There are a shadowy dark spaces. The USA was once a glamorous Queen first in many important aspect of living a good life. Now the USA is slowly disintegrating, and decaying do to neglect. NEWSWEEK RECENTLY LISTED THE 100 BEST COUNTRIES INN THE WORLD. WE USED TO BE 1ST. NOW WE ARE 11TH,NOT EVEN IN THE TOP 10. The moral decline of the US is reflected in the small bore thinking of our elected representatives and the impractical distortions of some of our leaders.
Since the public and its leader seem to be consumed and distracted by the diverse opinions and political divisions in this country many important needs are neglected. We have created a civilization that was once beautiful but is now a damaged and crumbling world.
Without a great deal of care the modern world with its large unsolved problems has been placed on top of our fine elegant world of the past, and now violated is likely ready for destruction.
The USA Today is not all sunny. There are a shadowy dark spaces. The USA was once a glamorous Queen first in many important aspect of living a good life. Now the USA is slowly disintegrating, and decaying do to neglect. NEWSWEEK RECENTLY LISTED THE 100 BEST COUNTRIES INN THE WORLD. WE USED TO BE 1ST. NOW WE ARE 11TH,NOT EVEN IN THE TOP 10. The moral decline of the US is reflected in the small bore thinking of our elected representatives and the impractical distortions of some of our leaders.
Since the public and its leader seem to be consumed and distracted by the diverse opinions and political divisions in this country many important needs are neglected. We have created a civilization that was once beautiful but is now a damaged and crumbling world.
Without a great deal of care the modern world with its large unsolved problems has been placed on top of our fine elegant world of the past, and now violated is likely ready for destruction.
Monday, September 27, 2010
A Tale of Two Presidents!
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!
In 1992 during an economic downturn Bill Clinton was elected president. During the campaign Bill had promised a tax cut for the middle class if elected. However in Feb 1993 when Bill addressed a Joint Session of Congress. He presented a plan to reduce the deficit rather than a middle class tax cut. This plan would raise taxes on higher income brackets and included a surtax for incomes over $250,000. For incomes less than $30,000 there was no change. It eliminated income taxes on 15 million of the lowest income families.
The purpose Bill said was that a smaller Federal budget deficit would reduce bond interest rates. It is said Robert Rubin the Secretary of the Treasury persuaded Bill to take the debt reduction route rather than the middle class tax cut.
The result was the longest period of economic expansion in American History. After 8 yrs of Presidency Bill left office in 2000 with a 65% approval rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2000 George Bush was elected President. George inherited a balanced Federal budget with a large surplus.
George believed in a smaller role for gov’t and depended on unregulated market forces to govern the economy. In 2001 and 2003 Bush obtained Congressional approval for large tax cuts. The 2001 tax cut was $1.35 trillion. These tax cuts decreased all tax rates, decreased the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit, and eliminated the “marriage penalty. Economists figure the tax cuts from 2001 to 2007 resulted in an increase of $3 trillion in Federal debt,(constant 2000 $) Since 2007 the debt has increased substantially. Together the tax cuts and war(Iraq, Afghanistan) have accounted for 84% of the debt increase according to Richard Kogan and Matt Fiedler. Over this period excluding home equity extraction the US economy grew 1% during the Bush years as figured by Niall Ferguson. George left office in 2008 amidst the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression of 1929 with an approval rating of 28%.
How have these two different approaches effected Job GROWTH?
1990 thru 1999 Clinton yrs 1999 thru 2009 Bush yrs
21.3 Million new jobs --940,000 jobs lost
How about economic growth?
1990 thru 1999 Clinton yrs 1999 thru 2009 Bush yrs
4% growth per yr 1% growth per yr
PERHAPS THE BEST ECONOMIC PLAN IS TO JUDICIOUSLY RAISE TAXES.! Not cut taxes.
In 1992 during an economic downturn Bill Clinton was elected president. During the campaign Bill had promised a tax cut for the middle class if elected. However in Feb 1993 when Bill addressed a Joint Session of Congress. He presented a plan to reduce the deficit rather than a middle class tax cut. This plan would raise taxes on higher income brackets and included a surtax for incomes over $250,000. For incomes less than $30,000 there was no change. It eliminated income taxes on 15 million of the lowest income families.
The purpose Bill said was that a smaller Federal budget deficit would reduce bond interest rates. It is said Robert Rubin the Secretary of the Treasury persuaded Bill to take the debt reduction route rather than the middle class tax cut.
The result was the longest period of economic expansion in American History. After 8 yrs of Presidency Bill left office in 2000 with a 65% approval rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2000 George Bush was elected President. George inherited a balanced Federal budget with a large surplus.
George believed in a smaller role for gov’t and depended on unregulated market forces to govern the economy. In 2001 and 2003 Bush obtained Congressional approval for large tax cuts. The 2001 tax cut was $1.35 trillion. These tax cuts decreased all tax rates, decreased the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit, and eliminated the “marriage penalty. Economists figure the tax cuts from 2001 to 2007 resulted in an increase of $3 trillion in Federal debt,(constant 2000 $) Since 2007 the debt has increased substantially. Together the tax cuts and war(Iraq, Afghanistan) have accounted for 84% of the debt increase according to Richard Kogan and Matt Fiedler. Over this period excluding home equity extraction the US economy grew 1% during the Bush years as figured by Niall Ferguson. George left office in 2008 amidst the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression of 1929 with an approval rating of 28%.
How have these two different approaches effected Job GROWTH?
1990 thru 1999 Clinton yrs 1999 thru 2009 Bush yrs
21.3 Million new jobs --940,000 jobs lost
How about economic growth?
1990 thru 1999 Clinton yrs 1999 thru 2009 Bush yrs
4% growth per yr 1% growth per yr
PERHAPS THE BEST ECONOMIC PLAN IS TO JUDICIOUSLY RAISE TAXES.! Not cut taxes.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
CUTTING TAXES A NON-STARTER
CUTTING TAXES THE BEDROCK OF THE NEW CONSERVATISM IS A NON-STARTER. Get the fact behind the news
Economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that EXTENDING TAX CUTS WOULD BE THE LEAST EFFECTIVE WAY TO SPUR THE ECONOMY and reduce unemployment. The report added that TAX CUTS FOR HIGH EARNERS WOULD HAVE THE SMALLEST “bang for the buck” WEALTHY AMERICANS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SAVE THEIR MONEY THAN SPEND IT. The office gave HIGHER MARKS TO A PROPOSAL now embraced by President Obama, THAT WOULD ALLOW SMALL BUSINESSES TO WRITE OFF 100%OF THEIR INVESTMENT COSTS, NEITHER of those options, though, would do as much TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY as offering DIRECT PAYMENTS TO THE UNEMPLOYED and SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS or REDUCING the PAYROLL TAXES OF WORKERS,the study found. OTHER PROPOSALS RECOMMENDED WERE AID TO STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES.
So while THE DECISION on WHETHER TO EXTEND the TAX CUTS will have a lasting impact on the deficit and on how the nation’s tax burden is distributed, ECONOMISTS AND TAX EXPERTS SAY IT IS UNLIKELY TO GIVE MUCH IMMEDIATE RELIEF FOR HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT AND SLOW ECONOMIC GROWTH. “Firms don’t hire based on tax breaks; they hire based on demand,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “So a lot of the tax breaks are likely to be rewarding people and companies for that they were going to do anyway.” When they were signed into law in 2001 and 2003, the huge package of income and capital gains tax reductions that became known as the Bush tax cuts were hailed as a way distribute the government surplus and promote long-term economic growth. Mr. Bush was so confident in their power to generate business growth and revenue that he predicted they would enable the government to pay down $1 trillion in debt in just four years.
Those surpluses have now become crushing deficits because of a combination of factors, including the recession, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Medical Prescription drug benefit, UNFUNDED, and the $1.7 trillion in forgone revenue from from the tax cuts themselves.
The Obama administration figures that nearly a third of the cost of the tax cuts — more than $700 billion during the next decade — would go to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Essentially arguing "that we add $700 billion to the deficit in return for $35 billion in what has been found to be the least effective means of stimulus,” said Jason Furman, a deputy assistant to the president overseeing economic policy.
Mr. Obama’s proposal would preserve the tax cuts for families that earn less than $250,000 a year (or individuals who make less than $200,000) at a cost of $2.8 trillion over the next decade.
Edward D. Kleinbard, former chief of staff of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, said the reliance on tax expenditures had distorted the budget process because it induced the public to overlook the fact that — unless they are accompanied by spending reductions — tax cuts have the same effect on the deficit as additional spending. It also allows politicians to make unsubstantiated claims about the power of tax-cutting to accomplish other economic goals, he said.
THE THOUGHT THAT TAX CUTS PAY FOR THEMSELVES OR TAX CUTS ALONE CAN TURN AROUND THE ECONOMY IS WISHFUL THINKING said Mr. Kleinbard, now a law professor at the University of Southern California. “The debate has become so unrealistic it makes you want to scream.”
Economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that EXTENDING TAX CUTS WOULD BE THE LEAST EFFECTIVE WAY TO SPUR THE ECONOMY and reduce unemployment. The report added that TAX CUTS FOR HIGH EARNERS WOULD HAVE THE SMALLEST “bang for the buck” WEALTHY AMERICANS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SAVE THEIR MONEY THAN SPEND IT. The office gave HIGHER MARKS TO A PROPOSAL now embraced by President Obama, THAT WOULD ALLOW SMALL BUSINESSES TO WRITE OFF 100%OF THEIR INVESTMENT COSTS, NEITHER of those options, though, would do as much TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY as offering DIRECT PAYMENTS TO THE UNEMPLOYED and SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS or REDUCING the PAYROLL TAXES OF WORKERS,the study found. OTHER PROPOSALS RECOMMENDED WERE AID TO STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES.
So while THE DECISION on WHETHER TO EXTEND the TAX CUTS will have a lasting impact on the deficit and on how the nation’s tax burden is distributed, ECONOMISTS AND TAX EXPERTS SAY IT IS UNLIKELY TO GIVE MUCH IMMEDIATE RELIEF FOR HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT AND SLOW ECONOMIC GROWTH. “Firms don’t hire based on tax breaks; they hire based on demand,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “So a lot of the tax breaks are likely to be rewarding people and companies for that they were going to do anyway.” When they were signed into law in 2001 and 2003, the huge package of income and capital gains tax reductions that became known as the Bush tax cuts were hailed as a way distribute the government surplus and promote long-term economic growth. Mr. Bush was so confident in their power to generate business growth and revenue that he predicted they would enable the government to pay down $1 trillion in debt in just four years.
Those surpluses have now become crushing deficits because of a combination of factors, including the recession, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Medical Prescription drug benefit, UNFUNDED, and the $1.7 trillion in forgone revenue from from the tax cuts themselves.
The Obama administration figures that nearly a third of the cost of the tax cuts — more than $700 billion during the next decade — would go to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Essentially arguing "that we add $700 billion to the deficit in return for $35 billion in what has been found to be the least effective means of stimulus,” said Jason Furman, a deputy assistant to the president overseeing economic policy.
Mr. Obama’s proposal would preserve the tax cuts for families that earn less than $250,000 a year (or individuals who make less than $200,000) at a cost of $2.8 trillion over the next decade.
Edward D. Kleinbard, former chief of staff of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, said the reliance on tax expenditures had distorted the budget process because it induced the public to overlook the fact that — unless they are accompanied by spending reductions — tax cuts have the same effect on the deficit as additional spending. It also allows politicians to make unsubstantiated claims about the power of tax-cutting to accomplish other economic goals, he said.
THE THOUGHT THAT TAX CUTS PAY FOR THEMSELVES OR TAX CUTS ALONE CAN TURN AROUND THE ECONOMY IS WISHFUL THINKING said Mr. Kleinbard, now a law professor at the University of Southern California. “The debate has become so unrealistic it makes you want to scream.”
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Who is Financing the Tea Party?
How many people at the rally knew who is bankrolling TEA Party activities? GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS.
RUPERT MURDOCK owner of Fox News and Publisher of the Wall St. Journal is one of the principal bank rollers. Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are on his payroll. Fox news gives the Tea Party plenty of free publicity and news exposure. Koch(see Below) matched the proceeds from a Fox Tea party promotion.
The other principal bank rollers are two brothers, less well known, Charles and Edward Koch. These two brothers have a combined wealth exceeded only by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Their original wealth came from the oil business. They have branched out into several other businesses .
These two men have along history of financial support for far right political causes. Their interest is low or no taxes, no corporate regulation, no effective labor unions, and no help for the poor, unemployed, ill or elderly. When David Koch ran for VP on the Libertarian ticket in 1980 his platform wanted to abolish Social Security, federal regulatory agencies, and welfare, the CIA, the FBI and the public school system. The Koch's founded "Americans for Prosperity" Foundation which works closely with the Tea Party since the Tea Party started
Be careful voters you may get what you asked and voted for.
Another major sponsor for the Tea party is Dick Armey"s "Freedom Works" group which received $12 mil from the Koch family foundation. From 1998 to 2008 the Koch foundation gave at least $196 mil a large share of which went to conservative causes and groups. In addition Koch industries spent $50 mil for lobbying activities, and $4.8 mil in campaign contributions thru political action committees. Among energy co's Koch Industries spent more than Exxon, Mobile and Chevron.
Be careful voters you may get what you asked and voted for.
RUPERT MURDOCK owner of Fox News and Publisher of the Wall St. Journal is one of the principal bank rollers. Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are on his payroll. Fox news gives the Tea Party plenty of free publicity and news exposure. Koch(see Below) matched the proceeds from a Fox Tea party promotion.
The other principal bank rollers are two brothers, less well known, Charles and Edward Koch. These two brothers have a combined wealth exceeded only by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Their original wealth came from the oil business. They have branched out into several other businesses .
These two men have along history of financial support for far right political causes. Their interest is low or no taxes, no corporate regulation, no effective labor unions, and no help for the poor, unemployed, ill or elderly. When David Koch ran for VP on the Libertarian ticket in 1980 his platform wanted to abolish Social Security, federal regulatory agencies, and welfare, the CIA, the FBI and the public school system. The Koch's founded "Americans for Prosperity" Foundation which works closely with the Tea Party since the Tea Party started
Be careful voters you may get what you asked and voted for.
Another major sponsor for the Tea party is Dick Armey"s "Freedom Works" group which received $12 mil from the Koch family foundation. From 1998 to 2008 the Koch foundation gave at least $196 mil a large share of which went to conservative causes and groups. In addition Koch industries spent $50 mil for lobbying activities, and $4.8 mil in campaign contributions thru political action committees. Among energy co's Koch Industries spent more than Exxon, Mobile and Chevron.
Be careful voters you may get what you asked and voted for.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Pres.Eisenhower on Social Safety Net
The Facts Behind the News
A statement by President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) concerning America's Social Safety Net.
The original passage, from a letter Eisenhower wrote to his brother Edgar on November 8, 1954, went as follows" :
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things.
Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
A statement by President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) concerning America's Social Safety Net.
The original passage, from a letter Eisenhower wrote to his brother Edgar on November 8, 1954, went as follows" :
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things.
Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
AUTO SALES AND ADVERTISING
TOPS IN Consumer Complaints for 2009 and 2008
So why were autos exempted from the new Consumer Protection Agency?
It is very troubling to see another example of Congress obviously legislating not in the public interest but for the benefit of the Special Interests, in this case the auto dealers. One has to wonder what type of people are these Congressional people?
If there was ever a consumer group that needed protection from their suppliers, it is auto buyers who need protection from their suppliers, the auto dealers.
The 2009 Consumer Complaint Survey Report was conducted by the Consumer Federation of America, the National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators and the North American Consumer Protection Investigators and is their 15th report on top consumer complaints. The latest results are based on a survey of 33 state, county, and city agencies from 18 states on the most common complaints received from January 2009 through December 2009.
Top Types of Consumer Complaints for 2009
1. Auto: Misrepresentations in advertising or sales of new and used cars; lemons; faulty repairs; leasing and towing disputes. Also No. 1 in 2008.
2. Credit/Debt: Billing and fee disputes; mortgage-related fraud; credit repair; debt relief services; predatory lending; illegal or abusive debt collection tactics. Up from No. 3 in 2008.
3. Home Improvement/Construction: Shoddy work; failure to start or complete the job. Down from No. 2 in 2008.
4. Utilities: Service problems or billing disputes with phone, cable, satellite, Internet, electric and gas services. Also No. 4 in 2008.
5. Retail Sales: False advertising and other deceptive practices; defective merchandise; problems with rebates, coupons, gift cards and gift certificates; failure to deliver. Also No. 5 in 2008.
6. Services: Misrepresentations; shoddy work; failure to have required licenses; failure to perform. Also No. 6 in 2008.
7. Internet Sales: Misrepresentations or other deceptive practice; failure to deliver online purchases. Up from No. 9 in 2008.
8. Household Goods: Misrepresentations; failure to deliver; faulty repairs in connection with furniture or appliances. Down from No. 7 in 2008.
9. (tie) Landlord/Tenant: Unhealthy or unsafe conditions; failure to make repairs or provide promised amenities; deposit and rent disputes; illegal eviction tactics; Down from No. 8 in 2008. Home Solicitations:Misrepresentations or failure to deliver in door-to-door, telemarketing or mail solicitations; do-not-call violations. Also No. 9 in 2008.
10. Health Products/Services: misleading claims; unlicensed practitioners; failure to deliver. Also No. 10 in 2008.
Source: The 2009 Consumer Complaint Survey Report
TOPS IN Consumer Complaints for 2009 and 2008
So why were autos exempted from the new Consumer Protection Agency?
It is very troubling to see another example of Congress obviously legislating not in the public interest but for the benefit of the Special Interests, in this case the auto dealers. One has to wonder what type of people are these Congressional people?
If there was ever a consumer group that needed protection from their suppliers, it is auto buyers who need protection from their suppliers, the auto dealers.
The 2009 Consumer Complaint Survey Report was conducted by the Consumer Federation of America, the National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators and the North American Consumer Protection Investigators and is their 15th report on top consumer complaints. The latest results are based on a survey of 33 state, county, and city agencies from 18 states on the most common complaints received from January 2009 through December 2009.
Top Types of Consumer Complaints for 2009
1. Auto: Misrepresentations in advertising or sales of new and used cars; lemons; faulty repairs; leasing and towing disputes. Also No. 1 in 2008.
2. Credit/Debt: Billing and fee disputes; mortgage-related fraud; credit repair; debt relief services; predatory lending; illegal or abusive debt collection tactics. Up from No. 3 in 2008.
3. Home Improvement/Construction: Shoddy work; failure to start or complete the job. Down from No. 2 in 2008.
4. Utilities: Service problems or billing disputes with phone, cable, satellite, Internet, electric and gas services. Also No. 4 in 2008.
5. Retail Sales: False advertising and other deceptive practices; defective merchandise; problems with rebates, coupons, gift cards and gift certificates; failure to deliver. Also No. 5 in 2008.
6. Services: Misrepresentations; shoddy work; failure to have required licenses; failure to perform. Also No. 6 in 2008.
7. Internet Sales: Misrepresentations or other deceptive practice; failure to deliver online purchases. Up from No. 9 in 2008.
8. Household Goods: Misrepresentations; failure to deliver; faulty repairs in connection with furniture or appliances. Down from No. 7 in 2008.
9. (tie) Landlord/Tenant: Unhealthy or unsafe conditions; failure to make repairs or provide promised amenities; deposit and rent disputes; illegal eviction tactics; Down from No. 8 in 2008. Home Solicitations:Misrepresentations or failure to deliver in door-to-door, telemarketing or mail solicitations; do-not-call violations. Also No. 9 in 2008.
10. Health Products/Services: misleading claims; unlicensed practitioners; failure to deliver. Also No. 10 in 2008.
Source: The 2009 Consumer Complaint Survey Report
Monday, July 12, 2010
WILL A HANDGUN MAKE YOUR HOME SAFER?
WILL HAVING A HANDGUN AT HOME—
MAKE YOUR FAMILY SAFER?
THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Ellen S. Alberding President of the Joyce Foundation points out, in the July 9th issue of the New York Times, a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that in 2007 in the US more than 2,000 children were killed and another 12,370 were injured by gunfire.
According to the Journal of Trauma “guns in the home are 11 times more likely to be used in suicide attempts and four times more likely to be involved in accidents than used in self defense".
The article goes on to say there is little evidence of any public health or safety benefits of privately owned guns. Keeping a gun at home puts your children at risk. During the last few days the papers have given a lot of publicity to two instances of homeowners shooting and killing home invaders. Much less attention was given to an 8 yr old shot by her13 yr old brother, or a wife shot and killed by her husband, or a 16 yr old who killed himself with his father’s gun.
Many gun owners believe they can keep guns away from children. In a recent survey of parents and children at a family health clinic in rural Alabama, 39% of the parents thought the children did not know the location of household guns, 22% thought their children had never handled a household gun. The children’s reports told a different story. The result were the same even when the guns were locked up and the parents had discussed gun safety.
Having guns in the household can make a tragic difference when teenagers get emotionally depressed or angry. Access to guns means increased suicide risk. The Harvard School of Public Healthsays most often young suicide victims use a gun belonging to a family member usually a parent. A gunshot is quick and irreversible. 90% of suicide attempts with a gun are fatal compared with 2% of drug overdoses and 3% of cutting.
Women are particularly at risk in household with guns. The Illinois Coalition against Domestic Violence, states that 300,000 women and children are subject to violence in their homes each year in the State of Illinois. Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a gun.
Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health< “where there are more guns, there is more death, more homicide, and more gun accidents". BE CAREFUL! The life you save maybe your own.
MAKE YOUR FAMILY SAFER?
THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Ellen S. Alberding President of the Joyce Foundation points out, in the July 9th issue of the New York Times, a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that in 2007 in the US more than 2,000 children were killed and another 12,370 were injured by gunfire.
According to the Journal of Trauma “guns in the home are 11 times more likely to be used in suicide attempts and four times more likely to be involved in accidents than used in self defense".
The article goes on to say there is little evidence of any public health or safety benefits of privately owned guns. Keeping a gun at home puts your children at risk. During the last few days the papers have given a lot of publicity to two instances of homeowners shooting and killing home invaders. Much less attention was given to an 8 yr old shot by her13 yr old brother, or a wife shot and killed by her husband, or a 16 yr old who killed himself with his father’s gun.
Many gun owners believe they can keep guns away from children. In a recent survey of parents and children at a family health clinic in rural Alabama, 39% of the parents thought the children did not know the location of household guns, 22% thought their children had never handled a household gun. The children’s reports told a different story. The result were the same even when the guns were locked up and the parents had discussed gun safety.
Having guns in the household can make a tragic difference when teenagers get emotionally depressed or angry. Access to guns means increased suicide risk. The Harvard School of Public Healthsays most often young suicide victims use a gun belonging to a family member usually a parent. A gunshot is quick and irreversible. 90% of suicide attempts with a gun are fatal compared with 2% of drug overdoses and 3% of cutting.
Women are particularly at risk in household with guns. The Illinois Coalition against Domestic Violence, states that 300,000 women and children are subject to violence in their homes each year in the State of Illinois. Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a gun.
Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health< “where there are more guns, there is more death, more homicide, and more gun accidents". BE CAREFUL! The life you save maybe your own.
Friday, July 9, 2010
REPUBLICANS USE HOOVER'S 1929 FISAL POLICY
REPUBLICANS ADOPT HOOVER’S 1929 FISCAL POLICY!
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!
In 1929 Pres. Herbert Hoover was said to believe that the US had over speculated and fiscal austerity, cutting spending, would increase business confidence and bring back good times. It is amazing that the Republican Party in 2010 has resurrected, almost word for word, the failed policies of Herbert Hoover in 1929.
Even before start of the recession in 2007, the United States job market had already been performing weakly, relative both to the 1990s and to the rest of the industrialized world.
Alan Krueger, Treasury Dept Chief Economist in his testimony at the hearing, said that from 1900 to2000 the US economy added 21.7 million jobs. The economy lost 944,000 from December 1999 to December 2009, The fraction of the working-age population that reported being employed peaked at 64.7 percent in March 2000, and fell to 58.6 percent in March 2010, its lowest level since the two recessions of 1980-82, he said.
Small businesses, which shed large numbers of workers during the recession, have been particularly slow to resume hiring.
While Mr. Krueger’s remarks at the hearing were not widely reported, their implications were clear: raising taxes can support both deficit reduction and job growth. He testified that the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 “did not result in better performance in the labor market than was achieved in the 1990s, a period when government revenue increased, and the deficit was reduced and eventually eliminated.”
Whether that perspective will shape the policy debate will become clear in the coming months. In the meantime, some experts say that job creation and deficit reduction are not mutually exclusive.
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!
In 1929 Pres. Herbert Hoover was said to believe that the US had over speculated and fiscal austerity, cutting spending, would increase business confidence and bring back good times. It is amazing that the Republican Party in 2010 has resurrected, almost word for word, the failed policies of Herbert Hoover in 1929.
Even before start of the recession in 2007, the United States job market had already been performing weakly, relative both to the 1990s and to the rest of the industrialized world.
Alan Krueger, Treasury Dept Chief Economist in his testimony at the hearing, said that from 1900 to2000 the US economy added 21.7 million jobs. The economy lost 944,000 from December 1999 to December 2009, The fraction of the working-age population that reported being employed peaked at 64.7 percent in March 2000, and fell to 58.6 percent in March 2010, its lowest level since the two recessions of 1980-82, he said.
Small businesses, which shed large numbers of workers during the recession, have been particularly slow to resume hiring.
While Mr. Krueger’s remarks at the hearing were not widely reported, their implications were clear: raising taxes can support both deficit reduction and job growth. He testified that the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 “did not result in better performance in the labor market than was achieved in the 1990s, a period when government revenue increased, and the deficit was reduced and eventually eliminated.”
Whether that perspective will shape the policy debate will become clear in the coming months. In the meantime, some experts say that job creation and deficit reduction are not mutually exclusive.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
SUPREME COURT GUN RULING
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!
The Supreme Court decision on gun bans is a sign that anarchy exists in many urban centers. The police depts. can not control violence and crime. Every morning when I read the Chicago Tribune there are articles about people shot and killed and dead bodies found. Where a citizen has to carry a gun to protect himself civilization has broken down. Yet this is the situation that exists in many urban centers in the US.
Having each citizen carry a gun is not the solution. It is an invitation to more shooting and killings often over what seems like trivial matters.
Many believe that the Police should do more. Maybe these people are “looking thru the wrong end of the telescope”. The real challenge is to improve the BROKEN HOMES, BROKEN SCHOOLS and ECONOMIC DESPAIR that exists in high crime neighborhoods.
When we do that then this source of the demand for guns will gradually disappear.
The Supreme Court decision on gun bans is a sign that anarchy exists in many urban centers. The police depts. can not control violence and crime. Every morning when I read the Chicago Tribune there are articles about people shot and killed and dead bodies found. Where a citizen has to carry a gun to protect himself civilization has broken down. Yet this is the situation that exists in many urban centers in the US.
Having each citizen carry a gun is not the solution. It is an invitation to more shooting and killings often over what seems like trivial matters.
Many believe that the Police should do more. Maybe these people are “looking thru the wrong end of the telescope”. The real challenge is to improve the BROKEN HOMES, BROKEN SCHOOLS and ECONOMIC DESPAIR that exists in high crime neighborhoods.
When we do that then this source of the demand for guns will gradually disappear.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
RESTRUCTURE-REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH
REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH—RESTRUCTURE! The facts behind the news.
In regard to the Financial Reform bill “REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH” for several reasons. I) It depends on who is doing the regulating.
During the Bush years all the regulatory agencies were underfunded and staffed with people who did not believe in regulation. We are now experiencing the results, whether it’s the SEC and financial regulation, Nancy Nord and Consumer Products such as baby cribs ,or Mining and Mineral Dept.—oil spill, or mine safety-29 coal miners killed, Dept. of the Interior, or lax aircraft maintenance inspection by the FAA and so it goes all across the Govt regulatory organizations.
2)It is also important, to not only focus on mechanical ways to make THE PUBLIC SAFER, but also more broadly on helping people deal with potentially catastrophic complexity. There must be ways to improve the choice architecture — to help people guard against risk creep, false security, groupthink, the good-news bias and all the rest. Ideas from David Brooks NY Times editorial.
This is why it is essential to restructure and put into law policies to protect the public in any of these areas so as to do everything possible to maintain a high level of oversight. The Obrama administration may faithfully follow guidelines but what about future administrations?
1)In regard to Financial Reform this why Derivatives should have no place in commercial banking. They are too risky and were one of the major causes of the recent financial meltdown. Commercial banking should stick to commercial banking or similar low risk activities.
Derivatives and other risky financial arrangements should be handled by specialty firms that offer speculators, wealthy individuals, large corporations the opportunity for large gains and the risk of large losses, and for hedging purposes.
2)Such an arrangement would make commercial banking a more low key risk adverse business. It would tend to keep commercial banks a slower growth business. This is the way commercial banks should be. The Commercial banks should service the savings, checking, mortgages and trust business of the general public They should stay out of risky business that can hurt the general public when things go wrong. See recent meltdown.
The Volcker plan is good but it does not go far enough. It is better to get the “gogo” boys out of the commercial banking business. “Gogo” boys should not be in commercial banking. They should be in other areas of business .
In regard to the Financial Reform bill “REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH” for several reasons. I) It depends on who is doing the regulating.
During the Bush years all the regulatory agencies were underfunded and staffed with people who did not believe in regulation. We are now experiencing the results, whether it’s the SEC and financial regulation, Nancy Nord and Consumer Products such as baby cribs ,or Mining and Mineral Dept.—oil spill, or mine safety-29 coal miners killed, Dept. of the Interior, or lax aircraft maintenance inspection by the FAA and so it goes all across the Govt regulatory organizations.
2)It is also important, to not only focus on mechanical ways to make THE PUBLIC SAFER, but also more broadly on helping people deal with potentially catastrophic complexity. There must be ways to improve the choice architecture — to help people guard against risk creep, false security, groupthink, the good-news bias and all the rest. Ideas from David Brooks NY Times editorial.
This is why it is essential to restructure and put into law policies to protect the public in any of these areas so as to do everything possible to maintain a high level of oversight. The Obrama administration may faithfully follow guidelines but what about future administrations?
1)In regard to Financial Reform this why Derivatives should have no place in commercial banking. They are too risky and were one of the major causes of the recent financial meltdown. Commercial banking should stick to commercial banking or similar low risk activities.
Derivatives and other risky financial arrangements should be handled by specialty firms that offer speculators, wealthy individuals, large corporations the opportunity for large gains and the risk of large losses, and for hedging purposes.
2)Such an arrangement would make commercial banking a more low key risk adverse business. It would tend to keep commercial banks a slower growth business. This is the way commercial banks should be. The Commercial banks should service the savings, checking, mortgages and trust business of the general public They should stay out of risky business that can hurt the general public when things go wrong. See recent meltdown.
The Volcker plan is good but it does not go far enough. It is better to get the “gogo” boys out of the commercial banking business. “Gogo” boys should not be in commercial banking. They should be in other areas of business .
Monday, June 7, 2010
WHY AUTO DEALERS NEED OVERSIGHT
WHY AUTO DEALERS—
NEED OVERSIIGHT BY THE CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY!
A review of the facts should convince anyone that auto dealers should not be exempt from oversight by the new Consumer Protection Agency to be part of the Federal Reserve.
1) Many people with diverse backgrounds buy new and used autos. Most of the buyers and lookers do not have enough technical background to make an informed decision about the autos they see. The potential customers rely on the salesperson they speak to and ads they see on TV. The purchase of an auto is usually a large purchase from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars.
2 Right there you have a possibility and an incentive for potential customers to be taken advantage of. The salesperson, usually an expert on autos, is advising an untrained buyer on what to purchase. For the unscrupulous salesperson this is an open invitation to take advantage of the perspective buyer.
3) While not all salespeople would take advantage, enough of the auto salespeople do so that that auto dealers have a reputation for sharp practice and people not to be trusted.
4) This tends to be true of not only autos but also computers, insurance, mortgages etc. This is the reason for having a Consumer Protection Agency. Purchasing today is more complicated usually with all kinds of paperwork that most people do not understand and realize the legal implications of.
5) Wherever the buyer has to rely on the seller for the knowledge to choose a purchase you have the potential for purchases that are not in the best interest of the buyer.
6) Auto dealers are the last place in our economy that does not need oversight by a Consumer Protection Agency.
7) As our representative in government we rely on you to protect the interests of the people. In this case you can accomplish this by making sure the Consumer Protection Agency has oversight of the auto dealers.
NEED OVERSIIGHT BY THE CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY!
A review of the facts should convince anyone that auto dealers should not be exempt from oversight by the new Consumer Protection Agency to be part of the Federal Reserve.
1) Many people with diverse backgrounds buy new and used autos. Most of the buyers and lookers do not have enough technical background to make an informed decision about the autos they see. The potential customers rely on the salesperson they speak to and ads they see on TV. The purchase of an auto is usually a large purchase from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars.
2 Right there you have a possibility and an incentive for potential customers to be taken advantage of. The salesperson, usually an expert on autos, is advising an untrained buyer on what to purchase. For the unscrupulous salesperson this is an open invitation to take advantage of the perspective buyer.
3) While not all salespeople would take advantage, enough of the auto salespeople do so that that auto dealers have a reputation for sharp practice and people not to be trusted.
4) This tends to be true of not only autos but also computers, insurance, mortgages etc. This is the reason for having a Consumer Protection Agency. Purchasing today is more complicated usually with all kinds of paperwork that most people do not understand and realize the legal implications of.
5) Wherever the buyer has to rely on the seller for the knowledge to choose a purchase you have the potential for purchases that are not in the best interest of the buyer.
6) Auto dealers are the last place in our economy that does not need oversight by a Consumer Protection Agency.
7) As our representative in government we rely on you to protect the interests of the people. In this case you can accomplish this by making sure the Consumer Protection Agency has oversight of the auto dealers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)