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.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
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.
Monday, December 14, 2009
NO! To Shameful HEALTHCARE INSURANCE CAPS!
THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
The CNN Ticker said that Sen Max Baucus, his aide Erin Shields and Sen Harry Reid and one of his aides were planning caps on health insurance under the Reform Healthcare Bill.
This appears to be an outright SCAM FOR THE INSURANCE BUYERS. That this scam is being proposed by two members of the US Senate is astounding. Most of the buyers of insurance under the reform bill are not experienced insurance people. When they purchase health insurance I am sure they are expecting full coverage for their medical problems. To try and substitute what amounts to “limited liability” in stead of full coverage is a scam. Is this the private insurance co’s way of replacing “recessions”?
Most of the buyers, certainly those being subsidized, will not have the knowledge or money to buy an additional insurance policy to cover the possible medical costs not covered by the cap policies. To say that the cap policies will cost less is misrepresentation and misleading. Of course they will cost less because they do not pay for the expensive care some will need.
Cap policies will do very little to reduce the 50 to 60 of total bankruptcies due to the inability to pay large medical bills. Of the medical bankruptcies about 2/3 have some medial insurance but not enough.
If this is the thinking of the private insurance co’s and their representatives in Congress I believe the US gov’t should step in with a single payer system and furnish the Reform Bill Healthcare policies.
The CNN Ticker said that Sen Max Baucus, his aide Erin Shields and Sen Harry Reid and one of his aides were planning caps on health insurance under the Reform Healthcare Bill.
This appears to be an outright SCAM FOR THE INSURANCE BUYERS. That this scam is being proposed by two members of the US Senate is astounding. Most of the buyers of insurance under the reform bill are not experienced insurance people. When they purchase health insurance I am sure they are expecting full coverage for their medical problems. To try and substitute what amounts to “limited liability” in stead of full coverage is a scam. Is this the private insurance co’s way of replacing “recessions”?
Most of the buyers, certainly those being subsidized, will not have the knowledge or money to buy an additional insurance policy to cover the possible medical costs not covered by the cap policies. To say that the cap policies will cost less is misrepresentation and misleading. Of course they will cost less because they do not pay for the expensive care some will need.
Cap policies will do very little to reduce the 50 to 60 of total bankruptcies due to the inability to pay large medical bills. Of the medical bankruptcies about 2/3 have some medial insurance but not enough.
If this is the thinking of the private insurance co’s and their representatives in Congress I believe the US gov’t should step in with a single payer system and furnish the Reform Bill Healthcare policies.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
ABORTION RESTRICTIONS ARE UNCONSTUTIONAL
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
The public pronouncements and actions of certain religious groups have made the decision of whether society should allow abortions or prohibit abortions a moral or religious decision.
At present a large well organized and financed group have worked to have the US gov’t enact laws that will enforce the moral and religious decision that they favor.
This is clearly unconstitutional as it infringes on the 1st amendment to the US Constitution “Freedom of Religion”. It forces everyone including those that disagree or have other values to a belief or course of action they disapprove of.
The abortion decision seems to have no objective right or wrong basis. In the US certain religious groups are against abortion. In China abortions are mandatory—one child per family. In the US It seems to be a moral or religious policy decision. According to the Guttmacher Institute research,for the individual having an abortion personal circumstances are usually the deciding factors.
Even the deeper “respect for life” seems to have no objective right or wrong basis but depend on religious views. The Catholic Church is a strong believer in “respect for life”. However in other religions the highest accolade goes to the person who will die for his religion. Some civilizations have practiced human sacrifice or even cannibalism. Some countries are willing to sacrifice thousands or even millions of people in their drive for conquest and domination.
The public pronouncements and actions of certain religious groups have made the decision of whether society should allow abortions or prohibit abortions a moral or religious decision.
At present a large well organized and financed group have worked to have the US gov’t enact laws that will enforce the moral and religious decision that they favor.
This is clearly unconstitutional as it infringes on the 1st amendment to the US Constitution “Freedom of Religion”. It forces everyone including those that disagree or have other values to a belief or course of action they disapprove of.
The abortion decision seems to have no objective right or wrong basis. In the US certain religious groups are against abortion. In China abortions are mandatory—one child per family. In the US It seems to be a moral or religious policy decision. According to the Guttmacher Institute research,for the individual having an abortion personal circumstances are usually the deciding factors.
Even the deeper “respect for life” seems to have no objective right or wrong basis but depend on religious views. The Catholic Church is a strong believer in “respect for life”. However in other religions the highest accolade goes to the person who will die for his religion. Some civilizations have practiced human sacrifice or even cannibalism. Some countries are willing to sacrifice thousands or even millions of people in their drive for conquest and domination.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
LETTER TO REP. MARK kIRK
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS! Dear Rep. Kirk—I believe that your attitude and campaign against placing Guantanamo detainees on US soil is misleading and unworthy of a US Rep. and candidate for the US Senate.
1) You call them terrorists. HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE TERRORISTS? Many of these detainees have been held 7 years without even a hearing. None of them have been convicted of any misdeeds or crimes. My guesstimates are that outside of a dozen or so they are not terrorists. The proper place for them would be POW’S. During WWII we had thousands of German POW’S at many locations in the US with very little trouble.
2) You are using scare tactics to peddle fear. Our maximum security prisons I believe are fully capable of handling such a small number of detainees the majority of whom should either be designated POW’S or sent home. At present the detainees are not allowed visitors. Thus your worries about detainee families and other visitors causing troubles in the location near the prison is groundless. I am surprised that you were unaware of the visitor policy.
3) I am hopeful you will reconsider your mistaken policy about the detainees and devote your efforts to positive policies that will benefit the nation.
Sincerely,
Robert Diogenes
1) You call them terrorists. HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE TERRORISTS? Many of these detainees have been held 7 years without even a hearing. None of them have been convicted of any misdeeds or crimes. My guesstimates are that outside of a dozen or so they are not terrorists. The proper place for them would be POW’S. During WWII we had thousands of German POW’S at many locations in the US with very little trouble.
2) You are using scare tactics to peddle fear. Our maximum security prisons I believe are fully capable of handling such a small number of detainees the majority of whom should either be designated POW’S or sent home. At present the detainees are not allowed visitors. Thus your worries about detainee families and other visitors causing troubles in the location near the prison is groundless. I am surprised that you were unaware of the visitor policy.
3) I am hopeful you will reconsider your mistaken policy about the detainees and devote your efforts to positive policies that will benefit the nation.
Sincerely,
Robert Diogenes
Thursday, November 12, 2009
WHAT DOES REP CAO'S VOTE TELL US?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS? "I had to make a decision, and I felt that last night's decision (Health Reform bill) was the right decision for my district, even though it was not the popular decision for my party," Rep Cao, 42, said of his vote late Saturday. Rep Cao represents a low income district in New Orleans.
The Obama administration and Republican leaders, such as Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, lobbied Cao throughout Saturday. He made his decision as the voting came to a close and cast his "yes" vote as the Democrats passed the 218 votes needed for the bill to pass. The final tally was 220-215.
The first Vietnamese American in Congress, Cao fled Vietnam with two siblings when he was 8, according to his House website. Cao said he did not make any deals with President Obama in exchange for his vote. Cao has pushed for more aid to New Orleans to help the city recover after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and has supported Obama's actions to help Louisiana rebuild.
What does it tell us WHEN IT’S NEWS THAT A CONGRESSMAN VOTES HIS CONSCIENCE BY VOTING FOR A BILL THAT HE BELIEVES WILL HELP THE PEOPLE IN HIS DISTRICT DESPITE THE WISHES OF HIS PARTY? What does it tell us about a party that wants a congressman to vote against a bill that he feels will help the people in his district? What does it tell us about a Congress that is so absorbed in party warfare that it has forgotten the reason for its existence, namely to help the citizens? What does it tell us about a country whose citizens are so self centered they can only see their own selfish interests and never care or look at what’s best for the whole country?
In this particular case, though the idea applies to both parties, an examination state by state reveals that in states that that have the highest % of uninsured,their representatives are the strongest objectors to the health reform bill The Health Reform bill will make possible the purchase of insurance with gov’t help if necessary. These states are southern, mountain and Tx ,Ok, Ks. Statistics show that uninsured people are less healthy because they wait too long to seek medical help to avoid the cost. When they do seek medical help it is often in high cost emergency rooms. Harvard researchers published an article in the American Journal of Public Health. They said 45.000 people die each year as a result of not havinginsurance.
So why don't the representatives in these states vote for the Health Reform bill?
The Obama administration and Republican leaders, such as Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, lobbied Cao throughout Saturday. He made his decision as the voting came to a close and cast his "yes" vote as the Democrats passed the 218 votes needed for the bill to pass. The final tally was 220-215.
The first Vietnamese American in Congress, Cao fled Vietnam with two siblings when he was 8, according to his House website. Cao said he did not make any deals with President Obama in exchange for his vote. Cao has pushed for more aid to New Orleans to help the city recover after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and has supported Obama's actions to help Louisiana rebuild.
What does it tell us WHEN IT’S NEWS THAT A CONGRESSMAN VOTES HIS CONSCIENCE BY VOTING FOR A BILL THAT HE BELIEVES WILL HELP THE PEOPLE IN HIS DISTRICT DESPITE THE WISHES OF HIS PARTY? What does it tell us about a party that wants a congressman to vote against a bill that he feels will help the people in his district? What does it tell us about a Congress that is so absorbed in party warfare that it has forgotten the reason for its existence, namely to help the citizens? What does it tell us about a country whose citizens are so self centered they can only see their own selfish interests and never care or look at what’s best for the whole country?
In this particular case, though the idea applies to both parties, an examination state by state reveals that in states that that have the highest % of uninsured,their representatives are the strongest objectors to the health reform bill The Health Reform bill will make possible the purchase of insurance with gov’t help if necessary. These states are southern, mountain and Tx ,Ok, Ks. Statistics show that uninsured people are less healthy because they wait too long to seek medical help to avoid the cost. When they do seek medical help it is often in high cost emergency rooms. Harvard researchers published an article in the American Journal of Public Health. They said 45.000 people die each year as a result of not havinginsurance.
So why don't the representatives in these states vote for the Health Reform bill?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)