It provides GOVT jobs! -Who pays for that?

• Listening to the Senate debate this so-called - Backwards typist
  • Oh, I know.....(sm) - Just the big bad
    • I don't think giving NASA more money - Backwards typist
      • We can't address the current....(sm) - Just the big bad
    • It provides GOVT jobs! -Who pays for that? - WE do, the taxpayer. awful plan.nm
      • Oh boy....(sm) - Just the big bad
        • Another thing. Most of those so-called - Backwards typist
          • I think one of the deciding factors....(sm) - Just the big bad
            • I've been taking the package apart. - Backwards typist
              • What about...(sm) - Just the big bad
                • Used to, 50 miles away. - Backwards typist
                • I think one provision in there...(sm) - Just the big bad
        • Not in my state. The governor gives - Backwards typist
  • Now you know how WE felt for - 8 Years
    • So you're in favor of this? - lk
      • That's what i had hoped, too, but - Backwards typist
      • It is a joke. But the dems here would rather blame - Bush even for Obama's terrible plan!.nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

companies.  There was one company out there advertising 3 cpl for ASR.  Their add said they need MTs who can "hit the ground running."  It was on MTdaily a few days ago.  There should be "ASR control" where they can't continue to lower our pay.  Remember years ago when people voted for "rent control" and won?  Time to sign those petitions for "ASR control."

Imagine what these companies are making off ASR.

...we have hired them to handle certain management tasks with OUR money. 

We have grown too large to defend the country with just a militia. We have high-rise buildings and can no longer get by with volunteer fire departments.  We need street crews because we have too much roadway, highways and freeways, and no longer can simply neaten up the road that runs past our property.  We produce far too much trash to simply take it out back and burn it (if that were even still legal in some areas.)  Some elements of modern life have grown just to large and complicated to handle on our own.

We have a system of compulsory schooling now that is doing SUCH a great job educating our children.  Kids were far more literate and better educated when the bulk of their learning occurred in the home.  Read anything written by John Taylor Gatto - Weapons of Mass Instruction is his most recent book - about the origins of public education.

I quote here what was in an earlier post:  *If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until the government gives it to you for free.*  What the government dispenses, the government rations.  Do you really want a government bureaucrat in control of whether you get surgery or some diagnostic test your doctor says you need?  Bad enough you have to fight about it with your insurance company now.  You really want to turn this over to the government?  Really?

They certainly must for so many MTs to be all atwitter over this plan.  Fred Thompson said it perfectly last PM. 

So those "moneybags" need to stop griping about MQ and how crappy it pays.  You think you have less in your pockets now?  You think this crap he's promising is free?  How ignorant!

Even he see the unfairness here.  Some conservatives are fond of saying that Democrats want to tax the wealthy unfairly, but what I would like to see is the wealthy taxed equally.  "Mr. Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."  Here is the entire article.  It's a great read.  Trust me.

Tom Bawden in New York

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed.

They echo those made this month by Nicholas Ferguson, one of the leading figures in Britain’s private equity industry, when he criticised tax rates that left its multimillionaire venture capitalists “paying less tax than a cleaning lady”.

Last week senior members of the US Senate proposed to increase the rate of tax that private equity and hedge fund staff pay on their share of the profits, known as carried interest, from the 15 per cent capital gains rate to about 35 per cent.

Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, acknowledged in an interview yesterday that there were justified concerns about the huge profits generated by private equity firms and that he worried that income inequality was “poisoning democracy”. He also said that he would be voting for the Democrat candidate at the next election. Mr Blankfein is the highest-paid executive on Wall Street, earning $54 million last year.

Mr Buffett, who runs the investment group Berkshire Hathaway and is widely regarded as the world’s most successful investor, said that he was a Democrat because Republicans are more likely to think: “I’m making $80 million a year – God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate.”

Mr Buffett said that a Republican proposal to eliminate elements of inheritance tax, which raises about $30 billion a year from the assets of about 12,000 rich families, would broaden the disparity between rich and poor. He added that the Republicans would seek to recover lost revenue by increasing taxes for the less prosperous.

He said: “You could take that $30 billion and give $1,000 to 30 million poor families. Or should you favour the 12,000 estates and make 30 million families pay an extra $1,000?”

So what are you saying?  That it is fair for them to admit incompetence, whine for help and take the people's money, but its nobody's business what they spend it on?  Corporate welfare has got to stop!

This is no different than if a relative came begging for help making their house payment, you gave it to them, then instead they blew it on caviar and a cruise - and expected/demanded more money from you in the future.  Would you feel you had the right then to tell them what to do with it?  Or would you refuse to give them another cent and let them crash and burn?

In this society, when an individual admits their incompetence and declares (or has concerned others prove) they are unable to handle their affairs, they are made a ward of the court with a guardian or a committee of guardians to tell them what to do with their money and their lives.  This is not a temporary situation (such as individual welfare is supposed to be), the government has more huge payments to AIG scheduled.   Yes, there should be strings attached to the money - BIG ones.

My first real job some 30 years ago was a CETA job. That was Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. This was doing medical transcription for a county health department.  I worked as a CETA employee for a year, they trained me and paid me, and I have worked in transcription for 30 years, of course moving on to hospital stuff. Made big bucks for quite a few years and now here I am, strangely enough, I think back to the same money I made all those years ago.  You've got to keep your sense of humor. 

The Federal Reserve (Fed) has gone beyond playing with fire, and may have indeed set the house on fire. It’s one thing to push interest rates to near zero to stimulate the economy; it’s another to “monetize the debt” by printing money to buy government debt. In recent weeks, the Fed has broken outside even those boundaries and become actively engaged in managing the private sector beyond the core banking system. Worse still, the steps taken may be difficult to reverse and as such may shape the U.S. economy for a long time. These steps are taken with the best of intentions, to “save” the economy. The only trouble is that we may be on a slippery slope to destroying capitalism on the way. In “doing whatever it takes” to get the economy back on its feet, the Fed risks destroying the foundation of why the U.S. has been able to establish itself as the world’s leading economic force. Actively participating in credit allocation within the private sector, the Federal Reserve (Fed) jeopardizes the capitalist foundation the U.S. economy is built on. As a result of these actions, the U.S. may be on its way to becoming a modern incarnation of a planned economy.

Why these harsh words? To understand what is so frightening with recent Fed activity, consider that most central banks focus on interest rates, inflation and money supply to promote price stability (and maximum employment in the Fed’s case). Generally, they all influence credit creation by managing the cost of borrowing. Central banks may employ slightly different levers and targets; and while some central banks are better than others at achieving their goals, what they have in common is that they traditionally focus on government debt, mostly short-term Treasuries, to achieve their goals. This is very much by design as good central bank policy leads to an environment of price stability fostering long-term economic prosperity. On the other hand, bad central bank policy may lead to inflation, wide swings in economic activity or unnecessarily high unemployment. However, free market forces will push the private sector to make the best of it. It’s when policy makers start subsidizing ailing sectors of the economy that distortions are created that will come back to haunt us. Traditionally, for better or worse, elected officials decide on the socio-economic fabric of society. Now, the Fed decides which areas of the economy need to be propped up.

Creating Hysteria To Pursue Policies

The hysteria that has been created by policy makers and the media has allowed the Fed to pursue its recent unorthodox policies. In late September, the world financial system looked rather dire; the government was able to play a role to avoid a disorderly collapse; but the government’s role should have been limited to allowing an orderly adjustment of the excesses of the credit bubble. Instead, the latest salvo to promote the bailouts is that payrolls have dropped by the largest amount since World War II. This may be the case in absolute numbers as the population has grown, but more jobs were lost as a percentage of the workforce in a twelve month period in each of 1982, 1961, 1958, 1954, 1948/49; in many of the cases more than twice as many. Recessions are no fun, neither are personal or corporate bankruptcies; but they may be the cure needed to weed out the excesses of the boom. In contrast, today, hedge fund managers that ran their funds into the ground are raising hundreds of millions of dollars to start anew. Some of the folks that ran Long Term Capital Management into the ground in 1998 started fresh only to have another massive failure in the current credit crisis. We don’t expect the new breed of second chances to be any better. And while the blame lies with the managers, excessively low interest rates contribute to irrational risk taking: all of the bailouts focus on those who have been over-leveraged. What about the group of responsible savers that rely on income? With interest rates near zero, many are tempted to engage in highly leveraged strategies to meet their required income objectives. Pension funds “must” return 6% per year, leaving them little leeway but to give money to hedge fund managers to magically turn 1% yields into 20% returns; the way to achieve this is with leverage. Actually, there is another way: the Swiss public pension fund system just announced that it will scale down its long-term return objective to 4% from its current 6% per annum.

Giving Credit Where No Credit is Due

In late December, the Fed Board of Governors approved GMAC’s application to become a bank. The vote was 4-1, and the one board member with experience as a bank regulator, Elizabeth Duke, dissented. There was another hurdle: GMAC, General Motors’ finance arm, did not have sufficient capital to be a bank. That problem was solved, too, in early January, as the Treasury injected $5 billion into GMAC; the Treasury also GM $1 billion, so that GM could inject that money into GMAC. Equipped now with a minimum capital base, GMAC is able to operate as a bank, go to the Fed to access the TARP program, as well as other regular and emergency Fed windows.

In December, car sales fell off the cliff. But it wasn’t only GM that had problems; even Toyota that had access to credit and introduced zero percent financing, recorded a 37% plunge in sales (unlike other car makers, Toyota has traditionally not offered zero percent financing). Shell-shocked consumers are worried about their jobs and have lost a substantial amount of their net worth in 2008; further, incentive programs prior to the bursting of the credit bubble lured consumers into 6-year loans with zero percent financing. Consumers simply don’t want or need a car right now. Policy makers take this as a reason to provide money to GMAC that pursues a business model proven to be ruinous: it simply doesn’t make sense to offer cars at 0% if interest rates are above that, even if they are “close to zero” as they are now. GMAC takes money from the Treasury to be able to request more from the Fed. And the first course of business for GMAC is to extend zero percent financing to consumers with lower credit ratings than had traditionally qualified.

Difficult to Unwind: Long Term Inflation Likely

The Fed is only ramping up its mission to allocate credit where the Fed – rather than the free market - deems it appropriate. A major program announced in the fourth quarter, but rolled out in early January consists of a $500 billion program to buy mortgage-backed securities (MBS). The perceived positive is the plummeting of mortgage rates. Consumers with superb credit now qualify for 30-year mortgages at less than 5%. One problem with such programs is that the Fed intentionally inflates prices (lowers the yields) on these securities; in turn, rational market participants may abstain from buying them. As a result the Fed risks replacing private sector activity, rather than encouraging it. Furthermore, the Fed jeopardizes the dollar as foreigners may be discouraged from buying U.S. government and agency security debt; given that the U.S. has become dependent on foreigners to finance its spending needs as well as the unprecedented debt that will be financed in 2009. This is a very dangerous road to be on.

The Fed may be able to phase out its commercial paper subsidy program or drain liquidity from the TARP program over time; however, the $500 billion MBS program may be difficult, if not impossible to unwind. Indeed, the design of the MBS program calls for holding of the securities until maturity. For practical purposes, this means that the Fed’s balance sheet is not just “temporarily” inflated, but that the Fed will permanently keep more money in the economy. Traditionally, the Fed’s balance sheet is $900 billion. Therefore, even if one gives the Fed the benefit of the doubt that the current escalation to over $2 trillion is temporary, there will be a significant hangover as not all additions can easily be removed. This doesn’t even consider that, quite likely, the MBS purchase program may need to be extended beyond the 6-month period it was put in place for. Watch for bond manager Bill Gross this June, calling for the Fed to continue buying MBS, preferably the ones he has on the books, to save the economy from collapse. Incidentally, his firm, PIMCO, is one of the firms managing the Fed program.

To counter the effects of this added money in the economy, the Fed would need to keep interest rates permanently higher. One realistic alternative, however, is that the additional money will stay in the economy as draining it would cause too much economic hardship. This may well embed inflation into the U.S. economy for years to come. Importantly, note that there is little, if any, accountability at the Fed monitoring its actions; no one is there to ensure that the Fed will, at some point, phase out its programs or added powers.

Live Free Or Die

By engaging in credit allocation to specific sectors of the economy, the U.S. is stepping into a territory traditionally left to governments with a socialist or communist brand. Communism has shown us that planned economies don’t work. New Hampshire in 1945 added the slogan “Live Free or Die” to its state emblem, a quote stemming from a general in the Revolutionary war. Translated to the economic crisis, this should mean that a severe recession ought to be the lesser evil than a planned economy. And to continue the parallel, when communism swept Eastern Europe, the standard of living for everyone dropped. In today’s world, we already see that the “re-failure” rate of those who defaulted, then renegotiated their teaser rate loans, is above 50%. Yet all taxpayers have to pay the price for the bailouts.

To be sure, we are a far cry from communism. But we must keep our eyes open and not be blinded by the perceived “help” of money printed by the Fed. Debt is the origin, not the solution to the problems we face. The Declaration of Independence’s “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” may be difficult to achieve when drowned in debt; building sustainable wealth without the shackles of debt may be the more appropriate path. It’s not by mistake that the Founding Fathers be backed by a precious metal that cannot be inflated to give in to the temptation of the day.