Why is New York State Public Education continuing to neglect the American Consumer? The growth of the American Economy depends upon the American Consumer. The recovery from our current financial crisis depends upon the American Consumer. Poor decisions by the American Consumers
were the major cause of the current financial crisis. Why then do the New York State Public Schools refuse to teach consumer education to students who will become American Consumers?
This neglect is simply the unintentional consequence of a well intended tunnel focus on math and science. The New York State Education Department had a Bureau of Business and
Distrubutive Education dedicated to the improvement and promotion of
industry and personal use business programs in the public schools
throughout the State. Popular courses like Business Law and
Typewriting were taken by many college entrance students as well as
those planning to enter the work force upon graduation.
In 1980, funding emphasis was placed on Math and Science neglecting
Business Education until shortly after the 21st Cenury when the Bureau
of Business Education was completely eliminated; the Bookkeeping,
Business Law and Secretarial courses were moved up to the Community
College Programs; and Consumer Education couses became almost non
existent in the Public Schools Curriculums. The unintentional
consequence is the sad fact that the nearly 40% of the students that do
not go on to college have no basic training in business skills for
entry level jobs or to cope with the challenges they must face to
survive as consumers. Another unintentional consequence is that those
going on to college that do not take business courses must also face
the survival challenges of a consumer without the necessary business
skills; especially the knowledge of vital consumer laws.
Consumer law is essential for every consumer to successfully, manage their personal business affairs. Even at the minimum salary range, the average consumer makes over a million dollars in a lifetime which they must manage to survive. One of the major causes of the current credit crisis was the lack of consumer business skills resulting in failure to honor binding contracts that the consumer could not afford. An educated consumer is not only good for the consumer, it is good for the country.
It is the responsibility of public school education to prepare students with the basic skills to manage their personal business affairs as well as become a productive part of the national economy. Over emphasis on one aspect of society creates an imbalance that is harmful to all of society. We don't have to rebuild the "teter toter" to correct the situation, we simply have to move some weights. One very simple but most helpful move might be to add Consumer Law to the mandated curriculum for all high school students.
(Perhaps advanced placement courses for college credit could be more properly postponed until college as these courses might only be useful and helpful to those going on to college, allowing colleges to fulfill their responsibility and the high schools to fulfill their responsibility)
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Monday, November 19, 2012
REALITY CHECK FOR NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC SCHOOLS PROGRAMS
In the 1960's and 70's, the New York State Public Schools Programs met the needs of the times. Grade school programs helped students to develope skills in the "3 R's" and prepared students for high school. High school programs further developed the "3 R's" and further prepared students for college;, as well as addressing the then critical needs of the time, preparing students for entry level jobs in business, and personal use business skills to help all students to survive in our economically oriented society.
The New York State Education Department had a Bureau of Business and Distrubutive Education dedicated to the improvement and promotion of industry and personal use business programs in the public schools throughout the State. Popular courses like Business Law and Typewriting were taken by many college entrance students as well as those planning to enter the work force upon graduation.
In 1980, funding emphasis was placed on Math and Science neglecting Business Education until shortly after the 21st Cenury when the Bureau of Business Education was completely eliminated, the Bookkeeping, Business Law and Secretarial courses were moved up to the Community College Programs, and Consumer Education couses became almost non existent in the Public Schools Curriculums. The unintentional consequence is the sad fact that the nearly 40% of the students that do not go on to college have no basic training in business skills for entry level jobs or to cope with the challenges they must face to survive as consumers. Another unintentional consequence is that those going on to college that do not take business courses must also face the survival challenges of a consumer without the necessary business skills; especially the knowledge of vital consumer laws.
The noble goal to prepare all students for college is unquestionably wise but also unquesionably short sighted. New York State Public School Education is neglecting nearly 40% of the New York State Public School Students. BOCES, the extremely expensive attempt to provide vocational education does nothing to counter the consumer education problem and falls far short of meeting the needs of the great number of students that do not go on to college.
New York State is not alone in this neglect of Consumer Education. It was federal funding that promoted the sole emphasis on Math and Science thus causing the neglect of Consumer Education as an unintentional consequence. Some educators believe that this unintentional consequence was one of the root causes of the current credit crisis.
A simple solution to help solve one of these problems would be to include a course in Consumer Law and possibly another in Consumer Economics in the Public Schools Curiculums for 15 and 16 year olds, reaching the dropouts and also the graduates that do not go on to college as well as the college entrance majors for they will become consumers too. This will not solve all of the problems in education, but to do less would be to continue criminal neglect.
The New York State Education Department had a Bureau of Business and Distrubutive Education dedicated to the improvement and promotion of industry and personal use business programs in the public schools throughout the State. Popular courses like Business Law and Typewriting were taken by many college entrance students as well as those planning to enter the work force upon graduation.
In 1980, funding emphasis was placed on Math and Science neglecting Business Education until shortly after the 21st Cenury when the Bureau of Business Education was completely eliminated, the Bookkeeping, Business Law and Secretarial courses were moved up to the Community College Programs, and Consumer Education couses became almost non existent in the Public Schools Curriculums. The unintentional consequence is the sad fact that the nearly 40% of the students that do not go on to college have no basic training in business skills for entry level jobs or to cope with the challenges they must face to survive as consumers. Another unintentional consequence is that those going on to college that do not take business courses must also face the survival challenges of a consumer without the necessary business skills; especially the knowledge of vital consumer laws.
The noble goal to prepare all students for college is unquestionably wise but also unquesionably short sighted. New York State Public School Education is neglecting nearly 40% of the New York State Public School Students. BOCES, the extremely expensive attempt to provide vocational education does nothing to counter the consumer education problem and falls far short of meeting the needs of the great number of students that do not go on to college.
New York State is not alone in this neglect of Consumer Education. It was federal funding that promoted the sole emphasis on Math and Science thus causing the neglect of Consumer Education as an unintentional consequence. Some educators believe that this unintentional consequence was one of the root causes of the current credit crisis.
A simple solution to help solve one of these problems would be to include a course in Consumer Law and possibly another in Consumer Economics in the Public Schools Curiculums for 15 and 16 year olds, reaching the dropouts and also the graduates that do not go on to college as well as the college entrance majors for they will become consumers too. This will not solve all of the problems in education, but to do less would be to continue criminal neglect.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
THE CORPORATIONS AND THE NATIONAL DEBT
The Supreme Court determined the Corporation to be an "artifical person declared by law." subjecting it to personal income tax which obviously was of great benefit to the Government, but the unintentional consequence of this act may have caused the creation of an artificial economy based upon an artificial certificate of wealth called money that may be one of the causes for the current financial crisis.
The very first economy was a consumer economy supported by the supply of natural bounty from the earth. As civilization advanced, humans took private ownership over the products of the earth and a Supply Side of the economy rose up to satisfy the needs and wants of the consumers. The producers were also consumers and the consumers had to be producers or producer support as well. The more one produced, the more one could consume. A medium of exchange was established to facilitate this exchange and keep track of individual production and consumption.This medium of exchange (money) became the standard of value.
The idea was to produce as much as you needed and wanted to survive. Free business enterprise came into the picture with the profit motive and gave the incentive to produce more and more. Some areas of civilization became more prosperous than others and some individuals became more prosperous than others within the areas. Individual and group competition became the way of life.
The system was ideal, giving individuals wealth to consume in proportion to ones production. In a free society, individuals could choose what and how they wished to produce and what and how much they could consume based upon their contriubution to the society. On a "cash basis" this system appeared to be as perfect as a system could be. However, with credit, consumers could consume more than they could pay for and the imbalance of production and consumption caused problems. The result was an over supply which caused the system to bog down.
The artificial persons (the corporations) had expanded to the point where they became mini-economies in themselves, supporting large numbers of consumers, and their "bog down" with over production also cut back on the consumer action, adding to the imbalance thus accerbating the problem.
Powerful supply side advocates pushed for more production with the notion that more production would result in more tax revenue to revive the economy. This would of course help unproductive consumers with basic needs through government aid but would also add to the over productive imbalance and postpone any recovery.
The mass production frenzy also brought with it mass corruption and mass waste. The artificial person was out of control. This senario was duplicated in various segments of the sociaty in various ways. Some lending institutions gave out money that borrowers could not pay back. Some insurance institutions insured for losses that they were unable to cover. Some individuals spent money that they did not have and could not afford.
The answer is very simple; it is the same for the Government, for Business and for the Individual. A Balanced Budget! This is accomplished simply by "living withing one's means," or only spending money that you have and can afford. (Refer to the American College Press publication, "Blue Print for Success in Business") The problem is How to Balance the Budget with an enormous debt. Here are some suggestions to consider:
Focus on corrption and waist. Give bonuses to whistle blowers and suggestions for savings and elimination of waste.
Eliminate unnecessary services. Encarceration only for those that are a threat to society. Fines for convictions.
Review compensation for public employees (including elected officials) receiving perks and amounts over basic pay scale.
Make necessary changes to eliminate padding of retirement benefits and overtime pay.
Review all costs that do not reduce tax paying personnel for reduction or elimination. Review entitlements for possible reduction of higher end payments.
Increase taxes on income above 250,000 with graduated rates.
Print money to pay on debt. This will cause some inflation and raise in prices but raise of minimum wage would ease the burden on the lower
income bracket.
As a last resort, enact a temporary federal luxury sales tax to be used only for the debt reduction
The very first economy was a consumer economy supported by the supply of natural bounty from the earth. As civilization advanced, humans took private ownership over the products of the earth and a Supply Side of the economy rose up to satisfy the needs and wants of the consumers. The producers were also consumers and the consumers had to be producers or producer support as well. The more one produced, the more one could consume. A medium of exchange was established to facilitate this exchange and keep track of individual production and consumption.This medium of exchange (money) became the standard of value.
The idea was to produce as much as you needed and wanted to survive. Free business enterprise came into the picture with the profit motive and gave the incentive to produce more and more. Some areas of civilization became more prosperous than others and some individuals became more prosperous than others within the areas. Individual and group competition became the way of life.
The system was ideal, giving individuals wealth to consume in proportion to ones production. In a free society, individuals could choose what and how they wished to produce and what and how much they could consume based upon their contriubution to the society. On a "cash basis" this system appeared to be as perfect as a system could be. However, with credit, consumers could consume more than they could pay for and the imbalance of production and consumption caused problems. The result was an over supply which caused the system to bog down.
The artificial persons (the corporations) had expanded to the point where they became mini-economies in themselves, supporting large numbers of consumers, and their "bog down" with over production also cut back on the consumer action, adding to the imbalance thus accerbating the problem.
Powerful supply side advocates pushed for more production with the notion that more production would result in more tax revenue to revive the economy. This would of course help unproductive consumers with basic needs through government aid but would also add to the over productive imbalance and postpone any recovery.
The mass production frenzy also brought with it mass corruption and mass waste. The artificial person was out of control. This senario was duplicated in various segments of the sociaty in various ways. Some lending institutions gave out money that borrowers could not pay back. Some insurance institutions insured for losses that they were unable to cover. Some individuals spent money that they did not have and could not afford.
The answer is very simple; it is the same for the Government, for Business and for the Individual. A Balanced Budget! This is accomplished simply by "living withing one's means," or only spending money that you have and can afford. (Refer to the American College Press publication, "Blue Print for Success in Business") The problem is How to Balance the Budget with an enormous debt. Here are some suggestions to consider:
Focus on corrption and waist. Give bonuses to whistle blowers and suggestions for savings and elimination of waste.
Eliminate unnecessary services. Encarceration only for those that are a threat to society. Fines for convictions.
Review compensation for public employees (including elected officials) receiving perks and amounts over basic pay scale.
Make necessary changes to eliminate padding of retirement benefits and overtime pay.
Review all costs that do not reduce tax paying personnel for reduction or elimination. Review entitlements for possible reduction of higher end payments.
Increase taxes on income above 250,000 with graduated rates.
Print money to pay on debt. This will cause some inflation and raise in prices but raise of minimum wage would ease the burden on the lower
income bracket.
As a last resort, enact a temporary federal luxury sales tax to be used only for the debt reduction
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
BEFORE THE DEBATE
Hey, Mr President, the debate is about to start, where are you?
You're busy??? This is important, you've got to be here!
Your wedding anniversary ?
Go ahead without you???
Wha Wha What???
You say just give them the facts?
Should we use some of that funny stuff they said in their primary debates?
No??? You say just let him talk and he'll screw up again?
Should we mention his remark about the good for nothing 47%?
No??? You think that this wouldn't be polite?
What do you care if the pundits would think you are rude?
Well, I think you should be here. If you don't make it you can't play basketball with us next week.
That's more like it, see you in a few minutes.
You're busy??? This is important, you've got to be here!
Your wedding anniversary ?
Go ahead without you???
Wha Wha What???
You say just give them the facts?
Should we use some of that funny stuff they said in their primary debates?
No??? You say just let him talk and he'll screw up again?
Should we mention his remark about the good for nothing 47%?
No??? You think that this wouldn't be polite?
What do you care if the pundits would think you are rude?
Well, I think you should be here. If you don't make it you can't play basketball with us next week.
That's more like it, see you in a few minutes.
Monday, October 15, 2012
TO THE DEBATERS
Mr President and Candidate Romney, may I suggest that you both get on the same page tomorrow. No need to make wild promises or tell what a great leader you would be, and no need to be overly polite and assume that everyone already knows the facts and you don't need to remind them. Just tell us your positions on the issues.
Are you going to continue the tax break on the Middle Class and poor?
Are you going to continue the tax break on the wealthy 1%?
Are you going to bring the troops home in 2014?
Are you going to cut spending for the Military?
Are you going to have affordable Health Care for all citizens?
Are you going to keep pressure on Iran not to develope an A Bomb?
Will you support a preemptive Military strike on Iran?
Will you restore vital govenment spending to support Education and Public Service?
Will you cut unnecessary spending in an effort to balance the budget?
Will you cut government spending as much as necessary to balance the budget regardless of any unintentional consequences?
Will you maintain rules and regulations on business to protect citizens and the environment from harm?
Will you honor and defend the Constitution of the USA?
Will you vigoresly defend the Bill of Rights for all citizens?
Thank You!
Are you going to continue the tax break on the Middle Class and poor?
Are you going to continue the tax break on the wealthy 1%?
Are you going to bring the troops home in 2014?
Are you going to cut spending for the Military?
Are you going to have affordable Health Care for all citizens?
Are you going to keep pressure on Iran not to develope an A Bomb?
Will you support a preemptive Military strike on Iran?
Will you restore vital govenment spending to support Education and Public Service?
Will you cut unnecessary spending in an effort to balance the budget?
Will you cut government spending as much as necessary to balance the budget regardless of any unintentional consequences?
Will you maintain rules and regulations on business to protect citizens and the environment from harm?
Will you honor and defend the Constitution of the USA?
Will you vigoresly defend the Bill of Rights for all citizens?
Thank You!
THE ROMNEY ADVANTAGE
Like all candidates, Candidate Romney can make all kinds of wild promises whether they are promises that he can keep or not, and as a result, he can really excite the crowd. The incumbent President on the other hand must stick to the facts that even though they show success, they can't compete for excitement with the promise of greater success.
Candidate Romney has criticized the President's leadership and lack of full success citing his leadership and success in the corporate world. Unfortunately, leadership is not the same in the Government as it is in the Corporate world. In the Corporate world, leadership is based upon risk taking. The bigger the risk, the greater the gain or loss. If the risk is successful, both the stockholders and the corporate officers make great gains. If the risk is a failure, the stockholders are the loosers and the Corporate Officers bear no personal liability; that's the law. In Government, failed risks cause a loss for the Nation as a whole, This dual approach cannot. be ignored. The President just cannot take chances. Failed decisions cost lives as well material losses.
A perfect example of this dangerous leadership concept is Mr. Chaney in government as Sec. of Defense, then Mr Cheney in the Corporate world with Halburton, Then Mr Cheney in the Government as Vice President.
Cheney as Sec of Defense went along with President Bush's decision not to
occupy Iraq in the first Iraq "encounter." After a successful role as a leader in the Business world, when he became Vice President he pushed for the invasion of Iraqto take the chance of finding wpw's that just didn't exist. History will attest to the tragic consequences of this failed decision.
Romney's big advantage is not his personal success in the business world which may be a disadvangtage, but it is rather his freedom to be flexible and make any promise that the people would like to hear.
Candidate Romney has criticized the President's leadership and lack of full success citing his leadership and success in the corporate world. Unfortunately, leadership is not the same in the Government as it is in the Corporate world. In the Corporate world, leadership is based upon risk taking. The bigger the risk, the greater the gain or loss. If the risk is successful, both the stockholders and the corporate officers make great gains. If the risk is a failure, the stockholders are the loosers and the Corporate Officers bear no personal liability; that's the law. In Government, failed risks cause a loss for the Nation as a whole, This dual approach cannot. be ignored. The President just cannot take chances. Failed decisions cost lives as well material losses.
A perfect example of this dangerous leadership concept is Mr. Chaney in government as Sec. of Defense, then Mr Cheney in the Corporate world with Halburton, Then Mr Cheney in the Government as Vice President.
Cheney as Sec of Defense went along with President Bush's decision not to
occupy Iraq in the first Iraq "encounter." After a successful role as a leader in the Business world, when he became Vice President he pushed for the invasion of Iraqto take the chance of finding wpw's that just didn't exist. History will attest to the tragic consequences of this failed decision.
Romney's big advantage is not his personal success in the business world which may be a disadvangtage, but it is rather his freedom to be flexible and make any promise that the people would like to hear.
Friday, October 5, 2012
A SCENE WITH THE EMPTY PODIUM
(A take off on the famous Clint Eastwood Empty Chair Scene)
You looked good last night, Mit, but let's face it, wild promises look good even if we know that those Promises just wouldn't be kept.
You are going to have a health care plan that cancels Obama care and still takes care of everyone? -- Your own party opposes such a plan, and you promise to pass such a plan that your own party opposes?
I'll bet $10,000, that you would simply cancel Obama care and turn the problem over to the states, which, will result in 50 million people being without health care, the condition we were in before Obamacare.
There are a couple of promises that I feel sure that you would try to keep. 1) Keep the tax break for the top 1% and 2) Keep the billion dollar gift to the Oil Companies. Neither of these parties need these gifts, and not having these gifts won't make one bit of difference in the number of jobs gained or lost
Thanks for reminding us of the fact that President Obama did not fully suceed in all of the many problems he has tackled. ---Perhaps Four Years just isn't long enough to solve all of the problems caused over the previous 8 years.
What concerns me the most, Mitt, is your claim to be a superior leader. You must know that you can't do this job all by yourself; you have to surround yourself with top level experts like President Obama did. I have to question your judgement in this regard.
You pick a young light weight like Ryan to take over and keep your promises
if something happens to you? Who are you going to pick for Secretary of State, Donald Trump?
Mitt, you did a great job of imitating a young Obama, but you're no Ronald Reagan. You're acting just won't do the job!
You looked good last night, Mit, but let's face it, wild promises look good even if we know that those Promises just wouldn't be kept.
You are going to have a health care plan that cancels Obama care and still takes care of everyone? -- Your own party opposes such a plan, and you promise to pass such a plan that your own party opposes?
I'll bet $10,000, that you would simply cancel Obama care and turn the problem over to the states, which, will result in 50 million people being without health care, the condition we were in before Obamacare.
There are a couple of promises that I feel sure that you would try to keep. 1) Keep the tax break for the top 1% and 2) Keep the billion dollar gift to the Oil Companies. Neither of these parties need these gifts, and not having these gifts won't make one bit of difference in the number of jobs gained or lost
Thanks for reminding us of the fact that President Obama did not fully suceed in all of the many problems he has tackled. ---Perhaps Four Years just isn't long enough to solve all of the problems caused over the previous 8 years.
What concerns me the most, Mitt, is your claim to be a superior leader. You must know that you can't do this job all by yourself; you have to surround yourself with top level experts like President Obama did. I have to question your judgement in this regard.
You pick a young light weight like Ryan to take over and keep your promises
if something happens to you? Who are you going to pick for Secretary of State, Donald Trump?
Mitt, you did a great job of imitating a young Obama, but you're no Ronald Reagan. You're acting just won't do the job!
Friday, September 28, 2012
THE HIGH COST OF FREEDOM
Freedom of speach is one of our most charished rights and yet, when missused without consideration of its consequences that might effect the lives of other innocent people, it can be a curse.
It looked like another frustrated American, fed up with the outrageous extremists, foolishly used his freedom of speech to make a movie against the leader of the Muslems. This led to an uprising in which 50 innocent people were killed. Further investigation reveals that the movie maker was much less than an upstanding citizen. However, freedom in a demcracy is freedom for all, and abuses like this simply have to be chalked up to the high cost of freedom.
Our only defense against such abuse is education; education not only from the schools but from the Churches, and from the homes and from each other.
In a democracy we have the responsibility to be our brother's keeper; to understand that our freedom ends where the other persons freedom begins.
We must learn to respect each other and when we disagree we must do so without being disagreeable,
It looked like another frustrated American, fed up with the outrageous extremists, foolishly used his freedom of speech to make a movie against the leader of the Muslems. This led to an uprising in which 50 innocent people were killed. Further investigation reveals that the movie maker was much less than an upstanding citizen. However, freedom in a demcracy is freedom for all, and abuses like this simply have to be chalked up to the high cost of freedom.
Our only defense against such abuse is education; education not only from the schools but from the Churches, and from the homes and from each other.
In a democracy we have the responsibility to be our brother's keeper; to understand that our freedom ends where the other persons freedom begins.
We must learn to respect each other and when we disagree we must do so without being disagreeable,
Saturday, September 15, 2012
REACTION TO FED RESERVE PURCHASE OF SECURITIES
Yesterday's Blog on the Federal Reserve's buying of Securities stimulated (or provoked) a number of comments. Some are presented below:
This was a simple bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!
A needed stimulus; stead and manageable!
A needed stimulus, but too lttle too late!
Another Democrat trick to increase the debt!
Will start a currency war with foreign nations !
Another attempt to ease the pain!
More wasteful use of funds!
This was a simple bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!
A needed stimulus; stead and manageable!
A needed stimulus, but too lttle too late!
Another Democrat trick to increase the debt!
Will start a currency war with foreign nations !
Another attempt to ease the pain!
More wasteful use of funds!
Friday, September 14, 2012
FEDERAL RESERVE TO BUY SECURITIES
The Sec of Treas and the Federal Reserve came up with the same plan some time ago with a 600B stimulus that many felt was too little, but it may have been too much too quick for foreign currency to handle. However the "gradual" stimulus may more acceptable. The View from 2217 of this plan was expressed last month in a Blog on 8/15 and the view remains the same today.
An excerpt from the 8/15 Blog is presented below:
If deams could come true the Federal Reserve could gradualy issue dollars to pay off debtors, devaluating the dollar and causing inflation that would increase prices which would also increase wages and taxes, all born fairly by consumers and businesses alike in the purchase of goods and services..
Real Estate and Capital Wealth would retain their value through appreciation. The only losses would come from large amounts of uninvested dollars in corporations and banks. (and also of course, cash horded under mattresses)
Higher prices would be offset by corresponding higher wages and business would not be effected. The possibility of low income consumers unable to save for down payment on a first home could be offset by government backed, low interest, capped mortgages that could also help small business entrepreneurs in need of capital for start-up and/or expansion.
Any change would be opposed by those satisfied with the statis quo. Even if the tax break for the top 1% was ended, it wouldn't be much of a hardship for them. However, massive cuts in entitlements and health care would tragically reduce the standard of living level for millions of middle class with millions of the poor living at a third world level. Continued cuts in education would greatly jeopardize our future leadership role in the world. Neglect in maintaining the infrastructure and public service will impede progress and result in choas. The budget challenges today are astronomical!
The effect on foreign trade would vary according to the financial adjustments made by the countries involved, but basically prices on imported goods would be higher with lower prices on exported goods. This would be good for our economy as this would promote more demand for domestic goods. Admittedly, this may reduce profits for outsourced domestic corporations.
If you think that the doubling of prices and wages would never happen, consider the prices and wages from 1960 to 2000 and we still surived.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
ABORTION
The abortion issue is very difficult to negotiate. If one is convinced that there is a life anytime before actual birth, one can make the valid assumption that abortion is murder and that there shoud be a law against abortion.
The problem is that there are different beliefs about when life begins , and also many believe that there are acceptable conditions for taking a life. (ie. execution for premeditated murder of two or more people for example or sacrificing the life of a mother to save the child at birth.)
If one were to approach this issue from the concept of Freedon, one might see abortion in a different light. Freedom means no restrictions unless you interfere with the freedom of another. Consequently, a law to restrict abortion before birth will restrict the rights of those that believe life doesn't begin until birth. Failure to pass a law to prevent abortion does not interfere with the freedom of either group, (those believing that life starts before birth and those believing that life starts at birth). Both groups would be free to have an abortion or not to have an abortion. Failure to pass a law to make abortion illegal preserves the freedom of both groups.
While the right of a woman to choose may not please everyone, it may be a fair solution in which the freedom of all parties is not restricted by law.
The problem is that there are different beliefs about when life begins , and also many believe that there are acceptable conditions for taking a life. (ie. execution for premeditated murder of two or more people for example or sacrificing the life of a mother to save the child at birth.)
If one were to approach this issue from the concept of Freedon, one might see abortion in a different light. Freedom means no restrictions unless you interfere with the freedom of another. Consequently, a law to restrict abortion before birth will restrict the rights of those that believe life doesn't begin until birth. Failure to pass a law to prevent abortion does not interfere with the freedom of either group, (those believing that life starts before birth and those believing that life starts at birth). Both groups would be free to have an abortion or not to have an abortion. Failure to pass a law to make abortion illegal preserves the freedom of both groups.
While the right of a woman to choose may not please everyone, it may be a fair solution in which the freedom of all parties is not restricted by law.
AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON
There is an artificial person, created by law, that is dominating the US Economy. This person has no heart, no soul, no conscience and no morals. He is a complete slave and has been responsible for the greatest economic progress the world has ever seen.
This artifical person has been taken over by CEO's that have absolutely no personal liability for their actions. As a result, the CEOs have acted without responsibility and have caused financial diseaser in which millions of hard working, honest people have lost their jobs and their homes. These CEO's have taken high risk gambles with some making unbelievable fortunes while many of those owning the Artificial Person and those working for the Artifical Person have lost nearly everything.
This practice of gambling with other people's wealth to make a personal gain led the way for people to use money they didn't have to make personal purchases they couldn't afford. Unlike CEO's however, the people do not have the limited personal liability that the arificial person provides, and this irresponsible action brought home foreclosures and bankruptcy for many.
Clountless numbers of laws and regulations have been enacted to curb the Artificial Person's actions but they were ineffective because the Artificial Person does not contriol his actions; his actions are controlled by the CEO who has limited personal liability and there is little motivation for the CEO to change his mode of operation to make that big gain that might come from a high risk gamble.
It is obvious that the way to gain more responsible action from the Artificial Person is to remove the limited liability provision for the CEO and make the CEO responsible for his own actions. This most likely will reduce the number of huge gains but it will probably also reduce the number of failures. This may also result in a reduction of the too big to fail corporations and increase the number of smaller corporations as well as the number of people employed. It looks like a no bainer. Remove the limited personal liability for the CEO's that control the Artificial Persons and reduce the number of Artificial Person's failures.
This artifical person has been taken over by CEO's that have absolutely no personal liability for their actions. As a result, the CEOs have acted without responsibility and have caused financial diseaser in which millions of hard working, honest people have lost their jobs and their homes. These CEO's have taken high risk gambles with some making unbelievable fortunes while many of those owning the Artificial Person and those working for the Artifical Person have lost nearly everything.
This practice of gambling with other people's wealth to make a personal gain led the way for people to use money they didn't have to make personal purchases they couldn't afford. Unlike CEO's however, the people do not have the limited personal liability that the arificial person provides, and this irresponsible action brought home foreclosures and bankruptcy for many.
Clountless numbers of laws and regulations have been enacted to curb the Artificial Person's actions but they were ineffective because the Artificial Person does not contriol his actions; his actions are controlled by the CEO who has limited personal liability and there is little motivation for the CEO to change his mode of operation to make that big gain that might come from a high risk gamble.
It is obvious that the way to gain more responsible action from the Artificial Person is to remove the limited liability provision for the CEO and make the CEO responsible for his own actions. This most likely will reduce the number of huge gains but it will probably also reduce the number of failures. This may also result in a reduction of the too big to fail corporations and increase the number of smaller corporations as well as the number of people employed. It looks like a no bainer. Remove the limited personal liability for the CEO's that control the Artificial Persons and reduce the number of Artificial Person's failures.
Monday, September 10, 2012
THE DEMOCRAT CONVENTION
The Democrat Convention had an unusual number of high powered speakers this year led by former President, Bill Clinton, and current Presdent, Barack Obama. President Obama himself admited that the progress over the past three and a half years has been slow, But, the spiriling down turn has been stopped and the economy is now headed in the right direction. No great promises for a speedy recovery were given, but a pledge to aid the middle class and to give an equal opporunity for all Americans to achieve the American Dream was the message to America.
History tells us that promises mean very little in a political campaign. Actually, few specific promises were made except the following:
Democrats will repeal the extra tax benefits for the top 1%; while Repulicans will not.
Republicans will repeal Universal Health Insurance; while Democrats will not.
Republicans will drastically cut aid to Government sponsored programs including Education, Government Services and liberal programs to the poor and disadvantaged ; while Democrats will support these programs.
Republicans will attempt to repeal abortion, gay rights and immigration laws while Democrats will stick with their action on these issues.
The choice is clearly Democrat or Republican, with both candidates an excellent model for their party.
Romney comes from a wealthy family and has high family morals. He will promote the polices of the Bush/Cheney Adminisration.
Obama comes form a lower middle class family and has high family morals. He will promote the policies of the Clinton Administation.
The choice is yours!
History tells us that promises mean very little in a political campaign. Actually, few specific promises were made except the following:
Democrats will repeal the extra tax benefits for the top 1%; while Repulicans will not.
Republicans will repeal Universal Health Insurance; while Democrats will not.
Republicans will drastically cut aid to Government sponsored programs including Education, Government Services and liberal programs to the poor and disadvantaged ; while Democrats will support these programs.
Republicans will attempt to repeal abortion, gay rights and immigration laws while Democrats will stick with their action on these issues.
The choice is clearly Democrat or Republican, with both candidates an excellent model for their party.
Romney comes from a wealthy family and has high family morals. He will promote the polices of the Bush/Cheney Adminisration.
Obama comes form a lower middle class family and has high family morals. He will promote the policies of the Clinton Administation.
The choice is yours!
Sunday, September 2, 2012
OFF TO A GOOD START!
The first Political Convention has started and you have to feel good to be an American! The first speaker focused on Love; the second on Respect. Both speakers were standard barriers for family values. The candidate for president, and the president he is trying to deseat, are both prime examples of the highest family values. Both parties are dedicated to preserving "the American Dream." It looks like we might have a sane debate on the real issues between the two party approaches to do what is best for America. Praise God!
A little shadow has started to creep into the picture on the second night when a speaker who is supposed to represent the Prince of Love and Respect, diluted the fundamental differences in the religions of the two candidates in an attempt to gain political points. This was inappropriate and has no place in this campaign. Hopefully this speaker and his views can be dismissed and forgotten.
The fundamental basic issue is "The American Dream;" its definition and the strategy to be used to achieve that dream. Both candidates are near perfect examples of their parties definition of the American Dream, and their strategies for achieving this dream should be the focus of the debate. Politically, the dream is based on the accumulation of wealth and materialistic goods.
The Republican Dream is to let everyone be all he or she is capable of being. The Government should not aid or restrict this pursuit. Individual rights are parimount. The extreme contention is that it is a contest, no holds barred and their moral values should be a mandate for all . The more moderate view is that everyone has an "equal chance" and if successful,
there is a moral responsibility to give some assistance to help the less fortunate who have worked hard and played the game.
The facts are that financial success cannot be achieved without assistance from the government. Our society has become complex and interdependent so that no one is completely self sufficient and they must depend upon the government and others for survival.
It is also a fact that it is a proud and highly competitive society completely
committed to the free business enterprise system. The society also includes a segment that wants rewards without the work and effort reqired to gain these rewards.
The Democratic Dream is to make the American Dream available to everyone. The Government should enforce an equal playing field for all players and provide basic survival needs for those who don't catch the brass ring. This includes rules and regulations for the game and entitlements for the "also rans."
The two main issues that will be the focus of the debates will be taxes and
spending cuts. The problem of taxes is the least complex and easiest to solve, but the most difficult to sell. The reality is that everyone must pay taxes and possibility that those that have a bigger share of the wealth may have to pay a bigger share of their income, at least until the debt is brought under control. The thought that increasing business production to gain more revenue thus gaining more taxes may backfire when the problem is that many consumers have purchased more than they can pay for now, and the over supply will simply extend the recovery period.
There may be also a need for a change in attitudes. The American Dream might have to include more than just accumulating wealth. Family values and morals may have to be expanded to include human values and morals. We may have to return to the old standard of fair play; and the way you play the game is just as important as winning.
The issue of cutting costs is the most difficult problem. Cutting waste and corruption is the most difficult to solve because both are difficult to find. Just eliminating spending without considering what the spending is for could be counter productive. Funding for such items as Education, Law Enforcement, Homeland Security, Fire Protection, Infrastucture, Financial Services, etc are survival costs and necessary for any chance of economic recovery. Cutting Government costs just to have a smaller government could be parimount to cutting off your foot so that you can run faster.
Private Business Enterprise is a major part of the American Dream and is the most equitable way to distribute materialistic wealth, but it is not the sole solution for economic prosperity. The key is Government leadership from the President and members of Congress, from all political parties.
An issue that may have to be addressed to keep vital necessites affordable is the switch of some businesses from the private sector to the non profit sector, or at least a combining of these businesses in both sectors as we do in the area of Education. One of those areas could be health care, including insurance for health care.
Regardless of which party gains power, it is highly unlikely that all or many of the probems will be solved in the near future, but we will survive. If the Democrats gain power, the government will take a bigger share of the profit for those making $200,000 to $250,000 per year, and the working Middle Class will have a mixed living standard with those making $20,000 to $30,000 and those that are unemployed struggling but able to survive. Unemployment will ease quicker with needed teachers, policemen, government service workers becoming immediately employed.
If the Republicans take power some of the higher level investors will become richer but some will fail and loose. There will be chaos, confusion and the possibility of a longer depression. Some of the Middle Class will prosper, but most of the Middle class will live at a lower economic level with the poor and unemployed at the poverty level in dire straits.
The rationale for this is based on the principles of supply and demand and the free private business enterprise system. Business can only profitably produce what can be consumed and paid for. Over supply will cause loss and unemployment. There will always be winners and loosers but in a weak economy the number of winners will be less and the number of loosers will be more which results in more unemployment. Just increasing business increases supply which decreases the value of the supply and will decrease the income and profit which will postpone and lengthen the recovery. If the government increases the supply of money through payment to teachers, policemen and other government workers that are needed to provide the environment for business to grow and survive, the excess supply will be consumed and eventually, if prudent and efficient action is regulated by the government, a normal balance of supply and demand may return.
With multiple forces involved, rules and regulations must be provided. CEO's for example should not gamble with other people's money and take unreasonable risks in the hope of gaining a bigger bonus. If CEO's were personably liable for their gambles there would be more gains and fewer losses. Since CEO's are not personally liable for their actions, there must be rules and regulations to protect investors. (If we didn't have rules and regulations on food prioduction, how many Americans would be poisened each year? Without law enforcement, how many more crimes would be committed and how many more scams would there be?)_Would you watch a ball game without officials to enforce the rules and regulations?
Make my day! Rip this apart!
A little shadow has started to creep into the picture on the second night when a speaker who is supposed to represent the Prince of Love and Respect, diluted the fundamental differences in the religions of the two candidates in an attempt to gain political points. This was inappropriate and has no place in this campaign. Hopefully this speaker and his views can be dismissed and forgotten.
The fundamental basic issue is "The American Dream;" its definition and the strategy to be used to achieve that dream. Both candidates are near perfect examples of their parties definition of the American Dream, and their strategies for achieving this dream should be the focus of the debate. Politically, the dream is based on the accumulation of wealth and materialistic goods.
The Republican Dream is to let everyone be all he or she is capable of being. The Government should not aid or restrict this pursuit. Individual rights are parimount. The extreme contention is that it is a contest, no holds barred and their moral values should be a mandate for all . The more moderate view is that everyone has an "equal chance" and if successful,
there is a moral responsibility to give some assistance to help the less fortunate who have worked hard and played the game.
The facts are that financial success cannot be achieved without assistance from the government. Our society has become complex and interdependent so that no one is completely self sufficient and they must depend upon the government and others for survival.
It is also a fact that it is a proud and highly competitive society completely
committed to the free business enterprise system. The society also includes a segment that wants rewards without the work and effort reqired to gain these rewards.
The Democratic Dream is to make the American Dream available to everyone. The Government should enforce an equal playing field for all players and provide basic survival needs for those who don't catch the brass ring. This includes rules and regulations for the game and entitlements for the "also rans."
The two main issues that will be the focus of the debates will be taxes and
spending cuts. The problem of taxes is the least complex and easiest to solve, but the most difficult to sell. The reality is that everyone must pay taxes and possibility that those that have a bigger share of the wealth may have to pay a bigger share of their income, at least until the debt is brought under control. The thought that increasing business production to gain more revenue thus gaining more taxes may backfire when the problem is that many consumers have purchased more than they can pay for now, and the over supply will simply extend the recovery period.
There may be also a need for a change in attitudes. The American Dream might have to include more than just accumulating wealth. Family values and morals may have to be expanded to include human values and morals. We may have to return to the old standard of fair play; and the way you play the game is just as important as winning.
The issue of cutting costs is the most difficult problem. Cutting waste and corruption is the most difficult to solve because both are difficult to find. Just eliminating spending without considering what the spending is for could be counter productive. Funding for such items as Education, Law Enforcement, Homeland Security, Fire Protection, Infrastucture, Financial Services, etc are survival costs and necessary for any chance of economic recovery. Cutting Government costs just to have a smaller government could be parimount to cutting off your foot so that you can run faster.
Private Business Enterprise is a major part of the American Dream and is the most equitable way to distribute materialistic wealth, but it is not the sole solution for economic prosperity. The key is Government leadership from the President and members of Congress, from all political parties.
An issue that may have to be addressed to keep vital necessites affordable is the switch of some businesses from the private sector to the non profit sector, or at least a combining of these businesses in both sectors as we do in the area of Education. One of those areas could be health care, including insurance for health care.
Regardless of which party gains power, it is highly unlikely that all or many of the probems will be solved in the near future, but we will survive. If the Democrats gain power, the government will take a bigger share of the profit for those making $200,000 to $250,000 per year, and the working Middle Class will have a mixed living standard with those making $20,000 to $30,000 and those that are unemployed struggling but able to survive. Unemployment will ease quicker with needed teachers, policemen, government service workers becoming immediately employed.
If the Republicans take power some of the higher level investors will become richer but some will fail and loose. There will be chaos, confusion and the possibility of a longer depression. Some of the Middle Class will prosper, but most of the Middle class will live at a lower economic level with the poor and unemployed at the poverty level in dire straits.
The rationale for this is based on the principles of supply and demand and the free private business enterprise system. Business can only profitably produce what can be consumed and paid for. Over supply will cause loss and unemployment. There will always be winners and loosers but in a weak economy the number of winners will be less and the number of loosers will be more which results in more unemployment. Just increasing business increases supply which decreases the value of the supply and will decrease the income and profit which will postpone and lengthen the recovery. If the government increases the supply of money through payment to teachers, policemen and other government workers that are needed to provide the environment for business to grow and survive, the excess supply will be consumed and eventually, if prudent and efficient action is regulated by the government, a normal balance of supply and demand may return.
With multiple forces involved, rules and regulations must be provided. CEO's for example should not gamble with other people's money and take unreasonable risks in the hope of gaining a bigger bonus. If CEO's were personably liable for their gambles there would be more gains and fewer losses. Since CEO's are not personally liable for their actions, there must be rules and regulations to protect investors. (If we didn't have rules and regulations on food prioduction, how many Americans would be poisened each year? Without law enforcement, how many more crimes would be committed and how many more scams would there be?)_Would you watch a ball game without officials to enforce the rules and regulations?
Make my day! Rip this apart!
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
INSURANCE
Insurance is mutual risk sharing. It is a concept whereby individuals and/or businesses band together to reduce an uncertain possible catestropic loss.
The uncertainty can be the time such as in life insurance or in an event such as in fire insurance.
This desire to provide for future security has expanded to areas from retirement to health and has produced confusion and polarized debate. It has also produced an issue of entitlement or inividual responsibiity.
Is financial security for retirement an insurable risk? It is catostropic for the individual that could no longer work to support his or her self and it is catostropic for a country (government) that was unable to care for these individuals.
In the wake of WWI, the government decided that the loss of life for elderly individuals who could no longer support themselves for BASIC needs was a catestropic loss for the whole country and passed the Social Security Act where ALL individuals were required to purchase BASIC retirement insurance that all would collect at age 65. Because everyone shared this cost which did not include the cost of Private Enterprise profit, it was affordable for everyone. It was found that there were a number of catestropic events such as handicaps, accidents and health impairments for those unable to handle the financial burden that these hazards demanded, were catestropic losses for the whole country and were added to the Social Security enactment.
The current polarized "debate" concerns HEALTH and appears to go beyond the basic and catestropic concepts. In the case of health, would the individual be responsible for their own basic health care? Children, of course, are the wards of the STATE and therefore would the State be resposible for their basic health care? On the other hand, should an able bodied adult be responsible for their own basic health care? Could catostropic health care for an able adult be a government resonsiblilty? and what is an able adult? What is the government responsibility for disabled adults?
Private enterprise has found that accident insurance and other health care benefits could be offered at an acceptable price that would afford a profit.
But great advances in health care have expanded the costs in this area to the point where AFFORDABILITY must be a consideration in the debate.
The immature approach of just slashing costs will only aceserbate the problem,. Waste and corruption must be curbed, but to cut survival costs
would cause hardship and impede recovery. Education, Infrastructure. Roads and Bridges, Law Enforcement, Emergency Rescue, Civil Service Agencies, and the like are absolutely essenial to surival, recovery and successful business enterprise to produce jobs that would accelrate the recovery. To cut basic suival costs and expect business to suceed and produce jobs to aid the recovery is a no brainer in the true sense of the word. Insurance is a valuable management tool but it has its limitations. It is not an entitlement. It requires both individual and government responsibility.
The uncertainty can be the time such as in life insurance or in an event such as in fire insurance.
This desire to provide for future security has expanded to areas from retirement to health and has produced confusion and polarized debate. It has also produced an issue of entitlement or inividual responsibiity.
Is financial security for retirement an insurable risk? It is catostropic for the individual that could no longer work to support his or her self and it is catostropic for a country (government) that was unable to care for these individuals.
In the wake of WWI, the government decided that the loss of life for elderly individuals who could no longer support themselves for BASIC needs was a catestropic loss for the whole country and passed the Social Security Act where ALL individuals were required to purchase BASIC retirement insurance that all would collect at age 65. Because everyone shared this cost which did not include the cost of Private Enterprise profit, it was affordable for everyone. It was found that there were a number of catestropic events such as handicaps, accidents and health impairments for those unable to handle the financial burden that these hazards demanded, were catestropic losses for the whole country and were added to the Social Security enactment.
The current polarized "debate" concerns HEALTH and appears to go beyond the basic and catestropic concepts. In the case of health, would the individual be responsible for their own basic health care? Children, of course, are the wards of the STATE and therefore would the State be resposible for their basic health care? On the other hand, should an able bodied adult be responsible for their own basic health care? Could catostropic health care for an able adult be a government resonsiblilty? and what is an able adult? What is the government responsibility for disabled adults?
Private enterprise has found that accident insurance and other health care benefits could be offered at an acceptable price that would afford a profit.
But great advances in health care have expanded the costs in this area to the point where AFFORDABILITY must be a consideration in the debate.
The immature approach of just slashing costs will only aceserbate the problem,. Waste and corruption must be curbed, but to cut survival costs
would cause hardship and impede recovery. Education, Infrastructure. Roads and Bridges, Law Enforcement, Emergency Rescue, Civil Service Agencies, and the like are absolutely essenial to surival, recovery and successful business enterprise to produce jobs that would accelrate the recovery. To cut basic suival costs and expect business to suceed and produce jobs to aid the recovery is a no brainer in the true sense of the word. Insurance is a valuable management tool but it has its limitations. It is not an entitlement. It requires both individual and government responsibility.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
THE USA WILL SURVIVE!
Regardless of which party is in power, The US will survive. Whether the top 1% pay their share of the taxes or the bottom 50% pay their share, the US will survive. Whether entitlements are not cut to the bone or corruption remains out of control, the US will survive.
How long it will take to bring down unemployment and how much of a hardship will be born by the middle class and the poor may depend upon the management and policies of the party in power, but the US will survive,
The Government could end the crisis with all citizens contruibuting a fare share if Congress were to lend a hand and cooperate by enforcing only needed regulations and cracking down on mismanagement and corruption.
If deams could come true the Federal Reserve could gradualy issue dollars to pay off debtors, devaluating the dollar and causing inflation that would increase prices which would also increase wages and taxes, all born fairly by consumers and businesses alike in the purchase of goods and services..
Real Estate and Capital Wealth would retain their value through appreciation. The only losses would come from large amounts of uninvested dollars in corporations and banks. (and also of course, cash horded under mattresses)
Higher prices would be offset by corresponding higher wages and business would not be effected. The possibility of low income consumers unable to save for down payment on a first home could be offset by government backed, low interest, capped mortgages that could also help small business entrepreneurs in need of capital for start-up and/or expansion.
Any change would be opposed by those satisfied with the statis quo. Even if the tax break for the top 1% was ended, it wouldn't be much of a hardship for them. However, massive cuts in entitlements and health care would tragically reduce the standard of living level for millions of middle class with millions of the poor living at a third world level. Continued cuts in education would greatly jeopardize our future leadership role in the world. Neglect in maintaining the infrastructure and public service will impede progress and result in choas. The budget challenges today are astronomical!
The effect on foreign trade would vary according to the financial adjustments made by the countries involved, but basically prices on imported goods would be higher with lower prices on exported goods. This would be good for our economy as this would promote more demand for domestic goods. Admittedly, this may reduce profits for outsourced domestic corporations.
If you think that the doubling of prices and wages would never happen, consider the prices and wages from 1960to 2000 and we still surived.
How long it will take to bring down unemployment and how much of a hardship will be born by the middle class and the poor may depend upon the management and policies of the party in power, but the US will survive,
The Government could end the crisis with all citizens contruibuting a fare share if Congress were to lend a hand and cooperate by enforcing only needed regulations and cracking down on mismanagement and corruption.
If deams could come true the Federal Reserve could gradualy issue dollars to pay off debtors, devaluating the dollar and causing inflation that would increase prices which would also increase wages and taxes, all born fairly by consumers and businesses alike in the purchase of goods and services..
Real Estate and Capital Wealth would retain their value through appreciation. The only losses would come from large amounts of uninvested dollars in corporations and banks. (and also of course, cash horded under mattresses)
Higher prices would be offset by corresponding higher wages and business would not be effected. The possibility of low income consumers unable to save for down payment on a first home could be offset by government backed, low interest, capped mortgages that could also help small business entrepreneurs in need of capital for start-up and/or expansion.
Any change would be opposed by those satisfied with the statis quo. Even if the tax break for the top 1% was ended, it wouldn't be much of a hardship for them. However, massive cuts in entitlements and health care would tragically reduce the standard of living level for millions of middle class with millions of the poor living at a third world level. Continued cuts in education would greatly jeopardize our future leadership role in the world. Neglect in maintaining the infrastructure and public service will impede progress and result in choas. The budget challenges today are astronomical!
The effect on foreign trade would vary according to the financial adjustments made by the countries involved, but basically prices on imported goods would be higher with lower prices on exported goods. This would be good for our economy as this would promote more demand for domestic goods. Admittedly, this may reduce profits for outsourced domestic corporations.
If you think that the doubling of prices and wages would never happen, consider the prices and wages from 1960to 2000 and we still surived.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS
Rep Kelley's U Tube speech on Government Regulations was little more than an emotional diversion from the real issue involved. The real issue is the elimination of fraud and corruption in business enterprise. Faulse advertising and hidden dangers in products is not in the public interest and should be considered on the same level as theft and physical assult. Do you want to buy food without some reglation governing the preparation and distribution of this food.
Abolishing government regulations is not the answer. The answer is to challenge the regulations to come up with regulations that serve the best interests of all involved.
Abolishing government regulations is not the answer. The answer is to challenge the regulations to come up with regulations that serve the best interests of all involved.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)