ArticlesToReprint Article Board » Government http://www.articlestoreprint.net Free content for your website, your free source of reprintable articles. Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:01:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 en hourly 1 Government Assumption Of Health Already Here http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_329323_government-assumption-of-health-already-here.htm http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_329323_government-assumption-of-health-already-here.htm#comments Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:02:36 +0000 amathys http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_329323_government-assumption-of-health-already-here.htm In an editorial by Walter Mears, Associated Press Editor, that President Barack Obama’s health care reform push would point toward a government takeover of the system. Though Democrats strongly deny that, there’s evidence that it’s already happening, inexorably, whatever the outcome on the stalled health care bill.

This year, government programs will account for more than half of U.S. health care spending by 2012, and that slice of the budget pie will keep climbing upward, according to federal actuaries.

In 2010, federal and state government programs now cover an estimated 42% of health care costs. The possibility is likely that it’ll reach 52% before the end of the decade.

“I don’t know if anybody noticed that, for the first time this year, you saw more people getting health care from government than you did from the private sector; not because of anything we did, but because more and more people are losing their health care from their employers. It’s becoming unaffordable,” US President Barack Obama told reporters.

Obama’s called party leaders to discuss health care with him on television. He may be willing to give a compromise offer built into a challenge to the Republicans, who held the party line against his health care bill with unanimous opposition in the Senate and only one GOP vote in the House.

Thus the president’s call for a conference with both parties plus health care experts to compare “their ideas, our ideas … in a methodical way so the American people can see and compare.”

In it they can also can see and compare the cost of doing nothing. That’s based on the impact of the recession and unemployment, Medicaid spending and the aging baby boomers who will turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

The report estimated the US national health care spending already at $2.5 trillion in 2009, or 17.3% of the economy after the sharpest one-year increase in 50 years.

By 2020, health spending is expected to reach $4.5 trillion a year and account for about 20% of the economy.

Consider that in addition to the fact that the biggest tax break the government offers, $155 billion in taxes spared on employer-paid health insurance premiums.

That exemption benefits 162 million Americans, and even a hint of changing that stirs a political firestorm, as it has in the current debate about limiting the deduction so as to tax part of the premium on the highest-cost, so-called Cadillac health insurance plans.

Overall, trends are pointing to higher and higher health care expenses than any national budget cannot afford. But the case for change collides with the hard political lines already drawn on the issue.

Obama’s efforts merge “and arrive at some agreements” to get bipartisan action on health care is a risk. He told supporters that he never underestimated the problems and political risks of pushing health care reform.

“I knew this was hard,” he said. “You don’t think I got warnings?”

In the past, President Clinton tried it, and paid dearly. He couldn’t even get a vote on his bill, in a Democratic Congress. And the failed drive for universal health care hurt Democrats in the 1994 midterm elections in which Republicans won control of Congress.

30 years ago, House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill pronounced Social Security to be “the third rail of American politics” too perilous to change. Eventually it was changed to control costs but only when the alternative was imminent crisis.

Short of some kind of action this time, health care could become the new and more volatile third rail.

About the author

Archie Mathys is a research writer on current events affecting American life. Currently, he studies investments, productivity, personal finance & the Wall St. news updates. He has a fascination for futurism and enjoys figuring out how things will work out in the future. Instant Life Insurance Quotes For Smart Consumers
posted in Government by Amathys Leave A Comment
©2010 ArticlesToReprint Article Board. Some Rights Reserved.
]]> In an editorial by Walter Mears, Associated Press Editor, that President Barack Obama’s health care reform push would point toward a government takeover of the system. Though Democrats strongly deny that, there’s evidence that it’s already happening, inexorably, whatever the outcome on the stalled health care bill.

This year, government programs will account for more than half of U.S. health care spending by 2012, and that slice of the budget pie will keep climbing upward, according to federal actuaries.

In 2010, federal and state government programs now cover an estimated 42% of health care costs. The possibility is likely that it’ll reach 52% before the end of the decade.

“I don’t know if anybody noticed that, for the first time this year, you saw more people getting health care from government than you did from the private sector; not because of anything we did, but because more and more people are losing their health care from their employers. It’s becoming unaffordable,” US President Barack Obama told reporters.

Obama’s called party leaders to discuss health care with him on television. He may be willing to give a compromise offer built into a challenge to the Republicans, who held the party line against his health care bill with unanimous opposition in the Senate and only one GOP vote in the House.

Thus the president’s call for a conference with both parties plus health care experts to compare “their ideas, our ideas … in a methodical way so the American people can see and compare.”

In it they can also can see and compare the cost of doing nothing. That’s based on the impact of the recession and unemployment, Medicaid spending and the aging baby boomers who will turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

The report estimated the US national health care spending already at $2.5 trillion in 2009, or 17.3% of the economy after the sharpest one-year increase in 50 years.

By 2020, health spending is expected to reach $4.5 trillion a year and account for about 20% of the economy.

Consider that in addition to the fact that the biggest tax break the government offers, $155 billion in taxes spared on employer-paid health insurance premiums.

That exemption benefits 162 million Americans, and even a hint of changing that stirs a political firestorm, as it has in the current debate about limiting the deduction so as to tax part of the premium on the highest-cost, so-called Cadillac health insurance plans.

Overall, trends are pointing to higher and higher health care expenses than any national budget cannot afford. But the case for change collides with the hard political lines already drawn on the issue.

Obama’s efforts merge “and arrive at some agreements” to get bipartisan action on health care is a risk. He told supporters that he never underestimated the problems and political risks of pushing health care reform.

“I knew this was hard,” he said. “You don’t think I got warnings?”

In the past, President Clinton tried it, and paid dearly. He couldn’t even get a vote on his bill, in a Democratic Congress. And the failed drive for universal health care hurt Democrats in the 1994 midterm elections in which Republicans won control of Congress.

30 years ago, House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill pronounced Social Security to be “the third rail of American politics” too perilous to change. Eventually it was changed to control costs but only when the alternative was imminent crisis.

Short of some kind of action this time, health care could become the new and more volatile third rail.

]]> http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_329323_government-assumption-of-health-already-here.htm/feed 0 How Does Singapore Do It? http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_329175_how-does-singapore-do-it.htm http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_329175_how-does-singapore-do-it.htm#comments Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:31:11 +0000 freeinternetmedia http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_329175_how-does-singapore-do-it.htm Usually it is the U.S that outlines various guidelines and principles for other nations to follow. But this time around we find a nation called Singapore, a country small in size, but has a lot to teach the rest of the world, making heads turn.
Since Independence, Singapore’s standard of living has increased dramatically. Foreign direct investment and the country’s careful focus on industry, education and urban planning has made it the 5th wealthiest country in the world. This is a glorious accomplishment for such a small country, with limited resources. What is equally impressive, but less known is that Singapore has has one of the best health care systems in the world, in terms of both efficiency in financing and the results achieved in community health outcomes. This is quite an achievement compared to most other developed countries. Singapore spends a third of what the U.S. does on health care (as a percentage of GDP), yet has better health indicators. Of course, much of this may be attributable to lifestyle differences rather than a superior health care system. Even though, here are some interesting attributes to their system:

Primary Health Care
Primary health care includes preventive health care and health education. Private practitioners provide 80% of primary health care services, while government polyclinics provide the remaining 20%. However, public hospitals provide 80% of the more costly hospital care with the remaining 20% by private hospital care.

Mandatory Health Savings Accounts
Individuals need to save for their medical expenses through mandatory deductions from their paychecks and employer contributions. Only approved categories of medical treatment can be paid for, by deducting one’s Medisave account (their medical savings account), for oneself, parents, spouse, children or grandparents: consultations with private practitioners for minor ailments must be paid from out-of-pocket cash.

Competition
The public and private health care facilities compete with one another. This way the price can be regulated.

Government
The government pays 80% of “basic public health care services.” It also helps in containing contagious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and tobacco-related illnesses. These are just few aspects of their health system.

Singapore has 7 public hospitals comprising of 5 general hospitals, a women’s and children’s hospital and a psychiatry hospital. The general hospitals provide inpatient and specialist outpatient services, and a 24-hour emergency department. 75% of public hospital beds are heavily subsidized. There are also 6 national specialty centers for cancer, cardiac, eye, skin, neuroscience and dental care. Singapore’s medical facilities are among the finest in the world, with well qualified doctors and dentists, many trained overseas.

Here are some comparisons:
Life expectancy at birth in the United States is 78 years; in Singapore, 82 years. The U.S. infant mortality rate is 6.4 deaths per 1,000 live births; in Singapore, just 2.3 deaths per 1,000. But the United States has far more caregivers: 2.6 physicians per 1,000 people, compared with 1.4 physicians in Singapore. The United States has 9.4 nurses per 1,000 people; Singapore, 4.2. And it has six times as many dentists as Singapore and three times as many pharmacists.The World Health Organization’s most recent full report on global health statistics, says the United States spends 15.4 percent of its GDP on health care, while Singapore spends just 3.7 percent.

What is the reason behind Singapore’s success? For sure it’s not the government spending. You will find the state, using taxes, funds only about one-fourth of Singapore’s total health costs. Individuals and their employers pay for the rest. In fact, the latest figures show that the Singapore government spends only $381, per capita on health-or one-seventh of what the U.S. government spends.The reason should be that Singapore encourages individuals to take responsibility for their own health and for spending on their medical care. This works because the decision is with the people and doctors, rather than in the hands of the government and insurers. The state’s role is to provide a safety net for the few people unable to save enough to pay their way, to support public hospitals, and to fund preventative health campaigns. Singapore health care begins with building a healthy population through preventive health care programs and promoting a healthy lifestyle. Good, affordable basic health care is available to Singaporeans through subsidized medical services at public hospitals and clinics. Yet their philosophy promotes individual responsibility, towards healthy living and medical expenses.

With more freedom given to the market and the medical system, Singapore’s structure developed 25 years ago still works. Compared with the American system, it keeps Singaporeans healthier for much less cost per person.It is high time we started borrowing ideas and concepts from such nations.

About the author

Do visit this link to read another article by Brian, about the Singaporean health care Singapore Health Care. And also visit this link for another interesting article by Brian on health care Free Health Care For Illegal Aliens.

Distributed by ContentCrooner.com
posted in Government by Freeinternetmedia Leave A Comment
©2010 ArticlesToReprint Article Board. Some Rights Reserved.
]]> Usually it is the U.S that outlines various guidelines and principles for other nations to follow. But this time around we find a nation called Singapore, a country small in size, but has a lot to teach the rest of the world, making heads turn.
Since Independence, Singapore’s standard of living has increased dramatically. Foreign direct investment and the country’s careful focus on industry, education and urban planning has made it the 5th wealthiest country in the world. This is a glorious accomplishment for such a small country, with limited resources. What is equally impressive, but less known is that Singapore has has one of the best health care systems in the world, in terms of both efficiency in financing and the results achieved in community health outcomes. This is quite an achievement compared to most other developed countries. Singapore spends a third of what the U.S. does on health care (as a percentage of GDP), yet has better health indicators. Of course, much of this may be attributable to lifestyle differences rather than a superior health care system. Even though, here are some interesting attributes to their system:

Primary Health Care
Primary health care includes preventive health care and health education. Private practitioners provide 80% of primary health care services, while government polyclinics provide the remaining 20%. However, public hospitals provide 80% of the more costly hospital care with the remaining 20% by private hospital care.

Mandatory Health Savings Accounts
Individuals need to save for their medical expenses through mandatory deductions from their paychecks and employer contributions. Only approved categories of medical treatment can be paid for, by deducting one’s Medisave account (their medical savings account), for oneself, parents, spouse, children or grandparents: consultations with private practitioners for minor ailments must be paid from out-of-pocket cash.

Competition
The public and private health care facilities compete with one another. This way the price can be regulated.

Government
The government pays 80% of “basic public health care services.” It also helps in containing contagious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and tobacco-related illnesses. These are just few aspects of their health system.

Singapore has 7 public hospitals comprising of 5 general hospitals, a women’s and children’s hospital and a psychiatry hospital. The general hospitals provide inpatient and specialist outpatient services, and a 24-hour emergency department. 75% of public hospital beds are heavily subsidized. There are also 6 national specialty centers for cancer, cardiac, eye, skin, neuroscience and dental care. Singapore’s medical facilities are among the finest in the world, with well qualified doctors and dentists, many trained overseas.

Here are some comparisons:
Life expectancy at birth in the United States is 78 years; in Singapore, 82 years. The U.S. infant mortality rate is 6.4 deaths per 1,000 live births; in Singapore, just 2.3 deaths per 1,000. But the United States has far more caregivers: 2.6 physicians per 1,000 people, compared with 1.4 physicians in Singapore. The United States has 9.4 nurses per 1,000 people; Singapore, 4.2. And it has six times as many dentists as Singapore and three times as many pharmacists.The World Health Organization’s most recent full report on global health statistics, says the United States spends 15.4 percent of its GDP on health care, while Singapore spends just 3.7 percent.

What is the reason behind Singapore’s success? For sure it’s not the government spending. You will find the state, using taxes, funds only about one-fourth of Singapore’s total health costs. Individuals and their employers pay for the rest. In fact, the latest figures show that the Singapore government spends only $381, per capita on health-or one-seventh of what the U.S. government spends.The reason should be that Singapore encourages individuals to take responsibility for their own health and for spending on their medical care. This works because the decision is with the people and doctors, rather than in the hands of the government and insurers. The state’s role is to provide a safety net for the few people unable to save enough to pay their way, to support public hospitals, and to fund preventative health campaigns. Singapore health care begins with building a healthy population through preventive health care programs and promoting a healthy lifestyle. Good, affordable basic health care is available to Singaporeans through subsidized medical services at public hospitals and clinics. Yet their philosophy promotes individual responsibility, towards healthy living and medical expenses.

With more freedom given to the market and the medical system, Singapore’s structure developed 25 years ago still works. Compared with the American system, it keeps Singaporeans healthier for much less cost per person.It is high time we started borrowing ideas and concepts from such nations.

]]> http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_329175_how-does-singapore-do-it.htm/feed 0 E-Cigarette – Here To Stay? http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_328254_e-cigarette-here-to-stay.htm http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_328254_e-cigarette-here-to-stay.htm#comments Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:20:00 +0000 freeinternetmedia http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_328254_e-cigarette-here-to-stay.htm An electronic cigarette is a battery-powered device that provides inhaled doses of nicotine by way of a vaporized solution. It is an alternative to smoked tobacco products, such as cigarettes, cigars or pipes. In addition to nicotine delivery, this vapor also provides a flavor and physical sensation similar to that of inhaled tobacco smoke, while no tobacco, smoke, or combustion is actually involved in its operation. It took a Hong Kong based business “SBT” to come up with their new product – the Ruyan, which in Chinese means “just like smoke” – and it was an almost instant hit in China. Millions of Chinese people have switched to the Ruyan to preserve their health, and over the last year e-cigarette technology has made steady inroads in countries all around the world. In one line you can say that e-cigarettes are a tobacco-free version of traditional smokes.

There are stories that once a person starts to switch from a regular cigarette to an e-cigarette, they will not go back. They act just like a traditional cigarette. Once you hold it in your mouth and inhale, you can actually feel the nicotine hit your body, and you exhale smoke which is actually just water vapor. It is Propylene Glycol that is actually transparent water vapor and gives an illusion of smoke. The electronic cigarette gives its user the same addictive nicotine drug that makes the traditional cigarette physically difficult to give up. Here are some advantages of an e-cigarette:

Safe
With the exception of Nicotine, all the ingredients are properly tested and certified food safe. However, most of these ingredients have not been tested for their safety in long-term inhalation.

Economical
By smoking these, an average smoker can save up-to $2000 every year.

Environment Friendly
One of the biggest drawback of the traditional cigarette is the smoke. Whereas in the e-cigarette, only a harmless water vapor is emitted when you exhale. There is no (CO) Carbon Monoxide, which is the main reason smokers get heart diseases.

Mimic
Just like smoking! It provides the same sensation identical to tobacco, but is not harmful to the body.

No Stench
You will no longer stink of tobacco breath or stain your teeth. You needn’t bother with ashtrays or cigarette butts either.

Flavors
There are a variety of flavors for you to try. Some of them are regular tobacco, Marlboro, strawberry, chocolate, mint, almond, cherry, apple etc. They also come in a varying degree of nicotine strength.

FOR ALL YOU QUITTERS
Are these e-cigarettes going to help you quit smoking? The answer is no! E-cigarettes are too similar to the regular smoke, both in experience and in the aspect of the nicotine hitting your body. But if you are one of those people who does not want to quit, but hates the health hazards of smoking, then go get an e-cigarette! If you want to quit, an e-cigarette is definitely NOT for you.sherlock This is why, they are not to be confused with any kind of therapy. There is no evidence as of yet that e-cigarettes help anyone in therapy, or quitting. There are a number of imitation products out in the market, that are not tested or safe for consumption. Make sure you know your brand before purchase.

There is an estimated 400,000 deaths each year, caused directly by cigarette smoking, in the U.S.A alone. It doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to figure out the benefits of e-cigarettes to the average smoking population. The absence of tar, and a few thousand other ingredients – including the 60 to 70 known carcinogens and poisons, found in cigarette tobacco make e-cigarette a blessing.

The FDA that has been trying to regulate nicotine consumption for ages, one can assume that they would take sensible measures to decrease tobacco consumption and encourage e-cigarette. But no, we find FDA posing restrictions and banning the e-cigarette. In a preliminary test, 18 cartridges were tested. Only one (1) brand of e-cigarette contained a non-listed ingredient Diethylene Glycol, a humectant, which is already present in the tobacco of modern cigarettes to keep the tobacco moist. In an attempt to scare the public, they mentioned Diethylene Glycol is an ingredient used in antifreeze. You will find that Diethylene Glycol is indeed toxic. But here’s what – Diethylene Glycol contains one-tenth the toxicity of household aspirin and one-fortieth the toxicity of nicotine. Here’s another fact – Diethylene Glycol is an ingredient found in mouthwash, toothpaste, dog food, wine and lots of other consumer products – and if you really wanted to dissect this issue, you could point out that Diethylene Glycol is not actually used in antifreeze, it’s used in coolants, – but that doesn’t sound so scary. The FDA, has refused 17 shipments of various brands of these ‘electronic’ cigarettes, cigars, and pipes, and their components, on the basis that the devices are drugs that need regulatory approval before being marketed in the US.

There are talks of corruption within the FDA, and it remains to be seen why they are making the e-cigarette illegal. Are we being brainwashed just for the profit of lobbyists, or must we educate ourselves on what is right for us? Many people are unhappy with FDA’s attempt to make a product like this look bad, which can improve the quality of life of millions of people.

About the author

Please visit this site for another article by Brianp on E-Cigarettes E-cigarettes And The FDA. And also visit this site for additional information from the FDA Information From FDA.

Distributed by ContentCrooner.com
posted in Government by Freeinternetmedia Leave A Comment
©2010 ArticlesToReprint Article Board. Some Rights Reserved.
]]> An electronic cigarette is a battery-powered device that provides inhaled doses of nicotine by way of a vaporized solution. It is an alternative to smoked tobacco products, such as cigarettes, cigars or pipes. In addition to nicotine delivery, this vapor also provides a flavor and physical sensation similar to that of inhaled tobacco smoke, while no tobacco, smoke, or combustion is actually involved in its operation. It took a Hong Kong based business “SBT” to come up with their new product – the Ruyan, which in Chinese means “just like smoke” – and it was an almost instant hit in China. Millions of Chinese people have switched to the Ruyan to preserve their health, and over the last year e-cigarette technology has made steady inroads in countries all around the world. In one line you can say that e-cigarettes are a tobacco-free version of traditional smokes.

There are stories that once a person starts to switch from a regular cigarette to an e-cigarette, they will not go back. They act just like a traditional cigarette. Once you hold it in your mouth and inhale, you can actually feel the nicotine hit your body, and you exhale smoke which is actually just water vapor. It is Propylene Glycol that is actually transparent water vapor and gives an illusion of smoke. The electronic cigarette gives its user the same addictive nicotine drug that makes the traditional cigarette physically difficult to give up. Here are some advantages of an e-cigarette:

Safe
With the exception of Nicotine, all the ingredients are properly tested and certified food safe. However, most of these ingredients have not been tested for their safety in long-term inhalation.

Economical
By smoking these, an average smoker can save up-to $2000 every year.

Environment Friendly
One of the biggest drawback of the traditional cigarette is the smoke. Whereas in the e-cigarette, only a harmless water vapor is emitted when you exhale. There is no (CO) Carbon Monoxide, which is the main reason smokers get heart diseases.

Mimic
Just like smoking! It provides the same sensation identical to tobacco, but is not harmful to the body.

No Stench
You will no longer stink of tobacco breath or stain your teeth. You needn’t bother with ashtrays or cigarette butts either.

Flavors
There are a variety of flavors for you to try. Some of them are regular tobacco, Marlboro, strawberry, chocolate, mint, almond, cherry, apple etc. They also come in a varying degree of nicotine strength.

FOR ALL YOU QUITTERS
Are these e-cigarettes going to help you quit smoking? The answer is no! E-cigarettes are too similar to the regular smoke, both in experience and in the aspect of the nicotine hitting your body. But if you are one of those people who does not want to quit, but hates the health hazards of smoking, then go get an e-cigarette! If you want to quit, an e-cigarette is definitely NOT for you.sherlock This is why, they are not to be confused with any kind of therapy. There is no evidence as of yet that e-cigarettes help anyone in therapy, or quitting. There are a number of imitation products out in the market, that are not tested or safe for consumption. Make sure you know your brand before purchase.

There is an estimated 400,000 deaths each year, caused directly by cigarette smoking, in the U.S.A alone. It doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to figure out the benefits of e-cigarettes to the average smoking population. The absence of tar, and a few thousand other ingredients – including the 60 to 70 known carcinogens and poisons, found in cigarette tobacco make e-cigarette a blessing.

The FDA that has been trying to regulate nicotine consumption for ages, one can assume that they would take sensible measures to decrease tobacco consumption and encourage e-cigarette. But no, we find FDA posing restrictions and banning the e-cigarette. In a preliminary test, 18 cartridges were tested. Only one (1) brand of e-cigarette contained a non-listed ingredient Diethylene Glycol, a humectant, which is already present in the tobacco of modern cigarettes to keep the tobacco moist. In an attempt to scare the public, they mentioned Diethylene Glycol is an ingredient used in antifreeze. You will find that Diethylene Glycol is indeed toxic. But here’s what – Diethylene Glycol contains one-tenth the toxicity of household aspirin and one-fortieth the toxicity of nicotine. Here’s another fact – Diethylene Glycol is an ingredient found in mouthwash, toothpaste, dog food, wine and lots of other consumer products – and if you really wanted to dissect this issue, you could point out that Diethylene Glycol is not actually used in antifreeze, it’s used in coolants, – but that doesn’t sound so scary. The FDA, has refused 17 shipments of various brands of these ‘electronic’ cigarettes, cigars, and pipes, and their components, on the basis that the devices are drugs that need regulatory approval before being marketed in the US.

There are talks of corruption within the FDA, and it remains to be seen why they are making the e-cigarette illegal. Are we being brainwashed just for the profit of lobbyists, or must we educate ourselves on what is right for us? Many people are unhappy with FDA’s attempt to make a product like this look bad, which can improve the quality of life of millions of people.

]]> http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_328254_e-cigarette-here-to-stay.htm/feed 0 Stimulus and Jobs, What a waste! http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_327043_stimulus-and-jobs-what-a-waste.htm http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_327043_stimulus-and-jobs-what-a-waste.htm#comments Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:42:03 +0000 rh123456 http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_327043_stimulus-and-jobs-what-a-waste.htm It’s time for one of my Grandfather’s favorite curses – “Dag-nabbit!” Now, I have no idea what that means, but it was useful around children in his day, and it’s printable.

Why am I upset? Well, dag-nabbit, wake up and look around you! I’ve given President Obama credit for a few things he’s done, and for a couple of speeches where he wasn’t apologizing for America being such a bad country, but he just keeps giving me more to be angry about.

What has raised my ire, this time, is how the stimulus money is being spent, how the stimulus money is not being spent, and how he is now asking for more…you guessed it, stimulus money! This time, it’s in the guise of a “Jobs” bill, but even the democratic spokesman accidentally said, “… we’re not supposed to call it a stimulus bill, it’s a jobs bill.”

OH, well, that makes it okay with us stupid Americans; we’ll love a “Jobs” bill, but no more of that stimulus garbage.

This administration, and the democrats in Congress, thinks they can help us by just continuing to throw more and more money at the problem – money we don’t have and will have to borrow. In just a few months, they have raised America’s debt ceiling to 12.4 trillion dollars, and then again to 14.3 trillion dollars.

The interest alone is enough to choke a whole herd of horses, and a child born today will be in debt, to the government, (actually China and Japan) their entire life.

Where is all this money going? No one actually knows! That’s right, a couple of hundred billion has gone out the door, and the administration’s recovery.gov website has been filled with so many holes it could be a fishing net. Hundreds of millions show to have been spent in areas of the country that don’t exist!

Districts that live only in some web bureaucrat’s imagination have created countless jobs with your money! In some places, every job supposedly “saved or created”, with your money, cost as much as $6 million per job. Isn’t that a sweet deal? If that job creates $6,000 per year in taxes paid, it’ll only take a thousand years to get your money back.

At least we now know where $383,000 of your money went. It went to a school district in Georgia that then used it to send 184 teachers, principals, and office staff to a Hollywood, California spa hotel for a conference. There, they will learn to be better teachers, administrators, and, I guess, typists. The jobs saved were apparently those of the hotel and spa employees.

I can only assume there were no such hotels near Georgia with jobs that needed saving. Aren’t you proud of your government’s generosity? Oh, did I mention it was YOUR money they spent? The district said this money was better spent here than on needed school supplies.

Can this administration, and congress, not understand the history of our economics? Proven over and over again is the concept that higher government spending, with the following increase in taxes, does nothing but create inflation, decrease jobs, and hurt the economy.

Progressive plans for a more ‘just’ society only hurt all of us, including the ones they proclaim to help. Instead of giving the poor man a handout, cut taxes so an entrepreneur can give him a job. “But, no,” they cry, “We must help the downtrodden.”

Idiots! How many times must that man tell you he’d rather have an opportunity than be forever banished to the world of the financially disabled by government handouts? How many times must we, the people, have to pay for your great dreams of ‘equality for all’ at the expense of those with skill, imagination, and the daring to create new opportunities for all. Tax CUTS are the answer, not more wasted spending.

Now, let’s all applaud those new and improved Georgia educators as they return to their classrooms without the school supplies they need, but with a better understanding of how to use them…if they only had them.

About the author

Learn more about Roger Here: Roger's Books and More If you, or anyone you know has ever experienced financial problems, you must check out his book, Money Smart Moves, Here: A Great Decision
posted in Government by Rh123456 Leave A Comment
©2010 ArticlesToReprint Article Board. Some Rights Reserved.
]]> It’s time for one of my Grandfather’s favorite curses – “Dag-nabbit!” Now, I have no idea what that means, but it was useful around children in his day, and it’s printable.

Why am I upset? Well, dag-nabbit, wake up and look around you! I’ve given President Obama credit for a few things he’s done, and for a couple of speeches where he wasn’t apologizing for America being such a bad country, but he just keeps giving me more to be angry about.

What has raised my ire, this time, is how the stimulus money is being spent, how the stimulus money is not being spent, and how he is now asking for more…you guessed it, stimulus money! This time, it’s in the guise of a “Jobs” bill, but even the democratic spokesman accidentally said, “… we’re not supposed to call it a stimulus bill, it’s a jobs bill.”

OH, well, that makes it okay with us stupid Americans; we’ll love a “Jobs” bill, but no more of that stimulus garbage.

This administration, and the democrats in Congress, thinks they can help us by just continuing to throw more and more money at the problem – money we don’t have and will have to borrow. In just a few months, they have raised America’s debt ceiling to 12.4 trillion dollars, and then again to 14.3 trillion dollars.

The interest alone is enough to choke a whole herd of horses, and a child born today will be in debt, to the government, (actually China and Japan) their entire life.

Where is all this money going? No one actually knows! That’s right, a couple of hundred billion has gone out the door, and the administration’s recovery.gov website has been filled with so many holes it could be a fishing net. Hundreds of millions show to have been spent in areas of the country that don’t exist!

Districts that live only in some web bureaucrat’s imagination have created countless jobs with your money! In some places, every job supposedly “saved or created”, with your money, cost as much as $6 million per job. Isn’t that a sweet deal? If that job creates $6,000 per year in taxes paid, it’ll only take a thousand years to get your money back.

At least we now know where $383,000 of your money went. It went to a school district in Georgia that then used it to send 184 teachers, principals, and office staff to a Hollywood, California spa hotel for a conference. There, they will learn to be better teachers, administrators, and, I guess, typists. The jobs saved were apparently those of the hotel and spa employees.

I can only assume there were no such hotels near Georgia with jobs that needed saving. Aren’t you proud of your government’s generosity? Oh, did I mention it was YOUR money they spent? The district said this money was better spent here than on needed school supplies.

Can this administration, and congress, not understand the history of our economics? Proven over and over again is the concept that higher government spending, with the following increase in taxes, does nothing but create inflation, decrease jobs, and hurt the economy.

Progressive plans for a more ‘just’ society only hurt all of us, including the ones they proclaim to help. Instead of giving the poor man a handout, cut taxes so an entrepreneur can give him a job. “But, no,” they cry, “We must help the downtrodden.”

Idiots! How many times must that man tell you he’d rather have an opportunity than be forever banished to the world of the financially disabled by government handouts? How many times must we, the people, have to pay for your great dreams of ‘equality for all’ at the expense of those with skill, imagination, and the daring to create new opportunities for all. Tax CUTS are the answer, not more wasted spending.

Now, let’s all applaud those new and improved Georgia educators as they return to their classrooms without the school supplies they need, but with a better understanding of how to use them…if they only had them.

]]> http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_327043_stimulus-and-jobs-what-a-waste.htm/feed 0 Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae – Who Are They? http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_322746_fannie-mae-freddie-mac-and-ginnie-mae-who-are-they.htm http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_322746_fannie-mae-freddie-mac-and-ginnie-mae-who-are-they.htm#comments Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:56:52 +0000 kigray http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_322746_fannie-mae-freddie-mac-and-ginnie-mae-who-are-they.htm Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae are common names associated with federal lending and home loans. They have offerings that stem from no down payment home loans to helping dislocated residents of disaster areas, to providing assistance to the elderly. If you are any age and are considering a home loan, you’re struggling with mortgage payments and need assistance, or you’re elderly and cannot afford repairs on your home, one of these entities may be able to assist.

Who Are Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie?

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), better known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Freddie Mac, are government sponsored entities (GSEs). Fannie Mae was originally a federal user established in 1938. In 1968, however, Congress passed legislation enabling the user to become a private enterprise. Freddie Mac was birthed in 1970 for the purpose of expanding the secondary mortgage market.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are private corporations owned by shareholders. The funding for their operations is achieved through the sale of mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which are sold on the open stock market. In contrast, the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA), better known as Ginnie Mae, is owned, operated and insured by the U.S. Government. Created in 1968, Ginnie Mae’s mission is basically the same as Fannie and Freddie. The main difference is that Ginnie’s operations do not depend on the sale of MBS for funding. Ginnie sponsored loans are fully backed by the U.S. Government.

The purpose of the three agencies is to buy mortgages on the secondary market to free up funding for banks and lenders to make more home loans. They don’t directly provide loans to borrowers. Instead, they buy mortgages from primary lending institutions that meet their lending standards.

Many lenders receive funding for mortgages from one of these agencies. The advantages of secondary lenders are that loans can be made with lower interest rates, and money is easily moved to enable anyone anywhere in the U.S. to obtain a mortgage, as long as they meet certain criteria.

What Do Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie Have to offer?

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae all fall under the oversight of the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) department. Generally, their charters are the same. They free up funding for primary lenders to make more home loans. In concert, they make housing more affordable to those who may not necessarily qualify for prime loans. Their overall mission is to assist single families, support and provide assistance to housing and neighborhood development, and generate capital in the open stock market. Their missions include making home ownership and rental housing more accessible and affordable.

Who Do Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie Offer It to?

You may become a recipient of products and services provided by Fannie, Freddie or Ginnie. One of the primary factors for consideration is your income and the geographic location in which you want to live or buy a home. If you are low- to moderate-income, you may be eligible for a no down payment home loan or low rent housing. You may be more qualified to obtain a home loan if you want to buy a home in a government designated area. These are typically areas with a significantly lower population than a metropolitan city; although, there may be other qualifications.

How does all this work? If you’re interested in buying a home, go to the Fannie, Freddie or Ginnie website and look for the link that takes you into a section about finding a lender. Follow the instructions to find a qualified lender. If you’re looking for an affordable rental, go to either website at FannieMae or FreddieMac and look for Support for renters or something about renting.

If you want to see all offerings available from each, go to the govloans website. If you’re a farmer, you’ll want to select Agriculture. For small business, you’ll want to make the Business selection. If your living situation was impacted by a disaster, like Hurricane Katrina, then you would select Disaster Relief. If you’re a Veteran, you’ll want to select Veteran. For all housing offerings, select Housing. Regardless of your home situation, Fannie Freddie or Ginnie may be able to help.

About the author

Ki lives in Austin, Texas. He is involved in the Austin real estate community. He maintains a website listing homes for sale in the Austin MLS. His site provides general information on Austin real estate along with graphs showing mortgage rate trends.
posted in Government by Kigray Leave A Comment
©2010 ArticlesToReprint Article Board. Some Rights Reserved.
]]> Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae are common names associated with federal lending and home loans. They have offerings that stem from no down payment home loans to helping dislocated residents of disaster areas, to providing assistance to the elderly. If you are any age and are considering a home loan, you’re struggling with mortgage payments and need assistance, or you’re elderly and cannot afford repairs on your home, one of these entities may be able to assist.

Who Are Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie?

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), better known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Freddie Mac, are government sponsored entities (GSEs). Fannie Mae was originally a federal user established in 1938. In 1968, however, Congress passed legislation enabling the user to become a private enterprise. Freddie Mac was birthed in 1970 for the purpose of expanding the secondary mortgage market.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are private corporations owned by shareholders. The funding for their operations is achieved through the sale of mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which are sold on the open stock market. In contrast, the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA), better known as Ginnie Mae, is owned, operated and insured by the U.S. Government. Created in 1968, Ginnie Mae’s mission is basically the same as Fannie and Freddie. The main difference is that Ginnie’s operations do not depend on the sale of MBS for funding. Ginnie sponsored loans are fully backed by the U.S. Government.

The purpose of the three agencies is to buy mortgages on the secondary market to free up funding for banks and lenders to make more home loans. They don’t directly provide loans to borrowers. Instead, they buy mortgages from primary lending institutions that meet their lending standards.

Many lenders receive funding for mortgages from one of these agencies. The advantages of secondary lenders are that loans can be made with lower interest rates, and money is easily moved to enable anyone anywhere in the U.S. to obtain a mortgage, as long as they meet certain criteria.

What Do Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie Have to offer?

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae all fall under the oversight of the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) department. Generally, their charters are the same. They free up funding for primary lenders to make more home loans. In concert, they make housing more affordable to those who may not necessarily qualify for prime loans. Their overall mission is to assist single families, support and provide assistance to housing and neighborhood development, and generate capital in the open stock market. Their missions include making home ownership and rental housing more accessible and affordable.

Who Do Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie Offer It to?

You may become a recipient of products and services provided by Fannie, Freddie or Ginnie. One of the primary factors for consideration is your income and the geographic location in which you want to live or buy a home. If you are low- to moderate-income, you may be eligible for a no down payment home loan or low rent housing. You may be more qualified to obtain a home loan if you want to buy a home in a government designated area. These are typically areas with a significantly lower population than a metropolitan city; although, there may be other qualifications.

How does all this work? If you’re interested in buying a home, go to the Fannie, Freddie or Ginnie website and look for the link that takes you into a section about finding a lender. Follow the instructions to find a qualified lender. If you’re looking for an affordable rental, go to either website at FannieMae or FreddieMac and look for Support for renters or something about renting.

If you want to see all offerings available from each, go to the govloans website. If you’re a farmer, you’ll want to select Agriculture. For small business, you’ll want to make the Business selection. If your living situation was impacted by a disaster, like Hurricane Katrina, then you would select Disaster Relief. If you’re a Veteran, you’ll want to select Veteran. For all housing offerings, select Housing. Regardless of your home situation, Fannie Freddie or Ginnie may be able to help.

]]> http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_322746_fannie-mae-freddie-mac-and-ginnie-mae-who-are-they.htm/feed 0 What Was Really Responsible for the Housing Collapse? http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_322222_what-was-really-responsible-for-the-housing-collapse.htm http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_322222_what-was-really-responsible-for-the-housing-collapse.htm#comments Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:15:37 +0000 rh123456 http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_322222_what-was-really-responsible-for-the-housing-collapse.htm You know, I’m getting tired of hearing, “It was all Bush’s fault.” There’s plenty of blame to go around, but these direct quotes, from the congressional records (date or committee noted), and directly from interviews with these parties, should help explain part of the financial meltdown.

In 1999, Congress repealed the Glass-Steagal act which, in essence, deregulated certain banks and banking practices. A Republican congress passed it, and Pres. William J. Clinton (D) signed it into law.

In April, 2001, the Bush admin.’s budget request contained the following: The size of Fannie Mae (FM) and Freddie Mac (FMc) is “a potential problem.” because financial trouble in either could cause “strong repercussions in financial markets.” This was the first warning, but few even heard it.

In 2003, this warning was upgraded to a “systemic risk”, that could spread beyond the housing market. In the fall of 2003, the administration was pushing hard to get congress to act.

on September 10th, 2003, Treasury secretary John Snow, in testimony to congress, said, “We need a strong, world class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of Government Supported Enterprises (GSE’s- i.e. FM and FMc), and the safety and soundness of their financial activities.”

Dem. Representative Barney Frank, then ranking member of the house Financial Services Committee, replied with, “FM and FMc are not in a crises. The more people who, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety or soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury, which I do not see,”…. “and even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”

No legislation was brought forward. (Congressional record, Sept. 10, 2003)

Now, on Sept. 24th, 2008, Rep. Frank, in a Fox interview, said this, “Years of failure to regulate have led to irresponsible actions by the private sector to get us into this trouble.”… “If we don’t do something, things will get worse. I do think years of irresponsible failure to regulate have led to this situation.”

Oh, really? Does anyone see the irony here?

In another House Financial Services Committee meeting on Feb. 17, 2005, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, (Bush Admin.) testified, after FM had admitted major accounting errors. He said, “Enabling these institutions to increase in size…. we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.” (Cmte. records)

On April 6, 2005, he added, “If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crises.”

Again Democrats defended these institutions. Dem Senator Charles Schumer said, ” I think FM and FMc, over the years, have done an incredibly good job, and are an intrinsic part of making America the best housed people in the world.”

By looking backward, ignoring the flashing red lights, he failed to recognize the oncoming train wreck.

On the Senate floor, on May 26, 2006, Sen. John McCain said, ” For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs FM and FMc, and the shear magnitude of the companies… the GSE’s need to be reformed without delay.” (Cong. Record)

He had co-sponsored the ‘Federal Housing Enterprise Act (S-190) which made it out of committee, with all of the Democrats voting against it, but died on the floor due to lack of support. (Then) Senator Obama did not weigh in on the bill, but later took credit for warning congress of the problems.

Okay, so now they all agree there is a problem and all of them warned us about it. (So sad.) Instead of working together to find a truly reasonable solution, however, they got involved in nasty partisan name-calling.

According to word from the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi fired the first shot by telling the Republicans she wanted them to deliver 100 votes for the TARP bill. They obviously balked since they had no say in what the bill contained. She then had the audacity to call them “unpatriotic” for not giving her what she wanted.

As I said, there’s enough blame for all. Someone should have shouted FIRE, but would any of us have listened? Our congress didn’t, and it really tics me off to see the very ones who caused this mess try to claim they were blind-sided, and now attempt to convince me they can be our saviors.

Methinks it’s time to boot some of the hypocrites.

About the author

Learn more about Roger Here: Roger's Books and More If you, or anyone you know, has ever had financial problems, you must check out his book, Money Smart Moves, Here: A Great Decision
posted in Government by Rh123456 Leave A Comment
©2010 ArticlesToReprint Article Board. Some Rights Reserved.
]]> You know, I’m getting tired of hearing, “It was all Bush’s fault.” There’s plenty of blame to go around, but these direct quotes, from the congressional records (date or committee noted), and directly from interviews with these parties, should help explain part of the financial meltdown.

In 1999, Congress repealed the Glass-Steagal act which, in essence, deregulated certain banks and banking practices. A Republican congress passed it, and Pres. William J. Clinton (D) signed it into law.

In April, 2001, the Bush admin.’s budget request contained the following: The size of Fannie Mae (FM) and Freddie Mac (FMc) is “a potential problem.” because financial trouble in either could cause “strong repercussions in financial markets.” This was the first warning, but few even heard it.

In 2003, this warning was upgraded to a “systemic risk”, that could spread beyond the housing market. In the fall of 2003, the administration was pushing hard to get congress to act.

on September 10th, 2003, Treasury secretary John Snow, in testimony to congress, said, “We need a strong, world class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of Government Supported Enterprises (GSE’s- i.e. FM and FMc), and the safety and soundness of their financial activities.”

Dem. Representative Barney Frank, then ranking member of the house Financial Services Committee, replied with, “FM and FMc are not in a crises. The more people who, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety or soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury, which I do not see,”…. “and even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”

No legislation was brought forward. (Congressional record, Sept. 10, 2003)

Now, on Sept. 24th, 2008, Rep. Frank, in a Fox interview, said this, “Years of failure to regulate have led to irresponsible actions by the private sector to get us into this trouble.”… “If we don’t do something, things will get worse. I do think years of irresponsible failure to regulate have led to this situation.”

Oh, really? Does anyone see the irony here?

In another House Financial Services Committee meeting on Feb. 17, 2005, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, (Bush Admin.) testified, after FM had admitted major accounting errors. He said, “Enabling these institutions to increase in size…. we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.” (Cmte. records)

On April 6, 2005, he added, “If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crises.”

Again Democrats defended these institutions. Dem Senator Charles Schumer said, ” I think FM and FMc, over the years, have done an incredibly good job, and are an intrinsic part of making America the best housed people in the world.”

By looking backward, ignoring the flashing red lights, he failed to recognize the oncoming train wreck.

On the Senate floor, on May 26, 2006, Sen. John McCain said, ” For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs FM and FMc, and the shear magnitude of the companies… the GSE’s need to be reformed without delay.” (Cong. Record)

He had co-sponsored the ‘Federal Housing Enterprise Act (S-190) which made it out of committee, with all of the Democrats voting against it, but died on the floor due to lack of support. (Then) Senator Obama did not weigh in on the bill, but later took credit for warning congress of the problems.

Okay, so now they all agree there is a problem and all of them warned us about it. (So sad.) Instead of working together to find a truly reasonable solution, however, they got involved in nasty partisan name-calling.

According to word from the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi fired the first shot by telling the Republicans she wanted them to deliver 100 votes for the TARP bill. They obviously balked since they had no say in what the bill contained. She then had the audacity to call them “unpatriotic” for not giving her what she wanted.

As I said, there’s enough blame for all. Someone should have shouted FIRE, but would any of us have listened? Our congress didn’t, and it really tics me off to see the very ones who caused this mess try to claim they were blind-sided, and now attempt to convince me they can be our saviors.

Methinks it’s time to boot some of the hypocrites.

]]> http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_322222_what-was-really-responsible-for-the-housing-collapse.htm/feed 0 The Unprecedented Popularity of the Tea Party Movement http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_320315_the-unprecedented-popularity-of-the-tea-party-movement.htm http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_320315_the-unprecedented-popularity-of-the-tea-party-movement.htm#comments Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:55:36 +0000 freeinternetmedia http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_320315_the-unprecedented-popularity-of-the-tea-party-movement.htm The term Tea Party has come to take on an all new meaning in America in the year 2009. Deriving their name and spirit from the original “Boston Tea Party” incident that occured in the year 1773, where colonists threw three shiploads of taxed tea from Britain into the sea, in protest of what was known as the “Tea Act”; these modern day Tea Parties are nation-wide protests by citizens, most of whom are conservatives, who participated in demonstrations in Washington, DC, and other cities, protesting government spending, the economic stimulus package and any type of tax increases. “TEA” is also meant to mean “Taxed Enough Already”.

Though these events have received very low/non-existent media attention and support, they have been promoted through more modern means, namely, Twitter, blogs and the ubiqitous Facebook. Furthermore, there have been counter-protests by fervent supporters of the Obama administration as well.

In this situation, it is quite interesting to read through the facts thrown up by a recent NBC News / Wall Street Journal Survey.

Americans were asked the question “How much do you know about the Tea Party Movement?”, and were asked to choose between, know a great deal about this, a fair amount, just some, very little or nothing at all. Here are the results:
Know a great deal : 7
Know a fair amount : 22
Know just some : 23
Know very little : 25
Know nothing at all : 23
Not sure-
It indeed is surprising and reassuring that in this media-driven society, an event that enjoys a complete boycott from almost all mainstream media has reached the ears of over half of the American population surveyed.

Next, they were asked to give their personal take on the Tea Party movement – if their opinion of it was very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, or very negative? Those who did not know enough about the movement to form an opinion, were given the choice to say that they were not sure. And these were the results:

Very positive : 20
Somewhat positive : 21
Neutral : 21
Somewhat negative : 10
Very negative : 13
Don’t have opinion/not sure : 15

These results paint an even brighter picture. In a country where popular opinion is formed/dominated by what is fed to the people by mainstream media, it is refreshing to note that the majority have managed to maintain a largely positive view of this ill-advertised movement. The intrigue deepens when these numbers are compared with a similar poll conducted to assess public opinion about the Democratic and Republican parties.

Democratic Party:
Very positive : 10
Somewhat positive : 25
Neutral : 19
Somewhat negative : 19
Very negative : 26
Don’t have opinion/not sure : 1

Republican Party:
Very positive : 5
Somewhat positive : 23
Neutral : 27
Somewhat negative : 24
Very negative : 19
Don’t have opinion/not sure : 2

20% of respondents feel “very positive” about the tax party movement, compared to only 10% for the Democratic Party and only 5% for the Republican Party. 41% of respondents feel “somewhat positive” or better about the tax party movement, compared to only 35% for the Democratic Party and only 28% for the Republican Party.

While it is quite easy to use these popularity figures to gloat over the superior public acceptance that the Tea Party movement enjoys in comparison with the Democratic Party, the real underlying message here should not be ignored. Bottomline, most American people are still seriously unhappy with liberal Republicans. I would not expect “unreformed” Republican candidates to do well in the 2010 mid-term elections.

61% of respondents felt that America is in a state of decline, compared to only 35% who didn’t. Only 27% felt that life our children’s generation will be better than it has been for ours, compared to 66% who didn’t. These are stunning numbers — and yet these people don’t appear to believe that either political party has the right solution to reverse this decline.
Clearly, Americans know that our nation is in deep trouble — and that we’re digging ourselves deeper with every passing year. They don’t see either the Democrats or the Republicans working to dig us out of that trouble, but they do seem willing to give the tea partiers a chance. I think that’s all we can ask for — a chance and the hope of a better future to come.

About the author

Please visit this site for more information about the Tea Party Movement Americans React Positively to Tea Party Movement or Obama's Litmus Test for Civil Servants
posted in Government by Freeinternetmedia Leave A Comment
©2010 ArticlesToReprint Article Board. Some Rights Reserved.
]]> The term Tea Party has come to take on an all new meaning in America in the year 2009. Deriving their name and spirit from the original “Boston Tea Party” incident that occured in the year 1773, where colonists threw three shiploads of taxed tea from Britain into the sea, in protest of what was known as the “Tea Act”; these modern day Tea Parties are nation-wide protests by citizens, most of whom are conservatives, who participated in demonstrations in Washington, DC, and other cities, protesting government spending, the economic stimulus package and any type of tax increases. “TEA” is also meant to mean “Taxed Enough Already”.

Though these events have received very low/non-existent media attention and support, they have been promoted through more modern means, namely, Twitter, blogs and the ubiqitous Facebook. Furthermore, there have been counter-protests by fervent supporters of the Obama administration as well.

In this situation, it is quite interesting to read through the facts thrown up by a recent NBC News / Wall Street Journal Survey.

Americans were asked the question “How much do you know about the Tea Party Movement?”, and were asked to choose between, know a great deal about this, a fair amount, just some, very little or nothing at all. Here are the results:
Know a great deal : 7
Know a fair amount : 22
Know just some : 23
Know very little : 25
Know nothing at all : 23
Not sure-
It indeed is surprising and reassuring that in this media-driven society, an event that enjoys a complete boycott from almost all mainstream media has reached the ears of over half of the American population surveyed.

Next, they were asked to give their personal take on the Tea Party movement – if their opinion of it was very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, or very negative? Those who did not know enough about the movement to form an opinion, were given the choice to say that they were not sure. And these were the results:

Very positive : 20
Somewhat positive : 21
Neutral : 21
Somewhat negative : 10
Very negative : 13
Don’t have opinion/not sure : 15

These results paint an even brighter picture. In a country where popular opinion is formed/dominated by what is fed to the people by mainstream media, it is refreshing to note that the majority have managed to maintain a largely positive view of this ill-advertised movement. The intrigue deepens when these numbers are compared with a similar poll conducted to assess public opinion about the Democratic and Republican parties.

Democratic Party:
Very positive : 10
Somewhat positive : 25
Neutral : 19
Somewhat negative : 19
Very negative : 26
Don’t have opinion/not sure : 1

Republican Party:
Very positive : 5
Somewhat positive : 23
Neutral : 27
Somewhat negative : 24
Very negative : 19
Don’t have opinion/not sure : 2

20% of respondents feel “very positive” about the tax party movement, compared to only 10% for the Democratic Party and only 5% for the Republican Party. 41% of respondents feel “somewhat positive” or better about the tax party movement, compared to only 35% for the Democratic Party and only 28% for the Republican Party.

While it is quite easy to use these popularity figures to gloat over the superior public acceptance that the Tea Party movement enjoys in comparison with the Democratic Party, the real underlying message here should not be ignored. Bottomline, most American people are still seriously unhappy with liberal Republicans. I would not expect “unreformed” Republican candidates to do well in the 2010 mid-term elections.

61% of respondents felt that America is in a state of decline, compared to only 35% who didn’t. Only 27% felt that life our children’s generation will be better than it has been for ours, compared to 66% who didn’t. These are stunning numbers — and yet these people don’t appear to believe that either political party has the right solution to reverse this decline.
Clearly, Americans know that our nation is in deep trouble — and that we’re digging ourselves deeper with every passing year. They don’t see either the Democrats or the Republicans working to dig us out of that trouble, but they do seem willing to give the tea partiers a chance. I think that’s all we can ask for — a chance and the hope of a better future to come.

]]> http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_320315_the-unprecedented-popularity-of-the-tea-party-movement.htm/feed 0 Mortgage Lenders Bailed Out By the U.S. Government http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_318481_mortgage-lenders-bailed-out-by-the-us-government.htm http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_318481_mortgage-lenders-bailed-out-by-the-us-government.htm#comments Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:56:08 +0000 kigray http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_318481_mortgage-lenders-bailed-out-by-the-us-government.htm Beginning October 2008 through October 2009, the U.S. Treasury Department has been bailing out U.S. banks. In efforts to undergird the economy, and stabilize the struggling institutions, over $200 billion has been paid out to over 600 mortgage lenders through the Treasury’s Capital Purchase Program.

Surprisingly, almost $71 billion has been paid back to the U.S. Treasury so far. That’s almost 36 percent of $200 billion being paid back by 41 different banks. Interestingly to note, almost 7 percent of the banks who borrowed federal money owed 36 percent of the government’s capital purchase.

Looking at the extensive list of all lenders included can make your head spin. Names like 1st Enterprise Bank, 1st FS Corp. and 1st Source Corporation start off the registry that progresses to a multitude of variations of Bancorp names, ending on Yadkin Valley Financial Corporation, York Traditions Bank and Zion Bancorporation.

The Freeport State Bank of Harper, Kansas received the lowest bailout in the amount of $301,000. It looks like CitiGroup Inc. and JP Morgan Chase & Co. of New York, along with Wells Fargo & Co. based in California, received the largest bailouts in the amount of $25 billion each. Out of the three lenders receiving the biggest bailouts, only JP Morgan Chase & Co. is noted as having paid anything back to the government. To the credit of JP Morgan Chase & Co., the group has repaid the entirety of the $25 billion borrowed.

Not surprisingly, lenders in New York State lead U.S. territory and states in the Union with $79.5 billion in bailout bucks. The ten states that top the list are:

1. New York State – $79.5 billion
2. North Carolina – $28.6
3. California – $27.6 billion
4. Pennsylvania – $9.4 billion
5. Ohio – $7.65 billion
6. Minnesota – $7 billion
7. Georgia – $6.2 billion
8. Illinois – $4.5 billion
9. Virginia – $4.2 billion
10. Connecticut – $3.8 billion

States in which lenders borrowed the least include the following bottom ten:

1. Washington, D.C. – $6 million
2. Wyoming (all in Buffalo) – $8.1 million
3. Rhode Island – $31 million
4. New Hampshire – $40.8 million
5. New Mexico – $45.5 million
6. Nebraska – $51.6 million
7. Maine – $58.4 million
8. Idaho – $81.7 million
9. Arizona – $83 million
10. North Dakota – $85.8 million

The following states and companies are in the top ten to have paid back bailout money in the amounts indicated:
1. New York State — $51.7 billion
– JP Morgan Chase & Co. – $25 billion
– Goldman Sachs Group Inc. – $10 billion
– Morgan Stanley – $10 billion
– American Express Company – $3.4 billion
– First Niagara Financial Group – $184 million
– Signature Bank – $120 million
– Alliance Financial Corporation – $27 million
– Bank of New York Melon Corp. – $3 billion
2. Minnesota – $7 billion
– U.S. Bancorp – $6.6 billion
– TCF Financial Corp. – $361 million
3. Virginia – $3.7 billion
– Capital One Financial Corp. – $3.55 billion
– First Community Bank Shares – $41.5 million
4. North Carolina – $3.15 billion
– BB&T Corp. – $3.13 billion
– Crescent Financial Corporation – $24.9 million
5. Massachusetts – $2.1 billion
– State Street Corp. – $2 billion
– Independent Bank Corp. – $78 million
– Berkshire Hills Bancorp Inc. – $40 million
6. Illinois – $1.6 billion
– Northern Trust Corp. – $1.6 billion
7. New Jersey – $397 million
– Valley National Bancorp – $300 million
– Sun Bancorp, Inc. – $89.3 million
– Somerset Hills Bancorp – $7.4 million
8. California – $248 million
v CVB Financial Corp. – $130 million
– Westamerica Bancorporation – $83.7 million
– Bank of Marin Bancorp – $28 million
– First ULB Corp. – $4.9 million
– Manhattan Bancorp – $1.7 million
9. Washington – $200 million
– Washington Federal Inc. – $200 million
10. Texas – $200 million
– Sterling Bancshares, Inc. – $125 million
– Texas Capital Banchshares, Inc. – $75 million

Don’t let the numbers fool you. Just because a bank borrowed little doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a strong institution. On the contrary, it could be a smaller bank with shallower pockets. That should be even more cause for concern if the bank has not yet repaid borrowed bailout money to the government.

On the other hand, it should be encouraging if your bank is one of the lenders who landed in the top ten list of those who repaid their debt to the government. Also encouraging is that the $150 billion government bailout of the 1980s for the savings and loan debacle served the U.S. economy well. If history repeats itself, this will set the banks on track to overcome the current U.S. economic challenges.

About the author

Ki authored a website, which serves Austin real estate buyers. It has a feature, which includes free searches of properties in the Austin MLS. His site also has statistical information on Austin real estate and a graph which shows mortgage rate history.
posted in Government by Kigray Leave A Comment
©2010 ArticlesToReprint Article Board. Some Rights Reserved.
]]> Beginning October 2008 through October 2009, the U.S. Treasury Department has been bailing out U.S. banks. In efforts to undergird the economy, and stabilize the struggling institutions, over $200 billion has been paid out to over 600 mortgage lenders through the Treasury’s Capital Purchase Program.

Surprisingly, almost $71 billion has been paid back to the U.S. Treasury so far. That’s almost 36 percent of $200 billion being paid back by 41 different banks. Interestingly to note, almost 7 percent of the banks who borrowed federal money owed 36 percent of the government’s capital purchase.

Looking at the extensive list of all lenders included can make your head spin. Names like 1st Enterprise Bank, 1st FS Corp. and 1st Source Corporation start off the registry that progresses to a multitude of variations of Bancorp names, ending on Yadkin Valley Financial Corporation, York Traditions Bank and Zion Bancorporation.

The Freeport State Bank of Harper, Kansas received the lowest bailout in the amount of $301,000. It looks like CitiGroup Inc. and JP Morgan Chase & Co. of New York, along with Wells Fargo & Co. based in California, received the largest bailouts in the amount of $25 billion each. Out of the three lenders receiving the biggest bailouts, only JP Morgan Chase & Co. is noted as having paid anything back to the government. To the credit of JP Morgan Chase & Co., the group has repaid the entirety of the $25 billion borrowed.

Not surprisingly, lenders in New York State lead U.S. territory and states in the Union with $79.5 billion in bailout bucks. The ten states that top the list are:

1. New York State – $79.5 billion
2. North Carolina – $28.6
3. California – $27.6 billion
4. Pennsylvania – $9.4 billion
5. Ohio – $7.65 billion
6. Minnesota – $7 billion
7. Georgia – $6.2 billion
8. Illinois – $4.5 billion
9. Virginia – $4.2 billion
10. Connecticut – $3.8 billion

States in which lenders borrowed the least include the following bottom ten:

1. Washington, D.C. – $6 million
2. Wyoming (all in Buffalo) – $8.1 million
3. Rhode Island – $31 million
4. New Hampshire – $40.8 million
5. New Mexico – $45.5 million
6. Nebraska – $51.6 million
7. Maine – $58.4 million
8. Idaho – $81.7 million
9. Arizona – $83 million
10. North Dakota – $85.8 million

The following states and companies are in the top ten to have paid back bailout money in the amounts indicated:
1. New York State — $51.7 billion
– JP Morgan Chase & Co. – $25 billion
– Goldman Sachs Group Inc. – $10 billion
– Morgan Stanley – $10 billion
– American Express Company – $3.4 billion
– First Niagara Financial Group – $184 million
– Signature Bank – $120 million
– Alliance Financial Corporation – $27 million
– Bank of New York Melon Corp. – $3 billion
2. Minnesota – $7 billion
– U.S. Bancorp – $6.6 billion
– TCF Financial Corp. – $361 million
3. Virginia – $3.7 billion
– Capital One Financial Corp. – $3.55 billion
– First Community Bank Shares – $41.5 million
4. North Carolina – $3.15 billion
– BB&T Corp. – $3.13 billion
– Crescent Financial Corporation – $24.9 million
5. Massachusetts – $2.1 billion
– State Street Corp. – $2 billion
– Independent Bank Corp. – $78 million
– Berkshire Hills Bancorp Inc. – $40 million
6. Illinois – $1.6 billion
– Northern Trust Corp. – $1.6 billion
7. New Jersey – $397 million
– Valley National Bancorp – $300 million
– Sun Bancorp, Inc. – $89.3 million
– Somerset Hills Bancorp – $7.4 million
8. California – $248 million
v CVB Financial Corp. – $130 million
– Westamerica Bancorporation – $83.7 million
– Bank of Marin Bancorp – $28 million
– First ULB Corp. – $4.9 million
– Manhattan Bancorp – $1.7 million
9. Washington – $200 million
– Washington Federal Inc. – $200 million
10. Texas – $200 million
– Sterling Bancshares, Inc. – $125 million
– Texas Capital Banchshares, Inc. – $75 million

Don’t let the numbers fool you. Just because a bank borrowed little doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a strong institution. On the contrary, it could be a smaller bank with shallower pockets. That should be even more cause for concern if the bank has not yet repaid borrowed bailout money to the government.

On the other hand, it should be encouraging if your bank is one of the lenders who landed in the top ten list of those who repaid their debt to the government. Also encouraging is that the $150 billion government bailout of the 1980s for the savings and loan debacle served the U.S. economy well. If history repeats itself, this will set the banks on track to overcome the current U.S. economic challenges.

]]> http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_318481_mortgage-lenders-bailed-out-by-the-us-government.htm/feed 0 The Solar Bill of Rights http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_316506_the-solar-bill-of-rights.htm http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_316506_the-solar-bill-of-rights.htm#comments Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:22:01 +0000 datguygabe http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_316506_the-solar-bill-of-rights.htm Tired of hearing about green energy, but not seeing it take over the country? Solar Panels could be easily instituted across the United States, but legislation and lack infrastructure control are slowing the progress of eager Americans ready for clean energy.

Rhone Resch, President and CEO of SEIA, introduced a novel concept, The Solar Bill of Rights. Roy Gayhart, CEO of WholeSolar LLC, commented “Now is the time for a real clean energy agenda to be adopted in the United States. We need a legislation so novel that it serves as a beacon of leadership for the world. The Solar Bill of Rights prioritizes the heart of American freedom in clean energy legislation.”

The Solar Bill of Rights, is as follows:

First Amendment: Americans have the right to put solar on their homes or businesses. Today’s systems beautify and add value to communities and homes, and yet antiquated rules prevent many homes and businesses from going solar. From restrictive covenants to onerous connection, permitting and inspection fees these rules create fundamental barriers to solar. Utilities should not be allowed to restrict green power with red tape.

Second Amendment: Americans have the right to connect their solar system to the grid with uniform national standards. This is as simple as creating a standard jack for telephones. Can you imagine buying a phone in Nevada and bringing it home to California and finding out it doesn’t fit into the wall jack? Other industries don’t stand for this and neither should we.

Third Amendment: Consumers have the right to Net Meter and be compensated at the very least with full retail electricity rates. Call this solar’s eminent domain “utilities use the power we make, and we expect to be compensated at its actual value. This is not just the cost, but the true value of solar including our security benefits, peak power benefits and environmental benefits” as well as the true price for carbon.

Fourth Amendment: The Solar Power Industry has the right to a fair competitive environment. It’s the most basic right there is “equality under the law. Today, solar has anything but. And that’s not just an opinion, that’s a fact. From 2002 to 2008, federal subsidies for fossil fuels were $72 billion while solar received less than $1 billion. This is completely disconnected with the desires of the American people. Recent independent polling shows that 92% of the public supports greater use of solar. And yet taxpayers are forced to subsidize companies like ExxonMobil, companies that are the richest in the history of the world. It’s that simple “and that wrong. Subsidies aren’t the only issue of fairness, which leads me to number 5.

Fifth Amendment: We also have the right to equal access to public lands. Oil and natural gas companies are operating on 45 million acres of public lands. Today, solar companies have access to ZERO. America has the best solar resources in the world and we can’t harness the full potential of the sun without accessing our sun-baked lands of the West. Of course, there’s little point in collecting energy unless there’s a means of distributing it.

Sixth Amendment: We have the right to interconnect and build new transmission lines. Here, too, we seek no more than what other industries already have. The next great build out of our transmission lines must connect the vast solar resources in the southwest to the population centers across the United States.

Seventh Amendment: Americans must have the right to buy solar electricity from our utilities. Consumers have no choice but to buy power from utilities. Although recently some utilities have started to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who want them to prioritize a kilowatt of power drawn from the sun over any other energy source. We have a long way to go. Therefore, for any renewable portfolio standard to be effective, at either the federal or state level, it must contain a large carve out for all solar energy technologies.

Eighth Amendment: Consumers have the right, and should expect, the highest ethical treatment from the solar industry. From minimizing our impact on the environment to providing systems that work better than advertized to ensuring that we accurately communicate how incentives work for consumers, our industry must operate at a higher ethical standard than any other. We will not stand for those who cheat, lie and take advantage of the good name of solar energy.

We declare these rights not on behalf of our companies, but on behalf of our customers and our country. We seek no more than the freedom to compete on equal terms and no more than the liberty for consumers to choose the energy source they think best. These rights, like those on which country was founded, are a simple matter of common-sense. In fact, you might even call them “self-evident.”

But that doesn’t mean they’re self-evident in the halls of power, especially when our opponents are pumping as much haze into the energy debate as they are into the environment.

About the author

PV Solar Panels and materials are Wholesolar's speciality. Learn more about The Solar Bill of Rights at Whole Solar's CEO, Roy Gayhart's blog.
posted in Government by Datguygabe Leave A Comment
©2010 ArticlesToReprint Article Board. Some Rights Reserved.
]]> Tired of hearing about green energy, but not seeing it take over the country? Solar Panels could be easily instituted across the United States, but legislation and lack infrastructure control are slowing the progress of eager Americans ready for clean energy.

Rhone Resch, President and CEO of SEIA, introduced a novel concept, The Solar Bill of Rights. Roy Gayhart, CEO of WholeSolar LLC, commented “Now is the time for a real clean energy agenda to be adopted in the United States. We need a legislation so novel that it serves as a beacon of leadership for the world. The Solar Bill of Rights prioritizes the heart of American freedom in clean energy legislation.”

The Solar Bill of Rights, is as follows:

First Amendment: Americans have the right to put solar on their homes or businesses. Today’s systems beautify and add value to communities and homes, and yet antiquated rules prevent many homes and businesses from going solar. From restrictive covenants to onerous connection, permitting and inspection fees these rules create fundamental barriers to solar. Utilities should not be allowed to restrict green power with red tape.

Second Amendment: Americans have the right to connect their solar system to the grid with uniform national standards. This is as simple as creating a standard jack for telephones. Can you imagine buying a phone in Nevada and bringing it home to California and finding out it doesn’t fit into the wall jack? Other industries don’t stand for this and neither should we.

Third Amendment: Consumers have the right to Net Meter and be compensated at the very least with full retail electricity rates. Call this solar’s eminent domain “utilities use the power we make, and we expect to be compensated at its actual value. This is not just the cost, but the true value of solar including our security benefits, peak power benefits and environmental benefits” as well as the true price for carbon.

Fourth Amendment: The Solar Power Industry has the right to a fair competitive environment. It’s the most basic right there is “equality under the law. Today, solar has anything but. And that’s not just an opinion, that’s a fact. From 2002 to 2008, federal subsidies for fossil fuels were $72 billion while solar received less than $1 billion. This is completely disconnected with the desires of the American people. Recent independent polling shows that 92% of the public supports greater use of solar. And yet taxpayers are forced to subsidize companies like ExxonMobil, companies that are the richest in the history of the world. It’s that simple “and that wrong. Subsidies aren’t the only issue of fairness, which leads me to number 5.

Fifth Amendment: We also have the right to equal access to public lands. Oil and natural gas companies are operating on 45 million acres of public lands. Today, solar companies have access to ZERO. America has the best solar resources in the world and we can’t harness the full potential of the sun without accessing our sun-baked lands of the West. Of course, there’s little point in collecting energy unless there’s a means of distributing it.

Sixth Amendment: We have the right to interconnect and build new transmission lines. Here, too, we seek no more than what other industries already have. The next great build out of our transmission lines must connect the vast solar resources in the southwest to the population centers across the United States.

Seventh Amendment: Americans must have the right to buy solar electricity from our utilities. Consumers have no choice but to buy power from utilities. Although recently some utilities have started to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who want them to prioritize a kilowatt of power drawn from the sun over any other energy source. We have a long way to go. Therefore, for any renewable portfolio standard to be effective, at either the federal or state level, it must contain a large carve out for all solar energy technologies.

Eighth Amendment: Consumers have the right, and should expect, the highest ethical treatment from the solar industry. From minimizing our impact on the environment to providing systems that work better than advertized to ensuring that we accurately communicate how incentives work for consumers, our industry must operate at a higher ethical standard than any other. We will not stand for those who cheat, lie and take advantage of the good name of solar energy.

We declare these rights not on behalf of our companies, but on behalf of our customers and our country. We seek no more than the freedom to compete on equal terms and no more than the liberty for consumers to choose the energy source they think best. These rights, like those on which country was founded, are a simple matter of common-sense. In fact, you might even call them “self-evident.”

But that doesn’t mean they’re self-evident in the halls of power, especially when our opponents are pumping as much haze into the energy debate as they are into the environment.

]]> http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_316506_the-solar-bill-of-rights.htm/feed 0 The Idiots in Congress Don’t Read http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_313898_the-idiots-in-congress-dont-read.htm http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_313898_the-idiots-in-congress-dont-read.htm#comments Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:53:02 +0000 gmbooks http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_313898_the-idiots-in-congress-dont-read.htm It is hard to believe that our elected representatives signed a bill for hundreds of billions of dollars and never read a word, but it’s true. However, this is not the first time: under a law passed by our irresponsible Congress last year was their ill conceived approach to regulating products for children that contain lead.

I agree, paint containing lead that can chip off of a toy and be placed into the mouth of a child is dangerous, but that is hardly the case when it comes to books where ink does not chip off of its pages.

The federal government has now advised that books for children published before 1985 should not be considered safe and may in many cases be unlawful to sell or even give away.

Bookstores, thrift stores may be at legal risk if they sell older volumes without first subjecting them to testing, at prohibitive expense. I just published a new children’s book which I had tested and it cost me $150.00.

How many book in our warehouse can we afford to test before selling or worse, going broke? Many used-book sellers have begun to refuse new donations of pre 1985 volumes, and are removing what they have from their shelves in this draconian new law in fear of potential lawsuits. So, what is the alternative? It has been arrogantly suggested that books printed before 1985 be burned. How compelling that we resort to Nazi style solutions instead of a realistic approach to solving the problem.

Like the current stimulus bill that has been shoved down our throats without a single lawmaker reading the 900 page bill before voting on it, this same Congress, after the panic over lead painted toys from China passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). Among its other draconian provisions, CPSIA imposed tough new limits on lead in any products intended for use by children under the age of 12 and made the limits retroactive: in other words, goods manufactured before the law passed cannot be sold on the used market (even in garage sales or on eBay) So it says to small business owners, eat it!

Since many products for children have included lead containing (if harmless) components such as snaps and zippers on garments and backpacks and countless other products containing metal alloy including things like rhinestones and beads. This law will destroy more companies or financially ruin many at a time when unemployment is at 10 percent and in California 17% and is headed for the stratosphere in coming months. Have our elected representatives lost their minds?

The insanity of this measure with a new retroactive aspect on playthings and articles that contain plastic softening chemicals known as phthalates you suddenly have tens of millions of common items that have become unlawful to resell. Penalties under the law are strict and can include $100,000 fines and prison time, regardless of whether any child is harmed. Sound like something Nancy Pelosi would add to a piece of legislation. Common sense has been thrown out of the window along with the baby and the bath water.

For decades lead pigments in inks, dyes and paints were used in books for children, particularly in the great age of illustrated books at the turn of the 20th century. While lead poisoning from paint in old houses remains a serious public health problem, no one seems able to produce any evidence in which an American child has been made ill by the lead in ink in old illustrated books, and for good reason, book pigments do not flake off for a child to put into their mouth and I do not ever recall hearing about an epidemic of children licking books.

The New York Times, whose editorial pages vigorously supported the passage of CPSIA is a major newspaper that also covered the book and apparel business but has remained entirely silent on the law in recent months. The New York Times company slogan, All the News That’s fit to Print, is hypocrisy at its finest, about as absurd as this new law that will destroy small companies like mine and thrown hundreds of thousands of our citizens out of work in a goal to have a non functioning economy as the byproduct of political correctness run a muck.

About the author

William Dorich is the author of 7 books including his current titles, Defeat Foreclosure and The Nursing Home Crisis. He established his publishing firm in 1985 and has published 150 titles including: Witness to War for the Los Angeles Times which won a pulitzer. http://www.gmbooks.com
posted in Government by Gmbooks Leave A Comment
©2010 ArticlesToReprint Article Board. Some Rights Reserved.
]]> It is hard to believe that our elected representatives signed a bill for hundreds of billions of dollars and never read a word, but it’s true. However, this is not the first time: under a law passed by our irresponsible Congress last year was their ill conceived approach to regulating products for children that contain lead.

I agree, paint containing lead that can chip off of a toy and be placed into the mouth of a child is dangerous, but that is hardly the case when it comes to books where ink does not chip off of its pages.

The federal government has now advised that books for children published before 1985 should not be considered safe and may in many cases be unlawful to sell or even give away.

Bookstores, thrift stores may be at legal risk if they sell older volumes without first subjecting them to testing, at prohibitive expense. I just published a new children’s book which I had tested and it cost me $150.00.

How many book in our warehouse can we afford to test before selling or worse, going broke? Many used-book sellers have begun to refuse new donations of pre 1985 volumes, and are removing what they have from their shelves in this draconian new law in fear of potential lawsuits. So, what is the alternative? It has been arrogantly suggested that books printed before 1985 be burned. How compelling that we resort to Nazi style solutions instead of a realistic approach to solving the problem.

Like the current stimulus bill that has been shoved down our throats without a single lawmaker reading the 900 page bill before voting on it, this same Congress, after the panic over lead painted toys from China passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). Among its other draconian provisions, CPSIA imposed tough new limits on lead in any products intended for use by children under the age of 12 and made the limits retroactive: in other words, goods manufactured before the law passed cannot be sold on the used market (even in garage sales or on eBay) So it says to small business owners, eat it!

Since many products for children have included lead containing (if harmless) components such as snaps and zippers on garments and backpacks and countless other products containing metal alloy including things like rhinestones and beads. This law will destroy more companies or financially ruin many at a time when unemployment is at 10 percent and in California 17% and is headed for the stratosphere in coming months. Have our elected representatives lost their minds?

The insanity of this measure with a new retroactive aspect on playthings and articles that contain plastic softening chemicals known as phthalates you suddenly have tens of millions of common items that have become unlawful to resell. Penalties under the law are strict and can include $100,000 fines and prison time, regardless of whether any child is harmed. Sound like something Nancy Pelosi would add to a piece of legislation. Common sense has been thrown out of the window along with the baby and the bath water.

For decades lead pigments in inks, dyes and paints were used in books for children, particularly in the great age of illustrated books at the turn of the 20th century. While lead poisoning from paint in old houses remains a serious public health problem, no one seems able to produce any evidence in which an American child has been made ill by the lead in ink in old illustrated books, and for good reason, book pigments do not flake off for a child to put into their mouth and I do not ever recall hearing about an epidemic of children licking books.

The New York Times, whose editorial pages vigorously supported the passage of CPSIA is a major newspaper that also covered the book and apparel business but has remained entirely silent on the law in recent months. The New York Times company slogan, All the News That’s fit to Print, is hypocrisy at its finest, about as absurd as this new law that will destroy small companies like mine and thrown hundreds of thousands of our citizens out of work in a goal to have a non functioning economy as the byproduct of political correctness run a muck.

]]> http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_313898_the-idiots-in-congress-dont-read.htm/feed 0