Fellow President Obama Supporters and Former Ones"
AS the founder of the Obama Group named YESWECANSOLVEIT...
I have taken the liberty of forming still another group called
AmericaNOchange. I doubt this one gets approved.
Thought I'd better hurry and write this and send it to all groups that
I am still a member of before I am banned here forever. Why would
that happen? you ask. Because I just formed a new group with a little
kid yelling "Hey You" while flipping off the viewer. Hope the president
and his staff gets the message.
The esculation of the war in Afghanistan is the last straw. Three strikes
your out!
First, he keeps the same people on the payroll that got us into this
financial disaster. He let's Bush and Cheney walk scot-free. He continues
to bail out the banks, "all too big to fail" why they screw us in every way.
And tonight on national tv he will try to convience us all that the way to
end the war in Aftganistan is to exculate it. This did not work in Vietnam,
I know, because I volunteered to go there, and it will not work in Aftganistan.
To add insult to injury. The powers that be, the ones backing McCain in
my city in Northern California, are all meeting to determine what the same
good ole boys get to do with local stimulus funds...So my question is?
WHAT THE HELL HAS CHANGED IN AMERICAN PRESIDENT OBAMA?
I am so damned mad right now, I swear, if I could afford it, I'd trade in
my next presidential ballot for a passport.
Al Boek, Ex-Supporter of a One-Term President
earlallenboek@yahoo.com
530-549-4315
Redding, California
We Americans seem to live in a dream world ! There is no such things as "preventable death".
In the real world, the operative phrases are "inevitable death" and "prolonged life".
In the real world, those who insist on prolonging life need to be ready to pay for it too. If they think they can impose life syles on others, then they should be ready to foot the bill for those others as well.
It is simple, in the dream world, immortality comes free. In the real world longevity cost more.
Can you imagine donating two years of your life to a candidate -- then that candidate sends Aid to the place you live in for your program. As you live in that structure of life saying hey -- I was told this Help was here, but as the train left Washington DC to New Jersey. You had leaders stopping the train and taking what they need in a ring of corruption. That's what's going on in New Jersey with these leaders--the democratic party endorsed. They are going back and telling Obama's adminstration; We never heard of this guy, or this program. Yet, the benefited from the guidelines of the program. This is the reason why we have a corruption probe in New Jersey.View the AD and Documentary!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQcgLT9oBq0
Dear Editor,
September 15, 2009, I had the opportunity to watch C-SPAN 3 and hear another testimonial from the “whistleblower” and former head of communications from the Cigna Insurance company Vice President Wendell Potter. He referenced his previous testimonial on June 24, 2009. He expressed a need for comprehensive reform to shape reform to Congress to benefit all Americans. Several times he expressed that the healthcare reform bill will be nothing more than an insurance industry profit protection and insurance act if the bill doesn’t include the public option.
He refutes the heavily prophesized claim that adding the public option will no longer make the private options competitive. Instead he adds that the public option will lower health care cost and cause the industry to reevaluate the way that they do business. The practice of the industry has directly affected 25 million families to become under and not insured and giving rise to over priced cartel led premiums. Potter added that public option will require the Health Services to eliminate high co-pays and deductible which mean less out of pocket costs, increases in lifetime limits, eliminate “fake marketing” plans and increasing annual caps that are more reasonable. Market reforms will not only cause companies to compete, contrary by the industry and allies claims, but also stop the misinformation tactics being used to “frighten us” into believing reform can’t be done. Again, those little fear tactics are being used to induce complacency. Dumping unprofitable and sick consumers to make profit expectations, in a nut shell will cause investors needs to become secondary and can no longer be put over the health of insurance industry consumers.
Consumers must understand that limited benefits fits and underwriting is designed for profit.
Potter and I hope that this is the year that will enact legislation, I hope he is right. Meantime I’d encourage the entire community to go out to the 25th Congressional representative Buck McKeon’s Townhall meeting Saturday September 26 at 9AM and get there early. Parking lots #5, #6, #7,and #8 will assist your morning stroll to the Gymnasium, wear tennis shoes and let’s here what our local legislative representative has to say. Oh and by the way, I did email him the above link . . . I did call Potter, he told me to tell McKeon that “death panels” is another made up marketing phrase.
Peace Out, Minerva L. Williams, Castaic, CA
Many people state health care costs as 2.2 trillion, and 16% of GDP, including the Kaiser Foundation. However, when I go to Table 3A of http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
health care in 2008 accounts for 1.5 trillion out of a GDP 14.4 trillion or about 11% (not too far off from other nations).
Where do people get their data from?
I went to the http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/ web site, and while I can reconstruct the popular numbers from their site, they leave me even more puzzled. The GDP numbers for 2007 do not match the BEA. Off by at least a trillion, depending on Net or Gross DP. In addition, the BEA makes it clear that it is not counting Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid under Government consumption. So they must include it all under personal consumption.
The BEA percentage of health care over GDP has been pretty constant over the last decade, around 11%. The HHS data shows it jumping 3 point, to 16% during the same stretch. What's more, it made me realize that 50 years ago it supposedly was at 5% mark(HHS). Made me wonder why we don't hear an explanation of how we did it back then (forget the Canadians).
In other words, it seems very much like whoever counts gets whatever results they desire. Now I have double the evidence that all the numbers are suspect.
Disappointing. Especially since I used Kaiser Foundation numbers from an age stratified cost per year chart, and figured out that "prevention" was bullshit. Excuse my language. Healthy living adds costs to the flat part of the bathtub curve, merely deferring the end-of-life costs. So "whole life cost" goes up with longer lives. There will be no bending of the cost curve as long as longevity increases.
I suppose politicizing numbers shouldn't surprise me. But better orchestration would help.
Congress and the Administration are busy tweaking the existing system, and calling it reform. They are crowing about 47 million uninsured as evidence of a crisis, when a huge number of them are prime of life people who do not need health care. Republicans are attacking costs, increased taxes proposed by Democrats, while claiming that the for profit insurance system is great, begging the question if they’ve woken up from the Bush years yet. All of it is in a crisis mode – must be reformed this summer. Or what? I think we’ll just have another summer next year.
Now I do have some ideas for real health care reform. It starts with the simple premise of a single payer. I don’t care if it is the Social Security Administration or Halliburton. Stop wasting billions on multiple billings, useless accountants, claim processors, rate negotiators, and of course, CBO, GAO and untold other studies. The Government should simply open it up for bids. Companies could partner, agencies and companies could partner, agencies and agencies could partner. I would not care. Just two basic criteria: single payer, meaning single book-keeping, and lowest operating bid. Health insurance is not brain surgery – it is just moving money from the left hand to the right hand. So the winner should do it cheaply. That would take care of my health insurance claim processing reform.
Now for actual health care reform? Well we are in a pickle, one that neither Democrats, Republicans, AMA or BCBS want to admit. The baby boomers are going to clog the are demographics arteries. The number of Americans over the age 64 will double for the next 40 years, and these old codgers consume 6 times the health care that a young person does. Our infrastructure, you know the one with Indian immigrant doctors, Philipino immigrant nurses, and hundreds of closed hospitals, cannot serve their numbers. So we will have metered health care. The rich will go to through the side doors while the rest of America will queue up at the front desk. Inevitable. How can Congress ignore this? Perhaps because most will be dead and gone by the time it becomes obvious.
The way to get out of the pickle is to resort to the great American ideal of self determination and self reliance. My suggestion is that every American be endowed with a voucher of $1,000,000, for life time health care. Each time they go to a doctor, the single payer will pay the doc, and reduce the balance of the voucher. Once a person runs out, they are on their own. If they live right, maybe the voucher can last a long time. If they live smart, they won’t rush to the doctor for every sprain and strain, much less for Viagra. If at the end of life, they only have enough for a hospice, rather than the inhuman cruelty of being kept alive on tubes for months, who is to judge which represents better quality of care. How do I suppose to pay for this. Well, the startup cost is minimal. Even old people only average $8-10,000 in annual costs. That’s the only part of the voucher that has to be covered initially. The full million is like life insurance – you pay, perhaps into Medicaid (what a novel idea) to build up the “future value” of you endowment. The younger you are when you start, the lower your monthly payments. I think it is doable.
Now to complete my tour de reform, I would allow the unused balance of a voucher to be transferred to heirs, as part of the estate. I know, it sounds odd, but it really makes sense. The genetics will ensure that in the long run, the healthiest of the breed will end up getting the best of care.
Sorry folks, but when one is looking to reform reform, one has to strain the gene pool to achieve real savings in health care.
The President finally called the reform by its proper name: Insurance reform!
Let's be honest. The entire discussion has very little to do with health care reform for 250 million Americans. It consists of Medicaid offering wall-to-wall coverage for families making under $29,000 per year, and about $2 grand in government subsidies to those making less than $88,000 per year (with yet to be stated levels of coverage. The rest of Americans will retain the same crappy insurance, but pay more in taxes.
The likely beneficiaries will be the insurance companies, who will get another 40-50 million subscribers.
That is not something I want to help with!
Howard Fineman and some other astute political observers have written in recent days that Sarah Palin's announced resignation as Alaska's governor is a clever first step toward a 2012 presidential run. I just do not believe that this is true. If she really expected to run for president in 2012, it is fully understandable that she would not run for reelection as governor when her current term expires at the end of 2010. If she does have presidential expectations, however, it does not make sense for her to resign just over half way through her first term as governor. Although she is a darling of the Republican Right (I am trying to recall who the conservative pundit was who basically admitted to being sexually excited over Ms. Palin during her vice-presidential run), she has almost zero respect or credibility from the rest of the country, and quitting her current job for no obvious reason at this time would hardly help in building up her reputation.
If Governor Palin is resigning early because of family considerations, I can respect that. That could be a contributing factor, although I doubt that it is the primary reason. I think it is more likely that the main reason is that her being routinely lampooned by commentators and comedians caused her to lose her taste for electoral politics. If this is the case, she would have to be quite a masochist to want to run for president, in 2012 or any other year.
The main direct effect of her resignation is likely to be that she will make many times more money (probably something like $50,000 per speech) as a private citizen than she could possibly make as a government officer. As a private citizen with a major fan base among the right wingers of America, she could become something similar to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. She could articulate her message, make a fortune, and be accountable to nobody. She will be able to raise a lot of money for other Republican candidates, but contrary to the assertions of some political writers, I do not think it is likely that she will be doing that in order to collect a lot of political IOUs. She might be thinking about it, but I think it is more likely that her distaste for the political arena is genuine.
Was some of the criticism and jokes aimed at Sarah Palin unfair? Yes, some of it was. Should we feel sympathy for the governor? Hardly. This is not exactly a nice person we are talking about here. During her campaign for vice-president, Sarah Palin constantly told anybody who would listen that then-Senator Obama was "palling around with terrorists." She did everything she could to suggest that Barack Obama was siding with the terrorists against all decent American people. She belittled Obama's background as a community organizer, as if that was Obama's sole qualification for president. She also made very clear that she believed that the only "real Americans" were small town conservatives similar to himself, implying that those of us who do not fit that description ideally should not have the right to choose our political leaders.
Palin's defenders might argue that the job of a vice-presidential candidate is to attack the other party's presidential nominee, and that some distortion of the opposing candidates' records is part of the way the system works, and that the Republicans are no more guilty of these distortions than are the Democrats. That may all be true, but just as distorting a political opponent's record is as American as apple pie, so is political satire. One of the most famous pearls of wisdom attributed to Harry Truman was: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Governor Palin is simply taking that advice. As far as I am concerned, Sarah Palin combines several unattractive qualities. She is shallow, vindictive, and self-pitying. Perhaps that characterization is (slightly) too harsh, but I am expressing it as a matter of opinion, not fact. Nixon was vindictive and self-pitying in the extreme, but he was not shallow. I would hate to get another president with Nixon's personality traits, but I believe that Palin would be even worse. At any rate, I think it is extremely unlikely that we will ever find out, and that is a good thing.
For the past few weeks, former Vice-President Dick Cheney has been saying, in effect, that the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” used by the U.S. against suspected bad guys was justified because:
It seems to me that the first and second points are false, and the third one, whether true or false, is not a valid justification for torturing suspects in captivity.
Under the Bush administration, the U.S. engaged in practices – not simply by a few low-level rogue operatives, but under guidelines approved by the president – some of which are widely agreed to constitute torture. It can be debated regarding some of the methods used, but there should be no doubt that waterboarding qualified as torture. The U.S. in the past has approved of prosecuting for waterboarding as a war crime. If waterboarding is torture, then it is torture, regardless of which side does it.
The apologists for Mr. Cheney in Congress and the media point to the mildest of the questionable techniques, and then sarcastically ask: “Is that really torture? Should we have risked another ‘9/11’ attack because we were afraid to hurt the terrorists’ feelings?” Fortunately, I have never been in the position of knowing what I would do if I was subjected to torture, but it is not hard to guess. I would say anything to make it stop. If I though it would make a difference, I would confess to the assassinations of both John and Robert Kennedy, and for a little icing on the cake, Abraham Lincoln.
What surprises me about the Democrats’ reaction to Mr. Cheney is that they have implicitly accepted Cheney’s terms of the discussion. According to Cheney and his friends, torture was effective in getting valuable information about the terrorists’ plans. The other side says that torture is not effective, or that even if it occasionally produces genuinely valuable information, the same information could probably have been obtained by other means. This basis for argument gives Cheney an advantage he should not have. Did the “enhanced interrogation techniques” actually help the U.S. to prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil? It is probably impossible to prove either way, but the assertion is at least plausible. The problem with presenting the issue this way is that there is an implied assumption that there is no incremental cost to using torture as a means of getting information. Cheney, and everybody else who advocates for torture, should be vigorously challenged on that point. In fact, there is a huge cost to the U.S. when its leaders try to give legal sanction to torturing people. To use economic terminology, in any major decision, the expected benefits should be weighed against the expected costs. Is it worthwhile to waterboard (or otherwise torture) so-called high-level detainees who might be able to provide information that could help prevent future acts of terrorism? If the cost is perceived to be zero, as Mr. Cheney implies, the resulting benefit – even if zero or negligible – should still at least equal the cost.
What is the “cost” of an American president deciding that torture is an acceptable method of interrogating prisoners? Although it would be difficult to quantify, I would say that the cost is huge. The U.S. is still the largest economic and military power in the world, but our relative power is declining, and we need allies. Our ability to influence world events in our favor is largely a function of our ability to persuade other countries to act in a manner consistent with our interests. To a large degree, our power to persuade depends on our continuing to be seen as a force for good, and respectful of international law. If we decide that international law is something to be followed only when it is convenient, and that torture is acceptable as long as we claim to be doing it for lofty purposes, our reputation and moral standing take a big hit. The resulting costs are immense. Simply asserting that “America does not torture” only makes us look like hypocrites if the claim is demonstrated to be false. Pictures and believable journalistic accounts of prisoners under American control being mistreated are effectively a recruiting poster for the terrorists. They also increase the likelihood that Americans will be mistreated when the bad guys have the opportunity. The way I see it, Mr. Cheney greatly understates the cost to the U.S. of using torture as an interrogation tool, and he also greatly overstates the incremental value that results. People are widely debating only the second half of that statement (does it produce valuable information?), but most discussions I have seen on television ignore the first half (what is the cost?).
If we are able to agree that the Bush administration did authorize torture (while claiming the contrary), and that some captives were in fact tortured, who – if anybody – should be prosecuted, either for committing acts of torture, or causing others to do so? There are some well-reasoned arguments in favor of such prosecutions, but based on presently known information, I do not favor prosecuting anybody. Basically, I am weighing political reality more heavily than moral or legal purity. If there is strong evidence of criminal wrongdoing far beyond what is now known, that would be different.
There is widespread agreement with President Obama that the CIA operatives who acted within the guidelines they were given should not be prosecuted. They were following what they had reason to believe were lawful orders. If those orders were later determined to have been unlawful, it is not fair to charge the interrogators themselves for crimes based on ex post standards. Some people have suggested that the U.S. should prosecute the Bush Justice Department lawyers who crafted the morally challenged standards and gave an apparent legal stamp of approval to torture. Although it might be emotionally satisfying to see some of these people in the slammer, I cannot see a legal justification for prosecuting a lawyer who offers morally repugnant advice to a client, even though the client in this case was the Pesident of the United States. If there is a basis for disbarment of some of these lawyers (and I don’t know if that is the case), that would suit me fine, but I think a criminal prosecution would be wrong.
That leaves the question of whether to prosecute Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and perhaps a couple of other high officials such as Mr. Rumsfeld or Mr. Gonzales. These are the people who gave the orders. Legally and morally, they probably deserve it. Politically, I think it is a bad idea. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, they could argue that preventing further disasters was such a critical priority that everything they did with that objective in mind should be regarded as both legal and proper. If they believed that aggressive interrogation of suspected terrorists, and the equally illegal warrantless domestic spying, were useful in protecting the American people from another attack, they would have been derelict in their duty if they had refrained from such actions. We can argue several years later, with the benefit of hindsight (and of course, no additional terrorist attacks in the U.S.), that some of their actions were illegal, but they should be judged on the basis of what the political atmosphere was like at that time. Personally, I do not buy that argument, but my guess is that most Americans would accept it. The prosecutions would be widely seen as politically motivated, and based on changed standards. I do not want George W. Bush or (even worse) Dick Cheney to get the chance to become martyrs. They do not deserve the moral high ground, and criminal prosecutions against them would hand them that opportunity. Remember that back in the 1980’s, even a contemptible lawbreaker like Oliver North was able to transform himself into a folk hero when it was commonly perceived that he was treated unfairly. It would be much better to let Bush and Cheney live out their remaining years in personal comfort and prosperity… and the disgrace that they richly deserve. The best way to make sure that torture is never again part of U.S. official policy is not to jail the former leaders, but to make sure they are thoroughly discredited. A criminal trial would be counter-productive.
If there is going to be a fact-finding commission to examine some of the possibly illegal actions of the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” it should be set up by the president (not by Congress), and the appointees should be a highly respected group of Democrats and Republicans – people whose integrity is beyond doubt. If the commission is widely perceived to be loaded one way or the other, it would be worse than useless. On the other hand, if the commission is generally perceived as fair to all sides, it could provide a valuable public service.
Arizona State University has drawn wide attention to itself by inviting President Barack Obama to be a commencement speaker, but contrary to the usual practice, and in an implied snub to the president, the school is not offering an honorary degree to Mr. Obama. One TV pundit suggested that Obama cancel his plans to speak at Arizona State. Unless there is some crisis that would demand that Obama cancel that engagement anyway, he should take the high road and keep his commencement date.
Although I am not familiar with the process of colleges and universities offering honorary degrees, I would think it is at least possible that Arizona State might reconsider its position. Even if that is not the case, however, Obama has every reason to conduct himself with class, and not concern himself with such a petty issue. As we all know, Obama has managed to build a fairly accomplished resume up to this time: graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, editor-in-chief of Harvard Law Review, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago, state and U.S. Senator, author of two well-regarded best selling books, and… I know there is something else… now I remember – President of the United States. In addition to all of his public accomplishments, by all indications he is an excellent husband and father. Does Obama really need an honorary degree from Arizona State University to validate his success?
Some people have observed that Arizona State has previously bestowed honorary degrees on people seemingly less deserving than President Obama. That is something that the students and faculty of ASU can debate about. I think that ASU’s action is a little strange, but Obama should not react as if this was a matter of great importance.
Senate will delay action on bonuses tax , not to mention Geithner and the President himself are backtracking on the House action.
The arguments about breaking contracts between employers and employees is bogus. If it had meaning, my real estate tax increases could not cut my raise in half. The retroactive tax argument is bogus. A bonus paid in 2009 is current year taxable earning. The argument that it is not constitutional is the biggest crock of them all. Cigarette taxes, liquor taxes, skims from lotteries are all punitive taxes, and legit. And lets just wait until carbon credits roll, which will be the biggest social engineering tax of them all. These are all Wall Street arguments floated to save their bonuses!
Are we finally seeing tranparency? Is it transparent now the Congress and the Administration listen to and work for Wall Street, first and foremost? If they work for all Americans, then they should act on all our behalf. The House did, this time!
Mr. President, your call for fiscal responsibility in spending the Recovery Act tax dollars has the agreement of every American. It won't be an easy job. But, it would seem to me, there is at least one, simple driving function that you can use, namely the performance standards of every Government manager.
Performing the mission under budget is NOT, and never has been a job standard in government. In fact, the whole Executive Branch operates on the premise that turning money back to the Treasury is a sin. "Year End Obligations" is what the annual September ritual is known as. I believe you can issue and Executive Order that makes "fiscal performance against budget" a mandatory performance standard for all Government managers. A standard that clearly states that coming in under budget will be rewarded. In fact, I think, it needs to be the standard with the most weight, to motivate the behavior you are expecting from your workforce.
Congress, historically, also sees the appropriations as "must spend" amounts, where wasting tax dollars to meet obligation goals is inherent. Perhaps you'd need bi-Partisan agreement and support for the Executive Order to change their mindset. But which representative of the tax payers will oppose budgets as maximums, and instead, publicly support fiscal irresponsibility? I think you can drive this through.
Mr. President, you promised us change. Turning the Federal Government into an organization that puts primary value on conserving the tax payer's money would be a huge , and welcome change. One that perhaps all levels of government could adopt.
Start Fiscal Responsibility in Government - all it would take is your Executive Order !
I really would like to see two rules implemented in the Administration's Homeowner Stability Initiative procedures, in addition to payments lowered to 31% of income.
First, no tax deductions for interest on bailed out mortgages. That would make the rest of us cover the sin twice.
Second, if and when a bailed out property gets sold for more than the mortgage principal, the "profit" gets taxed at 100%, until the incentives are paid back. Those incentives, of a thousand dollars here and there, are our tax dollars! They need to be paid back to the Treasury, not end up as "somebody's slick move".
The implementation rules must contain assurances that the $75 billion gets paid back by those who got bailed out, not by our children.
Mr. Geithner has several months for developing the implementation rules. The money comes out of TARP, which means he can do pretty much whatever he wants. Such rules should not be a problem for him, and it would be very reassuring, and FAIR, for those of us with the "responsible gene".
There is no constitutional right to homeownership! If you borrowed above your means, you've got no right to stability of ownership! The fact that the value of a house dropped below your purchase price is not relevant unless you want to sell - and if you can't afford to sell, then stay put - that is stability!
If you want rules for dealing with this mess, and keep 4 million families from being thrown out on the street (who, by the way, are not all hopelessly helpless to start with), here is a suggestion to Mr. Geithner:
Make the banks take their houses back (let them foreclose) and make them rent to the occupants (for minimum of 1 year, or pick your time frame)!
Then the dumb bankers will have their "fair market equity" and the dumb buyers will have a roof over their heads at "fair market rates"
I do not want my children to pay for all these gifts!
The GOP and the Beltway still underestimate President Obama. Some establishment types have great difficulty adapting to the new political order in Washington. These same types misread the writings on the wall during both the primaries and the election where they were out maneuvered by the then candidate Senator Obama, as he not only won the Democratic nomination but also totally defeated Senator John McCain , the GOP nominee.
The last week saw the GOP wade into pious self congratulation for their obstinate opposition to the signed stimulus legislation believing, as did the Beltway, that they had scored a major victory by denying the President his much vaunted bi-partisanship. The fact that the President still got what he sought; a stimulus legislation passed within 30 days of his taking office and that major GOP Governors including that of California seeking governmental assistance stood full-square with the President were totally oblivious to them. To the chagrin of the GOP, Beltway and in particular FOX News, the latest opinion polls seem to suggest that the American people are also full-square behind their President and had not read the script pushed haughtily by the Beltway and cable networks about a GOP victory in the tussle for bi-partisanship. The President’s approval ratings remain stratospheric, the Democratic Congress scores highly; in fact the highest they have scored to date and Representative Pelosi is more popular than the nearest GOP in either Houses of Congress.
Will the GOP grasp the new reality and muster opposition or just whine away in oblivion and irrelevance? That would be a shame because inasmuch as I support the President, I still believe in a strong but pragmatic opposition. That is not just good for American democracy but good for the President and a resurgent Democratic controlled Capitol. It would also signify once and for all that the GOP is now reformed and subscribe to proper and accountable government. That will not only be a testament sought by Americans but the wider World that we would never revert to what we just witnessed these past eight years.
The question though is simply will the GOP survive as a coherent political force in an Obama Presidency?
I had worked for nearly 50 years, starting with pumping gas when I was 14. I paid my way through engineering school. Worked my way up to what you'd call middle management, before I semi-retired this year. My wife and I raised our children, put them through college, and they are productive, good citizens now. While we scrimped early on, going pay check to paycheck, other than a mortgage, we never carried debt. Paying off the mortgage was one of my pre-retirement goals, and we managed to do so. Mind you, we've lived in our house since 1980, the only thing flipping since then were hamburgers on the backyard barbeque. My pension is reasonable, we have no debts, we've done all the right and responsible things, and now I am starting to feel like a sucker! You might ask why?
Because I will be paying off the debts of irresponsible consumers and the salaries of high paid financiers. I will be getting no tax breaks, while Washington is creating them for those who want to borrow, and live beyond their means once again. My biggest uncertainty is not about the Dow Jones, not about housing prices. It is about taxes and inflation.
What is currently going on is eventually going to have to be paid for, either by more taxes or by inflation. Maybe it will be creatively deferred until past my time. But we have also gifted our children with the "responsible gene". If Washington doesn't get me, then it will make suckers of our children. Social conscience is OK by me. Helping those in need is also. But throwing my tax dollars at greedy crooks, greedy idiots (lenders and borrowers) and adding more pork to wasteful programs and pet rocks is not.
President Obama, perhaps this is not the story you wanted to hear, but it is a real, true, and American story. Thank you for your time.
