The Rooster
"Okeydoke"
Saturday, August 22, 2009
But. Can we afford it? WE. As a nation. Cannot afford not to !!!!
...In a news conference in San Francisco, Bloomberg reports, Pelosi made clear that a health care bill in the chamber must include a government-sponsored health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. "There's no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option," she said. (click title to entry - thank you)
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Health care polling, part III (click here)
I've been gleaning my way through public opinion polling on the health care issue. Here are a few notable results from a SurveyUSA poll of 1,200 adults released on Thursday:
In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance?
58% Extremely important
19% Quite important
7% Not that important
15% Not at all important
(Extremely + Quite = 77%)
Do you have a health plan, that is, are you covered by a private health insurance plan or by a government program such as Medicare, Medicaid, or Tricare?
85% Yes
13% No
Public Policy Polling, August 14-17 (.pdf) 909 adults
Do you think the government should stay out of Medicare?
39% -- Yes (45% of those older than 65; 59% of self identified conservatives and 62% of McCain voters and self-identified Republicans)
46% -- No
15% -- Not Sure
I think I left off with 'the reading of the tenative House Bill' somewhere around page 195 or something like that.
Page 194, line 10 begins to explain the 'extent' IRS information can be allowed TO the "Health Choices Commission" in order to carry out subsidies. In other words if one is receiving a subsidy to help pay for their health insurance the Health Choices Commission has a right to know some information to validate appropriate measures for such subsidies.
I believe what this section of the bill DEFINES from Page 194, line 10 through Page 197, line 6 is the LIMIT of access the Health Choices Commission has to 'invasion of privacy' quite frankly. It sums it up well by quoting Page 196, lines 3 through 15.
‘‘(B) RESTRICTION ON USE OF DISCLOSED INFORMATION.—Return information disclosed under subparagraph (A) may be used by officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, only for the
purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing and verifying the appropriate amount of any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and providing for the repayment of any such credit which was in excess of such appropriate amount.’’.
This provision of the bill sets 'limits' on government access to IRS return forms. I think the way this will work is simple. If a taxpayer is getting a health care subsidy, the list of these folks are sent to the IRS and in return there is information returned to the commission to validate the degree of the subsidy. This provision limits, and EXTREMELY limits the degree the Health Commission can have access to private information. The commission is NOT given blanket authority to rummage through IRS information for anyone for any year. End of that myth.
Page 197, beginning with line 7 discusses the 'excise tax' on high earning individuals. It discusses the 'changes' in the IRS code that would enforce such tax.
Subtitle D—Other Revenue Provisions
PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this title, is amended by adding at the end the following new subpart:
‘Subpart B—Surcharge on High Income Individuals
‘‘Sec. 59C. Surcharge on high income individuals.
‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,
and on Page 198, line 1 through 6:
‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and ‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.
Hm. I would say, it would be in the best interest of the people of the USA to reclaim their economic strength as soon as possible to 'faciliate' the growth of millionaires. Wouldn't you say? Yep. This is the excise tax that will assist in the funding of the new laws governing health insurance. There isn't much sense to 'making law' if there is no enforcement and people are allowed to 'break the laws.' Now is there? So, what will occur with these excise taxes, I am assuming, is some beefing up of the personnel at the IRS to 'begin AGAIN' to chase down those that don't like to pay taxes regardless of their ability. Yep.
The bill goes on to discuss Separate Returns and any confusion of 50%, etc. But this is exceptionally interesting and why everyone in the USA should be interested in being millionaires that assist SAVINGS in health care reform. Page 198, line 21 through Page 199, line 19.
Now when reading these first few lines and one might one of the folks considered to be a high income individual, it really wants to make anyone's hair stand on end. Because, beginning with any year after 2012 the excise tax will go up. EXCEPT. And pay attention to the EXCEPTION. If there is Health Reform SAVINGS.
‘‘(c) ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), in the case of any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012, subsection (a) shall be applied—
‘‘(A) by substituting ‘2 percent’ for ‘1 percent’, and ‘‘(B) by substituting ‘3 percent’ for ‘1.5 percent’.
‘‘(2) ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON EXCESS FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS.—
‘‘(A) EXCEPTION IF FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS BASEAMOUNT.—If the excess Federal health reform savings is more than $150,000,000,000 but not more than $175,000,000,000, paragraph (1) shall not apply.
‘‘(B) FURTHER ADJUSTMENT FOR ADDITIONAL FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS.—If the excess Federal health reform savings is more than $175,000,000,000, paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) (and paragraph (1) of this subsection) shall not apply to any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012.
Read that mess carefully now. Because what that says is if there is significant savings according to a 'scale' set by the House, there will be NO increases in the Excise Tax. Nice. Why? Because many of the people that are doctors and the like are people that have the opportunity to INCREASE the savings to Health Care Reform AND have the opportunity to fight fraud.
So, what seems like at least the first three years of the new law there will be a consistent excise tax required. However, in the fourth year and beyond if the cost of the new laws don't show HEALTH CARE SAVINGS there will be an increase in those folks that make between $350,000 and $1,000,000. That is interesting to me.
See. If I knew I had the knowledge to effect a SAVINGS in the health care industry, I would be out there pushing my expertise to every MD and health care person, including hospital administrators I could find. It would provide a 'profession' for people with such ability and knowledge, produce new millionaires or better said, "high income individuals." It would provide incredibly 'smart' incentives to those folks for providing such a service AND it would stimulate other folks to FIND health insurance fraud. I would think every administrator that has incomes over $350,000 would institute measures within their health 'industry' organizations to weed out fraud and report it.
You know, these legislators ain't dumb folks. They know exactly what they are doing. I like it.
The bill goes on from here with more definitions regarding what a health care savings is and how it will be measured. They don't really use the word 'measured' so much as 'studied.' The figures will be studied to produce an understanding of actual Health Care Reform savings. I think the word study opens up possibilites to better define 'as time goes on' what is a savings. If there were iron clad rule making, it might leave out yet to be discovered savings. The beauty about American Health Care is that it is 'open ended.' There are always opportunities to 'practice' medicine with better outcomes depending on peer review and peer practice. So, what might occur after three years of the new law are burgeoning strategies to make Americans healthier and 'effect' savings. Those savings might be 'incremental' in the beginning but extend in 'actuality' over decades. So, by 'studying' the savings more weight can be made to new practices that have long term results, follow? Another good idea. It encourages all venues of change for the better, not just 'quickie' results. Excellant.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Health care polling, part III (click here)
I've been gleaning my way through public opinion polling on the health care issue. Here are a few notable results from a SurveyUSA poll of 1,200 adults released on Thursday:
In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance?
58% Extremely important
19% Quite important
7% Not that important
15% Not at all important
(Extremely + Quite = 77%)
Do you have a health plan, that is, are you covered by a private health insurance plan or by a government program such as Medicare, Medicaid, or Tricare?
85% Yes
13% No
Public Policy Polling, August 14-17 (.pdf) 909 adults
Do you think the government should stay out of Medicare?
39% -- Yes (45% of those older than 65; 59% of self identified conservatives and 62% of McCain voters and self-identified Republicans)
46% -- No
15% -- Not Sure
I think I left off with 'the reading of the tenative House Bill' somewhere around page 195 or something like that.
Page 194, line 10 begins to explain the 'extent' IRS information can be allowed TO the "Health Choices Commission" in order to carry out subsidies. In other words if one is receiving a subsidy to help pay for their health insurance the Health Choices Commission has a right to know some information to validate appropriate measures for such subsidies.
I believe what this section of the bill DEFINES from Page 194, line 10 through Page 197, line 6 is the LIMIT of access the Health Choices Commission has to 'invasion of privacy' quite frankly. It sums it up well by quoting Page 196, lines 3 through 15.
‘‘(B) RESTRICTION ON USE OF DISCLOSED INFORMATION.—Return information disclosed under subparagraph (A) may be used by officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, only for the
purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing and verifying the appropriate amount of any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and providing for the repayment of any such credit which was in excess of such appropriate amount.’’.
This provision of the bill sets 'limits' on government access to IRS return forms. I think the way this will work is simple. If a taxpayer is getting a health care subsidy, the list of these folks are sent to the IRS and in return there is information returned to the commission to validate the degree of the subsidy. This provision limits, and EXTREMELY limits the degree the Health Commission can have access to private information. The commission is NOT given blanket authority to rummage through IRS information for anyone for any year. End of that myth.
Page 197, beginning with line 7 discusses the 'excise tax' on high earning individuals. It discusses the 'changes' in the IRS code that would enforce such tax.
Subtitle D—Other Revenue Provisions
PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this title, is amended by adding at the end the following new subpart:
‘Subpart B—Surcharge on High Income Individuals
‘‘Sec. 59C. Surcharge on high income individuals.
‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,
and on Page 198, line 1 through 6:
‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and ‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.
Hm. I would say, it would be in the best interest of the people of the USA to reclaim their economic strength as soon as possible to 'faciliate' the growth of millionaires. Wouldn't you say? Yep. This is the excise tax that will assist in the funding of the new laws governing health insurance. There isn't much sense to 'making law' if there is no enforcement and people are allowed to 'break the laws.' Now is there? So, what will occur with these excise taxes, I am assuming, is some beefing up of the personnel at the IRS to 'begin AGAIN' to chase down those that don't like to pay taxes regardless of their ability. Yep.
The bill goes on to discuss Separate Returns and any confusion of 50%, etc. But this is exceptionally interesting and why everyone in the USA should be interested in being millionaires that assist SAVINGS in health care reform. Page 198, line 21 through Page 199, line 19.
Now when reading these first few lines and one might one of the folks considered to be a high income individual, it really wants to make anyone's hair stand on end. Because, beginning with any year after 2012 the excise tax will go up. EXCEPT. And pay attention to the EXCEPTION. If there is Health Reform SAVINGS.
‘‘(c) ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), in the case of any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012, subsection (a) shall be applied—
‘‘(A) by substituting ‘2 percent’ for ‘1 percent’, and ‘‘(B) by substituting ‘3 percent’ for ‘1.5 percent’.
‘‘(2) ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON EXCESS FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS.—
‘‘(A) EXCEPTION IF FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS BASEAMOUNT.—If the excess Federal health reform savings is more than $150,000,000,000 but not more than $175,000,000,000, paragraph (1) shall not apply.
‘‘(B) FURTHER ADJUSTMENT FOR ADDITIONAL FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS.—If the excess Federal health reform savings is more than $175,000,000,000, paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) (and paragraph (1) of this subsection) shall not apply to any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012.
Read that mess carefully now. Because what that says is if there is significant savings according to a 'scale' set by the House, there will be NO increases in the Excise Tax. Nice. Why? Because many of the people that are doctors and the like are people that have the opportunity to INCREASE the savings to Health Care Reform AND have the opportunity to fight fraud.
So, what seems like at least the first three years of the new law there will be a consistent excise tax required. However, in the fourth year and beyond if the cost of the new laws don't show HEALTH CARE SAVINGS there will be an increase in those folks that make between $350,000 and $1,000,000. That is interesting to me.
See. If I knew I had the knowledge to effect a SAVINGS in the health care industry, I would be out there pushing my expertise to every MD and health care person, including hospital administrators I could find. It would provide a 'profession' for people with such ability and knowledge, produce new millionaires or better said, "high income individuals." It would provide incredibly 'smart' incentives to those folks for providing such a service AND it would stimulate other folks to FIND health insurance fraud. I would think every administrator that has incomes over $350,000 would institute measures within their health 'industry' organizations to weed out fraud and report it.
You know, these legislators ain't dumb folks. They know exactly what they are doing. I like it.
The bill goes on from here with more definitions regarding what a health care savings is and how it will be measured. They don't really use the word 'measured' so much as 'studied.' The figures will be studied to produce an understanding of actual Health Care Reform savings. I think the word study opens up possibilites to better define 'as time goes on' what is a savings. If there were iron clad rule making, it might leave out yet to be discovered savings. The beauty about American Health Care is that it is 'open ended.' There are always opportunities to 'practice' medicine with better outcomes depending on peer review and peer practice. So, what might occur after three years of the new law are burgeoning strategies to make Americans healthier and 'effect' savings. Those savings might be 'incremental' in the beginning but extend in 'actuality' over decades. So, by 'studying' the savings more weight can be made to new practices that have long term results, follow? Another good idea. It encourages all venues of change for the better, not just 'quickie' results. Excellant.
continued in entry below...
continued from above. I hope everyone 'studying' the potential for savings realizes these are 'solid' democratic values for economic opportunity.
The bill continues with allowances for inflation, cost of living adjustments and rounding off.
The next section beginning with Page 202, line 18 discusses 'Special Rules' for paying the excise tax, because some people and entities will be treated differently including Non-Resident Aliens that will have to pay the tax, Citizens and Residents living abroad, Charitable Trusts and the FACT that the excise tax will not begin under this law until after the year ending 2010.
From here the bill goes on and one about codes for IRS interpretation and guidelines for language used to identify taxed entities and their degree of taxation and penalities for under payment.
On Page 215, line 21 begins a section entitled "Division B - Medicare and Medicaid Improvements." The table of contents of this section goes through to the end of Page 222. But, much of the 'context' of the bill dealing with areas of that might effect 'payments' to facilities won't cause any changes until January 1, 2010. There are exceptions to payment rule changes to psychiatric hospitals that begin in 2011. This section relies heavily on the Social Security Act regarding Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP. To properly analyze the entire section it would be necessary to also look up those particular laws. I can understand why these provisions might appear in this bill, because, it will impact certain aspects of existing laws whereby insured individuals might find subscribing under this new law more advantageous. Therefore, all this 'payment' information is about a 'timeline' whereby payments would be honored up to a certain date. It makes sense from the standpoint of psychiatric facilities especially because their clients will have to be provided for by 'guardians' which might have a different time scale for change than others such as SCHIP.
This part of the bill is almost written as 'incidentally' to cover any occurrences that might impact existing laws. It is included to clear up where monies will come from to pay these institutions should clients find better opportunity in health care coverage within the new law. These provisions aren't 'changes' to services of people currently covered by Medicare, Medicaid or SCHIP, it is about payments made to them SHOULD there be a change in the choices of their patients/clients/citizens. It is an 'incidental' set of provisions. It will prevent confusion and prevent litigation as well in regard to payments to institutions.
What comes to mind in regard to Medicare in particular are the 'opportunities' the handicapped or disabled might find in having a health insurance that better serves their need, IF, they are competent enough to actually earn more money at jobs than is allowed under Medicare. I think there might be some movement by those currently on Medicare into a different opportunity for coverage that will actually allow them to earn more than they do now under the provisions of Medicare.
I really believe the provisions that discuss Medicare are in the areas of disability or handicapped. Page 236, lines 22 through 25 and Page 237, lines 1 through 3 SPECIFICALLY indicate the delineation of 'under age 65.'
(B) NATIONAL RATE OF UNINSURANCE DEFINED.—The term ‘‘national rate of uninsurance’’ means, for a year, such rate for the under-65 population for the year as determined and published by the Bureau of the Census in its Current Population Survey in or about September of the succeeding year.
The more I look at these provisions the more it seems obvious to me these new laws will open up opportunity to people that otherwise are dependant on incomes that do not exceed limits set by Medicare. In other words, some handicapped or disabled, including the military, that receive disabilty and Medicare or some form of government health insurance will have the 'income limitations' removed as they will have access to a Public Option that does not discriminate to Pre-existing condition. You want to know something? This is going to expand the tax base of the nation and improve the quality of life to people if they are able to work full time and provide health insurance that will not limit their opportunity to income. Wow. I like this new bill. I really do. It doesn't demand people have to change their lives or lifestyles, but, it certainly opens up that opportunity if they desire it. Wow.
Beginning with Page 238, line 4 there in begins the same discussion of provisions for the payment of Physicians (Medicare Part B) as existed for (Part A) institutions. In other words, when physicians will begin to receive payments from health insurance companies or the Public Option and when the transition will occur to the payments from Medicare. Same type of stuff for Physicians.
The interesting aspect of this is that physicians will actually receive 'the same' payment of services for the folks that fall under Part B or they will receive more under the Public Option depending on the 'Provider Base' and the Commissions determination of payments amounts. This is interesting. If a citizen decides to leave Medicare and move to the Public Option in order to earn more money, their physicians will probably not change, but, they will receive higher payments for their services. That is really interesting. Physicians that normally would only receive payments on Medicare scale rates, will now receive more for treating the same patient IF that patient has moved off Medicare to a Public Option or Private Insurance. Wow.
The provisions regarding Medicare and payments, etc. goes on for some number of pages, but, it would seem as though the Secretary of Health and Human Services coordinates all these provisions. So, the responsibility for a smooth transition will occur under the authority of one branch of the cabinet. It won't be necessary for any other offices of the federal government to be involved, but, only that of Health and Human Services. That is a good thing. It will reduce cost of the transition and will make it more efficient.
I will end it there for today. Page 256, beginning with line 1 starts to discuss changes and 'incentive payments' for 'efficient areas.' What are 'efficient areas?' Those areas where electronic records are utilized for administering health care.
I might take Sunday off, so I'll pick up again Monday.
'til then...
... nearly nine of every 10 new mortgages in America now carry a federal taxpayer guarantee.
Clicking on the title to this entry will bring the reader to the 'words' of Henry Paulson, then Treasurer of the USA, when he stated he needed a lot of money from the USA Treasury, perferably in large bills.
"...I appreciate that this is a difficult period for the American people. I also appreciate that Congressional leaders and the Administration are working closely together so that we can help the American people by quickly enacting a program to stabilize our financial system.... "
By Bess Levin
05.30.07 at 10:42 AM
No Room At Goldman's Inn?
Breaking Views reports that, despite robust markets, boom in mergers/buyouts and astronomical investment-banking earnings in the first quarter, Goldman Sachs has begun a hiring “pause.” What does this mean for everyone else? Well, given Goldman’s position in the pecking order of things, and the tendency of humans to be sheep, that others will likely follow. BV believes this may even “herald the first industry-wide freeze since the tech meltdown.”
Breaking Views thinks the “pause” stems from Goldman’s realization that by 2008, the firm will drop to $21.10 a share and down to $19.30 the following year. And asking employees to take a cut in bonuses would be out of the question ($100 million to $80 million, are you out of your minds? Why don’t we just ask our top brokers to subsist on food stamps). Some think this is a prudent and necessary step. We think it’s BS, given that we were considering putting in an application down at 85 after the long weekend. Anyone heard anything? You know where to find us. (Crying into a gossamer pillow over no longer having a ticket out of this dump, that's where).
Bank failures and rescues > Timelines (click here) Also known as "When do we stop this roller coaster?"
Does anyone besides me find it more than odd that the FACT is 9 out of every 10 new mortgages in the USA carry a taxpaper (that was taxpayer) guarantee?
"...I appreciate that this is a difficult period for the American people. I also appreciate that Congressional leaders and the Administration are working closely together so that we can help the American people by quickly enacting a program to stabilize our financial system.... "
By Bess Levin
05.30.07 at 10:42 AM
No Room At Goldman's Inn?
Breaking Views reports that, despite robust markets, boom in mergers/buyouts and astronomical investment-banking earnings in the first quarter, Goldman Sachs has begun a hiring “pause.” What does this mean for everyone else? Well, given Goldman’s position in the pecking order of things, and the tendency of humans to be sheep, that others will likely follow. BV believes this may even “herald the first industry-wide freeze since the tech meltdown.”
Breaking Views thinks the “pause” stems from Goldman’s realization that by 2008, the firm will drop to $21.10 a share and down to $19.30 the following year. And asking employees to take a cut in bonuses would be out of the question ($100 million to $80 million, are you out of your minds? Why don’t we just ask our top brokers to subsist on food stamps). Some think this is a prudent and necessary step. We think it’s BS, given that we were considering putting in an application down at 85 after the long weekend. Anyone heard anything? You know where to find us. (Crying into a gossamer pillow over no longer having a ticket out of this dump, that's where).
Bank failures and rescues > Timelines (click here) Also known as "When do we stop this roller coaster?"
Does anyone besides me find it more than odd that the FACT is 9 out of every 10 new mortgages in the USA carry a taxpaper (that was taxpayer) guarantee?
I believe what has happened is that Wall Street is still 'playing' while the business of mortgages for home buyers is left to the people of the USA. I believe we are funding our own recovery and the numbers on Wall Street have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Basically, the banks continue to fail because they can't maintain their own debt load with so many foreclosed properties. The banks that continue to fail never received any bailout funding. They were left to 'struggle' to achieve a goal that wasn't plausible. The 'bail-out' funds went to the larger 'infestment banks' such as Goldman Sachs because 'we were lead to believe' by saving them from COMPLETE failure meant it would stop the eroding of the USA financial infrastrucure.
In fact, 'bailing out' these large banks did NOTHING for the financial infrastructure of the USA. The monies these large banks received went to pay off foreign investments and debts. These banks 'stabilized' foreign markets and foreign infrastructure.
When the people of the USA were screaming they couldn't get mortgages even after the spending of $700 billion, it was because there was 'no interest' by these banks to finance housing in the USA.
Now, think about this.
If you had a bank roll of money and the housing market was flooded with homes that were chronically losing value, would you lend into that market in hopes of achieving a 'positive' bottom line?
I wouldn't. Not if I were the CEO of Goldman Sachs. I'd be looking for 'stabilized' markets for reinvestment after I paid off my debts to them. Yes?
So.
The Grand Illusion, this time, is that while Wall Street watches their indexes increase they are laughing at the struggling USA and the 'befuddled' public that actually provided their monies for a return on their investments.
Pretty lousy stuff, if you ask me. But, who ever asks me.
The banks that were loaned all those billions from the USA Treasury need to return it and return it as soon as possible. See, if the American people are funding their own recovery through instruments with government guarantees then we need all those funds back in order to go forward with 'reinvestment' into the USA.
The people of the USA are 'left' to recover their country completely on their own. We need to get our minds around that fact and begin to address our best outcome through instruments within our own possibilities. We don't need foreign investment, we need domestic investment. We don't need huge investment banks or otherwise, we need banks that are well run and well invested into local economies.
There needs to be regulation as proposed by the current US Treasury Secretary, but, more than that there needs to be rules governing the banks that invest domestically. I don't see the USA ever taking this step ever again. I do see the USA seeking to fund banks that will do business exclusively within the borders of the USA.
To recover the USA domestically, invest locally. Fund the recovery of local economies and seek rates of return that are reasonable to the best outcomes of those economies. The 'growth' the people of the USA is seeking won't be found by 'bailing out' international entities. That needs to be left up to Dubai.
Local economies funded by local financial instruments that have an active interest in the best outcomes of those economies, backed by the FDIC.
DO NOT ALLOW 'International Investment Firms or Banks' access to funding of local economies. They'll suck you dry. The US Treasury Secretary needs to stop funding 'international banking infrastructure' and fund domestic banks with potential of rebuilding local economies. I am sure that is far less 'glamorous' than any other option, but, it is a matter of sovereignty.
The words of treason:
Bernanke: World Beginning To Emerge From Financial Crisis (click here)
August 21, 2009 3:52 p.m. EST
"The world has been through the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression," Bernanke told the summit. "The crisis in turn sparked a deep global recession, from which we are only now beginning to emerge."
The world is doing better than the USA according to THE FEDERAL RESERVE Chairman. Since when is THE WORLD included in the sovereign interests of the USA? And this, while our own banks and economy continue to suffer?
I don't think so.
"Bill" has been quite a mover. I hate to say I told you so, but,...what the heck...I told you so.
August 22, 2009
1800 gmt
Atlantic Ocean Satellite Image (click here for 18 hour loop)
August 22, 2009
1730z
UNISYS Water Vapor GOES East Satellite (click here for 12 hour loop)
I hope all those that 'cared' to notice did so with an open mind. I am 'dead serious' about the issue of 'surface water vapor.' Hurricane Bill is a 'case in point' to realize where storms are not finding 'water vapor' at Earth's surface to power their velocities.
The 2009 hurricane season is worse than 2007. The 'hurricane season' now extends into December and January, but, the most severe storms don't occur after the first week to ten days of September. There is a small window of time for 2009 to still propagate a strong storm, but, the Atlantic Ocean Satellite at the top of the entry doesn't show much promise of that.
Earth has become so limited in its moisture availability, the Intertropical Convergence Zone is the one place where there is still enough water vapor to 'power up' these vital storms. Realizing that also brings to the forefront the reality the tropics are drying up. To say we need a Climate Policy is understating the emergency this planet is facing. We not only need a Climate policy, we need it now !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)