Posted by canam on 01/11/09
Last updated 01/11/09

I doubled over in laughter when I checked these out.  Brilliant.   You can check out even more funnies on the links below.

Paulson satire page 1:  http://punditkitchen.com/?s=paulson

Paulson satire page 2: http://punditkitchen.com/page/2/?s=paulson

Posted 01/11/09 jeremy esposito Bellflower, CA

Great pics.

Posted by canam on 04/09/10

Big Brother pre-crime quiz used on children
Friday, April 09, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer

http://www.naturalnews.com/028542_pre-crime_Big_Brother.html

(NaturalNews) The British government plans to collect lifelong records on all residents starting at the age of five, in order to screen for those who might be more likely to commit crimes in the future.

In a plan being piloted by Lincolnshire Community Health Services, all parents of children starting school are being sent an 83-question survey that asks detailed questions about their lives and their children's behavior.

"This is incredibly intrusive and asks questions which, quite frankly, Lincolnshire Community Health Services do not need to know and have no right knowing," said Dylan Sharpe of the group Big Brother Watch. "Even worse, the NHS Trust has failed to make it clear that this is a voluntary questionnaire. I would advise any parent receiving this to stick it straight in the bin."

The questionnaire asks everything from how often the child lies, bullies, or steals inside or outside the home to how often she or he eats red meat, takeout food or carbonated beverages. Parents are also asked how well they themselves did in school, whether they have friends, and if they feel like they can speak freely in front of others.

The plan is for the forms to be filled out every year and supplemented by reports from teachers and social workers. When children become old enough, they will also be asked to fill out questionnaires. The information will be kept on file indefinitely, and will be accessible to health workers to decide if parents should be offered "support" to "enhance children's life chances."

The government plans to expand the plan to all of England and Wales some time this year.

"This is badly wrong for a number of reasons," said Jill Kirby of the Center for Policy Studies. "Parents are not told how the information will be used, nor that they can refuse to give it and it will create worry and suspicion among many families. ... It will make families wary and those most in need of help are likely to retreat from it."

Sources for this story include: www.telegraph.co.uk ; www.dailymail.co.uk.

Posted by canam on 01/12/10
Last updated 01/12/10

Obama backs himself into no-new-taxes corner
Will the president break the tax-the-rich piggy bank to pay for health care?

ANALYSIS
By Howard Fineman
msnbc.com
updated 11:34 a.m. PT, Tues., Jan. 12, 2010

WASHINGTON - Glory and honor aside, politics is about one thing: taxes. President Obama's State of the Union predicament is an example.

As he prepares the speech that will summarize his first year in office - coinciding with the unveiling of his budget in early February - Obama has a problem: he has to propose more new taxes than he wants, but hasn't decided which ones to choose.

This is an uncomfortable - not to say politically dangerous - position for any president to be in, especially one already at risk of being labeled by many independents as just another tax-and-spend Democrat.

Obama's situation is made more difficult by the health care crusade that has become such a mixed blessing in his first year.

He vowed that the health care overhaul would not cost the Treasury money - indeed, that it would save money in the long run. But as he looks for ways to satisfy the left wing of his own party by increasing benefits and subsidies for coverage, it looks increasingly like the final bill will do neither, at least in its first decade.

So now the president is in a bind. He needs to find more revenue to pay for the health care overhaul, but he also has to assure the bond markets that we will have the discipline - and the money - to repay what we have borrowed from the world and our descendants. That is the message his new budget is supposed to convey.

To help pay for health care, Obama chose to back the idea of raising $150 billion with an excise tax on the value of so-called "Cadillac" health insurance plans purchased by companies or individuals.

Academic experts say the tax would save money by imposing greater cost consciousness; labor unions are vehemently opposed, and AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka on Monday told the president so.

Obama told Trumka that he would reconsider the idea. But I doubt that he will abandon it. One reason why is that he may well want to use another health care financing idea for general deficit reduction; that idea is a surtax on individual income above $500,000 and family income above $1 million.

The "hit the rich" tax would generate a whopping $450 billion over ten years. It's a fat budgetary piggy bank, but one you can only break once. "You can only tax `rich people' so many times before you run out revenue, " said Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "Once you do the surtax, that's it. You can't use it twice."

Obama is in a tighter bind because of previous pledges and decisions. In 2008 and early in his presidency, he promised not to raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000 and he decided to extend most of George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Violating those pledges would make the Democrats' political situation even more perilous among swing-state and swing-district voters. On its face, the surtax would not violate the pledge.

The president also knows that there are economic reasons for caution on taxes. He and his circle accept some measure of supply-side thinking. The new buzz phrase around the White House is "de-stimulative" - that is, as the country struggles to emerge from recession, you don't want to raise taxes or cut spending in ways that weaken the stimulative powers of government.

So besides the surtax, where is he going to get the revenue to start paying down the massive debt that exploded during the Bush Years?

The White House and its outside advisors are floating several ideas:

• A new tax on bank transactions, which would raise $120 billion over ten years, focused on big banks that received TARP money. The early accounts of this focus on how it would allow the Obama White House to win points for attacking the banks, but the real reason to do it is to help the budget bottom line.
• Leave the capital-gains tax rate at 15 percent, but cap the income-level of those taking it.
• Further increase Medicare payroll taxes (even beyond what is in the health care bill) for high-income individuals and families.
• A "transaction" tax on stock trades.

This last prospect has faded, I am told, but Obama insiders haven't stopped touting it around town. Since it would be applied to brokers - and to hedge fund transactions - it is attractive politically. It would not be a direct tax on individuals or families, but would allow Obama to go after unpopular Wall Street traders. The bank-transaction tax has the same populist appeal.

"Politically, it's a good narrative," said MacGuineas.

It's a narrative you can expect to hear when the president steps to the podium in the House of Representatives for the State of the Union. But the real narrative is this: his struggle to make the numbers add up, not only for this year, but for the generation to come.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822140/ns/politics-howard_fineman

Posted by canam on 03/04/09

I personally do not have an American Express card, but I would be curious if any C4L'ers know about this or know a friend with an AmEx account who does.

Pretty crazy huh?  They want debt off of their books, and they don't care how those debts get paid.   To a certain extent, can't say that I blame them....

From The Clark Howard Show Shownotes for March 4th -- feel free to comment on the Clark Howard show notes page too!

http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2009/03/04/15249/?_form=1#comments

Mar 04, 2009 -- American Express will pay you $300 to fire them!

The financial meltdown of 2008-2009 has surely had some bizarre moments. But there's one thing that has really made Americans sit up and take notice of the collective freakshow.

American Express is now sending out targeted letters to select customers -- they're not divulging how many customers -- offering them money to pay off their balance and turn in their cards. In fact, people can earn $300 for firing AmEx!

What a reversal that is. This is an industry that used to send out some 7 billion solicitations a year like they were candy -- all in an effort to get you hooked on plastic. The low point for Clark was being on a plane when the flight attendants ran a contest to see who had the most credit cards in their name. The winner had 13 cards!

AmEx must be getting very nervous about the possibility of default among people who are only paying minimums or a little more each month. Their offer stipulates that you have to pay off your entire balance in a 60-day period to get the $300. And they don't care how you pay it off; it can even be balance transferred.

The company just wants to reduce its exposure on accounts that computer modeling shows could default. This really speaks to the dire difficulties all the big credit card issuers are facing.

How are you doing with your credit? Are you wheezing? The No. 1 early warning sign of trouble is when you can't pay your balance in full each month when the bill comes.

Remember, plastic is not one of the four food groups. In other words, credit cards are not necessary for you to live. If you have a problem, you may need to remove plastic from your diet entirely.

Posted by canam on 01/28/09

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28897426/?GT1=43001

Debt may do what rain, heat, gloom can't

Postal service considers cutting one day of mail delivery due to deficit

<script type="text/javascript">

WASHINGTON - Massive deficits could force the post office to cut out one day of mail delivery per week, the postmaster general told Congress on Wednesday.

Postmaster General John E. Potter asked lawmakers to lift the requirement that the agency deliver mail six days a week.

Faced with dwindling mail volume and rising costs, the post office was $2.8 billion in the red last year and, "if current trends continue, we could experience a net loss of $6 billion or more this fiscal year," Potter said in testimony for a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee.

Total mail volume was 202 billion items last year, more than 9 billion less than the year before, the largest single volume drop in history.

And, despite annual rate increases, Potter said 2009 could be the first year since 1946 that the actual amount of money collected by the post office declines.

"It is possible that the cost of six-day delivery may simply prove to be unaffordable," Potter said. "I reluctantly request that Congress remove the annual appropriation bill rider, first added in 1983, that requires the Postal Service to deliver mail six days each week."

If the change is made, that doesn't necessarily mean an end to Saturday mail delivery. Previous studies have looked at the possibility of skipping some other day, such as Tuesday.

"The ability to suspend delivery on the lightest delivery days, for example, could save dollars in both our delivery and our processing and distribution networks. I do not make this request lightly, but I am forced to consider every option given the severity of our challenge," Potter said.

That doesn't mean it would happen right away, he noted, adding that the agency is working to cut costs and any final decision on changing delivery would have to be made by the postal governing board.

If it did become necessary to go to five-day delivery, Potter said, "we would do this by suspending delivery on the lightest volume days."

The Postal Service raised the issue of cutting back on days of service last fall in a study it issued. At that time the agency said the six-day rule should be eliminated, giving the post office, "the flexibility to meet future needs for delivery frequency.

A study done by George Mason University last year for the independent Postal Regulatory Commission estimated that going from six-day to five-day delivery would save the post office more than $1.9 billion annually, while a Postal Service study estimated the saving at $3.5 billion.

The next postal rate increase is scheduled for May, with the amount to be announced next month. Under current rules that would be limited to the amount of the increase in last year's consumer price index, 3.8 percent. That would round to a 2-cent increase in the current 42-cent first class rate.

The agency could request a larger increase because of the special circumstances, but Potter believes that would be counterproductive by causing mail volume to fall even more.

Posted 01/28/09 Andrew Sica Woodbury, CT

Neither rain, nor sleet, nor dark blah blah blah.... They should change the motto to: "Just another inefficient government organization"

Posted 01/29/09 Linda APO AP, Japan

PM Koizumi privatized the Japanese postal service a few years back. Customers I've talked with don't notice any difference in service.