SodaHead - racemonkey (oag)'s Questions

Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts. There Goes Your 401K

2008-11-08T23:49:41Z

Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts. There Goes Your 401K

5 answers, 0 raves

This is long but worth reading. Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs By Karen McMahan November 04, 2008 RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration. Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly. The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers’ Retirement Security,” blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will “strengthen and protect Americans’ 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans” and the “Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.” Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers’ retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn’t offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA. Mandating Equality Ghilarducci’s plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf). The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.” Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals “provide a much larger ‘carrot’ to wealthy families than to middle-class families — and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes.” GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not “earn a 3% real return in perpetuity.” In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants. In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn’t eliminate the tax breaks, rather, “I’m just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading — spreading the wealth.” All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year. Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions. Another justification for Ghilarducci’s plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, “humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain a savings plan.” She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that “a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement.” What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to “enforce additional private savings,” a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said “self” was the most important contributor, followed by “government.” When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the “government” was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked “government” last and “self” first (www.hsbc.com/retirement). On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina’s economy into a long-term downward spiral. Income and Wealth Redistribution The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution. On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that “from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw” in tax code incentives because they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits.” Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. “There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all),” Greenstein said. “Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time,” Greenstein said, and “reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality.” When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci’s proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members were listening to all ideas. Miller’s biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision. After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of “killing the 401(k)” or of “killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s.” Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the “roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in public policy mistakes” by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital markets. “Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression,” Beach said. Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs. Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their “spreading the wealth” agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001. In the interview, Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” The Constitution says only what “the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,” and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn’t that radical. Although in 2001 Obama said he was not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts,” as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices. “The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change,” Obama said.

None of the above	60% (3 answers)
It will never happen	20% (1 answers)
Way to long to bother reading	20% (1 answers)
This is just what we need to do to help out everyone	0% (0 answers)
Undecided	0% (0 answers)

Obama’s Anti-Gun Agenda Spurs Record Firearms Sales

2008-11-08T23:26:45Z

Obama’s Anti-Gun Agenda Spurs Record Firearms Sales

7 answers, +3 raves

So what do you think? http://www.prisonplanet.com/o... Obama’s Anti-Gun Agenda Spurs Record Firearms Sales Media skews record gun purchases as nutjob paranoia, yet Obama’s virulent hostility towards the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is on the record Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Friday, November 7, 2008 Record gun sales across the United States are not a result of misplaced paranoia, as the media would have it, but as a sensible response to Barack Obama’s virulent hostility to the second amendment, which is on the record and documented. Many fear that Obama could move to disarm American gun owners, potentially utilizing the “civilian national security force” that is “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military he promised to create during the campaign. Obama’s intention to re-instate the expired Assault Weapons Ban is partly behind the nationwide rush to purchase firearms. “Sales of handguns, rifles and ammunition have surged in the last week, according to gun store owners around the nation who describe a wave of buyers concerned that an Obama administration will curtail their right to bear arms,” reports the New York Times today. Obama’s disdain for the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is clear - though he later denied it, in 1996 during his run for the Illinois State Senate, Obama told non-profit organization Independent Voters of Illinois that he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns, a de facto national annulment of the second amendment. Obama’s rhetoric that Americans have a right to bear arms is completely worthless, because he has consistently claimed that governments have the power to take that right away. For example, in April 2008 Obama stated, “As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.” During the 2004 debate over the assault weapons ban, Alan Keyes chided Obama, stating, “I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crooks have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.” Obama also cosponsored a bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month in 2000, supported the 2008 D.C. gun ban, voted against allowing persons who had obtained domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for their protection, and has consistently supported measures against concealed carry. Obama is also a board member of the Joyce Foundation, which funds gun control groups in the U.S. Obama’s first appointment since winning the election, soon to be chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, also has an established record in pushing for gun control. Emanuel cosponsored H.R. 1312 (Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2005). He also voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers (Oct 2005), voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse (Apr 2003), has supported so-called “smart gun” technology, which restricts usage of firearms and has been given an F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. It seems that Emanuel, whose father used firearms and explosives to full effect when bombing hotels and massacring civilians as a member of the terrorist Irgun group, doesn’t want to extend that right to law-abiding American citizens for means of self-defense. Despite the corporate media’s efforts to skew record gun sales as the consequence of misguided paranoia of right-wing gun nuts, Obama’s public record lays bare his hostility towards the second amendment and strongly indicates that an Obama administration, backed by monopolized Democratic control of the legislature, will waste little time in undermining the second amendment and attempt to prevent Americans from exercising the right to defend themselves against criminals and a tyrannical government - whoever may be in power.

I knew it all along	71% (5 answers)
Republican lies	14% (1 answers)
Undecided	14% (1 answers)
He's helping the economy	0% (0 answers)
None of the above	0% (0 answers)

What do you think of President-Elect Obama's choice for Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel?

2008-11-06T11:59:34Z

What do you think of President-Elect Obama's choice for Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel?

2 answers, 0 raves

Rahm Emanuel (Hebrew: ִּרם עמנואל ‎) (1 (born November 29, 1959) has been a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 2003, representing Illinois's 5th congressional district which covers much of the north side of Chicago and parts of suburban Cook County. Emanuel was chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the 2006 elections. After the Democratic Party regained control of the House, he was elected as the next chairman of the Democratic Caucus. He is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Leader Steny Hoyer and Whip Jim Clyburn. Emanuel is noted for his strong style and his fundraising prowess.[1] He is co-author with current Democratic Leadership Council President Bruce Reed of the 2006 book The Plan: Big Ideas for America. He is a member of the New Democrat Coalition. President-Elect Barack Obama has asked him to become Chief of Staff in his new administration.[2][3][4] Early history Emanuel was born in Chicago, Illinois. His father, the Jerusalem-born Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a pediatrician and was a member of the Irgun, a militant Zionist group active during the British Mandate of Palestine. His mother, Martha Smulevitz, worked as an X-ray technician and was the daughter of a local union organizer.[1] She became a civil rights activist; she was also once the owner of a Chicago-area rock and roll club.[5] The two met in Chicago in the 1950s.[6] Emanuel's older brother, Ezekiel, is a noted oncologist and bioethicist, and his brother, Ari, is a talent agent in Los Angeles and inspired Jeremy Piven's character Ari Gold on the HBO series Entourage.[1] Emanuel himself is also the inspiration for the character Josh Lyman on The West Wing.[1] He also has a younger sister named Shoshanna, 14 years his junior.[1] His first name, Rahm, means "high" or "lofty" in Hebrew[7], while his last name, Emanuel, means "God is with us." When his family lived in Chicago, he attended Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School, a Jewish day school. After his family moved to Wilmette, he attended public school: Romona School, Wilmette Junior High School, and New Trier High School.[6] Emanuel was encouraged by his mother to take ballet lessons as a boy and is a graduate of the Evanston School of Ballet. He won a scholarship to the Joffrey Ballet but turned it down to attend Sarah Lawrence College, a liberal arts school with a strong dance program.[8][1] He graduated from college in 1981, and went on to receive a master's degree in Speech and Communication from Northwestern University in 1985. While still a student at Sarah Lawrence, he joined the congressional campaign of David Robinson of Chicago. Career as political staffer He began his political career with the consumer rights organization Illinois Public Action. He went on to serve in a number of capacities in local and national politics, initially specializing in fundraising for Illinois campaigns and then nationally. Emanuel worked for Democrat Paul Simon's 1984 election to the U.S. Senate, was the national campaign director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 1988, and then was senior advisor and chief fundraiser for Richard M. Daley's victorious campaign for Mayor of Chicago in 1989. During the 1991 Gulf War, Emanuel was a civilian volunteer in Israel, rust-proofing brakes on an army base in northern Israel.[9] He joined then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton's presidential primary campaign in 1991, serving as the campaign's Director of Finance. Emanuel insisted that Clinton schedule a lot of time for fundraising and greatly delay campaigning in New Hampshire. After much dispute within the campaign about the issue, Clinton eventually agreed, embarking on an aggressive fundraising campaign across the nation. The fundraising paid off later, providing the campaign a vital buffer to keep buying television time as attacks on Clinton's character threatened to swamp the campaign during the New Hampshire primary. Clinton's most serious primary rival, Paul Tsongas (the New Hampshire Democratic primary winner in 1992), later withdrew, citing a lack of campaign funds. Richard Mintz, a Washington public relations consultant who worked with Emanuel on the campaign, spoke about the soundness of the idea: "It was that million dollars that really allowed the campaign to withstand the storm we had to ride out in New Hampshire [over Clinton's relationship with Gennifer Flowers and the controversy over his draft status during the Vietnam War]."[10] Emanuel's knowledge of the top donors in the country, and his rapport with potential donors within the Jewish community helped Clinton amass a then-unheard-of $72 million.[10] Following the campaign, Emanuel became a senior advisor to Clinton at the White House from 1993 to 1998. In the White House, Emanuel was initially Assistant to the President for Political Affairs and then Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy. He was a leading strategist in the unsuccessful White House efforts to institute universal healthcare and many other Clinton initiatives.[11] One of his proudest moments during the Clinton administration "was an event that touched his political sensibilities and his personal ties to Israel: the 1993 Rose Garden signing ceremony after the Oslo Accords between Israel and Palestine. Emanuel directed the details of the ceremony, down to the choreography of the famous handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat."[10] At this point of his political career he was known for his intensity. Notably, he reportedly told British Prime Minister Tony Blair, prior to Blair appearing in public with Clinton for the first time after the Lewinsky scandal, "This is important. Don't fuck it up."[11] Emanuel is said to have "mailed a rotting fish to a former coworker after the two parted ways."[10] On the night after the 1996 election, "Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! ... Dead! ... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name."[1] His "take-no-prisoners attitude" earned him the nickname "Rahm-bo".[10] People who worked with Emanuel at that time "insist the once hard-charging staffer has mellowed out." He left the White House to accept a well-paid position in investment banking at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein in Chicago, where he worked from 1999 to 2002 and reportedly earned US$18 million.[12] Congressional career Emanuel represents Chicago's North Side, and serves on the House Ways and Means Committee. He received 78 percent of the vote in this Democratic stronghold in the 2006 election. Election in 2002 Rep. John Dingell and Rep. Emanuel sharing paczki The US House seat in the 5th District of Illinois was previously held by Rod Blagojevich, who chose not to run for re-election, but instead successfully ran for Governor of Illinois. Emanuel chose to run for this seat. His strongest opponent of the seven other candidates in the 2002 Democratic primary — the real contest in this heavily Democratic district — was former Illinois State Representative Nancy Kaszak, who had unsuccessfully opposed Blagojevich in the 1996 primary. The most controversial moment of the primary election came when Edward Moskal, president of the Polish American Congress, a political action committee endorsing Kaszak, called Emanuel a "millionaire carpetbagger who knows nothing" about "our heritage." Moskal also falsely charged that Emanuel had dual citizenship with Israel and had served in the Israeli Army.[13] Emanuel brought together a coalition of Chicago clergy to denounce the incident. He recalled, "One of the proudest moments of my life was seeing people of my district from all backgrounds demonstrate our common values by coming together in response to this obvious attempt to divide them."[10] Moskal's comments were denounced as anti-Semitic by many, including Kaszak.[13] Emanuel won the primary and easily defeated Republican candidate Mark Augusti in the general election. Emanuel supported the October 2002 joint Congressional resolution authorizing the Iraq War, differentiating himself from all nine other Democratic members of the Illinois Congressional delegation (Sen. Richard Durbin, Reps. Bobby Rush, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Bill Lipinski, Luis Gutiérrez, Danny K. Davis, Jan Schakowsky, Jerry Costello and Evans) elected in 2002.[14] DCCC chairman Emanuel was named the Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2005. Prior to his work for Clinton, Emanuel had been an employee of the Committee, which principally serves to recruit candidates for the House and to raise funds to assist both new candidates and incumbents from the Democratic party in an effort to gain Democratic representation in the House. He declared that in his new role "winning is everything", and he urged Democratic candidates to adopt more centrist positions. Emanuel was known to have had disagreements over Democratic election strategy with Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. Dean favored a "50 state strategy", building support for the Democratic Party over the long term, while Emanuel believed a more tactical approach, focusing attention on key districts, was necessary to ensure victory.[15] Ultimately the Democratic Party enjoyed considerable success in the 2006 elections, gaining 30 seats in the House. Emanuel has received considerable praise for his stewardship of the DCCC during this election cycle, even from Illinois Republican Rep. Ray LaHood who said "He legitimately can be called the golden boy of the Democratic Party today. He recruited the right candidates, found the money and funded them, and provided issues for them. Rahm did what no one else could do in seven cycles."[16] Nevertheless, some of the 2006 victories came in areas that had trended strongly Republican in recent years, such as Nancy Boyda's defeat of Jim Ryun in Kansas. Emanuel still is close to Bill Clinton and as the chairman of the DCCC talked strategy with him at least once a month.[17] He declared in April 2006 that he would support Hillary Rodham Clinton should she pursue the presidency in 2008. However, Emanuel's loyalties came into conflict when his home-state senator Barack Obama expressed interest in the race; asked in January 2007 about his stance on the Democratic presidential nomination, he said: "I'm hiding under the desk. I'm very far under the desk, and I'm bringing my paper and my phone."[18] House leadership After his role in helping the Democrats to win the 2006 elections, Emanuel was believed to be a leading candidate for the position of Majority Whip. Nancy Pelosi, who became the next Speaker of the House, persuaded him not to challenge Jim Clyburn, but instead to succeed Clyburn in the role of Democratic Caucus Chairman. In return, Pelosi agreed to assign the caucus chair more responsibilities, including "aspects of strategy and messaging, incumbent retention, policy development and rapid-response communications".[19] Caucus vice-chair John Larson remained in this role instead of running for the chairman position.[20] After U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that he did not fall within the bounds of orders set for the executive branch, Emanuel called for cutting off the $4.8 million the Executive Branch provides for the Vice President's office. Cheney's office subsequently backed down from the claim.[21] White House After his victory in the 2008 election, President-elect Barack Obama offered Emanuel the position of White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel is reported to have unofficially accepted. [22] Political views During his original 2002 campaign, Emanuel "indicated his support of President Bush's position on Iraq, but said he believed the president needed to better articulate his position to the American people."[10] Inspired by his pediatrician father, one of the major goals he spoke of during the race was "to help make health care affordable and available for all Americans."[10] Emanuel has maintained a 100 percent pro-choice voting record and is generally liberal on social issues. He has aligned himself with the Democratic Leadership Council and the party's centrist wing, but is not among its more conservative members. Rahm Emanuel endorses the United States Public Service Academy Act. Controversies An article from 2006 raised speculation regarding a possible connection between Emanuel's Congressional election success and convicted former Chicago water department boss Don Tomczak.[23] USA Today reported in late January 2007 that Emanuel failed to disclose that he was an officer of a family charity, [24] a violation of law requiring members of Congress to report non-profit leadership roles. He has advised colleagues not to appear on the popular television show The Colbert Report.[25]

I think...	50% (1 answers)
None of the above	50% (1 answers)
He will...	0% (0 answers)
He won't....	0% (0 answers)
Don't know a thing about him.	0% (0 answers)
Undecided	0% (0 answers)

Banks asking for credit card debt forgiveness

2008-10-31T02:59:14Z

Banks asking for credit card debt forgiveness

7 answers, +4 raves

WASHINGTON - With defaults on credit card debt spiraling amid a global financial downturn, banks already reeling from the mortgage crisis are losing billions more from unpaid credit card bills. Big banks have formed an unusual alliance with consumer advocates to urge the government to allow huge portions of credit card debt to be forgiven, a turnabout from recent years when the banking industry lobbied strenuously to make it harder for consumers to erase their credit card debts in bankruptcy. The new pilot program — which the banks hope will become permanent — could involve as many as 50,000 people struggling with credit card debt. On an individual basis, the amount of debt to be forgiven would rise according to the severity of the borrower's financial situation, up to a maximum of 40 percent. "There's obviously a financial benefit to the financial institutions to step up to the plate right now," said Susan Keating, president and chief executive of the National Foundation for Credit Counseling, which has 108 member organizations around the country. "We absolutely support the proposal." In an increasingly tough economic climate, banks and other mortgage lenders already have been agreeing to modify loans of distressed homeowners to help them avoid foreclosure. Now, banks making credit card loans have reached a point where they can lose less by forgiving part of the debt than seeing the consumer walk away entirely. Credit cards — the ubiquitous plastic rectangles that have become an integral part of American life and the economy — now look to be the latest domino to drop in a financial crisis that started with subprime mortgages and continually takes new twists. Amid rising job losses, consumers — even those with strong credit records — have been defaulting at high levels on their credit cards. Banks already battered by the mortgage and credit crises are bleeding tens of billions in red ink from the losses. The largest credit-card banks each set aside between $1 billion and $3.5 billion in the third quarter for losses on card loans as their profits plummeted. The biggest credit card lenders include Discover Financial Services LLC, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Capital One Financial Corp., American Express Co. and HSBC Holdings. Credit card charge-off rates, balances written off as unpaid, rose to 6.8 percent in August, up 48 percent from a year earlier, according to Moody's Investors Service. Americans are lumbering under about $900 billion in credit card debt, according to the latest available Federal Reserve figures. People who are in credit counseling, on average, carry seven cards. Many of the people now having trouble making their credit card payments are in a double or triple whammy: their mortgages or car loans also may be under stress. And for many, the torrent of envelopes bearing credit card offers at low initial rates — much like the old "teaser" rates on subprime mortgages — has recently been replaced by more somber notices of crimped credit lines, hikes in interest rates or even accounts being closed as lenders tighten the reins to reduce their risk. The new proposal pitched to federal regulators by the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents more than 100 big banks and other financial companies, and the Consumer Federation of America, would allow lenders to reduce by as much as 40 percent the amount of credit card debt owed by deeply indebted consumers in a pilot program. It recognizes that "there are some critical problems with credit card debt," said Bert Ely, a banking industry consultant based in Alexandria, Va. "We're going to see more of these efforts to try to minimize the situation." Under the groups' proposal to U.S. Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan, whose Treasury Department agency oversees national banks, a pilot project would allow big credit card companies to sharply reduce the amounts owed by consumers in over their heads who don't qualify for the repayment plans now available. Nearly all the biggest credit card banks have agreed to such a pilot program in which lenders would forgive as much as 40 percent of the amount consumers owe, allowing them to pay back the remainder over time. The test program could reach as many as 50,000 borrowers, said Scott Talbott, senior vice president at the Roundtable. Borrowers would have to be in a counseling program for their credit card debt. The amount of debt to be forgiven would be determined case by case, depending on the borrower's financial condition; those receiving close to the maximum forgiveness level would be nearing a personal bankruptcy filing. And there would be a tax benefit. Borrowers would be able to defer payment of income taxes they owe on the forgiven part of the debt until after the remainder was paid off. The lenders could wait until then to book their loss on the forgiven debt. "Both parties win," Talbott said. Current government rules don't allow lenders to offer repayment plans that reduce the amount of principal owed and borrowers to repay the balance over a period of several years. In cases where the principal can be reduced, under credit card settlements, borrowers normally are required to pay off the remainder over months rather than years. Kevin Mukri, a spokesman for the comptroller's office, had no immediate comment on the new proposal Thursday. Peter Garuccio, a spokesman for the American Bankers Association, also declined to comment. June Selby, who nearly filed for bankruptcy three years ago when she was buried under nearly $32,000 in school loans, saw both sides but said she didn't like the idea of anyone getting a free ride. Selby, 60, worked with credit counselors to pay off nearly half the balance and is on track to be debt free by 2011. "If (the proposal) makes it possible to maintain a sense of integrity and pay back debt without going into bankruptcy, that's one thing," said Selby, a certified nurse in Lawrenceville, Ga. But she said she was against the idea of a free handout for people who've simply been irresponsible. "There just has to be some accountability. Nobody is bailing me out. I had to work very hard to keep from bankruptcy and foreclosure," she said.

Hey can I get someone to pay all my bills too	57% (4 answers)
Will it ever end	43% (3 answers)
These people need help	0% (0 answers)
None of the above	0% (0 answers)

There of tons of good investing books out there. What's your favorite.

2008-10-30T02:25:32Z

There of tons of good investing books out there. What's your favorite.

4 answers, +2 raves

I'm planning on doing a little more investing next year and would like to read up on the process and how to pick stocks and funds. Any advice?

None of the above	50% (2 answers)
Read this.	25% (1 answers)
Put your money in your mattress.	25% (1 answers)
Give your extra cash to Uncle Sammie	0% (0 answers)
Undecided	0% (0 answers)

Are Democrats and Republicans just alike?

2008-10-30T02:00:38Z

Are Democrats and Republicans just alike?

1 answers, +1 raves

Subject: John Stossel's mighty megaphone Today we'll compare the cases of Alan Greenspan, Ron Paul, and John Stossel, beginning with this . . . If you oppose fiat currency and centralized government banking, and would like to abolish the Federal Reserve and legal tender laws in favor of free market banking and free market money . . . And you think the best way to achieve these things is to put the right people -- people who believe as you do -- in positions of power, then . . . It would have been reasonable to assume, prior to seeing him in action, that Alan Greenspan was the "right person" to head the Federal Reserve. You could have justifiably assumed, based on Greenspan's previous writings and statements, that he would use his position to not only control the damage done by the Fed, but also to argue for its abolition. None of these things happened. Instead, the opposite happened. Greenspan betrayed every economic principle he had previously professed. Putting a presumed "right person" in a position of power did not have the right result. To contrast with this example we can compare the case of Ron Paul. Ron Paul has always said the right things, and done the right things too. Two different "right people" have produced two different results. What are we to conclude from this? We conclude that you cannot tell in advance whether or not you're entrusting power to the "right person." The person you trust might turn out to behave like Ron Paul, or like Alan Greenspan. This means there is a huge probability that the time and money you invest in a presumed "right person" will turn out to be wasted. Even if your chances of actually choosing a "right person who will behave in the right way" is as good as 50-50, that still means your time and money will have been invested to zero result. The good work of the 50% of "right people who do right" will be cancelled out by the bad actions of the people who betray your trust. But we think it's even worse than that. We do not think the attempt to choose "right people who will actually do right things" can possibly produce anything close to 50-50 results, even assuming that a majority of other voters choose as you do. The reason for this is simple . . . The incentives of government power are structured to entice the people who have power to do bad things. We could choose many examples to bolster this claim, but there is one huge example that should suffice . . . The Republicans told us for years that they would reduce the size of government, if only the voters would give them full control of both Congress and the White House. Eventually they gained that full control, and look what they delivered -- the hugest spending increases ever. We believe this example is devastating to the "elect the right people" strategy. And lest you think the problem is merely a Republican problem, just get ready for what the Democrats do. Obama has already betrayed his supposed principles in the case of his warrantless spying vote, and we predict more betrayals to come. Obama is not change, he is stasis. We are supposed to be able to rely on the Democrats to protect civil liberties, and upon the Republicans to control government spending, but we cannot, because the incentives encourage the constant expansion of centralized government power in all directions. And the prospects for a third-party solution are even worse, given winner-takes-all voting, gerrymandering, campaign finance laws, and a persistent partisan tribalism that limits the extent to which any third party can ever grow. But there's a further problem. How do you get a majority of Americans to vote for your supposed "right person?" You might argue for education to achieve this goal, but assertions are easier than results. The difficulty is highlighted by the example of John Stossel of ABC . . . John Stossel has a mighty megaphone. His voice is far larger than that of any other person or institution advocating for downsized government. Every few months he produces excellent hour-long shows puncturing the myths of government programs. He reaches more people more powerfully than all other downsizing advocates combined. If you missed his latest installment, we strongly urge you to watch it. But . . . Even John Stossel's mighty megaphone produces but a whisper in a hurricane. Aligned against Stossel's one-hour shows are around-the-clock news coverage, political advertising, and teaching in our schools that constantly promotes the idea of more-and-more government "solutions." Even John Stossel, with his mighty megaphone, is fighting a losing battle. The only way to win the battle is to have superior forces and superior funding. It will require a huge army that funds outreach capable of reaching everyone, everywhere, EVERY DAY. But what kind of institution could build such a force? Will a think tank or a political party do it? We think not. Think tanks are think tanks. They are NOT grassroots organizing vehicles. Political parties ARE grassroots organizing vehicles, but to convince someone to join you must NOT ONLY convince them of your ideas, you MUST ALSO convince them to betray their old identity. It's a doubly difficult task. Or . . . If the vehicle you choose is a third party then the task is triply difficult, because the rules are rigged against you, and to change the rules you would need resources of people and money that the rules themselves prevent you from obtaining. We speak from experience. We are humbly suggesting that we need a non-partisan, or even anti-partisan institution that educates, recruits, and imposes pressure on the politicians, all at the same time. We further suggest that such an institution should be structured so as to impose the smallest possible cost on each individual participant, so as to maximize both recruitment and participation.

None of the above	100% (1 answers)
Democrats are better.	0% (0 answers)
Republicans are better	0% (0 answers)
They both suck	0% (0 answers)
What else can we do	0% (0 answers)
Undecided	0% (0 answers)

WELCOME TO THE HUSBAND STORE!! Here's a little humor for you and maybe a little truth.

2008-08-03T15:58:59Z

WELCOME TO THE HUSBAND STORE!! Here's a little humor for you and maybe a little truth.

8 answers, +5 raves

WELCOME TO THE HUSBAND STORE!! You may visit the store ONLY ONCE! There are six floors and the attributes of the men increase as the shopper ascends the flights. There is,however, a catch...You may choose any man from a particular floor, or you may choose to go up a floor, but you cannot go back down except to exit the building! Happy Shopping!!!! So,a woman goes to the Husband Store to find a husband... On the first floor the sign on the door reads: Floor 1: These men have jobs and love the Lord. The second floor sign reads: Floor 2: These men have jobs, love the Lord, and like kids. The third floor sign reads: Floor 3: These men have jobs, love the Lord, love kids and are extremely good looking. "Wow," she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going. She goes to the fourth floor and the sign reads: Floor 4: These men have jobs, love the Lord, love kids, are drop-dead good looking and help with the housework. "Oh,mercy me!" she exclaims, "I can hardly stand it!" Still, she goes to the fifth floor and the sign reads: Floor 5: These men have jobs, love the Lord, love kids, are drop-dead gorgeous, help with the housework, and have a strong romantic streak. She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor and the sign reads: Floor 6: You are visitor 4,363,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please. Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store. Watch your step as you exit the building and have a nice day!

So true	75% (6 answers)
Only a man would think this is funny	13% (1 answers)
None of the above	13% (1 answers)

A little reality check for the young and for the rest of us. Enjoy.

2008-07-14T00:35:52Z

A little reality check for the young and for the rest of us. Enjoy.

15 answers, +9 raves

Rule 1: Life is not fair - get used to it! Rule 2: The world doesn't care about your self-esteem. The world will expectyou to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself. Rule 3: You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both. Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss. Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity. Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them. Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room. Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life. Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time. Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs. Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.

So True	100% (15 answers)
What a load of garbage	0% (0 answers)
Well maybe	0% (0 answers)
None of the above	0% (0 answers)

Do you think there will be race riots if Sen. Obama does not win the presidency?

2008-04-25T04:36:15Z

Do you think there will be race riots if Sen. Obama does not win the presidency?

28 answers, +6 raves

In the past we have had riots in certain areas because of important events that were seen as racially motivated or related. Do you believe this election could trigger riots like the Watts riots or the Rodney King riots?

No	54% (15 answers)
Undecided	29% (8 answers)
Yes	18% (5 answers)

What do you think of San Francisco's mayor declaring it a sanctuary city?

2008-04-05T14:31:14Z

What do you think of San Francisco's mayor declaring it a sanctuary city?

27 answers, +2 raves

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- San Francisco is launching a new campaign tonight to tell illegal immigrants they're welcome in the city. San Francisco is a so-called sanctuary city. What that means exactly-- and how officials are getting the word out. The city's message will appear on TV, radio, posters and brochures in five languages. The extensive outreach campaign will be directed at undocumented workers and their families in San Francisco. "We're going to spend resources, time and energy to do PSA's, to do campaign outreach into community clinics, into public schools, into our police stations to let people know what a sanctuary city is all about," said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Mayor Gavin Newsom says he's concerned that the federal government has been more aggressive in its immigration raids. "We will stand up and fight for people so they live their lives out loud in the light of day with dignity and respect," said Newsom. Although there have been no major raids recently in the city this is one time when the supervisors will stand behind Newsom. This is one issue where the political will is unified on both sides of the aisle," said San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano. With the mayor today were department heads and immigrant community leaders. "Here is one place where you will find compassionate people in city government," said Rev. Phil Lawson from the Coalition for Immigrant Rights. Police Chief Heather Fong is featured prominently in the TV spot. "We do not work on enforcing immigration laws, only public safety to prevent crime," said San Francisco Police Chief Heather Fong. What will it cost the city to get the word out? $83,000 dollars. Yeh Ling-Ling's is with Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America. The group believes immigrants should come here legally. "San Francisco doesn't even have the budget to care for American born homeless people. San Franciscans who are struggling to make ends meet should be outraged that the mayor should tax them to provide services to illegal families," said Ling-Ling. City officials passed an ordinance making San Francisco a sanctuary city almost two decades ago. Mayor Newsom says its time to take that message to another level.

What is he thinking?	48% (13 answers)
What a great idea.	19% (5 answers)
None of the above	19% (5 answers)
Undecided	15% (4 answers)