Comments by steveleary1
Posted on August 7 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In regards to the letters from Mr. Spencer and Mr.DeSantis, the current financial crisis is not solely attributable to "private sector abuses"
The meltdown was the consequence of a combination of the easy money and low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve and the easy housing engineered by a variety of government agencies and policies. Those agencies include the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and two nominally private “government-sponsored enterprises” (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The agencies — along with laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act (passed in the 1970s, then fortified in the Clinton years), which REQUIRED banks to make loans to people with poor and nonexistent credit histories — made widespread homeownership a national goal. This all led to a home-buying frenzy and an explosion of subprime and other non-prime mortgages, which banks and GSEs bundled into dubious securities and peddled to investors worldwide. Hovering in the background was the knowledge that the federal government would bail out troubled “too-big-to-fail” financial corporations, including Fannie and Freddie.
The housing boom could last for a while, but the bust was inevitable. When the Fed raised interest rates, things went kaboom. The Great Recession was on; we’re still suffering its effects. Without these government housing and monetary policies, the crisis would never have occurred.
Posted on April 29 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not sure what to think of the "Standardized Test" problem. Back in the 60's and 70's when I was in school we all took State tests, Regents, SATs etc. We were not allowed to use calculators. I would be curious to see the results of a Senior High School class taking a SAT from say from 1970 ( which we all had to take) without the use of a calculator to see how today's students compare.
Posted on April 29 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why not look at the reasons that students are dropping out and try to correct the problems.
Posted on March 21 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Minimum wage increases only benefit government coffers. No more goods or services are produced. This will become more evident to everyone when we take fjcjr's tougue in cheek argument futher, and raise minimum wage to $ 100 an hour. Everyone will make over $ 100,000 per year and all of our poverty will go away !
What actually happens is Minimum wage has a higher number attached to it. Those making $ 8.50 now, want to be Minimum wage + 1.00 and so on up the wage scale. Since no additional goods or services are produced, the price of goods go up by proportion. However, the Income tax is indexed so everyone pays a higher percentage in taxes.This why if you go back and look at the history of minimum wage increases you will see that the purchasing power of minimum wage when it was $ 1.25 per hour was more then it is today at $ 7.45. At $ 1.25 you could buy nearly 5 gallons of gas for a dollar,( Now you can't even buy 2 gallons)You could buy 25 candy bars for $ 1.25 (now you can buy 7) This can be demonstrated with just about any product or service.
That is why although it sounds good and kind to raise the minimum wage it hasn't had the desired effect and it won't in the future.
Posted on March 11 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The "cuts" are Government cuts. To make the numbers simple, last year we
spent $ 100. This year we wanted to spend $ 105, but because of the sequester
we have "cuts", so we can only spend $ 103. No place else but the government
does an increase in spending count as a draconian cut.
Posted on February 17 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Global Warming is a theory - It has not been proven with the scientific method.
The planet is said to be be over one Billion years old and to look at limited data over a one hundred year period is not scientific. The planet has gone through 4 major ice ages and several minor ice ages. This area has been covered with glaciers in the past during these periods. If someone were to look at the period of time when
the ice caps advanced and retreated, they could have attributed that to actions of man. However, the Earth didn't have any men to blame for the changes which took place over thousands of years. The 1970's were a particularly cold decade and during that time period there was a Time Magazine cover blaming man for Global Cooling. The Earth's temperate is not a constant, it naturally fluctuates.
Not to say that Global Warming Theory may not be correct, just something to keep in mind before blindly accepting "Facts"
Posted on February 16 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Squirrels are better looking then Rats in NYC, but as justapo states if they become a fellow "occupant" of your house they are no more welcome then a Rat. I'm sure if Sen. Avella had either of them in his house he would be more then happy to have them exterminated. I've had squirrels in my attic and you definitely look at them differently afterwards.
Posted on January 10 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The real story here is not the gun. How many people are we paying benefits that should be working ?
Taking from society instead of contributing to society and saving the benefits for those who truly need them.
When Reagan was President a "permanently disabled " former fireman won the annual race to the top of the
Empire State Building. This led to a review of everyone receiving long term disability,welfare,social security etc.
The results were amazing as in addition to dead people receiving benefits, a large number of people who recovered
From or never should have been on the rolls .
Posted on December 22 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Go to Charity Navigator - They break everything down the American Red Cross for instance only spends 4% on administration
Posted on December 13 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Steiner people voted for the President for many different reasons. We have a
$ 15,000,000,000,000 deficit ( That's what 15 trillion looks like) We are spending and borrowing $ 1,500,000,000,000 ( 1.5 Trillion) every year more then we take in revenue from all sources. 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed. If the President gets all of the revenue that he hopes to by raisng taxes on the top 2% of earners He will get $ 120,000,000,000 per year ( $ 120 Billion or $ 1.2 Trillion over 10 years) . This will cover the amount that we are borrowing for 30 days per year and that's if we get it all and the top 2% don't shelter their money somehow.
This doesn't come close to covering the amount of money we need to keep spending at these levels. The Republicans are looking for some Real cuts to spending before they will agree to any increase in taxes. There has been No proposal from the President on any spending cuts.
In 1920 Life expectancy was 54 years old. Social Security and pensions were set up so that people who lived to 65 could have a couple of years of retirement. Life expectancy has risen to 81. We are now paying for 16 more years of retirement then when Social Security was established. Can we talk about raising the retirement age by a year or two ? Can we look at the Federal Budget and not find ANY waste such as the Million Dollar GSA parties in Vegas ? Could we talk about bringing some of 50,000 troops stationed in Germany ( and other bases around the world) back to the US and put them on bases here where they can spend their money and help our economy ?
No ? The President only speaks of raisng taxes without cuts- I am sure if a few of us got together we could find plenty of places to cut spending. The first thing we have to do is put down our political party kool aid, and look at the problems objectively.Neither The Democrats or the Republican are always right or always wrong.