Comments by steveleary1
Posted on December 1 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am writing in response to Mr. Bloom's letter. I think we all need to educate our selves about what happened with the housing crisis. Here is a good place to start.
http://www.freedomworks.org/crisis . Freedomworks is a right leaning website, you can start here and then verify what they have to say by cross referencing. Pay particular attention to the time in 2003 when President Bush wanted to put curbs on Fannie and Freddie who stepped in to stop it. Who was running these organizations, The campaign donations and Also check out " The Friends of Angelo" program and who benefitted. It becomes pretty clear why the investigation is " ongoing"
Posted on November 23 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am writing in response to Mr. Mullins comments. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. This is a fallacy of logic, which you use in your comments. It is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" After World War II, the United States was the only industrial country that was not decimated by the war. We were very quickly able to shift our production from manufacturing munitions to consumer goods. There was no competition from the rest of the world and times were very good. The products that we manufactured didn't have to be of consistent high quality ( some people used to get "Lemons" when buying a car)or priced competitively because where else were you going to go to buy a car, appliance etc. ? As Japan, Germany, Korea, China, Brazil, India and other countries started to develop, we had competition in the world market. There was no one action by an individual or group which caused us to have to make better quality ,and lower the cost goods.It was and is a necessity because US manufacturing is no longer the only game in town. To think that if we only continued to keep paying higher wages and raise the prices on everything to pay for it everything would be fine is faulty logic.
Mr. Mullins references Jack Welch. I read Jack Welch's book where he told of a GE manufacturing plant in Oakland making Irons. It was costing GE say, $ 30 to manufacture an Iron that they could only sell for $ 25. The Union went on strike demanding more money which would raise the cost even higher forcing the price of the Iron to $ 33. After World War II, in the 1950's and even the 60's this would not have been a problem. We could raise the price and everyone was happy. This no longer works because consumers don't want to pay more for a product that is of the same or less quality. Would you take your savings/ retirement fund and buy that Iron plant ?
Why do you think anyone else would or should ?
We need to work together as a country to become more efficient and productive or watch our standard of living continue to decline as other developing competitors such as Vietnam, Mexico, Russia and numerous others get in the game.
Posted on November 15 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I was writing to comment on Ric's letter.( I agree) I saw where he wanted to punish Muck Rakers only to find when I looked up the definition that it has changed since I was in High School. Definition :to search for and expose real or alleged corruption, scandal, or the like, especially in politics. Originally the "Muckrakers" exposed real political corruption, kickbacks, bribes etc. They were typically journalists who were trying to reform society for the better. Using the Muck Rake to clean the dung from the stalls of society. Unfortunately in today's politics the word "alleged" has been added to the definition because this has become a common tactic in today's politics.
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.