Commentary: Is our government actually run by a bunch of teenagers? (gallon, salaries)

[revelated]

Writer note: These are not my words, though I agree with them. "Commentary" indicates essentially a group of well-credentialed individuals discussing the matter in a forum. The purpose of this is to simply share what was discussed, to elicit additional opinions.


I got up this morning and brewed my usual cup of Morning Blend coffee. Today was going to be a rough day, I just knew. I had appointments, developments, demonstrations, and who-knows-what-else to do. I sat down at my computer and decided to start browsing the news. Once I got past the usual Joe Jackson fluff, I started to see some articles about the new "Cash for Clunkers" program. If you didn't know, that program is designed to spur auto sales and 'help the environment' by taking fuel inefficient older cars off of the roads, by way of the government handing you(r dealer) a check for up to $4 grand to buy a new car. I was going to do this, but the requirements were too strict, and then it hit me...deja vous. The feeling that I'd done this before. Why would this hit now?

You know what it is? It's because it's another government decision that not only makes no sense, not only is contradictory, but is actually more trouble than it's worth. At the same time, it makes crystal clear the priorities of the administration, which seem to revolve around people who were essentially too broke (or too stubborn) to buy a new car anyway. Do you see where I'm going with this? Let's look at some of the past and present government decisions that have affected our country, along with the plus and minus of each.

• Proposition 13, The state of California's answer to what seemed to be rapidly escalating property tax. It effectively capped the property tax. The good? Less property taxes than you really should have been paying. The bad? Less property taxes than you really should have been paying, as evident by California's current budget crisis. Did the lawmakers not foresee this coming? Ray Charles could have seen it.

• US PATRIOT Act, Bush Jr.'s answer to 9/11. Without going into details about it, the law essentially increased identification requirements. Additional requirements from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC Screening) made common, everyday citizens into criminals simply because their surname happened to correspond to a known terrorist. The good? Additional identification is always a good thing and never a bad thing. The bad? Way too many false positives. Grandmothers being labeled as terrorists when trying to take out loans and such. Also, phony identification made it way too easy to get past the act. In its current form it's useless - a knee jerk reaction.

• Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, Bush Jr.'s way of smooching the collective behinds of the credit and loan industries by treating every American as a criminal who is out to defraud. Not saying that there are not Americans with those intentions, but the law is explicitly written to favor everyone but the regular taxpaying citizen. The good? Instances of people abusing bankruptcy to just avoid paying debt decreased sharply, since it became extremely difficult to just make your debt go away. Mandatory credit counseling discouraged borrowers who weren't patient enough to deal with it, speeding up the pipeline. The "means test" filtered out a lot of borrowers who were actually capable of paying the debt and didn't want to. The bad? Even when you do get approved for bankruptcy, what you can claim is now so narrow that it only fits the most low income of consumers. Since 2005 was right around the apex of the so-called "bubble" in the housing market, the lenders planned it perfectly: Make loans they know will fail, compel the government to change the bankruptcy law so that they cannot discharge or even adjust the payments on their expensive mortgages when they adjust, and keep raking in profit. Now, the government is scrambling to try and change the law back to the way it was before the debacle. My question is, why didn't you see this coming? Are you that inept that you just don't see that the lenders used you for their own means at our expense?

• College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, the big one that basically killed the FFELP [Federal Family Education Loan Program]. Lead by Andrew Cuomo, a radical nut with delusions of fame and notoriety, the government began to seriously crack down on what they referred to as inappropriate behaviors within the private sector. A lot of these were definitely inappropriate (Sallie Mae was actually paying school officials to divert students to them) while some were absolutely benign (another lender took a school board to a luncheon, no work-related discussion took place), but the issue was that lenders might be using these activities to gain favor. There were other issues, such as refunds not given, the subsidies the lenders gained in exchange for making the loans, the near 100% insulation against default, etc. At the peak it was a cash cow and many made millions from it. When the law passed, it made the program unprofitable, and the lenders began to pull out. Mission accomplished, right (note: Bush Jr. signed it into law)? Well, the economy crash happened shortly after, making it nearly impossible to sell the loans to investors as the markets dried up. So a lot of lender couldn't make new loans, couldn't sell the loans they had (which were essentially toxic without a guarantee) and got stuck...So Mr. Bush Jr. signed the....

• Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act. I'm shaking my head because it would be humorous if it weren't so dangerous. First the gov signs a law that pretty much makes participation in the Federal loan program pointless...then it turns around and signs this act, which offers to buy said loans at a marginal premium to try and entice them to participate. And some lenders did...lenders who are now shutting down. So the government offers to buy essentially toxic assets from lenders who are unable to sustain operations because they have nothing from which to make money, signing an act that almost directly contradicts the first without rescinding the first. Am I the only one seeing the illogic here? I don't even know of any good things that came from this change. The government would have us believe that it's saving students billions of dollars year over year, when in reality it's limiting the choices the students have for funding. Now, Obama wants to eliminate FFEL altogether, forcing all students who want loans to get them from the government. The good? One place to go. The bad? No choices, no benefits, no rebates, thousands of lost jobs at lenders, servicers and guarantors nationwide, and increased government spending which would negate any decreases the President oversaw thus far. Great.

• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, started by Bush Jr. and extended by Obama, is what we like to call a "carrot". It allows homeowners to claim a tax credit if they buy a home within a requisite period. The good? Spur people to buy a home with a refundable credit. The bad? Let me count the ways. First off, this should not be a tax credit; it should be an application process with a check mailed straight to you from the Treasury, period. Having it be a tax process essentially means you have to plan to buy a home before April 15. Most homebuyers are not looking at a specific time, they're looking over a span of time. If I bought my home on November 30, I'm technically eligible, but then I have to file a form to the IRS amending my original return to claim it and wait yet another 6 weeks to get paid. Versus an application process where, once I buy the home, I submit a form to a processor with my proof of deed or loan, they mail me a check in 2 weeks. No IRS tracking how much money I did or didn't receive and no IRS or state tax authority taking my check because I happen to owe money somewhere. Also, the idea that you must have already bought the home, negates any value as a stimulus. It should have been offered to anyone who has gone so far as put an offer on a home and paid a good faith deposit. I know why they didn't; they would just back out and pocket the money, but so what? What has the government lost? Nothing. Technically if I put enough of a down payment I wouldn't spend the money back on the house anyway. Very poorly implemented.

• And of course, the Cash for Clunkers Program, a foolhardy attempt to spur people to buy new cars and get rid of those gas guzzlers they're currently driving. The irony of this thing really makes me laugh inside, but outside I cry, because it's a shame. The good? Less gas guzzlers equals less gas supply consumption and better prices (in theory), as well as cleaner, less emissions (in theory). The bad? Geez, where do I begin...first, the program has way too many restrictions. Car has to essentially be over two and a half decades old and have a rated gas mileage not to exceed 18 MPG. Do you know what this means? It means that Grandpa Joe who is still driving his 1993 Crown Victoria that gets an actual 13 MPG and spews fumes like no tomorrow isn't eligible. But some kid whose mom gave him her 1980 Cutlass Supreme that still rides good and gets an actual 17.5 MPG, is. Notice how I stress the word "actual"...everyone knows that the EPA overstates MPG on cars. Nissan claims that my new car should be able to get 33 MPG, but of course when I drive it, I get 10MPG less. That's normal, because when the MPG is tested, it's on a controlled, flat, straight track at constant optimal speeds of between 65 and 75. Real driving varies, so rated MPG is useless to factor by. Also, what does the year matter? There are 2009 cars that get 16 MPG; they should be eligible too. The only real caveat to getting this one should be that the car you buy has to have an actual MPG of at least 20 on city streets, period. No Hummers, No Titans, just a fuel efficient car. Finally, remember Grandpa Joe above? Chances are if he hasn't bought a car by now, he isn't going to buy one now...and you know what other irony exists here? The government essentially owns a piece of General Motors, so...are they trying to spur sales to get money back into the coffers to counter the near-trillion-dollar deficit? Is this another plan that is going to just bite them in the backside like all the rest?

I mean is it just me or does the government just randomly throw laws out without thinking first? Do these people even take the common man into consideration when writing the law? They've tried to jump on every single major issue except taxation...when the stats show that 70% of the country's budget comes from consumer spending. That's a large number, which could be supplanted by consumers having to pay less taxes instead of more, yet they refuse to address that issue. There are times when I think the government is not run by the people we see on the TV screen, but instead a bunch of teenage punks who are sitting around a table somewhere drinking beer, playing Xbox 360 and just making stuff up, calling themselves "dude" after every 5 words. Maybe that explains why the current administration is so up on technology that they hold their sessions on the web now. Dude...

[Ceece]

Laws do seem to be made either by knee jerk reaction, to appease a vocal group, or in an attempt to bandaid a cut by by tearing off a limb. I suggest we have a new position, Czar of the Big Logical Picture.

[jja100]

Originally Posted by revelated

Proposition 13, The state of California's answer to what seemed to be rapidly escalating property tax. It effectively capped the property tax. The good? Less property taxes than you really should have been paying. The bad? Less property taxes than you really should have been paying, as evident by California's current budget crisis. Did the lawmakers not foresee this coming? Ray Charles could have seen it.

This was a good proposition. Yes this limits their revenue... knowing this should have also limited their spending.

• Originally Posted by revelated

  US PATRIOT Act, Bush Jr.'s answer to 9/11. Without going into details about it, the law essentially increased identification requirements. Additional requirements from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC Screening) made common, everyday citizens into criminals simply because their surname happened to correspond to a known terrorist. The good? Additional identification is always a good thing and never a bad thing. The bad? Way too many false positives. Grandmothers being labeled as terrorists when trying to take out loans and such. Also, phony identification made it way too easy to get past the act. In its current form it's useless - a knee jerk reaction.

The patriot act was a good thing but approached in a poor and innefficient manor. We have ultra security at the Airport but our southern border is completely exposed and our ports are completely unregulated. Israel has the safest airline in the world and they are the biggest target. Seal the cockpit doors, have undercover people on the plane and racially profile. If most muslims are black or brown... I'm sorry but you should be looked at more closely.

• Originally Posted by revelated

  Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, Bush Jr.'s way of smooching the collective behinds of the credit and loan industries by treating every American as a criminal who is out to defraud. Not saying that there are not Americans with those intentions, but the law is explicitly written to favor everyone but the regular taxpaying citizen. The good? Instances of people abusing bankruptcy to just avoid paying debt decreased sharply, since it became extremely difficult to just make your debt go away. Mandatory credit counseling discouraged borrowers who weren't patient enough to deal with it, speeding up the pipeline. The "means test" filtered out a lot of borrowers who were actually capable of paying the debt and didn't want to. The bad? Even when you do get approved for bankruptcy, what you can claim is now so narrow that it only fits the most low income of consumers. Since 2005 was right around the apex of the so-called "bubble" in the housing market, the lenders planned it perfectly: Make loans they know will fail, compel the government to change the bankruptcy law so that they cannot discharge or even adjust the payments on their expensive mortgages when they adjust, and keep raking in profit. Now, the government is scrambling to try and change the law back to the way it was before the debacle. My question is, why didn't you see this coming? Are you that inept that you just don't see that the lenders used you for their own means at our expense?

People don't understand that you can't regulate wealthy and intelligent people.... if you try, they will find a loophole and if you make it bulletproof to where they can't get around the law they just liquidate and move their businesses offshore where it unemploys even more people. If we just reduced the corporate income tax to almost nothing, businesses would be flocking here and salaries would be higher because they would get their tax deduction that way so they can also be profitable. We need deregulation. The only regulation we should have is limiting the need to want to do business offshore.

• Originally Posted by revelated

  College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, the big one that basically killed the FFELP [Federal Family Education Loan Program]. Lead by Andrew Cuomo, a radical nut with delusions of fame and notoriety, the government began to seriously crack down on what they referred to as inappropriate behaviors within the private sector. A lot of these were definitely inappropriate (Sallie Mae was actually paying school officials to divert students to them) while some were absolutely benign (another lender took a school board to a luncheon, no work-related discussion took place), but the issue was that lenders might be using these activities to gain favor. There were other issues, such as refunds not given, the subsidies the lenders gained in exchange for making the loans, the near 100% insulation against default, etc. At the peak it was a cash cow and many made millions from it. When the law passed, it made the program unprofitable, and the lenders began to pull out. Mission accomplished, right (note: Bush Jr. signed it into law)? Well, the economy crash happened shortly after, making it nearly impossible to sell the loans to investors as the markets dried up. So a lot of lender couldn't make new loans, couldn't sell the loans they had (which were essentially toxic without a guarantee) and got stuck...So Mr. Bush Jr. signed the....

The reason why all of these Bush policies were so bad is because they are liberal "program" policies that don't work and cause more harm than good. Bush wasn't even a Republican. As a matter of fact I can't even tell the difference between the two parties anymore.

• Originally Posted by revelated

  Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act. I'm shaking my head because it would be humorous if it weren't so dangerous. First the gov signs a law that pretty much makes participation in the Federal loan program pointless...then it turns around and signs this act, which offers to buy said loans at a marginal premium to try and entice them to participate. And some lenders did...lenders who are now shutting down. So the government offers to buy essentially toxic assets from lenders who are unable to sustain operations because they have nothing from which to make money, signing an act that almost directly contradicts the first without rescinding the first. Am I the only one seeing the illogic here? I don't even know of any good things that came from this change. The government would have us believe that it's saving students billions of dollars year over year, when in reality it's limiting the choices the students have for funding. Now, Obama wants to eliminate FFEL altogether, forcing all students who want loans to get them from the government. The good? One place to go. The bad? No choices, no benefits, no rebates, thousands of lost jobs at lenders, servicers and guarantors nationwide, and increased government spending which would negate any decreases the President oversaw thus far. Great.

I would never get a student loan because they are the most dangerous and never go away. Incentivising 529 plans with secure insured investment vehicle providing modest interest rates is the key to paying for education.

• Originally Posted by revelated

  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, started by Bush Jr. and extended by Obama, is what we like to call a "carrot". It allows homeowners to claim a tax credit if they buy a home within a requisite period. The good? Spur people to buy a home with a refundable credit. The bad? Let me count the ways. First off, this should not be a tax credit; it should be an application process with a check mailed straight to you from the Treasury, period. Having it be a tax process essentially means you have to plan to buy a home before April 15. Most homebuyers are not looking at a specific time, they're looking over a span of time. If I bought my home on November 30, I'm technically eligible, but then I have to file a form to the IRS amending my original return to claim it and wait yet another 6 weeks to get paid. Versus an application process where, once I buy the home, I submit a form to a processor with my proof of deed or loan, they mail me a check in 2 weeks. No IRS tracking how much money I did or didn't receive and no IRS or state tax authority taking my check because I happen to owe money somewhere. Also, the idea that you must have already bought the home, negates any value as a stimulus. It should have been offered to anyone who has gone so far as put an offer on a home and paid a good faith deposit. I know why they didn't; they would just back out and pocket the money, but so what? What has the government lost? Nothing. Technically if I put enough of a down payment I wouldn't spend the money back on the house anyway. Very poorly implemented.

Don't even need a tax credit. Just reduce property taxes temporarily until the economy turns around for those who buy a home. Nothing needs to be done at the federal level. Taxes should be highest at the local level where there is the most accountability and least at the federal level where there is limited power that a citizen can have to vote on specific issues that really help their day to day lives.

• Originally Posted by revelated

  And of course, the Cash for Clunkers Program, a foolhardy attempt to spur people to buy new cars and get rid of those gas guzzlers they're currently driving. The irony of this thing really makes me laugh inside, but outside I cry, because it's a shame. The good? Less gas guzzlers equals less gas supply consumption and better prices (in theory), as well as cleaner, less emissions (in theory). The bad? Geez, where do I begin...first, the program has way too many restrictions. Car has to essentially be over two and a half decades old and have a rated gas mileage not to exceed 18 MPG. Do you know what this means? It means that Grandpa Joe who is still driving his 1993 Crown Victoria that gets an actual 13 MPG and spews fumes like no tomorrow isn't eligible. But some kid whose mom gave him her 1980 Cutlass Supreme that still rides good and gets an actual 17.5 MPG, is. Notice how I stress the word "actual"...everyone knows that the EPA overstates MPG on cars. Nissan claims that my new car should be able to get 33 MPG, but of course when I drive it, I get 10MPG less. That's normal, because when the MPG is tested, it's on a controlled, flat, straight track at constant optimal speeds of between 65 and 75. Real driving varies, so rated MPG is useless to factor by. Also, what does the year matter? There are 2009 cars that get 16 MPG; they should be eligible too. The only real caveat to getting this one should be that the car you buy has to have an actual MPG of at least 20 on city streets, period. No Hummers, No Titans, just a fuel efficient car. Finally, remember Grandpa Joe above? Chances are if he hasn't bought a car by now, he isn't going to buy one now...and you know what other irony exists here? The government essentially owns a piece of General Motors, so...are they trying to spur sales to get money back into the coffers to counter the near-trillion-dollar deficit? Is this another plan that is going to just bite them in the backside like all the rest?

Cash for Clunkers, like everything the government does, hurts our economy more than helps. Most gas inefficient vehicles are American vehicles thereby this program is removing American inefficient vehicles and replacing them with foreign efficient vehicles which doesn't spur American jobs. Secondly, this doesn't even help the individual either. They give you the 4k only if you meet strict requirements and one of them is steering you to a more expensive car that does not have a negotiable price (full market value) and hybrid cars have an inherent higher sticker price because of the added technology they have. The simple solution is to build more diesel cars and provide more diesel gas which is cheaper to produce. Diesel cars typically cost less than their gas counterparts and do the same or more miles/gallon than hybrid vehicles. Diesel cars pollute less than gas because they do more miles to the gallon even though they pollute more per gallon.

Originally Posted by revelated

I mean is it just me or does the government just randomly throw laws out without thinking first? Do these people even take the common man into consideration when writing the law? They've tried to jump on every single major issue except taxation...when the stats show that 70% of the country's budget comes from consumer spending. That's a large number, which could be supplanted by consumers having to pay less taxes instead of more, yet they refuse to address that issue. There are times when I think the government is not run by the people we see on the TV screen, but instead a bunch of teenage punks who are sitting around a table somewhere drinking beer, playing Xbox 360 and just making stuff up, calling themselves "dude" after every 5 words. Maybe that explains why the current administration is so up on technology that they hold their sessions on the web now. Dude...

Because we are not a capitalist country... those days are long gone, socialism is unfortunately here to stay.