Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

tomgoldie

User Profile Image tomgoldie
Member since : May-24-2009 (Verified)
1 Ideas, 48 Comments, 152 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

First, let me say that I consider myself a conservative Republican -- though I'm sure the Wall Street crowd will be calling for my skin soon enough:

AIG wrote credit-default-swap "insurance" for people who didn't even OWN a mortgage. And I believe that THOSE people should NOT be paid with taxpayer funds. I bet they already have been paid, and I think Congress should consider retroactively taxing those benefits at 100%

For the average person out there who didn't understand it all when it was happening and is now left holding the bag -- i.e. the taxpayer -- here is the problem in a nutshell:

AIG wrote insurance policies for banks in case the person who owned the house didn't pay their mortgage. No problem so far. But THEN they started writing insurance policies for others -- who had no "skin in the game", so to speak. It turns out that a majority (4 out of 5?) dollars of bailout money to AIG went to pay these "bettors".

Consider this: Would we allow an insurance company to write fire insurance policies an any particular house to anyone else? No, because an arsonist could come along and insure twenty houses on his block -- he doesn't own any of them, but he's betting they burn down -- and then get rich when they mysteriously turn up charred.

I know this will be an unpopular idea with those people who UNDERSTOOD that bailing out AIG without stipulations that the money only go to those who actually OWNED a mortgage and who also realized that even though the average Joe KNEW defaults were going to increase, they didn't know HOW to make a bet on the market going south -- much less have the power to ensure that when the "house" couldn't cover their bets they could vote or make policy to have the US treasury step in to cover the bet. I'm sure there are PLENTY of those B*ST*RDS in Congress (the old and new), the last administration, and YOURS, quite frankly.

And if you want to go one better, find out the hedge funds who bought these things -- and DID NOT own a mortgage or a mortgage portfolio for the insured value, and see if the lawmakers voting for this had a substantial stake in them. If they did, put them up for ethics investigations. If it was an administrative official, NAME THEM.

We HAVE to put a stop to this legalized, taxpayer-supported theft -- or there will blood in the streets when the people find out how they've been ripped off!
Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas
12345678910….168169Next »

Comments Posted

tomgoldie 9 months ago
Make a Youtube video and post it.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
juls813:

Please read my post from 22hrs ago. Her AND her son's COLB have been used for all of those.

I am a conservative, I voted McCain, I dislike Obama's policies -- but people continuing to make this an issue when it IS NOT is pathetic and embarrassing -- almost like the liberals insisting on calling waterboarding "torture" when we do it to our own soldiers as part of their training.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
We'll need the drop-outs to fill the jobs left by illegal aliens when we pass nationwide employer verification.

Oh wait, that won't happen.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
So, are you saying that stocks should not be able to be sold, or that stock holders should not be able to vote on who runs the company?

Those companies are "victims" of their stock holder's self-interest: selling their stocks when the price gets high enough. Are you advocating that people cannot sell their stocks?
tomgoldie 9 months ago
They ARE given full faith and credit, which is why you don't have to take another drivers' test.

You have to get a new one in the new state because the license is how they usually locate your next of kin in an accident. Arizona requires you to get a new license within ten days of moving WITHIN the state, so it's not unreasonable that other states require the same when I move there!
tomgoldie 9 months ago
It's not called a legislature for nothing -- they write them, and have the sole power of removing them from the books.

Even IF the courts nullify them, they remain on the books.

Why not run for Congress on this idea, and be the change you'd like to see?
tomgoldie 9 months ago
I was with you until you used the word "terrorism". Use of the word in this context cheapens its meaning.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
My wife was born in Middletown, OH, and has a "certificate of live birth." Both of her kids were born in Arizona; they too have "certificates of live birth."

I'd say you better check out your OWN COLB, because MANY states call the "birth certificate" a "certificate of live birth", the transition from a prepositional phrase to an adjective apparently throwing off a whole generation of people who never did understand that "grammar" thing.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
The only way to get people to make better decisions about their health is to have them PAY the consequences. The fact that you advocate a single-payer system will make sure that doesn't happen. Government mandating that health insurance companies can't charge more for some behaviors doesn't help. Medicare also hurts, because it tells insurance companies to ignore behaviors that will manifest after 65, because then we'll ALL be on the hook for them.

Get rid of Medicare, let insurance companies sell LIFELONG plans that allow people to keep them their entire life and choose the level of "care" they want, and only put government in the role of FDIC for the medical industry -- just making sure they charge enough in premiums to pay for the companies that go broke.

Once you have such a system, then PERHAPS the government could help people who couldn't afford them.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Great idea, but if you only taxed at 10% for the feds (about 9% tax inclusive) that would pay for a federal budget about 40% of what it currently is.

We could do what you suggest, but you might as well call it "national sales tax and the elimination of Social Security and Medicare".
tomgoldie 9 months ago
"Commodity trading" IS supply and demand. Perhaps you're talking about "futures trading", but that's how companies deal with uncertainty. There's some funny business that can go on there, but not for long.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
I'd say let's try it, as long as the products are clearly labeled.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
It's implied in the word "marriage", the marrying up of two separate and different parts that are designed to work together.

I think if you called it "gay coupling" 'or gay unions" then you'd find the opposition goes away.

If all gays want is the WORD "marriage", then let's call "bars" "churches" so we can eliminate the stigma that goes along with another choice....
tomgoldie 9 months ago
It's called the "Great Compromise", and it ensures that while the large states have a great voice in the House, the small states have input in the Senate.

A long time ago we used to teach American Government and US History, and people understood stuff like this.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Here's a little Econ 101 for you:

The RICH don't use resources, YOU DO. Any tax you want to put on them will be passed on to YOU.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
And the idea isn't incompatible with legalization, either.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Yeah, we need some details here. If by comprehensive immigration reform you mean "amnesty", then you'll have trouble -- America is a place where people believe in the rule of law. If one were to want a place where you can just bribe the police to make them "forget about it", then they should go to Mexico.

There IS a difference between the two countries ... for now.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Zubrin's book was excellent. But know that the "CO2/Global Warming" hysteria will condemn his idea.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
By doing that you will make the problem worse. With good data, bad decisions can be made, true. With bad data, good decisions CANNOT be made.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Government's involvement in all of this IS the problem. You can no sooner invest in ONE technology, than government will give your competitor several billion dollars and make your investment worthless: You want methanol? The day after you put in your dollars in the investment, government subsidizes hydrogen filling stations. Bye-bye methanol.

Subsidizing all of this has become more of a problem than a solution.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
The problem is really knowing how much you pay in taxes. Do I get credit every time I buy a Whopper and pay part of Burger King's corporate tax? Do I get credit for my payroll taxes? How about in my rent, when I pay my landlord's property taxes?

It's not so simple, and counting just INCOME tax obfuscates the issue.

FYI, I support the FairTax -- it's the only way you'll be able to see what you pay in taxes.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Reading this as a conservative, the whines go both ways.

Best to just ignore or mark it down and move on.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Except that your "stop being selfish" means extorting money through government to give to someone else. I'm all for making people pay for the consequences of their actions, not for bailing out people who made bad decisions.

Perhaps we agree on this, but just don't agree on how to go about it.

I'd say let the market decide what's efficient and smart. Supply and demand is a law that Congress might TRY to invalidate, but I don't think they'll find much success.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
But assuming bankers are playing with their own money and don't have a bailout waiting to cover their stupid decisions, they will make RATIONAL decisions. With government making decisions about OTHER PEOPLE'S money and ALWAYS having a bailout available, all bets are off. Witness the "Community Reinvestment Act", Fannie and Freddy, ad nauseum.

Do your banking with a credit union. There is no need for government to get involved with this.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Well, that or oral secretions or forehead swipe technology:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=984267

... whatever is out there to detect impairment is my point.

However, if after a while States that DO allow smoking legally notice no increased rates of crashes or accidents, then I'd reconsider having such a requirement.

In my experience around dopers, they are just STUPID drivers (perhaps DOPE is the cause of a seemingly increasingly common problem?) and that MAY be a factor that should be paid for by the dope smokers. If you smoke dope, I mean no offense: in fact, I think we may find some common ground. I just mean that if you CHOOSE a behavior, you should have to PAY for the consequences -- and let's not single out dope smokers, but overeaters, cigarette smokers and alcoholics, and many other vices -- including those who over-exercise and wreck their kneew. If government would get out of the way in the health insurance industry, this would be possible -- assuming they don't take on insuring ALL of the stupid people -- oh wait, they're trying... :-)

FYI, I'd also be for the same tax on alcohol. There are a LOT of accidents caused by alcohol in which the drivers do not have insurance (other STUPID behavior caused by/as an effect of drug use) that just go uncompensated. I speak from experience on this, as a drunk driver totaled my parked car -- and DID NOT have state-mandated liability insurance.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Chalk -- where did you get that info?

Stan.sso -- not really, my small donations are ALREADY listed online. I don't see any problem with that, as I favor full disclosure and unlimited contributions.

I just want to know how BIG companies are able to give so much, while small donors are so limited!
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Better yet, let's make our REPUBLIC (no, it's NOT a democracy -- read your Constitution) more accountable and open.

I think you'll agree it CAN work better.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
As a conservative Republican (though I'm sure we have "diversity" *LOL* in our party), I think this should be a State issue, along with abortion and "gay marriage".

I'd be for it in my State if the tax on it was only the FairTax and enough tax to pay for a fund for eye-motion detectors to detect impaired drivers, and a fund to pay for wrecks/damage and shoplifting of Doritos caused by impaired users.

Other than that, TOKE AWAY. I can't see it's any more of a time waster than video games.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
While I agree with the problem, I disagree with the solution. Let us have unlimited contributions with full, instant, and open disclosure of the contributor. I believe that twenty million people united by the internet and making $10 Paypal contributions will win out every time.

Now just give us a tool to create the consensus about what needs to be done and how to do it (my conservative ideas are a little different from yours, but have the same aim) -- and the answer there isn't government OR money.

Let the corporations and big-party types continue to pay for THEIR candidates -- call it a tax on elitism -- and let the people CHOOSE who gets their money.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Correct. As a conservative Republican, the reason we let these "Wall Street wizards" make so much money is so that they will see trouble coming. When they don't, they need to take their lumps and losses, not pawn them off on the average Joe -- who, by and large, does not begrudge THEM their money, so he should keep his greedy hands off that of the working stiff.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
No need for the government to do this: Pet lovers UNITE, and make it happen. A lot cheaper than sending it to Washington and letting them keep 30% of it.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Great idea, but NO need for government to do this: if you work for IBM shop it around to your CEOs -- they create the product and let non-profits have it for a song....
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Companies only get too big to fail when they have government backing. Mortgages were government guaranteed, so insuring them was a sure thing -- until people quit paying.

Free markets really are the best -- but with government guarantees to back STUPID behavior they are the worst.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
As a Republican, let me say: It's NOT JUST THE DEMOCRATS! We BOTH need to police our own.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Let's add a "government reduction" czar and have them head the ministry for government down-sizing... They'll need a pretty large staff, I'll bet. :-)
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Yup, let's turn "gay marriage", drug laws, and other divisive social issues over to the States and let the local people decide.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Just make sure there's enough tax to cover the externalities: eye-motion detectors for police to detect impaired drivers, an insurance fund to cover ALL crashes and thefts (shoplifted Doritos?) and the like....
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Like a lot of these "democracy" ideas, we need to remember that we are a REPUBLIC (gee, maybe THAT'S why we need to say the pledge of allegiance more often :-)). Any change from that is going to require a change of the Constitution.

Sorry.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
No need to have the government involved in this: Let the panhandlers start it on their own.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Some good ideas here: Measure apples to apples as you suggest, report, and let parents make the choices.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Good one. And when they try to argue the "exception in time of war" weasel-clause, tell them to finance the war on WAR BONDS. When the people stop buying them, it's time to fold up the tents and come home.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
They already do, though the reply often goes in your bulk mail folder.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
You mean, make ALL of us -- including people who JUST BOUGHT a new, more efficient car -- pay for someone ELSE to go buy one, too, but at a discount?

No thanks.

If you bought an SUV, you should have known that the price of gas could go up -- I KNEW THAT -- and would put you out a few bucks. Please don't ask that I pay for your decision. And it probably was a good one -- more safety, more space, etc. But it was YOUR decision.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
Won't you be surprised when those vehicles are actually the fruits of the billions we spend on reconnaissance aircraft we use to keep the Russians, Chinese or North Koreans from launching a sneak missile attack on us?

I think if aliens can figure out how to get here, they can figure out ways around government censorship. Maybe a newspaper stand in downtown Manhattan?
tomgoldie 9 months ago
The problem is that government can always find projects to print up money for that are really dumb: bridge to nowhere, for example -- and I'm sure the Dems have their own.

Better idea: finance it all with bonds. If you can't find a buyer, it's a dumb idea. If no one wants to buy, then it's probably because it won't create enough wealth (through time and gasoline/money saved, as with a bridge) or revenue earned (from people buying the oil, natural gas, or water, as with a pipeline).
tomgoldie 9 months ago
I'd say when it's obvious, go ahead and practice some civil disobedience. But be careful, sometimes doing a "good thing" isn't so clear-cut: you might clean up a mess and cut a power line in the process. As much as I hate to say it, sometimes it's best left to the professionals.
tomgoldie 9 months ago
The problem:

Then GOVERNMENT decides who gets loans, and they are REALLY bad at making those decisions (look at GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc). Worse yet, they'll make sure it's the well-connected politically who get them, and not care if they aren't paid back, because the taxpayer will cover it.

Oh wait, we've already GOT a system like that. :-(
tomgoldie 10 months ago
Better yet, move government operations online so no one has to visit an office:

Paperless transaction
No gasoline wasted
Time saved
24 hour availability

I think this is the kind of thing this site SHOULD be looking at.