Read this on HuffingtonPost.com
Look, I'm as ready as the next guy to call out the Obama administration for the shoddy rollout of the ACA. I'm also confident that at the end of the day, as the exchanges become more accessible and as families with incomes below four times poverty get help paying for the coverage they buy there -- coverage that for some will be of higher quality than what they had -- the reforms will first become more popular, and later become an appreciated, and probably pretty dull, part of the fabric of life in America.
One of the problems in getting from here to there is articles like in yesterday's NYT. No question there are people paying more for health care under the ACA, but the examples in here seem awfully cherry-picked to support the headline claim that the new law "Frustrates many in Middle Class."
First, let's talk middle-class. The median family income in the U.S. right now is about $62,000. For families of four, like the one featured in the piece, it's about $80,000. Income eligibility for the subsidies goes up to four times the poverty threshold, or about $94,000 for a family of four, meaning that a median-income family buying coverage on the exchange would be eligible for a subsidy. The family featured in the piece was chosen to be above the subsidy level--their income was $100,000. That's certainly a fair point and I'm not denying they're "middle-class." But the piece should have mentioned the median, or more to the point, the fact that according to Census data, the ratio of income to the poverty threshold for families in the middle fifth of the income scale is 3.5, again, below the subsidy cutoff of 4.
But what of this "cliff" business on which the piece focuses, i.e., that the family takes a huge hit by not being eligible for the subsidy? As noted, the subsidy cutoff for a family of four is about $94,000 and the family's contribution is capped at 9.5 percent of their income, or about $9,000. The Chapman's, the family featured in the piece, with income of $100,000, may now pay about $12,000 per year for coverage.
To me, I had a hard time coming across anything positive about the ACA but I am amazed. The arguments about whether or not the ACA will help or hurt certain families is a wild card to me as it varies deeply. This article specifically uses the middle class an example for the goodness of how the ACA will help them. I think that a big problem is how it states the median families income is about $62,000. That number varies wildly and families incomes are all over the place. Lots of families incomes will boost that number as their incomes are at the of the range while lower earning families will drag that number down. Even the number of children is too great to truly guess where it stands. The ACA's numbers and machinery will help lots, and hurt lots depending on someone's individual view, as well as political standpoints.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
GOP lawmakers accuse EPA of muzzling scientists on climate regulations
Read this on FOXnews.com
Published December 20, 2013
Published December 20, 2013
FoxNews.com
Republican leaders on the House Science Committee are accusing the Environmental Protection Agency of disregarding science in its push to impose carbon dioxide limits on power plants.
Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and 20 other Republican lawmakers sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Thursday, claiming the agency has "muzzled" members of its independent science advisory board. The EPA released a proposal in September that would set emissions caps for new coal-fired power plants and would likely require the industry to use carbon-capture technology, which involves burying the carbon underground. Critics of the proposed rule say the technology, which is still under development, is too expensive, not commercially available and poses safety risks.
The lawmakers claim the agency is ignoring dissenting voices on its science advisory board, which recommended a review of the science underpinning the newest power plant rule.
A senior official at EPA recently deflected the scientists' criticisms by claiming that the rule, which has yet to be finalized, doesn't need to address carbon dioxide storage, the lawmakers said.
“We are concerned about the agency’s apparent disregard for the concerns of its science advisors,” the lawmakers wrote. “Science is a valuable tool to help policymakers navigate complex issues. However, when inconvenient facts are disregarded or when dissenting voices are muzzled, a frank discussion becomes impossible."
The agency maintains the carbon-capture technology has been "adequately demonstrated" based on a government-funded projects under construction in Mississippi and three planned projects in Texas, California and Canada. The lawmakers said the proposed mandates in the rule would "create regulatory burdens" and "litigation risks" for the coal industry and would result in the loss of American jobs. “The EPA’s proposed power plant regulations will put Americans out of work and will make electricity more expensive and less reliable," the lawmakers wrote. "It is misleading and dangerous for EPA to quietly dismiss inconvenient facts and ignore the consequences of its costly regulations. Americans deserve honesty.”
In October, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., released draft legislation to block the EPA's proposal to limit emissions from new power plants and require the agency to set new rules that incorporate "commercially feasible" technologies.
The Manchin-Whitfield proposal has yet to be officially introduced.
In my personal view I cannot be sure whether or not I am completely agreeing with this article as I question the source it comes from as well. It is just so hard to find an unbiased article about anything these days, you have to do more work and check your work, visiting multiple sites when we all wish we could just have one easy place to go to. There are always accusations and misleading things when it comes to blaming other departments in our government about what scientists have found and have not found. When is there a nice happy non-backstabbing group in politics? I don't think ever, there cannot be peace ever in politics, because like we discussed in class, it is all about power. And if someone loses an argument in something of importance like this then it is not very exciting.
The lawmakers claim the agency is ignoring dissenting voices on its science advisory board, which recommended a review of the science underpinning the newest power plant rule.
A senior official at EPA recently deflected the scientists' criticisms by claiming that the rule, which has yet to be finalized, doesn't need to address carbon dioxide storage, the lawmakers said.
“We are concerned about the agency’s apparent disregard for the concerns of its science advisors,” the lawmakers wrote. “Science is a valuable tool to help policymakers navigate complex issues. However, when inconvenient facts are disregarded or when dissenting voices are muzzled, a frank discussion becomes impossible."
The agency maintains the carbon-capture technology has been "adequately demonstrated" based on a government-funded projects under construction in Mississippi and three planned projects in Texas, California and Canada. The lawmakers said the proposed mandates in the rule would "create regulatory burdens" and "litigation risks" for the coal industry and would result in the loss of American jobs. “The EPA’s proposed power plant regulations will put Americans out of work and will make electricity more expensive and less reliable," the lawmakers wrote. "It is misleading and dangerous for EPA to quietly dismiss inconvenient facts and ignore the consequences of its costly regulations. Americans deserve honesty.”
In October, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., released draft legislation to block the EPA's proposal to limit emissions from new power plants and require the agency to set new rules that incorporate "commercially feasible" technologies.
The Manchin-Whitfield proposal has yet to be officially introduced.
In my personal view I cannot be sure whether or not I am completely agreeing with this article as I question the source it comes from as well. It is just so hard to find an unbiased article about anything these days, you have to do more work and check your work, visiting multiple sites when we all wish we could just have one easy place to go to. There are always accusations and misleading things when it comes to blaming other departments in our government about what scientists have found and have not found. When is there a nice happy non-backstabbing group in politics? I don't think ever, there cannot be peace ever in politics, because like we discussed in class, it is all about power. And if someone loses an argument in something of importance like this then it is not very exciting.
Man Who Shot Reagan Allowed Longer Stays Out Of Mental Hospital
Read this on NPR
John Hinckley Jr., the man who tried to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981, has been granted more time outside the mental hospital where he's been confined for almost three decades.
U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman ordered that Hinckley be allowed to visit his mother's home in Williamsburg, Va., for up to 17 days at a time, tacking a week on to the 10-day visits that were already permitted away from St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, D.C.
Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity after he shot Reagan and three others on March 30, 1981.
The Associated Press says:
U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman ordered that Hinckley be allowed to visit his mother's home in Williamsburg, Va., for up to 17 days at a time, tacking a week on to the 10-day visits that were already permitted away from St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, D.C.
Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity after he shot Reagan and three others on March 30, 1981.
The Associated Press says:
` The Washington Post said:"Hinckley must make at least eight successful 17-day visits away from the hospital before any requests to increase his time in Williamsburg beyond that will even be considered.
"In court hearings before the ruling, Hinckley's lawyer, Barry Levine, had asked for his visits to be expanded to 17 and 24 days, arguing that there is no evidence Hinckley is a danger to himself or others. Attorneys for the U.S. government, however, argued that Hinckley is 'capable of great violence' and told the judge that granting expanded privileges was 'premature and ill conceived.'"
"Friedman wrote that Hinckley's depression and psychotic disorder are in full remission and that he had not displayed violent behavior in more than 29 years."
I don't know a lot about the details regarding the history of this event and have not looked into it but I understand why people would be worried to have a man who has committed such a severe crime would be allowed "free with reservations" out in public. I think that had this been a person related to a school shooting involving the slaying of many innocent children than they would not be allowed out in public at all if the public were to have a say in their punishment. But we don't like it when our rights are diminished, and so we have allowed "loopholes" in our legal system that allow people such as this man who shot Reagan to still have some freedoms reserved. Are we in the mood of saying that if its our rights then heavens no lets not weaken them, but if it was a criminal of some sorts than lets get rid of them altogether. We need to have better minority representation when dealing with the majorities."Friedman's order also allows Hinckley to drive alone to specific destinations — which Levine said will help him integrate in Williamsburg — though it requires he carry a GPS enabled cell phone during unsupervised activities. Friedman wrote that court and mental health officials would evaluate Hinckley's progress after eight 17-day visits."
Democratic senator says Obamacare can hurt itself
Read this on Reuters
President Barack Obama's healthcare law could have a "meltdown" and make it difficult for his Democratic Party to keep control of the U.S. Senate next year if ongoing problems with the program are not resolved, a Democratic senator said on Sunday.
"If it's so much more expensive than what we anticipated and if the coverage is not as good as what we had, you've got a complete meltdown at that time," Manchin told CNN's "State of the Union" program.
There have been complaints from consumers about higher premiums than they previously had to pay for health insurance after their old plans were canceled because of new standards under the law, as well as lingering problems with the main web portal used to sign up for insurance, HealthCare.gov.
I know that this whole healthcare reform is big, confusing, hard to understand, and has had its problems inflated in such a way that any exposure will be negative. I have yet to see any positive news regarding this issue. Now, obviously there is lots of positive news out there, but that may not be very exciting so a media outlet probably wouldn't want to have run of the mill stuff. If you want some real biased and inflated information and accusational news then go and visit the Republican and Democrats official websites. Or any other major political party's webpages. There you will see the most outrageously propagandic stories of how their party is so much more right than the others.
President Barack Obama's healthcare law could have a "meltdown" and make it difficult for his Democratic Party to keep control of the U.S. Senate next year if ongoing problems with the program are not resolved, a Democratic senator said on Sunday.
Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who has urged delaying a penalty for people who do not enroll for health insurance in 2014 under the law, told CNN that a transitional year was needed for the complex healthcare program, commonly known as Obamacare, to work.
"If it's so much more expensive than what we anticipated and if the coverage is not as good as what we had, you've got a complete meltdown at that time," Manchin told CNN's "State of the Union" program.
"It falls of its own weight, if basically the cost becomes more than we can absorb, absolutely."
The White House has been scrambling for months to control the damage from the botched October 1 launch of the law, formally called the Affordable Care Act, which aimed at making sure that millions of Americans without health insurance are able to receive medical coverage.
There have been complaints from consumers about higher premiums than they previously had to pay for health insurance after their old plans were canceled because of new standards under the law, as well as lingering problems with the main web portal used to sign up for insurance, HealthCare.gov.
Manchin said Senate Democrats who are up for re-election next year are "feeling the weight" of the program's woes and could have trouble keeping their majority in the chamber.
Republicans have been highlighting the healthcare law's difficulties as they seek to gain the six seats they would need to win control of the 100-member Senate.
I know that this whole healthcare reform is big, confusing, hard to understand, and has had its problems inflated in such a way that any exposure will be negative. I have yet to see any positive news regarding this issue. Now, obviously there is lots of positive news out there, but that may not be very exciting so a media outlet probably wouldn't want to have run of the mill stuff. If you want some real biased and inflated information and accusational news then go and visit the Republican and Democrats official websites. Or any other major political party's webpages. There you will see the most outrageously propagandic stories of how their party is so much more right than the others.
Purge in North Korea far frokm over: Expert says
Read this on CNN.com
December 20th, 2013
Former NBA star Dennis Rodman arrived in North Korea on Thursday, the country's state-run media reported. The State Department is not involved in the trip, and Rodman is not officially representing the U.S. "I'm not of the view that this is a particularly positive development," said Christopher Hill, dean of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at Denver University. Hill said there are usually two sides to such widely-reported trips to North Korea. On the one hand it helps the regime suggest that everything is normal. On the other, it might be an opportunity to send a clear message to the Hermit Kingdom – on human rights violations, for example, or to advocate for the release of imprisoned American citizen Kenneth Bae.
"I'm not sure Dennis Rodman is the kind of person who can make that clearer message to the regime there," said Hill, who led the U.S. delegation during the six-party talks with North Korea from 2005-2009.
Former Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, who has traveled to North Korea several times, said Rodman might share useful information gleaned while in North Korea with government officials when he returns to the U.S. Like information on recent government purges. Kim Jong Un executed his uncle Jang Song Thaek earlier this month. Kim's aunt – whose husband was executed – was missing from a ceremony marking the two-year anniversary of Kim Jong Il's death Tuesday. But Hill says she has been ill for months, even years, so it's not unusual for her to miss events.
"I don't think the purge will extend to her. But I do emphasize I don't think this purge is over," said Hill. "Usually when you go after the top person like Jang Song Thaek, it suggests it's going to go further.
In my personal view this is very crazy, and dangerous again as these informal contacts that north korea has should not be seen as any olive branch diplomatic signs to me. I agree with Hills satatement here: "I think a lot of North Kroeans are very nervous right now. Unfortunately, Rodman is not briefed by the State Department after his visits, or if he is, it is very cursory, There are people who have spent a lifetime trying to figure out what's going on in North Korea, and I'm not sure Dennis Rodman is really quite up to that challenge at this time. Leader Kim Jong Un allowing Rodman's visit to continue despite the recent government purges should not be interpreted as a diplomatic signal." People like rodman are the crazy frays on the ends of rope that make our reputation laughable to other countries and even those within our own country.
December 20th, 2013
11:32 AM ET
Former NBA star Dennis Rodman arrived in North Korea on Thursday, the country's state-run media reported. The State Department is not involved in the trip, and Rodman is not officially representing the U.S. "I'm not of the view that this is a particularly positive development," said Christopher Hill, dean of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at Denver University. Hill said there are usually two sides to such widely-reported trips to North Korea. On the one hand it helps the regime suggest that everything is normal. On the other, it might be an opportunity to send a clear message to the Hermit Kingdom – on human rights violations, for example, or to advocate for the release of imprisoned American citizen Kenneth Bae.
"I'm not sure Dennis Rodman is the kind of person who can make that clearer message to the regime there," said Hill, who led the U.S. delegation during the six-party talks with North Korea from 2005-2009.
Former Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, who has traveled to North Korea several times, said Rodman might share useful information gleaned while in North Korea with government officials when he returns to the U.S. Like information on recent government purges. Kim Jong Un executed his uncle Jang Song Thaek earlier this month. Kim's aunt – whose husband was executed – was missing from a ceremony marking the two-year anniversary of Kim Jong Il's death Tuesday. But Hill says she has been ill for months, even years, so it's not unusual for her to miss events.
"I don't think the purge will extend to her. But I do emphasize I don't think this purge is over," said Hill. "Usually when you go after the top person like Jang Song Thaek, it suggests it's going to go further.
In my personal view this is very crazy, and dangerous again as these informal contacts that north korea has should not be seen as any olive branch diplomatic signs to me. I agree with Hills satatement here: "I think a lot of North Kroeans are very nervous right now. Unfortunately, Rodman is not briefed by the State Department after his visits, or if he is, it is very cursory, There are people who have spent a lifetime trying to figure out what's going on in North Korea, and I'm not sure Dennis Rodman is really quite up to that challenge at this time. Leader Kim Jong Un allowing Rodman's visit to continue despite the recent government purges should not be interpreted as a diplomatic signal." People like rodman are the crazy frays on the ends of rope that make our reputation laughable to other countries and even those within our own country.
Foreign Policy with North Korea, Vodka the solution?
Read this on the National News Post
Dennis Rodman wants to belly up to the bar with some friends and order a shot of peace talks.
“Everyone knows [President Barack] Obama drinks beer,” Rodman said. “But you know what? I’m pretty sure he does have a cocktail here or there. I’d love to see him with a Vodka shot in his hand, toasting to Kim Jong [Un] and me.
“That would be awesome.”
A Rodman-branded vodka is set to debut this week, just the latest business venture he’s had a fling with, stretching from wrestling to authoring a children’s book to even, yes, unofficial basketball ambassador to North Korea. He can count Kim as a fan of the vodka — the duo drank from two cases Rodman brought over for his recent visit in September, where they talked hoops and planned an exhibition game in January.
It takes years of vetting to become well connected in politics, and to me, just because your great at basketball doesn't mean you have a very good sense or knowledge of foreign policy. This is very risky for the US-N. Korea foreign relations as the US certainly does not want Rodman to do this.
Dennis Rodman wants to belly up to the bar with some friends and order a shot of peace talks.
“Everyone knows [President Barack] Obama drinks beer,” Rodman said. “But you know what? I’m pretty sure he does have a cocktail here or there. I’d love to see him with a Vodka shot in his hand, toasting to Kim Jong [Un] and me.
“That would be awesome.”
A Rodman-branded vodka is set to debut this week, just the latest business venture he’s had a fling with, stretching from wrestling to authoring a children’s book to even, yes, unofficial basketball ambassador to North Korea. He can count Kim as a fan of the vodka — the duo drank from two cases Rodman brought over for his recent visit in September, where they talked hoops and planned an exhibition game in January.
It takes years of vetting to become well connected in politics, and to me, just because your great at basketball doesn't mean you have a very good sense or knowledge of foreign policy. This is very risky for the US-N. Korea foreign relations as the US certainly does not want Rodman to do this.
Dennis Rodman defends his visit to North Korea following its "Purge"
Read this on the National Post
Dennis Rodman has recently traveled to North Korea -again and while he says he's had a great time, he did not get to meet their dear leader this last go around. He said that won’t stop him from coming back on Kim’s birthday next month to hold an exhibition game with other former basketball stars.
On the night before he was due to leave Pyongyang, Rodman told The Associated Press on Sunday that he had not yet had a meeting with Kim. The flamboyant Hall of Famer said that he didn’t expect to meet the leader every time he comes to North Korea, and that his current trip was for training North Korean basketball players who will take part in the match Rodman is organizing for Kim’s birthday on Jan. 8.
“I’m not just coming over here to meet the leader,” Rodman said. “I came over here to meet the basketball team, to prepare a great game for the leader for his birthday. And people need to understand that it’s not important for me to meet him every time I come over because he has another greater job to do for his country, and I respect that, but this trip was basically to come over to train the team, so we can have a great, great, game.”
I think that for a USA sports player to make such a big fuss and actually acting on it to go visit an isolated country is very dangerous. It seems as if it is much for popularity and publicity rather than really trying to help the people.
Dennis Rodman has recently traveled to North Korea -again and while he says he's had a great time, he did not get to meet their dear leader this last go around. He said that won’t stop him from coming back on Kim’s birthday next month to hold an exhibition game with other former basketball stars.
On the night before he was due to leave Pyongyang, Rodman told The Associated Press on Sunday that he had not yet had a meeting with Kim. The flamboyant Hall of Famer said that he didn’t expect to meet the leader every time he comes to North Korea, and that his current trip was for training North Korean basketball players who will take part in the match Rodman is organizing for Kim’s birthday on Jan. 8.
“I’m not just coming over here to meet the leader,” Rodman said. “I came over here to meet the basketball team, to prepare a great game for the leader for his birthday. And people need to understand that it’s not important for me to meet him every time I come over because he has another greater job to do for his country, and I respect that, but this trip was basically to come over to train the team, so we can have a great, great, game.”
I think that for a USA sports player to make such a big fuss and actually acting on it to go visit an isolated country is very dangerous. It seems as if it is much for popularity and publicity rather than really trying to help the people.
Federal policies potentially create more economic bubbles
Read this on San Jose Mercury Business News
The Federal Reserve's super-low interest-rate policies have inflated a slew of dangerous asset bubbles. Or so critics say. They say stocks are at unsustainable prices. California homes are fetching frothy sums. Same with farmland, Bitcoins and rare Scotch.
Under Chairman Ben Bernanke, the Fed has aggressively bought bonds to try to cut borrowing rates and accelerate spending, investing and hiring. Its supporters say low rates have helped nourish the still-modest economic rebound.
Yet some say the Fed-engineered rates have produced an economic sugar high that risks triggering a crash akin to the tech-stock swoon in 2000 and the housing bust in 2006.
On the eve of the Fed's latest policy meeting Tuesday and Wednesday, here's why -- or why not -- these five assets might be in a bubble: Stocks, housing, farmland, bitcoin and scotch.
My opinion is greatest when it comes to stocks. Reasons for saying that stocks are a waiting to burst bubble are reasonable given that I myself am an investor with real stocks. The Standard & Poor's 500 stock index has jumped about 26 percent since the Fed announced a year ago that it would buy $85 billion in bonds each month. And since the Fed's first round of bond buying at the end of 2008, stocks have soared 124 percent. Stocks outside the United States have also surged as other central banks have followed the Fed with their own low-rate policies.
The Federal Reserve's super-low interest-rate policies have inflated a slew of dangerous asset bubbles. Or so critics say. They say stocks are at unsustainable prices. California homes are fetching frothy sums. Same with farmland, Bitcoins and rare Scotch.
Under Chairman Ben Bernanke, the Fed has aggressively bought bonds to try to cut borrowing rates and accelerate spending, investing and hiring. Its supporters say low rates have helped nourish the still-modest economic rebound.
Yet some say the Fed-engineered rates have produced an economic sugar high that risks triggering a crash akin to the tech-stock swoon in 2000 and the housing bust in 2006.
On the eve of the Fed's latest policy meeting Tuesday and Wednesday, here's why -- or why not -- these five assets might be in a bubble: Stocks, housing, farmland, bitcoin and scotch.
My opinion is greatest when it comes to stocks. Reasons for saying that stocks are a waiting to burst bubble are reasonable given that I myself am an investor with real stocks. The Standard & Poor's 500 stock index has jumped about 26 percent since the Fed announced a year ago that it would buy $85 billion in bonds each month. And since the Fed's first round of bond buying at the end of 2008, stocks have soared 124 percent. Stocks outside the United States have also surged as other central banks have followed the Fed with their own low-rate policies.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Athlete IPO Tests Limits of Investing
By Jeff Macke | Breakout – Fri, Oct 25, 2013 7:59 AM EDT
Read this on YahooFinance.com
People gamble on everything these days, like fantasy football or sports in general. But what about Athletes? Well, now you can invest in an actual individual. Houston, Texas running back Arian Foster has signed with Fantex Holdings which will let investors buy "shares" in an athlete's future earnings. It's no fantasy.
Buck French, co-founder and CEO of Fantex, explains how it works. "We signed a brand contract with Arian Foster to acquire 20% of his future brand income in exchange for $10 million. So in order to fund the contract, we have created a... Fantex Inc. tracking stock that's linked to the value and performance of his brand."
It's worth a moment of your time to scroll back up and read that paragraph again. Arian Foster is going to get $10 million in exchange for 20% of the money he makes for being Arian Foster for the rest of his life. Investors will then be able to buy and sell actual portions of Foster's income stream — forever.
Normally these type of "exotic" investments would only be open to accredited individuals (rich people). Thanks to the JOBS Act and crowdfunding, companies like Fantex are now fair game for anyone with a Social Security number, a mailing address and seed money. Of course, that doesn't mean you should necessarily invest in Fantex or anything like it. It just means that you can if you want to.
High Risk Anyone?
As an actual investment, buying a share of anyone's future income via Fantex is a long shot. For investors to make money, Foster's share price would need to rise on the Fantex-controlled exchange. Assuming the exchange works and has sufficient trading liquidity to allow a shareholder to sell their stake and cash out their gains, it will work just like trading a normal stock.
The risks are laid out in the disclaimer and, it goes without saying, there is a lot of risk that comes with buying a portion of Foster's future earnings that aren't necessarily connected to his career.
If we stopped right there, buying shares of Foster would be a high-risk investment, but being a running back in the NFL is also a high-risk profession. Foster is currently nursing an injured hamstring and he hasn't even gone public yet. As French makes very clear, "If he doesn't play again, obviously that will affect the value of the brand."
Ethics still questioned though . . .
If you're a shareholder, you want your athletes — your shares — to play until they are dragged off the field. To be an effective investor in this type of market you almost, by definition, can't care about the players as people. To invest in anything successfully you can't be emotionally attached in any way. Once you're buying the earnings power of players' brands, your primary economic concern is their playing contract. Their personal safety isn't just a secondary concern, it's not a concern at all.
Beyond the extremely high-risk nature of any start-up investment, Fantex raises some unique moral and ethical questions. High on the list is the idea of buying a portion of a human being's income for life.
There are other questions raised by Fantex as a concept. John Elway is on the board. Is that a conflict of interest? Will Fantex give investors access to injury or personal information other NFL fans wouldn't have? Since other players and coaches can invest in players, does that in any way skew their judgement toward their jobs?
My personal view in this article is that this is a high risk investment opportunity not worth investing in. It's very dangerous to invest in one single thing that can be so easily changed by damages the individual may incur. Also, further moral issues could be the thoughts of rich white men investing in a black athlete, reminding some people of slaves being bought and sold for work. If you have unimaginable amounts of money, than go ahead, risk it and try it but doing a quick google search now you can see that just a few weeks after this article was published, he suffered a back injury. What now? Well, Fantex is also interested in signing up a player from the 49ers.
By Jeff Macke | Breakout – Fri, Oct 25, 2013 7:59 AM EDT
Read this on YahooFinance.com
People gamble on everything these days, like fantasy football or sports in general. But what about Athletes? Well, now you can invest in an actual individual. Houston, Texas running back Arian Foster has signed with Fantex Holdings which will let investors buy "shares" in an athlete's future earnings. It's no fantasy.
Buck French, co-founder and CEO of Fantex, explains how it works. "We signed a brand contract with Arian Foster to acquire 20% of his future brand income in exchange for $10 million. So in order to fund the contract, we have created a... Fantex Inc. tracking stock that's linked to the value and performance of his brand."
It's worth a moment of your time to scroll back up and read that paragraph again. Arian Foster is going to get $10 million in exchange for 20% of the money he makes for being Arian Foster for the rest of his life. Investors will then be able to buy and sell actual portions of Foster's income stream — forever.
Normally these type of "exotic" investments would only be open to accredited individuals (rich people). Thanks to the JOBS Act and crowdfunding, companies like Fantex are now fair game for anyone with a Social Security number, a mailing address and seed money. Of course, that doesn't mean you should necessarily invest in Fantex or anything like it. It just means that you can if you want to.
High Risk Anyone?
As an actual investment, buying a share of anyone's future income via Fantex is a long shot. For investors to make money, Foster's share price would need to rise on the Fantex-controlled exchange. Assuming the exchange works and has sufficient trading liquidity to allow a shareholder to sell their stake and cash out their gains, it will work just like trading a normal stock.
The risks are laid out in the disclaimer and, it goes without saying, there is a lot of risk that comes with buying a portion of Foster's future earnings that aren't necessarily connected to his career.
If we stopped right there, buying shares of Foster would be a high-risk investment, but being a running back in the NFL is also a high-risk profession. Foster is currently nursing an injured hamstring and he hasn't even gone public yet. As French makes very clear, "If he doesn't play again, obviously that will affect the value of the brand."
Ethics still questioned though . . .
If you're a shareholder, you want your athletes — your shares — to play until they are dragged off the field. To be an effective investor in this type of market you almost, by definition, can't care about the players as people. To invest in anything successfully you can't be emotionally attached in any way. Once you're buying the earnings power of players' brands, your primary economic concern is their playing contract. Their personal safety isn't just a secondary concern, it's not a concern at all.
Beyond the extremely high-risk nature of any start-up investment, Fantex raises some unique moral and ethical questions. High on the list is the idea of buying a portion of a human being's income for life.
There are other questions raised by Fantex as a concept. John Elway is on the board. Is that a conflict of interest? Will Fantex give investors access to injury or personal information other NFL fans wouldn't have? Since other players and coaches can invest in players, does that in any way skew their judgement toward their jobs?
My personal view in this article is that this is a high risk investment opportunity not worth investing in. It's very dangerous to invest in one single thing that can be so easily changed by damages the individual may incur. Also, further moral issues could be the thoughts of rich white men investing in a black athlete, reminding some people of slaves being bought and sold for work. If you have unimaginable amounts of money, than go ahead, risk it and try it but doing a quick google search now you can see that just a few weeks after this article was published, he suffered a back injury. What now? Well, Fantex is also interested in signing up a player from the 49ers.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Amnesty International Says U.S. Drone Officials Should Be Tried for War Crimes
By Joshua Keating
Read this on Slate.com
This article covers the group, Amnetsy International talks of two new reports out today cast a disturbing light on America’s drone war. One by the Amnesty International focuses on recent strikes in Pakistan and one in Yemen where the story of Mamana Bibi,
a 68-year-old grandmother killed by hellfire missiles while tending her garden on Oct. 24, 2012:
By Joshua Keating
Read this on Slate.com
This article covers the group, Amnetsy International talks of two new reports out today cast a disturbing light on America’s drone war. One by the Amnesty International focuses on recent strikes in Pakistan and one in Yemen where the story of Mamana Bibi,
a 68-year-old grandmother killed by hellfire missiles while tending her garden on Oct. 24, 2012:
Accustomed to seeing drones overhead, Mamana Bibi and her grandchildren continued their daily routine. “The drone planes were flying over our village all day and night, flying in pairs sometimes three together. We had grown used to them flying over our village all the time,” Zubair Rehman continued. “I was watering our animals and my brother was harvesting maize crop,” said Nabeela.
Then, before her family’s eyes, Mamana Bibi was blown into pieces by at least two
Hellfire missiles fired concurrently from a US drone aircraft.
A second strike hit the field nearby a few minutes later, badly injuring one of Mamana Bibi’s grandsons who had run to the scene of the first explosion.
The report notes that “it is not possible for Amnesty International to fully assess the reasons behind the killing of Mamana Bibi without further information from the US authorities,” though a Pakistani intelligence source suggested that a local Taliban fighter may have used a satellite phone nearby several minutes before the strike. However, the nearest roads are almost 1,000 feet away from where she was hit. The strike came a year after now-CIA Director John Brennan.
I think that there are some crazy people out there who know that this is crazy, and maybe unconstitutional, or even not enough. I think that we need to continue to use and re-learn with our drones for the better safety and peace of our people. There being a long time that people have argued against that is expected but I believe that it is in the best interest of my personal view because I do feel safer that we are conducting tests and getting better.
I think that there are some crazy people out there who know that this is crazy, and maybe unconstitutional, or even not enough. I think that we need to continue to use and re-learn with our drones for the better safety and peace of our people. There being a long time that people have argued against that is expected but I believe that it is in the best interest of my personal view because I do feel safer that we are conducting tests and getting better.
Contractor behind HealthCare.gov to testify extra testing could not have saved site
Published October 23, 2013
Read this on Foxnews.com Politics
This story talks about how A top executive with CGI Federal, one of the contractors paid millions to create the ObamaCare website, says “no amount of testing” could have prevented the site’s problem-plagued start.
Senior Vice President Cheryl Campbell’s remarks are part of prepared testimony she will give before a Republican-led House hearing Thursday on the insurance-marketplace site. They also appear to challenge new claims by the administration that a lack of adequate testing was part of the problem.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing is the first since the site’s disastrous Oct. 1 launch -- marked by crashes, slow response times and its inability to let customers make purchases.
Several contractors are set to testify Thursday, and will likely face tough questioning from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, though prepared testimony indicates the witnesses may try to spread the blame around -- including to government officials overseeing the project.
Prepared testimony from contractor Optum/QSSI blamed in part a "late decision" to require customers to register before browsing for insurance, which could have helped overwhelm the registration system.
In the prepared testimony, Campbell argues that with a system “this complex with so many concurrent users, it is not unusual to discover problems that need to be addressed once the software goes into a live production environment.”
“No amount of testing within reasonable time limits can adequately replicate a live environment of this nature,” she adds.
Campbell said issues with HealthCare.gov have continued to improve over the past two weeks, but additional challenges are occurring as more users get past the registration screen and buy insurance -- including “data assurance issues.”
She said such problems can be fixed through “tuning, optimization and application improvements.”
The testimony comes as the Obama administration offered new details and explanations on Wednesday. The administration said the system didn't get enough testing, especially at a high user volume. It blamed a compressed time frame for meeting the Oct. 1 deadline to open the insurance markets. Basic "alpha and user testing" are now completed, but that's supposed to happen before a launch, not after.
This website problem is not a good problem to be in. I have heard a fair amount of negative information and I believe that the government should be more careful and precise as to what they are going to be putting out there.
I know how frustrating it is and nearly everyone else understands how hard it is when a website does not save your information or allow you to make purchases and such. Its a terrible process to have to go back and start over. They just need to be more careful when launching something that peoples lives depend on.
Published October 23, 2013
Read this on Foxnews.com Politics
This story talks about how A top executive with CGI Federal, one of the contractors paid millions to create the ObamaCare website, says “no amount of testing” could have prevented the site’s problem-plagued start.
Senior Vice President Cheryl Campbell’s remarks are part of prepared testimony she will give before a Republican-led House hearing Thursday on the insurance-marketplace site. They also appear to challenge new claims by the administration that a lack of adequate testing was part of the problem.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing is the first since the site’s disastrous Oct. 1 launch -- marked by crashes, slow response times and its inability to let customers make purchases.
Several contractors are set to testify Thursday, and will likely face tough questioning from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, though prepared testimony indicates the witnesses may try to spread the blame around -- including to government officials overseeing the project.
Prepared testimony from contractor Optum/QSSI blamed in part a "late decision" to require customers to register before browsing for insurance, which could have helped overwhelm the registration system.
In the prepared testimony, Campbell argues that with a system “this complex with so many concurrent users, it is not unusual to discover problems that need to be addressed once the software goes into a live production environment.”
“No amount of testing within reasonable time limits can adequately replicate a live environment of this nature,” she adds.
Campbell said issues with HealthCare.gov have continued to improve over the past two weeks, but additional challenges are occurring as more users get past the registration screen and buy insurance -- including “data assurance issues.”
She said such problems can be fixed through “tuning, optimization and application improvements.”
The testimony comes as the Obama administration offered new details and explanations on Wednesday. The administration said the system didn't get enough testing, especially at a high user volume. It blamed a compressed time frame for meeting the Oct. 1 deadline to open the insurance markets. Basic "alpha and user testing" are now completed, but that's supposed to happen before a launch, not after.
This website problem is not a good problem to be in. I have heard a fair amount of negative information and I believe that the government should be more careful and precise as to what they are going to be putting out there.
I know how frustrating it is and nearly everyone else understands how hard it is when a website does not save your information or allow you to make purchases and such. Its a terrible process to have to go back and start over. They just need to be more careful when launching something that peoples lives depend on.
Ireland considers closing tax loopholes used by Apple and other tech companies
By Nathan Ingraham on Email @NateIngraham
Read this on the Verge.com
My view on this is that it is good that the Finance Minister of Ireland wants to be a part of the solution, but with taxes it is such a hard and multiple way approach problem that they will need much longer than anticipated to change any regulation aspect of this.
On another view, this would have ramifications of a global scale for companies all over the world. There are so many problems and loopholes with the tax system in the U.S. there are just as many in other countries alike and there are always going to be ways that people can get around from not paying taxes.
By Nathan Ingraham on Email @NateIngraham
Read this on the Verge.com
Huge companies like Apple, Amazon, and Google have been under pressure for their practice of keeping large portions of their profits overseas in countries that are more tax-friendly — Apple alone has $100 billion that isn't subject to US taxes.
Ireland's Department of Finance just released a report detailing the country's international tax strategy, and within it was a note about a potential change as part of Ireland's 2014 Finance Bill. The country says that it will consider a "change to our company residence rules aimed at eliminating mismatches — that can exist between tax treaty partners in certain circumstances — being used to allow companies to be ‘stateless' in terms of their place of tax residence."
Of course, we're a long way away from such a change going into effect. These rules won't apply until January 2015. And that's assuming that this proposal does indeed stay part of the 2014 Finance Bill. However, the company's finance minister says the country will be trying to be part of the solution to the overseas tax issues that have cropped up recently. "Let me be crystal clear. Ireland wants to be part of the solution to this global tax challenge, not part of the problem," Ireland Finance Minister Michael Noonan said.
My view on this is that it is good that the Finance Minister of Ireland wants to be a part of the solution, but with taxes it is such a hard and multiple way approach problem that they will need much longer than anticipated to change any regulation aspect of this.
On another view, this would have ramifications of a global scale for companies all over the world. There are so many problems and loopholes with the tax system in the U.S. there are just as many in other countries alike and there are always going to be ways that people can get around from not paying taxes.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Government doors closed, but workers may still get paid
Read this on boston.com
By Andrew Taylor | Associated Press | October 5, 2013
The government has failed to keep the doors open and has told federal workers to stay off the job as the political parties fight over spending and health care in austere times.
Read this on boston.com
By Andrew Taylor | Associated Press | October 5, 2013
The government has failed to keep the doors open and has told federal workers to stay off the job as the political parties fight over spending and health care in austere times.
Now Congress and President Barack Obama are sending this message to the 800,000 sidelined government employees: We don’t know when the impasses will end but you will get reimbursed for lost pay once the government reopens.
With the partial shutdown entering its fifth day, the GOP-run House passed a bill Saturday that would make sure the furloughed workers get paid for not working. The White House backs the bill and the Senate was expected to OK it, too, but the timing was unclear.
But even as Congress and the White House rallied around the bill, one outside group said it ‘‘demonstrates the stupidity of the shutdown.’’
Making the shutdown less painful for 800,000 federal employees will encourage Congress and the White House to extend it even longer, driving up the cost, said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Ellis said ‘‘essential’’ federal workers who stayed on the job ‘‘will feel like suckers because they've been working while the others essentially are getting paid vacations.’’
The White House has opposed other piecemeal efforts by House Republicans to restore money to some functions of government during the partial shutdown. White House officials have said the House should reopen the entire government and not pick agencies and programs over others.
In the 1995-96 government shutdowns, furloughed workers were retroactively given full pay.
Despite the White House’s declared appreciation of the essential the role of federal workers, there appeared no sign of a breakthrough in getting them back to work.
Lawmakers keep replaying the same script on Capitol Hill: House Republicans pass piecemeal bills to reopen popular and politically sensitive programs — on Friday, disaster relief and food aid for the poor — while Democrats insist that the House vote on a straightforward Senate-passed measure to reopen all of government.
My personal view on this is becoming more of observing the arguments and stalemates of our government leaders while sitting back in a bit of fear for my investments not knowing what to do. I really wish that we as the people too, could compromise more, with more respect to minority views and better communications. I know that too many people are upset, and irritated with the performance as of late, especially congress. Playing the blame game really doesn't show any power one political party has over the other to me.
I am pleased with the idea that those furloughed may get paid, but am also upset that as Ellis said ‘‘essential’’ federal workers who stayed on the job ‘‘will feel like suckers because they've been working while the others essentially are getting paid vacations.’’ How to we explain that to those who work and those who can't work?
My personal view on this is becoming more of observing the arguments and stalemates of our government leaders while sitting back in a bit of fear for my investments not knowing what to do. I really wish that we as the people too, could compromise more, with more respect to minority views and better communications. I know that too many people are upset, and irritated with the performance as of late, especially congress. Playing the blame game really doesn't show any power one political party has over the other to me.
I am pleased with the idea that those furloughed may get paid, but am also upset that as Ellis said ‘‘essential’’ federal workers who stayed on the job ‘‘will feel like suckers because they've been working while the others essentially are getting paid vacations.’’ How to we explain that to those who work and those who can't work?
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Stocks Shrug off Government Shutdown, boosted by Apple
Read this on CNN Money.com
By Hibah Yousuf @CNNMoneyInvest October 1, 2013: 4:26 PM ET
Late this past Monday night, Congress failed to pass a budget and triggered a government shutdown for the first time in nearly two decades Tuesday. But Wall Street took Washington's act and swept it under the rug. In the days leading up to the shutdown, the market had sold off with many investors cashing out to save what they could. The Dow and S&P 500 declined for seven of the last eight trading days, including the Dow's triple-digit loss on Monday. According to Joe Rundle, Head of trading at ETX, many investors are expecting the shutdown to be resolved quickly, risking little damage to the overall economy.
Plus, the market is far more concerned about the looming debt limit deadline. If the government hits its debt ceiling in mid-October, it will not be able to pay all of its bills.
Waking up Tuesday morning has been a surprise to many as well as the markets opened up in the green, and continued to rise throughout the day, not dropping off the edge as others feared.
Activist investor Carl Icahn has given Apple shares quite a lift these last few weeks.
Shares of Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) rallied after Icahn tweeted that he met with Apple CEO Tim Cook Monday and "pushed hard" for a $150 billion stock buyback. Icahn added that the two plan to continue the conversation in three weeks, which will be around the time Apple releases its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings. The activist investor also revealed that he now owns a nearly $2 billion stake in Apple.
My personal opinion on both these articles is positive for now, but I expect to turn negative in the near future as these are only temporary floaters for the stock markets in America as a whole and as Apple stock especially. I believe that the stocks will shave their gains made from today, or maybe over this next week once our government and people start to get desperate over what the plan is.
When I was combing through the news late Monday night, waiting for the verdict on our future economy basically, I was extremely fearful once news broke out bringing many services to a grinding halt. I fear next to the worse for my personal investments and immediately started drafting plans for unloading shares in multiple companies I believed to be in danger of a shutdown. I understand the shutdown process well, and am very disappointed and irritated but mostly flummoxed on how the Senate and House cannot compromise on what seems to be everything, and are acting in "either" and "or" ways. Although I'm not pleased with our governments performance, I believe highly that this shutdown result is a mammoth reflection of the people in America too.
I'm worried about the next month especially with the Debt Ceiling in mid-October, which wiped much value from my investments across the board the last time we argued about what we want and don't want.
Read this on CNN Money.com
By Hibah Yousuf @CNNMoneyInvest October 1, 2013: 4:26 PM ET
Late this past Monday night, Congress failed to pass a budget and triggered a government shutdown for the first time in nearly two decades Tuesday. But Wall Street took Washington's act and swept it under the rug. In the days leading up to the shutdown, the market had sold off with many investors cashing out to save what they could. The Dow and S&P 500 declined for seven of the last eight trading days, including the Dow's triple-digit loss on Monday. According to Joe Rundle, Head of trading at ETX, many investors are expecting the shutdown to be resolved quickly, risking little damage to the overall economy.
Plus, the market is far more concerned about the looming debt limit deadline. If the government hits its debt ceiling in mid-October, it will not be able to pay all of its bills.
Waking up Tuesday morning has been a surprise to many as well as the markets opened up in the green, and continued to rise throughout the day, not dropping off the edge as others feared.
Activist investor Carl Icahn has given Apple shares quite a lift these last few weeks.
Shares of Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) rallied after Icahn tweeted that he met with Apple CEO Tim Cook Monday and "pushed hard" for a $150 billion stock buyback. Icahn added that the two plan to continue the conversation in three weeks, which will be around the time Apple releases its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings. The activist investor also revealed that he now owns a nearly $2 billion stake in Apple.
My personal opinion on both these articles is positive for now, but I expect to turn negative in the near future as these are only temporary floaters for the stock markets in America as a whole and as Apple stock especially. I believe that the stocks will shave their gains made from today, or maybe over this next week once our government and people start to get desperate over what the plan is.
When I was combing through the news late Monday night, waiting for the verdict on our future economy basically, I was extremely fearful once news broke out bringing many services to a grinding halt. I fear next to the worse for my personal investments and immediately started drafting plans for unloading shares in multiple companies I believed to be in danger of a shutdown. I understand the shutdown process well, and am very disappointed and irritated but mostly flummoxed on how the Senate and House cannot compromise on what seems to be everything, and are acting in "either" and "or" ways. Although I'm not pleased with our governments performance, I believe highly that this shutdown result is a mammoth reflection of the people in America too.
I'm worried about the next month especially with the Debt Ceiling in mid-October, which wiped much value from my investments across the board the last time we argued about what we want and don't want.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Fast-Food Chains Aren’t as Rich as Protesters Think
Read this on YahooFinance.com
By Rick Newman | The Exchange – Thu, Aug 29, 2013 3:25 PM EDT
Of the many social issues facing Americans today, one large controversy is finding the perfect number for minimum wage. For some time, and probably until the end of time low wage workers at fast-food restaurants particularly McDonalds in this instance, are demonstrating in a large but highly non-violent groups demanding that they deserve a pay hike of as much as 100% - to $15 an hour, just to be able to stick their toes across into the middle class threshold.
The minimum wage earning people demand more money, and argue that there's plenty of money to pay out to current and new hires, as well as without firing anyone. McDonald’s, the nation’s biggest restaurant chain, is, in fact, very profitable. Those $5.5 billion in profits last year came from revenues of $27.6 billion, giving the Golden Arches a profit margin of nearly 20%. The average profit margin of big companies in the S&P 500 index is only 8.7%, according to S&P Capital IQ. McDonald’s has been a perennial over performer, which makes it an easy target for protesters seeking a bigger slice of the pie.
But keep this in mind: Pay at most restaurants is determined by the franchise owner and not the corporate parent, which often owns a very small percentage of the restaurants under their brand. McDonald's, for example, owns just 11% of their restaurants in the U.S., so it may make more sense for the protesters to be picketing local owners rather than focusing their venom on the corporate entity.
Either way, the restaurant industry overall is a low-margin business that doesn’t have much spare cash in the till. The average profit margin for the whole industry is just 2.4%, according to Capital IQ, and that’s down from 3.2% in 2009, which is when the recession ended.
While I myself agree that there are those who really do work hard, and really deserve a pay raise, or X amount of dollars to stay financially stable or at least afloat, there are always the minority or majority doing well, not so much. Laziness but with the same attitude of wanting to be paid more. Its a sticky issue, with arguments and good points able to step out from all sides. I also keep in mind that instead of going to corporate to complain, go local to complain because there are a lot of franchise owners out there-not to say that corporate can't or won't help. We need people like this on the occasions where there really does need to be change for good, when deemed necessary.
McDonald’s has perhaps 140,000 U.S. employees, which is a small fraction of the 4 million Americans who work at fast-food restaurants. So while McDonald’s might be able to afford a bit more for workers, many industry employees work at chains that could use a little more income themselves. Maybe they should all angle for a job at McDonald’s.
Read this on YahooFinance.com
By Rick Newman | The Exchange – Thu, Aug 29, 2013 3:25 PM EDT
Of the many social issues facing Americans today, one large controversy is finding the perfect number for minimum wage. For some time, and probably until the end of time low wage workers at fast-food restaurants particularly McDonalds in this instance, are demonstrating in a large but highly non-violent groups demanding that they deserve a pay hike of as much as 100% - to $15 an hour, just to be able to stick their toes across into the middle class threshold.
The minimum wage earning people demand more money, and argue that there's plenty of money to pay out to current and new hires, as well as without firing anyone. McDonald’s, the nation’s biggest restaurant chain, is, in fact, very profitable. Those $5.5 billion in profits last year came from revenues of $27.6 billion, giving the Golden Arches a profit margin of nearly 20%. The average profit margin of big companies in the S&P 500 index is only 8.7%, according to S&P Capital IQ. McDonald’s has been a perennial over performer, which makes it an easy target for protesters seeking a bigger slice of the pie.
But keep this in mind: Pay at most restaurants is determined by the franchise owner and not the corporate parent, which often owns a very small percentage of the restaurants under their brand. McDonald's, for example, owns just 11% of their restaurants in the U.S., so it may make more sense for the protesters to be picketing local owners rather than focusing their venom on the corporate entity.
Either way, the restaurant industry overall is a low-margin business that doesn’t have much spare cash in the till. The average profit margin for the whole industry is just 2.4%, according to Capital IQ, and that’s down from 3.2% in 2009, which is when the recession ended.
While I myself agree that there are those who really do work hard, and really deserve a pay raise, or X amount of dollars to stay financially stable or at least afloat, there are always the minority or majority doing well, not so much. Laziness but with the same attitude of wanting to be paid more. Its a sticky issue, with arguments and good points able to step out from all sides. I also keep in mind that instead of going to corporate to complain, go local to complain because there are a lot of franchise owners out there-not to say that corporate can't or won't help. We need people like this on the occasions where there really does need to be change for good, when deemed necessary.
McDonald’s has perhaps 140,000 U.S. employees, which is a small fraction of the 4 million Americans who work at fast-food restaurants. So while McDonald’s might be able to afford a bit more for workers, many industry employees work at chains that could use a little more income themselves. Maybe they should all angle for a job at McDonald’s.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Obama Finds Transcending Race Hard Fulfilling King Dream
Read this on Bloomberg.com
By Lisa Lerer - Aug 22, 2013 10:00 PM MT
This post contains a simple history of a few turning points in Barack Obamas past career leading up to becoming elected president in 2008, as well as ongoing concerns with post-racial and civil rights such as the recent Trayvon Martin Case. Also included in this are momentous civil rights activists and movements relating to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. The post mentions how Americans today still struggle with recognizing beyond race when trying to accept other human beings because it is still an issue that needs to be improved upon.
I personally agree with the general idea and recognition that there are still divisions when it comes to racial classes in America, even though we have adaptively modernized our thinking and actions towards different races of people there are those that just can't accept change or cannot accept it well.
I am very grateful for history's past demonstrations against our government such as Rosa Parks, and the Black Panther Movement with hopes of reforming segregation laws. Racial-politics is a tough issue to debate especially when all of America is involved, but I believe that our government is working hard to continue relaxing heated arguments and tensions over such material.
Read this on Bloomberg.com
By Lisa Lerer - Aug 22, 2013 10:00 PM MT
This post contains a simple history of a few turning points in Barack Obamas past career leading up to becoming elected president in 2008, as well as ongoing concerns with post-racial and civil rights such as the recent Trayvon Martin Case. Also included in this are momentous civil rights activists and movements relating to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. The post mentions how Americans today still struggle with recognizing beyond race when trying to accept other human beings because it is still an issue that needs to be improved upon.
I personally agree with the general idea and recognition that there are still divisions when it comes to racial classes in America, even though we have adaptively modernized our thinking and actions towards different races of people there are those that just can't accept change or cannot accept it well.
I am very grateful for history's past demonstrations against our government such as Rosa Parks, and the Black Panther Movement with hopes of reforming segregation laws. Racial-politics is a tough issue to debate especially when all of America is involved, but I believe that our government is working hard to continue relaxing heated arguments and tensions over such material.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)