Facebook Stock

Oh my god. I already knew that stock was a tool used by the wealthy to get wealthier, "investing" while not actually putting money into businesses.

I didn't know that the wealthy have a monopoly on newly issued stock. Did you know that you could only buy some of Facebooks initial stock if you have over $500,000 in your account? What does that mean? It means that some person who's already a millionaire is going to buy that stock and turn around and sell ten minutes later to it some Average Joe's mutual fund at a tidy profit (probably--everyone could say that Facebook isn't worth the price and refuse to buy so they might take a loss). In other words, if I was a millionaire, I could own Facebook for ten minutes and make a profit. But if all I have is a small 401K, the only way I can make money on Facebook is to pay the millionaire for the privilege of his "sloppy seconds" (that's the term used by a business advisor on ABC news last night). Even if all I could buy is 10 shares, shouldn't I be allowed the option to buy it as soon as it is for sale? Shouldn't I have the option to sell it at a small profit ten minutes later?

Or what if I'm some devout Facebook user who actually cares that the company does well (like the owners of McDonald's stock who only eat at McDonald's, thus increasing the profitability of the company and thus helping to increase the demand, and therefore the price, of McDonald's stock)? Why should I be denied access to the stock unless I bow to the monetary demands of the already wealthy? I want to keep the stock for fifty years and retire on it, after spending a lifetime helping the company to be profitable in my own small way--but I must pay the millionaire who is only buying the stock because he knows some sad sap like me will pay anything to own a part of the company I hold dear? He doesn't care whether the company fails or succeeds--he's just in it for a few hours to make a profit that the average american would like to see as a year's wage and pay half the amount of taxes on it as said Average Joe.

Of course, we live in a country where such unfairness is standard doctrine from the Republicans who say that fixing this type of activity is a "job killer". That raising taxes on this type of "investment" keeps "job creators" from hiring one more person. It doesn't matter that the millionaire who sold me my Facebook stock doesn't employ anyone. That he sits in his $10 million Costa Rican mansion and buys and sells from his ocean view balcony. Sure, he "technically" just poured a million dollars into Facebook's coffers, but he just made that back plus 20% when he sold it ten minutes later. 40% if he waits an hour.

I wonder how much Romney's mutual fund is making on this deal...

French Politics

Umm...wow. I like the way France does things. Their campaign is a mandated six weeks long ONLY and it's been what, 2 weeks since the election? And their new President is now in charge and is already meeting with Angela Merkle (sorry about the spelling) in Germany. Short, sweet, and to the point. 

Senator Tom Coburn

You can't imagine my irritation that Coburn went on Jon Stewart to chat and happened to mention his preference that congress raise taxes on the super-rich. Apparently the senator is as conservative as they come and yet, he has no problem seeing the tax rate go back to what it was 50 years ago.

Yes, I know, I should be thrilled. Why aren't I? Because the stupid worm isn't running for office in 2012. Why is it that politicians only say things that will help the country when they're no longer pandering for votes?! It almost makes me like Biden for being so honestly inept. Biden has to be the epitome of how the right candidate can out-shine even the worst running mate.

Special Interests

I think that one of the biggest problems with modern politics is the question of what exactly a "Special Interest Group" is. Both sides complain about the special interests that support their opponents...which begs the obvious question of what exactly a special interest is and why is a group only a special interest when it's in support of the opposition.

Both sides have special interests. The NRA has vowed to do whatever it can to defeat Obama and the Catholic Church disagrees with Paul Ryan's budget plan to cut social programs while continuing to lower the taxes of the super rich. Doesn't it annoy you that on one side these groups are "Special Interests" while on the other they're merely "Concerned Citizens"?

Lobbyists

(That word looks funny...just saying.)

I propose that lobbyists stay out of Washington. Oh don't look at me that way, you know that the world would be a much better place if lobbyists had to stay away from our representatives. Now, don't get me wrong. I think lobbyists are great for teaching our representatives about the issues that are important to their constituents, but the whole "wining and dining" and he who has the most money wins situation is ridiculous. This is why I've come up with the following proposition:

Professional lobbyists cannot speak with representatives or their assistants. Instead, they must submit video and written pamphlets for their requests. There can be no phone calls, dinners, or other favors. This puts all issues onto the same playing field.

Professional lobbyists can instead transfer their persuasive powers to the public sphere since I see no problem with individual citizens talking with their representatives about the issues that are important to them.

I think that this simple proposition would greatly increase transparency in government.

Romney

Romney said something interesting the other day. He was asked if he or Obama was funnier (because of his possible appearance on SNL) and he didn't know him personally to be able to make a judgment. This got me thinking.

I propose that at some point during any campaign, all the candidates (fringe or not) regardless of their party affiliation, eat dinner together. It should be completely private, media free, and in neutral territory.

I think that 90% of the hateful speech is made during the campaign because they're making assumptions about the other. I mean heck, how well do the Republican candidates know each other personally? And they know Obama even less. Maybe if they got to know each other without a camera catching all the soundbites, they might understand eachother's positions a little be a little more progressive, instead of reductive.

Oil Prices

I'm really annoyed because the politicians keep saying that we need to allow for more drilling in order to lower gas prices. While A: this is a long term fix only, I also have to point out that there is a LOT of oil sources on land and easily accessed already owned by the oil and gas companies that they are choosing to keep in reserve. They spend a lot of money finding those new sources of oil and then they just want the first rights to get it which is what the government fights are about.

They've closed how many refineries in the past 2 years? Yes, they were closed because it was cheaper than fixing their environmental problems (like leaking noxious toxins into our water sources), so yes, I guess it is all the government's fault that we aren't able to refine as much oil as we used to thus raising gas prices (though as we're unable to un-tie gas prices from the rest of the world, there's no telling how much of our own actions had any effect).

By the way, on the fact that there is only the world market on gas, thus causing our prices to be high even when our domestic production is high, shouldn't we be pushing for a higher export tax on oil? This would keep our oil in the country, making us more independent. I'm not sure if Exxon would like that...how much of our oil is exported? Keystone would imply a lot, even if it does come from Canada.

By the way, again, apparently Putin made a lot of campaign promises this year that include raising government pensions to a level that exceeds their tax revenue, but that's okay. Everything he promised can be paid for if a barrel of oil raises to $150, since 50% of their tax revenue comes from oil and natural gas. Huh...it looks like there's more than just Exxon who will benefit if gas prices continue to increase.

I really liked Jon Stewart's analysis of the world's stage of problems from 2 weeks ago. Republicans are running for office, so you know that they're saying anything inflammatory in hopes of winning votes. It then makes sense that we can project this campaign strategy on Iran and Isreal since both of their top offices are up for election in the next year or two.

Redundancies?

Obama is going to try to shrink government by getting rid of redundancies such as the Commerce Department. I'm sure even the least governmentally informed of this country know about Rick Perry's gaffe when he forgot the names of the departments he would end, so now that Obama is going to attempt such a feat, shouldn't he be happy? I haven't heard any replies, except from the collective that is the Republican Party, that says that Obama's only doing it because the Republican's wanted to first (yes, the is of course a stupid reason to do anything...sarcasm). I personally think that this is the best way for Obama to win the re-election--take everything on the Republicans' platforms and attempt to do them. If he can get them completed, then American's will like him. If he can't get them passed, then he proves that they are impossible promises and also makes congress look even more ineffective (if a Democratic President can't get Republican ideas passed in a split congress, then how could a Republican get the same laws passed?). It's a win-win situation.

Sorry for how dippy this sounds--I'm fuzzy headed today--stupid cold. I guess I should go back to melting crayons (got a Crayola Crayon Maker for Christmas)--not too much thinking in that.

Paying for Health Care

I came up with this plan when Health Care was first brought to my attention when I was about 16 years old (I guess this was the 2004 election). And you know, I think it's a pretty reasonable plan: Let's make every state, city, county, whatever the same as a corporation.

Hear me out. Okay, so when businesses decide to offer insurance to their employees they start looking for the company that is willing to give the most "bang for their buck". Generally the agreement between business and employee is that both will pay half, maybe more depending. But, pretty much the business will let the insurance companies fight over who will get the deal. The bigger the business, the more higher the proportion of healthy people to not--the healthy people will end up paying for the care the non-healthy need. This is the problem with the private insurance situation--not enough healthy people buy it because they're healthy--why need it. So. The business gets the best deal, the employees pay the least price, and the insurance companies make money--trifecta of win for all.

So, here's my grand scheme. Use the same system, but with the government as the deciding factor (like the CEO ultimately decides on the insurance company of choice, so does the top Government official). The area used can really be anything--city, state, county, whatever. Just not country because that would be a monopoly and make the whole system redundant. And then we let all the current insurance companies fight over the areas. Everyone will "buy" places with really healthy people, and grudgingly take the places with all the unhealthy people. So to be fair, all areas will be ranked with proportion of obesity for the given population. The more lower ranked an area is, the higher they can take from the healthy areas (so the company that takes the "sickest" area also has access to the "healthiest")--the only rule is that by the end of the day, ALL areas must have a sponsoring insurance company. Pricing for the policies will be based on income with those who make more paying a more "traditional" price (no one is allowed to be charged more than they would pay for a traditional private policy), BUT the minimum policy is one where you get 1 free check-up a year and coverage for any bill over $2000 and a co-pay of whatever is normal for doctor/ER/whatever visits and tests. I think my parents pay $100 a month to cover 4 people with this kind of service--but I might be COMPLETELY wrong--I haven't had to buy insurance yet and haven't paid too much attention to it. The insurance company can decide on pricing. And the government (the one in charge of insurance decisions) will pay our of our taxes those costs over the amount expected by everyone to pay. For example: the insurance company sets the price of that basic policy at $100 a month, but the government decides that someone making less than $15,000 a year can only afford $50 in insurance a month--the government will pay the difference. However, the government will ONLY pay the difference between what they expect someone to be able to pay and the amount of the cheapest policy. Should a person decide to sign up for a more expensive policy, they are responsible for everything over the amount allotted (so, if they are deemed able to pay $50, and the cheapest policy is $100, but the person wants the $200 policy, they have to pay the $150 not covered by the government's $50 grant out of their pocket). The amount the person pays in sales tax should more than pay for the difference in their insurance policy.

Now, someone who makes $100,000 a year can choose to purchase the basic policy and it will only cost them $100 a month, even though the government has decided that they should be able to pay $500 a month for better service (or whatever). The insurance company decides on the prices, so it's not like they're going to lose money on this policy. And no currently held policies will be ended. The only law that affects the public is that EVERYONE must purchase an insurance policy there are no exceptions. (Okay, the Amish just claimed to be exempt, and I'm willing to give it to them since pretty much the world can "end" tomorrow and they will survive. They don't need internet or fancy hospitals. But I just looked up the Amish on Wikipedia and I think that having a church "insurance" policy is quite sufficient.)

And the government in charge of insurance will be allowed to seek a better policy yearly as part of the law. However, in all cases, no ones' policy rate can be risen by such a move. If the insurance company decides to raise it's rate, there must be 3 months notice in advance so that all parties can decide to change companies privately or choose to keep the same policy at the higher rate--those who can no longer afford the cheapest policy will get a government grant of the difference. But if the government decides to change companies, they cannot do so if it means that current policies will be more expensive (that they are choosing to go to a company which the cheapest policy is $115 when the current cheapest policy is $100 is illegal) unless the new policy offers more services, though this can be debatable as there is a minimum policy standard for a reason. However, in this case, the government will be paying the difference, so it will not cost the individuals for the payment increase.

Initially, the distribution of insurance companies nationwide will be even--in a sort of NFL draft pick like system the companies will choose with each government making the final decision. Then, after 1 year the governments can decide whether another company could do a better job. I'm less concerned about how companies are placed with an area than the way in which the policies are distributed.

However.The prices set as area prices are not available to those outside of the area. If you work for AIG, you cannot get the discount price for employees of Hot Topic, so the same standard is true for the area policies. But, of course, the individual insurance companies can decide to offer the discount price to all if they wish--or they can decide to charge a higher price to  those who are "out of area". All discounts are at their discretion.

Should any insurance company go out of business, it's areas will immediately go back onto the national market to be picked up by the other companies in the same way as decided initially as the way of dividing the areas--unless the government has already found a new company, which should actually be the first option (government THEN back onto the national market). BUT, when this emergency change is made, for 3 months the new company must accept the previous pricing, and must give notification at the time of acquisition of all the coming changes in pricing, just as if it were a "normal" change in insurance company.

Any bills acquired during the emergency transfer of insurance company will NOT be eligible for late fees, etc. caused because of the inconvenience. The medical places must wait for reimbursement and/or the patient will be reimbursed once all paperwork is settled.

Did I miss anything? Maybe I should send this to Washington since they can't seem to not steal when it comes to health care.

Fox News on Hulu.com

Okay, I know I sent a LOT of annoying emails to various fox personalities complaining that there is no access to Fox News for me (I like to know what the enemy is saying). Yeah...they complied, but not in a good way. I figured that they would just stream their current programs on the "television" site, but instead, I'm not sure what they did. The media is from at least 2008 (I quit adding to my queue once I hit the election, so there may be more). But they actually took the time to make it look like the news has always been online--a commentator at the beginning to introduce it as "Fox News on HULU.com"...HULU is HUGE on the first screen. I need to pay more attention to whether that intro is the same commentator though the rest of the clip. But since I know that at least part of it is fake, I have no idea what to think about the rest of this--how was this news used a year and a half ago?!? Is the commentary totally new, made to look like Fox News made better news then? I'm so confused! Or rather, I'm so annoyed. ABC news was also recently added to the site--they only have the past 2 weeks or so. Why does Fox News need to be special (ed.)?

By the way--WOOO! For Mrs. McCain for standing up for gay right to marry. I KNEW I liked her!! She should totally run for president!