“the court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.”
Justice John Paul Stevens, about the Jan. 21, 2010 ruling that corporations may spend all they want to get people elected in the USA. The Court has effectively ruled that corporations are more important than individuals in voicing, by money contributions, running advertisements, and all other election-related procedures, their "opinions and desires". There are still LIMITS ON PEOPLE giving money - but no longer on corporations!
This is just added to the already unconstitutional ruling that any municipality may force you out of the house you have owned (even without a mortgage) for 1 year or 100 years, because a rich person is willing to pay more in taxes than you currently pay (they are taking by "eminent domain", thought that is supposed to be strictly reserved for instances of public safety, public progress, and where no other reasonable alternative exists (such as building a court complex elsewhere). [Wiki says "The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development." BUT I have to point out that personal housing is NOT economic development, as "pubic housing" would be construed.] [[They took thousands of people's homes in NYC and Chicago, and elsewhere, so apartments could be built. As a kid that sounded fine, but now I question it because some company (person) got very rich building and renting apartments.]]
Back to the issue at hand -- This is a severe taking of our rights and we should be screaming the streets, but Americans have become too complacent. We watch places like Poland in the 80's, and Iran today, and say "way to go! Fight for your freedom! Down with totalitarian regimes!" But here we sit - most Americans are not even aware that their freedoms are being taken, many others are apathetic (the old 'there's nothing we can do about it' attitude), and the rest just are too stupid to understand what is being done to them by the Supreme Court. (I see this in many comments on USA Today, where people support "indefinite holding of terrorists", but that also means that THEY can be accused, grabbed, and held, sometimes for months before anyone knows [people reported as "missing" because no one knows] where they are or even what they are charged with. HOW DUMB they are to think that tossing the Constitution for someone else will never come back and affect them! The 'Bush era renditions' are another example of this - here a President acted like a King; or tyrant.)
There is a saying - "the constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is"; meaning that the Supreme Court is the final, and "correct", interpreter of what the Constitution means. But just as any law can be overturned when a court says it violates the constitution, so too can any ruling of the Supreme Court by a later court (as they have done here, taking TWO rulings from before 1950 that have limited corporate money in elections). I hope people wake up and start demanding the return of their individual rights.
WE ARE ON THE ROAD TO -- THE BEST CORPORATION (uh - Country) MONEY CAN BUY !!!
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Not all Crooks are Americans - but this one needs a Bullet !
An article found on my Yahoo page, by BBC News - 'Bomb detector' maker Jim McCormick arrested
Here is another account of government "buyers" being too stupid to hold the job they get paid for. While this guy and everyone in his 'company' is a fraud, the buyers are also at fault for purchasing these devices. They are noted as the "ADE-651"
Look at what was reported - "The device consists of a swivelling aerial mounted to a hinge on a hand-grip. It does not operate by battery, instead promotional material says it is powered only by the user's static electricity." Now, can someone tell me how much static is generated in a high-humidity environment, or in a swamp, or a rain? (Hint - NONE. Static is bled-off by the moisture before it can build to any usable level.)
It also took a special investigation by BBC Newsnight which paid a computer laboratory to find out that the "device" is simply a store security/theft-prevention device, which sends out a signal to a large 'sensor' to detect items being shoplifted! It could no more detect bombs than your average doorknob!
Now just who has bought these devices? What government official "signed off" on millions of dollars worth useless "bomb detectors" -- as they posted - "The Iraqi government has spent US$85m (£52m) on the hand-held detectors, now used at most checkpoints in Baghdad." Now most likely, that is US TAX DOLLARS spent; and US SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS BEING KILLED BECAUSE OF THIS FRAUD. The article mentions that "no western government uses" these worthless things, but because Iraq is using them, certainly the US is involved in some way - purchase, promotion, and "protected by".
Nothing short of a trial to find all of the conspirators and then a bullet in each person's head is called for here. I am not far from also saying that the decision-makers for purchasing these bogus devices should be included in the lineup. At the least, anyone involved in any testing phase (they did more than read some one else's report) should be fired and jailed, and barred from collecting any pay, pension, etc. AND the "report reader" needs to be fired - the description provided should have raised "red flags" throughout the industry.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Making a case for "Life After Death" -- but false claims won't make it real
In CSM online version, 12/10/09 --- http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20091209/cm_csm/ydsouza
my letter to editor/CSM
Concerning Dinesh D'Souza, "Life After Death: The Evidence." [His words are in italics]
First, you print an "opinion" piece by him, but it is more like a testimonial for his latest book. Opinion too? Yes, but really.... it is more of a ‘buy my book, make me rich” piece.
Second, he, like ALL religionists, twists facts, or uses only the part that might support his opinion, rather than using everything available to reach a valid conclusion.
So that I am not accused of taking comments ‘out of context’, below are excerpts and my comment.
He takes facts from several sources and mixes them together, then draws a conclusion. But since he didn’t keep the facts straight, the conclusion is false:
Alarmed by the obvious implication of near-death experiences, atheists have been laboring assiduously to explain them away. Today, the best atheist explanation is that near-death experiences are the result of a dying brain. When the brain irreversibly breaks down, psychologist Susan Blackmore contends, it generates special effects that closely track the near-death experience.
There are several problems with this theory but one fatal one is that many survivors of clinical death are now going to work, looking after their families, and functioning just fine. So much for an "irreversible" breakdown.
Concerning Dinesh D'Souza, "Life After Death: The Evidence." [His words are in italics]
First, you print an "opinion" piece by him, but it is more like a testimonial for his latest book. Opinion too? Yes, but really.... it is more of a ‘buy my book, make me rich” piece.
Second, he, like ALL religionists, twists facts, or uses only the part that might support his opinion, rather than using everything available to reach a valid conclusion.
So that I am not accused of taking comments ‘out of context’, below are excerpts and my comment.
He takes facts from several sources and mixes them together, then draws a conclusion. But since he didn’t keep the facts straight, the conclusion is false:
Alarmed by the obvious implication of near-death experiences, atheists have been laboring assiduously to explain them away. Today, the best atheist explanation is that near-death experiences are the result of a dying brain. When the brain irreversibly breaks down, psychologist Susan Blackmore contends, it generates special effects that closely track the near-death experience.
There are several problems with this theory but one fatal one is that many survivors of clinical death are now going to work, looking after their families, and functioning just fine. So much for an "irreversible" breakdown.
NO ONE claims that near-death experiences are the result of “irreversible” breakdown. Here he OUT RIGHT LIES. The actual claim is that it results from oxygen levels being so low that people are close to, or in the process of, passing out. Just as several things can cause “tunnel vision”, low oxygen being a major cause, so too can it cause “a white light” as the eyes shut down, or the brain shuts down. “Irreversible” is just that - death of at least part of the brain; any later recovery of the person is because other parts of the brain can take over some functions, as shown BY SCIENCE.
He further states:
I don't claim to prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt, but I do claim to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
He further states:
I don't claim to prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt, but I do claim to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
Well, at least the statement is rational, though I doubt he really means it. And he has NO evidence, but merely claims to have it.
He further states:
"Is it good for me to believe?" [His quotes, not mine]
For me, the clear answer is yes. If there is no life after death, we are like passengers on the Titanic: We can rearrange the deck chairs and turn up the music, but we are ultimately doomed. By contrast, if there is life after death, we can face death with serenity, viewing it is a gateway to another life. Also we have reason to hope that good will eventually be rewarded and evil held accountable. Moreover, recognizing that our terrestrial existence is part of a larger drama, we can forge a sense of lasting purpose in our lives. So not only is belief in an afterlife reasonable; it is also good for us.
He further states:
"Is it good for me to believe?" [His quotes, not mine]
For me, the clear answer is yes. If there is no life after death, we are like passengers on the Titanic: We can rearrange the deck chairs and turn up the music, but we are ultimately doomed. By contrast, if there is life after death, we can face death with serenity, viewing it is a gateway to another life. Also we have reason to hope that good will eventually be rewarded and evil held accountable. Moreover, recognizing that our terrestrial existence is part of a larger drama, we can forge a sense of lasting purpose in our lives. So not only is belief in an afterlife reasonable; it is also good for us.
He is making the case for “hey, what could it hurt?” or “let’s CLAIM to believe just to be on the safe side”. In other words, he ADVOCATES HYPOCRISY. He is clearly saying that you should attend church, and tell all your friends, and AT LEAST GIVE LIP SERVICE to “I Believe”, because IF there is an afterlife WITH GOD then you will be safe.
But that assumes that “God” would not know what is really in your heart - that you are doing it “just in case”. IF there is a god, and your bible tells you that making false claims is wrong, don't you think that you would be sent to ‘hell’ by your ‘god’ for false testimony? Face it, to claim all is OK is hypocrisy. (I had a co-worker claim to be a good Catholic, but daily he threatened to kill me, and said he would sleep fine afterwards. He even wanted me to attend his church so I could 'meet a nice girl'; I pointed out the hypocrisy - he said it was not, but soon after started down the hate road. Yea - typical christian.)
And he also try’s to put in some science by claiming that “Heaven” could be another dimension. Again, hypocrisy; Nothing in the bible, written by MEN with the “direction of God”, brings up alternate dimensions or anything even close to the concept. Here D'Souza is trying to trick non-believers and followers of science into “belief” by a ridiculous claim with no substance behind it.
His comment:
One of the direct implications of the Big Bang is that not only did the physical universe have a beginning, but space and time also had a beginning. Space and time are properties of our universe. This means that in realms beyond our universe, if such realms exist, there might be no space and no time. Suddenly the Christian idea of eternity is rendered intelligible.
But that assumes that “God” would not know what is really in your heart - that you are doing it “just in case”. IF there is a god, and your bible tells you that making false claims is wrong, don't you think that you would be sent to ‘hell’ by your ‘god’ for false testimony? Face it, to claim all is OK is hypocrisy. (I had a co-worker claim to be a good Catholic, but daily he threatened to kill me, and said he would sleep fine afterwards. He even wanted me to attend his church so I could 'meet a nice girl'; I pointed out the hypocrisy - he said it was not, but soon after started down the hate road. Yea - typical christian.)
And he also try’s to put in some science by claiming that “Heaven” could be another dimension. Again, hypocrisy; Nothing in the bible, written by MEN with the “direction of God”, brings up alternate dimensions or anything even close to the concept. Here D'Souza is trying to trick non-believers and followers of science into “belief” by a ridiculous claim with no substance behind it.
His comment:
One of the direct implications of the Big Bang is that not only did the physical universe have a beginning, but space and time also had a beginning. Space and time are properties of our universe. This means that in realms beyond our universe, if such realms exist, there might be no space and no time. Suddenly the Christian idea of eternity is rendered intelligible.
Again, selecting various facts out of context to support an invalid conclusion. Science states that other dimensions will almost certainly (we have not been there so there is no proof) have different qualities, including the passage of time. Perhaps a what would feel like a week to us there could be 1,000 years here (much like the Einstein equation shows that moving fast will make your timeframe be different from a person on Earth), but to claim that might be ‘heaven’, in fact he practically outright states so, is again just stupid.
To cut this short -- if you think “God” wants a bunch of hypocrites who give lip service to “believing”, go with his “proof”. But don’t expect “God” to forgive you. If you want to go with the REAL EVIDENCE, then do like I do: accept that THIS is all there is, and look for your “rewards” here in this 'plain of existence', do good, follow the “Golden Rule”, and refuse false claims.
To cut this short -- if you think “God” wants a bunch of hypocrites who give lip service to “believing”, go with his “proof”. But don’t expect “God” to forgive you. If you want to go with the REAL EVIDENCE, then do like I do: accept that THIS is all there is, and look for your “rewards” here in this 'plain of existence', do good, follow the “Golden Rule”, and refuse false claims.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Global Warming - Debate, not Politics
Posted on Global Warming FACEBOOK page (12/06/09)
Many doubt that GW is happening at all -- even with pictures of glaciers melting that are over 10,000, even millions, of years old. So for them - there is no stupidity quotient that can measure your brain function.
BUT - what is the main cause? Is man 95%, or 5%, of the problem? There are too many 'scientists' being paid to fit data to political agendas. Liberals want to paint man as the main cause, conservatives don't.
Other groups want to jump to action now, even though there is no solid evidence showing where to even start, beyond lowering emissions in general will help.
Face it - the whole thing can be looked at as a job creation exercise. Make jobs studying; jobs controlling pollution, etc.
So let's get some jobs done by scientists to provide real FACTS -
what are temp controlling gases and OTHER factors in GW?
what sources generate them, and at what amount per year / decade?
what part is man-made?
what part of animal"
what part is 'natural' (volcano, water, frozen methane underwater)?
what can be done about EACH SOURCE, even if totally natural?
what JOB can be created to fight each source?
"Conservatives" need to get behind the job aspect. They are always screaming about "private sector jobs", so they SHOULD be BEHIND all the debates, and pushing for answers so they can create jobs.
Of course, who would be the ultimate employer? YOU!! Because even though you will pay for a filter, or bottled water, etc, NONE of you want to pay for the air you BREATHE. Governments will be forced to TAX the COMPANIES that create (NOT barter like coal pollution) the problems, then dole out the money to companies that clean it up.
Maybe someone will find a good analogy -- how about garbage pickup? You pay a company directly, or through local taxes, to clean up the things produced by another company that you purchased.
Now you need to PAY TAXES TO BREATHE, and to not get FLOODED OUT on the coastal plains areas, to have DRINKING WATER in interior parts of the country (snow-melt provides a lot to the rivers), and much, much more.
But to claim it is not happening at all -- your education system failed you. Ask for a refund because your IQ is still that of a 5 year old.
Many doubt that GW is happening at all -- even with pictures of glaciers melting that are over 10,000, even millions, of years old. So for them - there is no stupidity quotient that can measure your brain function.
BUT - what is the main cause? Is man 95%, or 5%, of the problem? There are too many 'scientists' being paid to fit data to political agendas. Liberals want to paint man as the main cause, conservatives don't.
Other groups want to jump to action now, even though there is no solid evidence showing where to even start, beyond lowering emissions in general will help.
Face it - the whole thing can be looked at as a job creation exercise. Make jobs studying; jobs controlling pollution, etc.
So let's get some jobs done by scientists to provide real FACTS -
what are temp controlling gases and OTHER factors in GW?
what sources generate them, and at what amount per year / decade?
what part is man-made?
what part of animal"
what part is 'natural' (volcano, water, frozen methane underwater)?
what can be done about EACH SOURCE, even if totally natural?
what JOB can be created to fight each source?
"Conservatives" need to get behind the job aspect. They are always screaming about "private sector jobs", so they SHOULD be BEHIND all the debates, and pushing for answers so they can create jobs.
Of course, who would be the ultimate employer? YOU!! Because even though you will pay for a filter, or bottled water, etc, NONE of you want to pay for the air you BREATHE. Governments will be forced to TAX the COMPANIES that create (NOT barter like coal pollution) the problems, then dole out the money to companies that clean it up.
Maybe someone will find a good analogy -- how about garbage pickup? You pay a company directly, or through local taxes, to clean up the things produced by another company that you purchased.
Now you need to PAY TAXES TO BREATHE, and to not get FLOODED OUT on the coastal plains areas, to have DRINKING WATER in interior parts of the country (snow-melt provides a lot to the rivers), and much, much more.
But to claim it is not happening at all -- your education system failed you. Ask for a refund because your IQ is still that of a 5 year old.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
MORE LIES ABOUT OBAMA - over U.S. STAMPS
Here we go again - a friend sent me a forwarded email about ‘Obama is issuing Muslim stamps’, so they wanted the stamps boycotted. It reads:
“ Now President Obama has directed the United States Postal Service to REMEMBER and HONOR the EID MUSLIM holiday season with a new commemorative 42 Cent First Class Holiday Postage Stamp.. “
The email goes on about how it is MUSLIMS that have attacked us in Lebanon, Saudi, NYC, etc. (Well, I guess that much is true.) and that we should not support anything having to do with them.
However, I can’t find, online, any special notices about these stamps in 2009, and if not, then it didn’t get issued “by Obama". BUT GEORGE BUSH DID ISSUE THEM. That’s right, the USPS under Bush, THREE TIMES, in 2001 and 2007 and 2008, issued the Muslim stamp as part of a “Holiday Series” commemorating Christmas, Kwanzaa, and Hanukkah.
SEE THE POSTINGS --
But let’s add the rest of the questionable information - the stamps are noted in USPS documents as 41 cent and not the 44 cent (42 cent pictured) claimed in the email. If they reissued them again, at 42 cents, they forgot to post the notice on their web site. Otherwise, I have to ask - did someone FAKE this issuance, because the USPS cross out the price so it can’t be printed and used that way, and in the emailed picture the price was not crossed out. (The email mentioned both 42 and 44 cents - if true, it should be ONE price)
Let’s also try to be fair about this whole ‘so-and-so issued’ thing. The USPS is a quasi-independent organization, and maybe the President can stop an issue, but the chance of that happening is near zero. Everyone is “trying to be fair” and not pointing out the bad things about each religion, only the good, and therefore will include all the main religions, and since we are “not making war against all Muslims” then of course a general holiday issue will include a Muslim stamp.
One last comment, for the person who started this crap -- if you want to fight Muslims, and the faith in general, then strap on a gun, fly your ass into the midst of them, be it Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, or any other place, and declare yourself as a fighter against all Muslims. But -- who are you going to shoot? The man on the street, the woman, the child? Who?
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Wall Street -- They Make the Rules, so You Lose
[Original March 18, 2008; updates inserted into the original -- a Congressional Hearing is going on today, 11/16-17, 2009 that is supporting things I post here.]
"It is very difficult for inaccurate mark to model valuations to remain a secret," Hintz said. "And if I get my marks wrong, everything else is messed up in the firm. They may want to play games with valuations, but doing so would mean everything else was wrong too." [Brad Hintz, an analyst at Bernstein Research and former chief financial officer at Lehman.
Above is from article by Alistair Barr, MarketWatch 7:57 PM ET Sep 7, 2007]
This comment is about how banks and investment firms [Lehman, Bear Stearns and others] value their assets and debts. It is figured not just by putting the values into a spreadsheet as you and I do for household finances, letting the income from every source balance against every bill, and hoping that there is money left in the bank at the end of the week. Institutions are allowed to estimate the risk of a debt and hedge the value {like saying I loaned a friend 500 dollars, but the chance he won't pay it back is really small, so I'll put only $100 into the 'out-lays' column} so the true debt is not on the books. Now if I get paid, all is fine - and maybe I list it as "extra income"; but if I don't get paid back, the loss is suddenly FIVE TIMES what was on the books.
Another way they do this is, when they BUY a company, they will falsely overvalue it, using a procedure called "good will accounting" -- the company has $1B in buildings, products, and all other "hard assets", but they will place an extra value of 20% to 200% on the company based on "valued employees", "expected contracts", and many other guesses and will even add in "brand name recognition" [isn't the name, the company, what they are buying?].
And there lies the crutch of the problem - American [and world-wide?] companies don't have to put the real value of anything into the account ledgers, so they can make themselves look more profitable than they really are - until some one calls their bluff. [Umm, the collapse of Sept 2008, which was 'predicted' by the above quote.]
They also divide up companies to sell off the "unproductive" parts, and load them with debt from the parent company. They do this so that the parent will look healthy, but it almost assures that the new entity will fold - putting it on you to back it up through bankruptcy procedures. [See SPE's, etc -- this is how Enron and others "looked good".]
Cost of Stamps -- P.O. Losing $$ -- A Solution
[First written Oct. 2007]
I admit that I think the price of stamps going up again is outrageous.
HOWEVER - Face it - under 50 cents to send a note or card across the country is a FANTASTIC PRICE.
How often, other than junk mail, do you get wanted mail? 3 days? 4 days a week? Personally, I am down to monthly bills in the mail of: 1 credit card, electric, water, phone, 2 investment reports, cable. SEVEN items that regularly come to me; and I send out only 6 (some are being paid online) including the mortgage. [Update Nov 09 -- I send out NONE for bills because I do all online now - and nearly everything is "auto-paid" so I can never worry about being late on a payment.]
And I don't even have to go to the post office for stamps, saving gas money, because they will DELIVER them with your mail!
But there is that perception that the cost is too high, and here is how to make the increases slow, then maybe STOP for about 10 years: STOP HOME & BUSINESS DELIVERY OF 6 DAYS A WEEK.
There is NO REASONABLE ARGUMENT that I can see being made to support the current delivery/pickup system. The cost to the system - salary, benefits, gasoline, maintenance, and other factors - is going to demand that the price of stamps go to nearly a dollar by 2010. Who among you wants to pay that? So why do you think we should keep delivery people running all over every county in this huge country even if they have nothing to bring to you, or you have nothing for them to take? [[Update Jan 2010 - we have not hit $1 yet, but maybe because they are still in deficit spending mode.]]
But it is VERY reasonable to reduce delivery to 3 days a week (and in 10-20 years that will need to drop to 2 days a week or less) to each area. No, I don't mean deliver to even-numbered houses, then odd-numbered houses (except that doing it that way MAY make sense in densely populated city areas). I am talking about sectioning cities and counties into the present routes but maybe delivering to those in the south end Mo-We-Fr and the north Tu-Th-Sa so the same roads are not covered on consecutive days.
The Postal Employees Union will complain, but let me kill that argument before they can make it. The beauty of my plan is they simply stop hiring, and let attrition whittle down the workforce. So they really have no case.
I admit that I think the price of stamps going up again is outrageous.
HOWEVER - Face it - under 50 cents to send a note or card across the country is a FANTASTIC PRICE.
How often, other than junk mail, do you get wanted mail? 3 days? 4 days a week? Personally, I am down to monthly bills in the mail of: 1 credit card, electric, water, phone, 2 investment reports, cable. SEVEN items that regularly come to me; and I send out only 6 (some are being paid online) including the mortgage. [Update Nov 09 -- I send out NONE for bills because I do all online now - and nearly everything is "auto-paid" so I can never worry about being late on a payment.]
And I don't even have to go to the post office for stamps, saving gas money, because they will DELIVER them with your mail!
But there is that perception that the cost is too high, and here is how to make the increases slow, then maybe STOP for about 10 years: STOP HOME & BUSINESS DELIVERY OF 6 DAYS A WEEK.
There is NO REASONABLE ARGUMENT that I can see being made to support the current delivery/pickup system. The cost to the system - salary, benefits, gasoline, maintenance, and other factors - is going to demand that the price of stamps go to nearly a dollar by 2010. Who among you wants to pay that? So why do you think we should keep delivery people running all over every county in this huge country even if they have nothing to bring to you, or you have nothing for them to take? [[Update Jan 2010 - we have not hit $1 yet, but maybe because they are still in deficit spending mode.]]
But it is VERY reasonable to reduce delivery to 3 days a week (and in 10-20 years that will need to drop to 2 days a week or less) to each area. No, I don't mean deliver to even-numbered houses, then odd-numbered houses (except that doing it that way MAY make sense in densely populated city areas). I am talking about sectioning cities and counties into the present routes but maybe delivering to those in the south end Mo-We-Fr and the north Tu-Th-Sa so the same roads are not covered on consecutive days.
The Postal Employees Union will complain, but let me kill that argument before they can make it. The beauty of my plan is they simply stop hiring, and let attrition whittle down the workforce. So they really have no case.
[Update Nov 09 - they are supposedly letting people go already.]
Companies sending out bills may complain that they have schedules that have been made over decades and that they can't change those billing dates. Hogwash - let me kill that argument before they can make it. There is no real problem with putting in a piece of SW code that compares a billing address with a pickup/delivery date so the billing company can adjust the sending or receiving date. They also can put a box on the bill for you to check that says "accept this check but wait until the last day to charge against my bank account". Something like that can be done without the huge expense that the companies will CLAIM it will cost - reality is that programs are changed every few months, so the modifications could be done over the next couple of years as the change is debated in Congress. The BANK could offer this change too - if you can't do on-line banking, you could still tell them what day to pay each bill, but this could be MUCH more difficult.
People will say that they always send out bills only a day or so before it is due because they won't get the money in the bank until then. Not really a problem - they give you many days to send the money in, and if you must wait until the last day then either adjust your standards for when to pay what, or remember that dropping it in the box outside your house will not really affect the timing of their endorsing and charging against your account all that much.
The change MUST HAPPEN - now we just need to say WHEN.
From - http://mchugh.house.gov/pr2004/020304_PostalPanel2MA.html
ABOUT THE SPECIAL PANEL ON POSTAL REFORM AND OVERSIGHT:
[[ This is 2004 info. These people may have change jobs now, so look up who is on the panels now ]]
Companies sending out bills may complain that they have schedules that have been made over decades and that they can't change those billing dates. Hogwash - let me kill that argument before they can make it. There is no real problem with putting in a piece of SW code that compares a billing address with a pickup/delivery date so the billing company can adjust the sending or receiving date. They also can put a box on the bill for you to check that says "accept this check but wait until the last day to charge against my bank account". Something like that can be done without the huge expense that the companies will CLAIM it will cost - reality is that programs are changed every few months, so the modifications could be done over the next couple of years as the change is debated in Congress. The BANK could offer this change too - if you can't do on-line banking, you could still tell them what day to pay each bill, but this could be MUCH more difficult.
People will say that they always send out bills only a day or so before it is due because they won't get the money in the bank until then. Not really a problem - they give you many days to send the money in, and if you must wait until the last day then either adjust your standards for when to pay what, or remember that dropping it in the box outside your house will not really affect the timing of their endorsing and charging against your account all that much.
The change MUST HAPPEN - now we just need to say WHEN.
From - http://mchugh.house.gov/pr2004/020304_PostalPanel2MA.html
ABOUT THE SPECIAL PANEL ON POSTAL REFORM AND OVERSIGHT:
[[ This is 2004 info. These people may have change jobs now, so look up who is on the panels now ]]
The House Government Reform Committee’s Special Panel on Postal Reform and Oversight is charged with helping reform the outdated postal system, currently facing about $90 billion in liabilities and obligations and in the midst of the biggest overhaul since it became an independent government entity under the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970.
The panel is chaired by Rep. John M. McHugh (R-NY), and working closely with the Administration to enact postal reform. Rep. McHugh and the panel report directly to Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, making postal reform a full committee priority.
Other Committee members appointed to the panel are: Reps. Dan Burton (R-IN) Edward L. Schrock (R-VA), Candice Miller (R-MI), Tim Murphy (R-PA), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Danny K. Davis (D-IL), Major R. Owens (D-NY), Edolphus Towns (D-NY) Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), and Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)