Policies and Regulations

Why? If yes, what do you think the policy(policies) should be? If no to both, why not?

No. The current financial crisis partly stemmed from the fact that government policy was directed to encouraging lower income groups to buy homes and encouraging banks to lend money to them through the guarantees provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The creditworthiness of such loans became secondary to the policy of higher home ownership rates, and this led to the high default rates that we see now on sub-prime loans.

Likewise, the government should have no role in deciding how much mortgage lending to do, as it does not have the expertise to judge the creditworthiness of loans. What it can and should do is regulate mortgage lenders to ensure that they adhere to minimum standards of credit checks and risk controls.

President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate and envy is fundamentally misguided. For more information please visit our web page: www.freedomandprosperity.org.

Duration : 0:8:47

Read the rest of this entry »

The apartment gave notice for a new trash service, however never clarified that the previous service was to be removed. Is this grounds for a lease violation or is the apartment bound from penalizing residents for changes not yet realized by the community.

they may not change the terms of lease. if those items you mentioned in question are not part of lease then yes they may change prior to end of lease.

Well, first we elected Obama – so we have brains back in the White House – no more "Lord of Flies" as a national policy.

Now we need to figure out how we’re going to supply power to this country – not for next year but forever – for a very long time – and that means solar and wind. If we get sucked into nuclear, it’s not going to help us.

We need to produce an entire industry of power generation – lots of new ideas. We also need to produce an entire new fleet of cars and trucks for this country along with a whole new set of expectations on how we’re going to use these new vehicles.

So plenty to do.

I now need a tonsillectomy that was diagnosed in my first short term coverage. I’m told it is now a non-covered pre-exisiting condition as to my current third short-term policy. All policies have been continuous.

Yes, all short term policies have pre-existing clauses and will not cover the condition, even if you’ve had continuous coverage with the same company.

please provide support.

America borrows billions of $$$$$ from China (Obama’s "stimulus package" is money borrowed from China) and if we "bite the hand that feeds us",there will be serious repercussions. But let’s remember,a lot of these companies that are exporting goods from China into the U.S. are in fact owned by U.S. corporations and they use China’s import/export policies to get around U.S. policies to increase their bottom line while undermining their own "back yard".

One policy is six years old with no claims, another is two years old with no claims as well. Both cover for myself and my spouse. The six years old policy was to cover only me until this year renewal. where in at this renewal sum assured was increased and cover for my spouse was included. I am from India.

There is no concept of primary policy. You can submit claim to any of the two insurers. While submitting claim, you just need to give the details of your other policy to the insurer. The claim amount refunded to you will be split between the two insurer in proportion of the sum assured from each. You will not have to do anything extra. The two insurers will settle it among themselves.

http://khotapaisa.wordpress.com

Recent past foreign policies (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama) seem to have the US involved in a lot of small countries’ business that doesn’t affect US security, while ignoring the larger threats of Iran, Cuba, N. Korea. Give us Johnson/Nixon any day over what we have now. At least things were clearer back then.

Johnson and Nixon did nothing about North Korea.

I’d say that the medium size countries have developed to a level which the US knows it can’t impact. Also in the past the US rarely confronted its biggest rivals (Soviet Union and China) directly; instead, it worked on winning over those medium size countries with either a carrot or a stick.

Things might not be that much different. I can say that today’s world is a lot more developed and everyone wants a piece of something. It’s not about bringing the basics to poverty stricken people like it was 40-50 years ago. Now the bargaining chips are much more complex.

I manage a large c-store chain. It is privately owned and the boss has several family members working in the office. Today I had to terminate an employee because it was discovered that he is related to another employee. The company stated that it’s policy is to avoid having family members work together. However the owner has 2 sons, a nephew, and a brother-in-law that all work at his location. The sons, nephew, and brother-in-law are not co-owners, they have job titles (buying assistant, maint. assistant, real esate assistant). Can this company be held liable for creating a company policy in which they enforce everywhere but at the top level?

That would be the "Golden Rule". They own the gold, so they make the rule!

For example, foreign policy. Lots of people talk about whether they agree or disagree with particular wars started under particular majorities in congress and particular presidents, but nobody talks about which is better between intervention or non-intervention, the fundamental foreign policy choices.

People talk about economic policies like taxation and regulation, but nobody talks about economic planning or the free market, the fundamental economic choices.

People moan and complain about the welfare state a lot, but then elect people who sign the largest entitlement bill since the 1960s (Medicare D)

I don’t get how Republicans and Democrats can be so blatantly hypocritical and yet still be so many of them at the same time

Both Parties have a history of selling out the People for money from Special Interests/Elitists/Corporations/Unions/ Foreign Powers. The difference use to be economic prosperity vs. forced immorality. Now, with the Free Trade Act, and transfer of Corporations and Jobs overseas, Independents must take the realm. If a party will not represent the people – they are out-a-here. Messages were sent to the Republicans to get a clue with the election of the unknown kid. The Democrats then showed they do not have a clue, and we sent them a message. They have, so far, said "FO People, We are in control" and were sent another message.

We have now shown both parties that special interest money don’t matter – the people are sovereign and control who gets into office. If neither party will agree to represent the people, they will both be out-a-here, and the People will go with 3rd parties or Independents, whose views they agree with. If they then violate the peoples trust, they too will lose their career at the next election.