Comments on: A New Economic Agenda I Can 99% Agree With.

By: david

david — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:07:49 +0000

Agreed!

By: Donna

Donna — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:59:21 +0000

I think it varies from state to state, employer to employer. IMO, it should be banned across the board. No one should be punished for choosing to opt out of the credit game altogether.

By: david

david — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 15:08:19 +0000

It’s weird because people always talk about FICO being used for that stuff, but living in CA and now NM, no one ever checked it for insurance, etc. Does that only happen in certain states? I agree that it should not be used for that stuff!

By: Donna

Donna — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:24:28 +0000

I’ve got one – ban the use of FICO scores for anything but obtaining credit. This would remove the incentive for many people to take out credit in the first place. Not all people get into trouble with credit because they wanted to “build” their FICO scores to get lower insurance rates or because a prospective employer would not hire them, but plenty have.

By: Sunday Link Love: Newspaper Edition | I've Paid For This Twice Already...

Sunday Link Love: Newspaper Edition | I've Paid For This Twice Already... — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:27:00 +0000

[...] My Two Dollars: A New Economic Agenda I Can 99% Agree With [...]

By: cwaltz

cwaltz — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 02:33:42 +0000

Speak for yourself on the not have anything to eat or anything to wear David. While I do not consider it economically feasible to kick everyone out I do not think we need to attempt to integrate people who broke the rules to get here. Amnsety didn’t work out real well last time, we now have 12 million more people who snuck in to be integrated. I have an idea how about Mexico taking care of its own citizens.

By: working poor

working poor — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:08:05 +0000

As a working poor person, I see an issue with illegal immigration nobody else ghas raised.

Question: To what extent have rents been inflated due to illegal immigration? How many extra millions or billions of dollars are legal low earners paying iinflated rents?

Doesn’t government owe us something for the excess costs (e.g. depressed wages, inflated rents) imposed on legal low earners?

By: Colombian Coffee

Colombian Coffee — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:13:23 +0000

I mostly agree with this plan. I think the key is to increase savings and decrease spending. taxing consumption, not income, and increasing interest rates are a great way to do this.

I disagree with hiking up retirement age, but I propose that we review government contracts and stop paying for things at 300% increases just because it’s the gov’t paying and the govt’s friends getting paid.

I also agree with the legalization of undocumented peoples. Maybe if these people were legalized, California wouldn’t be going bankrupt. Also, many undocumented people have tax IDs and do in fact pay taxes, thus they should reap the benefits too, just as we tax paying citizens do.

By: David

David — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:47:16 +0000

Ron, when that happens I will probably drop dead. Maybe you and I should go to Washington and present our two sides and work this damn thing out!

By: Ron@TheWisdomJournal

Ron@TheWisdomJournal — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:16:42 +0000

Hey David, great post. I agree we need to address each of these issues. If only we could get everyone to sit down and calmly work out what needs to be done without regard to who gets the credit for the successes and who gets the blamed for the failures.