Home

Money Federal Credit Union - Student Loan Commercial

Commercial 3 in the series! Funds Federal Credit Union's Private Student Loans bridge the gap between Federal aid and schooling costs! Don't ...

Saturday's Web

Under White House pressure to act swiftly, House and Senate Democratic leaders reached for agreement Friday on President Barack Obama's health care bill, sweetened suddenly by fresh billions for student aid and a sense that breakthroughs are at hand.

Plotting federal take over of health care, Democrats embark on wholesale bribery as they move to take over student loans.  Will their thirst for power never end?

At the White House, officials worked to maximize Obama's influence over lawmakers who control the fate of legislation that has spawned a yearlong struggle. They announced he would make a campaign-style appearance in Ohio next week to pitch his health care proposals, as well as delay his departure for an Asian trip later in the month.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100312/D9EDAV381.html

President Barack Obama says he wants projects helping specific states – Harry Reid’s bribing of selected Democrat Senators – yanked from the health care bill Congress is writing. Democrat senators, being senators, beg to differ.

The Senate-approved health measure lawmakers hope to send to Obama soon would steer $600 million over the next decade to Vermont in added federal payments for Medicaid and nearly as much to Massachusetts.

Connecticut would get $100 million to build a hospital. About 800,000 Florida seniors could keep certain Medicare benefits. Asbestos-disease victims in tiny Libby, Mont., and some coal miners with black lung disease or their widows would get help, and there are prizes for Louisiana, the Dakotas and more states.  With enough bribes, politicians can get anything they really want…including socialized medicine.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/13/senators-resist-obama-over-projects-health-bill/

Attorney General Eric Holder failed to tell the Senate about seven legal briefs he signed when lawmakers considered his nomination to his current job, according to a letter released yesterday.

Two of the briefs involved appeals to the Supreme Court for terror suspect, Jose Padilla, who sought release from a military prison in South Carolina where he was being held after then-President George W. Bush designated him an "enemy combatant." Padilla was held in a military brig for three years before his case was moved to a criminal court in Miami, where he was convicted on charges of offering his services to militants.

Holder faces intense scrutiny as the Obama administration tries to decide whether to prosecute terrorism suspects like the self-proclaimed mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in military or criminal courts. Holder may have a conflict of interest he hid from the Senate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B48P20100312?type=politicsNews

This morning, we get another issue from Obama.  He now claims he wants to revise the Bush “No child left behind” legislation.  Obama claims his basic goal is improving education in this country;  It needs it.  Public education flunks quality.  That has been the sad case since LBJ injected federal control of public education, then the NEA voted to cease being a professional organization and become a labor union.

The most important act Obama could take would be banning the NEA teacher’s union from any and all educational decision making.  The NEA is an unabashed far left political group that operates as just another arm of the Democrat National Committee.  The NEA is not bi-partisan at all.  Adding to the educational corruption is the US Department of Education itself.  The Department was a crass political payoff to the NEA by Jimmy Carter.  It was his payback for the union having given him the presidential nomination.  The Department of Education is shot full of NEA members and advocates.  That corruption reaches deeply into every school system in the country. Why allow far left politicians make decisions affecting our children’s education?  Such a situation should be rejected by all Americans.  It is almost certain all who understand the issue oppose most NEA actions. 

Today’s young people don’t need such dumb liberal ideas as “political correctness”.  “Diversity” is another liberal obsession.  In terms of quality education, it is hardly a legitimate consideration.

Not all educational news is bad these days.  Dispatches “from the front” in the battle for honest educational values, report conservatives have taken over the debate over text book contents in Texas.  That’s important since decisions on textbooks in Texas usually are reflected in texts nationwide.

Years ago. I was outraged learning how my children were being taught about American history.  My eldest reported – and I later verified – that lessons regarding the War Between the States, were brief, and personalities cited were only Abe Lincoln, and Harriet Tubman.  No one else was mentioned – thus Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jeff Davis were deleted from what students in Cobb County, Georgia learned about a war that is of particular relevance to their home turf.

If they wish to teach about ancillary people such as Tubman, I have no problem with it.  But to omit the far more important players – especially since the omitted people were all Southerners – is hardly acceptable in a Cobb County elementary school.  This was in Georgia’s first Charter School – but the principal was a NEA liberal.

I “actively” confronted the teacher and the course material was revised.  (Of course, my children learned important things at home – especially my eldest son.  We can all imagine the great sense of relief experienced by that liberal principal when she learned we were moving out of state.  Still…..

Now, it seems liberal corruption of our nation, will be modified a bit.  Not nearly enough, but the news from Texas should be greeted with a sincere round of applause from normal Americans – if they can take a moment or two away from clinging to their bibles and guns.

At the very least, Texas reaffirmed the use of “BC” and “AD” in dating eras.  “Before Christ” has worked quite well and there is absolutely nothing to be gained from changing it to “Before Modern Era” as liberals were demanding.  Typically, the liberal designation didn’t change the dates, it simply strained to avoid mentioning Christ.  For liberals, such matters as Christianity are no-nos.  While noting good news, its also worth noting that the atheist Michael Medow was slapped down again as even the liberal Ninth District Court of Appeals validated national mottos and the pledge to the flag. 

Medow is a radical activist who has been demonstrating why atheists are usually not taken all that seriously.

Let’s hope these encouraging developments get reflected on Capitol Hill as Pelosi and company continues their drive to achieve government takeover of health care.  Pelosi now says she may avoid a House vote by simply deeming it to have passed.  Hmm – governing by “deeming”?  That bit of liberal extremism opens the door to all sorts of outrageous thoughts, actions, and presumptions.

Of course, Democrats keep talking about health care “reform” – their plan is not “reform”, it is takeover.  No one should ever forget that fact.  It’s basic to the entire controversy.

November cannot come too soon.  We must take back this country.

Buddy

This is, of course, an absolute lie.  And nor do some large number of people "die every day from lack of health insurance coverage."  That too is a lie.

Access to the health care providers (professional services) and medicine (products) of the best health care system in the world is already universal and available to every US Citizen, legal resident, illegal alien, prisoner, detainee, or visitor - regardless of whether anyone is covered by any insurance policy or health plan.  For heaven's sake, even the illegal aliens have figured out that anyone who walks into an Emergency Room is required by law (EMTALA) to be treated, regardless of the person's ability to pay.

The Big Lie: Without health care insurance, there is no access to health care.

Health care insurance coverage is but one method of paying for health care products and services.  Doctors and hospitals are quite open to accepting cash, checks, or credit cards for their services rendered and have no problem with getting paid directly -- meaning they get their money right away, don't have to fill out and file mounds of bureaucratic paperwork with insurance companies, don't have to worry about what treatments are approved and reimbursable by the insurance companies, etc.

In fact, when health care is directly paid for by a patient, then issues like preexisting conditions, escalating premium rates, denied claims, dropped policies, and all of the regularly lamented shortcomings of the health insurance industry become moot. Case in point: elective surgery such as breast augmentation is a medical procedure that isn't covered by any health insurance, but somehow there doesn't seem to be any access issues to the procedure or lack of them occurring. And yet most people are led to believe that they simply can't afford to pay for their own health services directly.  That's why they purchase health insurance, or their employer purchases it for them as an employee benefit.  Actually, this too is a great misunderstanding of the problems with respect to health insurance coverage, which are completely distinct issues from access to actual health care services.

Any form of insurance (Home, Car, Flood, Health Care, etc.) is nothing more than a financial instrument used to mitigate an unacceptable potential financial risk.  Insurance wouldn't work unless more people are paying into a common pool than are taking money out of it.  The whole idea of insurance coverage is to spread financial risk among many people so that any one member isn't hit with some catastrophic expense should a major need occur.  But in many respects, most health insurance coverage has been expanded in scope to become some kind of "Health Services Subscription Club" that pays for many services that really don't represent unacceptable financial risks by themselves. Indeed, overpaying beyond an individual's actual needs via insurance premiums is a viable means to avoid getting hit with major medical expenses.  However, that's why they invented Catastrophic Insurance Policies -- i.e. those cheaper high-deductible plans that don't kick in until direct expenses go over a few thousand dollars. The whole ObamaCare health care reform debate isn't really about people who already have health insurance; rather, it's supposedly being crafted for the benefit of all those who are without coverage, who need it, but can't afford it.  Nevertheless, if tomorrow the government bought health insurance policies for everyone who doesn't have one, that wouldn't make access to health care services any more available than they already are. To the contrary, the law of supply and demand dictates that if 30 million or more new customers are added to a market place (the demand), and there is no proportional increase in the number of service providers (the supply), then prices will go up as service availability goes down -- which means the whole system gets worse for everyone -- not better. The real issue is that there are those who wish to argue that, despite all the adverse (if not catastrophic) consequences of ObamaCare to the system, health care is a "basic human right" and therefore the basis for a massive new government entitlement program.  But health care isn't an "inalienable right" -- it's a basic human necessity -- just like food, clothing and shelter.  All of these basic human necessities are bought and sold every day in the free market in the context of the goods and services that they really are. Conversely, the government version of involuntary charity via taxation is called "Welfare." So whether it's private charity or a government welfare program that helps people buy something they otherwise couldn't afford but need, that's fine; just recognize that's the issue -- not an entitled right, not an access or availability problem, not a lack of insurance policies. Now if making health care more affordable for everyone is really the goal, to thereby lower the threshold of who can readily pay for it directly and/or indirectly via an insurance policy, and thus reduce the necessity of charity and/or welfare for those who need assistance, then free market business forces, scientific and technological advances, along with increased competition -- not intrusive government forces -- are the answers. Consider one mathematical fact: the purchase of 30 million new insurance policies that cost $5,000 each is only $150 billion, which is a fraction of the real price tag of ObamaCare.

One can therefore reasonably conclude that ObamaCare isn't really about making health care more available or affordable to those who need it and can't afford it.  It isn't about lowering insurance costs or reducing the federal deficit -- what has been proposed achieves none of these objectives. ObamaCare is simply a leviathan of a lie, whose only practical impact for generations to come will be increased welfare state dependency on government, greater government intrusion, and control over people's personal lives and privacy, reduced availability of health care providers as more of them are driven from their professions -- all of which translates to higher and higher costs, which only accelerates the country's financial death spiral.

Investors who have been paying close attention to the tax provisions of ObamaCare for the past year are no strangers to its new tax increases. There are tax hikes on medical device manufacturers, health insurance company CEOs, families of special needs children and (strangest of all) tanning salons.

Yet the White House's "compromise" health care outline released in February contains a damaging new tax hike on investors — a 2.9% surtax on "unearned income." There is a high probability that this surtax will apply not only to interest and dividends, but also to capital gains.

The tax rate on investment income is already scheduled to rise next year. The top federal tax rate on interest, rent, royalties and passive S-corporation and partnership profits will go up from 35% in 2010 to 39.6% in 2011. The Obama budget calls for the top rate on capital gains and qualified dividends to rise to 20% from 15%. The new Obama health care plan calls for an additional 2.9% surtax on this "unearned income" for families making more than $250,000 annually (singles making more than $200,000).

Here's where it gets interesting. On the White House Web site, there is a listing of all the types of "unearned income" this new 2.9% surtax will apply to. Conspicuously absent is any mention of capital gains.

Thus, it would appear from a cursory reading of the president's plan that the top tax rate on interest, dividends, rent, royalties and passive investments in partnerships and S-corporations will rise by 2.9%, but that the capital gains tax rate will "only" rise to its already-scheduled hike to 20%.

Startups In Trouble

However, Bloomberg reported in February (almost at the moment of the White House plan's release) that an unnamed administration official told a reporter that the 2.9% surtax did indeed apply to capital gains. He did stress that it would not apply to IRA and pension plan distributions, which is at least some comfort to seniors who will see their Medicare Advantage plans slashed in order to pay for government-forced health care for 20-somethings.

So which one is it?

Will the capital gains rate rise from 15% in 2010 to 20% in 2011 (which is obviously not good)?

Or will it rise from 15% in 2010 to 20% in 2011 to 22.9% in 2014, when the new surtax takes effect?

It's bad enough that dividends, interest and other investment income will see a marginal tax rate hike; another few percentage points' increase in the capital gains rate will cripple small startups, IRA and 401(k) balances (to the extent they are invested in stocks), and the stock market generally. Higher taxes are not what capital markets need after a decade of over-regulation, market-distorting bailouts and high-handed populism out of Washington.

Sit On Their Money

The tax take could be tremendous. According to the IRS Statistics of Income Division, in 2007 taxpayers with adjusted gross income of at least $200,000 reported net capital gains of $760 billion. Under a static score, a surtax of 2.9% would increase capital gains tax revenue by $22 billion per year. Over a decade, that's well over $200 billion.

Of course, investors are not stupid. They will realize capital gains on the eve of this new tax hike to pay taxes at the lower rate. Once the new tax hike takes effect, they will sit on accumulated capital gains until a sane government comes into office and lowers the capital gains rate again.

Tax revenue won't come in nearly as high as the static-scoring bean counters at the Congressional Budget Office or Joint Committee on Taxation would have us believe. Nevertheless, the rate hike itself will be enough to discourage capital formation and warp investment decisions.

This is a not a small part of the ObamaCare bill. It's potentially the most growth-destroying tax increase that would happen under his watch besides his planned capital gains and dividends tax hike next year.

President Obama needs to either disclose that this tax hike is part of his plan (and therefore be honest with the American people about his tax-and-spend scheme), or he needs to take this further capital gains tax hike off the table for good.

3.

http://www.americanthinker.com/

The conventional wisdom (which President Obama and I apparently share) is that any entitlement bill, no matter how bad, will remain on the books once it's passed.

But we've never had an entitlement bill opposed by four-fifths of the electorate, rammed through on a partisan vote that requires a highly dubious parliamentary maneuver.  And one that will add trillions to the public sector deficits at a time when people are already worried about government spending.

So what if it passed, and the Democrats hemorrhaged seats next November - and the bill were subsequently repealed?  This would  indeed be the dawn of a new era, and one with profound implications for subsequent entitlement reform.

This is a long shot and, like 81% of the public, I fervently hope ObamaCare either fades away or goes down to defeat.  But if it passes, maybe the truly appalling dimensions of this mistake will jolt us into true systemic reforms.

Source: Political Truth and Fact

Does My Debt Qualify For Debt Settlement?

There are some debts that qualify for debt settlement, and other debts that don’t. I’d like to elaborate on this a little further as it is important that you know what type of debt can be settled before you decide to move forward. Much to the surprise of consumers, there are certain types of debt that creditors will never agree to settle.

Generally speaking, unsecured debt is the type of debt that is going to qualify for the settlement process. Some of the most common unsecured debt includes:

1. Major credit cards. Examples include American Express, MasterCard, and Visa among many others.

2. Department store credit cards. Examples include cards provided by Sears, Macy’s, Home Depot and Best Buy among many others.

3. Medical and hospital bills that are in collections. Remember, if the debt is in collections (i.e. with a third-party debt collector) there is more negotiation room and therefore a greater likelihood to achieve a successful settlement. Medical and hospital bills that are not in collections are not typically acceptable debts.

4. Unsecured, revolving personal loans. This is typically a loan from a bank or credit union that is not secured by an asset. Since the loan is not secured by an asset, there is nothing for the bank to repossess if you stop making payments, which puts pressure on the bank to settle for something less than the full amount rather than receive nothing. In addition, the loan is revolving, which means that the loan amount may be withdrawn, repaid, and redrawn again in any manner and any number of times until the arrangement expires.

5. Unsecured closed-end loans – but only if it is in collections. This type of debt is very similar to the previous one, except that the loan is closed-end, which means that the borrower cannot change the number and amount of installments, the maturity date of when the loan is due, and/or the credit terms.

6. Auto Loans – where the car has already been repossessed. Any auto loan originates as a secured debt, as the bank can repossess the vehicle in the event you do not pay. However, even after repossessing the vehicle the bank will likely still try to collect on all or some of the debt to offset their costs. If the vehicle has already been repossessed, then there is no additional asset the bank can come after other than the outstanding balance. The outstanding balance can typically be included in a debt settlement program.

7. Most accounts in collections. Such accounts in collections must be with a third-party debt collector, not the collections department of the original creditor.

On the other hand there are many types of debt, some of them secured debt, that you will not be able to settle through a typical debt settlement service provider. The primary reason that secured debts can’t be settled this way is that the creditor can simply repossess the asset if you do not pay.

Since they can legally repossess the asset, there is no reason for them to have to accept a lower payment from you. The other debts that are not considered secured debts, but also can not be settled, are ones that have specific government regulations that apply, or some other restriction that makes it not worth the debt settlement service provider’s time to work on.

Here is a list of debts that are not typically accepted into a settlement program:

1. Mortgages and Home Equity Loans. Secured debt.

2. Auto loans – where the vehicle has not been repossessed (see #6 above). Secured debt.

3. Loans that have been co-signed – unless both parties have agreed to participate in the debt settlement program, and the loan is an acceptable debt based on #s 1-7 above.

4. Federal, state and local taxes. Simply not acceptable.

5. Payday loans/Cash Call loans. These are high interest rate, short term loans that are given in anticipation of an upcoming paycheck that will be used to pay off the loan.

6. Student loans. Both government issued and private student loans are not typically accepted.

7. Utility bills. If the utility bill is still with the original creditor (i.e. utility service provider), then if you stop paying it they can stop the utility service. However, if the bills are with a third-party debt collector they it can often be included.

8. Any debt that has been subject to prior litigation, court judgments, is represented by an attorney or for which a summons to appear in court has been issued. Essentially it is often too late to do anything about a debt that is in this stage of collections so the debt settlement service provider does not want to inherit any unnecessary problems.

As you can see, there are many debts that will be accepted by most debt settlement service providers, as well as many debts that won’t. Take caution if a sales representative tells you they can accept a debt that I have identified above as not typically acceptable.

While it is possible that they do accept such debts, it is unlikely, and the last thing you want to do is include a debt that is ultimately not accepted, and fall behind in payments on that debt.

Why would a sales rep tell you a debt could be included when it can’t? I can think of at least two reasons. One, the sales rep didn’t know any better, which would raise a caution flag about everything they told you.

Two, they are paid on commission and the more debt that gets included in the program the higher their commission, so perhaps they don’t have your best intentions in mind.

Not many individuals are aware of which debts they can settle and which they cannot. This is quite an informative article bringing into focus the various types of secured and unsecured debts that people normally have and would like to get rid of. Debt settlement comes as a relief for many who would want to get rid of their debts for as little as possible.

Comments

Source: Debt Relief Directory