The Jobless And Form 1040

From all reports in the mainstream media again this week, it appears that Washington's priorities are once again something that needs immediate attention and review.

Instead of televising Obama's speech at the UN General Assembly once again heralding the U.S.'s unconditional support for Israel during the debate over Palestine's bid for statehood, with the new jobless and foreclosure figures in perhaps domestic concerns might take a front seat, rather than back seat, to Israel and its national security concerns which have been ongoing, after all, since World War II...

I mean, as one who was alive during the '67 war over borders and boundaries, Israel has been in the news consistently ever since...as has the Middle East and our continued involvement there...

Also, all those debates and televised campaign stops could be delayed until oh, say, at least six months before the next election, rather than a year and a half....

It occurred to me as one who has been fundamentally affected by what is wrong in Washington once again this past week, that what may be needed is an emergency pow wow of the powers that be that addresses some needed changes to Form 1040 before next April 15th in light of the ever increasing jobless and homeless Americans.

Many of those affected who no longer have jobs or homes are now living with relatives, if they have family so far that have not been impacted to such an extent.

Many of those living with extended family are now dependent on them for a roof over their heads, or food on their plate (since, of course, even food stamps are not available to people unless it is based on "household" incomes, with even the minimal Social Security payments outside the maximums in income or assets which qualify many for the program.

I have had to take residence with my elderly parents during some months since leaving my home state of Arizona five years ago, when this economic tsunami/foreclosure mess started after having owned my own home for over twenty five years.

Or, rather, it actually owned me in the end.

Both have heart disease, one in advanced stages, are in their 80's and live on their minimal social security payments, and a small pension received for forty years of work in the non-profit sector primarily. Both are on special diets due to their heart disease, but they have had added expense feeding me also as another mouth to feed, although do attempt to do some of the things both of them are unable to do at their age, and with their health issues.

I am over the age of 25, needless to say, as are many young adults also in this situation due to the dearth of jobs in their fields (although some of those degrees given today are quite unbelieveable).

Perhaps what is needed is another dependency exemption without age limits?

Forget the sums that would be provided to help under unemployment.

I was informed this week that my former employer in the State of Colorado and is licensed to do business there, whom I had worked for four months before being unilaterally "laid off" for all intents and purposes, had advised unemployment that I had, instead, "resigned." After almost eight weeks of receiving absolutely nothing while this was "pending investigation." I'm wondering if those jobless figures based on the Unemployment Claims filing have any truth to them at all, if this is what is occurring to many who have filed for their "temporary assistance."

As one who formerly worked in employment and labor law, this was no "resignation" under any true definition of the word, but an "enforced separation."

This was an employer that has been in the local newspapers in the community in which I formerly was residing for failing to pay its employees consisently week after week, and who also was giving employees unpaid time off when their call volume was down.

There were only five individuals left in my training class of 80 when they finally got to me, of course, after I questioned laying off 350 people after hiring 600 only three months prior.

I guess it was that question that sealed my eventual fate. And I suppose an employer who is having trouble meeting its payroll, is going to use every excuse imaginable in order to skirt around having to shell out for that even lesser unemployment amount...and this was a center that had a contract for a major national cell phone carrier, at that.

Try telling your landlord that you can't make the rent payment, because your employer was having several slow days that week.

I mean, if those in Washington are actually working at this point, rather than two-thirds of them attending fund raising events, and making campaign speeches, or are hard at work rewriting that tax code so that at least the instruction manual for completing a 1040 doesn't weigh more than a pound or two, rather than the ten to fifteen it does now, maybe this little problem has already been taken into account in some of those backroom meetings - what to do about those now jobless dependents?

I hope I hear something on CNN or Fox about it soon...because my elderly parents could certainly use a tax break so that at least they don't have to pay more taxes on that Social Security they had been receiving...

Which also looks as if it too is going to be reduced, for again "budgetary reasons."

While the war, of course, continues...and the insourcing and outsourcing for the "global good."

Social Security Fix: Give Me The Money

While the politicos in Washington begin grandstanding for the public and "votes" and campaign dollars, using the budget "crisis" and entitlement programs to foment their agendas in order to swing more dollars from that program instead to their campaign backers and PAC organizations through out state bundlers, high rollers, and corporate CEO's, much has been said about just how "broke" the Social Security program is in this country, and nebulous solutions proposed by many of the candidates selected by those who run the political system in this country.

Nothing much has been said about how to "legally" fix it.

Starting with: "Give me the money!"

Changing the rules in the middle of the game instead seems to be where most of these politicos stand.

In other words, I and many Americans, especially the boomers who have paid more into that program than any other generation before or since, would like our money back before any "fix" that defrauds middle Americans from their due upon retirement.

Returning those monies which have been withheld these many years, both those deductions made in those paychecks and also the sums contributed by those employers on behalf of those boomers in 2011 dollars, with interest, would be the "legal" remedy and cure for this claimed "broke" program.

Then the boomers could reinvest those dollars in any way they then chose.

And the program could be phased out for any and all that are born or hold their first "paid" jobs, not this random and illegal age of those under 55 which has been bantered about in the media by some. Where in the world did that figure (or age) come from, and just what is the "legal" basis for using 55 as the cutoff for those other Americans?

Interesting also that while Medicare was passed during the Johnson Administration due to the progressive higher and higher medical expenses when more and more hospitals were shifting from non-profit status, to for profit status, and during the height of the Viet Nam war when so much taxpayer money was being poured into that unconstitutional engagement, post 9-11 and our subsequent now even more unconstitutional engagement in the Middle East these "fixes" for these social programs are targeted at reducing those benefits in order to actually now shift more into EXPANDING our Middle Eastern engagements for those defense contractors and the military.

By unilaterally "changing" this program, is not this then an "ex post facto" law precluded by our Constitution for any and all that have paid ANYTHING at all into this program? Is this another of this Congress and Administration's ideas of "change" again at the American people and our Constitution's ultimate expense?

Or is this once again blowing smoke and diverting attention from all those receiving some of those monies using once again the federal government as nothing more than a money laundering operation for extra-Constitutional funding at the cost of this program?

The boomers were THE LARGEST generation ever, and if anything at this point there should be a surplus in that program, not deficit.

There is a true "legal" fix.

Too bad Congress simply would rather politicize this issue once again, Americans who will be receiving far more than the average American at their retirement through those federal and state civil service perks and benefits, at the cost of their fellow Americans and their "enforced" retirement, especially due to the amount of jobless in that particular age group at the present time.

More Foreclosures, More Economic Disasters To Come

After the earlier reports this week that Bank of America was delaying any more foreclosures on homes pending an investigation into the paperwork surrounding those planned in the "judicial foreclosure" states, it was announced by the AP yesterday that such is not the case and planned to execute on over 10,000 pending foreclosure actions.

Gee, with all that stimulus money which Bank of America received and then used to purchase all that Countrywide debt and paper, I just wonder how much equity those owners have invested in total which Bank of America will be getting, and it does appear that the federal "disclosure" law that simply requires mortgage banks and lenders to disclose the fact that the loan or contract you sign today just may change tomorrow if that note is purchased by another bank or entity is repaying all those lobbying costs those banks used on Capitol Hill the last few years in spades. Over and above all those "bailout" sums.

So what occurred here is that Congress extended credit to Bank of America so that they could then purchase Countrywide, at the taxpayers' expense, which then afforded them the right to foreclose on taxpayer properties which were "at risk," no matter how much equity those owners might have in those homes?

As one who had an original mortgage which was then sold to Countrywide at one point, who then attempted to charge me when I went to refinance for simply providing the payoff figure for the original note, I continue to find it hard to believe that ANY of these banks were "at risk" or bankrupt.

Especially after that revision of the bankruptcy code which also occurred due to banking lobbying efforts back in 2006 right before this tsunami began which in effect precluded then Americans who were facing bankruptcy from in effect writing off any of their credit card debts or home equity loans without going through the Chapter 13 "reorganization" procedures first (which takes a lawyer now to go through, the procedure is so complex) before filing under Chapter 7.

Almost all protections for debtors in bankruptcy procedures have now been removed, yet we continue to live in a credit based society where even paying off your credit card debt counts against you in the configuration of your credit score.

I mean post 9-11 what did President Bush advise the American people to do?

Go shop.

And what has Mr. Obama done also since taking office?

Advised the jobless and homeless American people to either get re-educated (taking out loans for that re-education), or refinance their homes (and pay even more ultimately for your property using those mortgage counselors with additional closing costs and "new" even more restrictive loans most likely than you originally had).

With Washington and the state legislatures continuing to scratch their heads and wonder why the housing market isn't improving?

Sub-prime loans were not the problem (and most of those loans in the areas most affected were not even sub-prime loans but loans based on the London Interbank Origination Rates, not even the U.S. prime), the terms of those 50 page loans and slight of hand which has occurred post the banking bailout defining mortgages as "paper debt" and not the contracts that they are, is what has increased the foreclosures and bulked up Wall Street once again at the cost of the American homeowners.

And contrary to the "economists" predictions, there are thousands of vacant and empty homes at this point, since this tsunami started in 2006 four years ago, so it isn't a dirth of "inventory" that is depressing the market.

It is the refusal of the American people to buy into a now very "risky" investment since I'm sure that what has occurred this past four years had not been lost on the upcoming homebuying public, and just who was "protected" and who lost their shirts...

And shelter.

The announcement that the 50 Attorneys General that are calling for an investigation into the foreclosure mess right before an election is just oh, so typical and oh, so political once again.

Now four years later? Sort of like closing the barn doors after the horse has escaped, and seems merely another job stimulus for the job security of the legal profession. I mean, who will you need to address such a case if not, once again, the foreclosure lawyers who have made a bundle this past four years and seems that the collection and foreclosure industry is another of those "favored special interests" that has benefited tremendously during this recession.

Depressed and vacant housing, thousands of Americans with black markets on their credit unable to get jobs due to the use of those reports by most of those national and global industries, and a low paid workforce due to all the outsourcing and insourcing which has escalated since the Reagan years.

With such a scenario, just how does Washington expect the economy to revive since it has bankrupted at this point a good segment of the American people, at least the middle class and boomer and World War II generation, at this point?

Social Security COLAs denied based on the fact that the COLA has not increased? Just where is the Department of Labor getting those figures, because the cost of living for those over 55 has definitely increased.

Many now have extended family members living with them. Their medical expenses have exploded due to lack of regulation over the mega health care providers, and for those assisting with college costs for the grandkids even, those costs have gone up.

Food prices have increased, and gas is still higher than it was before this recession began.

Instead, a $250 check is in the mail? Seems the new mentality in Washington has also been borrowed from corporate America.

Not benefits, but annual Washington configured rebates. Just where did they get that figure?

Meanwhile, the president and those running for re-election are running around the country contributing to the carbon emissions in order to bulk up those revenues eventually for the new carbon tax.

I've got news for the Washington, the bankers and economists.

The stock market is no barometer of the economic health of America.

The local unemployment offices, residential neighborhoods, and Main Street USA are.

And just where ARE all these candidates getting all that campaign money for all those ads on TV?

Let me guess. The bankers, or "government" contractors in rebates.