Federated Insurance Quotes

What was to be a relatively innocuous federal government, operating from a defined enumeration of specific grants of power, has become an ever-present and unaccountable force. It is the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider, and pension guarantor. Moreover, with aggrandized police powers, what it does not control directly it bans or mandates by regulation.

If you look at how the federal government spends our money, it’s an insurance conglomerate protected by a large, standing army.

They call themselves conservatives but that’s not it, either. They don’t want to conserve what we now have. They’d rather take the country backwards – before the 1960s and 1970s, and the Environmental Protection Act, Medicare, and Medicaid; before the New Deal, and its provision for Social Security, unemployment insurance, the forty-hour workweek, and official recognition of trade unions; even before the Progressive Era, and the first national income tax, antitrust laws, and Federal Reserve. They’re not conservatives. They’re regressives. And the America they seek is the one we had in the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century.

On Rachel's show for November 7, 2012: We're not going to have a supreme court that will overturn Roe versus Wade. There will be no more Antonio Scalias and Samuel Aleatos added to this court. We're not going to repeal health reform. Nobody is going to kill medicare and make old people in this generation or any other generation fight it out on the open market to try to get health insurance. We are not going to do that. We are not going to give a 20% tax cut to millionaires and billionaires and expect programs like food stamps and kid's insurance to cover the cost of that tax cut. We'll not make you clear it with your boss if you want to get birth control under the insurance plan that you're on. We are not going to redefine rape. We are not going to amend the United States constitution to stop gay people from getting married. We are not going to double Guantanamo. We are not eliminating the Department of Energy or the Department of Education or Housing at the federal level. We are not going to spend $2 trillion on the military that the military does not want. We are not scaling back on student loans because the country's new plan is that you should borrow money from your parents. We are not vetoing the Dream Act. We are not self-deporting. We are not letting Detroit go bankrupt. We are not starting a trade war with China on Inauguration Day in January. We are not going to have, as a president, a man who once led a mob of friends to run down a scared, gay kid, to hold him down and forcibly cut his hair off with a pair of scissors while that kid cried and screamed for help and there was no apology, not ever. We are not going to have a Secretary of State John Bolton. We are not bringing Dick Cheney back. We are not going to have a foreign policy shop stocked with architects of the Iraq War. We are not going to do it. We had the chance to do that if we wanted to do that, as a country. and we said no, last night, loudly.

At the time, the Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Administration not only refused to insure mortgages for African Americans in designated white neighborhoods like Ladera; they also would not insure mortgages for whites in a neighborhood where African Americans were present.

As in Rollingwood ten years earlier, one of the federal government’s specifications for mortgages insured in Milpitas was an openly stated prohibition on sales to African Americans.

strengthened a conviction that had been growing for some years, namely that adequate medical care can only be provided by a comprehensive health insurance scheme with federal backing.

if a bank failed to meet its quota for loans to low-income minorities, it ran a high risk of failing to earn a “satisfactory” CRA rating from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

All finance in the country, including banking, insurance, stocks and bonds and mortgages, shall be under the absolute control of a Federal Central Bank, owned by the government and conducted by a Board appointed by the President, which Board shall, without need of recourse to Congress for legislative authorization, be empowered to make all regulations governing finance.

Aye. 'Tis a free country." Monq had come to check on Elora just as she asked that question. "Well, that kind of has to be qualified," he interjected. "You can't come or go without a passport. You can't drive without a driver's license, registration, auto insurance and proof that your vehicle is up to code. You can't work or even get health care without a social security number. You have to pay taxes on everything including air and water. The closest distance between point A and B may involve paying a road toll. There are over three hundred thousand federal laws. You have to educate your children according to legal standards set by someone that's not you. There are laws about who can marry whom. But other than a few more such trivialities, it's a free country.

That was the Northern Ohio Bank, which US Organized Crime Strike Force investigators said had been taken over by the Mob. The bank collapsed in 1975, costing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. $30 million. Stansbury

New Rule: Republicans must stop pitting the American people against the government. Last week, we heard a speech from Republican leader Bobby Jindal--and he began it with the story that every immigrant tells about going to an American grocery store for the first time and being overwhelmed with the "endless variety on the shelves." And this was just a 7-Eleven--wait till he sees a Safeway. The thing is, that "endless variety"exists only because Americans pay taxes to a government, which maintains roads, irrigates fields, oversees the electrical grid, and everything else that enables the modern American supermarket to carry forty-seven varieties of frozen breakfast pastry.Of course, it's easy to tear government down--Ronald Reagan used to say the nine most terrifying words in the Englishlanguage were "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." But that was before "I'm Sarah Palin, now show me the launch codes."The stimulus package was attacked as typical "tax and spend"--like repairing bridges is left-wing stuff. "There the liberals go again, always wanting to get across the river." Folks, the people are the government--the first responders who put out fires--that's your government. The ranger who shoos pedophiles out of the park restroom, the postman who delivers your porn.How stupid is it when people say, "That's all we need: the federal government telling Detroit how to make cars or Wells Fargo how to run a bank. You want them to look like the post office?"You mean the place that takes a note that's in my hand in L.A. on Monday and gives it to my sister in New Jersey on Wednesday, for 44 cents? Let me be the first to say, I would be thrilled if America's health-care system was anywhere near as functional as the post office.Truth is, recent years have made me much more wary of government stepping aside and letting unregulated private enterprise run things it plainly is too greedy to trust with. Like Wall Street. Like rebuilding Iraq.Like the way Republicans always frame the health-care debate by saying, "Health-care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not government bureaucrats," leaving out the fact that health-care decisions aren't made by doctors, patients, or bureaucrats; they're made by insurance companies. Which are a lot like hospital gowns--chances are your gas isn't covered.

Social Security and Medicare were sold to the public as insurance programs. They are not. As such, they now rely mostly on the “contributions” of younger workers and massive federal borrowing to subsidize them. Despite repeated and dire warnings about their unsustainable fiscal condition from the trustees appointed to oversee them, younger workers are compelled to continue to pay into these programs, from which they are unlikely to benefit upon their retirement and for which future generations will bear the brunt of their eventual collapse.

Behind the troubled banks and the increasingly troubled insurance agencies stands "the full faith and credit" of the Government—in effect, a promise, sure to be honored by Congress, that all citizens will chip in through taxes or through inflation to make all depositors whole.80

The only bill not overdue was for my health insurance. That’s because I don’t have any. Never have. Based on the figure the federal government claims is the average monthly cost of health coverage for someone like me who is self-employed, I’ve saved about $200,000 since opening Spirits in Clay. I

Mussolini envisioned a powerful centralized state directing the institutions of the private sector, forcing their private welfare into line with the national welfare. Isn’t this precisely how progressives view the federal government’s control of banks, finance companies, insurance companies, health care, energy, and education?

What was shocking were the rewards my father's cousins had gathered in the intervening couple of decades. They farmed now on thousands of acres, not hundreds. They drove fancy pickup trucks, owned lakefront property and second homes. A simple Internet search offered the truth of where their riches had come from: good ol' Uncle Sam. Recently I clicked again on a database of farm subsidy payments, and found that five of my father's first cousins had been paid, all told, $3 million between 1995 and 2005 - and that on top of whatever they'd earned outright for the sale of their corn and soybeans. They worked hard, certainly. They'd saved and scrimped through the lean years. They were good and honorable yeoman, and now they'd come through to their great reward: a prime place at the trough of the welfare state. All that corn syrup guzzled down the gullets of America's overweight children, all that beef inefficiently fattened on cheap feed, all that ethanol being distilled in heartland refineries: all of it underwritten by as wasteful a government program as now exists this side of the defense industry. In the last ten years, the federal government has paid $131 million in subsidies and disaster insurance in just the county [in Minnesota] where I grew up. Corn is subsidized to keep it cheap, and the subsidies encourage overproduction, which encourages a scramble for ever more ways to use corn, and thus bigger subsidies - the perfect feedback loop of government welfare.

State-regulated insurance companies, like the Equitable Life Insurance Company and the Prudential Life Insurance Company, also declared that their policy was not to issue mortgages to whites in integrated neighborhoods. State insurance regulators had no objection to this stance. The Bank of America and other leading California banks had similar policies, also with the consent of federal banking regulators.

The Tenth Amendment recognizes the States' jurisdiction in certain areas. States' Rights means that the States have a right to act or not to act, as they see fit, in the areas reserved to them. The States may have duties corresponding to these rights, but the duties are owed to the people of the States, not to the federal government. Therefore, the recourse lies not with the federal government, which is not sovereign, but with the people who are, and who have full power to take disciplinary action. If the people are unhappy with say, their State's disability insurance program, they can bring pressure to bear on their state officials and, if that fails, they can elect a new set of officials. And if, in the unhappy event they should wish to divest themselves of this responsibility, they can amend the Constitution.

We don’t worry about who manages the bank or what they do with our money. Even if we hear on the news that our bank has started to lend large sums of money to piano-playing cats, which we think is a bad idea, we would not feel the need to show up at the bank the next morning to ask for all of our money back. If you had lent your money to an individual and they in turn lent your money to piano-playing cats, you would demand your money back immediately. But because you deposit your money into a bank account insured by the federal government, you feel no need to keep a watchful eye on what your bank does with the money. Insurance removes the incentive for customers to police a bank. It can also remove the incentive for banks to police themselves because they do not bear the full or even the most serious consequences of their actions. Removing the natural tendencies of the market to notice and punish bad choices creates a moral hazard that may result in well-funded cats and other undetected market risks.

Farmers in the South, West, and Midwest, however, were still building a major movement to escape from the control of banks and merchants lending them supplies at usurious rates; agricultural cooperatives—cooperative buying of supplies and machinery and marketing of produce—as well as cooperative stores, were the remedy to these conditions of virtual serfdom. While the movement was not dedicated to the formation of worker co-ops, in its own way it was at least as ambitious as the Knights of Labor had been. In the late 1880s and early 1890s it swept through southern and western states like a brushfire, even, in some places, bringing black and white farmers together in a unity of interest. Eventually this Farmers’ Alliance decided it had to enter politics in order to break the power of the banks; it formed a third party, the People’s Party, in 1892. The great depression of 1893 only spurred the movement on, and it won governorships in Kansas and Colorado. But in 1896 its leaders made a terrible strategic blunder in allying themselves with William Jennings Bryan of the Democratic party in his campaign for president. Bryan lost the election, and Populism lost its independent identity. The party fell apart; the Farmers’ Alliance collapsed; the movement died, and many of its cooperative associations disappeared. Thus, once again, the capitalists had managed to stomp out a threat to their rule.171 They were unable to get rid of all agricultural cooperatives, however, even with the help of the Sherman “Anti-Trust” Act of 1890.172 Nor, in fact, did big business desire to combat many of them, for instance the independent co-ops that coordinated buying and selling. Small farmers needed cooperatives in order to survive, whether their co-ops were independent or were affiliated with a movement like the Farmers’ Alliance or the Grange. The independent co-ops, moreover, were not necessarily opposed to the capitalist system, fitting into it quite well by cooperatively buying and selling, marketing, and reducing production costs. By 1921 there were 7374 agricultural co-ops, most of them in regional federations. According to the census of 1919, over 600,000 farmers were engaged in cooperative marketing or purchasing—and these figures did not include the many farmers who obtained insurance, irrigation, telephone, or other business services from cooperatives.173

Henceforth, federal, state, and local governments shall make no law nor establish any program that transfers general tax revenues to some citizens and not to others, whether those transfers consist of money or in-kind benefits. All programs currently providing such benefits are to be terminated. The funds formerly allocated to them are to be used instead to provide every citizen with a Universal Basic Income beginning at age twenty-one and continuing until death. The maximum annual value of the grant at the program’s outset is to be $13,000, of which $3,000 must be devoted to catastrophic health insurance.

The Supreme Court upheld the law in the 2012 decision of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, but not because it believed the Congress had the power to force people to buy insurance under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. Congress, the 5–4 majority decided, had the power to mandate that people buy health insurance because the fine for failing to do so could be regarded as a tax. This particular argument was buried in the legal defense of the law and was only teased out in the final day of arguments by the Court itself. This proves that the Court cannot be trusted to block unconstitutional legislation.

Well, “maybe it is,” Chotiner wrote, “but the Republican Party must do something more than point out the evils of the administration’s plan—it must show that it is ready to meet the needs of Tom Jones when illness strikes.” And so Congressman Nixon joined with other Republican moderates to introduce a national health insurance plan in which the states and federal governments would subsidize the purchase of insurance from private companies. “Our bill involves neither socialized medicine nor medicine for indigents only,” the announcement said. “It recognizes that the problem of medical care for the people is urgent and that government should participate in its solution.

In her book The Government-Citizen Disconnect, the political scientist Suzanne Mettler reports that 96 percent of American adults have relied on a major government program at some point in their lives. Rich, middle-class, and poor families depend on different kinds of programs, but the average rich and middle-class family draws on the same number of government benefits as the average poor family. Student loans look like they were issued from a bank, but the only reason banks hand out money to eighteen-year-olds with no jobs, no credit, and no collateral is because the federal government guarantees the loans and pays half their interest. Financial advisers at Edward Jones or Prudential can help you sign up for 529 college savings plans, but those plans' generous tax benefits will cost the federal government an estimated $28.5 billion between 2017 and 2026. For most Americans under the age of sixty-five, health insurance appears to come from their jobs, but supporting this arrangement is one of the single largest tax breaks issued by the federal government, one that exempts the cost of employer-sponsored health insurance from taxable incomes. In 2022, this benefit is estimated to have cost the government $316 billion for those under sixty-five. By 2032, its price tag is projected to exceed $6oo billion. Almost half of all Americans receive government-subsidized health benefits through their employers, and over a third are enrolled in government-subsidized retirement benefits. These participation rates, driven primarily by rich and middle-class Americans, far exceed those of even the largest programs directed at low income families, such as food stamps (14 percent of Americans) and the Earned Income Tax Credit (19 percent). Altogether, the United States spent $1.8 trillion on tax breaks in 2021. That amount exceeded total spending on law enforcement, education, housing, healthcare, diplomacy, and everything else that makes up our discretionary budget. Roughly half the benefits of the thirteen largest individual tax breaks accrue to the richest families, those with incomes that put them in the top 20 percent. The top I percent of income earners take home more than all middle-class families and double that of families in the bottom 20 percent. I can't tell you how many times someone has informed me that we should reduce military spending and redirect the savings to the poor. When this suggestion is made in a public venue, it always garners applause. I've met far fewer people who have suggested we boost aid to the poor by reducing tax breaks that mostly benefit the upper class, even though we spend over twice as much on them as on the military and national defense.

Rich, middle-class, and poor families depend on different kinds of programs, but the average rich and middle-class family draws on the same number of government benefits as the average poor family. Student loans look like they were issued from a bank, but the only reason banks hand out money to eighteen-year-olds with no jobs, no credit, and no collateral is because the federal government guarantees the loans and pays half their interest. Financial advisers at Edward Jones or Prudential can help you sign up for 529 college savings plans, but those plans’ generous tax benefits will cost the federal government an estimated $28.5 billion between 2017 and 2026. For most Americans under the age of sixty-five, health insurance appears to come from their jobs, but supporting this arrangement is one of the single largest tax breaks issued by the federal government, one that exempts the cost of employer-sponsored health insurance from taxable incomes.

But voters who quite liked the new system gave Democrats such a strong majority in Congress that Johnson and the Democrats were able to pass eighty-four new laws to put the Great Society into place. They cemented civil rights with the 1965 Voting Rights Act protecting minority voting, created jobs in Appalachia, and established job-training and community-development programs. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 gave federal aid to public schools and established the Head Start program to provide comprehensive early education for low-income children. The Higher Education Act of 1965 increased federal investment in universities and provided scholarships and low-interest loans to students. The Social Security Amendments of 1965 created Medicare, which provided health insurance for Americans over age sixty-five, and Medicaid, which helped cover health care costs for those with limited incomes. Congress advanced the war on poverty by increasing welfare payments and subsidizing rent for low-income families.

Rather than encouraging a greater understanding of how these disparities came to be or a framework for compassion for fellow Americans, political discourse has usually reinforced prevailing stereotypes of a lazy, inferior group getting undeserved handouts, a scapegoating that makes the formal barriers all the more unjust and the resentments of white working-class citizens all the more tragic. The subordinate caste was shut out of “the trillions of dollars of wealth accumulated through the appreciation of housing assets secured by federally insured loans between 1932 and 1962,” a major source of current-day wealth, wrote the sociologist George Lipsitz. “Yet they find themselves portrayed as privileged beneficiaries of special preferences by the very people who profit from their exploitation and oppression.” Once labor, housing, and schools finally began to open up to the subordinate caste, many working- and middle-class whites began to perceive themselves to be worse off, by comparison, and to report that they experienced more racism than African-Americans, unable to see the inequities that persist, often in their favor.

According to Bartholomew, an important goal of St. Louis zoning was to prevent movement into 'finer residential districts . . . by colored people.' He noted that without a previous zoning law, such neighborhoods have become run-down, 'where values have depreciated, homes are either vacant or occupied by color people.' The survey Bartholomew supervised before drafting the zoning ordinance listed the race of each building's occupants. Bartholomew attempted to estimate where African Americans might encroach so the commission could respond with restrictions to control their spread. The St. Louis zoning ordinance was eventually adopted in 1919, two years after the Supreme Court's Buchanan ruling banned racial assignments; with no reference to race, the ordinance pretended to be in compliance. Guided by Bartholomew's survey, it designated land for future industrial development if it was in or adjacent to neighborhoods with substantial African American populations. Once such rules were in force, plan commission meetings were consumed with requests for variances. Race was frequently a factor. For example, on meeting in 1919 debated a proposal to reclassify a single-family property from first-residential to commercial because the area to the south had been 'invaded by negroes.' Bartholomew persuaded the commission members to deny the variance because, he said, keeping the first-residential designation would preserve homes in the area as unaffordable to African Americans and thus stop the encroachment. On other occasions, the commission changed an area's zoning from residential to industrial if African American families had begun to move into it. In 1927, violating its normal policy, the commission authorized a park and playground in an industrial, not residential, area in hopes that this would draw African American families to seek housing nearby. Similar decision making continued through the middle of the twentieth century. In a 1942 meeting, commissioners explained they were zoning an area in a commercial strip as multifamily because it could then 'develop into a favorable dwelling district for Colored people. In 1948, commissioners explained they were designating a U-shaped industrial zone to create a buffer between African Americans inside the U and whites outside. In addition to promoting segregation, zoning decisions contributed to degrading St. Louis's African American neighborhoods into slums. Not only were these neighborhoods zoned to permit industry, even polluting industry, but the plan commission permitted taverns, liquor stores, nightclubs, and houses of prostitution to open in African American neighborhoods but prohibited these as zoning violations in neighborhoods where whites lived. Residences in single-family districts could not legally be subdivided, but those in industrial districts could be, and with African Americans restricted from all but a few neighborhoods, rooming houses sprang up to accommodate the overcrowded population. Later in the twentieth century, when the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) developed the insure amortized mortgage as a way to promote homeownership nationwide, these zoning practices rendered African Americans ineligible for such mortgages because banks and the FHA considered the existence of nearby rooming houses, commercial development, or industry to create risk to the property value of single-family areas. Without such mortgages, the effective cost of African American housing was greater than that of similar housing in white neighborhoods, leaving owners with fewer resources for upkeep. African American homes were then more likely to deteriorate, reinforcing their neighborhoods' slum conditions.

If Jim was back at the imaginary dinner party, trying to explain what he did for a living, he'd have tried to keep it simple: clearing involved everything that took place between the moment someone started at trade — buying or selling a stock, for instance — and the moment that trade was settled — meaning the stock had officially and legally changed hands. Most people who used online brokerages thought of that transaction as happening instantly; you wanted 10 shares of GME, you hit a button and bought 10 shares of GME, and suddenly 10 shares of GME were in your account. But that's not actually what happened. You hit the Buy button, and Robinhood might find you your shares immediately and put them into your account; but the actual trade took two days to complete, known, for that reason, in financial parlance as 'T+2 clearing.' By this point in the dinner conversation, Jim would have fully expected the other diners' eyes to glaze over; but he would only be just beginning. Once the trade was initiated — once you hit that Buy button on your phone — it was Jim's job to handle everything that happened in that in-between world. First, he had to facilitate finding the opposite partner for the trade — which was where payment for order flow came in, as Robinhood bundled its trades and 'sold' them to a market maker like Citadel. And next, it was the clearing brokerage's job to make sure that transaction was safe and secure. In practice, the way this worked was by 10:00 a.m. each market day, Robinhood had to insure its trade, by making a cash deposit to a federally regulated clearinghouse — something called the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, or DTCC. That deposit was based on the volume, type, risk profile, and value of the equities being traded. The riskier the equities — the more likely something might go wrong between the buy and the sell — the higher that deposit might be. Of course, most all of this took place via computers — in 2021, and especially at a place like Robinhood, it was an almost entirely automated system; when customers bought and sold stocks, Jim's computers gave him a recommendation of the sort of deposits he could expect to need to make based on the requirements set down by the SEC and the banking regulators — all simple and tidy, and at the push of a button.

Give us an idea of…” Noya Baram rubs her temples. “Oh, well.” Augie begins to stroll around again. “The examples are limitless. Small examples: elevators stop working. Grocery-store scanners. Train and bus passes. Televisions. Phones. Radios. Traffic lights. Credit-card scanners. Home alarm systems. Laptop computers will lose all their software, all files, everything erased. Your computer will be nothing but a keyboard and a blank screen. “Electricity would be severely compromised. Which means refrigerators. In some cases, heat. Water—well, we have already seen the effect on water-purification plants. Clean water in America will quickly become a scarcity. “That means health problems on a massive scale. Who will care for the sick? Hospitals? Will they have the necessary resources to treat you? Surgical operations these days are highly computerized. And they will not have access to any of your prior medical records online. “For that matter, will they treat you at all? Do you have health insurance? Says who? A card in your pocket? They won’t be able to look you up and confirm it. Nor will they be able to seek reimbursement from the insurer. And even if they could get in contact with the insurance company, the insurance company won’t know whether you’re its customer. Does it have handwritten lists of its policyholders? No. It’s all on computers. Computers that have been erased. Will the hospitals work for free? “No websites, of course. No e-commerce. Conveyor belts. Sophisticated machinery inside manufacturing plants. Payroll records. “Planes will be grounded. Even trains may not operate in most places. Cars, at least any built since, oh, 2010 or so, will be affected. “Legal records. Welfare records. Law enforcement databases. The ability of local police to identify criminals, to coordinate with other states and the federal government through databases—no more. “Bank records. You think you have ten thousand dollars in your savings account? Fifty thousand dollars in a retirement account? You think you have a pension that allows you to receive a fixed payment every month?” He shakes his head. “Not if computer files and their backups are erased. Do banks have a large wad of cash, wrapped in a rubber band with your name on it, sitting in a vault somewhere? Of course not. It’s all data.” “Mother of God,” says Chancellor Richter, wiping his face with a handkerchief.

By now, though, it had been a steep learning curve, he was fairly well versed on the basics of how clearing worked: When a customer bought shares in a stock on Robinhood — say, GameStop — at a specific price, the order was first sent to Robinhood's in-house clearing brokerage, who in turn bundled the trade to a market maker for execution. The trade was then brought to a clearinghouse, who oversaw the trade all the way to the settlement. During this time period, the trade itself needed to be 'insured' against anything that might go wrong, such as some sort of systemic collapse or a default by either party — although in reality, in regulated markets, this seemed extremely unlikely. While the customer's money was temporarily put aside, essentially in an untouchable safe, for the two days it took for the clearing agency to verify that both parties were able to provide what they had agreed upon — the brokerage house, Robinhood — had to insure the deal with a deposit; money of its own, separate from the money that the customer had provided, that could be used to guarantee the value of the trade. In financial parlance, this 'collateral' was known as VAR — or value at risk. For a single trade of a simple asset, it would have been relatively easy to know how much the brokerage would need to deposit to insure the situation; the risk of something going wrong would be small, and the total value would be simple to calculate. If GME was trading at $400 a share and a customer wanted ten shares, there was $4000 at risk, plus or minus some nominal amount due to minute vagaries in market fluctuations during the two-day period before settlement. In such a simple situation, Robinhood might be asked to put up $4000 and change — in addition to the $4000 of the customer's buy order, which remained locked in the safe. The deposit requirement calculation grew more complicated as layers were added onto the trading situation. A single trade had low inherent risk; multiplied to millions of trades, the risk profile began to change. The more volatile the stock — in price and/or volume — the riskier a buy or sell became. Of course, the NSCC did not make these calculations by hand; they used sophisticated algorithms to digest the numerous inputs coming in from the trade — type of equity, volume, current volatility, where it fit into a brokerage's portfolio as a whole — and spit out a 'recommendation' of what sort of deposit would protect the trade. And this process was entirely automated; the brokerage house would continually run its trading activity through the federal clearing system and would receive its updated deposit requirements as often as every fifteen minutes while the market was open. Premarket during a trading week, that number would come in at 5:11 a.m. East Coast time, usually right as Jim, in Orlando, was finishing his morning coffee. Robinhood would then have until 10:00 a.m. to satisfy the deposit requirement for the upcoming day of trading — or risk being in default, which could lead to an immediate shutdown of all operations. Usually, the deposit requirement was tied closely to the actual dollars being 'spent' on the trades; a near equal number of buys and sells in a brokerage house's trading profile lowered its overall risk, and though volatility was common, especially in the past half-decade, even a two-day settlement period came with an acceptable level of confidence that nobody would fail to deliver on their trades.

At the time, the Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Administration not only refused to insure mortgages for African Americans in designated white neighborhoods like Ladera; they also would not insure mortgages for whites in a neighborhood where African Americans were present. So once East Palo Alto was integrated, whites wanting to move into the area could no longer obtain government-insured mortgages. State-regulated insurance companies, like the Equitable Life Insurance Company and the Prudential Life Insurance Company, also declared that their policy was not to issue mortgages to whites in integrated neighborhoods. State insurance regulators had no objection to this stance. The Bank of America and other leading California banks had similar policies, also with the consent of federal banking regulators.

While we often think of where we live as a matter of personal preference, there is actually a massive amount of policy and legislation behind where we reside. As historian Richard Rothstein shows in The Color of Law, because racial discrimination was official federal policy through the middle of the twentieth century, black citizens were excluded from federally insured mortgages. 17 Not only that, housing developers were only eligible for government insurance if they maintained a strict policy of banning African Americans from inhabiting the homes they built. The racial divide we see today between many affluent suburbs and nearby urban neighborhoods is not an accident of history nor the amalgamation of countless individual choices; it is de jure (according to law) segregation, constructed and sustained by federal and, in many cases, state and local government policies. This means that the majority of us live where we do not simply as a matter of preference or convenience. How we decide where to live is shaped by what we might call a housing practice.

Over the next few years, the number of African Americans seeking jobs and homes in and near Palo Alto grew, but no developer who depended on federal government loan insurance would sell to them, and no California state-licensed real estate agent would show them houses. But then, in 1954, one resident of a whites-only area in East Palo Alto, across a highway from the Stanford campus, sold his house to a black family. Almost immediately Floyd Lowe, president of the California Real Estate Association, set up an office in East Palo Alto to panic white families into listing their homes for sale, a practice known as blockbusting. He and other agents warned that a 'Negro invasion' was imminent and that it would result in collapsing property values. Soon, growing numbers of white owners succumbed to the scaremongering and sold at discounted prices to the agents and their speculators. The agents, including Lowe himself, then designed display ads with banner headlines-"Colored Buyers!"-which they ran in San Francisco newspapers. African Americans desperate for housing, purchased the homes at inflated prices. Within a three-month period, one agent alone sold sixty previously white-owned properties to African Americans. The California real estate commissioner refused to take any action, asserting that while regulations prohibited licensed agents from engaging in 'unethical practices,' the exploitation of racial fear was not within the real estate commission's jurisdiction. Although the local real estate board would ordinarily 'blackball' any agent who sold to a nonwhite buyer in the city's white neighborhoods (thereby denying the agent access to the multiple listing service upon which his or her business depended), once wholesale blockbusting began, the board was unconcerned, even supportive.

Over the next few years, the number of African Americans seeking jobs and homes in and near Palo Alto grew, but no developer who depended on federal government loan insurance would sell to them, and no California state-licensed real estate agent would show them houses. But then, in 1954, one resident of a whites-only area in East Palo Alto, across a highway from the Stanford campus, sold his house to a black family. Almost immediately Floyd Lowe, president of the California Real Estate Association, set up an office in East Palo Alto to panic white families into listing their homes for sale, a practice known as blockbusting. He and other agents warned that a 'Negro invasion' was imminent and that it would result in collapsing property values. Soon, growing numbers of white owners succumbed to the scaremongering and sold at discounted prices to the agents and their speculators. The agents, including Lowe himself, then designed display ads with banner headlines-"Colored Buyers!"-which they ran in San Francisco newspapers. African Americans desperate for housing, purchased the homes at inflated prices. Within a three-month period, one agent alone sold sixty previously white-owned properties to African Americans. The California real estate commissioner refused to take any action, asserting that while regulations prohibited licensed agents from engaging in 'unethical practices,' the exploitation of racial fear was not within the real estate commission's jurisdiction. Although the local real estate board would ordinarily 'blackball' any agent who sold to a nonwhite buyer in the city's white neighborhoods (thereby denying the agent access to the multiple listing service upon which his or her business depended), once wholesale blockbusting began, the board was unconcerned, even supportive. At the time, the Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Administration not only refused to insure mortgages for African Americans in designated white neighborhoods like Ladera; they also would not insure mortgages for whites in a neighborhood where African Americans were present. So once East Palo Alto was integrated, whites wanting to move into the area could no longer obtain government-insured mortgages. State-regulated insurance companies, like the Equitable Life Insurance Company and the Prudential Life Insurance Company, also declared that their policy was not to issue mortgages to whites in integrated neighborhoods. State insurance regulators had no objection to this stance. The Bank of America and other leading California banks had similar policies, also with the consent of federal banking regulators. Within six years the population of East Palo Alto was 82 percent black. Conditions deteriorated as African Americans who had been excluded from other neighborhoods doubled up in single-family homes. Their East Palo Alto houses had been priced so much higher than similar properties for whites that the owners had difficulty making payments without additional rental income. Federal and state hosing policy had created a slum in East Palo Alto. With the increased density of the area, the school district could no longer accommodate all Palo Alto students, so in 1958 it proposed to create a second high school to accommodate teh expanding student population. The district decided to construct the new school in the heart of what had become the East Palo Alto ghetto, so black students in Palo Alto's existing integrated building would have to withdraw, creating a segregated African American school in the eastern section and a white one to the west. the board ignored pleas of African American and liberal white activists that it draw an east-west school boundary to establish two integrated secondary schools. In ways like these, federal, state, and local governments purposely created segregation in every metropolitan area of the nation.

With the first banks opened on Monday, the afternoon brought another request from Roosevelt. Stating that he needed the tax revenue, he asked Congress that beer with alcohol content of up to 3.2 percent be made legal; the Eighteenth Amendment did not specify the percentage that constituted an intoxicating beverage. Congress complied. The House passed the bill the very next day with a vote count of 316–97, pushing it to the Senate. Wednesday brought good cheer: The stock market opened for the first time in Roosevelt’s presidency. In a single-day record, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained over 15 percent—a gain in total market value of $3 billion. By Thursday, for increased fiscal prudence, the Senate had added an exemption for wine to go with beer, but negotiated the alcohol content down to 3.05 percent. Throughout the week, banks were receiving net deposits rather than facing panicked withdrawals. Over the following weeks, the administration developed a sweeping farm package designed to “increase purchasing power of our farmers” and “relieve the pressure of farm mortgages.” To guarantee the safety of bank deposits, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was created. To regulate the entire American stock and bond markets, the Exchange Act of 1933 required companies to report their financial condition accurately to the buying public, establishing the Securities and Exchange Commission. Safety nets such as Social Security for retirement and home loan guarantees for individuals would be added to the government’s portfolio of responsibilities within a couple of years. It was the largest peacetime escalation of government in American history.

OVER THE next few years, the number of African Americans seeking jobs and homes in and near Palo Alto grew, but no developer who depended on federal government loan insurance would sell to them, and no California state-licensed real estate agent would show them houses. But then, in 1954, one resident of a whites-only area in East Palo Alto, across a highway from the Stanford campus, sold his house to a black family. Almost immediately Floyd Lowe, president of the California Real Estate Association, set up an office in East Palo Alto to panic white families into listing their homes for sale, a practice known as blockbusting. He and other agents warned that a “Negro invasion” was imminent and that it would result in collapsing property values. Soon, growing numbers of white owners succumbed to the scaremongering and sold at discounted prices to the agents and their speculators. The agents, including Lowe himself, then designed display ads with banner headlines—“Colored Buyers!”—which they ran in San Francisco newspapers.

The term ‘redlining’… comes from the development by the New Deal, by the federal government of maps of every metropolitan area in the country. And those maps were color-coded by first the Home Owners Loan Corp. and then the Federal Housing Administration and then adopted by the Veterans Administration, and these color codes were designed to indicate where it was safe to insure mortgages. And anywhere where African-Americans lived, anywhere where African-Americans lived nearby were colored red to indicate to appraisers that these neighborhoods were too risky to insure mortgages.”35

The subordinate caste was shut out of “the trillions of dollars of wealth accumulated through the appreciation of housing assets secured by federally insured loans between 1932 and 1962,” a major source of current-day wealth, wrote the sociologist George Lipsitz. “Yet they find themselves portrayed as privileged beneficiaries of special preferences by the very people who profit from their exploitation and oppression.

The walls were lined with bookcases, packed with the usual trial lawyer tomes, including Proof of Facts, American Jurisprudence, and Federal Reporters from the Seventh Circuit as well as a good dozen or more volumes on insurance litigation, medicine and law, and trial reporters from across the country. The books were mainly to impress the visitors from the insurance industry who paid the firm’s bills. All research anymore was computer-driven, and Jones Marentz had accounts with both Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis, your choice.

list of documents that may be required. It can look intimidating, especially if you’ve not been actively involved in your family finances, but don’t panic. If you can’t find all of them or don’t have access, there is a later step in the divorce process called “discovery,” when you can legally compel the other side to provide copies of anything else you need: •Individual income tax returns (federal, state, local) for past three years •Business income tax returns (federal, state, local) for past three years •Proof of your current income (paystubs, statements, or paid invoices) •Proof of spouse’s income (paystubs, statements, or paid invoices) •Checking, savings, and certificate statements (personal and business) for past three years •Credit card and loan statements (personal and business) for past three years •Investment, pension plan, and retirement account statements for past three years •Mortgage statement and loan documents for all properties you have an interest in •Real estate appraisals •Property tax documents •Employment contracts •Benefit statements •Social Security statements •Life, homeowner’s, and auto insurance policies •Wills and trust agreements •Health insurance cards •Vehicle titles and/or registration •Monthly budget worksheet •List of personal property (furnishings, jewelry, electronics, artwork) •List of property acquired by gift or inheritance or owned prior to marriage •Prenuptial agreements •Marriage license •Prior court orders directing payment of child support or spousal support Your attorney or financial advisor may ask for additional documents specific to your case. Some of these may not be applicable to you.

You get auditions based on the level you are at. It's hard to see when your journey to the top had more ease, but in reality, there is no ease. You do what the lucky person did, you have a 99 percent chance of it not ever happening for you. Only about 4 percent of actors in the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) union make enough for Plan 1 health insurance and that's $20,000 a year. That is our reality.

Central banks across the globe have been hesitant to recognize bitcoin as a form of money, and Tuesday’s vanishing act isn’t helping. Mt. Gox “reminds us of the downside of decentralized, unregulated currencies,” said Campbell Harvey, a professor at the Duke University Fuqua School of Business who specializes in financial markets and global risk management. “There is no Federal Reserve or IMF to come to the rescue. There is no deposit insurance.” However, Campbell said, Mt. Gox’s disappearance “doesn’t mean the end of the road” for bit-coin and other virtual currencies.

In 2013, Texas passed Florida when it improved its spending on human services, moving up to 49th and leaving Florida — you guessed it — dead last in the nation. Notable also is Florida's failure to provide health insurance to large numbers of children and families eligible for federally funded Medicaid/CHIP programs.

Currently, it takes about three workers paying Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes to support one retiree, and the system works as long as there is a ratio of three workers to one retiree. But it crumbles as the ratio of workers to retirees becomes, say, two to one. With fewer jobs, there are fewer workers

In a futile gesture against the overwhelming consensus, I did call a New York Times editor to complain about a damaging story portraying the AIG rescue as a backdoor bailout for Hank’s former colleagues at Goldman Sachs. I had asked Lloyd Blankfein about Goldman’s direct exposure to AIG; when he assured me Goldman’s exposures were relatively small and fully hedged, I made him send me the documentation. Still, the Times wouldn’t correct the record, and my call probably strengthened its suspicions. The same reporter later did a story portraying the entire crisis response team as servants of Goldman, accompanied by a vampire squid–like diagram with me in the middle. In the media, in the public, even in the financial community, we faced withering skepticism about our motives as well as our competence. After all, we had lent a mismanaged insurance company three years’ worth of federal spending on basic scientific research.

The American real-estate industry believed segregation to be a moral principle. As late as 1950, the National Association of Real Estate Boards' code of ethics warned that "a Realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood ... any race or nationality, or any individuals whose presence will clearly be detrimental to property values." A 1943 brochure specified that such potential undesireables might include madams, bootleggers, gangsters - and "a colored man of means who was giving his children a college education and thought they were entitled to live among whites." The federal government concurred. It was the How Owners' Loan Corporation, not a private trade association, that pioneered the practice of redlining, selectively granting loans and insisting that any property it insured be covered by a restrictive covenant - a clause in the deed forbidding the sale of the property to anyone other than whites. Millions of dollars flowed from tax coffers into segregated white neighborhoods. "For perhaps the first time, the federal government embraced the discriminatory attitudes of the marketplace," the historian Kenneth R. Jackson wrote in his 1985 book, Crabgrass Frontier, a history of suburbanization. "Previously, prejudices were personalized and individualized; FHA exhorted segregation and enshrined it as public policy. Whole areas of cities were declared ineligible for loan guarantees." Redlining was not officially outlawed until 1968, by the Fair Housing Act. By then the damage was done - and reports of redlining by banks have continued.

records in any form I request under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act within thirty days and for a reasonable handling and processing fee. If this material is not quickly forthcoming, I will file a complaint with the federal Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights, which prosecutes HIPPA violations. Sincerely, 3. TO CHALLENGE OUTRAGEOUS CHARGES/BILLING ERRORS Dear Sirs or Madam: I’m writing to protest what I regard as excessive charges for my operation/hospitalization/procedure at your medical facility. The operation/hospitalization/procedure was billed to my insurer/me at $__________,__________. This total included several itemized charges that were well above norms for our nation and our region, such as a $__________,__________ charge for __________ and a $__________,__________ charge for __________. The Healthcare Bluebook says a “fair price” is $__________,__________ and $__________,__________. Likewise, my bill includes entries for treatments I simply did not receive, such as $__________ for __________ and $__________ for __________. Before sending in any payment, I’m requesting that your billing and coding department review my chart to revise the charges, or explain to me the size and the nature of such entries. I have been a loyal customer of your hospital for many years and have been happy with my excellent medical care. But if these billing issues are not resolved, I feel compelled to report them to the state attorney general/consumer protection agency, to investigate fraudulent or abusive billing practices. Sincerely,

Wage insurance works best when all workers are covered under the same plan and the coverage starts at the beginning of their working lives. The only entity that can mandate this kind of universal program is the federal government and it has.

Net wages: “It’s not what you make, but what you net” after paying the FIRE sector, basic utilities and taxes. The usual measure of disposable personal income (DPI) refers to how much employees take home after income-tax withholding (designed in part by Milton Friedman during World War II) and over 15% for FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) to produce a budget surplus for Social Security and health care (half of which are paid by the employer). This forced saving is lent to the U.S. Treasury, enabling it to cut taxes on the higher income brackets. Also deducted from paychecks may be employee withholding for private health insurance and pensions. What is left is by no means freely available for discretionary spending. Wage earners have to pay a monthly financial and real estate “nut” off the top, headed by mortgage debt or rent to the landlord, plus credit card debt, student loans and other bank loans. Electricity, gas and phone bills must be paid, often by automatic bank transfer – and usually cable TV and Internet service as well. If these utility bills are not paid, banks increase the interest rate owed on credit card debt (typically to 29%). Not much is left to spend on goods and services after paying the FIRE sector and basic monopolies, so it is no wonder that markets are shrinking. (See Hudson Bubble Model later in this book.) A similar set of subtrahends occurs with net corporate cash flow (see ebitda). After paying interest and dividends – and using about half their revenue for stock buybacks – not much is left for capital investment in new plant and equipment, research or development to expand production.

For the first time in the history of America, New Deal policies made homeownership a real possibility for white families, but black families were denied these benefits when the federal government deemed their neighborhoods too risky for insured mortgages and officials loyal to Jim Crow blocked black veterans from using GI mortgages.20 Over three centuries of systematic dispossession from the land created a semipermanent black rental class and an artificially high demand for inner-city apartments.21

In a study Suzanne Mettler asked 1,400 Americans whether they had used a government social program. Fifty-seven percent said they had not. Then she asked if they had used one of twenty-one specific federal policies, including child-care tax credits, the Earned Income Tax Credit, employer-sponsored and thus tax exempted health insurance, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, mortgage-interest deductions, and student loans. It turned out that 96 percent of those who had denied using government programs had in fact used at least one, and the average responder had used four. This clear disconnect between Americans' perception of who benefits from government programs and the reality makes it easier to keep demonizing the "welfare state.

Your committee is satisfied from the proofs submitted ... that there is an established and well defined identity and community of interest between a few leaders of finance ... which has resulted in great and rapidly growing concentration of the control of money and credit in the hands of these few men.... Under our system of issuing and distributing corporate securities the investing public does not buy directly from the corporation. The securities travel from the issuing house through middlemen to the investor. It is only the great banks or bankers with access to the mainsprings of the concentrated resources made up of other people's money, in the banks, trust companies, and life insurance companies, and with control of the machinery for creating markets and distributing securities, who have had the power to underwrite or guarantee the sale of large-scale security issues. The men who through their control over the funds of our railroad and industrial companies are able to direct where such funds shall be kept, and thus to create these great reservoirs of the people's money are the ones who are in a position to tap those reservoirs for the ventures in which they are interested and to prevent their being tapped for purposes which they do not approve.... When we consider, also, in this connection that into these reservoirs of money and credit there flow a large part of the reserves of the banks of the country, that they are also the agents and correspondents of the out-of-town banks in the loaning of their surplus funds in the only public money market of the country, and that a small group of men and their partners and associates have now further strengthened their hold upon the resources of these institutions by acquiring large stock holdings therein, by representation on their boards and through valuable patronage, we begin to realize something of the extent to which this practical and effective domination and control over our greatest financial, railroad and industrial corporations has developed, largely within the past five years, and that it is fraught with peril to the welfare of the country.3 Such was the nature of the wealth and power represented by those six men who gathered in secret that night and travelled in the luxury of Senator Aldrich's private car.

Nearly half a million people chose health plans through HealthCare.gov during the first week of the new open-enrollment period in the online insurance marketplace, federal health officials announced Wednesday.

There were other important reasons for the growth of American individualism at the expense of community in the second half of the twentieth century besides the nature of capitalism. The first arose as an unintended consequence of a number of liberal reforms of the 1960s and 1970s. Slum clearance uprooted and destroyed many of the social networks that existed in poor neighborhoods, replacing them with an anonymous and increasingly dangerous existence in high-rise public housing units. “Good government” drives eliminated the political machines that at one time governed most large American cities. The old, ethnically based machines were often highly corrupt, but they served as a source of local empowerment and community for their clients. In subsequent years, the most important political action would take place not in the local community but at higher and higher levels of state and federal government. A second factor had to do with the expansion of the welfare state from the New Deal on, which tended to make federal, state, and local governments responsible for many social welfare functions that had previously been under the purview of civil society. The original argument for the expansion of state responsibilities to include social security, welfare, unemployment insurance, training, and the like was that the organic communities of preindustrial society that had previously provided these services were no longer capable of doing so as a result of industrialization, urbanization, decline of extended families, and related phenomena. But it proved to be the case that the growth of the welfare state accelerated the decline of those very communal institutions that it was designed to supplement. Welfare dependency in the United States is only the most prominent example: Aid to Familles with Dependent Children, the depression-era legislation that was designed to help widows and single mothers over the transition as they reestablished their lives and families, became the mechanism that permitted entire inner-city populations to raise children without the benefit of fathers. The rise of the welfare state cannot be more than a partial explanation for the decline of community, however. Many European societies have much more extensive welfare states than the United States; while nuclear families have broken down there as well, there is a much lower level of extreme social pathology. A more serious threat to community has come, it would seem, from the vast expansion in the number and scope of rights to which Americans believe they are entitled, and the “rights culture” this produces. Rights-based individualism is deeply embedded in American political theory and constitutional law. One might argue, in fact, that the fundamental tendency of American institutions is to promote an ever-increasing degree of individualism. We have seen repeatedly that communities tend to be intolerant of outsiders in proportion to their internal cohesiveness, because the very strength of the principles that bind members together exclude those that do not share them. Many of the strong communal structures in the United States at midcentury discriminated in a variety of ways: country clubs that served as networking sites for business executives did not allow Jews, blacks, or women to join; church-run schools that taught strong moral values did not permit children of other denominations to enroll; charitable organizations provided services for only certain groups of people and tried to impose intrusive rules of behavior on their clients. The exclusiveness of these communities conflicted with the principle of equal rights, and the state increasingly took the side of those excluded against these communal organizations.

Katha Pollitt wrote in The Nation, “Ron Paul has opposed almost every piece of progressive legislation that was passed in the last 200 years! He opposed Federal Deposit Insurance and continues to oppose Roe v. Wade. He would abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, governmental regulations on health and safety (OSHA), and the Federal Aviation Authority.

Independent” regulatory commissions and insurers and illegal aliens and doctors and private corporations and all Americans are bound by the law, not by President Obama’s whims. When he imperiously purports to waive federal statutes, he does not merely violate the law and flout his constitutional obligations. He subjects Americans to the intolerable dilemma of abiding by the law or bending to his extortionate abuse of raw power.

I write these words in May of 2011, the week after a huge outbreak of tornadoes killed hundreds across the American South; it was the second recent wave of twisters of unprecedented size and intensity. In Texas, a drought worse than the Dust Bowl has set huge parts of the state ablaze. Meanwhile, the Army Corps of Engineers is moving explosives into place to blow up a levee along the Mississippi River, swollen by the the third “100-year-flood” in the last twenty years—though as the director of the Federal Emergency Management Administration noted at the end of 2010, “the term ‘100-year event’ really lost its meaning this year.” That’s because 2010 was the warmest year recorded, a year when 19 nations set new all-time high temperature records. The Arctic melted apace; Russia suffered a heat wave so epic that the Kremlin stopped all grain exports to the rest of the world; and nations from Australia to Pakistan suffered flooding so astonishing that by year’s end the world’s biggest insurance company, Munich Re, issued this statement: “The only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change. The view that weather extremes are more frequent and intense due to global warming coincides with the current state of scientific knowledge.” And that’s not the bad news. The bad news is that on April 6, the U.S. House of Representatives was presented with the following resolution: “Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.” The final vote on the resolution? 184 in favor, 240 against. When some future Gibbon limns the decline and fall of our particular civilization, this may be one of the moments he cites.

Of course, even that day may come. The idea of mandatory contraception has been bruited about at the state level for drug-abusing or welfare-abusing mothers; and it is not hard to imagine that with the federal government counting on Obamacare cost savings from contraception that it could become as mandatory as having health insurance. And if gay marriage really is a civil right, how long will the federal government allow churches to opt out from respecting it? Obama’s supposed respect for the integrity of religious “sacraments” isn’t worth taking seriously. Under the nanny state of the left, nothing remains “private” for long. Should Obama win a second term, one can imagine his friends at Planned Parenthood calling for forcible sterilizations to “save costs” and gay groups calling for “hate crime” fines to be levied on Catholic priests who refuse to bless gay unions. Already in Canada and Western Europe, nonconformists can be dragged before judges for harboring the “wrong” thoughts. The French actress Brigitte Bardot has been “tried” several times for criticizing Islam. So was the late author Oriana Fallaci, who stood trial in Italy for “defaming Islam.” Do not kid yourselves: it could happen here. In a second term, the Obama administration will bring that day much closer.

Most notably, FDR defied the orthodoxy of his time by abandoning the gold standard in a series of steps in 1933. With the money supply no longer constrained by the amount of gold held by the government, deflation stopped almost immediately. Roosevelt also quelled the raging financial crisis by temporarily shutting down the nation’s banks (a bank holiday), permitting only those judged sound to reopen, and by pushing legislation establishing federal deposit insurance. These measures brought intense criticism from orthodox economists and conservative business leaders. And they were indeed experiments. But, collectively, they worked.

Therefore, the president added, “There is a moral component to this that we can’t leave behind. Having said that,” he continued, “if we don’t address costs, we will not get this done. If people think we’re simply gonna take everyone who’s not insured and load them up into a system … the federal government will be bankrupt. State governments will be bankrupt. I’m talking to you liberal bleeding hearts out there,” he added. “Don’t think that we can solve this problem without tackling costs. And that may make some in the progressive community uncomfortable but it’s gotta be dealt with.

Obamacare is a program designed to shift control of the health care industry from the private sector to the public sector, from doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies to the federal government. The program was sold by Obama feigning outrage over insurance companies refusing to grant insurance to people with “preexisting conditions.” But this is the same as an insurance company not granting fire insurance to a guy whose house has already burned down. The whole point of insurance is to share the risk before the catastrophe occurs, not to have a catastrophe and then get other people to pay for your losses.

People employ what economists call “rational ignorance.” That is, we all spend our time learning about things we can actually do something about, not political issues that we can’t really affect. That’s why most of us can’t name our representative in Congress. And why most of us have no clue about how much of the federal budget goes to Medicare, foreign aid, or any other program. As an Alabama businessman told a Washington Post pollster, “Politics doesn’t interest me. I don’t follow it. … Always had to make a living.” Ellen Goodman, a sensitive, good-government liberal columnist, complained about a friend who had spent months researching new cars, and of her own efforts study the sugar, fiber, fat, and price of various cereals. “Would my car-buying friend use the hours he spent comparing fuel-injection systems to compare national health plans?” Goodman asked. “Maybe not. Will the moments I spend studying cereals be devoted to studying the greenhouse effect on grain? Maybe not.” Certainly not —and why should they? Goodman and her friend will get the cars and the cereal they want, but what good would it do to study national health plans? After a great deal of research on medicine, economics, and bureaucracy, her friend may decide which health-care plan he prefers. He then turns to studying the presidential candidates, only to discover that they offer only vague indications of which health-care plan they would implement. But after diligent investigation, our well-informed voter chooses a candidate. Unfortunately, the voter doesn’t like that candidate’s stand on anything else — the package-deal problem — but he decides to vote on the issue of health care. He has a one-in-a-hundred-million chance of influencing the outcome of the presidential election, after which, if his candidate is successful, he faces a Congress with different ideas, and in any case, it turns out the candidate was dissembling in the first place. Instinctively realizing all this, most voters don’t spend much time studying public policy. Give that same man three health insurance plans that he can choose from, though, and chances are that he will spend time studying them. Finally, as noted above, the candidates are likely to be kidding themselves or the voters anyway. One could argue that in most of the presidential elections since 1968, the American people have tried to vote for smaller government, but in that time the federal budget has risen from $178 billion to $4 trillion. George Bush made one promise that every voter noticed in the 1988 campaign: “Read my lips, no new taxes.” Then he raised them. If we are the government, why do we get so many policies we don’t want?

People employ what economists call “rational ignorance.” That is, we all spend our time learning about things we can actually do something about, not political issues that we can’t really affect. That’s why most of us can’t name our representative in Congress. And why most of us have no clue about how much of the federal budget goes to Medicare, foreign aid, or any other program. As an Alabama businessman told a Washington Post pollster, “Politics doesn’t interest me. I don’t follow it. … Always had to make a living.” Ellen Goodman, a sensitive, good-government liberal columnist, complained about a friend who had spent months researching new cars, and of her own efforts study the sugar, fiber, fat, and price of various cereals. “Would my car-buying friend use the hours he spent comparing fuel-injection systems to compare national health plans?” Goodman asked. “Maybe not. Will the moments I spend studying cereals be devoted to studying the greenhouse effect on grain? Maybe not.” Certainly not —and why should they? Goodman and her friend will get the cars and the cereal they want, but what good would it do to study national health plans? After a great deal of research on medicine, economics, and bureaucracy, her friend may decide which health-care plan he prefers. He then turns to studying the presidential candidates, only to discover that they offer only vague indications of which health-care plan they would implement. But after diligent investigation, our well-informed voter chooses a candidate. Unfortunately, the voter doesn’t like that candidate’s stand on anything else — the package-deal problem — but he decides to vote on the issue of health care. He has a one-in-a-hundred-million chance of influencing the outcome of the presidential election, after which, if his candidate is successful, he faces a Congress with different ideas, and in any case, it turns out the candidate was dissembling in the first place. Instinctively realizing all this, most voters don’t spend much time studying public policy. Give that same man three health insurance plans that he can choose from, though, and chances are that he will spend time studying them. Finally, as noted above, the candidates are likely to be kidding themselves or the voters anyway. One could argue that in most of the presidential elections since 1968, the American people have tried to vote for smaller government, but in that time the federal budget has risen from $178 billion to $4 trillion.

Under the current US system, federal deposit insurance is capped at $250,000 per account.24 This coverage limit reflects a consumer protection philosophy; small retail account holders presumably lack the capacity to monitor bank solvency. But if we view deposit insurance through the lens of panic prevention instead of consumer protection, then the justification for coverage limits becomes far murkier. As we will see in future chapters, sophisticated institutional accounts are far more likely than small retail accounts to redeem en masse, precisely because they are paying closer attention. If panic prevention is a key goal, then coverage limits may very well undermine it.

Unknown to most people, much of the gold that had supposedly flown into France as actually sitting in London. Bullion was so heavy - a seventeen-inch cube weighs about a ton - that instead of shipping crates of it across hundreds of miles from one country to another and paying high insurance, central banks had taken to "earmarking" the metal, that is, keeping it in the same vault but simply re-registering its ownership. Thus the decline in Britain's gold reserves and their accumulation in France and the United States was accomplished by a group of men descending into the vaults of the Bank of England, loading some bars of bullion onto a low wooden truck with small rubber tires, trundling them thirty feet across the room to the other wall, and offloading them, though not before attaching some white name tags indicating that the gold now belonged to the Banque de France or the Federal Reserve Bank. That the world was being subject to a progressively tightening squeeze on credit just because there happened to be too much gold on one side of the vault and not enough on the other provoked Lord d'Abrenon, Britain's ambassador to Germany after the war and now an elder statesmen-economist, to exclaim, "This depression is the stupidest and most gratuitous in history.

On Monday, Lehman Brothers had filed for bankruptcy, and Merrill Lynch, having announced $55.2 billion in losses on subprime bond–backed CDOs, had sold itself to Bank of America. The U.S. stock market had fallen by more than it had since the first day of trading after the attack on the World Trade Center. On Tuesday the U.S. Federal Reserve announced that it had lent $85 billion to the insurance company AIG, to pay off the losses on the subprime credit default swaps AIG had sold to Wall Street banks—the biggest of which was the $13.9 billion AIG owed to Goldman Sachs. When you added in the $8.4 billion in cash AIG had already forked over to Goldman in collateral, you saw that Goldman had transferred more than $20 billion in subprime mortgage bond risk into the insurance company, which was in one way or another being covered by the U.S. taxpayer.

When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage the trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees’ health benefits would not be taxed.

And what about FICA taxes? FICA—Federal Insurance Contributions Act (or as Tiffany insists the letters really stand for, Fucking Idiots taking my Cash Assets)—seems to eat up more of my paychecks than anything.

life insurance companies have been reporting alarming increases in all-cause mortality and disability in working-age people. We may be experiencing both a huge human tragedy as well as a profound failure of the US government to serve and protect its citizens. We may be forced to conclude that the genetic vaccines that were so aggressively promoted have failed and the federal campaign to prevent early treatment with lifesaving drugs has contributed to a massive, avoidable loss of life.

Perkins was one of only two top aides to stay with Roosevelt for his entire term as president. She became one of the tireless champions of the New Deal. She was central to the creation of the Social Security system. She was a major force behind many of the New Deal jobs programs such as the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Federal Works Agency, and the Public Works Administration. Through the Fair Labor Standards Act she established the nation’s first minimum wage law and its first overtime law. She sponsored federal legislation on child labor and unemployment insurance.

What if we looked at the law as a piece of software, the operating system of the United States of America. After all, laws play the same role as software in providing instructions for a given system - if this, then that, and so on. If a team of software engineers was asked to analyze the entire body of federal law, they would see tens of thousand of pages of poorly documented code, with a multitude of complex, spaghetti-like interdependencies between the individual components. Could the principles of good software design be used to improve the way we write financial regulations? Li, William, Pablo Azar, David Larochelle, Phil Hill, and Andrew W. Lo. 2015. 'Law Is Code: A Software Engineering Approach to Analyzing the United States Code.' Journal of Business and Technology Law 10: 297. A useful feature of network graphs if the ability to model contagion. Like an epidemiologist studying the spread of a contagious disease from its point of origin, we should identify the potential linkages through which a financial crisis may travel. Billio, Monica, Mila Getmansky, Andrew W. Lo, and Loriana Pelizzon, 2012. 'Econometric Measures of Connectedness and Systemic Risk in the Finance and Insurance Sectors.' Journal of Financial Economics, 104: 535-559. This approach can also be used to measure the network of banks, insurance companies, and sovereign nations. The idea is to see how macroeconomic problems facing countries might get transmitted to the financial system and vice versa. Billio, Monica, Mila Getmansky, Dale Gray, Andrew W. Lo, Robert C. Merton, and Loriana Pelizzon. 2016. 'Granger-Causality Networks of Sovereign Risk.' Working Paper, MIT Laboratory for Financial Engineering.

New Deal legislation undoubtedly saved thousands of lives and prevented destitution for millions. New labor laws led to a flourishing of unions and built a strong white middle class. The Social Security Act of 1935 established the principle of cash payments in cases of unemployment, old age, or loss of a family breadwinner, and it did so as a matter of right, not on the basis of individual moral character. But the New Deal also created racial, gender, and class divisions that continue to produce inequities in our society today. Roosevelt’s administration capitulated to white supremacy in ways that still bear bitter fruit. The Civilian Conservation Corps capped Black participation in federally supported work relief at 10 percent of available jobs, though African Americans experienced 80 percent unemployment in northern cities. The National Housing Act of 1934 redoubled the burden on Black neighborhoods by promoting residential segregation and encouraging mortgage redlining. The Wagner Act granted workers the right to organize, but allowed segregated trade unions. Most importantly, in response to threats that southern states would not support the Social Security Act, both agricultural and domestic workers were explicitly excluded from its employment protections. The “southern compromise” left the great majority of African American workers—and a not-insignificant number of poor white tenant farmers, sharecroppers, and domestics—with no minimum wage, unemployment protection, old-age insurance, or right to collective bargaining.

Because the FHA’s appraisal standards included a whites-only requirement, racial segregation now became an official requirement of the federal mortgage insurance program. The FHA judged that properties would probably be too risky for insurance if they were in racially mixed neighborhoods or even in white neighborhoods near black ones that might possibly integrate in the future.

~How do I make a claim on Expedia? To make a claim on Expedia, contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 and submit your request via chat, phone, or email. For travel protection claims, contact the insurance provider listed in your policy. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 If unresolved, escalate through social media or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 How do I complain to Expedia? To complain to Expedia,contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 , phone, or email. If the issue isn't resolved, escalate it via social media platforms. You can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further assistance in resolving your concern. How do I escalate an issue with Expedia? +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 To escalate an issue with Expedia, first contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 , chat, or email. If unresolved, request to speak with a supervisor or escalate through social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook. You can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) for further assistance. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 How do I get my money back from Expedia? To get your money back from Expedia, ensure your booking qualifies for a refund under the cancellation policy. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 Cancel within the allowed time frame through the "My Trips" section or contact Customer Support +(1-888)-829-(0881) or +(1-888)-829-(0881) . If denied, dispute the charge with your bank or escalate through social media. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 How to make a complaint against Expedia? To make a complaint against Expedia,contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 , chat, or email. Provide detailed information about the issue. If unresolved, escalate through social media platforms or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further resolution. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881” ― How do I make a claim on Expedia?

How do I complain to Expedia? How do I make a claim on Expedia? To make a claim on Expedia, contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 and submit your request via chat, phone, or email. For travel protection claims, contact the insurance provider listed in your policy. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 If unresolved, escalate through social media or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 How do I complain to Expedia? To complain to Expedia,contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 , phone, or email. If the issue isn't resolved, escalate it via social media platforms. You can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further assistance in resolving your concern. How do I escalate an issue with Expedia? +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 To escalate an issue with Expedia, first contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 , chat, or email. If unresolved, request to speak with a supervisor or escalate through social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook. You can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) for further assistance. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 How do I get my money back from Expedia? To get your money back from Expedia, ensure your booking qualifies for a refund under the cancellation policy. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 Cancel within the allowed time frame through the "My Trips" section or contact Customer Support +(1-888)-829-(0881) or +(1-888)-829-(0881) . If denied, dispute the charge with your bank or escalate through social media. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 How to make a complaint against Expedia? To make a complaint against Expedia,contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 , chat, or email. Provide detailed information about the issue. If unresolved, escalate through social media platforms or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further resolution. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881” ― How do I make a claim on Expedia?

How do I escalate an issue with Expedia? How do I escalate an issue with Expedia? How do I make a claim on Expedia? To make a claim on Expedia, contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 and submit your request via chat, phone, or email. For travel protection claims, contact the insurance provider listed in your policy. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 If unresolved, escalate through social media or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 How do I complain to Expedia? To complain to Expedia,contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 , phone, or email. If the issue isn't resolved, escalate it via social media platforms. You can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further assistance in resolving your concern. How do I escalate an issue with Expedia? +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 To escalate an issue with Expedia, first contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 , chat, or email. If unresolved, request to speak with a supervisor or escalate through social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook. You can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) for further assistance. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 How do I get my money back from Expedia? To get your money back from Expedia, ensure your booking qualifies for a refund under the cancellation policy. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 Cancel within the allowed time frame through the "My Trips" section or contact Customer Support +(1-888)-829-(0881) or +(1-888)-829-(0881) . If denied, dispute the charge with your bank or escalate through social media. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 How to make a complaint against Expedia? To make a complaint against Expedia,contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 , chat, or email. Provide detailed information about the issue. If unresolved, escalate through social media platforms or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further resolution. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881” ― How do I make a claim on Expedia?

How do I escalate an issue with Expedia? How do I make a claim on Expedia? :To make a claim on Expedia, contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 and submit your request via chat, phone, or email. For travel protection claims, contact the insurance provider listed in your policy. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 If unresolved, escalate through social media or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 How do I complain to Expedia? To complain to Expedia,contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 , phone, or email. If the issue isn't resolved, escalate it via social media platforms. You can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further assistance in resolving your concern. How do I escalate an issue with Expedia? +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 To escalate an issue with Expedia, first contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 , chat, or email. If unresolved, request to speak with a supervisor or escalate through social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook. You can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) for further assistance. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 How do I get my money back from Expedia? To get your money back from Expedia, ensure your booking qualifies for a refund under the cancellation policy. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 Cancel within the allowed time frame through the "My Trips" section or contact Customer Support +(1-888)-829-(0881) or +(1-888)-829-(0881) . If denied, dispute the charge with your bank or escalate through social media. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 How to make a complaint against Expedia? To make a complaint against Expedia,contact Customer Support via phone +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881 , chat, or email. Provide detailed information about the issue. If unresolved, escalate through social media platforms or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further resolution. +1-888(829)-0881 or +1-888(829)-0881” ― How do I make a claim on Expedia?

how to escalate an issue with expedia How Do I Complain to Expedia? If you want to file a complaint with Expedia, the best way is to call their Customer Care team at 1-801-337-7888. You can also reach them through live chat on their website or by email. For more serious problems, try messaging them on social media, or if a refund is denied, you can dispute the charge with your bank. How Do I Talk to a Real Person at Expedia? To speak to a human at Expedia, call 1-801-337-7888 and follow the prompts. You can ask to talk to a representative or press “0” to skip the automated system. You can also use live chat or email if you prefer. How Do I Escalate a Problem with Expedia? If your issue isn’t getting resolved, call 1-801-337-7888 and ask to speak with a supervisor. You can also use the Support page on the Expedia website to access chat, email, or phone help. If you still don’t get help, post your concern on Expedia’s social media channels like Twitter or Facebook. For serious complaints, you can also report them to the Better Business Bureau (BBB). How Do I File a Dispute with Expedia? If you need to dispute something like a charge or a booking issue, call Expedia Customer Support at 1-801-337-7888. You can also use chat or email. If it’s still unresolved, contact your bank or credit card company to dispute the charge. You can also file a complaint with the BBB or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for extra help. How Do I Make a Claim with Expedia? To make a claim (like a refund or travel insurance claim), call 1-801-337-7888. You can also use the website chat or email support. If your booking has travel insurance, contact the insurance company listed on your policy. If your issue isn’t resolved, escalate through social media or report it to the BBB or FTC. Is Expedia Fully Refundable? Some Expedia bookings are fully refundable, but it depends on the hotel, airline, or rental company’s cancellation policy. Always check the refund terms before you book. For help with refunds, you can manage your booking online or call 1-801-337-7888.

How do I get a human at Expedia? To reach a human at Expedia, call their customer support number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) or use the live chat option on their website. (1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) During the chat, request to speak with an agent. You can also try messaging them on social media for quicker assistance or escalate through their support team.(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) How do I escalate a problem with Expedia? To escalate a problem with Expedia, contact their Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) and request a supervisor. Use the Expedia Support page for live chat, email, or phone assistance. If unresolved, escalate through social media platforms like Twitter. For serious disputes, consider filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB).+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) How to file a dispute with Expedia? To file a dispute with Expedia, contact Customer Support via phone +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222), chat, or email. If unresolved, dispute the charge with your bank or credit card provider. +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) You can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further resolution.+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) How do I make a claim with Expedia? To make a claim with Expedia, visit the Expedia Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) and submit your request via chat, phone, or email. For travel protection claims, contact the insurance provider listed in your policy.+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) If unresolved, escalate through social media or file a complaint with the BBB or FTC.+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) Can I get my money back through Expedia? Yes, you can get your money back through Expedia, depending on the cancellation policy of your booking.+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) Request a refund via Expedia’s Customer Support through chat or phone +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) . If denied, dispute the charge with your bank or escalate the issue via the BBB or FTC. Is Expedia actually fully refundable? Expedia offers fully refundable bookings,Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) but it depends on the hotel, airline, or rental provider’s cancellation policy. Always check the refund terms before booking.+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) Some reservations qualify for free cancellation, while others may have fees. For refunds, contact Expedia Customer Support or manage your booking online +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) What is the refundable option on Expedia? The refundable option on Expedia allows travelers to cancel their booking for a full or partial refund, +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) depending on the provider’s policy. Always check the cancellation terms before booking. +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) Refundable options usually offer free cancellation within a specific timeframe. Manage cancellations online or contact Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) How can I file a complaint against Expedia? To file a complaint against Expedia,contact Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222), chat, or email. If unresolved, escalate the issue through social media or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) You can also dispute charges with your bank or credit card provider. +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) How do I ask a question on Expedia? To ask a question on Expedia, call their Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216)

How do I get a human at Expedia? To reach a human at Expedia, call their customer support number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) or use the live chat option on their website. (1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) During the chat, request to speak with an agent. You can also try messaging them on social media for quicker assistance or escalate through their support team.(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) How do I escalate a problem with Expedia? To escalate a problem with Expedia, contact their Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) and request a supervisor. Use the Expedia Support page for live chat, email, or phone assistance. If unresolved, escalate through social media platforms like Twitter. For serious disputes, consider filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB).+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) How to file a dispute with Expedia? To file a dispute with Expedia, contact Customer Support via phone +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222), chat, or email. If unresolved, dispute the charge with your bank or credit card provider. +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) You can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further resolution.+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) How do I make a claim with Expedia? To make a claim with Expedia, visit the Expedia Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) and submit your request via chat, phone, or email. For travel protection claims, contact the insurance provider listed in your policy.+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) If unresolved, escalate through social media or file a complaint with the BBB or FTC.+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) Can I get my money back through Expedia? Yes, you can get your money back through Expedia, depending on the cancellation policy of your booking.+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) Request a refund via Expedia’s Customer Support through chat or phone +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) . If denied, dispute the charge with your bank or escalate the issue via the BBB or FTC. Is Expedia actually fully refundable? Expedia offers fully refundable bookings,Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) but it depends on the hotel, airline, or rental provider’s cancellation policy. Always check the refund terms before booking.+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) Some reservations qualify for free cancellation, while others may have fees. For refunds, contact Expedia Customer Support or manage your booking online +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) What is the refundable option on Expedia? The refundable option on Expedia allows travelers to cancel their booking for a full or partial refund, +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) depending on the provider’s policy. Always check the cancellation terms before booking. +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) Refundable options usually offer free cancellation within a specific timeframe. Manage cancellations online or contact Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) How can I file a complaint against Expedia? To file a complaint against Expedia,contact Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222), chat, or email. If unresolved, escalate the issue through social media or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) You can also dispute charges with your bank or credit card provider. +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) How do I ask a question on Expedia? To ask a question on Expedia, call their Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216)

How do I get a human at Expedia? To reach a human at Expedia, call their customer support number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) or use the live chat option on their website. (1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) During the chat, request to speak with an agent. You can also try messaging them on social media for quicker assistance or escalate through their support team.(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) How do I escalate a problem with Expedia? To escalate a problem with Expedia, contact their Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) and request a supervisor. Use the Expedia Support page for live chat, email, or phone assistance. If unresolved, escalate through social media platforms like Twitter. For serious disputes, consider filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB).+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) How to file a dispute with Expedia? To file a dispute with Expedia, contact Customer Support via phone +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222), chat, or email. If unresolved, dispute the charge with your bank or credit card provider. +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) You can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further resolution.+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) How do I make a claim with Expedia? To make a claim with Expedia, visit the Expedia Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) and submit your request via chat, phone, or email. For travel protection claims, contact the insurance provider listed in your policy.+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) If unresolved, escalate through social media or file a complaint with the BBB or FTC.+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) Can I get my money back through Expedia? Yes, you can get your money back through Expedia, depending on the cancellation policy of your booking.+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) Request a refund via Expedia’s Customer Support through chat or phone +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) . If denied, dispute the charge with your bank or escalate the issue via the BBB or FTC. Is Expedia actually fully refundable? Expedia offers fully refundable bookings,Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) but it depends on the hotel, airline, or rental provider’s cancellation policy. Always check the refund terms before booking.+(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) Some reservations qualify for free cancellation, while others may have fees. For refunds, contact Expedia Customer Support or manage your booking online +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) What is the refundable option on Expedia? The refundable option on Expedia allows travelers to cancel their booking for a full or partial refund, +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) depending on the provider’s policy. Always check the cancellation terms before booking. +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) Refundable options usually offer free cancellation within a specific timeframe. Manage cancellations online or contact Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) How can I file a complaint against Expedia? To file a complaint against Expedia,contact Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222), chat, or email. If unresolved, escalate the issue through social media or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) You can also dispute charges with your bank or credit card provider. +(1-866)-829-(1216) or +(1-866)-829-(1222) How do I ask a question on Expedia? To ask a question on Expedia, call their Customer Care number +(1-866)-829-(1216)

How to file a dispute with Expedia? To dispute an issue with Expedia, reach out to Customer Support via phone at ++1 888(393)6122or ++1 888(393)6122 live chat, or email. If the matter remains unresolved, you can escalate the dispute through your bank or credit card provider. Additionally, you may file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further assistance. How do I make a claim with Expedia? To file a claim with Expedia, get in touch with their Customer Care team by calling +1 888(393)6122or ++1 888(393)6122. You can submit your request via chat, phone, or email. For travel protection claims, contact the insurance provider listed in your policy at +1 888(393)6122or ++1 888(393)6122 If the issue isn't resolved, you can escalate it through social media or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

How do I escalate a problem with Expedia? To escalate an issue with Expedia, contact their Customer Care team at ++1 888(393)6122or ++1 888(393)6122. and request to speak with a supervisor. You can also use the Expedia Support page for live chat, email, or phone assistance.++1 888(393)6122or ++1 888(393)6122 If the issue remains unresolved, consider escalating through social media platforms like Twitter. For serious disputes, you may file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB). How to file a dispute with Expedia? To dispute an issue with Expedia, reach out to Customer Support via phone at ++1 888(393)6122or ++1 888(393)6122 live chat, or email. If the matter remains unresolved, you can escalate the dispute through your bank or credit card provider. Additionally, you may file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further assistance. How do I make a claim with Expedia? To file a claim with Expedia, get in touch with their Customer Care team by calling +1 888(393)6122or ++1 888(393)6122. You can submit your request via chat, phone, or email. For travel protection claims, contact the insurance provider listed in your policy at +++1 888(393)6122or ++1 888(393)6122 If the issue isn't resolved, you can escalate it through social media or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

How do I make a claim with Expedia? To file a claim with Expedia, get in touch with their Customer Care team by calling +1 888(393)6122or ++1 888(393)6122. You can submit your request via chat, phone, or email. For travel protection claims, contact the insurance provider listed in your policy at +++1 888(393)6122or ++1 888(393)6122 If the issue isn't resolved, you can escalate it through social media or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).”“How do I escalate a problem with Expedia? To escalate an issue with Expedia, contact their Customer Care team at ++1 888(393)6122or ++1 888(393)6122. and request to speak with a supervisor. You can also use the Expedia Support page for live chat, email, or phone assistance.++1 888(393)6122or ++1 888(393)6122 If the issue remains unresolved, consider escalating through social media platforms like Twitter. For serious disputes, you may file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB). How to file a dispute with Expedia? To dispute an issue with Expedia, reach out to Customer Support via phone at ++1 888(393)6122or ++1 888(393)6122 live chat, or email. If the matter remains unresolved, you can escalate the dispute through your bank or credit card provider. Additionally, you may file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further assistance.

How do I avoid Expedia cancellation fees? To avoid Expedia cancellation fees, contact Customer Support via phone 1x866x829x1222 or + 1x866x829x1222 book refundable options that allow free cancellation within a specific window. Always check the cancellation policy before booking. If you need to cancel, do so within the free cancellation period..1x866x829x1222 or + 1x866x829x1222 How do I make a claim on Expedia? To file a claim with Expedia, reach out to Customer Support by calling +(1-866)-829-(1222) or +(1-866)-829-(1222). You can also submit your request via chat, phone, or email. For travel protection claims, contact the insurance +(1-866)-829-(1222) or +(1-866)-829-(1222)provider listed in your policy. If your issue remains unresolved, consider escalating through social media or filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. How do I complain to Expedia? To file a complaint with Expedia, contact Customer Support via phone at +1-866-829-12;22 or +1-866-829-1222, through chat, or by email. If the issue remains unresolved, consider escalating it through social media. You can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further assistance. How do I escalate an issue with Expedia? To escalate an issue with Expedia, first contact Customer Support via phone 1x866x829x1222 or + 1x866x829x1222, chat, or email. If unresolved, request to speak with a supervisor or escalate through social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook. You can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) for further assistance.+1(

How to Dispute a Charge with Expedia How to File a Complaint with Expedia To file a complaint with Expedia, reach their Customer Care team by calling +1-866-829-1222. You can also use their chat support or email. For more serious concerns, consider using social media to escalate+1-866-(829)-(1222) or dispute the charge through your bank if a refund is denied. How to Speak to a Human at Expedia To talk to a live agent at Expedia, call +1-866-829-1222. Their customer service team is available to help with a range of issues, from reservation +1-866-(829)-(1222) changes to refund requests and flight cancellations. How to Escalate an Issue with Expedia If you need to escalate a problem, call +1-866-829-1222 and ask to speak with a supervisor. Alternatively, you can use Expedia’s Support page to reach out via live chat or email. If the issue isn't resolved, you can escalate through +1-866-(829)-(1222) social media, or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB). How to Dispute a Charge with Expedia To dispute a charge, contact Expedia Customer Support at +1-866-(829)-(1222), through live chat, or via email. If the issue remains unresolved, you can escalate the dispute with your bank or credit card provider. For further assistance, +1-866-829-1222 consider filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). How to Make a Claim with Expedia To make a claim, contact Expedia’s Customer Care team at +1-866-829-1222 via phone, chat, or email. For travel protection claims, reach out to the insurance +1-866-(829)-(1222) provider listed in your policy. If the issue isn’t resolved, escalate through social media or file a complaint with the BBB or FTC. Is Expedia Fully Refundable? Expedia offers fully refundable bookings, but it depends on the specific cancellation ++1-866-(829)-(1222) policies of the hotel, airline, or rental provider. Always review the refund terms before booking. For assistance, contact Expedia Customer Support at +1-866-829-1222. What is Expedia's Refundable Option? The refundable option on Expedia allows travelers to cancel their booking for a full or partial refund, depending on the provider’s +1-866-829-1222 cancellation policy. Always check the cancellation terms before booking. For cancellations, you can manage your booking online or contact customer service at +1-866-(829)-(1222). How to File a Complaint Against Expedia To file a complaint, contact Expedia Customer Care at +1-866-829-1222, by chat, or email. If unresolved, you can escalate through social media or file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or dispute the charge through your bank or credit card provider. How to Ask a Question on Expedia To ask a question, contact Expedia Customer Support by calling +1-866-829-1222 or reach them via live chat or email. You can also find helpful information in their help center or mobile app.

Louisiana’s fiscal troubles can be traced to the economic boom that followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005, when rebuilding efforts, insurance payouts and federal money pushed cash into the state budget. Many lawmakers expected the heady times and increased revenue to last, and they made the bold decision to cut income taxes by roughly $700 million annually for the highest brackets — a decision some are now second-guessing.

Families are finding that they are getting funding from a variety of sources. One typical family has counseling covered through their insurance for family counseling, and counseling funded by a federally funded adoption support program for their child. They receive respite care funded through the Division of Developmental Disabilities. They pay privately for Sibshop, a well-loved program for the siblings of their special needs children. Since the Sibshop is through a non-profit organization, it is particularly affordable. Their school district pays for tutoring. After they specifically requested a review, they received an adoption subsidy available to older children through their state. The cost of braces was partially reimbursed by the adoption support system, as well. The combination of resources and financial relief allowed the parents to enjoy some outings, plan a simple family vacation, and get some household help. They said, “Without this help, we would not have made it as an emotionally intact family. We would not have disrupted, but we would not have been the unit that we are today.

Runaway costs are crushing the American medical system. Hispanics are the group least likely to have medical insurance, with 30.7 percent uninsured. Ten point eight percent of whites and 19.1 percent of blacks are without insurance. Illegal immigrants rarely have insurance, but hospitals cannot turn them away. In 1985, Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires hospitals to treat all emergency patients, without regard to legal status or ability to pay. Anyone who can stagger within 250 yards of a hospital—a distance established through litigation—is entitled to “emergency care,” which is defined so broadly that hospital emergency rooms have become free clinics. Emergency-room care is the most expensive kind. Childbirth is an emergency, and hospitals must keep mother and child until both can be discharged. If the mother is indigent the hospital pays for treatment, even if there are expensive complications. Any child born in the United States is considered a US citizen, so thousands of indigent illegal immigrants make a point of having “anchor babies” at public expense. The new American qualifies for all forms of welfare, and at age 21 can sponsor his parents for American citizenship. In 2006 in California, an estimated 100,000 illegal immigrant mothers had babies at public expense, and accounted for about one in five births. The costs were estimated at $400 million per year, and in the state as a whole, half of all Medi-Cal (state welfare) births were to illegal immigrant mothers. In 2003, 70 percent of the babies born in San Joaquin General Hospital in Stockton were anchor babies. In Los Angeles and other cities with heavy gang activity, hospitals must deal with “dump and run” patients—criminals wounded in shootouts who are rolled out of speeding cars by fellow gang members. Illegal-immigrant patients often show up without papers of any kind, and doctors have no idea whom they are treating. Mexican hospitals routinely turn away uninsured Mexicans, and if the US border is not far, may tell the ambulance driver to head for the nearest American hospital. “It’s a phenomenon we noticed some time ago, one that has expanded very rapidly,” said a federal law enforcement officer.

I think, regardless of what the mayor tries to tell us, that there are two Detroits. There's a Detroit of generational residents or long-term Detroiters- residents who never left the city, who bore the brunt of inordinate taxes, failing schools, highest insurance rates, loss of loved ones. So now it seems that everything that is being done for the city is focused on those who are coming back into the city, and funding is being taken away from us. Federal funds and community block grant money are going to billionaires and to major projects that are not going to benefit us.

For example, the bulk of federal Medicare insurance for the elderly is spent keeping people alive in their last six months, trying to prevent what cannot be prevented. That many recipients of this intervention do not judge the quality of their life in those last months to be satisfactory is a dilemma for which we have no solution.

Racial profiling by doctors can also lead to overmedication. A 2009 federally funded study found that doctors are four times as likely to prescribe powerful antipsychotic drugs to children covered by Medicaid as they are to children whose parents have private insurance.

The weakest S&L's paid the highest interest rates to attract depositors and they are the ones which obtained the large blocks of brokered funds. Brokers no longer cared how weak the operation was, because the funds were fully insured. They just cared about the interest rate. On the other hand,

Deals began to go sour, and 1979 was the first year since the Great Depression of the 1930s that the total net worth of federally insured S&Ls became negative. And that was despite expansion almost everywhere else in the economy. The public began to worry.

Your Personal Economic Model One tool we use when discussing the best course of action to secure your financial future is the Personal Economic Model®. Just as a medical doctor would use an anatomical model to convey medical concepts, we use the following model to convey financial concepts. This model offers a visual representation of the way money flows through your hands. On the left, you will notice the Lifetime Capital Potential tank, which illustrates that the amount of money you will control during your lifetime is both large, as well as finite. Most people are shocked to see how much money can flow through their hands in their lifetime. Once earned, your money flows directly to the Tax Filter where the state and federal governments take tax dollars owed from your paycheck. The after tax dollars are then directed to either your Current Lifestyle or your Future Lifestyle. Your management of the Lifestyle Regulator determines where these dollars go. Regulating the cash flow between your current lifestyle desires and your future lifestyle requirements may be the most important financial decision you will ever make. Here’s why. Each and every dollar that is allowed to flow through to your Current Lifestyle is consumed and gone forever. The goal is to accumulate enough money in the Savings and Investment tanks so that when you retire, the dollars in those tanks can be used to pay for your future lifestyle requirements. Retirement planning seems hard for most people to do but it is not rocket science. The best position, position A, would be to have enough in the tanks so that you can live in the future like you live today adjusted for inflation and have your money last at least to your life expectancy. That’s a win, but the icing on the cake would be to accomplish that with little to no impact on your present standard of living, and that is exactly what we strive to help our clients to do. Working with us can help you with the following: Optimize the balance between your Current and Future Lifestyles Identify inefficiencies in your current personal economic model (where are you losing money) Design, implement, and execute a plan to secure your financial future Limit the impact on your Current Lifestyle dollars (maintain your current standard of living)

To solve the inability of middle-class renters to purchase single-family homes for the first time, Congress and President Roosevelt created the Federal Housing Administration in 1934. The FHA insured bank mortgages that covered 80 percent of purchase prices, had terms of twenty years, and were fully amortized. To be eligible for such insurance, the FHA insisted on doing its own appraisal of the property to make certain that the loan had a low risk of default. Because the FHA's appraisal standards included a whites-only requirement, racial segregation now became an official requirement of the federal mortgage insurance program. The FHA judged that properties would probably be too risky for insurance if they were in racially mixed neighborhoods or even in white neighborhoods near black ones that might possibly integrate in the future. When a bank applied to the FHA for insurance on a prospective loan, the agency conducted a property appraisal, which was also likely performed by a local real estate agent hired by the agency. as the volume of applications increased, the agency hired its own appraisers, usually from the ranks of the private real estate agents who had previously been working as contractors for the FHA. To guide their work, the FHA provided them with an Underwriting Manual. The first, issued in 1935, gave this instruction: 'If a neighborhood is to retain stability it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes. A change in social or racial occupancy generally leads to instability and a reduction in values.' Appraisers were told to give higher ratings where '[p]rotection against some adverse influences is obtained,' and that '[i]mportant among adverse influences . . . are infiltration of inharmonious racial or nationality groups.' The manual concluded that '[a]ll mortgages on properties protected against [such] unfavorable influences, to the extent such protection is possible, will obtain a high rating.' The FHA discouraged banks from making any loans at all in urban neighborhoods rather than newly built suburbs; according to the Underwriting Manual, 'older properties . . . have a tendency to accelerate the rate of transition to lower class occupancy.' The FHA favored mortgages in areas where boulevards or highways served to separate African American families from whites, stating that '[n]atural or artificially established barriers will prove effective in protecting a neighborhood and the locations within it from adverse influences, . . . includ[ing] prevention of the infiltration of . . . lower class occupancy, and inharmonious racial groups.

Government's commitment to separating residential areas by race began nationwide following the violent suppression of Reconstruction after 1877. Although the Supreme Court in 1917 forbade the first wave of policies—racial segregation by zoning ordinance—the federal government began to recommend ways that cities could evade that ruling, not only in the southern and border states but across the country. In the 1920s a Harding administration committee promoted zoning ordinances that distinguished single-family from multifamily districts. Although government publications did not say it in as many words, committee members made little effort to hide that an important purpose was to prevent racial integration. Simultaneously, and through the 1920s and the Hoover administration, the government conducted a propaganda campaign directed at white middle-class families to persuade them to move out of apartments and into single-family dwellings. During the 1930s the Roosevelt administration created maps of every metropolitan area, divided into zones of foreclosure risk based in part on the race of their occupants. The administration then insured white homeowners' mortgages if they lived in all-white neighborhoods into which there was little danger of African Americans moving. After World War II the federal government went further and spurred the suburbanization of every metropolitan area by guaranteeing bank loans to mass-production builders who would create the all-white subdivisions that came to ring American cities. In 1973, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concluded that the 'housing industry, aided and abetted by Government, must bear the primary responsibility for the legacy of segregated housing. . . . Government and private industry came together to create a system of residential segregation.

The Social Security Act—the name of the ACT is FICA, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Well, it was sold to the public as an earned right. Work, you pay an insurance premium, but you are not paying an insurance premium at all. You’re paying a tax, pure and simple. That’s what Social Security is. It’s a tax we pay so that people who are no longer able to work will be taken care of.