There was a notion late, late, late on election night were the pundits starting talking about the Republican’s need to compromise with the President. “They just lost the White House, they lost seats in the Senate and the House, they are losing the demographic race…they have to come to the table.”
As specified in statute, the purpose of Part A is to increase the flexibility of states in operating a program designed to: (1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Gold is not a vital commodity in our economy; it is good in jewelry and has some function in electronics, but good as gold is a sentiment centuries out of date. Were we to find any evidence that our current general monetary policy is a problem (and there isn’t any), it would make more sense to go on a water standard, or a chicken standard, then a gold standard.
Except it isn’t sinister, and the only thing tricky is the math conservatives are again using to criticize their own health reform plan. In 2011, the average price for an individual plan was $2,196 per year. According to the standards of the individual mandate, individuals making less than $27,500 ($2,196 is 8% of $27,500) would be exempt from the mandate. Median individual income in 2011 was $26,364. For those of you who either don’t like statistics (most of you if you are normal), or are used to conservomath, this means that fully half of the wage earners in the United States would be exempt from the mandate.