#basednews

📣  BASED FINANCE PROTOCOL UPDATE  📣

🔥500K $BASED BURNED🔥 🔥500K $BBOND BURNED🔥

🏛️ $BASED Circulating Supply: 23,994,827 🏛️ 🏛️ $BBOND Circulating Supply: 8,155,173 🏛️

 BY JESSICA WEISS

Under30CEO.com

As of 2013 there are around 44 million Americans who are unable to get health insurance. The majority of uninsured are poor working families and those who simply cannot afford health insurance. Looking at all the debate going on today over the Affordable Care Act, I thought it would be necessary to make sure everyone’s on the same page and understands the basics of Obamacare. Original: http://obamacarefacts.com/whatis-obamacare.php ObamaCare is the unofficial name for The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was signed into law on March 23, 2010. It is a national health care plan designed to reform the American health care system. It’s goals are to provide more Americans access to affordable insurance, improve the quality of health care, regulate the health insurance industry, and reduce health care spending in the US. What is the ObamaCare Health Insurance Marketplace? The health insurance marketplace (also known as an exchange) is an online price comparison website where Americans can shop for insurance that starts as soon as Jan 1st, 2014 and receive cost assistance for lower premiums (specified amount of payment required periodically by an insurer to provide coverage under a given insurance plan for a defined period of time), reduced out-of-pocket costs, or even Medicaid. Each State has their own health insurance marketplace. President Obama explains that most of the 85% of Americans with health insurance are already experiencing the bulk of what the program has to offer and have been for the past 3 years. The individual mandate (requiring individuals by law to purchase health insurance), employer mandate (requirement that all businesses with over 50 full-time equivalent employees provide health insurance for their full-time employees) and health insurance marketplace will affect a percentage of uninsured Americans or those who don’t like their insurance. What Does ObamaCare Do? • ObamaCare eliminates pre-existing conditions and gender discrimination meaning no one can be charged more or be dropped from their health insurance coverage for health or gender related reasons. • ObamaCare gives tens of millions of low-income and middle-income Americans access to health care by providing discounts (subsidies) through the Health Insurance Marketplace (also known as a Health Insurance Exchange). • ObamaCare helps to ensure that health care coverage is available to any legal U.S. resident who cannot otherwise obtain “quality” healthcare through their employer. • ObamaCare gives American employers with over 50 full-time equivalent employees the choice between providing insurance that meets the standards of ObamaCare or paying a penalty. This penalty helps to offset the cost of employees who aren’t covered through their employer to purchase insurance through the public health insurance exchanges instead of using emergency services. (Employers with less than the equivalent of 25 full-time equivalent employees may qualify for tax credits, tax breaks and other assistance for insuring employees through the Health Insurance Marketplace.) • Unless you make over $200k individual / $250k as a family or small business you are exempt from almost every tax ObamaCare levies. • ObamaCare requires that all Americans have health insurance either through a private provider or through a state or federally assisted program. If you don’t have insurance you must pay a tax equal to 1% of your income in 2014 and 2.5% in 2016.

BY JESSICA WEISS

Memecrunch.com

Under the new national Common Core State Standards initiative, a plan designed by governors and supported by the Obama administration looking to establish a minimum level of learning for students in grades K-12, math can get a bit weird, states critics.

Supporters say Common Core only tests students in math and English, but critics say school districts will design curriculum to maximize their students’ performance on the national exams rather than simply focusing on teaching, and, in fact, have already begun that measure. There is also much concern over the math being taught.

  lmsfocusgroup.pbworks.com

“The math standard focuses on investigative math, which has been shown to be a disaster,” Glyn Wright, executive director of Eagle Forum, told FoxNews.com. “With the new math standard in the Common Core, there are no longer absolute truths. So 3 times 4 can now equal 11 so long as a student can effectively explain how they reached that answer.” Yeah, I know. Groundbreaking stuff we got here.

knowyourmeme.com

Stanford Prof. James Milgram, the only mathematician on the Common Core Validation Committee, refused to sign off on the math standards. “A number of these sources were mainly focused on things like making the standards as non-challenging as possible. Others were focused on making sure their favorite topics were present, and handled in the way they liked,” he said, adding that it led to a number of “extremely serious failings” in the Common Core that made it premature for any state hoping to improve math scores to implement them and that the Core Math standards were designed to reflect very low expectations.

But an official for the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, which backs Common Core, says the new standards have the opposite effect and can actually encourage critical thinking in students. She denied that the standards allow for wrong answers, but said the emphasis is on the process.

“One of the things we learned from research, and there’s a lot of it out there, is that kids do not necessarily learn from the algorithmic method,” Linda Gojak, president of the NCTM said to FoxNews.com. “The assessment is that it is more about kids making sense of what they are learning instead of memorizing a step-by-step process.”

navigator.compasslearning.com

  Each side presents a perspective defending what their idea of “effective learning” really is. Supporters of Common Core favor the concept of critical thinking, while opponents worry that this actually means standards are getting lowered and removed as students are now allowed to submit wrong answers. This could lead to an even lower position than the US is in regarding math and science scores, which would hurt the job market one day because the majority of future jobs are in those fields.

But these aren’t the only problems with Common Core…

“The bottom line is that the Common Core Initiative is nationalized education — to which we are starkly opposed,” Wright also said. By removing jurisdiction in education from more local governments, the Common Core Initiative is one that supports a stronger government role in education. Many are weary of this because they believe it is the local government’s duty to run the education system in the state, since these smaller governments could develop curriculum more diverse curriculums.

Groups that support Common Core disagree.

“Just because you have state standards, doesn’t mean a district will have a standardized curriculum,” Chad Colby, a spokesman for education non-profit Achieve, told FoxNews.com.

“Many states already have standards in place and curriculum varies district to district and even school to school,” he added, referring to the state standards in Arkansas which have been in place for 20 years but allows every school to independently choose their curriculum.

These supporters are convinced that Common Core does not violate any of these traditions, as it only sets a basic standard for which a state-developed curriculum could branch out from.

As the debate goes on about the development and controversial issues in this Initiative, teens should find themselves caring because these measures will directly be affecting them and the things they will be learning in school. If adopted, that could mean a complete change in your curriculum, and maybe in your future, you will find yourself defending that the answer to 3×4 is actually 11.

BY ARBEL EFRATY

Earlier this week, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced a bill to the Senate that would reinstate the primary components of the Glass-Steagall Act, part of the Banking Act of 1933 which was meant to aid failing banks during the Great Depression. The original Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999 because too many banks found ways to use it against its true purpose. The bill was backed by Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), although it looks unlikely to pass the Senate.

Following the Great Depression and Franklin Roosevelt’s election to the Oval Office, it was clear that banks needed better rules, following the failure of thousands of banks (around 9,000 total). A simple yet elegant solution to the problem was proposed (and passed). Commercial banks, which store people’s money and deposits (like Wells Fargo or Bank of America), would be separated from investment banks, which basically gambled people’s money in a risk/reward system. Thus, the Glass Steagall Act protected regular bank deposits from being invested, and commercial banks could not touch these deposits in hope of making profit.

In 1999, however, to allow the merger of Citicorp, a commercial bank, and Travelers Group, an investment bank, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed which repealed most of Glass-Steagall Act. Now, investment banks can merge with commercial banks, and therefore use our deposits to invest for possible profit. A flurry of mergers followed the repeal (nearly 60 since 1998), and banks grew HUGE.

Many of these new “mega” banks, driven by profits, began to engage in even riskier trading and investment in search of more profit. When many of these risks failed to reap the rewards in 2008, profits were erased in days and banks found themselves broke and lacking a lender. The financial crisis grew out of the enormity of financial institutions and brought America into the Recession, with many losing their jobs, money, and homes.

Basically, banks invested money they did not have, using credit and the expectation of a rewards from other investments. But many investments failed at the same time, banks would not be able to cover their losses, leading to failure and a loss of the credit provided by us, the people. This happened in 2008, on a scale unseen since the Great Depression.

Due to the fact that the banks lacked cash, Congress deemed certain banks “Too Big to Fail,” which means that the damage done to the economy by the failure of these banks would be worse than a bailout, where taxpayers (you and me) provide aid to the banks. The bailout, called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) gave banks loans of $475 billion taxpayer dollars, which prevented their failure. The Recession, however, did not end “Too Big to Fail.” There are currently seven US Banks deemed “Too Big to Fail.” Many of these, including Bank of America and Citigroup, hold more than $1 trillion dollars in assets.

The new Glass-Steagall Act would break up these large banks into smaller ones. Bailouts would be a thing of the past, and commercial banks would be safer. If a bank failed, there would be no taxpayer savior, and the banking industry would quickly learn the hard way to manage their money more efficiently. There would be, however, many negative effects too.

Banks would find it more difficult to make money, so they will charge more for services and loans due to pressure to make profit. Interest rates on loans would increase, meaning everything from student loans to house mortgages would increase, and people will think twice before purchasing a home or founding a business. This could possibly slow the economic recovery.

Overall, it is a question of what Americans want. With large banks, loans are cheap and easy to get, and banks profit from using our money for investment, which is a risk that possibly could bring reward. But bank failure and bailouts will always loom, and eventually, it will happen again. Under the new Glass-Steagall Act, loans will be more expensive and bank profits will drop, but bailout will almost be entirely eliminated.

BY JESSICA WEISS

As the Group of 20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia began, everyone knew how awkward and dramatic the whole ordeal would become. Everyone would be looking at Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Obama, who are currently clashing over the issue of Syria. The day started off with bullying (Putin brought his pet dog to his first meeting with the German Chancellor, who has a well-known fear of dogs) and continued with the most awkward handshake in the world.

This effect of this little rift the U.S. and Russia has will only be felt in a few months. As everyone freaks out about Syria and forgets about every other problem the world has, the true purpose of the G-20 summit (dealing with the global economy) doesn’t seem to be anyone’s concern. This is harmful, because when we look at the slowing down of economic growth in supposedly bad a*s “growing economies” like China, India, and Brazil, we get little response on the topic. Also, fun issues such as energy subsidies (government bucks for certain types of energy) and food security are completely off the table because all attention is drawn to Syria. These huge issues which will probably not be addressed will cause huge harms for people around the world and in the U.S., as the effect of the global economy and economic policy issues are felt in the day-to-day lives of most people.

The G-20 summit was created in 2008 after the global financial crisis, and it helped restore stability to the financial system. Cooperation between the world’s largest economies helped keep global markets open,  which slowed down the punch of the drop in growth. Since then, I think it’s fair to say that the G-20 has failed to follow up with further successes. Members have been b*tchy and disagreeable on monetary policy. The United States loved the concept of more spending by Uncle Sam, while countries like Germany and the United Kingdom supported a system of austerity, or the cutting of government spending. The G-20 also hasn’t really been able to help with the huge financial crisis the Euro-zone. An explanation for these failures would be that the moment all these countries weren’t looking over the edge of a cliff, they all scurried back into their own corners.

With no real benefits, some might be asking why we still have a G-20. Is it just an excuse for world leaders to come together and party?

That view is… fair but inaccurate. Sure. The G-20 could be doing better, but it still matters for the global economy. In today’s globalized world, no country can achieve international economic policy with across-the-board standards. Instability and SOMEONE f*cking up will bring the whole house of cards down. 

Governments will ALWAYS disagree on the best way to achieve growth, regulate sh*t, manipulate currency, and pretty much everything else. These divisions will grow and threaten overall economic stability if leaders and countries didn’t come together to formally discuss solutions. Even though things are slow, we live with the ever-present risk of a new economic crisis. If one were to occur again, a functioning G-20 would be extremely valuable.

The problem with the summit this year, which wasn’t expected by Russia actually, is that the global economy is feeling the spillover of the Syrian crisis. This isn’t surprising, but comes at a cost.

The world needs an effective steering committee for the global economy. If there was possibility of a peace agreement on Syria at the summit, it might be worth it, but let’s face it, there’s not. It will be up to Australia, which hosts the 2014 G-20 summit to get everybody back on track.

BY ARBEL EFRATY

This time it’s for real. The US is increasingly likely to respond with military action to the latest use of chemical weapons in Syria. It has been reported by US intelligence that on August 21st 1,429 civilians were killed outside Damascus in a chemical attack. This includes over 400 children according to Secretary of State John Kerry, although the numbers are mere estimates. Amid widespread international outcry, UN inspectors have been forced to leave Syria due to safety concerns, though they have collected sample of what appears to be the nerve agent sarin, a chemical weapon. The chemical attack is the largest since Saddam Hussein’s massacre of over 5,000 minority Kurds in Northern Iraq in 1988.

Barack Obama has urged a response, calling the chemical attacks “an assault on human dignity,” and has put forth a resolution to Congress over whether to attack Syria or not. Congress, however, won’t be back from their little recess until September 9th, meaning Obama has a week to rally up support within Congress and internationally, with countries and groups like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations. France and Germany seem most likely to join the US in attacking and punishing the Assad regime, despite Britain backing out. The United States will almost definitely lead the military strikes, which begs the question: What exactly will happen?

The US has not gone into much detail about what exactly they will be doing, but the options range from using highly-accurate Tomahawk missiles or cruise missiles to target Syria’s airfields, launch sites, storage centers and Assad’s personal residences,  a no-fly zone over parts of Syria, grounding all of the Syrian government’s air power, or the use of predator drones.

The costs of the initial strikes should be small, though any further military action may have severe blow back. Obama could possibly be repeating the past mistakes of George W. Bush, who attacked Iraq on false evidence of chemical weapons, and should proceed with caution. Both China and Russia have urged the US not to act militarily, so the US risks alienating the two other world superpowers. Overreach by Obama could also prompt Russian military response, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has been actively assisting and funding Assad’s regime for the past year and a half. A Cold War situation could possibly follow the increased tension, creating a proxy war (an indirect war) between Russia and the US over Syria, not dissimilar from the two countries actions in Afghanistan in the 1980s, in which both Russia and the US armed rebel groups in a struggle for control.

A no-fly zone would be a bit more expensive, and would have economic effects felt around the world. At a reported cost of $1 billion a month, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a no-fly zone could offer the possibility of an eventual rebel victory in the Syrian Civil War. But it would also require consistent airstrikes by the US Air Force, leading to civilian deaths, which would alienate the American people and Syrians. This would destroy the US goals of stability and democracy in Syria. Additionally, a no fly zone would sharply increase the global price of oil due to American involvement in this region, and could hurt the United States’  economic recovery. Helping Syrians at the expense of Americans is risky business, and may lead to a wider opposition within Congress.

Nonetheless, a response of some sort is required, since Obama has stated previously that a “red line” is crossed if chemical weapons are used in Syria. Should Congress agree to a military response, will Obama punish the Syrian regime for its supposed violation of International Law and human ethics?  Is being the global police force the United States’ job? If the US doesn’t do something, then who will? Due to China and Russia’s opposition, their power as permanent members of the United Nation’s Security Council makes the UN as useless as a candle in the sun. As for my opinion, Obama should act unilaterally or with German and French help. Either way, Assad will learn his lesson. As The Economist urges, Obama should “Hit Him Hard.”