Thursday, September 25, 2008
"It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era." SUCCESS stories! We love success stories!
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Why don't we let people who make incredibly bad financial decisions face the consequences? What does it teach them that every time they get into a bind, mommy (Uncle Sam) is there to save them from their stupidity? Why can't we let the market work? Yes, we will all have to deal with the consequences of what might happen, but I guarantee that the rebound will make us that much greater.
Failure is good. It teaches us what we might not have known had we never failed. It gives us experience, and helps us learn from our mistakes.
Uncle Sam has done a bang-up job with this latest coddling. I'll say it now. I can't believe how incredibly STUPID these people are.
What happened to the blame getting put on the people who took out bad loans? They are the ones that are ultimately making the decisions. Banks don't force people to buy homes they can't afford, to buy boats they shouldn't, and to refinance their houses and pull a bunch of money out. The fault lies with the people. With the government doing what it is, it's not addressing the problem - LET THE MARKET WEED OUT THOSE WHO MAKE BAD DECISIONS! It will be hard. The economy will suffer. People will run into hard times. But be assured that they brought it on themselves for the most part.
If people would be willing to work for what they receive, stop looking at the Jones' and envying all they have, then go into debt by refinancing their homes, racking up credit card debt just to be like the Jones', then banks would not have been issuing bad loans, and we would not be in this mess. Fiscal irresponsibility is what is to blame here on the part of a spoiled "I-want-everything-without-having-to-work-for-it" society.
I'm sorry to say it, but we deserve it.
This is a must read article:
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Michelle Obama in her own words "Some need to give up a piece of their pie and give it to others":
The Global Poverty Act?
Policies? Or Socialist Ideals? Taxes, Taxes, Taxes.
And for those of you who would like a much deeper discussion into Obama's policies:
If you disagree, please teach me why I am wrong.
- Obama's outright hypocrisy - Just watch this video and I'm sure that you'll undersand what I mean:
To all of you who scream out "OH Yeah, here you go with right-wing nut job FOX NEWS again!" Maybe I like to watch them because they always have pretty hard FACTS to back up their claims, unlike most of the other news agencies that I watch. Here they are showing hard numbers. It's hard to dispute the truth when it's staring at you in the face. I'm naturally a skeptic. So I don't believe anyone until they show me evidence, or give me some sort of proof. I don't even let my mother off the hook when it comes to crazy stories. I make her back it up. So when they show numbers, I'm more willing to believe it.
Here is a man that is constantly saying that it's the other guy's fault. Who's the one taking money? Who is the one getting paid off? Apparently, it's the guy pointing the finger. This is getting rediculous. Why aren't these guys exposed for what they are? And these are the people that are going to "fight for us"???? Phony. I've heard enough. I'm tired of this hypocrite and liar trying to butter us up, while he rakes in the cash. Man of the people? If being a socialist is what he means, then yes. Now, I don't use that word lightly, but I use it for Barack Obama. Yes, he is a socialist, whether you like it or not. Forced redistribution of wealth is a completely socialist idea. Tell me I am wrong if I am. Correct me if I am misguided, please. How is he implementing a "forced distribution of wealth"? State programs. State welfare programs that are not designed to help but to create dependency. "Why would the government want to create dependency?" you may ask. Hmmm, let me see. I'm a politician. I know that the indolent people of this country look up in pride, yes there can be "pride looking up", and despise and envy those who have more than they do. As a politician, I need as many people to vote for me as possible, so I can stay in power. How do I do that? By telling the lower classes that the rich are bad. That they have been taken advantage of and victimized, and that they deserve more. Those rich people don't understand their trials and hardships. They don't know what it's like to have to scrimp to pay the bills. They don't know what it's like to get laid off. They don't deserve teh riches that they have. They should share it with you so that you can have the same chance they have had. So here's what I'll do as that politician: I'll create a tax system that punishes the wealthy, and give tax breaks to the poor. Then I'll redistribute that money to the poor. IF I do that, I'll be the one paying their bills, giving them subsidized housing, paying medical insurance, and they will love me. What does this all bring us to?
Love of the people = votes
Votes = stay in office
Stay in office = more power
This is forced distribution of wealth, and if it is NOT what Obama wants to do, please show me. If it is NOT what is going on with the Democratic Party, then SHOW ME! I am so tired of people thinking that they have a right to what others have earned. Last time I checked, the Constitution of the United States guaranteed certain inalienable rights - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (property rights). It did not guarantee, however, that the government would give you a handout when things got tough. It didn't guarantee a house to every citizen, a car to every citizen, a college education to every citizen, a job to every citizen. The rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness guarantee us the ability to work for a house, to work for a car, and to work for a college education IF WE SO DESIRE! There is no guarantee of those things. We must be willing to work for those things. This brings me to my second point:
- The US government has decided to spend up to $80 per household to provide people with converter boxes for their old TV's that won't accept digital signals in Feb 2009 when all analog signals will be stopped. Excuse me? Where, pray tell, are they getting the money to do this? Once again, taxpayer money being used to guarantee privileges to society. Yes, you heard me right, I said TV is a privilege. Where is it in the Constitution that says that we are guaranteed digital entertainment? Is that the role of government? To spend MY hard earned taxes to pay for someone's tv signal? Where in the Constitution does it say that this is the role of government? TV is a choice. TV is a privilege. If you want to watch TV, you are going to have to buy one. Can't afford one? Well, better go get a job and pay for it. Say that 10 million homes decide they need to get this converter box. That's 800 MILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer money used to guarantee the ability to watch digital tv to people. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? Where is this going? It's happening because we have a society that wants everything for nothing, and they are willing to give away their freedoms to do so. We also have a power-hungry government that is all too willing to take those freedoms from us in order to consolidate power. I don't even begin to comprehend how people say that this is okay. The founding fathers aer rolling in their graves at what is happening now FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, but mainly from the left. We need LESS regulation, LESS government programs, and MORE citizen involvement. We also need a citizenry that values hard work and the rewards that come with it to a free handout. We have become a society in which we are rewarded for mediocrity, and even failure, and punished for being successful. That is NOT what the Constitution was about, and that is not what the country was originally founded on.
We, as the United States of America, cannot become the Roman Empire. We cannot be so consumed in greed and laziness that we forget what got us here. We must stand up in the world for the freedoms that guarantee us the possibility of every personal success. Where hard work, personal resopnsibility, and REAL charity reign as the ideals of our nation. Then, and only then, will we pull out of this downward spiral we are currently in.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Charity, by definition, is the "benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity". Charity is a matter of personal character, where you love your neighbor as yourself, and therefore, you want to help them. But in doing so, you do not want to do for them what they can do for themselves. You want to assist them, especially when they need the assistance. But you also want them to be self sufficient. With self sufficience comes pride in one's work, and pride in the reward of one's hard work. Self sufficience allows one to be the master of their own life, where they are free to follow their desires and dreams. On the other hand, dependence promotes laziness and mediocrity. After all, if there will always be what you need, even when you don't deserve it, why try?
We have become a welfare state in two ways. The first is the attitude of society that the government owes them something. That welfare from the government is now looked at as a right, not a privelage.
Ezra Taft Benson (Sec. of Agriculture under Eisenhower) has said: "Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We’ve done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today’s egalitarians are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a matter of right. One HEW official said, “In this country, welfare is no longer charity, it is a right. More and more Americans feel that their government owes them something.” (The American Free Enterprise System, by President Ezra Taft Benson, Logan Utah, May 6, 1977)
At the basis of Judeo-Christian teaching are the two greatest commandments:
1. Love the Lord thy God
2. Love thy neighbor as thyself
Now, I don't mean to get deeply religious, but whatever religion you may be (or may not be), these tennants of thought are good. I spent two years with Bhuddists, and they had the same tennants. We are to love God. We do that by being obedient to his laws. As Christ said " A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." (John 13:34). Another prophet of God said that "When ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God." (Mosiah 2:17, The Book of Mormon)
Charity is NOT the role of government. Charity is the duty of the people. When charity is forced, it is not charity at all. This is what one party would have us do. Their intentions are correct, yet their methods are wrong. The desire to help those that are less fortunate is a good, correct desire. But it should be of our own volition and decision that we assist others.
In Ezra Taft Benson's article, "The Proper Role of Government", he proposes a situation that best explains how it is not the government's responsibility, or right, to take from one that has, and give to another that has not:
"Suppose pioneer “A” wants another horse for his wagon, He doesn’t have the money to buy one, but since pioneer “B” has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor’s good fortune, Is he entitled to take his neighbor’s horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer “B” wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.
If “A” has no proper power to take “B’s” property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that “B” give his extra horse to “A”, they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:
“For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another.” (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)
In the next part, I will discuss the second problem - cradle-to-grave government.