My congressman sent me a "poll/survey" through the email.
Right now, Congress and the president are negotiating a solution to resolve our default crisis. If Congress does NOT vote to raise the debt ceiling, do you believe that this would be a real and serious problem?*
Yes
No
Not Sure
As a member of the Congressional Seniors Task Force, I cosigned a letter to the President this month objecting to proposed benefit changes to Social Security and Medicare as part of any deal. Do you believe that changes to benefits and cuts to Medicare and Social Security should NOT be part of a debt agreement?
Medicare and Social Security should not be cut or changed.
Cuts to Social Security and Medicare should be considered.
Not Sure
Republicans in Congress have said they are unwilling to raise any taxes, including on oil companies, corporations and the wealthy. Do you believe that closing tax loopholes or increasing revenues on corporations or millionaires should be part of a balanced approach to ending our default crisis?
Yes
No
Not Sure
This was my emailed response:
I tried to take your survey on the debt limit crisis, but I couldn't. The answers to the questions were all horribly skewed, and I couldn't pick one that came even close to my thoughts.
If Congress does not raise the debt limit, it may be a serious problem, but not nearly as serious as if we raise it with no plan to balance the budget and start paying off the debt. It's a no-brainer that you don't open a new credit card for someone who has ten of them maxed out and no plan to pay them off, but that's exactly what President Obama is asking us to do.
I do disagree with cutting Medicare and Social Security as part of this deal. That is why I supported Cap/Cut/Balance so strongly. I also strongly support a repeal of Obamacare, which will cut Medicare spending as part of its function. I have the feeling, from your record over the years, that this is not what you had in mind when you signed the agreement.... especially as Obama has already sworn to veto plans that do not include cuts to either. I sincerely hope that you are not engaging in scare tactics through an implication that Obama is trying to stop the Conservative Opposition from cutting things that they have explicitly excluded from cuts again and again.
I believe that closing tax loopholes must be accompanied by lowering taxes. I cannot agree with equating the words "tax" and "revenue", as lowering taxes in the past decades has resulted in increased revenues. In fact, I believe firmly that raising taxes at this point on our job creators will only reduce revenues. What we need now is to remove the loopholes that big business prompted legislatures to create along with new taxes and regulations, and reduce overall tax rates, so that everybody pays their fair share. It is not lost on me that the companies that contribute to Democrat politicians end up paying less at tax time. This is wrong.
Please consider this to be my response to your survey.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
The Sin Lists
So yet another angry group of people have decided to "refute the Bible" by printing a huge list of supposed "sins" according to the Bible in an attempt to make God look like an unreasonable idiot who doesn't deserve to be even thought about, much less followed. Unfortunately, they have outright distorted and sometimes lied about what Scripture says, so I have chosen to take their list of "sins" and explain what it's all about.
- Eating shellfish - This is one of the Old Testament rules on what creatures are and are not good to eat. However, there is no punishment listed for not holding to these rules, and they were arguably abolished in the New Testament with Peter's dream, in which God offered him "unclean" animals to eat and told him that they were now clean. I'd like to add, though, for the sake of completeness, that the animals labeled "unclean" in the OT are now known to carry an increased risk of food-borne illnesses.
- Wearing clothes made of more than one fabric - Again, this is a cultural requirement only. It has no punishment listed, and it is not labeled explicitly as "detestable" or an "abomination".
- Getting raped (this only goes for the ladies, but you can smooth things over by marrying your rapist, so…) - This one is an outright lie. The verse says that if a man *seduces* and lies with a virgin, that he can make it right by marrying her, unless her father refuses the marriage. In that case, he has to pay her three years' wages on the middle-class level. These days the payment would be approximately $180,000. Of course, seduction is not rape.
In fact, if a married woman has had sex with a man outside of the city, it is assumed that she was raped and so she merits no penalty whatsoever. The man, however, is put to death. There is no actual Biblical law regarding the punishment for rape.
However, we must remember that the Old Testament Law was a restraint, not the be-all and end-all of the country's laws. In a time when killing someone carried the punishment of your death and the death of all your friends and family, for instance, the OT law limits the punishment to the murderer. So to see what God's society did for rape, we have to look at the actual documented incidences of it. In every situation in which rape occurs, either the perpetrators were killed (sometimes very painfully) or the Bible makes it clear that their lack of punishment is in itself abhorrent. God does not treat rapists gently.
- Trimming your beard or sideburns - Cultural requirement only. It has no punishment listed, and it is not labeled explicitly as "detestable" or an "abomination".
- Getting remarried - Not according to the Old Testament, and in the New Testament it is only listed as a sin if your previous marriage was dissolved by what would now be called a "no-fault divorce".
- Planting more than one crop in a field - Cultural requirement only. It has no punishment listed, and it is not labeled explicitly as "detestable" or an "abomination".
- Having a wet dream - The term "unclean" is often misunderstood by non-Jews and non-Christians. Both Judaism and Christianity recognizes that we frequently fall short of the goal of utter righteousness. In other schools of religious thought, such as Secular Humanism, proving your own righteousness is very important. In Judaism and Christianity, it is not.
Anyways... back to uncleanliness. It is understood by Jews and Christians to be an inevitability rather than something to be avoided and feared at all costs. In addition, not all uncleanliness in the OT was a result of sin. Many times, it was a simple protection in the society. Any emission of semen made the man "unclean until evening", which was really a pretty lightweight requirement. Interestingly, the people who laugh at the Bible for requiring a man to wash his clothes after discharging semen all over himself are silent when it comes to the rules regarding diagnosis and treatment of mildew and mold in homes and clothing.
- Eating rare meat - Only meat that is rare enough to actively bleed. This had two uses. The first was hygenic... even today, we recognize that there are enough blood-borne illnesses to make drinking it a risky proposition. Secondly, the Old Testament is meant to teach humankind the importance of shed blood for forgiveness of sins, because that's the method Jesus had to use. For that reason, blood is especially sacred.
- Touching a dead animal - Cleanliness issue. The person has to wash and is "unclean until evening", meaning basically a temporary quarantine. He couldn't stick his hands inside an animal that died out in the field (this didn't refer to butchering your meat, by the way) and then proceed to knead bread for supper. Remember that the high death rate in childbirth a few centuries ago came from doctors who did not wash their hands when going from the morgue to the delivery room.
- Menstruating and/or earning your “red wings” - Issue of cleanliness, as with the semen, with an extra ritual required due to the blood, as described in the "rare meat" section. I'd like to add that the punishment for sex during menstruation was exile, not death.
- Getting a tattoo - Do not cut yourself or make marks on yourself for the dead. Whether this applies to all tattoos or just putting a permanent representation of your dead relatives on your skin is up for debate. It's also worth noting that people back then used to slash themselves with knives (and sometimes kill their own children) because they believed that their gods would not listen to them unless they suffered enough. God did not want His people developing that mindset about Him.
Hope this helps the next time someone starts spouting laws that they don't understand.
- Eating shellfish - This is one of the Old Testament rules on what creatures are and are not good to eat. However, there is no punishment listed for not holding to these rules, and they were arguably abolished in the New Testament with Peter's dream, in which God offered him "unclean" animals to eat and told him that they were now clean. I'd like to add, though, for the sake of completeness, that the animals labeled "unclean" in the OT are now known to carry an increased risk of food-borne illnesses.
- Wearing clothes made of more than one fabric - Again, this is a cultural requirement only. It has no punishment listed, and it is not labeled explicitly as "detestable" or an "abomination".
- Getting raped (this only goes for the ladies, but you can smooth things over by marrying your rapist, so…) - This one is an outright lie. The verse says that if a man *seduces* and lies with a virgin, that he can make it right by marrying her, unless her father refuses the marriage. In that case, he has to pay her three years' wages on the middle-class level. These days the payment would be approximately $180,000. Of course, seduction is not rape.
In fact, if a married woman has had sex with a man outside of the city, it is assumed that she was raped and so she merits no penalty whatsoever. The man, however, is put to death. There is no actual Biblical law regarding the punishment for rape.
However, we must remember that the Old Testament Law was a restraint, not the be-all and end-all of the country's laws. In a time when killing someone carried the punishment of your death and the death of all your friends and family, for instance, the OT law limits the punishment to the murderer. So to see what God's society did for rape, we have to look at the actual documented incidences of it. In every situation in which rape occurs, either the perpetrators were killed (sometimes very painfully) or the Bible makes it clear that their lack of punishment is in itself abhorrent. God does not treat rapists gently.
- Trimming your beard or sideburns - Cultural requirement only. It has no punishment listed, and it is not labeled explicitly as "detestable" or an "abomination".
- Getting remarried - Not according to the Old Testament, and in the New Testament it is only listed as a sin if your previous marriage was dissolved by what would now be called a "no-fault divorce".
- Planting more than one crop in a field - Cultural requirement only. It has no punishment listed, and it is not labeled explicitly as "detestable" or an "abomination".
- Having a wet dream - The term "unclean" is often misunderstood by non-Jews and non-Christians. Both Judaism and Christianity recognizes that we frequently fall short of the goal of utter righteousness. In other schools of religious thought, such as Secular Humanism, proving your own righteousness is very important. In Judaism and Christianity, it is not.
Anyways... back to uncleanliness. It is understood by Jews and Christians to be an inevitability rather than something to be avoided and feared at all costs. In addition, not all uncleanliness in the OT was a result of sin. Many times, it was a simple protection in the society. Any emission of semen made the man "unclean until evening", which was really a pretty lightweight requirement. Interestingly, the people who laugh at the Bible for requiring a man to wash his clothes after discharging semen all over himself are silent when it comes to the rules regarding diagnosis and treatment of mildew and mold in homes and clothing.
- Eating rare meat - Only meat that is rare enough to actively bleed. This had two uses. The first was hygenic... even today, we recognize that there are enough blood-borne illnesses to make drinking it a risky proposition. Secondly, the Old Testament is meant to teach humankind the importance of shed blood for forgiveness of sins, because that's the method Jesus had to use. For that reason, blood is especially sacred.
- Touching a dead animal - Cleanliness issue. The person has to wash and is "unclean until evening", meaning basically a temporary quarantine. He couldn't stick his hands inside an animal that died out in the field (this didn't refer to butchering your meat, by the way) and then proceed to knead bread for supper. Remember that the high death rate in childbirth a few centuries ago came from doctors who did not wash their hands when going from the morgue to the delivery room.
- Menstruating and/or earning your “red wings” - Issue of cleanliness, as with the semen, with an extra ritual required due to the blood, as described in the "rare meat" section. I'd like to add that the punishment for sex during menstruation was exile, not death.
- Getting a tattoo - Do not cut yourself or make marks on yourself for the dead. Whether this applies to all tattoos or just putting a permanent representation of your dead relatives on your skin is up for debate. It's also worth noting that people back then used to slash themselves with knives (and sometimes kill their own children) because they believed that their gods would not listen to them unless they suffered enough. God did not want His people developing that mindset about Him.
Hope this helps the next time someone starts spouting laws that they don't understand.
Monday, June 20, 2011
We want a king!
I got onto a forum temporarily and found myself discussing Obamacare. I got the usual, nods of affirmation and extra explanations from some, while the detractors contented themselves with no better response than "you're an idiot". While I was thinking over Obamacare and what it does and doesn't do, however, I realized something startling and made a larger connection.
One of the worrying attributes of Obamacare is the incredibly large power shift from the private sector to the government. The nature of that attribute, however, deserves further study. Over and over again one man is mentioned: the head of the Department of Health and Human Services. This person, not Congress, will develop the three government-approved healthcare plans covered by the mandate, the ones I like to call "Regular, Premium, and Premium Plus". All Americans will have to have one of these three plans, purchased from one private company or another... does it matter anymore which company you use?
Consider the implications of that for a moment. Suppose the head of this department, unelected, appointed by the President, does not believe that people over a certain age should receive any care at all? Suppose he believes that we are ruining the world through overpopulation and each family should only have two children? He can decide that the mandatory health care plans do not, any of them, cover any procedures if the patient is over 80 years old. He can decide that only the first two pregnancies will be covered in any of these plans. In a way, he has a kingly power over us.
That's when it began to click for me. We were ruled by ourselves, and our economy was ruled by the natural force of Free-Market Capitalism. Now, increasingly, the vocal minority is clamoring for a "king". They are trying to give our powers and our rights, not to the Federal Government, not to Congress, but specifically to the President and his appointees. Why would they do something like that?
They distrust the free market. The free market is a force that they cannot control. If there is a bad year for tomatoes, they cannot force the price of tomatoes to fall. If they disapprove of people eating beef instead of goat meat, they cannot force the stores to sell goat meat and not beef. (I know I slip into agricultural idioms easily, bear with me please! This goes for other products and services as well.) We conservatives believe that the free market will always act in the best interests of the largest numbers of people. However, the liberals do not like it.
The Israelites felt the same way. Ruled directly by God Himself, they wanted a king. They wanted something more than a force they could not control, who might make decisions of which they disapprove. They wanted a man. God will never tell you that you are allowed to sin. A man may be coaxed to do so. Now I am not comparing God directly to the Free Market, with all the omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence that implies. However, God, like the Free Market and all laws of Nature which He created, is constant and will not reward behavior that violates His laws.
This started with the Free Market, but it can be applied to other things. The liberals who push hormonal birth control, abortion, and gay 'marriage' want sex to have no consequences. Natural law created by God says that it must, but they hope to take control and force what is wrong to become right. This requires them to reject God's laws and set up a king to rule over them instead, a man whom they hope to give the power... the power to decide what medical care we can afford to receive, the power to set the price of goods and services, the power to declare by government fiat that old borders to chastity and modesty no longer exist and anyone who supports them deserves to be hated.
This was God's warning when the Israelites demanded a king:
One of the worrying attributes of Obamacare is the incredibly large power shift from the private sector to the government. The nature of that attribute, however, deserves further study. Over and over again one man is mentioned: the head of the Department of Health and Human Services. This person, not Congress, will develop the three government-approved healthcare plans covered by the mandate, the ones I like to call "Regular, Premium, and Premium Plus". All Americans will have to have one of these three plans, purchased from one private company or another... does it matter anymore which company you use?
Consider the implications of that for a moment. Suppose the head of this department, unelected, appointed by the President, does not believe that people over a certain age should receive any care at all? Suppose he believes that we are ruining the world through overpopulation and each family should only have two children? He can decide that the mandatory health care plans do not, any of them, cover any procedures if the patient is over 80 years old. He can decide that only the first two pregnancies will be covered in any of these plans. In a way, he has a kingly power over us.
That's when it began to click for me. We were ruled by ourselves, and our economy was ruled by the natural force of Free-Market Capitalism. Now, increasingly, the vocal minority is clamoring for a "king". They are trying to give our powers and our rights, not to the Federal Government, not to Congress, but specifically to the President and his appointees. Why would they do something like that?
They distrust the free market. The free market is a force that they cannot control. If there is a bad year for tomatoes, they cannot force the price of tomatoes to fall. If they disapprove of people eating beef instead of goat meat, they cannot force the stores to sell goat meat and not beef. (I know I slip into agricultural idioms easily, bear with me please! This goes for other products and services as well.) We conservatives believe that the free market will always act in the best interests of the largest numbers of people. However, the liberals do not like it.
The Israelites felt the same way. Ruled directly by God Himself, they wanted a king. They wanted something more than a force they could not control, who might make decisions of which they disapprove. They wanted a man. God will never tell you that you are allowed to sin. A man may be coaxed to do so. Now I am not comparing God directly to the Free Market, with all the omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence that implies. However, God, like the Free Market and all laws of Nature which He created, is constant and will not reward behavior that violates His laws.
This started with the Free Market, but it can be applied to other things. The liberals who push hormonal birth control, abortion, and gay 'marriage' want sex to have no consequences. Natural law created by God says that it must, but they hope to take control and force what is wrong to become right. This requires them to reject God's laws and set up a king to rule over them instead, a man whom they hope to give the power... the power to decide what medical care we can afford to receive, the power to set the price of goods and services, the power to declare by government fiat that old borders to chastity and modesty no longer exist and anyone who supports them deserves to be hated.
This was God's warning when the Israelites demanded a king:
He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”We might want to keep this in mind as we see those who happily hand their medical privacy and insurance rights to a single unelected man, who seek greater power for human men, all hoping that this path will lead to their being permitted to do that which is against natural law... whether it be to receive without working or engage in acts of depravity with government approval.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
What the heck, it's been a month!
I love to write, and I love to write in this blog. However, I just have to come to the conclusion that I will not be able to post daily, and sometimes I might not even be able to post weekly!
On Saturday, I had the pleasure of seeing my brother marry a good woman. My house was Grand Central Station, with several people staying here rather than spending needless money on a hotel room, and several more people meeting up with them to go various places and enjoy various activities. My last houseguests leave today... and then the house will be quiet again.
Even though I am a very introverted person, I also very much enjoy sharing my house and property with other people. When we first bought this place, we felt led by none other than God to make it a pleasant place where other people could find rest. Some people become missionaries, others lead groups, others create new charities... But for every person who goes out there to make something of themselves, you need people who spread the load just a little bit further! For every adventurer, you need an oasis. My husband and I are pretty much devoting our lives to raising our children and maintaining our home in such a way that we can provide an oasis to those who just need a break.
Sometimes I feel guilty that I don't spend enough time pursuing things like writing that 'could make me money someday'. However, I have to keep reminding myself that now, as my kids are young and being homeschooled and we are providing this restful service to those who could use a break, I really am contributing enough to society as it is. The steady, frequent writing will come later.
I still have my entire middle age and elderly years ahead of me.
On Saturday, I had the pleasure of seeing my brother marry a good woman. My house was Grand Central Station, with several people staying here rather than spending needless money on a hotel room, and several more people meeting up with them to go various places and enjoy various activities. My last houseguests leave today... and then the house will be quiet again.
Even though I am a very introverted person, I also very much enjoy sharing my house and property with other people. When we first bought this place, we felt led by none other than God to make it a pleasant place where other people could find rest. Some people become missionaries, others lead groups, others create new charities... But for every person who goes out there to make something of themselves, you need people who spread the load just a little bit further! For every adventurer, you need an oasis. My husband and I are pretty much devoting our lives to raising our children and maintaining our home in such a way that we can provide an oasis to those who just need a break.
Sometimes I feel guilty that I don't spend enough time pursuing things like writing that 'could make me money someday'. However, I have to keep reminding myself that now, as my kids are young and being homeschooled and we are providing this restful service to those who could use a break, I really am contributing enough to society as it is. The steady, frequent writing will come later.
I still have my entire middle age and elderly years ahead of me.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Benefits without Benefits
I stumbled across an oldie but goodie while reading a discussion of gay marriage. One of the people referred back to this Family Research Center writeup, citing numerous studies and statistics to call into doubt the notion that the typical homosexual relationship is basically just like the typical heterosexual one.
This leads me back to an old SSM argument which claims that being able to legally marry will stabilize gay relationships, and the main reason why gays are so promiscuous and so many of their relationships are so short-lived is because they don't receive the state benefits. Frankly, the early information on the length of gay marriages in countries and states that permit them are not promising.
Gay activists like to pull race into the mix, comparing any disapproval at all with homosexual sex with the kind of racism that once enslaved an entire people. I'd like to pull in the racist angle and give it a bit of a twist.
When blacks were enslaved, they had no rights. They had no legal standing. Nevertheless, they married each other all the time. On 'friendlier' plantations, the master would oversee a pretty little ceremony. On less friendly places, they would hold their ceremonies quietly, but they still married and were given in marriage.
Now when I say that blacks have no rights, I should remind my readers that this went far beyond simply lacking tax status. They had no inheritance, because they could not own property. Furthermore, a master was fully able to sell the wife away from the husband, or their children away from their parents. The environment was not simply unfriendly to marriage among the black slaves. It was downright hostile.
And yet despite this, the marriages prospered. When slavery first ended and the Civil Rights era began, the family values of the black culture put white culture to shame. Marriages lasted.
It is clear to me that the simple legal acknowledgement of a relationship as "marriage" is not what lends stability. Marriage is a term that is not so much defined as derived. It is the inherent qualities of marriage, the hormonal/chemical/physical/emotional/psychological workings of a sexually exclusive, opposite-sex couple that makes marriage what it is. Slapping the label on a group known for their promiscuity and short-term relationships will not transform them into upstanding pillars of family values.
This leads me back to an old SSM argument which claims that being able to legally marry will stabilize gay relationships, and the main reason why gays are so promiscuous and so many of their relationships are so short-lived is because they don't receive the state benefits. Frankly, the early information on the length of gay marriages in countries and states that permit them are not promising.
Gay activists like to pull race into the mix, comparing any disapproval at all with homosexual sex with the kind of racism that once enslaved an entire people. I'd like to pull in the racist angle and give it a bit of a twist.
When blacks were enslaved, they had no rights. They had no legal standing. Nevertheless, they married each other all the time. On 'friendlier' plantations, the master would oversee a pretty little ceremony. On less friendly places, they would hold their ceremonies quietly, but they still married and were given in marriage.
Now when I say that blacks have no rights, I should remind my readers that this went far beyond simply lacking tax status. They had no inheritance, because they could not own property. Furthermore, a master was fully able to sell the wife away from the husband, or their children away from their parents. The environment was not simply unfriendly to marriage among the black slaves. It was downright hostile.
And yet despite this, the marriages prospered. When slavery first ended and the Civil Rights era began, the family values of the black culture put white culture to shame. Marriages lasted.
It is clear to me that the simple legal acknowledgement of a relationship as "marriage" is not what lends stability. Marriage is a term that is not so much defined as derived. It is the inherent qualities of marriage, the hormonal/chemical/physical/emotional/psychological workings of a sexually exclusive, opposite-sex couple that makes marriage what it is. Slapping the label on a group known for their promiscuity and short-term relationships will not transform them into upstanding pillars of family values.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
So much for resolutions...
Of course I haven't posted in a while now. It seems that "real life" continues to intervene! For today, I have a piece that I wrote in response to a forum thread. The conversation shifted to various economic responses to various tax cuts and government spending.
The first gem was the reminder that the "Clinton Surplus" was created by a Republican Congress and finally passed after Clinton stonewalled it so hard that the entire government shut down for several weeks. In this post, I went into the reasons behind the recent economic problems and their results.
This is what happened in 2006:
Shortly after the Democrats swept Congress, there was a bursting of a gas bubble. Not a physical bubble, but an economic one. Refinery problems plus Middle East concerns plus an increased integration of ethanol worked together to bring gas prices up. Food prices followed quickly. Whenever gas prices go up, food prices go up, because grocery stores work on a shoestring budget. They make almost no profit. So when it costs more to transport food to the store, the items cost more.
Now in 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed by a Democrat majority Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA had good intentions... to end the practice of redlining, or refusing to sell homes in certain areas to minorities. However, it basically involved sending the government into real estate to enact something very much like Affirmative Action. It didn't impact us much, though, for nearly 20 years, because it didn't have much teeth.
That changed under President Clinton, who empowered Reno to set things into motion that would punish banks that didn't make enough loans to minorities who wanted to buy homes. The only problem was that the reason why fewer minorities were buying homes was because fewer minorities had the financial means and acumen to hold down a mortgage. The banks were ordered to make it work somehow, and the bank response was the Subprime Mortgage.
The Subprime Mortgage, like the Saltbox and the SUV, was something created by private industry trying to keep what they wanted/needed while skirting Federal regulations. In all three cases, you ended up with something that didn't have all of the advantages of what the government wanted to force or what the private groups originally used. (The SUV is a replacement for the Station Wagon that not only fails to meet sedan fuel economy, but it fails to approach station wagon fuel economy as well. The Saltbox has a partial upper story with a roof that drops to the first story on one side, resulting in a loss of useable space.)
These subprime loans were snapped up by people for whom they were and were not originally intended, creating a heavy demand for new and expensive housing. People who would have been steered towards a starter home were using subprimes to afford twice the house they would have purchased otherwise. We had a housing bubble. W Bush sounded the alarm multiple times, but Frank and Dodd staunchly refused to look into it. All of these subprime home owners were barely managing to make their finances work, and the slightest rise in any of their other bills would lead to disaster.
Then, of course, as mentioned above, the oil price went up. That started a comprehensive collapse that ended in failing banks, foreclosures/abandonments, and rampant unemployment in the construction industry. Unfortunately, instead of isolating this disaster and allowing it to burn itself out, Obama decided to ramp up federal spending, and now it's affecting private sectors that had nothing to do whatsoever with construction or mortgages.
And now the fix, being basically the "You still have to provide mortgages for minorities whether they can afford them or not, but you can't do it this way", is making it nigh impossible for smaller businesses to operate through lack of liquidity. The government we-can't-allow-banks-to-fail mindset has brought to a full stop the natural process of stronger banks buying weaker ones and fixing the problems naturally. Did you know that, at the beginning of the recession, if you had been saving up a little money during the good times, you could have any home renovation done well on the cheap? Before Obama intervened in hopes of getting people to refinance their mortgages, refinancing was easy and very useful. We did it ourselves. Now it's all but impossible unless you fit the narrow and confusing government standards.
Gas prices also started to fall as demand fell, but now the weak dollar plus inflation (both the result of government spending) kept prices up and are now primarily responsible for the current spike. Of course, every part of this, from an end to free checking (next month, I believe, part of Obamacare) to the 50-100% rise in basic food prices, to the tightening of loans and resulting unemployment, is impacting primarily the poor and the middle class.
In short, the particular Democrats who swept Congress in 2006 (aside from Dodd/Frank and other members of the Old Guard) really were no more responsible for the beginning of the recession than W Bush was for the tech bubble burst and 9/11. It's what they've done with it since that has landed us in the Pit of Despair.
The first gem was the reminder that the "Clinton Surplus" was created by a Republican Congress and finally passed after Clinton stonewalled it so hard that the entire government shut down for several weeks. In this post, I went into the reasons behind the recent economic problems and their results.
This is what happened in 2006:
Shortly after the Democrats swept Congress, there was a bursting of a gas bubble. Not a physical bubble, but an economic one. Refinery problems plus Middle East concerns plus an increased integration of ethanol worked together to bring gas prices up. Food prices followed quickly. Whenever gas prices go up, food prices go up, because grocery stores work on a shoestring budget. They make almost no profit. So when it costs more to transport food to the store, the items cost more.
Now in 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed by a Democrat majority Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA had good intentions... to end the practice of redlining, or refusing to sell homes in certain areas to minorities. However, it basically involved sending the government into real estate to enact something very much like Affirmative Action. It didn't impact us much, though, for nearly 20 years, because it didn't have much teeth.
That changed under President Clinton, who empowered Reno to set things into motion that would punish banks that didn't make enough loans to minorities who wanted to buy homes. The only problem was that the reason why fewer minorities were buying homes was because fewer minorities had the financial means and acumen to hold down a mortgage. The banks were ordered to make it work somehow, and the bank response was the Subprime Mortgage.
The Subprime Mortgage, like the Saltbox and the SUV, was something created by private industry trying to keep what they wanted/needed while skirting Federal regulations. In all three cases, you ended up with something that didn't have all of the advantages of what the government wanted to force or what the private groups originally used. (The SUV is a replacement for the Station Wagon that not only fails to meet sedan fuel economy, but it fails to approach station wagon fuel economy as well. The Saltbox has a partial upper story with a roof that drops to the first story on one side, resulting in a loss of useable space.)
These subprime loans were snapped up by people for whom they were and were not originally intended, creating a heavy demand for new and expensive housing. People who would have been steered towards a starter home were using subprimes to afford twice the house they would have purchased otherwise. We had a housing bubble. W Bush sounded the alarm multiple times, but Frank and Dodd staunchly refused to look into it. All of these subprime home owners were barely managing to make their finances work, and the slightest rise in any of their other bills would lead to disaster.
Then, of course, as mentioned above, the oil price went up. That started a comprehensive collapse that ended in failing banks, foreclosures/abandonments, and rampant unemployment in the construction industry. Unfortunately, instead of isolating this disaster and allowing it to burn itself out, Obama decided to ramp up federal spending, and now it's affecting private sectors that had nothing to do whatsoever with construction or mortgages.
And now the fix, being basically the "You still have to provide mortgages for minorities whether they can afford them or not, but you can't do it this way", is making it nigh impossible for smaller businesses to operate through lack of liquidity. The government we-can't-allow-banks-to-fail mindset has brought to a full stop the natural process of stronger banks buying weaker ones and fixing the problems naturally. Did you know that, at the beginning of the recession, if you had been saving up a little money during the good times, you could have any home renovation done well on the cheap? Before Obama intervened in hopes of getting people to refinance their mortgages, refinancing was easy and very useful. We did it ourselves. Now it's all but impossible unless you fit the narrow and confusing government standards.
Gas prices also started to fall as demand fell, but now the weak dollar plus inflation (both the result of government spending) kept prices up and are now primarily responsible for the current spike. Of course, every part of this, from an end to free checking (next month, I believe, part of Obamacare) to the 50-100% rise in basic food prices, to the tightening of loans and resulting unemployment, is impacting primarily the poor and the middle class.
In short, the particular Democrats who swept Congress in 2006 (aside from Dodd/Frank and other members of the Old Guard) really were no more responsible for the beginning of the recession than W Bush was for the tech bubble burst and 9/11. It's what they've done with it since that has landed us in the Pit of Despair.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Responsibility for education
In Florida, a State Representative has proposed increasing parental involvement in childhood education by having public school teachers grade the parents. Of course, there are many angles in describing the problems with this proposal. A friend of mine who is a Florida-certified to teach and knows the local public schools told me that the parents should be the ones grading the teachers.
On the plus side, the proposal does address a problem that is very real in today's society. Too many parents don't have enough involvement in their children's education. The question in my mind is, will this proposal solve or worsen the problem? I believe that it is a treatment of a symptom rather than the ending of a societal disease.
In Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird, young Scout does not take easily to school. Her teacher is appalled when she discovers that Scout knows not only how to read, but how to write cursive. Her father has spent so much time reading with her in the evenings, and her housekeeper copied out words for her to practice when she wanted something to do. The teacher is adamant that this is wrong.
Combine these two together and you have, nurtured for about 50 years by the Liberal Left, the belief that it is the job of parents to work outside the home while leaving the matter of their children's education in the hands of government officials and "properly-trained" instructors. I note that one of the biggest questions I hear as a homeschooling mother is, "How do you know that you're qualified to teach your child?" Before the '60's and its various revolutions, such a question would have been downright laughable. Who is better qualified to teach a child than the people whose genetics created him or her?
Of course, as with many such reforms, we are now discovering that parental involvement does in fact have a strongly positive effect on a child's education. What is the solution? Although Representative Stargel is listed as a Republican, she offers the very liberal proposal that the Government, having discouraged parents from involvement, must now mandate parental involvement for the exact same reason... the good of the children. This is worse than the purported ambulance-in-the-valley solution for the lack of fence on the dangerous cliff. This is tantamount to removing an already-present fence on the cliff before instituting the ambulance in the valley.
On the plus side, the proposal does address a problem that is very real in today's society. Too many parents don't have enough involvement in their children's education. The question in my mind is, will this proposal solve or worsen the problem? I believe that it is a treatment of a symptom rather than the ending of a societal disease.
In Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird, young Scout does not take easily to school. Her teacher is appalled when she discovers that Scout knows not only how to read, but how to write cursive. Her father has spent so much time reading with her in the evenings, and her housekeeper copied out words for her to practice when she wanted something to do. The teacher is adamant that this is wrong.
"Now you tell your father not to teach you any more. It's best to begin reading with a fresh mind. You tell him I'll take over from here and try to undo the damage-"This book was published in 1960 and referred to the rise of new teaching methods including the much-lampooned "New Math" in public school systems. The adjoining message, naturally, was that these methods would be compromised if all these parents kept thinking that they could do the job of teaching their children how to learn. The movement coincided with the Feminist Movement, which championed pushing mothers, against their will if necessary, to leave their child-rearing and climb the career ladder.
"Ma'am?"
"Your father does not know how to teach. You can have a seat now."
Combine these two together and you have, nurtured for about 50 years by the Liberal Left, the belief that it is the job of parents to work outside the home while leaving the matter of their children's education in the hands of government officials and "properly-trained" instructors. I note that one of the biggest questions I hear as a homeschooling mother is, "How do you know that you're qualified to teach your child?" Before the '60's and its various revolutions, such a question would have been downright laughable. Who is better qualified to teach a child than the people whose genetics created him or her?
Of course, as with many such reforms, we are now discovering that parental involvement does in fact have a strongly positive effect on a child's education. What is the solution? Although Representative Stargel is listed as a Republican, she offers the very liberal proposal that the Government, having discouraged parents from involvement, must now mandate parental involvement for the exact same reason... the good of the children. This is worse than the purported ambulance-in-the-valley solution for the lack of fence on the dangerous cliff. This is tantamount to removing an already-present fence on the cliff before instituting the ambulance in the valley.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)