Now that you have wiped your tears from your proud eyes America, can you please take a look at the ruse you have bought into? Listen. No question, we are in a world of hurt in America... who is to blame? Who cares? Bush? A Democratic Party contoled congress? Let's be fair here. Everyone is at fault when we look to the government! But I really urge you all Right. Left. Middle. The sound coming out of Washington is FEAR! Our future is at stake and we can't allow this government to threaten us into morgaging our children's future for special interest and programs that don't have any thing to do with directly helping to energize the economy!
FEAR!
"President warns that failure to act on package now exceeding $920 billion could plunge the nation into a long-lasting recession that might prove irreversible." (foxnews.com)
This is a direct THREAT!
This is just the tip of the iceberg folks! Are we going to just sit back and be extored for the next four years? IT IS EXTORTION!!! How different is it from, "You're gonna give Guido the Nose 50% of your profit or your gonna be wearing concrete shoes at the bottom of the river..."? Can we please get reasonable and see what is going on for what it is?
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Let's stop agreeing already!
So... so far we agree. While I hate government being involved (i.e. caseworkers) in people's finances, obviously, the private sector has done a less than splendid job themselves. So, maybe something new is in order there...
Now. Here is a statement that may be offensive. And frankly, I don't put it out there in ignorance... I had the abortionists blood on my hands too but please consider this:
Aborted fetus number:
3,361,872
Cure for cancer
17,926,471
Cure for Alzheimer's
21,445,160
Inventor of simple and inexpensive alternative fuel
37,897,585
Cure for HIV/AIDS
43,414,753
Cure for common cold
55,965,478
Inventor of teleportation
61,521,456
Cure for paralysis
64,451,012
Inventor of gravitational protection field to protect vehicles from collision
78,785,939
World leader bringing liberation, independence, autonomy and peace between each
80,000,000 Coming this week...
How much was that "little problem" worth?
Now. Here is a statement that may be offensive. And frankly, I don't put it out there in ignorance... I had the abortionists blood on my hands too but please consider this:
Aborted fetus number:
3,361,872
Cure for cancer
17,926,471
Cure for Alzheimer's
21,445,160
Inventor of simple and inexpensive alternative fuel
37,897,585
Cure for HIV/AIDS
43,414,753
Cure for common cold
55,965,478
Inventor of teleportation
61,521,456
Cure for paralysis
64,451,012
Inventor of gravitational protection field to protect vehicles from collision
78,785,939
World leader bringing liberation, independence, autonomy and peace between each
80,000,000 Coming this week...
How much was that "little problem" worth?
Friday, January 16, 2009
Are you there Obama? It's me Sandy.
I have to apologize to Andy for being in blogging hibernation this winter. Now that 2009 is here and on track I can get down to the serious business of refuting Andy's crazy idea... wait a minute. I agree with his first two posts. I think gays should be allowed civil unions and I definitely feel less strongly about gay marriage in the religious sense, but mostly because most religions (the biggies anyway) don't condone their gayness anyway. As long as they are considered next of kin by law, I think that would cover most issues.
I have also been going over in my head why this bailout money was given to the banks and corporations and not directly to the people a la FEMA cards. Here is a very rough sketch of how it might work:
1. You set up the Federal Emergency Homeower Assistance program (FEHA).
2. Establish some guidelines for qualifications eg, you are in Foreclosure, you have lost your job, or lost your spouse in Iraq etc
3. Homeowners apply for a fixed rate loan at 5%, almost like a refinance situation and are approved or denied. Then government cuts the bank a check, takes over your mortgage at the current market value of your home.
4. You pay your mortgage back to the government over the next 15-40 years.
I'm sure there are some major gaping holes in this plan, but I think it solves two issues: the banks get paid, and the people who are in trouble with adjustable rate mortgages are given a more reasonable option of paying market value at a fixed rate. Additionally, the homeowner is required to complete a course on financial responsibility, or case workers can be assigned to assist them in staying on track.
Assuming all goes well and the homeowner pays the government back at that interest rate, we'd double the money initially lent to the individual. If even given these circumstances, the homeowner defaults on the government loan, they would then act as any bank would - foreclose and resell.
I still think with this model there is accountibility for the funds and it would have cost less than just handing over $350b to banks.
I have also been going over in my head why this bailout money was given to the banks and corporations and not directly to the people a la FEMA cards. Here is a very rough sketch of how it might work:
1. You set up the Federal Emergency Homeower Assistance program (FEHA).
2. Establish some guidelines for qualifications eg, you are in Foreclosure, you have lost your job, or lost your spouse in Iraq etc
3. Homeowners apply for a fixed rate loan at 5%, almost like a refinance situation and are approved or denied. Then government cuts the bank a check, takes over your mortgage at the current market value of your home.
4. You pay your mortgage back to the government over the next 15-40 years.
I'm sure there are some major gaping holes in this plan, but I think it solves two issues: the banks get paid, and the people who are in trouble with adjustable rate mortgages are given a more reasonable option of paying market value at a fixed rate. Additionally, the homeowner is required to complete a course on financial responsibility, or case workers can be assigned to assist them in staying on track.
Assuming all goes well and the homeowner pays the government back at that interest rate, we'd double the money initially lent to the individual. If even given these circumstances, the homeowner defaults on the government loan, they would then act as any bank would - foreclose and resell.
I still think with this model there is accountibility for the funds and it would have cost less than just handing over $350b to banks.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Hey dude. Where's my bailout?
Seriously. How is it that "We the People" are sitting around with our heads in the sand while our form of Government and Financial System die a natural death, are killed or commit suicide as we whistle in the dark? Everyone, or nearly everyone sits transfixed on the Dow Jones daily and ride the emotional roller coaster that we hate to love but love none the less in a sadistic way. I heard an analyst say "Everyone seems to know minute by minute what the market is doing and yet no one has a clue what is going on in their own accounts!"
Folks. We all are so caught up in our social causes because we somehow feel that we can make a difference if we yell loudly enough about why our kids can't sing Christmas Carols in public school or why we can't "marry" our same sex partner! The structure of our Government and Financial System are crumbling around us and we either don't know it or are just so caught up in our social causes that we don't care! We need to start treating our social causes like hobbies or extra curricular activities and begin to get really serious about righting this ship!
I mean it. Has anyone actually called their Senator or Congressman? Faxed them? Emailed them? I have, though it has been proven to me that as far as my Congressman goes, my opinion doesn't count (in fact if he really does represent the views of his constituents, I may well be living in Cuba). But we have to at least pay attention to what is going on in our Government and let our voice be heard. Be a pain in the ass to your Senator and Congressman!
The bail out thing is really so totally messed up! Did you know that if you took all the bail out money so far doled out and gave it equally to every individual man, woman and child in America, each and everyone, EVERY individual person, no matter how old or young would receive $265,657.00! What if they actually distributed the money in a "stimulus" package like that, but made parameters on how it could be spent? Paying your mortgage. Buying vehicles (extra credit for American made cars). Paying credit card debt. Travel to American destinations for vacation. Invest in retirement accounts. Insurance. Increase the list as you like... Would this not put everyone on a level playing field? Would the less fortunate not be given the break that they need?
Why can't the Government come up with a plan where the PEOPLE benefit from these bail outs? Why? Because the people can't be TRUSTED. THE PEOPLE CAN'T BE TRUSTED? But in what bizzaro world are financial institutions and car company executives trustworthy?!?! The Government could easily give the money to the people, in the form of a debit card that has restrictions on how the money is spent (for obvious reasons). I mean that's exactly how food stamps are used these days and how FEMA cards are regulated after a natural disaster! It's not as if we don't know how to do these things. Would the entire system not benefit if we could get the money in our hands?!?!?
I have had it!!! Does ANYONE care?
Why can't they just take the money that the Government is giving to the Big 3 automakers (against even congress's will and therefore the people's I may add) and give each American family money or a voucher that the must used to buy an American car? Would each of us buying an American car of our choice not keep those businesses afloat? Come off it! Is there an original idea out there that will help us all?
When are we going to take our Government back?
It is supposed to be a Government "Of the people, by the people and for the people". Right? RIGHT! Because to complete that statement... if WE THE PEOPLE don't do something soon... it will most certainly... "Perish from the Earth".
Please read the following... it is awesome!
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10454087/1/opinion-fed-back-in-the-ussr.html
Folks. We all are so caught up in our social causes because we somehow feel that we can make a difference if we yell loudly enough about why our kids can't sing Christmas Carols in public school or why we can't "marry" our same sex partner! The structure of our Government and Financial System are crumbling around us and we either don't know it or are just so caught up in our social causes that we don't care! We need to start treating our social causes like hobbies or extra curricular activities and begin to get really serious about righting this ship!
I mean it. Has anyone actually called their Senator or Congressman? Faxed them? Emailed them? I have, though it has been proven to me that as far as my Congressman goes, my opinion doesn't count (in fact if he really does represent the views of his constituents, I may well be living in Cuba). But we have to at least pay attention to what is going on in our Government and let our voice be heard. Be a pain in the ass to your Senator and Congressman!
The bail out thing is really so totally messed up! Did you know that if you took all the bail out money so far doled out and gave it equally to every individual man, woman and child in America, each and everyone, EVERY individual person, no matter how old or young would receive $265,657.00! What if they actually distributed the money in a "stimulus" package like that, but made parameters on how it could be spent? Paying your mortgage. Buying vehicles (extra credit for American made cars). Paying credit card debt. Travel to American destinations for vacation. Invest in retirement accounts. Insurance. Increase the list as you like... Would this not put everyone on a level playing field? Would the less fortunate not be given the break that they need?
Why can't the Government come up with a plan where the PEOPLE benefit from these bail outs? Why? Because the people can't be TRUSTED. THE PEOPLE CAN'T BE TRUSTED? But in what bizzaro world are financial institutions and car company executives trustworthy?!?! The Government could easily give the money to the people, in the form of a debit card that has restrictions on how the money is spent (for obvious reasons). I mean that's exactly how food stamps are used these days and how FEMA cards are regulated after a natural disaster! It's not as if we don't know how to do these things. Would the entire system not benefit if we could get the money in our hands?!?!?
I have had it!!! Does ANYONE care?
Why can't they just take the money that the Government is giving to the Big 3 automakers (against even congress's will and therefore the people's I may add) and give each American family money or a voucher that the must used to buy an American car? Would each of us buying an American car of our choice not keep those businesses afloat? Come off it! Is there an original idea out there that will help us all?
When are we going to take our Government back?
It is supposed to be a Government "Of the people, by the people and for the people". Right? RIGHT! Because to complete that statement... if WE THE PEOPLE don't do something soon... it will most certainly... "Perish from the Earth".
Please read the following... it is awesome!
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10454087/1/opinion-fed-back-in-the-ussr.html
Friday, November 14, 2008
What is marriage anyway? And why are gay people so violently in favor of it?
Put down your rotten tomatoes and cabbage, my blue state comrades! Take off your cross stompers, my homo-anarchists friends! I just want to express a couple of views that are not meant to condemn anyone but to put everyone on a level playing field when it comes to this whole marriage thing. Specifically this same sex marriage issue. Actually, I want to talk about the institution of marriage on the whole and how it is, that more than half of those who engage in marriage cannot seem to stay with it.
It strikes me funny that gay people are so intent on getting in on something that at least 50% of the straight people who get into it, can't seem to get out of fast enough!
Whether you want to believe it or not, religion is NOT what a state says it is. Or what the voters say it is. Or what a judge says it is.
Marriage, is a religious institution. We can twist it or marginalize it all we want but that is a fact. Marriage is about two people (a man and woman as defined by all religious doctrine) who become one flesh in the eyes of God. In religious terms it goes even farther. It's purpose under the Catholic faith was, from it's origins, specifically for procreation and the extension of the church. Today in nearly all non-Judea Christian religious circles, marriage is meant as a means to multiply the numbers living in faith to whatever religion the couple follows. We can look as closely as Europe to see the booming numbers of Muslims and how they dwarf the rate of multiplication in Christian, Jewish and Humanist families. Whether intentional or not the end result will inevitably be on overwhelming majority of Muslims in Europe as compared to non-Muslims (which is beyond the point...)
The point is that "Marriage" is a religious principle (sacrament or what have you) that at until fairly recently was not open to a civil definition (it has only been over the last 100-150 years). As Christians, we have been given a biblical directive that we must submit to, support and obey the laws of the land and government in which we live. Meaning, that though we may well not agree with whatever the official civil stance, yet we still must respect it and honor it. Example being, that we may not like or agree with our leader's agenda but we must pray for and be respectful of that leader.
There is one major exception however. Being when a law, leader or governing body supports or tries to legislate from a position that is in violation of biblical law. That brush could obviously be quite wide or narrow depending on the believer. However for the sake of argument let's just say the believer is not fanatical and is not unreasonable in their interpretation of the bible. While I do believe in the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God. I also have to use some common sense. There are many laws stated in the bible that are simply absurd in relation to modern society. However, marriage and the biblical laws in relation to marriage are quite consistent throughout the bible, from the very beginning in the book of Genesis with Adam and Eve. One man and one woman, of one flesh, made in the image of God Himself. Therefore it is clear that once the civil authority has begun to venture outside of the biblical definition of marriage to be anything but one man and one woman, it is time for a change in the Christian's stance on civil union.
Why is it that we have made and continue to make marriage the benchmark at which we categorize the parameters by which couples are considered for insurance, rights to visitation during hospitalization, taxes and the like? As far as the civil legalities, I think the time has come for the government on all levels to begin to classify every legal union (whether it be heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise) as a civil union. Frankly, we all know (whether or not we want to acknowledge it) that the battle about same sex marriage is less about the rights that come with marriage and more about the semantic hijacking of the word "marriage". It's all a name game... "Husbands" and "Wives" and "Married" couples. Give me a break! Let's face the facts!
Let’s allow the word and principle of marriage to stay where it belongs… in the church and before the eyes of God who created the idea in the first place. Let the government govern. Let "civil union" be the new standard at which we measure the means by which couples rights and benefits, tax rates and the like come. Marriage ought best be left to the church. If you really want to be "married... go to a church... meet with a clergyman who has authority under that particular churches law to marry couples and if you meet the requirements of that denomination... be married... at the alter... on God's ground! If you are gay and want to be married and have a religious leaning and really want to be "married", go to a denomination that accepts homosexuality and gay marriage and by all means get married. But marriage in the church should NOT in anyway be accepted by the civil authorities. Civil unions should have standards that are established by the state and governed by the state alone. Not the church.
But if in fact what is important to you are the rights that are given to heterosexual "married" couples, then certainly a civil union that will establish those equal rights will be adequate. Otherwise, the whole battle that we are all engaged in on some level is simply a ruse over a word. "Marriage".
A friend on my Facebook stated after Connecticut allowed for same sex marriage... "Separation of church and state! Way to go Connecticut!"
Well, I can't agree with you more my friend. Let's separate the church institution of marriage from every state! Let's let the church and its sacraments be separated from the state. Permanently!
And that "separation of church and state" thing is something I am going to tackle in an upcoming blog but suffice to say, those of you who scream that all the time don't even know what that means! (hint... it's NOT in the constitution. At least not in the context that you want it to represent. But. Alas. That is for another day!)
Anyway...
I have referenced an article from the New York Times (I know... can you believe) that I felt really spoke to this subject. It's worth the read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?ref=opinion
Until next time. Remember. I'm a lovah not a fightah.
Andy
It strikes me funny that gay people are so intent on getting in on something that at least 50% of the straight people who get into it, can't seem to get out of fast enough!
Whether you want to believe it or not, religion is NOT what a state says it is. Or what the voters say it is. Or what a judge says it is.
Marriage, is a religious institution. We can twist it or marginalize it all we want but that is a fact. Marriage is about two people (a man and woman as defined by all religious doctrine) who become one flesh in the eyes of God. In religious terms it goes even farther. It's purpose under the Catholic faith was, from it's origins, specifically for procreation and the extension of the church. Today in nearly all non-Judea Christian religious circles, marriage is meant as a means to multiply the numbers living in faith to whatever religion the couple follows. We can look as closely as Europe to see the booming numbers of Muslims and how they dwarf the rate of multiplication in Christian, Jewish and Humanist families. Whether intentional or not the end result will inevitably be on overwhelming majority of Muslims in Europe as compared to non-Muslims (which is beyond the point...)
The point is that "Marriage" is a religious principle (sacrament or what have you) that at until fairly recently was not open to a civil definition (it has only been over the last 100-150 years). As Christians, we have been given a biblical directive that we must submit to, support and obey the laws of the land and government in which we live. Meaning, that though we may well not agree with whatever the official civil stance, yet we still must respect it and honor it. Example being, that we may not like or agree with our leader's agenda but we must pray for and be respectful of that leader.
There is one major exception however. Being when a law, leader or governing body supports or tries to legislate from a position that is in violation of biblical law. That brush could obviously be quite wide or narrow depending on the believer. However for the sake of argument let's just say the believer is not fanatical and is not unreasonable in their interpretation of the bible. While I do believe in the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God. I also have to use some common sense. There are many laws stated in the bible that are simply absurd in relation to modern society. However, marriage and the biblical laws in relation to marriage are quite consistent throughout the bible, from the very beginning in the book of Genesis with Adam and Eve. One man and one woman, of one flesh, made in the image of God Himself. Therefore it is clear that once the civil authority has begun to venture outside of the biblical definition of marriage to be anything but one man and one woman, it is time for a change in the Christian's stance on civil union.
Why is it that we have made and continue to make marriage the benchmark at which we categorize the parameters by which couples are considered for insurance, rights to visitation during hospitalization, taxes and the like? As far as the civil legalities, I think the time has come for the government on all levels to begin to classify every legal union (whether it be heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise) as a civil union. Frankly, we all know (whether or not we want to acknowledge it) that the battle about same sex marriage is less about the rights that come with marriage and more about the semantic hijacking of the word "marriage". It's all a name game... "Husbands" and "Wives" and "Married" couples. Give me a break! Let's face the facts!
Let’s allow the word and principle of marriage to stay where it belongs… in the church and before the eyes of God who created the idea in the first place. Let the government govern. Let "civil union" be the new standard at which we measure the means by which couples rights and benefits, tax rates and the like come. Marriage ought best be left to the church. If you really want to be "married... go to a church... meet with a clergyman who has authority under that particular churches law to marry couples and if you meet the requirements of that denomination... be married... at the alter... on God's ground! If you are gay and want to be married and have a religious leaning and really want to be "married", go to a denomination that accepts homosexuality and gay marriage and by all means get married. But marriage in the church should NOT in anyway be accepted by the civil authorities. Civil unions should have standards that are established by the state and governed by the state alone. Not the church.
But if in fact what is important to you are the rights that are given to heterosexual "married" couples, then certainly a civil union that will establish those equal rights will be adequate. Otherwise, the whole battle that we are all engaged in on some level is simply a ruse over a word. "Marriage".
A friend on my Facebook stated after Connecticut allowed for same sex marriage... "Separation of church and state! Way to go Connecticut!"
Well, I can't agree with you more my friend. Let's separate the church institution of marriage from every state! Let's let the church and its sacraments be separated from the state. Permanently!
And that "separation of church and state" thing is something I am going to tackle in an upcoming blog but suffice to say, those of you who scream that all the time don't even know what that means! (hint... it's NOT in the constitution. At least not in the context that you want it to represent. But. Alas. That is for another day!)
Anyway...
I have referenced an article from the New York Times (I know... can you believe) that I felt really spoke to this subject. It's worth the read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?ref=opinion
Until next time. Remember. I'm a lovah not a fightah.
Andy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
