|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Everything in quotes is from Obama's website under his plans for the economy. My reaction to each quote follows.
"They will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world."
Why is it frowned upon (because it destroys native cultures) for people
like me to want to spread good moral standards and the Gospel of Christ
around the world, but it's good to spread "our" ideas about what the
workplace should look like and how people should relate to the
enviroment?
"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will raise the minimum wage, index it to
inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that
full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their
families and pay for basic needs."
Whoa. So the minimum wage will go up automatically when prices go up.
Wait, if labor costs go up, won't prices need to go up more. If that
happens, the minimum wage would be kicked up again. How will this help
people who have sufficient human capital to be worth more than the
minimum wage? I would guess that those people (people like me) would be
less likely to get a raise because more of the money would go to the
minimum wage earners.
Also, what right does the government have to force a business to pay
someone anything? Businesses don't exist to make sure people can pay
for their basic needs, they exist to make money. This sounds
suspiciously like the unfunded mandates that the federal government
passes down on states for schools. I suppose the big difference would
be that with education, at least it's the government telling another
government what to do...
"Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry: Obama
has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years,
and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight
mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices."
Wait a minute. Wasn't it Barrack Obama who worked with community groups
to get poor people into homes by threatening financial institutions
with messy lawsuits about discrimination against poor people? The
problem isn't a lack of regulation, the problem is that we've been
begging financial institutions to make bad loans. Because the loans are
very risky, the investors will demand high returns. What might look
like "abusive lending practices" to someone looking simply at rates,
would look like gutsy lending practices to someone who looks at credit
scores, loan to value comparisons, and debt to income ratios.
"Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure: Obama and Biden will create a
Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will provide
potential borrowers with a simplified, standardized borrower metric
(similar to APR) for home mortgages. The HOME score will allow
individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand
the full cost of the loan."
We already have this. It's called the Truth in Lending act of 1968.
Check it out sometime. If a person isn't smart enough to understand the
true cost of a loan with the way that law requires the numbers to be
laid out, they won't understand the true cost of a loan regardless of
how it's spelled out.
"# Establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to Protect Consumers: Obama
and Biden will create a Credit Card Bill of Rights to protect
consumers. The Obama-Biden plan will:
* Ban Unilateral Changes
* Apply Interest Rate Increases Only to Future Debt
* Prohibit Interest on Fees
* Prohibit "Universal Defaults"
* Require Prompt and Fair Crediting of Cardholder Payments"
I don't really like this one either. Right now, I carry a significant
balance on a card at an intro rate of 0%. Chase lets me do that because
they figure that I won't pay off that big balance when the intro rate
is gone, so they'll be able to make money off of me. If a law required
them to let me keep that intro rate on the balance that I already have,
they wouldn't let me rack up that balance for free. Bottom line: I
think these changes would end the 0% offers I get, and make it much
harder to get a credit card. This sounds good because we don't want
evil credit card companies to make money off of the poor unsuspecting
consumer, but the reality is that if the companies are banned from
making a bunch of money off of this (meaning they will have a lower
return), they will be more choosy about who they lend money to (or they
will not tolerate as much risk). If you take the money out of it, they
will take the risk out of it. I kinda enjoy bouncing big balances
around to different cards for free. I realize that for every consumer
like me, there need to be about five idiots who are paying interest and
fees through the nose to make it all worthwhile for the card issuers.
"Cap Outlandish Interest Rates on Payday Loans and Improve Disclosure:
Obama and Biden will extend a 36 percent interest cap to all Americans.
They will require lenders to provide clear and simplified information
about loan fees, payments and penalties, which is why they'll require
lenders to provide this information during the application process."
This will kill the payday loan industry (lower returns will always
result in lower risk) because no one will lend to a guy with a 450
credit score if they can only get 36%. I guess I'm ok with this one
though. I don't think I personally get any benefit from this gross
exploitation of stupid consumers, and I really don't know of anyone
else who does either (except for the owners and employees in the
industry, and of course, the government who gets tax dollars off of
it). I just think it's sad that so many people are so stupid that we
have to have the government step in to say that we can't exploit that
stupidity anymore. Those people will probably turn to credit cards
until the Obama changes result in tightening of guidelines to the point
that they can't get a card.
"Encourage Responsible Lending Institutions to Make Small Consumer
Loans: Obama and Biden will encourage banks, credit unions and
Community Development Financial Institutions to provide affordable
short-term and small-dollar loans and to drive unscrupulous lenders out
of business."
This one is really dumb. Because Obama wants to put the payday lenders
out of business, now he's going to try to replace that industry with
the local bank. The problem is, no bank will loan to the idiots who go
for the payday loans; it's too risky! I'm worried about this because
it's the same mess that lead to this mortgage crisis. If the government
"encourages" local banks to make bad loans, and the banks actually
start doing it, they will see losses. This could result in more bank
failures. I kinda wonder if Obama just wants to nationalize all banks...
"Reform Bankruptcy Laws to Protect Families Facing a Medical Crisis:
Obama and Biden will create an exemption in bankruptcy law for
individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical
expenses. This exemption will create a process that forgives the debt
and lets the individuals get back on their feet."
More unfunded mandates! If you go broke because of medical bills, the
government will force your bank to let you off the hook for your house?
This will probably make it more likely that people will elect to not
buy health insurance. Of course, when that happens, Obama can say that
we have a crisis because there are so many uninsured people out there
and really push for nationalized health care.
I don't think I want to take the time to read each section carefully.
This section scares me enough. I decided a long time ago that I would
always choose an anti-abortion candidate over a pro-choice candidate,
but if Obama was just as anti-abortion as Sarah Palin, I would still
have a clear choice. These policies will really kill the economy. | | |
| Check these out:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081012/pl_nm/us_financial_usa_stimulus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgctSIL8Lhs
The first link is the article that prompted me to write this, and the
second is a link to a clip from a Fox News report that I saw on TV a
few days ago. The clip is only 3:12 long, but I think there was more to
it than that. If you look around you might be able to find the whole
thing.
Anyway, in addition to the stupid Americans (about 40 million of them)
who decided to buy more house than they could afford, I blame this
crisis on FDR (for entitlement programs) LBJ (for the "great society"
crap) and all of the politicians who've been shoving the "home
ownership dream" down the throats of the public (I remember seeing Pres
Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and our buddy Barney Frank in the report).
The blame doesn't stop there, though. I also blame Bush for not pushing
for his SS overhaul harder (in spite of Katrina) and pushing harder to
do something about Fanny and Freddie back in 2005 (or was it 2003 or
2004?). I blame McCain for not pushing his ideas (also about Fannie and
Freddie), back in 2004 or so, harder. I blame the other republicans for
not jumping on board with Bush's SS idea and McCain's Fanny and Freddie
idea.
I also blame the media. If they weren't so focused on the "war" in
Iraq, hurricane coverages, and all of the random stupid stuff that
comes up (troopergate?) maybe the public would be a little bit more
informed about the problems.
It's all a moot point now, though. Obama's going to win and the
democrats will probably pick up a bunch more seats in the legislature.
Together, they'll send spending through the roof (if you thought Bush
was bad, just wait) on even more social programs to make people feel
good about their irresponsibility, make the supreme court liberal again
(probably worse than before), roll back executive orders, laws,
policies, and court desicions that have helped make 2007 the most
pro-life year since 1972 (though there were still at least 800,000
abortions in 2007), and try to talk the terrorists to death while they
re-arm. | | |
| I want to talk about biases. I'll explain some of mine right now. I'm going to vote for John McCain in November, and I urge you to for for him as well. I'm biased in favor of McCain and I will concieously and unconcieously slip things in that will make you think more highly of him.
Unfortunately, most people don't tell you their bias up front.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080712/ap_on_el_pr/obama_contrast
That link goes to an AP news article by Liz Sidoti currently titled: "Analysis: Obama revels in contrasts with McCain" I don't know how long the link will work so do read it now. I consider myself to be an informed and careful reader, and I want to point out few things about this article. Hopefully this will help you to become more informed and a more careful reader.
First of all, please note that the piece is called an "analysis" so it is an opinion piece. Unfortunately, it was one of the five or so headlines on the main yahoo page, so most people would think of it as just another news article. This is important because this article is full of the opinions of the liberal (more on why I say that later) author.
Look at the fourth paragraph:
"In McCain, the likely Democratic nominee faces an opponent who is the opposite of him in every way — an Iraq war backer who supports free-market economics, opposes abortion rights and is a Republican...."
This is not a quote or paraphrase of what Obama says about McCain, this is Liz's charaterization of McCain. She lists McCain's support of "the Iraq war" first (arguably his most unpopular position, more on this later) and says that he "opposes abortion rights." Watch out! McCain wants to take your rights away! Naturally, Obama is the opposite: against "the Iraq war," and wants you to keep your rights; he's a champion for you!
The "Iraq war." What does that even mean anymore? Most people look back on 2002 and 2003 and say that we never should have invaded Iraq; Saddaam wasn't hurting us, why did we need to take him out? The people that think that forget that they've had five years of the media telling them constantly that Iraq was no threat to us, American soldiers are dying every day (even now, five years later, we still get a daily casualty report), and the Iraqis don't want us there.
Let me paint a different picture for you. Under Saddaam, the Shiite majority had no say, the Kurds were being executed by the thousands just for being Kurds (naturally, they had no say either), and women couldn't do little things like vote, get an education, and have a job. Saddaam also liked to tell people that he had a bunch of big bad weapons (which we know he made in the 80s and early 90s) so we'd better do what he says, he fought an eight year war with one neighbor (Iran), and invaded another (Kuwait). He also controlled the power grid so that the 5 million or so people in Bahgdad almost always had electricity, but the other 17 million people in the country (especially outside of the big cities) usually didn't. Saddaam didn't care much for educating people that he didn't think had value (like Kurds and women) and liked to torture and kill people that made him mad (like olympic athleates who didn't win).
Note the part about him saying that he had big bad weapons (WMDs). If you also had people who were oppressed by Saddaam and got out telling you that he was arming himself with WMDs, would you want to take him out? Bush did.
Now we have an Iraq where the people all get electricity as it is available (about 60 percent of the time, I've read, so the 5 million in Bahgdad will be ticked, but the 17 million elsewhere will be happy), education is available to everyone, including minorities and women, all adults can vote and run for office if they want, and people who don't live up to the expectations of the government are no longer tourtured and killed.
My question is, would we be better off if Saddaam was still in power and we didn't really know if he was a threat, or are we better off now that we know Saddaam won't suddenly invade another neighbor or fire off a biological warhead at Israel. The majority of the Iraqi people are better off (some aren't, but most are). If you think we're better off now, then you think it was a good idea to take out Saddaam. Frankly, if Bush hadn't taken out Saddaam, I'm convinced that Kerry would have run on a them of "get him [Saddaam] out" instead of "get us out [of Iraq]," Bush would have been accused of making a bad choice either way.
That's still not the whole "Iraq war" issue though. No one can change the fact that we took out Saddaam. Now the question is how do we put the country back together? Or, for that matter, do we need to put the country back together? McCain had been saying for a long time that we needed more troops on the ground over there. He was right. Remember though why we didn't invade with 250,000 troops in the first place. We thought the Iraqi people wouldn't want to see an American soldier on every street corner; we weren't going in as an occupying force to control them, we were going in as a security force to protect them from each other. I think we made a mistake there, but we can't take it back, so it's largely irrelevent now.
The big difference between Obama and McCain on this issue is simply that Obama wants to get our troops out right away, and McCain cares about the Iraqi people; he doesn't want us to stop protecting them from themselves until they are ready to do it themselves (they're almost there, btw). Mike Huckabee (my first choice for the next President) said in a debate once "if you broke it, you need to fix it." McCain agrees. We shouldn't just leave now because that would make it easier for another Saddaam like person to sieze control and the whole thing would have been pointless.
Next point: abortion rights (with some economic points, too). Let me give you two versions of the same hypothetical situation:
Obama wants to protect your abortion rights, and McCain wants to take those rights away. If McCain had his way, the 17 year old living with her mom who got raped on the way to her after school job would have to figure out some way to support this child that will remind her every day of the trauma that she went through. McCain wants to take away a safe alternative that wouldn't result in the 17 year old, her child, and her mother all starving because they can't afford to buy food in this economy.
McCain's tax cuts to businesses allowed let them keep enough revenue to expand and hire people like this 17 year old who lives alone with her mother. The extra money that she makes is enough to pay for the higher heat bills and even save a little for her college education. Unfortunately, one day, she was raped on the way to work. With nowhere to go, she turned to the local faith based crisis pregnancy center. There she recieved counseling to help her deal with the trama of her ordeal. The people at the center showed her a picture of her daughter now growing within her, and she is amazed that something so precious could come from such a terrible event. Though she loves her little girl, she knows that she doesn't have the money to support her. So, just after she was born, the people at the center helped her get her baby girl into a program that would place her with one of the many loving families who are unable to have children of their own. She goes to visit her daughter every chance that she gets.
From the article: "Later, in New York, Obama noted that McCain wants the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion to be overturned. Conversely, he said, 'I will never back down in defending a woman's right to choose.'"
Yes, I want to take away abortion rights. I want to do that because I feel that a person's right to live is more important than another person's right to live the way they want. As a Christian, I believe that our live does not belong to us. We were created by God so that we will glorify Him. Because God gave us life, only He has the authority to take it away. We don't just have a right to life, we have a responsibily to live our lives for Him. Abortion "rights" take the right of deciding when a person dies from God and gives it to people. It shouldn't be that way.
Moving on in the article, you see "To be sure, McCain returns the favor at his campaign events." Liz is refering to the way that Obama tells people how different he is from McCain. She doesn't give any support for this claim, she just says that it's a fact that McCain runs the same kind of campaign as Obama. I don't know enough about McCain's campain strategies to say, so I won't say that Liz is wrong, I just want to point out how cleverly she presents her opinion as fact.
This article brings up other things, like the causes of the "economic downturn" and energy policies, but I'll have to talk about those in another post. This one's getting too long already.
If you read this, please take a few seconds to give me some meaningful feedback. I want to know what you think about these issues!
| | |
| A friend of mine suggested in a blog that McCain is too liberal to be a Republican so we should sit this one out and do better in 2012. While I understand this person's frustration with our departure from the party of Ronald Reagan, here is my response:
To be quite honest, I don't care at all about the Ronald Reagan
conservative republican party. Frankly, I don't think Ronald Reagan
would do so well if he were running for President (the first time, so
forget about the name recognition) in 2008. It's a different world. We
need to look at the future and what we want to make, not what we had in
the past.
If you want taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions here and around the world, vote for Obama. If you don't, vote for McCain.
If
you want everyone to pay for health care for everyone, and you want the
government to oversee the whole thing, vote for Obama. If you want to
slowly move toward an HSA system (which is the path we're on now) vote
for McCain.
If you want us to sit down and listen to Iran talk
until they launch missiles with nuclear warheads at Israel and Europe
AND you want to forget about the missile defense system that would
prevent the warheads from reaching their targets, vote for Obama. If
you want us to blow up a few military installations in Iran to show
them that we won't let them threaten us, vote for McCain.
If you
want a supreme court that will look at the laws passed in other
countries to decide what our Constitution should mean, vote for Obama.
If you want a supreme court that looks at the intention of the people
in this country who wrote and ratified the Constitution when deciding
what the Constitution means, vote for McCain.
If you feel that
it is more important that we validate the choices people make about who
they love than it is to encourage people to form family units the way
that God designed the family about 6000 years ago, vote for Obama. If
you feel that God's design for the family will be better for society
even if it makes some people feel like they're making a "wrong" choice,
vote for McCain.
Please understand that you can't only look at
the two candidates when deciding who you want to be President. You also
need to look at the people they will put into power. Think about what you want the country to look like and vote for the person who will hit closest to that picture.
If you don't care about the future of this country, I care enough for both of us and I'd like to double the power of my vote so vote for John McCain.
| | |
| A friend of mine posted a survey asking which types of "birth control" are acceptable (he listed these six types) and if they were acceptable for only married people, only unmarried people, both, or neither. This was my response. What do you think?
1. Abstinence - The only option for the unmarried, however, I don't
think it's a good choice for a married couple. Perhaps the married
couple could "agree" to abstain, but I suspect that at least one of the
people (probably the man) will struggle with that choice and it will
hurt the relationship.
2. Condom - Unnecessary for the unmarried
(because they must practice abstinence!), and acceptable for the
married. This may not be the best option for a married couple, and I
think other options should be explored. My reasoning is that it's
probably rather uncomfortable, and in the long run, it'd be quite
expensive (maybe more than other options). I would classify this as a
type of contraceptive.
3. Contraceptives - Again, unnecessary
for the unmarried (because they must practice abstinence!), and I have
only one reservation for the married. The term "contraceptive" implies
that it's function is to prevent contraception. If that is what your
contraceptive of choice does, then it's fine. If, however, you are
considering a "contraceptive" that doesn't prevent conception but
prevents "pregnancy" (by preventing implantation or by making the
uterus a hostile environment for the unborn) it is not an option.
Preventing the creation of human life is fine, ending a human life (by
directly killing it or depriving it of what it needs, and would
normally have) is not; it's murder.
4. "Plan B" - I need a
definition of what this is exactly. I'll be more specific in my answer.
Evidence that the "morning after pill" is a only a true contraceptive
(meaning it only prevents conception) exists, but it is not completely
conclusive. While I won't claim that taking the "morning after pill" is
equivalent to having an abortion, I won't recommend it's use either.
There simply isn't enough evidence either way. Therefore, since the
"morning after pill" MAY end a human life (instead of ALWAYS preventing
it) it should not be used at all. Other drugs (like RU-486?) that make
the uterus a hostile environment for the unborn (thus killing the child
or children) may not be used unless its use is to save the life of the
mother. I do not think there is an instance when a chemical abortion
would be the best method of saving the mother's life. Still, if it was
the best method of saving the mother (knowing that the child will die
and can't be saved anyway) then I would support its use (in ONLY that
case). I don't know what else would fall under the umbrella of "plan
B," nor am I sure that both of these drugs fall under that umbrella.
5.
Abortion - Only to be used to save the life of the mother. This option
would extend to married and unmarried couples alike. If an unmarried
woman is pregnant, someone sinned. It may have been fornication
(consensual premarital sex) or rape (non-consensual premarital sex) and
both are wrong (rape is only wrong for the rapist, the victim is
innocent), but if the decision is between the mother and her child or
children dying and between just the child or the children dying, the
choice is clear: we should save as many lives as possible.
Abortion
is murder. I believe murder is justified if and only if the person will
die (and cannot be saved with available medical technology) and someone
else will die as well. Given the choice of seeing two people die and
killing one to save another, we have a responsibility (not just an
option) to save that life.
This example of a "justifiable"
murder only applies to a mother and her unborn child. The most
prominent example of this is an ectopic (or tubal) pregnancy. In this
case, the unborn implants somewhere other than in the uterine wall
(usually in the fallopian tubes) and if allowed to grow the mother and
the child will both die. The only solution I'm familiar with is the
surgical removal of the unborn (an abortion). This will result in the
death of the unborn and the continued life of the mother. This is not a
choice between the life of the mother and her child; only the mother
can survive this (with our current level of medical technology). About
5% of all pregnancies are ectopic, and of those, 98% are tubal (meaning
the unborn implants in the fallopian tubes). According to the CDC,
there were 73,700 ectopic pregnancies in the United States in 1986. I'm
guessing that number hasn't changed very much in the last 20 years.
I
said this is the only example of "justifiable" murder because I cannot
think of another example. If two people will die in a burning building
and you can only save one of them, you didn't murder the other person
(you didn't purposely take away what that person needed to live), you
just couldn't save both. In war, when a person is killed, the intent
wasn't to kill that particular person, it was to weaken the society
that person was fighting for. I don't consider that murder, either.
I've gotten off topic, sorry.
6.
Vasectomy/Fallopian tubal ligation - Again, unnecessary for the
unmarried (because they must practice abstinence) and allowable for the
married. Yes, the procedures are expensive, but they may be cheaper
than years worth of contraceptives. Personally, I think any man who
really loves his wife will opt for the vasectomy and not ask (or even
consider) having his wife have her "tubes tied." A vasectomy much
easier, safer, and cheaper option (and it's reversible, too).
All
of that having been said, personally, I'd prefer to love my future wife
and let God decide if He wants to bless us with children. If God
decides to give us children, God will also give us the means to provide
for our children. Children are a blessing from the Lord, and I wouldn't
want to purposely try to prevent those blessings. In addition, having
lots of kids is a great way to evangelize! :) | | |
|
