When I see a positive - I will say so. On the 20th President Obama's press secretary stated that the administration would NOT support the Vehicle Miles program. If this is true - I agree with the President. The idea behind the program is to tally what times, which roads and how many miles an individual has driven and then bill them for the use of the roads. While the intended spirit of this program is to have those that use the roads pay for them - 1) I don't trust them and 2) this is an assault to all those not living in the inner city.
Once the group in Washington figure out what kind of data they are able to capture - I can only begin to see what they will want to do with that information moving forward. 1984 has nothing on what these 'lawmakers' can come up with. Time based tax policies for using certain roads, annual reporting of travel to specific areas to the Chamber of Commerce, tracking mileage versus fuel consumption to insure we the public are driving 'economical' cars. No - I don't trust them at all!
The assault on those of us living out side of the city limits where 'public' transportation is available could not be more direct. Lawmakers fail to recognize that in addition to driving to and from work - some of us use the roads and our vehicles for more than our own capitalist endeavors. Yes, some of us drive our children and other children to school. Some of us volunteer to run youth sports programs that the local government actually does very little to support (including blocking the use of public fields for youth sports use). Some of us volunteer in public schools - mentoring, tutoring and advising the youth in the community. Some of us volunteer with local churches and the programs those churches provide that the local communities can not live without. Some of us even drive in to the city to volunteer in the ways listed above.
So, President Obama - THANK YOU. On this topic - you have defended freedom.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Class warfare
The current direction that our Congress and President are trying to take this country has but one outcome - Class Warfare unlike any we have ever seen. Are you a have, or a have not?
While I really want to blog on a number of different issues - reading the latest report on helping 'Main Street' has started to boil my blood. I have long believed that helping those in need was our responsibility from a moral perspective. I have never believed that changing policy based on social class was a good thing. Apparently I just don't get it. When an individual or family faces a hardship (unemployment, major health issue, loss of a family member), communities should act to assist as they are able. When someone foolishly enters into a loan that they have no ability to repay - they should pay the price. It hurts fewer people in the long run.The federal government has no business adjusting mortgage rates to fit an individuals financial needs. This is outright Socialism.
Consider for example: The Smith family that buys a home based on aggressive financing terms (40 year loan at 5% adjustable). They qualify for the loan that will absorb 40% of their gross income (personally, I think this is insane) . By way of example - the family makes approximately $55,000 a year and takes a loan on a $300,000 home - principle & interest of $1,821. A simple move of 1% on the adjustable note would move the monthly payment to $2018 (increase of $197) which would then equate to 44% of their income, if nothing else changed. This new payment is definitely a hardship for the family (a 4% move in debt ratio over a small period of time). Who is at fault? The bank? The government? The home owner?
Personally, I think all three are at fault but if the bank and government did not deliver the loan they would be considered not assisting someone with achieving the American dream. So, now what do we have? We have a situation that where the home owner needs help - and where is the help supposed to come from? The current plan of the government is to adjust the loan to make it fit the home owners lifestyle (more on that below). Restructure the loan (change the interest rate and principle) so that it fits within a 38% debt ratio. Who does it hurt after all? It hurts the bank, who now needs to lose money on the deal by changing the principle (devaluing all home prices) and interest at a rate below the agreed upon level (hurting share holders and employees of the financial institution).
To qualify for this program you will need to go through a 'uniform eligibility test'. This is code for - we will decide who gets to take advantage of this program.
What abut the family who bought a smaller house, paid a higher interest rate because it brought consistency to their lives (30 year fixed loan with a 32% debt ratio). Apparently there is nothing for them. This breeds a society that will continue to over spend and expect others to bail them out. Those who save are punished. Those that are responsible are left to continue paying for those who are not.
Again - a family that experiences a sever hardship deserves assistance. We should all continue to assist those in need through individual and community acts of charity - this is what is right. We should not be held accountable for people who continue to oversubscribe to societies wants. BTW, how many of the people affected in the mortgage crisis have cable television, a car less than 5 years old, a cell phone and a big screen TV? If you have all 4 of these and experiencing a housing criss where you can't pay the bill - the problem is not with the lending institution .... it is with you.
While I really want to blog on a number of different issues - reading the latest report on helping 'Main Street' has started to boil my blood. I have long believed that helping those in need was our responsibility from a moral perspective. I have never believed that changing policy based on social class was a good thing. Apparently I just don't get it. When an individual or family faces a hardship (unemployment, major health issue, loss of a family member), communities should act to assist as they are able. When someone foolishly enters into a loan that they have no ability to repay - they should pay the price. It hurts fewer people in the long run.The federal government has no business adjusting mortgage rates to fit an individuals financial needs. This is outright Socialism.
Consider for example: The Smith family that buys a home based on aggressive financing terms (40 year loan at 5% adjustable). They qualify for the loan that will absorb 40% of their gross income (personally, I think this is insane) . By way of example - the family makes approximately $55,000 a year and takes a loan on a $300,000 home - principle & interest of $1,821. A simple move of 1% on the adjustable note would move the monthly payment to $2018 (increase of $197) which would then equate to 44% of their income, if nothing else changed. This new payment is definitely a hardship for the family (a 4% move in debt ratio over a small period of time). Who is at fault? The bank? The government? The home owner?
Personally, I think all three are at fault but if the bank and government did not deliver the loan they would be considered not assisting someone with achieving the American dream. So, now what do we have? We have a situation that where the home owner needs help - and where is the help supposed to come from? The current plan of the government is to adjust the loan to make it fit the home owners lifestyle (more on that below). Restructure the loan (change the interest rate and principle) so that it fits within a 38% debt ratio. Who does it hurt after all? It hurts the bank, who now needs to lose money on the deal by changing the principle (devaluing all home prices) and interest at a rate below the agreed upon level (hurting share holders and employees of the financial institution).
To qualify for this program you will need to go through a 'uniform eligibility test'. This is code for - we will decide who gets to take advantage of this program.
What abut the family who bought a smaller house, paid a higher interest rate because it brought consistency to their lives (30 year fixed loan with a 32% debt ratio). Apparently there is nothing for them. This breeds a society that will continue to over spend and expect others to bail them out. Those who save are punished. Those that are responsible are left to continue paying for those who are not.
Again - a family that experiences a sever hardship deserves assistance. We should all continue to assist those in need through individual and community acts of charity - this is what is right. We should not be held accountable for people who continue to oversubscribe to societies wants. BTW, how many of the people affected in the mortgage crisis have cable television, a car less than 5 years old, a cell phone and a big screen TV? If you have all 4 of these and experiencing a housing criss where you can't pay the bill - the problem is not with the lending institution .... it is with you.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
We are accelerating down the wrong road.
When the government started planning for TARP 1, the hair on the back of my neck stood up. Face it - the banks in the U.S. were in a difficult position but it was the government that helped them get there so perhaps they should help bail them out. I was against the 'covering of the tracks' by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts but knew that I did not have a vote in the outcome. The government decided to spend 'my money' because they are smarter than the common man (tongue firmly planted in cheek at this point) and they gave the banks the first $350 billion dollars .... with absolutely no strings.
Follow along:
Mistake number 1 - all the garbage pressure place on the banking industry to loan money to those that can not afford to purchase a home.
Mistake number 2 - TARP 1 .
Mistake number 3 - Failure to control, watch, manage or even track where TARP 1 funds actually went.
Mistake number 4 - Requesting TARP 2 funds.
( up to this point this has been on President Bush' watch, except mistake number 1 that started back during the Carter administration)
Now, in addition to the proposed 'stimulus' package which is nothing more than a big list of pet programs, bailouts for states that can't manage their own budgets, and a justification to spend more taxpayer money now and in the future, President Obama is raising the concerns about how banks spend their money. Face it - the banks are making huge political mistakes with the way they continue to spend money. BUT - IT IS THEIR MONEY! It is very easy to be swept up in the anti-Wall street sentiment if we allow our jealousy to get the better of us, but consider what this means. How much is enough? How much is too much? I am no longer talking about Wall street - I am talking about an individual or corporation - in the eyes of the government. There are plans to limit executive compensation to any bank that received funding to $500,000. Granted that is a lot of money to someone who makes less than $100,000 but what business is it of the government to dictate how a business operates? If they want to start setting limits and controlling compensation - perhaps they should look at themselves first - Fannie Mae anyone and this is a government 'corporation'?
So now consider that a corporation is no different than a citizen in this country. Does the government have the right to regulate how much money you make? Yes the incrementalism argument begins to build at this point. What if the government decided that any individual, organziation or company that has ever received government assistance was then beholden to any regulation on compensation they want to impose (after award of the assistance )? If BIG GOVERNMENT wants to start down this path - let's start by limiting compensation for any artist (actor) that ever participated in any activity paid for by the NEA. Next, any athlete that attended school on any form of government paid scholarship can only receive compensation of $150,000 (roughly 5 times that of the average American according to U.S. Department of Labor)? University professers are limited on compensation and length of employment - afterall they are paid for partly from the government trough. I can continue ..... but won't.
The point of my argument is taxes are a voluntary (according to Harry Reid) contribution to the government. The government(at least the legislative branch in this blog entry) has completely lost site of this simple fact. The money is not theirs - it is ours. Our founding fathers knew this and warned against a government becoming too powerful for the common good. We are heading down the wrong road and someone is standing on the gas pedal. How do you get off of this ride?
Follow along:
Mistake number 1 - all the garbage pressure place on the banking industry to loan money to those that can not afford to purchase a home.
Mistake number 2 - TARP 1 .
Mistake number 3 - Failure to control, watch, manage or even track where TARP 1 funds actually went.
Mistake number 4 - Requesting TARP 2 funds.
( up to this point this has been on President Bush' watch, except mistake number 1 that started back during the Carter administration)
Now, in addition to the proposed 'stimulus' package which is nothing more than a big list of pet programs, bailouts for states that can't manage their own budgets, and a justification to spend more taxpayer money now and in the future, President Obama is raising the concerns about how banks spend their money. Face it - the banks are making huge political mistakes with the way they continue to spend money. BUT - IT IS THEIR MONEY! It is very easy to be swept up in the anti-Wall street sentiment if we allow our jealousy to get the better of us, but consider what this means. How much is enough? How much is too much? I am no longer talking about Wall street - I am talking about an individual or corporation - in the eyes of the government. There are plans to limit executive compensation to any bank that received funding to $500,000. Granted that is a lot of money to someone who makes less than $100,000 but what business is it of the government to dictate how a business operates? If they want to start setting limits and controlling compensation - perhaps they should look at themselves first - Fannie Mae anyone and this is a government 'corporation'?
So now consider that a corporation is no different than a citizen in this country. Does the government have the right to regulate how much money you make? Yes the incrementalism argument begins to build at this point. What if the government decided that any individual, organziation or company that has ever received government assistance was then beholden to any regulation on compensation they want to impose (after award of the assistance )? If BIG GOVERNMENT wants to start down this path - let's start by limiting compensation for any artist (actor) that ever participated in any activity paid for by the NEA. Next, any athlete that attended school on any form of government paid scholarship can only receive compensation of $150,000 (roughly 5 times that of the average American according to U.S. Department of Labor)? University professers are limited on compensation and length of employment - afterall they are paid for partly from the government trough. I can continue ..... but won't.
The point of my argument is taxes are a voluntary (according to Harry Reid) contribution to the government. The government(at least the legislative branch in this blog entry) has completely lost site of this simple fact. The money is not theirs - it is ours. Our founding fathers knew this and warned against a government becoming too powerful for the common good. We are heading down the wrong road and someone is standing on the gas pedal. How do you get off of this ride?
"There are two distinct classes of men...those who pay taxes and those who receive and live upon taxes." -- Thomas Paine (1737–1809)
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Times have changed
Governments have long been the safeguards for those less fortunate. At least that is what they have claimed - in reality it has been the charitable organizations that do the real work. Have we just seen the beginning of a new era of entitlements? Take a read here and tell me if you can see the same thing coming to your government decision body.
Seriously - television being essential? I guess iPhones, high speed internet and convection ovens are the new food and shelter staples. Yes, the story is from Brazil but what makes you think the U.S. government won't follow the path? We already have a government wanting to give out contraception to our kids in schools and a massive 'Share the wealth' plan with the latest 'stimulus package'.
Elected representatives - please go back to taking care of the things that really matter. Pay down the debt so my grandchildren don't need to do it. Protect this great country and the principles it was founded on. Read the Constitution and understand why it was written the way it was. And please hold criminals accountable for their offenses before you start making more people criminals by passing ridiculous frivolous laws.
Seriously - television being essential? I guess iPhones, high speed internet and convection ovens are the new food and shelter staples. Yes, the story is from Brazil but what makes you think the U.S. government won't follow the path? We already have a government wanting to give out contraception to our kids in schools and a massive 'Share the wealth' plan with the latest 'stimulus package'.
Elected representatives - please go back to taking care of the things that really matter. Pay down the debt so my grandchildren don't need to do it. Protect this great country and the principles it was founded on. Read the Constitution and understand why it was written the way it was. And please hold criminals accountable for their offenses before you start making more people criminals by passing ridiculous frivolous laws.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Un-friend ... a relative
I am somewhat new to the whole social network scene. My boss initially recommended I check out Facebook so I did a little exploring. It is still a little strange to me but I found contacting some old friends, schoolmates and even some work buddies to be interesting. There was another thing that sat their lurking for me. Could I use this to repair a little damage done to an old relationship. We have all had things happen in life that caused a break between friends - could Facebook help to mend the broken fence.
I am referring to a crippled relationship with my sister. You won't find any details about what happened between us - I don't talk out of school. I found her profile and requested her to 'friend me'. I was surprised when she accept my friend invitation. I was able to see her profile - check in to what she had been doing (job, programs her kids are involved in ...). That was good enough for me - at least for a start. I would take my time and when the time seemed right - perhaps I could make more contact with her.
Before I even had the chance to finish reading up on her family happenings something broke. I thought it was just an error here or there that stopped me from connecting to her profile. Then I saw her 'walling' with other friends on line and I realized that it was not a glitch in the system. Nope, it appears that my sister has 'un-friended' me. When I realized what had happened, I did something I probably shouldn't have done - I sent a note to a mutual friend and asked him to say Hi for me. I further stated to him that she didn't talk to me anymore. That was wrong - Sorry John.
What hurt would lie that deep that your own relative would cut all ties with you? It has been several years since we talked. My family has sent birthday cards, left singing birthday wishes on their answering machine and even sent gifts for different occasions to her and her family. I have sent a few emails but the time between them has increased. Not a single message/note/gift has received as much as a 'thank you' or 'got the message' .
I hope she has what she wants and needs. There does not seem to be much more I can do.
I am referring to a crippled relationship with my sister. You won't find any details about what happened between us - I don't talk out of school. I found her profile and requested her to 'friend me'. I was surprised when she accept my friend invitation. I was able to see her profile - check in to what she had been doing (job, programs her kids are involved in ...). That was good enough for me - at least for a start. I would take my time and when the time seemed right - perhaps I could make more contact with her.
Before I even had the chance to finish reading up on her family happenings something broke. I thought it was just an error here or there that stopped me from connecting to her profile. Then I saw her 'walling' with other friends on line and I realized that it was not a glitch in the system. Nope, it appears that my sister has 'un-friended' me. When I realized what had happened, I did something I probably shouldn't have done - I sent a note to a mutual friend and asked him to say Hi for me. I further stated to him that she didn't talk to me anymore. That was wrong - Sorry John.
What hurt would lie that deep that your own relative would cut all ties with you? It has been several years since we talked. My family has sent birthday cards, left singing birthday wishes on their answering machine and even sent gifts for different occasions to her and her family. I have sent a few emails but the time between them has increased. Not a single message/note/gift has received as much as a 'thank you' or 'got the message' .
I hope she has what she wants and needs. There does not seem to be much more I can do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
