Foreclosing Foreclosures

There must be something wrong with me.

I just don't understand something that is apparently a vital aspect of my country.

It boggles my mind; confounds and confuses me.

I don't know why my country men would be willing to do this, yet more and more it seems like I'm in a minority of those people who don't.

What am I talking about? What has me so confused?

Why people take handouts from the government.

What's worse, is why do our elected representatives continue to provide handouts to the people? Though, ultimately I know the reason for that: they want to buy themselves a vote.

What brought this on today was an AP story that I found on MSNBC talking about the Senate's upcoming vote on an anti-foreclosure plan.

Disgusting if you ask me.

No one forced these people to take these exotic mortgages, and as such they should now suffer the consequences of their bad decisions.

I'm not getting bailed out of my mortgage--nor do I want to.

Especially not by the government. I don't want my tax dollars spent bailing people out of their own bad decisions. That's not the purpose of the Federal government. Heck, it's not even the purpose of state or local governments.

That's the purpose of charitable organizations.

Which, despite the Democrat's intentions, is NOT the point of the Federal Government.

At least not the federal government whose Constitution I had studied.

America Needs a Farm Bill

America needs a farm bill, our constituents need a farm bill.

--Norm Coleman Senator Minnesota (R)

... That's odd. I didn't realize that our country needed the government to subsidize various and sundry industries.

What's odder, is that I still can't find the place in the U.S. Constitution which allows Congress to use my tax dollars to subsidize industries.

What this is, is just another attempt for pork. For Congress to vote their pet ideologies, people and other odds an ends money. One of the many reasons we have such high taxes (unless you're one of the 'poor' making less than $30K annually) and a massive national debt.

It is just another symptom of the 'vote us money' form of government, where the unwashed masses who live at the government's whims (i.e. those on welfare and government employees) are used and abused by the powered elite, tossed tidbits of the state treasury in an effort to keep them ground and voting for the powerful.

How much longer can this idiocy last?

Sometimes, I wonder if even a President such as Ron Paul could stem the tidal flow of destruction which has been building in our Federal government since it forced the States to give up their rights back in 1866.

There is something to always remember:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

-- Alexander Tyler

Selfishness. Complacency. Apathy. Dependency. I see all those things in our society today. So when comes the bondage?

Need Help? Ask Big Brother!

Anyone that has talked to me about government welfare programs know my opinion about them. They're evil, and should be banned. Immediately. They have no place in our society, nor should they be allowed under the Constitution of our increasingly socialist country.

Or to put it into internet lingo: welfare = teh 3vil!!1!

Now, that that's firmly out of the way, imagine my surprise when I was coming back from lunch, and heard an advertisement on the radio. It talked about how when you need money, you know what the sound of help is - followed by the sounds of someone swiping a credit card through one of those scanners. They then go on about how welfare now has these handy-dandy debit-cards as opposed to the old fashioned stamps, and that you should call their 1-800 number because, hey, you to might qualify to live off of my taxes.

So, we have this evilness of welfare, and not only are they stealing my tax dollars to give to other people, but they're also using those tax dollars to advertise the program, so that they can justify giving more money away to people who did not earn it.

When did our government become this huge entity that felt it was okay to play Robin Hood? And then to waste money by advertising the programs?

The Real Bus Problem: ECAT survival

ECAT, the Escambia County Area Transit system, is the name used for the buses here where I live. The past year or so, there has been a number of articles in the Pensacola News Journal decrying the fact that ECAT is not making enough money to support its activities.

Basically, they're trying to make those of us who work, own cars, and pay taxes feel bad about the dire straights that public transportation is in, so that we won't complain as loudly when the city/county government tries to up our taxes to give them more money.

Today, there's an editorial in the PNJ saying that due to the upcoming homestead exemption increase, local government is going to be looking for programs to cut (hooray!) and that ECAT is an obvious one.

I say, what's the problem.

Consider, when was the last time that ECAT raised its rates? When was the last time someone could get from one point to the other, in less than two hours? There are a number of other things to do with ECAT before we provide tax money to them. Actually, we should never provide them tax money.

Frankly, it's a hassle no matter how you look at it, one which should be solved by market forces. Raise those rates, and pull my tax money away from ECAT. I don't need to subsidize what should be a business.

Of course, local liberals will complain, and say that with the way all costs are raising, that it's not fair to the low-income folks for ECAT to raise its rates as well.

My response there is: heck, you libs are the ones who voted for this cost of living increase, by voting in a higher minimum wage. So, you really have no one to blame but yourselves for that.

One day, I really hope that everyone will wake up and realize that the government should not be supporting them. That it's not the government's responsibility to take care of your family and provide the basic necessities of life for you. Welfare, and the war on poverty, has done nothing but created a generation of imbeciles who believe they are owed something by the government, that they somehow deserve a portion of my hard-earned money. That somehow it is all right for Uncle Sam to steal it from me to give to them.

What rubbish.

John Edwards wants to drive your company out of business...

Sometimes, I have to seriously wonder what on earth liberals are thinking. Why are fundamental concepts such as the fact that governments shouldn't be paying for certain things so hard for them to understand?

The latest lunacy, comes from a Fox News story posted yesterday (July 29, 07):

CANTERBURY, N.H. — Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says negotiating with insurers and pharmaceutical companies is not the best way to overhaul the health care system.

senator said Sunday.Those groups will not give up their power voluntarily, the former North Carolina

"I've been fighting these people my whole life and have beaten them my whole life," said Edwards, a former trial lawyer. "I think the time to talk to them is after you've beaten them."

Edwards has proposed requiring employers to provide insurance or contribute to the coverage of every worker. The government would pay for insurance for lower income people and subsidize what other families pay.

He also would cap the amount insurance companies can charge for profit or overhead at 15 percent and would pay for the $90 to $120 billion a year plan by repealing President Bush's tax cuts for people who make more than $200,000 a year.

"How long are we going to let insurance companies and drug companies run this country?" he said.

So, his idea is to FORCE small businesses to pay for health insurance, and then for government to pick up the slack.

Which translates into: he wants those people who have good jobs that provide insurance and a decent wage, to pay for those folks who for whatever reason don't.

Ah, socialism. How often you're found on the lips of a liberal.

Frankly, I don't want any of my money to HAVE to go to other people, filtered through government coffers or not. If I volunteer my money, and send a check off to whichever charity that's one thing. For the government to take money from my paycheck for the express purpose of giving it to someone else is the height of evil.

It is theft no matter how you look at it. This Robin Hood syndrome which liberals seem to be inflicted with needs to be gone. Leave my money alone.

If I want to help someone, I'll help them. It's not up to John Edwards to decide who gets my charity.

Edwards: Taxing you just because he wants to

Presidential hopeful, John "Little John" Edwards - you know, the joke that was on the other John's ballot a few years back - has stated that he wants to raise the taxes on the wealthy (this is according to an AP story).

Now, I don't consider myself wealthy. I make a decent (okay, I make a great) wage, but that's offset by the outflow of money I have going on. A car note, my own stupidity in regards to credit as a youngster, and that massive blob of student loans I still have hanging over my head. Well, just because I don't consider myself wealthy doesn't mean that I'm not considered that for the purposes of tax hikes.

What these morons who always want to raise taxes never seem to want to tell you is that these tax hikes against the wealthy begin somewhere in the area of $35K per year. Basically, if you're not living off the government coffers, you're considered wealthy.

Which I guess I can see since they've taken such great pains to ensure that people no longer own land and must give the first three or four months worth of their salary to the government.

It's this concept that they need to tax us all into bankruptcy-in order to pay for more entitlement programs (yeah, I want MY money going to the lazy whelp who refuses to get a job and just keeps cranking out more an more kids)-that keeps me from ever voting Democrat. I can honestly admit that a lot of what Mr. Bush is doing/has done in office scares and sickens me. After all, I'm a firm believer in small government.

But back to Little John, let's look at what he has to say in this quote:

"It's just the truth," Edwards said during a news conference following his speech to the California Democratic Party convention. "It's the only way to fund the things that need to be done."

That makes my blood boil.

Rather than raise taxes, let's kill some of the pointless government programs out there. We don't need a Federal level Department of Education. We don't need government grants to those too lazy to work. In my household we have a simple rule, if we can't afford it, we don't need it. For the first few years of my marriage, we were very, very tight on funds. Yes, me and the Mrs. both worked full-time jobs, but we still had a lot of bills (again, that stupidity thing with the credit cards) - and those jobs weren't the best thing in the world.

Now, I would have loved to have been able to eat steak or lobsters every night. Or have gone out to dinner three, four times a week. But we didn't. We couldn't afford such things. So what did we do? We ate a lot of Gwatney brand hot-dogs and macaroni and cheese and Ramen noodles. Then after I got my next raise and the wifey got a better paying job, what did we do? We moved up to Hamburger Helper. Or more accurately, the generic Wal-Mart brand of Hamburger Helper. Even today, I know that we can't afford to have steak every night, so we still cook a lot with ground beef. Yes, the other stuff going into the meat is a lot more and better, but I'm able to feed my family of four for less than $100 a week. Heck, for less than $80 a week.

I mean, one week we had five nights where we ate a dish based on ground meat. I spent $8 on those 5 pounds of meat - the minimum that I would have spent on a roast or a cut of steak. And that's the point - rather than whining about how I can't fund things at the amount of money I'm making now, I modify my buying habits so that what I buy matches how much I make. Amazing how that works, eh?

Sure, I guess I could whine and complain to the government about how I'm not able to provide steak to my kids every night, and the Leftists out there would say, "Well you know, the government owes you that. Why don't you sit back and let Uncle Sam take care of you."

But you know what, I don't think I could live with myself if I did that.

I know I couldn't look my son in the eye and tell him that he needs to work hard at everything he does. I know I couldn't look my son in the eye and tell him that he needs to be a man and support himself and his family, that HE is responsible for such things.

No new taxes (or better yet, the dismantling of the Income Tax and replacement of it by a National Sales Tax). Smaller government. These are the things that I want to see happen in the government. Unfortunately, neither of the two "big" parties seem to want either of those things. It makes me very interested in the Constitution Party:

10,000 Wal-Mart Employees Can't Be Wrong

Maryland is trying to enact a brand new law. One that states that those companies with 10,000 employees (or more) in their state, must pay a certain amount of their payroll into health care.

Of course, only Wal-Mart has that many employees in state, but hey, the Democrats say that this legislation is not aimed at them. Surprisingly enough, I believe them. I think that the Leftists just put that 10,000 number in there, to make their first victim of this un-capitalistic practice Wal-Mart so that the effect would be more palatable to people. After all, it's Wal-Mart with billions in sales, and millions employed. What could making them pay a little extra to employee health care matter?

This is where the Lefties want things to stand. They want the people happy that they are legally forcing companies to give employees a certain amount of healthcare, because once that is legally acceptable, they can then start lowering that number. After all, if it's ok at 10,000 employees, then it's ok for 9,500, then 9,000 and before you know it for 10. One must remember that for this type of law there is no difference between 10 and 10,000. It is a random number, set high to make it acceptable, because it can only affect one company. That that one company is Wal-Mart is just a bonus in the Lefties eyes. In the same way that the minimum wage is set low to make it acceptable to the most people (I'm still waiting for the $2,000 per hour minimum wage, I could get behind that).

Of course the esteemed lawmakers in Maryland have failed to realize the simple realities of business. They are trying to pass a law that states that the business spends 8% of payroll on healthcare. Now, Wal-Mart has a few options for doing this:

• Pay for it out of profits
• Close stores until they are under the magic number
• Pay their employees less

Gee, I wonder which I would do if I were in Wal-Mart's shoes. There is no way I would pay for it out of profits. That is hurtful to my shareholders. Even if I tried to pay my employee's less, there are artificial limits on how low I can pay them, which a higher minimum wage in conjunction with this health care tax would cause me convulsions. So that leaves the close stores until I'm under the magic number.

Yup, to keep from paying this particular tax, I will close stores, stopping jobs, and depriving thousands of consumers a cheap place to shop. After all, I would be in this for the money.

Who knows, Wal-Mart could do something different, after all, I'm not in charge over there. They could even attempt to question the constitutionality of this law. Unfortunately, capitalism, though a corner stone of our society, has no protection in the Constitution.

Sadly the labor unions are pushing this law in other places. If your state has the misfortune to be one of them, I would get in contact with your legislature. This health tax is not a good thing.

Tax Cuts

Should the average tax payer be given tax cuts?

The answer to this question, as in most things related to government depends on your party affiliation.

Democrats tend to say no. The average tax payer does not need a tax cut, that extra money should be given to those that don't pay taxes. While Republicans say give everyone the same tax cut as a percentage reduction (an example is a 3% reduction in all taxes).

The Republican plan leads to economic growth, spending, and job creation, while the Democrats plan leads to.... more power for the Democrats.

Really, that's the only 'benefit' I can see from the Democrat's tax plans. The realize that if they can give enough money to those that don't pay taxes, those that don't pay taxes will continue to elect them. What's sad is that such programs are by their very nature damaging. A majority of government entitlement programs are damaging to the very people they seek to help. They are basically telling these people that they should not attempt to get ahead, but should rather sit at home and collect a check. It's the basic idea of whether it's better to give someone a fish, or to teach them how to fish.

I know which I'd rather do, but then again, I'm not a Democrat.