This article which uses John Stossel's "Stupid In America" as a starting point is one of the best I've read about the sorry state of K-12 'education' in America. It gets right to the heart of the matter.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338
Here's one of Stossel's commentaries that covers education's problems all pretty well with lots of interviews and examples: http://www.onlineschools.org/education-debate/saturday-night-john-stossels-new-stupid-in-america/. Especially view the video in that article. If this doesn't bring you nearly to tears, perhaps you don't get it yet. This is not only our kids we're messing with, it's their future ... our country's future!!! Doesn't any of that matter?
The following interview with Michelle Rhee, the fired head of DC schools, is heart-breaking to me. How can we excuse the resistance to this woman's commitment and sensible efforts to fix the problem with DC's schools? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Irx9o7DjO8
[While you're at it you may want to check out other of Stossel's articles in his ongoing series of commentaries about how we're "Stupid In America". Here's one search that will help you do that: http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=stossel+stupid+in+america. All them basically attest to how poorly our schools are doing and how stupid our priorities are.]
As for K-12 education in particular, I don't think we have a chance of achieving the quality of education we need to ensure a healthy and productive society in the future unless and until parents wake up to the travesty of government failures running education in America. Based on Stossel's commentaries and investigations I think parents who don't get it or, worse, don't care(!) are the biggest impediments to fixing our truly broken and simply pathetic K-12 education system.
That leads my arguments full circle back to my previous blogs about the problem with men in America. It's well past time that men began caring about this problem and doing something about it. If men across America would get their priorities straight again ... off themselves and on their family, community and living responsibly ... pretty much all that's wrong in and with America would be corrected in very short order.
To men in America I say, GET OVER YOURSELVES ... BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE FOR OUR COUNTRY!!!
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Aspiring To Be Good At Gaming The System (Ref Previous LIRR Blog)
Thinking about my previous blog about the LIRR fraud case, I've come up with at least three things that should be said about 'Gaming The System':
We're going too far down this road. We're becoming a something for nothing society and history is full of lessons why and how this is very, very bad for us. To those doing the gaming, both the historical truth where this leads and the impact on fellow citizens who pay a price to the successful gamer are completely(!) irrelevant. If you can get something from the system that you don't deserve and didn't earn, so what? If 'they' are stupid enough to allow me to do it and get away with it, shame on them. Unfortunately, it isn't 'the system' or government that pays the price, it's one's own fellow citizens, one's neighbors, one's relatives. Personal moral responsibility is irrelevant. In fact, it's a totally subjective thing, not something which has objective importance in absolute terms.
We humans resist objective restrictions on our behavior if they infringe on what we want. Human nature you know. The constitution is too restrictive? Then we must declare it a 'must be made relevant to the times' document and keep it relevant to current 'needs'. We must it change it to accommodate what we want, regardless of the document's historically derived 'healthy society' foundation. But it's justified to change it isn't it? After all, the Founders had no idea how we'd develop materially, scientifically or otherwise. No they didn't. They 'only' understood where human behavior would lead without cultural and government boundaries. They understood the inevitability of our decay if our behvior (wants versus basic needs) were not restrained.
Changing from a society substantially based on personal responsibility for one's life and for the well-being of one's family and community to one based on automatic equal outcomes for everyone is destructive. It gives perceived if not implied and even factual license to people to get whatever's fair by their own definition by any means and at whatever cost to others that are necessary. Wrongness becomes subjective which is destructive of a civil society. This has played out so many times in history that it's irrational to ignore it. It is arrogant and ignorant of us to think it won't or can't happen to us ... that we will manage it better than all those failed societies. Man's arrogance (in the societal and personal sense) knows no bounds. The Founders knew this to be true and did a remarkably creative job of establishing sensible boundaries. We ignore their intentions at great, great risk to our society.
History screams at us: beware what you wish for!
- When 'the system' becomes too oppressive or cumbersome it invites, even demands (for thrill or survival sake) people find ways around whatever rules there are whether those ways are illegal or 'only' immoral.
- There are too many people who accept doing this as a challenge and that to be victorious is a good thing. To them, there's honor in dishonerable actions.
- There are too many people for whom the immoral aspect of it is irrelevant. This 'moral relevance' thinking based on one's own desires being more important than others' is destructive of civility in a society. If you haven't noticed, it's increasing dramatically in the USA and elsewhere.
We're going too far down this road. We're becoming a something for nothing society and history is full of lessons why and how this is very, very bad for us. To those doing the gaming, both the historical truth where this leads and the impact on fellow citizens who pay a price to the successful gamer are completely(!) irrelevant. If you can get something from the system that you don't deserve and didn't earn, so what? If 'they' are stupid enough to allow me to do it and get away with it, shame on them. Unfortunately, it isn't 'the system' or government that pays the price, it's one's own fellow citizens, one's neighbors, one's relatives. Personal moral responsibility is irrelevant. In fact, it's a totally subjective thing, not something which has objective importance in absolute terms.
We humans resist objective restrictions on our behavior if they infringe on what we want. Human nature you know. The constitution is too restrictive? Then we must declare it a 'must be made relevant to the times' document and keep it relevant to current 'needs'. We must it change it to accommodate what we want, regardless of the document's historically derived 'healthy society' foundation. But it's justified to change it isn't it? After all, the Founders had no idea how we'd develop materially, scientifically or otherwise. No they didn't. They 'only' understood where human behavior would lead without cultural and government boundaries. They understood the inevitability of our decay if our behvior (wants versus basic needs) were not restrained.
Changing from a society substantially based on personal responsibility for one's life and for the well-being of one's family and community to one based on automatic equal outcomes for everyone is destructive. It gives perceived if not implied and even factual license to people to get whatever's fair by their own definition by any means and at whatever cost to others that are necessary. Wrongness becomes subjective which is destructive of a civil society. This has played out so many times in history that it's irrational to ignore it. It is arrogant and ignorant of us to think it won't or can't happen to us ... that we will manage it better than all those failed societies. Man's arrogance (in the societal and personal sense) knows no bounds. The Founders knew this to be true and did a remarkably creative job of establishing sensible boundaries. We ignore their intentions at great, great risk to our society.
History screams at us: beware what you wish for!
Friday, October 28, 2011
Union Benevolence Run Amok: The LIRR Fraud And Corruption Case
This is no trivial matter is it?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281597/public-employees-busted-retirement-scheme-nathaniel-botwinick
So much for unions doing what's 'fair' much less what's right. Unions spend much effort trying to convince us that they only stand for what's fair and deserved. Hmmmmmm.
How can so many average Americans think it's okay to do something like this? It's disgusting and the root of it has everything to do with my previous blog today about men (people in general but men in particular).
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281597/public-employees-busted-retirement-scheme-nathaniel-botwinick
So much for unions doing what's 'fair' much less what's right. Unions spend much effort trying to convince us that they only stand for what's fair and deserved. Hmmmmmm.
How can so many average Americans think it's okay to do something like this? It's disgusting and the root of it has everything to do with my previous blog today about men (people in general but men in particular).
American Men: "Deadbeats Or Players". On Human Nature And Choices
In my previous blog I commented on President Obama's lamentation over Americans losing their entrepreneurial and industrious spirit. The sorry state of K-12 education in America is most certainly behind it. The question is how do we fix that? Where can we start that is both 'necessary and sufficient'? That's a high tech term for fixing something that actually fixes a problem and is not overkill. Unfortunately, what government does to 'fix' things is too often neither of those things.
Liberals, especially progressives have been attacking the school environment and the curriculum with lots of experiments that didn't work at all. What they shied away from, naturally for progressives, is personal responsibility at the parent and local school level. Has 30 years of their failed approach taught us anything yet? The one thing we can do for, in fact owe, our kids is to prepare them for real life after K-12 schooling. The one most singularly spectacular failure has been not instilling a sense of personal responsibility in our kids. That must start with the practice of personal responsibility by their parents which has also been spectacularly missing among most of the kids who fail in school.
Where ought we begin in our efforts to address the failure of parents regarding the sorry state of K-12 education? The answer if we're honest is with men in general, dads in particular. While the following article isn't directed at what the behavior of men has done to families in general and K-12 education in particular, the point it makes is relevant equally to the problem with education:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281490/blame-sexual-revolution-br-not-men-mona-charen
The bad things that men are doing politically, socially and relationally are completely in line with human nature. That doesn't make it okay but it's important to understand that's true in order to deal with it effectively. The progressive solution to that is to have the government take over control from families and communities (ie, from responsible men, husbands and fathers). But you have to realize that the only reason they feel the need to do that is because men in families and communities aren't doing the job. The best and correct fix is to get men back on track, not for government to become the father (and mother!) figure.
Progressives deny the problem as I've defined it because that would mean that our Founders were absolutely correct. The Founders' understanding of human (mainly man's) nature is what led them to construct the constitution and through it our government the way they did. For progressives to accept that would mean accepting they've been leading our country down the wrong path all this time. (Of course, the history of progressivism (socialism) throughout the world already teaches us about its inevitable failure but they deny that too and are therefore obliged(!) to make a strong effort to edit that out of K-12 history books/teaching but that's an entire subject for another day.)
American men by and large (and undeniably) have become deadbeats and/or players at living and acting responsibly. The article linked above attests to the fact that women get it. They've tried moving ahead without men but are realizing that's not working out so well either (surprise!). The fix for this must be for men to man up rather than for women, kids and governments to write them off.
Getting men to man up would address the most fundamental root cause of many of America's ills. Poverty for one and that's a pretty big one. Broken/hurting families and divorce for another very big one. A general decline in civil, lawful, principled, and moral behavior for another. There's a reason why 99% of the really, REALLY lame and downright stupid things shown on America's Funniest Home Videos are being done by men. To understand what's wrong with America, one only has to watch that TV program a few times. It's a joke but the joke's on our culture and at its core it's not really funny at all. It's quite sad.
Men need to do a better job living with a sense of dignity, self-respect and responsibility. They need to make better choices. After all, all their bad/undesirable behaviors are nothing more nor less than choices. Narcissism has grown among American men to a culturally (very) destructive extent. They get disrespect from women for a reason: just like the Smith-Barney commercial used to say, they earned it.
Conclusion: When a big majority of men begin putting their girl friends, wives, children, community, and especially godly(!) principles ahead of their own narcissistic desires more of our problems will be substantially resolved than by any other means. There is no singular other 'fix' that'll do so much good so quickly and so cost-effectively. It won't cost the taxpayer anything and it'll work. What's not to like about that?
Liberals, especially progressives have been attacking the school environment and the curriculum with lots of experiments that didn't work at all. What they shied away from, naturally for progressives, is personal responsibility at the parent and local school level. Has 30 years of their failed approach taught us anything yet? The one thing we can do for, in fact owe, our kids is to prepare them for real life after K-12 schooling. The one most singularly spectacular failure has been not instilling a sense of personal responsibility in our kids. That must start with the practice of personal responsibility by their parents which has also been spectacularly missing among most of the kids who fail in school.
Where ought we begin in our efforts to address the failure of parents regarding the sorry state of K-12 education? The answer if we're honest is with men in general, dads in particular. While the following article isn't directed at what the behavior of men has done to families in general and K-12 education in particular, the point it makes is relevant equally to the problem with education:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281490/blame-sexual-revolution-br-not-men-mona-charen
The bad things that men are doing politically, socially and relationally are completely in line with human nature. That doesn't make it okay but it's important to understand that's true in order to deal with it effectively. The progressive solution to that is to have the government take over control from families and communities (ie, from responsible men, husbands and fathers). But you have to realize that the only reason they feel the need to do that is because men in families and communities aren't doing the job. The best and correct fix is to get men back on track, not for government to become the father (and mother!) figure.
Progressives deny the problem as I've defined it because that would mean that our Founders were absolutely correct. The Founders' understanding of human (mainly man's) nature is what led them to construct the constitution and through it our government the way they did. For progressives to accept that would mean accepting they've been leading our country down the wrong path all this time. (Of course, the history of progressivism (socialism) throughout the world already teaches us about its inevitable failure but they deny that too and are therefore obliged(!) to make a strong effort to edit that out of K-12 history books/teaching but that's an entire subject for another day.)
American men by and large (and undeniably) have become deadbeats and/or players at living and acting responsibly. The article linked above attests to the fact that women get it. They've tried moving ahead without men but are realizing that's not working out so well either (surprise!). The fix for this must be for men to man up rather than for women, kids and governments to write them off.
Getting men to man up would address the most fundamental root cause of many of America's ills. Poverty for one and that's a pretty big one. Broken/hurting families and divorce for another very big one. A general decline in civil, lawful, principled, and moral behavior for another. There's a reason why 99% of the really, REALLY lame and downright stupid things shown on America's Funniest Home Videos are being done by men. To understand what's wrong with America, one only has to watch that TV program a few times. It's a joke but the joke's on our culture and at its core it's not really funny at all. It's quite sad.
Men need to do a better job living with a sense of dignity, self-respect and responsibility. They need to make better choices. After all, all their bad/undesirable behaviors are nothing more nor less than choices. Narcissism has grown among American men to a culturally (very) destructive extent. They get disrespect from women for a reason: just like the Smith-Barney commercial used to say, they earned it.
Conclusion: When a big majority of men begin putting their girl friends, wives, children, community, and especially godly(!) principles ahead of their own narcissistic desires more of our problems will be substantially resolved than by any other means. There is no singular other 'fix' that'll do so much good so quickly and so cost-effectively. It won't cost the taxpayer anything and it'll work. What's not to like about that?
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Per President Obama: We've Lost The Entrepreneurial And Industrious Spirits! Well, DUH!
It's interesting to hear President Obama lament the decrease in entrepreneurial spirit and the decrease in industriousness to create and make things. It's interesting because the progressive agenda has everything to do with that.
One of the root causes of what finally(!) concerns President Obama is the stagnation in K-12 education that began the day that progressives breathed life into the federal department of education whose charter was to control K-12 education. In the past 30 years since the federal department of education was created our kids' scores in math, science and reading have gone from best to worst among developed nations. 30 years of experimentation with old math, new math, open classrooms, closed classrooms, tenure, huge increases in teacher pay and compensation, etc, etc, unfettered by conservative interference has produced exactly what? Maybe because we don't understand math and logic any longer we're too stupid to add 2 to 2 and get 4. We're incapable of connecting dots and making rational objective judgements why we're in this pickle because we've been dumbed down by that very system.
With these education results, is it any wonder that both our desire and ability to analyze, innovate, create, and build has decreased? A Harvard graduate ought to be able to figure this out. It's not too complicated.
Too many of you (mostly under 50 years old) don't remember our national discussions about the loss of industry. We were beginning to lose our lead in steel and other metal industries, auto industries, appliance industry, and many, many others. We conservatives became alarmed and the progressive political class patronizingly told us "yeah, we're losing those but don't worry because we'll do fine shifting from a manufacturing-based economy to one based on the service industry".
When was the last time any president promoted high tech or industry as a genuine national policy that he actively pursued? Remember what happened when President Kennedy challenged us to get to the moon before Russia did? That national call to arms helped promote one of the greatest expansions of interest in those areas that now concern Obama.
Obama is lamenting this loss but what is he doing about it? Nothing. In fact, he can't do anything about it because what needs to be done pretty much requires thinking and action that's the opposite of the progressive agenda. He doesn't know what caused it, much less how to fix it.
Where's the national inspiration/leadership to excel in school? "Programs" alone won't do it and in fact haven't.
Where's the national inspiration/leadership to be personally responsible for one's life and success?
Where's the national inspiration/leadership to control one's impulses? Instant gratification (on a personal level and by politicians who want our votes more than they want a healthy economy) has been running amok and caused national and personal debt we have no choice(!) but to pass on to future generations. This is not just 'unfortunate'. It's sick!
Where's the national inspiration to work in the private sector versus the public sector? (One sector produces all the things that sustain a vibrant economy; the other only sucks the vitality/life out of the economy.) Work in the public sector is noble. Work in the private sector is only okay if you promise not to become successful and become one of the 'evil rich'. (So why do it?) Work in the public sector where you're guaranteed a job regardless of your performance versus work in the private sector where you actually have to work hard ... every day ... and run the risk of losing your job if you goof up even once. Work in the public sector and have a guaranteed retirement at your ending salary or work in the private sector where there are no guarantees. Security regardless of work ethic and performance versus having to work hard simply to keep your job much less get any pay increase.
In one breath President Obama blasts the successful rich as inherently bad. In the next he laments why there's not more people with the motivation to become as successful as they possibly can. The lack of logic in that is breath-taking!
Bigger government made to control increasingly large amounts of our lives and our industry results in decreased quality of both. It's a historical and logical truth. So, it's 'interesting' to hear President Obama lamenting what progressives have been going about destroying for the past hundred years. We conservatives have been telling you for at least 40 years this would happen if they continued doing this. Now progressives want us to help pay for their bad ideas and choices that were poorly thought out. And progressives wonder why the TEA Party got so much traction?
One of the root causes of what finally(!) concerns President Obama is the stagnation in K-12 education that began the day that progressives breathed life into the federal department of education whose charter was to control K-12 education. In the past 30 years since the federal department of education was created our kids' scores in math, science and reading have gone from best to worst among developed nations. 30 years of experimentation with old math, new math, open classrooms, closed classrooms, tenure, huge increases in teacher pay and compensation, etc, etc, unfettered by conservative interference has produced exactly what? Maybe because we don't understand math and logic any longer we're too stupid to add 2 to 2 and get 4. We're incapable of connecting dots and making rational objective judgements why we're in this pickle because we've been dumbed down by that very system.
With these education results, is it any wonder that both our desire and ability to analyze, innovate, create, and build has decreased? A Harvard graduate ought to be able to figure this out. It's not too complicated.
Too many of you (mostly under 50 years old) don't remember our national discussions about the loss of industry. We were beginning to lose our lead in steel and other metal industries, auto industries, appliance industry, and many, many others. We conservatives became alarmed and the progressive political class patronizingly told us "yeah, we're losing those but don't worry because we'll do fine shifting from a manufacturing-based economy to one based on the service industry".
When was the last time any president promoted high tech or industry as a genuine national policy that he actively pursued? Remember what happened when President Kennedy challenged us to get to the moon before Russia did? That national call to arms helped promote one of the greatest expansions of interest in those areas that now concern Obama.
Obama is lamenting this loss but what is he doing about it? Nothing. In fact, he can't do anything about it because what needs to be done pretty much requires thinking and action that's the opposite of the progressive agenda. He doesn't know what caused it, much less how to fix it.
Where's the national inspiration/leadership to excel in school? "Programs" alone won't do it and in fact haven't.
Where's the national inspiration/leadership to be personally responsible for one's life and success?
Where's the national inspiration/leadership to control one's impulses? Instant gratification (on a personal level and by politicians who want our votes more than they want a healthy economy) has been running amok and caused national and personal debt we have no choice(!) but to pass on to future generations. This is not just 'unfortunate'. It's sick!
Where's the national inspiration to work in the private sector versus the public sector? (One sector produces all the things that sustain a vibrant economy; the other only sucks the vitality/life out of the economy.) Work in the public sector is noble. Work in the private sector is only okay if you promise not to become successful and become one of the 'evil rich'. (So why do it?) Work in the public sector where you're guaranteed a job regardless of your performance versus work in the private sector where you actually have to work hard ... every day ... and run the risk of losing your job if you goof up even once. Work in the public sector and have a guaranteed retirement at your ending salary or work in the private sector where there are no guarantees. Security regardless of work ethic and performance versus having to work hard simply to keep your job much less get any pay increase.
In one breath President Obama blasts the successful rich as inherently bad. In the next he laments why there's not more people with the motivation to become as successful as they possibly can. The lack of logic in that is breath-taking!
Bigger government made to control increasingly large amounts of our lives and our industry results in decreased quality of both. It's a historical and logical truth. So, it's 'interesting' to hear President Obama lamenting what progressives have been going about destroying for the past hundred years. We conservatives have been telling you for at least 40 years this would happen if they continued doing this. Now progressives want us to help pay for their bad ideas and choices that were poorly thought out. And progressives wonder why the TEA Party got so much traction?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Occupy Wall Street Crowd Don't Seem To Understand That Government Is The Bigger Problem By Miles. In Fact The ROOT Cause!
So, the two main things I'm hearing from the Occupy Wall Street crowd is that:
But have you considered:
Regarding #2 AND #3, when the federal government intervened in our free economy's natural checks and balances they became the root cause of the problems we have in those (and other) areas today.
Everyone who understands economics knows that competition helps keep prices down. Free Enterprise has been key to our country's economic success. Competition drives innovation too ... make a cheaper product that's a better one and you'll be successful. Competition is good on a personal level too (motivates a person to do more with his life and do it better). Government regulation is needed to keep the competition fair and lawful but when government tries to level the playing field out of a progressive desire for economic equality, it discourages competition and personal/corporate responsibility.
Pretty much every time the federal government steps in to force the leveling of a playing field they make things worse by discouraging if not nullifying competition. Every time the federal government subsidizes something, the cost goes up, if not on the specific thing they're tinkering with then on a competing product.
Take the ethanol push. The government didn't 'force' any farmers to grow only ethanol corn but what did they expect farmers to do when ethanol subsidies made it very profitable to grow ethanol corn? Not only did the availability of consumer food corn decrease, so did nearly all other food products because farmers switched from whatever they were growing to corn. The price of ALL food went up dramatically. It made world hunger a bigger problem too because of the cost and unavailability of food in poor countries.
Around three decades ago the government decided that a higher education needed to be more readily available to the poor. Noble intent gone wrong. College subsidies were extended to pretty much ALL students over time. Guess what colleges did in response? The government was guaranteeing they'd be paid no matter how much they charged students. Competition for student dollars evaporated and colleges no longer had to worry about keeping costs down so that the average person could afford it. The cost of college has skyrocketed primarily(!) because the federal government subsidizes it. There's a HUGE irony in all of this. So, government's well-intentioned meddling drove college costs up (which taxpayers have been paying for already) and now these protesters want the people in government who caused this problem to take MORE taxpayer money to pay for the problem government created.
The exact same thing happened to cause our current economic problems. If the federal government had not subsidized homes for people who couldn't afford to pay the mortgages we wouldn't be in this mess!!! Sure, I understand that Wall Street made money off this arrangement but that's not the root cause. Those mortgages were unaffordable and WHATEVER entity ended up owning them would have been in financial trouble. It just happens to be that Wall Street packaged these nonsense loans into high risk packages and traded them around among themselves in the total disillusionment that they could make money off them. Well, IF they were inclined to consider how risky those investments actually were, what was their motivation to avoid pushing them? Answer: NONE! Why? Because the federal government guaranteed(!) their money was reasonably safe ... all those mortgages had Fannie and Freddie backing. While it is true that Wall Street was immorally motivated to trade/invest these things, why did they do it? If the ill-advised sub-prime mortgage progam had never been created OR had been run by Freddie and Fannie with an ounce of economic sense, people who actually couldn't afford to pay the mortgages wouldn't have gotten them!
The big question is why did Fannie and Freddie push sub-prime mortgages (the ROOT cause of our troubles)? Answer: congress and Clinton told them to do it. In fact, one of the last executive orders Clinton gave was for Freddie and Fanny to make half their mortgages be these sub-prime types. The ONLY way Fannie and Freddie could do that was to loosen the qualification requirements so much that there really weren't any. The root of our current economic troubles is that sub-prime mortgages were pushed by government, mostly progressives in congress and the White House. Yes, Wall Street made it worse. But ONLY 'worse'. The housing market would have collapsed even if Wall Street had stayed out of it because whomever had owned those mortgages would have gone under. This problem would never have happened ONLY if progressives in our government hadn't tried to regulate nearly everyone into a home whether they could afford it or not.
The Occupy Wall Street folks are protesting the wrong culprits. Sure, Wall Street has dirty hands and college costs too much but if these protesters want the root cause of both problems fixed at the cheapest cost to taxpayers they need to protest congress, especially progressive regulation and other meddling. The 'fixes' they're calling for will mostly make the problems worse. If college already costs too much, what do you think will happen to the cost if it's subsidized even more? C'mon folks. Think about it.
What's hilarious is that so many people think that lack of regulation is what caused the sub-prime mortgage and, therefore, housing market collapse. In fact, it was government regulation that caused it by forcing (ie, regulating) Fannie and Freddie into lowering their loan qualification standards below what made any economic sense whatsoever.
One ought to consider what progressive-ism has brought us in recent decades. Their push to subsidize student loans and home mortgages is fundamentally at the root of our current economic troubles. The federal government is absolutely key in causing problems with both programs by forcing taxpayers to subsidize them and now we taxpayers are expected to pay more to a government that created the problems? The logic completely escapes me.
- The wealthy class is unfairly rich and the government should do something to redistribute their income and
- They want government to give them free or nearly free college education.
But have you considered:
- The contribution the wealthy make to creating jobs and providing resources for new business start-ups?
- The ROOT cause of our current economic mess lies federal government policies and regulation (regarding sub-prime mortgages)?
- The ROOT cause of the high cost of education significantly lies in federal government policies and regulation? The government took our tax money to cause this problem and now they're supposed to take more of our money to fix it?
Regarding #2 AND #3, when the federal government intervened in our free economy's natural checks and balances they became the root cause of the problems we have in those (and other) areas today.
Everyone who understands economics knows that competition helps keep prices down. Free Enterprise has been key to our country's economic success. Competition drives innovation too ... make a cheaper product that's a better one and you'll be successful. Competition is good on a personal level too (motivates a person to do more with his life and do it better). Government regulation is needed to keep the competition fair and lawful but when government tries to level the playing field out of a progressive desire for economic equality, it discourages competition and personal/corporate responsibility.
Pretty much every time the federal government steps in to force the leveling of a playing field they make things worse by discouraging if not nullifying competition. Every time the federal government subsidizes something, the cost goes up, if not on the specific thing they're tinkering with then on a competing product.
Take the ethanol push. The government didn't 'force' any farmers to grow only ethanol corn but what did they expect farmers to do when ethanol subsidies made it very profitable to grow ethanol corn? Not only did the availability of consumer food corn decrease, so did nearly all other food products because farmers switched from whatever they were growing to corn. The price of ALL food went up dramatically. It made world hunger a bigger problem too because of the cost and unavailability of food in poor countries.
Around three decades ago the government decided that a higher education needed to be more readily available to the poor. Noble intent gone wrong. College subsidies were extended to pretty much ALL students over time. Guess what colleges did in response? The government was guaranteeing they'd be paid no matter how much they charged students. Competition for student dollars evaporated and colleges no longer had to worry about keeping costs down so that the average person could afford it. The cost of college has skyrocketed primarily(!) because the federal government subsidizes it. There's a HUGE irony in all of this. So, government's well-intentioned meddling drove college costs up (which taxpayers have been paying for already) and now these protesters want the people in government who caused this problem to take MORE taxpayer money to pay for the problem government created.
The exact same thing happened to cause our current economic problems. If the federal government had not subsidized homes for people who couldn't afford to pay the mortgages we wouldn't be in this mess!!! Sure, I understand that Wall Street made money off this arrangement but that's not the root cause. Those mortgages were unaffordable and WHATEVER entity ended up owning them would have been in financial trouble. It just happens to be that Wall Street packaged these nonsense loans into high risk packages and traded them around among themselves in the total disillusionment that they could make money off them. Well, IF they were inclined to consider how risky those investments actually were, what was their motivation to avoid pushing them? Answer: NONE! Why? Because the federal government guaranteed(!) their money was reasonably safe ... all those mortgages had Fannie and Freddie backing. While it is true that Wall Street was immorally motivated to trade/invest these things, why did they do it? If the ill-advised sub-prime mortgage progam had never been created OR had been run by Freddie and Fannie with an ounce of economic sense, people who actually couldn't afford to pay the mortgages wouldn't have gotten them!
The big question is why did Fannie and Freddie push sub-prime mortgages (the ROOT cause of our troubles)? Answer: congress and Clinton told them to do it. In fact, one of the last executive orders Clinton gave was for Freddie and Fanny to make half their mortgages be these sub-prime types. The ONLY way Fannie and Freddie could do that was to loosen the qualification requirements so much that there really weren't any. The root of our current economic troubles is that sub-prime mortgages were pushed by government, mostly progressives in congress and the White House. Yes, Wall Street made it worse. But ONLY 'worse'. The housing market would have collapsed even if Wall Street had stayed out of it because whomever had owned those mortgages would have gone under. This problem would never have happened ONLY if progressives in our government hadn't tried to regulate nearly everyone into a home whether they could afford it or not.
The Occupy Wall Street folks are protesting the wrong culprits. Sure, Wall Street has dirty hands and college costs too much but if these protesters want the root cause of both problems fixed at the cheapest cost to taxpayers they need to protest congress, especially progressive regulation and other meddling. The 'fixes' they're calling for will mostly make the problems worse. If college already costs too much, what do you think will happen to the cost if it's subsidized even more? C'mon folks. Think about it.
What's hilarious is that so many people think that lack of regulation is what caused the sub-prime mortgage and, therefore, housing market collapse. In fact, it was government regulation that caused it by forcing (ie, regulating) Fannie and Freddie into lowering their loan qualification standards below what made any economic sense whatsoever.
One ought to consider what progressive-ism has brought us in recent decades. Their push to subsidize student loans and home mortgages is fundamentally at the root of our current economic troubles. The federal government is absolutely key in causing problems with both programs by forcing taxpayers to subsidize them and now we taxpayers are expected to pay more to a government that created the problems? The logic completely escapes me.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Son Matt Has Been Busy Professionally With His Music
As I've blogged before, both of my sons have hearts and skills for music. I just blogged below about Chris' accomplishments at San Jose State University and I have to brag how fortunate I am that my younger son, Matt, has been professionally engaged with his musical gifts as well. Here's a link to samples of that: http://mattoldsmusic.wordpress.com/music/
Matt's talents in writing and playing music blesses us so much. We really enjoy hearing him express himself in the variety of ways he's found to do that. Go Matt!!!
Matt's talents in writing and playing music blesses us so much. We really enjoy hearing him express himself in the variety of ways he's found to do that. Go Matt!!!
Son Chris Has His Senior Recital Scheduled For Nov 12th! Yay!!!
Son Chris is a student at San Jose State University, majoring in Music Ed. He's nearing the end of that journey and has his senior recital scheduled for November 12th. His Mom and I are very proud of his accomplishment and are looking forward to attending it and celebrating this important milestone.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Law Of The Land In Libya: Sharia Law. So Much For The Hope Of Freedom.
If you know anything about Sharia law, you know it's very anti-freedom. 'Arab Spring' government overthrows are moving countries in that direction and that's not a step toward either freedom or peace in that part of the world nor in other parts of the world where the consequences of it are felt. The following quote is from MSNBC today.
"And [Abdul-Jalil, head of NTC, Libya's transition council] laid out a vision for the post-Gadhafi future with an Islamist tint, saying Islamic Sharia law would be the "basic source" of legislation and existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified. In a gesture that showed his own piety, he urged Libyans not to express their joy by firing guns in the air, but rather to chant "Allahu Akbar," or God is Great."
I have nothing against Muslims or their religion, Islam, but if they're honest they must acknowledge that basing a country's government and legal system on Sharia law creates a legal system that stands in stark opposition to religious, much less individual freedom that's being desired and embraced by most of the non-Muslim world. A telling question is, what are the chances that Christians will enjoy the same peace, safety/security and freedom in these Muslim countries that operate under Sharia law as Muslims are afforded in Christian countries?
"And [Abdul-Jalil, head of NTC, Libya's transition council] laid out a vision for the post-Gadhafi future with an Islamist tint, saying Islamic Sharia law would be the "basic source" of legislation and existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified. In a gesture that showed his own piety, he urged Libyans not to express their joy by firing guns in the air, but rather to chant "Allahu Akbar," or God is Great."
I have nothing against Muslims or their religion, Islam, but if they're honest they must acknowledge that basing a country's government and legal system on Sharia law creates a legal system that stands in stark opposition to religious, much less individual freedom that's being desired and embraced by most of the non-Muslim world. A telling question is, what are the chances that Christians will enjoy the same peace, safety/security and freedom in these Muslim countries that operate under Sharia law as Muslims are afforded in Christian countries?
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Actually, President Obama Is Meeting Bush's Promise On Iraq Withdrawal
From MSNBC and most media, including FOX News: End of war in Iraq is a major campaign promise kept by Obama.
Well, I'm as happy as the next guy that we're getting out of Iraq but that claim is nothing more nor less than spin (or poor memory) of the highest order.
Actually, removing troops from Iraq by the end of this year was Bush's promise cast in an agreement with the Iraqis several months before Obama won the general election. Prior to that agreement that Bush made with the Iraqis in mid-2008, Obama's consistent campaigned-on date was "16 months after taking office" ... June 2010. All Obama can honestly claim is not screwing up a promise Bush made to Americans and Iraqis.
In case you're interested, the facts and timeline are:
Through 2007:
Here is a quote repeated by many sources: "Obama will immediately [upon taking office] begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month [starting day 1 of his presidency], and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months (ie, by June 2010)."
February 19, 2008 (At his Texas primary victory speech):
Per CBS News report: "In his victory speech in Texas Tuesday, Barack Obama promised to end the Iraq war in 2009" ... ie, during(!) his first year in office. So, a few months after saying he'd get them out by June 2010, he said he'd get them out 6 months earlier than that ... by December 31, 2009. That may have been a gaffe because he consistently said "16 months after taking office" in all other speeches during his campaign.
March 7, 2008 (Per Politico.com):
Obama's campaign website describes Iraq withdrawal within 16 months of taking office (ie, by June 2010).
August 4, 2008 (Per AntiWar.com):
"Seventeen months after President Barack Obama pledged to withdraw all combat brigades from Iraq by June 2010, he quietly abandoned that pledge Monday, admitting implicitly that such combat brigades would remain until the end of 2011." This anti-war group has no reason to bend the truth and they weren't happy he changed his mind at the last moment to the date Bush already agreed to with the Iraqi government.
So, throughout his campaign, Senator Obama consistently(!) said he'd get the troops out by June 2010. It wasn't until after he'd won the Democratic primary and was all but assured of winning the general election a scant three months later that he said he'd bring them home by the date Bush previously established by written agreement with Iraqis, December 31, 2011.
It's completely irrational to claim Obama campaigned on bringing them home by the end of 2011 when for all but the last three months he said he'd do it by June 2010. He ran his entire campaign on bringing them home by June 2010. It wasn't until the campaign was effectively over that he conceded to do it by the date previously established by Bush ... the end of 2011.
Let's give credit where credit is due. What's really happening is that we're bringing the troops home by the date Bush promised to Americans and Iraqis. The only thing for which we owe Obama credit is not messing that up.
Well, I'm as happy as the next guy that we're getting out of Iraq but that claim is nothing more nor less than spin (or poor memory) of the highest order.
Actually, removing troops from Iraq by the end of this year was Bush's promise cast in an agreement with the Iraqis several months before Obama won the general election. Prior to that agreement that Bush made with the Iraqis in mid-2008, Obama's consistent campaigned-on date was "16 months after taking office" ... June 2010. All Obama can honestly claim is not screwing up a promise Bush made to Americans and Iraqis.
In case you're interested, the facts and timeline are:
Through 2007:
Here is a quote repeated by many sources: "Obama will immediately [upon taking office] begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month [starting day 1 of his presidency], and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months (ie, by June 2010)."
February 19, 2008 (At his Texas primary victory speech):
Per CBS News report: "In his victory speech in Texas Tuesday, Barack Obama promised to end the Iraq war in 2009" ... ie, during(!) his first year in office. So, a few months after saying he'd get them out by June 2010, he said he'd get them out 6 months earlier than that ... by December 31, 2009. That may have been a gaffe because he consistently said "16 months after taking office" in all other speeches during his campaign.
March 7, 2008 (Per Politico.com):
Obama's campaign website describes Iraq withdrawal within 16 months of taking office (ie, by June 2010).
August 4, 2008 (Per AntiWar.com):
"Seventeen months after President Barack Obama pledged to withdraw all combat brigades from Iraq by June 2010, he quietly abandoned that pledge Monday, admitting implicitly that such combat brigades would remain until the end of 2011." This anti-war group has no reason to bend the truth and they weren't happy he changed his mind at the last moment to the date Bush already agreed to with the Iraqi government.
So, throughout his campaign, Senator Obama consistently(!) said he'd get the troops out by June 2010. It wasn't until after he'd won the Democratic primary and was all but assured of winning the general election a scant three months later that he said he'd bring them home by the date Bush previously established by written agreement with Iraqis, December 31, 2011.
It's completely irrational to claim Obama campaigned on bringing them home by the end of 2011 when for all but the last three months he said he'd do it by June 2010. He ran his entire campaign on bringing them home by June 2010. It wasn't until the campaign was effectively over that he conceded to do it by the date previously established by Bush ... the end of 2011.
Let's give credit where credit is due. What's really happening is that we're bringing the troops home by the date Bush promised to Americans and Iraqis. The only thing for which we owe Obama credit is not messing that up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)