From the AP:
Who warned of this bailout being a bad idea? Who said that failing companies should be allowed to fail? Who warned of the consequences of rewarding irresponsibility with massive taxpayer funding?
Just think about that for a moment...it's the same people warning of socialism in this country. In fact, this bailout is a big illustration of the mindset that is plaguing America right now. The bailout rewarded bad decisions and irresponsible behavior rather than punishing those people. Without that punishment, those people will continue to act irresponsibly, like those AIG execs.
Now, how about we bring back an antiquated idea called responsibility? There's a woeful lack of it in this country right now.
You know, after reflecting a bit more on the debate last night, there were really only a couple things that jumped out at me. First was McCain's suggestion that he would direct the Treasury Secretary to buy up bad loans and re-negotiate them with the homeowner at a rate that they can afford. I have a big problem with that. The most obvious thing is that this idea leaves one critical piece of information out of the picture: the actual value of the home! Okay, so you can't afford a $500,000 house on a $30,000 a year salary...does that mean you should get a sweetheart deal forced by the Treasury to pay only $500/month on that luxury home? NO!!! It means you give up that mortgage and go find somewhere to live that you can actually afford. This is precisely the mentality that got us into the mess in the first place, and McCain has taken the wrong side of this issue in encouraging the irresponsibility. The second obvious problem with this plan: it's already been done. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that's exactly what this bailout already did. McCain really flubbed on this point.
The other thing that really angered me was the question of health care being a right or a responsibility. McCain's answer: responsibility. Obama's answer: right. I appreciate his willingness to admit it out loud, because that's what his policy indicates. At least he's being honest about his nanny state-ism.
Here's the problem with that idea: it's flat-out wrong. I'll pay anyone $1,000 if they can cite the section of the U.S. Constitution that says health care is a right for all Americans. That section doesn't exist because it isn't a right. Period. End of story. No debate. The idea that we have a right to health care is a byproduct of that good ol' creep of liberalism that creates dependence on the nanny state government.
Here's a perfect example. I was listening to the radio on my way to work, and there was a panel of local people talking about the debate. One man spoke of a time in his life when he was unemployed for four years, and because he was diabetic he experienced some really terrible health problems. He said that health care should be a right because he had no other way to get the medicine he needed other than waiting for hours in the emergency room (which he didn't do).
Okay, let's dissect that. I'm sorry you had difficulties, but you know what? Everyone does. Welcome to real life. My first question for him: why were you unemployed for four years? I know what it's like to be out of a job - I've been there. Do you know how long I sat around without a job and accepting unemployment checks from the government? About two months. I quickly took a job in retail -- after sending out hundreds of resumes over a period of weeks, by the way -- as a temporary measure to earn at least a modest income while I continued searching for the kind of job that I needed to fully provide for my family (several months later). Why couldn't he do that? My guess is that he simply chose not to. That's irresponsible, especially when you expect me and other taxpayers to provide for your choice.
Next question: if it was so important to you to get that life-saving medicine, why did you not find it worth spending a few hours in the ER? I find it extremely disturbing that someone would say that they refused to get their own medicine because of a little inconvenience, but now they expect the American taxpayers to provide for them! This is the result of the nanny state dependence, and this is the end goal of liberalism/socialism. This guy is hooked, and will now forever look to the government for everything he needs whether it is something he can do for himself or not. That's the problem.
Barack Obama believes health care is a right, not a responsibility. His policies indicate it, and how he's admitted it on the public record. He is clearly happy to have more and more people become dependent upon government to provide for them. I am not. I believe that government screws up just about everything touched by their slimy tentacles, and that the less of their 'help' I get, the better off I'll be. Are there times for intervention? Sure. But those times are few and far between, and they certainly don't include health care on my dime (and yours) through taxpayer funded insurance, nor spa treatments for corrupt or inept executives.
With Obama's admission that he thinks health care is a right, we are seeing the culimnation of years of the entitlement mentality, and the eventual resting place will be that everything is provided to everyone by our government. The problem is that that resting place will be too much of a burden for those few who are still productive, and the entire system will collapse. That's what we have to look forward to if liberalism wins out in November.
There's my two cents.
Less than a week after the federal government had to bail out American International Group Inc. (AIG), the company sent executives on a $440,000 retreat to a posh California resort, lawmakers investigating the company's meltdown said Tuesday.
The tab included $23,380 worth of spa treatments for AIG employees at the coastal St. Regis resort south of Los Angeles even as the company tapped into an $85 billion loan from the government it needed to stave off bankruptcy.
The retreat didn't include anyone from the financial products division that nearly drove AIG under, but lawmakers were still enraged over thousands of dollars spent on catered banquets, golf outings and visits to the resort's spa and salon for executives of AIG's main U.S. life insurance subsidiary.
"Average Americans are suffering economically. They're losing their jobs, their homes and their health insurance," House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., scolded the company during a lengthy opening statement. "Yet less than one week after the taxpayers rescued AIG, company executives could be found wining and dining at one of the most exclusive resorts in the nation."
Just think about that for a moment...it's the same people warning of socialism in this country. In fact, this bailout is a big illustration of the mindset that is plaguing America right now. The bailout rewarded bad decisions and irresponsible behavior rather than punishing those people. Without that punishment, those people will continue to act irresponsibly, like those AIG execs.
Now, how about we bring back an antiquated idea called responsibility? There's a woeful lack of it in this country right now.
You know, after reflecting a bit more on the debate last night, there were really only a couple things that jumped out at me. First was McCain's suggestion that he would direct the Treasury Secretary to buy up bad loans and re-negotiate them with the homeowner at a rate that they can afford. I have a big problem with that. The most obvious thing is that this idea leaves one critical piece of information out of the picture: the actual value of the home! Okay, so you can't afford a $500,000 house on a $30,000 a year salary...does that mean you should get a sweetheart deal forced by the Treasury to pay only $500/month on that luxury home? NO!!! It means you give up that mortgage and go find somewhere to live that you can actually afford. This is precisely the mentality that got us into the mess in the first place, and McCain has taken the wrong side of this issue in encouraging the irresponsibility. The second obvious problem with this plan: it's already been done. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that's exactly what this bailout already did. McCain really flubbed on this point.
The other thing that really angered me was the question of health care being a right or a responsibility. McCain's answer: responsibility. Obama's answer: right. I appreciate his willingness to admit it out loud, because that's what his policy indicates. At least he's being honest about his nanny state-ism.
Here's the problem with that idea: it's flat-out wrong. I'll pay anyone $1,000 if they can cite the section of the U.S. Constitution that says health care is a right for all Americans. That section doesn't exist because it isn't a right. Period. End of story. No debate. The idea that we have a right to health care is a byproduct of that good ol' creep of liberalism that creates dependence on the nanny state government.
Here's a perfect example. I was listening to the radio on my way to work, and there was a panel of local people talking about the debate. One man spoke of a time in his life when he was unemployed for four years, and because he was diabetic he experienced some really terrible health problems. He said that health care should be a right because he had no other way to get the medicine he needed other than waiting for hours in the emergency room (which he didn't do).
Okay, let's dissect that. I'm sorry you had difficulties, but you know what? Everyone does. Welcome to real life. My first question for him: why were you unemployed for four years? I know what it's like to be out of a job - I've been there. Do you know how long I sat around without a job and accepting unemployment checks from the government? About two months. I quickly took a job in retail -- after sending out hundreds of resumes over a period of weeks, by the way -- as a temporary measure to earn at least a modest income while I continued searching for the kind of job that I needed to fully provide for my family (several months later). Why couldn't he do that? My guess is that he simply chose not to. That's irresponsible, especially when you expect me and other taxpayers to provide for your choice.
Next question: if it was so important to you to get that life-saving medicine, why did you not find it worth spending a few hours in the ER? I find it extremely disturbing that someone would say that they refused to get their own medicine because of a little inconvenience, but now they expect the American taxpayers to provide for them! This is the result of the nanny state dependence, and this is the end goal of liberalism/socialism. This guy is hooked, and will now forever look to the government for everything he needs whether it is something he can do for himself or not. That's the problem.
Barack Obama believes health care is a right, not a responsibility. His policies indicate it, and how he's admitted it on the public record. He is clearly happy to have more and more people become dependent upon government to provide for them. I am not. I believe that government screws up just about everything touched by their slimy tentacles, and that the less of their 'help' I get, the better off I'll be. Are there times for intervention? Sure. But those times are few and far between, and they certainly don't include health care on my dime (and yours) through taxpayer funded insurance, nor spa treatments for corrupt or inept executives.
With Obama's admission that he thinks health care is a right, we are seeing the culimnation of years of the entitlement mentality, and the eventual resting place will be that everything is provided to everyone by our government. The problem is that that resting place will be too much of a burden for those few who are still productive, and the entire system will collapse. That's what we have to look forward to if liberalism wins out in November.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment