Big Dogs Weblog

Once Again, Government to the Rescue

Feb 22, 2008 General

The housing market has taken a bath and there are people who can no longer afford their mortgages because they bought more house than they could afford and then adjustable rates kicked in and buried them. This is one of those things that should be between the borrower and the bank from whom he borrowed but not in the nanny state. The government is trying to force mortgage rates down and is injecting itself into this “crisis.” Government does not belong in the mortgage business. Sure, it would make great sense (and help prevent foreclosure and a loss of money) for the banks to sit down with homeowners and work on some kind of fixed rate mortgage or extending the term to 40 years but this should be between the two people who signed the contract and the government should not be involved.

Today, there is word out that the government is looking at ways to fix the problem of lost equity on a home. Many people out there paid too much for their home and did not put anything down and now the price they can sell it for is less than they owe on it. Basically, they would sell their house and still owe money at closing. Many of these people make really good money so it is not like we are talking about the poor having problems. What we actually have here is a bunch of people who think it is wrong for them to take a loss. They believe they deserve to sell their homes for a profit and they think that the government should step in and fix it so they get what they want. It is that attitude that got them in the financial mess in the first place.

There are some banks that want the government to buy up the loans and then refinance them at a better rate for these people. It is amazing that people want the government to make up their losses. Any money spent by the government has to come from other taxpayers which means that once again responsible, taxpaying people will be bailing out those who were not so responsible. It is not the job of government to run a mortgage business and it is not the job of government to bail people who made bade decisions out of their jam.

If people are having trouble with their adjustable mortgage they should find a way to refinance at a lower, fixed rate and they should pay the closing costs associated with the transaction. It is up to the individual to do this and not the government. If people are upset because their house is worth less than what they paid for it then they need to just stay in it and keep paying the mortgage. If it will hurt financially to sell then don’t sell. Stay where you are and keep paying the house payments. The next time the market goes up your house will be worth more and taxpayers will not get soaked paying for your selfishness.

A recent commenter indicated that I had a bad upbringing and must not be loved because I think it is criminal to take a worker’s money in taxes and then pay for social programs like universal health care for everyone. This person, without even knowing me, said it would not hurt me to pay a little more in taxes so that the kid who pumps gas down the street can have health insurance. This person lacks the ability to see that it is wrong and immoral to do this. If I am to pay these things it should be voluntary, not coerced. Additionally, I am only obligated to provide for my own children.

I asked what was next, I had to pay more taxes so the kid at the gas station could have a house like me because he deserves it. It would appear that I was not very far off if our tax dollars will go to bail out homeowners who made bad decisions.

Pretty soon the government will have people to clean up after us when we use the bathroom because we will not be capable of taking care of ourselves at all.

The sad thing is, there are people who would like that and who would believe that it was a God given Constitutional right…

Source:
NYT

Tags: bad decisions, government bailout, nanny state, responsibility, socialism

Hillary’s Speech; The Substance of Socialism

Feb 14, 2008 Political

Hillary Clinton has done another campaign makeover and the new theme of the day is the power of speeches over the power of solutions. Bill and Hillary were both out today reading from the same memo where they are attacking Obama hard with this rhetoric; Do you want someone who delivers speeches or someone who delivers solutions. Of course, the question is asked in a speech and there is not a hell of a lot of solution to be found in the past of either candidate. Let us look at Hillary’s idea of solution:

• “We’ll take on the oil companies and harness their record profits to create millions of clean energy jobs — high-wage jobs you can raise a family on. I’ll end their special tax breaks and give them a choice: invest some of your profits in alternative energy, or we’ll do it for you. People have been paying through the roof at the pump, and it’s time the companies paid their fair share.”
• “We’ll take on the credit card companies so that you and your families aren’t drowning in debt. Here in Ohio, payday lenders are actually taking Social Security checks from our elderly. That’s outrageous. I’ve proposed real consumer protections against abusive interest rates…”
• “We’ll take on the insurance companies and tell them they can no longer discriminate against the sickest people who need care the most. They spend more than $50 billion a year trying to figure out how not to cover people. Well, I’m going to save them a fortune and a whole lot of time, because here’s the new policy: No more discrimination period…”
• “And I’ll go after drug companies and insurance companies that are overcharging consumers and the government — it’s time to end their profiteering at our expense”
• “We’ll take on Wall Street and tell them: you’re going to finally pay your fair share in taxes. Because it’s outrageous that a teacher making $50,000 pays a higher tax rate than some Wall Street investment managers making $50 million…”
• “We’ll take on the student loan companies and tell them no more ripping off our sons and daughters. I’m proposing a Student Borrower Bill of Rights — no more deceptive advertising and outrageous fees…”

Notice the common theme here. Hillary and big government are going to take over all these businesses and people and tell them how they have to conduct themselves, how much profit they can make and how much they may charge for their services. Hillary is trying to have a government takeover of all these areas so that she can have her hands in everything you do. She is not smart enough to run an effective campaign but she is smart enough to decide for you and for companies.

Oil companies make a great deal of profit in raw dollars but their profit margin is about 11%. There are many companies with higher profit margins that Hillary will leave alone because she cannot sensationalize without the big dollar figures. The major oil companies do not receive the tax breaks she is talking about. The tax breaks were given to smaller oil companies in Texas and Louisiana by their elected officials to help them compete. The oil companies spend millions of dollars in programs around the world and they make little profit on gasoline. Oil is a global commodity and the price is decided globally. Also, taxes comprise a big part of the cost of gasoline and even with those taxes we pay less than most other countries.

People who get themselves in trouble with credit cards have no one to blame but themselves. If they sign up for a card and keep accumulating debt on it then it will take forever to pay it off. It is not the government’s job to step in and fix this problem. This involves personal responsibility. If you can’t afford it, don’t buy it. If you are too stupid to figure that out then don’t get a credit card.

School loans are the same way. If there are illegal practices then they should be taken care of but the fact is some people take on a great deal of debt they cannot handle to go to college. The government does not belong in this business and it is once again a matter of personal responsibility. If you are too stupid to enter into a contract that you can reasonably afford then you are probably too stupid to be in college in the first place. You should get a job doing the work that most Americans will not do and send the ILLEGALS home.

It costs drug companies a fortune to develop new drugs and it costs them even more money each time an ambulance chasing lawyer sues them because 0.01% of all people who used a drug had a reaction. Drug companies may only keep a patent for a limited period of time and then it can go generic so they have to capture their expenses in a short period of time which means the drugs will cost more money. I always shook my head at patients who said they could not afford their $90 a month medication but who told me they smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day ($180 a month). It is a matter of priorities. Also, some drug companies have programs where they give drugs to people who cannot afford them so there are ways to get them. Older generics work fine and cost less. We also need to take into consideration the amount of money the companies spend to get drugs approved by the FDA. That is a lengthy process and it costs time and money. Do people want to remove this safeguard?

Health insurance companies have many problems and there are things that could be done better. If we want health care to be affordable get government out of the business. States require health care companies to provide a wide array of services before they can offer their plans for sale. This drives the cost up. There are also many doctors who practice defensive medicine in that they order a number of unnecessary tests to cover their rear ends so that someone does not get sick and hire an ambulance chaser like John Edwards to sue the hell out of the them. This drives health care costs up. I have written about how health care deliver can be better and some of it involves personal responsibility and less government involvement.

Interestingly, Hillary is striking hard at the very companies that she has accepted money from in the past. She is promising to take money from companies that employ middle class workers and whenever companies have less money they have fewer workers. Her plans will not save money and will drive the cost of services up while increasing unemployment. She is pandering to everyone, everywhere in order to make promises she cannot possibly keep.

She had her head handed to her in eight straight primaries and there is no mathematical way she can win this nomination. It is going to go to the convention. She knows she cannot win but she is putting out lies and false promises in order to gain support in the big states to narrow the delegate deficit. She wants the brokered convention to pick her and she is trying to put out her liberal bonafides. She is the candidate of solutions, not speeches.

Just listen to her speeches and she will tell you so…

Source:
The Politico

Tags: empty suit, Hillary, lies, Obama, socialism, substance

How Will Che Obama Explain This?

Feb 11, 2008 Political

We all know that Barack Obama will not wear a flag lapel pin and we know that he does not put his hand over his heart during our National Anthem. Obama has explained that he does not need a pin to be patriotic (I agree) but his explanation on the Anthem was pathetic. He did not know the proper protocol and that is a very sad thing especially for someone who wants to be president.

I want to know how Obama will explain the latest flag issue to beset his campaign. In one of his new campaign offices in Houston there is a Cuban Flag with Che Guevara superimposed on it. Guevara was a Marxist revolutionary and the leader of the Cuban and internationalist guerrillas. After his death, Guevara became an icon of socialist revolutionary movements and a cultural icon worldwide and many of the moonbats at protests carry signs with his picture on it.

So how will Obama explain his campaign office having a flag that symbolizes socialism? How will he explain the fact that one of his offices has a flag that pays tribute to the Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara? How will Obama spin this so that it does not bite him in the rear?

It will probably make little difference to the Democrats because they carry signs praising this guy and it will probably not provide fodder for Hillary because she believes in Socialism. However, there are a lot of people in this country who will remember this come the general election and the real patriots have no tolerance for this crap.

I will bet they come up with some excuse like “it was already there and we had not taken it down yet.”

Right.

Source:
NewsBusters

Others:
Michelle Malkin | Fort Hard Knox

Tags: che guevara, Flag, marxism, Obama, socialism

Make Obama and Clinton Live by the Rules They Want for Us

Feb 4, 2008 Political

We need to make Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama run their campaigns by the very same rules they want to impose upon us. I heard Obama say that he is not ashamed to proclaim that he wants to raise the cap on which people pay social security to make the rich will pay more so that the average guy will be able to draw social security benefits. This is nothing more than wealth redistribution, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I would not have a problem with them raising the cap if rich people could draw social security. Once you have a certain amount of retirement income you are not entitled to SS benefits. Therefore, all the money a person pays in ends up going to someone else. Basically, what they gave us was Socialism Security.

Hillary Clinton has stated that she wants to give health care to every person in this country and she will raise taxes on the rich in order to do it. The money taken in will be used to pay for health care for those who cannot afford it. Rich people will still have to pay for their own. This again, is redistribution of wealth. To top it off, Hillary will garnish wages to gain compliance.

Here is my plan. They both have to run their campaigns on the same terms they want for us. Obama received $32 million in January and that is more than Hillary took in. So, in order to make things fair we need to raise the cap on what she is allowed to take from a donor and we need to cut in half the amount he is allowed to take in. This will level the playing field so that his rich campaign will not have an advantage over her not as rich campaign. And, since they both want equality in life where there is no gap between the rich and the poor, Obama will have to give the Clinton campaign enough money to make their war chests exactly even. This is fair and I am not ashamed to say that we need to cap Obama, the rich campaign, so that Hillary, the average campaign, will have campaign money.

Here is how it goes for Hillary. Hillary leads in the delegate count. It is not fair that Obama works just as hard as she does and does not have as many delegates as she so Hillary will have to give Obama enough delegates so that they will be even. Also, there will be a penalty if Hillary gets more of the popular vote in any state. If she gets more votes then we will garnish her total and give him extra delegates. It is not fair for two people who work just as hard as each other to not get the same exact thing for their efforts so we will penalize Hillary if she gets more votes or more delegates. Also, since it is discrimination for the Super Delegates to take sides in this issue (it must be discrimination because a black guy is on the short end) the Super Delegates will be divided by giving Obama three quarters and Hillary one quarter. This is affirmative action for the primary and it ensures Obama is compensated for the slavery that occurred a long time ago. He will be compensated for that and if it hurts Hillary, well she will have to suck it up.

I am willing to bet that neither of them would agree to such terms but they have no choice in the matter because I have mandated that it be so.

After all, these kinds of plans are what they want to do to us and they will achieve them by force.

Tags: Clinton, fairness, Obama, rules, socialism

Hillary’s Socialist Ways “I will Take Your Money”

Feb 3, 2008 Political

At the risk of sounding sad but entertaining to those who drink Hillary Clinton’s dirty bath water, I will continue to attack her socialist views and show how she believes she knows better what to do with your money than you do. I know there are those who, despite mounds of evidence, will say that I attack her (or her husband) based on unsubstantiated items with little evidence. There is plenty of evidence to show Hillary believes in socialism. There is plenty of evidence to show Hillary believes that you should give a huge sum of your money to the government so that the government can run people’s lives. The latest is her new assertion that she thinks the government should garnish wages of those who refuse to buy health care coverage. This came out of her mouth but there are those who will say there is no evidence she said it.

All the Democrats have talked about universal health care and every plan involves taking the choice away from people and putting it in the government’s hands. The government will extort more money from everyone who pays taxes (that is their definition of rich) and they will spend it on an expensive health care plan that will cost more money than we have to pay. The plans will take away choice and will force people to buy something they might not want.

One only needs to ask the question; “Is it right for the government to tell you what you have to buy?” I know many liberals think that is fine but it is not. It violates the Constitution and it denies people the freedom of choice. What next? Will the government tell families that they may only have 2 children and must abort further pregnancies or pay a huge fine?

Hillary Clinton said that she would go after the profits of oil companies (definitely un-American), and that she will provide everything for people. Now she is saying that if a person refuses to get health care coverage the government will garnish wages to make it happen. This is not only Socialist, it is Communist as well. I can envision a future where we are told who to vote for and watched as we vote in a fair and secret election designed to give people like Hillary lifetime jobs.

I don’t care how one looks at this it is wrong. Any person who thinks it is OK for the government to do this is not a true American and does not deserve to live in this country. Anyone who believes that the government should be allowed to garnish wages to force compliance with health care or anything else is a Communist and should be beaten to death. If you want to do something, make people pay their bills. If you go to the hospital and have no money then you pay it off over time or you lose your property to collection. People buy cars on time so they can pay for their health over time, especially of they just choose not to get it. It is called personal responsibility, something most liberals lack.

I have health insurance so this will not affect me except that my taxes will be going to pay for the health care of others. If Hillary can take your money for this what is to stop her from taking your money by force to coerce you to do what she thinks is best? Screw her. I don’t need her to tell me how to live and what to spend my money on and neither does any other real American.

I would hope this country would have another armed revolution before it let that happen.

Some apologist will make excuses or say it is a good idea. That just adds one more person to the list of those who should be beaten to death.

Source:
Yahoo News

Tags: Clinton, communism, death to communists, forced compliance, garnish wages, Hillary, socialism