According to LifeSiteNews.com, "The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work."
So that is Obama's idea of a compromise on the current firestorm that he created? Let me see if I get his thinking straight on this one; since Catholics and other Christian's are justifiably upset over Obama's mandate that religious institution must pay for birth control and related drugs, instead of making these organizations pay for them, he will simply require their insurance companies to provide them for free?
First off, nothing is free. The insurance companies will offset this cost by charging a larger premium - the religious organizations are still paying for contraceptives!!
Secondly, does the President think that we the believers are that gullible? Apparently he does.
I've decided to use a little double speak of my own, something I am sure that given the above the President can understand:
I am no longer voting against Obama. I am simply going to vote for the other guy. Completely different huh?
Friday, February 10, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
A Bachelor of Art in Serfdom.
I am amazed at some of the things that people do. Take for instance borrowing money to get an education. Under the current system this guarantees that you will be a debt serf. In addition, when the government got into student loans business, the cost of a college education skyrocketed.
These increasing costs were addressed by the President when he told colleges that they would need to keep their costs down. Which is ironic. Once student loans were guaranteed by the government, allowing anyone to get a loan, including very poor credit risks that private industry would never have loaned to, the number prospective students increased.
As this easy money flowed into colleges and universities, they were able to easily increase their prices - although they would tell you that they are adding value to the service they provide. Gag. Which is why the $850 per year tuition I paid 20 years ago is now $5566 per year (in-state tuition). Not to mention the current price of books.
At $425 per semester, I was easily able to pay my own way to attend college. I also bought used books on the cheap and sold them at the end of the semester - this prior to universities figuring out that they could slightly change something in a textbook or course and require brand new books each year. My used biology book was $35.00, and was good for several years. My daughters current anatomy and physiology textbook was $400+, and a new book is required each time the course is taught. The situation has gotten so bad that even Vice President Blowhard has admitted government culpability in the rising costs of tuition.
If this isn't bad enough, the truly terrifying issue to me is that once you take on debt to finance your college education, this debt follows you for the rest of your life. Many people have been given loans that traditional private lenders would never have made - simply because these loans are a poor credit risk and the lender would have lost money. Under the current system, poor credit risks are given a loan for their education, knowing full well that many of these people will be unable to pay it back. But pay it back they will - these loans will follow them to the grave.
If they should decide to stop servicing the debt, many states are now tying employment to the service of the debt. So, if they don't pay, they don't work. Many of these same student WILL NEVER work in a job that has anything to do with their major. Making that expensive college education not only impractical, but downright foolish.
Now I'm not knocking a good college education. If you're going to go DON'T go into debt to do it - you will become a slave for the rest of your life. Also, get an education that is actually worthwhile, like engineering or a business degree that is has universal application. I think a lot of people would be saved a lifetime worth of grief by doing a cost / benefit analysis before taking out loans to get a degree in woman's studies or some other such useless degree. If you are independently wealthy, then knock yourself out. Otherwise, why would you consciously want to become a slave?
These increasing costs were addressed by the President when he told colleges that they would need to keep their costs down. Which is ironic. Once student loans were guaranteed by the government, allowing anyone to get a loan, including very poor credit risks that private industry would never have loaned to, the number prospective students increased.
As this easy money flowed into colleges and universities, they were able to easily increase their prices - although they would tell you that they are adding value to the service they provide. Gag. Which is why the $850 per year tuition I paid 20 years ago is now $5566 per year (in-state tuition). Not to mention the current price of books.
At $425 per semester, I was easily able to pay my own way to attend college. I also bought used books on the cheap and sold them at the end of the semester - this prior to universities figuring out that they could slightly change something in a textbook or course and require brand new books each year. My used biology book was $35.00, and was good for several years. My daughters current anatomy and physiology textbook was $400+, and a new book is required each time the course is taught. The situation has gotten so bad that even Vice President Blowhard has admitted government culpability in the rising costs of tuition.
If this isn't bad enough, the truly terrifying issue to me is that once you take on debt to finance your college education, this debt follows you for the rest of your life. Many people have been given loans that traditional private lenders would never have made - simply because these loans are a poor credit risk and the lender would have lost money. Under the current system, poor credit risks are given a loan for their education, knowing full well that many of these people will be unable to pay it back. But pay it back they will - these loans will follow them to the grave.
If they should decide to stop servicing the debt, many states are now tying employment to the service of the debt. So, if they don't pay, they don't work. Many of these same student WILL NEVER work in a job that has anything to do with their major. Making that expensive college education not only impractical, but downright foolish.
Now I'm not knocking a good college education. If you're going to go DON'T go into debt to do it - you will become a slave for the rest of your life. Also, get an education that is actually worthwhile, like engineering or a business degree that is has universal application. I think a lot of people would be saved a lifetime worth of grief by doing a cost / benefit analysis before taking out loans to get a degree in woman's studies or some other such useless degree. If you are independently wealthy, then knock yourself out. Otherwise, why would you consciously want to become a slave?
Monday, January 30, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Libertarianism Without Boundaries Equals Death
I was dealing with a person today who had no concept of boundaries. She believed and acted as though she could do anything she desired and say anything she wanted to with absolutely no consequences to her actions, after all, “it’s a free country.”
As she was exercising her freedom on private property, and vocally I might add, this led to her being told to leave and that if she came back she would be trespassed and arrested.
As I talked with her the reason why libertarianism will not work in America solidified. Hang with me on this one.
Libertarianism would work as a governing principle IF we were a moral people – or if we all accepted certain boundaries while practicing our liberty. Since we are not a moral people (if we ever really were), libertarianism without morality equals anarchy and death.
I personally like being responsible for myself and making my own decisions. I am a free man but I live within the boundaries set by God in the Old and New Testament. I am not going to steal from you, I am not going to lie to you, I am not going to covet your stuff or your wife (I happened to be married to the best wife on the planet), I am not going to be a drunkard (abuse alcohol), and my hands will not shed innocent blood. If everybody adopted the boundaries that God set, we could all be libertarians and live quite happily.
The libertarianism being espoused today strikes me as being very similar to the behavior and actions of that young woman I dealt with. Basically anything goes. I get sick of hearing the fringe elements of the libertarian party talking about legalizing prostitution and drugs, citing the failure of prohibition as the primary example of why the criminalization of marijuana is such a failure. Let me ask you this, if prohibition was such a failure, was legalizing alcohol any less of a failure? Look at the destruction the abuse of alcohol brings upon families and the number of people that drunk driver’s kill each year and tell me how much of a better solution legalizing alcohol was to prohibition.
My point is this: as long as we adopt situational ethics for our guiding moral compass instead of the moral boundaries that God set down for our wellbeing, WE WILL NEVER FIND A SOLUTION TO OUR PROBLEMS, and libertarianism simply will not work. In fact NO form of government that we come up with will "work."
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
Or put another way, if you desire an oppressive government become an immoral people.
I still believe in individual liberty. I call myself a moral libertarian to distinguish myself from all of the immoral crazies that seem hell bent on the destruction of our culture and society.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Same Old Same Old
I'm trying not to be too disgusted with the state of politics in this country. I am especially upset with how primaries are operated. Is it just me or is it obvious that the eastern half of the country pretty much gets to decide who makes it to the primaries of the western half of the country? I'm getting tired of the progressive wing of the Republican party choosing who will be the nominee. Here is a novel idea. Why not have a primary week, where all the states would be required to have their primary within a set week, say February? This would take the focus off of any particular state and perhaps give those of us in the west who have late primaries a chance at having a real say.
Given the two top choices so far, The Toad or Romney, I'm reminded of something the Gipper said years ago, taking a small editorial privilege. "I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me." Are Republican's really out of touch that much to offer up for consideration Obama II, and Obama Light?
Monday, January 16, 2012
A very succinct three part essay about what has gone wrong. Yes, it has been deliberate, and although the author is mainly talking about Great Britain his thesis has equal application to us.
Worth the time to read.
How To Destroy a Country Part I
How To Destroy a Country Part II
How To Destroy a Country Part III
Worth the time to read.
How To Destroy a Country Part I
How To Destroy a Country Part II
How To Destroy a Country Part III
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)