Everyone agrees that the cause of the housing crisis was sub prime loans (loans given to those who cannot afford them). This is not the issue. The issue is that most of America seems to be suffering under the delusion that these loans were given as a result of under regulation: this thought is the result of under education, and this post is here to set the facts straight.
This problem occurred because of OVER (not under) regulation of the market.
What a silly sounding claim, you're saying to yourself: this goes against everything that you have been told up to this point with regards to the housing crisis. How can I make a claim like this?
The answer: very easily. This entire problem was a direct result of a bill called the Community Reinvestment Act which was expanded in 1995 by Clinton (D) to require banks to give sub prime loans.
Why have you not heard of this before? Well for a very simple reason: it is generally pointed out (and this is correct) that a majority of the sub prime loans which caused this crisis were not ones which fell under the umbrella of the CRA, they were other sub prime loans which were not required but were put in place anyway. Why was this done? Simple: it was profitable. That much they have correct, a lot of the loans were given because it was profitable to reclaim the house when the loans were defaulted on and sell it at a higher price: housing prices kept going up, so it was a pretty safe investment (or so it was thought). The thing people keep missing, though, is that even the loans which were not directly required by the CRA were caused by the CRA. The bill was intended to help the poor get housing: obviously if they had been giving out sub prime loans in the first place, the bill would have been unnecessary. But they werent, because it wasnt profitable. It became profitable after the implementation and execution of this bill because when more people could get loans, more people would buy houses. This increased the demand for housing, meaning that housing prices went up, meaning that it became profitable to give these loans because the reclaimed house was worth more than the loan. This led to more loans being given, more houses being bought, more profit, and more loans. Then the bubble popped, and we ended up with our current economic crisis.
So yes, businesses did to it for profit most recently, but the room for profit as well as the original problem was created by a bill started by Democrats and expanded by Democrats as a way of helping the poor afford housing. Every time the government tries to "help the poor", it is the poor who get shortchanged.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Morality of Fiscal Conservatism.
Here is the problem with what the fiscal left says: they seem to think that the people who have money have money because they *just happened* to stumble across it when in fact a large majority of those people have worked for it. They seem to think that a person’s worth is equal to his money, but has it not occurred to them that perhaps a person’s money is equal to his worth? Where do they think money comes from? The ground? Do they think it grows on trees, but only in the backyards of certain people? I’ll let you in on a little secret: every single dollar was the result of hard work. Every single dollar came to its earner through an exchange of goods. Now there are people who have inherited it, but those people got it from the person who earned it in exchange for a very special kind of good: the product of a happier life for their descendents. And if it’s their money, what’s wrong with that? Why do the liberals care what they do with it?
Should we discriminate against those who earn, simply because we don’t earn? Should we pick on those who produce simply because we do not? Should the people who earn, and produce, and work, receive the same benefits as those who fail to? What about the doctors? Those people whose job it is to save lives? Have you not thought of the disaster to them and their families if you were to cut their wages below what their services are worth? You’re probably thinking "oh they make too much money anyway". Do they? How about this: next time YOUR life is at risk don’t go to the doctor. Don’t. Demand lower prices. Oh wait! You won’t! Why not? Because that service is worth its price. If they overpriced their product no one would buy it.
And their services are not yours to command. Their skills, their time, their efforts, are not yours to socialize. You have no right to take someone else’s money to fund your own may I say selfish programs. I often here from the left, on the topic of abortion, that I have no right to force my morals on others. Why does that only apply to me? If I can’t force my values of human life on others, neither should you be able too. You can’t have it both ways, either morals are or are not transferable.
But of course you probably don’t feel like the rich are being discriminated against. They look so well off! But the fact is they pay almost all of our taxes. Every single penny the government spends comes from the pockets of the rich. If a local airlines offered golden cards memberships to those who had spent the last time and money on their industry wouldn’t it be ridiculous? Yet that’s what our government does to its citizens. If anyone deserves exclusive government benefits who should it are? The people who need it or the people who earned it? Shall I rephrase? The people who worked or those that didn’t? The people who are worth something to the world economy, or the people who are not?
The 14th amendment says "equal protection under the law". Guess what guys: that doesn’t mean equality.
What about
"equal protection" from taxes? From AA programs? Why is it okay to fight inequality with inequality? Do you expect people to continue working and producing when the benefits of doing so are decreased? Why does the 14th amendment not seem to apply to the rich, the white, or the men?
Here’s another problem: you seem to think that healthcare is somehow discriminatingly handed out. As though hobos are turned away for being too smelly, or perhaps not being dressed properly. The truth is anyone who earned the money, anyone who worked and contributed to society, has the ability to enter healthcare. There’s no discrimination, its just people don’t work, so don’t earn, so don’t have the money. Some people are working their butts off now, but they are paying for not having worked hard earlier in life. Fact is anyone, ANYONE, in modern day America can achieve healthcare. It’s all about your decisions. if you choose to go play video games instead of studying, or if you choose to have sex before marriage and have a child early, or if you CHOOSE to drop out of high school or not go to college, or perhaps do drugs, you are directly affecting your ability to have healthcare. YOU. YOUR DECISIONS.
There’s a little something that the liberal left would like to convince you doesn’t exist. They don’t like it. They think it’s somehow unfair. That thing is called "personal accountability". For those of you who have been living in liberalland for so long you don’t know what that is, it is the idea that the people who should pay for mistakes made are the people who make those mistakes. The people who don’t make mistakes should not have to pay for the mistakes of others. ZOMG what a crazy idea! People paying for their own actions! You are probably so used to things like the graduated income tax and the various welfare programs that you’re all wired to think that the person who has to pay for mistakes is the person who can handle it, the person who probably didn’t make as many mistakes or else he wouldn’t have the means to handle those consequences. It’s the difference between paying for your actions and paying for the actions of OTHERS. Is that fair, after all?
Now I am not saying don’t give to the poor, don’t be compassionate, don’t care, don’t love. I am saying do all of those things, but do it with your own money. Don’t use my means for your ends. Keep your grubby little hands out of my wallet. Theft is wrong even when it’s legal
Should we discriminate against those who earn, simply because we don’t earn? Should we pick on those who produce simply because we do not? Should the people who earn, and produce, and work, receive the same benefits as those who fail to? What about the doctors? Those people whose job it is to save lives? Have you not thought of the disaster to them and their families if you were to cut their wages below what their services are worth? You’re probably thinking "oh they make too much money anyway". Do they? How about this: next time YOUR life is at risk don’t go to the doctor. Don’t. Demand lower prices. Oh wait! You won’t! Why not? Because that service is worth its price. If they overpriced their product no one would buy it.
And their services are not yours to command. Their skills, their time, their efforts, are not yours to socialize. You have no right to take someone else’s money to fund your own may I say selfish programs. I often here from the left, on the topic of abortion, that I have no right to force my morals on others. Why does that only apply to me? If I can’t force my values of human life on others, neither should you be able too. You can’t have it both ways, either morals are or are not transferable.
But of course you probably don’t feel like the rich are being discriminated against. They look so well off! But the fact is they pay almost all of our taxes. Every single penny the government spends comes from the pockets of the rich. If a local airlines offered golden cards memberships to those who had spent the last time and money on their industry wouldn’t it be ridiculous? Yet that’s what our government does to its citizens. If anyone deserves exclusive government benefits who should it are? The people who need it or the people who earned it? Shall I rephrase? The people who worked or those that didn’t? The people who are worth something to the world economy, or the people who are not?
The 14th amendment says "equal protection under the law". Guess what guys: that doesn’t mean equality.
What about
"equal protection" from taxes? From AA programs? Why is it okay to fight inequality with inequality? Do you expect people to continue working and producing when the benefits of doing so are decreased? Why does the 14th amendment not seem to apply to the rich, the white, or the men?
Here’s another problem: you seem to think that healthcare is somehow discriminatingly handed out. As though hobos are turned away for being too smelly, or perhaps not being dressed properly. The truth is anyone who earned the money, anyone who worked and contributed to society, has the ability to enter healthcare. There’s no discrimination, its just people don’t work, so don’t earn, so don’t have the money. Some people are working their butts off now, but they are paying for not having worked hard earlier in life. Fact is anyone, ANYONE, in modern day America can achieve healthcare. It’s all about your decisions. if you choose to go play video games instead of studying, or if you choose to have sex before marriage and have a child early, or if you CHOOSE to drop out of high school or not go to college, or perhaps do drugs, you are directly affecting your ability to have healthcare. YOU. YOUR DECISIONS.
There’s a little something that the liberal left would like to convince you doesn’t exist. They don’t like it. They think it’s somehow unfair. That thing is called "personal accountability". For those of you who have been living in liberalland for so long you don’t know what that is, it is the idea that the people who should pay for mistakes made are the people who make those mistakes. The people who don’t make mistakes should not have to pay for the mistakes of others. ZOMG what a crazy idea! People paying for their own actions! You are probably so used to things like the graduated income tax and the various welfare programs that you’re all wired to think that the person who has to pay for mistakes is the person who can handle it, the person who probably didn’t make as many mistakes or else he wouldn’t have the means to handle those consequences. It’s the difference between paying for your actions and paying for the actions of OTHERS. Is that fair, after all?
Now I am not saying don’t give to the poor, don’t be compassionate, don’t care, don’t love. I am saying do all of those things, but do it with your own money. Don’t use my means for your ends. Keep your grubby little hands out of my wallet. Theft is wrong even when it’s legal
Capitalistic Christianity
I want this blog to be something on which I can discuss both religion and politics, and for that reason I will start out with a post which touches on both.
Let’s just start this whole thing off right, with the primary premise of the post:
Our Lord is a Capitalist.
“How can I say that?” You ask. Isn’t capitalism the exploitation of those less able to care for themselves? Isn’t the whole idea behind capitalism trying to beat other people?
Well it’s all very simple: God has used Capitalism to keep our church in check. From the very beginning, there was disagreement in the church. Take Paul, for example. A lot of other Christians held to their beliefs that Jews should not eat with gentiles, etc, and Paul said otherwise. Which side won out? Paul did. And then Paul’s philosophy was the only one, and with that monopoly over Christianity Paul’s philosophy became Paul’s philosophy in name only, as the Catholic Church was born. they used their power tyrannically, burning people for "heresy" which could be as simple as wondering aloud whether the bread really turned into Christ’s flesh, or something as grievous as being of any other religion. So what happened? People felt like the product they received (the Catholic Church) was not the product they paid for (Jesus, closeness to god). Protestantism became a new shiny business which people flocked to because they received the product they were looking for, despite the fact that for many years the price could be very expensive (as high as your life itself) and with that business Protestantism grew to rival the catholic church. This was the beginning of the Catholic Church’s movement back to Jesus, which I don’t feel they have completely achieved yet (this is something that Catholics will disagree with, but pass over it as it is not the point of the post) but they are not heir way because of competition.
Then what happened?
Protestantism moved west, to America. There it had no competition because churches made communities and communities were too out of reach from one another, and like the Catholic Church Protestantism monopolized and began to mistreat people. Hence the witch burnings, and mistreatment of heretics. when things began to connect a little bit more and churches came in contact with other churches, they had to improve the product by reducing themselves back to god's intent for churches, and loving people, so that they wouldn’t lose members to those who were doing a better job and leading people closer to Jesus. As the number of denominations expanded and came in contact with each other, this phenomenon began to grow. Then they began to solidify, and we got the hypocritical churches of the day which I believe became similar through McCarthyism and the red scare. But never fear, capitalism is at work and a new set of churches is on the rise. I don’t want to say they are being squashed, Protestantism is too fragmented for organized prevention or even ability to notice such a thing, but in every denomination churches are rising up to bear the mantle of closeness to god, to provide us, the consumer, with the product we have been trying to achieve, closeness to god. In 20 years we will have another time of closeness, and following the cycle we will hit another monopolization, which god will again use capitalistic principles to break down so that he can be with us.
Let’s just start this whole thing off right, with the primary premise of the post:
Our Lord is a Capitalist.
“How can I say that?” You ask. Isn’t capitalism the exploitation of those less able to care for themselves? Isn’t the whole idea behind capitalism trying to beat other people?
Well it’s all very simple: God has used Capitalism to keep our church in check. From the very beginning, there was disagreement in the church. Take Paul, for example. A lot of other Christians held to their beliefs that Jews should not eat with gentiles, etc, and Paul said otherwise. Which side won out? Paul did. And then Paul’s philosophy was the only one, and with that monopoly over Christianity Paul’s philosophy became Paul’s philosophy in name only, as the Catholic Church was born. they used their power tyrannically, burning people for "heresy" which could be as simple as wondering aloud whether the bread really turned into Christ’s flesh, or something as grievous as being of any other religion. So what happened? People felt like the product they received (the Catholic Church) was not the product they paid for (Jesus, closeness to god). Protestantism became a new shiny business which people flocked to because they received the product they were looking for, despite the fact that for many years the price could be very expensive (as high as your life itself) and with that business Protestantism grew to rival the catholic church. This was the beginning of the Catholic Church’s movement back to Jesus, which I don’t feel they have completely achieved yet (this is something that Catholics will disagree with, but pass over it as it is not the point of the post) but they are not heir way because of competition.
Then what happened?
Protestantism moved west, to America. There it had no competition because churches made communities and communities were too out of reach from one another, and like the Catholic Church Protestantism monopolized and began to mistreat people. Hence the witch burnings, and mistreatment of heretics. when things began to connect a little bit more and churches came in contact with other churches, they had to improve the product by reducing themselves back to god's intent for churches, and loving people, so that they wouldn’t lose members to those who were doing a better job and leading people closer to Jesus. As the number of denominations expanded and came in contact with each other, this phenomenon began to grow. Then they began to solidify, and we got the hypocritical churches of the day which I believe became similar through McCarthyism and the red scare. But never fear, capitalism is at work and a new set of churches is on the rise. I don’t want to say they are being squashed, Protestantism is too fragmented for organized prevention or even ability to notice such a thing, but in every denomination churches are rising up to bear the mantle of closeness to god, to provide us, the consumer, with the product we have been trying to achieve, closeness to god. In 20 years we will have another time of closeness, and following the cycle we will hit another monopolization, which god will again use capitalistic principles to break down so that he can be with us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
