I am a Sunday School teacher and I gave my class the following question to answer: Is the US justified in declaring war on Osama bin Laden, and what is the Christian response to a call for war? Are we to be pacifists? I would be interested in you take on this issue.
Todd
Hi Todd,
Thank you for writing and for giving of your time and talent to help educate others in a strong Christian worldview. As we come into these uncertain times, a solid foundation will go a long way in understanding how we as Christians should react to the various issues we're facing.
Our first reaction to war is usually one of repugnancy. It entails massive death and destruction from all parties and we can see how this type of "problem solving" is outside of God's perfect will for humanity. However, God's perfect will for humanity was for man to never sin. Since man has a sin nature, it may not be possible to live in a world where wars don't exist. Let's try and unravel what position the Bible takes in respect to Christianity and war.
Before going too far, we need to establish first that the Bible makes a distinction between individual moral responsibility and governmental responsibility. As free moral agents, Paul tells us "See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people." (1 Thess 5:15) Individual Christians should show Christ's love to those who personally wrong them. But this does not mean that if someone physically threatens us we should not fight back. Nor does it imply that we shouldn't use physical force to aid another person being threatened. In such situations it would be a greater sin to stand by and do nothing that to help a person who is in danger.
The same type of responsibility God requires of governments. They are specifically put in a position of power to protect their citizens. Paul shows us this in Romans 13: 3-5 where he writes,
"For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake."
Note how the Scriptures say that the ruling body "does not bear the sword for nothing." In other words, governments are to function in a guardian role, both dealing with crime inside its own borders (such as the police) and also any enemy who would attack its citizens from outside.
This brings up another concept that in recent years people have forgotten; that there exists such a thing as a just war. The Romans passage above is very clear on this point. A government can function as an avenger of God to bring His judgment upon them. The Old Testament is replete with examples of this, but I'd like to look at a more modern situation.
In World War II Hitler was bent on conquest of Europe. He also sought to exterminate the Jewish race from the face of the planet. Those allied against Hitler and his plan were just in fighting him and his armies. To ignore him is morally the same as a police officer who does not try to stop a mugging attempt. There were good reasons, moral reasons to go to war in that instance and it would have been more immoral for the United States not to get involved.
The question that we must ask, then, is does our current situation fit the criteria for a just war? Is the United States justified in using its considerable military might against bin Laden and other terrorists? Let's look at what we know already.
- The terrorists have attacked United States property and people before in the bombings of our two embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.
- They have intentionally killed thousands of innocent civilians for no other purpose than to try and hurt us.
- There will be a continuing threat of danger to U.S. citizens as it is highly likely the terrorists will try other acts in the future.
Taken together, I believe that it is the God-given responsibility of the United States government to protect all its citizens by declaring war on those who would seek us intentional harm. I believe that Romans 13 commands the government to not shirk its role of protector and guardian of all those who fall within its care, just as a police officer should not shirk his role of protecting those who fall within his care. To ignore such a dangerous threat to our population would be a bigger sin.
I hope this has helped clarify how Christians should approach this very sensitive topic. Although this is a very emotional issue, I think that we can thoughtfully discern the will of God and how He would want us to proceed. Please let me know how your class goes. I'd be interested in their reactions to this question.
Read more: http://comereason.org/soc_culture/soc005.asp#ixzz0m8HCqwzu
This guy is legit. He argues for a contradictory free bible Atlas Shrugged style. If you find a contradiction. Check your premises. You will find one of them is wrong.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Waterboard that Terrorism?
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Why Arizona Immigration Bill is a Good Thing
Among other things (such as placing restrictions on hiring day laborers and making it a criminal offence to knowingly transport illegal immigrants), this law would require law enforcement officers to verify the immigration status of any person displaying “reasonable suspicion” of being in our country illegally (such as offering day labor on street corners, disregard for other laws, lack of residence, etc). It would also make it a criminal violation for that person to lack proper alien registration documentation.
Critics of this bill say that it will condone and encourage racial profiling, since it will require officers to verify someone’s immigration status if there is just “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally. This changes the current law, which only allows officers to question someone’s immigration status if they are involved in another crime.
These points are valid in one sense. Though the bill states that officers cannot stop a person based solely on their color or race, this law probably will lead to some legal citizens (or legal aliens) being required to prove that they are in fact, legal. It’s unfortunate to cause law-abiding people inconvenience, but it would be naive to think that this won’t happen at all.
But critics of this bill are missing a very important staple in their argument: This law was designed to be a deterrent. If an illegal is afraid to do something (get a job, apply for federal benefits, rent housing, etc.) for fear of being caught, they will not do that thing. Similarly, if employers are afraid of hiring illegals for fear of being fined, they will require employees to verify their immigration status and they will not hire illegals. If these things are enforced, illegal aliens are less likely to want to come here.
Our government was designed to protect the Rights of the People, and it is our duty to provide the safeguards necessary to ensure that our laws are not broken and our freedoms are not infringed upon. Illegal immigrants are breaking our laws by even setting a foot onto our soil, and like the old saying goes: When you break a rule, it doesn’t just hurt you, it hurts everyone. By committing the crime of entering our country illegally, these people are not only disregarding our legal system and mooching off tax-payer funded services, they are causing problems for legal immigrants who do respect the law and the process of immigration in our county.
The best solution to this is to send illegal immigrants back where they belong, and that’s what this law will help to do.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
It's Not About Creating Victims...It's About Creating Victories
Friday, April 16, 2010
Why it's a Health Care Nightmare
There are several core principles liberals and conservatives disagree on. Liberals see the "investor class" as evil and greedy corporate goons that take advantage of the "hard working class" a.k.a. victims. A conservative sees the investor class and small business owners as job creators and the lifeblood of this economy.
Practically all liberals refuse to admit this bill is a stepping stone to a completely socialized medicine system. They are either extremely naive or a closet communist in my opinion. This bill will greatly increase taxes on small businesses which will in turn create an incentive for employers to dump their employs into the government system. The bill also has several anti-growth characteristics. For example:
1. Businesses with fewer than 25 employees that pay an average of no more than $40,000 will get a tax credit – up to 35 percent of the company’s share of their total health care premium.
2. Companies with 26-49 workers are unaffected. Businesses with 50-60 workers have a HUGE incentive to downsize.
3. Businesses with 50 or more workers must offer coverage or pay $750 per worker. That penalty applies for every employee if even one signs up for government-subsidized insurance.
Once companies dump their employees into this plan, other companies will have to follow suit in order to compete with their competitors’ lower costs. After this process is repeated we are left with a socialistic system which any economist will admit is bad news bears. I believe it is necessary in a struggling economy to promote small business growth in order to create jobs. This is a simple concept which makes it all the more frustrating when our peers refuse to accept its truth.
I am thankful for my health care coverage my parents have busted their butts to provide for me. However, ruining my health care won't improve the situation for people who don't have coverage and need our help. This country is in serious need of HCR but this bill is certainly not the answer.
Stiltz Out
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Healthcare Security or Loss of Liberty? Just Ask Ben.
Government control is a dangerous thing. Even before it has escalated to full-blown socialism, it invades the most personal parts of people's lives, where government should not be involved at all.
For example, Germany is supposed to be a democracy like the US. They are not even supposed to be a socialist country, yet their government is in full control of the nation's school system. By law in Germany, parents are given next-to-no school choice. They are required to send their children to public school...period. In fact, one German family chose to home school their children because they disagreed with some of the curriculum in the public school. As a result, they were fined and police came to their house to force their children to attend the public, government-run school, instead of the school the parents thought best for their children. Ultimately, this family sought political asylum in the United States so that they did not lose custody of their children to the German government.
The German government - supposed democracy or not - has taken enough control of its citizens to dictate on issues that should be the choices of each individual (such as parents choosing how to educate their children), instead of protecting these rights as the fundamental freedoms they are.
The new healthcare bill signed into law by President Obama is very similar in principle, but should be the cause of even graver concern.
Once the new law is enacted, our government will be in control of our entire healthcare system. Our government will hold the power to dictate all of our healthcare choices - choices inherently those of each individual. The government will go as far as to fund abortion coverage with taxpayer money and to ration and distribute care and medication. These decisions will be based not on the lives of the People, but on money; and anyone who does not purchase an insurance policy that is deemed acceptable by a panel of Washington elite will be penalized.
For example, my father is a small business owner and has a high-deductable, catastophic insurance plan that he has used for over ten years. Under the new healthcare law, this plan will not be acceptable, and he will be forced to purchase a plan that the government deems "best for him."
Clearly, this is a violation of the basic rights of a Free People, and is arguably unconstitutional as well. However, the most dangerous part of this new law is ironically the feature Democrats trumpeted as its greatest asset: health insurance for everyone. Under this mandate, every person is required to purchase healthcare coverage, whether they want it or not. Those who cannot afford a plan will be given tax credits to cover the cost and those with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied.
This kind of entitlement program is unchartered waters for our country. What are the consequences?
Once the law is in full effect, it will become engrained in people's systems. People will lose the desire to fight it, to be independent, to make their own choices, because entitlements are addictive - once people feel they are "taken care of," their desire to be responsible for themselves will be completely obliterated. This is not how our country was founded, nor is it how we have become the greatest nation in the world.
The American People have said, loud and clear, that this is not the direction we want for our country, and it is still in our power to make our opinions count. This law must be repealed before it has taken full effect. It must be killed before it takes hold, because once it is in place, nobody will want to live without it, whatever the cost in blood, freedom, and money. November is our chance to ensure that our Congress listens to what we want and represents the views of the People who hired them.
Or else, as Benjamin Franklin said, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
More Like Healthscare
For the first time, I’m hoping that Barack Obama delivers on his promise of “change”—and so are a majority of voters who are so opposed to ObamaCare that they already want the bill repealed. According to the latest Rasmussen poll at time of publication, 54% of likely voters want the bill repealed, and 52% said it is “bad for the country.”
The sharp divide over Obama’s healthcare bill runs antithetical to his promise of centrism. While campaigning, Barack Obama professed to be “post partisan;” and although it’s unsurprising that a politician hasn’t kept his campaign promise, what is surprising transcends the mishmash of the healthcare reform bill: The degree to which the Obama administration and Democrat-controlled Congress have ignored America is dangerous, and to borrow his favorite word, “unprecedented.”
The short version is that the healthcare bill is a certain catastrophe spread across an interminable nine-hundred-six pages. Of greater concern, however, is the disconnected government that it signifies. When a government appears indifferent to the people it professes to represent, it has ceased to be of, by, and for the people; rather, it has become an enemy of the people—and indeed, as the recent populist Tea Party movement sweeping the nation indicates, for many, the government has indeed become the enemy.
Tea Partiers are not the right-wing hate mongers unfortunately depicted by the mainstream media. The few despicable accounts of hate do not represent the movement in whole, and they certainly do not overshadow the same kind of hateful discourse that is also exhibited by the left. In reality, the thousands of Tea Party protesters are a mix of conservative and libertarian, white and black, and Caucasian and Hispanic. What they are in unison about, however, is opposition to government spending, size, and encroachment on the American people. No matter one’s personal feelings for the movement, it is undeniably present and active which underscores the gaping disconnect between the American people and most of their purported representatives in Washington.
The lack of respect that the Obama administration has displayed for the majority of American voters reveals the Democrats’ intention of a establishing a sort of “nanny state” against the people’s will. Despite the poll numbers, the heated town hall meetings, and the entire grassroots movement born out of opposition to ObamaCare, the Democrats have turned up their noses at their constituents. With an 11% approval rating, the congressional Democrats have abandoned the idea of representative democracy and instead turned the United States into a quasi-constitutional theocracy, where doctrinal socialism trumps all.
In this debate over ObamaCare, it is important to remember the Constitution. After all, if not for the Constitution, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama would be out of jobs. Yet the Democrats’ disregard for the document from which they derive their power in fact augments their power. Indeed, the goal of modern day liberalism is to effectively enslave the populace through unconstitutional government intrusion—like ObamaCare.
ObamaCare supporters speciously claim that the legislation is not a government takeover of the health care industry. And while it’s not explicitly, it is implicitly: The bill establishes the groundwork for the demise of private healthcare and the rise of healthcare run entirely by your oh-so-wise government officials, whose presence is now not only at your cradle and grave, but also in between at doctors’ appointments, dental cleanings, and hospital emergencies. This complete governmental pervasiveness is the endgame of the left. Without our health, what are we as human beings? The power to control who lives and dies is unrivaled in history.
The other side of this debate slyly diverts attention to the salivating benefits of ObamaCare such as the ability to stay on your parents’ health insurance until the age of twenty-six. You may ask, what’s wrong with that? In fact, what’s wrong with any of this? Who in his right mind would oppose extending healthcare coverage? Keep in mind that these ostensible benefits are merely window-dressings. Candy. Underneath the surface of this legislation lurks the real change that is concealed within. To quote a visionary, “change is coming.” The important question to consider is, what’s the vision?
The Second Coming
Hallelujah! The Messiah’s number one domestic agenda item passed both houses of Congress and is now law despite bipartisan opposition from the American taxpayers. Of course, while the media continues to salivate over President Obama’s “historical victory” of ObamaCare, they remain waiting breathlessly for their savior’s next move.
Will he tackle the contentious debate over immigration reform? Does he still have the political clout and arm-twisting capabilities from his Senate majority leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), to muscle through cap and trade legislation that passed the House in June, yet has been an impasse in the Senate for almost a year? Will Mr. Obama finally put those evil capitalist Wall Street bankers in their place and push for financial regulatory reform?
Frankly, it’s absolutely meaningless attempting to prognosticate what exactly the president’s next move will be. Of course politically, in his first State of The Union Address on Jan. 27, he declared, "Jobs must be our number one focus in 2010." Unfortunately, for the good of the U.S. economy, this was yet another display of the Obama teleprompter rhetoric that has begun to be repetitious and predictable considering he delivers a “major” speech almost daily.
Mr. Obama took his “jobs” proclamation a step further by saying, “So tonight, I’m proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat,” (bipartisan applause).
Never mind that changing the original legislation would be unconstitutional due to Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution or the “Take Care Clause” (which would be anomalous coming from a former Constitutional professor) that explicitly states, “he (the president or vice president if the president is ill or unfit to govern) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
Essentially, the president feels as if he can arbitrarily distribute unspent or repaid capital from the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) that was passed under the Bush administration in September 2008. TARP’s initial purpose was, “to prevent the complete collapse of the U.S. (and global) financial system, and not just to increase bank lending to consumers and businesses,” according to Economics of Contempt. It certainly was not to be used for a completely disparate government program.
The implications of such an idea very well may set a new precedent for future legislation. Regardless if the president’s intentions to rectify the economy weren’t nefarious, the principle that the Executive Branch could potentially change legislation that is already law to fit its agenda is yet another attempt by the government to take from our liberties.
If the president were really concerned about the economy, he’d stay the hell out of it. His desire to emulate FDR is disturbing and may mean our unemployment rate, currently at a destitute 9.7 percent, will only recover to 8.2 percent by 2012 according to Mr. Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisors.
Meanwhile, President Obama’s foreign policy may be bleaker than the outlook of the global economy. While the Obama administration finds it necessary to castigate our only true ally and democracy in the Middle East, Israel, over building 1,600 apartments in its capitol in East Jerusalem, Iran seems to get a pass on its nuclear proliferation adventure that is not only an existential threat to Israel, but also to the U.S.
And there’s questioning why Mr. Obama’s approval ratings have consistently been in the low to mid 40s?
On Jan. 25 in an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, Mr. Obama affirmed, "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." If that were true, then with all due respect Mr. President, you may be right about occupying the White House for only four years, however, your interpretation of being “really good” could seemingly mean the second coming of the weakness that defined the one-term presidency of Jimmy Carter. Prodigious tax rates, calamitous inflation and incompetence when negotiating with Iran; in the spirit of Easter, I’m searching for the second coming of Ronald Reagan. And for the Israelis, in commemoration of Passover, be pragmatic and vigilant in strategizing your exodus, because the Pharaoh is determined not to let you free.
You Can't Have It Both Ways
Never mind the “Climategate” scandal of last November, which involved thousands of emails and other documents being hacked into revealing the manipulation of data by “credible” climatologists whom falsely molded statistical data and graphs to appear as if global temperatures were increasing; or The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) assessment of scientific evidence on climate change observing that reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps, and Africa were completely based off of anecdotal evidence from mountaineers and a dissertation by a college student; the “Al Gore Inconvenient Truthers” have hit an all time low (along with their leading Indoctrinator-In-Chief: The New York Times).
In case you’ve been out of the loop, Washington, D.C. has, “topped off what’s now the nastiest Washington winter on record-54.9 inches of snow for the season so far,” according toThe Wall Street Journal. Baltimore and Philadelphia also crushed season snow level records this week.
The blizzards hitting the northern Atlantic the past couple of weeks have surely intensified a sudden defensive posture among the “liberal elites.” And paradoxically, their mantra for the recent cold weather trends is none other than “manmade global warming.”
“Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events,” as The New York Times argued. Granted, I’m just a political science major, however, am I the only person who finds this to be completely oxymoronic?
Let’s not forget former Vice President Al Gore’s famous quote from his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, “So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun. As a result, the earth has a fever.” Mr. Gore is nowhere to be found as of late. My guess is that he’s either traveling the world on his private jet or lost in his 20-room home that consumes more than 20 times the national average in electricity.
The point is that whether temperatures are trending upwards or downwards, if a year has little snow or breaks snowfall records, the “liberal elites” blame these trends on “manmade global warming.” It’s a lot like when your significant other breaks up with you and then suddenly becomes angered once you’ve move on and date other people.
Weather Underdog blogger and meteorologist, Jeff Masters, argues that the recent snowstorms alone cannot account for the definitive long-term trajectory of the planet, for, “Climate is, by definition, a measure of decades and centuries, not months or years.”
In a chart prepared by Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann, the two men illustrate the climate change that has taken place tracing all the way back to 2500 B.C. The chart shows that temperatures in 1100 B.C. were actually warmer than any time period in the 20th century. Was General Motors selling its formerly most infamous “gas guzzler,” the hummer, over three thousand years ago? It even displays, like all credible climate change graphs, that temperatures have been declining since 1998.
To make matters worse for the “Al Gore Inconvenient Truthers,” Professor Phil Jones, “The academic centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair,” according to the BBC, admitted that there hasn’t been any “statistically significant” warming since 1998. Also, the head of the U.N.’s IPCC is stepping down amid the continued evidence of the “manmade global warming” hoax.
Nonetheless, I still subscribe to the Bush scapegoat theory for why the Earth is warming. Blaming the former president seems to be working out well for the Obama administration.
Liberalism, The Emotional Disorder
In November 2009, the UC Regents (the governing board of the University of California) announced that tuition costs would increase 32 percent by the fall of 2010 raising annual tuition to $10,300. Immediately, student protesters assembled and lockdowns commenced on UC campuses across the state.
Students placed the blame for the increases on the UC Regents and not the actual culprits, the California State Legislature and the current and previous governors failure to veto exorbitant bills. The protests simply reflect that the students don’t understand the complexities of the fiscal crisis facing the state of California.
Because these students are attending institutions of higher learning, it’s incumbent upon them to examine the facts of the situation at hand, rather than to falsely blame the UC Regents for the dysfunctional politicians who have drastically cut UC general funding.
In response to the tuition increases, the students of UCLA really put forth a worthwhile campaign when 40 to 50 angered students locked themselves inside the campus’ Campbell Hall, issuing email statements declaring, “We choose to fight back, to resist, where we find ourselves, the place where we live and work, our university”. This surely solved the problem.
As a former UCSC banana slug, I saw firsthand how liberal college students could rationalize their own behaviors. The ever so “politically correct” and not to mention “open-minded” students of UCSC referred to me as “That Conservative” and gave me no opportunity to voice a rebuttal to their amateur claims because they were afraid I may have looked beyond their simplistic thought process and actually articulated an opinion that was well developed.
When speaking to my best friend who still attends UCSC, he told me how the protestors of the fee increases were so vigilant in their actions that in blocking the roads starting from the base of campus all the way to the top and forcing the bus system to be completely shut down, they made his quotidian four minute drive from his apartment to class a 45 minute bumper to bumper traffic jam allowing him to move a total of 100 yards and, therefore, miss his class.
In their protest, the students actually did more harm than good in keeping their fellow banana slugs from attending class just weeks before their finals. Also, the state of California had to foot the bill of policing the protests and fixing the thousands of dollars in damages the “peaceful” protestors left behind.
The problem with naïve liberal college students is that their emotions take over all rational thought and they are narrowly focused on protesting for the sake of defying authority instead of identifying the problems we are forced to face and coming up with reasonable solutions.
Our state’s fiscal issues lie within the liberal politicians whom they’ve elected. If these student protesters truly desire to be progressives, while being defiant and productive, they should make the drive (in an environmentally friendly vehicle) to Sacramento and protest the Democrats in the legislature and our governor on the steps of the State Capitol.
I’m not implying that protesting isn’t a logical response for the students to arrange, however, barricading the Capitol as oppose to buildings on the various campuses would surely get the attention of real wrongdoers and force the politicians to ameliorate their lamentable mess. Sadly, that would require the ability to think rationally.
"Because Nobody Messes With Joe!"
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (aka the stimulus package) was one of the most furtive and poorly drafted pieces of legislation in U.S. history. The final bill was a measly 1,588 pages with a price tag of $787 billion. That’s quite the audaciousrescue plan for the president to sign into law just a month into his presidency.
To put it bluntly, the underlying question is: has it worked? Of course, the answer would vary depending on whom you asked. The Wall Street Journal reported that a White House economic advisor claimed, “About half of the $340 billion committed from the $787 billion measure so far went toward small business loans, tax cuts, unemployment benefits and other forms of support that don't easily translate into jobs reporting.”
President Obama campaigned promising a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans. However, the tax credits implemented in the stimulus package haven’t worked out quite as well as the administration would have hoped. The Los Angeles Times stated, “A person working two jobs, for instance, could have received twice the amount in tax credits and would have to pay back half of it.” In retrospect, an $800 tax credit did seem a little too good to be true.
Also, Mr. Obama was quoted saying that this legislation would “save or create” three million new jobs. He also promised that the unemployment rate wouldn’t exceed 8.1 percent if the stimulus were passed; as of Oct. 31, it reached 10.2 percent.
If you visit the stimulus’ official “accountability” website, www.recovery.gov, you’d find it has “saved or created” roughly 640,000 jobs, costing taxpayers approximately $530,000 per job. The White House has since admitted that their job count was an over-estimation. The big problem is that the information on the website is certainly falsified.
Here are just a few examples of how completely dysfunctional the “accountability” website is. In South Carolina, $40.7 million dollars were rewarded to seven defunct congressional districts including districts 00 and 25. South Carolina only has six districts.
The website claims California has 99 congressional districts when in reality it only has 53. How about the $34 million sent to Arizona’s 86th District? Arizona only contains eight districts. An Alabama housing authority alleged that its $540,071 grant could create 7,280 jobs. According to The Birmingham News, 14 jobs were created.
Vice President Biden stated, "Don't get me wrong -- the president and I know full well that there's too much hardship that remains.” Do you really? So you’re well aware of the $790,000 grant to a company in Augusta, GA that instead of creating 317 jobs went towards pay-hikes for 317 employees.
According to The Associated Press, “‘phantom congressional districts’…suggest that stimulus money has been misspent.” Misspent? Dozens of false zip codes and Virginia’s 12th District (Virginia only has 11) receiving taxpayer’s money wasn’t money well spent?
While addressing Congress on Feb. 24, Mr. Obama had this to say in reference to his stimulus package, “And with a plan of this scale comes enormous responsibility to get it right, and that’s why I’ve asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough unprecedented oversight effort…because nobody messes with Joe!”
Someone is either seriously messing with the vice president or he’s just simply that incompetent. Regardless, the Obama administration needs to get its clandestine piece of legislation rectified. Wasn’t its purpose to put Americans back to work? Then again, maybe I’m just being too censorious.
Who Is To Blame For The Great Recession?
A recent Rasmussen poll reported that 49 percent of Americans blame President Bush for the mayhem caused by the recession, however, very few citizens can elaborate on what policies of his actually led to the economic collapse. Most liberals throw out the typical arguments such as the cost of the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 only being “for the rich” as if the president had a nefarious intent.
Liberals also claim that the deregulation of big corporations during Republican presidencies was a contributing culprit, but it in fact, it was the regulation of financial institutions by the federal government that created this mess. Though Mr. Bush is partially to blame for the recession, so is every president since Jimmy Carter.
For decades, the federal government has pressured private financial institutions to make loans to individuals who would not normally be qualified. The first effort by the government to interfere with private banks lending policies was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which was passed under President Carter. According to the Long Island Business News, The Community Reinvestment Act, “has required banks to offer loans in low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits.”
In 1996, under the Clinton administration, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Cisneros, set a quota mandating that 42 percent of mortgage loans be made through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to moderate to low income earners. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-sponsored enterprises. However, they are stockholder owned corporations that acquired approximately 40 percent of all “subprime” mortgages to families in the low to moderate-income bracket by 2007. In 2000, Secretary Cisneros’ successor, Andrew Cuomo, raised the quota to 50 percent.
Lastly, in 2002, under the Bush administration, Congress passed the American Dream Down Payment Act, which lowered the standards for perspective homebuyers by letting them place zero down on mortgages with low interest rates.
After three years of subprime mortgage lending, families began to receive large unaffordable interest rate increases, leading them to mortgage defaults. Housing values began to decline and the mortgage values exceeded the values of the homes. Bank balance sheets turned negative producing “toxic assets,” driving their portfolios into the red. Banks stopped lending as credit became unavailable, causing companies to go bankrupt and unemployment to rise. This, in fact, was the beginning of the recession.
Our current economic climate was contrived by liberal policies of both Republicans and Democrats. “Genius” politicians thought that their meddling in the marketplace, forcing banks to lend to unqualified individuals, providing them with new homes and cars they couldn’t afford would magically solve the perceived problems of a segment of the American population. They were wrong and Americans are paying the price.
It should be imminently clear that government interference in the marketplace has contributed to failure after failure. Government ineptitude is leading Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the U.S. Postal Service into bankruptcy. The Obama health care plan will certainly follow suit.
References
Morris, Dick, and Eileen McGann. Catastrophe. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Print.
Sowell, Thomas. The Housing Boom and Bust. New York: Basic Books, 2009. Print.
LaFemina, Lorraine. "Community Reinvestment Act Under Fire." Long Island Business News May 2007. EBSCO. Web. 9 Nov. 2009.