Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The cause of the economic chaos – what I’ve learned
It is clear that everyone wants to blame “the other guy” for what’s happening but I see two main causes from what I’ve read and two different sides to blame.
1. Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and the bill that allowed them to bypass regulation
CDS represent a $55 trillion market (down last week from $62 trillion). To be worth that much money you’d hope that they are tangible assets right? Wrong. Credit default swaps are basically ‘insurance’ on bad debt (except that without regulation there was no one to oversee whether the purchaser actually had the capital to cover losses so no real ‘insurance’ existed, hence our problem today). They were a way that banks could get liability off their books to free up capital and now that ‘risk’ has been pushed around and re-packaged so many times that virtually all banks are in the hole for some of that $55 trillion.
Just for a little perspective, these swaps represent about four times the worth of the entire stock market and about six or seven times the failing housing market. So, to blame either Wall Street or the Housing market alone would be undercutting the real monster.
Article #1 – Newsweek
Article #2 – Mother Jones
Article #3 – Time
Article #4 - Bloomberg
2. The poor regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
This is a secondary issue but since Fannie and Freddie are government backed it’s important because their actions put taxpayers at risk. Obviously the accounting fraud uncovered in 2002/2003 is a big deal, just like how Enron was a big deal (by the way, Enron can be traced back to #1 because in the same bill that ensured CDS would not be regulated, it also called out that energy trading would be free of government oversight). Anyway, I would argue that the accounting fraud is worth pointing out not because of the fraud itself (which is horrible but not the cause of the meltdown) but because of the emphasis on ‘affordable housing’ that it led to. The two firms went under close scrutiny and needed to justify their existence. Well, the best way to do that would be to become a champion of ‘affordable housing’. Enter a slue of sub-prime loans, artificially low interest rates and misrepresented housing values. Because of the size of Fannie and Freddie the loans they supported were the loans others wanted in on and thus a sub-prime disaster. Of course the sub-prime disaster could not have gotten nearly as out of control if banks weren’t able to package the risk of those loans in credit default swaps and sell them all over the world…
Article #1 – Center for Economic and Policy Research
Article #2 – WSJ
Article #3 - Ron Paul in 2003
So, that’s what I have learned.
1. Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and the bill that allowed them to bypass regulation
CDS represent a $55 trillion market (down last week from $62 trillion). To be worth that much money you’d hope that they are tangible assets right? Wrong. Credit default swaps are basically ‘insurance’ on bad debt (except that without regulation there was no one to oversee whether the purchaser actually had the capital to cover losses so no real ‘insurance’ existed, hence our problem today). They were a way that banks could get liability off their books to free up capital and now that ‘risk’ has been pushed around and re-packaged so many times that virtually all banks are in the hole for some of that $55 trillion.
Just for a little perspective, these swaps represent about four times the worth of the entire stock market and about six or seven times the failing housing market. So, to blame either Wall Street or the Housing market alone would be undercutting the real monster.
Article #1 – Newsweek
Article #2 – Mother Jones
Article #3 – Time
Article #4 - Bloomberg
2. The poor regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
This is a secondary issue but since Fannie and Freddie are government backed it’s important because their actions put taxpayers at risk. Obviously the accounting fraud uncovered in 2002/2003 is a big deal, just like how Enron was a big deal (by the way, Enron can be traced back to #1 because in the same bill that ensured CDS would not be regulated, it also called out that energy trading would be free of government oversight). Anyway, I would argue that the accounting fraud is worth pointing out not because of the fraud itself (which is horrible but not the cause of the meltdown) but because of the emphasis on ‘affordable housing’ that it led to. The two firms went under close scrutiny and needed to justify their existence. Well, the best way to do that would be to become a champion of ‘affordable housing’. Enter a slue of sub-prime loans, artificially low interest rates and misrepresented housing values. Because of the size of Fannie and Freddie the loans they supported were the loans others wanted in on and thus a sub-prime disaster. Of course the sub-prime disaster could not have gotten nearly as out of control if banks weren’t able to package the risk of those loans in credit default swaps and sell them all over the world…
Article #1 – Center for Economic and Policy Research
Article #2 – WSJ
Article #3 - Ron Paul in 2003
So, that’s what I have learned.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Would you vote for someone you didn't like?
I've heard from a couple of people now that they don't really like McCain but he's "the lesser of two evils" so they are voting for him. I HATE THAT ARGUMENT. First off there are like five other candidates to chose from, do you like any of them or are you too lazy (against education) to read about them??? I mean seriously people read up on the issues. I have been trying to find valid arguments against Obama because everyone is so convinced that the liberal media is in it for Obama and omitting things on purpose. It would be horrible to use our critical thinking skills and think that perhaps there just isn't as much to report on Obama. Bill Ayers? I'm not even sure I 100% disagree with what Ayers did and knowing a 'terrorist' does not a terrorist make. I know a few lesbians but believe it or not that association has not turned me on to women. Muslim? Please, that's just an excuse for racism as it is clearly not true and "fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself". Reverend Wright? He's a little kooky but no kookier than Palin's witch hunter (in fact far less kooky). Tony Rezko? Okay this may have a little "rub my back and I'll rub yours" truth to it but I don't see much corruption and when compared to McCains corruption record (Keaton Five, Phil Gramm, Lobbyist, Lobbyist, Lobbyist, Bush) I think the point goes to Obama.
The point? None other than what the hell is wrong with education? Just because someting goes against what you previously believed does not mean it is part of a smear campaign designed to make you look stupid.
Everyone should ask themselves this; when was the last time you agreed with something you did not already think, believe or know to be true? We cannot progress without change and sometimes that mean accepting new information and changing your mind.
If you don't like someone DON'T VOTE FOR THEM!!!!!
Geesh.
The point? None other than what the hell is wrong with education? Just because someting goes against what you previously believed does not mean it is part of a smear campaign designed to make you look stupid.
Everyone should ask themselves this; when was the last time you agreed with something you did not already think, believe or know to be true? We cannot progress without change and sometimes that mean accepting new information and changing your mind.
If you don't like someone DON'T VOTE FOR THEM!!!!!
Geesh.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
[shakes head]
I will take the perfect headline from the Mudflats blog I first saw this on:
"Just for fun, see if you can watch this without putting your palms on your face. Other than that, I am rendered speechless."
It's almost like talking to your hockey mom neighbor about politics.
"Just for fun, see if you can watch this without putting your palms on your face. Other than that, I am rendered speechless."
It's almost like talking to your hockey mom neighbor about politics.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Let's talk health care!
Okay, obviously these are just the proposed plans and if elected they would still have to make it through all the channels to actually be voted in and executed so either plan will not likely be implemented as is. So, to me it’s the ideas presented that are important.
First off, both plans are too expensive (Over ten years, Obama = $1.6 trillion, McCain = $1.3 trillion). Since they are both equally outrageous in cost we’ll go ahead and give them negative marks there and that’s about all I can say about the cost.
I think McCain has more flaws in his thinking than Obama. While he is protecting the [b]business[/b] of insurance, he is not protecting the requirement of accessible insurance to all Americans. The real issue, however, is that all Americans deserve quality health care – insurance, as it stands is just a means to an end. I think a better focus for either party would be to focus on accessible health care, not the payment plans.
McCain’s entire premise is basically to privatize health insurance. He would get rid of tax benefits to employers that provided health insurance plans [i]and[/i] tax employees on the value of their health coverage (basically the value of your health coverage would be treated as additional income and would therefore be taxed). This would be countered with a tax credit intended to help people pay for private sector health insurance (up to you whether you get insurance or a big screen). Great for the young and healthy but no so great for the sick and elderly who would have trouble finding a good policy. You see, the problem with thinking that competition will create better health insurance is that the focus is on the wrong area. Competition in health [i]care[/i] would help to create better medical care. Obviously someone would prefer to go to a hospital known for excellent care, experienced doctors, etc. Hospitals and other care providers make bigger profits the better their coverage is because more people choose them. Health [i]insurance[/i] companies make more money the [i]less[/i] they end up covering. Think about it, it makes perfect sense. If insurance companies paid for all the procedures requested they would lose money because the money made from premiums wouldn’t outweigh the money required for care. So, based on capitalistic principals it makes perfect sense that insurance companies would make it easier for the young and healthy [read as: less likely to need costly care] to be covered than the sick or elderly [read as: expensive to insure]. So, with this type of plan that basically says employers do not need to cover you and the government will stay as out of it, there is only one conclusion, stay healthy. In addition, McCain does not support regulations on health insurance agencies, you know the type off things that would require them to cover the sick and the elderly, the kind of things that would require them to cover replacing both fingers instead of just one, the kind of things that would outline baseline, ethical, coverage that all agencies must offer if they want to sell health insurance. This is where the economic tangent comes in. If you have been paying attention, you may know that we are in a bit of an economic crisis. Well credit default swaps* have been identified as a major cause of the finance, mortgage and insurance agencies troubles. Why? How did these irresponsible crazy debt investments get so out of control??? Phil Gramm, McCain’s good friend and economic advisor (until he called us a “nation of whiners” due to our “mental recession”). Gramm, with the help of lobbyists, slipped legislation into a must-pass spending bill eight years ago. This legislation protected credit default swaps from government regulation. Eight years later these un-regulated bundles of high-risk debt have created one of the biggest economic failures in our history. [end tangent] Yes, government should stay out of the private sector for the most part, but certain things that affect close to all Americans (like finance, health insurance, education) need a minimum level of regulation to ensure all Americans at least have a chance. McCain’s plan would basically put health insurance in the same situation as the current financial giants (and some insurance companies). It is estimated that McCain’s plan would insure an additional 1-5 million Americans.
Obama’s plan addresses the issue that those that need insurance the most are the most likely to be denied by a strictly private insurance sector. So his idea of expanding government insurance options will help to address these people that can’t get it in the private sector. His first “universal” coverage would be for children (and since he is proposing to get rid of taxes altogether for the elderly making less than $50K I think he’s now covered at least addressing two of the most vulnerable Americans…). Obama would create regulations to ensure insurance companies cover everyone and at least a minimum of conditions. It is estimated Obama’s plan would insure an additional 34 million Americans.
So, as far as intent I think it is clear (at least to me) that Obama’s head is in the right place and he wants to help Americans. McCain is stuck in his party’s firm anti-regulation stance and is only looking out for insurance companies and big business. McCain’s stance would be fine if this was an economic issue but this is not. This is an issue of everyone’s right to see a doctor.
*Credit default swaps are basically insurance policies that cover the losses on investments, and they have been at the heart of the subprime meltdown because they have enabled large financial institutions to turn risky loans into risky securities that could be packaged and sold to other institutions
First off, both plans are too expensive (Over ten years, Obama = $1.6 trillion, McCain = $1.3 trillion). Since they are both equally outrageous in cost we’ll go ahead and give them negative marks there and that’s about all I can say about the cost.
I think McCain has more flaws in his thinking than Obama. While he is protecting the [b]business[/b] of insurance, he is not protecting the requirement of accessible insurance to all Americans. The real issue, however, is that all Americans deserve quality health care – insurance, as it stands is just a means to an end. I think a better focus for either party would be to focus on accessible health care, not the payment plans.
McCain’s entire premise is basically to privatize health insurance. He would get rid of tax benefits to employers that provided health insurance plans [i]and[/i] tax employees on the value of their health coverage (basically the value of your health coverage would be treated as additional income and would therefore be taxed). This would be countered with a tax credit intended to help people pay for private sector health insurance (up to you whether you get insurance or a big screen). Great for the young and healthy but no so great for the sick and elderly who would have trouble finding a good policy. You see, the problem with thinking that competition will create better health insurance is that the focus is on the wrong area. Competition in health [i]care[/i] would help to create better medical care. Obviously someone would prefer to go to a hospital known for excellent care, experienced doctors, etc. Hospitals and other care providers make bigger profits the better their coverage is because more people choose them. Health [i]insurance[/i] companies make more money the [i]less[/i] they end up covering. Think about it, it makes perfect sense. If insurance companies paid for all the procedures requested they would lose money because the money made from premiums wouldn’t outweigh the money required for care. So, based on capitalistic principals it makes perfect sense that insurance companies would make it easier for the young and healthy [read as: less likely to need costly care] to be covered than the sick or elderly [read as: expensive to insure]. So, with this type of plan that basically says employers do not need to cover you and the government will stay as out of it, there is only one conclusion, stay healthy. In addition, McCain does not support regulations on health insurance agencies, you know the type off things that would require them to cover the sick and the elderly, the kind of things that would require them to cover replacing both fingers instead of just one, the kind of things that would outline baseline, ethical, coverage that all agencies must offer if they want to sell health insurance. This is where the economic tangent comes in. If you have been paying attention, you may know that we are in a bit of an economic crisis. Well credit default swaps* have been identified as a major cause of the finance, mortgage and insurance agencies troubles. Why? How did these irresponsible crazy debt investments get so out of control??? Phil Gramm, McCain’s good friend and economic advisor (until he called us a “nation of whiners” due to our “mental recession”). Gramm, with the help of lobbyists, slipped legislation into a must-pass spending bill eight years ago. This legislation protected credit default swaps from government regulation. Eight years later these un-regulated bundles of high-risk debt have created one of the biggest economic failures in our history. [end tangent] Yes, government should stay out of the private sector for the most part, but certain things that affect close to all Americans (like finance, health insurance, education) need a minimum level of regulation to ensure all Americans at least have a chance. McCain’s plan would basically put health insurance in the same situation as the current financial giants (and some insurance companies). It is estimated that McCain’s plan would insure an additional 1-5 million Americans.
Obama’s plan addresses the issue that those that need insurance the most are the most likely to be denied by a strictly private insurance sector. So his idea of expanding government insurance options will help to address these people that can’t get it in the private sector. His first “universal” coverage would be for children (and since he is proposing to get rid of taxes altogether for the elderly making less than $50K I think he’s now covered at least addressing two of the most vulnerable Americans…). Obama would create regulations to ensure insurance companies cover everyone and at least a minimum of conditions. It is estimated Obama’s plan would insure an additional 34 million Americans.
So, as far as intent I think it is clear (at least to me) that Obama’s head is in the right place and he wants to help Americans. McCain is stuck in his party’s firm anti-regulation stance and is only looking out for insurance companies and big business. McCain’s stance would be fine if this was an economic issue but this is not. This is an issue of everyone’s right to see a doctor.
*Credit default swaps are basically insurance policies that cover the losses on investments, and they have been at the heart of the subprime meltdown because they have enabled large financial institutions to turn risky loans into risky securities that could be packaged and sold to other institutions
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
McCain's health plan - same as current financial structure
In the name of all that is good, please do not let this man win the election.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html?hp
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Another great commentary...
This one by Andrew Sullivan...
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-integri.html
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-integri.html
Deepak on Palin/Obama
http://www.chopra.com/wordsfromdeepak
I admit I do not follow Deepak Chopra regularly and have really one been exposed to him via the media and Iconoclasts but the few times I have heard him speak, and particularly with the article above, I like him.
I admit I do not follow Deepak Chopra regularly and have really one been exposed to him via the media and Iconoclasts but the few times I have heard him speak, and particularly with the article above, I like him.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
Why don't people care?
I admit I never cared about politics when I was younger. But then I saw this guy on TV and he seemed like a bit of an idiot but he just won an election, albeit a fishy win. So, I started to read. Wow, the power of a little research. After reading about George W. Bush and being absolutely baffled as to how he became our president with his record of failure (which he has gone on to continue with consistency and pride), I was blown away at how it seemed Americans just didn't pay attention.
I'm still blown away but I'm not as surprised anymore. I am sad.
I have had so many conversations lately with people saying things like; "I am so sick of it all I stopped paying attention" or "I can't read any of it because it's all biased" or "I don't need to know anything other than I like him/her".
Yes, we are all a little sick of it all but sometimes I get sick of making meals for my kids too, should I just stop? It matters, get over it and pay attention.
Yes, there is a lot of bias out there. What's worse; developing a bias based on information learned or closing your mind completely? Let's define "bias" - an unfair preference for or dislike of something. So, I think the real issue is the difference between bias and opinion and the difference is in the word "unfair". Is it unfair to not like Sarah Palin because she has a pregnant teenage daughter? Yes. Is it unfair to dislike Sarah Palin because she is shouting about how she "said no thanks to a bridge to nowhere" when in fact she campaigned for the bridge, received federal funds, then changed her mind and kept the money. No. There is a difference and to hide behind the "bias" argument when you don't know what the difference is is ignorant.
Yes, we should like our candidates. We should like the person we want to run our country but why we like them matters. There is a difference between liking someone you want to be friends with and liking someone you want to lead your country. I can't even fathom voting for someone simply because they "look nice" without having any idea what they stand for, what experience they've had and what kind of character they may have.
I hate these responses because they are clear excuses for not being informed and personally if you are not going to inform yourself please don't vote.
I'm still blown away but I'm not as surprised anymore. I am sad.
I have had so many conversations lately with people saying things like; "I am so sick of it all I stopped paying attention" or "I can't read any of it because it's all biased" or "I don't need to know anything other than I like him/her".
Yes, we are all a little sick of it all but sometimes I get sick of making meals for my kids too, should I just stop? It matters, get over it and pay attention.
Yes, there is a lot of bias out there. What's worse; developing a bias based on information learned or closing your mind completely? Let's define "bias" - an unfair preference for or dislike of something. So, I think the real issue is the difference between bias and opinion and the difference is in the word "unfair". Is it unfair to not like Sarah Palin because she has a pregnant teenage daughter? Yes. Is it unfair to dislike Sarah Palin because she is shouting about how she "said no thanks to a bridge to nowhere" when in fact she campaigned for the bridge, received federal funds, then changed her mind and kept the money. No. There is a difference and to hide behind the "bias" argument when you don't know what the difference is is ignorant.
Yes, we should like our candidates. We should like the person we want to run our country but why we like them matters. There is a difference between liking someone you want to be friends with and liking someone you want to lead your country. I can't even fathom voting for someone simply because they "look nice" without having any idea what they stand for, what experience they've had and what kind of character they may have.
I hate these responses because they are clear excuses for not being informed and personally if you are not going to inform yourself please don't vote.
Headlines not being discussed...
This is just a quick browse through CNN headlines:
Jobless rate soars to 6.1% - http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/05/news/economy/jobs_august/index.htm?cnn=yes
Record 1.2 million homes being hit by foreclosure - http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/05/real_estate/foreclosures_rise_again/index.htm?postversion=2008090510
Stocks down on recession fears - http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/05/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm
And BBC...
Rice in Libya for historic visit - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7599199.stm
Gaddafi to 'hand out oil money' - http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=9030886628014332342
Now, the Libya articles are the most interesting to me. Gaddafi is planning on dismantling government (except for justice, defence, interior and foreign affairs) and giving the money to the people to teach their children as they wish (and whatever else). So it appears they are going towards a capitalistic sytem. Interestingly enough the US is now talking to them again. I'm really interested to see what happens here I mean from what I just read they are moving in the same directions conservatives want to see the US - smaller government with more individual choice.
This all stems after the US cut ties with Libya back in the 80's for their involvement in international terrorism. Is this a success story in our war on terrorism? We are talking to them again and they seem to be working toward a democratic dream...only time will tell.
Jobless rate soars to 6.1% - http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/05/news/economy/jobs_august/index.htm?cnn=yes
Record 1.2 million homes being hit by foreclosure - http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/05/real_estate/foreclosures_rise_again/index.htm?postversion=2008090510
Stocks down on recession fears - http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/05/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm
And BBC...
Rice in Libya for historic visit - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7599199.stm
Gaddafi to 'hand out oil money' - http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=9030886628014332342
Now, the Libya articles are the most interesting to me. Gaddafi is planning on dismantling government (except for justice, defence, interior and foreign affairs) and giving the money to the people to teach their children as they wish (and whatever else). So it appears they are going towards a capitalistic sytem. Interestingly enough the US is now talking to them again. I'm really interested to see what happens here I mean from what I just read they are moving in the same directions conservatives want to see the US - smaller government with more individual choice.
This all stems after the US cut ties with Libya back in the 80's for their involvement in international terrorism. Is this a success story in our war on terrorism? We are talking to them again and they seem to be working toward a democratic dream...only time will tell.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
We are a species that works best when we work together.
I have been reading countless blogs, articles and comments on the current election and I can't help but notice that both sides are fighting for the essentially the same thing; protecting our personal lives.
We are all protective of our way of life, especially the positive things we have worked hard for. The thing I find the most interesting is that this fierce protection of our personal lives is a direct result of the policies that are under scrutiny to change. We have been beaten to a point that any move by the government is now seen as a threat. Why are we so protective of our current healthcare? Because we all know how horrible it would be to lose it. Most of us have had one or two experiences with either no or insufficient healthcare and if we are lucky enough to currently be at a place with a good health plan we DO NOT want to lose it. Healthcare is just one example. Money. There’s another one. It’s my money and no one is going to tell me how to spend it. Why are we so protective of our hard earned money? Because the current state of the nation does not provide us any guarantees or security. Social security? Don’t count on it. Pensions? Don’t count on em. Savings? Don’t count on it! So we go one of two ways – we scream for change or we scream for the government to leave us alone to figure out our own lives. Both are valid. I would love to be able to check off the things I want my taxes to go to when I file. Would that work? Maybe for some of us but doubtful for most. The problem is that I am a realist. I read a lot. I am a student of human nature and I know that there are some philosophies and ideals of each man for himself that in theory would be a great solution but in reality will not work. We are a species that works best when we work together. We do not have to give up our individuality but we should all work towards a common goal and that goal should be a healthy society that protects all people. Forgiveness is a virtue, selfishness is a sin. So many people have turned their back on each other and it is just wrong. No, you shouldn’t have to bail out Joe Schmoe that thought a five year interest only adjustable rate mortgage on a house they couldn’t afford in the first place was a good idea. And when you’re not standing in front of that person it’s easy to say they dug their own grave. But then when you walk through that empty REO and see the pin holes from the posters that were once on the wall of the kids bedroom. You realize that that stupid decision just put a child out of a home. And maybe your mind wanders a little further. Maybe you start to think about why that decision was made in the first place. Here in Orange County where a 2 bedroom house in poor condition in a bad neighborhood used to cost over a half of a million dollars and rent was just as high, simply having a home was out of reach for a large portion of the population. So maybe these people weren’t stupid, maybe they were just desperate and hopeful that somehow, if they could just get their foot in the door, somehow it would work out. Yes, there are a lot of sob stories we could use to make you feel sorry enough to want to help these people while in the back of your mind you still think they should lay in the bed they made. But what happens when the downtrodden move in to your neighborhood? What happens when your schools get flooded with the displaced and resources have to be rearranged and moved away from your child so they can address the needs of another? What happens when the kid next door that stays home alone most of the time because both of his parents have to work so they don’t lose the house starts playing with your kid and teaching them all the things you learn as a minor with internet access, no parental supervision and a failing public school system? Will we care then? Will we think, oh well now that it directly effects me I have changed my mind and we should do something about this? What is so wrong about feeling a little empathy towards our peers?
This is who I am and where I am coming from. I work full time, sometimes more. I am lucky because I have been given the opportunity to do this work from home so I may care for my children. I have conference calls, emails, reports, deadlines and a water cooler. I just don’t have a commute. Or a nanny. It’s hard. I have health care, I have a 401K, my husband works close to home so gas isn’t killing us. We are in escrow to buy our first home. We are doing pretty well. So why am I voting for change? Because I am just part of the whole. I am an American and there are so many Americans that are suffering. I have children that I plan to send to private school but I am still happy to have my taxes go towards public schools. Why? Because from what I’ve seen the places in which public schools are failing are directly related to a lot of other failures. I too am selfish. I want my children to grow up with educated peers wherever they may end up. I am pro marijuana. I am pro privacy. I am pro national healthcare options. I am pro gay rights. I am pro big business. I am pro small business. I am all for taxes – as long as they are fair for everyone and without ridiculous loop holes. And yet I am an elitist. Not because I think I am better than anyone else but because I strive to always be a better version of my former self. I find nothing wrong with searching for the best – be it material, philosophical, spiritual or edible. I am not comfortable with a stagnant mind that was made up long ago and still holds on to stale arguments simply because it stopped paying attention.
We are all protective of our way of life, especially the positive things we have worked hard for. The thing I find the most interesting is that this fierce protection of our personal lives is a direct result of the policies that are under scrutiny to change. We have been beaten to a point that any move by the government is now seen as a threat. Why are we so protective of our current healthcare? Because we all know how horrible it would be to lose it. Most of us have had one or two experiences with either no or insufficient healthcare and if we are lucky enough to currently be at a place with a good health plan we DO NOT want to lose it. Healthcare is just one example. Money. There’s another one. It’s my money and no one is going to tell me how to spend it. Why are we so protective of our hard earned money? Because the current state of the nation does not provide us any guarantees or security. Social security? Don’t count on it. Pensions? Don’t count on em. Savings? Don’t count on it! So we go one of two ways – we scream for change or we scream for the government to leave us alone to figure out our own lives. Both are valid. I would love to be able to check off the things I want my taxes to go to when I file. Would that work? Maybe for some of us but doubtful for most. The problem is that I am a realist. I read a lot. I am a student of human nature and I know that there are some philosophies and ideals of each man for himself that in theory would be a great solution but in reality will not work. We are a species that works best when we work together. We do not have to give up our individuality but we should all work towards a common goal and that goal should be a healthy society that protects all people. Forgiveness is a virtue, selfishness is a sin. So many people have turned their back on each other and it is just wrong. No, you shouldn’t have to bail out Joe Schmoe that thought a five year interest only adjustable rate mortgage on a house they couldn’t afford in the first place was a good idea. And when you’re not standing in front of that person it’s easy to say they dug their own grave. But then when you walk through that empty REO and see the pin holes from the posters that were once on the wall of the kids bedroom. You realize that that stupid decision just put a child out of a home. And maybe your mind wanders a little further. Maybe you start to think about why that decision was made in the first place. Here in Orange County where a 2 bedroom house in poor condition in a bad neighborhood used to cost over a half of a million dollars and rent was just as high, simply having a home was out of reach for a large portion of the population. So maybe these people weren’t stupid, maybe they were just desperate and hopeful that somehow, if they could just get their foot in the door, somehow it would work out. Yes, there are a lot of sob stories we could use to make you feel sorry enough to want to help these people while in the back of your mind you still think they should lay in the bed they made. But what happens when the downtrodden move in to your neighborhood? What happens when your schools get flooded with the displaced and resources have to be rearranged and moved away from your child so they can address the needs of another? What happens when the kid next door that stays home alone most of the time because both of his parents have to work so they don’t lose the house starts playing with your kid and teaching them all the things you learn as a minor with internet access, no parental supervision and a failing public school system? Will we care then? Will we think, oh well now that it directly effects me I have changed my mind and we should do something about this? What is so wrong about feeling a little empathy towards our peers?
This is who I am and where I am coming from. I work full time, sometimes more. I am lucky because I have been given the opportunity to do this work from home so I may care for my children. I have conference calls, emails, reports, deadlines and a water cooler. I just don’t have a commute. Or a nanny. It’s hard. I have health care, I have a 401K, my husband works close to home so gas isn’t killing us. We are in escrow to buy our first home. We are doing pretty well. So why am I voting for change? Because I am just part of the whole. I am an American and there are so many Americans that are suffering. I have children that I plan to send to private school but I am still happy to have my taxes go towards public schools. Why? Because from what I’ve seen the places in which public schools are failing are directly related to a lot of other failures. I too am selfish. I want my children to grow up with educated peers wherever they may end up. I am pro marijuana. I am pro privacy. I am pro national healthcare options. I am pro gay rights. I am pro big business. I am pro small business. I am all for taxes – as long as they are fair for everyone and without ridiculous loop holes. And yet I am an elitist. Not because I think I am better than anyone else but because I strive to always be a better version of my former self. I find nothing wrong with searching for the best – be it material, philosophical, spiritual or edible. I am not comfortable with a stagnant mind that was made up long ago and still holds on to stale arguments simply because it stopped paying attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
