The Constitution is full of negative liberties?!?!?!

The man doesn't understand...that, or he's a complete idealogue. In an interview in 2001, when Barack Obama was a Illionis State Senator, he said this:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that now I would have the right to vote...I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and, as long as I could pay for it, I’d be OK.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in the society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

Let's put aside any underlying arguements about Barack Obama's stance on repairations, and just focus on his sentiment of the founding documents of this country.

If this doesn't convince you that at minimum he believes in Socialism, then I hear Joy Behar has some great Kool-Aid for you.

I believe the Constitution of the United States was divinely influenced. I know some will disagree, and I'm not saying that the Constitution is the word of God by any means. What I'm saying is that it was divine influence that gathered these Founding Fathers together...brilliant minds from many walks of life...and they created this document that is...well...Awesome. Who can look at that great document and see negativity?!

Barack Obama is exactly right. The Constitution doesn't say what the Government must do for us. Because the Founding Fathers believed that too much Government was a problem. That the role of government must be small...but not tyranical. THAT is why it says what the Government CAN'T do. It CAN'T take away our freedoms...right now.

And it is absolutely NOT the role of courts to say what Government can do. There's a reason that Lady Justice is blindfolded. She's supposed to follow the letter of the law as it's written, not change it on a whim based on one judge's interpretation of the law.

Personal Crusade for Empathy...

I think I've always been very good at "feeling someone else's pain". I think I have a good ability of putting myself in someone else's shoes and, that the extent to which I possibly can, see where the other person is coming from...no...feel what the other person feels.

This, I have always thought was Empathy. I was shocked to find out recently that this is more accurately the description of sympathy. How can this be? I don't understand. Empathy sounds so much more involved...so much more personal.

Eh...I can sympathize with that. I have empathy for what you're going through. Which sounds better? Which would you prefer...that someone merely sympathized with your feelings, or that someone had great empathy for your situation.

The choice is clear. Empathy wins....hands down.

What's that? You're not so sure? Well, mark my words...and no, that's not a Joe Biden pot shot...mark my words, by the end of my lifetime, people will come to know Empathy to be the more deeper sentiment of the Empathy vs. sympathy battle.

Economy Turn Around in 2009?? Don't Believe It...

...or at the very least, don't take it at face value. Stratfor.com, whoever that is, is predicting that the recession will subside in early 2009. Other analysts say it will be mid-2009. Remember these are the idiots who never saw this coming...they are now making predictions that it will turn around in 3 to 6 months.

Hello Mr. Greenspan...Mr. Best-Economist-Ever...what did you have to say on the situation before Congress the other day? Oh yeah...he said things like he was shocked...he never saw it coming...it was a once-in-a-century tsunami...and that the housing situation must correct first before the economy can turn around which won't be for many months. Former Federal Reserve Chairman is saying the recession will last more than 6 months.

So ask yourself this...why are "experts" saying that the economy will turn around in less than a year? Because oil prices are falling? Because the dollar is strengthening? Those are the only two bright spots at the moment. Unemployment is rising, foreclosures are still happening, and credit is still tight.

I'm not sure why oil prices are falling. OPEC just cut back on supply. Why? So we can keep $3.00 gas???

I'm not sure why the dollar is strengthening. We just did over 1.3 Trillion dollars in bailouts (some say nearer to 2.0 Trillion). We are printing money like crazy. So what? The rest of the world is hurting and their pain is strengthening our dollar??

I'm no economist...but the only people that saw this coming were the ones that aren't "experts", and something doesn't make sense here. If our dollar is strengthening just because the rest of the world is faltering, it's really a false strengthening. Whenever the rest of the world rebounds, we're still going to have more than $10 Trillion in National Debt and we'll still be running a yearly budget deficit, thus adding to the National Debt.

No one really knows when this will turn around, so all I'm trying to say is be careful folks. Pay your personal debts off. Change your lifestyle...live debt free. Get an emergency fund. Then whatever happens with everything mentioned above will have a minimal effect on your lives. For the ones out there saying don't panic. They're right. Don't Panic. Just get serious, life thrifty, pay off debts, and you'll be fine.

Regrets...The Mad Hoosier changing his stance??

In the past, I've said that I don't have any regrets in life, and I stood by that when I did this post. At the time, I had read Rocketstar's blog when he questioned why it was so bad to have regret, based on the general definition of feeling sorry or remorseful for a previous action.

I tried to argue that it was the definition that people may take issue with when determining if they had regrets or not. I stated that people took regrets to mean that they'd change something in the past...which they know would change their current lot in life. I even argued that if I made a different decision (returning home to finish college instead of finishing in Toledo, Ohio) that I would have never met my wife, had three wonderful kids, etc. So I don't "regret" that decision. It was just an example I used, but I felt it could be translated into any decision/action (as many percieved regrets are negative, while my example of returning home to finish school wasn't necessarily an example of a negative experience).

I think I'm starting to change my stance. I still look at regrets in the larger issue sense...more in the life-altering sense. But now, I think of regret as going to the heart of a different issue...doing the right thing.

Unlike my wise friend, Rocket, what I didn't see then what I see now, which is that it's ok to regret and be remorseful of bad decisions without betraying your current place in life. I even think it's ok to say you'd do that something differently. Because you're acknowledging that you did something wrong, you're learning from a previous mistake.

In the end, you simply can't go back and change that previous decision, and merely wishing you made a different decision, then, isn't betraying what would have possibly changed in the present.

There's one specific issue in my past that changed the way I think of this, and it definitely comes down to doing the right thing. It was a life-changing event that I regret, and I wish I would have done it differently. What I did was wrong.

Maybe it's because it was a life-changing event, but I've actually found it to be somewhat liberating to admit regretting the decision I made. I've taken more accountability for the decision I made, and learned from the situation. I don't feel as though I've betrayed my current lot in life, even though it probably would have turned out differently, because I can use the wisdom, or lack thereof, in that decision to possibly help my family or others in the future.

I still adore my family and wouldn't change where I am in life. But what I did was still wrong, and if I can admit and regret doing the wrong thing, what kind of example am I setting?

The big thing is learning from the decisions you regret, request forgiveness if necessary, and don't dwell on the decision or how things may have been different.

Who are YOU voting for?

Ok, I'm not really looking for an answer, but I am looking to make sure you know why you are voting who you are voting for.

I think some of us, and I may include myself in this group as I'm not positive whom I've voting for yet, may be voting for the lesser of two evils. That's fine if you're voting that way, that would generally mean you understand the issues and while there's no good candidate you'd vote for, you're voting for the person you think would mess the country up less than the other.

The more I think about it, if you're voting for McCain, you're likely in the above group...OR, you're voting for Sarah Palin. Though she has governed the state of Alaska more from the center than anything, she's the only true conservative in the race. So some may be voting for her, hoping that she will pull McCain to the right a bit.

McCain hasn't really given us a reason to vote for him, other than he plans on cutting Government spending and keep taxes low. Now those are good ideas, but he hasn't really articulated why they are good ideas, or how and why they differ from Obama. Some of us know why those are good ideas without him having to spell it out for us, but I'm not sure that many people do.

To be fair, he is strong on foreign issues as well, and will keep the military strong, but I just haven't heard a strong enough case from him on those issues. He should have mopped the floor with Obama on the foreign policy debate, and he didn't.

Obama is for change and hope and....spreading the wealth?? He plans to grow government so that it can take care of you. He plans on talking with nations that refer to the United States as The Great Satan. He was for this bailout with lots of regulation, so he's for Government run Banks. He wants to take oil's profits and create millions of jobs in renewable energy. In short, he wants Government run Energy. He wants universal health care...he thinks it's your right...that it's the right of Joe Schmoe who refuses to get a job to be able to have health care. In short, he wants Government run Health Care. That's three industries that he's plainly for Government control in. Do you really think that automobiles and airlines are far behind. He'll snatch that up as quickly as they ask for it.

He's not hiding his agenda, he's quite forthcoming with it. The only thing that came out recently that he didn't articulate the way he'd like is "when you spread the wealth around, I think it's good for everybody." It's clear that is what his tax plan is, but it's never been stated in that fashion. So you tell me, with the three and probably four Government run industries along with spreading the wealth around...how is that not socialism?? It very clearly is socialism.

That's not what this country is about, that's not how it was founded. The Federal Government's primary obligation is to protect us from foreign threats, and then minimally regulate the rest of the country.

The Supreme Court is there to determine if State laws intercede with Federal Laws & to determine if Federal Laws are constitutional...as in, not restricting or overstepping the founding documents of this country, period. It's purpose is not to create laws from the bench.

I can't say that John McCain will not be a continuation of the past 8 years. He says he won't, but the Government also said that $700 Billion would likely be enough to help us through this financial crisis. The additional $490 Billion on Tuesday was just another example that proved otherwise.

What I can say is that an Obama administration WILL increase government. He has plainly said that is his intention. Is he smart? Of course. Does he think he knows best how to fix this country? I think he does. Is he wrong to think that? Yep. Because, again, politicians can't fix the country, Americans can and often do.

If someone wants to vote for Obama because they agree with Government run Banks, Government run Healthcare, Government run Energy, spreading the wealth, and probably Government run Transportation...fine. But don't vote for Obama because "he can't be any worse than Bush". If someone's going to embrace Socialism, embrace it because you believe in it...not because you hate Bush, and by default McCain.

Blue...

You ever just had one of those blue days? You can't quite put your finger on it...but you feel kinda depressed or down in the dumps?

For some reason, that's the way I feel this morning. I don't know if it was a book I read recently, old memories, future uncertainty, a rough weekend at work, some combination of it all, or something else entirely...but I know I don't like these kind of days.

Hopefully a few miles on the treadmill when I get home will help.

The Tax Issue

With all the talk about raising and lowering taxes, I figured I'd explain taxes...at least from the conservative standpoint.

I know it can be rather boring stuff, but as I try to tell my wife, to no avail, it's important to understand because it's one of the primary differences between liberals and conservatives....and heading into this election, could be the difference between socialism and capitalism.

I'll go into detail below, but basically it boils down to believing in capitalism. Capitalism is a force into itself. Everyone contributes. If you honestly believe that 95% of the population can live on wealth of 5% of the people, you're living in a dream world. Those 5% will eventually leave because they refuse to carry 100% the burden.

In capitalism, you have the right to fail. In fact, if you aren't prepared, or if you're too greedy, the system will make you fail. If you become a success, then you are rewarded for your hard work. Conservatives believe in not punishing success by keeping taxes low. By keeping taxes low, business can expand, invest, and grow, whereby creating more jobs and contributing to a fully functioning society. The sky is the limit, and anything short of cheating(such as creating monopolies) will be rewarded. Liberals, however, believe that once you've obtained success, you're obligated to give back...so they force you to give back via taxes. It's borderline socialism because the successful are the rich, and the taxes on the rich go to the less fortunate aka the poor. In capitalism, when you punish success via taxes, businesses don't grow, they contract. They stop expanding and investing....and they lay off workers. OR, they move their companies to India who will gladly take the business and contribution to society in exchange for low taxes. In short, and quite possibly a slanted view, conservatives believe in rewarding the successful....liberals believe in punishing success.

How do you figure, you say? Well, if you're really interested, read on, as I expand a bit on what I just stated.

This is a nation founded on personal freedoms and freedom in business...free market forces, ie. capitalism. Just as with personal freedoms you can do as little or as much as you want, likewise as a business you can work as little or as hard as you want. To those who put hard work into their business, the rewards can be limitless.

The reason I have quickly turned to business owners is because, as you can imagine, those that work hardest, become the wealthiest. Unless you're a child of a billionaire, nothing comes for free in this country...at least that's how things were designed to work. You want something, you have to work hard for it.

Now, there's only so much a single person can accomplish. There's only so many hours in a day, so many appointments that can be kept, so many jobs that can be done. So eventually, if one wants to make more money, they need to hire people to help. This is, of course, good. To provide a good or service is one thing, but to hire someone...to contribute to creating a productive society, creating jobs is very good.

Of course, you can't be an idiot and be a boss in charge of a workforce, so you have to add a new skill set, which falls under the working hard category. So if you're successful enough, you make more money.

So if you're with me so far, and I mean this with no amount of condescension, you work hard, you make money. You become successful, you create jobs, you add to society, you make more money.

Now in the early days, you got to keep all the money you earned from working so hard and being successful. But then along came the 16th amendment, which allowed for income taxes so that the United States could pay for the Civil War. Before that, Government raised money by tariffs on imports. They[the government] didn't need much money, because they designed their role as being minimal. But the military was one of their roles, and much money was needed to fight in the Civil War, so a tax was decided upon. Initially, it was meant to be temporary.

So these days...you work hard, you make money, you become successful, you are forced to give a portion of that money to the government. Everyone accepts this as a given these days, so they must account for taxes as they work hard to make money. No one likes to give their money away, of course, but business owners particularly. They are the ones sacrificing, risking capital, creating jobs. But as long as taxes are low, since taxes are a given anyway, business owners are willing to take on a little extra risk, work even a little harder, and keep creating jobs in order to make money.

But what happens as taxes begin to raise, as you are forced to give away more money for your hard money and success? You become less willing to sacrifice for that money. You are willing to risk less for that money. After all...you've lived the American dream. You're successful...you've had to work hard, though. Had to sacrifice, take risks...only to give away half of your earnings?? Initially, you will likely simply pass those tax increases along to your customers. So in essence, the tax isn't just happening to the rich...the new taxes are making it all the way down to the consumer.

But eventually, particularly for the small business owner, you'll begin to curtail your business. It no longer becomes worth it to pay that much for Social Security taxes on each employee...so you start to lay off employees to keep your profit margin up. Laid off employees means less contribution to society.

Plus, now, since you're making less money, you're spending less money. That means less job creation elsewhere. You're not paying for housing renovations or upkeep, so painters, contractors, roofers, construction workers, they all are less apt to find work. Less work, means less employment, less employment means less investment (in savings, capital, investments, etc), less investments means recession.

Now this is the part I'm confused by. It's the whole...those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. You'd think that there should only be a few recessions in history for people to realize that high taxes are bad. How is it confirmed that high taxes are bad? Well...to get out of a recession, aside from tinkering with interest rates, it usually takes tax cuts to fix the recession.

That's the primary fix...lower taxes. Democrats agree...during a recession anyway...otherwise they wouldn't have voted countless times to lower tax rates during rough times. Barack Obama himself said that he wouldn't raise taxes if the economy was bad. So why is it, once times aren't so rough, Democrats are eager to raise taxes again. It leads to the same cycle people!

Actually, I know why. It goes back to the fundamental idea of taxing success. Democrats believe that once someone is successful, they are fundamentally obligated to give up those earnings and pass them on to the less fortunate. That's not the way capitalism works folks.

Truth be told, many wealthy people give plenty of their money to charities, organizations, foundations, etc. Their belief is that they know how to maximize their money and they want to be certain that their money is getting the best return. They also know, that the government rarely gets a fair return for the money spent. They also generally believe that money shouldn't be a handout, rather going to help people help themselves.

So if many people are giving money to worthy causes, and to boot they are helping people help themselves, ie contributing more to society than a mere handout, why not let capitalism run the way it's supposed to run. Do we need some oversight? Sure. But minimal oversight. Trust me...capitalism always punishes those that deserve it in the end.

The Credit Crisis Is A Myth??

It seems, during this bailout, that all you hear about is the credit crisis...that people and small buisnesses can't get business loans, car loans, student loans. I alluded to it in my most recent post, and this will just be an extension of that.

You see, the "crisis" is true, in the sense that most people that have gotten car and house loans for the past 10 years won't be able to get these loans. But folks...those are the people who SHOULD NOT be getting loans in the first place!

I'm sorry, but you are not entitled to new cars every 2-3 years...you aren't entitled to cars, period. Be happy if you can afford an older car. Keep it fixed up, and be happy. I'm driving around in a 10 year old Neon. I plan on keeping it until we can pay off the rest of our credit cards and then I'll save up to pay cash for a different USED car. What a novel idea.

And yes, if you aren't entitled to a car, then you aren't entitled to home ownership. Sorry. It's true. There's an unsaid expectation that everyone should be afforded reasonable housing...and I can concede that. But that's different than home ownership. Home ownership is a responsibility, one that you must work hard to attain, like much else in life.

BUT...to the people that can afford it...to responsible stewards with money, loans are still attainable. Banks want to loan money...to people they reasonably know will pay it back. That means, living an appropriate lifestyle, less credit card debt, etc.

If we're talking about a "credit crisis"...you'll see a real crisis down the road if this $700 Billion "investment" is made, but nothing has changed with regard who whom loans are given to. No one has shown us that they are ready to change the "business as usual" in regards to this bailout bill. Until they do, it is necessary that we continue to vote NO to bailouts. And the whole, "there will be time for the blame game later" is code for "we need money, but we aren't going to change anything."

And it's sad to say...but I think the make-up of Student Loans need to change too. I remember college...but I can't say for certain the things I learned there. But I know I still have $20,000 left to go to pay it off...and I've been out of college for 10 years. I'm willing to say, that in that regard, I'm just like millions of Americans. My sister has huge student loans...and she's now a stay at home mother. It's her right to be a stay at home mother, but if millions of students go to college only to fail to use that education, it only aids in running up the cost of college.

This points to some fundamental changes. We either need to go back to the principles of "America's Greatest Generation" or we need to move on to Socialism with the realization that it will render the United States an afterthought in regards to world power. In any event, our current monetary policy (and that includes essentially the same policy that we've had for at least two decades) isn't working. As Dr. Phil, or financial guru Dave Ramsey, would say, "how's that working for ya?" It's not. So it needs to change. To what, will determine the kind of nation our kids grow up in. Is anyone willing to stand up and hold our government accountable for how it, and we, leave this country for the next generation??