This article cracks me up.

What’s he going to say to that? How is the President Elect of the United States of America going to react to an offering of a toothless, albeit hypoallergenic, dog for his daughters?

Will he take the diplomatic route and accept the dog along with its name, Machu Picchu? Or will he do as I would and say, “Thank you, Peru, for your generous offer to send my daughters to therapy for the rest of their lives. However, as the cost of their psychiatric care would fall to me, I’m going to have to refuse your creepy demon dog and just get a poodle.”

By the way, does anyone else think of this dog when they hear “hairless toothless breed”?

I wonder if he’ll be forced to reconsider his health care plan?

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4AB67T20081112

I have an idea for a compromise between pro life and pro choice, and I’m really serious.

Abortion is legal, at all times and for any reason.  The only requirement is that before the procedure the doctor must inform the woman of the size of the baby, rate of it’s heartbeat, and gender if it’s known.  Then, during the procedure, the mother has to watch on ultrasound.  I could deal with that.

Why oh WHY could this man not have made the nomination?!  Remembering back to the primaries now, I’m wishing more than ever he had made it.

Justin’s gonna get a bumper sticker that says, “Don’t blame me.  I voted Huckabee.”

Apparently President Elect Barack Obama has already “been the target of two assassination plots by white supremists“!! He was elected 3 DAYS AGO!!

He is already the most protected president the US has ever seen. I’ve got to say, with all my heart, I really really really really really hope this stops. This is absolutely horrific. To disagree with his policy is one thing, but to try to kill him? Twice in THREE DAYS?

Christians out there need to be praying for him and his family, including protection for all of them. I can’t step inside the head of someone who would want to kill the President Elect of the United States of America, much less the father of two girls. We should do all we can in speech, deed, and prayer to make sure that we are not, by political dissent, inadvertently inspiring horrific acts.

So let’s be very clear on one point: KILLING PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA WOULD BE A HORRIBLE THING for more reasons than I can count. Disagree with him, yes. But do so by writing your congressmen and senators encouraging them to balance the left of center legislative branch. Dissent should be with a pen (or, today, a keyboard) not with a sniper rifle.

I am having an awesome discussion with my cousin (liberal) about socialism and capitalism and where our nation is headed.  I thought I would blog the discussion because I think already it’s outgrown it’s comment status and I wanted to create a home for it and open it up to other discussions.  If you haven’t already, you can read the original post here.  I would love to hear your input!  I am always striving to understand dissenting views.

Kelsy

Amber, my dear cousin, I am afraid you have an extreme idea about socialism. What you are describing is actually state communism. There is a huge difference between state socialism/communism as seen in the USSR, China during the 80s and Cuba. The fact that the progressive governments in Sweden, Norway etc who offer health care and free education have the same name as the USSR is unfortunate, but ultimately they are not the same system. Obama has never said he is going to “take money from the rich to give to the poor” Its not like people are going to go around and knock on the doors of big mansions and say, “hey! there is a poor guy over here, you have to give him some of your hard earned cash.”

Enacting more “socialist” policies into our government would be a mere recognition that people who are born rich ultimately have a greater advantage in life than people who are born poor.

The idea that poor people are lazy is one of the great travesties in our society today. The working class is named appropriately, people in the working class work longer hours and more days a week than people in the upper classes (on average). No one in their right mind wants to encourage people to not work and merely sit back and have a check handed to them.

Obama supports things like health care and welfare not because he believes the working class should get handouts, but because he believes in the unalienable rights of man. He believes that people regardless of the family they are born into have the right to be healthy and well educated so that when they do grow up to be adults they will have the ability to choose rationally their own path instead of being sucked into the cycles of poverty.

The idea of the American Dream is a myth. People are more likely to fall down the social ladder and make less money than their family before them than they are to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and climb the social ladder.

I know I probably will not win you over, but i have to say I think you are a little extreme in your analysis of both socialism and Obama’s policies. I seriously doubt that our lives will change very much from during Bush’s administration to Obama’s. Simple things as decent health care coverage (maybe i can get some new stinking contacts and glasses prescription since I dont have eye coverage! that wouldnt be so bad… would it?) Improvements in the education system… (higher paid teachers? less students per class? I know you will be home schooling Ari but think about all the people in the country who are forced to work two jobs and don’t have that option? Wouldnt you like them to be able to go to a school that has competant, well paid teachers?)

Welfare, the bain of all conservatives (thank you Reagan!) should probably have a complete name change. The idea now is so entrenched in ideas about laziness it has become an incredible stigma.

Currently as a VISTA i make little to no money. Rent is exorbiant and it leaves me with little money left to do things other than the basics. Fortunately I recieve food stamps from the state government. The fact that I receive this small stipend for food has allowed me to continue to eat healthy despite my financial situation. Is this such a bad thing? When I think of all the CHILDREN out there who do not get adequate nutrition because their parents can only afford prepackaged processed foods it makes my heart hurt. Even if we are to make the assumption all poor people are lazy, do we have to make the same judgment of their children and do they have to suffer?

OK thats my two cents on socialism. I know you are pretty set in your ways (as am I) but i felt the need to say something in response…. LOVE YOU! I hope everything is going well.. you guys are coming to lubbock for christmas… RIGHT???

Alright, I guess I will address the very good issues you raised one at a time. I don’t think I have an extreme idea about socialism. I know the difference between communism, Marxism, and what’s going on in our country right now. I think my views on socialism are seen as “extreme” because I don’t like even the little bit of socialist policy we have.

“Taking money from the rich and giving to the poor” is exactly what he’s going to do. Even though it’s just an extra 2% after $250,000, it’s still taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It doesn’t matter if it’s 2% or 20% or 100%, it’s still taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It doesn’t matter if he goes around knocking on doors or making people give it with their taxes, it’s still taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Now you can say “2% isn’t very much,” or “It’s only those who are very rich,” or something, but it’s not really accurate to say it’s not taking from the rich and giving to the poor, because it is. All that extra tax money (from the rich) is going straight into entitlement programs (to the poor).

I think where you and I disagree is not in principle but in practicality. I absolutely agree that those born rich have greater advantages. I absolutely agree that the American dream is a myth, that without some form of assistance someone born poor would not be able to do anything. I also absolutely agree that the rich should help the poor. Where I disagree is what “help” means, and how “help” should come. You and I basically believe in CHARITY – the difference comes in the practical application of that charity. You believe that the government should control the distribution of charitable goods (which in this case is money) and I believe that private citizens should control the distribution of charitable goods (which I believe should be a combination of money, educational services, and accountability). I am all for localized and privatized solutions, where socialism is a nationalized and governmental solution.

When Justin and I were almost evicted from our apartment a year and a half ago, we had no money for food. No food, zero money, and he didn’t have a job. He went and got a job waiting tables but it would be a week or two before we would have any money at all. So we went to our local church to ask for help. They had piles and piles and piles of food just waiting for someone to need it. No one ever came.

I believe that every person who has the ability should give 10% of their income to some sort of charity, whether it is a clean water program, food program, church, school, whatever. The advantages to “welfare” (charity) being privatized are very strong points for me.

One, we would have accountability of where the money is going. I am not naïve enough to think that everyone on welfare is a lazy bum. I’ve been on welfare, my parents have been on welfare, and none of us are lazy bums. I recognize that the vast majority of people on welfare work very hard to provide for their families. But something is wrong when the money I pay into the welfare system goes to support someone’s drug habit, or pay for their $16,000 car note. There is (and can be) no accountability in a government run welfare system. In a private system, that lazy bum who pulls up to the private charity distribution center to collect his check in a brand new car wouldn’t be met with a smiling face. He would probably be met with a “Hell no, go sell your car!” People would be kept more accountable for how they spend the charitable money they get because the people in charge of the charity would be very aware of how much money they have and how much money is needed.

Two, people would get to decide how much to give. I have taken extra jobs JUST SO I can give money away. I would be able to do a lot more good if that money wasn’t already taken away for welfare by the government – which is known for being an extremely inefficient system when it comes to handling money. Too much is taken out for administrative costs and other miscellaneous money wasters before it’s ever seen by the people who need it.

Three, people could decide where their money goes. I know you and I don’t see eye to eye on abortion, but it makes me sick that money my family earns supports Planned Parenthood. Sick. How would you feel if the money you gave to welfare went to support Christian missionaries? Probably sick, because everyone should get to decide how their money is spent. If I had a choice, I would take back my money the government is spending on Planned Parenthood and send it to Charity: Water. But I have no say. And that is the very definition of socialism: When the government, not private citizens, decides how the private citizen’s money will be spent.

Four, people would be much more apt to have to go out and actually find a good enough job. For instance, I would be more than happy to babysit some woman’s kids at night so she could go back to school, get an associates or something, then get out and get a better paying job to help her out of her situation. In a private charity situation, you could donate more than just money – you could also donate time, goods, and services. But you would be sure that the people who took the money or goods or services or whatever were actually working and trying to improve their situation instead of what you have now, which is just a handout. It’s entirely different, more like Habitat for Humanity (which I love).

Five, a private charity could offer financial educational services that the government can’t. If I ran a private charity I would offer free Dave Ramsey classes and would REQUIRE that in order to get a check you take the class. Did you know that you can become a millionaire on $100 a month? That’s one plasma donation a week. Not hard stuff – but people don’t know. People don’t know how to manage their money. We want to live like rich people without being rich people. A private charity could make sure that we are really and truly teaching people how to fish instead of just giving them fish.

And you know, I would even be much more okay with the government saying, “We’re taking this 2% and we’re going to use it to subsidize private charities” as sort of a forced charitable giving. But when the government runs the charity (i.e., welfare) is when I have a real problem. It’s kind of thuggish when you think about it. And when it comes to the subject of health care, my feelings are exactly the same. Privatize the charity. I mean, basically what we are talking about is the same thing. I just believe in personal freedom of choice when it comes to choosing how much to give and who to give it to. All welfare is is government mandated compassion. I think people are generally a lot more “good” than we give them credit for. I don’t believe the government should mandate my compassion.

Taxes were originally just supposed to be a way to pay for services received. The government was like a business that offered things – roads, military protection, etc – and private citizens paid for these things. Now, it’s not practical to actually pay per use (the ridiculous example of the toll sidewalk comes to mind) so we just tax on what you make. (Personally, I would like to see income tax abolished and replaced with a Fair Tax but that’s another subject for another time.  ) But when the government started taking money from one class and giving it to another, it ceased to be a business and started to be a national charity – which is inefficiently run. And when the government is a national charity, you have socialism.

Now, when it comes to you it’s an entirely different story. You SHOULD get food stamps and government sponsored health care. Why? Because you are basically an employee of me, and all the citizens of the US. You aren’t technically employed by the federal government, but you are a volunteer in an organization that helps citizens. I’m okay with my tax dollars going to health care and food stamps for you – because, in a very technical and weird sense, you are my employee. If you were employed by a private company, if you were, say, a software engineer employed by Google, I would feel differently. Does that make sense?

I agree that something is drastically wrong. It sickens me that children IN THIS COUNTRY live in substandard housing on prepackaged foods. But I believe the answer is not more government interference, but less. If the government would leave my tax dollars alone, I would invest more until I was eventually able to donate a ton of money to charities like Farm to School to enable school aged children to eat natural, nutritious meals. But my money doesn’t get to come through me straight to Farm to School. It goes straight to the government, who takes out administrative costs and passes it along to anyone who “qualifies” (which is a joke) without regard to whether this system is actually better for people. And that’s why I think welfare – and all socialistic policies in our country – need to either have a serious overhaul or be eliminated completely. I think that these things have done nothing but keep poor people poor.

Thoughts?

One more thing I forgot to mention about health care. I know what it’s like to need medical coverage. I haven’t had health care in 2 years. I can’t go to the doctor when I get sick. I had to pay for Ariana’s birth with cash. And I have had an extremely painful infection in my toe for over a year that makes it increasingly difficult to walk. But I can’t afford health care because every month, the US government takes money out of my husband’s check to fund a national welfare system that lets other people get health care on my dime while I can’t qualify because Justin makes too much money. The system is broken and throwing more money at it won’t solve the problem, no matter where that money is coming from.

I was doing some research today and learned something new I’d never understood before. I was decently good at economics in college, but I certainly wouldn’t want to major in it. So when the leading economists said that the stock market crash of 1929 was caused by a “false bubble” and that the Depression was extended by FDR’s New Deal and that World War II brought us out of it, I took them at their word even though I didn’t really understand what that meant. But exactly what that meant has enormous implications for us today.

The crash of 1929 was caused by the same thing as the crash of 2008. Did you know that? Has anyone heard that? No one mentioned that on talk radio. Now, I don’t mean it was caused by a subprime mortgage meltdown. I mean it was caused by something no news reporter will ever say because it is the epitome of politically incorrect: it was caused by taking out more loan than could be afforded.

The years leading up to 1929 were fantastic for the economy. Our nation was reeling from the boom caused by the end of World War I and unemployment rates were at their rock bottom. Things were great, and the stock market reflected this trend. As new entrepreneurships emerged, new jobs were created and new, fresh money was invested in the stock market. The working man saw this as his golden opportunity to strike it rich – but instead of investing cold hard cash, they took out loans. Literally billions of borrowed dollars poured into the stock market, often purchased by people who could afford only 1/3 of what they had borrowed. The lower classes were able to pay 30 cents on the dollar for brilliant stocks, owing the rest to the local savings and loan.

But then the inevitable happened. The stock market took a downturn. It was only slight – it was literally collapsing from the weight of all the borrowed money that had been supporting it – but stock owners panicked. They saw the thousands of dollars in loans they had taken out needing collection and no money to pay it. So many withdrew all their money. That was all it took. The balloon that had been created by borrowed money and false inflation popped, and a week later, the stock market imploded.

The years following were difficult, as the stock market would not even itself out until 1954. Unemployment skyrocketed as businesses had to lay people off. By the time FDR took office 4 years later, the nation was ripe for a change. Things were bad and getting worse. His New Deal promises were grand and appealed to the masses struggling to put food on the table. His famous “100 days” saw a lot done, with many new jobs created by the Federal Government and paid for by a national deficit. But borrowing money to fix borrowed money is never a good idea, and the New Deal failed. Though it kept the country afloat, it discouraged long term growth and extended the depression from the creation of its inevitably large national deficit. Ultimately, FDR and the nation were too busy focusing on the economic crisis at home to see a new threat emerging from overseas – a National Socialist named Adolf Hitler, who was appointed to the position of Chancellor of Germany early in 1933. It would be less than a month before his first concentration camp was built. When the US finally entered the war after that infamous day in 1941, his war machine had already been at it almost 8 years. It was eventually the war, the increase in GDP, the opening of new jobs and the unity of our nation that brought us out of the Great Depression.

I don’t know about you, but all this sounds a little too familiar for comfort.

I am glad Sarah Palin will not be Vice President.

I don’t agree with just about anything he says. That can be obvious. But I believe he will do a good job of pulling Americans together. I think he’s a LEADER – truly a leader. I believe he will not be corrupt, I believe he will communicate with the American people clearly and honestly. And while I will probably be writing my congressmen and senators to oppose many bills he brings to the table, I can respect President Elect Obama knowing he will listen to voices of dissent. He is a charismatic speaker and a man who will truly lead this nation.