Alright so people that know me will know that I am fairly conservative politically. I did not vote for Obama because I feared his idea of "change" really sounded more like "socialism" to me. Turns out that's exactly the direction his administration is going, with the full support of the Democratic majority in Congress.
The most disturbing development in the idolizing of Obama as our national savior is his recent win of the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm not going to go off on why this is so ridiculous, because there is already plenty of critical reaction out there if you are looking to read that. Now I understand that Republicans and Independents are very concerned about Obama getting nominated only several weeks after he took the oath of office. I just don't see how even Democrats can give any concrete examples of his contributions to world peace so far.
Here is my question: Do big Obama supporters really think he deserves this award? I honestly want to know if there is anyone out there that really believes he has achieved great strides in bringing peace to this world?
I don't want this to become a place where other conservatives simply rant on how they hate Obama - I'm asking any people that are Obama supporters!
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, October 9, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Happiness - A Pursuit or a Provision?
Since the Obama administration and a Democratic majority have taken over US politics in 2009, we have seen plenty of the "change" that enticed a large number of American voters last November. However as I pointed out before the elections, it has worried me that people have given so much control to an administration that is taking immediate and drastic steps to bring us under a socialistic style of government. Not only is government taking over the auto industry, banks, and now even the entire healthcare system, but they are also overturning initiatives that were set up during the Bush administration to promote productivity and self-sustaining families.
I have resisted making any argument regarding the most recent health care legislation before Congress (which has frightening implications by the way). However, there was an article on Boston.com this morning that reinforced my negative opinions of this new administration with the title of "President shifts focus to renting, not owning".
Even many conservatives can agree that there were many reasons to look forward to a replacement for George W., but I think that the focus his administration had towards promoting home ownership was a very positive one. Many might argue that this was the cause of economic instability (specifically for the housing/lending markets), but I think that this can be mostly blamed on irresponsible lending organizations that were giving money to people who could clearly not afford it.
So instead of continuing to promote home-ownership by providing assistance and incentives, the Obama administration is now switching governmental support to pay for more rental properties. With this new direction, landlords continue to pocket even more money, and a larger percentage of mid/low income families are depositing their paychecks into their landlords accounts. How can you rebuild an economy on this concept of increased dependence on government? This is just one of many examples of how our government is continuing to reward those who are dependent on a hand-outs instead of rewarding the producers and contributors.
Is the Obama administration just catching a fish for families instead of teaching them how to fish?
Now before I am attacked, I will agree that 1) not everyone can or should be homeowners and 2) there is a real need for urban housing developments for low income families that would otherwise be homeless. I myself am a renter for now, but I look forward to someday fulfilling the American dream of home ownership. I could not disagree more with Barney Franks statement in this article: "I’ve always said the American dream should be a home - not home-ownership."
When our government was established over 200 years ago, there were protections for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People immigrated from all over the world for their opportunity to become self-sufficient land-owning producers. For some reason in the 21st century, our government seems to believe that they are responsible for the provision of happiness. When you move support to increased rental housing, you are not protecting the pursuit of home-ownership. This has just contributed to an ongoing pattern of government provision rather than government protection. If anyone is in trouble, Uncle Sam is rushing in to bail them out because they believe everyone should be equal. Oh wait that sounds like... socialism!
People need to be free to succeed, but they also need to be free to fail. That's exactly what "land of the free" means.
I have resisted making any argument regarding the most recent health care legislation before Congress (which has frightening implications by the way). However, there was an article on Boston.com this morning that reinforced my negative opinions of this new administration with the title of "President shifts focus to renting, not owning".
Even many conservatives can agree that there were many reasons to look forward to a replacement for George W., but I think that the focus his administration had towards promoting home ownership was a very positive one. Many might argue that this was the cause of economic instability (specifically for the housing/lending markets), but I think that this can be mostly blamed on irresponsible lending organizations that were giving money to people who could clearly not afford it.
So instead of continuing to promote home-ownership by providing assistance and incentives, the Obama administration is now switching governmental support to pay for more rental properties. With this new direction, landlords continue to pocket even more money, and a larger percentage of mid/low income families are depositing their paychecks into their landlords accounts. How can you rebuild an economy on this concept of increased dependence on government? This is just one of many examples of how our government is continuing to reward those who are dependent on a hand-outs instead of rewarding the producers and contributors.
Is the Obama administration just catching a fish for families instead of teaching them how to fish?
Now before I am attacked, I will agree that 1) not everyone can or should be homeowners and 2) there is a real need for urban housing developments for low income families that would otherwise be homeless. I myself am a renter for now, but I look forward to someday fulfilling the American dream of home ownership. I could not disagree more with Barney Franks statement in this article: "I’ve always said the American dream should be a home - not home-ownership."
When our government was established over 200 years ago, there were protections for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People immigrated from all over the world for their opportunity to become self-sufficient land-owning producers. For some reason in the 21st century, our government seems to believe that they are responsible for the provision of happiness. When you move support to increased rental housing, you are not protecting the pursuit of home-ownership. This has just contributed to an ongoing pattern of government provision rather than government protection. If anyone is in trouble, Uncle Sam is rushing in to bail them out because they believe everyone should be equal. Oh wait that sounds like... socialism!
People need to be free to succeed, but they also need to be free to fail. That's exactly what "land of the free" means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)