When I was a kid, I had to go to my parents when I needed money. I didn’t have a job but I still wanted stuff. At a certain point, I got a small part-time job and made a few bucks. I couldn’t buy big-ticket items but I could still buy small stuff. If I wanted to buy a big-ticket item, I had to scrimp and save.
With the advent of credit cards, I can now buy big-ticket items without actually having the money! Suddenly, I can buy a car, a big-screen TV, several computers and even buy groceries without actually having the cash to support it. In many ways, this is a great thing!! No more waiting to save up. I can do it over time.
The problem with this cycle is I will continue to buy big-ticket items. I won’t really care about how much I owe because I’m still buying stuff that I want. Soon, the credit card companies want me to pay, except they don’t. They’re perfectly fine if I pay $20 a month for a $4500 bill because they’ll get more money from me through the interest. But the average credit card user doesn’t know this (surprising, isn’t it?)
I left college with a little under $15,000 of credit card debt. That’s right. I was determined to pay that it off within five years. I took a hard look at my budget, pinched everything I could. It took me two years to finally pay it off! I’ve been debt-free since August 2008.
I didn’t pay this off through free money. I saved every penny I got. I cut back on all my spending. And through discipline and toil, I was able to pay it off and still save money!
That’s right! I still was able to put money away for saving!
I don’t get paid that much. I’m a firm believer that you can save no matter what you get paid. Most people don’t because they are under the impression that they need every penny. This is simply not the case.
The auto industry has only itself to blame for getting into this mess. The problem is three-fold:
continue reading »
|
Posted by
mike |
Categories:
Editorial | Tagged:
bailout,
economy,
finance |
With the election only weeks away, the economy has become a hot-button issue. Both McCain and Obama have plans to cure the economy. Of course, one disagrees with the other. The question remains as to how a government can solve poverty. The answer is that it can’t.
Today is Blog Action Day – a day where bloggers from all over the world get together to write about one topic. This year, the topic is poverty. To that end, I’ll cover what society can do to help others in need.
Too much trust is given to the government to help the poor. Frankly, I don’t understand this. This blame is placed majority to the democrats since they see the need to “redistribute” wealth by taking away from the rich to give it to the poor, à la Robin Hood. Stories like Robin Hood fill our minds with the fact that the rich have taken advantage of the poor by ruthlessly taxing them. Some hero comes along to take that money away from the rich and give it back to the poor. Yet, at the same time, we have stories like the tortoise and the hare, which encourages us to take things slow and do our best and we’ll win the race.
What I fail to understand is why people don’t take the time to volunteer or donate money to help the poor. The average taxpayer donates less than 3% to charities, yet the majority of these people demand that congress do more. When I was a student, I tried my best to donate at least 20% of my income to charity. Some months were harder than others. But I still gave something.
Instead of asking the government to “redistribute” wealth, why don’t you? There are many organizations that could use your funds and time. Don’t ask congress to do something that you can do right now! You’ll be surprised how little it takes and how rewarding it is to do something for someone else.
|
Posted by
mike |
Categories:
Editorial | Tagged:
blog action day,
poverty,
taxes,
wealth |
Earlier today, Connecticut joined the ranks of Massachusetts and California to
allow gay partners to marry. I’m completely against this notion for several reaons that I plan to spell out later. The question I’m often asked is “How does a gay person getting married make things different for straight people?”
It’s questions like this that shows just how ignorant people can be when they support a position so blindly. Think about that question. It makes several major assumptions:
- Changes in marriage laws doesn’t make current marriages any different
- Changes made by government do not effect the private lives of citizens
- Straight people’s marriages are no better thank gay marriages
- The person stating this question assumes that they completely understand why those “rednecks and Christian fundamentalists” are living in the past and don’t care about the rights of others
There is something seriously wrong in our society when dialog and understanding are taken over my attacks and ignorance. I have yet to have a real conversation with anyone who supports gay marriage who doesn’t get defensive and can debate maturely. If you think you can do this, please feel free to contact me.
But let me get to the point. I don’t support gay marriage for one major reason: symantics is no replacement for law.
The debate over gay marriage is not based on facts or a real fundamental right. It is based entirely on emotions and wordplay. Now before you say that I’m making assumptions, allow me to present my case.
When I hear those who support gay marriage talk, the ‘facts’ they present are often misguided. I remember one particular person say, “Well, only 50% of hetrosexual marriages actually last. Don’t you think gay people should be able to marry?” This person completely disregards the notion of why 50% of hetrosexual marriages end in divorse and completely ignores the fact that study after study have shown that a gay couples break up more frequently and more often than hetrosexual couples. According to a recent UCLA study, this number is 50% more likely in gay men and a stagering 167% in lesbian women.
Showing the facts don’t support their case doesn’t work. One person responded, “Well, it should still be their right! Why should hetrosexual couples have more rights than homosexual couples?”
This question shows at face-value that the debate isn’t about science or psycology. It’s about emotions! The “rednecks and Christian fundamentalists” have NEVER argued that they have more rights than homosexual couples. The fact that the question is phrased this way forces “rednecks and Christian fundamentalists” to be on the defensive. And of course, when you’re defensive, you sound more condemning. The reason behind this is that the left has consistantly used rhetoric to stir people to action. “Pro-choice” and “Equal rights” are their mantra. And to an observer, they sound great! Who doesn’t want to give people choice? And who in their right mind would want to restrict people’s rights?
But the question I ask these people is “To what end?”
What has bothered me the most about those who support gay marriage is that they refuse to support pedosexuals and help protect their rights. I will only support gay marriage if and only if EVERYONE gets the same rights and privilages. You see, when people say “equal rights”, they really are saying “special rights” because they won’t admit that “equal rights” would extend to pedosexuals and beastialsexuals. Why, I must ask, do these people not deserve the same rights?
Why is it impossible for a pedosexual to be a kindergarden teacher? When I asked someone this (a gay person, I might add) said, “Well, pedofiles can’t control their urges.”
It wasn’t that long ago that society as a whole believed this about homosexuals too. In fact, homosexuals made the argument that they, in fact, can control themselves and aren’t sexual deviants. So what is it that makes homosexual couples so special? Is it because it’s now considered okay? That it is accepted into main-stream?
The only answer that I’ve been given is no answer at all.
Please don’t misunderstand me: I don’t think hetrosexuals, homosexuals, or even pedosexuals are any different. But the discussion that gay people have made is that they are different. But when people make this argument, it is often misguided. I understand that people feel passionately about this issue. There is nothing wrong with that. But when arguments are based on emotions and rhetoric, you must be prepared to be challenged. Simply saying, “Well, if you love someone, you should be able to get married.”
If love was the only qualification, then I still ask: “Why can’t I marry a rock? I love my rock. I have had sex with my rock. The rock is my beneficiary when I die. Why can’t I marry it?” The response to this question has often been, “So, you’re comparing homosexual relationships to a rock?” And my response is, “No. I’m comparing love to a rock. You cannot prove that my love for a rock is different thank the love between a gay couple or a hetrosexual couple.”
The problem I have with gay marriage is not gay people. It’s that people that support gay marriage aren’t open-minded enough others who are struggling to have “equal rights”. And until that is done, I will continue to oppose gay marriage.
|
Posted by
mike |
Categories:
Editorial | Tagged:
civil rights,
editoral,
gay,
homosexual |
The sky is falling!
For realz!
Of course, Obama wants to blame this on Bush, because that’s what democrats do best: blame the other guy. The guy won’t place blame on his party, even though they are in control of the House AND Senate, as they stated when Nancy Peloski took control of the House. Of course, every Obama nut job conveniently forgets this fact and instead blames Bush for his policies, under regulation, blah blah blah.
In reality, this whole problem started before Bush took office. It started with President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat) with the Community Restoration Act of 1977. The act “encouraged” Fannie and Freddie to lend to minority communities. But it wasn’t until President Bill Clinton (another Democrat) introduced his National Homeownership Strategy that put the act into overdrive, causing billions of dollars to go to people simply because of their race and little else. Clinton saw this as a way to get minorities into the middle class. Well intentioned, but failed miserably.
While I won’t get into the details, it’s clear that the problem started long ago, not in the last eight years. To further underscore this, let’s look at Europe. After the stocks in the US started to drop, economies in other countries started to suffer as well. Germany even stated that it would pump more money into their economy because it was floundering. One of two things is happening: Europe isn’t as regulated as we thought OR deregulation is not the problem.
Bailing out failing companies for corruption is bad enough. But I find it okay that they were suffering because a law forced them to make bad loans. People keep blaming the companies for greed. I completely agree. But when the cards are stacked and there’s nothing you can do about it, you might as well use it to your advantage. President Carter provided the deck, President Clinton stacked it, and President Bush is caught dealing the cards.
My question is why doesn’t the mainstream media talk about this? I’m convinced that at this point, Obama can eat a live human baby and people will say, “Aww! How cute! He loves that baby so much that he wants to eat him. That’s so sweet!”
Only in Obama World, does 1 + 1 equal banana, the sky is meatloaf, and unicorns and leprechauns provide free healthcare for all.
|
Posted by
mike |
Categories:
Editorial | Tagged:
anti-obama,
economics,
policies,
taxes |
Anytime you move states, a lot of paper work is involved to make sure your mail gets forwarded, your taxes get updated, and your car gets registered. When I moved to Virginia, the first two were fairly easy. Dealing with the VA DMV was torture.
I had to go to the DMV several times because I didn’t have the paperwork needed to change my address and register my car. Even though I spoke with several people at the DMV, each time they told me that I didn’t have the proper forms. I spent a total of 8 hours just trying to get new plates and registration.
Then my ID. Converting my license took about 3 hours of wait.
Why is this? Why does it take this long just to get a new license?
Obama’s plan to “revamp” the economy is to regulate Wall Street. Can someone explain to me why this is a good idea? I don’t understand how government intervention will solve a free market. In fact, government intervention on the economy is more like communism and socialism than capitalism.
Most Obama fans don’t understand the complexity of the economy. Most Obama fans think, “Give people money! Give people money! That’s the way!” By question to him is why does he insist on giving people money and then at the same time say that he wants to regulate Wall Street? The two are incompatable.
Wait…they are compatible because Obama wants to take money way from people who have actually worked and earned it to people who didn’t.
What Obama doesn’t realize is that the market will be fine without his kind of help. Several months ago, when crude oil topped at $120 a barrel, his strategy was to regulate oil. Of course, he doesn’t introduce legislation on it. He just made it a campaign promise. (Does anyone else find that odd?)
But as months went on, the market reacted by consuming less fuel, carpooling, traveling less. This caused demand to decrease, which caused prices to fall and close yesterday to below $100 for the first time in so many months.
You don’t see Obama celebrating this. I haven’t heard him make a speach about this yet. Why is that? Is it because he relizes that we was wrong? What people like Obama fail to understand is why the market works. It’s not a perfect system, mind you, but it works best with very little outside interference. When people start tinkering with it, you force the market to respond in ways that are hard to predict.
Take gas for example. Obama wanted to regulate speculators so that they wouldn’t drive up the cost of oil. But he doesn’t compain when those same speculators also cause the price of oil to come down! Had he regulated these speculators, oil would be haven artificially inflated beyond what it is already. The more restrictions there are, the less freedom there is to move in the market.
Now, I’m not saying that some rules aren’t necessary. Market works best if and when everybody plays by the rules. And for the most part, they do. Some rules can be bent strategically and legally. But breaking other rules will create an advantage in the market that would be similar to the consequence of government regulation.
Governments have yet to find a way to make going to the DMV, getting a passport, gaining immigration status, or even counting votes accurately efficiant. Until they can figure out this stuff, why should we allow them to regulate in an area where they will give themselves an unfair advantage in the market?