First and foremost, I do not support bailout. It is a free market, and should be treated as such. This entire situation has its roots based in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage lending institutions started in 1938 and 1970, respectively. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Congress encouraged these lenders to engage in more subprime lending in order to ensure that everyone could afford a house. For those unfamiliar with subprime lending, it goes like this: Suppose a bank takes a loan from the government at 5% interest. That 5% is considered the prime level. Prime borrowers are people who are able to take out a loan from that bank with a 5% or higher interest rate. Subprime lending occurs when an individual, who normally would not qualify as a prime borrower(bad credit, inability to pay interest rate), takes out a loan with an interest rate below 5%.
This practice, throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, significantly increased the supply of money available in the housing market and did allow more people to own homes. The vast of majority of loans, however were adjustable rate mortgages. These loans typically started with subprime rates appealing to borrowers, but later down the road banks began to increase interest rates to cover themselves financially. This inevitably led to the increase in home foreclosures (when the bank reclaims the home of an individual who is unable to continue making payments) seen from about 2000 up to the present. These recent crashes have been building for quite some years; now just happens to be when we see a spike in home foreclosures, affecting practically every aspect of American economics, especially the stock market.
What I'm getting at is that this crisis was brought on by banks, encouraged by the government, giving out cheap loans to unqualified candidates in an effort to make a larger profit. They ran the risk and enjoyed the temporary benefits of that risk. Conversely, borrowers took out loans they couldn't repay and enjoyed the temporary benefits (better housing) of that risk. I say let the free market work. These people took a risk and now it's coming back to them. I do not believe that the government should use our taxes to bail out these individuals who knowingly took a risk. Its outrageous! This is my money and your money. I don't want it spent "saving" people whose actions finally caught up with them. What will that teach them? Remember, this whole issue started when the government stepped into the free market and began encouraging subprime lending. And now they're saying that more government involvement will solve the problem? Let's take a lesson from history and good common sense: what we need right now is for the government to step back, the media to stop scaring everyone, and an understanding that the free market will work everything out on its own.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Third Party Candidate?
Did anyone else hear about this new candidate? Check him out at this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iqktCdX0hs
I don't know about you, but the man certainly has my vote. I am really in agreement with his policies regarding international trade, healthcare, and immigration . He has the ability to break away the superficial elements of an issue and get down to what's important, something many of the other candidates have been unable to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iqktCdX0hs
I don't know about you, but the man certainly has my vote. I am really in agreement with his policies regarding international trade, healthcare, and immigration . He has the ability to break away the superficial elements of an issue and get down to what's important, something many of the other candidates have been unable to do.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Formal and Informal Amendment Processes
The United States Constitution is designed as a flexible document in which changes are made by either formal amendments or a series of informal processes. By granting future generations the ability to alter the Constitution in order to adapt to a changing world, the founding fathers ensured that the American system of government would be a lasting achievement.
The formal amendment process consists of two stages: proposal and ratification, each of which can be completed two ways. An amendment can be proposed by either a 2/3 vote in each house of Congress or by a national convention called by Congress at the request of 2/3 of state legislatures. Proposal does not mean anything has been enacted as a law; it simply means that it is an issue worthy of serious consideration- its on the table. The Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA, is one such proposed amendment which passed this first stage but was never ratified. An amendment can be ratified by either 3/4 of state legislatures or at special state conventions called in 3/4 of the states. Ratification means that the amendment is now part of the U.S. Constitution; its the law of the land. Throughout the history of the U.S. Constitution, every single amendment has been proposed by a 2/3 vote in each house of Congress, and every amendment except one has been ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. The exception, the 21st Amendment, was ratified by state conventions because proponents believed it would not pass through a conservative legislature.
The informal processes of constitutional change refer to unwritten practices and procedures which, when altered by changing times or needs, may affect the nature of the constitution. The concept of judicial interpretation is one such example. Judicial interpretation means that the courts decide how to interpret the Constitution when disputes arise. The case Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the concept of judicial review- the power of the courts to determine whether policy is in accordance with the Constitution. While there is no reference to judicial interpretation in the original Constitution, it has become a defining characteristic of our nation throughout the years, deciding important cases like Roe v. Wade and Brown V. Board of Education. Along the lines of judicial interpretation is a changing political scene, meaning that political traditions performed over time eventually become as good as law. Political parties were never advocated by the founders as they encouraged factions. Nonetheless, political parties, despite having never been cited in the Constitution, have become one of the most defining aspects of American political life. The Electoral College is another example. Electors almost always vote in line with the popular vote in their state. Nothing in the Constitution requires this, but it happens anyway. Lastly, a changing world- technology, international affairs, etc.- can change the mettle of the Constitution. Issues like abortion, mass media, atomic weapons, the Internet, and the emergence of the U.S. as a superpower are all things the founders never considered but which affect the Constitution even so. These practices and procedures have resulted in the establishment of an unwritten constitution- one that is as much a part of American government as the one written by the founders in Philadelphia in 1787.
Constitutional change, whether by formal or informal means, as what makes American government so unique. The U.S. Constitution is the oldest functioning constitution in the world because the founding fathers provided future Americans with the ability to change as they deem necessary. Because it is not set in stone, the Constitution has the potential to outlast time.
The formal amendment process consists of two stages: proposal and ratification, each of which can be completed two ways. An amendment can be proposed by either a 2/3 vote in each house of Congress or by a national convention called by Congress at the request of 2/3 of state legislatures. Proposal does not mean anything has been enacted as a law; it simply means that it is an issue worthy of serious consideration- its on the table. The Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA, is one such proposed amendment which passed this first stage but was never ratified. An amendment can be ratified by either 3/4 of state legislatures or at special state conventions called in 3/4 of the states. Ratification means that the amendment is now part of the U.S. Constitution; its the law of the land. Throughout the history of the U.S. Constitution, every single amendment has been proposed by a 2/3 vote in each house of Congress, and every amendment except one has been ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. The exception, the 21st Amendment, was ratified by state conventions because proponents believed it would not pass through a conservative legislature.
The informal processes of constitutional change refer to unwritten practices and procedures which, when altered by changing times or needs, may affect the nature of the constitution. The concept of judicial interpretation is one such example. Judicial interpretation means that the courts decide how to interpret the Constitution when disputes arise. The case Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the concept of judicial review- the power of the courts to determine whether policy is in accordance with the Constitution. While there is no reference to judicial interpretation in the original Constitution, it has become a defining characteristic of our nation throughout the years, deciding important cases like Roe v. Wade and Brown V. Board of Education. Along the lines of judicial interpretation is a changing political scene, meaning that political traditions performed over time eventually become as good as law. Political parties were never advocated by the founders as they encouraged factions. Nonetheless, political parties, despite having never been cited in the Constitution, have become one of the most defining aspects of American political life. The Electoral College is another example. Electors almost always vote in line with the popular vote in their state. Nothing in the Constitution requires this, but it happens anyway. Lastly, a changing world- technology, international affairs, etc.- can change the mettle of the Constitution. Issues like abortion, mass media, atomic weapons, the Internet, and the emergence of the U.S. as a superpower are all things the founders never considered but which affect the Constitution even so. These practices and procedures have resulted in the establishment of an unwritten constitution- one that is as much a part of American government as the one written by the founders in Philadelphia in 1787.
Constitutional change, whether by formal or informal means, as what makes American government so unique. The U.S. Constitution is the oldest functioning constitution in the world because the founding fathers provided future Americans with the ability to change as they deem necessary. Because it is not set in stone, the Constitution has the potential to outlast time.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
A slightly biased interview?
Check out these exerpts from Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin. What is this guy's deal? There is no question of his political views or who he is going to vote for, and one can almosty here the disdain in his voice. Its a good example of media spin, which does go both ways, although typically this spin is more subtle than in this video.
For the record, though, I believe that Palin did a damn good job of handling these questions and justifying her beliefs without giving ground. Charlie Gibson's questions ended up backfiring. Sucker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpGMn9GrJwc
For the record, though, I believe that Palin did a damn good job of handling these questions and justifying her beliefs without giving ground. Charlie Gibson's questions ended up backfiring. Sucker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpGMn9GrJwc
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Madisonian Model as it Relates to American Government
The Madisonian model of government proposed a system which sought to prevent a faction, particulary the majority, from oppressing another faction through the separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. James Madison's three goals were to limit majority control, separate powers, and establish checks and balances. By placing only one element of government, the House of Representatives, within control of the people, he ensured that the majority would not be able to take charge of the government. Separation of powers can be observed in the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. Each of the three has a distinct set of powers which allow them to check the other branches.
Madison's model is the basis for America's modern government. Today, however, majority control is not as limited. There is a larger voting pool than in the 1700s, and the ratification of the 17th Amendment now allows for the direct election of senators, increasing the direct control of the majority. Largely, however, the U.S. Constitution remains the same. It divides government into the three branches and places numerous checks and balances on each power.
The Madisonian model is highly effective at neutralizing any sort of tyrannical move by any single governmental power. At the same time, however, it can also make the passage of legislation a very slow process. Because any one branch of government holds the power to check another, diverging interests can grind political proceedings to a virtual halt. In the end, however, this model has done its job: preventing any single faction from oppressing another. Slow and steady wins the race.
Madison's model is the basis for America's modern government. Today, however, majority control is not as limited. There is a larger voting pool than in the 1700s, and the ratification of the 17th Amendment now allows for the direct election of senators, increasing the direct control of the majority. Largely, however, the U.S. Constitution remains the same. It divides government into the three branches and places numerous checks and balances on each power.
The Madisonian model is highly effective at neutralizing any sort of tyrannical move by any single governmental power. At the same time, however, it can also make the passage of legislation a very slow process. Because any one branch of government holds the power to check another, diverging interests can grind political proceedings to a virtual halt. In the end, however, this model has done its job: preventing any single faction from oppressing another. Slow and steady wins the race.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The Election
Simply put, I prefer McCain over Obama. Vice-presidents ignored, Obama's three years as a junior senator and 20 years as a close friend to Reverend Wright and member of his racist, radical church tend to push me away. The man does, however, have noble ideas and what seems like a vision. How much of that is hot air will coninue to be debated, although I must admit I am doubtful. McCain has a smoother track record and no one can doubt his patriotism.
A major, overriding concept that moves me toward McCain is taxes. Obama's proposed policies will tax me and America more than McCain ever would. As I see it, increased taxes on the better-off portion of society in order to pay for an everincreasing amount of welfare or social programs for the less-successful is simply the redistribution of wealth by the government. Keep in mind that I am not some cruel Republican seeking to slam the poor and leave them out in the cold. I am a firm believer in programs seeking to lift the poor and less fortunate to a better standard of living. They are our fellow Americans and should be provided with needed care. The distinction I must make, however, is that this aide must come from the private sector, not the public. Anyone literate in world history will understand the importance of this distinction.
A major, overriding concept that moves me toward McCain is taxes. Obama's proposed policies will tax me and America more than McCain ever would. As I see it, increased taxes on the better-off portion of society in order to pay for an everincreasing amount of welfare or social programs for the less-successful is simply the redistribution of wealth by the government. Keep in mind that I am not some cruel Republican seeking to slam the poor and leave them out in the cold. I am a firm believer in programs seeking to lift the poor and less fortunate to a better standard of living. They are our fellow Americans and should be provided with needed care. The distinction I must make, however, is that this aide must come from the private sector, not the public. Anyone literate in world history will understand the importance of this distinction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)