Searching for answers?
This last week I heard 2 separate reports on National Public Radio, that while were not part of a series are certainly related.
The first report was an interview with a catholic priest regarding abortion rights and something he said really struck me as extremely significant. Basically his point was that he did not have any issue with abortion being legal, but that he believed that it was the responsibility of the church to teach moral values to their parishioners with respect to abortion as well as other moral issues. I know that this priest's viewpoint is not shared by all of his fellow clergy, but I think that maybe they should listen to him and stop trying to influence legislation to enforce moral behavior.
The second report concerned the republican governor's meeting that was held in Florida this past week. A number of the rising stars of the party were being interviewed about what the party needed to change in light of the disastrous defeat of the past election. What was said was that the GOP needed to return to the platform and values of the party of the late 70's and early 80's when Ronald Reagan was elected. Sounds like the rising stars didn't really learn anything new in all of the meetings they held.
They should have listened to the first report from the priest and taken a clue from his approach. Separate church and state. Quit trying to legislate moral behavior, ie. making abortion illegal, leave that to the church to influence their own flocks. For those that do not go to church, or do go, but believe differently, let them make their own decisions about what's moral or immoral behavior.
The GOP should focus on the what a majority of this country's citizens want their politicians to work on - turning around the economy, global warming, a more peaceful world, fixing the health care system, etc. Shake off the christian right demagoguery of the so called moral majority - obviously the majority wasn't large enough to win the last election!
3 comments:
Here here! I SO agree!
TA
Obviously the GOP should rethink their platform.
To me, gay marriage, abortion, etc. should really be State's Rights issues and not be part of the federal government. I firmly believe in a small federal government that points the ship in the right direction, but does not mandate a direct coarse (does that make sense?).
The GOP should abandon a federal stance on gays, abortion, etc., and revert back to the days of minimal federal government, balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility.
Personally, I have been disappointed in the federal response to the financial crisis. I know that you two invest in the stock market, but (as a society) expecting returns on short market investment (which was 25% at one time) is irresponsible. Our economy should embrace slow growth because it ensures consistent growth. The quick returns of the past 6 years have resulting in a market correction to fix the greed of Wall St.
So, in turn, Wall St. is funded by the Feds, and Main St. is left wondering if they will be screwed or not. The economy rebounds and the (socialist) feds get a return then (possibly) that money will be returned to the tax payer. It won't though. They'll put it in the failing SS program (if it succeeds).
As a concurrent and random aside, 55 million Americans have mortgages. 5 million are in default or lien. If the Feds bail out these 5 million loans either through buyouts or forcing the lender to reevaluate the loan, then what do the 50,000,000 HONEST and/or ON-TIME mortgage payers get? They will get nothing besides the "satisfaction" that they have done what they were supposed to do.
/end rant.
I agree with you on the bailout. Why should we, meaning those that are fiscally responsible and didn't try to buy too much house, essentially be punished while the less fiscally responsible people get bailed out?
I know that is an over generalization, not everyone of those people in or near foreclosure was at fault, but I bet that there were a number of them that had considerable personal debt. These people probably got a variable rate mortgage so they could buy a home and not have a large mortgage payment. That's just plain dumb.
And yes, I know that some people were sold a variable rate mortgage not knowing what impact that could potentially have when the loan reset. But, that still doesn't mean we should bail all of them out. Make them declare bankruptcy and deal with the consequences. Maybe that will teach them to use credit more wisely.
There are others who were sold this same type of loan, when they thought they were getting a fixed rate. In my opinion, these are the ones that should be helped.
Post a Comment