Should Government Intervene?

I have a few questions for anyone concerned. I continue to hear the line that people who accept government assistance are lazy. Apparently, all these lazy people happen to be democrats. I don't know how this is known, but it seems to be common knowledge among republicans. If such is not the case, let me know, and I will correct this assumption.

That aside, my question is the following: when pressed on the $700 billion bailout bill, nationalizing banks to a degree, Senator John McCain responded that this is a serious financial crisis, and it is government's responsibility to intervene on behalf of the people.

My first question is: do you agree with him?

My second question is: if it is the government's job to intervene in a financial crisis, what is the difference when an individual, or a family, who are often prone to fall into financial crisis, go to the government for intervention? Why is it assumed that the person or persons are lazy?

Is it government's job to intervene in a widespread crisis, or an individual one?

You don't have to answer this next part, but just something to think about.....if McCain becomes president, and is able to implement his program to buy up bad mortgages, will he only buy up democrats' bad mortgages? Will people who are republicans refuse the bailout money? If not, are they lazy republicans? Just food for thought.

Some Clarifications

I don't know why I'm doing this. I have no evidence people even read this blog, and I have no basis on which to suppose that anyone who cares will read this post.

However, some conversations I've had with different individuals concerned, have encouraged me to make some clarifications. I was, in fact, going to refrain from anything political until after the elections. But strangely, with the encouragement of my best friend, I feel I shouldn't have to worry about simply giving my opinion on politics.

First of all, I still have not decided for whom to vote. I got my early ballot today. I am not voting for John McCain, but I am still trying to decide if I should actually vote for Barack Obama, or for one of the third party candidates. I originally intended to go third-party no matter what, but lately I am feeling like that strategy would have little point.

That's my way of saying: understand when you read posts on this particular blog, you are reading words from a very conflicted individual. The presidential race has been going on for nearly two years, and yet I cannot make up my mind. If Ron Paul was still in the race, I would have voted for him without question.

My posts have been particularly accusatory toward McCain and Sarah Palin. I have posted many clips from The Daily Show, which is a very vulgar, and offensive show. In my mind, these actions are perfectly justified, as they help explain why I hold certain political positions.

Those who read the blog rarely, if ever, will not understand these nuances. They do not understand me, nor my points of view. Sometimes they don't understand my viewpoints, because they refuse to acknowledge that my opinions have any validity. They want to call names and point fingers, rather than discuss differences.

It should be understood that my opinions, which differ greatly from those you may have heard me state in the past, are not meant to be directed at individuals, but are a way of describing what I have come to believe, and why I think in such a manner. In my humble opinion, there are those out there who dislike my vocal nature because they do not want to deal with opinions contrary to their own. They avoid doing so because they think considering other viewpoints is somehow a repudiation, or at least a demonstration of doubt, of their deeply held views.

Then, they change the subject, saying what I say is mean-spirited, negative, or offensive. I've gone back and read many of my posts, and I have been hard pressed to find anywhere where I have crossed whatever imaginary moral line one might think exists in discussing politics.

I've thought it curious that in college, as a strong conservative, I was afraid to speak out because I thought I would be ridiculed by my more liberal professors (and sometimes I was ridiculed). Now, I have looked at some of those opposing opinions, so much so, that I have even come to agree with some of them. Now, I am afraid to speak out, because I might be ridiculed by my republican associations.

I talk way too much. There is no doubt about it. But my object in speaking my mind has been rather simple: I have come to reject some of the lessons that were taught to me as infallible in my youth. Again, if people disagree, or still believe what I am about to denounce, it is simply my opinion. But have no doubt, I am sometimes passionate about these opinions, because I feel I have been denied a full understanding of how the world works, because for quite awhile, I was given the false impression that I really only had one choice to follow in politics.

So here goes - here are some of the ideas I had years ago, that I have fully come to reject (and yes, I feel strongly about them, and others probably feel just as strongly the opposite view):

- You can't be Mormon and a democrat.

- The Republican Party is more religious, more righteous, than the Democratic Party.

- The media have a liberal bias.

- The poor (those who rely on government aid to subsist) are poor because they are lazy. Democrats are the party of the "lazy" and believe in "spreading the wealth socialism."

- I should vote for someone I don't support, just because the opposing party is more scary.

- If you feel strongly about something, there are no other points of view that are as valid as yours. It is okay to make fun of others' view points, if they oppose yours, but it is not fair for them to insult yours.

I think most of what I've been saying can be found under the umbrella of those six topics. I find some of the above ideas rather disturbing. But I understand that some people believe them firmly, and I respect them for it. I do not find the individual people themselves disturbing. Rather, I would like to be able to have a discussion with any of them, so we could come to a better understanding.

Unfortunately, today's culture is extremely enveloped in the mentality that if you disagree with someone, you can expect to be judged by your views, often before anyone on the opposing side has tried to understand them.

Since I haven't had much success in other forums discussing these viewpoints, I have chosen to post them on a blog, a blog that is rarely read by anyone, at least that I am aware.

I am not going to stop giving my opinion. I am not going to change how I feel, even if it is not acceptable to some of my associates. And I am not going to post feel-good "we went to the zoo today" entries on my blog because I just don't have any interest in doing that kind of stuff. If my significant other wants to, she can do it. If you're interested in knowing a little more about the Cherry family, they have started a blog.

And just for the future, if you plan on telling me how offensive my views are to you, I am going to ask you if you've read this 23 Oct. post, and if you've read carefully, and if you've tried to come to an understanding before you got offended. If you haven't, I am not going to take your complaint too seriously. We all need to listen to and consider other points of view. I believe it makes us better people. We can't just get offended and go off and pout. In the end, we can respect each other more, once we come to understand our disagreements. If you don't have time to gain understanding, or read carefully, then let's just leave it alone. Just walk away from the blog, and we'll discuss something else.

P.S. I've decided to stop posting clips from The Daily Show. I did so before, because Jon Stewart is one of the only people out there who actually makes excellent political points, and he does so in a hilarious way. However, I think a lot of the material is unsuitable for what I would like to consider a "safe" blog site. But I will still comment on my views, and I will bring it fiercely every day.

We Are All Seduced (part 1)

The other day I got an email forward with a picture of a pick-up truck that had the words, "I'm a REPUBLICAN, because EVERYONE can't be on WELFARE," on the back. I don't know why, but terse bloviations like that just really make my blood boil a smidgen. Once I got over it, and turned on the news for the day, I just had to laugh. Bailouts, bailouts, bailouts.

Here's the short of the story: if you are a democrat or a republican, you are part of the problem. Grant it, we all are seduced to various degrees, but if you are a democrat or a republican, you are likely going to vote for Barack Obama or John McCain. So, you're supposedly not for welfare, but your candidate is for the biggest bailout ever in the history of the United States, since the Great Depression.

Here's what Ron Paul has to say about it. He's telling the truth, something you aren't getting from the media, from Obama, or from McCain or President Bush. If you support them, you may say you oppose welfare; welfare for the poor "lazy" people. But you are voting for corporate welfare, make no doubt about it. It's lamentable, and it's the truth. ___________________________________________________________________

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.

The events of the past week are no exception. The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder.

Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters." That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook.

The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

• The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.• Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.

• Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh. Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people.

The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care? When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media? Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.

In liberty, Ron Paul