The market is not broken. We are. If we have learned anything in the last decade it is that we consume more than we ought, at a rate greater than we can sustain. Yet every time we hit a point of failure the reaction is that we must step in, stem the bleeding and get the market back to the heights from which it fell, as if the recession were the problem and not the inflated sector of the market. Recessions are not bad. Recessions remove what is: inflated and manufactured sectors. They return us to a sustainable and realistic level. Its results may be difficult and trying but it is a necessity and it is a good thing. Common sense would tell you the worst thing we can do is inject back into the market the very thing it just purged.
What we need is to endure this recession, not blow another bubble. Thats not the glamourous option and it may even seem insensitive towards those who are struggling, but since when has the right thing to do been easy? If the problem has been out-of-control lending and rampant debt-spending of the global consumer, how is it then that *encouraging that behavior or the **government continuing that act on behalf of the market, be the solution? It can't. It can only result in building a new bubble, one that will inevitably burst with larger ramifications and be the responsibility of the next generation. With every bailout and stimulus plan we take on massive debt as a nation with the intent to spend at the unsustainable levels the market just rejected.
Right now politicians are doing what they have always done, attempt to stop the bleeding and push it on down the line for the next congress/administration to deal with. They are passing it on, to me...to us. We will have to endure it because they won't. As I write this I am 26 years old, and as such I am a part of the next wave of leadership and more importantly the next core source of consuming power in this country. We, this next generation, will be required to guide this country from wherever the current generation and current leadership leaves off. And right now they are tying their burden around our neck. They are building a chain of events that could create, for us, the greatest economic disaster ever, gift wrapped in national debt.
This is not about party. This is not about talking points. This is a calling out of the Bush/Obama spending sprees that will be due on my generations watch. This is a warning about removing the invaluable lessons learned in failure, and by extension reinforcing the misguided actions that got us where we are. This is a look at what I see has happened and is happening as it affects the next generation. As I've said, if they refuse to own the economic woes, we must. I do not know how many more times we can repackage our debt and our economic bubbles before it all comes crashing down. May God bless them and God bless us because tough decisions need to be made and lived out. Hard times need to be endured through saving money, learning greater responsibility and working hard. Enough turning one social group against another! Enough redistributing success. Stop picking individuals to help (because it comes at the cost of other individuals) and start helping the whole! I, for one, reject the notion that it would be worse for us all if you didn't intervene for the few, because that view dismisses the values of learning from one's mistakes, accepting personal-responsibility, and the fact that the free market is the most non-partisan form of choosing winners and losers.
Please don't read more into this than I've stated. I'm not arguing we do nothing. I am suggesting that enduring the recession and freeing up the market to work more efficiently is the true and lasting solution. Promoting restraint and financial responsibility is a good thing. Allowing entities to fail and requiring people to live with their actions and financial decisions is key. We must learn from this recession and adapt to it. That is what a free market does and that is what makes us the nation with the greatest potential for every citizen. A forced push in the market will come at great cost and a future failure. And doing so will come at a greater cost than money and material gain, it will cost us an ever-increasing measure of freedom.
Paul Wizikowski
*Bush admittedly went against his principles as a conservative to get credit flowing again. He authorized and encouraged the bank bailouts with the intent of encouraging consumers to return to their exhausted spending levels.
**Obama has cited the Keynesian Theory as the source of his economic stimulus plan that essentially argues that when the market is spending less then it could (as seen in a downturn) the government can make up the difference by spending what the free market isn't.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
An American Tragedy for the 21st Century - 10/15/08
This is my attempt to focus my thoughts onto one issue and define myself by it. I intend to do this on many issues to better know myself, but I also want it to be public, out there for review, critique, and to encourage others to think through it for themselves. My goal here is not to incite partisanship. I don't have these views to promote a political party, in fact the point of writing these out is to make clear to myself what I believe and why so that I don't lean on a party to define me. If you disagree, please, share. I want to know what you think and more importantly, why.
----------
What is the darkest blemish of this country's history? What stance did it hold that went against the fundamental principles of each person's unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness more than any other? I would answer, slavery. I think without question it is the single biggest atrocity we have sanctioned and the most damning ideology we have accepted. It took a civil war, a presidential demand and decades of continued government allowed abuse until the passage of Civil rights to force a change in the minds of those promoting it, yet that ideology still exists today but in a different form.
The idea behind slavery was that one race saw another as less then human. This absurd ideology allows one people group to define what a human is only to justify their abuse, their dominance, and their will over that lesser people group for their own gain and personal desire. This lesser group is denied freedom, denied a voice, and in many cases denied their very life, as the hardships they endured often killed them. All because they fall outside the bounds of one groups definition of humanity.
Today this mentality is promoted through the demand for acceptance and subsequent legalization of abortion. I argue that it is just as damning of our culture and will be seen as just as dark of a blemish on America's history as its once acceptance and legalization of slavery. Since its justification by our judicial system, millions of people defined as nonhuman by a sect of our population have been killed. Killed. They have been denied life itself let alone any other of the common rights we demand for every other organism. Politicians and political parties are quick to demand recognition and "help" for, in their terms, "the least of these" among us. I ask them, who is lesser among us than the unborn child? They have no voice. They have no ability to unify as a group. They have no way to even know they are in harms way. I find it ironic that those who have led the call for civil rights and women's rights and gay rights all under the banner of "human rights" aggressively protest against the protection and recognition of the unborn humans rights. This is hypocrisy in its purest form. To further expose the absurdity, scientists search for "life" on this planet and through out our solar system on the cell level. Yet when it comes to human embryos developing in a mothers womb we debate its classification. What that tells me is that this decision to deny the unborn baby rights is not based on a rational principle, but on politics. It certainly goes against the rallying cry that we are ALL created equal, that we must help those that cannot help themselves. So if it is not a founded principle-based decision, how is it that they have come to the conclusion that abortion is okay? Is it the inability for unborn babies to offer a vote that disqualifies their humanity? Or is it their lack of campaign contributions? To use this issue for political positioning is shameful.
So why do people have abortions? Those in support of it are quick to talk about those situations where either the mother or the child's health is in jeopardy, they talk about the situations where doctors have discovered a likelihood of the child's physical or mental handicaps, and they talk about those gruesome instances when a child is conceived out of some horrible event such as rape or incest. These are very real and very tragic situations that even the most Pro-Life advocates have to face. But it is important to have some perspective here. According to The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (www.abortionno.org ) "1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child." The conclusion that is often made is that it is such a complicated situation, who are we to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Here is where I draw the line. The only time I would support allowing a mother to consider terminating her pregnancy is in the first tragic situation I just mentioned. When the life of the mother or the baby is in real jeopardy by allowing the pregnancy to go full term a decision has to be made. I liken it to the choice that has to be made when separating conjoined twins. Where one life can be saved with the decision. In this case allow the mother, whose life is on the line, to decide what she should do. As for pregnancies of children with potential handicaps or those conceived through tragic and illegal actions I come to a different conclusion. As horrible as these are, the life of the mother is not on the line and the baby is in NO WAY responsible for the situation. I refuse to accept that the child should be allowed to pay such a price. Slavery has been the only other practice within civilized society where an individual was allowed to decide the fate of another based on their own desires or feelings. Don't get me wrong, these situations are deplorable but we are not talking about the mothers body, we are talking about the babies life. If she can't take care of a child with handicaps or can't face the idea of raising a child conceived tragically I support allowing her to give up her child, in the hopes of finding a family who can.
While foster care and adoption is a whole other topic let me just say I am for the idea of it, and I think its worth putting the energy and resources into reforming and improving it. We must.
But the conversation doesn't end there. The real American tragedy is that most abortions aren't being performed under those pretenses, remember only 7% are. The more common act, which is almost never discussed, is the use of abortion by those who simply don't want their child, don't want that responsibility or feel like they aren't ready. 93% of all abortions in America occur for social reasons. Its almost unimaginable that someone could actually have an argument for this action. How cavalier about life. Every action has its consequence. Sex leads to conception. Its not like that's a little known fact. If you are not ready or willing to become a parent you better restrain yourself physically. The similarity here between abortion and slavery is eerie. Abuse and death of the lesser for the benefit and continued livelihood of the greater. Turning the Pro-Abortionist's argument on its head you might as well be asking "Who are we to tell that Plantation Owner what to do with his slave?
If we could forget party lines, forget talking points, forget the heated history between the two sides and see this as an issue for consideration anew, I don't see how we would end up with what we have currently. This is America's darkest blemish of the 21st century. It is a tragedy that rivals the very worst of America. One we need to get behind us for the sake of progress, humanity and truly helping the least among us.
Paul Wizikowski
Important Facts on abortions in America
Abortions skyrocketed after the ruling on Roe vs. Wade Jan. 22, 1973
Abortions leveled off in the 1980's at about 1.6 million each year
Since the early 90's there has been a steady yet slow decline in the abortions performed each year in the USA
In 2005 there were approx. 1.2 million abortions in the USA
There are approx. 42 million abortions each year worldwide
Facts based on www.abortionno.org and www.guttmacher.org
----------
What is the darkest blemish of this country's history? What stance did it hold that went against the fundamental principles of each person's unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness more than any other? I would answer, slavery. I think without question it is the single biggest atrocity we have sanctioned and the most damning ideology we have accepted. It took a civil war, a presidential demand and decades of continued government allowed abuse until the passage of Civil rights to force a change in the minds of those promoting it, yet that ideology still exists today but in a different form.
The idea behind slavery was that one race saw another as less then human. This absurd ideology allows one people group to define what a human is only to justify their abuse, their dominance, and their will over that lesser people group for their own gain and personal desire. This lesser group is denied freedom, denied a voice, and in many cases denied their very life, as the hardships they endured often killed them. All because they fall outside the bounds of one groups definition of humanity.
Today this mentality is promoted through the demand for acceptance and subsequent legalization of abortion. I argue that it is just as damning of our culture and will be seen as just as dark of a blemish on America's history as its once acceptance and legalization of slavery. Since its justification by our judicial system, millions of people defined as nonhuman by a sect of our population have been killed. Killed. They have been denied life itself let alone any other of the common rights we demand for every other organism. Politicians and political parties are quick to demand recognition and "help" for, in their terms, "the least of these" among us. I ask them, who is lesser among us than the unborn child? They have no voice. They have no ability to unify as a group. They have no way to even know they are in harms way. I find it ironic that those who have led the call for civil rights and women's rights and gay rights all under the banner of "human rights" aggressively protest against the protection and recognition of the unborn humans rights. This is hypocrisy in its purest form. To further expose the absurdity, scientists search for "life" on this planet and through out our solar system on the cell level. Yet when it comes to human embryos developing in a mothers womb we debate its classification. What that tells me is that this decision to deny the unborn baby rights is not based on a rational principle, but on politics. It certainly goes against the rallying cry that we are ALL created equal, that we must help those that cannot help themselves. So if it is not a founded principle-based decision, how is it that they have come to the conclusion that abortion is okay? Is it the inability for unborn babies to offer a vote that disqualifies their humanity? Or is it their lack of campaign contributions? To use this issue for political positioning is shameful.
So why do people have abortions? Those in support of it are quick to talk about those situations where either the mother or the child's health is in jeopardy, they talk about the situations where doctors have discovered a likelihood of the child's physical or mental handicaps, and they talk about those gruesome instances when a child is conceived out of some horrible event such as rape or incest. These are very real and very tragic situations that even the most Pro-Life advocates have to face. But it is important to have some perspective here. According to The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (www.abortionno.org ) "1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child." The conclusion that is often made is that it is such a complicated situation, who are we to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Here is where I draw the line. The only time I would support allowing a mother to consider terminating her pregnancy is in the first tragic situation I just mentioned. When the life of the mother or the baby is in real jeopardy by allowing the pregnancy to go full term a decision has to be made. I liken it to the choice that has to be made when separating conjoined twins. Where one life can be saved with the decision. In this case allow the mother, whose life is on the line, to decide what she should do. As for pregnancies of children with potential handicaps or those conceived through tragic and illegal actions I come to a different conclusion. As horrible as these are, the life of the mother is not on the line and the baby is in NO WAY responsible for the situation. I refuse to accept that the child should be allowed to pay such a price. Slavery has been the only other practice within civilized society where an individual was allowed to decide the fate of another based on their own desires or feelings. Don't get me wrong, these situations are deplorable but we are not talking about the mothers body, we are talking about the babies life. If she can't take care of a child with handicaps or can't face the idea of raising a child conceived tragically I support allowing her to give up her child, in the hopes of finding a family who can.
While foster care and adoption is a whole other topic let me just say I am for the idea of it, and I think its worth putting the energy and resources into reforming and improving it. We must.
But the conversation doesn't end there. The real American tragedy is that most abortions aren't being performed under those pretenses, remember only 7% are. The more common act, which is almost never discussed, is the use of abortion by those who simply don't want their child, don't want that responsibility or feel like they aren't ready. 93% of all abortions in America occur for social reasons. Its almost unimaginable that someone could actually have an argument for this action. How cavalier about life. Every action has its consequence. Sex leads to conception. Its not like that's a little known fact. If you are not ready or willing to become a parent you better restrain yourself physically. The similarity here between abortion and slavery is eerie. Abuse and death of the lesser for the benefit and continued livelihood of the greater. Turning the Pro-Abortionist's argument on its head you might as well be asking "Who are we to tell that Plantation Owner what to do with his slave?
If we could forget party lines, forget talking points, forget the heated history between the two sides and see this as an issue for consideration anew, I don't see how we would end up with what we have currently. This is America's darkest blemish of the 21st century. It is a tragedy that rivals the very worst of America. One we need to get behind us for the sake of progress, humanity and truly helping the least among us.
Paul Wizikowski
Important Facts on abortions in America
Abortions skyrocketed after the ruling on Roe vs. Wade Jan. 22, 1973
Abortions leveled off in the 1980's at about 1.6 million each year
Since the early 90's there has been a steady yet slow decline in the abortions performed each year in the USA
In 2005 there were approx. 1.2 million abortions in the USA
There are approx. 42 million abortions each year worldwide
Facts based on www.abortionno.org and www.guttmacher.org
Emergency Economics - 9/30/08
In my endeavor to understand the world around me, I realize I need to go a step further and understand it to the point as to be able to articulate and discuss how I see it.
The thing I hate most about politics is evident more than ever right now...politics itself. Here we are on the cusp of the most dire economic situation since the Great Depression and the political leaders are spending more time maneuvering and blaming each other than figuring out what needs to be done. This continual pointing fingers and petty speech making is getting in the way of success and action.
There are many many MANY reasons why we are here. I would argue there isn't a leader in Washington that hasn't contributed, not a mortgage company executive or an over burdened mortgage owner thats not at fault. From previous administrations actions to the current's, from previous Congress' actions to the current's, from lobbyists to community organizing groups, from the home buyers to the mortgage lenders, from the Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac executives to the Wall Street Executives an argument can be made as to that entities responsibility or at least their contribution to the current disaster. I'll let you come to your own conclusion as to who should carry the burden here but the reality is we are all going to have to shoulder it.
So what do we do? For all the posturing and end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it talk from our leaders I believe no one knows or can know exactly what the market will do in response to any given action. We can theorize. We can speculate. We can look at different things through history. But we can't KNOW! So how do we decide what to do?
We must decide based on principle. We should always make our decisions on principle to avoid being blinded by emotion or lack of knowledge but the mother of all times to use your principles is when you can not know all the facts or know all the possible reactions to your action. Every act will have its consequences, a perfect solution is not possible, therefore, we must act on our principles.
To name a few things that I feel are relevant to this situation are the beliefs I have that a free market is better than a government controlled one. That the larger the issue the more patient you should be in coming to a course of action. That you can't fix an issue by addressing the symptoms.
Having the government bail out industries is bad enough but to have it step into and bail out the whole market is two steps inside the sphere of socialism. There are those of the far left who have no qualms with that and would likely encourage even more, but to me thats a core no-no. Show me one state whose socialistic activities created a humane, just, free society.
The other thing that bugs me is all the talk that we have to act quickly. This is a disaster that has been years in the making. It is one that effects nearly every sector of business and therefore every sector of life and we are to think that the powers that be can fix it in 48 hours...or less? The demand for acceptance of the Treasury Secretary's plan by Bush is insulting. It is irresponsible not to consider the options. In the 24 hours since the House declined the Bailout bill I have heard a handful of options that I think show some real merit. Like repealing the Capital Gains Tax or adjusting how we determine a financial instruments value from "Mark to Market" to a fair-value system like we used for 200 years prior to the scandal at Enron. Now, while I don't understand the effects of these examples enough to articulate it here, my point is not that these are what we should pursue but rather that there are options out there that aren't being considered because politicians are to busy politicking. They are not making decisions for what is best for this country but rather what is best for themselves or their party line.
Finally, the problem has been the ability for people who can't afford a house to be allowed (and in some cases are required by law to be allowed) to get the money for one. We need to correct this issue. The fact that many of these loans are now default, causing banks to hoard their money, which then has caused a credit problem for major investment banks and soon to be smaller entities are products of the problem. Fixing them, by throwing money at them, does little good in the long run. Our focus should then be to look for a correction to the erring business philosophy. And then, in my opinion let the market recover on its own. Is it gonna be pretty? No. But thinking its always gonna be up is foolish. The down side has to be just as real as the upside or you destroy the whole thing. To belabor the point I heard this week that risk without failure is like Faith without sin.
So the next time you see a replay of Pelosi's speech railing the Republicans just before the House voted on the Bailout Bill, or see House Republican leader John A. Boehner's follow up comments that they voted against the bill because of Pelosi's comments or hear Barak Obama heave the responsibility for this crisis entirely on to the Bush administration and republicans or likewise hear McCain say he is going to suspend his campaign to go to Washington till this thing gets hammered out only to not contribute any worthy opinions AND then pick up his campaign days later without any evidence of assisting the issue AND while both candidates refuse to take a stance on the bill know that they are not going to be the real solution. We are. Regardless of what they eventually do, and regardless of who gets labeled by history for having gotten us in to this, you and I have to get us out of it and keep us out. We have to live with integrity, with a sense of personal responsibility. We have to be willing to work hard regardless of what the economists are predicting. We have to be better stewards of our money and wiser with what we commit to. We have to be better. Or the next generation just might face something worse than the Great Depression.
Paul Wizikowski
The thing I hate most about politics is evident more than ever right now...politics itself. Here we are on the cusp of the most dire economic situation since the Great Depression and the political leaders are spending more time maneuvering and blaming each other than figuring out what needs to be done. This continual pointing fingers and petty speech making is getting in the way of success and action.
There are many many MANY reasons why we are here. I would argue there isn't a leader in Washington that hasn't contributed, not a mortgage company executive or an over burdened mortgage owner thats not at fault. From previous administrations actions to the current's, from previous Congress' actions to the current's, from lobbyists to community organizing groups, from the home buyers to the mortgage lenders, from the Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac executives to the Wall Street Executives an argument can be made as to that entities responsibility or at least their contribution to the current disaster. I'll let you come to your own conclusion as to who should carry the burden here but the reality is we are all going to have to shoulder it.
So what do we do? For all the posturing and end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it talk from our leaders I believe no one knows or can know exactly what the market will do in response to any given action. We can theorize. We can speculate. We can look at different things through history. But we can't KNOW! So how do we decide what to do?
We must decide based on principle. We should always make our decisions on principle to avoid being blinded by emotion or lack of knowledge but the mother of all times to use your principles is when you can not know all the facts or know all the possible reactions to your action. Every act will have its consequences, a perfect solution is not possible, therefore, we must act on our principles.
To name a few things that I feel are relevant to this situation are the beliefs I have that a free market is better than a government controlled one. That the larger the issue the more patient you should be in coming to a course of action. That you can't fix an issue by addressing the symptoms.
Having the government bail out industries is bad enough but to have it step into and bail out the whole market is two steps inside the sphere of socialism. There are those of the far left who have no qualms with that and would likely encourage even more, but to me thats a core no-no. Show me one state whose socialistic activities created a humane, just, free society.
The other thing that bugs me is all the talk that we have to act quickly. This is a disaster that has been years in the making. It is one that effects nearly every sector of business and therefore every sector of life and we are to think that the powers that be can fix it in 48 hours...or less? The demand for acceptance of the Treasury Secretary's plan by Bush is insulting. It is irresponsible not to consider the options. In the 24 hours since the House declined the Bailout bill I have heard a handful of options that I think show some real merit. Like repealing the Capital Gains Tax or adjusting how we determine a financial instruments value from "Mark to Market" to a fair-value system like we used for 200 years prior to the scandal at Enron. Now, while I don't understand the effects of these examples enough to articulate it here, my point is not that these are what we should pursue but rather that there are options out there that aren't being considered because politicians are to busy politicking. They are not making decisions for what is best for this country but rather what is best for themselves or their party line.
Finally, the problem has been the ability for people who can't afford a house to be allowed (and in some cases are required by law to be allowed) to get the money for one. We need to correct this issue. The fact that many of these loans are now default, causing banks to hoard their money, which then has caused a credit problem for major investment banks and soon to be smaller entities are products of the problem. Fixing them, by throwing money at them, does little good in the long run. Our focus should then be to look for a correction to the erring business philosophy. And then, in my opinion let the market recover on its own. Is it gonna be pretty? No. But thinking its always gonna be up is foolish. The down side has to be just as real as the upside or you destroy the whole thing. To belabor the point I heard this week that risk without failure is like Faith without sin.
So the next time you see a replay of Pelosi's speech railing the Republicans just before the House voted on the Bailout Bill, or see House Republican leader John A. Boehner's follow up comments that they voted against the bill because of Pelosi's comments or hear Barak Obama heave the responsibility for this crisis entirely on to the Bush administration and republicans or likewise hear McCain say he is going to suspend his campaign to go to Washington till this thing gets hammered out only to not contribute any worthy opinions AND then pick up his campaign days later without any evidence of assisting the issue AND while both candidates refuse to take a stance on the bill know that they are not going to be the real solution. We are. Regardless of what they eventually do, and regardless of who gets labeled by history for having gotten us in to this, you and I have to get us out of it and keep us out. We have to live with integrity, with a sense of personal responsibility. We have to be willing to work hard regardless of what the economists are predicting. We have to be better stewards of our money and wiser with what we commit to. We have to be better. Or the next generation just might face something worse than the Great Depression.
Paul Wizikowski
My Views Through the Guise of Politics - 9/11/08
Let me start by saying I think our Politics should stem from our Worldview. Our worldview should stem from our life experiences and our faith. And while life experiences are different for each of us, our faith should stem from unchanging values. I say all that to say you shouldn't and really you can't separate Politics from Faith but you should be able to discuss it on the level of your worldview, without using Christian vernacular, and be able to do it logically and coherently. And it bugs me how few Christians can do that.
Now what is my worldview:
I believe in a strong work ethic. I don't believe this is a White-mans world, I believe its a working (wo)mans world. No one is entitled to more than they work for, period.
I believe in strong education. I don't have a lot of thought put into this area but essentially it has to do with raising the standards for students and not letting them advance until they're met. Teachers should be held to high standards but not by government regulated tests and spreadsheets. Government run anything is chaotic, bloated, and inefficient. (I would love to be proven wrong here, but really I can't think of any)
I believe in a very strong military. "Peace through Strength."
I believe in strong punishment for criminals, though the more I learn the less I like our current judiciary system. Its too subjective from judge to jury and state to state. I don't like that laws are interpreted at the whims of people with no ability to be objective, tough, logical, and constant.
Adding to the previous statement, I believe in capital punishment. Again, I would like to see the judiciary system overhauled but I believe the government can and should end the life of those it deems deserving (again based on laws that are objective, tough, logical, and constant) And I should also say I view this vastly different then government allowed abortions. Abortions is an individuals choice to kill an innocent human. Capital punishment is the government killing a guilty human. (Two VERY big differences there)
I do not believe in big government. As I mentioned by personal experience and repeated news coverage anything the government runs tends to be chaotic, bloated, and inefficient. From our tax system (I support the Fair Tax big time), to our education system, to our disaster relief agency (Anyone remember Katrina), and on and on. The more the government runs the less productive and efficient that sector becomes.
I do not believe in Abortion. It amazes me that the Democratic Party a party soooo pro-everything, soooooo loving and accepting, sooooooo seemingly supportive of those that have no voice would not only look the other way on abortion but actually demand its ability. It boggles my mind. For a long time I used to be open to abortion only for extreme circumstances like rape, serious health issues (for either baby or mother), but I have begun to view it ALL wrong. I don't believe in abortion in any circumstance.
Anyway, for brevity sake I'll leave it to those points and move on.
To focus that worldview onto this political season I believe McCain will be the man who runs an administration in line with my worldview. For brevity I'll only focus on why I disagree with Obama.
Personally I don't care about age or sex or race, they are factors but so far down the list they aren't worth discussing here, I do care about record. What you have done speaks a lot louder than what you intend to do. For all of Obama's rhetoric, he hasn't done anything he will point to as a specific act he intends to repeat or define as showing his character. Vision is great, its necessary but vision that hasn't been tested and proven really is only idealogy. What Obama has done is what every other politician has done, promise a bright future. Not only do I not hear details, I don't agree with the general statements he makes about plans and policy's.
Obama says he will only increase taxes on the top 5% of Americas wealth. My first thought is, those are the poeple who currently drive our economy with their investments in every kind of business in America. You take away their ability to invest, by extension, you take away the drive behind what creates jobs, initiates research endeavors, endows schools and non-profit organizations. In the long term you create a society more dependent on the government.
I disagree in his plans to provide health-care to everyone...sounds good but again it stalls everyone else's personal ambitions FOR the common good. By definition that sounds a lot like socialism. Providing this to those who can't/won't find a way to get it for themselves would further create dependency on the government. A bad thing in my mind. Also, for those that think America is behind the European model of healthcare, have you been there and seen it? Its near impossible to see a doctor. It takes forever (subjective here, I know) to get seen and to then get what you need for medication. My point here is that it is hardly the dream system people are looking for.
Obama mentioned that he would go through the budget line by line and eliminate what doesn't work and reduce others that are under performing. While that would be his job it's not up to him alone, Congress has to approve his budget. Secondly I don't think I would agree with the programs he deems good or bad.
Finally let me talk about Judicial Appointments. My biggest issue with this country is probably the judicial system. The interpretations of the law aren't founded on anything concrete. But since thats what we've got I feel it is imperative that our Supreme Court Justice Nominations be people who do have a history of being objective, logical, constant, and in my opinion based on a worldview that reflects Biblical values.
I know thats a lot but it still leaves a lot to be discussed and defined.
All that said, I still enjoy hearing people with varying opinions on issues talk it out. Because while I believe in a founded and absolute value system, I am not. (always refining though)
For now, I am Paul Wizikowski and I approved this message.
Now what is my worldview:
I believe in a strong work ethic. I don't believe this is a White-mans world, I believe its a working (wo)mans world. No one is entitled to more than they work for, period.
I believe in strong education. I don't have a lot of thought put into this area but essentially it has to do with raising the standards for students and not letting them advance until they're met. Teachers should be held to high standards but not by government regulated tests and spreadsheets. Government run anything is chaotic, bloated, and inefficient. (I would love to be proven wrong here, but really I can't think of any)
I believe in a very strong military. "Peace through Strength."
I believe in strong punishment for criminals, though the more I learn the less I like our current judiciary system. Its too subjective from judge to jury and state to state. I don't like that laws are interpreted at the whims of people with no ability to be objective, tough, logical, and constant.
Adding to the previous statement, I believe in capital punishment. Again, I would like to see the judiciary system overhauled but I believe the government can and should end the life of those it deems deserving (again based on laws that are objective, tough, logical, and constant) And I should also say I view this vastly different then government allowed abortions. Abortions is an individuals choice to kill an innocent human. Capital punishment is the government killing a guilty human. (Two VERY big differences there)
I do not believe in big government. As I mentioned by personal experience and repeated news coverage anything the government runs tends to be chaotic, bloated, and inefficient. From our tax system (I support the Fair Tax big time), to our education system, to our disaster relief agency (Anyone remember Katrina), and on and on. The more the government runs the less productive and efficient that sector becomes.
I do not believe in Abortion. It amazes me that the Democratic Party a party soooo pro-everything, soooooo loving and accepting, sooooooo seemingly supportive of those that have no voice would not only look the other way on abortion but actually demand its ability. It boggles my mind. For a long time I used to be open to abortion only for extreme circumstances like rape, serious health issues (for either baby or mother), but I have begun to view it ALL wrong. I don't believe in abortion in any circumstance.
Anyway, for brevity sake I'll leave it to those points and move on.
To focus that worldview onto this political season I believe McCain will be the man who runs an administration in line with my worldview. For brevity I'll only focus on why I disagree with Obama.
Personally I don't care about age or sex or race, they are factors but so far down the list they aren't worth discussing here, I do care about record. What you have done speaks a lot louder than what you intend to do. For all of Obama's rhetoric, he hasn't done anything he will point to as a specific act he intends to repeat or define as showing his character. Vision is great, its necessary but vision that hasn't been tested and proven really is only idealogy. What Obama has done is what every other politician has done, promise a bright future. Not only do I not hear details, I don't agree with the general statements he makes about plans and policy's.
Obama says he will only increase taxes on the top 5% of Americas wealth. My first thought is, those are the poeple who currently drive our economy with their investments in every kind of business in America. You take away their ability to invest, by extension, you take away the drive behind what creates jobs, initiates research endeavors, endows schools and non-profit organizations. In the long term you create a society more dependent on the government.
I disagree in his plans to provide health-care to everyone...sounds good but again it stalls everyone else's personal ambitions FOR the common good. By definition that sounds a lot like socialism. Providing this to those who can't/won't find a way to get it for themselves would further create dependency on the government. A bad thing in my mind. Also, for those that think America is behind the European model of healthcare, have you been there and seen it? Its near impossible to see a doctor. It takes forever (subjective here, I know) to get seen and to then get what you need for medication. My point here is that it is hardly the dream system people are looking for.
Obama mentioned that he would go through the budget line by line and eliminate what doesn't work and reduce others that are under performing. While that would be his job it's not up to him alone, Congress has to approve his budget. Secondly I don't think I would agree with the programs he deems good or bad.
Finally let me talk about Judicial Appointments. My biggest issue with this country is probably the judicial system. The interpretations of the law aren't founded on anything concrete. But since thats what we've got I feel it is imperative that our Supreme Court Justice Nominations be people who do have a history of being objective, logical, constant, and in my opinion based on a worldview that reflects Biblical values.
I know thats a lot but it still leaves a lot to be discussed and defined.
All that said, I still enjoy hearing people with varying opinions on issues talk it out. Because while I believe in a founded and absolute value system, I am not. (always refining though)
For now, I am Paul Wizikowski and I approved this message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
