1 in 4 homes “Underwater”

Here is the link to the story in CNN-

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/24/real_estate/mortgages_underwater/index.htm?cnn=yes

I can understand foreclosures increasing due to unemployment, you dont have the same amount of money to pay bills, something has to go, that makes sense. What I am obviously too ignorant to figure out is this – How does the value of my home affect my ability to pay my house payment?

I would almost expect the reverse, if my house has less value, my taxes should be less, thus making it more affordable. Its just like the argument that people have about satellite dishes, trailers, and rundown homes, “they are bringing down my property value!”. Hell, move that trailer in next to me, if thats all it takes to lower my taxes.

If I agree to pay $250,000 for a house today, and take out a 30 year mortgage, dont I need to make pretty darn sure I can fulfill my end of that 30 year obligation? Even if the house is worth less tomorrow, how exactly did that affect my ABILITY to pay for the house? Maybe it affects my DESIRE to pay for it, but unless I am very short sighted, I should understand that houses ALWAYS appreciate, if they are taken care of. 20 years from now, that house will be worth WAAAY more than it was yesterday.

The article only way this makes sense is if the purchase of the house was made as an investment (in other words, a gamble) . As we all know, gambling is a RISK. Sometimes you come out ahead, sometimes behind. Either way, a guy making $50,000 a year cant afford to gamble with$250,000, and if he did, and lost, I dont see why I should feel any empathy towards him.

I wish someone would put together a report on how many homes in America are actually HOMES, dwellings purchases with the intent of living in them, versus investments. I think they should be tracked differently and treated differently than real homes with real people living in them. I bet when you look at it, people getting refinanced through government subsidies are using that help to make money, and you can bet the government isnt getting a cut of it.

“Uncensored Society is Healthy?”

Where do you live dude?

President Obama has stated to the Chinese, in a meeting with university students in Shanghai (and this is a direct quote)..”I’m a big supporter of non-censorship”……Since when?

Lets first define censorship - Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.

By its simple definition, you cannot remove censorship from the real world. As parents, we dont use words we dont want our children to hear, at work we dont speak our mind as to not offend someones sensibilities, we rate movies and restrict access based on content,…the list goes on. It is ridiculous to say there can even BE such a thing as an uncensored society.

It all comes back to perspective. Seems like the more I think about life, the more things come down to perspectives. The word Censorship is changed to Stewardship, when we want to say its ok to do it (i.e. the Television Network Stewards are ensuring a positive family experience by rating TV content and the times diferent content can be offered). Censorship is changed to a more negative term, such as Suppressed when we want to infer that good information is being withheld (i.e. The Chinese supress freedom of speech by restricting internet access). Its all in the perspective.

My point here is more simple. Dont try to say we have an uncensored society, that is crazy talk coming from the guy who censors an entire network (FoxNews) by simply declaring them illegitimate. Censorship will always exist, because someone will always want to protect someone else from harm. That is the real meaning of censorship. Somethimes the protection is overzealous, sometimes its unwanted, but as long as there are people who feel they are responsible for other people (parents, police, elected officials) there will be people deciding what is best for you.

South Park – Glenn Beck

If you guys missed this..shame on you!

I’m not a real big Glenn Beck fan. I almost always agree with him, I like his topics, its more the presentation that frustrates me. Leave the antics and whining to the left, they are WAY better at it than you. Dry your tears and man up. ..but I digress.

This South Park episode was masterful. Cartman gets a gig doing school announcements, turns it into a video feed, and uses it all to promote his own agenda. Every step he took further in promoting his own agenda he was drawn to look more and more like Glenn Beck until in the end, he was a freaking twin. Similar graphics to FoxNews, Cartman tearing up, it was brilliant. He convinced most of the school that the class president wasnt doing her job, and worse yet, she was a smurf killer. Obviously the message was that you shouldnt believe the opinion of every idiot with a microphone, but they did it in a way that was funny and pertinent.

I swear one day we are going to look back on that show and say it did some brilliant things, just like All in the Family did in the 70’s.

Lou Dobbs

First of all…August?! I havent blogged since AUGUST!? AAARRRGGHH!

About the whole Lou Dobbs leaving CNN thing…Lou Dobbs is a grown man, if he doesnt want to work at CNN any more, and he can convince them to release him, more power to him. If CNN decides he is no longer of value to them, they have the right to release him from employment. There really isnt any more to the situation than that.

The part that KILLS me is the rest of the media trying to blow it into a squabble over CNN being “centrist” and “impartial” (huh?) and Lou Dobbs moving more and more to the right. Do you really need to point out that Dobbs was moving away from CNN’s brand of “impartiality” and further towards his conscience? I’m pretty sure Hellen Keller could have figured that one out (Lord, forgive me for that one). Maybe Nancy Grace can finally let go of the “Tot Mom” story now and find something else to rant about. Somebody ought to mention that this situation hasnt created a lawsuit and it hasnt exploded on air into name calling, which is actually a refreshing change for a period in history that touts the lawsuit over happy meals that arent warm enough as well as paparazzi smackdowns actually being news themselves.

People evolve, viewpoints change, disagreements will happen, thats life. I think Lou Dobbs and CNN handled the situation realistically and with maturity…but I guess we just need a little bit of flair with our news nowadays.

Cash For Clunkers is BAD for the Economy

I just read a post on CNN about how Cash for Clunkers is good for the economy. What a bunch of nonsense. First and foremost, artificial manipulation of the economic cycle is going to create a temporary illusion of stability, with a harder crash to come. Its like building a levee to keep out the flood waters, you know what, that water is still going somewhere; you are just forcing it somewhere else (for now). When the levee breaks, its going to be a whole lot more devastating.

What happens to the dealerships and Automakers once this 3 billion runs out? Not only does the demand drop to previous levels, its LOWER now because anyone who was in the market already cashed in. At this point there aren’t many people in the market for new cars who haven’t already traded something in. NOW the dealerships have to equal the 4,500 cash incentive themselves to sell anything at all, cutting profits to the bone, and further.

How exactly is this helping parts manufacturers? New cars don’t need replacement parts, so that market is going down. Oh, if there aren’t as many parts to replace we certainly don’t need as many mechanics, so there go those jobs. And if we don’t need the mechanics or parts, we don’t need the managers, secretaries and counter people to support them.

This is helping jobs at dealerships? If you call a 3 month job a boon to the economy, I guess so. Once again, once the money runs out the jobs go away. Are we planning on subsidizing the auto industry forever?

Now about the boast that “45% of the stimulus money is going to the big three”…Huh? This is a GOOD thing? 90%, 80%, even 75% would be GOOD, but less than HALF? Its our stimulus money, its our automakers, but 55% of the money is going to foreign countries? You can tell me all you want that Toyotas and Hondas are as American as a Ford, but at the end of the day, where is the corporate office? We are propping up other nations economies with OUR stimulus money.

The article goes on to say the Automotive industry affects the economy in many different ways, too many to sort out. Isnt this the same as saying “just trust me, its REALLY important” or “We are sure these town hall disruptions are organized, but we cant prove it”. If you cant quantify it, don’t ask me to believe you.

This guy then goes off on a tangent about saving lives. I tell you what, give me a 79 Thunderbird and you take a 2009 Nissan Versa. We will line them up head to head at 55 and see who makes it out alive. The only reason this will save lives is there wont be as many big cars out there to crush the tiny ones. Oh, by the way, saving lives takes money out of the Health Systems economy, so that’s a negative thing, right?

I bet the insurance companies love the influx of money they are seeing right now. New cars are definitely more expensive to insure, being the reality of the situation is 20 year old cars don’t carry full coverage. How long before I get charged more for insurance for driving an older car that causes more damage in an accident?

Speaking of money, here’s a problem no one want to mention. Say we spend as little as 10% less on gas due to this program. Gas is taxed at a federal rate of 18.4 and 27.2 (avg) for state tax. Diesel is even higher. A reduction of 10% of all excise taxes on this fuel is another cut to the budget of our federal and state governments. This is a number in the 10’s of billions. How do you think it will be made up for? Well, my bet is our politicians decide to raise the excise tax rate on fuel, with the reasoning being “they will only be punishing those who do not operate fuel efficient vehicles”. We all know those people are just plain bad, so what does it hurt to tax them more?

As long as we keep propping up the market instead of letting it fall (which is what brings lower prices) we are doing nothing more than making the dropoff steeper when it eventually comes. Pumping air into a flat tire does not fix the tire, you fix the tire, THEN put air back in it.

Hangovers and Me

I did some research into hangovers, and I now understand why I dont get them, or when I do they are minimal. I will list the causes below, and how my lifestyle or habits works to my benefit.

#1 Dehydration. This is the simplest to resolve, because you need just need to drink. Plenty of water during the time you are drinking, as well as after will prevent this cause from taking effect.

#2. Reduction of glucose production and delivery during alcohol processing affects the brains ability to perform, as the brain uses glucose for energy. I generally stay on a low carb diet, which already has my bodies blood sugar level low. My brain is used to this state.

3. Metabolic acidosis, or a lowering of the bodies pH occurs due to the processing of alcohol. A more acidic bloodstream than normal is an effect of the low carb way of eating. Once again, my body is accustomed to it.

4. Impurities in the type of alcohol consumed, or the tolerance of the individual to the additional contents of the drink.  JACK DANIELS BABY! My body LIKES it!

So all in all, I got it pretty lucky MOST of the time.

Heres a lesson in probabilities school wont teach…

it is in fact POSSIBLE to drink a fifth of Jack Daniels Between 11:00 a.m. and 12:15 p.m.

It is PROBABLE that you will NOT be able to retain all that alcohol in your system past 12:45.

It is UNLIKELY that you will remain conscious after doing this (proven possible by a small margin).

It is LIKELY that IF you remain conscious, and IF you make it past that lap 100 of the spring race at Dover, you will resume drinking.

It is AWESOME that you can derive NO hangover from this activity!

Mandating Medical Treatment???

The direction of this country makes me a little more worried every day. The latest thing is this 13 year old kid that some Judge has ruled MUST undergo chemo for his illness. First of all, lets not cloud the issue with religion, leave that for a different argument. I do, however, have a couple of really big problems with this step towards Despotism.

#1. Is this the beginning of a list made by the legal system that spells out how, when, where and why I have to seek medical treatment for my children? You can say that’s an extreme view, but every journey has a first step. This particular case does not contain abuse of the child. It is not a case of neglect. This is a case of a parent seeking an alternative method of curing an illness. Because our medical establishment says the method of treatment chosen doesn’t have as good a chance as their chosen method, the parent and child are being ordered to do what the doctors say is the “right” thing. The far left has stretched the term “Medical neglect” to reach past a parents choice of whats best for their child, and replace it with what someone else deems is best. I have a problem with that.

#2. The concept that the judicial system has a place in deciding what treatments are right for ANYONE. Doctors exist to diagnose illness and prescribe treatment. Judges are there to interpret laws, not make or enforce them. We cant give the doctors power to dictate treatment, only the responsibility to recommend options. Once we start allowing the Judicial system into the mix the door is open for a myriad of intrusions into our personal lives.

Personal responsibility has to be yours to make, not someone elses to dictate. So the question is….by law, does a doctor have the right to ORDER you to obtain the treatment that he/she deems appropriate for you? I’m pretty sure the answer is NO. If that is the case, and I can say NO to a certain treatment, than as a parent, I can say NO to the same thing for my child. Case closed. No matter how much you don’t like it, a parents right to make choices for their child MUST be honored, even when its wrong.

Government in Action

Postal workers will have an average income of$54,500 a year. Yup, Average.

The cost of a stamp is going up 2 cents.

Im betting we could lower the cost of a stamp to 30 cents and pay twice as many postal workers minimum wage to deliver the same amount of mail (probably more). and STILL save money.

Nip it in the Bud

Make fun of Barney Fife all you want, but that man had it right.  How do you stop something from continuing to grow? You nip it in the bud.

In todays world we see rights and freedoms getting taken away, and what do the people do? Nothing. Worse than nothing. We applaud. We commend the wisdom of the lawmakers. We pat ourselves on the back for our vision and sacrifice.

Only problem is, we have neither vision or sacrifice.

The rights we are allowing to be taken away now are those of the few.  Of course its easy to say its in the public interest to limit smoking when we dont partake.  But our lack of vision doesnt see that giving away one right is the first step to giving away them all. Read my most recent quote in the “Famous Quotes” page for some more insight on that.

Obviously it is easier to pay a pirate to get your boat back than it is to sacrifice the boat and crew. But if the first 3 or 4 times the pirates hijacked a boat, they got nothing in return, do you think it would still be happening?

Parenting is no different. The first time your kid does something wrong you dont let it slide, you state the reason it was wrong and the penalty for the next transgression. Then you stick to it. Too many parents want to be their kids friend INSTEAD of the parent. Hey, if you can do both, Im all for it, but the parent half is the more important, and when it comes time for one of the two to hit the road, Im no longer their friend.

I guess the point in general is that it is easier in the long run to attack every issue as it is encountered, and make the best decision for the long run. Almost never will this be the easy decision, but it will almost always be the right one.

Too bad politicians dont look at things for the long term.