Whatever happened to Consequences?

Bank of America Plaza

Bank of America Plaza (Photo credit: Frank Kehren)

It used to be that when you did a bad or a stupid thing you suffered a negative consequence. The end result being those making bad or stupid decisions would learn from their previous actions and avoid such foolishness in the future. “Learn” being the operative word in the previous sentence. Ultimately one could look back on previous mistakes and turn them into a positive.

Increasingly, thanks to the liberal mindset in this country, nobody deserves consequences. Nobody should suffer negatively for doing a bad or stupid thing. Everyone is forgiven or rehabilitated, or saved. There are no consequences.

con·se·quence

[kon-si-kwens, -kwuhns]  noun

1. the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier: The accident was the consequence of reckless driving.
2. an act or instance of following something as an effect, result,or outcome.
3. the conclusion reached by a line of reasoning; inference.
When the Obama Administration announces a $25-billion deal with the big banks to finalize and settle the lawsuits in the mortgage foreclosure crisis the lack of any deterrent effect, result or outcome from banks having foolishly lent too much money to those who couldn’t afford to pay it back is obvious. And the resulting actions are predictable. “Hey….we’ve got ALL this money to play with and risk. It’s not ours. But let’s be as risky with it as possible. After all, if we lose it, the government will pay us back. Just like before.” 
English:

The soon to be announced settlement would pay those 750,000 whose homes were foreclosed upon $2000. It would also reduce the principal by $20,000 for those 1,000,000 underwater home owners who owe more than their homes are currently worth. For those who did the right thing and didn’t borrow against their home’s equity for trips or new cars or upgrades, didn’t miss mortgage payments, and still lost tens-of thousands, even hundreds-of-thousands of dollars in their home’s equity…you get bupkis.

When a business operates a company selling a product for less than it costs to make, it used to be that that company would not be long for this world and that it’s owners and executives would find themselves losing money, stature and reputation for so foolishly trying to run such a company. But in the Obama world companies like Solyndra get $500-million loans which don’t EVER have to be paid back. And

Image representing Solyndra as depicted in Cru...

Solyndra Executives have the President of the United States praise them as forward thinkers in the new green economy right before skating off with bonuses in the millions of dollars and closing the doors on the worthless company.

GM logo

Car manufacturers give in to oppressive unions and agree, amongst other things, to pay laid off workers 80% of their salaries while they don’t work. The companies make cars that break down far too frequently compared to their foreign competition. They create cars that people don’t want. They go bankrupt. And the government gives them $14.1-Billion which they never have to pay back. Reminds me of the old line from Humphrey Bogart‘s “Treasure of the Sierra Madre“. “Consequences? We don’t need no stinking consequences!”

Wouldn’t it be nice if all these mistakes made by individuals who bought too much home or borrowed against their equity and had no cushion when prices fell actually started again, saved their money, bought homes again in a few years and paid down their mortgage…like our grandparents used to do?
Wouldn’t it be nice if banks returned to being a safe place to put your money and a place you could count on to be there through the tough times, instead of risk takers with our money devoid of any conscience? A partnership with a bank less interested in growing its riches and more interested in growing the community it serves.
And wouldn’t it be wonderful if American car companies made vehicles we all wanted and that were affordable and didn’t break down inordinately. Learning how the market trends and meeting the market’s needs. And in doing so we could return to Henry Ford’s way of thinking to pay his workers a decent wage and price his products so that his workers could afford them.
We all learn from our mistakes provided our mistakes come with negative consequences. With no consequences we’re all equally likely to go traipsing down the same road that got us into this mess to begin with.
Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.
If you find this blog interesting please Follow and please share. TY.

You CAN Judge a Book by It’s Cover. Look at our kids.

Fashions

It's not just black men.

The above picture was posted by a Friend on Facebook. This friend is a college educated black woman from Texas. I would estimate her age to be in her late 30s-early 40s (Context is King as always). Her Facebook post went on to lament the loss of self-respect so many black men have undergone in the past several decades. I couldn’t agree more. But I think the problem extends beyond young African-American men.

What do you see in the photos above. The men on the left are young and wearing clean modern (at the time) clothing. They would be well received no matter where they went; the exceptions being the well documented racists that prohibited all blacks from entry or use of “White Only” facilities back in the era depicted.

The “men” on the right would be looked upon with suspicion no matter where they went. As they should be. They are clearly trying to look “Gangsta” or “tough”, if you will. And it’s not just the underwear. It’s the whole look…the tats, the bling, the attitude.

For the record I don’t “blame” the guys on the right for trying to present a “tough” image. I did too when I was younger. I’m a big guy. And when I was in my 20s I had a marvelous long black leather overcoat. I always had a moustache and frequently a thick goatee (as I do now). I wore my hair long, but not dangling below my shoulders. And I was often attired in cowboy boots. I thought I was quite the tough guy in a sort of

Man with No Name

The man with no name

Clint Eastwood” sort-of way. So I know the tough guy mentality. Having a sense of intimidation about you just by the way you look is kinda cool.

But these guys don’t bring Clint Eastwood to mind, or John Wayne

John Wayne

John Wayne

, or Sylvester Stallone

Rambo (film)

as Rambo, or Indiana Jones either.

Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark

Indiana Jones

All tough-guy characters from my youth I would have been happy to be compared to. They bring to mind criminals, hoods, gangsters. They look much more like Morgan Freeman from “Street Smart

Cover of "Street Smart"

Cover of Street Smart

than “Se7en”; Denzel Washington from “Training Day” not “The Pelican Brief“. Society has gone too far. Instead of admiring the good-guy tough guy, we’ve gone to the bad-guy street smart, gun-toting tough guy as the model so many of our young people admire and want to emulate, both white and black.

Ten-to-twelve years ago my then teen-age white brother did his very best to disappointment our mother by wearing the baggy pants with underwear showing and hat turned backwards. He looked ridiculous, as everyone who puts on that sort of image does.

The baggy pants fashion-look stems directly from one source…criminals, more specifically prisoners. Prisoners would remove draw strings from sweat pants in order to have a ready choking weapon available whenever they needed. Then they would pass through the prison with one hand on their pants to keep them from falling down. On the streets the fashion gained popularity for similar practical reasons. The space created in the crotch of the pants was handy for storing guns, or drugs and not having a bulge in your pockets for all to see.

If, like me, you don’t want your kids to emulate criminals you, as a parent, have no one but yourself to blame if your boys wear such outrageous clothing and then act the part. As parent YOU buy the clothes most of the time. And even if you don’t you can tell your kids and even your young adults what you will tolerate. Tell them you will not tolerate them looking like hoods. A parent has so much power that too many of them fail to wield. And too often its in the false name of freedom, letting the kids learn and do what they want. But if you raise your kids to do what they want and they do bad and they hang with the wrong people we all know that they’ll be limited in their lives economically and socially as adults. So how is that freedom? Isn’t it best when they’re young to steer them to a set of paths that will expand their choices and thus their freedom when they’re older, when it matter’s most?

Santorum Drops By Iowa State Fair

Santorum Drops By Iowa State Fair (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum has mentioned research studies that reveal three things people can do that virtually guarantee a life devoid of poverty. First- work; get and keep a job. Second- graduate high school. Third- avoid having children until you are married. According to Santorum, and the studies he’s siting, do these three SIMPLE things and only 2-percent of us will spend any time in our lives in poverty. Don’t do them and you’re virtually guaranteed of struggles in your life, including some period spent in poverty.

Contrary to a dumb old saying you CAN judge a book by its cover. You can’t judge everything…but you can tell if it’s a used book, well-worn, well-read, old book, new book, long read or short read. If it’s a paperback or has a jacket cover on it you can see images that project what’s happening within the inner pages. In fact a lot of the images on paperbacks and book jackets reveal an awful lot about the story’s climax. You CAN judge a lot by a books cover.

So don’t blame the punks on the right for wanting to look “tough”. Blame them for not wanting to emulate tough guys that also happen to be good guys. And blame their parents and our society for not providing enough of them AND for being far too tolerant of the “bad”.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

If you like this blog please do me the honor of sharing it.

Where will it Stop? Obama has crossed the line.

“The growth of government occurs in direct opposite proportion to the decrease of individual liberty.” ~ Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States of America

Barack ObamaIt’s a simple concept Democrats never seem to grasp, and this week the line drawn in the sand representing “TOO DAMNED FAR” has been moved once again. It is becoming standard practice for this line to be moved every few years.

In a letter to churches around the country the Obama Administration informed them that not only does the new Obama care health care law require them to provide medical insurance coverage for all their employees in every church, and archdiocese around the country but that coverage MUST include contraception coverage. Not going far enough the dictum from our new overseer says that such contraception coverage must be free, with no co-pay charge to the recipient, and it must include the so-called “morning-after” pill, RU486, which abort any fetus up to five days after unprotected sex leads to conception.

English: a catholic cross Français : une croix...

It’s bad enough that our government led by Nanny-in-chief Barrack Obama feels we MUST buy healthcare coverage from private industry vendors and the only qualification for such a requirement is that you are breathing. Now his continued attack on Christians, and Catholics in particular, is abusive and nasty and seemingly hateful. Catholicism is the religion practiced by more Americans than any other religion. And it’s teachings are that contraception is wrong and that abortion is murder. And before all you Pro-Choice advocates get your panties in a bundle settle down. I’m not advocating for Pro-Life, contraception, Pro-Choice, or any other life decision. I’m telling Obama to get out of my face and more specifically my religion.

English: cross catholic Pontevedra Français : ...

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
             The anti-religious zealots have had a remarkable time reveling in the very first phrase in the most important of all amendments. But they continuously overlook the second phrase which I have put in bold. In establishing Obamacare and in interpreting the law to require Catholics to provide contraception to their employees President Obama and his team of “I know better than you” is telling the Catholic Church, “we don’t care about your free exercise of your religion. We’re telling you what we believe and YOU will follow.” It’s clearly unConstitutional.
              Those many of you who blindly defend all things Obama realize this, if Obama can require Pro-Life, or Catholic employers to require that health insurance provide contraception, including RU486, what’s to stop a future Conservative Pro-Life President from prohibiting contraception from being offered? 
President Bush signing the Federal Funding Acc...

Bush signed Patriot Act, Obama renewed it.

Just like the Patriot Act violates our right to privacy and our right against illegal search this step by the Obama Administration goes way to far into violating our liberties and our right to self-determination. The Patriot Act was enacted by President George W. Bush as an over-reach following the horrible terrorist attacks of 9-11. But as I feared at the time it’s now become standard and practiced law in this country. Obama renewed the Patriot Act, leaving it increasingly likely it may become permanent.

               To all Democrats I beg you. Stand up to your chosen leader and lets help roll back these government intrusions into our liberties, our rights, our beliefs, and our ability to pursue happiness. For if you turn a blind eye towards another man or woman’s injustice, the next injustice, the next infringement might be against you. Move the damned line back!
Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.
If you like the blog please honor me by sharing it. Thank you.

The more I look, the More I like Mitt.

English: Governor Mitt Romney of MA

Our next President?

I thought (and wrote) that the Washington Republican caucuses for President of the United States would come and go this March 3rd with a GOP nomination fully secured for Mitt Romney and that my choice would be largely irrelevant. My home state rendered largely irrelevant again. And while I still think Romney will win the Republican nomination to take on Barrack Obama, I’m less sure. Newt Gingrich‘s win in South Carolina and his surge in national polls, irregardless of Florida, have me thinking I must take a stand, make a choice, and help my choice win.

While I’m not ALL there yet, I do like Mitt Romney more and more. I like Newt Gingrich too. And for the record I increasingly like Rick Santorum. But I’m probably going to vote for the former Massachusetts Governor.

Newt’s bombast is not a turn off for me the way it is for so many others. I was raised with a strong and often angry father, who yelled and was not afraid to show that he was upset. So I’m quite used to this character trait of Gingrich that turns off too many people and will probably be his undoing in the remaining nominating contests. I like Newt’s big ideas, and I like that he pisses off mainstream politicians of both parties. Wouldn’t you agree that going away from the politicians of Washington D.C. is not a negative?

But I said a couple of years ago that I’m not a one issue voter, but if I were, the one issue that is most important to me is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. So much of what challenges us as Americans today is completely wrapped up in this one issue: race relations, jobs, drugs, terrorism. We absolutely must secure our borders. As best I can tell Mitt Romney comes the closest to my views on this subject than any of the remaining candidates. For instance, I do agree with him that if you make it nearly impossible for illegals to get jobs, and you remove so many of the other magnets that draw these people to illegally cross our borders many will return to their own homes. Why wouldn’t they? Why would they stay if they can’t feed themselves or their families.

And as a side note, don’t believe Barrack Obama for a second when he positions himself as tough on this subject. In the State of the Union he claimed there were fewer illegal border crossings now than there had been in years. True or not that has nearly nothing to do with anything he or his administration have done. It has more to do with the economy. Why illegally come to the U.S. now? There are no jobs to be had (which further advances Romney’s assertion that no jobs means they will go home).

Secondly, I like Romney’s plans to waive the Capital Gains tax for those making under $200,000. This idea was panned when it was first introduced. Romney’s opponents claiming that such a tax is not paid by people making under $2ook, but instead by people like him. Wrong! I know. I’ve had to pay this tax and I didn’t like it one bit. I wrote a check to the Federal Government for $12,000 after selling my families first home, which we had moved from and kept as a rental for 7 years. The threat of having to pay it again was the primary reason we sold our second house after keeping it as a rental for nearly 3 years. It is a disincentive tax for me and for many other potential investors. I think less-so for those with higher incomes.

Eventually I’d like to see the high-end Capital Gains tax equal the high-end income tax rate. Because it is wrong for wealthy people to pay a much smaller rate than what the rest of us pay. And since they make a large majority of their income through capital gains rather than through salary, naturally they will pay the lower tax rate. When Ronald Reagan reformed taxes in 1986 he agreed with Democrats to make the Capital Gains tax rate 28%, equal to the highest income tax rate. Like Gingrich has said, I’d rather see the income tax lower and expanded to more people than raise the level of the Capital Gains tax rate.

Lastly, if you consider the only negatives on Romney are that he is wealthy and that he is a “flip-flopper”, you really seriously need to re-examine your priorities. After all when making an argument isn’t the idea to bring people to your way of thinking? And for Conservative Pro-Lifers hasn’t Mitt Romney come toward your way of thinking? Isn’t that a good thing?

So those are my reasons. My mind could change. But for now I’m with Mitt. What are your reasons?  Who do you support and why?

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

If you find this blog interesting I would be honored if you would share it. TY.

Economics for the Long Run- Wall Street Journal

Česky: Oficiální portrét amerického prezidenta...

President Ronald Reagan

In this short article by Stanford Economics professor and senior fellow John Taylor it’s correctly pointed out that continuous short-term government intervention in the economy produces more bad than good, no matter the intentions, and no matter what party is in the White House. These policies have been most effectively and dramatically illustrated by Ronald Reagan, and continued with Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577166842399752720.html

Not mentioned in the article is that these hands-off principles originally were put forth a long time ago by 18th Century Economist Adam Smith in his seminal book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, better known as “The Wealth of Nations”.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Please Share this blog if you find it interesting; others may as well.

  • Calendar

    • March 2026
      M T W T F S S
       1
      2345678
      9101112131415
      16171819202122
      23242526272829
      3031  
  • Search