I've been asked a few follow-up questions relative to my recently published political post. They are fair and should be addressed. Again, I claim no real authority of proof of competence on any economic or legal matters. These are simply my thoughts as a (what I consider) sensible person. (I apologize in advance if this post seems choppy or grammatically imperfect...I've written bits here and there as I've had time)
On The Economy
Mortgage Crisis
I stated earlier that part of the solution to our current economic situation is to let people suffer. I did not mean to imply that it is needful to have our entire economic system collapse. With regards to the 'mortgage crisis', I think we would all agree that it is not in the best interest of our country for hundreds of thousands of people to lose their homes. The most recent reports show that 18% of American homeowners are currently upside-down on their mortgages. If house prices fall another 5%, a full quarter will be upside-down.
Many of these people probably are victims to some degree of deceiving loan agents, a fact which can't be ignored. I believe that to ensure the long-term stability of our markets there (unfortunately) needed to be government intercession. However, I do not believe in doing away with debt (going back to the principle of accountability). I am not an economist, but it seems that there has to be a way that the government could help people refinance their mortgages and help them get on a payment plan which is affordable without giving any handouts or doing away with responsibility.
It is tough for and I sympathize with all of those who are having a hard time making ends meet. I wish I were more educated on the subject. It is ironic, however, that in an age where people are seemingly constantly screaming 'equality now!' and 'we just want what's fair!' that we're trying so hard to have the people who have managed their money well and not fallen for the pitfalls of adjustable-rate mortgages and not taken as many risks to pay the price for those who did not.
Auto Industry
What if I told you that I knew a company which had a 30-year-old reputation of bad quality and craftsmanship, poor leadership, and overpriced goods was about to go out of business? You'd probably say 'It's about time.' It's not so simple, however, when that company happens to employ around 4.15 million people. To put that number in perspective, that is roughly 12.5% of total population of Canada.
The Detroit auto industry simply cannot fail. However, someone has to play the father figure and let them suffer it out for a while and actually make substantial change - a role which I'm glad the federal government seems to be playing so far. Reports released yesterday indicate that the auto industry is burning through cash at a rate much higher than expected, and will possibly be out by mid 2009, if not earlier.
It has been said that necessity is the mother of creativity. It unfortunately takes time to develop a reputation of quality. It unfortunately takes time to switch production lines to make vehicles that people want. My bet is that if the government keeps denying their pleas, and if they keep burning through cash at their current rate, we'll see some very creative ideas in the near future. I would hope that the government would be willing to step in and help right as Detroit is on the verge of collapse, but after it has committed to serious changes in quality and direction. That's how I believe you help anyone in life in almost any situation...you let them figure it out - suffer it out on their own for a while, really push them, and then once they really have done all that they can, help them out.
I could go on about how the auto workers' unions are killing Detroit as well, but we'll save that for another day. That will be under the heading of 'The American Entitlement', or maybe more specifically 'How the American Entitlement is Killing the American Dream'.
On Civil Unions
Through my research, I have found three main differences between marriage and civil unions:
1) Taxes - There are significant differences between how married and civil union couples can file their taxes and how they can otherwise manage their finances jointly. These differences vary greatly from state to state and are easy to look up, so I will not say anymore on them.
2) Portability - If a couple is legally married in one state, that marriage is recognized in every state regardless if they would have been eligible for marriage in every state. Civil unions are only recognized in the state in which it was performed. If a civil union was performed in California and that couple moved to Massachusetts, they would need to have their ceremony performed again.
3) Stigma - The most difficult to define difference but yet arguably most important is that of the cultural significance of the sacred title of marriage. The term 'civil union' just doesn't carry the same emotional and cultural weight as does the title of 'marriage'.
As far as I understand them, I am for civil unions. Honestly I won't be surprised if numbers one and two on my list are eliminated in the near future, especially considering the personal convictions of our new president and how hot of a topic this has become recently. I'm ok with that, based on what I know.
I know this is offensive to many, but I believe that the act of homosexuality is a choice. It's not necessarily a choice to be attracted to someone of the same sex, but it's not a choice for a man to be attracted to women other than his own wife or for people do develop anger management problems either. To me, this is where morality hits reality. I sympathize with the many who are protesting the proposition 8 verdict; not with their cause but with their pain. However, for reasons that none of us can probably fully comprehend at this point, keeping marriage as defined by the unity of one man and one woman is what I believe to be best for the welfare of our country.
------
As a side note, everyone with interest should read up on the history and circumstances regarding Jefferson's letter containing the famous 'Separation of church and state' ideology. Just to get you started, it was written by him to the Danbury Baptists (Conn.) shortly after his election. Also make sure to read Justice Hugo Black's landmark 1947 Supreme Court ruling in Everson v. Board of Education. If you really want to be ambitious, just read the letter and the circumstances surrounding it and then read up on that court decision...don't read any commentary. Then make a decision for yourself on how everything should be interpreted. The pundits on both sides of the issue are extreme and overbearing!
