This is where I have decided to add all my comments about Solutions 2016, Heritage Foundation's report on issues for this election. This blog post is for the chapter on Housing, pages 49-51.
I am not a government expert, so my comments are from my point of view and based on my limited experience with life and the government. I read as much as I can, but I don't read a lot of the details of all the bills going through our governmental process, including the Dodd-Frank and some of the other government agencies referred to in this chapter.
I hear the names Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA (Federal Housing Authority) in the news, but they are just another government reference, like the IRS and Homeland Security and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). There is so much government that doesn't seem to directly affect my day-to-day life, I can't keep up with it all. I suppose I run on the same foundation as all these government offices, "crisis mode." When I need to know about it, I will search it out.
This is how so many of our laws, rules, regulations, and restrictions get passed... everyone in the country is trying to survive and doesn't have time to check it all out every single day. We are left to suffer the consequences.
Groups have formed, like the Heritage Foundation, to try to deal with this time commitment, and they are mostly funded by the wealthy because their profits are tied to these decisions. They are also trying to survive. This isn't just a Republican process, the Democrats have their own groups, so do other large interests. If I had money, I would be doing the same thing. I think you would, too.
I just want to make sure you know that my opinions are about the issues I see, and this may be a Heritage Foundation document, but it could be any other political publication -- even your daily news, in print or on the TV. Bias is part of the information process. We have to try to sift through all this data as best we can... and make our decisions as best we can with that information.
recent
In this chapter of Solutions 2016, there are many references to subsidy applications and government guarantees that bind the tax structure. We have committed our tax income, or maybe I should say it has been OVER committed, and now Washington is struggling to deal with the consequences of their actions in the past.
I have some of my own opinions about the housing "bubble" we continue to struggle through, but this report says it was caused by government policies that the public sector would not have been involved in. That may be true, but it was the banks that sold the mortgages. (I have said elsewhere that I believe someone got the bright idea to sell mortgages like they have sold student loans, but it didn't work the way they thought it would.) It was the banks that needed to be bailed out... the BIG banks. A lot of small banks were left to die.
I had to wonder in those days why the banks didn't just work with the homeowners... flex with the crisis... give them more time at the same interest level, or make it better. Banks had a choice, in my view, to help their homeowners survive their financial struggles so the banks would not have to suffer theirs. People who had been successfully making their payments suddenly were hit by outrageous interest on their home loans... it didn't have to end in foreclosure, but it did. Someone profited by this whole crisis... which speaks more to our moral issues than our financial difficulties.
It may have been impossible for the banks to flex with the situation because of regulations about lending, I don't know. This is one of the things in my "have no idea" files. I did think that the selling of these loans made the real people in those homes into just a line on a computer printout. It is easier to force legal rights on people you don't know personally, people who are just a piece of paper. If they change anything, I think they should change the ability of any financial institution to pass on their loan agreements to anyone. The ones who make the loans would need to service the loans they make, building their relationship and history with them, and being able to flex when necessary. I think that would create better decisions and less failure and loss for everyone.
Another issue I see in the conservative viewpoint is with government regulation of business activities, which they seem to think is "intrusion." If we were all moral individuals and ran our activities in a moral fashion, there wouldn't be a need for laws governing them. Too much regulation is a hindrance to accomplishing business goals, which includes jobs and profits. Sometimes these efforts to make the world a better place have a different motivation... to get rid of the competition, to make it easier for them, to control their part of the universe... etc... you get the idea. In my small efforts to start a business on my own, from a poverty background, I have found the expenses to be very difficult.
When I was living in Hollywood in the early 1980's, some of the people who lived in the neighborhood tried to support themselves by making and selling food to their neighbors. I imagine that is how they survived in their home countries, and I doubt the health department existed there. It was wonderful. I thought it was like the early cart vendors on the corners of busy locations. They were doing their best to provide for their families in their circumstances. Not bad people out to poison anyone, just starting from nothing and trying to build a new life. We have become too regulated when every action to improve one's life is tied to some form of tax income so the government can have a piece of it.
Conservatives hate government housing programs because the people who live in them are just a line on a computer printout. They have no meaning to them, so they are seen as blights on the taxes they want for their own purposes. I don't like to live in subsidized housing either... but it is all I have access to at my income level.
I have personally experienced years of housing struggles, with evictions and homelessness, in projects and in programs... they all have their problems and those who benefit by the government's funding to create them. I call them "planned poverty" because you have to be poor when you sign up, you have to stay poor to qualify when (years later) you finally get contacted, and you have to stay poor (or commit fraud) to keep living in them to remain in the same neighborhood, schools, jobs, and more. I don't consider subsidized housing to be a good choice for spending tax dollars to "eradicate poverty."
With the tiny home movement, I have been advocating for home ownership for low-income families, homeless individuals and families, and disabled persons. I have share several of my concepts in other blog posts and at Facebook. Ownership will bring stability to anyone... and poverty households, especially those with single parents, young children, and those who seem to slip through the cracks of our country's vision for changing the world of poverty, need stability most of all. It allows them to stay in one place, to have security, to build a life that won't be lost with the next financial crisis. Tiny homes can be had for a very small investment, and the payments can be made affordable to those who need them. Using the same 30% of income that subsidies require turns this housing outreach into a profitable investment.
So many options are available, but the government doesn't see them. All their plans are based on the past models. I think loans are an election pay-back vehicle, so there may be motives behind these choices. I really don't know. Maybe it is too hard to change the way the government works. I know I had years of failed efforts in trying to do it.
The amounts listed in this chapter are enormous. One of the ending facts stated that about 5 million people receive housing assistance at an average benefit of $8000 each. The details are missing so it is hard to judge what the money was spent on.
In my proposed tiny home biblical loan with a limit of $50,000 over 15 years, the payments would be less than $300 a month... which is affordable for many low-income households, but if there is a financial crisis, the government can flex with it.
That $8000 expense per person mentioned in the Heritage report would equal over 2 years of homeownership payments, and would be income rather than an expense to the government. I am guessing that $8000 barely makes one year of subsidized rent payments for the smallest (and usually worst living conditions) apartment in any urban setting.
In an ownership program, the monthly payments by low-income households would be income for the government. At the end of the repayment period there would be a small profit for the effort to change a family's life dramatically. Multiply that small profit by the 5 million participants that go with the $8000 estimate and you have more money to invest in poverty housing.
This seems like a better idea than budget battles every year to increase tax allocations for poverty housing efforts, with nothing to show for the investment at the end of the year or when a problem rises up to send a family back into the homeless cycle again and again and again....
Subsidies or income, recycled poverty or stability, which do you think are better ideas?
Monday, July 18, 2016
Thursday, July 14, 2016
The Target Boycott
I am up in what I call the "wee hours" -- I suppose that would be after midnight to morning, maybe 5 or 6 am. Right now it is 4:15am, but I first got up about 1am. When I can't sleep, I try to get up and get something done so the time isn't totally wasted. I was about the go back to bed when I read my JULY 2016 letter from the AFA (American Family Association) about the Target Boycott they are promoting.
I have been thinking about these issues for many years, but the bathroom challenge is the worst event so far. How to preserve the rights of ordinary people seems to be forgotten in the media extortions of the gay community. Worse, it can be difficult to recognize the most dedicated transgendered or gender-changing people involved in this political battlefield. It seems acceptable to violate the rights of most of America for the relatively few involved in this "need" for restroom access. It is an extension of the marriage issue... where men become women and women become men (physically, but not genetically)... so a "man and a woman" can still fulfill the law while violating the principal of it. We are truly in a pivotal moment in the history of the world.
I tend to see things from a biblical view because my focus is the End Times, where prophecy tells us that things will get difficult. Many of the parts of our daily life that are healthy for Mankind will get lost, changing our societies. Many of the battles for our souls will be won by the Enemy. The rise of the gay community in social and political realms is really evidence that prophecy is true... and that the time for Christians on Earth is nearly over.
What does a boycott against Target achieve? My letter from the AFA tells me ::
Target isn't the only store trying to find its way through this commerce dilemma. It happened to be the one that got "caught." I suppose their bull's-eye logo and corporate size helped a little in the choice of who to make the victim of this social and moral and political issue.
A boycott, by any side of any issue, brings unity to the opposition. Christians are trying to have their voice heard, and a boycott helps to do that. The money belt is always the most painful target for any group. It is why boycotts are waged.
In reading my letter from the AFA, I am reminded again that issues bring in donations. The gay community does the same thing :: seizing opportunities in the general news media to solicit funds for their cause. So does Planned Parenthood and National Right to Life. So does any group. To stay alive an organization has to generate donations/funds somehow. Issues are the tool that helps them stay alive. This funding connection always makes me wonder how much of a media event is truth and how much is hype to bring in the dollars.
My AFA letter has some other very important details in it ::
The other side of this conversation would make an argument opposite of this, stating their rights are more supreme than the rest of the country. Both claim to have the truth... and they probably do both have parts of the TRUTH... but the real truth is hidden in the middle of all of this rhetoric.
There are many different kinds of predators looking to take advantage of this "movement" to violate restroom gender in commercial businesses. The list includes pedophiles and voyeurs, possibly rapists and those involved in child sex trafficking. There are also earnest men who dress as women and women who dress as men - both of which may need to use a restroom when they go shopping and may not know which one to use. Ordinary people who want to go shopping and not be afraid to go to the restroom also have rights in this issue. How do we solve this dilemma? Who's rights prevail?
This process of lobbying for change is the same for every cause. Handicapped individuals had problems in our restroom world because few thought about their needs. As a previously homeless person, I can testify to the problems of homeless populations who need to access a restroom. What we are dealing with now is more than just access to a restroom, it involves the issue of gender, the need for separation of the genders in personal care activities, the right to privacy, the need for safety when you are vulnerable. Handicapped persons and homeless persons still used the gender-appropriate group restroom.
Stores are required, I believe, to have a certain number of restroom stalls for the size of their building. Like the number of parking spots required by the regulating government power, toilets cost money and take up space. The only possible solution I see to the restroom gender problem is to create individual private restrooms. And maybe they can (finally) be spread out around the different departments of a large store!
That is my view of the problem. Christians cannot stop what prophecy has already told us is coming. What we need to do is to find a way through these coming problems. I am not advocating total submission... I think the enemy of our souls needs to be battled against, and those who oppose us on moral grounds need to accept our rights as equal to their own. Solution respect both sides... I think individual handicap-accessible restrooms are our only option at this point.
I hope the remodeling starts today!
I have been thinking about these issues for many years, but the bathroom challenge is the worst event so far. How to preserve the rights of ordinary people seems to be forgotten in the media extortions of the gay community. Worse, it can be difficult to recognize the most dedicated transgendered or gender-changing people involved in this political battlefield. It seems acceptable to violate the rights of most of America for the relatively few involved in this "need" for restroom access. It is an extension of the marriage issue... where men become women and women become men (physically, but not genetically)... so a "man and a woman" can still fulfill the law while violating the principal of it. We are truly in a pivotal moment in the history of the world.
I tend to see things from a biblical view because my focus is the End Times, where prophecy tells us that things will get difficult. Many of the parts of our daily life that are healthy for Mankind will get lost, changing our societies. Many of the battles for our souls will be won by the Enemy. The rise of the gay community in social and political realms is really evidence that prophecy is true... and that the time for Christians on Earth is nearly over.
What does a boycott against Target achieve? My letter from the AFA tells me ::
The company's stock has fallen 20% since AFA called for the boycott. That computes to a loss of roughly $10 billion from the overall shareholder value of the company. In comparison to other major retailers, Target's stock has dropped 3 to 4 times more than the stock of its competitors.
On both Facebook and Twitter, Target has remained silent on the boycott. The importance of social media in business and marketing makes Target's silence significant.
Target isn't the only store trying to find its way through this commerce dilemma. It happened to be the one that got "caught." I suppose their bull's-eye logo and corporate size helped a little in the choice of who to make the victim of this social and moral and political issue.
A boycott, by any side of any issue, brings unity to the opposition. Christians are trying to have their voice heard, and a boycott helps to do that. The money belt is always the most painful target for any group. It is why boycotts are waged.
In reading my letter from the AFA, I am reminded again that issues bring in donations. The gay community does the same thing :: seizing opportunities in the general news media to solicit funds for their cause. So does Planned Parenthood and National Right to Life. So does any group. To stay alive an organization has to generate donations/funds somehow. Issues are the tool that helps them stay alive. This funding connection always makes me wonder how much of a media event is truth and how much is hype to bring in the dollars.
My AFA letter has some other very important details in it ::
[Christians are] angry that our own government is using its power to impose a lifestyle and belief system that relegates Christianity to the margins of our society when it should be front and center.
This radical idea that men who 'self-identify' as women should be able to use the restroom, locker room, or fitting room of their choice is ludicrous and defies common sense. And yet if you dare to speak out you're called a bigot and at risk of being fired from your job. (My note: or sent to "sensitivity training" - but only if you have the Christian viewpoint.)
Moreover, by having a policy that allows this, Target has opened the door for the predators among us to look for the most vulnerable as victims.
The other side of this conversation would make an argument opposite of this, stating their rights are more supreme than the rest of the country. Both claim to have the truth... and they probably do both have parts of the TRUTH... but the real truth is hidden in the middle of all of this rhetoric.
There are many different kinds of predators looking to take advantage of this "movement" to violate restroom gender in commercial businesses. The list includes pedophiles and voyeurs, possibly rapists and those involved in child sex trafficking. There are also earnest men who dress as women and women who dress as men - both of which may need to use a restroom when they go shopping and may not know which one to use. Ordinary people who want to go shopping and not be afraid to go to the restroom also have rights in this issue. How do we solve this dilemma? Who's rights prevail?
This process of lobbying for change is the same for every cause. Handicapped individuals had problems in our restroom world because few thought about their needs. As a previously homeless person, I can testify to the problems of homeless populations who need to access a restroom. What we are dealing with now is more than just access to a restroom, it involves the issue of gender, the need for separation of the genders in personal care activities, the right to privacy, the need for safety when you are vulnerable. Handicapped persons and homeless persons still used the gender-appropriate group restroom.
Stores are required, I believe, to have a certain number of restroom stalls for the size of their building. Like the number of parking spots required by the regulating government power, toilets cost money and take up space. The only possible solution I see to the restroom gender problem is to create individual private restrooms. And maybe they can (finally) be spread out around the different departments of a large store!
If we must make the change to individual, handicap-accessible restrooms, maybe some kind of tax relief is an option... and the sooner, the better !!
That is my view of the problem. Christians cannot stop what prophecy has already told us is coming. What we need to do is to find a way through these coming problems. I am not advocating total submission... I think the enemy of our souls needs to be battled against, and those who oppose us on moral grounds need to accept our rights as equal to their own. Solution respect both sides... I think individual handicap-accessible restrooms are our only option at this point.
I hope the remodeling starts today!
Thursday, July 7, 2016
America, Then and Now
I just finished reading the Imprimis issue I received today (May/June 2016), which contains the Commencement Address of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the 2016 graduates of Hillsdale College. The title was :: Freedom and Obligation. I was so impressed with several great sections of the text that I decided to share them here. I hope you will find them as moving as I did.
Justice Thomas was comparing the America of his youth to the America of today. The first statement that I noticed is below. I think it explains the premise of his youth.
Life was very different in those years. He lived in the South, so his life was even more different than what is considered normal today. Justice Thomas tries to explain what life was like for his family in those years, despite the hardships of prejudice and discrimination. Their faith is foundational in that response, in the attitudes that were shared from one generation to another. This description from another part of the speech might not be the same without the faith that guided their lives.
More than these thoughts, I found two passages that I felt were exceptional. I will share them here. the first is about the purpose behind establishing America ::
Justice Thomas goes on to share examples of his life to make his views more understandable, and he challenges the graduates about their future choices and how they will affect others. We don't know what will happen to us in our lifetime, and we don't always know how deeply our lives affect others. I liked the way he talked about these "lessons" in life, calling them an "unplanned syllabus," and binding them to the survival of our country...
Your can find the whole speech online at https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/freedom-obligation-2016-commencement-address/
I have heard it said many times in Christian circles that each generation MUST preserve the faith for it to continue... that we are one generation away from its demise. This is true of everything important, including our freedoms and our country.
I will end with this quote, about the danger we face in this generation. I hope you will read the entire speech to discover more.
Justice Thomas was comparing the America of his youth to the America of today. The first statement that I noticed is below. I think it explains the premise of his youth.
"If there was to be independence, self-sufficiency, or freedom, then we first had to understand, accept, and discharge our responsibilities."
Life was very different in those years. He lived in the South, so his life was even more different than what is considered normal today. Justice Thomas tries to explain what life was like for his family in those years, despite the hardships of prejudice and discrimination. Their faith is foundational in that response, in the attitudes that were shared from one generation to another. This description from another part of the speech might not be the same without the faith that guided their lives.
"They were law-abiding, hardworking, and disciplined. They discharged their responsibilities to their families and neighbors as best they could. They taught us that despite unfair treatment, we were to be good citizens and good people."Another great statement that goes along with the quote above is this one ::
"Being wronged by others did not justify reciprocal conduct."
More than these thoughts, I found two passages that I felt were exceptional. I will share them here. the first is about the purpose behind establishing America ::
"To establish a government based on the consent of the governed, as the Declaration of Independence makes clear, they gave up only that portion of their rights necessary to create a limited government of the kind needed to secure all of their rights."
Justice Thomas goes on to share examples of his life to make his views more understandable, and he challenges the graduates about their future choices and how they will affect others. We don't know what will happen to us in our lifetime, and we don't always know how deeply our lives affect others. I liked the way he talked about these "lessons" in life, calling them an "unplanned syllabus," and binding them to the survival of our country...
"These small lessons become the unplanned syllabus for learning citizenship, and your efforts to live them will help to form the fabric of a civil society and a free and prosperous nation where inherent equality and liberty are inviolable."
Your can find the whole speech online at https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/freedom-obligation-2016-commencement-address/
I have heard it said many times in Christian circles that each generation MUST preserve the faith for it to continue... that we are one generation away from its demise. This is true of everything important, including our freedoms and our country.
I will end with this quote, about the danger we face in this generation. I hope you will read the entire speech to discover more.
"Today there is much more focus on our rights and on what we are owed, and much less on our obligations and duties..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)