Where is the Democrats plan for social security?

Well, President Bush has unveiled some new ideas to help keep social security solvent in the future besides the personal accounts he proposed a few months ago. The ideas are still fairly general at this point, but at least he has come up with some ideas. I do give him credit for that, it would be easy in his second term to just let that one go, especially with all of the opposition his idea for personal accounts have gone up against, but he keeps on going.

One big complaint that I have is that the democrats have no plan of their own. Its fine that they want to oppose Bush's plan, they have that right, but shouldn't they also come up with some alternatives of their own? Tactics like that are what causes them to be labeled obstructionists, something that will not help them win back either the House, Senate or the Presidency. Their strategy with social security seems to be to shoot down the Republican plan but come up with nothing on their own, hoping they will win by the President's plan failing. This is a great opportunity to come up with a plan of their own that they could take credit for but they have not done that and they do not appear to be willing to do so at this time.

You would think they would have learned their lesson by now, but apparently not.

Dems, you need to start proposing solutions instead of just being the party of no.

My favorite topic- bankruptcy reform

As you might have noticed, I have been very critical of the overhaul (I mean cash giveaway ) of the bankruptcy laws that just passed both houses of Congress. Don't get me wrong, some reform is probably due, but lets not forgot that the bankruptcy process is not automatic, a judge presides over it and ultimately determines what debts you are allowed to discharge or if you need to pay them back. I am sure there has been some abuse of the system but probably not enough to warrant the overhaul of this magnitude.

I think calling this bankruptcy reform is not correct. It should be called the credit card and finanical service industry cash giveaway, kind of like the lottery, except this will pay off more often. This whole thing is a vicious circle started and in many cases, orchestrated by the credit card companies themselves. Now I don't think someone should be able to just charge up a fortune and then declare bankruptcy because they don't want to pay their bills. That is what the finance industry wants you to believe happens with most people that declare bankruptcy but that is not the case. I thought I remembered reading somewhere that about half of the bankruptcy filings out there are becuase of medical bills.

I might feel differently about this issue if the credit card companies were not at least partly to blame for this mess. They extend too much credit too easlily to people who should either not have it or not have that much. They start even in college before you are working. Then once you are deep in the hole the fun starts. Now again, the credit card companies are not holding a gun to anyone's head telling them to charge but they are responsible for issuing credit responsibly which they have not done.

For people on the ropes with lots of debt, the credit card companies to a great deal to put them further in the hole. If you are late by even one day, you get hit with a late charge of up to $40. Doesn't matter if you mailed a week earlier, if its not one time, its late and you get charged. Then if you are late, not just to them but to anyone that they can find out from, they jack your rate up to the penalty rate which is usually at least 22%, sometimes as high as 29%. If you have someone that is in financial trouble, and they jack your rate way up, not only will you pay more, but your balance will drop less even though you are paying more. Now its even harder to pay, basically they are pushing you to bankruptcy but now that you are there, they want you to have to pay up, even though they should bear part of the blame for getting you there. Now again, its not all their fault, but as you can see from the steps above, if someone is on the ropes financially, these companies make it hard to catch up. In the above situation, if that person is close to their limit and then go over because of the extra finance charges, boom, a $39 late fee.

The credit card companies (and other financial companies) have been lobbying for this reform for about a decade and they have spend a massive amount of money on this effort. In this case it looks like they got what they paid for didn't they?

Watch over the next year or two, I predict even though the change in bankruptch rules should help these companies financially, they will not lower credit card rates at all, even though they should because they have less risk now. So when they borrow at prime rate, currently 5.75 % and they jack someone's credit card rate up for being two days late one time on their car payment, how can you not call it a cash grab? That is a spread in that case of nearly 20%, pretty healthy, I can see why Congress needed to bail them out. My prediction is that you will see record or near record earnings from credit card companies in the next 18 months to 2 years as a result of this, but just remember its not about money, its just to stop abuse. Did they man by borrowers or lenders, becuase the lender abuse will continue.

Gay marriage

I decided to post something about this controversial topic since its been in the news around here the past few weeks, especially with Kansas passing a constitutional amendment banning not only gay marriage but also civil unions. I was not surprised that it passed since Kansas is a fairly conservative state and if can pass in Missouri you would think Kansas would pass something as well. I myself am against gay marriage, I think that should be left between a man and a woman. I don't really have a problem with civil unions because why should say two guys living together not get the same rights as a man and woman living together whom are not married. In a common law state I could see why people would be against that since that could basically give them rights similar to married people after a few years.

Judging from the response around the country, I don't think gay people will have the right to get married virtually anywhere, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. But they may have the right to form a civil union where they would get some of the financial and other benefits of being married. I myself am not deadset against that at this point. I am not necessarily thrilled about it, but last time I checked it was not legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation so not sure why that would be legal. I am not gay, nor do I claim to even understand that lifestyle, but I also don't view it as my responsiblity or right to tell others how they should live and who they should be. Is there really any reason that two guys or two women living together should get fewer rights than a man and a woman, would that not be discrimination if they aren't treated equally? I would have no problem with a man and woman that lived together getting the same treatment as a civil union either, I think you should treat both groupsl the same there. Keep in mind I am looking at this here from a legal, rather than moral or religious, issue.

Unfortunately, some people still are of the notion that anyone that is gay is either mentally incompetent or a deviant, that kind of thinking has pretty much been debunked except to the very conservative or religious. I myself don't understand why anyone would want to be gay, but I don't believe that anyone just decides to be gay, they end up that way somehow. To look at a gay person is having some kind of mental issue is pretty narrow minded and frankfully, pretty damn dumb. Why would anyone just choose to be gay if they had a choice in the matter? Would that even make sense? Granted, I am not gay so I guess I can't say for sure either, but it sounds rather silly.

An even thornier issue involves gay couples raising kids. This obviously has religious groups in an uproar, but then again, what doesn't these days? I think I would want to see some actual scientific evidence (not religious, scientific) before I would want to make up my mind on that. I am not worried about the prospective parents as much as the kids. I wonder how that would work out, besides the obivous things like getting picked on by other kids for having "queer parents". Would their kids turn out okay, would they be predisposed to ending up gay themselves, would their development be the same as with straight parents? I don't think anyone knows the answer to that question yet. Yes, there are some anti gay groups that think they have the answer, but considering the fact that they had their answer before they knew the question, I put about as much faith in their opinion as the average guy on the street.

I am still puzzled by those that view gay people as having a sickness or illness that can be cured. Yes, there are a small number that turn out to be heterosexual, but for the most part, it is not something that people can change about themselves. Despite all the religious rhetoric against it, homosexuality was apparently around even in Roman and Greek times and probably before that, people were just not very open about it. I have heard people use the bible as justification to prevent people from being gay, but to be truthful about the bible, you can use some part of it to back up about any viewpoint. Also keep in mind that the bible is a collection of stories handed down multiple times that is not necessarily exactly 100% historically accurate. It might be but it might not be. But to stay on task you can use the bible to support all sorts of viewpoints, including opposite sides of the same argument. In the 1850's you probably had southerners use it to justify keeping slaves.

The think I find the most puzzling about people's behavior around gay people is that (especially guys) people act like they will be converted if they have gay friends or hang out with gay people. Or that the gay person will hit on them or something. Kind of funny. I don't have any close friends that are gay, but I have worked with several people that are gay and you know what? Other than there sexual orientation, they were just like everybody else.

Overall, I am a little concerned that so many people across the country are for the first time actively passing or trying to pass constituional amendments not to give people more rights, but rather to take them away or prevent them being granted to certain people. Look back to our founding fathers and that is not exactly consistent with what they had in mind now was it? If you are against gay marriage (or for it for that matter), good for you. But it does not belong in our constitution next to the Bill of Rights and other amendments that give, rather than take away people's rights! Is this the United States of America or the Socialist States of the America's?

Such amendments lean to the latter, and I personally find that kind of scary.

What do you think?