13 February 2010

American Social Economics for Non-Americans

In the beginning, there was Adam Smith.  Smith has been called the Father of Modern Economics, and he proposed that if merchants are allowed to promote their own self-interests, then the result will be good for their home municipality overall.  Take a baker, for example.  If a baker is going to promote his own self-interests - in this case, be successful in his business - then he will provide a top-notch product at a particular cost.  If he's unscrupulous in his quest, then likely he'll charge higher prices for his wares.  However, if a second baker opens shop, also offering a high quality product but at a more competitive price, then the first baker will be forced to close his doors or lower his prices in order to stay in business.  Meanwhile, the citizens in that area have a choice of which baker to patronize - or they may buy cinnamon rolls from one and Italian loaves from the other - and the citizens, as well as the bakers, will benefit.

Adam Smith's theories formed the basis for capitalism, an economic system based on free enterprise, unhindered by government interference.  This, in turn, helped form the foundation of what is commonly referred to as "The American Dream," the idea that with hard work and determination, everyone has the potential to achieve great things.  Smith, however, opposed the formation of monopolies, whereby one company had absolute control of an entire market.

This concept of a laissez-faire economic system has worked well for a few hundred years.  People work hard, make a living, make a life, pass both down to their children who either take over the family business or take their cut of the family money to a certain university and learn a new skill set which they can use to work hard and make their own way in the world.  Then along came the Great Depression and FDR's attempt to bail out the American people.

The plan was simple, and the plan was good.  Create jobs and invest a relatively small amount of money in helping people, initially farmers, then it spread to other strata of the population, allowing them to find other work.  Franklin Roosevelt's main and biggest program was the WPA - Works Progress Administration - which created jobs for millions of unemployed people, mainly men.  Few women were hired under the WPA, though those who were were trained and hired to sew linens and clothes for orphanages, hospitals and adoption centers.  The thinking behind this was, if two adults in the same family were hired, then that was one less job another breadwinner might get.  However, as many as 40% of women were heads of households, often taking care of up to five other people.

Roosevelt's New Deal laid the groundwork for much of what we've seen in America for the past 50 years.  The Social Security Act, which included welfare and social security, was a part of the New Deal, designed to be a temporary solution during the Great Depression.  The WPA ended in 1943 when employment in America skyrocketed as manufacturing companies had to hire a tremendous work force to keep up with war-time demand for planes, MREs, clothing for soldiers, weapons and so forth.  With the end of the Great Depression, it would make sense that all Depression-era government programs would end, but such wasn't the case.

Social Security was set up so that employees could pay out a little bit of their paychecks into a fund off which they could draw upon retirement.  FDR established social security as a way to help out workers as they got older.  Now, almost all of us in the private sector pay it, but the concern is that we'll never see it.  Ironically, Roosevelt was adamant that the funds would be safe from future politicians or even his contemporaries in Congress:  "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program."

I tweeted earlier today that, I wonder if non-American nations have citizens who make a living off of sucking the goverment's teat for generation after generation?  Not so surprisingly, none of my non-American followers jumped in and said, "No, we don't."  Drive through certain areas of town - any larger city in America, really - and you'll see slums of row houses, porches sagging, screens torn, broken windows covered with plastic or cardboard, satellite dishes and $40,000.00+ vehicles (Hummers, Escalades, Beemers and Benzes), their inhabitants sitting on the front porch in the middle of the day, talking.  Ask any teacher who works at the schools who serve these neighborhoods, and they'll tell you stories about the violence endemic in such areas and how this student is fourth generation welfare.  Some of the students want a better life; others - probably the majority - don't care.  Why work 40 hours a week when you can sit at home and still get paid for it?

And that brings us to today.  In 1996, then President Clinton passed a law that would make welfare temporary, maxing out a five years, and some states imposed even stricter guidelines, such as showing proof of having looked for a job for a month before receiving benefits.  Instead of states getting paid per welfare recipient, they were given a flat amount of money based on population.  Under these new policies, unemployment dropped and the number of welfare recipients dropped, indicating some success with the program.  With the huge government bailout that began in 2009 at the individual level, forecasters predict that welfare will once again rise with unemployment. 

Under Roosevelt's presidency, the national dept rose over 120% as he spent billions of dollars to bail out America.  If we don't learn from history, we're liable to repeat it, and that's certainly true in America today.  Obama wants to spend trillions of dollars to pass his own personal-agenda legislation.  He says that this money will go to create new jobs.  Where?  In China?  Will any of this money actually stay in America, encouraging factory owners to hire American employees instead of outsourcing production to China?  Likely not.  In his campaign, Obama promised a complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by the end of 2010.  Well, it's February 2010, and that 21st century Viet Nam doesn't seem any closer to an end.  Talk about deceptive!  Instead of working to dramatically reduce the number of troops in Iraq, he now wants to send 60,000 troops into Afghanistan, meaning more money and lives squandered.

At the beginning of The Crisis, Thomas Paine wrote:

These are the times that try men's souls:  The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.
We are here.  These next almost three years of enduring the Obama administration with its double talk, higher taxes and free-for-all spending (well, free for professional welfare recipients, illegals and so forth, but not for hard-working, legal Americans) will certainly try our souls.  "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly."  My conservative and libertarian brothers and sisters, while we do our Christian, biblically-mandated duty and pray for this administration, we also find and support that one candidate who will bring our country back to a more even keel, restoring balance and peace, not fear and dread.

08 February 2010

Just Don't Get It

This is a rewrite/update on an article I wrote a few years ago.  A friend reading it said, "You make it sound like it's all the husband's fault."  Unless a man's wife has given him her permission and blessing to screw around on her, it is his fault!

Last night, the wife of the friend whose marriage I was trying to save by posting My Confession read that article, but we're not sure if she recognized her husband in it or not.  Either she's blind, in denial or he hasn't confessed to her exactly what brought about his most recent devotion to her.  I'm glad that she's getting the attention she needs from her husband, but come ON, people!  I wonder if she knows exactly how many other women he's been with, both online and in real life?  I wonder if she knows how ferociously he's pursued me, to the point where I had to give up the warm-and-fuzzy friendlies and be exceptionally blunt (after trying to tell him nicely, but repeatedly, that I have no interest in meeting, let alone an affair)?  I think he said one time that she doesn't know about all of them.  I pity her.

I was thinking about this earlier...  If I had a dollar for every single time a man blamed his wife for his decision to screw around on her, we'd be living on a half-acre plot of prime waterfront real estate in our 3 BR/2.5 BA dream home with guest cottage.  Plus, I'd have my own brick-and-mortar shop, the foundation for a ministry, a new car and a fishing boat for my husband.  Really, I'm tired of hearing it.

Let's get this straight...  It doesn't matter if your wife puts out three times a day or three times a year, you still have no business screwing around on her.  I've heard it all...

"She doesn't have as high a sex drive as I do."

"She has no libido."

"She doesn't want sex."

"She only wants it once a week."

"She doesn't want to experiment like I do."

And the list goes on, and on... and on.

Stop blaming your wife!  Bottom line is, you are choosing to forsake your marriage vows, that promise you made to "forsake all others," so you can have the sex you want with the security of your wife still there by your side.  You want to have your cake and eat it, too.  Not only are you breaking your marriage vows, but you're also exposing her to god-only-knows-what kinds of sexually transmitted diseases.  That little honey who's willing to sneak away from her husband for a weekend of mind-blowing, chandelier-swinging monkey love with you has probably done this before, maybe even several times.  Do you know all the men she's been with?  Likely not.  I mean, geez... Can you be any more selfish?

If your wife's not interested in having sex with you, then you need to look at what you're doing that's resulting in her lack of desire.  Do you come home from work, all tired and stinky, change into bum wear and sit down in front of the TV until she gets dinner finished, only to return to the TV afterward?  When's the last time you showed appreciation for all she does for you - washing your clothes, cooking your meals, keeping the house straight, taking care of the children?  How long has it been since you two got dressed up and went out to eat without the kids in tow? 

Do you take care of yourself?  Do you expect your wife always to look like a Victoria's Secret model while you more closely resemble Homer Simpson?  Do you go to bed with facial stubble every night?  Have you ever surprised your wife with a little "manscaping"?  (Try that out when you'd like some oral sex, but don't make it conditional - respect her "no.")

I've known my share of men, all with their excuses for cheating.  "My wife is such a nag, and she never wants to have sex anymore."  "My wife's too out of it on pain meds to be interested in sex."  Reality check...  If I were married to you, I wouldn't want to have sex with you, either.  The husband of the nag has a cock the size of a roll of nickels - length and width - sweats profusely and looks like one of the mole people.  The pain med addict's husband smokes, has a million tattoos, has the world's worst haircut in the history of barbers and a cock even smaller than the first guy's.  (I later theorized that excessive drug use - both bragged about having done every drug known to man - leads to diminished size.)

If your wife isn't interested, look in the mirror.  Likely, you're the reason.