One of the Reasons I am voting for McCain

During the last two Democratic Presidencies (Carter and Clinton) laws were passed to make ways for people who couldn’t afford housing to purchase houses. Back in the day, people needed to come up with large down payments to be able to afford houses. The sub/prime loan market was created through the instrumentation of quasi-government agencies Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae, enabling people who previously couldn’t afford houses to purchase houses. The market was artificial and would have died of natural causes, but its life was extended by creative loan instruments such as interest only loans, negative amortization loans and self-certification of income loans. The market finally corrected itself this year. The Democrats would have you believe that the Republicans fell asleep at the switch and should have prevented the economy from falling apart under their watch. But such ideas assume the point in question: that the government, not the free markets, should drive the economy. If the government wishes to help the markets, the best thing they can do is laissez faire [let it be].

I am not heartless. The idea of people that can’t afford homes buying homes is a nice thought. But the way to get there has to be the combination increasing their earnings (through education and effort) and decreasing the cost of houses (through technology). But the Democrats plan to increase taxes and regulations for big business, hindering and removing the incentives for technological progress. Further, they plan to socialize basic needs, dissincentivizing education and hard work. The promise of someone fixing your problems for you sounds nice, but it's not always real.

There are many other reasons why I will vote for McCain, some more important than this, but this is one of them.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more