Church tonight, Russian thoughts

[Steelharp]

I have to work in the morning, so we went to church tonight. Pastor just got back from a week in Russia, and he had some interesting things to say.

I understand the "spirit of oppression" he was speaking of; I was there before Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." It was an awesomely foreboding place, almost seemed like a cloud line that began at that border and just extended into the country endlessly. Anyway, back to tonight.

He had plenty of pictures showing a government building where church was held. He explained how the pictures didn't show the rundown condition of the building, cracked ceilings, worn floors, etc., all things common to many places in a socialist state. He said that while it's not possible for him to promote any candidate from the pulpit, he was very much aware how the powers that be there are pulling for one specific candidate here, one wishing to "redistribute the wealth," etc. here. Those powers there want this because they know it will make America the third world country that they want it to be, instead of the power it has been. "Here we have rich and poor, but under socialism, all you have is poor." As his host said, "In America, you are proud to be Americans. Here in Russia, we want to be anything but Russian. We are embarrassed, ashamed."

Vote. Vote smart, not trendy. Vote for our country, not for its' belittlement. Stand proud as an American.

Those that wish, forward this to everyone you can. You have my permission.

[Guest Honest AK]

Did your pastor ask any of the Russians what they thought of the socialist Republicans who gave us welfare for Wall Street?

Both the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees on the Republican side approve of the government carrying out this socialist policy.

Hell, it was their main man, Glorious Leader that was the driving force behind it.

Before you go name calling at the Democrats, look at the candidates you are voting for.

Ask your pastor if Jesus would take from people being evicted from their homes so they could give it to rich and unethical business men.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Honest AK

[towerclimber37]

Did your pastor ask any of the Russians what they thought of the socialist Republicans who gave us welfare for Wall Street?

Both the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees on the Republican side approve of the government carrying out this socialist policy.

Hell, it was their main man, Glorious Leader that was the driving force behind it.

Before you go name calling at the Democrats, look at the candidates you are voting for.

Ask your pastor if Jesus would take from people being evicted from their homes so they could give it to rich and unethical business men.

Once again I see you shilling for democrats.

back it up with facts.

I will state categorically that President Bush pressed for changes and regulations as early as 2003.

He advocated the bail out bill for one reason.

he is the leader of our country and as a country we have to take responsibility for our mistakes, or suffer a world economy collapse.

The republicans that you speak of have their backs against a wall..they either try and fix this mess that we're in and lose their jobs ( and oh yes..they WILL lose their jobs..hide and watch) or they let the world go to hell in a handbasket and reduce us to a 3rd world country over night.

they're put in the unfortunate position of making the best of 2 very bad decisions.

as for the people being evicted..hmm lets see here.

you're not paying your mortgage? out ya go.

you're a renter who's landlord hasn't paid his mortgage? out you go...that isn't fair..but life isn't always fair and we have to be strong enough to deal with what life throws at us.

[Guest Honest AK]

Once again I see you shilling for democrats.

back it up with facts.

I will state categorically that President Bush pressed for changes and regulations as early as 2003.

He advocated the bail out bill for one reason.

he is the leader of our country and as a country we have to take responsibility for our mistakes, or suffer a world economy collapse.

The republicans that you speak of have their backs against a wall..they either try and fix this mess that we're in and lose their jobs ( and oh yes..they WILL lose their jobs..hide and watch) or they let the world go to hell in a handbasket and reduce us to a 3rd world country over night.

they're put in the unfortunate position of making the best of 2 very bad decisions.

as for the people being evicted..hmm lets see here.

you're not paying your mortgage? out ya go.

you're a renter who's landlord hasn't paid his mortgage? out you go...that isn't fair..but life isn't always fair and we have to be strong enough to deal with what life throws at us.

I'm not shilling for any Democrat.

The fact that people are losing their homes while both parties bail out Wall Street is common knowledge. Why would you need me to prove it to you?

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the bailout if helping people keep their homes was part of the plan. Why would that be such a problem for you?

You justify the bailout by saying we would go to hell in a handbasket without it but then say that people should be tough enough to handle whatever life throws at us.

As long as you're not inconvenienced, it's fine isn't it?

[Guest jackdog]

I would have a lot less of a problem with the bail out had congress reworked the laws to put regulation back in to play, which they failed to do. Also they did little or nothing to stop major payouts to the fat cats. Any way you slice this pie the taxpayer is getting screwed and the fat cats are having a ball along with their political lackeys that include both parties.

[Guest sermon8r]

I dont see how any Bible believing Christian could support a Democrat.

The party of killing unborn babies.

[NuTcAsE]

I dont see how any Bible believing Christian could support a Democrat.

The party of killing unborn babies.

Partially born babies, babies that survive an abortion....

Or championing welfare, "earn thy bread...".

[Im Neero]

you're a renter who's landlord hasn't paid his mortgage? out you go...that isn't fair..but life isn't always fair and we have to be strong enough to deal with what life throws at us.

Can you provide any sort of justification for holding this opinion? I have trouble thinking of a reason that a responsible, rent paying tenant should be thrown out of their home without any sort of "fair" reason. I'm talking about a case where a tenant has met every one of their legal obligations to stay in their home.

[Guest Dean_JC78]

Did your pastor ask any of the Russians what they thought of the socialist Republicans who gave us welfare for Wall Street?

Both the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees on the Republican side approve of the government carrying out this socialist policy.

Hell, it was their main man, Glorious Leader that was the driving force behind it.

Before you go name calling at the Democrats, look at the candidates you are voting for.

Ask your pastor if Jesus would take from people being evicted from their homes so they could give it to rich and unethical business men.

Bush is NOT a Conservative

McCain is NOT a Conservative

Palin is but part of her job as a VP is to back up McCain. Sadly it has compromised her in some ways.

20 years ago neither Bush nor McCain with their current positions would even be in the GOP. Neither one of them are true Republicans.

While both of these losers shoved the bailout down our mouths, it was the Republicans that resisted this crap. The votes came down to Bush and McCain with the Democrats against the Republicans.

The Republicans lost this election the second McCain stole the nomination. Palin is the only one left but she is being "handled".

[towerclimber37]

Can you provide any sort of justification for holding this opinion? I have trouble thinking of a reason that a responsible, rent paying tenant should be thrown out of their home without any sort of "fair" reason. I'm talking about a case where a tenant has met every one of their legal obligations to stay in their home.

I can think of only ONE reason.

The home doesn't belong to them. They don't hold the deed.

yes, I know that sucks. I also know that in Nashville, the sheriff had the common sense to state that he would NOT be serving eviction notices to folks because of the housing problems. I applauded that guy.

If you have figured it out, I'm rooting for the tenants, unfortunately, in many places, it won't go their way. Its a kick in the head. the SAME party that many poor folks vote into power are the SAME ones that are putting them out on the street.

Khallil Gebran once said "you pay for your joys and your sorrows long before you experience them".

[Guest Dean_JC78]

If the banks were smart then they would allow the tenats to stay as long as possible so they can recover some of their money. But then again if the banks were smart then they would not be in this mess now.

[towerclimber37]

If the banks were smart then they would allow the tenats to stay as long as possible so they can recover some of their money. But then again if the banks were smart then they would not be in this mess now.

True. but they would have to figure some way out to keep the tennants and become the landlord, which banks just don't do...though they may end up doing in the future, to recoup their losses.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the bailout if helping people keep their homes was part of the plan. Why would that be such a problem for you?

Rescuing people who default on their mortgages would be a problem for me simply because I HAVEN'T defaulted. I've lived within my means. Saved. Been frugal. Been a responsible adult. I should be rewarded for that, not punished. I shouldn't have to tithe to the State so that they can bail out irresponsible fools who made interest-only, sub-prime mortgages with a payment at 70% of their gross income. Stupidity should be painful.

[towerclimber37]

Rescuing people who default on their mortgages would be a problem for me simply because I HAVEN'T defaulted. I've lived within my means. Saved. Been frugal. Been a responsible adult. I should be rewarded for that, not punished. I shouldn't have to tithe to the State so that they can bail out irresponsible fools who made interest-only, sub-prime mortgages with a payment at 70% of their gross income. Stupidity should be painful.

I know exactly what you're talking about Hillbilly.

I know someone who is in exactly your position. he's worked VERY hard and put MORE money to his mortgage than required. as it is, he's paid of about 16 years of his mortgage in 5 years. He's working hard to get it paid off and has made genuine sacrifices to see that happen.

For those who "flip houses", I have no remorse or regret for them. they get what they deserve. that sounds harsh but that's how I feel about it. I also have a friend that did just that. he's 55 years old and now he's back on the towers, working because he tried to use the equity in his house to buy 2 more houses and try to flip them. he's kept his one house, sold the other 2 for well below market value and now he's got a travel trailer to live out of so he can keep most all of his per diem..and pay off his debts. His credit is now a non entity. I'll give him this though, He's responsible for his mess and is working to fix it, even when it requires real sacrifice.

[Guest Honest AK]

Rescuing people who default on their mortgages would be a problem for me simply because I HAVEN'T defaulted. I've lived within my means. Saved. Been frugal. Been a responsible adult. I should be rewarded for that, not punished. I shouldn't have to tithe to the State so that they can bail out irresponsible fools who made interest-only, sub-prime mortgages with a payment at 70% of their gross income. Stupidity should be painful.

Normally I would agree but since we were forced to commit so much money to prop up Wall Street, I feel like some provisions should have been made to help people keep their houses.

The firms on Wall Street are very well connected in Washington. They can speak with high level politicians on a moments notice if they want to. The people getting evicted have no connections. Their representatives in our government have turned their backs on them.

I'm not the least bit qualified to offer any insight on what should have been done to help homeowners but I believe Dave Ramsey advocated

rolling the delinquent amount back into the balance of the loan. Make them current again and if they don't resume payments within a certain amount of time, then go forward with the foreclosure.

I could be all wrong about this but if we're going to cut banks so much slack, I feel like we could give "Joe Six Pack" another chance as well.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Normally I would agree but since we were forced to commit so much money to prop up Wall Street, I feel like some provisions should have been made to help people keep their houses.

The firms on Wall Street are very well connected in Washington. They can speak with high level politicians on a moments notice if they want to. The people getting evicted have no connections. Their representatives in our government have turned their backs on them.

I'm not the least bit qualified to offer any insight on what should have been done to help homeowners but I believe Dave Ramsey advocated

rolling the delinquent amount back into the balance of the loan. Make them current again and if they don't resume payments within a certain amount of time, then go forward with the foreclosure.

I could be all wrong about this but if we're going to cut banks so much slack, I feel like we could give "Joe Six Pack" another chance as well.

I'm for rescuing neither party. Let the whole thing crash and burn.

I'm also fully in favor of prosecuting the democrats who blocked regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Repeal the CRA as well.

[TripleDigitRide]

as for the people being evicted..hmm lets see here.

you're not paying your mortgage? out ya go.

you're a renter who's landlord hasn't paid his mortgage? out you go...that isn't fair..but life isn't always fair and we have to be strong enough to deal with what life throws at us.

I see what you're saying, but why should the little people be out on the street while the ultra rich are being bailed out. I'm far from an expert on the subject, but it looks as if both groups have made some very bad decisions, but the ultra rich are being rewarded for screwing up while the little people are forced to fend for themselves.

[Guest Honest AK]

I'm for rescuing neither party. Let the whole thing crash and burn.

I'm also fully in favor of prosecuting the democrats who blocked regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Repeal the CRA as well.

We could do that too. Maybe that is what the country needs. I think I'm ready for it. That's not what the government decided to do, though. They went on TV and told the sheeple that if they don't "act now", they might actually be inconvenienced. The idea of that scares the hell out of most Americans. I guess that's how Washington gets away with it.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

We could do that too. Maybe that is what the country needs. I think I'm ready for it. That's not what the government decided to do, though. They went on TV and told the sheeple that if they don't "act now", they might actually be inconvenienced. The idea of that scares the hell out of most Americans. I guess that's how Washington gets away with it.

I don't think it's fear on the part of the people. It's apathy. So much of our population lives from hand to mouth and could care less what goes on above their income bracket. You can add to that the ever-growing number of people that have sold their vote to politicians who promise them a life of ease financed by the tax dollars of the working population.

[Guest Honest AK]

I don't think it's fear on the part of the people. It's apathy. So much of our population lives from hand to mouth and could care less what goes on above their income bracket. You can add to that the ever-growing number of people that have sold their vote to politicians who promise them a life of ease financed by the tax dollars of the working population.

You make a good point.

[Guest tedbo]

I 'm not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer,but I can't help but see the parallels in what the peasants endured from the lords and nobles in England hundreds of years ago and we the people here and now.

The peasants were "allowed' to live where they did by paying for the priviledge every year.

Are we not in the same boat? Meaning that you can have your house and property paid off but you still need to pay for the priviledge every year. If for whatever reason you are not able to pay in the course of said year you will recieved unhealthy consequences.

If I remember my history back in the 1880's and early 1900's before FDR that was not the case. What,where and why did it change?

Feel free to correct me,as I am thick skinned.

[Im Neero]

I can think of only ONE reason.

The home doesn't belong to them. They don't hold the deed.

Thanks for your response.

I am currently re-evaluating my views on property rights. Before anyone says anything, I'm not a communist, nor am I endorsing any kind of "from each according to his ability" type doctrine, but I see a lot of situations where it looks like irresponsible lending on the part of a bank is ultimately hurting someone that did no wrong, in the case of responsible tenants.

I have yet to come up with any sort of justification for letting the banks, who were in the wrong, evict the tenants, who did no wrong, other than the one you mentioned. I just don't know if this is compelling.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't have property rights, or that we shouldn't give them great weight when making legal decisions, but it seems to me that there are certain principle of fairness that are more important than the legal reality at times.

In addition, the harm done to the bank by making them allow the tenant to stay in his home seems to be disproportionate to the harm done to the tenant by evicting him. The bank can most likely work out a deal with the renter that will end up with the bank receiving as much, if not more, payment than they were getting previously, or will get by selling the house at auction. Contrarily, the renter is literally tossed out on the street with little notice, and put into a hard financial position in what is without a doubt the most trying economic times of my life, maybe since the Great Depression.

So, what do you guys think? Is the ownership of a property a strong enough reason to outweigh all of the other concerns that I just mentioned?

[Guest grimel]

I would have a lot less of a problem with the bail out had congress reworked the laws to put regulation back in to play, which they failed to do. Also they did little or nothing to stop major payouts to the fat cats. Any way you slice this pie the taxpayer is getting screwed and the fat cats are having a ball along with their political lackeys that include both parties.

Okay, just what regulation do you think needs to be "put back"? What fat cats got these major payouts? Who are they backing/helping?

[Guest grimel]

If the banks were smart then they would allow the tenats to stay as long as possible so they can recover some of their money. But then again if the banks were smart then they would not be in this mess now.

If the banks had been left alone we wouldn't be in this mess now.

If the Democrats had not blocked Bush's attempts to fix Freddie and Fannie we wouldn't be in this mess now.

If the Democrats had anything remotely resembling "ethics" Barney Frank wouldn't have been writing laws that covered his boyfriend's company and we wouldn't be in this mess now.

[Guest grimel]

but it looks as if both groups have made some very bad decisions, but the ultra rich are being rewarded for screwing up while the little people are forced to fend for themselves.

One group was forced to make bad decisions. One group willingly made bad decisions. We only "have" to bail out the group "we" (via our gov) pushed into bad decisions.