Recreating the Housing Crisis 101

The left continues to believe that the housing crisis was created solely by the big, bad, banks (and let’s admit, in part it was) at no fault of the poor, innocent consumers who bought in way over their heads (but let's also admit, it was largely the responsibility of the borrowers to not take out loans they knew the couldn't afford).  Despite unprecedented government intervention to make up for the unparalleled poor decision-making (and at times, out-right lying on mortgage applications) committed by millions of American borrowers, many on the left claim that the government’s bailout of those who borrowed way over their heads is “too little.”  A recent commentary on MyDD.com makes this very claim, and supports a recently-proposed “Compact for Home Opportunity” which proposes, among other things, requiring Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to reduce the principal on loans that are underwater.  The compact also proposes that those seeking home ownership and those in financial crisis be provided more counseling on the matters.  Such proposals, and blogs such as MyDD.com, which openly support them, can be easy to gloss over.  Certainly, the idea of allowing people to take out loans they know they can’t afford, then simply forgiving a large portion of the principal of those loans is silly, right?  Apparently not.  It is striking just how much traction these proposals gain as an increasing number of Americans expect the government to take care of them in all aspects of life and to bail them out of any trouble they cause for themselves.  This is yet another example of the left pandering to those who wish to continue to make poor decisions, and then turn to the government to “protect” them.  Such proposals would merely ensure another future housing crisis.  No matter how much counseling is provided to potential borrowers and those in crisis, if the precedent is set for a government-mandated principal reduction, then borrowers will be encouraged to again borrow far over their heads, with the knowledge that the government will again bail them out of the results of their poor decisions.  At some point, our society has to send a message that we are all responsible for our own decisions – whether they result in accumulation of wealth or in debt.  Somehow, I was unable to find any such proposal in the Compact for Home Opportunity or this blog in support thereof.

Complete Seperation

The piece in the New York Times brings many questions to light as to what the founding fathers really meant by the separation of church and state.  The authors shows both sides of the argument well.   Here he states there are many well educated people on both sides of this debate.
Many people believe there must be complete separation of the two institutions.  Though how can there be without discrimination happening to those who believe.  I do not believe that one can speak of their values without them being based in something.  If you are a religious person, your values are going to be based in your church.  How then do you separate the two?
This issue is interesting to me also because we have chosen to send our child to private school.  Our religious beliefs are so important and such a central part of our lives that we do not want our children to grow up with a world view that is to be void of the beliefs we hold near to us.
The author was able to catch my attention because most pieces I have found say there must be complete separation, not just a "wall of separation."  This article is written for those of us who believe there is room for "church" in the "state."