Odious

Joan Garry, in a post on HuffingtonPost.com asks a question that sums up why I will never EVER be a liberal, “What kind of BOSS does Barack Obama want to be?”.

Now, understand what Garry is really talking about. She is pushing a gay agenda in government employment, knowing such government moves are often soon echoed in regulations imposed on the private economy. She wants people who claim minority status based on how they flaunt the use of their sex organs to be granted a protected status in employment and other areas of American life. A proposal like this one is a drip in the water-torture approach gay advocacy groups have chosen to press their agenda.

Next, understand what I am talking about. You and I are co-owners of a vast and sometimes inertia-bound corporation. It is we, and not the officers of that corporation, who are the employers and the setters of policy for the United States Government. Policies advocated by the majority today may not be what I would want, but that does not supplant the owners in general with the new administration.

Let me be absolutely clear and succinct on the matter of the head of government being the boss. His job is not to make policy and force it on us. It is to enact policy we desire to have made. He can propose policy. He can press forward with policy choices he believes we have sanctioned, as President Bush attempted to do with Social Security reform, but if we do not concede to him those prerogatives he must fail or he becomes a usurper.

I do not work for the government. I might some day find it acceptable to be employed by the federal government, in which case my employment would be subject to the administration of those officials chosen to enact the policies of the government's owners, of whom I am one. Otherwise, however, the president of the United States is simply one of OUR employees. My citizenship prerogatives as an owner of this enterprise will never, under any circumstances whatsoever, be subject to "employment" or "management" of the president, whomever he may be.

Joan Garry is trying to do an end-around to subvert the will of the people of this country. If it is the choice of the American people not to be taken in by the artifice of imagined minority status and imposed elitist regulation of our attitudes toward sexuality or, indeed, any other matter of deep social importance it is insurrection for the president to impose those things on us.

Don't be intimidated into thinking otherwise.

Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at February 19, 2009 10:24 AM
Comments
Comment #275765

So, you would be against a non-discrimination bill if it included sexual orientation?

Posted by: womanmarine at February 19, 2009 11:26 AM
Comment #275766

Lee

“Joan Garry is trying to do an end-around to subvert the will of the people of this country.”

this is typical of liberals who constantly refer to the country as a ” DEMOCRACY ” an believe the will of the majority should usurp the freedoms of individuals. we hear constantly that since obama won in a ” LANDSLIDE ” that he has political capital to spend, and if you don’t like it thats tough.

these same folks however when public opinion, and ballot box results don’t land in thier favor, claim that somehow thier rights have been violated, california is a perfect example. they lost at the ballot box, so they look to the courts to overturn the the will of the people they claim to respect. mind you they lost twice.

personally i don’t care who someone chooses to pair up with if you will, but seeking minority or protected status is nonsense.

“minority status based on how they flaunt the use of their sex organs to be granted a protected status”

IMO Lee this has less to do with equal rights, and more to do with forcing the general populace to accept thier lifestyle as normal when IMO, and the opinion of the majority it truely isn’t. to the best of my knowlege california has allowed civil unions, and same gender couples to have the same privilages as married men and women. the battle there has always been about the term marriage, not equal treatment. this is a war of ideology, and thus far a war they are losing.

if we force the private sector to recognize sexual orientation as a protected minority what will be next ?

Posted by: dbs at February 19, 2009 11:30 AM
Comment #275775

dbs,

Some such as, perhaps, womanmarine would say this is a matter of equal rights. If it were acceptable for the government to seek out our sexual orientation, projected or not, and discriminate against people for what they feel inwardly this would be a legitimate issue.

That is not what is happening. Homosexuals who really wish to keep their sex lives private are being “outed” by other homosexuals because the fight really is about making promiscuous sexuality of all types the accepted norm.

I’ve had a number of good friends who lived their lives in quiet, monogamous relationships. It is nobody’s damn business with whom they sleep or live in a supportive, enduring relationship. But people have been able to do that for many decades.

No. This is about people placing the use of human beings as hedonistic toys into a special protected behavioral category.

That is not acceptable.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 19, 2009 12:08 PM
Comment #275776

Lee:

No, it’s actually about non-discrimination in the workforce and the military. You have way too much sex on the mind.

It is not an attempt to change your personal beliefs about sexual orientation, just whether or not you act on them in a discriminatory manner in the workplace or in hiring practices.

What is it with Republicans and sex anyhow?


Posted by: womanmarine at February 19, 2009 12:21 PM
Comment #275778

Lee

i agree that seeking status as a protected class because of sexual orientation is wrong, and as you say unacceptable, and i also agree that those who are grandstanding, and squaking are doing a dis service to those who choose to keep thier private lives private. i have never seen a application for employment that asked what you do at home behind closed doors, so the discrimination cries IMO are more an agenda for changing public opinion, than an actual desire for prtected status.

Posted by: dbs at February 19, 2009 12:26 PM
Comment #275780
What is it with Republicans and sex anyhow?

womanmarine, maybe they just plain don’t get enough of it and it makes them irritable……or to be more correct, they just like to force their beliefs on everyone else.

Posted by: jane doe at February 19, 2009 12:42 PM
Comment #275781

womanmarine

if you fill out a job application and there isn’t any question on that app. as to what you do in your private life, then how can that employer discriminate ? the employer can choose not to hire you for pretty much any reason, and you would never know what the actual reason was.

if you don’t make an issue out of your sexual orientation on the app. the employer has absolutely no way of knowing that you are gay or lesbian.
that is why IMO making an issue out of your private life is really counter productive.

a private co. can set it’s own policies with regards to benefits, and you have the choice as to whether you would choose to remain there or not. as an employer i would offer spousal coverage to ALL my employees, or to NONE of them as a whole, but that would be my choice. i would not differentiate as to whether the partner covered was of the same, or a different sex, but you would only get to cover one. that being said other private employers get to decide for themselves what coverge they choose to offer. the gov’t has no business forcing an employer to pay benefits they choose not to offer. the gov’t as an employer is a different story, and i honestly have an answer for that.

Posted by: dbs at February 19, 2009 12:46 PM
Comment #275783


Lee, how are conservative Republicans different from liberal Democrats when it comes to dictating policy that the American people disagree with? When the Republicans were in power, they could have gone after the employers of illegal immigrants with a vengence, something the American people were very much in favor of.

I am so sick of both political parties dictating to the American people then playing off against each other. Because of their corrupt two party system, the American people have few options to put an end to this dictatorial governance disguised as democracy.

Posted by: jlw at February 19, 2009 1:06 PM
Comment #275784

It’s a good thing our country isn’t in an economic crisis and everyone has a good job, otherwise this kind of crap wouldn’t see the light of day!

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 19, 2009 1:11 PM
Comment #275785

I miss Jack

Posted by: angrymob at February 19, 2009 1:32 PM
Comment #275788

womanmarine

that last sentence should read” i don’t have an answer for that.” sorry.

Posted by: dbs at February 19, 2009 1:56 PM
Comment #275789

What I see here is that she’s advocating that rules that already protect Government employees from being fired for their sexuality be extended to soldiers. I don’t see why not, regardless of how they “flaunt the use of their sexual organs.”

The truth is, somebody can be inadvertantly revealed as gay, and that can get them fired. Do you understand that under this policy, the admission of sexuality alone is a firing offense in the army. You don’t have to flaunt your sexuality to end up kicked out. And its a shame to do it. We’re long past the era where homosexuality was considered a mental illness, long past the time where the admission of sexuality is considered odd in much of society.

Most of these people just want to live as they are, without living a lie. Most folks in the military think the provision is out of date anyways, and a hindrance to the military.

Barack Obama is the Commander in Chief, by the way, and it’s his decision whether “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” continues. She’s not doing an end run, she’s talking to the right man.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 19, 2009 2:13 PM
Comment #275790

You don’t have to accept somebody living a gay lifestyle, but you should always respect their right to live it.

I’m not quit sure what your bringing up here, Lee.

Posted by: kctim at February 19, 2009 2:22 PM
Comment #275791

jlw,

If the American people were in favor of “illegal immigration”, as you put it, they would demand that the framework for legalizing the immigration of which you speak be passed out in the open. In fact they don’t. Therefore the key word is “illegal”.

That’s a concept many liberals seem unable to understand. I’m personally all for a commonsense framework for legal immigration. I’m wholeheartedly opposed to rewarding violations of the law.

I also don’t want the government dictating to me what my children must learn will be accepted as normal social and sexual behavior. I also don’t want the government dictating special rights for people who go out of their way to wave a banner for certain sexual behaviors.

The fact that commentors here would take my statements as advocacy for some position on how others will express their personal sexuality only goes to prove the point that this is a fight to insist on people revealing their own intimate lives. My sexuality is not partizan. It is personal.

And most of us just don’t want to know.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 19, 2009 2:29 PM
Comment #275793

Lee Jamison-
Would somebody get dismissed from the army for having a child out of wedlock? For being in an ongoing relationship with a person they’re not married with? For indulging in S+M? For admitting to being a Furry (nasty as that is?)

The government will not be dictating what your children will consider normal. They will be simply allowing gays to serve in the military, whether others consider that normal or not.

Your message seems to amount to this being about GLBT folks rubbing their sexuality in your face, corrupting your children. Who cares? This isn’t about you. This about their rights. Is your right to be undisturbed by who they let into the Military more important than their right to serve as the equal of any man or woman (or any furry or leather freak for that matter)? This is not about granting them special rights. This about letting them have the rights that most able-bodied folks have.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 19, 2009 2:58 PM
Comment #275800

What is minority status? It is a set aside that gives special attention to a group of people with a history of being disadvantaged. Some see that as privelege. The truth is that it is feeble compensation for a long history of wrongs.

Refusing to acknowledge a known disadvantage speaks volumes. The privileged class becomes accustomed to their privilege and begin to see it as birth right. Let them eat cake. Remember Paris crying when she went to jail, like so many minorities do everyday? Somehow this rant reminds me of her.

Posted by: gergle at February 19, 2009 6:23 PM
Comment #275801

30 years ago, you would have been complaining about liberals giving blacks jobs…

I’m surprised you care about this at all. This kind of stuff gets you going? Not the state of economy? The war we (including gays) are fighting? I think that’s sad.

Posted by: Max at February 19, 2009 6:27 PM
Comment #275805

It does get more complicated when we start taking into account spousal benefits for people that are not allowed to marry the person of the choice.
Perhaps another end run is in order and BHO will get universal healthcare and make at least one those benefits a mute point.

Posted by: bills at February 19, 2009 9:57 PM
Comment #275810

Lee,

Everybody has an agenda, so it isn’t surprising that be gay folks wish to be accepted for who they are, not BTW, who they are perceived to be. The gays I know don’t want anything special, they just want the same equal rights that everybody else in this country enjoy.
The folks that throw their “gayness” in your face are a minority within a minority. Most gays are hard working, tax paying citizens that are wishing to be full fledged Americans. Unfortunately, for the most part, those gays that are just regular folks, are also just a slip of the lip away from losing their jobs, or even worse, getting their ass kicked, for just being gay.

There was great hue and cry recently when someone sued to have “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.
It seems to me that you folks on the right deem the “under God” part far more important than the “with liberty and justice for all” part.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 20, 2009 8:29 AM
Comment #275817

You titled this piece, “ODIOUS”, so I thought I’d throw in something that really is odious:

RL: This is… it’s about power, it’s about control. These people genuinely look out over this country from their lofty perches. They don’t like what they see. Otherwise…


Caller: So they can go somewhere else! Like, I don’t understand, why do they have to stay here? Like, leave us alone!

RL: At this point, at this point Gretchen, I don’t care about the why. They’re not going to leave. They’re trying to control it. At this point, the only thing is they must be stopped!

Caller: I agree…

RL: Within the confines of our Constitution, and the political arena of ideas, they must be stopped. I don’t care why they see this country the way they see it. I don’t care why a murderer does it. I don’t care why a rapist does it. I don’t care why this Muslim guy offed his wife’s head. The NOW gang is out there saying ‘oh, that’s not domestic violence, that’s just, uh, that’s just…’ what do they call it? ‘Culturally honor killing. Or this woman was going to divorce him, that’s against the law. That’s his diversity.’ I don’t care, I don’t care why anymore. If I figure it out, I’ll be glad to tell you because it’s interesting to know, but it doesn’t matter in terms of defeating them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/19/limbaugh-likens-democrats_n_168323.html

Let’s see…your hero thinks us lib’ruls should be put to death? Murderers, rapists and beheaders…lib’ruls are like murderers, rapists and religious beheaders??? I don’t blame you conservatives for listening to this guy, and for looking to him for your political inspiration…damn, he’s goooood!

He was careful to say you guys should stay within the Constitution, but get rid of lib’ruls. Of course, his Constitution has been rewritten by Cheney/Bush, so perhaps he means that all lib’ruls should be shackled and sent to Gitmo?

More than half the country voted a liberal ticket this past November, but Lamebrain and his Ditto-Heads are the only ones who count in America…the only real Americans left…er…right???…er…left?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2009 1:03 PM
Comment #275822

Marysdude wrote; “You titled this piece, “ODIOUS”, so I thought I’d throw in something that really is odious:”

I would like to add the following by writer, David Limbaugh, as an example of what I consider “odious” and welcome marysdude to comment.

“And you thought Obama only wanted to place a ceiling on the income of those evil corporate executives. Think again. He means to punish all achievers and redistribute this nation’s assets in a manner that he, in his glorious beneficence, deems more equitable.

Obama liberals, in their incalculable arrogance, believe they are smart enough to defy everything we know about human nature, economics and history by insisting on separating financial efforts from rewards and pretending this can bring prosperity.

Obama’s mind-blowingly socialistic proposal to donate $75 billion to delinquent mortgage debtors to reward their behavior and encourage more of the same type of decisions and practices that landed us in this mess in the first place.

But so what? All will be well because once again, Obama — not the infinitely superior wisdom of the market — will pick the financial winners and losers single-handedly.

This would be egregious enough if the federal government had at its disposal — or could create out of thin air — the astronomical number of dollars necessary to effectuate these abominable transfer payments. But the government is beyond broke.

This means that Obama has to get the money from the assets and income of Americans who have it or earn it and are blameless in having created this quagmire. This is outright larceny — nothing less. And…

larceny wrapped in a package of false compassion is nonetheless larceny — and monstrously immoral.”

Posted by: Jim M at February 20, 2009 2:11 PM
Comment #275825
His (the President) job is not to make policy and force it on us. It is to enact policy we desire to have made.

by Lee


Nearly eight in 10 Americans in a recent Gallup Poll said gays should serve openly”

Military Times - January 5th, 2004

Lee, by your thinking, the President should enact the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act”. Thank you for your support.

Posted by: Cube at February 20, 2009 3:53 PM
Comment #275826

Lee, where you and are opposed in perspective is in your statement: “She is pushing a gay agenda in government employment, knowing such government moves are often soon echoed in regulations imposed on the private economy.”

It is the ‘echoed in regulations imposed on the private economy’ that I disagree with you on. You seem to be implying that a slippery slope ending in hiring quotas for gays enforced upon the private sector by government. While that may be a real fear for you, it is about as far from really ever occurring as Pluto from Earth. It presumes Democrats would sacrifice majority control on this ‘enforcement’ of quotas for gays, which I think we would agree, would be the result.

Key Republicans said debt and deficits didn’t matter when they were in the majority. That blatant fallacy resulted in a tanked economy and Republicans being pushed out for a very long time to come. But, Democrats are not making a similar error by proposing hiring quotas for Gays, not now, and not in the future. Democrats were Stupid on this value issue back in the 1990’s. But, they have learned a lot from being cast out of the majority, and pushing Gaydom on the private sector was one of the lessons they learned as a Party.

It is however, quite another debate as to whether Gays should be discriminated against, but, that is an issue best left to the states, and I do not think the Obama administration or the Pelosi/Reid Congress are going to torpedo their majority status over an issue such as this which pales in comparison to the priority issues held by majority of Americans today.

Therefore, I think your fears and speculations are entirely unfounded on purely political grounds.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 20, 2009 3:59 PM
Comment #275828

Odious 

–adjective 1. deserving or causing hatred; hateful; detestable.
2. highly offensive; repugnant; disgusting.

Origin:
1350–1400; ME hatred, odium + -ōsus -ous

Posted by: ohrealy at February 20, 2009 5:04 PM
Comment #275829

David:

So race issues should also be left to the states? I disagree. It is supposed to be equality for all, after all.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 20, 2009 5:32 PM
Comment #275832

Jim M,

“Obama’s mind-blowingly socialistic proposal to donate $75 billion to delinquent mortgage debtors to reward their behavior and encourage more of the same type of decisions and practices that landed us in this mess in the first place.”

So Jim, you make a vast assumption based on half vast information.

I am one of those that rolled the dice and lost. I bought a house with an ARM before selling the house I already owned fully intending to sell the first house, and apply the profit to refinancing my new home at a reasonable rate on a 30 year loan.
Well shortly after the purchase of my new home went through the market tanked, and after 2 years I took the original house off the market in the hopes that there might be a rebound in buyers.

BTW, in that 2 years I received 1 offer for my house, and it was so ridiculous I didn’t even counter-offer. Meanwhile the value of the house I bought has cratered so badly that even if I could sell the other house it would be impossible to refinance given the situation the country is in.

Did I make a mistake?
Hindsight being 20/20 absolutely, but I am current with both of the house payments, and haven’t been late with a payment once. However as my savings dwindle I don’t know how long that will be true.
I would venture to say that most of us out here are in the same situation as I am. We aren’t deadbeats, and we aren’t victims, we just made a bad choice when the market looked good.

I do however have an option that most folks don’t have, I can still allow the loan company to foreclose and move back into my original home to start over while I still have some equity left.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 20, 2009 8:46 PM
Comment #275834

“I would like to add the following by writer, David Limbaugh, as an example of what I consider “odious” and welcome marysdude to comment.”

Jim M. I’ll bite. I have to agree with you though as this writing by Limbaugh is indeed odious in many different ways, one being it is unrelated to Lee’s subject.

This man’s exxagerations are odius as are his mis interpretations of the fatcs.

Here is but one example.

“And you thought Obama only wanted to place a ceiling on the income of those evil corporate executives. Think again. He means to punish all achievers and redistribute this nation’s assets in a manner that he, in his glorious beneficence, deems more equitable.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 20, 2009 9:04 PM
Comment #275839

Rocky

where is the home located that you recieved only one offer in 2 years ? i’m just curios as i sold my home in orange county ca. in 14 days back in august of 08. however the house i purchased in the midwest had been on the market for @ 2 years, and was able to steal it so to speak. my only regret is that i didn’t sell it a year earlier. i still did well on it as i’de owned it since 93, but that 1 year cost me @ 150k. looking back i still got out of it while i was ahead, but it was a tough relocation.

Posted by: dbs at February 20, 2009 10:17 PM
Comment #275841

dbs,

Phoenix

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 20, 2009 10:33 PM
Comment #275843

Oh, and I moved to Prescott. The house in Phoenix (which lost about $40k of it’s worth) is worth more than the house in Prescott (which lost nearly $80k).
Let me say that I don’t want to be “bailed out”. I am very sure that there are those that took it in the shorts worse than I did.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 20, 2009 10:38 PM
Comment #275844

Rocky

prescott is a beautiful area, i can see why you made that decision. i’m suprised that the housing mkt in pheonix is that bad. up until a couple years ago that i believe was one of the fastest growing mkts in the country. hopefully you can rent it until the inventory drops in that area. my biggest problem was all the forclosed properties on the mkt. i was lucky though because i had a little more sq. footage than most of the homes in my area, and the properties in forclosure a lot of the time are trashed. i’de hate to have to sell the home i’m in now, property in the midwest just isn’t selling at any price. i sure miss the weather in so. cal.

Posted by: dbs at February 20, 2009 10:57 PM
Comment #275864

As usual, those with a conservative leaning have dominated this discussion by steering it’s focus. Lee begins by framing the issue as being small vs. big government. dbs paints it as government intervention into private affairs. Lee pops back with the “protecting our children” chestnut. Others call it a states issue. But if you really want to get down to brass tacks, gay rights have nothing to do with any of this, not fundamentally.

This is an issue of religious viewpoints.

Christianity, especially of the fundamentalist kind, considers homosexuality to be an “abomination”, to use Leviticus’ term. It is framed as an immoral choice on the part of the homosexual. The scientific evidence, on the other hand, shows homosexuality to be biological. Differences in brain structure, hormonal variances, evolutionary similarities to pygmy chimpanzees (who practice homosexuality at a rate similar to humans), the data goes on and on. Science sees homosexuality as part of the nature of a certain small (about 3-5%) minority of the human population.

So once you clear away all the verbal chaff, the situation becomes clear. If homosexuality is a choice, then it should not be protected as a right. If homosexuality is predetermined, if the individual has no choice in their orientation, then it should be protected by law like any other unchosen minority status, such as race. Framing the issue as anything else is just a smokescreen, an attempt to steer the issue in a way that benefits one side or the other.

Choose your side, people. Me, I’m going with the science.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at February 21, 2009 10:54 AM
Comment #275868

Rocky writes; “Did I make a mistake? Hindsight being 20/20 absolutely, but I am current with both of the house payments, and haven’t been late with a payment once. However as my savings dwindle I don’t know how long that will be true.”

It would appear that your plan was sound based upon what you knew at the time Rocky and I applaud you on being responsible in making your payments. I appreciate your difficult position as it only differs slightly from those who have lost huge sums of their retirement money.

And, my question to you and others is simply this. Had things gone well for you with your plan and you made a substantial profit, would you have shared the profit with your neighbor? Would the retiree who did exceptionally well in their retirement planning and investments have shared those profits with his/her neighbor?

Of course you wouldn’t…why should you? You risked your capital with your plan. It follows then that since I, as your neighbor, wasn’t going to participate in your good fortune…should not participate in your bad fortune. I am merely a bystander in your investment or home buying decision, not a guarantor.

When we flip a coin we can’t expect an outcome that is heads I win and tails I win. Granted, your home investment went much deeper and was much more thought out than a mere coin toss, but you see my point. Any investment of any kind is a risk, and the risk taker rightly deserves the profit of his/her risk taking and rightly should shoulder the burden of loss.

Failure and poor decisions are as much a reality as success and good decisions. While real estate has traditionally been though of as a non-risk investment it comes with no guarantee. That is…until now with the liberal congress and PO in charge.

The new liberal theory is that there should never be a risk to anyone for anything. Make bad investments and government will make you whole. Perform poorly on your job and the union will keep your job for you. Have more children than you can afford to care for and government will become big daddy. This applies to both the individual and corporations.

The idea that government insists that my money should be taken from me to help others remain financially whole is repugnant. That my taxpayer dollars goes to feed, house, and cloth those in need is righteous. And, I have no difficulty in determining the difference between the two as liberals obviously do.

As a society we American’s have agreed that we value independence, the right to succeed or fail in our efforts without government interference. When government prevents anyone from succeeding it is wrong. When government prevents anyone from failing, it is equally wrong. Government’s role is to be certain the opportunity for either, as decided by the individual with their own choices and actions, exists.

Posted by: Jim M at February 21, 2009 1:05 PM
Comment #275870

Jim M

i think over the long haul realestate is almost always a good investment. even if i had not sold my previous home i would have still been ahead of the game, although i would’ve lost substantially more equity. had i needed to sell it a few years after i bought it, i defintely would have been upside-down, but that would have been my cross to bear.

it seems the real danger to property value is when the gov’t either local, or federal steps in and rezones that property basicly making it worthless. this happens all the time. someone buys a property as an investment. holds on to it for years hoping to develope it or sell it for development at a later date, and the sierra club steps in files a law suit and demands it be set aside as open space, or claims there’s some endangered species that will be irrepairably harmed. shazam the propety is now worthless. that IMO is the biggest danger to property investment.

Posted by: dbs at February 21, 2009 1:46 PM
Comment #275881

“The new liberal theory is that there should never be a risk to anyone for anything. “

Jim M. this is also the old conservative theory. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and of course Bush II ended moral hazard with the following -bailed out the US Banks in 82 during the Mexico, Argentina and Brazil debt crisis, The Continental Illinois Bank,and lets not forget the unpublicized loans to 350 banks that eventually failed in the late 80’s, allowing big investors time to get out. Of course there was also the S&L bailout, The bank of New England and Citibank, The Mexican Peso bailout, and the hedge fund LTCM bailout.

The only difference is these were bailout mostly to save big investors, which I guess is ok with conservatives. But to dress this up as a new liberal theory is just not an accurate reflection of the facts.

“The idea that government insists that my money should be taken from me to help others remain financially whole is repugnant.”

I agree with you Jim M., Unfortunately those that are financially whole are also affected by the mess we find the housing market in. I would prefer to see those that made the big bucks off of this unregulated securities scam be the ones to pay up. Perhaps a 14% one time levy on those and others that have over, what was it $10 mil that Trump once said, to rectify the problem is in order.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 21, 2009 3:20 PM
Comment #275882

dbs writes; “it seems the real danger to property value is when the gov’t either local, or federal steps in and rezones that property basicly making it worthless.”

Yes, that is an outrageous practice. I have read that in some areas local zoning has also restricted lot size to increase the number of wealthy home owners. By mandating larger lots for homes zoning has, in affect contributed to the higher cost of homes.

I have a sister living in rural Wisconsin whose husband was on the local taxing board. It seems that former farmers owning acreage are prevented from selling their land for any purpose other than agriculture. The “stinking” thinking goes like this. We want rural Wisconsin to remain pristine and sparsely inhabited so it remains a tourist attraction or some such nonsense.

So, a farmer with no children who wish to farm can’t sell his land unless he can find another farmer who will not develop the land and be willing to buy it strictly for agriculture purposes. Never mind that the farmer owner may be relying upon his property’s value to fund his retirement. Never mind that the farmer pays taxes on his property, holds the deed, and is prevented from selling it to whomever his wishes.

Government interference in our daily lives comes not only from Washington, but from our state and local governments as well. I recall reading an article not long ago about a community in California that passed an ordinance against hanging our one’s laundry on a wash line. It was considered unsightly. Yet, I’ll wager these same idiots and defenders of beauty are all for solar power and reducing carbon footprint.

Dry your clothes in the sun and be fined. Use electricity to dry your clothes and all is well.

Go figure!

Posted by: Jim M at February 21, 2009 3:37 PM
Comment #275896

Local ordnances are enacted by local representation. The majority of the people in an area wish buildings to present a certain facade, for grounds to be maintained within certain boundaries, to conform to certain exhibition certainties, i.e., no clotheslines or wheelless cars in the yard, or perhaps no old junker refrigerators on the front porch…hmmm…sounds like the American way, and has very little to do with ‘government’ being the biggest hog at the trough.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 22, 2009 8:18 AM
Comment #275916

marysdude writes; “The majority of the people in an area wish buildings to present a certain facade, for grounds to be maintained within certain boundaries, to conform to certain exhibition certainties, i.e., no clotheslines…”

Thank God I live in rural Texas. I can still hang out wash on a cloths line if I wish. When the cost of electricity gets too high for marysdude will he use a campfire to dry his cloths? OH, WAIT, I am certain that would be against the law as well.

Marysdude’s quote above about conformity sounds like it could have come from some socialists handbook of behavior for the lower class. I wonder when these wonderful conforming communities will dictate what we wear and eat?

Not long ago in some parts of the world government also dictated what color they could paint their house, which line to stand in for the hand out of bare essentials, and which books were sanctioned.

God Bless America and the freedom it once stood for.

Posted by: Jim M at February 22, 2009 3:15 PM
Comment #275919

Jin M

“I wonder when these wonderful conforming communities will dictate what we wear and eat?”

ever heard of the ban on transfats ? new york has already banned them in restaurants.


“Not long ago in some parts of the world government also dictated what color they could paint their house,”

homeowners associations anyone ?

Posted by: dbs at February 22, 2009 5:16 PM
Comment #275943

When a home is purchased in an area where a ‘homeowners Association’ is in vogue, the new buyer purchases not only a home, but a contract statikng he will abide by certain rules. The association, made up of other home owners in that area, make the rules in order to hold property values. Strange that some on the right would argue against staying within a written and signed contract…oh, well…Republicans…gotta love ‘em…

By the way, why in hell would someone sign such a contract, if staying within its bounds was so unamerican?

Moving to a town or locale when the people there wish to keep property values stable, when you are not willing to abide by their wishes, seems an exercise in futility…tents, cabins, huts, hovels and tar-paper shacks can be erected in the woods, why would anybody want to force that kind of eyesore on folks who put their life savings into their dwelling?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 22, 2009 10:17 PM
Comment #276071

Marysdude, as a former president of a homeowner’s association, I have to correct some of your impressions of what they are.

First, they are quasi-governmental entities which exact dues from each homeowner to pay for the Assocication’s activities and legal defenses, while acting to limit individual choices regarding owner’s treatment of their own homes.

Second, the Contract is NOT drafted by the homeowners in most cases, but, by the lawyer employed by the Community Builder or Developer, and as such, the provisions in the Contract are designed to protect the Developer’s and the Developer’s banker’s collateral value on the building loans they incurred to make their profits on the development.

Lastly, the Homeowner’s Association is not free to elect all its own Board Members until the developer has completed the development and attained their full profitability from the development. Until such time, the Contract stipulates that one or more of the Board Members shall be a representative of the Developer, not a resident of the community.

You are absolutely correct in stating the objective of a homeowner’s association is to protect property valuation. But, where you go a bit astray is in saying the provisions of the contract are determined by the collective homeowners regarding their view on appropriate measures to protect property values. In reality, those provisions are determined by the Developer and adhere to the Developer’s view of what constitutes protection of collateral value of the developer’s loans with the banks.

Very, very few Homeowner’s Associations undertake to change the Contract provisions after the developer is out of the picture and almost none attempt to alter those while the Developer is in the picture. I was elected to do both, and we were successful, but it took several lawyers and a fair amount of Association Dues to pay the lawyers for taking the Developer on.

Fortunately, the Developer relented on enough to satisfy homeowners demands before having the cases presented to a jury. Apparently, the HO Assn’s attorney, one of our Board members, finally recognized the profit loss potential of fighting us homeowners in court and relented.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2009 7:24 AM
Comment #276072

dbs,Homeowner’s Associations are created by developers and their shareholders to protect the collateral value of their building loans while developing and selling homes to homeowners during the development phases which often stretch over years.

Are you really that opposed to business protecting their interests, accusing them of being individual liberty stealing quasi-governmental entities? I am rather surprised to find myself in agreement with you on that point.

Or was your comment pregnant with a lack of information on the topic of homeowner’s associations, their origin, phased purposes and vested party intents?

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2009 7:30 AM
Comment #276076

DRR,

Okay, the developer and the homeowners, in their own turn guide the property owners on a course that protects their individual or collective interests. I don’t see how that changes what I said, but so-be-it, it all comes to the same conclusions, i.e., anyone who buys in to a real estate program has to know ahead of time what rules they must follow. And, those who live in communities wherein local officials and representatives make special emphasis on certain zoning regulations. If someone does not want to abide by those regulations they should either run for local office or help get out the vote to elect those with more sympathy to individual rights. Isn’t that what we did as a nation this last election…got tired of Cheney/Bush ways, and got up enough votes to put someone in the office who is more sympathetic to our needs?

Those who complain about zoning laws or home owners association regulations don’t understand our political system very well. They are two of the most democratic of our American principles. The first is representative government, and the second the rights of property owners to protect their holdings.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 24, 2009 9:57 AM
Comment #276102

many people buy homes in areas that are not designated historic districts to use one example. however later on they are. now these people have effectively lost thier right to do with thier property as they please. is this ok ? i don’t think so. the same can be said about downzoning making a once valuable piece of property worthless. what ever happened just compensation for the taking of private property ?

Posted by: dbs at February 24, 2009 1:52 PM
Comment #276170

Marysdude said: “If someone does not want to abide by those regulations they should either run for local office or help get out the vote to elect those with more sympathy to individual rights.”

Or, do as I did, sell the HO Assn property, buy 5 acres and build a home without any HO Assn involved, and in a County without even building codes, save for waste water treatment.

In other words, I agree with you. People have a choice regarding HO Associations and local government restrictions, whether they inform themselves and consciously choose on the basis of those choices, or not.

Truth is however, most members of Homeowner’s Associations do not read their Contract of Deed Restrictions, and even if they did, they would not understand much of what it contains, since these contracts are drafted by attorneys in legaleze designed to protect the developer’s interests, not the homeowners.

That fact and practice makes HO Associations repulsive to me on those grounds. Otherwise, the concept of mutually agreed upon restrictions to protect property values in close proximity to each other is a very good idea. Too bad it is not as mutual as most people assume them to be.

Full and plain language disclosure laws regarding those Deed Restrictions would be a dramatic improvement. My experience demonstrated that at least half of our HO Assn membership did not know what an easement was. And easements are one of the most contested provisions in many a HO Assn. The word ‘easement’ could just as easily and legally be replaced with the phrase, right of access and, or, control’, so potential home buyers know what they are assenting to, for example.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2009 8:06 PM
Comment #276208

DRR,

The last time I lived in an apartment rental, my lease was 22 pages of just such small print legalese. Home Owner Associations are bad about their contracts, but we live in a litigious world, and if reading the fine print is required, it behooves us to do so. What we should not do is cry in our beer about some big bad government power grab just because we failed to live up to what we signed on to do, or what has been passed into local law by elected representatives. All this kind of thing is well within the Constitution.

This constant ‘let freedom ring’ stuff gets old. Everything that is being complained about, as far as property rights are involved, someone signed on for, or it was passed by town council. I’ve covered how to take care of each issue…don’t buy there/elect someone else who favors your position.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 25, 2009 4:02 PM
Comment #276209

Webster just redefined odius: Bobby Jindal’s logic.

Posted by: gergle at February 25, 2009 5:10 PM
Comment #276211

“and if reading the fine print is required, it behooves us to do so. What we should not do is cry in our beer about some big bad government power grab just because we failed to live up to what we signed on to do,”

thats exactly why the taxpayers should not be on the hook for people who took on mortgages they couldn’t pay, for what ever reason. you either believe in personal responsibility or you don’t.

Posted by: dbs at February 25, 2009 5:11 PM
Comment #276212

“This constant ‘let freedom ring’ stuff gets old. Everything that is being complained about, as far as property rights are involved, someone signed on for, or it was passed by town council. I’ve covered how to take care of each issue…don’t buy there/elect someone else who favors your position.”

not exactly, many people bought property in ares years before the busibobies appeared on the seen, only to have thier investments wiped out by do gooders. see my comment about downzoning. but hey if you have a crystal ball why not share it with everyone, problem solved.

Posted by: dbs at February 25, 2009 5:18 PM
Comment #276217

dbs, if my house sits 8 feet from my neighbor’s house, and both are wood frame houses, and my neighbor neglects the roast on the stove which causes his house to set fire, is it not in my own interest to help him put his fire out BEFORE it spreads to my house?

Of course it is. And that analogy used by Obama, I think, is dead on accurate regarding the use of tax dollars to halt the devaluation of ALL OF OUR homes and Commercial properties as a result of dramatic increases over a long period in the foreclosure and empty building rates, plaguing entire communities today across the nation.

It is in the tax payers interest to spend the money needed to halt the devaluation of EVERYONE’s property, even non-homeowner’s, simply because property values are the collateral of the Middle Class employed in sending their children to college, buying a new car or refrigerator, or taking a vacation in America.

Now of course, some folks will be too selfish or too ignorant of the complex relationships in economics to understand halting the drop in property values is in their long term best interest as part of an economy rescue package, and some will even be vocal in their protest. But their protests do NOT change the economics of the situation nor the premise that is the foundation of this nation, that we are a United people for common beneficial purpose.

The majority voted, Obama and Democrats were elected into power, they have come up with a plan to rescue our economy, our jobs, and our homes from the ravages of laissez faire and I don’t care Republican rule.

But, we will all benefit from the rescue efforts despite protests, not that it says much for the integrity of protesters penny wise and pound foolish.

Yelling about government spending taxes in the hopes of halting it, so one can increase one’s risk of losing their job and home at the hands of a failing economy, is penny wise and pound foolish, no matter how you cut it. Yet that appears to be precisely the position most No-Nothing Republicans are taking. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. WOW!

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 25, 2009 5:59 PM
Comment #276219

Marysdude said: “but we live in a litigious world, and if reading the fine print is required, it behooves us to do so.”

I have a couple problems with your comment here.

First, the average American may be able to read and pronounce the words in the fine print, BUT THEY WILL NOT comprehend the meaning of it. I took a business contract law course in college, and the legalese is out of reach of the average literate consumer.

Second, there is no Buddha’s Edict which states that the law for consumers must be written in a language that WILL NOT understand. As an example, the word ‘easement’ can easily be replaced with the words, “access rights and control of’, which means the same, and is far more comprehensible. A first time homebuyer has likely never had to know what an easement is. That one word is riddled throughout a Homeowner’s Association contract.

Lawyers create a specialized technical language for use among themselves both for accuracy and efficiency of communication and as a barrier between the common person and the law, motivating the common person to give up their money in return for having a lawyer define the common person’s vulnerabilities or rights under the laws the lawyers wrote.

It is that latter purpose that should be remedied and eliminated BY LAW, if necessary. Laws written for the common person should be communicated to the common person in the language of the common person. It is just common sense, after all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 25, 2009 6:10 PM
Comment #276220

david

“dbs, if my house sits 8 feet from my neighbor’s house, and both are wood frame houses, and my neighbor neglects the roast on the stove which causes his house to set fire, is it not in my own interest to help him put his fire out BEFORE it spreads to my house?”


eventually david he’ll neglect the roast again if he has a history of neglecting the roast, and the house will burn anyway. i say let it burn now and stand by with the fire hose so you can protect your own property. that way you don’t spend the next ten years worrying about when your neighbor will succeed in burning his house down.

Posted by: dbs at February 25, 2009 6:52 PM
Comment #276246

DRR,

Everything you said is true, David, but this is real life. I still can’t read some of the demands of my last lease without some trepidation. But that does not mean it isn’t important for me to do my best. What is that old saw…ignorance of the law…blah, blah, blah…

To the others: just because it is the fault of some poor slobs that they signed on for more responsibility than they should have, does not mean that their failure won’t harm me and the economy. By bolstering them, I help myself, and America. Yes, I encourage future failures, but it is THIS one that is important right now, and we can solve or ease the problems of the future as we go along. If we don’t take care of this one right now, our chances are pretty good there won’t be a future to worry about.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 26, 2009 5:22 AM
Comment #276247

PS:

Somebody must have failed to pay their taxes…if they have to use their own garden hose to put out a house fire…:)

Posted by: Marysdude at February 26, 2009 5:24 AM
Comment #276299

dbs, somehow, I find your reply disingenuous. If it were your house adjacent to the burning house, I somehow think you would help the neighbor put out their fire before your house and your family’s irreplaceable possessions burned, regardless of the neighbor’s history. It would be illogical and irrational to do otherwise. What?

You would be teaching your neighbor a lesson by letting your house burn down?

Thanks for the chuckle.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 26, 2009 6:19 PM
Comment #276300

Marysdude said: “What is that old saw…ignorance of the law…blah, blah, blah…”

Ignorance of the law seems to be working for GW Bush, Cheney, Miers, and Gonzalez? Why not the rest of us? :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 26, 2009 6:22 PM
Comment #276306

david

no i’de use the hose to keep my house from catching. just kidding. two chuckles in one day. watch it david i’ll have to charge you for the third one.

Posted by: dbs at February 26, 2009 8:16 PM
Post a comment