In response to Wife of a Veteran 's blog, “ObamaTrumpets Killing of Bin Laden, and Critics Pounce".

I agree with you. Perhaps in a futile effort to look impartial, the Times use language to criticize Obama too close to a blast from bitter McCain. Killing of Bin Laden was a historical event on many levels. The most important one was a demonstration of competence, for a change, of our intelligence agencies and the hard to believe preparedness of our special forces. The second was the bold implementation of a concept that makes some liberals uncomfortable: the right of our presidents to order killing (they may call it assassination) of major hostile individuals anywhere in the world anytime. That, in long term, may be more important principle than the death of this murderous individual. Instead of costly wars with too many young American lives sacrificed for virtually nothing, we have to be very selective and cut off the heads of groups that want to destroy us. It can be argued whether this is going to be major factor in November election but Republican accusations of softness of Democrats has been their leitmotif since WWII. I fully understand Obama's effort to take advantage of 'mission accomplished' in a limited but essential sense. After all, Bin Laden singlehandedly (through 19 brainwashed suicide murderers) changed the landscape of this country more than almost any other individual. Certainly more than Hitler or Hirohito. I think, Mr. President, for your decisive act and for taking the proper credit for it.

5 ways Obama wants to ease student debt

The csmonitor published an article Student loan forgiveness: 5 ways Obama wants to ease student debt

 

Not fair?? I disagree. I think much more needs to be done to fix this issue. Fair would be paying back what you actually borrowed, with little or no interest since educated citizens contribute to society in many ways.
It's quite ignorant to be jealous of any potential loan forgiveness programs and hope that these students will be saddled with ridiculous debt for all of their working lives because ultimately, this will make the country you live in a disaster. This entire generation will be forced to live in poverty and accept jobs that they are overqualified for but pay nothing. Innovation and creativity will be luxuries of the past.
If a student graduates with $100k in student loan debt and makes the minimum payment of close to $2k monthly only to see the amount owed INCREASE every month because of interest, why bother to continue to pay? It is disgusting that people accept declaring bankruptcy when someone carelessly purchases fancy cars, flat screen televisions, leather sofas, or other materialistic things that they can't afford, but when students who are trying to improve their lives by getting an education and become trapped in this predatory lending system and need financial relief, other citizens call them irresponsible and lazy.
Maybe a solution would be providing the tax exempt status to those repaying student loans? Since these struggling students do not have the support of the government or other citizens, why should they pay taxes when they can barely afford basic necessities?

In response to Wife of a Veteran 's blog, "Same sex marriage"

I understand your opinion. Now the 50% rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn’t be taking further steps to define what marriage is. But Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create. And the building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. Also Children learn about expectations and gender roles from society. It's difficult to teach the importance and traditions of the family when such confusion is thrust upon them. Only a man and woman can bear children, and for thousands of years, a man & woman headed household has carried generations of people through life. So I can’t support same sex marriage. Thank you.

Supreme Court expresses doubts on key constitutional issue in health-care law

March 27, 2012 the washingtonpost published an article Supreme Court expresses doubts on key constitutional issue in health-care law

The conservatives on the Supreme Court want the country to prove that universal and affordable coverage are crucial to the survival of the republic. To do so there will have to be a big crisis of illnesses and costs of health care forcing society to start denying health care because it cannot afford it to provide it.
Really, it appears that the conservative justices are going to invalid the mandate. That will assure that within a decade the U.S. will have two kinds of patient those who can afford to pay for all basic care out of pocket and who can also afford huge premiums for catastrophic care. This will begin to happen at the point where employers stop offering health care as a benefit will come when the costs have just made it impossible for them to continue offering it and remain competitive in the global economy. When that happens, the current private insurers will find their healthy enrollees opting out as costs and premiums and deductibles begin to rise, and it will not be long before health care insurance for regular care will become a loser for the insurers and they will pull out.
The very rich will pay for health care out of pocket except for catastrophic care for which they will buy insurance policies at very high premiums. Everyone else will be what is currently called indigent, meaning they really cannot afford health care and are not covered under any insurance plans because they cannot afford them. Most private hospitals and private care practices will have to shrink to just those who can afford to pay for themselves, and increasingly medical care will be offered as a public charity to virtually all people, and it will be paid out of the general tax funds. Most care will be for urgent medical conditions because there just will not be enough money to address preventative care and chronic illnesses that are not yet producing urgent care maladies.

How Good Is the Housing News?

March 7, 2012 the New York Times published an article How Good Is the Housing News?

Home sales have beat expectations and pending sales neared a two-year high. But prices are still descending. So President Obama has relied on the banks to voluntarily modify troubled loans. Those efforts were focused on reducing monthly payments. But it is just a more powerful form of relief. Now President Obama is trying again. The major banks will be required to promote loan modifications for troubled borrowers, including principal reductions for underwater homeowners. Mr. Obama has also promised a far-reaching investigation into mortgage abuses that is supposed to yield more accountability from the banks and more money for foreclosure prevention.

But some people disagree about this opinion because they think Housing prices were artificially driven up during the past three decades, and are now beginning to normalize. Lower housing costs are good news for consumers. But I agree about this opinion. Now we have a problem about falling housing prices. This problem was caused in the first place by a bubble that needed housing prices to rise quickly. If we get back to treating housing as housing first, and a long term way to maintain some financial security, then we'll all be better off. For those who are trapped in adjustable mortgages resetting to high rates (which doesn't make sense since rates are currently at historic lows), a program to refinance into long term, fixed rate, conventional style loans is a good idea. If homeowners still can't afford it, then it's time to try the short sale or maybe bankruptcy. I think absorbing the inventory, both current and phantom, will result in a stable market.