socio-politics

According to the US census bureau, 15% of American homeowners with a mortgage spend at least half of their income on housing. 31.9% of people making between minimum wage (about $11,000 per year) and 120% of the median income spend at least 50% of their income on housing. These are also the people that have been unable to pay their mortgages.

The actual median earnings per household in the United States is presently between $45 and $46 thousand. A household that makes $45,000 year makes a little less than about $865 per week. If they spend about 50% of this money on housing, they have about $433 left for the week. Assume these households spend about $80 per month on utilities, $80 per week on food and $20 per week on transportation and that leaves the surplus money at $313 per week.

That total per week is for the median household income, so half of the population makes less. That total is also for the assumption that they’re spending exactly 50% of their income on housing. The weekly expenditures were also estimated on the low side, and only included a few of the basics though ignored things like medical costs, insurance and clothing.

A little over 12.5% of the population has a household income between $20 and $30 thousand. I’ll continue to look at the best possible scenario by evaluating those that make $30,000 per year. This comes out to about $288 per week in actual income, and $168 per week after those few necessary expenses.

Just one more - 13% of the population makes between $10 and $20 thousand. $20,000 per year translates to $71 per week in surplus money.

The average cost of child care is $7.75 per hour. If your household makes $45,000 per year or less and you spend at least half of you income on housing, you can not afford that.

Many people are blaming those that are unable to pay their mortgages for trying to live a life that their income can not support. The problem is that expenses have rapidly risen over the past ten years; from 1997 to 2005, the median home price rose by 86%, gas rose by 158% and the median income rose by 25%. Additionally, between 2003 and 2005, there was a 31% increase in the number of households spending at least 50% of their income on housing. 2005 is the last year available for such statistics on the census bureau’s site, though these numbers (with the exception of the wages earned) have only increased since then. The only definite statistic is that gas prices have risen by 55% since 2005 (all gas statistics are from the energy information administration)

While these changes are not likely to have greatly impacted those that live comfortably, it is devastating to those with lower incomes. For people that make $300 or less in “surplus” income per week, the extra $5-$10 that is being added to their expenses every week necessitates drastic changes to their household life, though there comes a point when these changes are no longer possible.

How can anybody look at these households and tell them that they’re at fault for the crisis and for not making enough of an income. There is a continual and drastic increase in the number of people willing to spend at least half of their income on their housing. They would only do this if they had no other alternative.

It is inhuman to say that  “bad behavior should not be rewarded” in this situation.  The “bad behavior” is families spending every cent that they can towards housing until they are forced to miss payments.

Even worse is that, for all the talk of the probable bailout,  there is very little talk about helping the shortage of affordable housing or of building more public housing.  This means that as the economic weakens (as it inevitably will for the foreseeable future), the situation for low income families will only worsen, and more families will be unable to pay their mortgages.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operate under the assumption that the vast majority of people will be able to pay their mortgages, which had been happening until very recently. When incredible numbers of people are unable to pay their mortgages Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lose a considerable amount of their revenue and inevitably spend more than they have coming in.

There probably was corporate greed involved, but not anymore than there ever has been in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and I doubt that if there were criminal transactions that those perpetrating them could have anticipated this many people being unable to pay their mortgages.

The current economic situation truly is that dismal. According to the bureau of labor , unemployment has risen by over 1.5 percentage points in the past year. At the beginning of this year, housing prices were 1050% of what they were in 1970, while the median household income increased only 450%; the majority of this damage took place between 1999 and the present time.

All of this means that the lower classes are only going to fall lower and that the size of the lower class is going to increase.  Bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will not solve anything when the people that were unable to pay their mortgages are now either homeless or being joined by far more people that find themselves in the similar predicament of being unable to afford housing.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are socialist institutions.  They receive their funding from the government, and that transaction causes private, market-driven organizations to lose out on mortgages.  When they came into being, they were labeled as “government sponsored” because if they had been rightfully called government institutions, that would cause a huge stir concerning socialism.  People are easily convinced and under-informed about such tactics, so it has been and will continue to be effective.

This is not something that is up for debate – that small labeling technicality makes something that is factually socialist appear to be compatible with our socialism-fearing society.  It’s just something to keep in mind when considering the potential resolutions to the current crisis.    

I turned on Fox News this morning right in time to see them discussing how Obama will be speaking about the “lipstick on a pig” comment; the commentators were all speculating on how he would justify it, and just in case you didn’t get the message, the sign on screen told the viewer how, in moments, he would be taking the stage to respond as if it were the only priority in the political world.

When he took the stage, he got the follow up to the comment out of the way early and designated it as a phony, fabricated issue.   He then went on to give the usual talk about education, the economy etc.

The commentator’s response to Obama’s talk was interesting to say the least.  They openly acknowledged that the “lipstick on a pig” comment was insignificant, yet would continue to be important to those voting for McCain, and that McCain would undoubtedly ride the negative aspect of the comment.  They also stated that it would surely get airtime for another day or two.

There are many possible conclusions to draw from this.  One possiblity is that Fox News did not want to follow up Obama attacking the reaction to his comment with disagreement, particularly because it’s hard to disagree with what Obama said.   The commentators stating that McCain supporters will get worked up about something that is insignificant shows their possible acknowledgment of the non-issues being the basis for Obama’s campaign.  The media networks also can be blatantly open about discussing non-issues and how they will affect the race.

I understand their viewpoint on my last statement, though that’s where the problem lies.  They’ll talk about things that they know people will want to hear about and relate it to how it will realistically affect the race, though that ignores any effort to educate voters on the issues.

I may be taken a small interchange too seriously (especially since some of this obviously opposes my last post), though I do believe that this explains the media’s behavior to a certain degree.  The main question I am left with is whether or not the media would be at all successful if it did speak about the actual issues.

If politics were a simple matter of differing beliefs, it would be nowhere near as contentious an issue as it presently is, and always has been. People, especially those dedicated to politics, use their political views as a way to concretely define themselves and to dictate their opinion of almost any situation that exists or should arise. It is a statement of ones personal nature, one that they can comfortably disclose to others - this is amazing considering how reluctantly individuals disclose other personal information that is likely to be far less revealing.

However, this makes the criticism of one’s beliefs an incredibly sensitive issue, as it symbolizes the rejection of a prominent part of their identity. When you tell somebody that you disagree with their political beliefs, or far worse, tell them that they are wrong, you are threatening their identity. This results in instinctual self defense mechanisms such as aggressive retaliatory criticism or complete ignorance towards the opposing beliefs.

Since conservatives have a specific and interconnected set of beliefs, criticizing a conservatives single belief is tantamount to rejecting their identity as Conservative as a whole, This specific aspect is not an issue with liberals, as they desire viewing differing viewpoints, and criticizing their specific views is not a challenge to their identity. Instead, the criticism of liberals is directed to the identity of Liberal as a whole.

Over time, the defense mechanisms reached equilibrium by making the word liberal an insult in itself. This is strongly reflected today; in the primaries, conservative candidates tried to prove why they are more conservative than any of the other candidates, while the liberal candidates had to fear being designated as the most liberal and therefore avoided such statements. This does not prevent liberals politician’s ideas from following their identity, though it hinders their willingness to pursue extremely liberal ideas for fear of the rejection that would inevitably result.

Time to go back to emphasizing the socio part of socio-politics, because the purely political aspect has been killing me.

A few posts back, I posted the differences between conservatives and liberals.  Here’s how those differences relate to the current situation.

Conservatives have a specific agenda that liberals can never understand, and conservatives see liberals as coming from a completely different world.  Liberals seek discussion, and may very possibly hate a conservatives viewpoint, but will at least get all of the details to make sure that they understand the argument correctly.  Alternately, conservatives can not relate to ideas unrelated to their realm of thought, as they see the “right” way for things to be as very specific.

A discussion between two liberals is likely to involve very different viewpoints, but that’s the whole point - differing viewpoints are invaluable because seeing something from something other than your instinctive point of view is the best way to learn and better your own personal theories.

Two conservatives, assuming that they agree about what they see as the most important issues, will inevitably state their own views back and forth, and be in almost complete agreement for much of the time - if they are not in agreement, an argument will result where they will try to convince each other of why their own view is the correct one, though they’ll still walk away believing their own view.  This is not to say that their views can not change; they inevitably will at points, though it takes a specific event to act as a catalyst for giving the conservative reason to adopt the different view.  This differs from a liberals aptness to change, which is attributed to a genuine desire to learn.

When speaking to a liberal, a conservative will believe that they are speaking to somebody that just completely does not “get it,” and will be extremely reluctant to even entertain the liberals’ thoughts because the conservative believes that they know better.  The liberal will end up frustrated from the conservatives’ steadfastness and inability to truly consider a different viewpoint and will end up either staying frustrated and angry or will avoid speaking their own views in favor of just letting the conservative speak.

That being said, many, if not most, democrats are not actually liberal.  A true liberal would not tell a conservative that what they believe is wrong because everybody sees things from a different perspective.  In political discussions today, there are plenty of democrats that will take a subject such as abortion, gun rights, taxes, etc. and say that what they believe is correct and that’s all there is to it, though that is a conservative approach.

The exemption to all of this for liberals pertains to issues concerning the general welfare of society.  A key belief for liberals concerns the necessity to help those in need, and from this they will not budge because, if people are in need as so many are, they are being underrepresented and their views are not being given the same weight as others.

I understand that, at the current time, it is perfectly acceptable to deem democrats and liberal and republicans as conservative - that’s how our concept of the political spectrum places the two parties.  However, this concept completely ignores the terms liberal and conservative’s original meanings.

Here are the actual defining characteristics:

Conservatives have a definite set of values that they believe to dictate most aspects of society, including the government’s role in people’s lives, the extent of personal freedom that individuals can exercise, how the economy should be run, etc.  In America, this most likely entails the following beliefs:

-they sternly believe the federal government’s sole responsibility to be national defense, and therefore, any federal money should only be used for this cause

- the government has no right to tax personal income because this is money that the individual made through their hard work.

-the constitution is to be strictly interpreted - what it says is the guideline for how the country should be run

- capitalism rewards those that work hard, and if you are not succeeding, you are not trying hard enough.

-America has a specific culture that defines it, and that culture should not be changed in order to accommodate  others.  Those that immigrated to America up until the early 20th century integrated themselves into our culture, and so should those that come here now.

Conservatives believe these values to provide the greatest amount of personal freedom, and that anything breaking away from these values is ignorant of what made America great to begin with, and America will be as great as it can possibly be if these values are followed.

It is very possible for an American conservative to disagree with all of the aforementioned beliefs - a conservative is simply one that believes there to be a defining set of values that must be followed to have the optimal societal situation.  The beliefs I mentioned are what most American conservatives believe, as they see those values as the will of our founding fathers, and the source of America’s success.

Liberal’s beliefs stand in direct opposition to those of conservatives:

-They believe that no aspect of society should be simply accepted because society is constantly changing and it is more than likely that things can always be better.

-Therefore, discussion is essential because it presents different perspectives and allows for all views to be  acknowledged and discussed.

-personal views are simply that - they must questioned and seen as things that can be adjusted through open conversation and debate because not all people hold the same beliefs, and nobody is to say what beliefs are better than others

-closed-mindedness is the antithesis of liberalism - all views are important and people must feel free to say what is on their mind.

-society is only as good as the sum of its parts, and promoting general welfare is vital for creating the best society.  If there is extreme social inequality, society is failing.

-the government is completely responsible to the people, and it must protect and ensure life, liberty, and property, and can never impede upon these things for any individual.

- part of life, liberty and property is helping those that are in the greatest need because they are not truly free, and if they are not free, they will be underrepresented and therefore will not be able to contribute to society.

This is the first of a series of consecutive posts on the topic.

Anybody else find the sudden designation of anything liberal as Marxist/sociolist funny? All of these people that so confidently deem anything to do with taxes, or anything to do with social welfare programs or anything to do with one person helping a needy person as socialist knows absolutely nothing about the topic and is just following the crowd.

Marx believed that class struggles drive people’s consciousness, and the struggles therefore also drive all of society. He saw socialism as being the first step away from the capitalist system, where people would be paid according to the quality and quantity of work that they did. This distribution of wealth would be controlled by the public. There is much more to him than this, though these are a few of the basic principles.

Wanting graduated taxes and affordable health care does not fit into Marx’s model. Not at all, not even if you try to force it in.

Yet somehow, Obama is a Marxist, and liberals all want socialism. Oh, and all of Europe is already socialist……….as is Canada.

It just does not make any sense to me. The election is three months from today, yet so many people are still believing everything that they are told while they simutaneously criticize others for doing the same. The most hypocritical aspect of it all is that socialism is said to restrict originality and free thought, though by allowing buzz words like “Marxist” to permeate and be used as a poor excuse for unjustified and ignorant attacks, people are beautifully displaying their lack of free will and thought.

… or at the very least, the “us” as opposed to the “I”.

Cell phone usage has gone far beyond the novelty of always having a phone to use - they are preventing people from having normal social interactions and separating us from the rest of the planet. Regardless of where you are or who you are with, you know that, with just a few phone calls or text messages, you can find out what else you can be doing. There is also no pressure to devote yourself to the current situation that you are in because, if you get bored, you can start conversations with anybody that you have the number of.

I might just demand attention too much, but I can not stand cell phones. If you are around any other people, just devote yourself to enjoying the situation that you are in. It is not right to always have your phone out and to not think anything of it. Granted, there are some exceptions, but the whole situation prevents the genuineness of social interactions.

I do use my phone plenty -there are obviously plenty of benefits to having one. The down side is that the negatives will increase in severity as more technological discoveries are made. Being able to create a fanbase through any kind of self-indulgent online site such as youtube is isolating enough at the present time. In not too long it will undoubtedly be as easy to do any of these things on your phone as it is on a computer, any people will be able to immerse themselves in their online world whenever they like. And the more that people can immerse themselves within their own private world, the less they are in tune with other peoples, and this can cause some serious problems.

AND our phones may be giving us all brain cancer……..