The Bailout Plan They Didn't Want You to Know

Im tired of people calling the media "liberal." I've said this before, but, if you forced someone to define liberal, they'd be hard pressed to tell you what it means. Just more mindless "group think." All you have to do is repeat something over and over often enough, people will believe its true. But, just because Fox "Noise" says it, doesn't make it true. For example, if we had TRUE journalism in this nation, this story would have been... and would still be on the news every single day.

FDIC chairwoman Sheila Blair had a plan. A plan, you've probably never heard about. Last November, she came up with an idea to bail out HOMEOWNERS, not banks. By the way, did I mention that Sheila Blair is a republican with these "liberal" ideas of helping Americans? If she thinks the government has to get involved, from her perspective, and as FDIC chair, she has a good one... things must be dire indeed.

Her plan consists of two things.

First: Anyone in America whose mortgage is currently 2 months or more behind... they're monthly rate would be decreased to 31% of their monthly income. In general, the rule is... you should not pay anymore than 30-35% of your monthly income on your housing, so, thats where she gets the number. Whatever necessary to restructure the mortgage, they would do it so that your monthly payments go down to that range. Interest rates would be dropped to as low as 3% for 5 years, and mortgage terms could be extended out as far as 40 years.

Second: To encourage mortgage loan holding banks to cooperate, the government would take on 50% of the loss, if someone who was helped STILL defaulted. YES, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD TAKE ON 50% OF THE BANKS LOSS. There would also be a $1,000 pay-out to servicers who actually "re-work" the loans as well.

Hmmmmm... now, what you're wondering... is how many people could that potentially IMMEDIATELY help? More than a million homes went into foreclosure last year. You wanna know the biggest kicker?

SHEILA BLAIR'S PLAN WOULD COST ABOUT $25 BILLION, COMPARED TO THE $700 BILLION THE BANKS GOT.

Chairwoman Blair actually has seen this program in action. She undertook it at IndyMac (not to be confused with FreddieMac) when the government took them over. In that case, 70% of those who underwent the modification process saw affordable loans... with monthly mortgage prices decreasing about $350 on average. Now, thats a bailout! Yes, the bank loses some money, but they're not losing nearly as much as they would in the event of a foreclosure... not to mention the negative affects foreclosures have on neighborhoods (lower home values for neighbors).

It is now February, and credit is still stagnant. After all the (mystery) billions of dollars that were just dumped into the banking system... there has not been a major increase in loans. I say "mystery," because, part of this so-called bailout, was keeping mum on where the money was going. For example... did you know that all banks were not affected by the mortgage crisis. However, all banks were given money. The government thought this was a good way to protect confidence... conceal the identities of struggling banks. So, there were banks, that needed no money, that recieved billions upon billions of free money. Well, not really free... YOUR MONEY... and they're not spending it.

Well, they're spending some of it... the Associated Press reports that $1.6 billion dollars went to executive pay (click here). At least you know your tax dollars are going to a worthy cause.

Its easy to find the answer to why there's not a lot of lending. If I work minimum wage... and I borrowed 200 dollars from you, and I couldn't pay it back... but, your rich uncle felt sorry for us both, and gave you 500 dollars... what are the odds that you would be inclined to loan me money again? The banks have the money, but how have the facts on the ground changed, encouraging banks to now lend to people who were unable to pay before. "Once bitten, twice shy."

But, the Sheila Blair plan was rejected by the Bush administration. Helping out banks is one thing... but, helping out people... THATS CRAAAAAAAZY TALK!!! That goes against "conservative principle." They didn't want to do it for the banks... you think they're going to do it for regular citizens? We'll see if the (liberal?) Obama Administration will take up the issue, but SO FAR... they're just going with (more or less) the same type of plan that the Bush administration undertook.

Now, how many times did you hear about this proposed bailout on your well-established, highly regarded, well respected, independent, objective, NON-ratings focused news outlets? How could such a LIBERAL news media pass up such a story?

Pedophilia = The Uncurable Disease

As my previous blog (and the overal theme of my blog site) shows... I have a fascination with the human brain. One such instance is in the case of pedophiles.

Current sentencing guidelines on pedophiles are not NEARLY long enough.

Here's the thing. Pedophilia is all about sexual attraction. Now, there was a time period in world history, where adults and children engaging in sexual activity together was either the norm, tolerated, or just ignored. And there are places where sadly, that still may be the case. I've seen special news reports about people in other nations who have children given (promised) in marriage from a very early age. At what age do these young women actually marry, dunno.

But, this is America. And these are the rules. And everyone knows them. And they are there for one reason: the protection of the chilrden. What is statutory rape? Statutory rape is when two people consent to sexual activity, however, one party is not deemed OLD ENOUGH to make that decision. Whether or not the 14 year old wants it, it is there for their protection against older people. I'm not talking about 19 year olds and 15 year olds getting together. I dont approve, but thats kinda murky, I suppose. I'm talking about fully adult men who have an attraction to children. These older people know the laws of the land... yet they choose to act against them... time and time again... why?

Because, sexual attraction is an innate human desire residing in (almost?) all people. So, lets say there is this 37 year old man. For whatever reason, HIS BRAIN is sexually stimulated by middle school aged boys. My question is... if a grown man is attracted to adolescent boys... what makes you think thats going to change? Now, it is true, that on some level, it is about control... and there are some people out there who are attracted to children as well, but dont act on those impulses... but lets speak on those that do. Is he ever going to NOT be attracted to little boys? Can you put him in jail for 5 years, and then suddenly he's now attracted to 29 year old women? Thats not gonna happen.

I dont know what makes a man (or woman) attracted to children, but, how do you "de-program" that mind? I dont think you can. That is why, when you hear a case on tv about a pedophile... it is HIGHLY likely that he has had some previous ARRESTS... or some dropped charges... or a previously investigated accussation or two.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am VERY Drakonian in my view of prison.

Jail, in my mind, serves two purposes... it is not just a punishment, but it is also a way to protect the general public. For example, I dont believe people should do 5 years in therapy by reason of insanity. If you are truly insane, then you need to be locked up for the good of the general public. Insanity isn't an excuse.... just a different type of reason to be in prison. GUILTY, BY REASON OF INSANITY. But, back to the pedophiles. I dont know what the current sentences are, but they're not long enough. Im not going to wake up one morning and decide Im not attracted to women anymore... and Im certainly not going to wake up one morning attracted to kids... what makes people think that 5 years in jail (with NO women around) will make someone unattracted to what he has liked his entire life?

THEREFORE: Pedophilia should carry a jail sentence of NO LESS than 25years. If not 35.

That will be a deterent. No parole. No good behavior. We have a certain way we run our society... and this will not be tolerated... Im sorry that your brain is stimulated by this, and I know your brain isn't going to change, but you better learn to deny yourself. Better get a hobby.

And thats the issue with a sexual crime. Most people dont rob people because they "get off" on the joy of burglary, they rob as a means to getting money. But, in a sexual crime, the crime itself is the objective, not just a dirty means to some other different goal.

So, the sexual deviant needs SIGNIFICANTLY harsher sentencing guidelines (than other criminals) to prevent him from acting on the urges that... in his physical brain... (here comes the scary part) ARE AS NATURAL TO HIM as most people considering dating people of roughly their same age.