>
>
> Some people are alarmed by the federal bailout of Freddie Mac/Fannie
> May--or FF, but we shouldn't be surprised. Government didn't so much
> take over those companies as finally--and honestly--admit that they
> had been government enterprises all along. As such, FF had acted less
> responsibly than most private companies. FF always knew that it had
> the backing and support of the government. It didn't have to be
> accountable. Also, it's the government that had pushed for 'fair'
> loans. "Fair share" or "fair loans", whenever it's decided by
> politicians or bureaucrats, there's likely to be trouble ahead. But,
> we must not lose sight of who put the politicians in positions of
> power. The people did. So, the people are ultimately responsible.
>
> Political discourse on both the left and right rarely blame the people
> and always scapegoats the politicians on the other side. This is a way
> to win votes--by making people feel like helpless victims of evil
> politicians of the other party. But, it's really liberal politicians
> elected by liberal people 'oppressing' conservative people, or it's
> conserative polticians elected by conservative people 'oppressing'
> liberal people. It all comes back down to the people.
>
> We can argue that it's the government that made it possible for people
> to be reckless with their spending, borrowing, and so on. But, the
> government that allowed the people to be reckless were put in power by
> the people. Rich, middle-income, and poor people are all to blame.
> But, more blame must be put on the rich and the poor than those in the
> middle. Many people in the middle want to work, save, and spend
> sensibly. It's the poor--the welfare, as opposed to the working, poor--
> who want to leech off everyone else. And, it's the rich people who
> want people to borrow and spend like crazy. Businesses want consumers
> to consume. They don't care where people get the money. Whether it's
> retail business, real estate markets, or the service industry,
> businesses want people to spend, spend, and spend. If people don't
> have money to spend, businesses want people to borrow and spend. And,
> credit card companies want people to keep borrowing and borrowing and
> spending and spending. Credit card companies make commissions on every
> purchase and make a killing on high interest rates.
>
> Now, no business forces people to behave stupidly and irresponsibly,
> but they use all their might--through lobbying efforts, laws, ads,
> promotions, etc--to make people believe that material consumption is
> the very meaning of life. This mentality has become so pervasive that
> having the ability to consume like a maniac has almost become an
> American Right. And, since it's a Right, it must be provided for
> EVERYONE--even the working poor and welfare poor. So, we have the FF
> fiasco. For some reason, the government AND businesses figured
> EVERYONE should have a right to buy a home. Never mind the down
> payment. Forget such 'elitist' and 'racist' ideas which 'unfairly'
> discrimate disproportionately against minority borrowers. Everyone
> should have the right to buy a McMansion with no down payment. As for
> the future, don't worry, be happy. Just have faith that interest rates
> will remain low forever, that the economy will never have downturns,
> and the government will always be there to save your ass.
>
> FF fiasco is the result of the collusion of worst of government and
> business. Most businesses may be economical and smart in running their
> own affairs, but they don't want consumers to be economical and smart.
> Most businesses want people to spend beyond their means. Most
> businesses think of maximum short term profit. They want the people to
> spend and spend and then borrow and spend. Businesses don't care if
> people become burdened with debt. Businesses want people to come to
> their stores, shops, restaurants, casinos, or whatever and spend as
> much as possible. And, this borrowing/spending binge has been going on
> for a long time. Mall culture has become American culture. It's become
> so pervasive that everyone now demands it as a right from cradle to
> grave. First place kids are taken to isn't the church but the mall.
> So, even for those with less to spend, there's this idea that they
> should be allowed to borrow freely and spend and spend. Capitalist
> idiocy and socialist idiocy go together. Is it any surprise that Latin
> America is both more capitalist and socialist than the US?
> The elite in Venezuela has practiced nothing but lavish spending on
> themselves in boom times, and they put forth their crass lifestyle as
> the national ideal. Poor people felt left out and voted in Hugo Chavez
> who promises goodies for everyone. Idiot rich begat idiot poor.
>
> There's a way to be rich and dignified, and there is a way to be poor
> and dignified. But, with consumer culture as our national core, forget
> it. The only message the rich have for us is "I got mine and F you".
> Businesses, which have so much power in our country, spread the
> message that your life aint worth shi* and you aren't cool unless
> you're a maniacal materialistic consumer. Girls grow up watching
> Hannah Montana. Girls used to play with Barbie Dolls, but now they
> really want to become Barbie Dolls. Poor people in this country are
> without dignity. Instead of assessing their economic situation and
> valuing hardwork, saving, and thrift--the virtues promoted by Benjamin
> Franklin--, the poor--even those on welfare--emulate celebrities on
> TV. Welfare mothers give birth to sons whose big dream in life is a
> diamond studded bling bling.
> This was not the value system of the 'greatest generation'. The people
> who lived through the Great Depression wanted honest work, maintained
> family values, and a sense of individual dignity. Even the New Deal
> was not about mindless materialism--as the book "Grand New Party" by
> Ross Douthat points out. New Deal, good or bad, tried to put people to
> work, not put them on welfare. It urged people to save and raise
> families, not spend like lunatics like there's no tomorrow.
>
> Our culture is all screwed up because liberals, who say they represent
> the poor and the working class, are richer than conservatives on
> average. Also, it's liberals who use capitalism--media and
> entertainment--to spread the worst kind of crass materialism. Jerry
> Springer, Rolling Stone magazine, MTV, and Hollywood are not bastions
> of conservatism. But, conservatives--some of them anyway--are
> ridiculous in thinking that more free markets will solve all
> problems.
> Businesses--capitalism in action--have promoted the New Mindless. They
> did it in the Jazz Age 20s which led to the Great Depression. And, it
> happened again, and we are facing a credit crisis all over the globe.
> Economic well-being is generally determined by consumer spending, but
> crazy spending leads to severe economic downturn--and we can't just
> keep borrowing forever. But, even when the foundations of spending
> habits are shaky, politicians don't say anything. Since the economy
> grows during time of binge spending and whoever's in power want to
> take credit for the good times, no one says anything about where it's
> all leading to. In the 1990s, people who invested in bubble tech
> stocks thought they were all going to be millionaires and spent like
> crazy. It led to the collapse of the stock market in 1999. And, the
> same thing happened with the housing market, but no one said anything.
> Democrats believe it is the Right of everyone to borrow and spend like
> crazy, and Republicans wanted to take all the credit for the economic
> growth under Bush. It turns out much of the economic growth both under
> Clinton and Bush were illusory. In both cases, things got way out of
> hand due to collusion between business and government.
> Conservatism isn't just about free markets but about moral
> responsibility. But, the GOP has come under the control of business
> groups whose only interest is that people borrow and spend. As for
> moral values among conservatives, too much of it's tied to religious
> tenets. There is little philosophical sense of morality among
> conservatives. Instead, we just have a lot of holier-than-thou
> morality--such as on abortion. Being pro-life is fine, but a person
> can be pro-life and still borrow and spend like an idiot. A person can
> be pro-gun and still borrow and spend like an idiot. Now, spending is
> necessary, and our economy would indeed sink without spenders. But,
> the idea that we exist simply to spend and spend and then borrow and
> spend is just plain dumb and dangerous. But, conservatives and
> liberals have both supported such idea either through free-market or
> egalitarian doctrines. That Obama and McCain are blaming one another
> in front of the American people is ridiculous. It's the American
> people--of all classes--who created the current economic mess by
> promoting and practicing binge spending. We should throw the idiot
> consumer-debtors out of this country than throw the bums out of
> Congress.
>
> To some extent, more regulations may save us from more socialism. When
> companies disregard rules and good sense and run their business
> recklessly, they are more prone to fail. And, companies that fail are
> more prone to turn to government for help. Consider traffic lights.
> They regulate traffic, and thank god we have them. But, suppose we
> argue that drivers should all make their own choice at intersections
> without traffic lights. Call it 'free market' or 'libertarian'
> traffic. What will this lead to? More accidents. More accidents will
> lead to need for more traffic cops, more ambulances, more blah blah.
> So, it's good to have traffic lights. This isn't to say bad regulation
> is better than no regulation, but good regulation is better than no
> regulation. Many businesses tell the government to 'get off my
> back'... until they take crazy risks, fail, and then beg the
> government to bail them out--at the expense of the taxpayers. And,
> companies do this by blackmailing the government and the people. They
> say that if the government--and taxpayers--don't help them, their
> losses will sink the economy, more people will lose jobs, and so on.
> Just consider Bears Stern. FF is worse because the government only
> gave it green light to do whatever it chose. That's not regulation but
> favoritism. It's crony capitalism, a form that has been embraced by
> both parties.
>
> To be sure, it's harder to regulate industries now than ever due to
> globalism and the sheer scale of commerce and financial markets.
> Consider the fact that loans held by one bank were sold to another,
> then to another, then to another. So, a loan in Dungville, Tennessee
> ended up being bought by a bank in London or Singapore and so on and
> on. Globalism has been a great boon but also a great risk, and we have
> to be more vigilant.
> But, politicians cannot say any of this because telling people to do
> stuff--and blaming the people for their own faults--are not vote-
> getters. But, conservatives who are NOT running for office should make
> it loud and clear that much of our problems are caused by ourselves.
> Our nation is not a dictatorship. We elect the politicians. We use our
> own freedoms.
> Alaskan politics was corrupt for so long because good people had
> stayed out of the system, and because people elected politicians who
> had no interest in reform or clean government. Palin proves that we
> can all do it if we put our mind to it. If a woman with five kids can
> work, participate in community affairs, run for elective office, and
> change things, we all can.
> And, she joined politics not to leech off others but to preserve her
> freedoms and rights.
>
> And, it must be said rights and freedoms alone don't lead to a good
> society. A good society is the product of how people USE their rights
> and freedoms. Borrowing and spending like a lunatic is an example of
> freedom and exercising one's right to borrow and spend; but, it's bad
> for all of us. But, our deranged culture never wants to blame the
> lunatic borrower/spender. No, we embrace the ideology of victimhood,
> so we are supposed to look upon the borrower-spender-debtor as a poor
> victim. But, don't just blame liberals but also conservatives. MANY
> ads that run on conservative Talk Radio are run by businesses that
> tell heavy debtors that they poor victims, they are not at fault, and
> they are entitled to being protected from debt-collectors. Since the
> vast majority of people who listen to Talk Radio are conservative, a
> good number of them must be heavy debtors who are reneging on their
> obligations. Why doesn't any conservative commentator on the Radio
> comment about these ludicrous ads by these parasitical Capitalist
> companies? Of course, Talk Radio depends on ad revenue, so profit--no
> matter how sleazy--comes before principles.
> But, this is a case of capitalism feeding into socialism. Capitalism
> tells consumers to borrow and spend beyond their means. And, if
> consumers end up heavily in debt, there are OTHER businesses(often run
> by lawyers) that tell the customer, "you're a poor victim of debt
> collectors and deserve to be protected". You'd think debtors are black
> slaves fleeing from the Deep South. One segment of the business
> community say 'customer is king'. This leads to debts and obligations,
> so another segment of the business community says 'customer is a saint-
> victim'. Spend like a king and act like a victim.
>
> I know personal responsibility should be up to every individual, but
> just about every individual is brainwashed with mindless capitalism
> from the time he or she is born. We educate our kids to be consumers
> than citizens. This is both the fault of liberals and conservative--
> especially libertarians. Liberals flood our culture with nothing but
> hedonism and crassness. And, libertarians argue that free markets can
> solve ALL problems, as though we are nothing more than economic units.
> Free market dynamics see people as billiard balls reacting simply to
> economic forces zinging across the table, but economics is no
> substitute for values. To be sure, economic forces can shape our
> values and mindsets, but it is NOT a substitute for such as
> libertarians seem to believe. The failure of education in the black
> community will not be fixed by libertarianism as long as the values in
> the community are rotten. Notice that some of the best public schools
> are in social-democratic countries, and why is that? It's because
> people have certain values and principles. Also, not all socialist
> mentalities are the same. There is share-socialism and take-socialism.
> Most people in Scandavian countries expect much from the government
> but also believe in working and paying much into the government. I
> reject all forms of socialism, but some socialisms work much better
> than others. The problem of socialism in the US is it's take-
> socialism(not only because of social policy but because of the lowly
> values of so many takers. Notice that people with values in America
> would rather work and struggle than live on welfare even though it's
> freely available). People on welfare just want to take and take while
> contributing nothing. In share-socialism, there is a sense of both
> obligation and entitlement. In take-socialism, there is only the sense
> of entitlement. So, socialism, like capitalism, thrives or decays
> depending on the values prevalent among the populace. Singaporean
> share-socialism has worked pretty well, and National Socialism had
> real strengths--before it self-destructed with its racial and
> imperialist ambitions. Both were cases of share-socialism. It
> tolerated and even promoted capitalism but also created a sizable
> socialist sector which, however, didn't just offer free stuff but said
> people must contribute as well as take from the public trough. The
> kind of socialism that is being peddled by the Democrats is pure take-
> socialism.
>
> But, take-socialism was married in hell with borrow-and-spend-
> capitalism as opposed to save-and-spend-capitalism. Borrow-and-spend-
> capitalism says act like there's no tomorrow and pile up your debts.
> Guess what, you end up in trouble. Who steps in next? Take-socialism
> which promises to take care of you, the victim-consumer-saint. No
> wonder the majority of CEOs support Obama. No wonder the majority of
> the affluent capitalist professional class is made up of liberals.
> They don't want people to save. They want people to spend and spend
> and then borrow and spend. This means more money will go to
> businesses; it means more profits. But, what about the consumers with
> high debts who can't pay for their basic necessities? Let the
> government do that. (And let government pay for healthcare since
> businesses no longer have to). Many businesses don't mind paying
> higher taxes to take care of basic needs of the people because people
> who feel that their basic needs are taken care of the government feel
> less obligation to save; they are more likely to spend more and more,
> which is what businesses want. It is a crazy cycle, and that's where
> our nation is at.
>
> What can be said of the relationship between capitalism and socialism
> can also be said of individualism and big government. It's paradoxical
> that many people want both more individual freedom and bigger
> government. Don't individuals want government off their backs? This
> may be the case with self-reliant, successful, and responsible
> individuals. But, moronic individuals always need help. Without
> government to help them, they must rely on friends, family members,
> and the like. They must seek help from people with faces. People with
> faces make personal demands. If a friend who can't pay his rent asks
> if he can move in with you for a month or two, he better follow your
> house rules. He better show gratitude. He better try to look for work
> so he can move out after a month or two. He has to deal with you face-
> to-face, man-to-man. But, if the moron can rely on government--to pay
> his rent, bills, food, medicine, etc--, he only has to deal with
> faceless bureaucrats who make no demands on him. He can maintain his
> 'independence'--though at the expense of other tax payers who are
> being strongarmed by the government to pay higher taxes.
> This is why individualism without values only lead to bigger
> government. All the slackers who want to be 'free'--without working,
> struggling, competing, saving, etc--want the government to take care
> of them. If the government doesn't, they'll be forced to depend on
> their friends and families who WILL make demands on them to change
> their lazy slacker behavior; then, their 'freedom' will be compromised
> because people with faces--friends and families--put conditions on the
> help they provide.
>
> Finally, FF has been a form of Housecare. It should scare all of us.
> If this is what happened to the housing industry and market thanks to
> government involvment, what will happen to government run Healthcare--
> which ougtta be called 'rationed care'? Of course, people like Obama
> say they are not going to move toward nationalization but only toward
> managed care, but it's all a lie. They wanna gradually--almost
> imperctively--move in that direction. (We halfway got there when
> stupid Republicans passed the patients rights bill which jacked up
> premiums so high that people like myself had to drop our plans as we
> could no longer afford them. Though I still oppose rationed care, I'll
> bet many people like myself figure the only way to have any care is
> rationed care. So, they support Obama.)As such, it ought to be called
> Stealthcare, just as Obama is the stealth candidate.
>
>
>