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.