With all of this talk and “action” (“action” in the dystrophic political world of Washington, weakly translates to: political promises and petty posturing..) of late as relates to the daily requests for “bailouts”, my first thought invariably becomes “where is the reward for those of us who have played by the rules”? If there is no reward, can we at least penalize and or punish those who are directly responsible for their own “misfortunes”? Where is the “bailout” for those of us “little people” who have lost (so far; on paper) over one third of our life savings?
Even the Republican Presidential candidate John McCain was heard to say on more than one occasion, “we need to keep people in their homes”.. Those homes aren’t “their” homes until they have been paid off. Until then, “their home” belongs to the bank..
Scratch that, as of the last few months, make that “their home” belongs to the government.. The Democrats, namely Bill Clinton and Barney Frank, have for years been moving us one step at a time closer towards the “necessary nationalization” of the nations banking and lending institutions. Their hard work is finally paying off because very soon the government will “own” these institutions and the big three auto manufacturers are standing in line with their hats I their hands, willing asking to be accepted into the “Black Hole” of perpetual governmental control/ownership. With the “Great Redistributor” ready to “rule from Day One”, with his tarnished scepter of stupidity in his hand, it would seem that this rush to complete nationalization couldn’t have come at a worse time..
If some imbecilic lending institution “gifted” a home to someone based on “fairness” as opposed to realistic monetary qualifications, why am I being penalized financially? Isn’t this the reason that apartment buildings were invented? Pack up and move because you didn’t deserve the home that you are occupying. If your job involves giving loans to people who have no chance of ever paying a loan back, it is actually a good thing that you will lose your job.. The government (you and me) should not be in the business of “bailing” you out so that you can continue making the same illogical loans to the same types of blatantly unqualified “homeowners”.
I know that the liberals are good at creating “rights” out of thin air because having checked the “living document” rather carefully, I found that there are no Constitutional guarantees to “home ownership”. If everyone dealt in reality as opposed to real estate, everyone COULD “own” a home. That “home” might be vastly smaller in size and it might not be in an exclusive area of town, but it still qualifies as a “home” and it will do just fine until you have “earned” enough to merit the move to a bigger home. Everyone may want a 10,000 square foot home but the relatively small number of people that can realistically afford one is apparently “unfair”, therefor everyone “deserves” one based on “want” as opposed to “merit”. What could possibly go wrong with that scheme?
What would the idiot pop psychologists who routinely occupy space on obsequious Oprah’s couch say about all of this? They might say that we are involuntary enablers at the behest of the liberal collectivist caliphate.. Well, they may not say it EXACTLY like that, but I think that you see where we are headed here.
This is a veritable powder keg as we are about to witness the coronation of the collectivist illusionist from Illinois into the highest office in the land. Keep in mind how the liberals “solve” problems. They throw buckets of money at it and then they hold a press conference where they tell the world that they have “done something”.. How has this theorem play out as to the public schools? How does it work as relates to the ridiculous “War on Poverty” that we have been suffering through since the Johnson days? These amazing successes will be replicated if the liberals use the same song and dance with these constant requests for bailouts today. The liberals never want to solve a problem or a dilemma. They want to worsen or intensify it and they have unlimited potential for damage with this crisis.
Our “reward” for playing by the rules is for us to “rescue” those who haven’t. The midnight manager of the “Bowl-a-Rama” can’t make that payment on that home that he or she should have never been given (pardon me while I dash back to the whole “reality” thing: a home that they should have never taken..) so it’s only “fair” that I contribute to their house payment as well because we don’t want them to be “homeless”..
The definition of the word “homeless” has recently taken on a bizarre twist. It would appear that recently that word has come to mean, “someone who has to move out of a home that they should have never moved into in the first place.” They aren’t “homeless” they just need to realistically approach the idea of home “ownership”. “Own” a smaller home or rent an apartment. Please explain to me how these repulsive and repetitive “bailout” scenarios are “unfair” to anyone other than those who will be saddled with additional responsibility of paying the bills of others.
Does the fact that those who have played by the rules will now be bankrolling those who have not seem at all “unfair”?? Who determines just exactly who the “victim” is in all of this? Who is the final arbiter of “fair” here?
The government can and probably will, “bailout” every defaulting company and undisciplined individual on the planet but without sufficient consequences properly applied, the long term results will be duplicated ad infinitum. This whole unaccountability seems to be the illogical extension of this ridiculous “time out” way of thinking/parenting. There are no consequences for anyone’s actions at any time, regardless of the totality of the circumstances. It’s the same as telling Joseph Hazelwood that he can pilot the Exxon Valdez again while the clean up of Prince William Sound goes on around him..
Accountability has gone completely out of vogue. “The sun was in my eyes” and “the dog ate my homework” are all perfectly acceptable excuses for individual and corporate malfeasance in 2008.
These politicians, lenders and unrealistic “home owners” are turning the “American Dream” of the realistic into a nightmare of unnecessary bailouts to the undeserving.