The New Bailout

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Robinson: The inequality of equality
GEVERYL ROBINSON | Sunday, December 14, 2008 at 12:30 am

Contextual linking provided by Topix Egalitarianism: 1. A belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges 2. A social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.


During the presidential election, I kept hearing people bemoan the fact that electing Barack Obama would mean the end of our democracy because Obama and all his Obamacans were socialists who believed in the redistribution of wealth.

I have news for you. We've been dabbling in socialism for quite some time. Democrats, Republicans and all of us are to blame.

I can give you a long drawn out definition of socialism, but in a nutshell, socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly. Know some of you are wondering what's wrong with that, and I'll tell you.

It's not the government's responsibility to make sure wealth and power are distributed more evenly. Egalitarianism is a myth. No matter how you slice it, there will always be inequalities among people, and the government's and our delusion about this fact is the primary reason our country is in its current state.

So we should allow MORE inequality to exist, because we can't get rid of all of it? And ftr, it isn't the government's responsibility to make sure wealth is distributed at the top either, but that's exactly what's been happening, FOR YEARS (please read some of David Cay Johnston's books). This country has been using socialism for the gain of corporations FOR YEARS, class warfare has been going on in favor of the richest individuals FOR YEARS, and now that some of that wealth might actually leak back down to the middle and lower classes, people who have been brainwashed into thinking we actually live in a capitalist society cry foul. How nice.

For example, everyone is shocked by the high foreclosure rates and the millions who have lost their homes due to the "evil lenders." I agree that some of the lenders were predatory. However, there were many who were under extreme pressure from the government to give loans to any and everyone just to make things "fair."

If Mr. CEO with a steady job history, great credit and large income could get a home, then in the spirit of fairness, in the spirit of egalitarianism, Mr. No Job, no money, no credit, 12 kids by 12 different women, and dentures on layaway could get a home, too.

And his home should be just as nice as Mr. CEO's because after all, giving Mr. No Job a home with lesser value wouldn't be fair.

No one told those lenders to lend to people without jobs, or to give them bigger loans than they could afford, or to not check credit. There may have been pressure to make more loans to lower income people, but they did all that crap all on their own, because they KNEW they would package the loans up and sell them, and they wouldn't be the ones losing money when they failed. They KNEW they would fail, but they didn't care, because they were greedy.

Contrary to what a lot of people believe, Fannie May actually worked very well for decades, and lower income people have successfully been getting and paying for loans for a very long time

See the problem?

True, there have been practices by lending institutions and companies that were discriminatory. Laws have been put in place to alleviate these practices. But discrimination is defined as "making a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit." If that's the case, then isn't giving people homes, credit cards, cars, jobs or anything else because they are poor, and not because they earned these things due to their own merit, discriminatory against those who earned the things they've acquired?

And what about the millions of people who knowingly accepted the "free" credit cards they received in the mail and then used the cards to their limit, all the while knowing they would never be able to make their monthly payments?

My God, when the federal government exists pretty much on credit alone, and banks are bombarding people with credit card applications, many of whom should never have gotten them, and advertising is coercing people into thinking they need things they don't, and our system is actually set up to get people to spend, spend, spend, can you blame people getting out of control? (Didn't you post that link to how stuff works on SMN Merc? Don't you remember how the government actually conspired after WWII to create an economy based on needless stuff?) Remember the 80s? Gordon Gecko in the movie Wall Street? Greed is Good! All politicians talk about is GROWING the economy. How about creating a sustainable one? Good grief.

I've heard some elderly people say, "Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered," and our greed has led us straight to the slaughterhouse.

Instead of suffering from optical rectumitis (the crossing of the anal nerve with the optic nerve causing one to have a crappy outlook on life), we need to take responsibility for our actions, for our part in this mess we find ourselves in as a country.

We all played a part in our economic downfall. So instead of redistributing wealth, let's try redistributing responsibility and then collectively find solutions to reverse our downward spiral and restore our economy.

http://www.savannahnow.com/node/635671

yes, we ALL did. But let's not blame individuals who have been brainwashed by Wall Street for decades MORE than the people who actually created the problem in the first place.