First, an update on the bailout: President Bush said Tuesday that “our economy is dependent on decisive action by the government.” But that quote came as the stock market was skyrocketing 485 points after the bailout package failed.
The liberals got us into this mess by, over a prolonged period, spending too much taxpayer money and forcing banks to lend to unqualified buyers, while the media have maligned the ‘conservative’ banking practices that would have prevented this from happening in the first place.
We should be in no hurry to bail out anyone without a deal to lower capital gains taxes and corporate taxes to offer an incentive for growth at the same time that we are cleaning up the fiasco left behind by years of government abuse. Being Frank about Liberals
We have been subjected to a whirlwind lesson in politics recently over the government bailout plan. Ultra-liberals like congressman Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, chairman of the House financial services committee, even reminded us once again that he is in office to “help the poor”.
As if we hadn’t already heard that.
This is standard leftist boilerplate and it emerges from most news outlets, from the universities, from social activist groups, and from every Democrat candidate in the land.
If only it were so.
First, we know that Frank and his “compassionate” Democrat friends in Congress were praising, lauding, aiding and abetting the government-sponsored enterprises called Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.) during a 2004 congressional hearing in which Republicans were sounding alarm after alarm that these agencies were going to collapse, which they did in September 2008. The video is on YouTube. Type ‘fannie mae hearings’ into the search box.
But no, Frank & Friends assured us that the regulators and those evil Republicans were the enemy, and that these agencies were doing God’s work.
If only it were so.
The fact is that these agencies put hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of poor people into houses that they came to own only by dint of the no-downpayment, easy-credit, cash-for-all mentality prevalent in American socialist politics since the 1960s. Poor people, liberals have claimed, need to have access to the American dream of home ownership. And soon, of course, in typical socialist fashion, this deserving group came to include “moderate income” people, which means that this social engineering scandal was extending its tentacles into the middle class.
As it turned out, however – and what ‘conservative’ bankers have told us for millennia – poor people may deserve compassion, but to trust them routinely with the responsibilities of home ownership is a horse of an entirely different color.
And the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their takeover by the government shows once again that the public at large will pay the price for aiding the poor with a no-questions-asked approach, as is the standard operating procedure for the Democrat party.
There are many reasons that people are poor. And if you take a trip into a poor neighborhood, or visit a poor person’s home, it usually becomes evident why that person is poor and why that person should probably not be trusted in their existing state with the responsibility of paying back a home mortgage loan, and with the responsibilities of home upkeep and ownership.
Because in the end, that person is more likely to be hurt by owning a home, rather than helped. Many of the poor people who took out home loans over the last 20 years have lost their homes and their equity money too.
The problem with liberals is that they come from a political position that they claim has a lock on so-called “compassion” when in fact compassion has many different aspects.
Is it compassion to give something to someone who is not responsible enough to take care of it?
Is it compassionate to hand out trillions of dollars to poor people who show no signs of responsibility while the responsible and hard-working citizens of America are footing the bill and themselves becoming poorer through taxation?
And why should we make one group poor in order to help another?
We should not. But that is how socialism impoverishes entire societies.
And who are “the poor” anyway?
Just observe them and you will know.
One group of “the poor” are people who have been hurt by circumstance: The death of a breadwinner, the loss of a home in a hurricane, financial reversals etc. If these people are responsible, we certainly can help them to get back on their feet with prudent aid.
Another group is made up of people who deserve nothing: They are lazy and stupid. They refuse to shape up or to do a good job at anything. They are irresponsible. They hurt other people. They take advantage of every situation. There are many, many millions of them in America.
The third group is comprised of people who put themselves at risk and lose. Oftentimes, they risk out of stupidity, sometimes out of hoping for some kind of gain.
The fourth group are people who live in areas that support little economic activity, like people in rural areas where there are few jobs, or cities where there are not enough jobs for people.
And the fifth kind are people who are made poor by their government, which includes tens of millions in America. This group also includes billions of people throughout history who lived in places that could have been prosperous but were made poor by their governments. Think of communist China or the Soviet Union, where the entire empire was made destitute by communism. Think of communist North Korea, where there is not even any electricity for most of the country, yet just over the border in pro-American and capitalist South Korea, the people have a living standard as high as anywhere in the world.
So should we treat all poor people the same?
Do liberals treat them all the same?
You might think “yes” but in fact they do not.
Because when people are made poor by liberalism – for instance when Democrat over-taxation and over-regulation kills jobs; when radical environmentalism shuts down economic opportunity; when labor unions run companies into the ground out of sheer greed; when poor inner-city neighborhoods cannot support jobs because of incompetent and bureaucratic urban governments – liberals look the other way and point their fingers.
That is why Barney Frank’s comment that he is in politics to “help the poor” is false. Because it is his party’s policies that have made most poor Americans poor in the first place.
How many blacks have had their futures destroyed by the dysfunctional inner-city public schools that are controlled lock, stock and barrel by “compassionate” Democrat teacher unions?
How many inner-city blacks live in a hopeless, nihilist culture of violence propagated to a large degree by hip-hop/rap music that is put out by entertainment-industry liberals who get rich on that stuff?
How many banks have suffered huge losses because radical left-wing groups like ACORN pressured them into making home loans to poor people who defaulted on the loans?
Hundreds, maybe thousands. And a weakened banking system hurts all of America, while many of those poor homeowners ended up with nothing anyway because they were not capable of dealing with the responsibilities of ownership.
How many people in rural America have had their jobs destroyed by zealous left-wing environmental regulations?
Millions, and this is spreading. A total of 30,000 loggers were thrown out of work in Oregon alone by the phony ‘spotted owl’ controversy of the 1990s. Today enviros are shutting down logging, mining, ranching, farming and manufacturing all over rural America, county by county.
How many Americans have had their cities and towns destroyed by radical labor unions demands that drove productive companies away?
Millions. Just look at the union strongholds of Flint and Detroit, Michigan; Toledo and Cleveland, Ohio; Buffalo, New York; many other cites and towns in the Rust Belt, and all the unionized manufacturing strongholds in the Northeast that now are devastated.
Who controlled them and sucked the life out of them?
Democrats and labor unions.
Some of these losses, of course, were natural. The business environment changed and the companies’ products became obsolete. There is nothing you can do about that.
But liberals like Barney Frank and his allies in labor unions and in the enviro movement, along with the taxers and regulators and bureaucrats, have made business impossible to conduct in liberal places. That is why most of the economic growth in America is in the low-tax, non-union southern states where workers, of their own free will, are voting against unionizing. Because they have seen the devastating results of unions.
Don’t let people like Barney Frank tell you how much they “care” about the state of the American worker and the American poor. Their policies make millions poor, and then those same libs always point the finger.
That finger should be pointed back at themselves.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more common sense.