Ok, we got the Fannie to cover and the Freddie to conceal, so those two start the parade of bailouts that are being pushed to our lovely government. Just $700 billion... or more... depending on who you talk to. We have the bully pulpit on its wheels going back and forth in the klieg lights, a bit of the old authoritarianism thrown into the mix, and the idea that we just might parallel the relatively stolid Nordic crisis which has all sorts of differences no one wants to point out also gets floated here and there. Its a 'crisis' here and a 'bailout' there and money flowing everywhere.
Hey, here are some of the folks that Fannie and Freddie asked to help smooth this along:
Such big-hearted, swell folks to push sub-prime lending and removing all sorts of things like actually having to have some income on the way to home 'ownership'. Guess they never heard of 'renting'.
And two of the big holders of Fannie and Freddie? Well there is China to the tune of $400 billion and Russia with $100 billion.
From your pocketbook to their countries. Not that either had any reason to actually want a financial meltdown in the US! I am sure that Russia was all just keen on having US funds pulled out after the Georgia campaign opened. And China is looking for a major foothold in oil exploration in Iraq.
Awwww... these are such swell countries to be holding on to sub-prime debt in the US, no?
Luckily Lehman Brothers didn't get a bailout... but AIG did get the nod. Way to 'bolster the market' so that Fannie and Freddie still need a bailout, too!
So who is up next? Well, those making auto loans want a bailout! Come one, come all, get your car and watch as the federal government steps forward to pay for it. Buy what you want! I'm sure that some Congresscritter will make this a 'civil right', too... only a few tens of billions there.
Hey! How about bailing out some of the folks who caused this mess to happen in the first place? Like ACORN, which has been pushing sub-prime NINJAs for years via the 'Community Reinvestment Act' put in place under... President Jimmy Carter. What? President Reagan couldn't get rid of this? Or the Dept. of Education which has not improved the reading rate in the US above those of 1958 when poor Johnny couldn't read?
Yes you get ACORN who complains that 'people can't afford a home' and lobby Congress with the help of Freddie and Fannie, get sub-prime loans to folks 'on the margins', they 'get a home' they can't afford or pay for, they start to 'walk away' or default, and then ACORN wants MORE MONEY to help these people who 'can't afford a home' that they got a home they couldn't afford! Yes they want 20% of the money from the bailout to help those they helped to hurt themselves.
Remember that ACORN is far more interested in their agenda than in actually helping communities. They are 'community organizers' out for their own benefit at the expense of communities. The guys who founded it got arrested for embezzlement and trying to cover that up. Lining your pockets with money meant to help 'communities'. Great, huh?
At another Investors Business Daily Editorial we get reminded of who *else* was involved in the sub-prime, no ID needed, get a tax ID number - get a loan deal: La Raza. Yes! Vote for Amnesty and get a bailout! Or vote against and get a bailout! Because those poor people here illegally just need your money... yes we can step from the No Income, No Job or Assets NINJAs to those who aren't even here legally and are acting as squatters demanding cash for homes they shouldn't have!
Hey! Why are such wonderful Leftists supporting of a group going by 'The Race', anyways? Thought they were against racism....
Then, then the lovely Congresscritters decide that what is really needed with a bailout is... EARMARKS!
Be still my beating stomach...
Sen. Reid, you know the D-Majority Leader in the Senate? Sour puss? Wanted to load up another $56 billion of taxpayer spending because, you know, we are in an economic crisis in which stimulation of the economy is *not* the problem.... plus he wanted to stop all development of oil shale!
Then, not to be outdone, D-Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi in the House wanted to lard up $61 billion in earmarks, but didn't have the wit to try and cut America's energy future at the same time. Just goes to prove that no one can screw things up better than a Senator.
So how is that for what the Congress is trying to do?
Bailout China and Russia, AIG, increase amounts going to ACORN and La Raza and get folks like those making auto loans pounding on the door for more money. Plus earmarks. And maybe a monkeywrench into a better energy future.
And the Federal Reserve and SEC just looked on at the behest of Congress, because it is Congress who calls the tunes and has the purse strings.
Federal organizations to oversee other federal organizations then directed to look the other way while fiscal sanity was removed, foreign capital flowed in to our domestic housing market, and those trying to 'aid' the 'poor' and illegal exploited them to encourage unwise purchases which hurt the economy so they can now ask for more money to 'solve' the problem they helped to create. Who else will show up with their hand out next?
Yea, and verily do I understand why President Jackson wanted no part of having a federal role in this sort of thing. Because the ills that were present when this was done from President Jefferson to President Jackson were already being observed:
Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? The president of the bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it can not be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.
Should the stock of the bank principally pass into the hands of the subjects of a foreign country, and we should unfortunately become involved in a war with that country, what would be our condition? Of the course which would be pursued by a bank almost wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign power, and managed by those whose interests, if not affections, would run in the same direction there can be no doubt. All its operations within would be in aid of the hostile fleets and armies without. Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy.
If we must have a bank with private stockholders, every consideration of sound policy and every impulse of American feeling admonishes that it should be purely American. Its stockholders should be composed exclusively of our own citizens, who at least ought to be friendly to our Government and willing to support it in times of difficulty and danger. So abundant is domestic capital that competition in subscribing for the stock of local banks has recently led almost to riots. To a bank exclusively of American stockholders, possessing the powers and privileges granted by this act, subscriptions for $200,000,000 could be readily obtained. Instead of sending abroad the stock of the bank in which the Government must deposit its funds and on which it must rely to sustain its credit in times of emergency, it would rather seem to be expedient to prohibit its sale to aliens under penalty of absolute forfeiture.
Owning a home is NOT a 'civil right', but a liberty you may exercise with hard work and prudent saving. There is no 'right' to have a roof over your head - those on the Left closed asylums to throw the unable on the street to prove that point in the 1970's, instead of ensuring that strict accountability and standards were applied to such institutions. Those poor folks are entitled to the exact, same liberty that you or I have and they cannot exercise it as they are mentally unable. But those wanting the institutions closed claimed that this was far better than institutionalization gone bad. They are correct: it shows exactly how much we depend on liberty to be able to lead a good life and is a prime example of that.
They wanted society to wash its hands of the institutions, so be it. And don't complain about the working poor having problems making ends meet as they, at least, are trying to make ends meet and have not been thrown out of their only place of sanctuary by benevolent oversight. These are not 'hobos' who were, by an large, honest wanderers searching for a good job so they could wander a bit more in search of a better life. Hobos knew what they were doing. Until ACORN, La Raza and every other 'civil rights' group that has a gripe actually gets every, single homeless person off the street and cared for, and those with mental illnesses treated, they can go take a hike. And those that WANT to live that way should damned well be left ALONE to do so as a conscious free choice and exercise in liberty and freedom.
You do not have the 'right to work': you have the liberty to seek out gainful employment.
You do not have the 'right to a roof over your head': you have your liberty to put to the end of gaining shelter for yourself.
You do not have the 'right to transportation' or the 'right to on-time air travel': you have feet, a mind and your liberty to back them and if YOU choose unwisely, then don't complain about what a poor choice YOU made. Suck it up and deal with it.
As President Jackson put it, here is what we should expect from government:
It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.
Yes, rain upon the rich and poor equally and shine upon them both. We cannot make all people equal in talents, in birth, in money but we can, should and must treat them all equally without seeking favor from government that will bias those institutions meant to serve each and every single one of us.
Equal treatment from government is an unqualified blessing, indeed.
If you want to get a house, earn it the 'old fashioned way'.
EARN IT.
Plenty of places to rent until then.
Supporting Friends and Allies
No comments:
Post a Comment