Crush Liberalism

14 Comments »

1. I have nothing to say in defence of these people, if they defaulted, they lose the house, whatever. if they broke the law (some unpaid taxes were mentioned) they should be fined or go to jail. again, whatever.

   the larger point here is that just because these people defaulted on their houses and don’t need help doesn’t mean we should deny help to the people who acctually DO need it. who are much more numerous, and they aren’t rich congresspeople.

   Comment by andrew | May 29, 2008

2. The federal government is NOT an insurance agency, Andrew. If I lose my job and my ability to afford my house, that sucks for me and my family. I won’t be asking the federal government to bail me out, though. If my STATE government has a plan, that’s one thing…but the feds have no business whatsoever getting involved. If you can point to that place in the Constitution that says otherwise, I’ll admit being wrong.

   Comment by crushliberalism | May 29, 2008

3. “whatever” … “again, whatever”

   Translation: “sorry, I can’t hear you – I’m too busy feeling to think”

   I have been a home owner for more than eleven years. My first home was a modest fixer-upper that was at least an hour drive from anywhere. So, why did I buy a crappy little house in the middle of nowhere? Because that was all I knew I could afford at the time! Sure, I looked at nicer places in more desirable areas. Yes, I had the opportunity to buy them with an adjustable rate. I did not because I knew I wouldn’t be able to afford it should the rates go up!

   When people who make $30,000 per year buy a $500,000 home with no money down, there’s something rotten in Denmark. The lenders should have known better, but so should the buyers. Personal accountability is one of the touchstones of a free society. Without it, we are left with the government making all of our decisions for our own good. Thanks, but I’ll pass.

   Comment by TheBad | May 29, 2008

4. both of you are right on a couple of points but federal action is still merited in this case. and here’s why:

   It is not the fault of the federal government that some lenders misrepresented the contracts they were selling and it’s not the feds fault that so many of the ignorant masses fell into the trap, the the fed (and by extention, you and I) shouldn’t have to pay for it.

   however, even though the lenders AND the homeowners should have known better, it is the JOB of the lenders to know better, so in cases where the lender sold a contract on the premise that, “oh if your rate goes up, just refinance!” as so many did, and the lender didn’t inform the homeowner that this strategy won’t work if the market turns sour, as so many didn’t. the fault for this situation as a whole lies with the lender.

   solution: force the burden of this whole credit crunch onto the lenders. not the homeowners, not the taxpayers.

   it just “feels” right

   Comment by andrew | May 29, 2008

5. Dumbass, I’m going to try this again:

   If you can point to that place in the Constitution that says the federal government’s role is to intervene into the insurance arena, I’ll admit to being wrong.

   Comment by crushliberalism | May 29, 2008

6. my suggestion in this case is not that the government bail out the homeowners, but rather that the government mandate that the lenders bail out the homeowners. Is it unconstitutional for the government to create laws regulating business?

   I would also point out that your gripe with how the federal government works is just a fact of life since the new deal. the commonly viewed alternative to the new deal at the time, I would remind you, was a new and popular governmental system called fascism.

   maybe they should ammend the constitution to make this “government as insurance” concept your talking about legal but it seems like a moot point after 80+ years.

   Comment by andrew | May 29, 2008

7. but rather that the government mandate that the lenders bail out the homeowners

   They have no constitutional authority to do such a thing. Besides, the feds created the damned problem in the first place when they told the lenders to change their underwriting criteria to net otherwise uncreditworthy borrowers. Enter subprime loans, interest-only loans, creative ARMs, etc. So the feds told the lenders “Loan to poor risks”, and you want to saddle the lenders with the fallout for listening to the feds? Also, do you doubt for a second that the cost to the lenders will be passed on to the general public in the form of fees, higher rates, etc.?

   Feeling, not thinking.

   Is it unconstitutional for the government to create laws regulating business?

   Yes, it is. For a history on the Interstate Commerce Clause, check this out.

   I would also point out that your gripe with how the federal government works is just a fact of life since the new deal.

   The New Deal itself was an unconstitutional power grab by an ambitious federal government. FDR packed the courts with like-minded big government types to creatively interpret the Constitution to turn this country in to the bloated bureacracy we see (and you love) today.

   the commonly viewed alternative to the new deal at the time, I would remind you, was a new and popular governmental system called fascism.

   You absolute blathering idiot! The commonly viewed alternative to the New Deal was the OLD DEAL, i.e. the Constitution on which this country was founded! Wiping one’s #ss with the Constitution may be chic in your circle, but not in mine.

   Again…Feeling, not thinking. Does your ignorance hurt?

   maybe they should ammend the constitution to make this “government as insurance” concept your talking about legal but it seems like a moot point after 80+ years.

   It most certainly is not moot. If the people in this country want the imperial federal government to be an insurance agency, they can amend the Constitution to make it legally so.

   Comment by crushliberalism | May 29, 2008

8. ya know, I almost got upset when you called me a blathering idiot, but then I got a mental image of your faceshot with your entire head turning red and I felt better.

   based on that wiki article, i’d have to say that I sympathize with the expanded interpretation of the commerce clause. the very best that you can say is that the government’s power to regulate the economy is debatable, to say i’m “wiping my hindquarters with the constitution” is a little extreme.

   now here’s the part where it REEEEALLY helps to have an understanding of other people’s points of view: you say “power grab by ambitions federal government”, I say “the peice of legislature that saved this country from ruin”. potato, potAHto, lets call the whole thing off.

   and regardless of your own lack of knowledge of it: yes, fascist revolution was the right wing’s answer to the new deal. although I should at least point out that this oppinion was only shared by those in the right wing who at least UNDERSTOOD that something had to change or the country would come to ruin.

   in case you didn’t get this from your history class, let me spell it out for you: the great depression was the kind of time that would make or break a country, we made it because we evolved. and we even managed not to evolve into a fascist regime or a communist police state. we just evolved into a country that takes care of it’s own instead of throwing the poor to the wolves.

   Comment by andrew | May 29, 2008

9. ya know, I almost got upset when you called me a blathering idiot, but then I got a mental image of your faceshot with your entire head turning red and I FELT better.

   Feeling, not thinking. It’s become your calling card.

   You ARE a blathering idiot, and your lack of knowledge of history is offensive. But hey, if you get your rocks off visualizing me turning red (which I didn’t, but whatever floats your boat, jerk), don’t let me rain on your parade.

   we just evolved into a country that takes care of it’s own instead of throwing the poor to the wolves.

   You DO know that socialism has been an abject failure everywhere it’s been tried, right? Besides (and I’m getting tired of pointing this out to your stupid ass), I’ve repeatedly demonstrated that it doesn’t take a big, bloated, imperial federal government to “take care of its own”. It takes state and local governments and charities to do that. It is NOT, you illiterate socialist, the role of the federal government to do that.

   Let ME spell this out for you: this country is great because of individuals, NOT because of government. But you being a big government liberal who doesn’t give a rat’s #ss about the Constitution, I’m sure you’ll never see it that way.

   Geez, it’s like arguing with a child. You’re not intelligent in the slightest bit.

   Comment by crushliberalism | May 30, 2008

10. Obviously the words “personal” “responsibility” do not appear in the liberal dictionary.

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | May 30, 2008

11. Andrew
    The war got us out of the depression NOT NEW DEAL POLICIES. The fact that we were supplying England with war material while not spending a dime on the war from 38-41. In fact New Deal policies WERE FAILING and getting us in even more trouble.

    Comment by WMD_Maker | May 30, 2008

12. yes, communism has been a failure everywhere it has been tried. even china isn’t really communist anymore. but socialist style polocies (like the new deal) have been successful. oh, i’m sorry, it dosn’t offend your sense of patriotism to that american has some socialist laws does it?

    btw, if it’s such a big deal to reinterpret the constitution (and it is), why aren’t you up in arms about the VP declaring himself part of the legeslative branch of government? I mean, at least the reinterpretation of the commerce clause (which saved our country, I say again) was reasonable. unlike Vader’s declaration that the vice-PRESIDENT is not part of the same branch of government as the PRESIDENT.

    Comment by andrew | May 30, 2008

13. but socialist style polocies (like the new deal) have been successful.

    Wow…just “wow”. I can pretty much ignore you now.

    Comment by crushliberalism | May 31, 2008

14. whatever, you get the right to your opinion, but not your own set of facts. but if you FEEL like i’m wrong go ahead, just don’t get mad when I argue with REASON.

    Comment by andrew | May 31, 2008

« Previous | Next »

Site info

Crush Liberalism
Theme: Andreas04 by Andreas Viklund. Blog at WordPress.com.