Debt

Why is it that any time a liberal/socialist/communist whines about “debt” they always forget to talk about what it is that the person got in exchange for their debt.

Just recently I watched some pro-socialist nonsense featuring an old English windbag pontificating about how capitalist governments systematically enslave their citizens with debt from which they will never recover which renders them hopeless.  He went on to imply that if only people weren’t hopeless, they would come out and vote and create a true democratic revolution that would be “scary”, the implication of which is that the revolution would be socialist or communist in nature.

A recommended followup was none other than Michael Moore bitching and moaning about how all these people are getting kicked out of their homes and they deserve bailouts, etc. etc., and making a big fuss about how AIG got money but Joe Homeowner didn’t.

The entire time I was listening to this garbage I couldn’t help but notice the glaring omissions these twisted old fruits were making in attempt to rile up my sensibilities, and that is that people get into debt because they buy a lot of stuff, like luxury items.  There aren’t a whole lot of people who are racking up thousands of dollars in debt year over year just to feed themselves.  Well, not people who don’t dine out every night of the week.

Every time I hear someone bring up a foreclosure as if I’m supposed to feel sorry for the evictee, all I hear is someone insinuating that, as an American, I am entitled to a home regardless of whether I can afford one or not.  If you got your ass foreclosed it was because you were living in a home that you did not deserve because you could not afford.  It’s just that simple.

AIG and other companies like it got the money because they owned the homes, not you.  And the fact that you breached your contracts with them and stopped paying them means that you have essentially robbed them.  They paid the person you bought the house from however many hundreds of thousands of dollars their home was worth, under the condition that you’d pay them back over a term of 30 years.  “Foreclosure” is a nice way of saying that you broke your end of the bargain and now the bank is out a few hundred thousand.  Who deserves the bailout, you, or them?

If you ask the likes of Michael Moore, he believes that rather than give money to the banks so they can recoup the loss, the money should be somehow given to you, the homeowner, to give to the banks, so that despite the fact that you cannot earn enough money to pay the bank through the fruits of your labors, you should still be allowed to stay in the home.  In other words, you, the American citizen, are entitled to a home at the expense of your American citizens because you were lucky enough to be born into a country where the average citizen is not a lazy bum and is, in fact, by comparison to the rest of the world, ridiculously rich, and because they pay their taxes, they can afford to prop up you, an American failure, and so they should.  There’s fair thinking for you!

I don’t see how a thinking person could look at the foreclosure rates in the country and think of any word other than “irresponsible.”  I don’t believe these people deserve handouts.  I believe they deserve to live in an apartment until they can buy a house they can afford without their daddy government (e.g., you and me) giving them an allowance merely for existing.

Besides, based on what we saw with Katrina – namely people using their FEMA money to buy TVs and video games – if we gave bailout money directly to the same people who can’t or won’t pay the bank, I’d be willing to bet a sizable portion would take that money and still not give it to the bank.  They’d spend it on cigarettes, liquor, hookers, pay-per-view, weed, and potato chips.  If that’s not an outcome we’d like, let’s just give the money straight to the banks.  Oh, wait a minute…

I leave you with three questions to ponder:

Who is more likely to demand equality: him with lesser or him with greater?

Why does one have more and one have less?

Which group is more likey to succeed: a group comprised of those with more, or a group comprised of those with less?

Work? Nah, Just Get Raped

Watch this video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6491590240460375319

Tell me this girl isn’t trying her hardest to suppress a smile.

She’s probably smiling because she didn’t get raped.  No, she heroicly fought back.  And now she’s “Australia’s leading young feminist.”

Hey, it beats a real job.  Now she travels around, well, everywhere, giving “talks” and “raising awareness about women’s rights” and is a “victim’s advocate.”

Screw you, bitch.  Go build a bridge.  Create a work of art.  Pick up some trash on the highway.  Balance a company’s books.  Why don’t you do something productive with your life instead of turning an incident that probably never even happened into some useless, pandering crusade that gives you something easier and more interesting to do than work a real job?

I can’t stand people like this.  The world would be so much better off without them.