War on Wealth & Responsibility
I got this from a good friend and very smart political fellow in Charlotte. What do you think?
—–
Over the last 60 days or so, we have seen the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of our country. Years of savings for many Americans have been wiped out with the burden falling on responsible people who have lived sensibly, within their means, saving for current or future retirement. The productive people of this country have been raped of up to 50 percent of their savings.
How did this happen and who is responsible? The seeds were sown by Democrats in our Congress, people like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama and organizations like Acorn, who pressured banks and lending institutions into making home loans to people who could not afford them. Government subsidies were then put in place to encourage more of the same, in essence subsidizing the avarice of lending institutions, home builders, brokers and all people involved in the appraisal and lending process. Knowing that government subsidy, whether it be welfare or greed, will produce more of the same! Unfortunately, the Bush administration and our Republican watchdogs in the Congress, who did know what was happening, stood on the sidelines and did little to stop the sure to happen disaster that followed.
This financial debacle helped create an environment where Barack Obama, the most radical, unprepared, unqualified person ever to run, has become the president elect of the U.S. Unchallenged by the media, in fact supported by it, Obama ran a brilliant, carefully scripted campaign, capitalizing on fears about the economy, the welfare mentality that permeates our society and a Bush administration that too often strayed from traditional Republican traditions and values. The ultimate irony is that Obama won by offering change to an economic mess that he and his fellow Democrats helped create and by criticizing George Bush for promoting policies for which Democrats are best known—big spending, big government and welfare programs! By creating this financial meltdown and the promise of taking more from them, Obama and his Democrat colleagues have bought an election with funds from responsible, hard working Americans, most of whom voted against him.
Today, ten days after the election, we still know little about Obama’s association with the most radical elements of our society; much of his background is shrouded in mystery; his experience is far less than that of Sara Palin and his “change” has never been clarified or quantified. These facts made little difference to the millions of mindless young people looking for a continuance of their soft lives and “me” generation lifestyles; to 95 plus percentage of Black voters who seemed to care only about his African heritage; to millions seeking to preserve or gain more from the federal government, and of course to the liberals and far left who hate George Bush and traditional conservative values.
Unfortunately, John McCain, who never quite figured out who he was, in the final analysis, offered little resistance. Rather than challenging Obama, McCain was more concerned about his own image than winning the presidency. Obama used the race card to checkmate McCain, who like too many people in our society would rather risk losing our country than being called a racist. The Democrats, who, without the Black vote could not win dogcatcher at any governmental level, figured this out long ago. The welfare state mentality, the trend toward socialism and the prostitution of our Constitution can all be traced to this coalition.
This ‘War on Responsibility” has been developing for years and now the Obama administration is promising to inflict more pain on the ‘responsible’ by, in his own words, “spreading the wealth.” There is now indeed, a “WAR ON WEALTH” in this country. Don’t be misled! This “WAR ON WEALTH” includes more than just the very wealthy. It is a war on anyone who has lived frugally, responsibly and accumulated savings for their retirement. It is a war on entrepreneurship, businesses and anyone pursuing the American dream of financial independence. Obama has promised more corporate and business taxes, increased capital gains taxes, more taxes when you sell your home and more taxes on inheritance. His big lie of the campaign was a promise to reduce taxes on 95 percent of working families. You don’t need an economist to figure this out. Anyone with a smidgen of commonsense knows this is impossible.
The “WAR ON WEALTH” will require new government policies to ‘spread the wealth’ around, and as is the case with all government policies, there will be unintended consequences. (Too bad that government is not required, like drug companies, to provide a listing of possible side effects) One major consequence of this “WAR ON WEALTH”, will be a huge reduction in philanthropy in this country. When government policy declares WAR ON WEALTH, the unintended consequence is a WAR ON PHILANTHROPY! Every institution or organization that depends all or in part, on contributions from individuals or businesses, will be adversely affected—–I believe dramatically. Schools, colleges, churches, the arts, United Way, Salvation Army—-all non-profits will find fund raising increasingly difficult. As a result of this financial melt down and the stock market free fall, we are already seeing this ripple throughout the non-profit world. Organizations that operate on year to year fundraising efforts are in great difficulty and even those institutions with big endowments are cutting back on spending, imposing a hiring freeze and suspending construction projects. Many non-profits may fail—-some should! Non-profits depend on the very folks who have been hit the hardest —-folks who can expect further pain from the new administration’s ‘spread the wealth’ agenda. Add to all this the negative impact of millions of illegal immigrants who are here and more to come, the impact of all the proposed bailout programs and it is irrefutable that regardless of your reason for voting for Obama and the Democrat majorities, you have indeed, voted against every charitable and/or non-profit organization in this country.
So what can we do—-we, the hard working, responsible folks, who pay the taxes, create the jobs and fund the charitable organizations? We can’t win at the ballot box, because there seems to be more of them (those who want to grow government), than of us. We are no longer relevant; our ideas are ignored; our traditional values of hard work and responsibility are under assault ; we are victims of a majority that see us as work horses to support the irresponsible and their leaders’ quest for power.
I do have an idea! I believe it will work! It will take courage, persistence and a huge measure of tough love. We will be heavily criticized by the liberals and the left—-called greedy, self-righteous, uncaring and destructive.
Here it is: EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, WE THE 48 PERCENT WHO VOTED AGAINST THE OBAMA ‘SPREAD THE WEALTH’ PHILOSOPHY WILL:
STOP ALL CASH DONATIONS TO ALL CHARITABLE AND OTHER NON PROFITS
The only exception would be donations to churches and donation of tangible products—clothing, food, household items, etc but NO CASH, to other charities.
Now why would this strategy work to eliminate the “WAR ON WEALTH”? There are millions of people in this country who are employed by, work for or dependent on charitable organizations. There would be a groundswell like you’ve never seen in this country, to stop this “WAR ON WEALTH.” Those of us who pay the taxes and are the backbone of philanthropy, in effect, will have millions of lobbyists demanding that the Obama administration change its taxing philosophy. Obama and the Democrats will be forced to address this outcry. They will have two options: bail out the non-profits—a solution that is not practical and impossible to implement, or change their socialistic philosophy of “spread the wealth.”
Yes there will be short term pain for the non-profits and charitable organizations. However, they are already experiencing pain from the economic crisis. And as the “War on Wealth” continues, less and less money will be available for charity. So the question is, are we willing to experience some short term pain, and much criticism from the liberal do-gooders, in order to stop this War On Wealth and this War on Philanthropy in its tracks, or do we slowly bleed to death the responsible folks, who in the end will have little or no money for charity??
Are those of us who pay the taxes make the donations, going to rise up, or like the frog, sit in the water while the irresponsible turn up the heat and boil us to death?
If you agree with me, send this to all you know, coast to coast. I’m only one person, but I intend to do exactly what I have outlined. If 50 million Americans will adopt this strategy, we can show Barack Obama and the Democrats what “CHANGE” really means—change that will be good for America.
Are we tough enough to do it…..or will we let Barack Obama and the Democrats destroy our life’s work?
Popularity: 10% [?]
Possibly similar posts - Democrat 2009 Priorities - More Government Responses - Vote for Change - It IS a Bailout - Why NOT vote for Obama/McCain
I agree with most of the evaluation, but I think it’s written through rose-colored glasses. The republican party abandoned any claim to their traditional values long ago. We can’t blame the current mess on the democrats: the republicans are just as guilty. There is virtually no difference between the two anymore.
And I don’t agree with his proposal to stop giving to charities. Frankly, I think this would just give Obama justification to nationalize everything.
If he really wanted to take a tough stance, the obvious solution would be to stop paying taxes. But risking the possibility of jail is probably a little “tougher” than he’s ready for.
I can’t argue with that. Indeed, the Republican Party IS a party of huge government today, just as is the Democrat Party. I find it harder and harder to find any differences between the two parties.
As for the charities, I just don’t know that I get it. If charities are losing money, will they just turn to government for help? I’m not sure that the charities will make the connection between bad government and low donations. In fact, here in North Carolina, nearly all “charities” get piles of cash from the state government — so if their donations go down, they will just get more from the government.
Quibble– it wasn’t that the lending companies were greedy, so much as they were facing the law and lawsuits if they didn’t take on enough bad loan choices of the right color and income. Add to that the Fanny/Freddy book cooking….
Again, also correct. I believe that the current mortgage “crisis” is completely, 100% government created. I don’t blame the companies one bit. Well, I blame Fanny-Freddie, but that’s a government company, anyway.
I think the auto problem is gov’t-caused as well.
Gov’t forces unions on them, forces these moronic environmental standards, supports really stupid lawsuits against them, and taxes them out the ears on top of it all.
Stuff like this is why I lean more libertarian every few years.
Sure, I can partially understand that — but I think the #1 reason, by far, that the auto industry is in “crisis” is because the government is giving out cash. If the government wasn’t literally handing out truckloads of cash, my bet is that the auto industry would be just fine. Maybe having a few cutbacks (like the rest of us, EXCEPT government), but still, they wouldn’t be crying bankruptcy!
Ogre - I would hate to do a “cut & paste,” do you have a direct link. I agree with about 85% of this and we already reduced our chartible contributions by 50% for next year. We are preparing ourselves for the Obama tax increases “Deliverance” style.
The stupidity of the American people is just overwhelming, but then again, 50 years of liberals controlling public education, what do you expect.
Baa-Baa
Glad to see the comments. I feel the same way. I don’t see it really stopping anything, it might even create more problems. Though, I have stopped giving to as many charities as I use to… sigh… just no money left and have to be very picky now adays.
The direct link is the comments page with the #comments:
http://www.ogresview.com/archives/1390
And yes, VW, that’s something else — I have been forced to give up some charitable giving because I simply don’t have much money any more. My mortgage keeps going up because of property taxes and my income keeps going down (due to firings).
This is ridiculous. To turn around and dismiss responsibility from those lenders who where only interested in making risky loans to raise there own short term profits, ( not forced by any government quota or penalty ), is ludicrous. Greed on the part of lenders and people who mortgaged homes or purchased a home without the resources are responsible for the current situation. I find it hard to believe that the American public has such short term memory. Don’t we all remember Enron, AIG, and the dozens of other irresponsible corporate practices that had dire consequences on the economy. Once again the problem is OVER SIGHT. Special interest has warped this countries government. Stop Special Interest lobbyist and start enacting and enforcing control of corporations in this country. This housing loan problem has been years in the making and at many different points it should have been curtailed. If big business can not or will not behave responsibly, then it’s governments responsibility to act. And by act I don’t mean clean up the mess with a bailout that will not fix the underlying situation.
You’re completely and totally wrong, “Reasonable.” The ONLY reason the lenders made risky loans is because government forced them to. Congress passed laws that FORCED lenders to make loans to people who could not afford them. They didn’t do it because they made more money (even if that didn’t discourage them) — it’s because if they didn’t, they would be run out of business or jailed by government, plain and simple.
Oversight? Holy crap. Do you have ANY concept of how much government oversight exists? You can’t have a 10-year old sell lemonade on the street without government showing up to check for damn permits! Oversight? If you leave a couch outside in NH and ask who complained about it, government might show up and throw you in jail for 93 DAYS! Seriously!
No, government cannot do ANYTHING without screwing it up. Can you name one thing that government runs that isn’t totally screwed up beyond all recognition? There’s only one thing more government can do — reduce freedom even more. And that’s ALWAYS a bad thing.
A Government bill did nearly stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) from holding portfolios of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBS); that measure alone would have prevented the disastrous investment activities of the GSEs in the years that followed. Perhaps the rest of the lending world would have followed..
Quote from American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research AEI:
“In 2004, after a forensic audit by OFHEO, even more serious accounting manipulation was found at Fannie, and Raines, its chairman, and Timothy Howard, its chief financial officer, were compelled to resign.
It is eloquent testimony to the power of Fannie and Freddie in Congress that even after these extraordinary events there was no significant effort to improve or enhance the powers of their regulator. The House Financial Services Committee developed a bill that was so badly weakened by GSE lobbying that the Bush administration refused to support it. The Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted much stronger legislation in 2005, but unanimous Democratic opposition to the bill in the committee doomed it when it reached the floor. Without any significant Democratic support, debate could not be ended in the Senate, and the bill was never brought up for a vote. This was a crucial missed opportunity. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBS); that measure alone would have prevented the disastrous investment activities of the GSEs in the years that followed. GSE immunity to accounting scandal is especially remarkable when it is recalled that after accounting fraud was found at Enron (and later at WorldCom), Congress adopted the punitive Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which imposed substantial costs on every public company in the United States. The GSEs’ investment in controlling their political risk–at least among the Democrats–was apparently money well spent.”
Above is a good link for more information on the course of events that created the current housing nightmare. And two things can not be dismissed. Greed on the part of the lenders and the financialy ignorant barowers and the power of special interest in stoping the reigning in of a financial ticking time bomb. The sad part is we all will pay for this bailout and it wont change the stock market, drop in housing equity or lowering employment rates.
Very good. Thank you for making my point. You see, Fannie and Freddie ARE, and always have been, government entities! They’re in business to make profits, they’ve always been government sponsored!
Your long comment helps to point out that government didn’t rein in GOVERNMENT — which caused a large portion of this current “crisis.”
And yes, we, the working people, will be forced to pay for the screw-ups of government in this case (and in every other case) because government honestly doesn’t care how much money it costs!
I never said that government doesn’t have some responsibility but the brunt of it is based on self preservation and greed. The fact that a lot of this could have been avoided if the bill that republicans tried to pass in 2004 would not have been left to die proves that
“The Government” tried to stop this from happening but Special Interest and misinformed politicians who know little about economics, would not let that happen. Special Interest = Lobbyist for Fannie and Freddie, Well paid lobbyist, for some very well paid Executives who should hold the brunt of the blame for so many risky loans having been made.
But the lobbyists didn’t vote on the bills. The lobbyists didn’t create the laws that punished people who made responsible loans. The lobbyists didn’t pass the bailout bill that punishes those who have been responsible. The Congress did all that.
And again, Fannie and Freddie ARE government. If you want to claim that Fannie and Freddie executive greed caused this, again, that IS government. Those people are appointed by government. They’re paid by government. And they’re responsible to Congress — who will not hold them responsible. Again, ALL fingers point back to Congress and government — the primary source of nearly ALL economic problems.
Freedom works every time it’s tried, ESPECIALLY when it comes to economics. Unfortunately, in America, there has not been economic freedom for a very long time — because government won’t allow it.
I can’t argue against that but the root of all evil is Greed, private corporate, or political. If government worked the way it was intended, the way our forefathers intended this situation would never have happened. Government got into the mortgage lending game to try to address the unfair distribution of home ownership, in my opinion attacking the problem from the wrong end. A strong economy and keeping good paying jobs with stability in this country would have accomplished much more toward making it easier for people to own homes. That and doing what they could to keep housing cost down.
And the best way to have a strong economy is for government to get out of the way. I was with you all the way to that last sentence — government should never “do what they can” to keep housing costs down — that’s what got us into this problem!
Government should have absolutely nothing to do with jobs or housing. As soon as they do, jobless claims go up, housing costs go up, and freedom goes down. In a free country, government concerns itself with contracts and involves itself with criminals who instigate force — and they shouldn’t be doing anything else.
Government went wrong when it first said, “Gee, we can help people.” That’s completely anti-freedom because in order to help some people, they have to punish others. If you, personally, want to help people own homes, that’s great. If government does, it’s bad and evil — because they have to take money from me by force in order to “help” others.