Posted on 09/24/2008 5:17:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
You don't have to listen long to politicians in Washington, D.C., to hear the rhetoric of class war. Both major party presidential candidates have used it at times with strategic purpose -- that is, when it advanced their ambitions.
The expanding government bailout of institutions and individuals caught up in the national financial fiasco, however, points to a real class conflict in this country. It is not a conflict that divides Americans by wealth. It is a conflict that divides Americans by character.
First, consider the phony class war -- the one both John McCain and Barack Obama have tried to exploit.
When President Bush in 2001 offered a proposal to cut income-tax rates for everyone who pays income taxes, McCain -- who had lost a bitter primary campaign to Bush the year before and who still desired to become president -- could not bring himself to vote for it.
Bush's proposal cut taxes too much for the rich, McCain argued. His solution: Cast a vote to deny non-rich people a tax cut he decried as too small -- on grounds he was saving them from paying for the rich to get a tax cut that was too big.
"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief," McCain said on the Senate floor.
In this campaign, Obama has expanded the phony class war by introducing a third group of potential combatants. He now classifies Americans as being either "rich," "middle class" or living in a sort of income-bracket no man's land.
In a forum at the Saddleback Church last month, Pastor Rick Warren asked Obama to define "rich." Obama eventually said: "What I can say is, is that under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase."
What about the Americans making between $150,000.01 and $249,999.99? What will Obama do to their tax bills? How does he want to manipulate them politically? Does he want to make them feel like victims, or does he want to hold them up as economic evil-doers to the worthier -- yet put-upon -- people making a mere $149,999.99 per year?
In real wars, there are unjust aggressors and victims forced to defend themselves. Presumably, if there were a class war in America, the unjust aggressors would be those who wrongfully take money or other things of value from those to whom it rightly belongs.
When Congress cut tax rates for all taxpayers, it was a wholly benign act. There were no victims, period. Congress did not -- by cutting everyone's tax rate -- unjustly take money from anyone. Nor did taxpayers whose top rate dropped from 36 percent to 33 percent, allowing them to keep more of their own money, commit an act of aggression -- financially or otherwise -- against taxpayers whose top rate dropped from 28 percent to 25 percent.
But what about in the financial fiasco? Are there are unjust aggressors and true victims at the core of this crisis?
Absolutely. But the dividing line is not an income bracket, because people of all incomes are on both sides of this conflict. If you want to know which side you are on, just answer this question: Are you getting bailed out? Or does the government expect you to bail someone else out?
On one side are Americans who rely on themselves. On the other side are Americans who rely on the federal government -- and politicians who exploit that reliance to gain and maintain political power, and corporate bureaucrats who exploit that reliance to get money.
On one side are Americans who exhibited the ancient virtues of hard work, thrift and prudence. The people who never bought -- and never would buy -- a house they could not afford. These people will pay for the bailout.
On the other side are Americans who exhibited a core vice of the welfare state: wanting something they did not earn. They took out a mortgage they could not afford, or from a position of government power pushed public policies promoting mortgages to people who could not afford them, or profited within some corporate bureaucracy from wholesale commerce in such mortgages. These are the people who will benefit from the bailout.
What is the solution? Roll back government dependency in all its forms. As long as the federal government maintains a welfare state, there will be politicians in Washington, D.C., who have an interest in increasing the number of people who will need bailouts and decreasing the number of people who pay.
That's it in a nut shell. All I've ever wanted was a free pony but I learned long ago that I am not to be the recipient of free ponies, it's my job to provide free ponies to others and to clean up the mess made by those ponies.
I'm not getting bailed out, but I don't consider myself bailing someone else out either because I will benefit by the injection of health into the housing market this bill will provide.
All Americans who own a home will benefit.
Amen.
Pretty good article -- but I do take offense at the notion that Republicans play the Class War game along with the Democrats. McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts? Fine. That's not class war, and it shouldn't paint all Republicans as Class War enthusiasts.
Compassionate Corporation-ism
But you're still better off than they are, because you can respect yourself.
None of this matters right now, because this bill is so bad on so many levels, the country can’t afford it. I am not in favor of financial socialism in any way, shape or form for any reason, especially under the control of one single unelected, unaccountable man who helped create this mess.
What the country can't afford is the money markets failing.
The Fed is propping them up right now with more money pumped in last night.
If this bill doesn't pass there's a run on the money markets, as almost happened last Thursday. These are used for middle's America's everyday functioning. Immediately payrolls go delinquent, existing credit card rates go up, unemployment rises and the stock market and housing market continues their decline putting millions of people's retirement hopes in the dumps.
Get a clue.
Fiscally sound taxpayers in each county directly pay the mortgage each month for a mortgage holder in default in that county.
This would allow the giver to know who they're helping, be able to give fiscal advice to the defaulter, and eliminate federal overhead.
Under the current plan being considered in Washington, the taxpayer has a good chance of seeing a good chunk of the money reimbursed.
I have a clue and jumping off into something that no one has had a good chance to really look at usually turns out worse than the original problem. We will get through this, but there are better plans than this one.
The current financial debacle may be their coup de gras, for even as their nation falls apart before their eyes, the people clamor for those who broke it to take greater control.
It boggles the mind.
It's a 40 page bill. That's small in comparison to other bills. It's easy to look at.
A 300 billion bill was passed a few weeks ago with hardly a blink of an eye, yet no one got on the bandwagon for that cost.
This one's only twice as much. Yes, it's a lot but the fact that it's really only twice as much as last one makes me think someone's got a huge agenda in making it seem like doomsday for the taxpayer. This one is way more important and will rescue money markets. It will re-invigorate the housing market and it also has a chance of having taxpayer money reimbursed to them.
Yes, there are other ideas. 95% of them are flaky and the others will break down under years of debating every jot and tittle. Last week was serious and if nothing is done soon it will get serious again real fast.
I think the bill will pass because we need action, not just talk.
It boggles the mind.
Yes, it does. We don't need a bailout. What we need is prosecution of those responsible (most of them dem politicians, though many in the financial and accounting industries should probably be locked up as well).
Instead, we get more government control (interference and corruption), and a bunch of people who basically committed fraud, who are not only getting away with it, but benefitting financially in the extreme.
It is unbelievable.
Heh. Well put. I’d better buy a new shovel.
“It is unbelievable.”
Yes, and it makes me wonder just how much it takes any more to rile the public to action. Apparently, quite a lot.
btt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.