(Vanity) Give us Back Our Money: Render Unto Caesar, or, The Lenin King

grey_whiskers ^ | 01-16-2010 | grey_whiskers

[grey_whiskers]

Over the past week, President Barack Obama has spoken up about the money spent on large financial institutions during the $700 billion "bailout" which attracted such attention during the financial crisis.

"We want our money back," he said.

This has got to be a first -- President Obama has said something we can actually agree with!

Except for one little thing. No, make that two. Or even three.

The hell with it. When you look at what he meant, we can't agree with any of it.

Let's dissect the situation and see what we can come up with.

First, who does he mean by "We?" I think it's pretty obvious he is not really speaking for the taxpayers in this -- althought that's the impression he wants to leave us with. And how do I know that? Just look at his attitudes and actions with regard to everything else.

Just look at some of the other bills and initiatives:

Obamacare (taking $500 billion from existing programs, socializing 1/6 of the economy); Cap N' Trade Crap-N-Tax, thankfully put on hold by the leaked Climategate emails; a government takeover of Chrysler and GM, where existing bondholders had their prior claims ripped up in favor of Union thugs (who, by a strange coincidence, tend to vote Democrat; and who are getting a tax break not allowed to anyone else in Obamacare); and of course, the bailout money.

Speaking of the bailout, there's another couple of things which should be pointed out here.

First, not all of the firms which were given bailout money, actually wanted or needed it. Paulson essentially forced them to take the loans. Second, most of the major banks have already repaid the TARP money (Wells Fargo was the last major bank to do so, in December of 2009).

Finally, Obama is demanding money of the banks, even those who did not participate in the bailout, primarily on the grounds that the banks are paying record bonuses to executives. ("...and that's just not FAIR.")

Render unto Caesar.

But -- at the same time -- there are another group of executives who are getting bonuses, who are NOT being required to pay anything back.

And who might these people be?

Oh, that's right. GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac -- all of which are government entities, and all of which are DEEPLY indebted. They haven't paid their money back -- because they can't.

Put these together, and what do we have?

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Lenin.

Now let's return to Obama.

He's not content merely to waste taxpayer money on pie-in-the-sky initiatives, or payback for his cronies.

He likes to spend liberally on himself, too.

From taxpayer-funded trips to Paris, to romantic date nights flying up to New York with Michelle, to golfing vacations over Christmas where he cannot respond to an Al-Qaeda terrorist attempt except by sending out Baghdad Janet to say "The system worked."

It's as though he feels he is entitled to our money.

Put this together with the royal "We" from "We want our money back". And his habit of bowing to foreign leaders, such as the King of Saudi Arabia.

It's as though he thinks HE is a King.

The Lenin King.

Is there anything we can do about this? I mean, aside from voting conservative every chance we get, and flooding local elected slots with grass-roots conservatives?

Why yes, there is.

Let's take a page out of the Communists' long march through our institutions, and a page out of the Alinsky playbook, and make them live up to THEIR own rules for a change.

I suggest we start with recent Supreme Court rulings.

Does anyone remember the infamous Kelo decision?

This case concerned a Connecticut homeowner whose house was taken by the government : not directly for government use, but so a well-connected company (Pfizer) could use the land. This was justified on the grounds that Pfizer would pay more in taxes than the homeowner, so the "public good" would benefit.

Great, except for one thing.

Pfizer closed the factory, and the property is abandoned.

So that the government seems to have lost money on the deal.

So, in an attempt to maximize government revenue, let's take the spirit of Kelo to its logical conclusion.

Every private or quasi-private entity which loses money for the government is NOT entitled to more money. This would represent a continuing drain on the Treasury.

Instead, any such entity should be put into comptetent, private hands, where it can generate profits which may then be taxed.

Let's start with Fannie and Freddie: all mortgages backed by them should be revoked, and the property given free and clear to the borrower.

Who, instead of needing bailouts, can use the money which *would* have gone into a mortgage, directly to property taxes.

Debt moved off of the government books, privatization, home ownership, increased tax revenue -- what's not to like?

After all, it never *really* belonged to the government at all.

GIVE US BACK OUR MONEY!

[grey_whiskers]

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Fresh birdcage liner from the velveted paws of grey_whiskers.

Cheers!

[La Lydia]

He wants OUR MONEY because he thinks he is smarter and wiser and more qualified to decide what to do with OUR MONEY than we are. Also, he wants to to take OUR MONEY so he can give it to his political allies. We are being enslaved.

[nathanbedford]

well done!