Brian Miller says it before I could, if not better than I would...

Here's a perfect Libertarian take on the massive wealth transfer that is the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bailout, from Last Free Voice (with hopefully the retroactive approval of the author, right Brian?):

Yuppie Welfare Bill Passed

Did you buy a house you couldn’t afford, with a suicidal no-down-payment negative amortization loan about 10x your annual income, and then borrow tens or hundreds of thousands of additional dollars against your fake “equity” to buy luxury cars, expensive vacations, large-screen TVs, designer furniture, gold watches and other bling?

Or are you a “flipper” who committed mortgage fraud, getting several government-backed “primary residence” loans to buy houses, put $15K of Home Depot stuff in them, and sell them — only to discover the housing bubble popped and you cannot make your mortgage payments on the second, third, or fifth house you own?

If so, you’re in luck! The bipartisan bozos in Washington have signed a $300 billion bailout to make the payments on your loans and save Fannie/Freddie to keep the suicide loans flowing, positioning it as a “housing market stabilization bill.” Bush is planning to sign it “quietly.”

Are you a saver, someone who didn’t buy an overpriced house with a suicide loan and are waiting for inflated housing prices driven up by government largesse and the speculative flipper-bubble to return to the market price?

You, then, are screwed. With every tax payment you make, you’ll be paying for your insane neighbors’ Rolexes, Hummers, Danish modern furniture, pools, LG 64 inch LCD televisions, and Disney holidays. And you’ll continue to be priced out of the housing market, thanks to big government largesse.

Here's the bad part: the government was already in charge of regulating this market, and neither Republicans nor Democrats did a damn thing other than whistle occasionally and say, "You know, this bubble can't last forever."

Comments

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog