Do conservatives understand that people being irresponsible has an impact on all of us?
they usually seem to act like we’re all in little bubbles and if this joe… or that steve… has a foreclosure… well shame on him… and who cares…
but if enough joes and steves go into forclosure… all of a sudden… you’re not in a bubble anymore…
and your property values are dropping like a rock…
and if that joe and steve are in foreclosure they aren’t spending as much…
and then companies can’t sell…so they start laying off people… like jill and and john even, not to mention joe and steve…
so then unemployment is going up and your kid can’t get a job at McDonald’s because Steve is working there now… assuming you still have your job even…
and then the entire stock market starts going down… because many joe and steves and jill and johns (since they lost their job) have lost their homes… their jobs… and they can’t buy anything… and businesses are going out of business… and banks are going down…
and all of a sudden your 401K is cut in half… and your stock portfolio is in half…
much of your financial life…is cut in half…
now… if we had helped those few joe and steves… at the start… would you have your home value, a job for your kid and your stock protfolio at 500K instead of 300?
maybe…
ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure…
EDIT: is there no other way to teach responsibility short of plunging us into a recession or maybe worse?
the simple fact is… many Republicans have paid MUCH more in the stock market losses, than they would have in taxes to help steve or joe…
and I’m not saying we should give them a straight up bail out… but maybe a loan with better terms… or maybe even worse terms over a longer period that they could still pay…
I think there are other ways to teach… beyond making everyone pay…
Living in a house is a lavish luxury. It is a luxury, not a right, having your own walls and yard, a garden, storage, all that room, redecorating as you want, etc. If you are having money problems, I feel like you have to sell your assets and come down one level: the renters’ level. You can have a small box you pay rent for. If you cannot pay your mortgage, you need to either sell and then rent or you need to rent to someone while you move to a smaller space.
But, home owners do not want to move into an apartment, that is beneath them. They like their large spacious houses and feel they deserve them. So, they are not objected to taking government welfare to keep them in their housing, yet they snub people in government housing projects or people who fight for rent control. Well, maybe rightly so, as they got the government to pay for their private houses, not some slummed out crappy housing project.
Mike
22 Dec, 2010
Yes Republicans are fully aware that people being irresponsible has an impact on all of us, Which is exactly why, The Republican party is the party that advocates responsibility, While the liberal Democrats are against people being responsible for their actions, And quite often promote programs that exacerbate that behavior. I point to abortion and the handing out of condoms in school as prime examples. God bless.
References :
oohhbother
22 Dec, 2010
No, they don’t.
They have been sold a bill of goods by their corporation-favoring political masters that "personal responsibility" is better than a responsible government – for the sheer purpose of cutting tax rates.
"personal responsibility" is a code word for suffering whatever consequences befall rather than use government spending to help.
It keeps the corporate tax rates down.
References :
THUG LIFE
22 Dec, 2010
Oh I do, I realize how a person who runs a large company has a big impact when they act irresponsibly. I’ll do you one better. You probably have someone in your life, in your town, at your school or your job that everyone thinks is a loser. A person that most of them think they’d be better off without. But I can honestly tell you that even that person has a profound effect on the dynamic of the people around them. It’s true things might be better, but that’s an over simplification of the many possible variables. And often people will jump to that because that’s what THEY WANT to believe. However, it is just as likely, that things would be worse off for everyone involved without that person around. As Jesus himself said, that which you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.
References :
.
22 Dec, 2010
I understand irresponsibility can have an impact if large amounts of people mess up..but how are they or anyone else going to learn right from wrong if we just bail out every Tom, Dick and Harry ?
People need to learn if you f*ck up you’re screwed. Just like every corporation that got a bail out should have been allowed to fail.
References :
And the 800 billion dollars worth of bullshit and infrastructure projects that will take years to make a difference help how?
Curt J
22 Dec, 2010
Yes, we do. That is why we are so concerned about people like Nancy Pelosi and all her cronies, who are planning to spend all of us into oblivion.
Unfortunately, she doesn’t see things that way, which seems to be why she is the first Speaker of the House to get her own private jet.
Isn’t it wonderful that your liberal Speaker is above flying with all the rest of the riff-raff, don’t you just love how she can claim to be "just like you"?
References :
notagain
22 Dec, 2010
Living in a house is a lavish luxury. It is a luxury, not a right, having your own walls and yard, a garden, storage, all that room, redecorating as you want, etc. If you are having money problems, I feel like you have to sell your assets and come down one level: the renters’ level. You can have a small box you pay rent for. If you cannot pay your mortgage, you need to either sell and then rent or you need to rent to someone while you move to a smaller space.
But, home owners do not want to move into an apartment, that is beneath them. They like their large spacious houses and feel they deserve them. So, they are not objected to taking government welfare to keep them in their housing, yet they snub people in government housing projects or people who fight for rent control. Well, maybe rightly so, as they got the government to pay for their private houses, not some slummed out crappy housing project.
References :
SERENAZ
22 Dec, 2010
You are absolutely right … unfortunately conservatives haven’t thought it through like you have … they’re too busy thinking about and worrying about No 1 without understanding that all stratas of our society depend on each other … to add to your proverb … ‘No man is an island!’
References :
Scott D
22 Dec, 2010
"ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure"
that is true, if we would have simply let banks say that joe and steve didnt make enough money to buy this property, none of this would have happened.
but democrats decided that joe and steve should both get houses that they cant really afford (helping them at the start), and forced banks to lend them money.
and now look at where it has gotten us.
how backwards your logic is, young padawan.
References :
Death to Conservatism
22 Dec, 2010
Your question exposes one of the fundamental flaws in Conservative ideology, and one almost all Conservatives display. They can’t seem to get it into their heads that our society is essentially a long chain where everyone is a link, and if you get too many weaknesses in that chain it will break. The fact is we are all linked together and what affects one person will ultimately affect all people.
I agree that in normal circumstances we should let these businesses fail, and let these individuals lose their houses, but we aren’t living in normal times. Right now these failures are running rampant with no end in sight, and it is severely impacting "responsible" people at no fault of their own. Conservatives want to let this trend continue while Liberals, economic experts, and common sense say it has to stop now.
References :
dude
22 Dec, 2010
Yes – but they also understand that the lack of personal responsibility also got us where we are now
If anyone with a foreclosure should get bailed out, it should be the ones who were laid off and were making payments with a salary that would not have considered them a high risk.
The high risk borrowers that should be helped should be the ones that picked the higher FIXED rate as oppose to the variable and were laid off. In this case, at least they were responsible.
Why?
While it’s true that the predatory lenders went after the redline borrowers, no one FORCED the borrower to get the loan. The borrower took advantage of the low VARIABLE interest rate because most likely the fixed rate would’ve made the loan impossible to pay or they would have had to struggle to pay it and they didn’t want to do so.
In turn, the predatory lender was banking on this and probably figured that the redliners that went with the variable rate would most likely default.
References :
NSA
22 Dec, 2010
"Do conservatives understand that people being irresponsible has an impact on all of us?" Yes. The European trip that Pelosi and her Democrat Cronies are on, at tax payer expense, is VERY irresponsible.
$200,000 just to fly to Italy; and course they will return to the US, there’s another $200,000. What is the real value of that trip? None to the American tax payer. That’s $400,000 that could have been used for feeding and clothing homeless. But that’s okay, Pelosi got those ‘precious’ birth certificates of her grandparents.
References :
Frank
3 Sep, 2011
DtC 12/22/10 “Your question exposes one of the fundamental flaws in Conservative ideology, and one almost all Conservatives display. They can’t seem to get it into their heads that our society is essentially a long chain where everyone is a link, and if you get too many weaknesses in that chain it will break.”
The conservative answer is the bonds between individuals are not the issue.
Weakness is only personal, always personal. It can exist only inside individuals, and individuals must always take the blame.