I knew it could not just be me feeling this way..

That all the bullshit from the left about equality doesn’t exactly mean what most people think is either right or just, and that’s a good thing to discover:

Today, just 35 percent of voters believe the economy is fair to middle-class Americans. Only 41 percent believe it is fair to those who are willing to work hard.

Some politicians, particularly Democrats, are better at acknowledging the importance of fairness, but they have a pretty limited definition of what it means. They complain about income inequality but ignore the larger context.

For most Americans, the context is very important. If a CEO gets a huge paycheck after his company received a government bailout, that’s a problem. People who get rich through corporate welfare schemes are seen as suspect. On the other hand, 86 percent believe it’s fair for people who create very successful companies to get very rich.

In other words, it’s not just the income; it’s whether the reward matched the effort. People don’t think it’s a problem that Steve Jobs got rich. After all, he created Apple Computer and the iPad generation. But there was massive outrage about the bonuses paid to AIG executives after that company was propped up by the federal government.

On a more routine basis, most Americans are offended by the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street. The practice of working for the government to network and then cash in with a firm that needs your government contacts is seen as fair only by those who practice it.

The revolving door hints at the larger problem. The United States is supposed to be a land of opportunity, where everyone can pursue their dreams. Throughout our history, many have started with nothing and risen to the top. But those on top today are busy rewriting the rules to limit entry into their club.

I bolded that section I think is critical. Nothing disgusts me more than hearing the class warriors talk about fairness and wealth redistribution, because their idea of either is a sham. Fairness to the “Champions of the little people”, yes that’s sarcasm, is them deciding who wins and who loses. Big banks, big corps, and big donors, win the day. The leftists act indignant that anybody disagrees with their confiscation of wealth, but then we find out their laws excuse or benefit the really rich leftists they trot out to tell us how noble it is to pay more taxes. When these leftists are simply not paying the taxes they did not give themselves a loophole in the law for – look into how many Obamaites have problems with the IRS – they are avoiding them. Remember John Kerry, man of the people, “did I tell you I won 3 purple hearts” warrior, multi-millionaire by marriage and tax increase lion on the left and his Yacht? He parked that in RI to avoid the taxes his ilk stuck other residents of the state he represents, Massachusetts, with. What a noble man.

Then you have the example of the stimulus. Close to $1 trillion was funneled to the Democratic Party’s special interests, lobbyists, friends, and own campaign coffers, helping prop up public sector constituents, while the private sector got stuck with the bill and the pain of the other attempts to socio-engineer the problems their previous socio-engineering had caused. Don’t get me talking about the TARP bailouts. I disliked the idea when it was floated when Boosh was president, but when the donkeys took over, they doubled the money, and they funneled it all to their special friends on Wall Street, like the article points out. Oh, the LSM helped the donkeys convince the usual low information voter that the despicable behavior by the CEOs of the bailed out companies was not part & parcel of the usual incestuous relationship between these big business entities and government, and in particular the favor buying schemes favored by the demcorats, was just the fault of Wall Street, but Wall Street could not have done what they where doing without the politicians that have rigged the system the way it is. Now, 5 years down the line, I suspect that if we had just let the lot of those “too big to fail” financial institutions go belly up, we would have a lot less of the left’s socio-engineering, but our economy would be better off, and not stuck in this rut.

I am glad to find most Americans still believe hard work should provide the opportunity to make your rich, while an incestuous relationship with government allowing you to make money, stay in business when you should not for whatever reason, or allows you to crowd out competition, are all bad things. And we need to put an end to government employees going from those jobs to Wall Street, where they make a killing, by paying off politicians – practically always from one party which claims to be serving the little people – to then get paid ridiculous cash for getting those favors from their buddies and party mates left in government. It is just as despicable that our government gets to pick winners and losers and is in bed with all these too big to fail institutions that all rip off the tax payers as the wealth redistribution schemes to buy votes are. We should have a law that prohibits people from leaving government to go make money for these too big to fail firms where they are making huge money by using their connections to buy favors in return for huge donations to political campaigns. We stop this practice by preventing government from having that ability. I bet you the democrats, and especially the super rich democrats that want to keep their special circle clean of riff raff they do not approve of, would never let that happen though, even when they tell you that the other party is the one for the rich.

Comments are closed.

  1. grady

    But there was massive outrage about the bonuses paid to AIG executives after that company was propped up by the federal government.

    Why would the shareholders or the board of directors not give them the bonuses? They were profitable with the bad business practices and they lobbied the govt to cover their losses. If the govt let them take their own fall then others would not copy this business model. The people got suckered with “too big to fail” & “what about all of those job losses of people that did not make the business model decisions”. The politicians that decided on the bailout may or may not have been influenced by other means. None of that would matter to a large shareholder. They would just want to retain their investment’s value.

    Pay the nice man. He just saved me from a big loss.

    The rest of us are the ones who got screwed.

    Thumb up 4

  2. AlexInCT *

    Why would the shareholders or the board of directors not give them the bonuses? They were profitable with the bad business practices and they lobbied the govt to cover their losses.

    You forgot the most important reason grady: it was in their contract that they would get those bonuses if they met some requirements they did meet.

    But that’s not the point. The point I am trying to make isn’t about whether they deserved the bonus or not – I agree with you that all was irrelevant and that I would much rather have them get what their contract promissed them than government coming ind and screwing people with a contract like they did the GM shareholders – but that government shouldn’t be bailing out the “too big to fail” companies with tax payer money in return for them doing the politicians special favors. And more importantly, that there is one party that has mastered the art of sleeping with Wall Street whores for big cash, and it is not the one the left keeps telling us about.

    Thumb up 1

  3. Mook

    Alex – I totally agree. Won’t you join me at the next occupy rally? :0)

    To bad the Occupy nitwits focus 100% on the private financial companies while ignoring the politicians and govt. agencies which fund, enable and incentivize the bad behavior… which is the ROOT of the problem. Bad behavior by banks is a predictable symptom of perverse incentives created by government.

    Doubt me? Has anyone seen any OWS protesters at Fannie or Freddie headquarters protesting their role in the housing bubble and collapse and the insane bonuses that they paid their executives?

    Thumb up 2

  4. ilovecress

    How about this picture of Occupy Nitwits protesting at the Fannie Mae headquarters in Atlanta?

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac control over 60% of the mortgages in the US. After gambling with people’s money, and buying up subprime mortgages during the housing bubble, they were placed under conservatorship of the US government in 2008, receiving billions of taxpayers dollars. Now, 4 years later, they continue to put people out of their homes, and are the biggest obstacle to fixing the housing crisis. It’s time to put a stop to this, and to demand the wealth that was stolen from our communities be restored.

    Our demands include: 

    -Principal Reduction for all underwater homeowners to real market value

    -and end to Fannie and Freddie Evictions, and the right to rent after foreclosure

    -the sale of foreclosed properties to occupants and non-profits at the same discounted rate they are offering to shady investors
    -that they turn over vacant and abandoned properties to community controlled entities to provide long term affordable housing

    Check out the #FFFighters hashtag

    Thumb up 1

  5. CM

    Alex – I totally agree. Won’t you join me at the next occupy rally? :0)

    Alex could bring his new best friend Russel Norman (co-leader of the Green Party of New Zealand, who is married to Anna Paquin’s sister).

    Thumb up 0

  6. Mook

    How about this picture of Occupy Nitwits protesting at the Fannie Mae headquarters in Atlanta?

    Fair enough, but they were not protesting Fannie May “greed” and excesses as with private financial institutions, they were protesting that Fannie Mae was foreclosing on people. They have the utopian belief that people should be able to stay in their homes without being being foreclosed upon. That’s quite a difference, wouldn’t you agree?

    Thumb up 0