Michelle Malkin » Obama’s housing entitlement campaign & ACORN’s civil disobedience mob

Obama’s housing entitlement campaign & ACORN’s civil disobedience mob

By Michelle Malkin • February 18, 2009 05:40 AM

Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti

My syndicated column today looks at the massive mortgage entitlement campaign launched by President Obama today — and the concurrent, anti-foreclosure bullying campaign launched by ACORN. I’ve been warning about this for weeks (see here, here, here, and here) — and in particular, I’ve been blasting the Republicans for playing right into the left-wing agenda. The Beltway GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for perpetuating the idea that your mortgage is my problem and that it government’s job to stem falling housing values.

This is the ethos that helped create Peggy the Moocher, Henrietta Hughes, and the Colorado third-grader who explained his support for Obama this way (hat tip – Jessica Peck Corry):

“I always listen to the speech of Obama in the commercial that he will help pay the rent of (our) house.”

Despite some initial efforts to reform Fannie and Freddie, the Bush administration helped prop up the same minority lending shakedown artists now teaming up with Obama to massively expand the role of government in the housing market. The multi-billion-dollar stimulus slush fund for the housing mob is just one of many new windfalls to come in Obama’s savior-based economy.

Unless fiscal conservatives in Washington get their fundamental principles straight — credit is not a civil right, stop supporting the artificial prop-up of the housing market and yes, I’m talking to you, Mitch McConnell — ACORN will sit firmly in the taxpayer-subsidized catbird’s seat, smugly threatening to break the law in the name of “social justice” and “affordable housing” and then sue you for racial discrimination if you dare to oppose them.

***

Photoshop: Blind Mule

ACORN and Obama: Together again
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

Fresh off the trillion-dollar porkulus bill signing in Denver, President Obama immediately launched into his next New Raw Deal expansion: A massive mortgage entitlement program forcing lenders to refinance at an initial cost of $50 billion to $100 billion. That’s in addition to the bipartisan-supported $50 billion in the “stimulus” bill to bail out homeowners underwater on their mortgages and the $2 billion in “neighborhood stabilization” funds to alleviate the foreclosure crisis.

In tandem with the White House Bad Borrowers Bailout, Obama’s old friends at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) are launching a new campaign of their own: the “Home Savers” campaign. What a coinky-dinky, huh? As with most of the bully tactics of the radical left-wing wing group, it ain’t gonna be pretty. They are the shock troops on the streets doing the dirty work while the Community Organizer-in-Chief keeps his delicate hands clean.

Trumpets ACORN: “On Feb. 19, ACORN members will launch a new tactic in fighting foreclosures: civil disobedience. Participants in the ACORN Home Savers campaign nationwide will simply refuse to move out of foreclosed homes, or in some cases, will move back in. ACORN homesteaders intend to squat in their homes until a comprehensive, federal solution for people facing foreclosure is put in place.”

ACORN’s foot soldiers, funded with your tax dollars, will scream, pound their fists, chain themselves to buildings, padlock the doors, and engage in illegal behavior until they get what they want. It’s a recipe for anarchy. Threatens Baltimore ACORN’s Louis Beverly, who calls himself a “Foreclosure Fighter:”

“After you’ve used all your legal options, your last resort is civil disobedience. We’re talking about families who have been in their homes 20 or 30 years. People who are assets in the community, who look out for the elderly, who have community associations, and these are the people being kicked out of the community.”

We can all sympathize with good folks who can’t pay their bills. But as I’ve said repeatedly in my criticism of the mortgage entitlement mentality embraced by both parties in Washington, home ownership is not a civil right — and neither is home retention. Artificially propping up the housing market will only result in more of the same costly borrow-spend-panic-repeat cycles that got us into this mess in the first place. Failing corporations need to fail. So do failing home borrowers. This is borrowing from frugal renter Peter to pay profligate Paul’s home loan.

Now, that’s the kind of theft that should be the subject of civil disobedience.

Instead, ACORN offices, funded with your tax dollars, are training teams of these “Home Savers” — described as “people ready and willing to mobilize on short notice to defend the homesteaders against attempts to evict them.” Ready, willing, and able to mobilize on short notice because they are either unemployed or employed full-time as ACORN shakedown artists.

Guess who’s encouraging them to defy the law? Democrat Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, who told them: “Stay in your homes. If the American people, anybody out there is being foreclosed, don’t leave.” The housing bullies will be assisted by left-wing propaganda documentarians at the Brave New Foundation, headed up by Hollywood lib Robert Greenwald, who will disseminate sob stories to crank up pressure while President Obama pushes his housing entitlement plan.

ACORN is targeting the following cities: Tuscon, Ariz.; Oakland, Calif.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Contra Costa County, Calif.; Orlando, Fla.; Baltimore, Md.; New York, N.Y.; Houston, Texas; San Mateo County, Calif.; Denver, Colo.; Bridgeport, Conn.; Wilmington, Del.; Broward County, Fla.; Boston, Mass.; Flint, Mich.; Detroit, Mich.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Raleigh, N.C.; Durham, N.C.; Albany, N.Y.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Cleveland, Ohio; Pittsburgh, Pa.; and Dallas, Texas.

ACORN racketeers have waited three decades for this moment in the sun. And as President Obama promised ACORN members at a forum in December 2007, “We’re going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda, we’re gonna be having meetings all across the country…so that you have input into the agenda.”

The moment is nigh. Prepare for lawlessness.

Posted in: ACORN Watch, Subprime crisis

Printer Friendly

comments (142)

trackbacks (53)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#625997

On February 18th, 2009 at 1:38 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

Ralph Waldo Emerson said:

“The only safe rule is found in the self-adjusting meter of demand and supply. Do not legislate. Meddle, and you snap the sinews with your sumptuary laws. Give no bounties, make equal laws, secure life and property, and you do not need to give alms. Open the doors of opportunity to talent and virtue and they do themselves justicel property will not be in bad hands. In a free and just commonwealth, property rushes from the idle and imbecile to the industrious, brave and perservering.”

Not anymore, Mr. Emerson.
#625999

On February 18th, 2009 at 1:39 pm, DerKrieger said:

Will utilities and phone service providers be forced to keep service to foreclosed homes? Hard to be a squatter with no running water or electricity.
#626000

On February 18th, 2009 at 1:39 pm, happyscrapper said:

Obama wants the welfare, do-nothing mob to get a ton of entitlements at the expense of those who actually work, create, build, etc. He is an angry, black liberationist who wants to “stick it to the man”. Surely he isn’t stupid enough to think this won’t cause a class war! There WILL be civil war in this country, and probably sooner than later. Unfortunately, for those who think our side has all the guns, think again. The criminals, felons, all the thugs in this country are on Obama’s side. And they do have weapons.
#626013

On February 18th, 2009 at 1:46 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

On February 18th, 2009 at 10:44 am, chapoutier said:

And btw, I met Soros once, briefly. He was nice enough.

ROFL. That statement has not been used about murderers and wife beaters.
#626024

On February 18th, 2009 at 1:55 pm, Cathy B said:

He just spewed this garbage at the high school my daughters graduated from in Mesa AZ, the cheering caused me to vomit a bit in my mouth…now he’s on his way to Canada…bubbeye now oh great one, don’t hit your head on AF 1’s door.
#626031

On February 18th, 2009 at 1:58 pm, chapoutier said:

OTOH, back to the post, how do you feel when you write your mortgage check?

I wish I was in the financial situation to own. But alas, I rent.
#626066

On February 18th, 2009 at 2:28 pm, Weary Citizen said:

On February 18th, 2009 at 1:58 pm, chapoutier said:

Then you should really be p*ssed. If you were irresponsible and bought a house you couldn’t afford, Uncle Sam would bail you out.

BTW, are you a public defender or something? Not many employed attorneys in my area that can’t afford a nice upper middle class home.
#626070

On February 18th, 2009 at 2:32 pm, chapoutier said:

BTW, are you a public defender or something? Not many employed attorneys in my area that can’t afford a nice upper middle class home.

I’ll bet not many attorneys in your area have a wife that is also an attorney (who is a public interest lawyer i.e, little money), with a combined minimum $2,300 payment every month on our student loans.

Also, they may or may not spend as much on alcohol as I do.
#626081

On February 18th, 2009 at 2:47 pm, Right By-The-Sea said:

happyscrapper, you’re absolutely right about Obama being an “angry, black liberationist who wants to ’stick it to the man.’” His “policies” are the result of his growing up on a steady diet of the Saul Alinsky/Frank Marshall Davis commie ideals, and 20 years of listening to J’Wright’s “sermons. Obama is a very angry man, determined to “level the playing field” for those whom the Left has deemed to be “victims.” Be prepared for reparations to show up on the docket very soon…
#626083

On February 18th, 2009 at 2:48 pm, AnOldMan said:

Well, during 25 years in law enforcement I met quite a few attorneys that were:
1) Just starting out.
2) Really liked being a prosecutor.
3) Enjoyed working as public defender.

But with those exceptions and the alcohol comment I have never met an attorney that was any damned good that couldn’t pay his/her student loans and have a fair sum left over.

Most attorneys after getting a little experience move on to better paying clients. The others? Well, no explanation for them other than love of the job.
#626088

On February 18th, 2009 at 2:51 pm, dadinseattle said:

ACORN is misnamed-

A more befitting acronymn would be

Progressives
Anti-American
Intimidation
Network
#626090

On February 18th, 2009 at 2:53 pm, Teddy Kennedy said:

Errah, I must have missed it in yesterday’s bill signing and the Dow smackin the floor again; but did the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street and in the Treasury get the $1 trillion check from China already making this all possible? If it was a wire transfer; the wire would have melted from all those zeroes being push through. I must have nodded off. Did someone cut a check to the cities and Acorn already??? Just let me know.
#626092

On February 18th, 2009 at 2:54 pm, cheapseat said:

yo chappie, give up the social work, tell your wife to give up the social work, and join the working robbed at every turn class. you will quickly lose all vestiges of your liberal leanings once you are paying for the societal choices of your peers. if you choose to do good works for the poor unfortunates, don’t steal your neighbors money to live on. change your life, don’t ask others to pay for the one you choose.
#626093

On February 18th, 2009 at 2:54 pm, chapoutier said:

But with those exceptions and the alcohol comment I have never met an attorney that was any damned good that couldn’t pay his/her student loans and have a fair sum left over.

I am not going to get into the freaking details of my finances, but you may have missed the part where I mentioned my wife (who has bigger loans than me but makes a ridiculously low salary) and we do have a fair amount left over, but not to the point where we are ready to purchase a house.

We are certainly comfortable and enjoy a nice lifestyle (i.e., less hours than many we graduated with). I am not complaining at all.
#626097

On February 18th, 2009 at 3:00 pm, chapoutier said:

if you choose to do good works for the poor unfortunates, don’t steal your neighbors money to live on. change your life, don’t ask others to pay for the one you choose.

Huh?

You are so wrong on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin.

1) I don’t do social work. I have said this many times.
2)I (and my wife by the way) work every freaking day, probably longer hours than most here, so I guess that would make us “working class”. I will leave the “robbed” part alone.
3) Hmmm…I already pay taxes and, as I mentioned, don’t have any nice mortgage deductions to take, so I would say I am paying for the decisions of my liberal peers.
4) Can’t recall stealing any of my neighbor’s money. I cant think of one government program or subsidy I benefit from. Sorry. Check that. I did have government student loans, you know…the ones I am dutifully paying back right now?
5)Can’t recall I have ever asked anyone to subsidize our life. I don’t know where you are getting your assumptions.
#626117

On February 18th, 2009 at 3:20 pm, robhic said:

“After you’ve used all your legal options, your last resort is civil disobedience. We’re talking about families who have been in their homes 20 or 30 years…”

Wait a minute. Been in the property for 20-30 years? Just how long are the mortages these people have? Aren’t they usually in the 30 year range?

If these people have been in a house 30 years and are still having problems or are upside-down on the payments, they shouldn’t be in a house anyway. They are idiots!
#626141

On February 18th, 2009 at 3:30 pm, duff65 said:

I just heard Rush calculate that the price tag for the 7M bailouts comes to $35000 per. This is totally insane since a high percentage of those “bailed out” will default again anyway. This recession would end fairly quickly if congress would go into hibernation. With help from Washington it may never end. I hope you “hope and change” voters are starting to enjoy the reality.
#626186

On February 18th, 2009 at 3:54 pm, Flyoverman said:

I hope you “hope and change” voters are starting to enjoy the reality.

Unfortunately, they are in Never Never Land. THAT is their reality.
#626214

On February 18th, 2009 at 4:03 pm, fulldroolcup said:

chap:

“4) Can’t recall stealing any of my neighbor’s money. I cant think of one government program or subsidy I benefit from.”

Whaaaa….? If you don’t pay property taxes, you still benefit from police/fire protection paid for by those who do. Got kids? Who pays for their teachers and the schools they attend?

Not you, chap.

Not you.
#626229

On February 18th, 2009 at 4:12 pm, chapoutier said:

Got kids? Who pays for their teachers and the schools they attend?

Nope, and even if I did, you don’t think the cost of property taxes is passed on to renters?

But I guess I see what you are getting at. I benefit from the government in ways that every citizen does, of course, but I can’t think of any special way that I do…except for the guaranteed student loans.
#626247

On February 18th, 2009 at 4:24 pm, LetsGetSerious said:

Be prepared for reparations to show up on the docket very soon…

That’s what I think today’s presentation/policy was. IMHO, this president’s mission is reparations in the short term and socialism in the longer term. I’ve felt he would implement reparations since we became aware that ACORN was a major, major player in this past presidential election. That is what I think the home rescues (aka give-aways) are. The reason the administration may be forcing many banks to take money is so that those banks will have to essentially give the homes away if so “regulated”. I always felt The Won would be “the great leveller”. I would even bet that ABBA *actually* means — to its creator, The Won — the American Reparations and Retribution Act. I do wonder if this has been a long-term plan. Perhaps the Congressional Black Caucus led it, or perhaps the Caucus itself was a stalking horse. Whatever. You’ll recall that yesterday The Won said, “This is the beginning of the end”, when signing the “stimulus” bill. Now think of the two times he raised “the finger” when mentioning Hillary on the campaign trail. I see them as the same thing: his inability to control his adolescent or arrogant urge to let the world know how he really feels. Two days after his inauguration, I theorized to my husband that The Won would be despised within 6 months. I think it may have only taken one. But, of what consequence is that if the billions going to ACORN ensure his re-election, by hook or by crook???
#626262

On February 18th, 2009 at 4:29 pm, fulldroolcup said:

Nope, and even if I did, you don’t think the cost of property taxes is passed on to renters?

Ever hear of rent control?

And I suppose you aren’t aware how much a landlord has to spend to dislodge a non-paying tenant—in my state he loses an average of six months rent. The tenants generally don’t have to pony up their arrears, either. They just walk.

Meanwhile it takes a nanosecond for the town to put a lien on your home if you don’t pay your property taxes.

But I guess I see what you are getting at. I benefit from the government in ways that every citizen does, of course,

Yes, you do, sir: the point is, you don’t PAY for it. HALF the US adult US populace pays no income taxes or property taxes yet they gain the benefit of government programs paid for by the other HALF.

but I can’t think of any special way that I do…except for the guaranteed student loans.

See above.
#626278

On February 18th, 2009 at 4:36 pm, chapoutier said:

Ever hear of rent control?

Yup. I am very familiar. But since I don’t live in an area that has it that is kind of a moot point.

And I suppose you aren’t aware how much a landlord has to spend to dislodge a non-paying tenant—in my state he loses an average of six months rent. The tenants generally don’t have to pony up their arrears, either. They just walk.

Yet some way, some how, they still end up making a tidy profit, even after those pesky property taxes. Otherwise I don’t see why people would do it. And I am sure you are aware of the concept of a triple net lease?

Yes, you do, sir: the point is, you don’t PAY for it. HALF the US adult US populace pays no income taxes or property taxes yet they gain the benefit of government programs paid for by the other HALF.

Okay…but seeing as I am in the half that most definitely does pay, what the hell does this have to do with me?

See above.

I do admit that those loans started with a slightly lower interest rate than do my private loans, but so far haven’t defaulted, and I am paying frankly above market rates now (the rate is locked if you consolidate your federal loans) so again, not sure why you are so worked up about this. The program worked exactly like it should…I borrow money to go to scholl so I can make lots of money so I can not only pay the lenders back, but also bay the government more in taxes.
#626289

On February 18th, 2009 at 4:38 pm, chapoutier said:

I borrow money to go to ~~scholl~~school so I can make lots of money so I can not only pay the lenders back, but also ~~bay~~ the government more in taxes.

Guess maybee it aint such a gud insveshtmint.
#626308

On February 18th, 2009 at 4:47 pm, wayiwalk said:

is that chapoutier from the old AOL wineboards?
#626313

On February 18th, 2009 at 4:48 pm, chapoutier said:

is that chapoutier from the old AOL wineboards?

No. But the name “chapoutier” does come from a particular tasty Rhone Wine producer.

I’m not eactly sure why I chose it as my handle.
#626336

On February 18th, 2009 at 5:05 pm, Elm Creek Smith said:

On February 18th, 2009 at 10:37 am, southsideironworks said:

Don’t count on any independence. They decide crops, selling price, and taxes. Don’t forget the enviromentalists either. You’ll end up like many other farmers…selling to the corporations (which will be nationalized by then).

I’m not looking to become a farmer by choice, I am preparing for The End.

“I don’t have a farm. I have a garden.” If you don’t sell any of your produce, the government has no say. As for chappy suggesting canned goods and a storage solution, that’s fine for a finite period of time, but for the long haul the ability to provide for one’s self and family is key. I wouldn’t depend on a tractor because fuel may become too expensive or unavailable.

In order to keep what you have or what you grow, guns and ammo are wise purchases. (Ammo keeps better than canned goods.)

ECS
#626337

On February 18th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, Elm Creek Smith said:

On February 18th, 2009 at 4:38 pm, chapoutier said:

I borrow money to go to schollschool so I can make lots of money so I can not only pay the lenders back, but also bay the government more in taxes.

Guess maybee it aint such a gud insveshtmint.

Probably an art major.

ECS
#626350

On February 18th, 2009 at 5:14 pm, fulldroolcup said:

chap: For all the baloney you serve up you might have chosen “charcuterie”.

You also claim: “Yet some way, some how, they still end up making a tidy profit, even after those pesky property taxes. Otherwise I don’t see why people would do it. And I am sure you are aware of the concept of a triple net lease?”

Sheer idiocy. Do you understand how many landlords can’t sell their rent-controlled properties, since there’s no chance for future profits? And I notice that class-envy-laden phrase “tidy profit”….who the eff do YOU know what the net profit is? Would you be happier if the landlord made nothing?

Of COURSE you would!

As for “triple net lease” : the fact that a type of lease exists where the tenant in a commercial property pays the property taxes does not negate the general point that MOST residential renters, especially do NOT pay such taxes.

It’s a red herring.
#626439

On February 18th, 2009 at 6:18 pm, chapoutier said:

I notice that class-envy-laden phrase “tidy profit”….who the eff do YOU know what the net profit is? Would you be happier if the landlord made nothing?

No. That is you projecting on me. And I don’t know why you keep bringing up rent control since 99% of the country doesn’t have it. What? Maybe Philly does? San Fran too? NYC got rid of it in 1999. That is a stupid argument, even not getting to the fact that rent control almost always allows for automatic increases in rent.

But more to the point, if they were bad investments, the landlords should not have bought them. And again, if people didn’t make money of renting they wouldn’t do it.

Seriously are you just trying to be obtuse and contrarian? I really don’t see what point you are trying to argue with me.

As for “triple net lease” : the fact that a type of lease exists where the tenant in a commercial property pays the property taxes does not negate the general point that MOST residential renters, especially do NOT pay such taxes.

I’ve dealt with residential triple nets, but in any case I wasn’t aware that only residential property owners had to deal with property tax. And as to your last sentence…how many times did we hear this summer about a windfall tax, that all the conservatives insisted would just mean increased prices to the consumer because the business passes along the tax to the consumers? They always do this. Property taxes are no exception. God, this is such a simple concept, it is almost embarrassing having to spell it out for you. But again, I suspect you are simply trying to be contrarian at this point.
#626461

On February 18th, 2009 at 6:37 pm, FilmLadd said:

But more to the point, if they were bad investments, the landlords should not have bought them. And again, if people didn’t make money of renting they wouldn’t do it.

You’re right about most of your arguments re: property taxes, but this struck me as wrong.

Usually landlords buy property, and then have rent control slapped on them later on because they didn’t pay the collectivist piper politician enough to keep them off their backs.

Ever notice how collectivist politicians get more money from big business? (go take a look at campaign contributions to Democrats and Republicans, or Republicans in collectivist states…)

There are a lot of big business idiots who think they can give big enough bribes to save their own sorry butts when the collective comes to take their souls.
#626472

On February 18th, 2009 at 6:49 pm, chapoutier said:

Usually landlords buy property, and then have rent control slapped on them later on because they didn’t pay the collectivist piper politician enough to keep them off their backs.

No one should be surprised by rent control. These laws have been on the books for the most part since WWII maybe the 70s or early 80s in some places.

And don’t misunderstand me, I think rent control is bad.
#626500

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:20 pm, FilmLadd said:

On February 18th, 2009 at 6:49 pm, chapoutier said:

And don’t misunderstand me, I think rent control is bad.

Okay, then how about collectivism?
#626505

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:27 pm, MNUSMCDavid said:

John Galt will destroy you.
#626508

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:28 pm, chapoutier said:

Okay, then how about collectivism?

Hmmm….some collectivism is natural, unavoidable and desirable. It’s not an either/or. Its a matter of degrees.
#626512

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:31 pm, FilmLadd said:

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:28 pm, chapoutier said:

Hmmm….some collectivism is natural, unavoidable and desirable. It’s not an either/or. Its a matter of degrees.

Really. So 5% of Man enslaved to the State is acceptable to you?
#626514

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:34 pm, happyscrapper said:

There is nothing wrong with living in an apartment. Some people choose to live that way and don’t ever want to own a home. Besides, if more people waited until they could afford a nice home, we wouldn’t be in this mess. We love our home, but it is a lot of work for upkeep, lawncare, etc. Some days I really long for a nice peaceful apartment with no painting, mowing, shoveling, etc. I don’t know how this discussion got started, but it is interesting, so carry on.
#626515

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:36 pm, chapoutier said:

Really. So 5% of Man enslaved to the State is acceptable to you?

You may equate some notion of “collectivism” with slavery. I do not. Taxes are collectivist. Unless you are saying the government should have zero power to tax, then you are a “collectivist”. The government has the power to appropriate private property for public goods. Unless you are totally against the notion of eminent domain, you are a “collectivist.”
#626517

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:36 pm, FilmLadd said:

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:34 pm, happyscrapper said:

Some days I really long for a nice peaceful apartment with no painting, mowing, shoveling, etc. I don’t know how this discussion got started, but it is interesting, so carry on.

I managed to sell my house a few months ago at a pretty good profit. Was a serious pain in the butt – had to fix it up, paint it, redo the ceilings, a serious nightmare.

Now in a condo. Damned glad to be rid of the money pit!
#626518

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:37 pm, chapoutier said:

I don’t know how this discussion got started, but it is interesting, so carry on.

I don’t know either. I said that my wife and I didn’t feel ready financially to buy, which as you said, should be freaking lauded here, and all of the sudden my finances are being scrutinized and I somehow think landlords are evil people who should rent to me for free.
#626521

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:44 pm, chapoutier said:

said that my wife and I didn’t feel ready financially to buy

Which, by the way…turned out to be a really really good decision seeing as we have relocated twice in 5 years and considering where the market was then as opposed to now.
#626522

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:46 pm, FilmLadd said:

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:36 pm, chapoutier said:

You may equate some notion of “collectivism” with slavery. I do not. Taxes are collectivist. Unless you are saying the government should have zero power to tax, then you are a “collectivist”. The government has the power to appropriate private property for public goods. Unless you are totally against the notion of eminent domain, you are a “collectivist.”

Proper (non-collectivist) functions for taxation include:

1) Common defense (police, firemen, military).
2) Contract enforcement between free individuals.
3) Infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.)

When the government goes beyond these functions and taxes citizens to provide foreclosure relief, or taxes to protect a bank from failure, or gives money to ACORN, it has crossed the line from a moral government into a tyrannical collectivism.

Its taxation amounts to slavery. A 5% slavery, a 40% slavery… pick your poison or “tax bracket” as the collectivists like to say.
#626527

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:55 pm, John Deaux said:

On February 18th, 2009 at 10:56 am, chapoutier said:
What decisions has the Secretary of State made that were both unfair and tipped the scale to the side of Franken?

I’m just saying that the recount is statistically suspicious. Read the article I linked.

What I’m talking about is the potential existing for corruption that will not be discovered. Given that it exists, Soros is putting his people in place to capitalize on it. They also have no interest in making a tamper proof system. That’s why they always cry about disenfranchising voters.
#626528

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:55 pm, happyscrapper said:

Now in a condo. Damned glad to be rid of the money pit!

Ah, a condo…my idea of heaven. Although, I might prefer a townhouse with the ability to have a small garden. I do enjoy that. Especially now, I plan to plant a lot of our own food this summer!
#626531

On February 18th, 2009 at 8:01 pm, chapoutier said:

“Common” defense isn’t collectivist?

Infrastructure, which is a “public” good isn’t collectivist?

And the Constitution’s powers go far beyond what you mention. It talks about the “general welfare” of the country. That has been broadly interpreted, even by many of the founding fathers.

So…Is the Constitution an inherently collectivist document?

Or are we talking about a matter of degrees?
#626533

On February 18th, 2009 at 8:02 pm, FilmLadd said:

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:55 pm, happyscrapper said:

Especially now, I plan to plant a lot of our own food this summer!

Canned goods and ammo in the basement, my friend. That way your neighbors won’t know they’re there. You’ll probably get a garden tax in the next Congress.

I am reminded of a friend of mine from Nicarauga, he owned a cattle farm. The “workers” took it over, he fled to here. Couple of years ago, after the Sandinistas were gone, he went back to see his “collectivized” farm again… was invited back to see if he could put back into order.

The thugs that took it over ate all the cows and didn’t even think about breeding them to make more. “We were hungry.”

That’s collectivist thinking for you.
#626538

On February 18th, 2009 at 8:13 pm, FilmLadd said:

On February 18th, 2009 at 8:01 pm, chapoutier said:

“Common” defense isn’t collectivist?

You can’t put “Common” in quotes by itself. Put the two words together in quotes and it’s not collectivist, provided that you recognize it as a Common Defense for Individual Liberty.

Infrastructure, which is a “public” good isn’t collectivist?

No.

I consider infrastructure as really a limited offshoot of “Common Defense.” Roads, bridges and the like are necessary to defend the country against foreign attack.

Some have argued that private enterprise (toll roads, etc.) can accomplish the same, but I don’t buy this argument for pure logistical reasons.

Interstates are shaped (partly) the way they are so that B-52’s and other jet fighters could use them as ad-hoc runways in the event of nuclear war.

And the Constitution’s powers go far beyond what you mention. It talks about the “general welfare” of the country. That has been broadly interpreted, even by many of the founding fathers.

Yes, and some of the founding fathers were collectivists, too. But simply because the term “general welfare” has been broadly interpreted does not mean that I must do so as well.

I interpret this to mean “the greatest freedom for all citizens,” not “the most wealth spread around.”

So…Is the Constitution an inherently collectivist document?

Not entirely. Some amendments are certainly collectivist in nature (16th amendment, I’m looking at you).

Or are we talking about a matter of degrees?

The interpretation I aspire to (and that I think the majority of the founders aspire to ) is so far apart from Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Obama that I think it’s more a matter of quadrants, not just degrees.
#626541

On February 18th, 2009 at 8:15 pm, MNUSMCDavid said:

Screw ACORN… come and get me!
#626579

On February 18th, 2009 at 9:29 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

Mike Huckabee very effectively comments on the:

Congressional
Relief
Action
Program

Watch this.
#626582

On February 18th, 2009 at 9:36 pm, Flyoverman said:

Obama never served in government to speak of, never worked in the business world, and never managed anything. He spent his time engaging in intellectual discussions with other leftists on political and economic theory. He NEVER applied them. He also never read history to understand that these socialst theories have always, uniformily have failed.

So what have we done? We have turned the worlds only superpower, with the world’s largest economy and the world’s third largest population to him so he can FINALLY experiment to see if his beliefs work, which we know do not.

Look how confident he is. He is a true believer in these theories. The guy who should be in the mail room learning the business is the CEO driving the organization straight towards a cliff.
#626649

On February 18th, 2009 at 10:51 pm, fulldroolcup said:

And the Constitution’s powers go far beyond what you mention. It talks about the “general welfare” of the country. That has been broadly interpreted, even by many of the founding fathers.

Oh yeah???? WHO?

Read this, and STFU:

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
With respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
#626651

On February 18th, 2009 at 10:52 pm, fulldroolcup said:

chap: bottom line, if you are really a lawyer you graduated from a Matchbook University:

“F U CN rd THS U cn Gt a JD”
#626752

On February 19th, 2009 at 5:43 am, graysonret said:

And the Constitution’s powers go far beyond what you mention. It talks about the “general welfare” of the country. That has been broadly interpreted, even by many of the founding fathers.

That was the purpose of the 10th amendment. Many were very concerned that the clause would allow “unlimited power”.
#626826

On February 19th, 2009 at 9:13 am, chapoutier said:

That was the purpose of the 10th amendment. Many were very concerned that the clause would allow “unlimited power”.

The 10th Amendment does not ever come in to play because the power to tax and spend for the general welfare is an ennumerated power. It is then to decide what “general welfare” means. The bar is not very high.

“discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power”

Heverling v. Davis.
#627621

On February 19th, 2009 at 3:54 pm, dadinseattle said:

Here is a visual on how large the payoff to ACORN was-

Pack 100,000 people into the LA Coliseum
and give them $40,000 each!

Racketeering pays!