October 8, 2008

Today's Peculiar Statement on RI Future

Justin Katz

Even beyond the implicit suggestion that a change of the credit score system ought to be imposed, it's very clear from the following that Matt Jerzyk and Co. see the world very differently than I do at the basic level of the brain's first impressions:

Shouldn't there be some kind of financial reward for those Americans who chose NOT to be a part of the housing bubble (and lived within their means and didn't use the house like a credit card)?

Isn't the reward that they aren't left holding over-priced assets that they can't afford?

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.


I believe what Matt Jerzyk was implying those who have lived within there means and not been a drag on society and the economy should also be rewarded as have the banks and Wall Street especially AIG who received $85 billion Federal bailout; sent top performers on a week long rest and recuperation costing over $440,000 ay a posh CA hotel/spa and is back asking Feds for another $37.8 billion.

Also AIG is paying the executive strategist that got them into the current mess $1 million a day consulting fee and former AIG CEO $5 million performance fee.

This is your Republican Administration with a$700 billion plus open checkbook spending yours and mine tax dollars plus our children’s and grandchildren’s future tax dollars.

Yes both Republicans and Democrats, Wall Street, Banks, Business and the common ordinary man had a hand in creating this mess but I think all Jerzyk was asking is to give the ordinary carpenter a little something too to support his family.

Posted by: Ken at October 8, 2008 10:33 PM

One important correction, Ken. The Democrat-controlled Congress was careful to take charge of that $700 billion. The Bush administration does not have an open checkbook. Congress arranging to do so was one of the reasons the bailout did not pass right away, despite everyone agreeing on the urgency. That and because both parties (accurate but negative adjectives omitted) took the time to load the bailout bill with an unprecedented amount of highly unnecessary pork.

It was for the good of the country, though. (That phrase is beginning to ring almost as hollow as the NEARI battle cry of "it's for the chii-hhh-hillldren".)

Posted by: Monique at October 9, 2008 6:01 AM

As for Justin's point, in a strange way, Matt J kind of gets the big point right - that is, what good behavior is. He isn't saying, like too many misguided activists, that everyone should own a home regardless.

Two problems, however. In life, most good behavior cannot be rewarded. And if we decided in this case that it should be, who would pay the reward? Wouldn't the same Americans who did everything right and who are now picking up the tab for the irresponsible, borderline criminal, behavior of Clinton, Frank, Gramm and a ton of other Dems and Republicans just be writing a check to themselves?

Posted by: Monique at October 9, 2008 6:09 AM

Too bad his ilk doesn't believe that we should be rewarded for not being welfare leeches on society... Nope. We should have to carry the lazy on our backs. It's our duty as 'patriotic' taxpayers.

Posted by: Greg at October 9, 2008 8:02 AM

We "reward" good behavior - staying in school, having a work ethic, not pumping out babies until married and (reasonably) economically stable, etc. - and then letting that "good behavior" enjoy the accumulating rewards. It used to be called "pursuing the American Dream" (we don't hear that phrase much anymore.

In this post-Great Society era we actually penalize "good behavior" by taxing them to subsidize "bad" / irresponsible behavior, i.e., welfare in its myriad forms.

Via the progressive income tax, those who work hard and become successful in a middle-class / upward mobility sense find that they've suffered a public policy "bait and switch" - they did what they were supposed to do, only to find that as their income increases their income taxes increase disproportionately more, making accumulating assets (e.g., for retirement) much more difficult, if not impossible.

And it'll get much worse under Comrade Obama and the Bill Ayers ilk that'll make up his administration.

Ever notice how under socialist regimes that you still have "rich" people (Party officials and functionaries), and lots and lots of poor people, but few if any "middle class."

They are the ones wiped out, which is fine by the socialists, who despise those who have a work ethic and desire for upward mobility as the "bourgeoisie."

A thriving and growing middle class is the hallmark of free market capitalism, which is why the communists / socialists hate the "bourgeoisie." Free market capitalism and a thriving and growing middle class is also what built this country and constituted the "American Dream."

If Obama wins we're going to experience first-hand the unwinding of the free market system and decline, if not near destruction, of the middle class and the American Dream.

Posted by: Tom W at October 9, 2008 8:22 AM

Matt is no dummy.He worked hard to get his law degree,and whatever his faults,laziness isn't among them.The guy is like a three ring circus-he always has something going on. Maybe he is looking around and wondering if perhaps the attitude of getting to a better place in life without paying dues is causing a lot of societal rot by holding up evasion of responsibility as the norm.

Posted by: joe bernstein at October 9, 2008 11:49 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.