The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 6 of 13)

Washington Times , November 23, 2007) and what Democrats are really proposing is bailing out their rich and elitist voters who bought homes they could not afford and then walked away from their responsibilities hoping to get taxpayers to bail them out. This is very much like the SHIPS scam rich Democrats were trying to pull to get their kids free healthcare at working American's expense. Despite Democrats and the media's disdain for us "simpletons" in the middle class we can understand this simple explanation. Republicans need to forcefully ask "why working Americans should keep bailing out rich Democrats and their special interest groups?" This isn't class warfare its speaking truth to powerful Democrat liars and scam artists. br> -- Michael Tomlinson /p>

First of all, and as is always the case, I challenge any proponent of this "homeowner" bailout to point to the specific passage in the U.S. Constitution (by Article and by Clause) that authorizes the Federal Government to get involved.

Secondly, what Madame Hillary does not seem to understand is the difference between a $30B loan guarantee for JP Morgan vs. a $30B outright giveaway to state and local governments to purchase foreclosed properties. In the case of JPM, it is simply a backstop to underwrite liabilities on Bear Stearns' ledger (which the USG shouldn't be involved with from the get-go). In the other case, it is simply an exercise of direct welfare for those who do not know how to make informed decisions and who refuse to take individual responsibility for those decisions when they go bad.

p>In either case, the taxpayer gets to sit in the middle and suck on it. br> -- Owen H. Carneal, Jr. br> Yorktown, Virginia /p> p> ISN'T IT RICH? br> Re: James Bowman's

topics:
Taxes, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Business, Constitution, Law, Iran, Israel, NATO