Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
I think the rush was necessary, the ultimate plan though was terrible. And this coming from someone that is a huge Obama supporter. Who knows, maybe ultimately I need to suck up my pride and realize that for the greater good of our economy we have to bail these douchebags out just like we did on Wall Street cause we as Americans are better off preventing these foreclosures. It doesn't mean I'm not going to be pissed about it for a while. And it's not like it sends a terrible message, that you can fuc< up as much as you want and put the country in a recession but don't worry, those of us that didn't fuc< up will be there to bail you out. That is so different than what liberalism should stand for.
|
However that IS what Liberalism HAS stood for in this country for a long time. I respect your decision to be a liberal but I cant help but think that so many of you are not seeing the reality of what Liberal "leaders" are doing.
The idea that there is a class of downtrodden people in this country that simply dont get opportunites is misguided. Naturally some people have longer and tougher roads but that is the randomness of life as opposed to some conspiracy to keep them down. The problem that I and most conservatives have with the social programs is not that they exist but the vast majority of them do not work properly and the message that you so strongly denounce above is the message that resonates within them. Anyone who wants to scrap or change a social program is automatically called racist or elitest because Democrats use these programs as giant voting recruitment opportunities. You know so they can further their reputation as the party of the poor and downtrodden who are by far the easiest voting bloc to influence.