Wednesday, April 15, 2009

MORE good news from The Standard

This time how the government is not forcing you (those who own homes outright and those who have yet to buy a home) to pay for people who took out mortgages they can no longer afford.

I guess The Standard supports subsidies for people who borrow to buy real estate. If that isn't a transfer from lower income taxpayers (those too poor to own, or the elderly who are income poor, but many own their own homes) to middle income ones, I don't know what is.

Socialists are funny aren't they, thinking that when the government doesn't take your money to spend it on propping up people who took risks, that you will be unhappy about it.


Quoth the Raven said...

No one said they supported the idea Scott. I think it is a stupid idea as you do and as I'm sure many of the standard writers do. As IrishBill says in the comments:
The issue is not the policy but the spin surrounding it. Key floats the idea on the front page then later on when all the PR value has been sucked out English shoots it down in the business pages. It’s a bait and switch scam.I think you're being quite disingenuous and as I said in the comments section at the standard stop misusing the term socialist. You can be a socialist and be opposed to the existence of the state. Further, I would doubt that many at the standard would describe themselves as socialsits. Get your terms right and get your facts right.

Libertyscott said...

OK I understand that, the spin is of course bullshit - I take that as par for the course for most politicians of both sides of the house. That in itself is hardly worth blogging about, but of course it is up to you. I assumed that if the government does what you want, then you should agree with it - the spin is bullshit, always. Spin you rarely gave a damn about when Labour was in power.

A socialist who believes in no state is of course an anarcho-socialist - socialism is typically a term used to describe state control of the means of production distribution and exschange.

Most at the Standard are statists (I should use that term not socialist) as they almost always advocate more initiation of force by the state, if they are not statists they are anarchists. I respect that difference.

Curiously I've yet to find a socialist that doesn't believe in the use of violence to achieve his or her goals - whether it be state or private.