John Aravosis demonstrates once again why I refuse to call myself a progressive (italics mine):
Seriously, any plan to bail these people out had better include a test to prove that they were hoodwinked by their mortgage broker. Otherwise, they gambled and they lost. Lots of people bought homes and did what it took to make their payments, and did make their payments, and others opted not to buy at all until the market settled down. We should not be bailing people out for being idiots, or for trying to make a fast buck, especially when it means the rest of us will now have to pay more for OUR next home as a result of this bail out. Where's the plan to reimburse the rest of us for not being idiots? Once again, always have a plan to help the rich, the poor, or the stupid. Never a plan to help the rest of us.
Let's deal with the stupid first. What the hell do the poor have to do with the home mortgage crisis? Even with the ridiculous loans, the poor weren't getting any (maybe people on the low end of middle class, but not the poor).
Onto the immoral. Most value systems, religious or otherwise (other than Ayn Randism), emphasize helping the needy. There is a fundamental difference between helping the rich, who possess more power and wealth than most, and the poor and downtrodden. If you do not understand this, then you are a broken person.
Aravosis has done this before, and his unwarranted outburst of rage at the poor represents the dark side of populism.
With 'progressives' like this, who needs Republicans?
- Log in to post comments
So, let's get this straight. You say the poor are unaffected by the bailout. Then you condemn Aravosis for comments about the bailout that you think demonstrate insufficient compassion for those same poor. Either the poor are affected or they're not, Mike. You can't have it both ways. If one answer means someone is stupid and the other answer means they're evil, then what does it mean that you yourself have given both?
Aravosis's selective (self-) pity is one of the reasons I stopped reading Americablog. He's broken some great stories, but, as for his opinions - well, you know what they say about opinions and assholes.
Jeff, you incorrectly characterize what Mike has said. Aravosis derided the poor. That is the part that Mike italicized, and that is what Mike was criticizing. Mike then further criticized Aravosis's derision as stupid because the poor would be unaffected by the bail out.
Jeff,
I'm not saying the bailout demonstrates insufficient compassion for the poor--they have nothing to do with that problem. What I am saying is that Aravosis' repeated equating helping the poor with helping the rich is very stupid and unethical. In fact, in his last outburst at the poor, the list of particulars involved CEO pay, which again has nothing to with the poor.
What is troubling is what slim called "selective self-pity"--Aravosis is engaged in the classic Republican talking point of lashing out at the poor (they get 'help', whereas 'real' Americans don't).
That's why I include links. Click them.
Oh, so you were actually talking about *something else* and I should click the links to find out what. Silly me, I was responding to what you actually said in the here-and-now. I must be the one in error. (insert eye-roll here)
Aravosis is indulging in "me-me-me-ism". When is HE gonna get his instead of the Luckie Duckie poor? It's not attractive.