101 Year Old Propaganda: Boycott AT&T and Yahoo

No, I could never make these headlines up, and this latest one is pure, outrageous propaganda attached to a propaganda story (featured as an AT&T/Yahoo lead "picture story", behich means that it may NOT be from the AP, which is the usual Yahoo "News source for its leftist propaganda). You may not actaully reallize how terrible the headline is, until I elxplain it to you (although you may realize it if you are smart enough to read this blog at all)--so many people being ATTUNED to the incompetent propaganda of modern "journalistm" (not to mentioin what is being taught in schools) that this goes right over peoples heads. That is why you have me. Here is the ridiculous headline:


"101 year old woman evicted i foreclosure"


Now why is that so bad--almot --almost the very essence of the thinking that is ruining this country?


What is the point of the story? You think you know, but you don't. Oh, you know and I know and everyone knows wHY the story was printed. It is a pure propaganda ("eviil banks", which may be partly true but not for this reason) SOB STORY, where ou are suppoed to feel BAD for the poor 101 year old woman being evicted from her home. But that is actually an ABSURD "point"--even an evil one trying to undermine our entire free enterprise system.


Why is it WORSE for a 101 year old woman to have her home foreclosed upon than for a 30 year old single mother, with two minor children? A paralyzed veteran? ME ?(okay, nobody cares about me, and most might think I deserve it, but how can you or the media, be sure of that?)


But it is much worse than that.. What is "wrong" with foreclosing upon a 101 year old woman (or me)? If she has not met her payments? The whole idea is that someone loaned you money . The house is security for the money. If you don't repary the looan, they take the house. You may bene owe money AFTER they take the house, because the house is not "worth" enough to pay off the loan9 (much more common now, of course, than it was during the housing boom). Now you may want the Federal Government to wave some sort of magic wand and "take care of" the whole foreclosure problem. There is the minor problem o what gives the Federal Government the poer to take money away from lenders, and the major problem tht these "central planning" "solutions" t the housing crisis have made it wORSE (as usual). But, really, unless lyou reject the CONCEPT of private loans with ecurit, which means you reject the CONCEPT of this country, then what is wrong with a foreclosure.? Sure, you can argue that SMAT banks would do this all better, in a way that would cost them less money. But banks are dumb, bureaucratic organizations: the Federal Government on a smaller scale (not so small with, say, Bank of America, but the Federal Government CREATED the modern Bank of America by encouraging --central planning again--Bank of America to "rescue" other companies like Countrywide and Merrill Lynch). No, there is noting "wrong" with foreclosure, other than lousy implementation (which has nothing to do with whether a person is 101 years old).


Let us look at this another way. Do you understand that the article represented by the above quoted headline is saying that SOMETHING SHOUOD BE DONE about things like evicting a 101 year old woman. If "something should be done", then it should be BILL GATES who does it. Or Warren Buffett (world class, dishonest hypocrite that he is). Or Steve Jobs. And no, I am not saying that the government should FORCE the "rich" to"do something". As a POLICY matter, that is CRAZY (a term I stand by--it is literally insane). What is the "policy positon" here? That a 101 year old woman should NEVER be "evicted" (and it happens with RENTING as well, although the hedline would imly--an absolute LIE---that there is something worse about being thrown out of a house you are not paying for than an apartment ou are not paying for. You mean 1 101 year old woman can just go CHOOSE any house she wants, and so lnog as she can somehonw get in she never has to pay for it? Absurd. Beyond absurd. Same as for mothers with babi. Same for any other "sympathetic" person youi, or the media, can come up with. This is just as much as saying we should DISCARD the free enterprise system (which, by the way, leftist politicians like Barak Obama--and too many Republicans and economic fascists on Wall Street--want to do).


But are there not SOME exceptions, such as soldiers in foreign wars? Well, that is an interesting question. I agree that soldiers overseas should NOT have their houses foreclosed upon--NOT so much because they are heroes but because it really is too much to ask them to look into, and handle, the "problem" when they are engaged in combat in Afghanistan. But am I really doing them any favors? Are you sure? How easy is it going to be for a soldier to hangle a ONE YEAR arrearage in house payments? Sure, maybe the soldier's famiy has gotten to live FREE for a year, but will there really be any chance to AVOID foreclosure. would it not be bebetter for a soldier to address a ONE MONTH problem, rather than have the problem build? Seems so to me. The only reason I came down on the other side is the issue of the soldiers NOT BEING HER to address the problem. But, again, are we dong anone any faovr by virtually guaranteeing that MOST soldiers' problems will get WORSE before they ae foreced to adddress them Again, you just can't have a policy that soldiers NEVER hae to pay back their loans. Well, you can have such a "policy", but it would be absurd. I don't have any reason to believe, by the way, that soldiers are worse off than other people in addressing their financial problems.


For Bill Gates to "solve" the problem of this 101 year old woman would be easy. For him the amount of money involved would be penniers. But even Bill Gates would have to avoid REWARDING irresponsible behavior. Note how much easier, and MORE MORAL, it is for a private charity to hande this sort of thing. You don't disrupt the housing market. You do not have to craft a "one size fits all" "policy". And, most important, you can DECUDE who "deserves "help without undermining the concept of the entire country.


Sebue to El Paso, where I live. What was a local radio story this morning? A person collected $18,000 by setting up a personal charity fund (lol--persons contributing to this deserve some sort of Darwin award) to help him with his luekemia. Well, as yu might have guessed by now, the person did not have luekemia, and has now been arrested. You think GOVERNMENT does not WASTE moer money? How is tis really different form the SOLAR LPOWER scams out there that are being exposed? Government wastes MORE money on fraud and abuse. But that is not the real point. The ponit is that people who WOLUNTARILY help specific other people, or specific categories of people, have a perfect right to do so. For the GOVERNMENT to do so--especially on a remote Federal levle where it is probably unconsitutional--is immoral. And it does not work.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Yes, It does bother me that this 101 year old woman probably has better eyesight than I do. But I am bigger than that. I will not let SPITE and ENVY affect the blog entries.