It looks obvious

The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C’s interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man. For once let us look him up and consider his case, for the characteristic of all social doctors is, that they fix their minds on some man or group of men whose case appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan remedies addressed to the particular trouble; they do not understand that all the parts of society hold together, and that forces which are set in action act and react throughout the whole organism, until an equilibrium is produced by a re-adjustment of all interests and rights. They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view. They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and, forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social discussion - that the State cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.

The Forgotten Man

This story make me angry, really angry:

“Clinton also proposed a fund of as much as $5 billion to help communities suffering from high rates of foreclosures. The moratorium on foreclosures would be at least 90 days and only apply to owner-occupied homes.”

When We bought are house we took a conservative mortgage, based on our current income, and didn’t listen to all those advises to take riskier loans. Obviously I wanted bigger house, or actually a bigger lot, but my ability to pay the mortgage - and to afford other things that are important to us - were a major consideration when we bought are house. This should be the normal process, not the exception. The idea that I, that saved my pennies to afford my house, should pay for those who bought above their means is simply outrageous. The idea that I need to cut on other plans I had for my hard earned money to pay for those who bought houses they couldn’t afford is immoral.

And what is really upsetting is the appearance of morality and generosity of those who suggest this idea.

Related posts

• Words to remember (0)
• Worth quoting (0)
• More government oversight? (4)