Save The Rich

September 1, 2007 2:32 AM

There are a lot of wealthy people that always beat the free market drum. Anytime there is bad financial news for the working class they demand we let the free market solve it. When jobs are transfered wholesale to China the say the government should do nothing. But now that the housing bubble is starting to crash they want to be bailed out. They try to dress it up by saying it's to 'save' working class people that got in over their heads. But that's complete bull. They don't give one rats ass about the working class. They want the government to bail them out because they are losing billions of dollars. They got in over their heads. This isn't about the working class making bad decisions it's about the wealthy making them. And now they want tax money to save their ass yet again.
posted by jsares (27 comments total)

Grindin'!
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 2:44 AM on September 1, 2007

Nice soapbox. Next.
posted by Roman Graves at 2:50 AM on September 1, 2007

I guess, knowing that this thread will be deleted at any moment, I should take this opportunity to say something entertainingly smart-ass. Unfortunately, I'm just not very clever at that sort of thing.
posted by Clay201 at 2:51 AM on September 1, 2007

Is it because I's rich?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:52 AM on September 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

lol this is soooooo deleted.

Still, it's less biased than the average Fox news broadcast.
posted by Avenger at 3:03 AM on September 1, 2007

I have no problem with this take.

But it's wholly freaky that I've been scratching my head for two years, trying to dig up that rare hip-hop clip I saw only once and loved, and found it on a ticking post. Thanks nlsc.
posted by toma at 3:05 AM on September 1, 2007

I admit the verbiage is inflammatory but at the same time the free market advocates have created their own lexicon to promote their viewpoint.

And it doesn't erase the hypocrisies of the free marketeers asking for a government bailout.
posted by jsares at 3:06 AM on September 1, 2007

I agree with every bit of what you're saying, and I still think that this is a shitty post. Don't editorialise on the front page like that. It's crude.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:07 AM on September 1, 2007

I admit the verbiage is inflammatory

Which is why it's going to disappear. If you'd posted the same links, without the speechifying, it would probably stay up. Nobody (well, almost nobody) expects total objectivity, but ranting is not allowed.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:23 AM on September 1, 2007

What parts would you cut out?
posted by jsares at 3:26 AM on September 1, 2007

Last post
posted by rkent at 3:40 AM on September 1, 2007

"What parts would you cut out?"

All of it. There's not one real link in the whole thing. The closest is the news article. There is an initialism you might want to look up: GYOBFW
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:42 AM on September 1, 2007

The market has decided that this post sucks.
posted by Poolio at 3:46 AM on September 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

I agree with every bit of what you're saying, and I still think that this is a shitty post. Don't editorialise on the front page like that. It's crude.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:07 AM on September 1 [+] [!]

This made me laugh coming from pope guilty. It is a hysterical ePony.
posted by srboisvert at 3:47 AM on September 1, 2007

jsares;

Personally, I'm opposed to deletions. Just, you know, on general principle. But to address your question ("Which parts would you cut out?")...

Basically, as far as I can tell, when you make a front page post, you're supposed to refrain from expressing any strong opinions of your own. You're supposed to be saying "Here's something interesting I found" as opposed to "Hey, this is what I think about a certain issue!" So you'd have to cut out everything in the post that expresses your opinion. Or nearly everything, anyway. That is, if you wanted to comply with the rules and avoid deletion.
posted by Clay201 at 3:48 AM on September 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

Clay201;

Thanks for the advice, I didn't know the rules.
posted by jsares at 3:51 AM on September 1, 2007

I am uncomfortable with those restraints and have posted otherwise and been deleted.
La-di-da. Sunrise, sunset.
posted by toma at 3:55 AM on September 1, 2007

Personally I'm not even against bias, but there's no link to the best of the web in here. Mises? Leona Helmsley & the S&L Crisis? Outsourcing exists?
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 3:59 AM on September 1, 2007

I didn't know the rules.

So when you made that first post, you read the bit that says:

If this is your first post, please read the guidelines.

Then, having read that bit, you saw the note beneath it that starts:

Note: You read the guidelines, right?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:04 AM on September 1, 2007

There are a lot of economically disadvantaged people that always decry the free market. Anytime that the ever so vaguely defined 'working class' faces economic troubles, they are quick to demand the government bail them out. Now that the housing bubble is starting to crash, they want to be bailed out. They try to dress it up by blaming the wealthy because they got in over their heads. This isn't about the wealthy making bad decisions, it's about the working class making poor financial decisions. And now they want tax money to save their ass yet again.
posted by boubelium at 4:09 AM on September 1, 2007

To be fair though, there's nothing about editorializing.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:09 AM on September 1, 2007

This isn't about the wealthy making bad decisions, it's about the working class making poor financial decisions.

Right. Because the working class all hang out at the annual monetary symposium, don't they?

Did you even bother reading the links before spouting?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:17 AM on September 1, 2007

To be fair though, there's nothing about editorializing.

There's nothing about being fair either.
posted by Poolio at 4:18 AM on September 1, 2007

Leona Helmsley was working class, was she not?
posted by atrazine at 4:20 AM on September 1, 2007

Right. Because the working class all hang out at the annual monetary symposium, don't they?

Did you even bother reading the links before spouting?

Umm... I was just spinning his statement around almost word for word. In fact two of the sentences are exactly the same. Did you even bother reading his paragraph before spouting :-)

But in all seriousness, I am just trying to demonstrate why I think really opinionated posts make for bad discussion. Once the position is laid out from the start, the opposite is instantly invoked and we have entrenched positions. I much prefer a collection of links that make us discuss rather than inflaming from the get-go. Opinionated rant postings just make meta feel like high school debate class all over again.
posted by boubelium at 4:24 AM on September 1, 2007

From one of your links comes this:

Mr Bush is expected to propose that borrowers in difficulty should be allowed to refinance their debt at cheaper rates. This would be good news for American homeowners, but mixed for markets. US Treasuries fell today in anticipation of Mr Bush's plans.

How exactly is that protecting the rich? It sounds exactly like it's "to 'save' working class people that got in over their heads."
posted by atrazine at 4:25 AM on September 1, 2007

Leona Helmsley was working class, was she not?

No. She was a queen.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:27 AM on September 1, 2007