Krugman of the NYT Knocks Private Property: Home Ownership Should Not be a National Policy.

We can always  learn from  the political essays of the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]-- as they attempt to ‘form public opinion’ by suggesting new and sweeping changes that ultimately lead to socialism and the loss of Constitutional Rights.  Today, the notion that the ultimate American dream is home ownership is pooh-poohed.

Private property is an affront to leftist tenets and more structured societies like the USSR and People’s Republic and even more elegantly the Cambodian Khmer Rouge took great pains to scrutinize private property and make sure it was not used to exploit the masses. Many progressives believe that:

“Private property is a privilege reserved only for those enlightened persons who dedicate their lives to improving government and its proper relation to the people. Property unfairly gotten thought the evils of capitalism or business must be returned to the people. Corporations are an affront to a just society and all common stocks and bonds should be reserved for the people. Excessive retirement accounts and IRAs, particularly of the fascist Roth type, must be assigned to the people for proper redistribution.”[2] From a previous rycK essay given in satire.

 In this episode of the non-equilibrium economics favored by the left that seek only to attack capitalism and shower the wealth upon the elites [The Trotsky Problem] we find suitably political postulates to demand  alternative s to private home ownership.  Gee, Feinstein, Pelosi, Kerry and the Kennedy Klan are rich and powerful. Did they contribute to the problem? No, they are compassionate and ‘sensitive’ to the potential voters whose lives they have wrecked with phony social programs and propaganda.

To wit[lessness]:

““Owning a home lies at the heart of the American dream.””[3]—President George Bush 2002

This affront must be refuted:

“Oops. While homeownership rose as the housing bubble inflated, temporarily giving Mr. Bush something to boast about, it plunged — especially for African-Americans — when the bubble popped.”

Oops. We wonder if the fact that 1/3 of all black males are in prison[4] or will be there for a time has something to do with low  home ownership by African-Americans [ with 858,000 black prisoners[5]]? Obama could use these votes in his second term if he pardoned his brothers. [6]What about low standardized test scores, drug addiction and sloth?? Could this be part of the equation? All this is to be blamed on Republicans, as usual, by the Walter Duranty Papers.

We now come to the point in this typical far leftist piece of propaganda:

“But here’s a question rarely asked, at least in Washington: Why should ever-increasing homeownership be a policy goal? How many people should own homes, anyway?” [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Indeed, and following the Communist Manifesto Paul Krugman is krugmanically correct and in line with far leftist politics and touts the Neanderthal urge to enslave people and steal their wealth using any scheme, especially with the help of  criminals, racists and revolutionaries. That worked in Russia and Cambodia and Cuba. Why not here?

The system is unfair and benefits capitalists:

“And the belief that you’re nothing if you don’t own a home is reflected in U.S. policy. Because the I.R.S. lets you deduct mortgage interest from your taxable income but doesn’t let you deduct rent, the federal tax system provides an enormous subsidy to owner-occupied housing. On top of that, government-sponsored enterprises — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks — provide cheap financing for home buyers; investors who want to provide rental housing are on their own.” [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Damn capitalists are to blame and so are their unfair government policies. That must change and Obama is the instrument of such change: High Taxes.

And, there are risks!!

“First of all, there’s the financial risk. Although it’s rarely put this way, borrowing to buy a home is like buying stocks on margin: if the market value of the house falls, the buyer can easily lose his or her entire stake.”

“O.K., I know how some people will respond: anyone who questions the ideal of homeownership must want the population “confined to Soviet-style concrete-block high-rises” (as a Bloomberg columnist recently put it). Um, no. All I’m suggesting is that we drop the obsession with ownership, and try to level the playing field[7] that, at the moment, is hugely tilted against renting.

And while we’re at it, let’s try to open our minds to the possibility that those who choose to rent rather than buy can still share in the American dream — and still have a stake in the nation’s future.”

More handouts on the way!

Didn’t we take pleasure in this splendor with the projects and high-rise slums like Cabrini-Green.?[8] Didn’t the idiot mayor try to live there with hoards of police to protect her sorry behind and she lasted only three weeks in that urban toilet?[9] I think Jane Fonda lasted a bit longer in Santa Monica.  Not even the mayor was safe in this dung heap. Krugman actually wants more subsidized housing with tax breaks for renters as he clearly states above.  Such monstrosities as the Cabrini-Green are the perfect model for failure and they can always blame Republicans.

If you can’t get through high school, have a narcotics problem, are involved in violent crime and cannot read enough English to understand your credit or home finance contracts then the government owes you a living.

We saw this kind of thing in Moscow and other leftist experiments and the same old leftist stylites are moaning and howling for more government subsidies and higher taxes for ‘education’ and worse.

Actually, if the liberal social programs actually worked and most if not all of our citizens were able to get through high school and secure jobs then this problem would be minimal. But, with the celebration of drug addiction, sloth and sodomy we have a large segment of society that aids the leftists with their sordid pilfering of other people’s money using failed social programs that they designed. It looks like they set them up to fail just to stay in power.

Let us compare the Krugman hints with the leftist political reality of the past:

“The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of

the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has

agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has

concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was

political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces,

with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became

lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one

national class interest, one frontier, and one customs tariff.”[10]

As the dog returns to its vomit [11]the leftist returns to the sacred Manifesto for their tenets and eternal lessons.  I think we have seen this 300 times in Africa since 1950.

The liberals will say and do anything to get more political power and grab more wealth. Anything at all.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com