Obamanomics Applied to Real Life

I've listened to Obama discuss his idea of ecnomics and fairness over and over again.  I think I understand but you tell me.  The easiest way for me to explain it is with ananologies.

There are 3 neighbors; Person A, Person B and Person C.  They all started out the year with the same job and the same salary. 

Person A plods along doing what they need to do but not striving to excel.  They live paycheck to paycheck and spend everything they make, saving nothing.

Person B works really hard, does as much overtime as possible, makes wise investments and spends only what's needed as they save for their dream vacation to Europe.

Person C plods along like person A, but also decides to spend all of their money on lottery tickets and lives off their credit cards.  They fall behind in their credit card payments and their mortgage.

Under Obamanomics Person B should pay Person C's credit cards and mortgage.  After all, if they can afford a trip to Europe they can afford Person C's mortgage.  If the three go out to dinner, Person B should pay for the meal for all of them.  Again, if they can afford a trip to Europe then they can afford the meal.  If they go to dinner separately, Person A should pay a low tax on their meal, Person C should pay no tax on their meal and Person C should pay a high tax on their meal.  They can afford it so why shouldn't they pay?

In the end, Persons A and C still plod along and save nothing while Person B has to cancel their trip to Europe due to a serious lack of funds.  The rule of Obamanomics, Person B is buggered.

Please let me know if I got this wrong.

Social Justice - You're Responsible for the Irresponsible

As Obama announces his plans on how to get TARP paid back we see yet another recurring theme within this administration.  That the responsible are always on the hook for bailing out the irresponsible.  Although now this goes beyond those tax payers who spent wisely bailing out those who didn't, or even tax payers bailing out irresponsible companies and expands to the responsible companies bailing out the irresponsible ones.

If a bank did not make irresponsible decisions and did not require TARP funds, that does not in any way relieve them from the responsibility of paying back those funds they didn't take.  (Say what?)  If a bank took the TARP funds but have already paid them back, they will now be held responsible for paying back the money that somebody else borrowed.

Obama says that this is to ensure that the tax payers are paid back the money they lent, but for this tax payer it offends my sense of justice.  I want the money paid back, but I want it paid back by the people who actually borrowed it.  Forcing somebody to pay a debt which is not their own is the definition of injustice.  And this from the people who keep touting Social Justice as their theme.

So what is social justice?  Is it the belief that somebody else should be punished for your actions?  Have we reinstated the whipping boy methodology?  This appears to be the case.