Posted by
Andrews on Friday, April 10, 2009 4:10:44 PM
I am tired of hearing about "good people" who fell behind on their mortgages. I don't care if you are a "good person". If you bought a house that is too expensive, or took a second mortgage for 100% of equity, or took an ARM gambling on rates staying low, then you were taking a risk. If you take a risk, you also have to accept the possibility of that risk not breaking in your favor. Do we pay back "good people" who lose in Vegas? Then why should we subsidize "good people" who lose on their mortgage gambles?
Nor do I care to hear about people who suffered a setback of some kind. I understand that it can happen to most people, that a medical emergency or some other catastrophe can strike anyone. But that is what friends, family and private charity are for. If we begin to subsidize misfortune, then we end up encouraging people not to plan adequately, and no one will lay aside for a rainy day, everyone relying on the state to indemnify them against any misfortune.
In the end, if we rescue people from their risks, or for their unforeseen failures, we will end up broke, as the risk takers will see no reason to be less risky, and the improvident will become even less cautious, and we will all bear the costs for their mistakes. And we will be broke whether they are "good people" or not.