Your Tax Money Hard at Work . . . Buying New Democrat Voters

The recent crash in the housing sector known as subprime lending has been all in the news lately. People who, for whatever reason, had sub-par credit ratings that prohibited them from obtaining advantageous mortgages to buy a home sought out much more easily acquired variable rate loans. Why they did this, I don't know. There are certain attractions to variable rate loans. Initially, they often promise an interest rate much lower than you would normally obtain from a fixed-rate loan. The problem is, variable means exactly what it sounds like. That rate can change. And it is almost certainly not going to vary in your favor. So now we have people who unwisely signed their names on the dotted lines to finance purchases that they could not normally afford, and figured tomorrow would never come.
As we all should know, though, from Little Orphan Annie, tomorrow is only a day away. Now that rates have jumped up for these people, many can no longer afford their houses, and so there has been a jump in foreclosures in this sector. What to do? Enter Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democrat presidential hopefuls. Bit off more than you can chew? Eyes bigger than your stomach? No problem. We'll bail you out. Hillary Clinton's big idea was to set aside $1 billion of government funds (you know, that money that just mysteriously appears in the federal budget) to assist these people (i.e. bail them out).
Now I understand that this is a horrible situation to be put in. What could be worse than being forced to leave your home. But come on, people. If I go out tomorrow and buy myself a Ferrari, and discover that, in a few months time, I can no longer afford the payments, can I request assistance from Uncle Sam? I realize a house is not a luxury vehicle, but the principle is the same. When you go to make such an important purchase, there are a few things you need to consider. Number one, can I actually afford this purchase? Will my income cover my monthly payment, and allow me to purchase everything else I need? Will I just barely have enough money? A house is not something that you want to be scraping together every last penny for. Also, can I get a decent mortgage, or will I have to choose a more risky loan? Even if you have a fixed rate loan, housing costs invariably go up for most people. While my own loan is fixed rate, other things, such as property taxes, go up fairly regularly.
Now just because somebody else did not go to the trouble that I did in researching a purchase as important and expensive as a house, why should I be penalized? Who do you think has to come up with that $1 billion that Hillary wants to set aside for these people? My heart goes out to them, I hope they come through it okay, but that does not give them the right to reach into my wallet to bail them out of their poor decisions.
Here is my advice to them. If you cannot afford it, don't buy it. If you are going to get a variable rate loan, and you are not expecting a significant increase in your income in the near future so that you can refinance for a fixed rate before your rates change, don't do it. Maybe you have to rent for a bit longer. But isn't that preferable to foreclosure, which will only further damage your credit rating? Hillary likes to shift virtually all of the blame for this on the lenders, and to be sure, there are some unscrupulous people out there that took advantage of a lot of people to make a buck. But what is going to shut down this type of predatory lending faster? Further regulations, or letting people take responsibility for their poor decisions and learn from their mistakes. What is the incentive to not go out and get one of these ill-advised mortgages if there is the virtual guarantee that, should you be unable to make the payment, the government would bail you out?
As for those who like to point out how such a view might be unbecoming of a Christian, I think we understand the teachings of Christ differently. Christ never taught dependency on anything other than his grace. Sure, Christ helped the needy, but he did not provide their every need. I find it interesting that, when presented with a man that was lame, who had to be lowered into a building where Christ was teaching, that, rather than personally carrying the man around for the rest of his life, Christ healed him, then told him to pick up his bed and walk. Christ gave the man the ability to do for himself. When the fishermen that were to be his future disciples had an unprofitable day of fishing, Christ did not send them to petition their neighbors and the government for subsidies to help them through their difficult times, nor did he chastise their neighbors into supporting them in their misfortune. Rather, he told them to go out and casts their nets on the other side. He helped, but he still required them to make their own effort. Christ did teach compassion, which we should all exercise, and to give what we can to those less fortunate. But he did not teach those less fortunate to be dependent on others. He also taught that there are consequences for our actions that we must accept.