There have been a few items in the news recently that have been bothering me a bit. Not so much bothering me that they exist, or are in the news, but they bring up questions that I don’t have answers to. Questions that fall in the realm of morals and ethics, I suppose.
First up is the mortgage bailout. The basic idea behind this thing is to help out homeowners who are in danger of being foreclosed on because their house value dropped. Obama outlined four key elements to the plan:
- refinancing help for four to five million homeowners who receive their mortgages through Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
- new incentives for lenders to modify the terms of sub-prime loans at risk of default and foreclosure
- steps to keep mortgage rates low for millions of middle class families looking to secure new mortgages
- additional reforms designed to help families stay in their homes
Obama claims they won’t help out those people that took on a mortgage they knew they couldn’t handle, speculators, dishonest lenders, etc. But how can they be sure everyone they help out truly deserves it? And what actually determines whether they deserve it? What are the criteria they need to meet?
Why do they deserve to be bailed out when someone like myself does not? I took the responsible road of living within my means and as a result, it appears I may end up paying for the mistakes of others. In the end, as a taxpayer, I’ll end up footing the cost of lowering the price of all of these mortgages.
So do these people deserve to be bailed out? There are lots of people out there who take advantage of welfare, disability, and all of the various other social programs out there. Who’s to say they’re not gaming the mortgage system as well? And again, why do they deserve to be bailed out while others do not?
Let’s take a look at another example. Earlier this month, a woman gave birth to octuplets. She has been dubbed Octo-Mom by the press. A few days after giving birth, it was discovered that she had six other children. By the way… If she already had six children, wouldn’t that make her Tetradeca-Mom instead?
Anyway, there have been reports that she will be losing her house to foreclosure, kinda like many others throughout the nation. But even in the midst of this, she is looking at million dollar homes? There had been a lot of speculation about her using the birth of her eight children as PR to make millions, and maybe this proves the point. So this begs the question, does she deserve to make millions? Should she get a free ride just because she birthed 14 children?
And herein lies my dilemma. On the one hand, I’m more than happy to let these people drown. They got themselves into this mess, either through neglect or deceit, so why should I, or others, foot the bill for their mistakes?
But then there’s the other side of this. What about those that are being brought down, just by being associated and dependent? What about the children? What about the spouses? What about those who really have no choice? For the most part, they don’t have the ability to help themselves, and thus they must suffer the consequences.
So what’s the right answer? Do we help out those that truly don’t deserve it, just to help those that have no choice? Or do we let them deal with it themselves, thusly ignoring the plight of the innocent?
I, myself, don’t have the answer. I suspect the answer is a personal choice for each person, and probably tells way too much about you, but it’s an answer I want nonetheless. Insight is interesting…