Spring Break
Government shouldn't have to bail you out
Issue date: 7/1/08 Section: Opinions
|
Indeed, who wants to be seen as the candidate who opposes helping those on the verge of losing their homes? Although on the surface this might seem like the golden ticket to solving the economic and housing crises, further insight might lead us in another direction.
The bill is more than just a $300 billion bailout plan - it also includes $3.92 billion for community development. We all know that liberals like to give out money they don't have, but this is a stretch even by their standards. But hey, when you are planning to spend $300 billion you don't already have on something, what is a couple extra billion more?
President Bush also has hinted that he will veto the bill if Democrats insist on this money, but the reality is that he should have more reasons than that to veto the bill.
Besides the $3.92 billion in community development funds, another important question begs our consideration. Why should I have to help bail out someone that I have never met and will most likely never meet, and who lives on the other side of the U.S.? Why should I have to bail out someone who, in most cases, took on a loan beyond his/her means?
At some point in my life I hope to have the means to own a home, but I will not rush into it and will make sure to understand the terms of my loan and will be able to make payments. This is the duty of each of us when making financial commitments and taking on obligations.
Liberals have fostered a sense of entitlement among many Americans, to which the idea of personal responsibility is sacrilege. Buying a home is an investment, many times the largest investment families make, but we have to remember that with any investment comes risk.
With that risk also comes the chance to earn large amounts of money. People lose money or even their entire retirement funds through investing every week. Does that mean the government should bail them out because they made bad choices?
If we are going to bail out these people, then why not bail out people who spend too much on their credit cards and can't pay them off, or who bought gas-guzzling vehicles that now cost too much to drive?
With the economy sputtering and the November elections nearing, politicians don't want to be seen as being opposed to saving the American people, but there are many better ways to go about this. Don't vote for the first plan just because it might do some good. It is better left to the American people to get themselves out of this mess.
- Greg Wilson is a sophomore from Marietta majoring in political science.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 55
Khalil Ali
posted 6/26/08 @ 4:04 AM EST
$300 billion? Why not complain about the over $500 billion in Iraq? I'm not saying I disagree with your premise. I do think we should only help those who want to help themselves. (Continued…)
Khalil Ali
posted 6/26/08 @ 4:10 AM EST
I just caught this- Liberals giving money they don't have!
Wasn't it George Bush who is borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for the war in Iraq! Wasn't it George Bush who is borrowing money to buy oil from the Saudis! At Least the last Democratic President we had actually balanced the budget. (Continued…)
Ryan
posted 6/26/08 @ 10:34 AM EST
If we are going to bail out these people, then why not bail out people who spend too much on their credit cards and can't pay them off, or who bought gas-guzzling vehicles that now cost too much to drive?
The answer to this is actually not that complex. (Continued…)
Anon
posted 6/26/08 @ 11:17 AM EST
This isn't a bailout for homeowners, this is a bailout for banks that made horrid predatory loans. It's the banks and corporate execs that feel the entitlement, not the average Joe who got swindled by a greedy banker. (Continued…)
Curious
posted 6/26/08 @ 1:48 PM EST
In regards to the opinion: "We all know that liberals like to give out money they don't have, but this is a stretch even by their standards" Please do temper this unsubstantiated generalization with the following facts – During the years that there was a Republican Executive and Legislative control the national debt increased from $5. (Continued…)
...
posted 6/27/08 @ 12:53 PM EST
Curious, I think I love you.
Chris
posted 6/27/08 @ 3:48 PM EST
Greg, I agree with your position that people should be more responsible and read things before they sign them. I do not know much about lending, so I must humbly say there may be fault on the banks as well. (Continued…)
Jeff
posted 6/28/08 @ 4:50 PM EST
"Why should I have to help bail out someone that I have never met and will most likely never meet, and who lives on the other side of the U.S.?"
Get a grip, dude. (Continued…)
Zaid
posted 6/29/08 @ 3:39 AM EST
Government bailed out a single entity -- Bear Sterns -- for tens of billions of dollars recently, and there was almost no outcry for the political class. (Continued…)
Zaid
posted 6/29/08 @ 3:42 AM EST
And it's terrible economic sense to believe that not working against a forclosure crisis will be good for the economy. How is people out of their homes, unable to work good for the economy? We need as many healthy, productive people as possible. (Continued…)
Post a Comment