Compare and Contrast (cont.)
Reader Valerie stopped by and left a comment on a previous post, here. My reply ran a little long, so I’ve turned it into it’s own post.
First, Valerie’s comment:
The thing is that the wealthy used car dealer has employees and spends money. He keeps the economy going. Are you trying to say that he doesn’t deserve to be helped because he was wealthy? That is the socialist democrat attitude. A man who has a high paying job, then looses it, and can not find another one, is in the same tough position as a man with a low paying job that looses it and can not find another. If neither one can sell their home, they are both stuck.
“Yes, the man who had much should have squirreled something away and shouldn’t need the financial assistance for quite some time, however, his point is still valid. We give that much money to the banks, they should be helping people stay in their homes. It is a win-win situation. Look at what happened during the depression – the banks were greedy and didn’t care about the people who were losing their homes. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF!”
“Hi Valerie – thanks for coming by and leaving a thoughtful comment.
My problem with Mr. Moussa’s story is that he seems to have been living beyond his means for a while now, spending money he couldn’t afford to in order to give himself a comfortable lifestyle, all the while basically gambling that the economy wouldn’t correct itself or slow down. When it inevitably did, he was in way over his head, and now he’s upset that money earned and taken from other people by the government isn’t being handed to him so that he can continue living beyond his means. How is that right?
I understand that people like Mr. Moussa, business owners, help support the economy. But why should he get my money to stay in his million dollar home? I would have loved to have bought my own home somewhere over the past five years, but I couldn’t afford to so, so I’ve been renting all that time and trying to save money. Why should my money go towards keeping him in a home he cannot afford, just because he made an irresponsible choice?
And you argue that “We give that much money to the banks, they should be helping people stay in their homes. It is a win-win situation.”
First off, I hate that we gave that much (or any) money to the banks to begin with. But since we did, I don’t think we should be using it to help out people who made bad decisions. I think it should be used to help out people who made responsible choices, people who haven’t been able to buy a home because the prices have been artificially high. I think people like Mr. Moussa should have to sell their homes, even if it means it’s at a loss. He will do just fine moving into a smaller house, or even (god forbid) renting somewhere. Meanwhile, the value of his former home will fall and other people will get to buy a home at a reasonable price.
Secondly – I fail to see how it’s a win-win for me, or people like me whose money is being taken and giving to the Mr. Moussas out there.
As an aside, like I said, thank you for stopping by and commenting. But in the future if you accuse me of holding a socialist democrat attitude I will be forced to invoke Godwin’s Law.
I have no problem with wealthy people getting help to stay afloat. I understand that business owners keep the economy as a whole on its feet. I would wholeheartedly support slashing taxes for business owners and the “rich.” My problem is when the government steals money from me and people like me in order to reward irresponsible behavior, regardless of whether the person being helped is rich or poor.”
No comments yet.