Giving money to idiots

Would you give money to someone if you knew they would spend it foolishly? Most of us would not. But Uncle Sam is not most people. Instead of callous and cold-hearted as the average taxpayer is, Uncle is compassionate to a fault.
The latest example is this push to give relief to the so-called “victims” of the mortgage lending crisis. Many in Washington, including President Bush, are calling for an aid package that would reimburse millions of borrowers who had to default on their loans and are unable to pay back the money they borrowed.
In essence, Uncle wants to reward people for their blunders.
Whatever happened to the notion of personal responsibility? By all accounts, the individuals who bought what the sub-prime lenders were selling hook, line and sinker are to blame for their own mess. Call me callous, but if people are foolish enough to jump into a pool without checking for water first, then they deserve what they get.
Yes, the sub-primes were predators looking to get rich quick. Sure, they were greedy. But that does not excuse personal choice. If you choose to do business with a lender promising the lowest rates available, then you are responsible for making that choice. This includes accepting the consequences that go along with it.
A lot of people were suckered into the sub-prime market because these lenders promised rates significantly lower than traditional mortgage loans. Suddenly, large numbers of people were qualifying for mortgages that would not have qualified under a traditional mortgage loan.
The sub-primes were able to offer lower rates and payments, because their loans only paid the interest on a mortgage; the principal was not touched. Furthermore, these interest-only loans had expiration dates attached to them. Upon expiration, the loan would revert to a principal plus interest charge, thereby adding hundreds of dollars onto a person’s monthly payment. Why? Because the sub-primes had to borrow money to secure the house for the buyer, which meant that the former owed money, too. The sub-primes had to make money to stay in business, and an interest-only loan would not allow them to pay off the money they had borrowed. So, to ensure they could stay afloat, these firms inserted expiration clauses into their mortgage products.
Unfortunately for the unwitting consumer out there who did not read the fine print, a number of loans were defaulted upon as people were increasingly unable to afford the monthly payments any longer. Now, we can understand why so many of these people would not have qualified for a traditional mortgage: They could not afford it!
With loan defaults came foreclosures. The balloon burst and the sub-primes began closing their doors.
Now, we have politicians pushing for relief to consumers affected by the mortgage crisis. Following Uncle’s logic, then, everyone who bought anything that they later could no longer afford ought to be reimbursed for their buying decisions. I mean, that’s only fair, right? Shouldn’t I be able to get some money from Uncle if I can’t make my car payment any more? We all can probably make a case for buyer’s regret and ought to be paid for it.
Questions: Why should I have to pay for somebody else’s mistake? Is it right to award idiots money for their idiocy? I suppose these questions are best asked of Uncle Sam.
Forrest Gump was right: Stupid really is as stupid does.