John McCain is under attack from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in a rare moment of Democratic unity.
In an economic speech on Tuesday, McCain (Ariz.) said he supports government assistance for Americans facing home foreclosure because of the turmoil in financial markets. But he declined to embrace the kind of government intervention for individuals and institutions favored by Clinton and Obama, arguing that "it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."
Is McCain really wrong?
I don't know.
Certainly if his attitude was that the government had no real responsibility to the economy or to suffering people he was wrong. But I don't think that was his point. I think his point had to do with responsibility as well.
One of the vital lessons of life is that actions have consequences. It is not hard-hearted to say that. We teach it to our kids. We've all learned it ourselves. If I eat too much - as I have been doing - I will gain weight. If I gain weight there are potential health consequences. If I develop heart problems because of my diet, well bad on me. I would hope that doctors still treat me. I would hope that my family would help me. But at the end of the day I would have to face the fact that I brought it on myself.
Similarly, if I go credit card crazy buying a bass boat and an HDTV and a vacation to Guam, and don't have the money to pay my bills, that would be an exercise in irresponsibility and the blame would be squarely on my shoulders.
If that happens, is it really the government's responsibility to take care of me?
If I buy a house that is way beyond my ability to pay for it and suddenly I can't afford to make payments anymore isn't that my fault? Sure, people may have enticed me into buying the house but then again drug pushers would also like to get me to try crack.
Is it the government's job to bail me out?
I don't think so.
The more that government behaves like it is the answer - bailing out corporations or individuals who have behaved irresponsibly - the more it sends precisely the wrong messages to people... the message that actions do not have consequences.
The more that message is sent the less incentive there is for people to behave, to live, responsibly... AND, more importantly, the less incentive there is for people to actively engage in each others lives. Why should they? The government will do it.
We are addicted to government. We are in danger of believing that government really is the answer to most questions. It isn't. Increasingly we bow before a Messiah Government that will save us from all of our problems. In so doing we miss the true power of the true God.
Churches should be at the forefront of caring for people who are struggling. People of faith should be there helping to pick up the pieces of broken lives.
There is SO much wealth in this country. There is SO much wealth in our churches - one local church recently spent more than $100 million on its new compound. $100 million. It didn't really have too much of a problem raising that kind of money. How much more could it, should it, raise to help people pay their mortgages? To help people reorder their broken lives?
Compassion literally means to "suffer with." I think we need a bit more compassion and a bit less of Messiah Government.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
AS the last two comments demonstrate, this is not an simple problem with a simple or single answer. Yes, there are irresponsible people who now find themselves in trouble, but not everyone who is losing their home falls into that category. Anyone who has ever taken out a mortgage has experienced the frustration of trying to sort through the piles of paper with tiny print and incomprehensible language. You end up hoping you understand the basics and that the person you are dealing with has told you the truth. Unfortunately, those not inclined to tell the truth found a way to sucker a lot of people into hopeless situations.
But who should pay for the misdeeds of unscrupulous lenders? Maybe this would not be such a dilemna if the current administration had not diverted $3trillion to a foolish war and had not given huge tax breaks to those who didn't need them. Of course, we wouldn't dare suggest the banking industry bear the cost.
Ordinary people, taxpayers will pay the cost whether it is in the form of a bailout or not. If there is no help, the empty houses in our neighborhoods will sit there becoming a blight and causing the downturn in the property values in the neighborood. Eventually many of the houses will be bought not by people who want to occupy, but by opportunists. Either way, it is not fair to regular working people. And it's not fair that the unscrupulous lenders who caused the problems are not required to pay the cost.
I note that there has been little said about the corporate bailouts over the years. Corporations that made risky investments, unwise decisions, or allowed greed to overrule wise management ended up being caught by their own actions. Instead of being allowed to suffer the reward for their stupidity our government stepped in an bailed them out. Bear-Stearns is the most recent example of this.
Why is it that so many Christians have a problem with helping a foolish family deal with a $300,000 mortgage, but seem to have no problem with throwing $3 billion (or more) at a foolish corporation? If risk is a portion of our capitalistic economy, and these corporations took on the risk voluntarily, should they not be permitted to accept the failure of that risk?
We talk a lot about how we need to lower corporate income taxes. Why don't these tax-hawks equally support ending corporate welfare?
"It used to be that churches provided the safety net that prevented bad judgment from putting children, the infirm, or elderly on the street (many European hospitals began as Almshouses). But the more we expect government to do this, the less we give to charitable alternatives."
Kevin - Perhaps you hit on the problem. Churches aren't doing their part. I think the Religious Right has, in no small part, played a big role in this. The focus on certain sins to the exclusion of others -- greed, avarice, etc. -- has created a mentality in this country that as long as I oppose abortion and homosexuality, I can do pretty much whatever I want with my life. There is little to no sense of responsibility to others, even in the church today. Perhaps we need another Jimmy Carter to get us back on track to thinking more about others than ourselves.
I agree with David on this. However, I think the problem that many of us have is that too often those in power see the wisdom of holding people responsible only AFTER the powerful (corporations, etc.) have been bailed out. That doesn't change the fact that we are held responsible for our actions. It simply means that we need to be more consistent in our beliefs and hold the powerful and the weak to the same standards. Being "no respecter of persons" is pretty good advice.
If you think government's a problem -
then don't use Interstate Highways,
don't go to National Parks,
don't use the airlines that our government is constantly bailing out, don't send your kids to public schools or universities (or have your kids receive grants and subsidized loans),
don't support the federally funded military,
don't use medications or techniques that were validated with federal research grants,
etc.
Yeah, I understand the government doesn't do everything and should be balanced from afar by market interests. But, government isn't so monolithic like 'Katrina' when it's run by competent leaders.
Republicans and Evangelical Christians have demonized government so much that parishioners vote against their own self interests.
Republicans and Evangelicals can freely turn down their Social Security and other federal government benefits if they really want to make a statement. I doubt that'll happen. There's just to much hot air inside these folks and they're too lucky for their own good.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.