subprime

Ugh. I've come to dislike that term over the past year. I had a subprime mortgage when I bought my house in 2004. In fact, it was the only way that I could afford to buy the house, what with maintenance and child support payments, a need to stay geographically near my sons in an upscale high-tax suburb, and a salary that was likely to decrease dramatically in a few years when a new political administration came in and I was shown the door from my politically connected job. I only needed the house for about six years; long enough to get my youngest out of high school. It was a screaming deal. I was paying less for my mortgage than I had been for the small apartment I had rented for the past year or so. The mortgage was packaged so that it would have one (very large) bump at the five year mark. I knew the terms, I knew what the bump would mean and what it would cost, I weighed my options and I signed.

The point here is not that I am a financial wizard (oh, puh-leeez!), but that I, like most who took those deals, knew what I was doing (ok, that sounds a little smug, but you get the idea). No one put a gun to my head, no one tricked me, no one lied to me. Now tell me again: why should the government - ANY government, federal or state - take money from you and give it to me in the event that I can't make my monthly payments?

The answer, class, is: they shouldn't. If I'm having trouble financially I should a) contact the financial institution to see if I can postpone or moderate the effects of an increase; b) contact friends, family, anyone who could help me financially (oh, the humiliation... but it's better to get a government handout?); c) get another job; d) sell the house you can't afford!!!

But I guess to many that sounds cruel or unfair. So our elected leaders go on and on about the subprime crisis and plan new ways to extend the reach of government into everything that we do. Bah.