Originally posted by GeneV I can't get too worked up about this. Whether it is the public or private sector, things change all the time which make decisions seem like a bad one. You buy a product, and tomorrow it goes on sale. You sell your stock in 1996 and pay tax as ordinary income, but if you had held it until 1997, you would have gotten capital gains treatment. This type of thinking keeps us from doing anything about the mortgage issue, because we are too afraid someone who didn't pay their rapacious, sub-prime mortgage will benefit. Making what looks in hindsight to be a bad decision is not what Equal Protection is about.
also in a sense they were all treated equal (nobody got a "refund" of any payment, partial or full)
Except it is also a "morality play" for government.. Since they were going to do what probably should have been done in the first place a just gov. would have paid back ALL paid in funds.
Granted that is not how capitalism would work but it is the way a gov. should work in my mind...
Tying the article back to the "mortgage mess" and using the same morality stick.. it is a lot like the problem of the Fed clearing bad paper at the owner level while 'good payers' or fully paid mortgage consumers get nada..while "bad people" get a free home.
W/ the Fed that could be partially mitigated by a "mortgage holiday" where the value of your mortgage payment is used as a tax deduction. As to fully paid players you could use property tax as a Fed tax deduction..
Fair.. err no but fairer........BUT what makes it EVEN MORE fair is that the local economy (and property values) improves and "floats all boats"..
In the light of that idea, the least the state could have done is a partial return for all that paid something in.
Of course giving someone part makes them wonder why you can't give them all..........