And he is level-headed about it, not one of those bleeding heart liberals, this fellow ;-):

[…]

Still, should the Treasury give away money to poor people who dared dream own a house? I am not going to make the “populist” argument that doing so is better than giving $700 billion to the shareholders and creditors of banks and financial firms over at least 2 years (I’m sure that the $700 billion would not be the end of the Paulson plan, just like Wolfowitz’s $60 billion budget estimate wasn’t the total cost of the Iraq war). Giving money to people in need, of course, creates horrible moral hazard, which would in turn erode the basis of our civilization. When in distress caused by a disaster not of their creation, people would grow accustomed to receiving the solidarity and support of the rest of society and, thus, would start to behave in self-destructive ways. As we know, only the rich have the moral fortitude to properly use government subsidies: the bigger the subsidies, the more morally they behave. So, no. There would be a quid pro quo, an upside to taxpayers.

[…]

[ Link ]