I have nothing against taking a person's debt into account when deciding on matters of welfare. Bankruptcy is one option, but maybe the government should sometimes help people who would otherwise face bankruptcy.
My problem is with equating debt, as opposed to poverty in general, with being owed support by others. Hence the "misplaced sympathy". We do need to encourage responsibility while at the same time looking after people no matter what situation they find themselves in.
On your final point, there is no "we". On bailouts, there was no other option (from the point of view of the people making the decision). I already pointed to tax and welfare as another option for helping poor people. On corporate welfare and CEO pay these are not really anything to do with moral hazard so I don't know what your point was.
>My problem is with equating debt, as opposed to poverty in general, with being owed support others.
Again, "owed support" seems to carry some sort of moral judgment. What does it mean? Perhaps you can qualify that. I mean, are you trying to say that poor people are "owed support" because poverty is more systemic and cyclical, while debt is viewed as more of a choice? Because, I would argue that the latter is not nearly as clean as that.
But, kudos that you seem to realize this to some extent and are now allowing (or clarifying) that perhaps some indebted people are deserving of help vs. lumping them all into the "unworthy of sympathy" bucket.
>On corporate welfare and CEO pay these are not really anything to do with moral hazard so I don't know what your point was.
That's why I wrote "market distortion and moral hazard". These would be examples of the former. Outsized CEO pay does not exactly suggest a meritocracy in our labor market (especially when the CEO has driven his company over a cliff). Likewise, corporate welfare isn't exactly free-market activity.
The overarching point is that we seem to be hell-bent on accountability, personal responsibility, protecting the markets, etc. when it comes to individuals to the point where it rises to the level of morality judgments. But, we allow corporate welfare, bailouts, outlandish CEO pay etc. with barely a peep.
For instance, people are taught that walking away from a mortgage on a home whose value has plummeted is dishonest and basically evil. But, deliberately creating and selling bad debt and leveraging it ad infinitum to enormous profits not only slides by with merely a few grumbles, but the perpetrators are handsomely rewarded and are the very people to whom the debtors are supposedly morally accountable. It's a crazy double-standard.
So, when someone comes along and proposes to help individuals as the OP did, we start pontificating about the perils of distorting the market (which is already grossly distorted), and we try to carefully parse out who is "deserving", etc.
It's ridiculous, really. And I am suggesting that when people toe this party line, they are supporting this inequity, even when it is not their intent.
My problem is with equating debt, as opposed to poverty in general, with being owed support by others. Hence the "misplaced sympathy". We do need to encourage responsibility while at the same time looking after people no matter what situation they find themselves in.
On your final point, there is no "we". On bailouts, there was no other option (from the point of view of the people making the decision). I already pointed to tax and welfare as another option for helping poor people. On corporate welfare and CEO pay these are not really anything to do with moral hazard so I don't know what your point was.