My opinion - I'm conflicted.

While I try not to post too many political comments on my blog since I'm not nearly as qualified or eloquent as many of my friends and acquaintances, I'm finding it hard to keep my mouth shut on the Freddie Mac and Fannie May bail-outs by the federal government.

I disagree heartily with helping these entities out. Yes, I realize we're in a mortgage crisis and credit crunch. Everyone's short on cash, most particularly your average American who actually has little to no say about how much they get hosed. Which is extremely crappy. That said, by buying out these companies, it seems that the federal government is creating a contrived market instead of a true free-market economy and at the same time potentially setting a precedent for other companies.

Additionally, it makes sense that at some point when the market has been doing really well, there will have been errors and inappropriate behaviors that would have contributed to that success. In my opinion, the current situation should be considered an expected, if drastic, correction of that.

Now for my disclaimer and request for enlightenment: it's easy for me to say all of this. I live in a nice house and, even though I am currently unemployed, have enough socked away for a while and will hopefully have another job before that money is depleted. Still, I have to wonder if what the government is doing is truly a good thing. It seems like it's a temporary fix to a greater problem that may have otherwise been corrected if left to play out.

On the other hand, if we assume that we can't help out entities who are struggling, what happens if the healthcare and/or insurance market is next? We can't just say, "Oh, that's a normal correction. Sorry if a bunch of people aren't getting the help they need and are getting sick/sicker/dying - things will get better but this needs to happen in a free market economy." That would not only never fly, it also seems immoral and wrong for someone or something (in this case, the government) not to help if they can. So, how comparable is this to what's happening now? How does it relate? Does it?

People need money to live. I'm assuming that if their bills skyrocket, that affects their ability to manage paying for healthcare. So letting costs get out of control not only puts pressure on a lot of people, it can also result in negative livelihood and health consequences. What's the answer? A massive overhaul of our economy as a whole? Bail-outs for important companies that need it? Overhaul of one industry but not the other? Urgh.

I'd love it if someone far more educated than I would help fight my ignorance - as I've said, the above is my opinion, based largely on news coverage, which is usually skewed. Also, my own logic, at this point, seems schizophrenic since I'm arguing both sides to some extent.