I see it as a form of charity. I mean, the rich, who have a selfish interest in being taxed less, make the argument that they give generously to charity and thus, charity should be the mechanism for helping anyone in distress. This is a form of charity and just because it's funded, voluntarily by the proletariat, doesn't make it any less than funding the arts or what ever.
Granted, someone with spending problems have created debt problems for themselves. Someone who was laid off because of a global financial crash aren't necessarily making poor decisions. People who suffered because they took risks that are hailed as the cornerstone of small business entrepreneurship aren't the problem with the debt industry. If they were too risky then credit should have never been extended but it was. And, when the crash came, everyone suffered. Only, those at the top had a different form of debt forgiveness than those of us at the bottom.
There's a conservative catch-22 here where this form of charity is resisted because it doesn't benefit one group (lower taxes for the rich) while also strengthening another group (the middle class). The fear that it'll lead to irresponsible spending has no rational basis. If we spend poorly without a bailout, we spend poorly with one. It's an interesting charity in that it targets what is really financial hardship as a result of an industry of debt, not strictly a society of bad people.
Crap... forgot to offend someone. Marco, you're a douche. Blutzski, your the bag to marco's douche. Whew... dodged the bullet on that one.
On the river, I can abandon who I am and what I've done. However brief it lasts, while on the river I am nothing important and everything insignificant. I am flotsam, and happy to be so.