Whenever I assert that people who fail to pay their mortgages should not receive help from the government (they should rent), the Left argues that many of these borrowers were swindled by predatory lenders. The Left claims that some people signed adjustable rate mortgages when the banks knew that these people would never be able to pay the loan back. Then when the monthly payments increase, the bank steps in to reclaim the home.

Ignoring whether or not predatory lending actually takes place, and whether it is a sufficient justification to allow the government to renegotiate mortgages, I have a simple question: How is the definition of predatory lending different from the actual implementation of the stimulus package?

Right now, the government knows that Americans do not have $1 Trillion+ to spend. But, the federal government nevertheless printed money to transfer to State governments, some of which are bankrupt already. California comes to mind.

Now, citizens within those States will be required to pay this stimulus back, and the rate of payment, and burden on society, is going to adjust significantly because of: 1) Inflation; and 2) Interest. If $1 Trillion is borrowed, expect the citizens to be required to pay back a few hundred billion on top of the principle. So what is the difference between this practice and predatory lending?

To answer my own question: The difference is that this economic stimulus package is not just taking place in theory. Another difference is that when America forecloses on repaying this economic stimulus package, we lose much more than a home underwater. We lose the United States of America.