Thomas Sowell does a good job of translating lefty politico-speak and asks questions that deserve answers in an article entitled Subsidizing bad decisions.  In it, in reference to the mortgage bailout bill, he asks,

Since the average American never took out a mortgage loan as big as seven hundred grand— for the very good reason that he could not afford it— why should he be forced as a taxpayer to subsidize someone else who apparently couldn’t afford it either, but who got in over his head anyway?

Why should taxpayers who live in apartments, perhaps because they did not feel that they could afford to buy a house, be forced to subsidize other people who could not afford to buy a house, but who went ahead and bought one anyway?

Political redefinition in action:

What is new is the current notion of indulging people who refused to save for a rainy day or to live within their means. In politics, it is called “compassion”— which comes in both the standard liberal version and “compassionate conservatism.”

The one person toward whom there is no compassion is the taxpayer.

Well, but taxpayers are not a protected minority, so who cares?  Other than taxypayers, I mean.

…The same politicians who have been talking about a need for “affordable housing” for years are now suddenly alarmed that home prices are falling. How can housing become more affordable unless prices fall?

The political meaning of “affordable housing” is housing that is made more affordable by politicians intervening to create government subsidies, rent control or other gimmicks for which politicians can take credit.

Affordable housing produced by market forces provides no benefit to politicians and has no attraction for them.

Politicians need to be called on this kind of deceit.  They must be compelled to explain why the results of ideas they frame as a benefit always turn out to be injurious to the vast majority of people.  They may not take it seriously,    at first, but they have to be shown we do.