I completely agree, and I find it an interesting contrast of the current political feelings of protecting the middle&#x2F;lower classes (I don&#x27;t know what the acceptable term for &quot;lower class&quot; is).<p>College cost<p>Problem: college needs to be more affordable for lower-class kids<p>Solution:  give them cheap loans to go.<p>End result:  college prices rise because there&#x27;s no downward pressure, kids graduate with enormous loans, and we&#x27;re having this same conversation (&quot;how can we stimulate spending?&quot;).<p>Housing<p>Problem: the poor can&#x27;t afford housing.<p>Solution: Legislate it such that the poor can get access to loans to buy housing, with the government (really, society at large) subsidizing the cost.<p>End Result:  Housing prices rise because loans are cheap, people get loans they can&#x27;t afford, eventually people default on loans, pushing costs of loans up, the poor can&#x27;t afford to buy housing.  Cycle repeats.<p>This is where the conservative side of me thinks that government intervention really pushes this cycle along faster and faster, and makes things worse and worse (with the best of intentions).  I think it was in the 90s that suddenly it became politically smart to think that &quot;everyone should be able to own their own home&quot;, which sounds great on the surface, but there&#x27;s so much more to it than a simple quote.