I think “poor choices” is a generalization. They are just “choices”. As you said in a previous post, if you choose to drive a truck that gets 10 mpg, and choose to live 50 miles away from your job, you have chosen to pay a large amount of money in gas costs, to dedicate a large amount of your time to commuting, and to put your faith in the government road system.
But that is only a “bad” choice if you can’t afford it. If you got a mortgage you couldn’t afford because you thought your house would go up in value and you thought you’d get a raise, if those things happen it’s a choice, if they don’t happen it was a bad choice.
If you live in the middle of nowhere because you assumed gas would always be $1 a gallon, and you can’t afford $4 a gallon, then you may have made a bad choice.
If you assume that taxpayers should foot the bill to widen the highways so you can get to work quicker, and think government should “do something” about the high gas prices so you can afford to drive your SUV, then you made a bad choice, and probably deserve being called on your “entitlement”.
But, as you said in your first post, people have a right to live where they want, and they have a right to work where they want, and so long as that choice doesn’t lead to burdening government or taxpayers when things go bad — well, we really ARE entitled to live in the middle of nowhere.
I agree. If you can afford it, that’s your right. I call it a bad choice because people didn’t think about the volatility of energy prices, and how much their ability to afford their lifestyle hindered on them staying low.
But yes, if you can afford it, and you’re not going to complain about it, then by all means go ahead. However, methinks Phil Gramm made a good point.