>>>>Hmmmm
>>>>
>>>>I see what you are saying but the problem with your idea, as I see it, is that it legitimizes bad purchasing decisions on the part of the consumer. The government shouldn't be in the business of supporting bad behavior. It seems silly to take money from the pockets of those who have acted responsibly and give it to those that haven't by way of federal transfers. That was one of the problems with traditional communism - you penalize the hard workers and those that show initiative and guarantee equal treatment to the sloths - thereby making everybody careless.
>>>>
>>>>IMHO, let the whole rotten structure come tumbling down because responsible lenders and consumers won't be hurt that much - it's the predators and idiots that will suffer. Darwinism :-)
>>>
>>>But they will be supporting lenders who also acted irensponsibly. So why not distribute that money more evenly.
>>>What I meant was to help single home owners who live in their houses, and where those houses does not have tennis court and swimmingpool as part of property {g} Bassically ordinary working families living in ordinary homes.
>>>
>>>But I believe it is over now. Afaik they apparently agreed last night on bailout
>>
>>It's just started. It is the biggest swindle in the history of the planet. Bailing out criminals, swindlers, gamblers, and morons is becoming government policy now.
>
>Finally we agree on something. {g}
>Except that morons will not be bailed out. Morons who loaned houses with swimming pool
>on 3000/month income and those ordinary working people who purchased their ordinary 3b houses for a rip-off price
>will be threated just the same.

Many houses have pools in the south. You can buy a house here with an in-ground pool for less than 100,000 (before the housing crash even)