While I applaud this effort overall, I can't help sharing in the anger over the "losers" who took out larger mortgages than they could afford.

We saved our money for years, bought a very modest house, put 25% down, and took out a 30-year fixed mortgage, despite various lenders' efforts to set us up with whatever fad mortgage was popular that month.

Meanwhile, I saw colleagues with shakier financial situations than my own enter eagerly into ill-advised "interest only" mortgages to buy houses three times the size of mine (at three times the price).

Now those people are likely going to keep their McMansions thanks to my tax dollars (or those of a future generation, anyway), and I get no reward whatsoever for being a responsible individual who lives within my means. Fan-freaking-tastic.

So, yeah, I understand the anger. I share it. I am not happy that those who acted irresponsibly will be bailed out while I will see no benefit, aside from (hopefully) an easing of the overall crisis.

But, I support the package, if it will work. And I don't know enough about the economics involved to speculate intelligently about its prospects.

I suppose that's the way it's always gone in America, however: the responsible people get screwed while the greedy bastards get their way. God bless America.

I think you're giving Malkin way too much credit to think she is better than that.

I don't know (yet) what all the details of this mortgage bailout will be, but it might be reasonable to LIMIT the bailouts to primary residences and NOT to second homes (vacation homes).

Another reasonable limit would be to help only those homeowners whose income is below, say $100,000 a year.

The rich can just move out of their un-affordable McMansions, become middle class, and live in "normal" homes like the rest of us (the kind with fewer than five full bathrooms and five-car garages).

I certainly don't feel like bailing out some millionaire who overextended himself to buy a McMansion.

Increasing creditor rights, limiting the grounds for appeals by the borrower and other measures speeding up the foreclosure process would make mortgage lending a more profitable and attractive activity, and would also make lenders willing to consider application by more risky borrowers.

And here I thought the reason we got into this mess in the first place was that mortgage lending was already a way to profitable activity and that lenders were already way too willing to extend credit to risky borrowers. Sounds a lot like when the credit card companies spent 10 years giving credit cards to anyone with a pulse and then used the high default rate as an excuse to get the bankrupsy laws changed.

Let's remember who the professional in these negotiations is and who is actually writting these loans. It's almost never the borrower when it's a home loan, is it? Part of doing business, particularly if your business is lending money, is deciding who is and who is not a good credit risk. Those that are good at it survive, those that are bad at it...well, now days thay get the government to bail them out and then demand that that same government change the laws so it's easier to make those same bad loans the next time.

Including mine which has a very conservative 25 year 5% fixed rate note (10 years in) where only about a third of the current value is financed. Buy MY house. It's a safer bet then the strippers who live down the block and put zero down on a 5 year ARM balloon note.

No? Well I'm just a sucker. All I get is to pay for the strippers default. Lucky me.

These guys don't hate the "bailout."

What they hate is Barack Obama. What they hate is Democrats.

If it were Bush and Cheney backing it, they'd be hailing it as visionary and compassionate.

Simple as that.

As much as I want to be "better than that," as various folks suggest I should be, where are the checks and balances on the mortgage-holders themselves? If the automakers have to file repayment plans, why shouldn't any and every home-loan borrower who's about to get a chunk of gov't money submit a monthly budget that'll guarantee repayment? I think far too many of these people, once they're off the hook, will be back to spending every paycheck with no savings or budgeting at all.

Big Brother? Yes, indeedy. But bailouts should come with strings, and unfortunately entirely too many are being crafted right now that are giveaways, not assistance programs.

What's the difference between banks that got into trouble by over-leveraging their investments in mortgages and individuals who did basically the same thing?

The biggest reason to do something to halt the tidal wave of foreclosures isn't as altruistic as one might think.

Foreclosures are strking across socio-economic lines like never before. They are leaving houses vacant in neighborhoods both fine and fearsome. And an excess of vacant housing hurts everyone. The rest of the neighbors who have an eyesore with overgrown lawn and weedy driveway lose both aestheics and value in their own property. Overall property values decline further with a blight on nearly every block. Those who need to relocate for work, downsize as the kids move out or upsize as the family grows can't sell their own houses. Builders can't sell new housing when there's so much bargain-basement foreclosures on the market, so tradesmen remain out of work, unable to pay their own mortgages, which increases the spiral.

Propping up whatever percentage of those facing foreclosure who might deserve it might not be pleasant, but refusing to do it out of spite is nothing but biting off one's own nose.

many of these houses in foreclosure were bought by people who should have have not been allowed to get a mortgage in the first I'm not sure we should be bailing them out. On the other hand those mortgages companies who lowered their standards to enable these people to buy houses or take out secon mortgages should not be given a helping hand either.

These are the unwritten and some written rules people used to abide by to buy houses.

1. save a 20-30% down payment first.

2. Be able to pay the mortgage on one person's income.

3. Your house payment should be only 13/ -1/4 of your monthly expenses.

We've made to much of home owenership status.