Should the Government Bailout Foreclosures "Victims"...
Recently I was watching a news segment which featured a New York family on the verge of losing their home. The premise of the story was they were fighting the bank and the "system" (whatever that is) to save their home. I felt bad for them for about a second.

What's interesting to me is that the hosts were eager to sympathize with the family and really made it out to be a terrible problem in this country. It turns out that Mom and Dad were both working and had good jobs, but seemed to bite off a bit more than they could chew and couldn't afford their mortgage payments because their interest rates increased.

Wow!! Who could do such a thing and force this poor family out, somebody should help them.. I mean, how can "Big Banking" suddenly increase rates and their cost of home ownership! This "poor" family bit off more than they can chew, and simply made a poor financial decision. So Uncle Sam should step in and lend a helping hand, right? Wrong!!

To some politicians, biting off more than you can chew is no longer a personal responsibility thing, its all of our problem.

In an early August appearence CNBC Hillary Clinton was touting how she would help...Unsurprisingly, she’s demonizing lenders and brokers like she does "Big Oil."
She also said..“I think a lot of the lenders have really taken advantage of what is a really tough economic situation for many Americans,” and to top it off proposed a $1 billion federal fund for local and state programs that help at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosures. She said those programs could help the “unsuspecting families” linked to unfair mortgages.

In my opinion, people need to be fiscally smarter and think for themselves. Borrowers should NOT be rewarded with taxpayer money for over-extending themselves. Sort of like financial Darwinism...

Forgetting the fact that most people freely took out loans well beyond their means, politicians on both sides of the aisle say they are entitled to keep their homes. So they plan to take other people’s hard-earned money and give it away…not because these individuals did anything to deserve it, but simply because they need it.

Jonathan Hoenig at Smart Money could not have put it any better...

...Those who advocate for such measures tend to think with their hearts instead of their heads. When challenged about the morality of such schemes, they usually present a tragic example about a down-on-their-luck Rust Belt family who are in danger of being evicted from their home. Dad lost his job at the plant, mom is on dialysis and takes care of the kids, all of whom desperately need braces and new books for school. The argument is always an emotional one: “Don’t you want to help poor people in need?”

But a government bailout is not charity — it’s coercion. Americans are incredibly charitable people, last year donating a record $295 billion. But when you donate to Habitat for Humanity, for example, you do so voluntarily, deciding how much you’d like to give and to what particular cause. When Hillary pledges $1 billion in financial aid for homeowners, however, it’s not her money; it’s the taxpayers’, many of whom would undoubtedly prefer to give to any number of other deserving recipients....

There was a foreclosure a couple of streets down from me here...May be a good buying opportunity.. hmmmm