Do we really have to?

President-elect Obama (doesn't that kind of make your tongue stick to the roof of your mouth when you say it?) said this week, "We've got to set up a negotiation between banks and borrowers so that people can stay in their homes. And, you know, one thing I'm determined is that if we don't have a clear, focused program for homeowners by the time I take office, we will after I take office."

I have a problem with that philosophy. Most of the people in trouble on their mortgages (and I know there are exceptions) made foolish decisions. They bought $250,000 homes when they could afford only $80,000 homes. They took out second liens to finance trips or pay credit card bills. They signed notes with ridiculous terms. Why should we bail them out?

I heard Sean Hannity on his radio program the other day talking about the economic situation our country is in. He said that even though he could afford a much larger house then he has, and even though he could drive a much nicer vehicle than he does, he always buys with the thought that "I may be fired tomorrow. I want to be sure that even if that happens, I'll still be OK for awhile." Our economic "crisis" goes back to an "I deserve it even if I can't afford it" mentality -- I deserve a new car every three years; I deserve to live in a house as big as yours; I deserve lobster and steak instead of hamburger; I deserve a cruise every year; and even though I'll have to charge it all, I'm going to have it. So people got in hock up to their eyeballs; then the government said, "We have to bail them out"; then all of us hardworking people who made wise decisions have our money confiscated through higher taxes, higher prices, and devalued retirement funds.

So, back to my original question -- do we really have to make sure homeowners (who aren't really homeowners -- they're debtors) stay in houses they can't afford by bailing them out with our money?