[1] Lets translate the phrase “well-meaning, deserving homeowners who are facing foreclosure”. [2] To me I see that as a bailout for people who bought a house that was too expensive for them, or couldn’t resist the temptation of using their homes like ATM machines to tap into the equity (that is now gone, or substantially smaller) of their homes to promote a lifestyle they couldn’t actually afford. [3] In short, Republicans, their presumptive nominee at least, doesn’t give a crap about personal responsibility and making wise financial choices. [4] From there it is a few short steps to, “Well clearly we can’t let these people manage their own money since they make a mess of it anyways.”

This is an amazing, and wholly unpersuasive, leap of reasoning with no logical underpinning, much less evidence. It's a complete nonsequitur.

Use of a heavily loaded phrase like "doesn't give a crap" is a dead give-away that we're seeing the writer's prejudices revealed, rather than a principled argument.

There's been no shortage of greedy fools on both sides of these busted mortgage transactions. But that's not logically inconsistent with the proposition that in some instances, there may also have been fraud, overreaching, or inadequate disclosure by particular lenders. Real estate speculation is nothing particularly new, and there's a good reason why one of our most famous clichés — "If you believe that, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you" — involves real estate fraud. There are, however, at least two new features in the present crisis, both of which potentially could have been used to conceal wrongdoing: First, the growth in complicated variable-rate adjustable mortgages (which by their nature encourage gambling on back-end prosperity); and second, the "re-packaging" (i.e., securitizing) and international distribution of the loan obligations (divorcing decision-making on loans, as well as their management, from ownership of the debt). Given that, it would not surprise me at all if there is a substantial number of homeowners who genuinely are "well-meaning" and "deserving," who were indeed victimized by scammers, and who, as a result, now face foreclosure.

I start by being keenly skeptical of government bailouts, too. But I don't know enough of the details yet on what McCain has just proposed to compare it to the proposals that Clinton and Obama have already floated. Theirs, I've already concluded are less about the current turmoil in the mortgage lending marketplace than the normal (for Democrats) redistribution of wealth from haves (taxpayers) to have-nots.

In any event, you're imputing to McCain an enormous amount of hypocrisy. I may not end up supporting his proposal. But something more than my disagreement, or yours, with its merits as a policy matter ought to be required before accusing someone of bad faith.

Color me emphatically unpersuaded by this post.

Is borrowing money to purchase a home living beyond your means?

If you purchase a home that you can't afford and you don't factor in the risk of any possible financial setbacks it certainly is. Just because someone is willing to lend you the money and you want it doesn't make it a good idea.

How is taking a mortgage to buy a house materially different than borrowing money on your house to purchase a boat?