[Superman]

No unexpected turns, Legion. Just taking you guys' ride out for a spin. I do this. In my mind, I take trips "going with" somebody else's thinking. I take it to its logical extreme, to see if it works. Or only works sometimes. Or whatever. Here, I'm imagining that gubmit's purpose does not include protecting Americans and giving them security. I hear that some folks believe that security assurances are counterproductive, only making Americans less inclined to build their own "security systems." Of course, other folks notice that a bit of a safety net also encourages entrepeneurs to take risks, since the penalty for failure isn't actually starvation and hypothermia, but nevermind that. Here, I am taking the gubmit security thing to a bit of a logical extreme. Frankly, by stepping in the government might be able to soften the blow on the economy (millions of defaulted mortgage loans WILL upset the economy substantially), on lenders and on Americans. That might make sense. But......it would be another form of welfare (let's call it "security," since "welfare" usually gets a MUCH narrower definition here). Make people lazy. Save millions, or hundreds of millions, of Americans from the general economic impact of a large failure of a principle industry (real estate).

Rick, you need to continue to read. Home ownership is a HEAVY cornerstone in our economy. Without it, and the mechanisms that brought it about and continue to make it attractive to citizens, our nation would be VERY different. Very. Indeed, I personally believe our economic system would have collapsed by now. Without it, we would be very much further along the path of understanding that there are winners and losers. Lack of it would have resulted in the game of Monopoly moving at a greatly accelerated pace, and somebody would have "won" by now. And of course, they would also have been ousted and the "game" would have started over by now, with new rules. Do you know, Rick, the relationship between home ownership and crime?