Those of us who had the good sense to decline an ARM or subPrime to purchase a home we can't afford, should bail out those who did? Not with my money!

Their defaults and foreclosures should serve as a cautionary tale to those who indulge in foolish, self-delusional beliefs in "risk-free" home buying. While prudently foregoing home ownership for myself, it is proposed that I be commanded to reward the imprudence of my neighbors.

While sensibly postponing my own home-ownership, I am now to be ordered, under penalty of incarceration should I choose not to pay the tax for it, to sacrifice my resources for the home-ownership of my less sensible neighbors, rewarding their imprudence while making that sum of my own hard-earned money unavailable to me for the purchase of a home for myself!

This is not compassion or charity by any recognizably sane definitions of the words. What it is, is plundering my resources using the coercive power of government, in order to redistribute those resources to fellow citizens, whose reckless behavior was diametrically opposed to my best advice as well as my example. If Hillary or anyone else wants to bail these folks out, they are always free to contribute to them from their own considerable resources. They should not be free to reach into my pocket to reward greedy, unwise, and ultimately self-destructive behavior. Behavior which, not incidentally, negatively impacted my own ability to purchase a home.

It is worth noting that the increased demand for homes fueled in part by ARMs and subPrimes, served to further inflate the cost of housing for those of us waiting for an opportunity to enter the market via traditional mortgages. In a manner of speaking, they "jumped the line", purchasing a home before they were actually sufficiently financially solvent to do so safely. Now I'm to be ordered to financially support those whose reckless behavior contributed to depriving me of an opportunity to own my own home. This is the ugly truth of superficially well-intentioned, but deeply misguided liberalism. It will beget still more reckless, destructive behavior while punishing good sense by confiscating the resources of sensible people to pay for the foolishness of the foolhardy.

Who is more likely to make a profitable investment? The sensible or the foolhardy? Let the sensible invest their own resources wisely, and limit the foolhardy to wasting their own resources as they will. The entire country would profit by it.

Having successfully removed the lower half of the voters, in terms of income, from the tax rolls (the lower 50% pay 3% of the tax burden), socialists (or, if you prefer, liberals) have created a majority class of citizens who are removed from virtually the entire burden of cost for any hare-brained scheme they can come up with to curry votes. I think that goes a long way towards explaining most of their electoral success. Bailing out the subprime home buyers, a number of whom can safely be considered to be among that class, is just the latest example of that strategy.

This makes the Fair Tax proposal all the more important to America, and all the more frightening to liberals. It could signal the extinction of this unwholesome new class of voters. This new class presents an evolutionary dead-end for constitutionally protected liberty, indeed, for the American experiment itself.