Why does buying a company, essentially attempting to artificially prop up the market and try to keep their campaign contributors rich, make you less uncomfortable than the idea of using the same money to try to prevent people with homes from becoming people who are homeless?

It seems like common sense. Someone uses all their money trying to keep their house, and fails. It ruins their credit, so they can't find another home.

Their only option then is an apartment, but no one wants to lease to them because their credit is bad.

The only way to even have a place to live, assuming you haven't already lost your job from all the days off you were taking trying to keep your house, is to move your family to a tiny box in an apartment complex in the ghetto where one of you is probably going to get shot before you learn how to survive there.

Yes, these people were living outside their means. But plenty of people who were living within their means are now way outside of them because of increased gas and grocery costs and the freefall the market is in. To suggest that everyone affected just had this coming and bailing them out is some kind of dangerous socialist ploy, as I've seen plenty of people suggest lately, is to me too heartless.

__________________