Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. They claim to represent the working class, yet they advocate programs that will literally subsidize inflated home values. This serves the dual purpose of rewarding cheaters and punishing those who were responsible. Letting prices fall back to their natural levels before this Ponzi scheme started would help millions instead of the relatively few a bailout would serve. Responsible workers would be more able to afford a home instead of being trapped with escalating rents that make it harder to save for a down payment.

Further, if this legislation passes, how will any level of government justify "affordable housing" programs? While we're busy using tax dollars to keep prices artificially high, we're also supposed to use tax dollars to subsidize the purchase of homes for lower-income people because prices are too high? Are you kidding me?

Dale Ma

Sherman Oaks



The Senate rejected an amendment that would have empowered bankruptcy judges to reduce mortgage payments for homeowners facing foreclosure. The Senate has rejected the most powerful tool available to halt the avalanche of foreclosures. It has turned its back on American families in their darkest hours. Instead, the Senate is preparing to provide billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies to buyers of foreclosed properties, ensuring maximum revenues to the predatory lenders that caused this crisis.

Is it any wonder that Congress' approval ratings continue to plummet?

Michael W. Boggs

Los Angeles



Let's get our semantics correct. The people living in homes are occupiers and buyers, not owners. The financial institutions that lent money hold the deeds. Those who made small or no down payments have little or nothing to lose. They pay the equivalent of rent but, unlike renters, receive a tax deduction. Those who scrimped and saved to make a substantial down payment should not be paying taxes to bail out those who chose to take on a risk. It is not fair to burden the frugal with the cost of others' poor judgment.

Don Martin

Santa Ana

Olympic protests: choosing sides

Re "Protest to nowhere," Opinion, April 9

Tim Rutten writes of the futility of an Olympic protest in changing China's behavior toward its citizens. However, I'm equally concerned with America's behavior. Protesting the Olympics isn't about China's behavior, it's about us, Americans standing up in support of human rights. With no expectation or hidden agenda, we should boycott simply because it's the right thing to do.

Pamela F. Winter

Anaheim Hills



It seems proper to protest a country that overthrows and imprisons another nation's ruler, uses its army to occupy that nation and takes the best land for its own people, leaving the natives as the poorest people. The new regime even prohibits the citizens of that country from practicing their own religion. I am talking about the United States' behavior toward Hawaii in the late 19th century. We did apologize, but never gave back the land or independence. China's behavior toward Tibet is no different from our behavior. I wish Americans would be as concerned about their own disgraceful past as they are about the behavior of other countries.

Daniel A. Guthrie

OPINION » DUST-UP: ECONOMANIA Middle class bailout? Have federal regulators put themselves in the position of propping up the middle class? Discuss  << THURSDAY: Failing banks? Discuss EDITORIALS|OP-ED|LETTERS				FROM THE BLOGS Opinion L.A. Opinion L.A. The best in Southern California opinion journalism, Monday through Friday Barack Obama's prayer at Western Wall intercepted en route to God Fri, July 25, 2008 | 12:56:46 PM PDT Obama Western Wall prayer published by Israeli newspaper Jerusalem more » Bit Player By Jon Healey Bit Player Jon Healey on Hollywood's love-hate relationship with technology. The Layaways and Billy Bragg contemplate new business models Fri, July 25, 2008 | 2:49:20 PM PDT The author of the Digital Audio Insider blog, David Harrell, is in a band called... more »