Every American supposedly dreams about living in/owning their own home. 

That's a romantic formulation: we all dream about a home where we can provide for our families and everyone wants to have the equivalent of picket fences, front yards, and two-car garages.  That's why being able to buy a home is the goal and federal policy has been devoted to making that easier.

But as I've watched the issue unfold over the past few months, I've started to wonder whether this romantic version of the American Dream is really nothing more than a myth. Would homeownership be as desirable to most people if they thought they would break even or lose money when they sold the house, condo, or co-op?  Would renting then grow in popularity

In other words, is owning a home more one about investing and making money?  Rather than owning their own home, does everyone actually dream about selling it?

I'm rapidly coming to this conclusion because it's one of the only ways I know to explain the emotions that seem to be so much a part of the current issue. 

Very, very few of the people who are in or facing foreclosure because of the current credit problems will be thrown out in the street. But all of them will lose what they thought was a sure way to make a great deal of money when they sold the home. 

It wouldn't be surprising.  When they bought, not only were prices soaring, but they were projected to keep getting higher.  Given the experience of the previous decade or so, making a substantial profit from the sale looked like a sure thing.

But in retroepct we know that it wasn't sure at all.  And there definitely wasn't a guarantee.

If we call these folks "investors" rather than "homeowners," the issue can be recast as people buying an asset that fell rather than rose in value.  They bought the asset using credit rather than cash and it was very highly leveraged.

With the romance taken out of the equation, the issue is not about where someone lives or taking away their American Dream, it's about them making a very poor investment decision.  The poor decision was compounded by an equally poor choice about how to finance the purchase.

In these terms, a bailout for homeowners seems far less appropriate.

At the very least, if a bailout is considered, we should think about some provision that requires the homeowner/investor to give up some of the profits when they sell the asset.  In exchange for a taxpayer-financed arrangement that allows the investor to continue to hold and evenutally sell the asset, shouldn't taxpayers get some percentage of the profits when the sale occurs?

I wonder how many homeowners facing foreclosure would take this deal.  If they refuse, would that tell us everything we need to know?