On the other hand

I'm not often on both sides of an argument and I'm no pundit when it comes to economics but there are some aspects of this mortgage crisis that I don't understand. 

Sure the real estate market has gone soft but on the other hand I don't know too many people who check the real estate section of their morning newspaper to see if the value of their home has gone down so why then is it crisis when your home would not sell today for what you paid for it ? And how is that justification for not repaying the money you borrowed to buy it in the first place ?

Many people who play the stock market and check the stock market reports daily would never dream of disavowing a debt incurred for a stock purchase (on margin or otherwise) so how is someone "damaged" when they still owe  the purchase price of their home while its current resale value is less than what they paid ?

As a law student I was taught that a property mortgaged is merely security for the repayment of a debt and that the debt was not contingent on the value of the security being constant. And if you're not contemplating a sale of your home anyway what is the significance of its current value being down ? The mind boggles.

If I finance the purchase of a new car and it is wrecked or stolen and my insurance has lapsed am I off the hook as to paying off the balance of the loan ? Hardly. Then why the rush to "bail out" the homeowner who owes m
ore than his home is currently worth. Isn't debt absolute, regardless of the home's resale value ? And wouldn't the buyer be subject to a possible deficiency judgement in the event a foreclosure failed to yield enough to pay off the loan ?  So when did the rules change ? 

And with respect to the Minnesota Senate race---"send in the clown!"