The regulatory environment surrounding subprime mortgages, workouts and foreclosures and bank liquidity is constantly changing. Proposed legislation that would allow bankruptcy judges to alter the terms of subprime mortgages, essentially dead in Congress as of the spring of 2008, regained new life and was in contention for inclusion in the bailout package passed this fall. As regulation continues to develop, scholarly debate concerning the federal government's responses is ongoing. In discussing the legal philosophical bases of the federal government's proposed regulations and legislation, this article brings to the forefront important considerations which so far have been absent in scholarly commentary and public press. By illustrating that federal lawmakers may now be operating under presumptions of what the law ought to be, this article asserts that such presumptions should be explicitly stated. Without this information, important considerations in assessing the responses may be blatantly overlooked or materially misunderstood.