Spang wrote:I don't understand why not having a record is such a bad thing.
Bush had a record...
You're just figuring that out?Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You are an idiot.
What is a crock is the idea that nothing can be right if it came from the mouth of someone on the other side. I have no problem with people having opinions that are 95% on one side of the line, but when people are ALWAYS 100% with a party line, I do not believe that person is much of a thinker and likes to have people think for him or her. Especially when all the debating points thrown out are directly from stump speeches on the subjects. Grow a pair and think for yourselves.Xatrei wrote:This whole notion that people should, ideally, be bipartisan is a crock. If your politics are to the right, then behave - and vote - accordingly. If they're in the middle then, by all means, be a bipartisan moderate, and if you're on the left end of the spectrum then vote to the left. Each of you has your own core values, and I have mine - act accordingly. For me personally, there's not even a democrat in any national office that's even remotely far enough to the left to suit me, but at least their beliefs approach my own with regards to many of the top issues. Why the fuck should I (or anyone else for that matter) seek to be bipartisan when, philosophically, virtually everything that the right stands for is antithetical to my own personal beliefs? The bottom line is that I'll vote for the legitimate candidate that I feel is most closely aligned with my politics, which means that no modern republican will ever realistically get any kind of consideration, particularly now that any sort of liberal or moderate leanings have been virtually expunged from that party by the conservatives.
Of course the left and the right will occasionally happen upon something that is agreeable to both sides. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but on most important matters of principle, it is unlikely to happen. Whether the subject is social spending, infrastructure, education, law enforcement / justice, the military, economic policy, immigration, gun control, foreign policy, health care, social security, energy policy, human rights/social justice or the environment there are vast philosophical gulfs between the parties, to say nothing of individuals who hold beliefs further to the left or to the right. Personally, I disagree with the Democratic party as much as I agree, but it's a damned rare occasion that I find myself on the same side of an argument with the republicans on any matter of true importance.Avestan wrote:What is a crock is the idea that nothing can be right if it came from the mouth of someone on the other side. I have no problem with people having opinions that are 95% on one side of the line, but when people are ALWAYS 100% with a party line, I do not believe that person is much of a thinker and likes to have people think for him or her. Especially when all the debating points thrown out are directly from stump speeches on the subjects. Grow a pair and think for yourselves.
I have a hard time with how I think about this situation, to be honest.Avestan wrote:As an example, I think this bailout is complete bullshit, but I have a friend who is ultra far-left who had a good counterpoint that no one is talking about.
What needs to happen is that the people who caused these problems need to be punished. I mean the individuals who were (and are) running these large banks and institutions. The problem is that all their compensation has been cash for the last decade and we really can't touch it. He made the point that one alternative through oversight would be to force executives to take the majority of their earnings into a fund which is tied to stock price of the company and they cannot touch for 5-10 years. This would align their personal incentives with that of the long term fidelity of the organizations instead of with highly risky short term profits with no thought to the "black swan" downside.
I am generally against regulation of any kind, but this seemed to make a lot of sense to me. I hope the Justice department also goes after a coule of these guys for something as jail time for a couple senior people would have much more impact than the backruptcy of their companies because they have already extracted hndreds of millions of dollars of personal, untouchabe, wealth from these places.
Anyway, if we want to circle back to the original question, I think a couple things should happen.
- Prosecute a couple heads of the biggest offenders for something (I really don't care what)
- Appoint a board of top, bipartisan folks to manage the bailout instead of a single person. Ideally, industry folks, not politicians.
- Develop new regulations around executive pay that force alignment of incentives at the highest level with long term health of a company (stock instead of cash, with timing restrictions on when it can be sold)
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
Of course, if the right wing wants to go ahead and blame the mismanagement of the economy on the left while they're not in power, that at least is worth a laugh.Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) confirmed last week that his committee would mark up government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) legislation on July 28. NAHB sent a letter to the entire Banking Committee stating that the bill scheduled for markup (S. 190) “represents a missed opportunity to craft a meaningful regulatory framework that strengthens and safeguards the financial health of the GSEs while preserving their vital housing mission.” NAHB urged the Senators to oppose S. 190 because it fails to adeuqately address the nation’s housing concerns.
Specifically, S. 190 would severely curtail the investment portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; does not include an affordable housing set-aside for the two housing finance entities; and would give the new regulator unlimited power to increase GSE minimum capital requirements and broad program approval authority that could inhibit the development of new products. Because S. 190 sets stringent limits on the types of securities that the GSEs may hold for investment and contains no affordable housing fund, it is expected that the Senate panel will approve tomorrow’s mark up of the legislation along a strict party line vote.
On the House side, Financial Services Committee Chairman Mike Oxley (R-OH) sent a letter to Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) last week requesting that H.R. 1461 be sent to the House floor for a vote. The bill has been put on hold due to concerns from the Republican Study Committee (RSC) regarding the affordable housing fund and its potential abuse by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a political slush fund. To address the RSC’s concerns, Chairman Oxley outlined in his letter several proposed changes to the bill’s affordable housing requirements. Further complicating matters was a jurisdictional claim last week by the House Judiciary Committee over some parts of the bill, which could require that the Judiciary Committee consider H.R. 1461 before it can advance to the House floor. It appears unlikely that the bill will be considered by the full House before the August recess. For more information, contact Greg Brown or Scott Meyer at 800-368-5242, x8470.
Sounds like exactly what is going on right now. The left won't just pass the goddamn bill because they are worried about the other shit they want to tack onto it, which may be related, but is not as imperative as the main issue. So instead, they will bicker and not pass it, which is fucking bs. Not to say both sides don't do this at some point, but quit making excuses.Zaelath wrote:And, according to the National Association of Home Builders site: http://www.nbnnews.com/wash/issues/2005-07-27.html
Doesn't sound like the bill was that well crafted, and not at all left friendly...
Of course, if the right wing wants to go ahead and blame the mismanagement of the economy on the left while they're not in power, that at least is worth a laugh.Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) confirmed last week that his committee would mark up government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) legislation on July 28. NAHB sent a letter to the entire Banking Committee stating that the bill scheduled for markup (S. 190) “represents a missed opportunity to craft a meaningful regulatory framework that strengthens and safeguards the financial health of the GSEs while preserving their vital housing mission.” NAHB urged the Senators to oppose S. 190 because it fails to adeuqately address the nation’s housing concerns.
Specifically, S. 190 would severely curtail the investment portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; does not include an affordable housing set-aside for the two housing finance entities; and would give the new regulator unlimited power to increase GSE minimum capital requirements and broad program approval authority that could inhibit the development of new products. Because S. 190 sets stringent limits on the types of securities that the GSEs may hold for investment and contains no affordable housing fund, it is expected that the Senate panel will approve tomorrow’s mark up of the legislation along a strict party line vote.
On the House side, Financial Services Committee Chairman Mike Oxley (R-OH) sent a letter to Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) last week requesting that H.R. 1461 be sent to the House floor for a vote. The bill has been put on hold due to concerns from the Republican Study Committee (RSC) regarding the affordable housing fund and its potential abuse by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a political slush fund. To address the RSC’s concerns, Chairman Oxley outlined in his letter several proposed changes to the bill’s affordable housing requirements. Further complicating matters was a jurisdictional claim last week by the House Judiciary Committee over some parts of the bill, which could require that the Judiciary Committee consider H.R. 1461 before it can advance to the House floor. It appears unlikely that the bill will be considered by the full House before the August recess. For more information, contact Greg Brown or Scott Meyer at 800-368-5242, x8470.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... l=s109-190Traz-KOE wrote:If someone can provide a link to the full text of the failed bill I'd love to read it. I'd also be curious to know why it died on the senate floor, and the stated reasons for opposition, which the article leaves out.
Is he wrong?miir wrote:That's fucking hillarious...
You do realise that op-ed on Bloomberg was written by McCain's senior economic adviser...
Which bill are you talking about?Funkmasterr wrote:Sounds like exactly what is going on right now. The left won't just pass the goddamn bill because they are worried about the other shit they want to tack onto it, which may be related, but is not as imperative as the main issue. So instead, they will bicker and not pass it, which is fucking bs. Not to say both sides don't do this at some point, but quit making excuses.
Sorry, I'm talking about whatever is going on right now that they are trying to pass to "relieve" these financial institutions. Last I read, it has not passed yet because the Democrats want to add something on to it to help out homeowners. That is a separate issue that is not as vital to our economy, and should not be holding up the main objective, imo.Sylvus wrote:Which bill are you talking about?Funkmasterr wrote:Sounds like exactly what is going on right now. The left won't just pass the goddamn bill because they are worried about the other shit they want to tack onto it, which may be related, but is not as imperative as the main issue. So instead, they will bicker and not pass it, which is fucking bs. Not to say both sides don't do this at some point, but quit making excuses.
He's definately entitled to his opinion.Mak wrote:Is he wrong?
Which should be interpreted as, "No, he's not wrong."miir wrote:He's definately entitled to his opinion.Mak wrote:Is he wrong?
If you look at the whole situation you would realise that it is not as cut and dry as a single blocked bill that could have prevented this crash from happening.Which should be interpreted as, "No, he's not wrong."
That's really sad, and I'd help her move too... but.Fairweather Pure wrote:My co worker just had her house repossessed last week. She held on pretty well after her husband died. She made it almost 2 years on just her pay. Unfortunately, the price of gas was the final nail in the coffin for her and her special needs son. She has to be out by the end of the month. She is 55 years old and will be living in the basement of a friend's house with her retarded son until she can find an apartment.
She isn't too happy about the current decision to socialize the debt of these companies. I really feel for her. I'm going to help her move next weekend.
My sister and her husband had their house taken by foreclosure earlier this year. Their story exemplifies what has happened to many many people. She wanted a house that was bigger than they needed. She really wanted it and bid 30k over the asking price- the housing market here at the time was very cut-throat and she'd lost out on several houses by being outbid. The truth is, she never should have gotten the loan for the house. It was risky, their down payment wasn't sufficient to cover the overbid, and their income, while good, wasn't such that it was a reasonable risk by the lender. As their expenses and income changed they had more and more trouble paying the bills. I place blame not on the economy, not on Bush, but on their lifestyle and decision-making skills. I place that same blame on the majority of people having difficulty right now. As has been pointed out, your co-worker had other options. Two years ago was a great time to sell a house just about anywhere. She could have down-graded and pocketed some equity. I won't judge her, because I don't know her full story, but neither will I feel particularly sorry for her.Fairweather Pure wrote:My co worker just had her house repossessed last week. She held on pretty well after her husband died. She made it almost 2 years on just her pay. Unfortunately, the price of gas was the final nail in the coffin for her and her special needs son. She has to be out by the end of the month. She is 55 years old and will be living in the basement of a friend's house with her retarded son until she can find an apartment.
She isn't too happy about the current decision to socialize the debt of these companies. I really feel for her. I'm going to help her move next weekend.
you said yourself that they should not have been granted the loan, yet you blame them for applying for it. its okay for lenders to be blatantly fiscally irresponsible, but not regular/average/flawed homebuying individuals?Mak wrote:My sister and her husband had their house taken by foreclosure earlier this year. Their story exemplifies what has happened to many many people. She wanted a house that was bigger than they needed. She really wanted it and bid 30k over the asking price- the housing market here at the time was very cut-throat and she'd lost out on several houses by being outbid. The truth is, she never should have gotten the loan for the house. It was risky, their down payment wasn't sufficient to cover the overbid, and their income, while good, wasn't such that it was a reasonable risk by the lender. As their expenses and income changed they had more and more trouble paying the bills. I place blame not on the economy, not on Bush, but on their lifestyle and decision-making skills. I place that same blame on the majority of people having difficulty right now. As has been pointed out, your co-worker had other options. Two years ago was a great time to sell a house just about anywhere. She could have down-graded and pocketed some equity. I won't judge her, because I don't know her full story, but neither will I feel particularly sorry for her.Fairweather Pure wrote:My co worker just had her house repossessed last week. She held on pretty well after her husband died. She made it almost 2 years on just her pay. Unfortunately, the price of gas was the final nail in the coffin for her and her special needs son. She has to be out by the end of the month. She is 55 years old and will be living in the basement of a friend's house with her retarded son until she can find an apartment.
She isn't too happy about the current decision to socialize the debt of these companies. I really feel for her. I'm going to help her move next weekend.
EDIT: Albion, MI? Ok, I'll take that part about selling her house back. My bad.
I have no clue what the hell you were trying to say there. Can you re-write that so that it makes sense, please, because what you wrote bears no resemblance to anything I was saying.cadalano wrote:you said yourself that they should not have been granted the loan, yet you blame them for applying for it. its okay for lenders to be blatantly fiscally irresponsible, but not regular/average/flawed homebuying individuals?
you're just a moron
It's funny, almost every post you make is devoid of any proper grammar/spelling etc. You've also proven yourself to be little other than a asshole with a HUGE, unfounded ego. Yet you think your talking down on anyone means a damn thing? You might want to reconsider the placement of that sign.cadalano wrote:I'm sorry you can't comprehend my post. but thats okay, I'm not interested in changing your thoughts and the post wasn't made for you, tbh. I just wanted to plant a metaphorical "beware of moron" sign in the ground outside your house for everyone else to see who can actually manage to read it.
When you take a loan, you are making a decision. You have ALL the information in front of you about what you will have to pay to maintain that loan. Everyone who took these loans were betting on home prices going up. Sometimes when you play roulette, you lose. For years, people were making money doing this and grew complacent. To say that those people do not deserve some of the blame is ridiculous. To say that the firms giving the loans do not also deserve some of the blame is ridiculous.cadalano wrote:I'm sorry you can't comprehend my post. but thats okay, I'm not interested in changing your thoughts and the post wasn't made for you, tbh. I just wanted to plant a metaphorical "beware of moron" sign in the ground outside your house for everyone else to see who can actually manage to read it.
Well said.Avestan wrote:When you take a loan, you are making a decision. You have ALL the information in front of you about what you will have to pay to maintain that loan. Everyone who took these loans were betting on home prices going up. Sometimes when you play roulette, you lose. For years, people were making money doing this and grew complacent. To say that those people do not deserve some of the blame is ridiculous. To say that the firms giving the loans do not also deserve some of the blame is ridiculous.cadalano wrote:I'm sorry you can't comprehend my post. but thats okay, I'm not interested in changing your thoughts and the post wasn't made for you, tbh. I just wanted to plant a metaphorical "beware of moron" sign in the ground outside your house for everyone else to see who can actually manage to read it.
Life is not black and white, people who took these loans should not have done it. 3 Years ago, we thought about buying a house and applied for a loan and was granted a $850,000 loan at a time our family income was about a seventh of that. I went home, did the numbers, and said no thanks because unless the house doubled in value or I got a very big raise, I could not afford it.
Borrowing money is really simple folks. IT DOES COME WITH RISK. People forgot that. Ironically, the people who really lose out when a house goes into foreclosure is the bank. Individuals can fix thir lives and move on, but the banks who secured those loans are left with houses they cannot sell instead of the mortgage payments they would much rather be receiving. As we have seen, banks do not have limitless money.
Your post doesn't make any fucking sense, you ignorant dipshit. Where did I ever say in that post that it was "okay for lenders to be blatantly fiscally irresponsible"? Yes, they should not have been granted the loan, AND yes, I blame them for applying for it.cadalano wrote:I'm sorry you can't comprehend my post. but thats okay, I'm not interested in changing your thoughts and the post wasn't made for you, tbh. I just wanted to plant a metaphorical "beware of moron" sign in the ground outside your house for everyone else to see who can actually manage to read it.
Mak wrote: Tell me- are you high right now?
its ridiculous to hold homebuyers to the same standards as lenders in this case. look at your very own situation that you just posted. A bank offered you a plainly unreasonable loan which you could have accepted, presumably with all relevant information in front of them. Why is it that YOU are the one who has to decide that it is completely unrealistic to believe your family could ever afford it? Is everyone as responsible as you? is it okay to just assume that everyone will make the right decision here?When you take a loan, you are making a decision. You have ALL the information in front of you about what you will have to pay to maintain that loan. Everyone who took these loans were betting on home prices going up. Sometimes when you play roulette, you lose. For years, people were making money doing this and grew complacent. To say that those people do not deserve some of the blame is ridiculous. To say that the firms giving the loans do not also deserve some of the blame is ridiculous.
Life is not black and white, people who took these loans should not have done it. 3 Years ago, we thought about buying a house and applied for a loan and was granted a $850,000 loan at a time our family income was about a seventh of that. I went home, did the numbers, and said no thanks because unless the house doubled in value or I got a very big raise, I could not afford it.
Borrowing money is really simple folks. IT DOES COME WITH RISK AND IN MY EXPERIENCE THE LOAN OFFICERS TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOUR MONTHLY BILL WILL BE. People forgot that and assume that house prices will forever go up. . .that is just stupid stupid STUPID. Ironically, the people who really lose out when a house goes into foreclosure is the bank. Individuals can fix thir lives and move on, but the banks who secured those loans are left with houses they cannot sell instead of the mortgage payments they would much rather be receiving. As we have seen, banks do not have limitless money.
Why is it unreasonable to think that people should educate themselves and not be hasty about signing a mortgage that they will have to be paying on for several decades? It's no one's responsibility but their own to make sure they aren't living outside of their means, and no one should bail them out when they make that mistake. How else are they going to learn?cadalano wrote:its ridiculous to hold homebuyers to the same standards as lenders in this case. look at your very own situation that you just posted. A bank offered you a plainly unreasonable loan which you could have accepted, presumably with all relevant information in front of them. Why is it that YOU are the one who has to decide that it is completely unrealistic to believe your family could ever afford it? Is everyone as responsible as you? is it okay to just assume that everyone will make the right decision here?When you take a loan, you are making a decision. You have ALL the information in front of you about what you will have to pay to maintain that loan. Everyone who took these loans were betting on home prices going up. Sometimes when you play roulette, you lose. For years, people were making money doing this and grew complacent. To say that those people do not deserve some of the blame is ridiculous. To say that the firms giving the loans do not also deserve some of the blame is ridiculous.
Life is not black and white, people who took these loans should not have done it. 3 Years ago, we thought about buying a house and applied for a loan and was granted a $850,000 loan at a time our family income was about a seventh of that. I went home, did the numbers, and said no thanks because unless the house doubled in value or I got a very big raise, I could not afford it.
Borrowing money is really simple folks. IT DOES COME WITH RISK AND IN MY EXPERIENCE THE LOAN OFFICERS TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOUR MONTHLY BILL WILL BE. People forgot that and assume that house prices will forever go up. . .that is just stupid stupid STUPID. Ironically, the people who really lose out when a house goes into foreclosure is the bank. Individuals can fix thir lives and move on, but the banks who secured those loans are left with houses they cannot sell instead of the mortgage payments they would much rather be receiving. As we have seen, banks do not have limitless money.
if banks are the ones who get fucked by foreclosure as you said, then shouldn't they have a bit more reservation to dispense out impossible loan offers like that?
what about joe schmoe deciding whether or not to accept a loan that he and his family cannot possibly afford? do you still not want the bank "making the decision" for him? because i already said not everyone is as responsible as you are to know unreasonable risk when they see it. oh well- he should have known better than to sign his name on that completely unfulfillable contract that the bank happily wrote up for him! his whole family is fucked now with a foreclosed home and we get to pay to bail his lender out. good showAvestan wrote:Dude, I don't want banks making my decisions for me. Are you crazy? I want the opportunity to make risky decisions. The problem is that people don't understand risk. You can either hand hold everyone and stop those of us who want to make some risky choices, or you can let people make up their own minds.
Every loan I have ever taken says very clearly. . .you will pay us $XXXX.XX month 1 through 12 and $YYYY.YY months 13 through 23 etc etc etc.
People need to sack up and take some responsibility for stupid decisions. To say that the blame is 100% on the lenders is insanity. To say that it is 100% not is insanity. I place it at about 50/50.
who's talking about government regulation? i'm talking about recognizing that the responsibility in that specific situation lies with the lender.Cad, honestly now. What do you think the consumer reaction would have been when times were good to the govenment coming in and saying to the millions of people taking them. "Sorry, we think these loans are too risky and we are not going to let you take them anymore!"
I guer-en-fucking-tee you would have had a revolt.
Why don't you think people should be held personally responsible for their actions?cadalano wrote:if you assume that housing prices are going to double every 5 years heedlessly and without doubt, then this is what happens. no reason for lenders to have any reservation otherwise- except for the total collapse of their company and the ruination of many lives that they were eager to squeeze a quick buck out of. that is the company's fault- not the homebuyers. i don't know where you're getting that my point is that lenders need to be regulated. i don't care about regulation and i have not once mentioned it. there's a difference between being forcefully regulated and being a responsible lender. my point is that they are far more to blame than their customers which you are all so casually pointing your fingers at.
