Posted by jrd_x on 5/24/2012 1:04:00 PM (view original):
No, they absolutely should.  But people are dumb and they are always going to try to get more than they should, especially when the credit is easy to get and seems cheap.  It's up to the banks who are underwriting the deal to use discretion.

btw, do you respond to every post with a question when you disagree?  Are you incapable of just saying that you think people should take personal responsibility?

I already did. in my 10:27am post.  Did you read the entire post?

Both sides (the banks and the public) share the blame.  The banks for making loans to people who cannot repay them, and the public for taking out loans that they cannot repay.

I'm going to go on the side of the public being more responsible for digging themselves into their own financial mess.  The banks may be the enablers, but the public are the ones pulling the triggers.

Equally? I think there is a lot more to it than that.

When the mortgage originators were selling the loans to the banks, loans to people with FICO scores in the 500's were in high demand because they were cheaper for the banks to buy and the banks could still package them into AAA rated bonds.  The originators weren't on the hook for the loans so they got as many people as they could to take out loans, regardless of their ability to pay.

There was such a demand by banks and investors that the banks didn't have enough actual loans to meet it.  They had to create synthetic CDOs derived from loans to keep up with the demand.

EDIT: syntheitc CDOs weren't new, just this use of them.

The reasons why the banks were making high-risk loans is irrelevant to the fact that people should not have been accepting them if they could not pay them back.

If people are too dumb (your word, not mine) to make smart financial decisions, then they shouldn't be making any financial decisions.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/24/2012 1:29:00 PM (view original):
The reasons why the banks were making high-risk loans is irrelevant to the fact that people should not have been accepting them if they could not pay them back.

If people are too dumb (your word, not mine) to make smart financial decisions, then they shouldn't be making any financial decisions.

People are dumb, true.  But the system itself was the part that was ****** up.

Homeowner ignorance and greed weren't new things.  The way residential mortgage loans were originated and the packaging of them as securities, was.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/24/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/24/2012 1:29:00 PM (view original):
The reasons why the banks were making high-risk loans is irrelevant to the fact that people should not have been accepting them if they could not pay them back.

If people are too dumb (your word, not mine) to make smart financial decisions, then they shouldn't be making any financial decisions.

People are dumb, true.  But the system itself was the part that was ****** up.

Homeowner ignorance and greed weren't new things.  The way residential mortgage loans were originated and the packaging of them as securities, was.

And all due to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd......the very ones that obama let write financial oversite legisation.  Another feather in his leadless cap. 

Posted by crackatoeha on 5/20/2012 7:37:00 PM (view original):
That's following the company line.......when found out, first ignore, when that does't work, attack.........waiting for the attack.

Well you have ignored well enough and I guess the crack ho comment can serve as the beginning of the attack.  Just as I stated 4 days ago.....you lefties are far to easy to figure out, every time someone proves a point you move to another one.  When that one is answered you answer with another question hoping to difuse your ignorance.  Just stop and admit you lefties blew it on obama and kick his arse out of Wash.  Ah, but that is the one main thing you guys WILL NOT DO!!! admit you are wrong, it just kills you to say those three little words...........I......WAS.....W-R-O-N-G.

Dude, I literally thought your name was crackhoe.  I just didn't read it closely.  Sorry.

No problem...I've been called worse.  But it does seem appropriate concidering we do have a Pimp in chief.......

Posted by jrd_x on 5/24/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/24/2012 1:29:00 PM (view original):
The reasons why the banks were making high-risk loans is irrelevant to the fact that people should not have been accepting them if they could not pay them back.

If people are too dumb (your word, not mine) to make smart financial decisions, then they shouldn't be making any financial decisions.

People are dumb, true.  But the system itself was the part that was ****** up.

Homeowner ignorance and greed weren't new things.  The way residential mortgage loans were originated and the packaging of them as securities, was.

The real estate market didnt crash because of a few shell games with the numbers. It crashed because everyone who wanted a house got one wether they deserved it or not. This drove up prices to unreasonable and unsustainable levels.

Again the crash isnt the important part. Its the fact that we are not recovering at a normal rate.

And recovery would be quicker with an adequate sized stimulus and no massive cuts at the state level.

No. Recovery would have been quicker if nothing was done.

Again Obama got exactly what he wanted and it failed.

This is waht always happens, is the left has a bad theory about how things work, their plan fails, and then they say we need to do it again, but bigger!

That's just not true. By any objective measure the stimulus helped the economy.

Do you mean the measurments the the obama administration has been manipulating for three plus years.......the most recent example is just this AM.  He is claiming that fed. spending is at it's lowest point in 60 years but his numbers don't include a number of costs or expenditures that EVERYONE else uses.  He is the biggest lier and panderer in the history of this great nation.  He claims he is christian but endorses partial birth abortion, he claims he is christian but endorses SSM.  Where ever his is or whoever he is talking to at that time is what he believes and supports.  And when he moves on so do his beliefs and convictions.  The fact you support him says volumes about you.

Read this if you don't want to believe.   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/27/obama-thrifty-spending-claim-uses-some-creative-accounting/

Posted by jrd_x on 5/27/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):
That's just not true. By any objective measure the stimulus helped the economy.

This is like looking at a family budget. The father doesnt pay the mortage, and buys things for the family.

Everything seems better, but in reality it is worse.