I was reading an article where he said, and I am not quoting, but, it went something like this : It is not up to the government to bail out people who make poor choices...wether it's a large company or a single investor. I'll have to find the exact quote, it was much better than that. He was referring to the mortgage situation. How do you feel about that quote??

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

For once I agree with McCain.
It is not up to taxpayers (government) to bail out people or banks. It is not right to take more taxes from people that are responsible and help out ones that made bad decisions. If they keep bailing them out people will keep making more bad decisions/investments.

I have taught my sons(early -mid 20's) to stay out of as much debt as possible. Why should they have to have their taxes raised to pay for others bad decisions?

Yes, it will be bad for thousands of people but if they are bailed out now the real problem will get bigger in a few years. Even if they hold down the interest rate/ monthly payment these people next year or 2 still will not be able to handle the payments. Why...mainly because of upkeep on a house.

If they are losing their house because of job loss or sickness, I could understand programs to help with that.
But to just bail out everyone because they want to have everything now..NO!

I agree.
It's like I was discussing with a co-worker: Just because you can qualify and receive a home loan for $250K--doesn't mean you should take that amount! If you are struggling making an $1000 rent payment what makes you think it's going to be any easier to make a $2000 mortgage payment.

We bought a house 3 years ago--we qualified for up to $200K. But, we looked at the payment that we would have to make on a $200K loan and decided that we didn't want to place ourselves in that position. We went w/ a loan amount that was roughly equal to what we were paying in rent. And when our rate and payment was going to balloon we refinanced (because we had been able to make all our payments on time, payed extra some months, etc.). Had we taken a higher loan amount--we would probably be in serious trouble financially right now.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

There is no cut and dried single answer. The problem with not bailing out certain individuals, in certain areas, is that it may be your property that is affected. If you have 10 houses on your block that are for sale with foreclosures, then it's you who are being hurt, your community is being hurt, your town is being hurt, not just the person who took out the loan. This can be devastating to some areas. It has a domino effect and the person who is forced to move because of a job change or some other reason, and can't sell their house for at least what they paid for it, because of the glut of houses on the market, is all of a sudden in an economic down spiral through no fault of their own.

Empty houses equal less people at the stores buying groceries and other items. Less kids in the schools and on the buses equals less of a need for teachers and drivers, mechanics etc, and thus more people out of work. And then they lose their houses and it keeps on going.

Now if we are talking second homes, that's a different story. Also those in the higher end of home prices should maybe have to deal with their problems on their own. Presumably they started out with high incomes, so for them the losses can be handled with their own income earnings. They may have to downsize, but so be it.

I may be wrong about this, but I heard, (and I can't remember where), that Bear Stearns was a high end and second home lender. It seems odd that they are the ones who got bailed out.

What needs to happen is a refinancing structure put into place to help those who are helpable. If someone can make a house payment of 800, but are currently paying 1200, then restructure their loan so they don't have to lose their house. Catch them before they are out on the street. Stablilize the housing market and the economy will begin to even out as well.

McCain admits he has no economic credentials and this comment shows that. There are times to bail and this, with limits, is probably one of them.

This is what deregulation looks like. A lot of people did not know what they were getting into. Some, who were not credit risks didn't pay enough attention to the paperwork. Others believed they could refinance out of the loan in a year but were unaware of the prepayment penalty, sometimes up 40% of the loan. Then, you have the speculators. Nevada, Florida and California are the states hardest hit.

Banks preying upon the populace out of greed is what caused this problem. It's exactly what caused the Great Depression.

I agree with wildwood and kvmj.

Here's an article that was first published in my local paper about some of the underhanded tactics used to qualify people for mortgages.

JPMorgan memo shows dirty tricks of mortgage trade - USATODAY.com

As wildwood said, we will all suffer if the market is allowed to collapse.

A couple of links to read to understand how the country got into this mess.

ABC News: ECON 101: Credit Crunch for Dummies

"Well, that's where the problem starts.
A combination of low interest rates and aggressive new lending practices in the late 1990s and early 2000s led to a buying frenzy."

DownsizeDC.org Blog | What you're not being told

"First, Congress passed something called the "Community Reinvestment Act" in 1977, resulting in the creation of bureaucratic regulations designed to encourage, or even compel, financial institutions to make loans to people with lower incomes. These regulations were then amended in 1995 and 2005 to create different rules for institutions of different sizes, so that various kinds of institutions would be better able to meet the government's goals for fostering home ownership in lower income communities.
Second, the Federal Reserve starting making loans available to the banking system at extremely low interest rates.
Third, steps one and two combined to make cheap housing loans available to people who could not have afforded or qualified for them before. This caused an increased demand for housing that sent home prices spiralling upward.
Fourth, mortgage lenders managed the risk involved in making these loans by selling their mortgages to other companies, which in turn thought that they were managing their own risk because they had a wide variety of mortgages, from many different types of borrowers, in their portfolio.
Fifth, these decisions about how to manage the increased risk created by the "Community Reinvestment Act" were all in error, because the Fed's policy of easy money had falsely inflated the value of ALL homes. This meant that good mortgages could not be used to manage the risk involved in questionable mortgages, because the value of ALL homes was falsely inflated.
Sixth, as with all inflationary booms, increases in home prices finally absorbed the increased purchasing power provided by the Fed, leading to a slow-down in home purchases. When this moment arrived everyone realized that the homes they had purchased weren't really worth what they had paid for them. The defaults and foreclosures then began, along with the collapse of the financial institutions that owned these unsound mortgages.

And this link gives an opinion on Obama and Clinton ideas to help the mess.
Housing Horrors

The Community Reinvestment Act has absolutely nothing to do with the credit crunch and the unmitigated greed of the mortgage bankers.

Banks and Mortgage companies used to be notorious for redlining. It was like drawing red lines around certain neighborhoods and refusing to do business there.

I just read an article (don't remember the source) about the fact that all these abandoned houses are now wonderful places for gangs and druggies to hang out. In California, there's some community were the houses were going for hundreds of thousands and more than half are now abandoned b/c of the mortgage problems. Those have been broken into, copper piping stolen, wooden cabinet doors stolen, fixtures, etc. Gangs have moved in. One woman says a gunshot richocheed through her son's room - not exactly what you'd expect in such a high cost area. And there's nothing that can be done about it b/c the banks that own them don't care.

Just imagine if that were houses in your area and it could have been stopped by a little help.

Ok, found the articles:

Entrepreneur.com - Blog Network - Finding Foreclosures

The Next Slum?

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

What about the PMI that many have to pay on their mortgages??? This is Mortgage Insurance. Shouldn't this be kicking in for some of these places??? I don't know how PMI works, and we didn't have to pay it,so I'm a bit ignorant when it comes to the PMI issue.

While I think "something" may need to be done, such as capping interest rates on the adjustables, where does personal responsibility come in??? Who's fault is it that someone buys more of a house than they can afford? The person who bought the house. It's like when you go to buy a car, IMO.....who's fault is it if you don't check out the different loans they offer you and/or you buy more car than you can afford??? Should we be bailing these people out too???

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I agree. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? It seems like it's always someone else's fault! No one ever admits to something being their own fault anymore! People know how much a loan payment on a home is going to be before they sign the papers. People are falling back on credit cards to pay for groceries and everything. I don't think the government should bail people out because of their own lack of personal judgment.

This is what both Obama and Clinton want to do -- bail everyone out, make no one responsible for anything. Make everyone equal. And you know? That's where the government will get you -- you owe the government everything because they 'helped' you out. I honestly feel that in a few years, it will be scary if especially Obama becomes our president because he wants to basically limit people to what they can make of themselves. If you make people dependent on the government, then that's when the government just comes in and takes over. Look at your communist countries. Let's hope that's not America in a few years.

Here is a link..it looks like they have paid out millions to the banks.

Option One Mortgage Sold to Wilbur Ross

It helps banks but not the people stay in their homes. With the credit regulations tightening the houses that are empty will probably stay empty for a while. Once the price of houses come down where they should be people that have saved cash and are credit worthy will buy them up.

Prices of houses are insane. $150,000 + home should be more than just sheetrock/drywall paint, carpet, and med-priced fixtures. I never could understand why people thought they were buying a house that was actually worth that much.

it's no different than the monica dress ( we need to bring that out for the dems to look at again), it's their fault, not ours, why should we bail them out. dems just want free stuff

Developments : Angry Homeowners Wreak Havoc on Foreclosure Properties

"some homeowners facing foreclosure are wreaking havoc on their properties before handing over the keys – punching holes in walls, ripping out appliances, dumping paint on carpets and even locking in pets to further muck up the home. Approximately half of all bank-owned U.S. properties have “substantial” damage, according to the article."
"
So, in attempt to prevent some of the destruction to these properties, lenders are offering homeowners “hundreds or even thousands” of dollars through a “cash for keys” approach to vacate their homes peacefully and in good shape. If they hand over the keys and vacate the home without inflicting any property damage, they get a check."

Other articles:

Developments : New Attitude: It's OK to Walk Away from a Mortgage

Developments : Why Walk Away? Mortgage 'Squatters' Stay in Their Homes

It's more the fault of the predatory lending practices of the major mortgage lenders. The biggest question facing us is how severe we want this recession to be.

Good question. Maybe you can ask someone at Bear Stearns.

Can you please explain to us what you mean by predatory lending practices?

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I don't agree that it's predatory lending, I think some of it was, however, not the bulk of it. You are always approved for more of a house than you should have, however it's up to each person to see if they can make it happen or not. I receive the foreclosure notices for my neighborhood because of my job and there are a LOT of people taking advantage of the system. People who stay in their house 10 + months without paying, while it's being foreclosed, or people who own houses who have never lived here, just bought the house and took out loans against it, then let it foreclose... I think greed and a sense of entitlement is what is driving the recession... It's all about personal responsibility. Even if I were approved for a $1 million mortgage, I KNOW I can not afford it, so I'm responsible enough to NOT get the house...

I totally agree. People with bad credit have to basically take whatever type of a loan they can get. Is that the bank's fault??? My fault? your fault??? I know too many people with bad credit due to bad choices they made. Too dam bad, suck it up and be responsible.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Are we willing to say that to the companies and even cities who have been or will be "bailed" out of trouble with taxpayers money. Bear Sterns, innumerable airlines, car manufacturers, New York City, utility companies, etc., etc.

People who have made bad credit choices or who use the equity in their house as an ATM to buy new cars and boats need to be separated from those people who are in a fix because of medical problems, job loss, or some other personal catastrophe. I personally am willing to pony up a few extra dollars in taxes rather then lose all the equity in my home because of foreclosures in the neighborhood.

As I understand it, another upcoming problem if the situation isn't dealt with is that of investment companies who bought mortgage packages as investments. They handle a huge number of retirement funds which will soon be suffering the consequences of poor business practices of mortgage companies and the poor credit choices of "some" homebuyers.

IMO Senator McCain is being very shortsighted.

There is no easy answers.

If you keep the interest rate the same, even offer lower payment for a couple of years, most people will still not be able to afford their mortage payments. Most of the people are over-extended with other debt...cars loans, massive amounts on credit cards, student loans, etc. They might have been able to handle the mortage at one time but now with all the other debt that they accured after the mortage...that is not possible.

Now houses are not worth the loans that people took out to buy them Some have suggested the banks rewrite the loans at the newer/lower house value. If that should happen, everyone that has been paying on a home should quailfy. Houses across the country are losing value..mainly because the price was not realistic.

Giving more tax breaks/credits might help some. But if people are over-extended in debt it will not help in the long term. Banks should try to help the homeowners but if the homeowner is too far over-extended there is not much that can be done.

People that are credit worthy will start buying the houses maybe for rental properties. Also first time buyers will have opportunity to buy the lower priced houses. Instead of having huge mortage payments..they will be able to have reasonable payments. Having more available money every month to spend, which will start helping the economy.

The only way that the system is going to turn around is for people to realize that they can not live beyond their means. Living in excessive debt only makes you poorer.

Yes, it's the bank's fault. Even people who have have experienced credit problems do not deserve to be taken advantage of. On top of exhorbitant interest rates, some of these loans carried prepayment penalties of 40%. Think about that, $40,000 on a $100.000 loan.

You can tsk tsk about "personal responsibility" all day long; wrap it around yourself like a banner. It's Pavlovian the way that conservatives recite that mantra in the face of clear evidence of corporate malfeasance.

People should have understand what they were signing. If not you ask questions.
More people ask questions about a pet they are buying than asking about legal questions.

I guess they did not understand about other debt..like tons of credit cards..student loan.. 2+ car loans.
Or did they can taken by the banks/lenders, Most people are way over-extended...because they want everything now.

No one to blame but themselves.

What should we do..give these people the houses for free? Send them a government check every month for their mortage? They certainly can not afford them. So what is the answer?

how about the government giving these folks an AFFORDABLE education so they don't have to take out loans there? Or affordable health insurance so that they don't end up owing thousands and thousands of dollars b/c they or their children ended up in the hospital? Or making it so that when someone loses a job, they're not totally screwed and up losing their house as well?

It seems to me as though several on here are just ASSuming that people w/ bad credit are that way simply b/c of bad choices and not b/c of horrible events that they've got no control over.

I sit here and look at other countries and their healthcare systems, they're government subsidies, etc. Yeah, ok, they pay more in taxes. HOWEVER, they're happier and they are safer in regards to debt b/c of that. Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Canada...

Here in America "land of plenty", millions are without healthcare, they're losing their jobs, they're screwed if they want to take time off to be w/ their kids and now they can't even afford to live in their houses. Something has to freaking change.

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

There are already programs in place for homeowners and college loan people for hardship emergencies.
The numbers that are coming out do not suggest that a large percentage is because of harships.
Most people screwed up and over-extended.

Afforable schooling should begin in the public high school. Kids are coming straight out of high school needing to take remedial programs at college. Which they have to pay for..more money they owe.

Yes, something has to change.

Everyone is trying to fix the symptoms of the problem not the root of the problem. We need a strong economy..not one build on a cycle of debt. If the US had a sound, strong economy most of these problems would take care of themselves.

All good points. And our education system should be showing people how to avoid the pitfalls of debt and overspending. Not everyone knows this by osmosis.

For many of us, there is a fine line between living in a house, and living on the streets. Anything could change this for any of us at any time. Loss of a job, loss of health care, major illness or accident, major economic depression and the banks close. What happens to you then? I suspect most of you think it can't happen to you. Guess again.

Has it happened to you? It's happened to our family. I lost my job (owned my own business) due to a major illness. We had just moved into our new home when my disability hit. (Before that we lived in a mobile home). We could have lost everything. But we were prepared. We scrimped for our house and we scrimped for insurance (disability insurance in addition to our life insurance). The company DH worked for at the time did not pay medical insurance. We had to pay for it out of pocket. We scrimped on other things to pay for it. Did we enjoy it? No, we didn't. But we did it because we knew we NEEDED to do it. We didn't have all the nice things our friends had. They would want to go out to eat. We couldn't go. Even a trip to the movies was our night out. Our son had major medical bills almost 7 years ago and almost died. We survived. It was hard (we paid on those medical bills for years that insurance didn't cover). DH almost lost an eye a couple of years ago and was out of work (with no pay) for a month. And at the same time our well went out, costing us $1,000. Did we survive? Yes, we did. It was hard, really hard. But it made us stronger. Yes, there is a fine line between living in a house and living on the streets.

You're right. A lot of people don't think it can happen to them. But is that the government's fault? No, it isn't. It's called personal responsibility and it's up to each and every family to think ahead of what might happen. Disability insurance to cover you when you're disabled; medical insurance to cover you when you need medical help; fire insurance; car insurance. It's all part of life. Yes, it sucks to have to pay out so much when we could have been buying new cars, decorating our house, buying clothes, eating out, buying all the new gadgets out there, but that's the way life works sometimes.

Most Americans are living WAY beyond their paychecks and the sooner people realize they need to stop spending and trying to keep up with their neighbors, then maybe there wouldn't be so many people being forced to 'live on the streets'.

How about some parental/familial involvement in teaching people how to avoid the pitfalls of debt and overspending??? That's what I'm teaching my kids, and DS did take a class that glazed over this. Do I rely solely on that class??? no way. I don't rely on our education system to teach my children how to manage their finances and be personally responsible.

I'm not so ignorant to think that I can't be homeless or in a bad predicament. That's why I have money in the bank, and very little debt. A little preplanning goes a long way.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

VERY WELL SAID, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I agree to the extent that many seem willing to judge everyone facing financial difficulties as people who have gotten where they are by making poor financial decisions. Everyone's story is different and for those who were able to bring themselves back from financial hardship by giving up dinner out congratulations. I think its likely we've all faced ranges of financial hardship and for the most part have brought ourselves out of it. I'm also willing to bet that without the help of some of the government programs available many wouldn't have been able to recover financially. It seems that some not only want to do away with the programs available for people who are struggling but want to stand in the way of even thinking of the possibility of creating programs that might help. Personally I don't understand the mindset that if you and your family are in bad financial shape it is "your" fault for not planning properly so tough.

I believe that the inference of government causes more problems. Then the government has to create more programs, rely on taxpayers for yet more money to try and fix a problem that government created in the first place.
Yes, I have had hard times. My husband lost a high paying job years ago because of NAFTA. His union fought for the workers to be able to go back to school if they chose.
No it was not a free ride. The government did pay his tution and most books for 2 years. After that we had to get grants, scholarships, and borrow money till he got his BS's degrees.

The difference is if the hard times you are going through is because of things you can not control is one thing. Such as job lost, medical.
Most of these people in the mortage mess over-extended themselves. A big difference. They chose to live in a house with a high mortage payment, high cost of living by using massive amounts of credit cards, having to have 2+ car (expensive) payments, etc.
If this is the case..then it is your own fault. Do not expect people to feel sorry for you and take care of the mess you created. The rest of us taxpayers have are own problems and our own children to provide for.

Personal responsibility means accepting the responsibility for your own actions/decisions. Do not sit and whine that government (the rest of us taxpayers) should take care of you because you over-extended yourself.

I think there are people who take advantage of government programs but IMO the vast majority of people use them temporarily to get out of a bad situation. I disagree that "Most of these people in the mortage mess over-extended themselves". I don't think that's the case. I think for many its what you and your husband faced with job loss due to NAFTA, or in another posters situation medical bills, or some other personal catastrophe. Using your husband's job loss as an example I am willing to bet that there are posters who would say "why should we pay for his schooling?". I simply don't understand that mindset. I don't think "most" people are looking for a free ride they just need a little help. In the long run we all, as a society, benefit from programs like the schooling program available to your husband.

This thread reminds me of the "all the people on food stamps are driving cadilacs" discussions of the past.

The news articles one after another show the trend is that there are lots and lots of people that are over-extended.
Either way we shall see..because if they are lots that are truly over-extended the relief programs (being voted on in Congress) will only help for a few months maybe even a year or two. This is just giving a "fix" to the "debt addict" problem.
Then the true problems are going to keep surfacing. That alot of America is in too much debt.

How about understanding that not all parents are able or equipped to teach their kids how to avoid debt. It's sort of like child abuse. The abused becomes the abuser. That cycle needs to be broken for many families and one avenue to do that is starting in grade school and teaching kids what they need to know.

Very little debt is a good thing, but what happens if you wake up one morning and can't get money from your bank or credit cards?

We wouldn't even need to be having this discussion if everyone was as lucky as you. When it comes to "smarts", we all have our strengths and weaknesses. Doctors for instance, are "smart" at being doctors, but have a reputation, as a group, for being terrible money managers. There are people who can achieve miracles at their jobs, but not balance a checkbook. There are people whose checkbooks are balanced, know where every penny is or has gone, and don't have the sense to close their windows when it's raining.

And before you start telling me it's not your luck, that it's hard work etc. just remember that you were lucky to have either had parents who could steer you in the right direction or you were lucky enough to be smarter than them and manage to see the right way to handle your affairs. Not everyone is capable of that.

But my real problem with the whole idea of letting them sink or swim on their own, is how it affects me and my community if too many of them sink. It does me no good to have several houses in foreclosure on my street. It does me no good to have empty houses in the neighborhood for vandals or squatters to find. It does me no good to have the economic slump that will occur with the chain reaction of disaster that follows a housing crisis.

[quote=wildwood;2977757



But my real problem with the whole idea of letting them sink or swim on their own, is how it affects me and my community if too many of them sink. It does me no good to have several houses in foreclosure on my street. It does me no good to have empty houses in the neighborhood for vandals or squatters to find. It does me no good to have the economic slump that will occur with the chain reaction of disaster that follows a housing crisis.[/QUOTE]

I can understand your thinking but it is looking only to the short-term.
Yes, short-term it benefits you and and society to help these people out. But long-term it will cause more damage.
The prices of houses has to come down so that "average" people can afford them and live comfortable. If you keep bailing out people for bad mistakes the mistakes will be worst next time. People only learn when they have to.

Actually the housing crisis is a symptom of a much bigger problem. The actual problem is that economy is being running on way too much debt.

"We need to start saving instead of spending....we need to start producing instead of consuming" (Peter Schiff)

These would be loans made to people that carry extreme interest rates and penalties. Banks were making loans with terms you might get from a loan shark.

A bigger problem is the tax structure. Since 1992, the average middle class family has seen its inome drop by $1,000 per year. All tax breaks People are stupid. They keep doing things like buying cars to get to work, having children and eating.

That is why I liked Ron Paul tax plan it would have took out the IRS.

People are stupid to buy $20,000+ cars and having to buy the high insurance.
People are stupid to buy(on credit cards) their children cellphones. game stations, all the extreme extras.
Eating (on credit cards) the expensive starbucks coffee, etc.

If you can afford it is is fine..but charging everything is insane.

How is a high interest rate predatory?? Didn't the people know the rate when they got the loan?? Also, do you have articles or references where you are getting this information?

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I fully understand that some parents are not able or equipped in MANY areas, not just teaching responsibility to their kids, but, I don't think it is up to the school system to teach these things. It is one thing to balance a check book, yet quite another to teach a person to live within their means.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you talking about a bank going under???

I had never heard that about doctors before. Is this a commonly held belief??

quote=wildwood;2977757] And before you start telling me it's not your luck, that it's hard work etc. just remember that you were lucky to have either had parents who could steer you in the right direction or you were lucky enough to be smarter than them and manage to see the right way to handle your affairs. Not everyone is capable of that.

But my real problem with the whole idea of letting them sink or swim on their own, is how it affects me and my community if too many of them sink. It does me no good to have several houses in foreclosure on my street. It does me no good to have empty houses in the neighborhood for vandals or squatters to find. It does me no good to have the economic slump that will occur with the chain reaction of disaster that follows a housing crisis.[/quote]

What is the problem with having a house sit vacant??? There are several in my neighborhood, and no one has "squatted" in them, or vandalized them. Is this going on elsewhere?? I honestly have not seen it, other than in run down areas.

I think we could argue this all day and still not agree. While I do think people that have, thru no fault of their own, fallen on hard times, should be given a helping hand, not a hand out, but, some sort of assistance , I do not think that people who made bad choices should be rewarded for those bad choices. And, if that means a few homes in my n'hood will go into foreclosure, and sit vacant....so be it. If the house is priced right, it WILL SELL.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Loans do not make education affordable. I have seen people graduate into a $35,000 a year salary with $60,000 in debt. Of course, the lenders are only too happy to defer payments for years allowing interest to pile up.

We did have a strong economy. By shifting wealth upwards, it matters when those at the top screw things up for the other 90%.

I am merely giving you a definition as requested. You should try reading the Wall Street Journal and major national papers in order to educate yourself.

I didn't ask for a definition. You said "It's more the fault of the predatory lending practices of the major mortgage lenders. " and I asked you to clarify your statement. When someone signs a loan paper, it's pretty stupid of them to not know what they are signing, don't you think?? When we were shopping for a mortgage, one person we talked to kept pushing an 80/20 split loan. We kept telling her NO WAY. We finally had to dump her and go to another lender. Would that have been her fault if we signed up for that and then later couldn't afford to pay our mortgage?? I don't think so. I'm sure there are some slime balls out there taking advantage of the elderly and lesser educated people, but, I would be surprised to find this as the majority of the problem. What it boils down to is people not knowing what they are signing up for, and that's THEIR fault, ultimately. But, it seems in our society, many have come to live by the motto "it's not my fault".

I would definitely not rely on the Wall Street Journal for my education, either. I read the New York Times everyday, and even THEY can be biased.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

In order to hold a meaningful discussion, both parties must have a minimum level of knowledge. Predatory lending is something which has been much discussed in major papers and is, in fact, common knowledge.

The Chicago Tribune has some in depth articles along with the LA Times.

I couldn't agree with you more !!!

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Then, why did you ask for clarification for what is the most common of knowledge.

The original quote was:
However, his stance appears to have changed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/us...j9wlM8W7/7Bj0w

__________________
@@@
l/ l/ l/
Dont go through life,
GROW through life

Real eyes...realize...real lies.

Everyone can change their mind(because of other facts being presented), so I do not like the term flip/flop.

I think he came out with his plan because of pressure to do something. Everyone thinks that you have to come out quickly with solutions.
At least with his plan there is ways to try to help the "real" problem homeowner not the ones that made bad investment choices. Still I do not think it is the very best for our ecomonic situtation. Probably short-term it would help some..but I do not think much at this point is going to help long-term

For years the Federal Reserve and our govenment has tried to "manage" the problems in our economy.
They are still trying by coming up with new ideas. Maybe they can hold it together for a couple more years.
But, if it was my choice I would rather "bite the bullet" now and let things crash and pick up the pieces. So that my children could have a better way of life. Instead we are just passing a huge problem unto our children.

Neither do I. Which is why I did not use the term in the first place.

Whatever the reason, it appears his stance on this issue has changed.
I was merely providing an update to the referenced article/quote.

__________________
@@@
l/ l/ l/
Dont go through life,
GROW through life

Real eyes...realize...real lies.

I did not mean to imply that you used the term..but rather I have seen news article with that term.

True his stance on the issue has changed ALOT.

if hillary lose i will vote for him