On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 09:23:38 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , "ChairMan"
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

thats why I blame more people than the banks. Realtors, appraisers,
title companies all knew that things were wacky.
they all knew what they were selling wasn't worth the price. I
refinanced and had an appraiser ask me what amount I needed to get it
done.
They didn't care, they all got their money on the front end, screw the
guy at the back end

And the buyers have their share of the blame, too. Had a bunch of
friends talk to me about how they knew they couldn't pay it back, but
they KNEW that the price was going to keep going up and they would make
plenty of money before the balloon payment, etc. You have to have the
buyers.

Yup. Plenty of blame to spread around, however I pin the biggest share on
government for making the ground so fertile that the weeds outran them.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

And the buyers have their share of the blame, too. Had a bunch of
friends talk to me about how they knew they couldn't pay it back, but
they KNEW that the price was going to keep going up and they would
make plenty of money before the balloon payment, etc. You have to
have the buyers.

Yup. Plenty of blame to spread around, however I pin the biggest
share on government for making the ground so fertile that the weeds
outran them.

Check the history and effect of the Community Redevelopment and Affordable
Housing Act. It was originally passed during the Carter administration, but
when the Clinton administration "encouraged" financial institutions to serve
the "underserved" community, that the act took off like a rocket.

Just me speaking, but I believe the Democrat's thinking went like this: We
need to move more people into the middle class, but how? Well, the middle
class is defined, mostly, by people owning their own homes. So if we get
more people into home ownership, by definition we've moved many poor people
into the middle-class.

The above idea squares with my theory that most problems in society are
caused by an upstream liberal solution meant to solve a completely different
problem. Examples abound. For examples: homelessness, education, and here,
the housing bubble.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

And the buyers have their share of the blame, too. Had a bunch
of
friends talk to me about how they knew they couldn't pay it back,
but they KNEW that the price was going to keep going up and they
would make plenty of money before the balloon payment, etc. You have
to have the buyers.

Yup. Plenty of blame to spread around, however I pin the biggest
share on government for making the ground so fertile that the weeds
outran them.

Check the history and effect of the Community Redevelopment and
Affordable Housing Act. It was originally passed during the Carter
administration, but when the Clinton administration "encouraged"
financial institutions to serve the "underserved" community, that the
act took off like a rocket.

Just me speaking, but I believe the Democrat's thinking went like
this: We need to move more people into the middle class, but how?
Well, the middle class is defined, mostly, by people owning their own
homes. So if we get more people into home ownership, by definition
we've moved many poor people into the middle-class.

The above idea squares with my theory that most problems in society
are caused by an upstream liberal solution meant to solve a completely
different problem. Examples abound. For examples: homelessness,
education, and here, the housing bubble.

Well, in my own defense, I don't think it is a good idea to "give" a
mortgage to people who have a high likelihood of NOT repaying a loan.
OTOH, many banks and mortgage brokers were thinking along "bubble" ways:
If the loan would go sour, there would always be a sucker willing to pay
more for that house. But then the bubble burst ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid