Ultimately it is the borrower. However, there has been a lot of blame put on the banks and Wall Street. Well, every mortgage I can remember signing, I was the client of the closing attorney. I paid his fees. So tell me why they don't move into second place in front of the banks if you don't agree the borrower is too blame.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Last edited by Fieldmouse; 10-10-2011 at 08:24 PM.
Ultimately it is the borrower. However, there has been a lot of blame put on the banks and Wall Street. Well, every mortgage I can remember signing, I was the client of the closing attorney. I paid his fees. So tell me why they don't move into second place in front of the banks if you don't agree the borrower is too blame.
What do they have to do with the decision making of a lender? Maybe if the the "closing attorney" was allowed to stop a loan because, he or she didn't feel that the "sub-primer" didn't have the ability to pay, then maybe we wouldn't be in this shape. Just a thought.
The attorney is there for advice and consent. The Dems have been claiming borrowers couldn't understand the fine print. Well if that's the case than it was their attorney who is to blame for not doing his job.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
When I bought my house at the top of the market, I was 'pre approved' for a loan of 1.5 million towards the purchase of most any home we wanted. I looked at my wife....she looked at me....and we asked the realtor if he was shootin' dope or if the 1.5million figure was accurate. He assured us it was accurate and we immediately turned it down and requested the ACTUAL amount we wanted to borrow, which we could pay back. ANybody who tries to say that a home buyer did not read any fine print is pulling the wool over your eyes, and anybody who suggests that the process is somehow 'confusing' is himself, an idiot. It was plain as day and the decision to borrow and how much to borrow was laid out in plain English and our decision would be based upon how muchwe borrow and how much we make. Greedy borrowers and Greedy lenders. I don't blame the lawyers...they are not my accountants....borrowing should be done responsibly, if at all.
who was really at fault was the government for making banks loan money to unqualified applicants to begin with......and then they are doubly at fault for guaranteeing them thru fannie mae and freddie mac. Wall street got in on the deal by selling these guaranteed mortgages as investment vehicles. Once again, if the govt would just stay out of the free market it would work like its supposed to.
who was really at fault was the government for making banks loan money to unqualified applicants to begin with......and then they are doubly at fault for guaranteeing them thru fannie mae and freddie mac. Wall street got in on the deal by selling these guaranteed mortgages as investment vehicles. Once again, if the govt would just stay out of the free market it would work like its supposed to.
Only thing you left out....was puttin' progressive demokrat incompetent scumbags in charge of the oversight for the government loan guarantees with Freddie and Fannie....now THAT was negligence, CRIMINAL negligence.
....borrowing should be done responsibly, if at all.
Excellent summary Bergall. I rarely hear about the borrowers culpability, much easier to do a tear-jerker story about how someone is "losing their home..."
Quote:
who was really at fault was the government for making banks loan money to unqualified applicants to begin with......and then they are doubly at fault for guaranteeing them thru fannie mae and freddie mac. Wall street got in on the deal by selling these guaranteed mortgages as investment vehicles. Once again, if the govt would just stay out of the free market it would work like its supposed to.
As I understand it the motivation behind the Community Reinvestment Act was to help with urban blight. That is by getting people out of apartments they do not care about or the neighborhoods the apartments are in and in to a home the person owns, the person would care not only about the home but the neighborhood the home was in. And thus take care of both.
In other words this is a case of liberal "good intentions" gone horribly wrong. Not making excuses just trying to understand how things got so 'effed up.
__________________ www.Kaydoo.com
Your Visual Marketplace
Crafters, Artists, Fundraisers,
Kaydoo is your place to be seen.
How can it not be clear? Even if you don't read every detail, look for the numbers, they lay out what you will be paying every month. If you then decide to take that on and can't make the payments, how is that the banks fault. Yes the government made it tempting, the banks let people do things they probably knew were doomed to failure, but the person signing the loan makes the decision.
Excellent summary Bergall. I rarely hear about the borrowers culpability, much easier to do a tear-jerker story about how someone is "losing their home..."
As I understand it the motivation behind the Community Reinvestment Act was to help with urban blight. That is by getting people out of apartments they do not care about or the neighborhoods the apartments are in and in to a home the person owns, the person would care not only about the home but the neighborhood the home was in. And thus take care of both.
In other words this is a case of liberal "good intentions" gone horribly wrong. Not making excuses just trying to understand how things got so 'effed up.
The way things get 'effed up' like this, is that libs think they're bestowing a great gift upon someone for whom it holds no value.
The people this Community Investment Act benefited, were used to having things handed to them....to think they'd be responsible enough to shoulder the duties of home ownership is ignorant and a blatant display of how out of touch the libs are. When you come out of 'the projects' (as we used to say), putting them in a private home with money they just 'give you' is, well, pretty dumb. At least back in the projects, if your refrigerator door happens to find itself on the living room rug late one night, you can call 'the super' and have a new 'fridge brought in. When you own your own, with money you can never pay back, well, nobody puts the doors back on...and it means nothing to just walk away from something you don't want to deal with anymore. But that's too simplistic because a broad swath of people were affected...were there unscrupulous lenders ? I'm sure there were. Were there ignorant borrowers ? Im sure there were. A BIG part of the problem was expatriation of millions of jobs which left people without the means to pay the bills they had been paying all along. It's not black and white and it's not simple. These same 'job expatriates' could no longer pay college loans, credit card balances, auto loans, etc. There are multiple underlying causes it looks like. But the government should NEVER have required lending to unqualified borrowers.
These same 'job expatriates' could no longer pay college loans, credit card balances, auto loans, etc. There are multiple underlying causes it looks like. But the government should NEVER have required lending to unqualified borrowers.
Yes, exactly right. This is a multifaceted problem.
__________________ www.Kaydoo.com
Your Visual Marketplace
Crafters, Artists, Fundraisers,
Kaydoo is your place to be seen.
The "sub-prime" issue, who's really at fault?
