Why do people post thread after thread blaming the American people?

[davekc]

We are likely to tolerate a little more if the tire discount goes to 30 percent.

 

[aquitted]

We are likely to tolerate a little more if the tire discount goes to 30 percent.

Heck I'm already the cheapest guy around i'd give'm away but my wife won't let me, Free mounting and balancing THATS A GOOD DEAL!!! Just say Lawrence from Florence sent ya!

 

[cheri1122]

One can use Google to find opinions & spin (both sides), and then there's the FACTS that can be found and seem to get in the way. The govt policies and the liberal spin are pretty convoluted, but it all boils down to one simple fact: the govt dictated that people be allowed to buy houses they couldn't afford, thus dooming them to default from the outset; that's pretty easy to understand but some people still don't get it. History is repeating itself before our very eyes with the student loan debacle, due to the govt taking over that business and laying the groundwork for another massive default & bailout. The people don't seem to understand what's happening there either.

That the "govt dictated that people be allowed to buy houses they couldn't afford, thus dooming them to default from the outset" is NOT "pretty easy to understand" at all.
Govt promoting homeownership in "uderserved" populations, certainly - and I read the CRA that directed banks to make more of an effort than they had been in low rent areas [not hard, since they simply ignored them], but nowhere did it dictate that banks ignore their fiduciary responsibilities to do it. THAT is the part I don't buy.
And what I think is that when substantial numbers of working class people cannot afford to buy a home or invest in higher education, we need to reexamine our priorities and policies, because the American Dream should be attainable to those who are willing to work for it.

 

[Turtle]

That the "govt dictated that people be allowed to buy houses they couldn't afford, thus dooming them to default from the outset" is NOT "pretty easy to understand" at all.
Govt promoting homeownership in "uderserved" populations, certainly - and I read the CRA that directed banks to make more of an effort than they had been in low rent areas [not hard, since they simply ignored them], but nowhere did it dictate that banks ignore their fiduciary responsibilities to do it. THAT is the part I don't buy.

Did you not read what I wrote in #51? The CRA mandated it, but it took further legislation (FIRREA) to enforce it. The government mandated, by law (1992), that a certain percentage of loans be made to high risk borrowers. It had a quota. They did it again in 1995 when Frank lowered the compliance burden (part of which included removing certain lending criteria). Then made that percentage higher in 2005. It's not in what I wrote above, but the initial percentage, mandated by law, was 10 percent. Then it went to 25 percent. And finally 50 percent. And it was those loans that were bought and sold by mortgage holders like mix tapes at a flea market. Pilgrim's choice of wording is correct.