how do you know that the person lied on there loan how do you know the lender didn't fuge the numbers to get the loan through there were numerous cases to on both sides.You don't think lenders abused the system knowing they can dump the loan else where you must be running out of reasoning you keep using the same line
Those are hypotheticals... why don't you just answer the questions instead of tap dancing? P.S. You write on about the 5th grade level... looks like you didn't answer questions in school either.
which is worse one person getting a loan knowing they can't repay or a bank making 10000 loans knowing non of them can repay or an entire industry making 10000000 bad loans knowing it will eventually bring down the whole economy, but don't care about long term viability I'll give you a hint the person with the bad loan is at fault for his loan and should not be bailed out But the banks are responsible for making this common practice and producing a massive credit bubble
Why did CNN incorrectly identify her as a "HOMEOWNER". She doesn't own anything other than a contract to pay her debt.
CHEERS!! Well, from her perspective its better to have had the luxury and lost it than to have never had it.
Gnome, not if but when will it happen when your paid for house and land are redistributed amongst the angry poor and disadvantaged? Under the guise of stimulating the economy, you know. It's only fair, as the others have nothing. Never mind what it took for you to get there. They would deny your example of perseverance, hard work, rules, delayed gratification, pay for it now or go without maybe even forever,,,,, No one should have to work like that. It's not fair!
First, that's not what I asked... you had to change the subject because you can't answer my original questions. Second, the banks and the industry didn't knowingly crash the economy... that's all in your mind. Everyone thought they were transferring the risk. If you own stock and buy puts to protect it are you knowingly bringing down the financial system?
Doesn't matter which happened, either way they got more house than they could afford, end of story. If they didn't have the common sense to know that, does that mean we should collectively pay to keep them in that house? NO. Doesn't matter if the lender lied, the person lied, or even NO ONE lied and the person used to have the income to afford it and now does not. That's life. Can't make your payment, get out so someone who can will move in. That's how capitalism works. And when they are out, they will get back into an apartment and will have learned something, and their kids also. And if they choose to pick themselves up, work hard, and contribute to society they can work themselves back into an even BETTER house than they had before. And this time with the life lessons that go with the process. But taking this essential part of capitalism away makes the general population lazy, and expect the government to have a magic unlimited checkbook to take care of everything. Which is pretty much how all the losers feel right now.
so if i reply that lying on a loan is worse do you feel you've won the debate. and that it proves your position that loaners were the biggest piece of this pie. name one institution that was transferring risk. Now to qulify the only puts or cds's you can have are for the mortgages you have on your books.I'll be waiting for your link to that. most institutions had 10 to 30 times more exposure on their risk transfer then they had risk themselves. that's not transferring risk that's creating it. the mortgage market is 7 billion the cds are tough to measure but we know there at least greater then all mortgages not just subprime. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/02/17/business/20080217_SWAP_2_GRAPHIC.html using the privilege banks have they were able to purchase and sell many more cds's (your puts) then they could afford to repay sound familiarly close to your argument about loanees, don't you agree