Poor business decisions are not the fault of customers.

Most of these people probably shouldn’t have been given loans and now the defeatocrats expect us to pay for them. B.S.

If the lenders didn’t lend to slackers, the greedy shysters would have sued for not lending!

The lenders borrowed to people that couldn’t afford it.

It’s not the borrower’s fault they took the money, it’s human nature to take the easy money.

The lenders made their bed, they should have to sleep in it.

Unfortunately dumb people exist, now if a moron went to an optimist for advise, his reply would be “Go for it” but if he went to a wise man he probably would say to this moron “I don’t think it’s a good idea for you”

Now you may call this wise man a pessimist, but is he really the one who is looking out for the best interest of this moron?

But not all of us are morons, the question is what do you do with them? Allow them to continue to make bad choices?

Their bad choices will some how become our problem in the end. We can not allow morons to make bad choices and agree to bail them out if they do not succeed.

The world does not owe anyone a living, not even a moron. But entrapment for morons, that’s just cruel, but then treating morons unequally is so cruel, I mean who is anyone to say they don’t have the right to make their own decision right?

What a joke. Everyone has to pledge to carry a moron on one shoulder while carrying another burden on the other and you walk, while probably thinking to yourself whose the real moron here?

Where’s you heart? Don’t you feel bad for these people?

Are you just going to let them fall of a cliff? Or even gently give them a little nudge while their standing at it’s edge?

Your a moron if you save them, but if you let them fall your cold hearted. But whose job is it to look after morons anyway?

P.S. The wise men have become corrupt.

Bat One, not to get between you and Hawk here, but how is regulation of marijuana a case where the federal courts should have supremacy when there is no interstate commerce involved?

Isn’t this a dangerous precedent?

GOVERNMENT CAUSED RECESSION AND INFLATION

The tyrannical Neo-Con and Neo-Lib dominated Bush, Reid, and Pelosi government must start paying for the un-constitutional Iraq War, and the Paulson subprime mortgage lending and stock trading scam, by printing billions of dollars; thereby subjecting the government betrayed American People to systematic ruinous recession and inflation.

The economic stimulus plan is a stimulus scam, cleverly designed to mislead worried voters into believing that the impending recession and inflation is being prevented from occurring.

Woof,
While I’m not sure it was fraud, I absolutely do agree everyone was an accomplice in the little game. But, it’s a lot easier to engage in gamesmanship when you know the government will be there to bail your ass out. If we keep the government out of telling banks who they need to loan to, and government programs set-up to give shitty, ill-prepared applicants means to a home with no buy-in, we’ll all be better off.

I’ve said it before: they like to capitalize the gains, and socialize the losses (obviously, not just limited to this particular example). And the only loser in the mess is the taxpayer who’s left holding the bag.

Carrick,

The precedent is already set, as I’m sure Hawk will cite for us if we stoke his belligerence enough.

In brief, California has a state law on the books which allows for the personal medicinal/recreational use of marijuana. The feds have thoroughly rejected the California statute, claiming as Hawk has pointed out, that the US Constitution’s interstate commerce clause allows them to arrest, try, and convict an individual for the sale of a bag of pot grown, harvested, packaged, sold, and “consumed” within the confines of the state of California.

If you think about it there is probably no portion of our Constitution that is more abused by the federal government or more regularly cited as justification for the diminuation of our individual freedom than the commerce clause.

It was to this police power abomination that I was referring above.

That is an interesting theory. What was Bush supposed to do? IF he had intervened he would have been accused of being power mad or worse. What I don’t understand is how the Lenders and the Borrowers are not being forced to deal with their mistakes on their own?

The Administration made it so nobody had to be able to afford the loans.

The regulatory bodies and all the players (banks , mortgage brokers , realtors, customers, engaged in fraud with a wink and a nod.

WOOF,

Those are two very serious accusation you’ve made here. I’m willing to bet that you can’t back up either one of them with supporting, documented facts, and that in the end, you haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about, or care, other than trying to score partisan points.

From money to marijuana, the supremacy of federal law over that of the separate states is a long established legal principle, despite the conspiracy hungry wishful thinking of those of you on the Left.

Please cite a case or a law or a journal article when you start speaking out of your ass.

The reason that “money” is established by federal law is firmly grounded in the Constitution, Article 1 Section 7.

The regulation of marijuana is a police power which the Federal Government attempts to govern through the commerce clause. Truly it should be a police power and regulated by the states.

WOOF,

The “actions of the Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency” indicate nothing beyond that agency’s insistence on the primacy of federal law where financial institutions with national charters are concerned. From money to marijuana, the supremacy of federal law over that of the separate states is a long established legal principle, despite the conspiracy hungry wishful thinking of those of you on the Left.

As a rational observer might expect, I am opposed to too much federal supremacy, even as I personally opposed the liberal Left, AARP-sponsored legislation here in Georgia, which did not address the problems its supporters said it would, but would have made it far more difficult for even those with good credit histories to obtain mortgage financing, while shutting out of the mortgage market those with less than sterling credit.

Finally, I’d point out that Nicholas Bagley, the author of the Slate article to which you’ve referred and a highly regarded mid-life NYU Law graduate, is also a long time advocate for assorted liberal causes such as “justice” in housing… whatever the hell that means. Bagley is probably well on his way to an illustrious government career, followed by seat on the federal bench compliments of some grateful Liberal Pooh-Bah. But there is no reason on earth to regard his SLATE article or the conclusions he draws as either rational or objective.

If you are going to suggest fraud and collusion at the federal level, you’re gonna need a lot more substantiation than Bagley to get any sort of serious attention.

Hawk,

First, you accuse me of speaking “out of my ass”, a typically leftwing crude response. Then you continue on to demonstrate the correctness of what I said. So what exactly was your point, anyway?

When I wrote the above, I specifically had you in mind, expecting to draw your attention, and you have proved my prescience admirably.

As for that citation you requested, there’s no need in any case, since I’ve got you to do it for me!

Bat my link to the actions of the Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency seem indicate the feds put pressure on the states to keep the money flowing.

The WSJ, following the money, lobbying the states/feds.
WSJ , Following the Money

FBI director Mueller today

“There is not a state that does not have some investigation,” he told reporters at the FBI office in Honolulu. “It is a substantial problem but we’ve been through problems like this in the past.”

The FBI said Tuesday it was working with the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate 14 companies, from mortgage lenders to investment banks, for possible accounting fraud, insider trading or other issues connected to subprime mortgage lending.

Slackers , speculators,
investors, what’s the difference ?

Members of the general public walked away from homes they could not afford or sell.

Giant financial institutions , which should be the definition of sophisticated investors, found themselves holding the bag of worthless notes.

Poor business decisions are not the fault of customers.

You’re right. But then, poor consumer decisions are not the fault of the business.