Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroJunk
I can't say that I disagree with that. It is the part where the borrowers were victims that bothers me. I think for the most part they knew what they were doing and took advantage of the situation. Either buying hoping to flip it , or knowing that they could at worst live in it for a few months if things didn't work out.
So, putting 100% on the backs of the banks is a liberal message that I just don't buy in to.
|
Where oh where did I say that borrowers were victims? The borrowers were dupes, blinded by a rising bubble and dreams that owning a house would change their nebulous financial status, foisted by bank loan officers, who knew to the last nickel that their loans were toxic. As long as they could move the bad debt, however, they did not care. And trust me, any loan officer who had a finance degree, or five years of banking experience, knew these were bad debts the moment the bubble burst.
My wife worked at a bank for seven years, and we were amazed that banks would eagerly make loans with zero down. WTF was this, a liberal plot to make banks crash? Had every conservative Republican banker fled the industry following deregulation? When did Barbara Boxer and the Clintons join the banking ranks?