Why do democrats want to say its the banks fault that the homeowner failed to repay a loan?

Because justification and rationalization mean you don’t have to take responsibility for your own actions. Much easier to blame someone else and then sit and wait for someone else to bail you out of your mess.

The bank has as much responsibilty to make responsible loans and minimize risk as the consumer does to only borrow what they can repay.

Fail…sorry

Part of the problem is that banks lent money to people they never should have. For example, the single mother of 2 who made $35,000 a year and was approved for a variable rate mortgage of $275,000.

Shame on the bank. Dumb move on her part for signing the papers.

I agree…. people need to be responsible for their own actions. But the banks, driven by greed for fees, are partially to blame for this mess. They should have never given out high-risk loans to those who could never afford to repay them.

The liberal Democrats need to take the focus off of themselves.

The Democrats are the politicians who forced the banks to change their lending standards by insisting that banks provide easy credit and no down payment to low income applicants.

The average Obama fan, however, is not really aware of the facts, though.

The problem is that the banks were encouraging people to take out bad loans, including giving easily payable teaser rates, and then when the payments escalated people couldn’t pay. Also, a lot of banks were having fees stacked on that people shouldn’t have had to pay, payments were credited late even though paid timely and then demands made for late charges and interest on late charges, etc., and that was just the tip of the ice berg. Not to mention, a lot of people were making their payments until the economy fell apart and they lost their jobs and at best could find much lower paying jobs. These facts are just the tip of the iceberg. In other words, you are trying to reduce a very complicated situation to a very simple answer and it isn’t accurate.

In alot of cases, banks were making loans to people they shouldn’t have. in those cases it’s the banks own damn fault. Would you lend $1000 to someone you knew couldn’t pay you back?

However, people who just don’t pay their loans and have the money shouldn’t be getting any assitance. Please provide a link to where any one in the democratic party said they should.

That is more agreeable to their welfare base of voters who they hope will let them stay in power in 2010…They are beginning to see that AMERICANS MEAN Business–and we’re not going to stand for this money grab–without voting OUT ALL THOSE WHO VOTED for it–and now they want stupid voters to believe it was the banks–Colonel Mustard in the Dining Room with the Candlestick–?

When have banks ever done the moral or right thing? SIMON Legree–remember him? The banks did it so they could steal the land and home–out from under folks–and get it for a song–criminals–nothing more..

We may be gullible–but the American Voters are not morons…

UNSEAT CONGRESS HOUSE members who voted to throw America in the trash!!

If I could loan that thousand dollars knowing I could immediately sell the debt to someone else who doesn’t know my irresponsible friend, then yes. They would be the losers not I.

you really don’t expect the dems to take any blame do you? Most people got their houses when the economy was’t so bad but now jobs are lost and are scarce now it’s a different thing. If the banks want to take on taking back the houses let them. they won’t get as much for them and hey people go rent. let the Albatross go.

I agree with you 100%…

I don’t understand how the bank is responsible for telling someone what they can and cant afford. the bank says, “If you borrow this $200,000, at this interest rate, your payments will be X dollars a month.” it is up to the borrower to know if they can afford X or not. What, should the bank ask them to bring in their cable bill, phone bill, food bill, various expense documentation and then figure out what they can and cant afford.

Look, I’m pissed off about this whole mortgage bail out thing. I think it is BS that just because I pay my mortgage on time every month because I was smart enough to a. not take out a loan I couldn’t afford the payments to, and B. was smart enough to realize, hey, if I want to pay X per month, and don’t want that cost to go up, maybe I should have a fixed APR, I don’t feel I should be punished through higher taxes to pay for some ignoramus who decided that even though they brought home $2500/month, they could afford a $2000/month mortgage.

Be responsible for your actions!!! dont expect the gov’t, and those people who are responsible to bail you out all the time.

The banks that extend loans have been doing it for 10,000 years.

They know perfectly well how to read a credit report and determine accurately out of 100 loans what percentage of those loans will be paid back and the attached risk factor. That’s how they determine interest rates, loan availability etc..

Okay cool so far..

Where the banks screwed the country was on two points.

First there was a rash of unqualified loan specialists popping up around the country between 02′ and 05′.. All these work from home jobs refinancing loans.. They jammed in all these balloon interest rates sometimes not being totally honest with the new refinancing terms..
That was step one.

Next came wall street taking subprime loans and categorizing them as A1 instruments.. This means they were taking risky investments (the loans themselves) and reselling them on the derivatives market.
Because of the (false) high rating mutual funds which include pensions and 401k’s picked them up. Shortly after risky investments did what they always do – and fluctuated in value. It is that fluctuation which has caused the loss of savings and investor trust.

So who’s to blame?
The SEC for allowing such instruments to be sold on the derivatives market under false pretenses? Was it Clinton for removing the government imposed ban on derivatives in the first place? Or was it the investment geniuses who were able to sell basically junk loans at an inflated value due to a false categorization???

My point is homeowners refinancing their loans are predictable.
Everyone knew how much they make and their credit history.
There was no subterfuge or hidden truth at that point in this process.

I wish it was as simple as gee that neighbor of mine couldn’t pay back his loan. But really it’s even more complicated than i just described. I didn’t even get into the global market factors…

Have a nice day!

Because the term personal responsibility does not exist in their vocabulary. People who took out those mortgages because they had a cheap rate to start with but knew it would increase and thought they could refinance or sell that before it happened are not home buyers but tried to be an investor with the house they bought. I bought fixed rate, bought what I could afford actually less then I could afford, and bought a home to stay in long term (meaning more then 3 to 5 years) but I am supposed to help the people who chose to take the chance and lost? The talk of making companies refinance and lower the principle to the current value (write off part of the debt) is even worse-if the house goes up in value will they be allowed to increase the principle to make up the money they lost or if my house goes up in value will they be able to increase my loan by that much? Of course not that would help the greedy banks and we just want to help people who thought to make a fast buck or take advantage of the system-those people need to be rewarded. This whole thing is just buying votes and rewarding bad behavior. The house next to me is foreclosed on and my house value goes down-so what this is my home first and an investment second so I lose nothing if the value goes down exact paper money because it is an investment but if I don’t sell I do not lose ash and if I think it is an investment primarily and just a house-then it is like the stock market and you should repay people who lost “money” or value there also. Their is a difference between people who bought a home and people buying a house and the difference is the home people bought a long term place to live and raise a family while the person buying a house was investing money to make money and too many of the second group is who we are helping. The home buyers who bought figuring they could refinance before the adjustable went up rather then finance with fixed rate-you took a chance and lost and again it was a personal choice and your responsibility so why would the nation be responsible for bailing you out? If you couldn’t afford it with a fixed rate loan payment then you could have bought smaller or less expensive and buying at 90 to 100 percent of your loan value means you are walking a very tight line and took the chance you would make it-again personal choice and personal responsibility.