Gunny
Gold Member
I'm not sure I'm seeing the debate here, nor why some people have to make this partisan. The bankers lent money they didn't have and underwrote people that couldn't pay. The people that couldn't pay are just as guilty because no one forced them to sign the mortgages.
This fish stinks at the head and foot, and those in the middle, as usual, get to pay the bills for both.
It's not partisan for sure. There are bankers and brokers of all political stripes. What I am waiting for is the explanation of how exactly did they loan money that they didn't have ? Actually, that is a rhetorical question. I'm just fishing for the greedy folks in our midst that think raking interest from non existant money and riding the ship to the bottom is OK.
What's okay about it? It's getting rich by sleight-of-hand. It's using a loophole in semantics to make money from nothing. Doing so while knowing the market is going to tank is morally wrong, IMO. Knowingly screwing people over to make a buck is morally wrong, IMO.
Rewarding business failure with a bailout from the government is just plain stupid.
I disagree that CRA isn't part of the problem, or even a minimal part of it. It allowed people to sign for something they couldn't afford, and predatory lenders to sign them.
The whole problem in a nutshell to me is a financial structure running amok, and people living beyond their means. It takes two.