Thank you for bring up AIG, Quixey. I absolutely agree that they’ve turned into a bottomless money pit that is increasingly demanding more with little to no return.

Guess who just extended them yet another multi-billion dollar lifeline? And you somehow think that Republicans are solely to blame for this economic quagmire that we’re all sinking in?

Throwing good money after bad is a recipe for deepening the recession and hastening the arrival of an actual depression, Quixey. You don’t stop the bleeding by ripping the wound open further (the 75 billion dollar gift to irresponsible homeowners).

-A

How are they missing the part where the people will still have to pay back the freakin’ loans?

Choppy, the chronically lazy part is in regard to those who expect others to bail out their worthless asses AFTER they overextended themselves so irresponsibly.

So does your outrage extend to AIG, who wrote billions in CDS that they knew they wouldn’t be able to cover if the market went south? And then, when the market did go south, ran to the government and whined and cried and said "please, oh please bail us out?". If not why?

I agree with you. I have experienced a similar situation. I had figured out what I could truly afford and the RE agent and lender said I could do almost 2X that number. No way! I stood firm and am in a house I can make payments on. I hate the idea of over regulation but unfortunatley money maker brings thieves that prey on those you don’t take the time (or don’t know how) to figure out what we did – what we can afford. They take the word of the "experts" and later find out they are in deep trouble. So, we do need some regulation to protect people from themselves and the bad advice of these "experts".

I got a new car loan yesterday, at a great rate because I was careful with all the other borrowing I did. Most weren’t and they were"sold" to take on more and more debt. Call it lack of responsibility, stupidity,naivety, whatever – there’s no way to regulate that so the othe option is better rules to prevent people that fall in those categories being mislead. Sad that it would have to come to that though. The responsible are being punished as they have seen their assets drop like a rock becasue of all this. What is that teaching our children?

This is like shooting fish with a bazooka.

Yeah, you shoot, miss by a mile and the fish just look at the idiot.

Conversely, the non-lazy people would figure out how dig themselves out of their own mess instead of expecting an undeserved handout.

Rampaging through GOP halls with AK-47s blazing sounds like a plan then.

Free Food, Rent free housing, Defense on the Public dime and best of all, Less Republicans bitching.

When I bought my first house, I did some research. The question I was researching was a simple one: how much house can I afford? I knew I could borrow multiples of my annual income, and prior to this purchase the most expensive loan I’d taken was for college (with my car loan coming slightly behind).

As a significant part of my research, I asked industry professionals. These individuals are licensed and regulated. Now since my industry also happens to be licensed and regulated, I assumed that the same principles applied – that while there might be exceptions, most of the professionals would work at least nominally in the interest that, while they’d try to get as much from me as they could they would not set me up for more than I could afford – that would result in them losing money.

The process worked. It worked every time I purchased a house – right up to the last one I purchased. It had been a decade since the last purchase, and I knew rules and laws changed. I got a concensus value that was SIX TIMES MY ANNUAL INCOME!. The only reason I boggled, however, was the prior house purchases. If this was my first time, then based upon the various advice manuals in the libraries and magazines and professionals, I’d have used that number as my cap for house searching.

No, I don’t blame the first-time homebuyers for buying more house than they could afford. Frankly I’m not sure I blame those on their second homes, either. Not when every reference you examined discussed what your cap should be – and that had you buying more than you could afford.

As others have already stated – in lender situations, the law says it’s the lender’s responsibility to know when an amount is ouside the borrower’s means PROVIDED the borrower did not commit intentional fraud. As I’ve noted more than once, the FBI’s preliminary survey indicated that about 80% of the "too much house" purchase – at least that which can have criminal fraud involved – is lender fraud, not borrowers lying.

All these facts have been laid before you, and you still want to blame the borrowers?

right. To "Hyperbole, exaggeration, and insult," we can also add "factually challenged."

I know, booty, the collapse of the housing market is directly attributable to the unalloyed greed of the descendants of Mr. Potter, who want to make George Bailey’s nightmarish, alternate universe into reality.

There’s no other explanation other than evil bankers who are trying to impoverish all of us little people into soul-crushing Pottervilles.

Because, you know, that’s what wealthy people and corporations with money to lend do every morning: figure out ways to screw all the hapless Davids for the benefit of Goliath’s bottom line.

It’s all so ridiculously obvious. Even Incertus has figured this out.

-A

Hail Rush!

In other words, you took the metaphor literally instead of comprehending why I even used such imagery.

I’m disappointed in you, Incertus. I was under the impression that you were more perceptive than this. Next time, just ask me to clarify any of these confusing metaphors, similes, or analogies that I might use to illustrate a point, and I’ll break out the box of crayons for your benefit.

I’m always glad to help out.

-A

Shooting fish with anything, in a barrel or any other container, is simply a metaphor, not to be taken as literal truth.

Incertus, I took you to be a smart individual. Was I wrong?

-A