The borrower, they shouldn't be taking out a loan that they can't pay back
The lender, they shouldn't be making loans that they suspect will default
The government for guaranteeing the loan
The government for failing to adequately regulate the lending process
All of the above
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
I don't understand the reasoning here. It seems like the answer with the most votes is it's the fault of the individual for taking out the loan in the first place. Does the bank not bear some responsibility here for giving it to him?
Hmmm, seems most credit unions are more willing to work with a person.I belong to a credit union who teach young people to be responsible and won't even touch you until you have established credit, any current delq tradlines or collections and you can forget it. This is the kind of policy banks should embrace!
Information is freely and easily available to the borrower, though not necessarily through the lender. Because information can be sought out with minimal effort it is as much the fault of the borrower for defaulting as it is the lender for providing a "questionable" loan. I knew what an ARM was before I was out of high school (9 years ago). I knew that a lower interest rate (fixed, not based on variable + prime) was the best option. I knew that maxing out credit cards was bad. I knew that I shouldn't borrow more than I needed (i.e. I didn't need a $45k vehicle, so I didn't get one..even if I might have been able to make the payments...barely). I'm not special, hyper intelligent, born to financially savvy parents, or remarkable in any way.
Most people, if they were willing to put in the effort to protect their own assets, could know as much as is needed to make smart borrowing decisions and avoid default (outside extraneous situations, which are relatively rare).
"Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton
MOST people were stupid and voluntarily got in over their head. They deserve the blame. Some may well have been lied to. I dont disbelieve you...i just find it really hard to visualize the 'guillible' homeowner that doesnt look at those figures. How do we protect someone like that from themselves?
Last edited by VanceMack; 10-25-11 at 05:03 PM.
Does it have to be the same for all cases?
Or can it vary depending on the specific circumstances?
I may be wrong.
I am not saying some werent 'victims'...I AM saying most were 'stupid.'