lgm said:
Real issue: Where did all this bad debt come from? Consumer protection laws are supposed to protect people from taking loans they have little chance of paying back. Bush era deregulation and relaxation of regulation allowed lenders to flout these rules and generate a mountain of bad debt. Clinton would not have let it happen.

The problem is that Clinton DID allow it to happen and you deliberately avoid the point because you believe that no Dem can fail. That the government can never fail.

The fact of the matter is that Clinton was part of this mess when he loosened restrictions on who could borrow and who could get loans for homes. That an industry became built around that is missing the point. Are there economically naive people out there who think that with 75k you too can afford a 500k house? Yes. Were there lenders who exploited the situation? Yes.

A lot of the deregulation and lessening of borrowing standards started with Clinton. Perhaps, if Americans like you stopped lying to themselves about why you don’t live within your means, the economy, and the financial industry, wouldn’t be in a muddled state right now.

On September 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm, lgm said:
True, but there is lots of evidence of borrowers not understanding or being told all the conditions of a loan. Many were not aware that the low “teaser rates” were only for the first few years. You can argue that this information was in the fine print, but who reads fine print?

When I’m making a purchase that is going to cost me upwards of $400K (including interest), I sure as heck read all the fine print. To fail to do so is, in my opinion, what’s the word…IRRESPONSIBLE.

On September 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm, lgm said:

They were responsible for knowing the terms of the contract, and for questioning those terms they didn’t understand.

True, but there is lots of evidence of borrowers not understanding or being told all the conditions of a loan.

really? what evidence? people aren’t stupid. if you don’t know that a balloon loan rate will change, or that a no-principal loan isn’t a dumb idea, then they deserve to lose their house.

when you’re making the biggest purchase of your life, you’d BETTER read the fine print.

Nobody held a gun to the borrowers heads either….

True, but there is lots of evidence of borrowers not understanding or being told all the conditions of a loan. Many were not aware that the low “teaser rates” were only for the first few years. You can argue that this information was in the fine print, but who reads fine print?