"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"BAR" wrote in message
...


Those with their arms out-stretched, palms up waiting for Uncle Sam to
drop a couple of pieces of government cheese in their hand.


It's hard for many to accept the fact that the primary reason for the
housing meltdown (sparking the general economic meltdown) had it's roots
back in the mid 1990's.

A well intentioned but flawed social objective to make home ownership
available to more people began the practice of sub-prime mortgage lending.
Banks don't take risks, so the only way to encourage their participation
was to provide them a safety net for these risky loans. Enter Freddie Mac
and Fannie Mae.

The rest is history. It's not all Bush's fault just as it's not all
Clinton's fault. It *is* however a reflection of a more liberal
viewpoint, i.e. "creating" artificial opportunities via government
intervention. It may sound hard and cruel, but if you don't work, can't
work or don't make enough to afford it, you shouldn't be encouraged to buy
it. But many were, and now everybody pays.

"Equal Opportunity Lender" shouldn't mean loans for everybody regardless
of your ability to repay. Ironically, those who so strongly favored what
became sub-prime lending now are screeching the loudest about government
oversight and a return to tougher lending practices.

Now I'll get the usual "I've got mine, so screw you" comments, but that's
not how I feel.
I really feel badly for those who became trapped in this phony economics,
particularly those who sincerely thought it was an opportunity that they
would otherwise not have. Unfortunately there are also many who realized,
"screw it, what do I have to lose?"

Eisboch


I wonder if those policies caused a larger than normal demand...driving the
housing prices way up.
I still remember NOYB down in Naples, with his ideas of paying interest only
on his mortgage in the hope that he'd make big profits on the rapidly
escalating home values.