Since when is it the banks job to absorb losses on loans made to foolish borrowers ? Why is it their fault the borrower bought a house they couldn't afford ? I mean it's just crazy how so many people can suddenly look straight into a camera and somehow blame the very people who GAVE THEM MONEY for the THEIR OWN FOOLISHINESS.
While it's not the banks job to absorb the loss directly, it was the banks job to do their due on the people they loaned money to. They didn't do that, so now their obligation is to execute the contract as it is written. If that means foreclosing the property and taking half the money for it on the auction block, so be it.
The borrower has an obligation to no over extend themselves, and the banks have an obligation to loan money to credit worthy people only in an amount that their credit and income will sustain. Neither group has been very good about that in the last 10 years. The problem that we have now is that the borrower is being made to uphold his end of the contract (for now) and the banks are getting the difference between the sale of foreclosed property and the amount of the note made up by Uncle Sam. I was going to say it's a bad precedent, but that ship sailed long ago.
The education of sck5 continues apace. Currently scheduled for examination is his previous understanding of the origination of legislation, specifically funding legislation. The Obama plan has been subordinated to the Pelosi plan. The President would be well advised to put Madame Pelosi in his Blackberry and let the texting begin. With friends like these....
President Obama is perhaps not only nearing the end of his two week honeymoon but in danger of approaching irrelevance himself. He's got the bully pulpit; he'd best get using it and start herding his cats. He owns it now. Yup, it's the Obama economy. Fair or not has nothing to do with it.
__________________
“Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it.” Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
While it's not the banks job to absorb the loss directly, it was the banks job to do their due on the people they loaned money to. They didn't do that, so now their obligation is to execute the contract as it is written. If that means foreclosing the property and taking half the money for it on the auction block, so be it.
The borrower has an obligation to no over extend themselves, and the banks have an obligation to loan money to credit worthy people only in an amount that their credit and income will sustain. Neither group has been very good about that in the last 10 years. The problem that we have now is that the borrower is being made to uphold his end of the contract (for now) and the banks are getting the difference between the sale of foreclosed property and the amount of the note made up by Uncle Sam. I was going to say it's a bad precedent, but that ship sailed long ago.
I'll wager that we'll look back and see that, had we let the market take it's course; bankruptcies, foreclosures, and bank failures and all; we'd have been far better off. All we've done since, is to allow the pig to rot.
__________________
“Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it.” Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
Congress, our beloved leaders of the Dem's, decided that they work to hard and need a retreat, you know, like the ones they just got done blasting banks for taking on our tab.
Yea, both parties took a retreat, What Campbell failed to mention was that tax payers payed for the Dem's retreat while the Repub's used lobbyist money. Although, with that being said I am not sure which is worse.
John USYacht 27 "Cora Lee"
