there is enough blame to be spread around. There is the person who took the loan, knowing they couldn't afford it, the banks that knew these people couldn't afford it, and the democrats who wrote the law that made the lenders give up "red lining", a practice that screened out people who couldn't afford the loans. I mean, why can't I have that $300,000 house, just because I work in a factory making $10.00 per hour, I want the American dream. . . .

I guess, now the lending institutions will have to go back to the red ink, because we now have red ink all over the place!


>Already happening as we speak, bend over...
>
>>>It depends what state you're in and what type of loan you have.
>>>
>>>In California (area with one of the biggest problems) if it is a first mortgage it is considered a non-recourse loan and they can't pursue the difference. But if it was a second mortgage or refinanced they can. Even our Gov't is helping these people out by not counting the releived debt taxable (2 or 3 year window on this, normally it would be)
>>>
>>>Of course those moron bankers deserve all they get
>>
>>Problem is, one way or another the people who still pay the bills (who weren't trying to make fast money from the real estate pyramid scheme) get shafted in the fallout.
>>
>>Either it will come out of our pockets from a government bailout (likely) or from increased fees and interest rates by the banks or both (most likely).
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>
>>>>Interesting article here
>>>>
>>>>http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7529277.stm
>>>>
>>>>I didn't realise that in the US you could walk away from a debt like that and not be pursued. So people are walking away from paying for their house because it doesn't make business sense any more
>>>>
>>>>In the UK people who hand back their keys because they can't afford their house anymore are routinely pursued if the sale of the house by the bank fail to raise the full amount of an outstanding loan.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nick