>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Can't let that one go by. Redlining was a practice of not giving loans in certain neighborhoods, generally those occupied by minorities. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining)
>>>
>>>It was a loathsome practice and deserved to be outlawed.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>
>>That was the democrat definition, but the reality was, those neighborhoods had the people who couldn't afford to repay loans, so the banks didn't loan to them. Now, you can see what has been wroght from this liberal attempt to make everything all better. We now have the unintended consequences of a feel good policy. Banks are in business to make money, not pander to some liberal, socialist notion.
>
>I have no problem not giving loans to people who can't pay them back, or whose history shows that they won't pay them back. But blocking entire neighborhoods isn't the way to do that, and prevents those neighborhoods from being rehabilitated. Every borrower and house should be evaluated individually.
>
>Tamar

I agree, but I think the law was overkill. People should be based on their own track record, assets, etc. Now, having said that, how do you feel about insurance companies charging higher rates for people in the hood, just because it's a more dangerous bet for them?<g>