>>>>Consequences -- this is what we try to teach our children.
>>>>
>>>>And speaking of children, don't you even feel the least bit guilty that your ideology is going to have the consequence of heaping debt on top of the heads of your children that, in all likelihood, they will never be able to repay?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>When these things are happening on a macro basis, though, as they have been for the past year or more (longer in the real estate market), it becomes a problem for all of us.
>>>>
>>>>And the cause of the housing bubble (and its subsequnt burst) was because the government if effect nationalized housing with Fannie and Freddie. But now we are calling on the government to get us out of the mess that they caused? This is analogous to calling upon the arsonist who set fire to your house to come over and help you put the fire out.
>>>
>>>And that, again, was the drive towards the, IIRC, "ownership society" (SotU speech 2002 or 2003 or 2004?), where more and more Americans would own houses. Which was a great idea in theory, but was not intended to be put into practice by getting them stable jobs with which they would become welcome customers at a bank. Oh, no, then those jobs wouldn't be outsourced, and our friends would make less profit, bad bad bad.
>>>
>>>No, we'll instead just let them get into a senseless debt. But that will become normal because everyone would be doing that and everyone would be making money. Of course it would burst just like any other bubble someday, their jobs will allow them to keep paying as far as just a year or two, when the variable rate kicks in and they get fired... but by then there'd be someone else in the White House, let them pull the chestnuts out of the fire (i.e. see what to do with these blanket guarantees in shape of F & F).
>>>
>>>And yes, that's how government created the problem. By following the corporate interests (let's outsource and make profit, let's give risky mortgages and make even more) and packaging it as people's interest (so-called "ownership society").
>>>
>>>So... it's a question of which ideology created the mess - not mine. I have no debts whatsoever, but somehow I don't think that makes me exempt from the consequences of these policies. I wish, though.
>>
>>While I think the government started this mess (they put the pressure on the industry to do it and actually made it almost impossible for them not to), in order to accomplish their mission, they had to convince those who were not successful financially to purchase homes. That is done by convincing them they can indeed afford a home. If you take someone who is struggling financially and tell them how they will actually be better off after purchasing a home, you create a society of debt that cannot be repaid. It's not difficult to do. If the customer couldn't succeed on their own, then it's not difficult to convince them how to fail some more under the guise of fake success. In many cases, those folks were actually victims. Victims of their own ignorance and of those who led them to the waters of indeptness...
>>
>>See: Message #1387619
>
>I strongly disagree about people buying houses they couldn't afford because the government convinced them to do it. (At least no more than they ever have in the form of the tax deduction for mortgage interest). IMO it was just human nature. One of the ways some people measure their success is by what kind of house they live in. There is the element of "keeping up with the Joneses." Some bought up to live in better school districts for their kids. Sometimes foolish optimism, which many of us are subject to. Good old fashioned greed by some who bought second homes as investments. Lots of factors. Persuasion by the government is way, way down the list in my view.

You missed it. The government didn't persuade people to buy homes. The government pressured the mortgage companies to have a higher percentage of mortgages for people who really couldn't afford a home. The mortgage companies convinced the folks who would normally be refused that it was affordable.