>>No, we'll instead just let them get into a senseless debt.
>>
>>What do you mean by "We let them"? We are not responsible for anyone's actions except for our own. Don't you really mean "They were irresponsible enough to get into a senseless debt"?
>
>"We, the system". Because this kind of prostitution doesn't work if there aren't two sides - those willing to offer risky loans, and those willing to take them. Both sides were irresponsible, but I wouldn't lay the responsibility on takers only. Many of them aren't exactly literate, can't do the math (no matter how I hate that expression) more than two months ahead, and easily fall for the smooth talk of the seller - whom they undeservedly trust as the professional who knows what he's talking about and implicitly trust him. And he's the trusted part of the system, because he's got that money to offer at his own discretion. So the responsibility of the loan seller is there too. As much as the takers were naive and shortsighted and went for it and should suffer the consequences, so are these guys for creating the air in which such behavior wasn't deemed naive and shortsighted, but something normal that everyone does. So it's not just "we, the system, let them into senseless debt", it was even "we, the system, gently pushed and peer-pressured them into senseless debt".
>
>But we won't be so harsh to criticize the issuer of the loan, we have already agreed to give them a refund.

Conversely, you should not criticize as insensitive those who did not support both banking and housing bailouts.