Is it wrong of me to hope all these housing bailout bills fail?

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Why am I paying for you to live the American Dream when I can't afford to myself?

The people you are referring to are hardly living the American Dream.


To the posters who are talking about how buying a home is not supposed to be easy, consider the past. It used to be A LOT easier to buy a home even when taking inflation into consideration. I have spoken with a lot of adults in their mid 50's about this topic and all of them agree that they do not understand how young people (late 20s to early 30s) are able to afford it these days. They realize that people figure out ways, but what they are witnessing is that homes are being owned less and less by the middle class and lower-middle class compared to the past. To me, that is a very bad thing. If it was possible for people who fit in those classes to comfortably afford homes like that in the past then why should we not be aiming for the same level of ease today? Something has gradually gone horribly wrong. It should not be this difficult. Life in general in this country is not better that way.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Here's another question for you. While you were trying to rebuild your credit and change that for the better, which I applaud you for, why should my tax money go to bail you out? Where did I go wrong, to where I have to help you out? I didn't buy a house, but am being forced to help out those who did. Doesn't exactly seem fair to me.

So many of you are having trouble looking past square one. Stop thinking about why you are being punished and start thinking about the consequences if the government does nothing to help. It boils down to siding with the lesser of two evils and trust me...the side which involves doing nothing is far worse for everyone.

It boils down to the economy coming back down to where it's supposed to be.

Yes, but that is tough to accomplish when tons of people's credit is going to shit because they were misguided by crappy mortgage lenders combined with unusual major increases in property tax and insurance rates which all lead to foreclosure. For many of those who were fortunate enough not to go into foreclosure, these increased rates contributed greatly to the reasons why they do not spend money which obviously slows the economy. Then you got those who have the cash to spend but they are just too afraid to spend it because of all the horror stories they are hearing. It's a very vicious cycle. Something needs to give.

Exactly ... and once things bottom out and the people that shouldn't have been in this situation to begin with are weeded out, the economy starts its upturn and things get righted.

EVERYTHING in the US economy is way over-valued. As much as I like being on the top of the heap (world-wide speaking), we needed to get knocked down a peg. It sucks that it comes at the cost of a lot of people... but it just goes to show how out of touch with reality the mentality of an American consumer is.

Why am I paying for you to live the American Dream when I can't afford to myself?

Exactly. He speaks the truth right there.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: amdskip
I vote that everyone is required to have a 20% down payment and payments must be made every month, non of this interest only crap. Banks are stupid for even allowing that to happen.

For a first time homebuyer, coughing up $40,000 just isn't reasonable. For their second home, sure. But for somebody just graduating out of college or a newly married couple coming from seperate places it's just not worth it.

Then perhaps these people shouldn't be buying a house yet?

It seems like a lot of people think they are entitled to own a house.

If an apartment costs them $1000 a month and a home is $1200 a month, does it make sense to stay in an apartment for another 5-10 years to come up with the $40,000 down for the 20%?

5% is reasonable, especially with the interest rates where they are. This isn't the 80's with double digit mortgage rates.

I suppose if the difference in price between renting and buying is that small, then your argument makes a lot more sense. Just don't forget to include the costs of:

1. homeowner's insurance
2. property taxes
3. repair/maintenance costs
4. increased utility bills
5. other (increased transportation costs from living further away)

when doing the overall comparison. If the true cost of owning a house, including all of the above, is only $200/month more than renting, then I would agree that renting for years to save up that down payment seems kind of silly.

 

[Glavinsolo]

Originally posted by: Chronoshock
No, it's not wrong. People's poor spending habits SHOULD bite them in the ass

I concur. Keeping up with the jones has gotten all these people into crap situations. They need to learn their lesson so the next generation has something to follow.

The next generation will now be like huh, I get into financial trouble and the government will always be there to help me with my bad decisions.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Special K

I suppose if the difference in price between renting and buying is that small, then your argument makes a lot more sense. Just don't forget to include the costs of:

1. homeowner's insurance
2. property taxes
3. repair/maintenance costs
4. increased utility bills
5. other (increased transportation costs from living further away)

when doing the overall comparison. If the true cost of owning a house, including all of the above, is only $200/month more than renting, then I would agree that renting for years to save up that down payment seems kind of silly.

Even if you take into consideration those who are in a position where the difference in cost is say about 500-600 per month there will come a time where the pressure as a result of that difference will decrease due to raises in pay, debt being paid off, etc. However, these same people would still be looking at a 30k-50k down payment for their first starter home which just isn't reasonable and nor is it a financially sound decision to continue renting for so many years in order to save up for that down payment. The problem is that housing costs have risen at a much higher rate than salaries have over the past 20 years.

 

[sjwaste]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i still get a chuckle from the 'predatory lender': a banker with a monocle and a bowler, maybe a diamond pinky ring and a pocketwatch chain, in a brown pinstripe suit, jumping out from behind a bush and shouting 'AHA!' while forcing people to sign documents with a fountain pen.

Well, I have a halloween costume now. Predatory lender.

I've been looking for an excuse to buy a monocle anyway.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: sjwaste

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i still get a chuckle from the 'predatory lender': a banker with a monocle and a bowler, maybe a diamond pinky ring and a pocketwatch chain, in a brown pinstripe suit, jumping out from behind a bush and shouting 'AHA!' while forcing people to sign documents with a fountain pen.

Well, I have a halloween costume now. Predatory lender.

I've been looking for an excuse to buy a monocle anyway.

HA! A predator mask and armed with.....an ink pen! Carry a loan app in your off hand. Or make your own nite stick with an ink pen stuck on one end.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: sjwaste

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i still get a chuckle from the 'predatory lender': a banker with a monocle and a bowler, maybe a diamond pinky ring and a pocketwatch chain, in a brown pinstripe suit, jumping out from behind a bush and shouting 'AHA!' while forcing people to sign documents with a fountain pen.

Well, I have a halloween costume now. Predatory lender.

I've been looking for an excuse to buy a monocle anyway.

HA! A predator mask and armed with.....an ink pen! Carry a loan app in your off hand. Or make your own nite stick with an ink pen stuck on one end.

Just avoid the houses with "foreclosure" on the door....

 

[alkemyst]

with most of the bailout plans being proposed now, the subsidy has to be repaid at resale.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: vi edit
If an apartment costs them $1000 a month and a home is $1200 a month, does it make sense to stay in an apartment for another 5-10 years to come up with the $40,000 down for the 20%?

5% is reasonable, especially with the interest rates where they are. This isn't the 80's with double digit mortgage rates.

Find a cheaper apartment? Dunno about where you live, but if you can afford a $1k/mo apartment, you can still afford a house fit for a family of 4 or 5. There are other places you can cut costs, too.

Just sayin' :-

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

To the posters who are talking about how buying a home is not supposed to be easy, consider the past. It used to be A LOT easier to buy a home even when taking inflation into consideration. I have spoken with a lot of adults in their mid 50's about this topic and all of them agree that they do not understand how young people (late 20s to early 30s) are able to afford it these days. They realize that people figure out ways, but what they are witnessing is that homes are being owned less and less by the middle class and lower-middle class compared to the past. To me, that is a very bad thing. If it was possible for people who fit in those classes to comfortably afford homes like that in the past then why should we not be aiming for the same level of ease today? Something has gradually gone horribly wrong. It should not be this difficult. Life in general in this country is not better that way.

Go look at the houses people were buying then vs the houses people think they should be able to buy today.

1950: 983 square feet
2005: 2412 square feet

From here:

http://crosslandteam.com/blog/...-keeps-getting-bigger/

No idea how accurate these numbers are but they seem to be in the ballpark of what I'm finding elsewhere.

Viper GTS

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: vi edit
If an apartment costs them $1000 a month and a home is $1200 a month, does it make sense to stay in an apartment for another 5-10 years to come up with the $40,000 down for the 20%?

5% is reasonable, especially with the interest rates where they are. This isn't the 80's with double digit mortgage rates.

Find a cheaper apartment? Dunno about where you live, but if you can afford a $1k/mo apartment, you can still afford a house fit for a family of 4 or 5. There are other places you can cut costs, too.

Just sayin' :-

I agree. I pay $500/mo in rent, for a house I am renting. I know I cannot afford a house currently, nor would I want to (being still in college). Most places around me you can get a house for ~$800/mo mortgage, no thats not including other expenses that go along with a house but rent for $1k/mo is a bit excessive. Drop that rent down to $700 save $300/mo which is $3600/yr extra. So in 5 years you have $18,000 assuming you don't touch it. That is 1/2 of that $40k without any interest, bonuses, tax returns, etc going into it.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: vi edit
If an apartment costs them $1000 a month and a home is $1200 a month, does it make sense to stay in an apartment for another 5-10 years to come up with the $40,000 down for the 20%?

5% is reasonable, especially with the interest rates where they are. This isn't the 80's with double digit mortgage rates.

Find a cheaper apartment? Dunno about where you live, but if you can afford a $1k/mo apartment, you can still afford a house fit for a family of 4 or 5. There are other places you can cut costs, too.

Just sayin' :-

The places where the "housing crisis" is a major problem are the same places where a $1000 apartment that fits 3-5 people is on the low end. The houses in those areas are ridiculously expensive too and are the same ones that fluctuated the most over the past 5 years. These same places do not have wages to compensate for the drastic differences. Hence, the problem. The most logical solution for these people would be to move right? However, that is not very easy either for many families for a great many reasons which I will not go into here. I'm sure most people on these boards are intelligent enough to figure that out those reasons on their own.


*EDIT*

For the record, my rent costs me $1423 per month for a 2/2. It is considered somewhere on the upper end of middle-lower class living.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Xavier434

To the posters who are talking about how buying a home is not supposed to be easy, consider the past. It used to be A LOT easier to buy a home even when taking inflation into consideration. I have spoken with a lot of adults in their mid 50's about this topic and all of them agree that they do not understand how young people (late 20s to early 30s) are able to afford it these days. They realize that people figure out ways, but what they are witnessing is that homes are being owned less and less by the middle class and lower-middle class compared to the past. To me, that is a very bad thing. If it was possible for people who fit in those classes to comfortably afford homes like that in the past then why should we not be aiming for the same level of ease today? Something has gradually gone horribly wrong. It should not be this difficult. Life in general in this country is not better that way.

Go look at the houses people were buying then vs the houses people think they should be able to buy today.

1950: 983 square feet
2005: 2412 square feet

From here:

http://crosslandteam.com/blog/...-keeps-getting-bigger/

No idea how accurate these numbers are but they seem to be in the ballpark of what I'm finding elsewhere.

Viper GTS

Are houses that small even made anymore though?

 

[her209]

OMG, so many trillions of dollars in equity has been wiped from Americans!!!

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Xavier434

To the posters who are talking about how buying a home is not supposed to be easy, consider the past. It used to be A LOT easier to buy a home even when taking inflation into consideration. I have spoken with a lot of adults in their mid 50's about this topic and all of them agree that they do not understand how young people (late 20s to early 30s) are able to afford it these days. They realize that people figure out ways, but what they are witnessing is that homes are being owned less and less by the middle class and lower-middle class compared to the past. To me, that is a very bad thing. If it was possible for people who fit in those classes to comfortably afford homes like that in the past then why should we not be aiming for the same level of ease today? Something has gradually gone horribly wrong. It should not be this difficult. Life in general in this country is not better that way.

Go look at the houses people were buying then vs the houses people think they should be able to buy today.

1950: 983 square feet
2005: 2412 square feet

From here:

http://crosslandteam.com/blog/...-keeps-getting-bigger/

No idea how accurate these numbers are but they seem to be in the ballpark of what I'm finding elsewhere.

Viper GTS

Are houses that small even made anymore though?

oddly around here thats what they are starting to build. 900-1500 sq ft houses. They are going fast also. The builder has a great reputaiton, the houses are very well built (had trouble with a builder cutting corners and useing cheap matrial on 300k houses in the area). heard there is even a waiting list to get in them.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Xavier434

To the posters who are talking about how buying a home is not supposed to be easy, consider the past. It used to be A LOT easier to buy a home even when taking inflation into consideration. I have spoken with a lot of adults in their mid 50's about this topic and all of them agree that they do not understand how young people (late 20s to early 30s) are able to afford it these days. They realize that people figure out ways, but what they are witnessing is that homes are being owned less and less by the middle class and lower-middle class compared to the past. To me, that is a very bad thing. If it was possible for people who fit in those classes to comfortably afford homes like that in the past then why should we not be aiming for the same level of ease today? Something has gradually gone horribly wrong. It should not be this difficult. Life in general in this country is not better that way.

Go look at the houses people were buying then vs the houses people think they should be able to buy today.

1950: 983 square feet
2005: 2412 square feet

From here:

http://crosslandteam.com/blog/...-keeps-getting-bigger/

No idea how accurate these numbers are but they seem to be in the ballpark of what I'm finding elsewhere.

Viper GTS

First of all, it is really hard to find such small houses anymore in a lot of places. Secondly, when you compare how expensive the smaller houses have gotten in the locations of where this crisis is mostly occurring as opposed to how much they were costing just 10 years ago then you will start to understand the reality. That reality will further be enforced when you compare how much houses cost 20 years ago to their prices now along side with a comparison of the wages 20 years ago as opposed to now. The rates of increase are by no means parallel. It used to be much easier to buy your first home and it also used to be much easier to afford it comfortably earlier in life. I would be much happier if that were the case today, but it isn't and there are shitty reasons for that.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Xavier434

To the posters who are talking about how buying a home is not supposed to be easy, consider the past. It used to be A LOT easier to buy a home even when taking inflation into consideration. I have spoken with a lot of adults in their mid 50's about this topic and all of them agree that they do not understand how young people (late 20s to early 30s) are able to afford it these days. They realize that people figure out ways, but what they are witnessing is that homes are being owned less and less by the middle class and lower-middle class compared to the past. To me, that is a very bad thing. If it was possible for people who fit in those classes to comfortably afford homes like that in the past then why should we not be aiming for the same level of ease today? Something has gradually gone horribly wrong. It should not be this difficult. Life in general in this country is not better that way.

Go look at the houses people were buying then vs the houses people think they should be able to buy today.

1950: 983 square feet
2005: 2412 square feet

From here:

http://crosslandteam.com/blog/...-keeps-getting-bigger/

No idea how accurate these numbers are but they seem to be in the ballpark of what I'm finding elsewhere.

Viper GTS

Are houses that small even made anymore though?

Being built? Most likely not. At the same time you don't need to go FIND a ~2000+ sq ft home as your first house. Growing up my parents first house was a 4/2.5 that was ~1800 sq ft and was plenty of space for 3 of us+3 dogs and a cat. We could have even had 4 of us in that house easy (5 would be pushing it though).

 

[LegendKiller]

I always laugh when people talk about "average" houses and how families aren't able to afford "average" lives anymore. It's a never ending circle jerk of "averages" where being "average" means you are better than the joneses, not just keeping up with them.

Many say that you *have* to have a dual income family to "get by", because real wages have declined.

The joke is that it's not wages that have declined, but our stressing of bigger and "better" things on an increasing level.

If you look at 50 years ago, how many bills did a homeowner have? Car, house, elec, gas, phone.

Now, we "must" have a house that's 2.5x bigger (while made 2.5x as shitty, requiring higher maint) which incurs 2.5x the interest, 2.5x the taxes, and 2.5x the maintenance.

We "must" have a cell phone, which "must" have a lot of minutes and now internet because we "must" be able to check our email on the go.

We "must" have cable, with an HDTV.

We "must" have broadband internet.

We "must" have a landline.

We "must" have a gas guzzling car.

We "must" buy our kids a shit-ton of high-tech trash, instead of a baseball glove and friends.

We "must" buy food in bulk and feed it to our familes in bulk.

Each kid "must" have their own room. (OMG, you might have to SHARE!)


Those that say they "must" do this or that to live are full of shit. People can easily get away with a decent job on one income. However, they "must" have all of that crap, so they can't.

Real wages haven't declined, "musts" have increased.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Special K


Are houses that small even made anymore though?

Being built? Most likely not. At the same time you don't need to go FIND a ~2000+ sq ft home as your first house. Growing up my parents first house was a 4/2.5 that was ~1800 sq ft and was plenty of space for 3 of us+3 dogs and a cat. We could have even had 4 of us in that house easy (5 would be pushing it though).

1800 sqft homes that are not completely falling apart in my area go for 250k or more. Some of the better quality 1800 sqft homes are going for well over 300k here. All of them are starter homes. I am in South Florida where insurance rates and property taxes are insane assuming you can even get yourself a new insurance policy.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I always laugh when people talk about "average" houses and how families aren't able to afford "average" lives anymore. It's a never ending circle jerk of "averages" where being "average" means you are better than the joneses, not just keeping up with them.

Many say that you *have* to have a dual income family to "get by", because real wages have declined.

The joke is that it's not wages that have declined, but our stressing of bigger and "better" things on an increasing level.

If you look at 50 years ago, how many bills did a homeowner have? Car, house, elec, gas, phone.

Now, we "must" have a house that's 2.5x bigger (while made 2.5x as shitty, requiring higher maint) which incurs 2.5x the interest, 2.5x the taxes, and 2.5x the maintenance.

We "must" have a cell phone, which "must" have a lot of minutes and now internet because we "must" be able to check our email on the go.

We "must" have cable, with an HDTV.

We "must" have broadband internet.

We "must" have a landline.

We "must" have a gas guzzling car.

We "must" buy our kids a shit-ton of high-tech trash, instead of a baseball glove and friends.

We "must" buy food in bulk and feed it to our familes in bulk.

Each kid "must" have their own room. (OMG, you might have to SHARE!)


Those that say they "must" do this or that to live are full of shit. People can easily get away with a decent job on one income. However, they "must" have all of that crap, so they can't.

Real wages haven't declined, "musts" have increased.

Have real wages really increased that much in recent years? I am not denying that the number of "must have" items seems to keep increasing, but haven't real wages remained relatively stagnant for a lot of people in recent years? This is what I recall reading on news websites like CNN. I searched for data but I am not sure what the most reliable source for real wages would be.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Special K


Are houses that small even made anymore though?

Being built? Most likely not. At the same time you don't need to go FIND a ~2000+ sq ft home as your first house. Growing up my parents first house was a 4/2.5 that was ~1800 sq ft and was plenty of space for 3 of us+3 dogs and a cat. We could have even had 4 of us in that house easy (5 would be pushing it though).

1800 sqft homes that are not completely falling apart in my area go for 250k or more. Some of the better quality 1800 sqft homes are going for well over 300k here. All of them are starter homes. I am in South Florida where insurance rates and property taxes are insane assuming you can even get yourself a new insurance policy.

Have you been living under a rock? There's a housing bubble! This graph should scare the hell out of any prospective home buyers:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...hiller_IE2_Fig_2-1.png

The point I was trying to make (and that you missed) is that aside from the housing bubble (which is an issue unto itself) people's view of what a "normal" house is have shifted drastically in the last 55 years.

There's obviously more to the story, the mortgage lenders & realtors are partly to blame for pushing the "you must own a house or you're flushing money" crap. My g/f & I together make over $130K yet we live in an apartment that costs $866 a month. A little common sense and simple math shows that I'm far better off there than buying. If the rest of the population would do the same we wouldn't be where we are today.

Viper GTS

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Special K


Are houses that small even made anymore though?

Being built? Most likely not. At the same time you don't need to go FIND a ~2000+ sq ft home as your first house. Growing up my parents first house was a 4/2.5 that was ~1800 sq ft and was plenty of space for 3 of us+3 dogs and a cat. We could have even had 4 of us in that house easy (5 would be pushing it though).

1800 sqft homes that are not completely falling apart in my area go for 250k or more. Some of the better quality 1800 sqft homes are going for well over 300k here. All of them are starter homes. I am in South Florida where insurance rates and property taxes are insane assuming you can even get yourself a new insurance policy.

Have you been living under a rock? There's a housing bubble! This graph should scare the hell out of any prospective home buyers:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...hiller_IE2_Fig_2-1.png

The point I was trying to make (and that you missed) is that aside from the housing bubble (which is an issue unto itself) people's view of what a "normal" house is have shifted drastically in the last 55 years.

There's obviously more to the story, the mortgage lenders & realtors are partly to blame for pushing the "you must own a house or you're flushing money" crap. My g/f & I together make over $130K yet we live in an apartment that costs $866 a month. A little common sense and simple math shows that I'm far better off there than buying. If the rest of the population would do the same we wouldn't be where we are today.

Viper GTS

I realize that there is a bubble to consider and that it has not completely burst in my area yet. However, those 250k homes I was referring to were around 325k 2 years ago. I am not sure how much cheaper they are going to get although I do not believe that it is over yet. Also, people like me need to consider the future. The longer I wait to buy, the longer I will have to work before I retire. That and I got a kid who I would like to provide a yard to play in. I also want to have my own child with my SO before we get much older which means I need to consider the size of the house I am buying. That doesn't mean I am going to make a stupid financial decision, but it does mean I cannot wait around forever. It's not worth it.

 

[Glavinsolo]

1. These Bills should fail
2. People in these homes should take the hit and sit in it
3. If foreclosure happens then the bank will be forced to sell that home to someone more deserving this time around
4. The people kicked out of that house will have a new understanding of money and how to properly use it.
5. The people kicked out of that house will now live in a studio apartment with their 60" tv and Rooms to go furniture package.
6. The kids of the people kicked out of that house will have a stigma of their parents being burnt due to bad decisions.
7. The people who moved into the foreclosed house properly saved the 20% to do so.
8. The people who moved into the foreclosed house are properly supporting society since they are most likely to buy something on their dollar not VISA's.

Some people are mentioning in this thread that 20% is too difficult to accumulate. However, banks will take collateral. If you can prove to them that your net worth is more than 20% along with a monetary down payment you are in the clear.

Also in this thread no one is proposing a different solution to the bailout bills.

I propose reform bills for new home owners. If someone is wanting to buy their very first home. The government will analyze their financial records and back their loan. I'm pretty sure that is what SBA Federal backed loans do. I'm not 100% savvy in this area or if even a system currently exists.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Glavinsolo
1. These Bills should fail
2. People in these homes should take the hit and sit in it
3. If foreclosure happens then the bank will be forced to sell that home to someone more deserving this time around
4. The people kicked out of that house will have a new understanding of money and how to properly use it.
5. The people kicked out of that house will now live in a studio apartment with their 60" tv and Rooms to go furniture package.
6. The kids of the people kicked out of that house will have a stigma of their parents being burnt due to bad decisions.
7. The people who moved into the foreclosed house properly saved the 20% to do so.
8. The people who moved into the foreclosed house are properly supporting society since they are most likely to buy something on their dollar not VISA's.

Some people are mentioning in this thread that 20% is too difficult to accumulate. However, banks will take collateral. If you can prove to them that your net worth is more than 20% along with a monetary down payment you are in the clear.

Also in this thread no one is proposing a different solution to the bailout bills.

I propose reform bills for new home owners. If someone is wanting to buy their very first home. The government will analyze their financial records and back their loan. I'm pretty sure that is what SBA Federal backed loans do. I'm not 100% savvy in this area or if even a system currently exists.

The people who cannot afford a 20% down payment do not have collateral to present. That is not a realistic argument.

In addition, there are tons of people whose homes are being foreclosed upon and not all of them are the irresponsible spenders that so many people are making them out to be. They just wanted to buy a home so they went to mortgage lender. They didn't want a huge house, but when they were told that it is realistic that they could afford a larger house than what they expected they were pleasantly surprised especially after they were shown why this is true. So, being mislead with no purpose other than to make the rich even richer, they bought the larger place thinking everything would be ok. We all know what happened next. No matter how you slice it, everyone should not be expected to be as educated on this matter as much as a mortgage lender, a tax economics genius, or know all of the ins and outs of insurance. They need to know enough but for the most part they should be able to rely on the experts whom they have no choice but to deal with.

IIRC, there were bills being considered that are targeting these people while leaving the flippers and people who made a more obvious effort to buy something that was way over their heads in the wake. Those are the bills that I support more.