Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The question they refuse to ask: Why are western societies so deeply in debt?

Posted 10 years ago on Nov. 30, 2011, 11:38 a.m. EST by Bomer (58)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The REAL reason... We bailed out banks, Why were they broke? The auto industry, Why were they broke? Now our government? WHY?

All they tell us is that we need to fix it... Why are we so in debt in the first place?

Note: My question is more rhetoric as in 'Why isn't the news asking real questions'.



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 10 years ago

Most of our money now comes into the world as debt, which is created on the books of banks and lent into the economy. If there were no debt, there would be no money to run the economy.


In a November 25th article titled “Goldman Sachs Has Taken Over,” Paul Craig Roberts writes:

“The European Union, just like everything else, is merely another scheme to concentrate wealth in a few hands at the expense of European citizens, who are destined, like Americans, to be the serfs of the 21st century.”

He observes that Mario Draghi, the new president of the European Central Bank, was Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs International, a member of Goldman Sachs’ Management Committee, a member of the governing council of the European Central Bank, a member of the board of directors of the Bank for International Settlements, and Chairman of the Financial Stability Board. Italy’s new prime minister Mario Monti, who was appointed rather than elected, was a member of Goldman Sachs’ Board of International Advisers, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission (“a US organization that advances American hegemony over the world”), and a member of the Bilderberg group. And Lucas Papademos, an unelected banker who was installed as prime minister of Greece, was Vice President of the European Central Bank and a member of America’s Trilateral Commission.

Roberts points to the suspicious fact that the German government was unable to sell 35% of its 10-year bonds at its last auction; yet Germany’s economy is in far better shape than that of Italy, which managed to sell all its bonds. Why? Roberts suspects an orchestrated scheme to pressure Germany to back off from its demands to make the banks pay a share of their bailout.

Europe is in the process of being “structurally readjusted” by a private banking cartel. If its people are to resist this silent conquest, they need to rise up and, using the ballot box and public banks, throw out the new banking hegemony before it is too late.



[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Neoliberal economics.

[-] 1 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Same reason the typical American has 10,000 dollars in credit card debt. We don't know how to restrain ourselves from spending, spending, spending. The Congress is merely a reflection of our own flawed values.

Heck I can see this in my own family, where my sister spent $110 for a cellphone plan. She only makes $10 an hour so she's basically throwing-away 11 hours of her life every month to service a glorified toy. (Which she doesn't even know how to use -- doesn't know how to surf the web or send text messages or anything else.)

Plus she has thousands in credit debt. And has nothing saved for retirement (only 15 years away.) Is it any wonder that the Congress spends more money than it has, when we the people set such a bad example for them?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

I have $17 in credit card debt, but this is micro economics.

Neoliberal economics are macro scale, and the reason your sister only makes $10hr.

I guess she should have negotiated a golden parachute.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

She actually makes $15.... the ten dollars/hour is what she takes home (after taxes). Also: Do you really think a high school grad that just drives a courier truck really deserves to earn more than $15?

If so maybe that's why our jobs are being shipped overseas... not even Chinese college grads earn 15 an hour. They are undercutting us by being less expensive. (Similar to how in the 1800s cheap American labor undercut british labor.)

[-] 1 points by karenpoore (902) 10 years ago

If housing and food costs would not keep rising then our pay would not have to rise.

Lower the cost of living in the US and then the pay could come down.

What does deserving this pay or that pay have to do with the fact that every contributing member of society deserves a decent place to live, food and clothing?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

In answer to your question. Yes.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Well they could pay her (and other truck drivers) $50 an hour, but then that would drive-up all other costs, like shipping your christmas presents from Amazon. Instead of say, $5 to ship a game or book it would be three times that amount.

And of course high-paid workers like me would want additional money as well. Instead of $40 pay me $120..... And then shortly thereafter my job would disappear (because it would be shipped overseas to India).

You can't just raise wages without consequences.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

You can't raise profits without consequences either, but it never seems to bother the guys with golden parachutes.

Why would you need more money? You already have paradise.

[-] 1 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

I have paradise??? Since when? And I'd need the extra money to offset the ~$15 shipping costs and ~$5 hamburgers/frozen meals that would result from raising blue collar wages.

raise profits

From what I've read most profits for industries in 2009 were only -1% (i.e. a loss) upto 5%. I don't consider that egregious.

Now contrast that with how government operates. It's estimated by Congress' Pentagon oversight committee that 40 to 60 billion dollars were wasted in Iraq rebuilding projects (by the military). That represents upto 96% waste of the original 62 billion that was budgeted. - I worry FAR more about that 96% waste (since that's MY money that was wasted), than the fact Nationwide Insurance made 2% profit last year.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Why are you worth $40hr?

Those monies in Iraq went to contractors under contract to the military.

That's just 'free enterprise'.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Because my skills are rare. Lack of supply increases cost. Vice-versa a truck driver's skill is not rare.

'free enterprise'.

Having worked with the military and it contractors, it's no more "free market" than Comcast Cable or the local electric company - it's typical government cronyism (I give you a job, and you give me cash for my reelection). BTW I noticed you didn't object to my -1 to 5% profit comment. I guess you agree that is not egregious.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Your skills are rare?

Grill chef, eh?

[-] 0 points by looselyhuman (3117) 10 years ago

We don't know how to restrain ourselves from spending, spending, spending.

Elizabeth Warren discovered differently. Very good lecture, entitled "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class":


[-] 2 points by holden123 (2) 10 years ago

The banks are broke because they cannot create real wealth. They are a symptom of the illness in the capitalist system. A system for profit period, since banks have no real means to create wealth they constantly ingage in loans and borrowing and what i would call getting blood from a stone. I say this because they have for years taken profit over the well being of the people of the world. They are and have been engaged in this practice every since the doors of banks have been open. And they know that they must survive at all cost, My question would be more of why are the banks still being allowed to continue on the path they are on when they get receive billions of dollors in bailouts and yet no one outside the walls knows what happens to all the money. it kinds of vanishes into thin air never to be herd of again. The auto industry runs into trouble because of they lack the abillity to adapt, to improve, instead they laid people off to make more profits and that ment that people did not have the jobs, and the reliablity on Nations that import steel and cars that are made cheaper but of better quality help destroy this economy. The government is suffering for a lot of reasons besides not having as much taxes as it needs to function it spends money it don't have on wars, none essentail programs and defending others with little or no compensation.

[-] 2 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 10 years ago

cause we live in a society based upon the promise of delivering wealth at another time. this has marketted a way of gaining power from wealth...

[-] 2 points by slizzo (-96) 10 years ago

we were in deep, deep debt long before the bail outs.

the real reason is politicians traded goodies for votes and campaign $ and wouldn't say no to anyone.

which is why this protest belongs in DC, not wall st.

but that will never happen because the president and the senate are run by leftists and ows is a leftist movement.

if ows is still in existence on Jan 20, 2013, and a republican wins the election, THEN ows will move itself to DC.

[-] 0 points by Bomer (58) 10 years ago

That's funny... I remember a vid of some Wall St guy coming down with cameras and trying to convince them they should be in D.C.

OWS should be EVERYWHERE!!!

[-] 2 points by slizzo (-96) 10 years ago

are you implying that if a wall st guy says something it MUST be false?

regardless, this protest should be in DC. they make the rules, wall st only takes advantage of the rules. DC allows themselves to be corrupted and bought and bribed. culpability lies in DC, but since a leftist is president and the senate is controlled by leftists, I know that won't happen. do you?

[-] 0 points by Bomer (58) 10 years ago

Nope Wall St runs the government... people go back and forth through the revolving door. One day they work in government, next day they work for a Wall St bank, next day they're lobbying for corporations. When was the last time anything went through the government for the people that there wasn't a huge fight over? When was the last time something went through for corporate interests? Uuummm, yesterday?

It's no mystery...

[-] 2 points by slizzo (-96) 10 years ago

"Wall St runs the government" -- the govt allows this

"people go back and forth through the revolving door" -- the govt allows this, too

why is this so hard to accept? the govt makes the rules. they have the authority. they allow themselves to be bribed and influenced. they can arrest, detain, prosecute and imprison people who break the rules. wall st cannot do this.

why is it so hard to accept who the real culprit is? at the very least, explain why a leftist president and senate aren't the reasons you can't accept this. because it really looks like the ONLY reason.

if this was happening 4 years ago, who in their right mind would believe that it would be wall st and not gwb's white house that would draw the occupiers?

[-] 0 points by Bomer (58) 10 years ago

"are you implying that if a wall st guy says something it MUST be false?"

Ever heard the saying, "If his lips are moving..."

Look, let me clarify... You seem to want it to be an either/or thing. It's not. These people are in collusion.

"The business of America is business." Calvin Coolidge

Like this is news?

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 10 years ago

it isn't an either/or. wall st is guilty of taking advantage of the rules that the govt makes. to me, it is a case of ultimate culpability. and the people who make the rules and take the bribes are the ones far more guilty than those who take advantage of them. wall st people did not swear an oath to the people. politicians do. If I'm splitting 100% of guilt, I'd call it 85% fed govt, 15% wall st. you see it as 50-50? if so, how do you explain away the difference in power, who each is responsible to, and who makes and enforces the rules?

[-] 1 points by Bomer (58) 10 years ago

To me anyway there's no pct of guilt. You are or you ain't...

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 10 years ago

weren't you the person who said "You seem to want it to be an either/or thing." so derisively in your last message?

I just don't understand why so many ows people cannot accept that the fed govt is much more culpable than wall st. it is so obvious.

[-] 1 points by Bomer (58) 10 years ago

They're all guilty! That's not either/or.

[-] 2 points by JohnWatson (250) from Nürnberg, BY 10 years ago

The theory of debitism explains this very simple. Please follow the link:


[-] 1 points by Bomer (58) 10 years ago

Many outstanding responses. Thank You. This shows how well educated this movement is and not just a bunch of slackers!

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 10 years ago

Employed people run the economy, businesses run the economy, our taxes pays for the infastructure, most people pay their debts, our taxes pay for the poor, so exactly what did banks do to create all of this debt?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago


we're a debt based economy

money is expanded by creating fractional loaning

[-] 1 points by Corium (246) 10 years ago

How to drive a country broke

Step 1. Debase the currency. There's nothing easier to spend than money that's worthless.

Step 2. Use a fractal lending system. This will allow massive amounts of fiat money to be created based on future production.

Step 3. Never ever ever have a real limit on government spending.

Step 4. If the population starts to notice how bad things look... start a war.

Step 5. Use the war as an excuse to raise taxes.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 10 years ago

because the news is owned by the 1%

[-] 1 points by justicia (58) from New York, NY 10 years ago

@ slizzo

The bribe giver is just as guilty as the bribe taker. Why do you focus only on "government" culpability. Wall St execs have spent $ Billions lobbying against financial reform that would prevent the need for more bailouts. They're not innocent bystanders. They perpetuate the corrupt system by working against reform.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 10 years ago

The popular media are 'simply absent' when it comes to asking the really tough questions because complex questions require thoughtful and often complex answers. We live in the age of attention deficit disorder. How many in the viewing or listening audience are willing to put in the time to learn and become aware? - That TV remote is on to a 'Friends' rerun so fast it would make one's head spin! Thunderclap

[-] 1 points by abusalman (47) 10 years ago

We have been calling out this web of fraudulent debt, money as debt on interest to be paid to cartel of banksters, for a long time. and so many proofs for instance
Another proof of Wall Street destroying Main Street , for obscene profits while destroying the real world The Dumbest Idea In The World Maximizing Shareholder Value http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/ key quotes The “real market,” ... world in which factories are built, products are designed and produced, real products and services are bought and sold, revenues are earned, expenses are paid, and real dollars of profit show up on the bottom line. ... The expectations market is the world in which shares in companies are traded between investors—in other words, the stock market.... Our theories of shareholder value maximization and stock-based compensation have the ability to destroy our economy and rot out the core of American capitalism. .... until we change the theories, future crashes are inevitable.” “A pervasive emphasis on the expectations market...has ....introduced parasitic market players..... Bottom-line: capitalism is at risk American capitalism hangs in the balance, writes Martin. His book gives a clear explanations as to why this is so and what should be done to save it.... A large number of rent-collectors and financial middlemen making vast amounts of money are keeping the current system in place. The fact that what they are doing is destroying the economy will not sway their thinking. As Upton Sinclair noted, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

also see: Sovereign bond crisis in US & Euro the beginning of total collapse See http://terrorismbreedsterrorism.wordpress.com/sovereign-bond-crisis-in-us-euro-the-beginning-of-total-collapse/ Key quote For Pento, however, sovereign default is a matter of mathematics. “History is replete with examples that indicate once a nation reaches a debt to GDP ratio of between 90-100 percent, two pernicious conditions begin to appear,” he said. First, public debt drains capital from the private sector, which stymies economic growth.
Second, the bond market no longer believes the country can repay its debt (partly because of the slowed economic growth). The market then charges the country higher borrowing rates, which leads it down a spiral of debt unsustainability. At the end of the 2010, the debt to GDP ratio was 94 percent for the U.S., 220 percent for Japan, and 119 percent for Italy, according to the IMF. Pento said eventually, these countries will either have to outright default or print their way out of their debt. Both scenarios, he said, will be deleterious to the economy.

Hedge Hogs; Gold Man’s Sacks; “financial terrorist attacks;” and the Obama sellout: http://abusalmandeyauddeeneberle.wordpress.com/hedge-hogs-gold-man%E2%80%99s-sacks-%E2%80%9Cfinancial-terrorist-attacks%E2%80%9D-and-the-obama-sellout/ SUPER COMMITTEE BIG BANK ROBBERY and “this sucker” going down http://abusalmandeyauddeeneberle.wordpress.com/super-committee-big-bank-robbery-and-this-sucker-going-down/ Terrorism by Economic Collapse, debt bondage, money as debt on interest, etc http://terrorismbreedsterrorism.wordpress.com/terrorism-topics/terrorism-by-economic-collapse/ Derivatives ‘Mother of All Bubbles’ exploding

http://inlightofrecentevents.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/derivatives-%E2%80%98mother-of-all-bubbles%E2%80%99-exploding/ Super rich 1% vs 99 %; Terrorism Cycle: Guillotines: Occupy “ALL” streets

[-] 1 points by ShowRealHist (60) 10 years ago

Re. “Why are we so in debt in the first place?”, I offer the following as the major reason.

The second chart here http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/RD_RJShomes_PSav.html shows the USA people’s undersaving and overborrowing SINCE THE MID-1980’s -- doubtless much-abetted by gross asset overpricings, see the first chart. Undersaving and overborrowing are excess “living off the future”. A sharp trend break to diminished excess took place after 2007 (second chart).

SO, what did our nation do? To otherwise fund excess “living off the future”, we sharply increased governments’ borrowing -- see this URL http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/debtGDP_whys.gif Note that the recently incurred ‘Debt to GDP’ increment is well above half that for WW2!!!

We the people have been severely fooled to get to this point. We are still being fooled by the conpersons-in-control, so that they can (1) escape blame, and (2) do it again. Here’s journalism: http://occupywallst.org/forum/condemn-venal-journalism-for-severely-fooling-the-/

Note that excess governments’ debt is, fairly phrased, “shafting the kids”. And think of the typical age of those who are killed/wounded ‘fighting for our way of life’ overseas.

The above performance of our nation’s ‘establishment’ is profoundly disgusting.

[-] 1 points by OneVoice (153) 10 years ago

Once the idea of a credit card was successfully marketed it changed the way cash on hand played into setting prices on merchandise. Changing lending practices and lowering these standards created an accelerated abundance of extended credit. With this new found credit the housing market naturally skyrocketed as more people just simply outbid another potential buyer. The refinancing market fueled the use and over use of credit cards. We became a consumer economy and were encouraged to spend which we did. Unfortunately, it seems that some people overlooked one small fact about housing. It naturally does readjust itself based on earned wages. The housing market was never designed to carry our economy. A house simply provides shelter. While all this is going on, CEO's were selling an idea the all politicians jumped on board with and were handsomely financially rewarded for their support. It was called names like fair trade and workforce globalization. As long as the housing market was artificially inflated, this globalization would work. Other CEO's in the field of Manufacturing Health Care and Education also enjoyed double digit sustained yearly profits. These corporations are still attempting to maximize these profits by reducing workforce wages and benefits. We now have interest rates that cannot be raised and although this is necessary to maintain these low rates prior historically higher rates encouraged saving money and receiving interest on this money that outpaced inflation. Our business and investment banking leaders created a business model that was quite profitable over the short term but it also was designed to eventually collapse onto itself. It was the longest running legalized ponzi scheme and the winners are the one's holding the money at the end of the game.

[-] 1 points by BTKcongress (149) 10 years ago

to live better today (1985-2007) at the expense of the future. that is the direct effect of "finance" (i.e., debt). debt expansion eventually leads to a reduction in living standards once deleveraging occurs. yep that's right the older generation 50+ really screwed us... then they'll whine when we reduce their medicare and SS.

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 10 years ago

Debt is the way to enslave the population.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 10 years ago

Perhaps it is a way to enslave, if the people put the chains on themselves. No banker holds a gun to your head to borrow, it's our own foolishness and greed, we run into the arms of slavery.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 10 years ago

How does one come up with $80,000 for a home while paying rent? A person must eat. They must have shelter. Where does your maid live? How does she eat? Do you pay the people you employe enough that they are not on foodstamps? Just curious. Some piss ant upper middle class people have been told the poor are jolly well living it up high on the hog at their expense by the wealthy who pay no taxes and get governement checks and rake in billions. Debt is by no means the only way to enslave people. You can trick them into voting for you too. You can tell them you are going to let the poor starve and then they will pay less taxes when you know you will be taxing them to pay the police and military to make sure you are safe from masses of hungry people. Its all win win for them. If your taxes were lower, you wouldn't keep voting those people in would you MsStacy? Just some FREE FOOD for Thought. Of course thinking is never encouraged, someone might notice the emperor has no clothes. Of course the kind of person who blames the victim deserves whatever gets thrown at them too.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 10 years ago

A home of our own is something most of us want, it's not a necessity, if the desire is strong enough you go into debt. If your income is around $40000 you should be able to afford a mortgage of $80000. That wasn't the point, if you can't afford it then you rent.

You are certainly right about tricking people into voting a certain way. All sorts of promises are made and lies told. If I'm poor I'm promised free stuff, if I'm working I'm told some lazy hobo wants me to pay for his free ride. We're now told all our problems can be solved if the rich pay their fair share, whatever that is. In those cases we need to look more closely at the candidate and vote them out of office more often.

The truth is, as a country we try to do too much without taxing enough, not just on the rich but on everyone that works. There just aren't enough rich people to pay for what government does now. The tax codes need to be fixed.

On a personal note, I rent, have no health insurance, and work for someone. I try not to be jealous of someone with more money and not resent paying taxes into a system that helps it's citizens. I do remain convinced my original point is valid, personal debt is something we have to take personal responsibility for. I'd only add that when it comes to politicians, it's easy for us to be tricked but there is always another election.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 10 years ago

If the rich paid their fair share, we could do a lot. Things were better when the county owned the hospital, and the state owned the prison. Privatization of things people need to survive and get back and to to work is not working. That was a huge lie. I don't hate the wealthy people but they have made themselves my government by buying elections and that needs to stop. It has to stop because they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Really this is for their own good as well. We need a middle class. If you gut the country, where do you go? If you gut the whole world and leave it for dead, where do you go? The Goose can't lay golden eggs if you kill it. You see they are in such a hurry to get richer they are bringing everything down around their own ears for short-term gains. And at every election who gets bought off the most wins. We could make them campaign on PBS and give them all equal air time, no more buy your own tv channel crap. Right now an election will just be more of the same bad government by bought off officials. Get rid of one, get another one just as bought off as the last one. I want to do the right thing by people. The wealthy are not doing right by people and in the end they are harming themselves as well. These big monopolies are not good. It ain't right for working people to need foodstamps whether they take them or not doesn't matter near as much as the fact they shouldn't be put in that position and faced with that decision. A lot of good people are poor. Don't glorify suffering that shouldn't be. You should be telling your friend, the person you care about, you won't think less of them for accepting help while they are in school and need it! With a degree they can get a job and will pay it back in taxes! What is wrong you, revering their suffering and wishing for more suffering than need be??? How did you get here in your thoughts? I've always been able to afford cable and internet because I live in a trailer not a house. I made that sacrifice but I don't begrudge others their foodstamps just because they have a home and I don't? Am I suppose to feel bitter and resentful that they got into a loan when their circumstances were better? Am I just eat up with jealousy over their flat screen? No. Do I have a flat screen? No, if mine blows up, I might, they are cheaper to ship than the fat ones now days. I wouldn't be sad at all if your friends took some foodstamps and were able to buy a book or eat some meat and take care of their bodies better and save on future medical costs. Why do you think they shouldn't have it? Why glorify and promote the shame associated with accepting aid when you need it? Why? In order for us to be able to experience the joy of giving, a person has to be in need and accept our offer to help. Therefore, God has seen to it we will have plenty of chances to give of ourselves, of our pocket books to those in need. The person receiving shouldn't be shamed, that5's not right. Think about it. Please.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 10 years ago

You seem angry with me, I'm sorry if I haven't been clear. I don't care what people do with their life. My basic point is that if debt is a form of slavery then we walk into it with the choices we make, we're not dragged into it unaware. I don't care how someone uses their money, or credit cards. They can decide they want flat screens, cable, smart phones, unlimited data plans, a new car, big house, whatever. Each person makes their own choices. When people choose debt they walk into that slavery you mentioned. I guess we walk into debt because we have a bit of greed in us, we want too much. That's the problem with freedom, we can make good and bad choices. The choices and the consequences are ours though, not someone else's fault.

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 10 years ago

I'm not angry with you at all. I just think it is retarded to cheer people on who are too ashamed to accept help and turn a blind eye to any suffering that causes them. I'm sure your friends can afford housing, tuition, books on one single pathetic income, no loans, no credit cards. I'm sure no one is eating beans and rice and potatoes and little else. You'd know if they weren't getting nourishing food wouldn't you? They are your friends right? I mean you will be there for them if they end up with diabetes from eating cheap crap for years??? They are really your friends right? I'm just saying. You are ignoring the fact that the documents signed by many "home-owners" were switched and altered for a lot of the people you accuse of willingly selling themselves into slavery by taking said loans were conned and tricked. Were you unaware that the banks broke laws and lied to get those papers signed? So you see it just appears to me you do have a blame the victim mentality. If you are raped in the future, let me know so I can ask if you had on your easy access skirt and were begging for it. I would never say something like that to a victim of rape, would you? Do you not see that you are doing just that? Its like saying a little girl murdered by serial killer deserved it because she didn't run fast enough. I'm not angry, not all people are good people. Some people have been victimized. I don't lie to myself and blame them so I sleep better at night. That's just not the way I live. I don't lie to myself to get threw the days or nights. The only thing it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. How deep does it go, is the stripper asking to be murdered, how about the student, how about a child in a bathing suit? I'm not angry, I'm somewhat fascinated, the same way I am fascinated by serial killers and abnormal psychology. I'm not sure you see what I do in your comments. I'm not angry though. I understand its quite common for people to blame victims of all sorts of crimes. The inconsistency leads me to believe you may just be unaware you are doing this and you may not consider yourself bad or immoral for doing this. I'm not angry at you, just curious.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 10 years ago

Let's stick with the point. Debt. I don't know your personal situation, here I can only talk in general terms, averages. Most people did not get their loan papers switched at the closing. Most people use lawyers because the home is such a big investment, they feel it's worth shopping around and finding a lawyer that can explain the terms and make sure a person understands what they sign. I don't know if there is any recourse once the papers have been signed as far as mortgage fraud is concerned. I'm sure some people were cheated, some had bad luck and lost a job, and I'm sure some others simply made a bad decision and couldn't afford the mortgage they signed up for. Averages don't help me if I was the one cheated.

I usually think of credit cards or car loans when I think of debt because I don't own a home, those kinds of debt are clearly the consumer's decision. In this case the indebted isn't a victim, they are just making bad decisions. Blaming the victim isn't right in most cases. Although I'd have little sympathy for anyone planning to spend all that money they were going to get from the Nigerian prince that emailed them.

As far as my friends are concerned, I can offer help in some things, comfort and understanding in others, many of my friends from high school never went to college. Money had a role in that decision. Personally I make mistakes and bad things happen, some by chance some are my fault, it's hard but we keep trying to move forward.

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 10 years ago

Most of the people that got these loans did not have a lawyer that worked for them. The bankers and loan officers have went on the record confessing to the criminal activity in many instances. Some people were told they'd be able to refinance and things and went along with it. A huge number of minorities who did not retain a lawyer of their own were victims of crimes. I don't doubt some people were just suckers thinking they could buy the home and sell it for a profit before the balloon payment was due and make profit (real-estate always goes up right?) I'm really not sad for the house flippers who bought to resell for profit and the bottom fell out while they were holding two mortgages. Unfortunately we have a lot of criminal behavior going on the part of bankers trying to get bad paper to peddle to the world. They need to be fair and let people refinance at the lower interest rates. They need to go after the bankers who committed fraud. I pay my bills, I've got awesome credit and I've never used a credit card in my life. I'm much better at giving than receiving, God knows I won't beg and if I had to ask for something I'd be crying for days. I still say under certain circumstances if the bank loaned them X amount of dollars on that house and if they give them the house back, the house was the collateral so they should be squared up. The bank owns this problem too by making a bad investment in the first place and loaning more than the over-priced house was really worth. Let the bank own their fair share of the mess they made!

[-] 1 points by Bomer (58) 10 years ago

That's excellent info and thanks. My question is more rhetorical though. It's me just wondering aloud why the news outlets aren't asking the real question.

[-] 3 points by JadedGem (895) 10 years ago

Our media is is owned and censored. Its just a propaganda machine, its not news.

[-] 1 points by Bomer (58) 10 years ago

Yea I know... rhetorical ;-)

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 10 years ago

The news? Tools of the corporist/government complex.




[-] 0 points by jaimes (86) 10 years ago

Because they spend so much money on social programs.

[-] 1 points by Bomer (58) 10 years ago

You need to read some history. This same thing happened 100 years ago... Read up on The Gilded Age

[-] 0 points by jaimes (86) 10 years ago

Sorry, this current president has spent more in nearly 3 years in office than ALL the other presidents before him , COMBINED.