How does a former reporter for The Washington Post score a 2,200-word column on the mortgage mess in her former publication? Never mention personal responsibility.
Kathleen Day took blame to a new level June 1 when she failed to mention personal responsibility even one time in her lengthy column. Day, now a spokeswoman for the left-wing Center for Responsible Lending, was a financial reporter for the Post until mid-2007.
Day blamed just about everyone else - from Wall Street to banks to brokers, to the White House, to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to Congress to credit-rating agencies - for the problems in the housing market. But she never hinted that borrowers might share some blame.
In fact, Day stood up for borrowers who got in over their heads, claiming lenders "aggressively coaxed millions of borrowers to take out unaffordable mortgages," as if borrowers didn't know their financial situations and didn't have an opportunity to read mortgage documents before signing them.
You might think somebody - anybody - at the Post would have noticed the failure to mention personality responsibility in the epic column and venture to suggest she might at least throw the concept a bone.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"Day, now a spokeswoman for
June 2, 2008 - 18:08 ET by Chris Norman"Day, now a spokeswoman for the left-wing Center for Responsible Lending, was a financial reporter for the Post until mid-2007."
So, Ms. Day still has, more or less, the same job?
Responsibility?
June 2, 2008 - 18:08 ET by bubbatech01that's the government's job. There is no such thing as personal responsibility in a liberal's world. Buy more house than you can afford, not your fault. Eat hamburgers and get fat, knowing that hamburgers are laden with fat, not your fault, its the big bad corporation's fault and the government's job to provide you with assistance to ensure that the lard in your body is well taken care of. i buy a cheap piece of crap from china because i spent all my money on starbucks lattes and find out later it has lead, not your fault. you are offended by someone, not your fault. failed in school, not your fault, the public should should not have had "F"s as grades anyways. you are addicted to crack, cant keep my legs shut, and keep having babies, not your fault, the government should issue you checks to make sure you maintain your lifestyle.
Lovely.
They left out the most
June 2, 2008 - 18:30 ET by motherbeltThey left out the most obvious: It's all George W. Bush's fault!
The new moral code:
No one is repsonsible for their own mistakes.
But everyone is responsible for the mistakes that others make.
mb, You mean it takes a
June 2, 2008 - 18:32 ET by Chris Normanmb,
You mean it takes a village?
Yeah!
June 2, 2008 - 18:51 ET by motherbeltIn warped kind of way. LOL
I'm not responsible for my own mistakes, but I can be held responsible for yours!
Works out great if you're always the one screwing up!
Yeah, I've always said I
June 2, 2008 - 18:59 ET by Chris NormanYeah, I've always said I need "people" to blame, but everytime I look behind me, there's no one there...
Quit your Day job.
June 2, 2008 - 18:56 ET by CrashI have this picture in my mind of a drooling pack of capitalists poised to strike their prey with razor sharp talons. I'm walking along a street of cookie cutter McMansions, minding my own business, when BAM ... out of nowhere I'm forced to buy a house I can't afford. Grow up Kathleen this is a free country and blah, blah, blah, with freedom comes responsibility.
I think your missing the
June 2, 2008 - 20:05 ET by mandrakeI think your missing the big picture here. Of course personal responsibility is a part of the equation here. Me, I hate debt. Even if a bank offered me a boat load of money at a subprime rate I wouldn't take it.
But, the other side of the equation is what the Wall Street guys figured out.
1) You could buy and sell shares in mortgages as if they were stocks.
2) You could sell insurance to the holders of mortgages against losses.
So why do I care? Well , a Canadian bank in which I hold stock is currently writing down losses over US held mortgages.
BUT...
June 3, 2008 - 00:08 ET by UnsaneBut, If No One Took Out Debt The Couldn't Afford To Finance, Wall Street Wouldn't Be Able To Do Those Things As Readily, Could They?
It's not surprising that such logic could be lost on a citizen of a Nanny State.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane
June 3, 2008 - 00:33 ET by mandrakeActually we agree on that point. Banks should stop lending money period. My feeling is that if you have to borrow money in the first place..then you can't afford it.
Mandrake
June 3, 2008 - 00:39 ET by RESTLESS 1I agree to a point. I mean, who can afford a house out of pocket. Sure, they could rent, but that, IMO, is a waste money. The problem is that too many people won't, or can't, (thanks for the public education liberals), read and understand the terms and conditions of the loans they take out.
In addition, banks were pressured into giving loans to people who could not afford them, because many minorities couldn't get loans. Liberals pushed for this, and adjusted rate mortgages was the result. Another example of liberals making matters worse by butting in without thinking.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Who can afford a house out
June 3, 2008 - 00:47 ET by mandrakeWho can afford a house out of pocket? It's easy, my wife and I started out living in a tiny one bedroom appt. for 5 years. Lived on macaroni and cheese. Saved every penny. Bought a run down dump of a house for cash. Spent two years fixing it up. Haven't looked back since.
Rent
June 3, 2008 - 00:49 ET by UnsaneRent isn't as big a waste of money as you think. We ALL have to live someplace at some point. I'd much rather pay rent than pay a mortgage of a property that was overpriced in a housing bubble.
I was pilloried for not immediately buying a house in Anchorage when I lived there, and people were dismayed at why I wouldn't: 1) I have no intention of permanently returning there after my time is served in the military and 2) prices DO in fact come down.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Most people who view a
June 3, 2008 - 00:54 ET by NL207Most people who view a rising market that has been doing so for 5 years or more will adopt the unfounded belief that such a market can never fall. All such persons will question your sanity, intelligence or both for believing otherwise without regard to the truth of the proposition.
Unsane and Mandrake
June 3, 2008 - 01:00 ET by RESTLESS 1Mandrake, I'm not saying it can't be done, but if you are at a point where you can afford a modest home, and try to sneak into something better because you didn't take into account that adjustable rates often times adjust up, then the rentor is obligated, not you, me, or the man on the moon, to pay up somehow. I'm saying that mortgages are fine, if you are willing to do your homework.
Unsane, I am not denigrating people who rent, but if you can buy during a buyer's market, then to me it makes sense, since if you do some homework, you can buy a house with mortgage payments that are the same as monthly rent. I would rather own, but that is just me.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Clarification
June 3, 2008 - 02:25 ET by UnsaneUnsane, I am not denigrating people who rent and I never thought you were doing so...I just cringe at people who make that statement because at some points in time for various reasons (not all financial) it makes sense to rent, but if you can buy during a buyer's market, then to me it makes sense, since if you do some homework, you can buy a house with mortgage payments that are the same as monthly rent. I would rather own, but that is just me. As would I, but in my case, other factors come into play (how long will I live there, can I see myself living in "City X" for at least a good portion of the mortgage period, how does the employment picture look, etc). I would MUCH rather prefer to own my own place, but that will have to wait until my list of criteria can be properly answered.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Risk
June 3, 2008 - 00:52 ET by UnsaneBanks, AND borrowers, need to know and understand what risk is, evaluate it, and be willing to accept it. The end. If a bank doesn't want to roll the dice, they shouldn't make the loan. (Isn't that what a loan officer does???) If a borrower gets queasy at putting his name on the dotted line...well...perhaps he/she shouldn't.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Yes, but remember, banks
June 3, 2008 - 01:04 ET by RESTLESS 1Yes, but remember, banks were being accused of racism, pressured by lawmakers, and capitulated and gave out loans that weren't wise. I'm not trying to give the banks a walk here. If the lendee can't pay, then the bank takes the home and gets what they can for it. Govt. stepping in, with our hard earned money, to save the homes of people who should have known they couldn't make payments, ant save the banks for lending to people they knew couldn't make payments is unacceptable.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Indeed
June 3, 2008 - 02:26 ET by UnsaneAll too true to my unending fury and frustration.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Hate to burst your bubble,
June 3, 2008 - 07:15 ET by FranksamMandrake, I hate to burst your bubble, but how would banks make money? The ATM fees night be annoying, but they aren't nearly enough to keep the doors open.
"Actually we agree on that
June 3, 2008 - 07:29 ET by ckc1227"Actually we agree on that point. Banks should stop lending money
period. My feeling is that if you have to borrow money in the first
place..then you can't afford it."
Possibly one of the top 5 dumbest things ever said here at Newsbusters.
Only the top 5? Dang I was
June 3, 2008 - 11:19 ET by mandrakeOnly the top 5? Dang I was shooting for the number 1 spot. I'll try harder in my next rant.
But seriously, my distrust of debt, while apparently dumb to you, has served me well. I've never taken out a bank loan and my credit card stays put in my sock drawer. I'm now comfortably retired..so dumb?
Don't forget "discriminatory" lending practices.
June 2, 2008 - 19:42 ET by trak65For years, lenders were browbeaten over their allegedly discriminatory practices when it came to granting mortgage loans and setting rates. The high default rate = the "discrimination" crowd's chickens coming home to roost!
Yet another chapter from
June 2, 2008 - 21:24 ET by stratmanYet another chapter from the progressive manifesto by a MSM apparatchik.
This merde could easily be the words of Lenin, Marx, Mao, Chavez and Castro... or even Woody Guthrie.
I was discussing the sub-prime mortgage debacle with an educated professional recently. He calls himself a "conservative" in the mold of Truman yet his rhetoric is nearly exclusively Liberal, the one exception being the defense of Israel (he is Jewish).
Over the course of two different conversations he never once mentioned the borrowers. As we were concluding our last discussion, I asked him if the borrowers had any responsibility and, if so, how much. His response was very little shared responsibility. Nearly all of the blame fell on the corporate/wall street/wealthy types - they were the greedy ones, not the borrowers (who could obviously not be held liable to understand a written contract.).
His solution was equally telling. Only more laws will "protect" the people. And the rich must distribute their wealth more to ensure those less fortunate become more fortunate (appearantly by virtue of existence only).
RRAM Tough!
See my above post. How is
June 2, 2008 - 21:36 ET by mandrakeSee my above post. How is it possible that a Canadian bank is left holding the bag over USA mortgages? Where does my 'personal responsiblity' come in there?
More
June 3, 2008 - 00:13 ET by UnsaneUm, the same reason some German banks (among others) are. Because the world of international finance is becoming increasingly interlinked and interconnected. I'd be willing to bet that a Canadian or two got effected by, for instance, the Northern Rock disaster in the UK.
Is the Canadian bank in question privately owned, or are there stocks traded in said bank? If the latter, the responsibility falls upon the shareholders - perhaps you, if you own shares in the said bank.
Do ALL Canadians believe that they are to be 100% inoculated from risk while at the same time helping themselves to as much of the reward as they want?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Mandrake:International
June 3, 2008 - 02:04 ET by stratmanMandrake:
The "personal responsibility" I am referring to relates to mortgage borrowers (potential homeowners) who need to not only bear responsibility to understand contracts they enter into but also personally determine if they can afford the mortgage regardless of the lender's determination.
International economies are becoming increasingly dependent upon other countries' economies. The USA is tied to China and China is tied to the USA. Some believe this interdependence is a good thing when it comes to promoting peaceful coexistence. Some find it an opportunity for expanding wealth. Some have found it as yet another avenue of risk. You are alluding to the risk portion.
To see one way in which Canadians can and did get caught up in their neighbor's (the USA) subprime mortgage debacle see here.
High finances not my forte, maybe one of the more knowledgeable finance people on NB, like Noel Sheppard, could chime in.
RRAM Tough!
Illegal sub-prime loans?
June 2, 2008 - 21:30 ET by Anchor89I wonder how many sub-prime loans were made to illegal aliens.... I bet 60 minutes has top reporters working on this angle right now - yeah right.
In northern Virginia...
June 3, 2008 - 10:20 ET by Prester John...Latino real estate agents and mortgage brokers were leading their ethnic kin, all of whom were undoubtedly here legally (wink), like lambs to the proverbial slaughter.
Our county has something on the order of 7,000 empty homes, so if you're looking for a deal in the DC area come on out to Prince William County.
Note: many of the homes have been thoroughly trashed/looted by the previous "owners" who rented them out to hordes of day laborers, so allow for some repair costs.
Personal Responsibility Redux
June 2, 2008 - 21:35 ET by geoff.galeIn my deluded youth, straight out of college in the 1960's, I entered the mental health profession ready to help the world. I soon learned that those around me were imbued with the hateful liberal doctrine of "oh, you poor dear, why of course you're not at fault" which they taught to their clients. Of course they had friends in other disciplines (social work, education, medicine, politics and eventually business) and they taught their clients/customers the same thing and so their demented philosophy grew.
Now, all these years later, we all get to see the results of a philosophy of unmitigated personal irresponsibility. Bankruptcies, repo's, divorces, drug addiction, etc.
Talk about chickens coming home to roost!
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
Wash Post thinks everyone has low IQs?
June 2, 2008 - 21:58 ET by wdhorningThe implications of this article are staggering.
First, to not blame one single borrower is to imply all these borrowers had IQs so low they did not know their borrowing limits, did not know now to read a loan agreement and did not know a bad deal when it was presented to them.
You see, if all these borrowers had high IQs, then the Wash Post could blame them all or at least most of them for not knowing better. However, the Wash Post must thkink all these borrowers IQs are so low they cannot be blamed. I mean, what else could be The Wash Post's reasoning for not blaming the borrowers?
Bottom line, does the Wash Post think all these borrowers had low IQs? Is this arrogance or the part of the Wash Post or what? What an insult to these borrowers!
Second, the Wash Post believes big government should be big brother and no one deserves any kind of respect, because in effect by not blaming the borrowers, it is being disrespectful to them. It is actually more respectful to blame them, which is to tell them they do not need big brother, and that they are capable enough without big brother's help, but simply screwed up. This does not preclude advise or counsel of friends and/or professionals. It just means that The Wash Post's ideal of a socialist government that "baby sits" all the time is an insult to the masses.
Third, while there has to be some blame for the brokers who may have qualified under-qualified people, the Wash Post fails to blame economic problems caused by a Democrat-controlled Congress and for the higher prices in all categories due to higher energy cost (which effects everything) and is caused by Democrats who refuse to let oil drilling proceed. In otherwords, the real culprits are the Democrat who have hurt the poor, not to mention it was the Democrats that pushed Republicans into buying into the plan to let market-based investment firms, not just the banks, lend to people without the strict requirements banks usually have for lenders.
Fourth, the Wash Post should blame itself for not opposing these lending schemes in the first place. (Show me one editorial opposed to it by a Wash Post editor.)
borrowers + victims =
June 2, 2008 - 22:00 ET by Blazerborrowers + victims = voters
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
There seems to a wilfull
June 2, 2008 - 22:14 ET by mandrakeThere seems to a wilfull blindness to my point. Agree that ALL borrowers are morons and should be locked up. Furthermore, I agree that any bank that lends to said morons should be allowed to go belly up..bye-bye.
What I object to is that these banks can 'package' these loans as securities and sell them to other institutions.
Irrelevant
June 3, 2008 - 00:02 ET by tony23It's not willful blindness. It's that YOU are missing the point.
So these mortgages can be sold. Did someone force you to go out and buy stock in that Canadian bank?
Oh, I see - YOU don't want to take responsibility for your own bad investment, is that it?
Maybe you should have sold the stock when you found out what they were doing.
If you didn't know what they were doing, well, then, too bad. You should have found out.
If you can't be bothered to do that, then maybe you shouldn't have invested in the stock.
(BTW - sorry for all the line breaks - but the comment form is covered up by the ads in FireFox. - oddly, the 'preview' form works ok)
There was actual fraud
June 3, 2008 - 01:01 ET by cleverpigThere was actual fraud involved in this, and there was gross incompetence on the part of risk evaluation firms on Wall Street. Any investor, whether it's in a publicly traded company or real estate, assumes the risk for normal downturns and other problems that arise, but they should be able to prosecute brokers who committed fraud to make a quick buck.
People selling these loans lied about the income of the borrowers without telling them that they were lying. Risk firms gave subprime mortgage shares AAA ratings based on data collected from prime loans.
The average investor is forced to trust things like risk ratings because they don't have the information to evaluate themselves. I think this is a case where investors would have every right to sue those companies and try to get back any money they can.
Personal responsibility is obviously part of investing, but no one can be omniscient and predict all of the things that can happen when other players are deliberately gaming the system. That's why we have regulatory bodies.
Like I said earlier ...
June 3, 2008 - 09:19 ET by Crash... "with freedom comes responsibility."
In our family owned business we accept that some costs are inevitable, if we don't adjust from time to time we get bitch slapped by the hand that feeds up. If one assumes risks for a potential gain, they must be aware that loss is the flip side of the gamble ... unless they're complete idiots.
Buy low ... sell high. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Develop a long term strategy. If it sound too good to be true... The list goes on, still we had the dot.com bust, now the housing "correction" and we're headed for a precious metal and energy sector bust. The question is when do you sell?
"What I object to is that
June 3, 2008 - 07:10 ET by ckc1227"What I object to is that these banks can 'package' these loans as securities and sell them to other institutions."
Why do you have a problem with this? Besides, they've been doing it for decades with no problems. If you're afraid that the bank you invest in may make get hold of some bad mortgages, then don't invest in banks/financial institutions. For that matter, since the potential is there for companies of every kind to have their investments come back to bite them, you may as well not invest in anything.
WD, that's what big government
June 2, 2008 - 22:15 ET by BodiniWD, that's what big government begets you! Morons everywhere! It is time the Federal Government is reduced to just the branches that were mandated by the constitution. Maybe its time for another tea party ... except this time it should be held in DC and the 535 members of congress should be tossed into the Potomac. We'd have to abolish the EPA first, because that many lawyers in the river would certainly pose an environmental hazard that would require superfund bucks to clean up.
Lawyers are paid to deceive. Never cast your ballot for a professional liar.
What a load of .....
June 2, 2008 - 22:53 ET by hungarianfalconTwo years ago I was in the job market and turned downed several prospective jobs in California over salary vs. cost of living- conversation would start out "what salary are looking for?" and I'd answer "I'm at X and Cal. is double my current cost of living so I'm looking for 2X." Response was always, "that's just not reasonable." End of conversation.
I also knew several nitwits that were doing the flip thing or they were going in with friends and fiances (up to as many as 4 non-legally bound (outside of their mortgage) full-time employed signatories) on a single-residence property.
Bottom line is that property values in places like California have been grossly out of line wrt median salaries for eons and correction(s) were/are inevitable. From my vantagepoint, they still are way overvalued.
These freakin' liberal candy asses that want to do anything but hold people accountable make me want to puke...
HF