I wrote back HERE that the sub-prime mortgage crisis wasn't all just "cons who cooked up some scheme to fool the banks into giving them a house." Now we see an article like THIS ONE and we can also cross off "losers" from the list, Rick Santelli be damned. Edmund Andrews not only was making $120k/year when buying his house, he also IS A FUCKING ECONOMICS REPORTER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES!!!!! and has found himself in the same position as thousands of Americans who DON'T get paid to write about economics: total financial destruction and on the edge of homelessness after getting into something that should've fallen under the "too good to be true category," thanks in part to blinding wilfull ignorance and a series of institutions who's only disqualifications for a loan were "dead" or "is MC Hammer." Frightening to fucking read.
Well. Unless you were brilliant enough to remain impoverished throughout those years. Sorry, suckahs!!
Mukluks Tip: Andrew Sullivan.
3 comments:
If you know you are spending $3,000 dollars a month more then you make, and you know that you are going deeper and deeper in debt but still keep spending in excess, then you are responsible for part of economic the problem.
I had written in my own linked post that everyone was responsible, and the writer of the article quoted his mortgage guy re: "its your signature, not mine." Nobody's claiming the buyers weren't as responsible as anyone else; my point was that it was well-informed, educated people with money who walked into the same situation as described by the "pull yourselves up by the bootstraps" crowd that "losers, gamblers and cheats" did. Please actually read the links or articles before immediately leaping ahead to your incredibly obvious, rote, sophomoric & trite comments that really don't add anything to any possible discussion.
Homer J: It takes two to lie Marge, one to lie and one to lsiten.
Post a Comment