Thanks for the anecdotal evidence. Why use the term "predatory"? Did you bring that into the discussion just to move the goalposts and polarize the discussion?
A man comes into your office and applies for a mortgage. His credit rating isn't great and there are questions about his employment. Furthermore, the home he wants to buy is probably too expensive for a man of his income. There's no need to be "predatory" and twist his arm. Knowing you'll be selling his mortgage to someone else, you simply stamp his application and move on.
Would you like to insist that this has never happened?
It’s funny how only scumbags got wrapped up in bad mortgages. I doubt you find one lender ever forced a borrower into accepting a loan product.
They're all "scumbags" are they? Are you the same guy that was laughing at someone else for using emotive language ("rich idiots")? And why are you talking about being "forced" to accept a loan product? That's a ridiculous straw man. It's not my contention and it is not the issue. The issue is lenders who failed to comply with accepted lending guidelines and then misrepresented the mortgage securities which they sold.
Have I got this right? Lenders were all scrupulously honest and the borrowers were "scumbags". Is that the take home message?
Thanks for further proving my point.
How about you taking some time, and studying up a little better on the subject. Also, how about not spouting the DNC talking points on a conservative website. Man, you sound like keith olberman, only with wa worse suit and less spittle.
Follow my advice, and I won’t have to thoroughly embarrass ou like i did to RedinBluePA earlier today.