On the surface, this sounds like a good thing. Banks gives non-profits first crack at foreclosured homes. Until you realize that

• these people are in the same demographic as the people who lost their homes to foreclosures.
• That these same banks made it a nightmare for people to renegotiate their mortgages so they can keep their houses.
• Also the gov't are paying the banks for these house as well.

No matter what happens, the taxpayer gets screwed.

What a wonderful idea! </sarcasm>

Well I guess the US will eventually be a husk of a superpower just like France and Britain and at one time Russia.

Hey I resent you saying we're not a super....o wait, who am I kidding. We suck...

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes On the surface, this sounds like a good thing. Banks gives non-profits first crack at foreclosured homes. Until you realize that these people are in the same demographic as the people who lost their homes to foreclosures. That these same banks made it a nightmare for people to renegotiate their mortgages so they can keep their houses.

why are these first two that horrible? The first one is essentially giving back to people who caught shit luck (how that's bad I have no idea), and the second one is pretty much blaming banks for people not being able to hold up their contractual obligations.

its not shit luck

it was taking loans with at a variable rate that they were going to be unable to pay. Its half the bank's fault for making ridiculous loan offers, and then packaging them and trading them, which infected the entire economy. Unfortunately people took loans that they couldn't afford to pay back.

however the people in the article didn't sound like they fell into that category.

Quote:

Original post by ibebrett its not shit luck it was taking loans with at a variable rate that they were going to be unable to pay. Its half the bank's fault for making ridiculous loan offers, and then packaging them and trading them, which infected the entire economy. Unfortunately people took loans that they couldn't afford to pay back. however the people in the article didn't sound like they fell into that category.

I know there's always exceptions to the rule, but demonizing banks when there are at least 3 parties, and usually more, at fault doesn't paint the full picture. The government and the people who signed mortgages they couldn't afford are both at fault as well.