From the Comments: Who Is To Blame? All Of US

The comment by David Lentz above concludes with the flip quip to vote against incumbents -- a not-so-original version of "throw the bums out"! Home ownership was subsidized BECAUSE it was popular as much as it was popular BECAUSE it was subsidized. So I don't see how "throwing the bums out" is or would have been a good solution for this crisis. A universally-popular policy is generally supported by all people, whether these people are politicians or not. Remember the old phrase "Live, Liberty and Property"?

As for a story's "sex appeal," lets be honest. The reason this story was under told BY THE MEDIA and under-understood BY THE PUBLIC is because of the complex relationships that drove mortgage finance. As I recall from reporting eons ago -- late in fall of 2007 to be exact -- complicated financial instruments used by private financiers pushed the market bubble, along with existing regulations that were haphazardly-enforced or completely ignored. Experts conceived of "creative" finance. And other experts --public and private -- failed to perform oversight function.

So, EXPERTS -- of all types -- persuaded many individuals to make poor decisions regarding home ownership. These money changers preyed on people who understand deep notions about America like "Life, Liberty, Property" AND "the Pursuit of Happiness." And other EXPERTS failed to report the story until it had become sexy -- a really sexy CRISIS. Thanks a lot, Forth Estate.

EXPERTISE failed. So, needless to say, I am cautious about experts and expertise. I am equally suspicious when experts can convince non-experts that we are ALL to blame. Maybe we all deserve some blame, but we certainly are not all EQUALLY to blame. If experts can convince us of that, then we are all doomed.

Sent by Dave Pechman | 10:17 AM | 9-9-2008

I lost 30000 in my 100000 IRA because I bought Lehman bonds instead of the usual CDs. In December, Lehman was paying 7% on a long 30 yr bond and CDs were onlypaying 6% on long CDs. The Lehman bonds were rated A1/A+ and a "safe investment" according to Fidelity. Never again.

Sent by Vicki Asbury | 2:37 PM | 9-23-2008

My wife and I are solely responsible determining what we can afford. When we bought our second home approximately six years ago the bank was willing to loan us nearly twice what we were comfortable borrowing.

We sold that home just six weeks ago. Even when we were shopping for homes in this market, we were offered money that we were not comfortable taking.

At some point, people just have to accept that they bear blame in taking bad loans. I know several people who took loans that they couldn't really afford even when the market was 'prime'.

The best financial advice my father ever gave me was If you are going to dance, you have to pay the fiddler.

Sent by Scott | 2:37 PM | 9-23-2008

It wasn't just greed. For the last couple of years before this all began to unwind I was treated like a fool by friends and family whenever I said there is a bubble and it's going to pop and people are going to get hurt. I'm sure I was not the only one that was made to feel that you were fool if you didn't jump in and make your fortune in real estate.

Sent by Don in Portland | 2:38 PM | 9-23-2008

I have been listening for a short while. I am hearing much about greed within the upper eschelon, the general population, and so on. I undertsand the responsibilities of the conusmer but I one thing that I have not heard is about NOT just frugal spedning but about how American incomes are lsipping away from EVER being able to own a home. I think the explosion of homeownership was ot meet these needs. If America had to come to grips that the "American Dream" is no longer it would have a serious impact.

Sent by Amanda Archote | 2:39 PM | 9-23-2008

My mother taught me that "if you can't afford it, then you can't have it." It doesn't get any more sensible then that! If we all had followed this rule we wouldn't be in this mess.

Sent by Regina | 2:42 PM | 9-23-2008

Gee Whiz it's greed that caused this meltdown. Who'd of Thunk it. The real cause of this collapse is a fifty year right wing dismantling of the oversight process. The real blame goes to Saint Ronald Reagen and the economy of "ME" demanded by M.Freidman V.Hayak and Ayn Rand. Grover Norquist and his kind are the ones that should be tarred and featherd andparaded down Wall Street.

Sent by jo | 2:44 PM | 9-23-2008

I was just listening to Tuesday's show and heard an economist state that the present foreclosure crisis was Clinton's, Franks', Cuomo's, and Bush's fault for supporting legislation to encourage mortgage lending to the poor. This is the third time I have heard this point made in the past week. I don't know who is putting it out there, but somebody needs to question this explanation. Blaming your political/ideological opponents for a problem is NOT an explanation, it's merely a rhetorical trick meant to muddy the waters. This particular version also happens to have ugly racist undercurrents. If anyone is to blame it's probably the economists who gave credence to the idea that it was a good idea to allow banks to issue mortgage backed securities. If there is any major cause to this meltdown it is that practice. By allowing lenders to sell mortgages to banks, the lender no longer had to worry about the risk of the loan he was making. He's make a bad loan and sell it. He gets paid, and can turn around and make another irresponsible loan. There are no consequesnses. Of course the security rating companies didn't do their jobs either. I thought the market was supposed to regulate these behaviors automatically.

Sent by John Harper | 2:58 PM | 9-23-2008

This whole show was so very predictable.
It's a wonder anyone really even bothers. Can't we just make a generic
shine of the classic response to the
greed vs. responsibility issue and
visit it on such occassions as we now endure?

The simple truth - and I do mean simple,
is that as long as everyone is
responsible no one is responsible and
nothing ever changes. Five hundred years
from now the same discussion will be
going on with the same outcome.

I think it's pretty clear who's preditor
and who's prey in most situations. It
is also pretty clear who's powerful and
who's weak. I can look around me in
most circumstances with which I am familiar and know who's vulnerable and
who's not - and how. And I can use that
to take advantage of people, just as
easily as anyone can. We say "They should know better" or "They
should take more care" or they should
this or that, but we know we can be the
critical player. We can sometimes see
the advantage we have or even cultivate
it despite the other person - they're
distracted or overwhelmed etc.

I think we really do know when we, or
someone else, is cheating or taking
advantage of anothers folley or weakness
.
It just happens that the old
"Responsibility" tag becomes just to
darn handy. We talk about greed, but
are we not really talking today about
greed we are dragging out that old
rationale. You know, the one that
leaves the victum feeling bad about themselves even as they comtemplate
their injury.

Even the person struck on the head
from behind get's up and walks away
thinking they should have worn a helmet!
But we have a right to expect - even
a mutual need to expect, a reasonable
level of TRUST in our dealings with
each other. ENOUGH! of this, "well you
should have ducked"!

This all goes on because we have some-
how institutionalized the right to
dismiss common sense in our discourse.

Thank You

Sent by Ernest Collins | 3:08 PM | 9-23-2008

300,000,000 Americans. $800,000,000,000 dollars to bailout how many? After all, any common people that owned stock in these greed-centric companies have already lost their investment.

$800,000,000,000 needed to rememedy approximately 3% default rate overall in the home market? It's amazing how we have become conditioned to excess greed in the far right. It is an outrage that we should be expected to pick up the pieces (or should I say crumbs) that these filthy few have left us.

How about taking that same $800,000,000,000 and pass it out to the American people. Let US decide what companies are worth investing in and let the power elite eat their cake - after all - they wanted it didn't they? I say let's stuff it down their throats. They deserve to fail and spend their lives behind bars.

Sent by Dan Ellison | 3:13 PM | 9-23-2008

I am a Realtor in Tucson Arizona, and I do not think this is about greed at all. In the last year it has been very distressing to see about 3/4 of my work in foreclosures, short sales and bankruptcies. I have seen a lot of trauma and distress from my clients, and it is very difficult emotionally to work with. I have a background in social work and teaching and I always do my very best to help everyone.

By far, the main reason us Realtors see for serous financial distress, bankruptcy and foreclosure is unexpected medical expenses, such as a car accident, cancer, a seriously sick child, etc. You can ask most Realtors, and most will say the same thing -- it is medical expenses that push people over the edge into financial ruin, foreclosure and bankruptcies. I really do not think it is about greed at all, it is about a broken medical insurance system that can cause financial ruin in an instant. Especially for those tenuously holding on to financial stability. Imagine earning $20,000 a year - close to middle income in Tucson - and having a $300,000 medical expense, with more expenses coming.

Or, I have had several retired couples moving from out of state since they hear about the low cost of living in Tucson, the warm climate, and convenient entertainment and medical services. One of the couple is expecting to work part time for some extra spending money, but with the tough economy in Tucson, medical expenses, rising food and gas costs, both end up working for low wages and more than part time during what is supposed to be their golden years. They have done everything right, bought a modest home, and worked hard to fulfill their responsibilities. Their mortgages are just slightly over what rent would be, so buying is not a huge financial jump in expenses.

I choose my clients, and I work with nice people, not people who have crazy ideas about flipping houses. These are people that have followed all the rules and done everything right. They have worked hard their whole lives, saved money and have a good down payment. They apply for and are approved for a loan, find a modest home, then have a gigantic medical expense that causes them serious financial distress.

I do not think that blaming the elderly and the seriously ill for their "greed" is productive. Sure, there are a lot of contributing factors and people, and it is not a simple problem. But in Tucson the cost of housing is low and owning may only cost $100 or $200 more than renting, so I really would not say that the desire to own a house or condo is greedy. Medical expenses keep rising exponentially, and this I think, is the real issue.

Sent by Kelina Lobo | 3:16 PM | 9-23-2008

I was lucky, and I mean lucky, to have grown up in the 50's. My father built our 1rst house, a one-bedroom concrete block house with a combination bathroom and laundry room where we took bathes in a large plastic tub. My parents had 3 kids at that point. When another kid was due, my father bought the lot next door with cash that he saved and built a two bedroom frame house on a pay-as -you-go basis. When he received a paycheck from his blue-collar job every week, he bought a few more 2x4s and bags of concrete. Checking accounts, I think, did not exist, but certainly credit cards did not. Laws and local codes allowed more leeway so people could build this way, within reason. And so much of the American public lived as we did so there was no shame. My point here is that my parents never owed anyone a dime, and my family never felt deprived. My siblings and I had a great childhood.

I feel sympathy for kids as well as their parents today. The quality of life has in so many ways declined inspite of large, flat-screen TVs; 2,3,4, car garages and X-Boxes and Blackberries for the kids. Neighborhoods were safe and people looked out for all of the kids. There really is nothing to fear about having to live at a lower income level and it's easier to sleep at night when you owe money to no one.

Sent by Jeanne | 3:20 PM | 9-23-2008

I was with it up till the "solution" to throw out all incumbents. At least three problems with that:

1) Congress changed over from Republican to Democratic control two years ago. No one believes this crisis was caused in the past two years. If partisan politics is even to blame--and I don't think it is--restoring control of Congress to the people who controlled it for most of the past 14 years seems like an odd way to go about fixing the problem.

2) Both houses, and the Senate especially, need more than a 50% margin to get things done unilaterally. In the current case, where you have Democrats in nominal control but without a mandate, flipping would just put the Republicans in nominal control and not really cause anything dramatic to change. If you think one side or the other has the right idea, flip them back and forth as many times as you like, but neither will be able to accomplish their most ambitious changes. You need to increase their margin for that to happen.

3) Saying we're "all to blame" is a metaphor--to borrow a phrase, it's macroeconomic, not microeconomic. To take that broad idea, even if true, and apply it to individuals is as nonsensical as suggesting that when the Fed pumps money into the economy, we should all do likewise and eliminate our savings to buy tchotchkes at the mall. Suppose the brightest politicians in the country with the best ideas on how to fix this all just happened to be in Congress right now, but were a small minority. Throwing them all out just because they hadn't prevailed on the rest wouldn't make the situation better, it would make it worse.

(I'm amused by the practical matter that if somehow every single incumbent were voted out, the new Speaker of the House would be whatever rookie happened to get sworn in in a special election a couple weeks before the rest of the 434 freshmen were, and seniority for committee chairmanships would be determined by swearing-in order. Ridiculous.)

The "each and every time you vote" coda is just silly. As much as anything, the problem we're in now had to do with too much short-sighted thinking. Flipping every elected position every election couldn't possibly result in more long-term planning. To the contrary, schizophrenia would reign in short-term policy, and no long-term policy would ever get seen through again. One term, universal health care. Next term, kill it and eliminate Social Security too for good measure. Madness.

Sent by Trey | 3:34 PM | 9-23-2008

What is disengenuous about blaming 'greed' is that human greed did not suddenly appear in the late 20th Century. The point of regulation (and appropriating sufficient money and manpower to carry out these regulations) is to precisely guard against our human baseness and/or weakness from overtaking the smooth operation of the market machine.

The point of railing against individual greed -while also conveniently not naming any names- is that this puts off or obscures an acknowledgement of any systemic problems. Changing a system is much harder and unnerving than casting blame about at stick figures on Wall St. or in Washington. I think the discussion should be that the current system under Bush and the Republican ideology that government can do no good was rigged to fail. A government of institutionalized incompetance and personal resume padding is not a governance towards the public good.

A government cannot work like a corporation because the only sustainable government is one that works first and foremost towards fairness. And sometimes fairness takes more time and money than we might like.

Sent by Robert Murphy | 3:51 PM | 9-23-2008

I am glad to hear a common sense presentation of the financial problem that this country is going through rather than hearing that it is the fault of the Republicans or the Democrats. I think that both parties are at fault, but also it is the fault of the people and their greed. Everyone wants to keep up with the 'Jones' and not worry about the consequences because the government or someone else will bale them out. It always falls back on the people who are cautious with their investments. My parents who started their family during the depression taught good lessons about buying only what you need and not get into debt. Maybe this lesson needs to be learned today and passed on to the next generation.

Sent by Darrell | 4:01 PM | 9-23-2008

The reason people are so angry about the subprime mortgage mess and this financial markets disaster is that is was not in any way "all of us" who made "greedy" decisions to cause the problems. My family bought a house in 2001 with one fixed mortgage and one HELOC which we soon paid off. We did not buy the biggest house we could afford. To our knowledge we were not playing with fancy real estate investments in our savings. Our cars are 9 and 11 years old. Where is the greed? Yet as taxpayers we (and generations to come) are going to be on the hook for this enormous bailout.

Sent by Lynne Larock | 4:40 PM | 9-23-2008

I do not agree with one of your guest that blamed Clinton, Franks, Cuomo, and Bush for supporting legislation to encourage mortgage lending to the poor. There are many organizations and groups out there (for example Habit for Humanity) that responsibly lend to low income families. Banks offering people to cash out their equity to pay for a vaction or a new car is not responsible lending nor geared towards low income families. The real push for subprime mortgages came from Wall Street. They took subprime loans and were able to resell them to investors with the same rating as government bonds.
Stop trying to blame poor people and those that want to help them for the mistakes of the rich.

Sent by Geena | 7:52 PM | 9-23-2008

As I listen to C-span hearings on this boondoggle, I picked up on one interesting item...the statement that the financial district was using "mark to market" accounting. Anyone familiar with the energy trading meltdown should have seen this coming since the days of Enron. Apparently the "foxes" in the henhouse regulated the energy trading industry but forgot the banking and investment industry. Where were they, too busy taking perks and money from the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lobby who did their jobs "extremely well!!" I for one say let the bums fail, since when did they do any favors for anyone that responsibly pay their bills. Once again the middle class pays for the poor and the rich..... WE'RE OUT of MONEY!! Doesn't any one get it??? Believe me, I DO!!

Sent by Cindy | 10:17 PM | 9-23-2008

The current crisis is in the simplest terms a two part problem. On the one hand caused by the apathy and lack of regulation and oversight in Washington. On the other hand the result of fraudulent risk management models and predatory lending. These firms and executives are suffering losses in what was a truly "free" and unregulated market and have prospered by the unfettered transition of the earnings of ordinary Americans. For our leaders to reimburse the losses of these wealthy firms and executives is, in my opinion, the complete abandonment of the American taxpayer by Washington. The economic crisis at hand will not be held back from becoming a full blown recession or even depression by subsidizing the losses of the wealthy firms and executives that caused this burden in the first place.

Sent by John | 12:27 AM | 9-24-2008

How convenient that NPR and other media outlets are running pieces blaming the public for this financial disaster just as the Bush Administration asks Congress to approve a $700 billions bailout! Could it be that the media are setting the stage to help justify such a bailout? It certainly looks that way! Shame on NPR for promoting such a skewed viewpoint that completely ignores the millions of Americans who have acted with fiscal prudence and responsibility during the housing bubble.

Sent by Lisa | 1:26 AM | 9-24-2008

Where is the public outrage about this mess? Who do we blame but ourselves for putting our trust in these financial whorehouses? Why are there no public displays of protest? And Congress, do you really think they have a cogent answer? The uncharted territory here is our elected officials taking responsibility for something they created in good faith then left it to be raised by wolves. The monster bites back.

Sent by Mike | 3:30 AM | 9-24-2008

Greed? That is too nice a word, too excusable, to benign for the consequences and circumstances this nation now finds itself.
I prefer "Corruption". Yes, corruption in the most criminal of contexts. Public officials within our government who abuse the idea of democracy and free markets to mean unbridled license to do anything they wish and their only accountability is at the polls come election time. Corruption that allows them to selectively enforce or ignore laws, rules and regulations they are sworn to uphold. The Bush administration has done this very thing innumerable times and in innumerable venues. From immigration laws to FCC regulations to habeas corpus ad subjiciendum to the issue of naked short selling, it all embodies the absolute worst in people, in government and in our democracy.

Sent by Dash Gastineau | 7:48 AM | 9-24-2008

Yes, we can rightlfully blame the original lending institutions and banks for lax guidelines and short sighted greed to make the quick fee without taking responsibility for the long term viability of each loan. And yes, strong reform must be installed at basic levels like separation of the banking and securities industries. BUT, if we don't give the Secretary what is needed to bloster the credit market, life as we know it will grind to a stop. Very small companies may be able to carry on day to day business for a few weeks, but the larger ones depend on a daily credit martket to carry on their business. Without a liquid credit market they will grind to a halt within days which means rampant immediate job loss.

Sent by Susan Paul | 9:03 AM | 9-24-2008

Greed is a factor, yes, but the pressure to "make the numbers" within corporations can be relentless. And, those numbers are not just stable profits. The numbers are ever-increasing and when it looks like the numbers are not going to be met, people become almost desperately creative and come up with convoluted schemes to make the target.

I wonder if the business schools duly forewarn their MBA students about these pitfalls.

Sent by Joan Brant-Love | 9:42 AM | 9-24-2008

I agree with your speaker when he talks about a lack of common concern for our community or a failure, on the part of our citizenry to promote the common good.

But I do not feel responsible for the current crises. I have no power to regulate the financial markets. I am not the President and I am not in Congress. Why should I, and other people like me, pay the price?

Also let us remember, when we talk about the Congress, that over the past eight years, this has largely been a Republican Congress and only more recently has there been a very narrow Democratic.

The party in power (the Republican party) has been a party of greed and has fought to end any type of regulation. It has won maintained power by promoting intolerance for people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds and different creeds. In a large sense they promoted a way of thinking that is directly opposed to the common good.

Sent by NH | 9:48 AM | 9-24-2008

No, we are not all to blame. There are a few of us across this great nation that have enough common sense to realize that doubling or tripling an investment in the real estate market in just a couple of years is to good to be true. Unfortunately, having this type of logical thinking will not exempt us from paying, and paying, and paying for the carelessness and criminal actions of others.
Yes I'm angry, and no, I'm not surprised. When political leadership considers shuffling papers as an example of our wealth and potential as opposed to tangible products, we will all suffer. A person does not have to have a PhD in economics, finance or political science to understand that the path this nation has been on since the 70s has not been a shining example of capitalism or democracy. Realizing the capitalism and democracy have difficulty existing side by side, it appears that they both have failed. Let's just hope democracy wins!

Sent by JP | 12:23 PM | 9-24-2008

It seems clear that the deregulation of financial institutions of the past 30 years has, in the long run, not been a good thing. Greed ain't going away, folks, so let's protect ourselves from our lesser selves and re-regulate.

Sent by DeepSouthLiberal | 12:25 PM | 9-24-2008

Throwing the bums out ignores the real problem: price fixing in the realm of interest rates (i.e. the price of money) with the Federal Reserve System. If it weren't for the negative real interest rates of Greenspan and Co., none of this could possibly have come about in as ferocious a way as it has. The government created this mess, and now they'll have us peons believe that they are the ones to solve it! It is absurd. I even heard a comment on yesterday's Radio Times that the markets caused the Great Depression, and not the Fed affording the greatest increase in the money supply in history (until now, that is) during the 1920s. He then also conveniently said that the government solved the Great Depression when it is now widely regarded as being the main impediment to its eventual conclusion. I was shocked.

Please, I am begging the intellectual elite in this country, begin asking the question: why do we still have the Federal Reserve System in light of all its errors? Why do we trust the Federal Government? What is left of our Constitution?

Sent by Michael L. Federici | 12:43 PM | 9-24-2008

At the least "no compensation" for those at the top ought to be in the bail-out proposal. We may all share the blame, to a certain extent, therefore no group should reap outragous rewards. Distribute the bailout equally otherwise, so even those at the bottom might contribute to moving the ecomony and restoring confidence. Do the math on how much 7 billion breaks down per person in the US. If I'm going to pay for this the rest of my life, I'd like to know I'm not paying off the rich and greedy criminals who caused it. I'll confess my guilt and take my piece of the pie as well.

Sent by Rob Turley | 2:46 PM | 9-24-2008

Human are greedy beings with a lustful hope for "more." From the executives wheeling and dealing in their luxurious board rooms to the working stiff lying on his mortgage application in hopes of getting his piece of the American pie, "greed" is the force motivating the lousy decisions.
In the moment of crossing a "t" where an "i" should be, we all need to stop and think of the repercussions of the deception. When millions of people decide to lie and cheat and steal, we are all bound to feel its ugliness.
Blame? There is more than enough to share!

Sent by Jackie | 4:31 PM | 9-24-2008

i am a conservative. i remember growing up in a household of twelve siblings. we had everything essential in living a happy life americangreed and americans who are out of contol on spending more than they can afford. we are the ones to blame we voted these cronies in office and the ones who didnt vote need to be quiet. i refuse to bail any company out and these people need to be in jail. we as americans reallty need to have a revolt against the greedy people conservatives and liberals and like mccain stated enough is enough rise up american and take back our country before other foreign countries take us over

Sent by john zinn | 6:58 AM | 9-25-2008

"If you want to find the crime, follow the money."
Paulson, Bernanke, and a significant portion of the people under and around them, as well as the CEO's who caused this s**t, and Geroge W. Bush just for good measure, owe the American people much more than an apology for this. More even, than an explanation (when do we get those?). They owe us their lives.

I know next to nothing about economics but I'd bet every cent I'll ever make that 700 BILLION dollars in bad debt doesn't just happen overnight. If these men did not see this coming then they were not doing their jobs and should be executed for criminal negligence on a scale heretofore unseen in America. If they KNEW this was coming, and didn't warn people and try earlier to fix this, then they were willfully putting American lives at stake to reap private profit, and should be executed for treason.

And now they want us to hand Henry Paulson, the guy who either orchestrated this or was asleep at the wheel, a check for 700 BILLION DOLLARS with no oversight and restrictions? We're GIVING a private individual 700 BILLION DOLLARS? For ANY reason, such action is insane, and begs to be wildly abused. I wouldn't trust that slime ball not to just up and disappear with a fat portion of the cash.
Henry Paulson, where were you six months ago?
Henry Paulson, when George bush gets on national television and tells the American people our economy is fine and doing great, Why don't I see you leaning in from off camera, tapping him on the shoulder and whispering "Uh, actually Mr. President..."

And just as we can't expect one man to get us out of this mess, neither can the blame be laid at just his feet. Sure, I think he should swing from the gallows, it was HIS duty to see things like this developing and sound the alarm early. He failed either through criminal incompetence, or as part of a premeditated scheme to back the Govt and the taxpayers into a corner where we have no CHOICE but to make the repugnant decision to have a huge taxpayer bailout of firms and individuals that many of us do NOT want bailed out.

Forget throwing the bums out, I want to see these people hanged for their crimes! I'm saying this in full lucidity of mind and I don't want anyone to miss what I'm saying. I think that the people responsible for running these corporations into the ground with other peoples money, as well as the people in the government who were responsible for keeping track of the American economic system, and who's sworn duty it was to foresee this...It is my opinion that each of these people should be tried in court for roughly the charges I've leveled at them herein (for starters). If/when they are found guilty of these crimes I think that they should be put to death. My preference would be for hanging, but as long as they pay with their lives, I'll be satisfied.

Of course that's just clearing house, after that we need to work on a bi-partisan basis to develop a strong governmental response to this crisis, appoint people to the treasury department who aren't just smart, but are smart and trustworthy, and then to emplace regulation and critical review that will ensure that we aren't just bailing out these jackasses, only to have them go blow THAT wad out the window, laughing as they do.

Of course, doing this all in the ultra-short moment we have before utter economic chaos is going to be nearly impossible, all rather convenient for Paulson of course.

This whole thing is one big fustercluck.

Sent by Swing 'em | 11:49 AM | 9-25-2008

NO! I refuse to accept the blame for greed in the mortgage mess and I'll tell you why: For twenty years I worked in mortgage banking as the Underwriter (the person who made the decisions) and when I started out,I reported to a higher-up like the President. During the 1990s I came under increasing pressure to approve ALL loans, first through bribes, then threats, then demotions, and finally I was put in the position of having to report to the SALES MANAGERS who were paid by the dollar volume of loans APPROVED. Finally, all loans were approved or rejected solely on the basis of a credit score, whether it truly belonged to the applicant or not. In the end I was completely blackballed from the entire industry. I am really enjoying this mess, savoring the news as every one of those miserable companies populated by my old enemies have fallen, although I am sorry for those innocents who will be hurt. I tried to stop this train and no one would listen to me.
Ah yes, you remember me now - I was the one who told you so!(Pay no attention to that woman in the corner...)

Sent by Phyllis Reed | 3:31 PM | 9-25-2008

Neal I can't belive you had a man like Jim Wallis on your show. This religious view point is totaly laffable. (sorry can't spell, dislexic.) Have you ever watched any of these mega churches in the U.S.? They preach to tens of thousands telling them how they "deserve" to be rich, God wants them to be rich and have lots of things. Geeeeessss talk about double talk! It's like Opra, the way she has convinced people that by just beliving you deserve riches you will be rich, all you hear is be rich by stuff! It's no wonder the U.S. has gone a little crazy. As for me I feel lucky I have a good strong work ethic, I pay cash as much as possible, never barrow against real estate, your home should be payed for so when you retire you don't have a house payment. Homes were never meant to be this big of a money maker, and when homes increase in value 100% in 4 years that shoud have told us all wer are in big big trouble!

Sent by Jim From Arizona | 5:08 PM | 9-25-2008

Pretending that markets are free when they are being dominated by businesses too large to fail is what caused this crisis.

Big business should not be allowed to become too large to fail. A business with that much influence is too big for a free market. That kind of business can manipulate entire markets. It also has the privilege of depending on a government safety net if it fails.

The recent economic crisis demonstrates that such businesses will be rescued at taxpayer's expense when they suddenly collapse. And that diminishes a primary incentive for them to be efficient and prudent. It even encurages directors and executives to strategically create a crisis requiring a government bailout rather than suffer losses on their own. Big businesses in America have developed an entitlement attitude that should inspire corporate welfare reform.

If businesses that are too big to fail are allowed to exist, then they should pay for their own government entitlement programs. Their market dominance will help them pay for it.

This has been the arrangement for the lower classes. That is why social security tax rates go down for those who become wealthier. Wage earners should not pay for corporate welfare too.

To discurage corporate welfare fraud those in charge of businesses that either purposely or by neglect cause the government to pay for their rescue should be punished for a kind of embezzlement.

The only way we can enjoy the benefit of a free market economy is to prevent market dominance. Otherwise we must face the reality that big businesses are like utility companies. They need to be regulated to minimize the tryany of monopolies.

Wake up and break them up for freedom's sake.

Bryant Arms

Sent by Bryant Arms | 5:15 PM | 9-25-2008

I am an African American pastor who was raised to pay cash for stuff, make your home payments on time and not borrow much. I cannot get a credit card because I don't have a credit history. Why? because I have paid for everything in cash for years.

I used to feel bad about no credit card. Now I don't at all! Why? Because I don't have to lay awake at night wondering how I am going to pay the bills I made. If I don't have the cash flow, I don't owe.

I feel sad for those who do because the Bible says, "The borrower is the slave to the lender." Laugh at the Word all you might, the Truth of the Bible is unfolding right before our eyes! "Owe no one anything except the debt of love."

Sent by Trimelda C. McDaniels | 11:53 PM | 9-25-2008

Greed? Sure. Stupidity? That too. Both on Wall Street and Main Street. People wanted things they could not afford, and there was always some idiot willing to lend them the money to buy it. The financial markets can be important, but too much of it is churning paper and not adding real value. Every time there is a transaction someone takes a cut but don't necessarily add value. The markets too often are short-sighted which encourages bad decisions. For example, if you are judged by ROA, you can increase if by selling your manufacturing plant and leasing it back at a higher cost than owning it. That may be a good (short-term) business decision, but not an effective long-term economic decision. Wall Street bridles at the mere suggestion of regulation, saying the markets should rule, and as they are "circling the bowl" they are screaming for bail-outs. IF we (the taxpayer) bail them out, the government should get an ownership stake to benefit from the recovery. Executive compensation, golden parachutes and perks have gotten out of hand but don't insure performance. That's all been said before, so I'll try to offer something new - big mergers are often evaluated for anti-competitive consequences. There should be another litmus test - will it create a company "too big to fail" that might require a bail-out. There should no company so big that it can not be allowed to fail. Poorly managed companies should fail, and if they were doing anything of value the resulting vacuum will attract competitors who can do it better.

Sent by Brian Hodder | 12:18 PM | 9-26-2008