then shouldnt you also go so far as to say that it is the governments responsibility to NOT push for the lenders to make said retarded loans. and yet the government has managed to completely buck any share of the responsibility for that one.

Government created an environment that encouraged lending in general (for various reason). I'm not blaming anybody nor saying that people should accept responsibility for having done something -- I'm saying it IS the responsibility of lenders, borrowers, and policymakers to check assumptions (subtle difference between "A is person X's responsibility" and "Person X should take responsibility for A"). Again, I think that for the most part most of the decisions made were logical given the assumptions made, but I think the assumptions were faulty to begin with.

Quit with the smartass attempts to make yourself look like all knowing god laughing down upon us minions who dare take a "cute little" stand.

[quote=Lord Kuat]To me it seems that before you lend money, there should be some investigation if the borrower can eventually pay you back. That involves also looking into what they are investing the loan into. If you are giving a million dollar loan to a guy who makes minimum wage (with good credit) on a property whose value is grossly inflated, that seems like a pretty risky proposition. Don't you think the bank should have had a little foresight? At what point would you say the lender made a mistake?[/quote]

I don't necessarily disagree with this. Looking at it from the perspective of the banks is a whole different perspective but the same applies. The homeowners made idiotic decisions in accepting stupid loans and therefore deserve what they got. (Most didn't even get what they deserved, IMO). The banks still lost big time in their investments and should have suffered for it more than they did.