On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:00:32 -0500, "Don Phillipson"
wrote:

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .

obviously, the measure of 'wealth' has evolved since Smith's time. . . .
it's strange days we're in when someone who thought they could afford a 5
series now feels they should benefit from the services of your food
pantry.

Obviously. It's even stranger when Barney, Dodd, and Obama told those
poor people that they could afford $400,000 homes when they only made
$50,000 per year. That is the crime, Tom.

Well, US bankers for at least a century told borrowers that the
maximum house price they could afford was 3 or 4 years' gross
income, "told" not merely in words but in deeds, viz. refusal to make
loans outside that envelope. All of a sudden, the new idea was
proposed that anyone could afford a house costing 8 years' income
(and no evidence offered why this might be the case.) Why should
anyone be so simple as to act on this belief?

Exactly. But Barney and Dodd and Obama et al thought that it would be
ok. There were warnings but no one took heed. Like I said, I would
love to drive a Bugatti Veyron. I can't afford one; they cost in
excess of 1.5 mill. But, it would be fun to own one for awhile. So,
I pay, let's say, $5k a month for three months, then I realize that I
can not pay for it. The loan company already *knew* I couldn't affor
it, but gave me the money anyway. I did have my fun with it, however,
and all it cost me was $15k. Who picks up the rest of the bill? The
taxpayers I am afraid.

Dave