Define "responsibly".

banks are very responsible with respect to there own interest. As far as the consumer being responsible, they just care that the predict the right number of people don't default on there loans.

If they guess 20% defaults upfront, and set an interest rate accordingly so they make a profit, it is responsible for the bank (no so much for the consumer).

Before the home loans were incentives by the government, only about 60% of working families could qualify to buy a home. When the crashed happened, we were up to 75% (thanks to government incentivizing).

Today, guess how many families can get loans? around 60%. The number that it should have been all along. People can get home loans, and banks are lending. It seems like so many people now can't get loans, because those people who never have been given loans in the first place can't get loans now.

As for why this happened? It happened for two reasons (both governments fault).

One, is Fanny and Freddy were being audited regularly, but when the auditors came before congress each time and told them Fanny and Freddy were in trouble, they are raked over the coals and told they just don't want poor people in homes. Mostly because Fanny and Freddy were paying a fortune to congress through lobbiest.

Second, The banks were told these loans were insured and guaranteed through the government (not really true). So banks thought the risk on this money was zero. In the end, the banks were right, as the government is giving them money for the loans. Come Monday, the government is going to buy up billions in troubled assets.

I can't find it, but there is a clip from Bill Clinton talking about the bill he signed to start this ball rolling. He wanted to get the housing market from 60% to 66%. Bill even states that it was risky, but they had enough money at the time to cover it. If President Clinton had to do it all over again, he never would have signed that bill.

And here is a video of the issue with Fanny and Freddy in Congress. Try and overlook the partisanship of the video. The important thing is people knew this for a long time, and did nothing.

i agree, the system needs alot of reforming and improving, but a bigger budget would certainly help with the reforms, think how good schools and hospitals (uk) could be?

ok, i take your points about the crisis in the US, i think banks first duty should be to the consumer (public) but obviously they should also try to make a profit, thats why i suggested a better more progressive tax system and that the government buy up unused homes and rent them out to people at an affordable price, covers that 15% your on about, maybe even more, sure they dont own the house, but they have somewhere to live at least, as for small bussiness, we should try to make sure theyre profitable somehow as they employ so many people

Why are people taking about me in this thread with respect to taxes? I never brought up taxes in this thread?

I brought up that Obama want's to cap your salary, not about what he wants to do with respect to taxing it.

And capping salaries in the USA is a horrible idea.

For this to work, you would need to live in a socialist country. Things in the US don't work that way. In a capitalist society, business don't look out for consumers, consumers do (and the government is supposed to).

The question becomes tough, what's in the best interest of consumers? In this case, the banks were offering more to the consumer then they should, so it puts the burden on the consumer to not get themselves in trouble.

To say the banks should have had the consumer in mind, means someone at the bank needed to say “well, everything is in order, and the government backed loan you applied for went through, but in looking at how many kids you have, and your job, I just don't think this is a good idea for you. For your best interest, we are not giving you the loan. Please realize we are just looking out for you.”

yea, not sure how well that would have gone over.

my point is that the government should supply affordable housing, that way the consumer dosent need to take out a loan they cant pay back from the bank, and yes it is socialism, but i think socialism is much better than capitalism

I don't currently feel like devoting time and energy to this thread when it's just a horrible flamebait-fueled ideology food fight, BUT I need to set the record straight on one thing: 

Your other thread was also horrible flamebait, and the only reason there's a good debate going is because we MOVED AWAY from the original topic (which as far as I can tell is "Aren't Obama supporters insane?"). 

The UK is smaller then most states.

As such the overhead of the US is going to be MUCH bigger.  Also being less densley populated it means we waste more money as "pet projects" are "needed" for every senator and congressman.

If the US adopted a UK type school and hopsital system it would cost many times more the UK systems which are already really expensive.

which is why you need progressive taxation, helps with that problem

OMG people clean this up