Why do libs let Clinton off the hook for creating the Housing Crisis?

Deal Score0

“…his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place.”

“Here’s an excerpt. Read it closely and you can see the seeds of disaster being planted:

For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.”

Note the praise for “creativity.” That kind of creativity in stretching boundaries we could use less of. Mason puts it well: “It strikes me as reckless to promote home sales to individuals in such constrained financial predicaments.”


I don’t claim that the Bush administration carries no blame for continuing the process? Or maybe for not reacting quickly enough. But this entire problem exists BECAUSE OF CLINTON.
How old are you? Do you own a home? They refinanced, they were on 5-year ARMS, they were on land contracts.
These were all the “creative” ways Democrats pushed to get people who couldn’t afford a home into a home.
This was an extention of the CRA.

We will be happy to hear your thoughts

      Leave a reply

      Register New Account
      Reset Password