Didn't the economy crash, in part, because loans were given to people who had no means to pay them?   If so, I'm pretty sure that started under Clinton. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2013 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Didn't the economy crash, in part, because loans were given to people who had no means to pay them?   If so, I'm pretty sure that started under Clinton. 

Posted by bad_luck on 11/7/2013 10:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2013 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Didn't the economy crash, in part, because loans were given to people who had no means to pay them?   If so, I'm pretty sure that started under Clinton. 

Pretty sure it was under regulated banks giving the loans. Not Clinton (or Bush).

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2013 10:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/7/2013 10:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2013 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Didn't the economy crash, in part, because loans were given to people who had no means to pay them?   If so, I'm pretty sure that started under Clinton. 

Pretty sure it was under regulated banks giving the loans. Not Clinton (or Bush).

Are you familiar with the Community Reinvestment Act?    Rewritten by Clinton in the early/mid 90s to put pressure on banks to loan to low income individuals.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2013 10:40:00 AM (view original):
But, to be fair, I'm not saying that was the only problem.    Plenty of people making buckets of money during the dot.com era were buying Ferraris and 30m houses that went way beyond their means if there was a "correction".     Just wondering how many banks said "**** it.   Clinton says loan 150k to someone making 20k.  Why shouldn't we loan 30m to a guy bringing in 100k a week?"

Posted by bad_luck on 11/7/2013 11:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2013 10:40:00 AM (view original):
But, to be fair, I'm not saying that was the only problem.    Plenty of people making buckets of money during the dot.com era were buying Ferraris and 30m houses that went way beyond their means if there was a "correction".     Just wondering how many banks said "**** it.   Clinton says loan 150k to someone making 20k.  Why shouldn't we loan 30m to a guy bringing in 100k a week?"

I think zero banks used that reasoning.

Why not?  If the gov't will bail you out on defaults, isn't a big money loan more lucrative?

Posted by bad_luck on 11/7/2013 11:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2013 10:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/7/2013 10:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2013 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Didn't the economy crash, in part, because loans were given to people who had no means to pay them?   If so, I'm pretty sure that started under Clinton. 

Pretty sure it was under regulated banks giving the loans. Not Clinton (or Bush).

Are you familiar with the Community Reinvestment Act?    Rewritten by Clinton in the early/mid 90s to put pressure on banks to loan to low income individuals.

I am. But almost all subprime lenders weren't subject to CRA regulation (only banks were subject to the law, most subprime loans were made by other types of lenders). The bad loans weren't made because of government pressure. The bad loans were made because Wall Street really wanted the loans.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/7/2013 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/7/2013 11:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2013 10:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/7/2013 10:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2013 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Didn't the economy crash, in part, because loans were given to people who had no means to pay them?   If so, I'm pretty sure that started under Clinton. 

Pretty sure it was under regulated banks giving the loans. Not Clinton (or Bush).

Are you familiar with the Community Reinvestment Act?    Rewritten by Clinton in the early/mid 90s to put pressure on banks to loan to low income individuals.

I am. But almost all subprime lenders weren't subject to CRA regulation (only banks were subject to the law, most subprime loans were made by other types of lenders). The bad loans weren't made because of government pressure. The bad loans were made because Wall Street really wanted the loans.

The bad loans were made because (a) the Clinton Administration encouraged that such loans be made, and (b) people were stupid enough to take out loans they couldn't possibly afford.

I may have mentioned this before, but I'll mention it again.  When my wife and I were shopping for our current house in 1996, we were "pre-approved" for a mortgage that was around $175k more than we felt confortable spending,  Had we been stupid and went with a much larger and more expensive house, there is around a 0% chance that we would have been able to afford to still be there.

Howard Dean is the only Dem that would do that.

Posted by moy23 on 11/7/2013 12:43:00 PM (view original):
The economy crashed because of 'greed'. The fed, the banks, and those that signed for mortgages they could not afford are all equally guilty. Arguing over which party is at fault here is pointless.