medecineman - you should know better. In an argument, if you make ten points, and one has the potential to be turned around against you, guess which one will be quoted in the very next response? It doesn't even matter how valid your other points are.
In your defense, the bubble started under the Clinton administration, but grew unchecked during the Bush administration. After the dot com bubble, investment money moved to housing, which was still growing very quickly. That started probably 1999-2000. There were about 7 years during which action could have been taken by the Bush administration, but of course nothing was done.
I'm no liberal, but damn right I'm scared! The thought that this woman may become president gives me the willies.
No liberal, huh?
This debacle started when liberals began to oust the free market, long ago. Carter, Clinton, Frank and Dodd fired the last shots that killed the exotic beast named Capitalism.
How Subsidized Housing Keeps the Poor Down - Book review - by Carol W. LaGrasse
Excerpts-
Husock outlines six decades of public housing projects and other types of subsidized housing for the poor in the United States, the trillion dollar ($1,000,000,000,000.00) housing mistake, as he aptly calls it.
Beginning with President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s National Housing Act of 1937, the numbers have ultimately become daunting. Today, 3,200 public housing authorities concentrate the poor in “permanently subsidized communities where illegitimacy remains the unquestioned norm and work isn’t seen as leading anywhere.” The author faults the nation’s vast public housing system for “sheltering exactly the same people whom welfare reform targets—unwed mothers, whose fatherless families have proved incubators of social pathology.”
Husock reserves his most severe analysis for the
Clinton-era toughening of the treatment of banks under the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) signed by President Jimmy Carter under the aegis of eliminating “red-lining.” The Clinton era foisted severely low lending standards on the mortgage industry. Husock shows that the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA) epitomizes the aggressive use of the radical CRA standards to distort the mortgage market. With an annual budget of $10 million, NACA closes on 5,000 mortgages per year, earning the organization a $2,000 fee on each transaction. Carrying the supposed need to end red-lining to an extreme, NACA, with millions in federal funding, acts as a gate keeper for mortgage lending to supposedly oppressed and permanently disadvantaged borrowers for whom society must bend the rules. Down-payment requirements are “patronizing and almost racist,” says Brian Marks, NACA’s chief executive, a former Scarsdale resident. Banks kow-tow to Mark’s disruptive tactics at annual meetings and their targeting of bank executives’ homes. But Husock believes, “There is no surer way to destabilize a neighborhood than for its new generation of homebuyers to lack the means to pay their mortgages.”
