the one thing that clearly is not Bush’s fault is the financial collapse
Wrong. Bush and Rove had an explicit policy of encouraging no-down-payment loans to low-income minorities who couldn’t afford houses under normal, responsible standards of lending. The crash in 2008 was the natural result of the housing bubble that inflated throughout the previous six years of the Bush-Rove presidency.
Read all about it:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/10/05/zero_down_mortgage_initiative_by_bush_is_hit/
“Zero-down mortgage initiative by Bush is hit
Budget office says plan likely to spur more loan defaults
By Chris Reidy, Globe Staff | October 5, 2004
President Bush’s weekend campaign promise that he will push legislation allowing for no money down on some federally insured mortgages could cost taxpayers as much as $500 million over four years because of a higher rate of defaults, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The election-year idea may appeal to those who can’t save as fast as home prices are rising. But some financial planners warn that increasingly common no- and low-down-payment programs can be ruinous for some consumers — especially if home values decline.
If housing prices fall, consumers with little or no money of their own invested in the home are more vulnerable to ending up with mortgages larger than the value of the house.
And those who can’t afford large down payments usually don’t have enough savings to serve as a cushion if someone in the household gets sick or is laid off.
“If you’re really stretching, maybe you should back off and look at a less expensive house,” said Joan Gray Anderson, a professor of family financial counseling at the University of Rhode Island.
Bush proposed zero-down-payment legislation earlier this year. The Congressional Budget Office has contended for months that the proposal would generate huge losses, an assessment that could be a stumbling block for the bill’s passage. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development thinks the program could be run on a break-even basis.
Bush contends that reducing the required 3 percent down in the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program to zero down would help 150,000 first-time buyers in the first year. Homeownership rates are now about 69 percent nationwide, compared to about 64 percent 10 years ago. The FHA insures many private-lender home loans.
“To build an ownership society, we’ll help even more Americans to buy homes,” Bush said in an Ohio speech to home builders. “Some families are more than able to pay a mortgage but just don’t have the savings to put money down.”
A no money down mortgage still has to have under writing scrutiny. You are like most leftist/progressives, using the fallacy of the undistributed middle to promote your deceptions. Blaming Bush for poorly run underwriting just because he promoted no money down mortgages is a typical Obama whine. The property to be under written is a collateral. With poor underwriting work, the property combined with the income history should be not Bush's responsibility but the banking under writeting responsibility. Obama deception troops will increase their DNC disease efforts at FR no doubt, but you have just outed yourself.
I’m not defending Bush’s milquetoast policies... but I’m not going to be swayed from the way I remember it by a Boston.com article. I read (and watched) extensively on this subject back in 2008/09 and though I haven’t kept up with it all I clearly remember the extensive evidence that these were RAT policies coming home to roost, that Barney Frank was a HUGE PLAYER in the high-risk loan scam and that the Bush regime did try to hold off some of the worst of it, but were overran by the rats and rinos.
I’m not going to go back and dig up all my old links now, so I’m going to have to let you have the last word, but before you do I just want to say, what you are saying is definetly NOT the way I remember it.