Sub-prime loans were made possible (regulated) by liberal attempts to make housing more affordable.
I'd take minor exception to this part. Democratic legislation (CRA) did encourage banks to lend to less safe borrowers. But I've read from two different cources (and of course, can't find either right now) that the percentage of their total lending that any particular entity had to hit to get a good CRA rating was only 5%. Yet lending institutions were pumping out subprimes as far more than merely 5% of their total lending. I believe banks went wild on subprime lending because it was a huge profit center.
Minor exception? You're freaking agreeing with me to the letter. Am I just that much fun to argue with that people manufacture ways to do it? Or were you just in this for the makeup ****?
Well, maybe hanging around Obama all this time has made me too much the fan of nuance. I guess I was trying to clarify the unspoken notion I read everywhere that Democrats, though the CRA, forced lenders to make all these subprime and Alt-A loans. (I.e., the lenders never would have done such a thing had not those bleeding hearts demanded it.) That's a crock -- lenders embraced dodgy loans because they made more money on them and they were able to sell them off (much like regular loans) and not be left holding the bag if the things did implode.
I didn't see much blame being thrown at the lenders in your post, which caused my "minor disagreement" lever to trip. If you were talking strictly in the context of political contributions and thus ignoring the market's role, then I do freakin' agree with you to the letter.
