Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ElayneJ
Close, but not quite. What got the ball rolling was the Community Reinvestment act of 1979. This mandated a certain percentage of loans to low-income folks. This was premised on the well-intentioned theory that higher home-ownership rates would result in urban renewal.

In 1992, the original percentage of loans through Fannie/Freddie mandated to go to low-income folks was boosted to 42%.

In 2000, it was boosted to 50%.

On numerous occasions, George W. Bush attempted to reform it, and was blocked by none other than Barney Frank.

The inevitable happened and the tidal wave of defaults began to crash on the shore in 2007. And now, the very folks who advocated making these loans in the first place are the ones most vocal about investigations for the cause of the current economic and housing crisis. Interesting, that.

An extremely useful reference resource on this topic.

60 posted on 03/07/2009 7:24:51 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: Lexinom

Thanks for the explanation!
I understand the thinking behind this, but of course there are those pesky unintended consequences. :)
So it sounds like as housing prices rose during this time, 50% (50%!!) of loans were still allocated to “low income” individuals. I’m guessing income didn’t rise at the same rate as housing, so the number of people in that low income bracket were buying homes that were increasinging out of their price range. Right?


68 posted on 03/08/2009 7:32:49 AM PDT by ElayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson