It's all government interference and unintended consequences. Those second mortgages were sold as tax deductible.
Yes I understand that but your original point--posted to me-- is like a discussion about a person who pushed someone off a cliff and someone saying, "..but what about the gravity that was involved."
Everyone understands people lost their rears as the end result of this, so I'm not sure why you decided to counter with that. My point was about the policy that led to this, not about the obvious damage. That's why I said, "So what?"
Yeah...and they would have never lost it like that had in not been for the changes that took place in the 1990's.
Even the NY Times called it in 1999: "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."