I found someone to blame for the housing bubble! Bill Clinton

And it makes a lot of sense to me. When my girlfriend and I were marveling at housing that didn’t make sense, Clinton was president.

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ’90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

That’s from a really readable explanation from Investor Business Daily editorials explaining how Clinton era demands to house minorities forced lenders into high risk loans.

Follow Clinton’s initiatives with the Democrats failure to regulate Fannie and Freddie in 2003. You can’t blame this one on President Bush at all. He tried, and Democrats said no.

Nancy Pelosi is having a little trouble in reality, though. She still claims Democrats had no hand in the housing bubble and resulting market crash.

Imagine how damaging it would be to have both the presidential and congressional branches of government managed by the Democratic party. McCain is the necessary vote to maintain balance in November.

H/T: That rascal BrkfldDad.


  1. You have GOT to be kidding.

    You are overlooking quite a bit in order to draw a line between Clinton’s strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act (surely a Socialist plot that did NOTHING to help lower income people achieve the American Dream, right?) and the current greed-fueled, Bush-blest fallout.

    Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts subject to CRA regulations – – that’s according to the president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve.

    Also, quoting further some liberal tripe at the American Prospect (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis):
    “It is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn’t even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan’s Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.”

    But, appropos to the manner with which the McCain organization is mangling the truth, you may choose to ignore those contrary facts in his honor. πŸ™‚

    I’ll never claim the Clinton administration was without its share of corrupt knuckleheads, but your attempt to absolve Bush and Co. of the mess they made falls short.

  2. John-

    “Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.”

    So only a paltry 25%? Mere chicken feed.

  3. John, aren’t those the same “American Dream” contestants that blame me when they default on their mortgages?

    You sure went ballistic. I must have hit a nerve.

    BTW, I agree the run up was greed fueled, but as I argued, you’ll find the culprit in the mirror more often than the board room or Washington. Further, you blame Bush without details.

  4. It’s not even the specific issue that rankles me so much (I can show you how liberal policies created suburban sprawl, for instance); it’s the way the Right willfully overlooks the deregulation follies that were bought and paid for by the people that got Bush appointed.

    The Bush administration did nothing to protect consumers. Predatory lenders have a friend in the Republican Party as a whole, and a few Democrats as well.

    Have you seen what’s been allowed to happen to our troops when they attempt to get a post-service loan or maintain a mortgage while deployed? Shameful – and corrective action is stunted by the Bush administration.

    What did the Bush administration order the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to do in 2003, at the peak of the predatory loan crisis? Google it and tell me how THAT helped American citizens who were NOT corporate officers at banks and financial institutions.

    The “right people” were helped, all right. Don’t overlook such obvious patronage.

    And, hey, I put a smiley in there in the midst of the ballistics :)!

  5. Smileys are definitely helpful tools sometimes.

    I have no need to Google for your argument. You’re welcome to do that for me if you’d like to make a point.

    The veteran issue, if it’s as you described, is crummy, but not part of this argument.

    Bush was elected, not appointed. And Democrats have been in control of congress 6 of 8 years Bush has been in office.

    Clinton embraced banking deregulation. He signed the bill undoing Glass-Steagall in 1999. Yes, that was a Republican controlled Congress.

    You and others are quick to claim it’s Bush’s deregulation that caused this, but darn if I can find it right now, and you – well, you didn’t offer any proof. All of the links showing Bush deregulation are comments from those like you who would prefer to rewrite history.

  6. “Those like you who would prefer to rewrite history.”

    You are tenacious, I’ll give you that. All who recognize Bush’s shortfalls “prefer to rewrite history.” It’s hard to progress beyond that rebuttal.

    Thomas Frank: Prefers to rewrite history.
    Bob Woodward: Prefers to rewrite history.
    Scott McClellan: Prefers to rewrite history.
    Craig Unger: Prefers to rewrite history.
    Richard Clarke: Prefers to rewrite history.
    Kevin Phillips: Prefers to rewrite history.
    Vincent Bugliosi: Prefers to rewrite history.
    John Dean: Prefers to rewrite history.
    Bruce Bartlett: Prefers to rewrite history.
    Paul O’Neill: Prefers to rewrite history.
    Paul Pillar: Prefers to rewrite history.
    Rand Beers: Prefers to rewrite history.
    Larry Wilkerson: Prefers to rewrite history.
    Ron Suskind: Prefers to rewrite history.

    So they ALL got it wrong and … Sean Hannity gets it right?

  7. John, you kind of, sort of, forgot to prove your statement, “it’s the way the Right willfully overlooks the deregulation follies that were bought and paid for by the people that got Bush appointed.”

    I have NO idea why you interjected Hannity. The research I showed was my own. For goodness sake, I used Mother Jones as a link!

  8. I’ll not spoonfeed you out of your state of denial – – the list of writers in my previous comment couldn’t do it; how can I?.

    …Except to say that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, must also be “Bush-haters” because they actively opposed and warned against Bush’s inaction during the rise of the predatory lending crisis and his allowing the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, which rendered them inoperative. The OCC also created new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks.

    That’s “bought and paid for.”

    You should have gotten that in the top five results of your first Google search. Along with the fact that it was Eliot Spitzer, that paragon of virtue, who brought Bush’s (in)actions to the nation’s attention.

    I mentioned Hannity because he’s an “author” who seems to believe Bush deserves a great big “atta boy, big guy” after his awesome adventure.

    Now should we discuss electric utility deregulation on the West coast and its repercussions? Wanna Google “Jay Inslee” “Cheney” “Ken Lay” and “Enron” and ignore all of that as “rewriting history” as well?

  9. John, you got pwned, and you know it. You made a statement about Bush and deregulation that you couldn’t back up, so you moved the conversation away from your statement every time you were asked to defend it.

    A list of every author on the net can’t change that now, can it? And you forgot a link to your latest accusation.

    I happen to know electric utility deregulation and Enron very well, John. My husband audits energy companies. He was a partner at Arthur Anderson when Anderson was falsely accused of wrongdoing and the partnership collapsed.

    If you’d like to embarrass yourself a second time, you are welcome to bring it on.

  10. You kind of lost me there – my point was made clearly, succinctly, and to the satisfaction of anyone without a cinderblock sized chip on their shoulder. I made no accusation: just an observation. This is how you treat guests who disagree?

    If you don’t like “the Google,” Here’s a link for you to ignore: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

    And when did you start with the World Wrestling Foundation faux-taunting in lieu of substantive rebuttal?

    If you’re RELATED to George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, I apologize because I feel like I’ve offended close relatives.

    And if you “know electric utility deregulation and Enron very well” and STILL trust and respect Bush and Co., I doubt I can sway you with anything so bland as facts and suggested reading.

    No hard feelings, but I won’t see your response. Trying to keep things friendly and productive, agree to disagree, etc.; I don’t mean to challange your ideology or dogma.

  11. “I happen to know electric utility deregulation and Enron very well, John. My husband audits energy companies.”

    Is that like having extensive foregin policy experience because you live near Russia?


  12. John, it took a bit, but your colors showed through. All I did was repeatedly ask you to support a statement you wouldn’t retract. I think it’s sad to see an intelligent man like you irrationally blame George Bush for everything.

    BTW, you conveniently shifted the argument from your claim that Bush’s deregulation caused the housing failure to a claim that Bush’s influence on consumer protection caused the housing failure. (Championed by no less than Elliot Spitzer! Talk about a boulder on the shoulder.)

    Mr. Strupp, no, it’s not. But you don’t really care, do you?

  13. Edwin Burke says:

    The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    This was written in 2003 by the NY Times, the Bush administration didn’t look the other way, ideologic democrats prevented a regulation when it was needed. Here’s the link


  14. jamesjoseph says:

    Looking at these posts from the vantage point of 2010, I think John was more right than wrong.

  15. Well folks, as you can see, I’ve opened comments again. It always surprises me when someone weighs in on a post that’s more than a year old.

  16. Randy in Richmond says:

    I think, about a year later, John was more left than right.

  17. Congratulations. You found the last guy on Earth who believes CRA caused the housing crisis.

  18. This is especially interesting given the recent discussion on Festinger and accepting ideology as faith. Strupp, there are lots of people that place blame on CRA. And lots that believe the president was born in Kenya.

    If you pray on it God will set you straight. If that doesn’t happen you are just not doing it right, although socialists are known to have problems with prayer.

    If that’s the case try to steer clear of natural disasters. That’s how God fixes that sort of thing.

  19. Randy in Richmond says:

    There’s debate on the causes of the housing bubble but most all believe the Community Reinvestment Act was a bad idea.

  20. Agreed on CRA