The fact is that both sides to a great extent were for opening up the housing market.
The Democrats were big on the idea that owners that had an actual ownership stake in a community would take better care of it. Which is true but you do have to have the income to make the payments and stay an owner.
Many Republicans liked the idea of more business for the banks, Realtors etc. But once again if the lending institutions get too carried away and get into predatory lending territory that's a recipe for disaster as well.
So on this one it amazes me when either side points fingers... hell they were both well intentioned (how often does that happen at the same time?) in many instances the outcome simply just not turn out as they had hoped or expected.
But here's the other part of the reality. Only 12% of the mortgage meltdown was attributed to these kinds of loans anyway. That means 88% were not low income incentive loans at all... 88%!
So on this one I go back to the big picture and what was missing was better and stricter regulation across the board... low income... middle income... high income... had regulations on lending been tighter all across the board when the economy slowed the mortgage problem would have not been nearly as big a deal.
Lesson: Better regulation, more money down or more collateral, looking for adequate income for after an ARM adjusts not just at loan inception... these kinds of things.
This isn't a blame a Party thing. If we're going to go that route because the Dems wanted more home ownership then we also would have to look at the Republicans overall policy of pushing for deregulation on all businesses including banks.
This is something that needed fixed granted but it's disingenuous to point fingers on this one.
