n
ative
in
You are peddling James Arthur's view of the situation. In fact the U.S. government did want the banks to lend to people in higher risk groups - which is to say members of minrities who lived in low-income neighbourhoods - and accepted that this was going to lead to a somewhat higher proportion of defaults than the banks had been used to, and subsidised the loans to cover this.
This is a long way short of "forcing the banks" to write ninja loans to to people who everybody knew couldn't afford to pay them back - basically, the banks were too lazy and irresponsible to run the thorough credit checks that would have made it possible for them to make home loans to only those members of the high risk groups who were likely to pay them back. That would have taken time and effort, and depleted the pool of potential borrowers, who naturally preferred to borrow from lenders who were willing to lend them money without asking them lots of tedious questions and making them hang around until their stories had been checked out.
dTrue, but the banks were prepared to lend against the bubble-boosted value of the properties, which has to be pretty stupid.
Actually, Uncle Sugardady is using your money to prevent the consequences of the banker's irresponsible behaviour from tanking the economy for a couple of years - unemployment went up to 25% during the Great Depression, and stayed there for a few years.
Nobody wants to have to bail out the banks, but not bailing out the banks makes the situation a whole lot worse.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen