Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (229261)	8/14/2013 8:40:42 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542525

Since I'm a subscriber to the WSJ it opens for me (here) and apparently not for anyone else who is not a subscriber. Must be some kind of cookie attachment that discriminates. I was interested in your take on the "alleged" facts in the article. Basically it provided percentage figures to show that the "fast" and "loose" lending policies to 'create" affordable housing started in the Clinton Administration so that by the time Clinton left office 45% of the FHA loans were "outside' the normal parameters, and then this policy was continued in W's administration with said loans topping 50% of FHA's total. I would want to know, on a historical basis, in order to assess the accuracy of this claim vis-a-vis the Clinton Administration, what the loan critieria was at the FHA for "normal" loans prior to his taking of office and what i was changed to (if it was changed) and if it wasn't changed then what was considered an "abnormal" loan. It may that these non-normal loans were still solid, not necessarily subprime stuff. So one would not to know the failure rate of the non-normal loans both before and after Clinton taking office. In other words, there is not enough info (for me) in the article to assess the accuracy of the allegations. As I said previously I am mainly interested in what the housing policy should be going forward, but this viewpoint by Graham was such a one eighty on your previous take I was interested in what, if any, input you had on it. Sorry I couldn't put up the entire article. Possibly I can find it elsewhere.