The latest thing I'm hearing from Republicans is that this is Clinton's fault because the poor banks were strongly encouraged to lend money to poor black people.
These types of comments have gone unchallenged in what I've seen on CSPAN. I'm wondering, because I really don't know, how it is that the lenders, when faced with this directive should be absolved because the solution they came up with was unsustainable, enriched themselves, and encouraged the bailout(s)? I really think I'm missing something here.
The bill to which they refer is the Housing Restructuring Act of 1992. I'm so used to the Republicans finding a way to drag Bill Clinton into the present never ceases to amaze. The fact that no one is vocally challenging this particular assertion leads me to believe there may be some truth in it.
I should check, but I think that's the bill that prevents redlining, a practice designed to keep qualified borrowers from getting loans for homes in some neighborhoods.
Clinton wasn't even President in 92 was he - isn't that the election year so he would take office the following year? I think the bill you are referring to is a bill from New Zealand but don't quote me on that....