Let me clarify a little bit, as I re-read my comment it’s far too general. Discrimination by lenders definitely exists, and it’s absolutely wrong when it’s based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. I think it’s less of a problem today than in the past, but it will probably never go away completely. It’s sad, but probably true.

But my example exists as well. Lenders generally decided not to lend money to people who they didn’t think could pay it back. In some cases, these people also happened to be black/Latino, etc. Clearly these people weren’t discriminated on the basis of their ethnicity, they were just a bad credit risk. There was definitely pressure from politicians, lawyers, and those who felt discriminated against to demand that the loan take place. And when the borrower defaulted, the lenders were criticized as “predatory” and “greedy”. Overlooked is the fact that it’s a poor decision to lend money when you don’t think you’ll get it back, so how were the lenders being predatory or greedy? Anyway, I digress.

As for deregulation, I tend to disagree that’s the cause. Are you referring to some specific law or rule that was repealed or de-regulated out of existence? I think there’s a lack of transparency with the mortgage process, but that’s not a de-regulation issue per se, it’s simply regulation that was never enacted. Hard to fault anyone for that, Congress or otherwise.

Finally, the attitude of the country in general is one that “everything is OK as long as we’re making money” is certainly not unique to the Bush administration. Clinton presided over his own great markets and nobody complained about Enron, Worldcom, et al until AFTER the punch bowl was taken away.

As usual, I appreciate your input. I would disagree with your assessment that none of this has to do with deregulation. The atmosphere that everything was okay if you were making money was and is promoted by the Bush administration. Deregulation was supported by both sides of the aisle in the 60′s and 70′s as they forgot the lessons of the great depression.

I agree that everyone can’t afford a home. I disagree with the discrimination problem. Lenders have discriminated against Blacks/Latinos/women in the this country. My parents who were putting down an unheard of amount of 35% on a house in North Dallas in 1968 ran into trouble with their loan. My father was a physician and had plenty of income. He had almost no debt. The trouble magically disappeared when they threatened to sue the lending company. I had some trouble getting my first house. One company said no way. The other is it was no problem. I had no problem making payments. So, there are some interesting standards in the housing industry.

I don’t like to bash anyone. I would like for people on both sides of the aisle to say what they mean and stand up for the people.

Thanks again for your comments.

You are grossly mischaracterizing the demise of Lehman (and Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie as well, in case you lump them in there) on Bush’s tax cuts. Lehman las large, leveraged investments tied to residential and commercial real estate. They used firm assets to make those investments, and thanks to leverage, were able to invest much than they had assets. Now, with the blowup in housing and the worsening situation in corporate real estate, their investments have become impaired, forcing the firm to raise capital to post as collateral. However, they cannot get capital because no one will lend or invest in them. Worse, Lehman’s clients are recognizing this and beginning to pull their own assets out of Lehman, or shut down trading operations. This is a run on Lehman, similar to Bear Stearns. In the end Lehman is probably toast, and Merrill Lynch may not be far behind. It’s a challenging situation, but not one iota of it has anything to do with Bush tax cuts or deregulation.

If you want to play the blame game, let’s start with Congress stretching back decades in their relentless promotion of home ownership. Massive subsidies and incentives were put in place to encourage people to buy homes. Lenders were penalized for “discriminating” against low-income buyers, then demonized as “predatory” when the borrowers defaulted on their loans and the lender took control of the house.

I know it’s fun to bash Bush, (and to be honest I am no fan of him either), but blaming Lehman, Fannie, or the current housing/economic woes on tax cuts is incorrect.