A close friend of mine had a story to share that is right in this ballpark. His aunt loaned money to a flaky inlaw. When she was asked why she said she loaned just enough that he would never come back asking for more. To little they come back- too much it hurts you.
something to think about.

Reality is a good thing. Some might think the provisions of the 1995 CRA revisions did indeed contribute to loss of objectivity in fiscal standards for lending.

"The performance criteria for lending test are:
1. Lending activity: including the number and amount of loans in the bank’s assessment
area.
2. Geographic distribution: including the proportion of loans in the assessment area and
distribution of loans in low-, moderate-, middle- and upper-income38 geographies in
the assessment area.
3. Borrower characteristics: including the proportion of loans across low-, moderate-,
middle- and upper-income borrowers in the assessment area, and the number and
amount of loans to small business and small farm.
4. Community development (CD) lending: including the number and amount of
community development loans and their complexity and innovativeness. Lenders can
elect to have their regulators consider CRA-qualified community development
lending by their affiliates under certain guidance. This guidance in terms of types of
CD lending that are qualified, data that needs to be collected, maintained and reported
and other restrictions on the affiliate lending are discussed later in this section under
‘Data Collection and Reporting Requirement’.
5. Use of innovative or flexible lending practices: including use of innovative or flexible
lending practices to address credit needs of LMI borrowers and neighborhoods."

Then there is the 1999 update as well:
"The FMA also known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act (GLBA) is one of the most sweeping financial modernization acts in recent years. The act
repeals sections 20 and 32 of the Banking Act of 193362 that restricted depository institutions’
affiliation with securities firms. This act also modifies the Bank Holding Company Acts of 1956
and 1970 and creates a new "financial holding company" that would be able to engage in a list of
statutorily provided financial activities, including insurance, securities underwriting, agency
activities, merchant banking and insurance company portfolio investment activities."

And some key ramifications:
"The act requires that Federal Reserve may not permit a company to form a financial
holding company if any of its subsidiary banks or S&Ls did not receive at least a satisfactory
rating in its most recent CRA exam. A bank or financial holding company may not commence
new activities authorized under the Gramm-Leach Act if any bank or bank affiliates of a
financial holding company, received less than satisfactory rating at its most recent CRA exam."

And some observations:
“Successful lower-income residential lending programs often rely upon techniques
and procedures that require local presence and flexible decision making. These might include the
use of flexible underwriting standards, nontraditional measures of credit quality, a variety of
credit enhancements, or intensive monitoring of outstanding loans that all depend upon
knowledge local neighborhoods, and economic conditions and credit risk factors specific to the
local community [Haag 2000].”

A review in 2004 noted significant changes in the lending industry, and that house prices had rising "significantly higher" in CRA neighborhoods, which at that late date was still apparently a good thing.

CRA was amended many times, and as with most regulations it appeared to grow it's own unique oversight approach which increasingly favored bulk lending and loan repurchases, and less the combined local bank branch and lending institution that was originally envisioned. I'd say that over the course of several decades everybody had a hand in this, and when you combine a left desire for social engineering with the right favor of big-business you have a recipe for fleecing everybody.

"You are repeating right-wing memes..."

clinton hasnt been president for nearly 8 yrs and we are still hearing that he is to blame for everything from teen pregnacy to wmd's. clinton was, imo, a mediocre president - a lot better than the current one.