I have a slightly different perspective on this, I guess.  Back in 1992, when my (now) wife and I bought our first modest house, we took advantage of the FHA 3% down program.  We didn't earn much  money, but we were young and we fully expected to increase our earnings as life progressed.  And, that we did.  The private mortgage insurance we had to pay, as a condition of the loan, was incentive enough to make every effort to make extra payments, and build equity, so we could refinance into better terms, and with no PMI.

 Between the additional payments toward principal as we began to earn more, and the rising property values, we were soon able to refinance into a 15-year mortgage with no PMI.  And, when it came time to upgrade to a larger home, we had enough equity in the first house to go conventional on the new one.

I think the bigger problem with the mortgage business was encouraging borrowers to cash out their equity every time their property values increased, even those borrowers with poor credit histories.  This resulted in higher interest rates, and loan terms that made it difficult, is not impossible,  for them to pay down the principal.  Once the crash happened, and the property began to lose value, the money faucet was shut off, along with the borrowers' ability to sustain the mortgage payments.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I sat with many a borrower at the closing table, where they would volunteer the reason why they were borrowing money with a  teaser rate, which would eventually increase to astronomical levels.  They were going to work to improve their credit scores, by making payments on time for a year.  And, by the time the rates were set to adjust, they would be able to refinance into better terms.  Many of them were back a year later, with another cash out loan with lousy terms.  Under those circumstances, when property values start to level or drop, losing the home is almost a foregone conclusion.