The cause of our current financial system crisis, overarching government meddling and regulation, set in place by liberals, bolstered by the Clinton Administration and allowed to remain during the Bush Administration is not going away any time soon.
The Community Reinvestment Act is to blame for the financial crisis, but it so powerfully serves Democrats’ interests that they’ll do anything to protect it — including revising history.
But powerful Democrats in Washington want to protect the act — along with Fannie and Freddie — and spin the subprime scandal as the result of too little regulation, not too much.
“Repealing or weakening the CRA would be a mistake,” warns Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who argues that the CRA should be strengthened.
Dodd, the top recipient of Fannie donations and himself a beneficiary of a sweetheart mortgage brokered by a subprime lender, recently invited one of Clinton’s top enforcers of the CRA to testify.
Read the whole article for the facts.
Liberal Democrats caused this crisis, Liberal Republicans allowed it to remain, and the American people rewarded them by voting in an ever larger number of liberal politicians without the tools or the wherewithal to bring us out of this crisis. As usual, those that are responsible, productive and truly conservative will pay the price, and ultimately come to the rescue of our economy.
BINGO!
We need to keep the heat turned up to ensure the facts come to light. When the truth is known, the names Pelosi and Frank will rank right in there with Arnold and Booth.
From that right wing rag the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-harney30-2008nov30,0,7730854.story?track=rss
You guys are worse than teenagers when it comes to accepting responsibility for your actions. that you had to go back decades to find something to blame, which basically has NOTHING to do with this crisis is testament to that.
Its OK ta say you were wrong and move on, but that would take political maturity, something sadly lacking on this site these days!
Flash
from the article:
“‘The CRA coerces banks into making loans based on political correctness, and little else, to people who can’t afford them. “”
BOLD FACED LIE!!! The CRA primarily required lenders to use the SAME criteria when determining credit worthiness regardless of geographical location. Meaning someone who qualified for a loan in Edina should qualify for the same loan in North Minneapolis.
What caused this issues, is the rampant refinance market driving people to leverage every penny of their mortgage into cash out refinance, and when the Property market bubble burst, the banks were stuck with a bunch of Devalued property that was shorted out due to over leverage refinances. Really simple.
This is where the credibility of generally intelligent people is blown out of the water. Don’t hop on the CRA bandwagon unless you can confidently prove some connection, which you can’t, cause it doesn’t exists.
I think there is substantial political immaturity displayed by people who won’t accept that SELLING MORTGAGES TO PEOPLE WHO WON’T PAY IT BACK is the cause of this problem and, amazing as it might seem, THOSE PEOPLE ARE BY AND LARGE POOR PEOPLE WITH BAD CREDIT HISTORIES.
In your perfect world, Flash, what would you have done to achieve CRA goals? Raise the interest rates of people with good credit histories and good income to value ratios so poor people with bad credit histories could get mortgages?
What will you think when housing rebounds as an investment and minority community organizers whine that their people aren’t being given a seat on the gravy train?
And for God’s sake be specific. “You people” who won’t “take responsibility for your actions” is a shabby dodge.
You see, Flash, you’re saying “BOLD FACED LIE” when it SHOULD read “I DISAGREE WITH THIS!”
It’s a fine distinction, I know.
Terry, the CRA has NOTHING to do with selling mortgages to people who won’t pay them back. If you can get the basic principle of the legislation, there is no debate possible.
The goals of CRA was to not have disenfranchisement of borrowers just based on where they live. If someone is credit worthy in Edina, he should not be denied a loan just becaues he lives in North Minneapolis if he meets the exact same critereon the Edinian did.
Flash, you are grossly misrepresenting the CRA.
You probably believe that no caucasian has ever been subject to discrimination because no quotas are explicitly called for in affirmative action guidelines.
Yoss, a lie is stating something as true, which is factually false. In this case, it doesn’t matter whether I agree or not, it is a FALSE statement.
The CRA has absolutely NOTHING to do with the current financial crisis, attempting to imply it does, is not a disagreement, but a lie.
I may be oversimplifying CRA, but the gross misrepresentation of the CRA is all coming from the Right in their attempt to mask their culpability in this current crisis.
Flash, ‘community groups’ used the CRA as an excuse to object to a banks expansion into another state unless a sufficient number of mortgages were sold in their areas.
What is your argument, anyway? That there were billions to be made in not redlining inner city neighborhoods but the banks turned up their noses at the money?
The CRA has absolutely NOTHING to do with the current financial crisis
There you go again, Flash. Simply SAYING that doesn’t make it true.
There’s plenty of blame to go around on both sides on this one, no argument there, but to say the CRA had absolutely NOTHING to do with it is just kinda. . . dumb.
Conservative Dictionary; dumb = true
“What is your argument, anyway?
That for all the blame to go around, and all the attempts by the ravaging Right to find something somewhere to blame the Democrats on they had to go back in time decades to grasp on to something that, in the end, has absolutely nothing to do with the crisis we are .
Now if we want to have an intelligent debate on how we got here, and how to get out of it, I’m all up for it. But I won’t stand by and let you folks simply make stuff up.
Flash
The CRA has absolutely NOTHING to do with the current financial crisis
Oh, hold the talking points, Flash.
CRA is not *entirely* or even *largely* responsible for the crisis, but it was part of a larger pattern of socializing risk while privatizing reward that DID lead to the crisis.
And if you don’t see that, then you should not be accusing others of “making stuff up”.
Pretty simple, flash. If CRA had NOTHING to do with the current mess, you wouldn’t see concentrations of foreclosed properties in certain neighborhoods like North Minneapolis – you’d see them evenly distributed throughout the metro. That’s not the case, of course. Unless you’re prepared to argue that all the foreclosed properties in North Minneapolis are simply absentee landlords or yuppie flippers gone bad, you can’t argue that CRA had NOTHING to do with the problem.
You are correct that a lot of people did cash-out refis during the boom and then, when things went south, walked away from their homes. That’s what happened in places like California, Nevada, etc. Hell, you can blame people at all levels of the mortgage industry – unscrupulous loan officers, shady mortgage brokers, game-theorist financial dudes creating Byzantine financial instruments to securitize (and conceal) bad loans, greedy investors who believed these MBS were somehow immune from the normal laws of economics, regulators who either did not, could not or would not understand what was happening. All sorts of people were in on this and they all have responsibility. But CRA is part of it.
I wonder if Frank will use Flush’s favorite foil (ALL CAPS AND EXCLAIMATION POINTS!!!!!!) to defend himself when he is hauled before the court of public scruitiny.
We already know what Clinton’s explaination will be to questions regarding his administrations disasterous dental enhancements to CRA…..”I’m going to say this one more time; I did not have relationships with that scam, the Community Reinvestment Act”. “Not once, never”
Of course, there are those inconvienent “stains” to account for…….http://mises.org/story/2963
they had to go back in time decades to grasp on to something that, in the end, has absolutely nothing to do with the crisis we are .
Again with the spin.
We went back ONE decade. to Andrew Cuomo’s explicit admission that the CRA and other credit “reforms” were going to cause a higher level of defaults. You can duck and weave all you want, but it’s there in his own words.
And yes, there’s plenty of blame to go around. Although to deny that McCain led the push to try to reel in these excesses is…
…well, making stuff up.
“If you can get the basic principle of the legislation, there is no debate possible.”
Oh, so the Sorosphere has declared the debate moot…we can all go home.
BWAhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
….can’t wait to see how that flies with the special prosecutors the Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers (FPoBA) will be forced to name.
HAHAHAHAhahahahaha!
==
The cause of our current financial system crisis, overarching government meddling and regulation, set in place by liberals, bolstered by the Clinton Administration and allowed to remain during the Bush Administration is not going away any time soon.
The Community Reinvestment Act is to blame for the financial crisis
==
“CRA is not *entirely* or even *largely* responsible for the crisis,”
Thank you ‘mitch’ you discredit JRoosh’s entire post. My work here is done.
Next
“ALL CAPS AND EXCLAIMATION POINTS!!!!!!”
I learned that from MikeDEceit. Nothing Sorosy about it Moonbat Tom!
Flash, what have I written that you disagree with? The quote came from an LA Times article in the financial section, not the opinion section. I really do not understand your mindset. Why are you so resistant to the notion that a financial crisis caused by excessive defaults on home loans may be caused by making loans to people who can’t or won’t repay them?
Something like 40% of the home loans currently in default are CA. Next you’ll be telling me that its unfair to point out that geographical oddity.
Terry, it’s called COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.
Although not entirely restricted to moonbats (many centerist dabblers contract it as well), it is an important indicator being used to diagnose the early stages of Democratia.
Unfortunately, as in Flush’s case, the suffering moonbat will all too often ignore the obvious decline in their higher thought processes until it gets to stage 4….the “barking” phase, from which recovery is thought to be impossible.
Mitch, I understand the conservative urge to lay out facts truthfully and thoughtfully, but perhaps we’d better wait until Flush heads off for his nap time to attempt a discussion among the adults.
“CRA is not *entirely* or even *largely* responsible for the crisis,”
Thank you ‘mitch’ you discredit JRoosh’s entire post. My work here is done.
Ironically, with that comment, Flash, you basically agree with Mitch, which pretty much discredits your earlier commont that CRA had “absolutely NOTHING to do with the current financial crisis.”
So, yeah, your work here is done, and that egg on your face is your own.
In brighter news, Hillary will serve as Obama’s Secretary of State.
Which was a Hoped-for Change from the Bush administrations, in which the Token Black was, herself, the Secretary of State.
Weird to see the country’s first post-racial President serving as the Token Black in his own administration. Was that a Hope too? Or a Change? I can never keep them straight.
.
CRA is not *entirely* or even *largely* responsible for the crisis
But it is a contributing cause. The threat of legal action colored many of the actors’ actions, including a strong tendency to selectively minimize the risk associated with extending loans to certain areas on certain terms. And once you begin the process of saying “you must ignore known risk factors in this case” you have a harder time enforcing discipline in other cases.
Gee, I feel like such a fool now. When I moved in 2005 in what I knew was a real estate bubble I actually rolled over all the equity in my house to the new one, so all my “losses” are really paper losses with the exception of the additional realtor fees and closing costs.
I should have been like the folks I know near LA who cashed out their $300K in equity in 2005, bought a new house with 100% financing and are now walking away from it since they’re about $300K underwater on their new loan with no prospects of the market recovering anytime soon. Yes, they can’t get another mortgage for 7 years, but they’re moving to Nebraska and won’t need one to purchase their new home.
Flash, you are grossly misrepresenting the CRA.
To be fair to Flash, he’s only passing on the same gross misrepresentations that all leftybloggers pass along before they really read about and understand the issue. It’s a common problem.
Thank you ‘mitch’ you discredit JRoosh’s entire post.
Er, no, I actually reinforce it. CRA was one of a phalanx of ill-advised tinkerings that socialised risk and privatized reward.
My work here is done.
If by “work” you meant “failing to lay a coherent finger on any of my or Roosh’s points” – yep. Mission accomplished.
😉
I think the ScaifeNet mind-control-lasers are messing with flash. 😉
Flash, when people like Barack Steve “Obammy” are suing on behalf of ACORN to get loans made to poor South Side neighborhoods, I think we can dispense with the idea that it’s just about using the same lending standards that they use in the suburbs.
And a “lie” is when one says something one KNOWS to be false with the intention that it will be believed. Sorry, consult your dictionary. Looks like those liberal-supported government schools have failed you.
Again.
It’s a pity that the Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers’ full roll in the CRA debacle will suddenly fall under the “plausable deniability” requirement for all sitting Presidents.
Thankfully, that protection does not cover groups like ACORN (they are the largest, but not the only such group) which took advantage of CRA’s reporting requirement to enrich itself and consolidate it’s political power and influence.
I forsee a moonbat bloodbath in the offing…and so does the Sorosphere. Try googling “cra+blame”….it’s a full blown scramble to find hidey holes.
“”Bike Bubba Says:
December 1st, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Flash, when people like Barack Steve “Obammy” “”
FUCK YOU!
What? Peev hasn’t chimed in yet?
He after all works in the IT department of a bank. Swapping hard drives makes him a financial expert…
OK. Everyone take a deep breath, and stick to the issues.
As opposed to broad statements about what “the enemy” (left or right) are “really” saying.
Issue.
Proceed.
Flash: Duck shoes!
But let’s be serious here. Are we to argue that lenient procedures allowing ACORN to sue under presumption of guilt did NOT have their effects on bank policies?
We can seriously argue the extent to which the CRA modified bank behavior and disrupted markets. I don’t think that serious thinkers can fail to realize that it had an effect. Cherry-picking isolated “measures” of how it did or did not affect behavior in certain areas does not change the fact that lawsuits under CRA, accompanied by brutal press in liberal areas like Chicago, are powerful ways of modifying behavior.
Flash,
The mechanisms used to enforce CRA “persuaded” non CRA lenders to take the same high risk clients. They were not by any definition CRA, but they still made the risky loans to unqualified borrowers.
I’m a white male, living in the suburbs, who has a family income in the top 20% of American incomes. I am not eligible for CRA. Yet when we went to buy our house 2 years ago, there was no shortage of “creative” financing to get us into a house with a price of twice what we could afford. These lenders quickly sold such loans to fanny & Freddie. These brokers were making thousands of dollars risk free, by acting as a conduit selling risky loans in the mold of CRA loans, without technically being CRA. They are called “sub-prime loans”, some are CRA, most are not, but the sub-prime mortgage is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
From the article JRoosh posted:
“Subprime loans were the vehicle banks used to satisfy CRA compliance, and Clinton and his regulators encouraged their use. Before Clinton took office, subprimes were virtually unheard of. By the time he left, they made up more than 9% of the market for mortgage originations. Today they’re 20%.”
“[Clinton’s] CRA amendments created the subprime market, and only after he pressured Fannie and Freddie to socialize the risk and guarantee the profit from the subprime loans did Wall Street get involved in a big way.
The exotic securitizations that have gotten so much of the blame were a symptom, not the cause, of the crisis…In fact, regulations had almost everything to do with this mess. And instead of strengthening them to atone for the alleged “sins of capitalism,” we should be abolishing them.
And that is how, as Mitch said “CRA is not *entirely* or even *largely* responsible for the crisis, but it was part of a larger pattern of socializing risk while privatizing reward that DID lead to the crisis,” without making JRoosh’s claim false.
Flash, when people like Barack Steve “Obammy” “”
FUCK YOU!
Nothing like calm, reasoned debate.
Flash, you’ve certainly presented the leftie position, and certainly persuasive! That’s a stirring defense of the CRA!
I just won’t specify of what you’re persuading people…
I never would have imagined that using Steve as his middle name would have caused such a reaction…
When I wrote:
“Something like 40% of the home loans currently in default are CA”
I meant “Something like 40% of the home loans currently in default are in CA”, as in California, not “Something like 40% of the home loans currently in default are CRA”
Please carry on with blame, vituperation, acrimony and overused Saxon expletives.
Well for crying out loud Terry! 😉
My own experience with CRA was 20 years ago, when some threat of a CRA action was being made against own of the banks owned by the bank holding company I then worked for. In that case, the accusation was that the bank was discriminating against Native Americans in the granting of loans. Left out of the equation was that the local Native American reservation government and tribal courts were not enforcing collateral rights against residents. If the borrower kept the collateral on the reservation, the bank could not recover it, in case of non-oayment. So essentially the bank knew that any loan it made to a reservation resident was an unsecured loan.
The audit review that I conducted did not indicate any discrimination in making loans, when they were viewed as unsecured.
But the CRA was being used as a club to hinder the bank holding company’s future acquisitions.
“”Bike Bubba Says:
December 1st, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Flash, when people like Barack Steve “Obammy” “”
FUCK YOU!
Now you know what we’ve been putting up with for the last 8 years of Shrubbie, Dumbya, Chimpy McBushitler and Dick Halliburton Cheney Weathermachine.
Sucks, doesn’t it? Welcome to the land of FAIRNESS. You (inclusive – liberals) dish it out, you’re DAMN sure going to get it back in return these next 4 years.
Grow some skin, Flash. Seriously. You’ll find absolutely ZERO sympathy for your bruised sensibilities coming from me.
I’m trying VERY HARD to extend Mr Obama the respect and courtesy that is due his position and achievement, but after 8 years of putting up with the constant, never ending, bitter, vindictive, venom-filled, hateful, racist, vulgar, disrespectful, immature, insulting, combative pissing and moaning from YOUR SIDE, it’s about 3.7 inches away from being intellectually flushed down the toilet until 1/20/13. I’m also about >
Crap. WordPress’ handling of tag symbols really sucks.
I’m about the same 3.7 inches away from buying a large amount of http://shop.cafepress.com/design/31171003 merchandise.